0% found this document useful (0 votes)
575 views46 pagesANSI DAPPER Fault Comparison
ansi
Uploaded by
Ryan Anthony UmaliCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
575 views46 pagesANSI DAPPER Fault Comparison
ansi
Uploaded by
Ryan Anthony UmaliCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 46
Comparison of Calculation Procedures
for Fault Analysis
Complex Network Methods (Ohms Law)
VS.
ANSI/IEEE Stantiards (ANS! 637.010, C37.5 and €37.13)
Prepared by SKM Systems Analysis, inc. for the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Industry Application Society Comparison of Calculation Procedures
for Fault Analysis
vs.
ANSI/IEEE Standards (ANSI €37.010, €37.5 and €37.13)
Prepared by SKM Systems Analysis, Inc. for the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Industry Application Society
There are three ANSVIEEE standards which apply to the calculation of fault current
values which are used for the ratings of equipment used in electrical power systems.
1, ANSIC37.13 Applies to low voltage equipment.
2. ANSIC37.5 Medium and High Voltage equipment total current rated.
3. ANSIC37.010 Medium and High Voltage equipment symmetrical rated.
The current values calculated by these standards are described as currents for the
rating of the equipment. This rating current is different from the prospective fault
current which could flow through equipment during a faulted condition.
The prerequisites to understanding ANSI calculation procedures are (1) knowledge
of the complex solution methodology (Ohms Law solution) and (2) use of per unit
analysis techniques.
These notes include three phase analysis technique only. The standards require
analysis of both the three phase and the single line to ground networks.
Understanding of the three phase solution in this paper will fully demonstrate ANSI
procedure. Comparison of Calculation Procedures for Fault Analysis
Revision Record
Date Beserintion
5/88 Initial publication
6/95 Updated and reprinted
6/21/95 2 Complex Network Methods vs. ANSI/IEEE Standards
Table of Contents
10 Per Unit Terminology. ct
20 — Three Phase Fault Calculations: Complex Network Solution Methods__.____6
21 = Sample Calculations for Complex Network Solutions... g
3.0 ANSI Solution Methods
3.1 Calculation of Fault Contribution impedances for ANSE Analysis... me 1S
3.2 Senarate Network Reduction. 16
33 T
34 18
3.5 The interrupting Symmetrical Current. 18
3.6 Local and Remote Contributions for Asymmetrical Currents 18
37 LowVoltage Solution Methodology——_____________ ag
40 Applicable Standards. 25
Al Modeling the ANSI Decrement Curves. 26
Bi
Comparison Between Ohms Law and AMS! Fautt Current Calculation Methods _.42
3 IEEEVIAS Comparison of Calculation Procedures for Fault Analysis
This page left blank.
6/21/95 4 Complex Network Methods vs. ANSI/IEEE Standards
10
‘Unit Terminology
Per unit analysis is a method by which all of the system impedance values are
normalized to a common base power usually expressed in KVA or in MVA. The
system impedance values include the impedance of cables, overhead lines,
transformers and sources of fault currents.
Network reduction methods are simplified by the use of per unit analysis, because
(1) the transformer turns ratios may be ignored, (2) the impedance values of series
circuits at different voltage levels can be added directly and (3) the admittance
values of parallel circuits can likewise be added directly. Therefore, the Thevenin
equivalent impedance at each point in the circuit can be determined more easily
using per unit analysis (as opposed to using values in ohms).
It is assumed at this point that the engineer is familiar with per unit calculation
procedures. The following Equations are presented as an aid in using per unit
methods, Keep in mind that all impedance terms are in complex vector notation.
For utility contributions: —Z PU (kVAbase)/(kVAsource)
For motor contributions: Z PU Zm x (kVAbase)(KVAmotor)
For feeders: ZPU (24 x kVAbase)!{(KVi) x 1000]
where Z{ = R+jX feeder impedance in ohms
and Zm = Rmachine + Xd" (sub transient reactance)
For transformers: ZPU = (tr x KVAbase)/(100 x kVAtr)
where Zu% = Transformer % Z
To find fault current: He = (1 PU Voltage/2Thevenin) * base
where Ibase = (kVAbase)/(KVIl x 1.732 x 1000)
and KVj|__ = line to line voltage (in thousands)
These Equations permit the direct addition of series impedance values to find the
total impedance at any fault location. Parallel impedance can be calculated by the
direct addition of admittance (1/Z) of the parallel branches. By knowing the
Thevenin impedance value at the fault location, the fault current can be calculated.
5 IEEEVAS Comparison of Calculation Procedures for Fault Analysis
2.0 Three Phase Fault Calculations: Complex Network Solution Method:
Complex network solutions are best described as Ohms law solutions. The results
of this solution present the best method of determination of the prospective
symmetrical fault currents which may flow in the power system immediately after the
fault. To solve for fault currents using this method, the use of complex numbers is
required for analysis. A network reduction of the power system is required at each
point in the system where fault current values are calculated.
Network reduction requires that a Thevenin equivalent circuit of the power system be
generated which represents the series and parallel paths between the faulted bus
location and the sources of the fault currents. Figure 1 illustrates a simple radial
power system.
lity
00 MVA, X/R = 7
Bus Ky
TS MVA
= 0.3825
X%= 5.7373,
J Bus? 13.8KV
Fr =#1.500ft F2= #2, 500 ft
Generator
T2= 1000KVA BMVA, Xa" = 0.19
R= 0.9864 XIR = 30
x = 59184
Bus 3 480
+
Induction Motor
750 HP, Xo! = 0.25
RPM = 1800. X/R = 20
Figure 1. Sample one line diagram. Complex Network Methods vs. ANSIIEEE Standards
For faults at Bus 1, Bus 2 and Bus 3, the one line diagram reduces to the equivalent
circuits shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4 respectively. Note that the equivalent circuits
are considerably different for determination of the fault currents in each case.
Figure 2. Equivalent network for a fault at Bus 1
Figure 3. Equivalent network for a fault at Bus 2.
7 IEEEIAS Comparison of Calculation Procedures for Fault Analysis
Figure 4. Equivalent network for a fault at Bus 3.
To calculate the fault currents in each case, the network is reduced by first
combining the series branch elements and then combining the parallel branch
elements to obtain a Thevenin equivalent circuit, Having calculated the Thevenin
equivalent impedance of the power system at the faulted bus, the fault current is
then calculated.
24 Sample Calculations for Complex Network Sotutions
‘Step t Calculate the Per Unit impedance Values
Calculate the per unit impedance of each element. Assume a 100 MVA base. Use
the subtransient reactances of the motors and the generator to determine the
maximum three phase symmetrical values.
Utility contribution
Z utility = KVAbase / kVAsource
100,000 / 400,000
0.25 per unit
Given: XR = 7
then: 6 Are Tan(X/R)
Xperunit = Zutility *Sine
= 0.24749 per unit
Rperunit = Zutiity *Cos@
= 0.08536 per unit
6/21/95, 8 Complex Network Methods vs. ANSV/IEEE Standards
750 HP Induction Machine
Zmachine = 2m“ kVAbase/kVAmotor
Assuming 1 hp = 1 KVA then
Xperunit = — Xd" *kVAbase/KVAmotor
= 0.250 * (100,000/750)
= 33.9333 per unit
Since WR = 20
Rperunit = — Xd"/(X/R)* kVAbase/kVAmotor
= (0.25/20)* (100,000/750)
= 1.66666 per unit
5 MVA Generator
Zmachine = Zm * KVAbase/kVAgenerator
X per unit Xa" * kVAbase/kVAgenerator
0.100 * (100,000/5000)
= 2.00000 per unit
Rperunit = — Xq*/(X/R) * kVAbase/KVAgenerator
(0.100 / 30) * (100,000/5000)
0.06667 per unit
5 MVA Transformer
zPeu = (Zire x KVAbase)/(100 x KVAt?)
Xperunit = 5.7373 * (100,000/(100 * 5000))
= 1.14745 per unit
Rperunit = 0.3825 * (100,000/(100 * 5000))
= 0.07650 per unit
1000 kVA Transformer
ZPU = (Ztr9% x KVAbase)/(100 x KVAtr)
IEEEWAS. Comparison of Calculation Procedures for Fault Analysis
X per unit
R per unit
Feeder #1
ZPU =
R Ohms/1000 ft
X Ohms/1000 ft
X per unit
R per unit
Feeder #2
ZPU =
R Ohms/1000 ft
X Ohms/1000 ft
X per unit
R per unit
5.9184 * (100,000/(100 * 1000))
5.9184 per unit
0.9864 * (100,000/(100 * 1000)
0.9864 per unit
Zp * kVApase/(kViI2 * 1000)
0.1600 2
0.0540 2
(600 #t/1000) * 0.0540 * 100,000/ (13.82 * 1000)
0.01418 per unit
(600 #1000) * 0.1600 * 100,000/ (13.82 * 1000)
0.04201 per unit
Zt* kVAbase/({kVII2 * 1000)
Summary of impedance values
6/21/95.
Element
Zutility
Zmotor
Zgen
ZTR1
ZTR2
ZFdr1
ZFdr2
0.2020 2
0.0547 2
(300 f¥/1000) * 0.0547 * 100,000/ (13.82 * 1000)
0.00862 per unit
(300 f¥71000) * 0.2020 * 100,000/ (13.82 * 1000)
0.03182 per unit
R per unit X per unit
0.03536 j 0.24749
1.66666 | 33.3333
0.06666 —_j 2,00000
0.07650 j 1.14745
0.98639 5.91836
0.04201 j 0.01418
0.03182 j 0.00862
10 Complex Network Methods vs. ANSI/IEEE Standards.
Combine the series impedances shown in Figure 3. The equivalent circuit after
combining the series impedances is shown in Figure 5.
Zutiity +247
2gen + Ztdr2
2+ Zfar)
Figure 5. Combining the series impedances of Figure 3 for a fault at Bus 2.
Now combine the parallel impedances of Figure 5 to determine the Thevenin
equivalent impedance illustrated in Figure 6. (The details of combining the parallel
impedance values is left to the reader).
ZThevenin = 0.05435 + j0.80650 per unit
Zihevenin Equivalent
Bus 2
cuit for power system ai Bus
Figure 6. thevenin equivalent
Sten 3: Calculate the Three Phase Fault Current
base = 100,000/ (13.8 * 1.732)
= 4183.8 Amps
Ye = (1.0/ZThevenin) * !base
4183.8/0.8083
176 Amps (at 1 PU driving voltage)
W IEEEVAS, Comparison of Calculation Procedures for Fault Analysis
XR = 0.8065/0.05435
= 14.84
The above values represent the three phase symmetrical fault current which flows in
the power system at the time the fault is initiated.
Editors Note: A number of simplifying methods are often used to avoid the network reduction
illustrated herein. The most common simplification is to simply lump all fault contributions into a
single contribution at the point of the utility service and then fo use a simple series circuit between the
utility source and the fauited bus. it can be shown that this solution method can resuit in serious
errors. A.20 percent error fora simple three bus problem is not uncommon.
‘Step 4: Calculate the Asymmetrical Fault Currents
Depending on the exact instant the fault occurs, the initial fault current can be offset
from the symmetrical fault current waveshape. This offset is referred to as the
asymmetrical fault current.
After the fault is initiated, the magnetic fields of the plant rotating machinery will
begin to collapse and after a few cycles will result in the rotating machinery ceasing
to contribute to the fault. On the other hand, it is assumed that the utility network
contribution will continue to contribute for an indefinite period of time. In addition to
the decay of the contributions to the fault associated with rotating machinery, the
power system itself causes a decay due to the time constant (X/R) in the system
impedances.
At one half cycle, the current that flows is called the momentary fault current. in the
newer standards, this is also referred to as the closing and latching current. The
momentary fault current is an asymmetrical fault current composed of both an ac
decrement and a de offset. The ac decrement is due to the collapsing magnetic field
of local generation and motors. The de offset is due to the dramatic change in X/R
ratio (network time constant) pre- and post- fault time. At latter moments of time,
say 3 cycles latter, the fault current is identified also as an asymmetrical fault current
associated with protective device interruption. If all of the contributions are utility (or
remote) type contributions, then the asymmetrical fault current reaches a steady
state value equal to the symmetrical fault current calculated in Step 3.
A rigorous analysis to calculate the momentary and interrupting fault currents
Tequires the use of transient analysis solution techniques to accurately determine the
values. Transient analysis is beyond the realm of practical long hand solution
techniques. There is hope however.
For power systems with an X/R ratio of less than 15, and where most of the fault
contributions are from the utility source, it can be shown that the decay of rotating
machinery can be neglected and the system decay (e.g. the dc offset) need only can
be considered to calculate the momentary and interrupting fault currents. Using the
equivalsnt circuit in Figure 6, the transient conditions are described by Equation 1
6/21/95, 12 Complex Network Methods vs. ANSVIEEE Standards
ise (RL Vmax/Z sin[¢ - tan-1(oL/R)] +
(Vmax/Z) sin{ot+ 9 - tan -10/R)] Eq. (1)
where o = 2nt
© = time in cycles
t = time in seconds
Vmax = peak voltage
The first part of this Equation represents the transient or offset conditions that exist
at the beginning of the fault. It can be seen that this term goes to zero in a very
short time for low values of X/R. If
[@ -tan-1(X/R)] = (1+ 2n) /2 where n= 0, 1, 2,.
the transient term will have a maximum value.
The second part of the Equation is the steady state solution; the current lags the
voltage by:
@ =tan"1QUR)
The addition of the results of part one and part two of Equation 1, at a time of one-
half cycle after the fault, is the momentary fault current; evaluating the Equation at 3,
5, and 8 hertz provides the asymmetrical current values.
Equation 1 reduces to Equation 2 for the worst case condilions (the sine terms have
@ maximum value of 1.0). Keep in mind, that the current here is the instantaneous
current and not the rms (root mean square) current.
e@ (RLY Vmay/Z + Vmax!/Z Eq.(2)
Rewriting this equation in a different form further simplifies the solution.
Asymmetrical rms Amps = rms symm Amps * [1 + 2e-4nC/QWR))I°-5 Eq. (3)
where C=value in cycles.
For the momentary current, a value of C = 0.5 is used, for a three cycle value, C =
3.0 is used.
This solution method assumes that all of the impedance elements remain constant
during the period which is used to caloulate the transient conditions, and that the
source voltage is a constant one per unit.
