658 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 21. NO.
4, JULYIAUGUST 1991
Battery Protection- Where Do We Stand?
Richard L. Nailen, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract-Growing emphasis on operating reliability is lead-
ing both utility and industrial/commerciaI power system opera-
tors to confront a long-neglected system protection issue: proper
fault protection for large batteries. Full-load current from a
large UPS battery may reach thousands of amperes, with fault
currents 10-12 times as high. Battery destruction during a major
fault can acid-contaminate an entire building, escalating damage
far beyond battery cost or equipment downtime alone. Etisting
IEEE standards, the NEC, other published standards, and sup-
plier literature offer little help in applying fuses (seldom mar-
keted with specific dc current or voltage ratings) or circuit
breakers td battery circuits. Often, no protective devices at all
are proqided because of a fear of their nuisance operation. Of
special concern is the “internal” fault that may go undetected
by devices at a battery’s main terminals. This paper will outline
some u,ser experience, bring together existing recommendations,
and perhaps stimulate development of useful standard practices.
WHYBATTERIES
AREDIFFERENT
A MONG THE energy sources available to modem indus-
trial and commercial power systems, a large storage
battery is unique. Until recently, batteries having terminal
voltages of 250 or more, with capacities of thousands of
ampere hours, were confined to major utility substations or
large switchgear installations in industrial plants such as
refineries. Today, however, these power sources are becom-
ing widely used in data processing facilities. They may be by
far the highest energy equipment on the premises. The poten-
tial for catastrophic damage from battery failure is often
unappreciated by system designers or users. Within the IEEE
and other standards-making agencies, no comprehensive
guidelines exist for the protection of battery circuits from
such damage.
Because of their predominance in the United States, the
batteries considered in this paper are of the lead-acid type
[l]. But, similar protective measures are equally important to
the nickel-cadmiud type.
Large battery circuit protection is rendered both more
important and more difficult by the following ways in which
this source of electrical energy differs from others:
1) When it’s needed, it must perform. The control or UPS
battery is the “last resort.” There’s no time to warm it
up; it must carry full load at once because nothing else
is available.
Paper IPSD 90-11, approved by the Power Systems Protection Committee
of the IEEE Industry Applications Society for presentation at the 1990
Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Annual Technical Conference,
Detroit, MI, April 29-May 1. Manuscript released for publication January
21, 1991.
The author is with the Electrical Engineering Division, Wisconsin Electric
Power Co., Milwaukee, WI 53201.
IEEE Log Number 9144793.
0093-9994/91/0700-0658$01.00
2) Whereas care is taken to keep other electrical equip-
ment free from chemical contaminants or corrosive
liquids, the battery inherently requires those potentially
destructive agents to do its work. Fumes, corrosion,
and possibly explosive conditions all are essential parts
of the electrical installation, rather than being carefully
excluded
3) The battery is a distributed power source. Its many
interconnected components take up a wide area, rather
than being concentrated within a single compact assem-
bly like an alternator or engine. Those components
must be readily separable, meaning that numerous “in-
ternal” connections are fully exposed to the environ-
ment and to careless handling and not encased by a
protective insulation system that can be left undis-
turbed.
4) Cell action cannot be shut off by throwing a switch,
closing a valve, or braking some machine to a stop.
Voltage-and the possibility for destructive short-cir-
cuit current-remains present at the terminals of each
cell, whatever switches are opened or connectors re-
moved.
In addition, unlike other power sources, batteries will
usually cause major, widespread damage to other equipment,
as well as endangering personnel, when a major failure does
occur.
Consequences of Battery Failure
Batteries supplying major loads up to several thousand
kilowatts at 400-500 V are no longer found only in heavy
industrial facilities with competent plant engineering and
electrical maintenance staffs. They are going into office com-
plexes where the big selling point is that the battery’ is
“maintenance free. (Users neglected their batteries enough
”
as it was; now, their neglect seems to be encouraged by
product marketing. Put the battery in place, says one sup-
plier, “and put it out of your mind.” Prospective users of
large battery systems may find that advice pleasant to hear
but would be wise not to take it too seriously [2].) Personnel
capability in such facilities may be quite limited.
Available short-circuit current can be tens of thousands of
amperes. Faults are not in the “spark” category; rather,
vaporization of large conductors is possible. This current
depends not only upon external circuitry, and battery termi-
nal voltage at the time of fault, but also upon such internal
battery conditions as electrolyte level and the state of charge.
The basis for calculating ‘ ‘available” short-circuit current is
the so-called “one-minute current” rating of the battery-the
discharge amperes that will lower cell voltage to 1.75 within
0 1991 IEEE
NAILEN: BATTERY PROTECTION-WHERE DO WE STAND
60 sec. Assume a 250-V (nominal) battery capable of sustain-
ing a 100-kw load for 1 hr. The 1-hr ampere rating of the
battery will be 100000/250 or 400 A. For one typical make
of cell, the 1-min current will be about twice that, or 800 A.
Leaving aside the minor corrections for state of charge or
temperature and ignoring intercell connection resistance, the
