4-fault detection in underground power distribution cables
TRANSCRIPT
Fault Detection in Underground Power Distribution Cables
Igor Paprotny, Richard M. White, Paul K. Wright
University of California, Berkeley
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Introduction
57,500 miles of primary distribution cable in PG&E networkcable in PG&E network.
In urban areas 70 % of the distribution network is underground
12 KV to 35 KV voltage Cables age at different rates Cable failures Cable failures
Insulation breakdown (water trees) loss of protective grounding shield (CNs)
Need to know which cables to replace first
Need for a reliable on-line CN diagnostic technique
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium2
Our Vision
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium33
Magnetic (AMR) CN Probing
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium44
Magnetic (AMR) CN Probing
Measure currents in concentric neutrals (CNs) by i ti ti fi ldsensing emanating magnetic field
Anisotropic Magnetic Resistance (AMR)M t h i b l t (10% 20%) Measure return or phase imbalance currents (10%-20%)
Detect imbalances or lack of CN current as a sign of degradationdegradation
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium5
AMR Magnetic Field Sensors
Anisotropic magnetoresistance(AMR)
Resistance depends on the Resistance depends on the orientation of the magnetic field (B-field)
Use off-the-shelf Honeywell HMC1043 sensor
Cost $9.00 in volumes of 1,000
3-axis measurement Circumferential Circumferential Radial Axial
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium6
Hot-stick Deployable System
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium7
Fabricated Fixture
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium8
Jacketed ~50 A, 100 % CN return
1.2
1.4
1.6
1 CN broken ‐ 100% return ‐ 51.4 Arms CC (near)
Circumferential
2.5
34 CN broken ‐ 100% return ‐ 51.4 Arms CC (near)
Circumferential
Axial B‐field
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Magne
tic F
ield [G
auss] Axial B‐field
Radial B‐field
1
1.5
2
Magne
tic Field [G
auss] Radial B‐field
0
0.2
0.4
0 100 200 300Angle [Deg.]
0
0.5
0 100 200 300Angle [Deg.]
Angle [Deg.]
1.2
1 CN broken ‐ 100% return ‐ 51.4 Arms CC (far)
Circumferential 2 5
3
4 CN broken ‐ 100% return ‐ 51.4 Arms CC (far)
Circumferential
0.6
0.8
1
etic Field [G
auss]
Axial B‐field
Radial B‐field
1.5
2
2.5
etic Field [G
auss]
Axial B‐field
Radial B‐field
0
0.2
0.4Magne
0
0.5
1Magn
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium9
00 100 200 300
Angle [Deg.]
0 100 200 300
Angle [Deg.]
Jacketed ~20 A, 50 % CN return
0.25
0.3
2.05
2.1
Circ.
1 CN broken ‐ 50% return ‐ 21.7 Arms CC (near)
Circumferential
Axial B‐field
Radial B‐field 1.4
1.6
1.8
irc.
4 CN broken ‐ 50% return ‐ 20.55 Arms CC (near)
0.1
0.15
0.2
1.9
1.95
2
Magne
tic Field [G
auss]
Magne
tic Field [G
auss] ‐C
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Magne
tic Field [D
eg.] ‐C
i
Circumferential
Axial B‐field
Radial B‐field
0
0.05
1.8
1.85
0 100 200 300
M
Angle [Deg.]
0
0.2
0.4
0 100 200 300
M
Angle [Deg.]Angle [Deg.]
0.3
0.35
2.1
2.151 CN broken ‐ 50% return ‐ 21.36 Arms CC (far)
Circumferential
Axial B‐field
1.6
1.8
4 CN broken ‐ 50% return ‐ 20.50 Arms CC (far)
0.15
0.2
0.25
1.9
1.95
2
2.05
tic Field [G
auss]
etic Field [G
auss] ‐C
irc.
