3 Reporte de Pruebas Ieee

IEEE DESIGN TEST REPORT
Report No. EU1588-H-00.1

Type EVP Station Class
Surge Arrester
This report records the results of the design tests made on Type EVP Station
Class surge arresters in accordance with IEEE Standard C62.11-2012 “IEEE
Standard for Metal Oxide Surge Arresters for AC Power Circuits (> 1kV)”.
To the best of our knowledge and within the usual limits of testing practices, tests
performed on the Type EVP arresters demonstrate full compliance with the
relevant clauses of the referenced standard.
Dennis Lenk Saroni Brahma

Principal Engineer Design Engineer
Date: 1/10/14
Separate reports provide details of the tests, according to the following table:
Report No. Description Clause Issue Date

EU1588-H-01.1 Insulation Withstand 8.1 1/10/14
EU1588-H-02.1 Discharge Voltage 8.2 1/10/14
EU1588-H-03.1 MOV Disc Accelerated Aging 8.5 1/10/14
EU1588-H-04.1 Polymer Accelerated Aging 8.6 1/10/14
EU1588-H-05.1 Contamination 8.8 1/10/14
EU1588-H-06.1 Internal Ionization and RIV 8.10 1/10/14
EU1588-H-07.1 Partial Discharge 8.11 1/10/14
EU1588-H-08.0 Switching Surge Energy Rating 8.14 1/10/14
EU1588-H-09.0 Single-Impulse Withstand Rating 8.15 1/10/14
EU1588-H-10.1 Duty Cycle 8.16 1/10/14
EU1588-H-11.1 Temporary Overvoltage 8.17 1/10/14
EU1588-H-12.1 Short Circuit Pressure Relief 8.18 1/10/14
EU1588-H-13.1 Maximum Design Cantilever Load 8.22 1/10/14
EU1588-H-14.1 Thermal Equivalency Test 7.2.2 1/10/14
IEEE Design Test Report
Type EVP Station Class Arrester
Insulation Withstand
This report summarizes the results of design tests made on the Type EVP
Station Class arrester design. Tests were performed in accordance with
procedures of IEEE Std C62.11-2012, “IEEE Standard for Metal-Oxide Surge
Arresters for AC Power Circuits (> 1 kV).”
To the best of our knowledge and within the usual limits of testing practice, tests
performed on these arresters demonstrate compliance with the relevant clauses
of the referenced standard.

Date: 1/10/2014
Type EVP Station Class Surge Arrester
Insulation Withstand
INTRODUCTION: The following table lists the Type EVP arresters’ minimum
strike distance, 1.2/50 required and actual impulse withstand levels, and 60 HZ
required and actual wet withstand levels as defined in Sections 8.1.2.4 of IEEE
C62.11-2012 standard.
CONCLUSION: All housings meet or exceed these levels of voltage.
Lightning Lightning 60 HZ 60 HZ
Strike Imp w/s Imp w/s Wet w/s Wet w/s
Arrester Distance Req’d Actual Req’d Actual
MCOV (in) (KVc) (KVc) (kVrms) (kVrms)
2.55 6.9 12 101 5 50
5.1 6.9 23 101 10 50
7.65 8.7 35 127 15 63
8.4 8.7 38 127 16 63
10.2 8.7 47 127 20 63
12.7 10.5 58 153 25 75
15.3 10.5 70 153 30 75
17 14.2 78 207 33 101
19.5 14.2 89 207 38 101
22 14.2 100 207 43 101
24.4 14.2 111 207 47 101
29 17.9 133 261 56 125
31.5 17.9 144 261 61 125
36.5 21.5 166 313 71 148
39 21.5 178 313 75 148
42 21.5 201 313 85 148
48 25.2 221 367 94 172
57 28.9 266 421 113 194
70 43.3 333 631 141 275
74 43.3 338 631 143 275
76 43.3 356 631 151 275
84 43.3 401 631 170 275
88 43.3 401 631 170 275
98 44.7 447 652 197 283
106 44.7 487 652 215 283
115 52 532 758 235 320
131 63.5 621 926 274 372
140 69 639 1006 282 395
144 69 664 1006 293 395
152 69 709 1006 313 395
180 80 842 1166 371 436
EU 1588-H-01.1 2
Discharge Voltage

