1 Challenges for the Design of Wind and Solar Power Plant Grounding System for Personal Safety Comparison of Copper and Copper Clad Steel Conductors for WPP Grounding Application IEEE PES 2016 General Meeting, Boston, MA, July 17-21, 2016. Presentation by: Andrew Cadmore , CEng MIET, Principal Electrical Design Engineer, RES Ltd Abdou Sana, P.Eng, Ph.D, Electrical Engineering Specialist, RES-Americas 2 1- The Use of bare Copper Clad Steel (CSS) conductor, instead of bare Copper (Cu) conductor, as the directly buried bare horizontal ground electrode conductor laid in all MV cable trenches is evaluated based on a WPP project design exercise Typical 34.5kV MV Cable Trench Cross-Section View 3 2- Copper Clad Steel (CCS) • Composite in which a concentric copper cladding is bonded to a steel core to provide a strong “low cost” solution for grounding conductors • Available Stranded CCS conductors: 40% and 30% conductivity relative to the same size of annealed soft-drawn copper (relative conductivity of 100%). • Sizing of CCS conductor should be based on an equivalent short circuit capacity to that of annealed soft-drawn copper 4 • Claims on the benefits of CCS conductors as an alternative to copper conductors: – – – – – – Cost savings compared to copper 8-12% lighter than copper conductors 105-108% higher fusing current compared to copper conductors Highly theft resistant Excellent fatigue properties Extremely strong and rugged, higher breaking strength than copper conductors – CCS requires no special handling compared to Copper – CCS is compatible with standard copper connectors either pressure, bolted or exothermic welded – CCS conductors exhibit high corrosion resistance as tested in various soils conditions 5 3- Comparative Study copper vs CCS for a typical WPP • Analysis of the impedance profile resulting from a 3dimensional model of the grounding system for a large WPP – Impedance profiles as seen from the main substation and using 3 types of conductors throughout the MV cable trenches are evaluated and compared: • Bare copper conductors • Equivalent 30% conductivity CCS conductors • Equivalent 40% conductivity CCS conductors • Parametric analysis for each of these 3 grounding conductor systems (Copper, CCS30% & CCS40%), with logarithmic varying soil resistivity: • • • • 10 ohm.m uniform soil model (Typ. Shoreline windfarm) 100 ohm.m uniform soil model (Typ. low-land windfarm) 1,000 ohm.m uniform soil model (Typ. high-land windfarm) 10,000 ohm.m uniform soil model (Extreme rocky mountainous windfarm) 6 WPP example in WA State, USA, Design-built in 2010/2011: • • • • • 1x 230kV/34.5kVSubstation 83 Wind Turbines (191MW) 2 Met Masts Approx. 5.7 mi x 3.5 mi 10- 34.5kV Collection Circuits All UG, 5 different MV cable sizes 7 • Equivalent Bare Grounding Conductor installed at the base of all MV cable trenches: – Size based on IEEE Std 80-2000 with: • • • • Prevailing maximum 34.5kV fault level, seen at the main substation: 20,383 Amps. Fault clearing time 0.133s Initial Temperature : 25°C Final Temperature: 350°C – Results: • 1/0 AWG stranded copper conductor, (106kcmil) • 30% conductivity CCS conductor: 7x #6 AWG (184kcmil) • 40% conductivity CCS conductor: 7x #7 AWG (146kcmil) 8 Minimum Conductor Cross-section Area (IEEE Std 80 -2000) A mm2 I 1 TC AP 10 4 K0 Tm ln tc r r K0 Ta A .kcmil I 197.4 K T TCAP ln .0 .m t K T .c .r .r .0 .a I rms current in kA Amm2 minimum Conductor cross section in mm2 Akcmil minimum Conductor cross section in kcmil Tm Maximum allowable temperature in °C Ta Ambient temperature in °C Tr Reference temperature for material constants in °C αo Thermal coefficient of resistivity at 0 °C in 1/°C αr Thermal coefficient of resistivity at reference temperature Tr in 1/°C ρr Resistivity of the ground conductor at reference temperature Tr in μΩ-cm Ko 1/αo or (1/αr) – Tr in °C tc duration of current in s TCAP: Thermal capacity per unit volume of material in J/(cm3·°C) (see table) αr and ρr to be evaluated at the same reference temperature of Tr °C . (Tables provides data for αr and ρr at 20 °C). 