calculated short-circuit current would typically be 7000 to
10000 A. Large UPS loads today range as high as several
thousand kilowatts so that short-circuit currents of 100 000 A
or more are theoretically possible.
In practice, as a battery manufacturer has pointed out,
“one or more intercell connectors will go open circuit within
10 to 15 s.” Unfortunately, that might not interrupt the flow
of fault current any more than vaporized busbars or cables
will interrupt an arcing burndown fault in 480-V switchgear.
In battery circuits, as in ac distribution systems, the high-cur-
rent “bolted fault” is less likely than the low-current sus-
tained burndown. Just as destruction is prolonged and en-
larged by the heat and sprayed conductive particles during
the ac fault, in the battery system the scattering of conductive
electrolyte escalates the damage.
What’s more, the rapid spread of acidic smoke can quickly
bring about catastrophic damage to electronic equipment far
from the fault itself. As an example, a manufacturing plant
basement contained a UPS and its battery supply. The batter-
ies were in a separate, cut-off room, equipped with exhaust
ventilation, smoke detectors, and automatic sprinklers. Above
that, on the first floor, was a large computer room plus other
offices.
At 9:05 one Saturday evening, a smoke detector alarm was
recorded, followed 3 min later by a sprinkler waterflow
alarm. The Fire Department arrived within 4 min to find that
a short circuit in one battery string had caused a small
explosion and fire, ultimately damaging 15 cells, that the
sprinklers had already extinguished. But the entire basement
was filled with smoke-necessitating the subsequent cleaning
of all the electrical equipment at a cost of $100000. Without
the prompt alarm, plus the battery room separation from the
computers, that loss would have been far greater-and this
was an exceptionally well-designed and well-equipped instal-
lation.
The extensive application literature available from large
UPS suppliers usually offers much detail on battery/charger
sizing, installation, and maintenance. The following is typical
user information: ‘‘The battery represents a significant por-
tion of the cost of a UPS package. . . since the battery is the
sole source of power during an outage no shortcuts should be
taken regarding maintenance and care for the battery. Yet
” modem power fuse technology primarily on ac circuit behav-
these publications are silent concerning circuit protection for
this essential back-up power source.
Lack of Protection Guidelines
Do existing standards offer guidelines concerning battery
protection? Almost nothing is published on the subject. As
the IEEE Orange Book [3] says in Chapter 6 (“Protection”),
“an area of battery protection often overlooked is overcur-
rent protection. . . a designer should be aware that without
overcurrent protection a battery can be damaged and, in some
cases, the battery cable may inadvertently be the only fuse
659
protection available. ” When that “cable” becomes a 0.5 by
5 in busbar, prudence dictates that it not be given the role of
a fuse.
Chapter 6 of the Orange Book goes on to indicate how
large battery short-circuit currents can be. But no guidelines
are offered for selection of either fuses or circuit breakers to
protect against such current. The only circuit diagram pro-
vided shows a breaker protecting the battery charger and not
the battery itself. None of the numerous bibliographical
references touches on the subject.
Several IEEE standards, such as 450, 484, and 485, are
concerned with design and installation of large storage batter-
ies. Only one, No. 946 [4], deals with circuit protection for
battery systems (written for nuclear generating station appli-
cations, and then only in general terms, it is now being
revised to cover other power plants as well). Other docu-
ments, such as NFPA 70B on electrical equipment mainte-
nance, NFPA 110 on emergency power sources, or the
various NEMA battery standards dealing almost entirely with
testing, are silent concerning fault protection.
Article 480 of the National Electrical Code applies to “all
stationary installations of storage batteries. It says nothing
”
about battery circuit protection. At least one pertinent UL
apparatus standard is in preparation but offers little specific
advice (UL 1778, drafted in March 1989 for public com-
ment, titled “Uninterruptible Power Supply Equipment”). A
few paragraphs of this 215-page draft dealt with battery
supply circuit protection for UPS installations. Either circuit
breakers or fuses were allowed. Paragraph 25.22 stated “The
battery supply circuit shall be provided with acceptable rated
dc overcurrent protection to reduce the risk of fire and
electric shock resulting from overload or short-circuit condi-
tions.” The “acceptable rating” was to protect against ex-
plosion, flame, molten metal, and cracking or bursting of
battery cases, but just how such ratings were to be arrived at
was not specified. Test procedures were not given.
FUSES
IN BATTERY
CIRCUITS
The only definitive book on fuse application [5] devotes
nearly 200 pages to the behavior and application of fuses in
all sorts of electric circuits-except battery circuits. The
word “battery” does not even appear in the book’s index.
Whether or not fuses are used at all to protect a battery,
and if so, how the fuses are selected, are matters for individ-
ual engineering judgement in each application. But the deci-
sion can be much more complex in a battery circuit than in an
ac power system. That complexity stems from the basing of
ior. Fuses do not work the same way in a dc circuit. Because
low-voltage, high-current dc circuits were so seldom encoun-
tered in industrial or commercial facilities until recently, little
market demand existed to support the testing needed to
establish dc fuse ratings or to develop fuses best suited to dc
usage. Although the rapid growth in power electronics is
changing that, much work remains to be done.
dc versus ac Fuse Ratings