Date: 1/10/2014
Discharge Voltage Characteristic
TESTS PERFORMED: Residual voltage measurements were made on three

single resistor elements. Tests were conducted in accordance with clause 8.3 of
the IEEE C62.11-2012 standard, to determine steep current impulse residual
voltages at 10 kA, lightning impulse residual voltages at 1.5 kA, 3 kA, 5 kA, 10 kA
and 20 kA, and switching impulse residual voltages at 0.5 kA and 1 kA.
Oscillograms of current and voltage were obtained for each test.
For each test sample, all measured voltages have been rationalized to the
lightning impulse residual voltage of that sample at nominal discharge current (10
kA 8/20), and the results have been displayed in graphical form.
RESULTS: Tables 1, 2 and 3 show the residual voltages measured on test

samples 1, 2 and 3, respectively. For each test sample, the measured residual
voltages have been expressed in per unit of the lightning impulse residual
voltage at nominal discharge current (10 kA, 8/20).
Table 1: Measurements made on test sample 1
Current Wave-
Magnitude shape Residual Voltage Oscillogram
Test Wave kA μs kV p.u. Number
Steep
10 1/2 14.583 1.09 34
front
1.5 8/20 11.32 0.846 1
8/20 3 8/20 11.903 0.889 4
Impulse 5 8/20 12.471 0.932 7
10 8/20 13.385 1 10
20 8/20 14.452 1.08 13
Switching 0.5 43/91 10.651 0.796 22
Impulse 1 40/86 11.05 0.826 25
EU 1588-H-02.1 2
Current Wave-
Steep
10 1/2 14.545 1.087 35
front
1.5 8/20 11.304 0.845 2
8/20 3 8/20 11.899 0.889 5
Impulse 5 8/20 12.465 0.932 8
10 8/20 13.38 1 11
20 8/20 14.436 1.079 14
Switching 0.5 43/91 10.651 0.796 23
Impulse 1 40/86 11.05 0.826 26
Current Wave-
Steep
10 1/2 14.596 1.090 36
front
1.5 8/20 11.338 0.846 3
8/20 3 8/20 11.902 0.888 6
Impulse 5 8/20 12.479 0.932 9
10 8/20 13.396 1 12
20 8/20 14.478 1.081 15
Switching 0.5 43/91 10.651 0.795 24
Impulse 1 40/86 11.029 0.823 27
The results of the discharge voltage testing are shown graphically in the following
chart.
EU 1588-H-02.1 3
1.150
1.100
.5 microsecond data point
1.050
Discharge Voltage-PU times 10 kA 8/20
1.000
8/20 discharge characteristic
0.950
Series1
0.900
0.850
Switching Surge characteristic

0.800
0.750
0.700
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Current- kA
The values shown in this chart are all normalized to the lightning impulse residual
voltage at nominal discharge current (10 kA). These values (Per-unit Ures-chart) are used
to calculate the residual voltage characteristics (Ures-arrester) of assembled EVP series
arresters. For the cases of switching impulse and lightning impulse residual voltages,
the arrester residual voltages are calculated as follows:
Ures-arrester = Per-unit Ures-chart x Ures-nom
Where: Ures-nom is the published maximum lightning impulse residual voltage of the
arrester, as verified by routine test at time of arrester manufacture.
For the case of steep current impulse residual voltage, the arrester residual voltage is
calculated as follows:
Ures-arrester = Per-unit Ures-chart x Ures-nom + L’ h In / Tf
Where:
L’ is the inductivity per unit length (= 1 µH/m)
h is the length of the arrester (excluding the resistors since resistor inductance is already
included in the test measurements)
In is the nominal discharge current (= 10 kA)
Tf is the front time of the steep current impulse (= 1µs)
EU 1588-H-02.1 4
Oscillograms
EU 1588-H-02.1 5
Sample 1, Oscillogram 1
EU 1588-H-02.1 6
EU 1588-H-02.1 7
EU 1588-H-02.1 8
EU 1588-H-02.1 9
EU 1588-H-02.1 10
EU 1588-H-02.1 11
EU 1588-H-02.1 12
EU 1588-H-02.1 13
EU 1588-H-02.1 14
EU 1588-H-02.1 15
EU 1588-H-02.1 16
EU 1588-H-02.1 17
MOV Disc Accelerated Aging

Date: 3/27/14
Disc Accelerated Aging
INTRODUCTION: Tests were performed to measure MOV disc aging

characteristics. Measured watts values are used to develop elevated voltage
ratios kc and kr for use in proration of duty cycle and discharge current withstand
test samples.
TEST SAMPLES: Six arrester modules (three with the longest MOV disc and 3
with the shortest MOV disc) were tested.
TEST PROCEDURE: Tests were performed per section 8.5 of the IEEE C62.11-
2012 standard. Samples were placed inside a 115°C ±2°C oven and energized
at a voltage level greater than MCOV for 1,000 hours.
TEST RESULTS: Watts loss for each sample was measured at relevant MCOV
two hours after energization and at the completion of the 1000 hour test duration.
The table below summarizes test data.
Accelerated aging test data