9 Description Copper, annealed softdrawn Copper, commercial hard-drawn Copper-clad steel wire Copper-clad steel wire Copper-clad steel rodb Aluminum, EC grade Aluminum, 5005 alloy Aluminum, 6201 alloy Aluminum-clad steel wire Steel, 1020 Stainless-clad steel rodc Zinc-coated steel rod Stainless steel, 304 ρr 20 °C (μΩ·cm) 234 Fusinga temperature Tm (°C) 1083 1.72 TCAP thermal capacity [J/(cm3·°C)] 3.42 0.003 81 242 1084 1.78 3.42 40.0 30.0 20.0 61.0 53.5 52.5 20.3 0.003 78 0.003 78 0.003 78 0.004 03 0.003 53 0.003 47 0.003 60 245 245 245 228 263 268 258 1084 1084 1084 657 652 654 657 4.40 5.86 8.62 2.86 3.22 3.28 8.48 3.85 3.85 3.85 2.56 2.60 2.60 3.58 10.8 9.8 8.6 2.4 0.001 60 0.001 60 0.003 20 0.001 30 605 605 293 749 1510 1400 419 1400 15.90 17.50 20.10 72.00 3.28 4.44 3.93 4.03 Material conductivity (%) 100.0 αr factor at 20 °C (1/°C) 0.003 93 Ko at 0 °C (0 °C) 97.0 a From ASTM standards. b Copper-clad steel rods based on 0.254 mm (0.010 in) copper thickness. c Stainless-clad steel rod based on 0.508 mm (0.020 in) No. 304 stainless steel thickness over No. 1020 steel core. 10 Ground Electrode Impedance Profile Studies Results 11 12 13 14 Ground Electrode Impedance Profile Studies Results – Table 15 4- Comments on Results • Ground grid Impedance Zg, as seen at the Main Substation (i.e. point of fault), increases for CCS relative to copper. Max value 140.8% for the 30% CCS conductor, in a 10 ohm.m soil. This results also in: – Increase of GPR, Touch & Step Potential as seen at or near the point of fault proportional to the increase in ground electrode impedance. – Slightly larger Hot Zones – Increased need for crushed rock at the WTG’s located closest to the main sub. For most in-land WPP (100 ohm.m soils), the various ground potential values would all have increased by approximately 124.7%. 16 • The % deviation in Zg as seen at the Main Substation (i.e.point of fault), decreases with CCS compared to Copper with an increase in soil resistivity. This means that the: – impact of CCS conductor becomes more comparable to Copper as the soil resistivity increases in ohm.m value. • The % deviation in Zg as seen at the farthest WTG or Met Mast, from the Main Substation decreases with CCS compared to Copper with an increase in the value of soil resistivity. – This means that for transfer potentials, CSS conductors performs better than Copper conductors due the increase in their internal impedance. • The difference in electrical performance between 30%CCS and 40% CCS conductor is not significant. 17 5- CONCLUSION • Copper ground conductors offer better electrical performance than CCS conductors. – The difference in performance is though not so substantial (max 140.8% of increased GPR using CCS as compared to Copper during extremely low soil resistivity conditions) – In most cases this is manageable within the engineering design of the windfarm grounding system. • From an engineering design perspective, the impact of CCS compared to Copper conductors are as follows: – Possible need to install additional GPR control conductors, around WTG’s, Junction Boxes or Met Masts to mitigate increased Touch & Step Potential: Likelihood of having to install such additional ground conductors is relatively low. 18 – Possible need to install crushed rock at more WTG’s, MV Junction Boxes or Met Masts to mitigate increased Touch & Step Potential – Possible need to undertake more detailed ground potential analysis mitigate increased Touch & Step Potential. – Increased likelihood that a project site will be subject to a “Hot” Zone of Influence and an increase in the area size of that “Hot” Zone of Influence. There is little that can be practically done to reduce the size of the “Hot” Zone of Influence, beyond refining the desktop design & analysis. • The difference in electrical performance of 30% and 40% conductivity CCS conductors is not significant, – 40% CCS conductor product has a better protection of the inner steel core against corrosion resulting from either soil chemistry, or 3rd party damage of the outer copper coating, and