IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 25, NO.

6 , NOVEMBERIDECEMBER 1989

1041

Coordination of Relays, Reclosers, and Sectionalizing Fuses for Overhead Lines in the Oil Patch
Abstract-Overhead distribution systems used in oil pumping and secondary recovery installations present a challenge to the engineer in obtaining protective device coordination between sectionalizing fuses, line reclosers, and feeder breakers. Concepts in approaching solutions to these problems, especially as related to upgrading existing substation and feeder line protection on medium voltage systems, are proposed. Important references that discuss these concepts in greater detail are also provided.

The concepts discussed in this paper primarily apply to radial systems and have limited application to loop systems. See [19] for a discussion of loop systems.
THETIMEFOR
A

COORDINATION ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION N THE early years of oil production the oil patch consisted of free flowing wells in remote locations. As the necessity for artificial lift increased, so did the need for power. The introduction of electric motors as prime movers required construction of electric power lines in the oil producing fields. The economics of these power systems made it attractive for oil producing companies to own and operate their own distribution systems. In the oil patch of today, we find many variations of systems. The loads may consist of anything from a single motor-pump unit to hundreds of units and many miles of medium voltage lines, and from a few kilowatts of capacity of 20 MW or more. As these systems become larger and more complex, more sophisticated planning and coordination of protective devices is necessary to provide maximum production run time. The person responsible for oil field distribution equipment protection should be familiar with electric utility system practices, with various protection devices (i.e., fuses, cut outs, reclosers, sectionalizers, relays), and with concepts of coordinating these devices for optimizing protection. In preparing this paper the authors have assumed the reader is somewhat familiar with overhead distribution systems, understands methods of calculating minimum and maximum available fault current, and is able to determine necessary load currents in the distribution system. It is also assumed that transformers and their secondary protection have already been properly selected and applied.

Perform a coordination analysis during the planning stage of any significant change to the distribution system. In this way, you will identify coordination problems on paper instead of in the field. Repetitive outages may be a sign of improper coordination. In such cases, check the particular branch that is experiencing the outage. Some outages may be the result of deficiencies in poleline construction and adverse environmental conditions unique to the area. These deficiencies can severely limit coordination between overcurrent devices. (For example, high ground impedance limits the effectiveness of sectionalizing fuses .) Therefore, identify and correct poleline deficiencies before doing a coordination analysis. References [ 2 ] , [3], [9], [16], and [18] discuss pole line construction in more detail.
FOR PREPARING THE

COORDINATION ANALYSIS

Coordination studies at first glance can be viewed as complex. However, even the most complex studies can be simplified following a systematic approach. The authors have utilized the following sequence of steps in their coordination studies.

Step 1: Define Your Objective Define what is to be done and zero in on the segment of the system involved. Use reports of operating problems and/or failure incidents to assist. In most cases, the analysis can be simplified and the amount of data needed can be reduced by remembering that an analysis of a system starts at the load end of the system and progresses upward to the utility service. Step 2: Gather the Data Needed What details about the system and its components are needed in order to reach the objective(s)? After the objective has been determined, a library of technical data on all equipment from the source to the point in question should then be collected. Such things as a legible site map showing the location, size, and type of protective devices in the system (along with any associated characteristic curves), three-phase and line-to-neutral impedances, transformer ratings and impedances, capacitor sizes and locations, system voltage levels,

Paper PID 89-25, approved by the Petroleum and Chemical Industry Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society for presentation at the 1988 Petroleum and Chemical Industry Committee Technical Conference, Dallas, TX, September 12-14. Manuscript released for publication February 22, 1989. W. J. Ruschel is with S.I.P. Engineering, Inc., 9920 Gulf Freeway, P.O. Box 34311, Houston, TX 77234. A. W. Ashley is with Ashley Consulting Company, P.O. Box 5488, Katy, TX 77491. IEEE Log Number 8930222.

0093-9994/89/1100-1041$01.00

0 1989 IEEE

1042

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 25, NO. 6, NOVEMBERIDECEMBER 1989

and the maximum/minimum available fault current at the utility source are essential. Future load projections, along with a good plcture of present and future load variations in the system, are important. Any known data pertaining to line to ground or ground return path impedances should also be obtained. (Local utility engineers can often provide useful data on ground impedances and maximum/minimum available fault current at the utility source.)

T
UTILITY SERVCE

AI
SUBSTATION

9Q

3
AUTOMA T I C CIRCUIT RECLOSER ;L~;IONALIZINC

Step 3: Perform Necessary Calculations

Fault currents must be calculated as part of any coordination 2 ! analysis. Begin at the utility point of service and compute& necessary short circuit values at all appropriate locations. Calculate minimum and maximum values of available short circuit current by utilizing data from Step 2. (Useful information on these calculations can be found in several reference sources [11-[4] .) Review previous studies done-is the data current? NOTE: If a major study is necessary, the use of computer programs for distribution system load flow and short circuit analysis is strongly suggested. Such program/studies are commercially available from a number of technical service organizations as well as from some equipment vendors. When calculations are complete, develop the appropriate impedance diagram for each location to be analyzed.

3
3

Fs4

3 q
5

FAULT

Ls

37,0
m
ANSI 57. 109- I985 TRANSFORMER ,THRU-FAULT CURVE, CLASS I

Fig. 1 . Oil patch MV Distribution-generalized one-line diagram.

100.0

1
XFMR. I M P E L A-6. 0 %

Step 4: Sketch and Label a System One-Line Diagram

The sketch should only include that portion of the system identified in Step 1). Include load currents, impedance values transformer data, calculated fault currents, device settings, and fuse ratings. This will assist in keeping the system elements in proper prospective, and should be kept as part of the job records.
IO. 0

8-5. 5 %
C-5.0% 0-4.0%

E-3.0% F-2. 5 %
G-2.0% H-1.3%

I. 0

Step 5: Analyze Individual Protective Devices Begin at the nearest device to the problem area and work upstream or downstream as necessary. For example, if the problem is repeated fuse flowing incidents at point A (Fig. l), coordination analysis might begin with downstream loads and could require checking upstream to include Recloser No. 1. Three-phase analysis requires calculations of three-phase fault currents and a comparison of three-phase overcurrent device characteristics. For an example of three-phase fault analysis, see Fig. 7. Ground fault coordination requires phaseto-ground fault current calculations and a comparison of ground fault overcurrent device characteristics. The comparison of ground fault characteristics is similar to that done for three-phase faults in Fig. 7.

0. I

1 1 \,fl,qI,
4
1.0 10.0

1-2.4 K V 2-4. 16 KV 3-7.2 KV 4-12.0 KV 5-13.2 KV 6-14.4 KV LIGHTNING SURGE LIMITS

, (REF.NO.61

0.01

100.0

MULTIPLE OF TRANSFORMER AMP RATING

Fig. 2. Coordination limits for Category 1 distribution transformers.

must fall to the left of the transformer 12t = 1250 curve and provide adequate margin to coordinate with secondary devices. Fuses must be able to withstand momentary overloads, magnetizing inrush, continuous load currents, and induced surges. Part of Fig. 2 is an approximate Fuse Withstand Curve, with vertical origin at one per unit transformer AND ON SYSTEM primary current. For an excellent description of how to TRANSFORMER CAPACITORSTHE DISTRIBUTION Distribution transformers require proper protection. ANSI construct this graph and its use, See [6], [7]. For further published standards, including 57.109-1985 [5], provide information of fuse ratings and other standards that pertain to guidelines when coordinating fuses or breakers to protect fuses, see the appropriate ANSI Standards [8] or the particular transformers against overloads in secondary circuits. Primary fuse manufacturers data. device limitations for providing safe clearing of through faults In order to keep equipment in operation, especially with are also included. Referring to Fig. 2, one recommended cycling loads of beam pumping applications, protection method used in analyzing primary coordination of distribution characteristics should approach the transformer ANSI limits, transformers is shown [5, Category I transformers]. Whether provide circuit clearing of both low level and high level faults, fuses, breakers, or relays, the primary device characteristics and withstand occasional lightning surges. If calculated fault

RUSCHEL AND ASHLEY: RELAYS, RECLOSERS, AND SECTIONALIZING FUSES

1043

currents exceed the expulsion fuse rating, current limit type I 2 3 4 5 1 fuses must be considered. Transformer and/or fuse manufacI. 2 ACSR turers may be consulted for recommendations as to specific 2. W O ACSR types and ratings of fuses for particular applications [8]. 3. 410 ACSR (Further details on coordination of fuses in series are presented I. 0 4.3997.5MCM ACSR z later.) 5.556.5MCM ACSR w Substation transformers, usually much larger then distribu5 0. I tion types, require similar considerations for protection 1 relating to ANSI damage limits [5, Category I1 and 11 transformers]. Expulsion and/or current limiting fuses, usu. o t V l .5 I IO too 1000 10000 ally NEMA E ratings, are both commonly used, depending CURRENT I N AMPERES on fault levels at the primary connection point. (Further details Fig. 3. Current versus time for ACSR conductors to rise to damaging anneal on relay-fuse combinations and coordination of reclosers with temperature. (Assuming no heat loss in conductors.) source side fuses are presented later.) Capacitor bank protection is based on opening the supply circuit to clear a capacitor fault without case rupturing. the country, such as West Texas, low levels of ground fault Coordination with other fuses and/or protective devices in the current are possible even with a multigrounded system. In system is not usually a consideration except where very large such cases, it may be economical to lower the ground return banks of capacitors are involved. Fuses should be rated at 150 impedance further by grounding more poles and running an percent of calculated capacitor current, with melting/clearing additional grounding conductor below grade. (See [18] for characteristics to suit capacitor manufacturer recommenda- examples of distribution line grounding construction.) When tions. Note, however, that capacitors may affect load current low levels of ground fault current are unavoidable, ground calculations for selecting continuous ratings of upstream fault sensing devices such as electronic sectionalizers or feeder breakers using relays may be employed. However, this devices. approach could compromise coordination and lead to an DISTRIBUTION LINES upstream recloser/breaker operation before the downstream In the oil patch, most distribution systems are constructed as fuse has a chance to clear the fault. When dealing with line protection, conductor burndown is a overhead lines. Coordination of line protection devices requires determination of fault currents and load currents at each prime consideration, especially where an arcing fault may protective device. Three-phase, phase-to-phase, and ground occur. On an insulated line conductor, an arching fault tends to fault calculations establish the maximum ranges of fault be confined to its origin and may do considerable conductor currents. These ranges are used to set the reach of an damage. A similar fault on a bar conductor tends to travel overcurrent device. (A more detailed discussion of reach down the line away from the fault, may extinguish itself, and appears at the end of this paper.) Three-phase and phase-to- repeatedly reoccur [9]. Either fault must be cleared within safe phase fault values are fairly simple to calculate using known conductor damage limitations to avoid conductor fatigue and values of line impedance [lo], [14]. Ground fault currents, resulting downed power lines. Many ground faults and phaseto-phase faults are momentary in nature (non-persistent) however, may be difficult to determine. The grounding system design of a distribution line can resulting from occurrences such as tree limbs contacting the significantlyaffect ground fault current. This is especially true lines, wind slapping conductors together, atmospheric condiwhen the distribution line does not include a grounding tions (such as icing) or lightning surges. Instantaneous tripconductor with the line conductors. On these systems, with reclosure line devices can handle those incidents nicely with relatively higher ground impedance, it is possible for ground proper selection of settings [4], assuming the device opening fault amperes to stay below the minimum melt value of times are compatible with conductor damage curves for the upstream sectionalizing fuses. The result could be a downed calculated fault values. (See Fig. 3 for examples of conductor power line remaining energized and lethal. In the authors damage limits.) Conductor damage curves should be included opinion, overhead lines in the oil patch should carry a in the coordination graphic analysis. Line sectionalizers, in coordination with upstream autogrounding conductor that is connected to earth ground at multiple points along the length of the line and to the system matic reclosures, offer an economical means of removing a ground at the source. This type of system is commonly called a faulted line section from the system without single phasing multigrounded system. The resulting low ground impedance problems associated with blow fuses. (See the paragraph titled (relative to a single point ground) allows higher zero sequence Sectionalizers. ) currents for a downed line and more probable operation of FUSES sectionalizing fuses. In addition, ground fault protection is more feasible because ground fault calculations are more When coordinating fuses in series, the fuse that is nearest credible. Therefore, a three-phase four wire system with a the fault is commonly called the protecting fuse [15]. The multiple grounded neutral is recommended. (The design of next fuse upstream towards the source of supply is called the such systems is beyond the scope of this paper. For additional protected fuse as shown in Fig. 4. Coordinating fuses in series requires a comparison of fuse information on the subject see [2], [3], [ 161.) In dry areas of

b-

1044
PROTECTING -OTHER

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 25, NO. 6, NOVEMBERIDECEMBER 1989

CIRCUITS

I
SUPPLY

FUSE

the protecting fuse to the minimum melting time of the protected fuse at the maximum fault current available at the protecting link. If the ratio is 0.75 or smaller, coordination may be assumed to be satisfactory as shown in Fig. 5.

The Coordination Table Method

A coordination table, such as shown in Table I, allows quick confirmation of coordination between two fuses in series at particular values of fault current. The chart lists the maximum available fault current that will permit coordination. Such tables are usually available from manufacturers of fuse links and may incorporate the 75 percent rule described above. (Note the table shows that a 15T protecting link will coordinate with a 30T protected link up to 1800 A indicating agreement with Fig. 5.

OTHER CIRCUITS
FUSE

Fig. 4. Diagram shows coordinating fuses in series. Fuse nearest to fault is protecting fuse. Next fuse upstream towards source of supply is protected fuse.
MINIMUM

ME1 T

The Rule of Thumb Method

Simple rules of thumb have been established for coordinating adjacent EEI-NEMA T and K links. These types are most frequently used in the oil patch and have similar characteristics regardless of the manufacturer. This method is limited to medium voltage distribution systems where load current and fault current decrease proportionately as the coordination points get farther away from the source of supply. (Decreasing load current may reduced adjustments for preloading and decreasing fault currents may result in levels that are within the range covered by this rule.) The rule of thumb method is as follows.

2
U In w
0

In

75X RULE
-= 02 I :o,,

.68 (75

IO

IO0
AMP

IO00

IO000

Fig. 5. Coordination of fuses in series.

K links in series can be satisfactorily coordinated, between adjacent ratings in the same series up to fault current levels of 13 times :he rating of the protecting link. T links in series can be satisfactorily coordinated, between adjacent ratings in the same series, up to fault current values 24 times the rating of the protecting link.
For example, in Table I, the 20T fuse is adjacent to to the 15T fuse (i.e. a 20T is the next largest size up from a 15T). Using the rule of thumb for T links a 20T will coordinate with the 15T up to values of fault current equal to 24 x 15 or 360 A. Note that this method offers no help in determining what fuse will coordinate with a 15T if fault currents at the 15T link significantly exceed the rule of thumb calculated value. When considering mixed characteristics of fuses (i.e., E rated, K or T, X or N in same system), there is no substitute for the somewhat burdensome time/current curve method. AUTOMATIC CIRCUIT RECLOSERS (ACRs)

time response. For this reason, coordination is usually much simpler when fuses of similar types are used in series. For example, the use of NEMA T fuse lines might be used throughout the system instead of T links combined with K links. The first comparison to be made is between the protecting fuse at the point under consideration, and the upstream protected fuse. Successful coordination requires the protecting fuse to clear the faulted circuit, leaving the protected fuse undamaged. Three methods of coordinating fuses in series [4] follow.

The Time/Current Curve Method

Studies [9] have shown that 70 to 75 percent of faults on an This method requires the minimum melting time curve of the protected fuse to be compared with the total overhead distribution system are temporary faults that can be clearing time curve of the protecting fuse. This compari- cleared by momentarily interrupting power from the source to son should consider the effects of prefault current flowing the fault. For this reason automatic circuit reclosers (ACRs) through the protected link as well as ambient temperature. An often utilize a fast inverse time/current curve that lies to the accepted method for allowing for these effects is to multiply left of the downstream minimum melt fuse curve (see Curve A time values of the protected fuse by .75 and plotting a new in Fig. 6). If the fault persists after the first reclosure, the fault must be minimum melt curve as shown in Fig. 5. (This is often referred to as the 75 percent rule.) When fuses of similar types cleared by downstream fuses or by lockout of the ACR before are used (such as NEMA T fuses), the analysis can be upstream devices operate. For this reason users of ACRs may simplified by checking the ratio of the total clearing time of select either a second fast trip curve or a delayed inverse

RUSCHEL AND ASHLEY: RELAYS, RECLOSERS, AND SECTIONA1,IZING FUSES TABLE I TYPICALFUSE TO FUSE COORDINATION CHART FOR TYPE T LINKS Protecting Fuse Link
Ampere Rating 6 8 10 12

1045

Protected Fuse Link Ampere Rating

15
20 25 30 40 50 65 80 100 140 200

Maximum R.M.S. Amperes for Safe Coordination

3 6 8
10

I , 2 or

225

360 140

550 400 220

780 690 560 300

12 I5 20 25 30 40 50 65

I050 990 900 710 400

1400 1350 1300 1200 910

1750 1750 1650 1600 1450 I200

2250 2250 2250 2200 2000 1800 1500

2900 2900 2900 2800 2700 2550 2350 1950

3600 3600 3600 3600 3500 3400 3200 3000 2500

4550 4550 4550 4550 4550 4550 4300 4050 3700 3000

5900 5900 5900

5900 5900
5900 5500 5400 5050 4500 3700

7100 7100 7100 7100 7100 7100 7000 7000 6900

10 ooo 10 000 10 000 10 000

IO 000 IO 000 IO 000

10 ooo 10 000 10 10 000 9600

6400
5900 4700

ooo

10 ooo 10 000 10 000 10 ooo 10 000 10 000 10 000 IO 000 10 ooo 10 000 10 000

IO ooo

TABLE 11 FACTORS TO ADJUST ACR FAST CURVE FOR LOAD SIDE FUSE COORDINATION
100.0-

Reclosing Time in Cycles

10.0.

One-Fast Operation Average 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Maximum 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

Two-Fast Operations Average 2 .o 1.5 1.5 1.5 Maximum 1.8 1.35 1.35 1.35

25-30 60 90 120

a LA

5
w LA

1.0

TABLE 111 FACTORS TO ADJUST ACR FAST CURVE FOR LOAD SOURCE FUSE COORDINATION Reclosing Time in Cycles 25 30 60 90 120 240 Two-Fast Two-Delayed Sequence 2.1 2.6 2.1 1.85 1.7 1.4 1.35 One-Fast Three-Delayed Sequence 3.2 3.1 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.35
Four Delayed Sequence

0. I

.01
I

IO00

IO00

600

3.7 3.5 2.7 2.2 1.9 1.45 1.35

Fig. 6. Coordination of arc with loadside and source side fuses.

timelcurrent trip curve set to the right of the total clearing It is sometimes necessary to coordinate ACRs with curve of the downstream fuse (see Curve B, Fig. 6 ) . upstream (supply side) fuses. The basic objectives of this type For load side coordination, the fast time/current curve or of coordination is to have the recloser complete its series of the ACR must be shifted vertically to allow adequate margin to openklose operations without damaging or melting the supply prevent fuse link damage during the A curve operation (see side fuse. Therefore, the minimum melting time of the Curve A in Fig. 6 ) . upstream fuse must be greater than the clearing time of the The point where the minimum melt curve of the down- ACRs delay trip (see Curve B of Fig. 6). In addition, the stream protecting fuse intersects the adjusted ARC fast delay characteristic of the ACR must be graphically shifted as curve dictates the maximum current at which coordination will shown on Curve B in Fig. 7. This shift will establish the hold (see line 3, Fig. 6). The point where the total clearing maximum fault current for ACR operation without damage to curve of the downstream fuse link intersects the delayed curve the source side fuse. Multiplying factors for vertically shifting of the recloser dictates the minimum current at which time values of the ACR delay curve are shown in Table 111. coordination will hold (see line 2, Fig. 6 ) . One manufacturer The intersection of the shifted ACR delay curve with the has published multiplying factors that are applied to time protected fuse minimum melt time curve determines the values of the ACR fast curve to shift the ACR fast curve maximum current for which coordination is possible (see line 4,Fig. 6 ) . (Table 11, [lo]).

1946

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 25, NO. 6 , NOVEMBERIDECEMBER 1989

200

1 1

ATTY I

SECTIONALIZERS The operation of a sectionalizer takes place after it senses a predetermined number of overcurrent surges. Selection of a sectionalizer depends on three factors to ensure coordination. The first factor is that only overcurrent surges resulting from load side fault current are to be sensed. This means the sectionalizer actuating current must be less than the upstream device minimum trip setting. (Manufacturers recommend that actuating current sensing not exceed 80 percent of the supply side ACR minimum trip setting.) The second factor involves setting the number of overcurrent counts to trip open. Sectionalizer counts to trip should be one less than the operations to lockout setting of the upstream ACR. The third factor requires that the sectionalizers memory time must be longer than the cumulative tripping and reclosing time intervals of the upstream ACR. (This ensures that the sectionalizer will count all of the required fault trip operations.) The memory time of hydraulic sectionlizers is fixed to match hydraulic reclosers with a maximum of two second reclosing time. Using hydraulic sectionalizers in series with electronic reclosers that have a reclosing time greater than two seconds require a calculation of the sectionalizers memory time, per manufacturers instructions [4].

100-

50 20 -

02

50

100

500 1000 CURRENT I N AMPS

IO000

Fig. 7. Coordination with relays, ACRs, and fuses.

Coordination of ACRs in series requires a selection of ACR characteristics such that any outage or momentary interruption is restricted to the smallest possible line section. Electronically controlled ACRs can be equipped with accessories to insure that a downstream ACR will always operate through its entire sequence without causing an operation of an upstream ACR. (This is often called sequence coordination 141). Hydraulically controlled ACRs are primarily depended on to provide lockout coordination. That is, operate in such a way that the downstream ACR will lock out before the upstream ACR locks out. Most hydraulic reclosers will coordinate in series if alternating coil sizes of the same manufacturer are used. Coordination of electronic reclosers in series is similar to hydraulic reclosers except the clearing time (plus tolerance) of the downstream recloser is compared to the response time (plus tolerance) of the source side recloser. Of the two types, the electronic type control has more combination of adjustment for selective coordination. When comparing recloser curves for close coordination it is necessary to determine the time current curves of the two reclosers at any one current. One manufacturer states that simultaneous operation of its reclosers will always occur if less than 2 cycles separate recloser curves and will almost never occur if more than 8 cycles separate recloser curves. In some cases, reclosers in series may have the same coil size and each may have two or more delay curves. Selective coordination can then be achieved by setting the sequence of the upstream reclosure with one less fast operation than the downstream recloser, and by selecting a delayed curve for the downstream recloser faster than (vertically below) the delayed curve of the upstream recloser. The advantages and disadvantages of various combinations of ACR operations are discussed in [ 101. An expansion of the above is in [4].

RELAYS
Feeder breakers are equipped with overcurrent relay protection (device 51) with characteristics ranging from inverse to extremely inverse. (Examples might be CO-8, CO-9, and CO11). Instantaneous trips (device 50) are also usually provided. Operating and fault clearing times for (50) relay and breaker operations are a minimum of 4 to 9 cycles depending on the type of relay, the breaker opening speed, and the fault current magnitude. Ideally, the (51) relay element should be set to allow maximum continuous load current, should trip for any level of current that would thermally damage line conductors, and should coordinate with the next level of downstream protection. (Remember that the coordination process starts at the far load end and works backwards towards the source of supply.1 ACRs on the system are equipped with time-overcurrent trip devices. Best results for coordination are achieved if feeder breakers and ACRs have very similar characteristic curves. Fuse characteristics such as E, K, or T are most nearly extremely inverse in shape. Thus, best coordination results are usually obtained with a protection device having a similar curve per example of Fig. 7. For comparison, curves for fuses A and B are both 30 A, but one is a K-type and one a T-type. Note that the ACR fast curve (Curve-C) will coordinate with either A or B. The ACR 100A, delay curve (Curve D), coordinates well with A. Note that the best relay coordination with ACR is per the CO-9 (Curve E-1) but in relation of fuse B, the best relay coordination is per the CO-11 (Curve E-3). As can be seen, there must be considerable flexibility in fuse selection, ACR settings, and relay settings to obtain optimum conditions for coordination. For fast tripping action of the feeder breaker, the (50) relay element should be set above the asymmetric value of fault current available at the ACR (F-2 Multi. by 1.6 = 1600 A

RUSCHEL AND ASHLEY: RELAYS, RECLOSERS, AND SECTIONALIZING FUSES

1047

asymmetrical). This high setting prohibits instantaneous feeder tripping on low level faults such as at F-1 or F-3. The example shown is somewhat simplified. In actual cases, the ACR may have up to three fast trips or three time delay trips. In such cases an analysis must be made of timing diagrams to check the effect of repeated ACR trip and reclose operations on upstream electro-mechanical relays. In such an analysis, overcurrent relay reset time between ACR trips can be a major factor in whether or not proper coordination can be obtained [ 1I]. Electro-mechanical type overcurrent relays (a relay with an induction disk) tend to have unreliable reset times, so that predicting actual performance can be a somewhat inaccurate procedure. (An argument can be made for use of static overcurrent relays, which tend to have a predictable reset time, more discrete tap settings available, and have good repeatability. However, induction disc relays are very rugged, well-known, established in industry, and extremely reliable.) If the distribution system is three-phase three-wire with no ground, a 50/51N relay cannot be successfully applied, since a residually connected ground relay cannot detect less than 10 to 20 percent of the current transformer primary amp rating 1121. If the system is solidly grounded or low resistance grounded, the 50/51N relay, in conjection with 51G transformer neutral relays and downstream ACR ground fault characteristics, can provide coordinated ground fault protection. The main problem here is to determine what sensitivity is required at various segments or zones on the line where ground fault protection is to be applied. Some hydraulic ACRs can be set to trip on ground faults as low as 10 percent of the trip coil rating. Electronic reclosers can be set to trip on ground fault currents as low as 5 to 8 A. In systems utilizing double-ended substations, with normally closed tie breakers, or with in-plant generation connected, ground fault protection and selectivity can be difficult to obtain. Such systems are not within the scope of this paper. APPLICATION Protective device coordination must take into consideration the desired zone to be protected. The zone of a protective device is established by its minimum operating current and its placement in the system. Minimum operating current determines the reach of the device. For example, a recloser with a minimum trip of 400 A will not operate for a through fault of less than 400 A. Therefore the zone under the protection of the recloser will extend downstream to points on the distribution system where faults on the system produce at least 400 A. This is one reason why minimum levels of fault current should be calculated for various parts of the system. Consideration should be given to line-to-ground faults since they are usually relatively low current arcing fault. For line-toground faults consideration must be given to earth resistance and the distancehmpedance from the fault to the nearest source ground. In general, local utilities can be helpful in providing the impedance values that they normally assume in different geological areas. Construction and grounding practices for the company owned lines, should be very similar to those of the utility, if their values are to be used. Other procedures for estimatingkalculating impedances are discussed in [2]-[4].

I---I

FUTURE 1.2 MEGAWATS 69 AMPS

CB

225 K V A 3

-4
-

FE
75 KVA
7500 KVA

Fig. 8. Oil field distribution circuit

9 MEGAWATS SUBSTATION

FAULT CURRENT VALUES IRMS SYM)

Fig. 9. Revised oil field distribution circuit.

Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 demonstrate the application of zone protection. The substation breaker feeds a distributive load in West Texas via 8 miles of overhead line. Production requirements of the area required that a plant be installed in this area. The line that feeds the distributive load will also feed the plant. It was decided that the plant load would be of primary importance and that faults on the distributive line should not affect service to the plant. Since the plant load added 346 A, the existing low capacity ACR had to be removed. A smaller recloser was installed downstream from the plant connection. A 79 device (recloser relay) was added to the control scheme of the substation circuit breaker. The breaker overcurrent relays (50/51) were set for sensing and tripping at the minimum fault level calculated at the plant tap. The plants own 7500-kVA transformer was fused providing zone protection a the plant as shown in Fig. 9. Note that

1048

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 25, NO. 6, NOVEMBERIDECEMBER 1989

the minimum faults of 100 A at the end of the line (point A) in Fig. 8 no zone protection would be possible. Possible conductor burn down and safety hazards could result. The addition of the plant feeder provided an occasion for improvement of zone protection. The trip settings of the substation breaker were increased to allow for the addition of the 7500kVA plant load. This reduced the reach of the substation circuit breaker. A recloser (ACR2) with 100-A minimum trip was placed downstream from the plant tap. This smaller recloser resulted in an extended reach and zone protection to include the end of the feeder point A. Note that minimum fault currents downstream from ACR2 will not affect operations at the plant feeder tap. However, maximum fault values will require coordination between the substation overcurrent relays and ACR;! time current values, using principles outlines in this paper.

Coordination of protection and construction of distribution circuits, AIEE Paper 54.262, report by Transmission and Distribution and Relays Committee. Overcurrent protection for distribution systems, Seminar Notes, McGraw-Edison Company, Power Systems Division, Canonsburg, PA. W. A. Elmore, Considerations in the applications of modem overcurrent relays, Westinghouse Electric Corporation publication, Coral Springs, FL. Applied protective relaying, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, East Pittsburgh, PA, 79th ed.,Chapter 5. Automatic Line Sectionalizers, by McGraw-Edison Company, Canonsburg, PA. Distribution power systems coordination, General Electric Company Training Manual, 1977. Technical considerations of design, production, and application, Kearney Bulletin no. 455-1. Construction Specifications and Drawings, REA Bulletin 40-8, forms 803, 804, and 806.