Watts loss @ Watts loss at Elevation
Sample No. -length 2Hr-5Hr P1c 1000 Hr @ Factor Kc
(w)@ MCOV MCOV P2c (w)
1-24 1.62 1.07 1
2-24 1.73 1.13 1
3-24 1.57 1.06 1
1-41 3.49 2.29 1
2-41 3.38 2.17 1
3-41 3.4 2.2 1
CONCLUSION: Each test sample demonstrated continually declining Watts loss

at MCOV. Therefore, kc factors equal 1.0.
EU 1588-H-03 2
Polymer Aging

Date: 1/10/2014
Polymer Housing Aging
INTRODUCTION:
The polymer housing accelerated aging tests were performed per Section 8.7 of
the IEEE C62.11-2012 standard. The purpose of this test was to verify the
electrical integrity of the arrester polymer housing after being subjected to 1000
hours in a salt fog environment.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
A 115 kV MCOV EVP arrester (longest electrical unit) was assembled for this
test.
Note: EVP was called PVN optima at the time of launch. The catalogue number
in the third party test report (PSCPVN011500) is an equivalent EVP011500.
TEST PROCEDURE:
The 1000 hour weathering test was performed per Section 8.7.3 of the IEEE
C62.11-2012 standard.
TEST RESULTS:
The test arrester successfully withstood the 1000 hour salt fog exposure test with
no evidence of surface tracking, erosion, or puncturing. Per Section 8.7.4, the
reference voltage change, as a result of the 1000 hour test, was less than the
allowed 5%. In addition, the partial discharge measured at the completion of the
test was less than the allowed 10pC.
TEST CONCLUSIONS:
The EVP Station Class arrester design successfully passed the 1000 hour salt
fog test, as defined in Section 8.7 of the IEEE C62.11-2012 standard.
EU 1588-H-04.1 2
ANNEX- Salt Fog Test
The following attachment confirms the successful completion of the salt fog
polymer aging test performed on the longest Type EVP electrical unit.
EU 1588-H-04.1 3
EU 1588-H-04.1 4
Contamination

Date: 1/10/2014
Contamination
INTRODUCTION: The polymer housing accelerated aging tests were performed

per Section 8.8 of the IEEE C62.11-2012 standard. The tests were performed on
a three unit 180 kV MCOV arrester.
TEST PROCEDURE: The partial wetting contaminant was prepared per Section
8.8.2.2 and the test procedure was performed per Section 8.8.2.3 of the IEEE
C62.11-2012 standard. Prior to the application of contaminant (450 ohm-cm
resistivity), the arrester was energized at MCOV for 1 hour. After 1 hour of
energization, the arrester was de-energized and slurry contaminant was applied
over the entire surface of the bottom half of the arrester. After a 7 minute wait,
the arrester was energized at MCOV for 15 minutes, at which time the voltage
was turned off and the bottom half of the arrester re-sprayed with contaminant.
Within 5 minutes of de-energization, the arrester was reenergized at MCOV.
After 15 minutes, the arrester resistive component of current was recorded. After
30 additional minutes at MCOV, re-measurement of the resistive current
confirmed thermal stability at which time the test was completed.
TEST RESULTS: The 180 kV MCOV arrester demonstrated thermal stability

after the second partial wetting test series. No unit or arrester flashover occurred
during the above testing. Disassembly of the test arresters revealed no damage
to the internal components as a result of the partial wetting contamination test.
EU 1588-H-05.1 2
Radio Influence Voltage

Date: 1/10/2014
Contamination
TEST PROCEDURE AND SAMPLE:
Internal ionization and RIV testing was performed per clause 8.10 of the IEEE
C62.11-2012 standard. The test was performed on a 180 kV MCOV EVP
arrester.
TEST EQUIPMENT:
Equipment and test methods conformed to NEMA LA 1-1992 requirements. Prior

to the test, the Stoddart Noise Meter NM-25T was calibrated using a General
Radio Signal Generator Type 1001-A.
TEST RESULTS:
A background noise level of 1.2 µV was measured at an open circuit voltage of

189 kV (105% MCOV). With the 180 kV arrester placed in the circuit, a noise
level of 1.2 µV was measured.
CONCLUSION:
The 180 kV MCOV EVP arrester passed test requirements per Section 8.10 of
the IEEE C62.11-2012 standard, as measured noise levels were within the 10 µV
RIV test limit.
EU 1588-H-06.1 2
Partial Discharge