is recommended over 30%CCS 1 Challenges for the Design of Wind and Solar Power Plant Grounding System for Personal Safety Applicability of Electrical Code (NESC/CEC) to WPP & Solar Power Plant Grounding IEEE PES 2016 General Meeting, Boston, MA, July 17‐21, 2016. Presentation by: Tracker Goree, Electrical Design Engineer, RES-Americas Abdou Sana, P.Eng, Ph.D, Electrical Engineering Specialist, RES-Americas 2 Appx. 7 mi Appx. 8 mi 3 • 1‐ Bare Ground Removal • 2‐ Mid Span Grounding • 3‐ Redundant Path Requirements 4 1‐ Bare Trench Ground Requirements NESC Rule 354 D.2.a(3) “A separate conductor in contact with the earth and in close proximity to the cable, where such cable or cables also have a grounded sheath or shield not necessarily in contact with the earth. The sheath, shield or both as well as the separate conductor, shall be adequate for the expected magnitude and duration of the fault currents that may be imposed.” This means that to remove the bare ground conductor one needs to provide either of the following: 5 • Unjacketed Cable (Concentric neutrals are bare and in contact with the soil) or • Semi‐conductive jacketed concentric neutral.(Outer Jacket made from semi‐conductive material (appx. 100 ohm.m) • Unjacketed concentric neutral cable is subject to corrosion • Semi‐conductive jacketed cable are costly items. 6 7 Ground Impedance Calculations were done using an interconnected model both including and excluding the bare ground conductor. Split Factor Calculations were done for each location both including and excluding the bare ground conductor. The GPR was calculated as a product of the short circuit current, split factor, and ground resistance. GPR = I_ShC * L_f * S_f * Rg I_ShC = Actual Short-circuit current L_f = Load Growth Factor =110% S_f = Split factor (calculated) Rg = Ground grid resistance Touch and Step voltages were calculated based on simulation plots as a percentage of the GPR. Vtouch = Vtouch% * GPR Vstep = Vsep% * GPR 8 Of the 42 locations evaluated: Roughly 50% of the locations considered were unsafe without the use of crushed rock. All Sites were safe when considered with the use of crushed rock. 9 This study was conducted using one median soil resistivity model with an average of roughly 100 ohm-m. If this resistivity is increased beyond 100 ohm-m what will be the effect? Assumptions: • Only the interconnected impedance was changed according to soil resistivity in the calculation. • Split factor and all other variables were considered to be the same for this exercise. • Safety Criteria was held constant for this exercise. 10 Average Soil Resistivity Vs Touch Voltage Touch Voltage 800 700 With Bare GND Conductor 600 Without Bare GND Conductor 500 Safety Criteria Without Crushed Rock 400 Safety Criteria With Crushed Rock 300 200 100 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Average Soil Resistivity 1400 1600 1800 2000 11 Main Implications of Rule for Solar and WPP • It has been shown in this case study that if the grounding conductor is removed the split factor, the network impedance and subsequently the GPR will increase. This increase in GPR will consequently increase touch and step voltages. The higher the soil resistivity is the greater this increase will be. • This increase may motivate the need for mitigation measures in order to achieve safety and this will have an associated cost impact. • From an NESC applicability standpoint. Rule 354-D.2.a(3) is restrictive in enforcing unjacketed concentric neutral or semi conducting jacket in-lieu of the trench ground, however the study proves that under certain soil conditions (low rho and low SC current) and/or with the use of crushed rock, the safety criteria can be met without the trench conductor or the semi-conducting jacket or unjacketed concentric neutral. • For med. to high rho value soil safety can be difficult to achieve without costly mitigation. In addition many wind turbine manufacturers local grounding or lightning protection requirements will be difficult to meet at reasonable cost. (namely those of IEC 61400-24). • Further Analysis is needed to determine the effects of soil structure on this comparison and to evaluate the economics associated with the various code compliant solutions. 