13 IEEEVAS Comparison of Calculation Procedures for Fault Analysis
Computer analysis has shown that the use of Equation 3 provides conservative
results when compared to the results of a transient analysis solution. The results of
Equation 3 is very representative of the asymmetrical currents which flow in a power
system with an X/R of less than 15. Most industrial and commercial power systems
fall within this category. For power systems with large local generation, the system
X/R may exceed this value close to the generation. Inasmuch as transformers have
XUR ratios in the range of 6 to 15 and the X/R values of cabled conductors are less
than 2 and often less than 1, the X/R of the industrial/commercial power system is
normally less than 15.
At Bus 2, Equation 3 is solved to calculate the momentary and interrupting fault
currents.
At Bus 2: Momentary fault current (1/2 cycle) 7865 Amps
3 cycle asymmetrical current 5568 Amps
5 cycle asymmetrical current 5250 Amps
8 cycle asymmetrical current = 5182 Amps
The symmetrical rms fault current was calculated at 5176 Amps. Since
instantaneous trip devices are subject to momentary currents, the aforementioned
momentary value would be used for setting these devices.
Notice: Although these values are very representative of the theoretical momentary
and asymmetrical fault current that flow during the fault, these are not the values use
for comparison to the momentary and asymmetrical ratings of medium and high
voltage equipment. The American National Standards Institute test procedures vary
from the theoretical solution, and since the equipment ratings are established on
these test standards, then these practical assumptions must be used when
specifying electrical apparatus. To determine the equipment ratings, ANSI solution
methods must be used,
‘As shown in the previous sections, calculation of fault currents requires the
extensive use of network reduction techniques and the use of complex numbers.
Although ANSI standards reduce the amount of complex number calculations, other
factors increase the complexity of solution. ANSI standards require separate network
reductions for the Rand the X networks. The calculation procedures require that
calculation of the on-site (e.g. local) generation contributions and utility (e.g. remote)
contributions be kept separate from the motor fault contributions. Additionally, ANSI
requires that different impedance values be used for the low voltage, the
momentary, and the asymmetrical analysis.
6/21/95 14 Compiex Network Methods vs. ANSI/EEE Standards
The IEEE Red Book offers some small degree of help. The Red Book permits the
low voltage network impedances to be the same as the momentary or closing and
latching network impedances.
3.1 Calcul
of Fault Contribution impedances for ANSI Analysis
The differences between the low voltage, the momentary and the interrupting
networks are caused by the method by which the impedances of the fault
contributions are calculated, and by the requirements of the low voltage standard to
include all motor contributions, while the momentary and asymmetrical standards
permit the exclusion of induction motors below 50 horsepower.
Table 1 illustrates fault source impedance multipliers by which fault contribution
impedances for ANSI analysis
The results of using these fault source impedance multipliers in the sample problem
(Figure 1) is illustrated in Table 2. The low voltage values in the table are the same
values used in the complex network solution. The impedance values used for
transformers and feeders are the same in all networks.
Impedance Networks
Contribution Type LV Studies, Momentary Asymmetrical
Utilities 1.0 Xd" 1.0 Xa" 1.0 Xa"
Synchronous motors 1.0 Xq" 1.0 Xa" 15 Xa"
Generators 1.0 X¢" 1.0Xa" 1.0 Xa"
Induction motors
[Above 1000 hp at
100 rpm or less 1.0 X¢" 1.0 Xa" 1.5 Xd"
‘Above 250 hp at
‘3600 rpm, 1.0 Xa 1.0 Xd" 1.5 Xa"
From 50 -1000 hp
at 1800 rpm or less 1.0Xa" 1.2Xa" 3.0 Xa"
from 50 to 250 hp
Jat 3600 rpm 1.0Xq" 1.2Xd" 3.0 Xa
Below 50 hp 1.0 X¢" excluded excluded
Table 1. Fault source impedance multipliers.
15 IEEEVAS. Comparison of Calculation Procedures for Fault Analysis
Element Low Voltage Study Momentary Study Asymmetrical Study
Rperunit Xperunit Rperunit Xperunit Rperunit X per unit
Zutility 0.03536 {0.24749 0.03536 j0.24749 0.03536 = j 0.24749.
Zmotor 1.66666 | 33.3333 2.00000 j 40.0000 5.00000 jj 100.000
Zgen 0.06666 2.00000 0.06666 2.00000 0.06666 2.00000
ZTR1 0.07650 {1.14745 0.07650 {1.14745 0.07650 = j 1.14745
ZTR2 0.98639 [5.91836 0.98639 [5.91836 0.98639 5.91836
ZFdr1 0.04201 0.01418 0.04201 0.01418 0.04201 =} 0.01418
ZFdr2 0.03182 j 0.00862 0.03182 [0.00862 0.03182 j 0.00862
Table 2. Impedance values for ANS! solution,
3.2 Separate Network Reduction
ANSI standards permit the engineer to calculate the momentary and interrupting
fault currents based on the E/X solution (e.g., ignore resistance) method or the E/Z
solution method. In both cases, the X/R ratio caloulated at the fault location is
determined by the separated reduction of the resistance and the reactance
networks, Figure 7 illustrates the separate networks for a fault at Bus 2.