Mechanical Design Manual for Overhead Distribution Lines, REA Bulletin 160-2, Washington, D.C. Adequate Grounding on Primary Distribution Lines, REA Bulletin
83-1, Washington, D.C.

SUMMARY A coordination analysis of an oil-patch distribution system involves application of engineering principles, manufacturing data, standards and/or codes, and knowledge of production practices. The objective of the analysis always is to see what can be done to protect equipment, maximize production (minimize outages and downtime), and maintain ease of operation-all at minimum overall cost. This paper covers certain generalities and fundamentals of oil-patch distribution system coordination, and identifies some of the specific times of analysis to be concerned with. It is anticipated that the reader will be able to expand upon the information presented, in relation of a particular system, through use of the references given. The authors feel that this paper will help the Oil Production Industry employ consistent methods of analyzing and implementing coordinated protection to distribution systems. Existing standards for such systems are designed primarily for utilities serving a wide variety of customers with a substantial percentage of single phase loads. The authors therefore suggest a PCIC/IEEE working group be formed for the purpose of reviewing oil patch distribution systems specific requirements. The ultimate objective would be to develop appropriate electrical standards and recommended practices for the production industry.
REFERENCES
IEEE Recommended Practice for Electrical Power Distribution for Industrial Plants-IEEE Standard 141, 1986. Electrical Transmission& Distribution Reference Book, Fourth ed.,
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, East Pittsburgh, PA, Chapter 3. Distribution systems, in Electric Utility Engineering Reference Book, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, East Pittsburgh, PA, Chapter 10, 1965. Distribution System Protection Manual, McGraw-Edison Company, Power Systems Division, Canonsburg, PA. Transformer Through-Fault Current Duration Guide. ANSI C57.109, 1985. D. S. Takach, Distribution transformer primary fuse coordination, in IEEE Power Engineering Society, T&D Conf. Paper, 81TD676-6, 1981. J. Zaborsky, A semi-empirical formula for calculating distribution transformer fuse rating with respect to lightning surges, AIEE Paper 54-303, 1954.

Load Transfer and Loop Sectionalizing Improve System Continuity, McGraw-Edison Company, Power Systems Group, Pittsburgh,
PA.

Guide for Making a Sectionalizing Study on Rural Electrical Systems, REA Bulletin 61-2, Washington, D.C. System Planning Guide, Electrical Distribution Systems, REA Bulletin 60-8, Washington, D.C.
Wayne J. Ruschel (S79-M79) received the B.S.E.E degree from Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. He has 14 years experience in design, engineering, and installation of electric power control systems. For five years he was a Regional Electrical Engineering Specialist with Ammo Production Company, Houston, TX, where he was responsible for the engineering and design of electrical distribution systems and facilities in the oilfields of West Texas, New Mexico, and the Gulf Coast. He has also worked as an Electrical Engineer in the Power Plant Engineering Department of Houston Lighting and Power company and in the Electrical Engineering Department of Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, Houston. As an Electrical Engineer he was responsible for the engineering design and installation of major portions of electric power and control systems. He is presently a Principal Control Systems Engineer with S.I.P. Engineering, Inc., Houston. Mr. Ruschel has been a member of the Standards and Production Subcommittees of IEEE-PCIC for six years, and is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Texas.

Ratings and Classes for Fuses Used in Medium Voltage Systems.

ANSI C37.40-C37.47.

A. Wayne Ashley (M56) received the B.S.E.E. degree from the University of Nevada at Reno in 1952. After graduation he worked for Szymanski Engineers, Reno, until joining Westinghouse Electric Corporation in 1955. With Westinghouse for nearly 32 years, he had various assignment in field service, engineering, administration, supervision, and marketing. His field service assignments in Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, California, and Nevada included installation and start-up, training client personnel, maintenance and trouble-shooting, and project supervision for all types of utility and industrial power equipment. In addition, he was a Control Equipment Application Specialist for four years and an Industrial District Engineer for five years, involved in petroleum and chemical industry assignments in Houston. In August 1986 he began private practice as an Electrical Consultant in his own company, Ashley Consulting Company, Katy, TX, performing engineering studies, power system analysis and relay coordination, on-site engineering and problem solving assistance, and training program development. Mr. Ashley is a Registered Professional Engineer in Texas, Oklahoma, and California and is a member of NSPE and TSPE.