24.11.2012 Views

The mechanical effects of short-circuit currents in - Montefiore

The mechanical effects of short-circuit currents in - Montefiore

The mechanical effects of short-circuit currents in - Montefiore

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

3.5. LOAD ON PORTALS, APPARATUS TERMINALS<br />

AND EQUIVALENT STATIC LOAD<br />

3.5.1. Introduction<br />

<strong>The</strong>se loads may be summarized as follows:<br />

1) Ft, Ff typical low frequency, quasi-steady loads, see<br />

chapter 3.5.4 for ESL<br />

2) Fpi loads due to p<strong>in</strong>ch effect, typical impulse load.<br />

See chapter 3.5.3 For ESL<br />

3) Fds loads due to dropper stretch, typical impulse<br />

load. See chapter 3.5.2 for ESL<br />

Typical apparatus have a range <strong>of</strong> frequencies ma<strong>in</strong>ly<br />

dependent <strong>of</strong> voltage level, follow<strong>in</strong>g the table given <strong>in</strong><br />

[Table 1.1 <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>troduction]<br />

As a global overview, let’s keep <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d that :<br />

- typical <strong>in</strong>sulator support may have very wide range<br />

<strong>of</strong> their first eigenfrequency and may cover all the<br />

range between 4 and 60 Hz. Lower voltage<br />

corresponds to higher frequency.<br />

- typical portal structure have very low<br />

eigenfrequencies, <strong>in</strong> the range 1 to 6 Hz. Voltage<br />

correlation is very low.<br />

- typical apparatus (isolator, <strong>circuit</strong> breaker,<br />

measur<strong>in</strong>g transformer, surge arrester) have very<br />

low eigenfrequencies due to their high mass located<br />

on the top <strong>of</strong> it. Range 1 to 6 Hz. <strong>The</strong> higher the<br />

voltage, the lower the frequency.<br />

Design load on these structures have to be deduced from<br />

<strong>in</strong>stantaneous top load applied by the cable connections<br />

(Ft, Ff, Fpi and Fds). <strong>The</strong> difference between these loads<br />

and design loads is given by ESL factor given <strong>in</strong> this<br />

chapter. ESL factor depends on the structural dynamics<br />

as expla<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> appendix 1.<br />

Such ESL factor is only <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>terest if us<strong>in</strong>g simplified<br />

method to evaluate Ft, Ff and Fpi for example to<br />

calculate the design load for a support<strong>in</strong>g structure at<br />

the lower end <strong>of</strong> a dropper or if the forces Ft, Ff and Fpi<br />

on the ma<strong>in</strong> conductors <strong>of</strong> a horizontal stra<strong>in</strong> bus<br />

connected to portals (case A <strong>in</strong> Figure 1.1) are estimated<br />

accord<strong>in</strong>g to IEC60 865. In contrast, IEC 60865 gives<br />

the ESL for the design <strong>of</strong> a slack bus connection (case C<br />

<strong>in</strong> Figure 1.1), see Annex 8.3.1 and Part I <strong>in</strong> volume 2.<br />

<strong>The</strong> design load can obviously be evaluated directly by<br />

advanced method. But such evaluation can be<br />

cumbersome, need s<strong>of</strong>tware, and give only accurate<br />

results if you are us<strong>in</strong>g accurate data's.<br />

In the suggested simplified method us<strong>in</strong>g ESL factor,<br />

some conservative approach has been taken <strong>in</strong> the<br />

synthetic curves given <strong>in</strong> this chapter.<br />

It is recommended not to add any safety factor over the<br />

calculated values.<br />

3.5.2. Maximum <strong>in</strong>stantaneous load and equivalent<br />

static load for dropper stretch<br />

<strong>The</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ition <strong>of</strong> ESL factor is expla<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> annex 8.1.<br />

58<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are two different curves to be used for design and<br />

concern<strong>in</strong>g ESL factor.<br />

<strong>The</strong> first one <strong>in</strong> Figure 3.50 concerns the dropper stretch<br />

(<strong>in</strong> span dropper, s<strong>in</strong>gle conductor or close bundle), this<br />

is an envelop curve obta<strong>in</strong>ed from many tests results<br />

and simulations. <strong>The</strong> dropper stretch load shape is a<br />

typical triangular excitation, the duration <strong>of</strong> which is<br />

depend<strong>in</strong>g on its overlength compared to the distance<br />

between its two extremities. But because <strong>of</strong> its upper<br />

fixation to cable structure, the duration <strong>of</strong> the stretch,<br />

even if <strong>short</strong>, is generally <strong>in</strong> the range0.05 to 0.2 s.. It<br />

means that it is a quasi-static load (ESL factor = 1) for<br />

frequencies higher than about 50 Hz , but higher than<br />

one <strong>in</strong> the range 5-30 Hz and lower than one for lower<br />

frequencies. This is quantified on Figure 3.50.<br />

Figure 3.50 ESL factor for typical dropper stretch, envelop curve.<br />

Abscissa is the first eigenfrequency <strong>of</strong> apparatus or<br />

bush<strong>in</strong>g or <strong>in</strong>sulator support. <strong>The</strong> abscissa are not at all<br />

distributed l<strong>in</strong>early.<br />

You just need the maximum stretch force <strong>in</strong> the cable<br />

near the clamp (evaluated by advanced method or<br />

simplified method developed <strong>in</strong> this brochure; no<br />

simplified method for <strong>in</strong> span droppers is given <strong>in</strong> this<br />

brochure). <strong>The</strong>n follow<strong>in</strong>g the basic first frequency <strong>of</strong><br />

your apparatus, you deduce the design load by<br />

multiply<strong>in</strong>g the maximum stretch force by the<br />

coefficient obta<strong>in</strong>ed from the curve. <strong>The</strong> obta<strong>in</strong>ed load<br />

must be compared to cantilever break<strong>in</strong>g load <strong>of</strong><br />

correspond<strong>in</strong>g apparatus.<br />

3.5.3. Maximum <strong>in</strong>stantaneous load and equivalent<br />

static load for bundle p<strong>in</strong>ch.<br />

<strong>The</strong> second one <strong>in</strong> Figure 3.51 concerns bundle p<strong>in</strong>ch<br />

and is valid for all bundle configuration, this is an<br />

envelop curve <strong>of</strong> many tested cases.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!