Feature

Contact Resistance vs. Millivolt Drop

by Dan Hook Advanced Electrical Testing, Inc.

have had the opinion that the millivolt drop test was better than a digital low resistance ohmmeter (DLRO) check for the simple reason that the millivolt drop method is an alternating current (ac) test at rated current whereas a typical digital low resistance ohmmeter test is a low value direct current (dc) test. This opinion stemmed from a gut feel that an ac breaker would be better tested with ac, rather than a complete review of the tests on my part. Recently I had a customer with the will, and the money, to delve deeper into the contact resistance vs. millivolt drop controversy than ever before in my experience.

During a recent acceptance testing and commissioning job, a low-voltage power circuit breaker, 800 ampere frame with 400 ampere plug, was fully tested. The millivolt drop method at the long time pickup value of 400 amperes was used during the primary current injection testing in accordance with the testing requirements set forth by the customer. The results were 88 mV, 86 mV, and 97 mV for phases A, B, and C respectively, well within the +/-50 percent specied in NETA standards.. An Acceptable sticker was attached to this breaker and all was well until testing was performed on the switchboard and bus duct two months later. Phase connections were being tested between two 8000 ampere bus duct services connected to a double-ended switchboard. During testing with a DLRO, C-phase showed an unacceptable deviation in resistance as compared to the other two phases. After further investigation and switchboard breaker manipulation, the high resistance connection was narrowed down to be internal to the power circuit breaker previously thought to be acceptable. Additional DLRO tests on the breaker revealed results of 29, 23, and 96 microhms, for phases A, B, and C respectively.

Why the dierence in the test results? The dierence lies in the character of the test. As mentioned above, the millivolt drop method uses a low voltage ac signal to generate high current through each pole of the breaker; voltage drop is measured using a multimeter from line to load. This millivolt drop is a function of the ac resistance of the material as well as the inductive reactance of the phase under test. Both of these factors combined represent the impedance of the circuit. The DLRO method uses a small battery pack and generates 10 amperes dc owing from line to load on a single pole of the breaker. The readout is in ohms. When the reading is stable it accounts for the dc resistance of the current path from line to load. Figure 1 below shows that if the ac inductive reactance is large enough relative to the dc resistance, the resultant impedance magnitude can mask the presence of an unacceptable deviation in dc contact resistance. Where: R=dc resistance component X=ac inductive reactance component Z=resultant impedance vector

www.netaworld.org

Summer 2006 NETA WORLD

Figure 2 Obvious imbalanced heating between phases (front view of breaker contacts).

Although the dc resistance component increases by 50 percent, the resultant vectors only vary by approximately 12 percent. The breaker was deemed unacceptable and a warranty return to the manufacturer was attempted. The manufacturer was unwilling to provide a replacement or warranty repairs based on the above test results. They were of the opinion that neither of these testing methods was as good as a full load heat run to determine the thermal performance of a circuit breaker. After approval, we proceeded with a full load heat run lasting two hours. The thermographic images show obvious contact resistance discrepancies on C-phase. The manufacturer agreed to repair/replace the defective breaker. During the course of this project I learned that contact resistance is a superior and sure-re way to verify acceptable contact condition for low-voltage power circuit breakers. Needless to say my company will not use the ac millivolt drop method as the sole criteria for acceptance of new or used equipment.

Editors Note: Dan has brought up a subject that has been a problem for many testing rms, particularly with respect to molded-case circuit breakers (MCCBs). ANSI/NEMA AB 4-2001, in clause 5.4, Individual Pole Resistance Test (Millivolt Drop), requires a direct current power supply of 24 volts or less and a current equal to the rating of the circuit breaker or 500 amperes, whichever is less. NEMA members usually do not recognize warranty claims based on a 10 ampere DLRO test, yet many NETA rms have experience indicating that a poor result from the 10 ampere test usually is indicative of a problem. In power circuit breakers, the problem can usually be resolved by removing the arc chutes and cleaning the contacts. In MCCBs, it is common for the manufacturer to void the warranty if the breaker is disassembled to examine the contacts or internal connections. Thus, the testing rm must provide expensive additional testing to conrm a problem. Heat run tests are not dicult and can be done with the same primary injection equipment that is used to test the breakers trip unit. However, the test is time consuming and, therefore ,expensive. A 24 volt dc power supply with an adjustable current output of 500 amperes is considerably more expensive than a DLRO and, therefore, not usually an item on the equipment list for a NETA members service vehicle. As Dan points out in the article, an ac millivolt drop test is not an adequate substitute for the dc test. This is unfortunate since many ac primary injection test sets have metering to measure the ac millivolt drop. Also, NETA Maintenance and Acceptance Testing Specications do not describe the source to be used in the pole resistance test requirement. This, I am sure, is an oversight and not an intention to allow either ac or dc millivolt drop tests.

Dan Hook is the President of Advanced Electrical Testing in Pacic, WA. He holds a Bachelors Degree in Nuclear Engineering and a Masters Degree in Electric Power Engineering, both from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY. Dan has over 12 years of experience in the electrical industry. He served in the US Navy performing maintenance and testing, and also teaching nuclear submarine electric power generation and distribution systems.

Figure 3 Increased heat dissipation into C-Phase primary disconnect (rear view of switchgear).

 NETA WORLD Summer 2006

www.netaworld.org