×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Padmount transformer protection

Padmount transformer protection

Padmount transformer protection

(OP)
Hi,

I'm doing a coordination study for an underground distribution system.

There are padmount transformer, 500 kVA, 25kv/120-208V protected by two fuse in serie
1-Expulsion fuse link ABB 1B11144G10 (25 A)
2-Current limiting fuse Cooper 3544100M71M (100 A)

Upsteam of that, there is a switching device protected by 1 fuse:
1-Expulsion fuse link ABB 1B11143G12 (40 A)

There is a coordination problem between the switching device and the transformer protection.  A solution is to change the 25 A fuse of the transformer by a 15 A.  But i'm not sure if i change the expultion fuse, should i change the current limiting fuse for a lower rating too?  Can i change the CLF? There is nothing in the literature which talk about the interrupting capacity of the ABB fuses, and it say that it must be used in series with a current limiting fuse or isolation link.

Also, the 40 A in the switching device isn't used with current limiting fuse.  There's only a breaker upstream with the instantaneous at 1320 A.  Is this arrangement OK?

The short cicuit current at 25kV can be up to 12 kA.  The Bay-O-Net fuse link from Cooper, which is an equivalent of the ABB fuse link have an interrupting capacity of 2500 A.

Thanks

RE: Padmount transformer protection

You need the current-limiting fuse(or fusible link) to protect the Bayonet fuse.  In general, the current-limiting fuse should only operate for internal faults in the transformer.  

You can verify with ABB, but I doubt it is necessary to change the current-limiting fuse.  But make sure the smaller bayonet expulsion fuse will not melt on transformer inrush.   

"Theory is when you know all and nothing works. Practice is when all works and nobody knows why. In this case we have put together theory and practice: nothing works... and nobody knows why! (Albert Einstein)

RE: Padmount transformer protection

(OP)

Thanks DPC,

I already have checked the transformer inrush at 12x and it's ok.

I understand how the CLF can protect the bayonet, but the fuse link? How it's made and how it's working, i don't know.

So the bayonet in the switching device, without CLF isn't OK.  i'm looking on drawing, i can clearly see the CLF for the transformer, but not for the switching device.  I only see the bayonet.

RE: Padmount transformer protection

I don't mean to throw this thread off, but reading this brings up another question about protecting padmount xfrmrs.  When protecting transformers and primary feeds to them, there are some that leave the bayonet fuse to protect the transformer and feeder fusing to protect the wire.  

I've seen others size fuses to the inrush of the total kva on the radial feed.  

What's your philosophy?
 

RE: Padmount transformer protection

tem1234,

The fuse link is just a small link of wire that will melt if the current get too high.  Just a cheap substitute for a current-limiting fuse.  

The main function of the fusible link or the CLF is to keep the transformer from catching on fire.  If either operates, it means the transformer has failed and will be replaced anyway.  These should never melt on a through-fault.  

"Theory is when you know all and nothing works. Practice is when all works and nobody knows why. In this case we have put together theory and practice: nothing works... and nobody knows why! (Albert Einstein)

RE: Padmount transformer protection

Much depends on your basic fuse coordination philosophy. Do you want the circuit breaker in the station to trip and save the fuse? Or do you want the fuse to melt so the breaker does not operate?
Here we use a combination of the two. Our trip levels on our breakers are set to the fault current levels at about 1/2 mile from the station. Anything inside that radius will cause the breaker to operate. Any taps from the main line feeder past that point are fused with 65 amp fuses. We allow the bay-o-nets fuses in each pad mounted transformer to protect the tranformer. Individual transformers tapped to the main feeder are fused according to the transformer size. 300 kVA = 20, 500 kVA = 30, etc. We have a 12,470 Gwye system.
I was always told by the guy who had my job before me that the tap fuse should protect the wire, the bay-o-nets will protect the transformer. I have seen up to 100 amp fuse on some of our tap lines, and they still coordinate with our breaker philosophy.
We use Cyme TCC to coordinate the time current curves of our fuses to our breaker relay.

I don't know if this helps or not, there are a lot of different ways and thoughts about how to protect wires and transformers.

Happiness is a way of travel, not a destination.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources