Why POTT and not DTT?
Why POTT and not DTT?
(OP)
Why do POCOs choose to use permissive over reaching transfer trip instead of direct transfer trip for speeding up clearing on zone 2 faults?
When was the last time you drove down the highway without seeing a commercial truck hauling goods?
Download nowINTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS Come Join Us!Are you an
Engineering professional? Join Eng-Tips Forums!
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail. Posting GuidelinesJobs |
|
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
All our newer transfer trip runs on SEL's mirrored bits; bit 1 is DUTT/DT, bit 2 is POTT, and bit 3 remote drive to lockout.
The DUTT part of bit 1 is the conventional under-reaching zone 1 trip; the DT part is anything else that makes one end of the line want the other end to open for, such as breaker failure. Well understood, and easy to implement.
The POTT scheme is really more than traditional POTT since it can take advantage of the reverse block and echo capabilities in the relay logic.
The remote drive to lockout allows one end of the line to keep the other from reclosing. This can be for breaker failure, it can also allow one end of the line to reclose and if it trips it can then block the remote end from closing.
The POTT scheme does a pretty good job for nearly everything; the DUTT/DT occasionally gets there first, but the POTT scheme can't force the remote end open. If the remote end is already open, the echo logic on the POTT scheme provides high-speed coverage of the whole line, where the in-service terminal would never get a DUTT/DT signal from open end for a fault near the open end and would trip zone 2.
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
DTT can be hard to set on short lines.
With POTT sides have to see the fault for the comm. scheme to operate. One bad instrument, tech, or relay won't trip it out.
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
When I first read this thread, I thought I should use POTT as backup. But if communications are down, there is no way to send a permissive trip signal and we are back to a time delayed Zone 1.
Am I missing something that might make that backup faster when communication fails?
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
Just trip on total loss of comms. Both A and B comms will ever only be out simultaneously once. After that time they'll be scrambling to get the failed comms back in service before the other one goes out.
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
I'd written a whole lot more, it sounded really bleak, and I deleted it. I tried again. So, let's just say that no scheme is perfect. POTT is pretty darn good, but when it fails you get good stories if you dig down and get to the bottom of why it failed. I'll leave it there...
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
But for now- being a long night I will trust your experience and take your word for it.
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
But, all in all, I do like being able to have POTT on a line. It really does have a decent degree of security, but not perfect. It's not a bad way to protect a line at all.
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
POTT gets tricky when your primary configuration gets more complicated. What do you do when your Zone 2 POTT scheme sees through the low side of a tapped station? What do you do when apparent impedance seems to imply there's no way you can set your zone 2? These issues are more common than not in my experience (based on the system I've worked on). We often deploy DCB schemes because we decide it's more secure in some scenarios than a POTT setting could be, so we accept the risk of overtrip, rather than be exposed to a scenario when we don't trip in zone.
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
That seems to be a eastern interconnect vs. western interconnect thing. DCB seems common back east but is uncommon in the west while POTT is much more common in the west than in the east. Most of the Protection Engineers I know of throughout the west see DCB as a misop just waiting to happen; as we look at the quarterly misop reports it is clear that the vast majority are unnecessary trips. It seems to me that as a whole, the protection profession seems to have our thumbs firmly planted on the dependability side of the dependability-security scale. I wonder if we can ease up just a bit there and reduce the over tripping without creating a rise in the number of under trips.
I'm having a hard time trying to picture how a reasonably set zone 2 would reach through to the low side of a tapped station. When we deliberately try to reach through the necessary setting is much larger than any zone 2. On the other hand, a negative sequence line differential can respond to low side faults at tapped stations oh so easily.
Where a POTT scheme will completely fall apart is when applied on a three terminal line with outfeed. That's were for a fault on one branch, fault current would flow out of one of the other branches, through the surrounding system, and back in on the faulted branch. In that case you've got to wait for the faulted branch to trip on distance and the outfeed turn into infeed. Or just apply line differential.
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
There are plenty of line configurations in our system where you would choose DCB over POTT. There are even some configurations where you would choose DCB over an 87 relay, usually due to equipment limitations.
DCB is also the best choice to use whenever you have a PLC communications system.
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
Our system planners are aware that more than two terminals is likely to increase protection times, and decrease reliability for customers.
It's like the old joke, "Doctor it hurts when I do this. Well then don't do that".
If you are using two fibers on a line for line protection, and you lose both, there is a different problem that you need to solve. So tripping the line seems to be a good call.
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
http://peguru.com/2011/04/directional-comparison-b...
I think students leave already with a set in stone opinion.
@marks1080, do these tap substations have their own circuit breakers or circuit switchers? In theory if you have a protective device on the transformer and secure communication chasing low side faults through the line breaker is unnecessary.
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
SEL - Statistical Evaluation and Comparison of Pilot Protection Schemes
https://cdn.selinc.com/assets/Literature/Publicati...
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
For a low side fault on a tapped station (which does not have it's own line protection for the HV line its connected to) you do not want your HV line protections tripping. Now we DO use something called 'line back-up' in our tapped transformer stations, but that's a different topic and I don't want to get distracted. The goal is that any fault on the LV side of the tapped station would be cleared by an element on the low side. The only equipment in a tapped station that would trip a HV line for a fault would be a fault in the transformer. And then only because we do not use high side breakers for tapped stations. I am thinking that we typically work on stations with different configurations? Is that why I am still confused?
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
What if that fault is between the transformer secondary bushings and your first breaker? Or, What if you have a buss fault with a stuck MV transformer breaker?
And no need to apologize, I am sure I am stating/asking things a bit skewed on my part.
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?
You're absolutely right, a transformer fault would send a TT signal to trip the line. I've never looked at that as being a 'line protection' though... which it technically is. I think my confusion was more a matter of semantics. Thanks for the info!
RE: Why POTT and not DTT?