Radial B‐field
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
gnetic Field [G
auss] Circumferential
Axial B‐field
Radial B‐field
0
0.05
0.1
1.75
1.8
1.85
0 100 200 300
Magne
t
Magne
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 100 200 300
Mag
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium10
0 00 00 300
Angle [Deg.] Angle [Deg.]
Unjacketed (near)
2.5
3
Unjacketed 1 CN broken ‐ 50 A 100% return (near)
2 5
3
Unjacketed 4 CN broken ‐ 50 A 100% return (near)
Circumferential
~50 A 100% CN
1
1.5
2
Magne
tic field [Gauss]
Circumferential
Axial B‐field
Radial B‐field
1
1.5
2
2.5
Magne
tic field [Gauss]
CircumferentialAxial B‐fieldRadial B‐field
0
0.5
0 100 200 300
Angle [Deg.]
0
0.5
0 100 200 300
Angle [Deg.]
0 83
Unjacketed 1 CN broken ‐ 20 A 50% return (near)
23
Unjacketed 1 CN broken ‐ 20 A 50% return (near)
~20 A 50% CN
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2.9
2.92
2.94
2.96
2.98
3
[Gauss]
c fie
ld [G
auss] ‐C
irc.
Circumferential
Axial B‐field
Radial B‐field
0 8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.9
2.92
2.94
2.96
2.98
field [G
auss]
ic field [Gauss] ‐C
irc.
CircumferentialAxial B‐fieldRadial B‐field
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
2.8
2.82
2.84
2.86
2.88
0 100 200 300
Magne
tic field
Magne
tic
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
2.82
2.84
2.86
2.88
0 100 200 300
Magne
tic f
Magne
ti
Angle [Deg ]
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium11
Angle [Deg.] Angle [Deg.]
Next Steps
Fabricate new magnetic field sensors Increased sensitivity to CN field Reduced susceptibility to CC field
Long-term: miniaturize and embed Miniaturize, include energy scavenging and radio for
embedding into cables or elbowsembedding into cables or elbows
Commercialization / technology transfer
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium1212
RF Test-point Injection Probing
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium1313
The Mechanism
Simplified model of a water treeCable Voltage
At V=0 voids filled with water are not connected
Ref: Hvidsten et al “Understanding Water Treeing Mechanisms in the Development of Diagnostic Test Methods
At V=0, voids filled with water are not connected
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium14
Ref: Hvidsten et. al. Understanding Water Treeing Mechanisms in the Development of Diagnostic Test Methods
The Mechanism
Simplified model of a water treeCable Voltage
At higher voltage micro channels open due to
Ref: Hvidsten et al “Understanding Water Treeing Mechanisms in the Development of Diagnostic Test Methods
At higher voltage, micro-channels open due to Maxwell Mechanical Stresses and water will penetrate the channels making electric contact
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium15
Ref: Hvidsten et. al. Understanding Water Treeing Mechanisms in the Development of Diagnostic Test Methods
RF Test-point Injection Probing
Couple an RF signal through elbow test-points Experimentally confirmed coupling grater than 1 MHz
signal
M tt ti l it f ti Measure attenuation, velocity of propagation as a function of instantaneous cable voltage.
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium16
Preliminary Results
See only minor changes in the transmitted waveform, as a function of voltage.
Results warrant further investigation
Likely no water-trees in the tested cable !
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium1717
Next Steps
Validate the method on faulty cables Validate existence of water trees on faulty cable
segments Test the technique on faulty cables under ~10 kV.q y
Commercialization / technology transfer
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium1818
Acknowledgements
Thi k t d b t f th C lif i EThis work was supported by grants from the California Energy Commission (CEC), contract numbers 500-01-43, 500-02-004 and POB219-B.
Equipment was donated or borrowed by PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, and A il tAgilent.
Special thanks the SECURE Cables Technical Advisory CommitteeSpecial thanks the SECURE Cables Technical Advisory Committee and the California Energy Commission
I. Paprotny et al. i4 Energy Symposium1919