Date: 1/10/2014
Partial Discharge
INTRODUCTION:
The polymer housing partial discharge test was performed per Section 8.11 of
the IEEE C62.11-2012 standard. The test was performed on a 180 kV MCOV
EVP arrester.
TEST EQUIPMENT:
Equipment and test methods conformed to the IEEE 454-1979 standard.
TEST RESULTS:
The arrester with grading ring was energized at 1.05 times MCOV. At 189 kV, the
arrester’s partial discharge level measured 6.5 pC, with an ambient 5.8 pC
background level.
CONCLUSION:
The 180 kV MCOV EVP arrester passed test requirements per Section 8.11 of
the IEEE C62.11-2012 standard, as measured partial discharge levels were
within the 10 pC test limit.
EU 1588-H-07.1 2
Switching Surge Energy Rating

Date: 1/10/2014
Switching Surge energy Rating
INTRODUCTION: Switching surge energy rating tests were performed per section
8.14 of the IEEE C62.11-2012 standard. Tests were performed per Station Class
arrester requirements. The main objective of this test is to claim an energy class
as per Table 13 of the above mentioned standard.
TEST SAMPLE: As required by the standard, the prorated test sections

contained the minimum MOV mass required for the design.
TEST PROCEDURE: The test sections were conditioned with six groups of three
current impulses corresponding to energy class F (11kJ/kV). The assigned
conditioning level testing was followed by two 65kA, 4/10 impulses, spaced 50 to
60 seconds apart. The prorated sections were then placed into an oven until the
temperature stabilized at 68°C.
After stabilization, test samples were subjected to long duration current impulses
(2000 to 3000 µs). Within 100ms from the application of the second discharge
the duty cycle rated voltage was applied for 10s followed by power frequency
recovery voltage for 30mins to demonstrate thermal recovery.
TEST RESULTS:
MCOV = 0.795*Vref;
Duty cycle rated voltage = 1.236*MCOV
MCOV of Sample ≤ 9.302 kV rms (calculated from measured Vref)
The targeted energy class for this design was Class F with a 2-shot energy rating
of 11 kJ per kV MCOV. As such, all test sections were subjected to 18 shots
having a 5.5 kJ per kV MCOV energy rating.
Figure 1 shows the Class F conditioning impulse while Figure 2 shows an

oscillogram of a typical 65 kA high current impulse.
EU 1588-H-08 2
Figure 1: Conditioning impulse at class F
Figure 2: Example of 65kA (4/10) impulse waveform
EU 1588-H-08 3
During the thermal recovery portion of the switching surge energy rating test, it
was discovered that the prorated test sections could not thermally recover after
exposure to the required Class F 11 kJ per kV MCOV energy discharges,
followed by 10 seconds at rated voltage.
The thermal recovery testing was repeated at the Class E 2-shot energy rating
level of 9 kJ per kV MCOV. Figure 3 shows an oscillogram of the energy
discharge followed by 10 seconds at rated voltage on sample 2, while Figure 4
demonstares the thermal stability of the test section during the recovery voltage
portion of the test.
Figure 3: Class E energy shot on Sample 2 (41.859kJ/shot)
Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the duty cycle and thermal recovery data respectively.
Time Vrated 60Hz

(sec) (KVc) (mA)
0.060 16.521 161.7
1.032 16.531 158.3
2.064 16.573 154.2
3 16.594 154.2
4.008 16.594 151.3
5.016 16.583 147.5
6.048 16.583 148.8
7.08 16.583 147.9
8.136 16.563 144.6
9.10 16.573 147.1
10.20 16.594 148.3
Table 1: 10 sec Duty Cycle Voltage data on Sample 2
EU 1588-H-08 4
Elapsed Recovery It Ir
Time (KVRMS) (mAC) (mAC) Watts
0:00:00 9.59 -12.53 -11.82 48.25
0:00:30 9.62 -10.57 -10.26 40.55
0:01:00 9.56 -9.02 -8.65 35.68
0:02:00 9.59 -8.56 -7.94 33.22
0:05:00 9.56 -7.04 -6.78 28.32
0:10:00 9.56 -6.28 -6.06 24.75
0:20:00 9.54 -5.17 -4.73 20.71
0:30:00 9.57 -4.87 -4.55 19.12
Table 2: 30 min Recovery Voltage data on Sample 2
Figure 4: Recovery Oscillogram- Sample 2
Per the test evaluation procedure as specified in Section 8.14.5 of the standard,
the switching surge voltage of each test section was measured before and after
the energy surge duty testing. Table 3 summarizes the results of this testing.
Additionally, each test section showed no evidence of physical damage.
EU 1588-H-08 5
Sample 1 kA IR 1 kA IR % Change
no. Before(kVc) After (kVc)
1 22.866 22.553 -1.37%
2 22.900 22.419 -2.10%
3 22.883 22.410 -2.06%
4 22.874 22.444 -1.88%
Table 3: 1kA IRs before and after
Conclusion:
The Type EVP prorated sections successfully passed the switching surge energy
requirements of Energy Class E as specified in Table 13 of IEEE C62.11-2012.
EU 1588-H-08 6
Single Impulse Withstand Rating

Date: 1/10/2014
Single Impulse Withstand rating test
INTRODUCTION: The single-impulse withstand rating test was performed per

Section 8.15 of the IEEE C62.11-2012 standard, on ten MOV blocks.
TEST PROCEDURE: Test was performed on 10 of the longest MOV blocks used
in the EVP product line. The discharge voltage (10kA, 8/20) and the reference
voltage (at 9.5mA) were measured before and after the long duration impulses
for evaluation. Each sample was then subjected to ten groups of two long
duration impulses of 2.22 ms and a charge content of 2.66 C.
Figure 1 shows the long duration impulse waveform applied on each of the MOV
discs.
Figure 1: Wave shape of long duration impulse wave form
EU 1588-H-09.0 2
Vref @
Vref @
10 kA IR 10 kA IR % 9.5mA %
Sample No 9.5mA
Before After Change Before Change
After (kVc)
(kVc) (kVc) (kVc)
1 13.63 13.68 0.37% 8.39 8.56 1.98%
2 13.60 13.64 0.29% 8.39 8.55 1.84%
3 13.50 13.54 0.30% 8.32 8.46 1.68%
4 13.61 13.65 0.29% 8.39 8.54 1.76%
5 13.58 13.63 0.37% 8.34 8.51 1.95%
6 13.56 13.6 0.29% 8.36 8.52 1.84%
7 13.62 13.67 0.37% 8.40 8.56 1.86%
8 13.63 Failed - 8.38 Failed -
9 13.59 13.63 0.29% 8.37 8.55 2.12%
10 13.57 13.61 0.29% 8.36 8.54 2.14%
Table 1: Before and After Discharge Voltages and Reference Voltages
Conclusion: The test was successfully completed as per the IEEE C.62.11-2012
requirements. The change in discharge voltage and reference voltage were well
within 5% of initial value. The claimed single-impulse withstand rating for the
Type EVP arrester is 2.4 C.
EU 1588-H-09.0 3
Duty Cycle

Date: 1/10/2014
Duty Cycle
INTRODUCTION: The duty cycle testing was performed per Section 8.16 of the
IEEE C62.11-2012 standard.
TEST OBJECTIVE: Section 8.16.3 of the IEEE C62.11-2012 standard specifies

that the 20-shot rated voltage portion be performed with 10 kA, 8/20 μs lightning
impulses and the 2-shot recovery portion of the Duty Cycle test also be
performed with 10 kA, 8/20 μs lightning impulses.
TEST SAMPLE: As required by clause 8.16.1, prorated samples contained the

minimum MOV mass per specified for the design. MCOV and rated voltages
were also prorated per unit Vref to reflect the lowest margin case of the standard
voltage ratings offered in this design. The test data shows the results of testing
performed on three test sections.
TEST PROCEDURE: The prorated test section was energized at its rated
voltage and subjected to twenty 10 kA, 8/20 μs discharges spaced at 1 minute
intervals. Following the twentieth impulse, the test section was placed in an oven
at 68°C. After reaching 68°C, the sample was subjected to two additional 10 kA,
8/20 μs discharges. Within 5 minutes after the second high current discharge,
the sample was energized at the prorated recovery voltage. Watts loss was
monitored over a 30 minute period demonstrating thermal stability.
TEST RESULTS: The following data summarizes the results of the duty cycle
test. Figures 1 and 2 show the 1st and 20th shot performed during the rated
voltage portion of the duty cycle test.
Figure 1
1st Shot @ Rated Voltage
EU 1588-H-10.1 2
Figure 2
th
20 Shot @ Rated Voltage
Figure 3 shows the oscillogram for the 2nd 10 kA impulse applied to the section
during the recovery portion of the duty cycle test.
Figure 3
EU 1588-H-10.1 3
Figures 4 and 5 show the grading current through the test section at time zero
and 30 minutes, demonstrating thermal recovery has occurred.
Figure 4
Recovery @ Time = 0 Minutes
Figure 5
Recovery @ Time = 30 Minutes
EU 1588-H-10.1 4
Prior to and after the duty cycle test, the sample 10 kA, 8/20 μs discharge voltage
is measured. Table 2 summarizes this test data.
Table 2
10 kA IR Before kVc 10 kA IR After kVc % Change in 10 kA IR
27.63 27.82 +0.7
CONCLUSION: The prorated test sample successfully completed Duty Cycle

testing and demonstrated thermal stability during the recovery test. The 10 kA
discharge voltage increased 0.7%, less than the allowed 10% limit specified in
Section 8.16.4 of the IEEE C62.11-2012 standard. Disassembly revealed no
evidence of physical damage to the test sample. The EVP arrester successfully
met the Duty Cycle requirements of a Station Class arrester.
EU 1588-H-10.1 5
Temporary Overvoltage

