Contactor pole frequency limits
Contactor pole frequency limits
(OP)
We plan to install AC contactor between VFD inverter and PM motor.This contactor would be opened only under no-load conditions, so we have no concerns regarding arc breaking issues. However, when contactor is closed and the system is running, the inverter output frequency could reach 800 Hz (fundamental). The contactor pole specification (Telemecanique, type LC1F630, 630 A) limits the frequency to 200 Hz. Is this limitation based on additional losses in closed contacts? If we operate above the limit of frequency, is there a chance of contacts welding? Please advise.





RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
Just thinking out loud, it seems that another possibility would be based interrupting capability. Interruption of can involve a race between recovery of dielectric strength and recovery of voltage accross the contact (after interruption at current zero). Normally the transient recovery voltage of concern is oscillatory associated with capacitance/inductance of the system. But perhaps if the line frequency gets high enough, there is not enough time for the dielectric strength to recover before the fundamental voltage reaches a level that will cause breakdown again.
Maybe someone else can provide more definitive answer.
=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
----------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
Google found me some information from Rockwell showing derating multipliers ranging from 0.7 to 0.3 for various contactors switching 1kHz load. Since you're not switching under load I would expect those derates are worst-case for you.
The Rockwell info also included this explanation:
The skin effect produces an increased resistance of the current path with increasing frequency. In addition, magnetic induction in adjacent metal parts will cause increased hysteresis and eddy-current losses. Especially steel parts (quenching devices, screws, magnets, base plates) may be heated to levels in excess of permissible temperatures.
Since the cross section of the current path as well as the type and distance of adjacent metal parts can vary, the total heat generation and the local overtemperatures depend on the contactor type.
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
For 100Hz: 6.7%
For 200Hz: 12.9%
For 300Hz: 16.4%
For 400Hz: 18.8%
For 700Hz: 23.2%
For 1000Hz: 26%
Plot those out and you can interpolate your de-rate for 800Hz, or I'd just use 25% and call it good. However only Schneider can answer to whether or not this is valid for their products.
By the way, no decrease in switching (making - breaking) capacity at increased frequencies. Just the steady state current carrying capacity.
But there were interesting debates internally as to whether or not you should use DC switching ratings when used on the load side of a VFD. I was in the not-an-issue camp because even though the PWM consists of DC pulses, they do change direction and will therefore have the same arc interruption effect as AC from that standpoint. The other side felt that was OK at 50/60Hz, but what about if the output was 10Hz or 5Hz? The reversal is happening a lot slower at that point. I'm not convinced that's an issue.
"Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were rolling drunk on petroleum."
— Kilgore Trout (via Kurt Vonnegut)
For the best use of Eng-Tips, please click here -> FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
Jeff – good discussion and I'm glad you responded to my line of discussion regarding interruption.
There is no reason in physics I can come up with that your colleagues would ever suspect loss of interrupting capability at low frequency. Low frequency certainly does not share the unique dc feature of having no current zero's. Can you articulate what possible reservation anyone could have regarding interruption of low frequency current?
In contrast, there is imo strong reason to suspect reduction of interrupting capability as line frequency increases. The basic interrupting mechanism involves a race between recovery of dielectric strength and voltage accross the open contact after interruption. Whenever the actual voltage accross the open contact overtakes the dielectric strength, the arc reestablishes. If this occurs very shortly after reignition during the period of high frequency L-C ringing, it is termed "reignition". If this occurs more than one quarter cycle after interruption in response to power frequency voltage, it is termed "restrike". See slide 4 here:
http://
If we compare 60hz to 800hz interruption, there seems no doubt that the dielectric strength recovers at the same rate in both cases, but the power frequency voltage accross the open contact returns faster for 800hz, so it seems inevitable that restrike is more likely at 800hz than at 60hz.
Restrike does not necessarily lead directly to failure to interrupt, but is certainly not a favorable factor for contact life or for successful interuption.
To what extent restrike is a concern for low voltage contactors, and how high frequency would have to get before it becomes a problem, I'm not sure.
=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
For reference the Rockwell information google found is linked here:
http://tinyurl.com/6zmfa6d
and the Rockwell derating table is found here:
http://tinyurl.com/6lczxan
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
Let me think on that.
=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
I focused on the actual (recovery) voltage, which suggested more severe duty at high frequency.
