• No results found

Overcurrent Protection for the IEEE 34 Node Radial Test Feeder

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Overcurrent Protection for the IEEE 34 Node Radial Test Feeder"

Copied!
18
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Overcurrent Protection for the

IEEE 34 Node Radial Test Feeder

Hamed B. Funmilayo, James A. Silva and

Dr. Karen L. Butler-Purry

Texas A&M University

Electrical and Computer Engineering Department

Po w er Sy ste m A uto ma tio n Lab

(2)

Introduction

• Major use of the benchmark radial test

feeders -- provide load-flow data for validating

flow results from existing/novel

load-flow algorithms

• Extend Current IEEE 34 node test feeder

– Provide overcurrent protection, considering

off-the-shelf protective devices

– Make available for studies under new scenarios

(such as DG impact)

(3)

Work Reported in This Paper

• Model of Test feeder in DIgSILENT

PowerFactory 13.1 and conduct LF and

SC studies

• Coordination studies for temporary and

permanent faults for various fault

situations

(4)

IEEE 34 Node Radial Test Feeder

• Developed by DSA Subcommittee

• Majority at 24.9 kV (one 4.16kV lateral) • Total load: 2060 kVA at 0.86 pf

• Long, unbalanced radial system

[1] Radial Test Feeders - IEEE Distribution System Analysis Subcommittee IEEE 34-Node Test Feeder system (modified from [1])

(5)

Over Current Protective Devices

• Modeled in DIgSILENT

• 1 recloser, 12 fuses

(6)

Maximum and Minimum Fault Currents

Comparison of Maximum Fault Current to IEEE TF Results

Faulted IEEE* DIgSILENT DIgSILENT Node (A) (A) % Error

800 718.60 678.60 5.57 808 526.50 510.20 3.10 816 335.40 329.94 1.63 824 313.00 310.50 0.80 854 272.90 276.40 1.28 832 223.10 217.70 2.42 858 217.70 213.30 2.02 834 211.30 208.40 1.37 836 206.90 204.40 1.21 840 206.10 203.61 1.21 890 406.50 440.10 8.27

Comparison of Minimum Fault Current to IEEE TF Results

Faulted IEEE* DIgSILENT DIgSILENT Node (A) (A) % Error

800 479.30 459.00 4.24 808 309.40 322.26 4.16 816 213.50 205.49 3.75 824 195.10 194.06 0.53 854 175.90 173.68 1.26 832 146.20 140.55 3.86 858 143.00 138.06 3.45 834 139.30 135.19 2.95 836 136.50 132.71 2.78 840 136.00 132.27 2.74 890 94.10 87.94 6.55

(7)

Recloser and Fuses Types

• Recloser

– Recloser's coordination range must provide adequate time to sense all downstream faults.

– Fuse Saving mode used

– A triple single-phase electronic recloser was used

• Load side fuses

– Similar types of fuse links were selected for all branches within the same nominal current range

– Voltage rating equal to or higher than the maximum bus voltage at the fuse location

– Interrupting current rating larger than the maximum symmetrical fault current at the fuse location

(8)

Step Down Transformer (XMF-1) Fusing

• A type T external expulsion cutout on the primary side

– The voltage rating equal to or greater than the voltage at transformer's location

– The ampere rating equal to or greater than the anticipated normal loading level

– The symmetrical short-circuit interrupting rating equal to or greater than the maximum fault current

• Be able to withstand the inrush current generated when

transformer is energized

• Be able to protect against transformer faults and secondary

side faults (through faults)

• Serve as backup device by coordinating with the OCP device

downstream of the lateral

(9)

Capacitor Bank Fusing

• Group fusing method is used. (One fuse

protects the capacitor bank)

• Promptly isolate the failed capacitor unit on

the line prior to any other protective device

on the system

• 1-phase grounded fault current without fault

impedance is assumed as the capacitor fault

value.