Date: 1/10/2014
EU 1588-H-11.1
Temporary Overvoltage
INTRODUCTION: The temporary overvoltage tests were performed per Section

8.17 of the IEEE C62.11-2012 standard. Prorated sections were used to facilitate
testing of the lowest MOV mass, highest stressed arrester rating at voltages
within available laboratory facility capabilities.
TEST PROCEDURE: Per clause 8.17.3, each prorated sample was tested within
five of the six designated time ranges a - f, spanning over-voltage durations of
.01 - 10,000 seconds. Per clause 8.17.3.1, the tests were performed
demonstrating TOV capability of the design under "no prior duty" conditions. For
each TOV voltage setting, the test circuit applied voltage to the sample
(preheated to 67.7oC) for a time duration sufficient to exceed that claimed on the
"no prior duty" curve. TOV voltage was superimposed over recovery voltage such
that when TOV was removed, there was no delay prior to application of recovery
voltage. Recovery voltage was applied for 30 minutes to demonstrate thermal
stability. Per clause 8.17.3.2 each prorated section was subjected to a “prior
duty” energy discharge corresponding to class E of the switching surge energy
test followed by a similar procedure of clause 8.17.3.1.
TEST RESULTS: Tests were successfully completed on five EVP prorated

samples in five specified time ranges. Each sample demonstrated thermal
stability after TOV exposure having no signs of physical damage during
inspection. Residual voltage at 10 kA measured prior to and following the
complete TOV test series verified characteristics remained unchanged within
acceptable limits. The following table summarizes the results of the TOV test
program and applies to EVP arresters through 228 kV rating.
Table 1: Data points on Prior/No Prior Duty Curve
No Prior Duty Prior Duty TOV

TOV TOV [p.u. Class E [p.u.
Duration [s] MCOV] MCOV]
0.02 1.527 1.483
0.1 1.485 1.433
1 1.421 1.355
10 1.36 1.279
100 1.299 1.206
1000 1.236 1.128
10000 1.175 1.054
EU 1588-H-11.1 2
The following curve plots the individual data points and curves of the claimed
TOV capability.
EVP CLASS E ANSI PRIOR DUTY TOV CURVE @ 68°C

1.55
Valid Prior Duty Test Points
Valid No Prior Duty Test Points
1.5 1.510 Existing Prior Duty Curve
Prior Duty Curve
1.467
1.45 1.45
1.4 1.401
1.365
Per Unit of MCOV
1.35
1.3 1.302
1.25 1.259
1.2
1.15
1.1 1.106
1.05
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (sec)
Figure 1: TOV curve for no prior and prior duty
10KA IR 10KA IR
Sample No % Change
Before (kVc) After (kVc)
1 26.802 27.148 1.29%
2 26.844 27.212 1.37%
3 26.928 27.000 0.27%
4 26.844 27.105 0.97%
Table 2: 10 kA IR Before and After – Prior Duty Samples
EU 1588-H-11.1 3
10KA IR 10KA IR
Sample No % Change
Before (kVc) After (kVc)
5 26.907 27.418 1.90%
6 26.781 27.283 1.87%
7 26.886 27.364 1.78%
8 26.844 27.23 1.44%
Table 3: 10 kA IR Before and After – No Prior Duty Samples
Conclusion: Tests were successfully completed on four prorated samples in four

specified time ranges. Each sample demonstrated thermal stability after TOV
exposure. Residual voltage at 10 kA measured prior to and after the TOV test
series changed much less than the allowed 10%. There was no evidence of
physical damage to the test sections, validating the EVP arrester TOV capability
claim.
EU 1588-H-11.1
Short Circuit Pressure Relief

Date: 1/10/2014
Short Circuit Pressure Relief
INTRODUCTION: The short circuit pressure relief tests were performed per
Section 8.18 of the IEEE C62.11-2012 standard. The short circuit testing was
performed in the Powertech High Power Laboratory in Surrey, B.C. Canada on
April 1, 2011.
SAMPLE PREPARATION: Samples were made in conformance to section