Cautions the “Overcurrent Protection Handbook” issued
by one international fuse manufacturer, “A-c rated fuses
660 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 21, NO. 4, JULYIAUGUST 1991
should not be applied in d-c voltage circuits unless d-c
application ratings are provided by the fuse manufacturer
[and they seldom are]. Except for some special purpose
fuses, d-c ratings are not usually shown on fuse labels.” A
literature search made as background for this paper, admit-
tedly not an exhaustive one, involved (besides the standards
mentioned earlier) 18 technical articles, two papers, several
books and reports, and eight manufacturer handbooks. Of
them all, only one even mentioned dc application of power
fuses.
Many questions arise concerning dc interpretation of famil-
iar fuse data and application criteria for ac-rated fuses. The
answers to those questions vary with the fuse supplier. For
example:
1) How will peak let-through current compare with ac
values? (Answer: Usually less, because current rises
more slowly with time, and no current offset exists. But
numbers are hard to get. One supplier suggests a
typical ratio of 1/2, dc to peak ac.)
2) Will time-current melting curves based on 60-Hz ac
conditions still apply? (Generally, yes, for dc or for
other waveforms, provided an RMS value is definable.)
3) Can the well-known “up-over-down” method, using
curves published for ac operation, be applied to a dc
circuit? (Probably not. One manufacturer says “All you
can do is ‘up-over,’ to find the peak let-through cur-
rent, and divide it by two for a dc value.” Others may
offer different rules of thumb.)
All manufacturers of power fuses are being asked these
and other questions about dc fuse behavior. Few have stock
answers. Most suppliers offer some dc products. But almost
none of the ratings are published. Few of the offerings are
UL listed, or the equivalent. When comparing published
information for a particular fuse (such as the RK-5), you may
find that one or another of the following conditions may
apply :
1) Both ac and dc current interrupting ratings are consid-
ered the same, but the voltage rating must be less for
dc .
2) Both ac and dc voltage ratings are considered the same
-but the dc interrupting rating must be less (see Table
I, for example).
3) Both current and voltage ratings are the same, whether
the circuit is ac or dc.
4) No dc current or voltage rating is offered.
Yet the basic fuse construction, and its behavior in an ac
circuit, may be the same for most of the suppliers.
As a convenient way around such seemingly irreconcilable
alternatives, a prospective user may do well to select semi-
conductor fuses. These have been developed to protect power
electronic devices in systems involving at least a pulsating dc
current [6]. Although the terminology and the rating structure
may seem unfamiliar at first, suitable choices can generally
be made. Despite the apparent suitability of semiconductor
fuses to battery protection, though, manufacturers’ literature
on such fuses does not mention such use.
TABLE I
COMPOSITE
OF DC VERSUSAC CURRENT-INTERRUPTING
VALUES
PUBLISHEDBY VARIOUS
FUSESUPPLIERS
Type of fuse ac amperes dc amperes Ratio, dc to ac
K-5 50 OOO 20 OOO 1:2.5
L 200 OOO 40 OOO 1:5
RK-1 200000 “contact factory” ?
RK-5 200 OOO 20 OOO 1:lO
And you will find that those fuses, even when offered as
protection for dc drives and for battery chargers, usually
carry a published interrupting rating only in ac amperes, such
as “200,000 RMS,” or “235,999 peak.” This simply in-
vites questions.
Application literature on semiconductor fuses tends to be
based largely on the influence of various rectifier/inverter
waveforms. That information does not aid the engineer seek-
ing to apply fuses to a “pure dc” battery circuit. (Even in the
type of UPS application involving considerable harmonic
ripple current through the battery itself, a matter now becom-
ing of concern to users, the ripple will be a minor component
of battery fault current.)
H o w Fuses Behave
To understand some of the uncertainty regarding use of
fast-acting, current-limiting (CL) fuses in dc circuits, we
must examine fuse behavior. A fusible link overheats and
melts after carrying a specific overcurrent for a specific time.
Melting opens the metallic path through which the current
had flowed. But, that gap in the circuit does not interrupt
current flow. Rather, the flow continues via the arc devel-
oped between the open ends of the fuse link.
Arcing continues until the “arc voltage” across it rises
high enough to equal the “driving voltage” of the power
source. At that point, the arc will be extinguished, and
current flow ceases.
In commercial power fuses, that process is aided by vari-
ous heat transfer mechanisms (such as a sand filling within
the fuse tube) that siphon off heat energy from the arc itself.
In relatively slow-acting fuses, of course, another essential to
ac arc extinguishment is the periodic appearance of the
“current zero.” Twice during each cycle of alternating cur-
rent, the ampere flow passes through zero. Given sufficient
cooling or dispersion of the arc, that current zero will
extinguish it, and it will not subsequently restrike.
Such is not the case for fast-acting CL fuses because arc
extinction must take place long before a current zero point
appears. So we might expect a CL fuse to behave the same
way in a dc circuit as in the ac. However, that does not
happen. The reason is this: In an ac circuit, the effect of
circuit inductance is to cause an offset between voltage and
current waves (expressed as power factor). But the rate of
rise of a fault current, derived from its power frequency, will
be essentially the same as that of the associated voltage.
Given the system frequency, and knowing the magnitude of
expected ac fault current, we will then know the rate of rise
of the initial fault current. The arc voltage within the fuse
responds to that rate of rise, expressed as d i l d t . The CL
NAILEN: BATTERY PROTECTION-WHERE DO WE STAND 66 1

