Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DISTRIBUTION
Neil McDonagh
ESB International, Ireland
ABSTRACT
In urban areas, high voltage underground cables are commonly used for the transmission and distribution of electricity.
Many such high voltage cables have metallic sheaths or screens surrounding the conductors, and/or armour and metallic
pipes surrounding the cables. During earth faults applied to directly earthed systems, these metallic paths are expected to
carry a substantial proportion of the total fault current, which would otherwise flow through the general mass of earth, while
returning to system neutrals. These alternative return paths must be considered when determining the extent of the grid
potential rise at an electrical plant due to earth faults. This paper examines fault current distribution following a single phase
to earth fault at a high voltage urban substation. Sub A 110kV substation is fed by two 110kV connections to Sub B and Sub
C substations. Both feeders are pipe type cables. A network model incorporating the substation earth grid and cable sheaths
is built using proprietary software and the results presented. Current injection tests are carried out to verify modelled results.
Finally the implications of alternative return paths provided by cables are discussed and conclusions are drawn.
Keywords: Earthing, Grounding, cable sheaths, Substation, Fault current distribution, Cable sheaths, current injection
test, computer modelling.
It can be seen in both Fig 6 (a) and (b) that the metallic
return path carrying the most current is number 4, the
steel pipe, followed by number 1, the sheath on the
faulted phase. The differences between (a) and (b) may
be due to a number of factors. Primarily equation 3
ignores the effect of the two non faulted phases and
current leakage along the length of the feeder while
CDEGS takes this into account
300
2
o o 250 20 ohm
3 114.48 @160.147 98.734@168.035 10 ohm
200
4 570.16 @ 143.87 o 491.7@151.735 o 150
5 ohm
2 ohm
5 147.87 @ - 144.84 o 127.51@ - 136.974 o 100 1 ohm
6 66.63 @ 167.27 o
57.461@175.127 o 50
7 0
o
66.63 @ 167.27 57.461@175.127 o 2 5 10 20
Cable lengths (km)
Fig 6 (a) resultant current matrix from equation 3.
Fig 6 (b) resultant current matrix give by CDEGS. Fig. 7 Plot of results from Table 2
A circuit with 2 substations was created to compare It can be clearly seen from Table 2 and Fig. 7 that an
results. Both earth grid resistances are 1 . The increase in Cable length or EGR causes a rise in the GPR
at Sub A.
MEASURED RESULTS ** Error due largely to interference on feeder C
Table 6 Earth Fault Current and GPR per 100A of
A current injection test was carried out at an urban
injected current
substation in the spring of 2005. The circuit used for the
Ig GPR (V)
current injection was similar to the description of the Measured **56.7 ***
network provided in the introduction. The faulted phase Equation 3 3.13 11.16
was on the feeder to Sub C. The lengths of the feeders to CDEGS 2.79 12.55
Sub B and Sub C were 4.7km and 7.2km respectively. ***GPR cannot be estimated from fault current as
The EGR at Sub A was modelled as 40 , while the medium voltage circuits were connected to the substation
EGRs at Subs B and C were assumed to be 1 . The earth grid. Also it was not possible to disconnect a the
results shown are averages of measurements taken for a feeders in order to record a voltage measurement and
number of different injected currents. The magnitudes thus calculate the GPR and resistance to remote earth of
displayed are percentages of the fault current. substation earth grid
It must be noted that a number of issues were noted Calculated results are also displayed from CDEGS (table
during measurement. At times there were current surges 4) and an alteration was made to equation 3 (Table 5) in
of up to 10A being measured on the pipe of feeder C order to incorporate a second substation into the model.
when no current was being injected. Injected currents
varied between 10A and 137A; therefore a 10A surge Variations in results (Table 6) may be due to a number of
could have a serious effect on measurements. When the factors. Sections of the pipes are very old and insulation
current on this pipe was measured, erratic variations were may not still be intact. In reality the cables, armours and
noted. It must also be noted that medium voltage pipes are bonded at every cable joint, this is not
connections were not considered and it is expected that a considered in either of the calculated models. Medium
proportion of current may have taken this path. It was not voltage connections were not considered at Sub A which
possible to measure the currents on the armour. In reality may lower the effective EGR seen by the fault at Sub A.
the cable sheaths, armours and pipe are bonded at every This would raise Ig but lower the GPR significantly.
joint. CONCLUSIONS
Table 3 Measured Results
Sub B Sub C It can been seen from measured and computed results
Injected current mag angle mag angle that metallic return paths provided by cable sheaths,
R phase 0 0 100 0 armours and pipe have a very positive effect in reducing
R sheath 2.42 180 26.69 -141.4 the GPR, and consequently the hazards caused by large
S sheath 2.58 180 11.29 -162.8 GPRs, by carrying large proportions of the fault current
T sheath 2.48 180 11.23 -164 away from substations through metallic return paths as
Pipe 8 180 *85.5 -170 opposed to through the earth. Current flows due to
conductive and inductive effects through these return
Table 4 Results Calculated by CDEGS paths. Replacing non-shield wire overhead lines with
Sub B Sub C shield wire overhead lines or underground cables can
Injected current mag angle mag angle significantly reduce hazards associated with high voltage
R phase 0 0 100 0 earth faults. While this may not always be economically
R sheath 0.139 -30.1 30 -129 desirable or possible, the presence of metallic return
S sheath 0.131 -33.8 9.81 168
paths should always be considered when calculating
T sheath 0.131 -33.8 9.81 168
earth fault currents.
R Armour 0.081 -23.0 12.7 -137
S Armour 0.077 -28.5 5.71 175 REFERENCES
T Armour 0.077 -28.5 5.71 175
Pipe 2.81 53.7 50 150 1. Electricity Association Technical Specification 41-24
Issue 1, page 23, 1992.
Table 5 Results Calculated from Equation 3 2. CDEGS version 11.3.107. SES Technology Ltd, 2004
Sub B Sub C 3. Electricity Networks Association, Engineering
Injected current mag angle mag angle Recommendation S34, page 25 1986.
R phase 0 0 100 0 AUTHOR’S ADDRESS
R sheath 0.21 180 40.9 -104.9 The author may be contacted at
S sheath 0.175 120 11.36 159.9
Power Systems Studies
T sheath 0.175 120 11.36 159.9
ESB International
R Armour 0.125 134 14.72 -144.8
S Armour 0.102 127 6.613 167
Stephen Court
T Armour 0.102 127 6.614 167 18-21 St Stephen’s Green
Pipe 3.46 -146 58.63 142.7 Dublin 2. neil.mcdonagh@esbi.ie