Transcript
Feasibility of a common, dry type interface for GIS and power cables of 52kV and above 26 March 2012
Rationale The interface between High Voltage cable and switchgear is defined by IEC 62271-209 and IEEE 1300. They define two types of the dry-type cable connections for gas insulated switchgear above 52 kV. The limit of supply of the cable termination manufacturer is the insulator. In Medium Voltage, EN 50181, describes “Plug-in type bushings above 1 kV up to 36 kV for equipment other than liquid filled transformers”. The insulator has standardised dimensions on the cable side, such that a separable connector can be plugged in on the cable side. The separable connector can then be supplied by one of several possible suppliers. With the above background a number of customers expressed interest in extending the principle of a common insulator interface to higher voltages with the potential benefits that cable connections from different manufacturers would be interchangeable in a single insulator. This is the reason why the CIGRE JWG B1-B3 33 was formed with the following TOR
Feasibility of a common, dry type interface for GIS and power cables of 52kV and above The scope shall be limited to GIS connections for extruded cable systems for AC above 52 kV The JWG shall: Examine the conditions around the switchgear and the installations issues, including supporting system (also called site issues) Consider the impact of large cross sections Consider safety during works Consider the testing procedures for GIS/ Terminations and cables at factory and on site (overlapping or missing items). Propose measures to reduce the potential consequences of the GIS insulation failure. Propose measures to reduce the potential consequences of the cable termination insulation failure Review the existing standards ruling the qualifications and extension of qualification procedures applicable to GIS terminations. Define the relevant qualification procedures needed if any. Identify the limit of suppliers’ responsibility to be consideredEstimate the overall technical and practical feasibility of the common design definition and qualification, insulator manufacturers' qualification and the cable manufacturers' qualification and the cost involved.
Feasibility of a common, dry type interface for GIS and power cables of 52kV and above Once the feasibility window has been determined, survey the market (manufacturers and end users) Recommend or not to go to a second step with the launching of a new WG B1.XX to go in detail in the design of the standard components (shape, dimensions, properties ...) Develop recommendations to IEC SC 17C for requirements to be covered by the standard The full report shall be made available for final review at the B1 and B3 annual meetings in 2013.
Pierre Argaut Pierre Mirebeau Regular members • B1 (cables) Giuseppe Nicoli Johannes Kaumanns Milan Uzelac Franck Michon Pascal Streit Josu Orella Julian Head Henk Geene John Schrijnemakers
(B1 chairman) (B1-B3.33 convenor)
Nexans
Prysmian Sudkabel G&W Electric Prysmian (B1-B3.33 secretary) Nexans Iberdrola Prysmian Prysmian Tennet (new member)
DongYun Oh
(IT) (DE) (USA) (FR) (CH) (SP) (UK) (NL) (DK) (KR)
B3 (substations) Mohammad Pasha Mark Kuschel Guilhem Blanchet Markus Keller
(USA) (DE) (FR) (CH)
United Illuminating Siemens Alstom Grid ABB
Addition Thomas Klein Dirk Kunze
(DE) (DE)
Pfisterer Siemens
LS Cable & System
•
•
Corresponding members B1 Christian Szczepanski (BE)
Elia Engineering (new member)
Members
Meetings Meetings up to date Nov. 10th 2010 Kick Paris Jan. 27th 2011 June 24th 2011 Nov. 15-16th 2011 March. 22- 23 2012 Shelton
Delft Versailles Berlin
Next meeting(s):
Paris
August 2012
Table of content
1. Introduction and scope 2. Definitions 3. Experience : a. Different designs available b. Actual installations including dimensions c. Field experience with all designs. 4. Where the plug in concept could be applicable. a. Geometrical constraints. 5. Qualification and others a. Technical requirements i. Cable side ii. GIS side b. Survey of standards – qualifications requirements i. Cable side ii. GIS side 6. Where the plug in common interface is applicable 7. Other requirements 8. feasibility a. Definition feasibility (cost involved) b. Qualification feasibility 9. Market acceptance 10. Where the plug in common interface could be recommended a. Benefit and drawback b. Range to cover c. Implication in standard 11. Conclusion
The idea of this organisation is to start from the actual object in the field, and have a first conclusion, then look to "administrative" aspect, and draw a refined conclusion, then include the feasibility and market acceptance aspect, and go to a recommendation.
Plug-In Types
InnerCone Plug-In Type
Differences in design of barrier insulator • Main circuit end terminal
Interfaces GIS connector and houses male plug-in connector – May be incorporated in top insert or be separate component – Bore is designed for particular plugin connector
• Plug-in connector
Connects cable connector with end terminal – There are different types: • Spring • Tulip • Multicontact
– May be fixed to either end terminal or to cable connector
Differences in design of barrier insulator
IEC Dimension
• This dimension varies between manufacturers • HV screen
Embedded in the insulator. Shapes electrical field and, in some designs, provides mechanical stop for stress cone or/and cable connector – The design differs between manufacturers – Made of metal or epoxy with conductive coating
Differences in design of barrier insulator • Barrier Insulator
– Material and fillers varies – Creepage distance varies – Bore shape and size depends on the stress cone
• With or without ground screen
Shapes electrical field at ground electrode – Shape depends on overall electrical design of the device
• Bottom inserts
– Number, size, strength and material
• Insulation shield break ring
– Shape and size varies – Sometimes not integrated in the insulator
• Bottom surface finish
– As a function of requirements (watertightness)
Requirements for standardisation of a common interface • Under discussion in the JWG
type of installation a
type of installation b
Solution 1a
Solution 1b
Solution 2a
Solution 2b
Geometrical constraints
case 1
case 2
We consider case 1a
Geometrical constraints
• • • •
D: cable diameter H bas.: minimum basement height = 20D + D L bas.: minimum free cable length in basement according to H bas. allowing a maximum vertical snaking Ls: available length due to cable snaking
Geometrical constraints Summary table ( rounded v alues), bas ed on c ommon c ables w ith a screen made of aluminium foil bonded to the outer sheath: Cable type D (mm) Weight (kg/m) H bas. (m) L bas. (m) Ls (m) Weight of cable to move (kg)
Cable 1 630 Al 63kV 65 4.5 1.36 5.9 0.93
Cable 2 630 Cu 110kV 80 9.6 1.68 7.3 1.14
Cable 3 1000 Cu 220 kV 100 17 2.10 9.1 1.43
Cable 4 1600 Cu 220 kV 120 23 2.52 10.9 1.71
Cable 5 2500 Cu 500 kV 150 40 3.15 13.6 2.14
33
86
190
310
680
Under discussion impact of the cable stiffness and the installation temperature
Conclusion • The group behaviour is fully satisfactory. • There is a good balance between manufacturers and users. • Considering the above, we feel that we will complete the work on time