Current

Fig. 1. Fault current versus time in a battery circuit (dashed curves)
compared with the initial fault current in an ac circuit (solid curve).
fuse is designed to interrupt when that rate has been present
for a time normally much less than half a cycle (Fig. 1).
In the illustration, the shaded area expresses the energy
passing on downstream from the fuse for the duration of the
fault-the "let-through" energy. When the same fuse is used
in a dc circuit, containing some inductance even when a
battery is the energy source and the load includes neither
transformers nor motors, the situation is quite different.
Current rise rate is now determined by the circuit L / R ratio.
When inductance L is relatively low, current will rise almost
in step with voltage. The latter does not follow a sinusoidal
waveform rising at a rate by fixed frequency because no
alternating frequency exists. Therefore, di / dt can become
extremely high. Result: The fuse blows even faster than in
the ac situation.
Obviously, that's good, because let-through energy will be
held at a relatively safe, low level. What happens, though,
when the circuit inductance is high? Then we find a low
value of d i l d t . Fault current rises with time much more
slowly (Fig. 1). The resultant di / d t does not soon create an
arc voltage high enough to begin the arc extinction process.
Worse yet, when time tl is reached, the dc circuit offers no
current zero to promote interruption. Even though actual
current is well below the peak value, it is able to persist so
long that the 12t let-through energy to the fault becomes
unacceptably high.
Number o f time constants following fault
initiation
Fig. 2. The solid curve is a plot of the time constant function given in the
text. For each time constant period, the circled point represents the RMS
current reached up to the end of that period.
tance, thus
i = ( v / ~- )A E - ( R / L ) ~
in which A is a constant dependent upon the circuit current
flowing at the instant of fault initiation. From that equation,
short-circuit current should follow a rate-of-rise curve such
that at the end of one time constant, the current will have
reached 63% of its eventual maximum; after two time con-
stants, 87%; and so on-see Fig. 2.
Here is an example of one method that has been used to
select battery protection fuses, based on use of such a curve:
Battery ampere hours = 330
Expected continuous current load = 48 A
One-minute current rating = 335 A.
Battery short-circuit current [7], [8] is calculated as
= ( ampere rating ) (worst-case
1-min initial ) (4.4/K)
cell volts
in which K is a temperature correction factor from IEEE 450
(1 .O may be used for this example). Thus:
I = (335)(2.33)(4.4) = 3440 A.

This is quite close to 10 times the 1-min ampere rating-a

The Circuit Time Constant rule of thumb suggested by [9].
As a result, dc capability of CL fuses is always discussed To examine fuse melting behavior, based on heat input, we
in terms of the circuit time constant-the L / R ratio-ex- must consider the RMS value of current reached within each
pressed in milliseconds. The higher that ratio, the relatively successive time constant, rather than the peak value reached
lower the degree of protection (the slower the operation) to at the end of each period. If each time constant is 10 ms, that
be expected from the fuse. For battery circuits, typical time yields the individual points plotted on Fig. 3, and the follow-
constants range from 10 to 80 ms. Both battery and fuse ing results for this example:
manufacturers tend to accept 10 as most representative. (For
comparison, note that one cycle of a 60-HZ ac waveform is Elapsed time, second Amperes, RMS
16 ms long.) 0.01 1440
As stated in [5], fault currents rise exponentially towards a 0.02 2130
value equal to the circuit voltage divided by circuit resis- 0.03 2550
662 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 21, NO. 4, JULYIAUGUST 1991
v)
V
r
0
WI
G
rz
r
W
r
c
0 supplied by one fuse manufacturer.
100 1000
Current in amperes
Fig. 3. Using a battery circuit fault current versus time plot (dashed line)
to select a suitable fuse rating [lo].
*.5
0 o 10o 20o
Elapsed time, milliseconds
Fig. 4. One battery manufacturer [9] has suggested this variation in battery
fault current accompanied by a drop in battery terminal voltage as shown.
This current variation does not suit the simple formula, involving an L / R
time constant, cited in the text.
When those values are compared with melting curves for a
typical family of semiconductor fuses, we see from Fig. 3
that a 250-A fuse is the highest usable rating. Because the
maximum continuous current is only 48 A, a 50-A fuse could
be used. However, the fuse manufacturer recommends a fuse
rating at least double the continuous current to minimize
thermal fatigue of the fuse. Therefore, a 100-A rating is
selected. (Note: At least one other fuse supplier draws en-
tirely different conclusions from similar curves, emphasizing
that no universally accepted practice exists.)
Unfortunately, this usage of the L / R constant in discus-
sions of dc fuse behavior is not a true picture because it
assumes a constant voltage acting across a constant imped-
ance; hence, an ultimate value of fault current that is also a
constant. But battery voltage actually decays rapidly during
the initial 5 or 10 ms of a fault. Thus, actual current is not a
true exponential function but varies with time as in Fig. 4.
Current does indeed stabilize at a value dependent upon
battery voltage and circuit resistance. . . but not until after
passing through a transient peak well above that value.
0 10 20 30 40
L/R in milliseconds
Fig. 5 . Voltage derating curves for dc use of certain ac-rated fuses, as
Should the formula involving L / R be applied to the ultimate
value or to the transient peak?
Furthermore, accurate calculation of L and R is a difficult
task. The circuit may involve many relatively short lengths of
large cable, bundled in various ways, in differing proximity
to magnetic material such as cable trays. Resistance is vari-
able with battery conditions. All the values will be small so
that slight errors can have major effect.
Voltage Derating of Fuses
The arc voltage that a fuse must withstand will typically be
much higher than the system or source voltage. In a dc
circuit containing both R and L , voltage across the various
inductive and resistive portions will vary as current rises
during a fault. If L / R is high so that current rises slowly,
high voltages will develop across inductive elements of the
circuit, acting in a direction such as to maintain the current
flow. Hence, dc use may subject the fuse to higher voltages
relative to the system level than would be true in ac service.
That gives rise to a “voltage derating” curve often (though
not always) used to govern application of ac power fuses in
dc circuits. Fig. 5 is an example. One supplier uses this
general rule: Rate the fuse for a dc voltage one half its
published ac voltage rating.
A different concept of voltage derating is offered by an-
other fuse supplier. The increased let-through energy prior to
fuse operation is compounded by another effect that is also
peculiar to dc behavior. The higher the current-whatever
the time constant-the faster the fuse will operate because the
arc tends to establish itself at multiple locations within the
fuse chamber. In the absence of ‘a current zero, dc interrup-
tion depends entirely upon the fuse’s ability to divide and
cool the arc. Therefore, because a lower fault current estab-
lishes an arc at only one location, extinguishment is more
difficult than with the higher current.
Unfortunately, just as in the 480-V ac system where the
relatively low-current burndown fault is now widely recog-
nized as the greatest hazard, UPS designers are well aware
that low-current battery system faults are more common than
the bolted fault short circuit. A fuse that interrupts relatively
less predictably on low current can therefore be particularly
troublesome.
The approach taken by one manufacturer-unpublished,
but based upon information available upon request-is to
NAILEN: BATTERY PROTECTION- WHERE DO WE STAND 663