(10)

Settings for Recloser and Load Side Fuses

Minimum Fault Current Observed at the Recloser For The Minimum Fault At Each Lateral Recloser Faulted Lateral If recloser (A)

Node Node number DIgSILENT 800 810 1 321.79 800 822 2 168.90 800 826 3 218.89 800 856 4 179.82 800 888 5 61.08 800 864 6 126.36 800 848 7 165.82 800 838 8 166.88 800 Cap- 844 7 167.93 800 Cap- 848 7 165.82 800 840 11 165.88

No. of Instantaneous Trips 1

No. of Delay Trips 2

Nominal Voltage 14.4 kV, L-N

Minimum trip rating 100 A

Instantaneous trip curve type 103

Delay trip curve type 134

Recloser Settings

Nominal Voltage Rating 24.9 kV, L-L or 4.16 kV, L-L Nominal Current Rating of Each

Fuse

Based on each branch’s current

(11)

Coordination Studies

• Two terms for OCP operation

– Primary device

• Near to the fault and first to clear the fault

– Secondary (backup device)

• Backup of the primary device

• Coordination between recloser and fuse

– For temporary fault, K factor is used

– For permanent fault, fuse operates prior to recloser’s delay trip

• Coordination between fuse and fuse

– Max clearing time of primary fuse will not exceed 0.75 times the minimum melting time of the secondary fuse

(12)

Fault Case Studies

• Fault on main feeder

• Fault on ordinary laterals

• Fault on laterals with reactive compensation

• Faults on laterals with step-down transformer

(13)

Fault on ordinary laterals

• Recloser operates on its

instantaneous trip for

temporary fault

• For permanent fault,

fuse operates to clear

the fault and isolates the

lateral

Instantaneous trip of recloser

Fuse melting time

Delayed curve of recloser (backup)

(14)

Discussion of Results

(15)
(16)

Summary/Conclusions

• A conventional overcurrent protection and

coordination scheme was implemented on IEEE 34

Node Test Feeder computer model in DIgSILENT

• The final list of selected OCP was provided

• Coordination was achieved for different cases

• This may be used for easy comparison and

assessment of future overcurrent protection studies

regarding radial distribution system with or without

additions such as DG

(17)

Acknowledgement

• The authors would like to thank F. J. Verdeja

Perez, J. Mendoza, S. Duttagupta, M. Marotti,

K. Mansfield, T. Djokic, and H. E. Leon for their

contributions, along with the assistance of

Prof. W. H. Kersting.

• This work was supported in part by the U.S.

National Science Foundation under Grant

ECS-02-18309.

(18)

Contact information: Dr. Karen L. Butler-Purry Email: klbutler@tamu.edu

References

Related documents

14 The Union Gas opinion follows a line of Supreme Court cases which make exceptions to the eleventh amendment's grant of state immunity.I 5 The exception in Union Gas; that

military jurisdiction implicit in Milligan and Quirin. In both cases, the defendants were accused of acting on behalf of organizations hostile to the United States. In Quirin,

Scheele, Paul PhotoReading Personal Learning Course Wayzata, MN Learning Strategies Corporation, 1995. Scheele, Paul Natural Brilliance Move from Feeling Stuck to Achieving Success

WARFIGHTER SUPPORT STEWARDSHIP EXCELLENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT.. AMERICA’S COMBAT LOGISTICS

The decision of the Operational Panel to establish the procurement of design and realisation of the New School Building as a competition seemed to have driven the way that the

indica entering into Indonesia, particularly in the ecosystem of South Sulawesi seems to have possibility through wheat import from origin countries whose endemic karnal

This is a repository copy of Impact of carbonates on the mineralisation of surface soil organic carbon in response to shift in tillage practice.. White Rose Research Online URL

From previous results, we have demonstrated that prostate cancer cell lines LNCaP and PC-3 have different sensitivity to growth factor mediated PI3K/Akt signalling pathway,