The circuits in Figure 7 ate solved for the closing and latching (momentary) system
impedances and for the interrupting duty impedances. (The low voltage solution is
not required since the voltage at Bus 2 is greater than 1000 volts.) Although the
standards permit the solution of the fault duty using E/X, the results will be very
conservative since all of the resistance of the network is neglected. The following
results are based on a more realistic E/Z solution.
6/21/95, 16 Complex Network Methods vs. ANSI/IEEE Standards
Rutty Rte
Regen Rar?
The resistance network
Xutity Xt
Xgen — Xtor?
‘The reactance network
Figure 7. Separate resistance and reactance networks.
3.3 Momentary Symmetrical Current
Using the momentary impedance values shown in Table 2, the impedance networks
of Figure 7 are solved for a fault at Bus 2.
‘The initial symmetrical fault current: 5160 rms amperes
The Thevenin impedance: R: 0.05451 X: 0.80892 per unit
The X/R ratio: 15.71
Note that the symmetrical fault current calculated using the ANSI procedure is
slightly less that the value calculated by the complex network solution, and that the
YR ratio is also different. In this case, the value of X/R calculated by the separate
reduction is close to the value for the complex network (14.84). It would be incorrect
to assume that this will always be true. In some cases, the separate network
7 IEEEMAS Comparison of Calculation Procedures for Fault Analysis
reduction will result in X/R values two times larger than the value calculated by
complex network reduction methods,
3.4 Closing and Latching or Momentary Rating Calculation
ANSI permits the engineer to multiply the initial symmetrical rms current by a factor
of 1.6 to determine a momentary rating value. This is an approximation however;
the standards permit a more precise calculation procedure. Since the momentary
current occurs at 0.5 cycles after the initiation of the fault, Equation 3 may be used to
determine a more realistic value of the momentary current, The 1.6 factor comes
from Equation 3 using C = 0.5 and X/R = 25.0.
Momentary Rating: Symmetrical * 1.6 = 8256 amps
Calculated (Eq. 3) = 7895 amps
The lower of the two momentary values above may be used to specify the
equipment. The momentary rating is the closing and latching value that the
equipment must withstand if the breaker or switch is closed in on a fault
IEEE Std 141-1999 cites C37.010 and C37.06 as requiring medium and high voltage
protective devices to be rated not only in the closing and latching rms current, but
also their peak or crest current. This is calculated to be no greater than v2 time the
mms value at a system X/R ratio of 25. This peak or crest value is the preferred
rating since 1987
3.5 The Interrupting Symmetrical Current
Using the asymmetrical impedance values in Table 2, the interrupting fault current is
catculated.
The total symmetrical fault current: 5109 rms amperes
The Thevenin impedances: R: 0.05498 X: 0.81706 per unit
The X/R ratio: 15.73
3.6 Local and Remote Contributions for Asymmetrical Currents
Now the problem gets interesting. ANSI recognizes two types of decay in the power
system: acide decay and de decay only.
The ac decay of motors have been accounted for by the changed values of
impedance used for the asymmetrical network (Table 2) and it is assumed that the
utility is not subject to ac decay. The net result is that the induction (and
synchronous) motors and the utility are subject to dc decay only.
6/21/95 18 ‘Complex Network Methods vs. ANSI/IEEE Standards
Local generation is a different issue. ANSI states that if there are two or more
transformers between the generator and the faulted bus, or the reactance of the
system is greater than 1.5 times the reactance (Xq"} of the generator, then the
generator is considered as a remote contribution and is not subject to ac decay.
Under these conditions, the generator contribution is subject to de only decay
(Remote soures).
But, if there is only one transformer between each generator faulted bus location, or
the network reactance between each generator compared to each faulted bus
location is less than 1.5 times the subtransient reactance of the generator, then the
generator is subject to both ac and de decay. Under these conditions, the generator
is considered to be a local source. Only generators are classified as remote or local.
Many computer algorithms use the 1.5 times the generator sublransient reactance
criteria for determining the remote/locat criteria
In the sample problem, the branch current from the generator is easily calculated. In
more complex systems it will be necessary to break the problem into multiple
networks. The first network would consist of the contributions from the utility
sources and the other non-generator sources. Then, for each of the generators in
the system, a separate network would be constructed. Each of the networks would
be solved to determine the magnitude of the currents from the generators and other
sources. This can be a very time consuming process to complete long-hand, but is
required for complete analysis.
Having calculated the total fault duty at the faulted bus, and the magnitude of the
individual fault contributions, ANSI provides figures which are used to calculate the
interrupting rating of equipment. Given an X/R ratio of separately reduced systems,
and if the generator contribution is local or remote, a multiplying factor is determined;
that factor is multiplied by the symmetrical current to determine the asymmetrical
rating.
ANSI permits several options at this point. (1) Predominate sources, (2) All Remote
sources and (3) Interpolated sources. These options refer to the determination of
which of the ANSI look-up figures to be used for determining the multiplying factors
used to calculate the asymmetrical currents.