VI
600 U
c
0
U
W
VI

575 --

rz,
0

550
L

-g
W
U.
a
+2

525 /

: L + L L J
500
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0

difdt, amperes per microsecond

Fig. 6 . Differing from the approach shown in Fig. 5, this voltage derating
method used by another fuse supplier is based on the expected di / d t , which
is the rate of fault current change with time.
allow the full ac voltage rating in dc circuits, provided di / dt
exceeds a stated minimum. For smaller d i l d t values, a
voltage derating curve is to be followed; Fig. 6 is an exam-
ple.
No matter how they are arrived at, dc voltage ratings may
contain little leeway. If the value given is 250, for example,
the fuse may not be usable in a battery circuit where equaliz-
ing voltage becomes 280.
So much for voltage ratings. What about current? One
might intuitively expect that interrupting capacity ought to be
lower in a dc circuit than for ac. The higher let-through
energy with long time constants, as well as lack of current
zero, supports that expectation. And that is often confirmed
by published supplier data. Table I is representative of such
data. For these fuses, the published voltage ratings are
generally identical, ac or dc. Confusing? Certainly.
Keep in mind, however, that whatever theory of fuse
behavior may be propounded based upon considerations such
as Fig. 1, published ratings-and particularly third-party
listings such as those of UL-must depend upon testing. To
quote one supplier engineer, “Tests to verify dc capability
are extremely costly and the market does not support doing
much.”
What test standards exist? Only one-UL 198. Most of it
less than ten years old, this standard is divided into a number
of sections dealing with specific fuses. Of greatest general
interest is UL 198L, “D-c Fuses for Industrial Use” [ll].
The document includes three principal test requirements.
First, and apparently most difficult to perform, is the “over-
load test.” This requires single fuses to interrupt 200% of
rated continuous current at rated dc voltage, the voltage to be
“maintained for 1 minute after circuit interruption to deter-
mine that the fuse has permanently cleared the circuit.”
During this test, the L / R time constant of the test circuit
must not be less than the values expressed by Fig. 7.
Second is the “interrupting ability” test. With a circuit
time constant of at least 10 ms, the fuse must clear its
interrupting rating at rated dc voltage, with voltage remaining
across the fuse for 30 s after interruption.
Finally, UL 198L calls for a “maximum energy test” on
10 ioo lob0 10 ,boo
Amperes
Fig. 7. For dc fuse tests, UL Standard 198L prescribes minimum circuit
time constants versus ampere ratings that lie on the solid curve. The dashed
line expresses test range UL specifies for mine duty fuses in 198M.
b
Fig. 8. Battery protection using (a) a single midpoint fuse versus (b)
conventional line fuses.
fuses having interrupting ratings over loo00 A. The fuse
must not permit peak let-through current exceeding 80% of
its interrupting rating.
Some ac power fuses on the market today have been tested
against UL 198L. A few have been tested for dc mine circuit
use, per UL 198M, “Mine-Duty Fuses.” But most fuses do
not carry specific, tested ratings for listed dc use. Be pre-
pared, even when dc ratings do appear in a catalog, to
negotiate particular battery circuit application with the fuse
manufacturer. A local jobber, or manufacturer’s representa-
tive, may not be able to answer your questions.
In any event, find out what dc testing has been done. Look
for specific data supporting dc current and voltage ratings.
Don’t expect, however, to find a strong experimental founda-
tion underlying the final choice.
Fuse Location and Coordination
Assuming a properly rated fuse to be available, how
should it be used in the circuit? Fig. 8 illustrates two com-
mon methods of applying battery fuses. For a short circuit at
(or on the load/charger side of) the battery terminals, these
two connections are electrically equivalent.
But, the version at Fig. 8(a) is a connection unique to the
battery system as contrasted with ac power supplies. Because
large batteries are distributed energy sources, faults can
occur involving only portions of the entire battery. This
664
Fig. 9. Battery construction may allow “internal” faults to go undetected
by line fuses (upper). A midpoint fuse (lower) will interrupt such faults.
‘‘midpoint fusing’’ scheme furnishes protection against many
such “intra-battery’ faults.
In battery rooms, cell groups rest on racks or tiers, one
above the other-usually two high and sometimes three.
That’s not apparent in the simple electrical diagram of Fig. 8.
But examination of the physical arrangement itself, as in Fig.
9, shows that any fault between the upper and lower
tiers will not be sensed by fuses at the main terminals.
Placing a fuse at the midpoint between tiers, though, will
result in fault interruption.
Are such faults likely? Even in relatively well-maintained
but unattended installations, cell leakage (a common cause of
battery trouble) has caused corrosion sufficient to partially
collapse a rack. The resulting localized fault current involv-
ing some portion of the two tiers can be quite destructive.
The midpoint fuse prevents that.
Better maintenance, or a different sort of physical arrange-
ment, can make the midpoint fuse ineffective or unnecessary.
But, many battery installations now employ midpoint fusing
when it can be valuable.
Several utilities have adopted midpoint fusing as a conse-
quence of major battery failures, and not just for substation
batteries. One large utility experienced total destruction by
-
fire of a 576 A hr, 125-V battery some years ago, in an
unattended location. What apparently happened was a rack
collapse allowing part of the battery to spill and discharge
into an area that then caught fire. Fault current would have
been detected by a midpoint fuse but not by main terminal
protection.
Elsewhere, more recently, a substation battery fire de-
stroyed 20 cells when a charger fault allowed short circuiting
of the main battery terminals. (Depending upon the apparatus
configuration, that could occur in some installations even if
fuse protection were provided within the charger itself.) The
resulting damage totalled $250 0oO because the fire broadcast
conductive soot throughout the station control room, requir-
ing a great deal of electronic control and other equipment to
be carefully cleaned or replaced.
This is not to say that such fusing is the answer in all
situations; far from it. For the largest systems, cells are not
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 27, NO. 4, JULYIAUGUST 1991
Fig. 10. Fusing of individual cell strings in a series-parallel battery.
distributed so simply. Rather than a single ‘ ‘midpoint, ’ ’
many may exist. More than one midpoint fuse could be used.
However, each fuse and its associated clips adds two undesir-
able conditions to the circuit. One is added series resistance.
The other is the greater likelihood of unexpected fuse failure
that would remove an unfaulted battery from the line.
One authority on battery usage has cited NEC Article 480
as a basis for midpoint fusing. He interprets the Code as
requiring a maximum battery voltage of 250 within the
jurisdiction of any one protective device. Neither battery nor
UPS manufacturers mention this in their literature as a
requirement or a general practice, however. What the 1990
Code says (Section 480-6) is merely that lead-acid cells
“shall be installed in groups having a total nominal voltage
of not over 250 volts.” (For rubber cell containers, the limit
is 150 V.)Although the NEC says that “maximum protection
can be secured by sectionalizing high-voltage batteries into
groups,” no recommendation is made as to “group” size,
nor is any mention made of protective device “jurisdiction”
or selection.
The combining of cells into convenient groups can also
make parallel fusing desirable. In large batteries including
multiple strings of series cells that are then paralleled on a
common bus, each string can, depending upon its physical
arrangement, be involved in a fault that will not appear on
the bus [12].Some UPS suppliers therefore provide individ-
ual string fusing; others do not. (See Fig. 10).
The circuit of Fig. 8(b) or Fig. 10 could use a single fuse
in one leg of the circuit rather than two fuses. However,
except in the telecommunications field, large batteries are
normally operated ungrounded [ 131. Accidental grounds are
common in batteries because of electrolyte leakage to sup-
porting structures. If one ground should develop on a portion
of the battery at opposite polarity from an already grounded
leg, the result would be a short circuit that a single line fuse
might not see. On any battery circuit lacking intentional
grounding, a ground detector is recommended to reveal the
first accidental ground so that it can be removed before a
second one occurs. Some engineers feel, based on ac experi-
ence, that arcing bumdown faults are much less common in
ungrounded circuits. However, relevant battery system oper-
ating data do not appear to be available.
What about circuit breakers? Standard molded-case ac
breakers are usable in dc circuits. However, the dc interrupt-
ing rating will typically be “one-half to one-third” [14]of
 NAILEN: BATTERY PROTECTION-WHERE DO WE STAND 665