8.18.2.4, Design B. A 61 kV MCOV sample (longest single mechanical unit) was
made for the rated current test of 63 kArms, and a 24.4 kV MCOV sample was
made for the 400-800 Arms low current test. An internal fuse wire (per Note 2 of
the standard) was used through the middle of both samples. This wire passed
through drilled holes, 3.5 mm in size, within a half radius of the center of the
internal valve elements.
TEST PROCEDURE: To achieve the high levels of fault current from a limited
voltage source (5.6 kV), the samples were pre-faulted with the fuse wire, as
described above. The fault was initiated with the fuse wire, followed by the
application of the target fault current for each arrester.
TEST RESULTS: Test results are summarized in the table below.
Test Number 1 2
Arrester MCOV kVrms 61 24.4
Actual RMS kArms 62.3 0.6
Eff. Claimable kArms 63 0.6
Test Current
Peak kApeak 100 (Not measured)
Duration ms 243 1010
Heaviest part Soft g 864 0
outside circle Hard g 0 0
Duration of flames s 0 0
CONCLUSION: High current passed the test at a 62.3 kArms rating. Assignment
of 63 kArms rating is based on recognizing that the I2t=894x106 A2s achieved (due
to a longer duration of 1010 ms) is more severe than the target of I2t=794x106
A2s. Missing the exact target current is not uncommon due to the unpredictability
of the arc impedance, hence the increase in arc duration to help compensate for
any test mishap in not meeting the target current exactly (i.e. hedging with an
ultimately more severe short circuit event).
The 24.4 kV MCOV sample passed the low current short circuit test at 600 Arms
for 1 second.
EU 1588-H-12.1 2
Maximum Design Cantilever Load (MDCL)

And Moisture Ingress Test

Date: 1/10/2014
MDCL and Moisture Ingress Test
INTRODUCTION: The maximum design cantilever load (MDCL) and moisture

ingress test were performed per Section 8.22 of the IEEE C62.11-2012 standard.
SAMPLE PREPARATION: Sample was made in conformance to section 8.22.1

of the standard, using the longest EVP mechanical unit, 61 kV MCOV, in the form
of a tripod base and a single bolt mount cap base (which also serves as a multi-
unit joint and optional base for the purposes of this test).
TEST PROCEDURE: Initial electrical tests were performed, followed by terminal

preconditioning to the amount of 25 ft*lbs for a duration of 30 s. The sample was
mounted in a thermal cycling oven and load was applied at 10,000 in*lbs for the
tripod base and 6,667 in*lbs for the cap base in the four principal directions as
outlined in the procedure, while thermally cycling in each direction following the
alternating temperature extremes from the standard. At each stage of this
rotation, the total deflection and residual deflection were measured.
Within 24 hours of the thermal cycling the arrester was once again tested in all
four principle directions for maximum deflection and residual deflection at
ambient temperature.
Next the arrester was subjected to the 42 hour water immersion boiling portion of
the test. Within the 8 hour time frame after this test, with allowance of the sample
to return to room temperature, the samples were once again electrically tested
for comparison to the initial measurements.
TEST RESULTS: The evaluation requirements and actual measurements are

compared in the tables below and demonstrate compliance to the standard.
Table #1: Electrical Comparisons – Initial vs. Final

Final Measure
Initial Measure (@ 22.6°C) Requirement Evaluation
(@ 24.1°C)
7.48 W @ 100% MCOV 7.68 W (+ 2.7%) < 20% increase PASS
177.4 kV, 10 kA discharge 177.1 kV (- 0.2%)* < 5% change PASS
(Oscillograms of V and I) (Oscillograms) No breakdown PASS
4.1 pC PD @ 105% MCOV 3.4 pC* < 10 pC PASS
*Could not complete this portion within the 8 hour timeframe due to lab constraints
EU 1588-H-13.1 2
Table #2: Deflection during thermal testing
Permanent
Angle of Max Deflection
Deflection at
Load Applied at Rated Load
Rated Load
[degrees] [mm]
[mm]
0 45 2
180 46 3.5
270 43 1
90 43.5 2
Table #3: Deflection at ambient after thermal testing

Permanent
Angle of Max Deflection
Deflection at
Load Applied at Rated Load
Rated Load
[degrees] [mm]
[mm]
0 43.5 1
180 46 1
270 44 0.5
90 43.5 1
CONCLUSION: The comparison of electrical values before and after the test falls
within the limits of the C62.11 standard and demonstrate strong seal integrity
under extreme conditions. The deflection values recorded, in combination with
the electrical values measured, demonstrate that the manufacturer’s claimed
mechanical requirements resulted in no permanent damage to the arrester.
EU 1588-H-13.1 3
Thermal Equivalency