Predominate Local or Remote Generation Method
This method requires that the magnitude of the generator fault contributions be
evaluated based on the local or remote status. If more than 50 percent of the
generator contribution is from local generation, then the ac/dc curves are used. If
less than 50 percent of the generation contribution is local, then the de only curve is
used.
19 IEEEVAS Comparison of Calculation Procedures for Fault Analysis
In the sample problem, the local generation is 2.080 kA and the remote generation is
2.990 kA. Using the predominate interpretation, the de decay only curve is used for
determination of the asymmetrical factors.
The C375 standard provides figures which will result in solutions for equipment
based on the total current rating basis. Fig 3 of the C37.5 standard is used to
determine the multiplying factors for equipment (breakers) operating at different
speeds. This standard is used for protective devices made prior to 1965.
Using the X/R value = 15.73, the multiplying factors and the asymmetrical current
ratings are as follows
Total rated equipment (C37.5)
Total 2 Total 3 Total 5 Total 8
Mult. Factor: 1,347 1.169 1.078 1.027
Duty (A) 6.883 5.974 5.498 5.248
The terms Total 2, Total 3, Total 5, and Total 8, refers to the speed of the breakers.
Under this standard, as the breaker opening time increases, the rating of the breaker
is decreasing. Since the fault current is decreasing as a function of time, this follows
our intuitive logic about the decay of fault currents.
The C37.5 standard has been updated by C37.010. The C37.010 standard covers
‘equipment ratings on a symmetrical basis. Equipment manufactured after 1964 is
based on this updated standard.
Using the de decay figure for three phase faults in the C37.010 standard (Fig 10),
‘the multiplying factors are as follows:
sym 2 Sym 3 Sym5 Sym
Mult. Factor: 1.000 1.000 1.007 1.050,
Duty (kA): 5.109 5,109 5.145, 5.367
Here, Sym 2, 3, 5, and 8 refer again to the operating time of the breaker, Since the
XIR ratio is low, the multiplying factors for caiculation of the asymmetrical currents.
are near the value of 1.0. But note, the multiplying factor for the five cycle breaker
is greater than 1, and the factor for the eight cycle breaker is greater the factor for
the five cycle breaker.
This increasing of the asymmetrical rating for slower rated breakers which open
under lower values of asymmetrical current does not follow our intuitive
understanding of asymmetrical decay. The C37.010 standard makes no justification
for these values, but it can be speculated that the standard is attempting to account
for the fact that the eight cycle breaker takes four cycles to clear the fault, while the
five cycle breaker takes three cycles.
6/21/95 20 Complex Network Methods vs. ANSI/IEEE Standards
Note: The ANSI figures have been recreated, enlarged and are shown in the
appendix of these notes.
Remote Only Method
A conservative approach to the standards is to consider ail generation to be Remote.
Under this method, the dc decay curves of the C37.5 and the C37.010 standard are
used, This impacts the interrupting duty evaluations only, and will result in
conservatively high results.
In the sample problem at Bus 2 there is no change in the results by treating all
sources as remote, since the predominate source was remote in that case.
For three phase faults, Fig 3 of the C37.5 standard is used for all remote sources
and Fig 10 in the C37.010 standard is used for remote sources.
Interpolated Sources Interpolation
An alternative to the use of the predominate or the all remote method is to use a
combination of the local and remote figures for calculation of the asymmetrical
ratings. Using this method, the ac/dc decay of generators is properly modeled, and
the de decay only of the utility sources is also properly modeled.
The ratio of the total remote source generation to the total fault duty is defined as the
NACD (No ac Decay) ratio, To calculate the NACD ratio, the total amount of remote
generation (including utility contributions) is first calculated and then divided by the
total fault duty at the bus.
In the sample problem, the total utility remote generation is 2.990 kA which can be
calculated as the fault duty in the branch from the utility source. The total fault duty
at the faulted bus is 5.109 kA.
NACD 2990 / 5109
0.5852
Now using Fig 8 of the C37.010 standard for ac/dc decay and a value the total
asymmetrical fault contribution from the local source can be estimated at 1.00; from
Fig 10 of the C37.010 standard, the remote source contribution factor is 1,007.
Although in power systems with large amounts of induction motor contributions, the
actual asymmetrical current that flows at 5 and 8 cycles may be less than the
calculated symmetrical current (thus a multiplier less than 1), the figures in the
standards indicate the lowest multiplying factor that may be used is 1.0.
21 IEEEVAS, Comparison of Calculation Procedures for Fault Analysis
The interpolated value between the curves is equal to
MF acide factor + (de factor - ac/dc factor) * NACD
1.000 + (1.007 - 1.000) * 0.5852
1.004
The five cycle breaker asymmetrical rating would then be:
Rating= —_lasym sym fault current * MF
5109 * 1.004
= 5130 amps
A similar approach to interpolating between the ac/dc and de only curves of the
C37.5 standard may also be used. In this example, the value of the asymmetrical
current is close to the symmetrical current. As the system X/R increases, a
significant difference between the two values will be observed,
tem Complex Momentary Asym C37.010 — Asym C37.5
Solution Both Standards Sym. Rating Total Rating
Pred. Interp. Pred Interp.
Sym. Current 5176 5160 5109 5109 5109 5109
XR 14.84 18.7 15.73 15.73 15.73 15.73
Momentary 7865 8256 (@1.6x)
7895 (Calc.)
3 cycle 5568 5109 5109 5974 5898
5 cycle 5250 5145 5130 5498 5396
8 cycle 5182 8867 5260 5248 5192
Table 3. Comparison of solution methods.
Table 3 illustrates the differences between the solution methods. In the columns
labeled C37.010 and C37.5, "Pred” refers to the use of the ANSI predominate
method and “Interp" refers to the use of the ANSI interpolation method between the
acide and de only curves.
it is dangerous to extrapolate general conclusions from this data. Due to the
separate resistance and reactance network reduction techniques of ANSI, the
YR values of the complex network solution and the ANSI solutions may vary
considerably. The final ANSI values for momentary and asymmetrical current
ratings is highly dependent on the X/R values.
inasmuch as ANSI requires interpretation and permits several solution methods to
be used, which one is correct? The conservative approach is to use the method
which results in the most conservative results. In all cases, the basis of the
equipment rating tests determines which standard must be applied
6/21/95 22 Complex Network Methods vs. ANSIIEEE Standards
Note that the complex solution method calculates the current that flows at the each
cycle noted above. A five cycle breaker begins to open at 3 cycles. Be careful not
compare five cycles of a complex solution to the five cycle rating of ANSI
37 Low Voltage Solution Methodology
ANSI C3713 applies to low voltage protective devices. This standard uses the
same impedance network as the complex network solution method. The source
contributions are based on 100 percent of all sources contributing to the fault. The
induction machines are not decremented. This standard requires that all
contributions, regardless of the size be included. Under this standard, motors less
than 50 horsepower are included.
The standard does not specifically require the separate reduction of the resistance
and reactance networks. If the application engineer elects, the complex network
solution method or the separate network reduction method may be used.
For a fault at Bus 3 in the sample problem the equivalent circuit of Figure 4 is solved.
If the circult is reduced using the separate network reduction method, then the
results of the study will indicate the following:
Avaliable symmetrical fault current
System X/R ratio
Thevenin Equivalent Circuit
21165 rms amperes
8.57
.0018 + j0.013 Ohms
The standard requires that the fault values should be modified for power factor
considerations.
For un-fused circuit breakers, if the X/R ratio is greater than 6.6 then the breaker
must be derated, For fused circuit breakers, if the X/R ratio is greater than 4.9 then
the fused breakers must be derated. In addition, for fused circuit breakers, if the
available short circuit rating approaches 80% of the breaker short circuit current
rating, there may be other considerations.
For fused breakers within 80% of their ratings the engineer should derate the
breakers if (1) there is local generation at circuit breaker voltages in unit sizes
greater than 500 kVA, (2) if there are gas-filled and dry transformers in sizes 1000
KVA and above or 2500 KVA and above for all types of transformers, (3) network
systems, (4) transformer impedances higher than those specified in ANS! C57
standard, (§) current limiting reactors at the circuit breaker voltage in the source
circuits and (6) current limiting busway at circuit breaker source circuits. — Under
these conditions, the breaker should be derated by use of the multiplying factor in
Table 3 of the 037.13 standard. The factors of this table are illustrated in Table 4
below.
23 IEEEVIAS Comparison of Calculation Procedures for Fault Analysis
‘System Short Circuit ‘Multiplying Factor for
Power Factor System Calculated Short Circuit Current
Percent XR Ratio (i) @Q
20 49 1.00 1.00
15, 66 1.00 1.07
12 8.27 1.04 414
10 9.95 1.07 1.15
85 11.72 1.09 1.48
7 14.25 111 121
5 20.0 1.18 1.25
(1) Factors for un-fused circuit breakers.
(2) Factor for fused circuit breakers.
Table 4. Selection of low voltage multiplying factors (ANSI C37.13; Table 3)
Technical papers on application of this standard have taken this table further.
Depending on the test power factor of the breaker (usually determined by the type of
breaker and size), a value of interrupting current can be calculated directly from the
symmetrical fault current and the system X/R ratio.
Breaker Type
Power circuit breaker 15%
Molded case circuit breaker of 20 kA 20%
Molded case circuit breaker, 10 - 20 kA 30%
Molded case circuit breaker, 0 - 10 kA 50%
Table 5. Low voltage circuit breaker design power factors.
The low voltage factor is calculated by the following equation:
LVF = [14 e(#/X/R))] / [14 ef-n/K)]
where K = Tan (Cos ~t (PF))
Solving these equations for the breaker ratings at Bus 3, we find that the value of
symmetrical current does not provide sufficient results to compare to the breaker
rating, :
Calculated symmetrical current = 21165 amps
For Power circuit breakers LVF = 1.0445
Required rating 22107 amps
For Molded Case breakers > 20kA = LVF 1.1080
Required rating 28472 amps
6/21/95, 24 Complex Network Methods vs. ANSI/IEEE Standards
Clearly, the application of standard 22,000 amp rated breakers will not be sufficient
to meet the requirements of the standard.
Many other factors may affect the specification of the low voltage breakers. Some of
these factors include the altitude correction, service conditions, and repetitive duty
operations.
40 Applicable Standards
Additional Standards which may apply to the specification of low voltage, medium
and high voltage equipment include:
37.43 37.44
C37.48a —C37.50
C37.63 037.66
C37.93 037.95
37.100
37.45
037.51
37.85
C37.96
C37.46,
C3752
37.90
37.97
25
037.47
637.60
37.902
37.98
037.48
037.61
37.91
37.99
IEEEVAS: Comparison of Calculation Procedures for Fault Analysis
This page left blank
6/21/95, 26 Complex Network Methods vs. ANSI/EEE Standards
A.1 Modeling the ANSI Decrement Curves
The published ANS! figures used for determining the decrement factors are, at best,
difficult to read. To create the following information, the published curves were
photographically enlarged and data points interpolated. These data points were
then entered into a graphic utility program and the interpolated points plotted. The
graphic utility program permitted the output curves to be scaled to the same size as
the enlarged curves taken from the standard. The interpolated curves were then
compared directly with the published curves. The interpolated results agreed with
the published curves, This method was used to certify the program decrement
curves with the standard.
Figure A-1, Figure A-2, and Figure A-3 represent the decrement curves used by the
037.5 standard, Figure A-4 through Figure A-15 represent the decrement curves
used by the C37.010 standard. In Figure A-4 through Figure A-15, the decrements
curves corresponding to the breaker contact parting time are shown. The decrement
curves for contact patting at other than 1.5, 2, 3, and 4 cycles are not shown as they
are not required for solution
It should be noted that the ac/dc decrement curves published by ANSI C37.010
‘occasionally result in multiplying factors which do not always follow the engineer's
intuitive understanding of decrement factors and asymmetrical current flow. For
example, careful examination of the symmetrical standard for three phase faults with
local effects indicates multiplying factors for a five cycle breaker (3 cycle parting
time) at a value of X/R = 60 will result in a multiplying factor of 1.167. With the same
XR value, an eight cycle breaker (4 cycle parting time) will have a multiplying factor
of 1.180. Although the eight cycle breaker opens under a lower asymmetrical
current, the breaker takes fonger for contact parting, thus a higher asymmetrical
rating requirement.
Examination of the de decrement curves (remote sources) further illustrates that the
intuitive understanding of asymmetrical current values does not correspond to
asymmetrical ratings calculated by the C37.010 standard. For example,
examination of a system with a X/R ratio of 30, the multiplying factors increase for
slower operating breakers.
Engineering judgment must be used at all times in application of the results of
A_FAULT solutions and DAPPER solutions (Ohms Law) in specification of
equipment.
For all of the following drawings, the horizontal axis is the X/R ratio based on the
separate reduction of the R and X networks. The vertical axis represent the ANSI
multiplying factors.
a7 IEEEVAS Comparison of Calculation Procedures for Fault Analysis
150
140
130
120
119
100
3c
80
7
60
20
40
30
Ed
10
6/21/95,
3H
2 Hz
1 HZ
CONTACT PARTING OF
| B-cycle oreaxer
at
S-cycle oreaxer
y 3-tytle vreaker
<—T acycte preaker
Figure A-1. 37.5 Three phase ac/dc decrement curves.
28 150
140
130
120
110
100
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
‘Complex Network Methods vs. ANSIEEE Standards
CONTACT PARTING OF
yele breaker
+ S-cycle breaker
}- 3-cycle breaker
+ 2-cycle breaker
tod
Figure A-2, C37.5 Single line to ground ac/dc decrement curves.
29
IEEEMAS Comparison of Calculation Procedures for Fault Analysis
150
60
CONTACT PARTING OF
70
oreaker
60
preaker
50
breaker
40
breaker
Figure A-3. C37.5 Three phase and single line to ground de decrement curves.
6/21/95 30 Complex Network Methods vs. ANSI/IEEE Standards
120
110
100
a CONTACT PARTING
- B-cycle breaker
Meee Weeder otecda:
Figure A-4. C37.010 Three phase ac/dc decrement curve for 8 cycle breakers.
3t IEEEVAS Comparison of Calculation Procedures for Fault Analysis
130
120
110
100
a CONTACT PARTING
y S-cycle breaker
TF Hz
80
70
50
50
40
30
20
10 |
0
Pe it oteea teed
Figure A-5. C37.010 Three phase ac/dc decrement curve for 5 cycle breakers.
6/21/95 32 Complex Network Methods vs. ANSI/IEEE Standards
130
120
110
2 HZ
100
ey CONTACT PARTING