TABLE I1
MOLDED-CASE
CIRCUIT
BREAKERRATINGSLISTED
BY VARIOUS
MANUFACTURERS
SHOWINGTHE WIDEVARIATIONI N DC
VERSUS
AC CAPABILITY

Mfr. code Voltage rating Interrupting duty, amperes

ac dc ac dc dc lac
240 1251250 10000 5000 0.5
240 250 18000 10000 0.56
240 250 65000 10000 0.15
240 250 22000 10000 0.45
240 250 10000 5000 0.50
240 250 25000 10000 0.40
600 250 -various-
6ooto1000 300 -various-

the ac value. (See Table 11). Many manufacturers publish no

dc application data at all for these breakers. Several makes
have been tested, but are not UL listed, for dc use. The
advantage of the breaker, of course, is that it functions as a
disconnection device as well as a fault interrupter.
Fuse-breaker coordination, when both are provided, is
simple enough in the ac circuit. The breaker handles over-
loads, and the fuse handles short circuits. However, coordi-
nation is based on performance data for the devices used,
such as the “up-over-down” fuse let-through curve. Such
published information seldom exists for the dc situation.
If provided on the charger output alone, neither fuses nor a
circuit breaker can be counted on to interrupt a battery fault.
Chargers often contain internal current limiting that will hold
output current to 125- 150% of rating. Under that condition,
the charger output voltage may simply “fold back” to essen-
tially zero. Low voltage will cause automatic disconnection
of the charger from the battery. In all these situations, a fault
within the battery itself could persist without hindrance.
Battery technologists are quick to point out that fuse or
circuit breaker protection, wherever located, is of limited
value in ensuring battery reliability. That is certainly true.
Open-circuited intercell connectors, high terminal resistance,
sulfated plates, or any condition involving abnormally low
(or high) terminal voltage will not be sensed by overcurrent
devices. Estimates vary, but between 80 and 90% of all
battery faults are said to involve “the conducting path”-the
series resistance within and between cells, particularly the
intercell connectors where looseness and corrosion are com-
mon. Nevertheless, when a relatively sudden short-circuit
does involve the battery, no matter how infrequently, only
fast and automatic circuit interruption can be counted on to
avoid widespread external damage.
BATTERY
CONDITION
MONITORS
As a safeguard against unexpected battery failure caused
by some of the nonfault conditions just mentioned, the “bat-
tery monitor” is often recommended. Several makes are now
available. In general, these include a small local sensw that is
installed at each cell or small group of cells. The sensors are
wired to one or more electronic monitoring units that gener-
ate alarm or relaying signals based on cell condition such as
undervoltage, changes in connection resistance, or even low
electrolyte level. Condition alarms may be local or remote.
Fig. 11. Typical wiring between battery cells and central control equip-
ment for one make of battery condition monitor.
Sensors themselves typically respond directly to cell volt-
age. If an intercell connector is open, so that neither charging
nor load current can flow, cell voltage will change. Similar
changes occur if cell sulfation takes place. Monitoring cir-
cuits are self-checking so that a monitor defect itself is
translated into a condition alarm.
One monitoring system places a sensor within a group of
cells totaling 12 V nominal. That voltage level best suits the
unit’s resistance /voltage sensing circuits. The supplier rec-
ommends shifting the position of the sensor month by month
to cover the entire battery in rotation. Each sensor comes
with 3-ft pigtail leads for attachment at the bolts holding
intercell connectors in place. Normally closed dry contacts in
all the sensors are connected in series. Thus, either operation
of any sensor or a break in the contact circuit will give the
alarm.
In a typical battery, proper cell voltage may range from a
low of 1.81 (above the usual l-min discharge level of 1.75)
to a float or equalizing high of 2.25 to 2.33. A cell monitor
may therefore be set to a high limit of 2.4, a “minor low”
level of 1.81 for early warning, and a “major low” limit of
1.75.
The largest single-cell monitoring system, involving two
dozen central computers linked by fiber-optic cables, was
recently completed for a government installation in the West;
wiring of the type illustrated in Fig. 11 was connected to
8OOO cells. The entire battery, cell by cell, can be scanned
within 8 s.
Monitor costs will increase with the number of cells in-
volved, but not linearly, because the central control portion
of the system represents a single cost for a range of battery
sizes.
The disadvantage of the battery monitor is in the sope-
times extensive sensor wiring needed. In the more sophisti-
cated units, the sensors supply information to a computer
where battery condition is displayed on a monitor screen.
Another type of monitor, applied at the load terminals to
check the entire battery, measures circuit resistance by draw-

-
666 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 21, NO. 4, JULYIAUGUST 1991

ing repeated short-time (microseconds) current pulses from itself. When a fuse fails without load on the battery, how-
the battery. If a succession of such pulses is below a preset ever, the condition is likely to go undetected until an emer-
limit, the alarm operates. gency transfer to the battery fails to restore power. Whether
The choice of battery protection- particularly an either-or terminal or midpoint fuses are used, then, blown-fuse indica-
decision between fuses and monitors-is complicated for any tor switches should be provided to cause an alarm whenever
kind of standby system (such as an off-line UPS) by the any fuse opens. Such switches are a readily available fuse
normal absence of any load current. When a battery floats on accessory.
a charger, required to deliver load current only for infrequent Who is responsible for battery protection? Questioning
brief periods, neither thermal nor mechanical stress on com- those experienced in design or application of large battery
ponents is continually present. If it were, weak points would systems elicits conflicting answers. Says one, “In UPS sys-
show up gradually to be observed as they developed, and tem protection of the battery is largely left up to the user.”
timely corrective action could be taken while the problem Of the batteries installed in telecommunications or substation
was still minor. facilities, he added, “98% of them go in without any discon-
However, when the battery must instantly jump from float nect or fuse outside of the charger.” According to one
to peak overload, no one has any chance to respond to a trend battery supplier [7], “The designing engineer must review
alarm indicating that some problem is developing. If that the applicable codes and pertinent factors of the application
problem results in a fault, circuit interruption must be fast before deciding whether or not to install protective
and unequivocal. Whereas a fuse might not do that because devices. . . The designing engineer, however, generally
”

of uncertain selection criteria, a monitor can certainly never does not know what device application information is needed
do it. Even linking monitor output to a circuit breaker will or what is available. Says the battery system expert, “Here
not adequately limit fault let-through energy. are the types of fuses available; go ask the fuse manufacturer
what’s best to use.” The fuse manufacturer, in turn, says
PROTECTION PHILOSOPHY
what’s best to use depends upon the behavior of the battery
Either because of economics, uncertainty about the circuit.
prospects of failure, or the lack of any specific protection Probably few large UPS users are fully aware of the
guidelines in published industry standards, many large batter- overcurrent protection (if any) provided on their battery
ies are not being protected at all. Among these are two system. Nor do UPS manufacturers appear fully aware of the
experimental energy storage systems, one containing 8256 protective options. When asked how fuse or circuit breaker
cells in multiple 2OOO-V strings and the other containing 324 protection was selected, most manufacturers offered no reply.
-
cells, each of more than 2000 A hr capacity, able to supply When this paper was proposed, one of the engineers
0.5 MW. These, however, are carefully observed, well-con- consulted expressed the hope that solutions might be sug-
structed facilities that are still quite new. gested to battery problems that have generated “some real
There is precedent for omitting battery overcurrent protec- horror stories out there. ” Leaving large batteries unprotected
tive devices entirely on the premise that nuisance operation is no answer. For the present, the “real solution” appears to
(taking the battery out of circuit) is potentially more costly be the provision of carefully chosen battery protective de-
than a battery failure [7], [13]. Under NEC Section 430-31, vices to the maximum affordable extent, recognizing that a
for example, normal motor overload protection may be omit- major fault can spread damage far beyond the boundaries of
ted for fire pump drives because even though overloaded, the battery room or the battery circuit. In the long run, the
such a drive could be essential to the control of a fire that industry needs better standards for the selection and use of
could endanger lives and property if allowed to go unchecked. high-power dc protective equipment.
However, the two situations are not quite analogous, as In 1989, recognizing the growing importance of batteries
this comparison shows: in industrial and commercial power systems, the IEEE formed
Possible Consequences a new Standards Coordinating Committee, SCC-29, charged
Failure Nuisance Trip Only with overseeing and coordinating all standards written deal-
UPS Personnel hazard plus Little or no personnel or ing with installation, maintenance, and operation of station-
Battery extensive property loss property damage ary batteries. But although a number of such standards exist,
we clearly need a “protection standard” offering recommen-
Fire Personnel hazard plus Personnel hazard plus
dations concerning protective methods, and guidelines on
Pump extensive property loss extensive property loss
protective device selection, to fill an important gap in the
Thus, although great inconvenience and high monetary loss literature.
can result from a battery nuisance trip, the severity of the
consequences cannot normally be equated with those result- REFERENCES
ing from a serious battery fault-or from any unexpected [l] R. R. Fletcher, “Cell selection considerations,” Trans. IEEE En-
ergy Conv.,vol. EC-1, no. 4, pp. 69-72, Dec. 1986.
suspension in the operation of a fire pump. The more preva- [2] M. F. Migliaro, “Maintaining maintenance-free batteries,” in IEEE
lent opinion [4], [9], [ 151 is that battery systems should have Conf. Paper, Ind. Comm. Power Syst. Conf.(Chicago, IL), May
some sort of overcurrent protection. 1989.
[3] IEEE 446-1987, “Recommended practices for emergency and standby
Nuisance tripping that occurs while a battery carries load, power systems for industrial and commercial applications.”
inconvenient though that may be, will at least call attention to [4] IEEE 946-1985, “Recommended practice for the design of safety-
NAILEN: BATTERY PROTECTION-WHERE DO WE STAND
related dc auxiliary power systems for nuclear power generating
stations.”
A. Wright and P. G. Newbery, Electric Fuses. London: Peter
Peregrinus, 1984.
T. M. Cmko, “Current-limiting fuse update-New developments:
New style fuse for protection of semiconductor devices,” in IEEE
Conf. Paper Petrol. Chem. Industry Conf. (Dallas), Sept. 1977.
“Stationary lead-acid battery systems,” Sect. 50.00, Exide Corp.,
Form 7637, Jan. 1983.
F. L. Brennan, “DC distribution system,” Power Plant Electrical
Reference Series, Electric Power Research Institute, vol. 9, 1987.
G. Walker, “Short circuit characteristics of lead acid batteries,”
unpublished Tech. Bull., C & D Battery Co., Jan. 1987.
“Form 101 semiconductor fuse application guide,” Gould Shawmut,
1981.
UL 198L, Standard f o r D-C Fuses f o r Industrial Use (2nd ed.),
Mar. 1988.
“Study of the auxiliaries for lead-acid battery systems for peaking
power,” Final Rep. Westinghouse Electric Corp. for Energy Re-
search and Development Administration, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Dec. 1977.
E. C. Korbeck, Jr. and J. W. Blankley, “Selection, use, and care of
stationary batteries for paper mill service,” Trans. IEEE Ind. Gen.
Appl., vol. IGA-7, no. 6, pp. 742-749, Nov./Dec. 1971.
R. G. Brunner, “Auxiliary electrical equipment,” Power Plant Elec-
trical Reference Series, Electric Power Research Institute, vol. 7,
1987.
B. Bridger, Jr., “Control and auxiliary power systems for industrial
661
and commercial switchgear installations,” Trans. IEEE Industry
Applications, vol. 1A-20, no. 3, pp. 667-671, May/June, 1984.
Richard L. Nailen (M’S-SM’68) was bom in
San Jose, CA, on January 2, 1928. He received the
B.E.E. degree with honors from the University of
Santa Clara, CA in 1950.
From 1953 to 1964, he was employed in the
Motor Engineering Section, Westinghouse Electric
Corp., Sunnyvale, CA, on electrical and mechani-
cal design of ac motors and generators through
19000 kVA. In 1964, he joined the Louis Allis
Co., Milwaukee, WI, from which he retired in
1985 as Engineering Specialist, Large Machinery
Engineering, where he was involved in design and application of induction
motors to 10000 hp. Now a Project Engineer with Wisconsin Electric Power
Company in Milwaukee, he is concerned with application, maintenance,
repair, and testing of all motors in the utility’s generating stations, as well as
with utility customer problems involving motors and controls. He is the
author of more than 300 published articles and 20 IEEE papers on motor
design and application, as well as many other subjects in electrical technol-
ogy, and the 1991 book, Managing Motors. He has presented numerous
University Extension courses, seminars, and workshops.
Mr. Nailen is a member of the Petroleum and Chemical Committee of the
IEEE, the Power Systems Engineering Committee, the Professional Commu-
nications Society, Tau Beta Pi, the National Fire Protection Association, and
is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Wisconsin.