I assumed no change in dielectric withstand with frequency, but in fact it is apparently the dominant effect. After the contact parts, an arc occurs for duration of up to 0.5 cycles before the first natural current zero occurs. The time duration of that 0.5 cycles is much longer for the low-frequency case and therefore causes more ionization... and it will take longer for the dielectric strength to recover from that more-ionized state.
Thanks Mobius and Jeff for explaining that.
=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
"Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were rolling drunk on petroleum."
— Kilgore Trout (via Kurt Vonnegut)
For the best use of Eng-Tips, please click here -> FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
Of course, none of the participants posed that as the issue at the time, and being biased to the position I had already taken I failed to consider it either.
(I know, I know, bad engineering practice but hey, we're all human...)
"Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were rolling drunk on petroleum."
— Kilgore Trout (via Kurt Vonnegut)
For the best use of Eng-Tips, please click here -> FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
I can justify it to myself if I consider the contact to be a resistance.. then the voltage accross that resistance is proportional to the curent.. and the current does not change in response to those high-freq PWM pulses.
But it is probably not fair to consider the contact as a resistance during the timeframe of interest when current is not flowing.... if we model instead as an open circuit than we might conclude full PWM voltage is seen accross the contact. Or maybe neither of these simple models is enough. Hmm.
=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
Arc interruption requires a current zero, not a voltage zero. A PWM output current will either flow in the power switch when 'on' or the body diode (or another switch) when 'off'. The current zeros will follow the fundamental output frequency, not the PWM carrier frequency. I agree about the low pass fileter effect and it certainly happens with the current because of the load inductance.
----------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
The voltage is important because it is an element of the race between recovery voltage and dielectric strength.
It is easy to see the motor acts as a low pass filter for current, but it's not as easy imo to see it acts as a low-pass filter with respect to voltage appearing accross the just-opened contacts (see my post 11 May 11 20:12). In the end I concluded it does act like a low pass filter simply because we do not derate the interrupting capability for PWM operation at normal frequency (if PWM spikes voltage did appear accross opening contacts, we would have to derate regardless of frequency). But I am also still interested if there is a simple explanation as to how the motor/system acts as low pass filter with respect to voltage appearing accross the just-opened contacts during the critical period after interuption.
=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
It wasn't an accusation - but the general discussion between you and jraef above appeared to be hinting that the PWM voltage output dropping to zero was advantageous when interrupting current.
If you want a quote, have a look at your post timestamped 11 May 11 19:26 which, while correct in itself, applies to a different set of conditions to those which exist in a PWM motor, something you acknowledged yourself a little later on.
----------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
I am torn between moving on and figuring out what the heck you're looking at. Hope I didn't make the wrong choice.
=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
[i]And what the heck leads you to believe it has anything to do wtih zero crossing? [i]
should've been:
[i]And what the heck leads you to believe it has anything to do wtih voltagezero crossing? [i]
Note I have talked about voltage many times in the context of return of voltage after contact opening (which is relevant), not in terms of voltage zero crossing.
=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
I had replied to this at work, but I seem to have forgotten to click 'submit'. Damn computers. So prone to user error!
If you take the post I referenced above with Jeff's post "Well, that interestingly is the gist of the argument my colleagues had actually. Like I said I don't agree based on the specifics of that application being on the PWM output of VFDs, because technically, the individual pulses are going to zero in between each one. They don't CROSS zero and go the other way, but to me, that's an irrelevant distinction. Zero is zero." I think I can explain where the misunderstanding has come from.
When you were talking about how the relationship between recovery voltage and dielectric strength changes with frequency I had interpreted that as being the difference between the behaviour at 'low' (motor output) frequency compared to the behaviour at 'high' VFD carrier frequency. I now wonder if you meant that the behaviour changes between 'low' motor output frequency and 'high' motor output frequency. If you read the posts in order and note how Jeff's comments are in between a couple of your posts you can possibly see why I picked up on VFD carrier frequency voltage zeros.
Hopefully harmony is restored to all
----------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!
RE: Contactor pole frequency limits
I do believe the carrier frequency voltage would degrade interrupting capacity if it were to appear across the contacts during interruption. Apparently, it does not appear across those due to the low pass filtering effect. The proof of the low-pass filtering effect is imo obvious for current, but not so obvious for voltage across those contacts.
=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?