Date: 1/10/2014
Thermal Equivalency
INTRODUCTION: The polymer housing accelerated aging tests were performed

per Section 7.2.2.3 of the IEEE C62.11-2012 standard.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this test is to verify that the thermal cooling curve for
the Type EVP prorated section, when internally heated, will cool slower than that
of a full size EVP arrester unit.
PROCEDURE: The full size arrester and the prorated section were heated up by
applying a temporary overvoltage to the test samples. The test procedure is
defined in Section 7.2.2.3 of IEEE C62.11-2005 Standard. The full size arrester
unit (72kV rated) was instrumented with (1) internal thermocouple located in the
middle of the MOV disc stack. The temperature of the arrester thermocouple was
monitored at 5 minute intervals to develop the arrester unit cooling curve. The
prorated section was instrumented with a single thermocouple and its cooling
rated was also monitored at 5 minute intervals. The cooling rate during the 1st 15
minutes was slower for the EVP section than the arrester. To assure thermal
equivalency, as allowed by the standard, the starting temperature of the section
cooling curve was raised from the targeted 140 ºC point (for the arrester) to 147.7
ºC for the prorated section.
SUMMARY: The following cooling curve confirms that the cooling rate of the
EVP prorated section is slower than that of the full size EVP arrester unit,
confirming the thermal equivalency of the prorated section to the full size
arrester.
EU 1588-H-14.1 2
Arrester Vs Prorated Section corrected cooling
curve
160
EVP Prorated Section preheated to 60+7.9
°C
140
120
100
Temperature° C
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time- Mins
Arrester Prorated Section
EU 1588-H-14.1 3

3 Reporte de Pruebas Ieee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Reporte de Pruebas Ieee

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Reporte de Pruebas Ieee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IEEE DESIGN TEST REPORT

Report No. EU1588-H-00.1

Dennis Lenk Saroni Brahma

Report No. Description Clause Issue Date

Dennis Lenk Saroni Brahma

Dennis Lenk Saroni Brahma

TESTS PERFORMED: Residual voltage measurements were made on three

RESULTS: Tables 1, 2 and 3 show the residual voltages measured on test

Table 1: Measurements made on test sample 1

Table 3: Measurements made on test sample 3

8/20 discharge characteristic

Switching Surge characteristic

Ures-arrester = Per-unit Ures-chart x Ures-nom

Ures-arrester = Per-unit Ures-chart x Ures-nom + L’ h In / Tf

MOV Disc Accelerated Aging

Dennis Lenk Saroni Brahma

INTRODUCTION: Tests were performed to measure MOV disc aging

Accelerated aging test data

CONCLUSION: Each test sample demonstrated continually declining Watts loss

Dennis Lenk Saroni Brahma

Dennis Lenk Saroni Brahma

INTRODUCTION: The polymer housing accelerated aging tests were performed

TEST RESULTS: The 180 kV MCOV arrester demonstrated thermal stability

Radio Influence Voltage

Dennis Lenk Saroni Brahma

TEST PROCEDURE AND SAMPLE:

Equipment and test methods conformed to NEMA LA 1-1992 requirements. Prior

A background noise level of 1.2 µV was measured at an open circuit voltage of

Dennis Lenk Saroni Brahma

Equipment and test methods conformed to the IEEE 454-1979 standard.

Switching Surge Energy Rating

Dennis Lenk Saroni Brahma

TEST SAMPLE: As required by the standard, the prorated test sections

Figure 1 shows the Class F conditioning impulse while Figure 2 shows an

Figure 2: Example of 65kA (4/10) impulse waveform

Figure 3: Class E energy shot on Sample 2 (41.859kJ/shot)

Time Vrated 60Hz

Table 2: 30 min Recovery Voltage data on Sample 2

Figure 4: Recovery Oscillogram- Sample 2

Table 3: 1kA IRs before and after

Single Impulse Withstand Rating

Dennis Lenk Saroni Brahma

INTRODUCTION: The single-impulse withstand rating test was performed per

Figure 1: Wave shape of long duration impulse wave form

Dennis Lenk Saroni Brahma

TEST OBJECTIVE: Section 8.16.3 of the IEEE C62.11-2012 standard specifies

TEST SAMPLE: As required by clause 8.16.1, prorated samples contained the

CONCLUSION: The prorated test sample successfully completed Duty Cycle

Dennis Lenk Saroni Brahma

INTRODUCTION: The temporary overvoltage tests were performed per Section

TEST RESULTS: Tests were successfully completed on five EVP prorated

Table 1: Data points on Prior/No Prior Duty Curve

No Prior Duty Prior Duty TOV

EVP CLASS E ANSI PRIOR DUTY TOV CURVE @ 68°C

Figure 1: TOV curve for no prior and prior duty

Conclusion: Tests were successfully completed on four prorated samples in four

Short Circuit Pressure Relief

Dennis Lenk Saroni Brahma

SAMPLE PREPARATION: Samples were made in conformance to section