12 2‐ Mid Span Grounding Requirements NESC Rule 096C : Multi Grounded Systems “The neutral, which shall be of sufficient size and ampacity for the duty involved, shall be connected to a made or existing electrode at each transformer location and at a sufficient number of additional points with the made or existing electrodes to total not less than four grounds in each 1.6 km (1 mi) of the entire line, not including grounds at individual services.” 13 Mid Span Grounding Requirements NESC Rule 354‐D.3.c : Random separation (<12in) between Insulating jacketed grounded neutral supply cables and communication cables “Grounded in accordance with Rule 314 except that the grounding interval required by Rule 96C shall be not less than eight in each 1.6 km (1 mile) of the random buried section, not including grounds at individual services” 14 NESC Rule 96C when Applied to Wind Power Plant collection Systems: ‐ Distances in‐between WTG are less or slightly greater than 400m (1/4 mile) ‐ Feeders (home runs) length may >5miles and Each additional grounding point is a an additional potential point of failure ‐ WPP and SPP MV collection systems are generally run as Balanced networks, with Delta/Wye MV/LV transformers, and are therefore not generally subject to standing Neutral load current flow. Cable Shield/sheath Standing Voltages Installation 3 Phase – Cables Trefoil Typical : d=2.2in; S=d; S/d~1 3 Phase – Cable Flat Formation - Transposed Cross-bonded (T&XB) - Single Point Bonded (SPB) Typical: d=2.2in; S=12in IEEE Std 575‐2014 ‐ Trefoil –Cables Touching (S/d=1) : E= 60V/1000m/1000A ‐ Flat ‐ Cable Transposed & Screen Cross‐Bonded (T&XB ‐ S/d=5.5): E= 180V/1000m/1000A ‐ Flat ‐ Single Point Bonded (SPB – S/d=5.5): E= 180V/1000m/1000A Sheath Induced Voltage Based on Loading In accordance with IEEE 575-2014 - Concentric Neutral Shielded Cable Continous Loading Max Acceptable Max Length for Max Full-Load Max Continuous Acceptable Sheath Standing Sheath Loading Standing Voltage Voltage Installation Installation Method Configuration V/km/kA (V) Direct Buried Trefoil 60.000 65 Direct Buried Flat - T&XB 180.000 65 Direct Buried Flat - SPB 180.000 25 (A) 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 (ft) NESC 096C - 4xGnd/Mile (ft) 11847 10155 8886 7898 7108 6462 5924 3949 3385 2962 2633 2369 2154 1975 1519 1302 1139 1013 911 828 759 Assumed per-unit sheath voltage values (IEEE 575-2014- Figure 1): - Trefoil - Cables Touching: 60V/1000m/1000A - Flat - Single Point Bonded (Flat-SPB): 180V/1000m/1000A - Flat - Cable Transposed & Screen Cross-Bonded (Flat-T&XB): 180V/1000m/1000A for "Minor" Section Lengths Maximum acceptable full-load standing sheath voltage (IEEE 575-2014 Annex C1): - 65V for Trefoil or Flat formation Transposed and cross-bonded - 25V for Flat formation and Shield Single Point Bonded SPB cable terminations 1320 1320 1320 18 Maximum Cable Length for Sheath Induced Voltage <65V vs Loading In accordance with IEEE 575‐2014 ‐ 12000 11000 10000 Trefoil ‐ V_Sheath<65V Cable Section Length (ft) 9000 8000 Flat ‐ T&XB ‐ V_Sheath<65V 7000 6000 Flat ‐ SPB ‐ V_Sheath<25V 5000 4000 NESC 4xGnd/Mile 3000 2000 1000 0 300 350 400 450 500 Maximum Continuous Loading Current (Amp) 550 600 19 Main Implications of Rule for Solar and WPP ‐ For cable in trefoil touching and cables in flat formation transposed and cross‐bonded: ‐ Acceptable shield standing voltages of Max 65V can be achieved. ‐ Section lengths far greater than ¼ mile are acceptable without shield grounding for typical feeder maximum current loading of 600A. ‐ Sections length without need for shield grounding are even greater for lower current loading <600A. ‐ NESC rule 96C requires max 1320ft (1/4mile) 20 3‐ Redundant Ground Conductor for Substation Remote Ground Electrodes 36‐302 (3)(a) Ontario Safety Code “ … Two grounding conductors of a minimum of No. 2/0 AWG copper shall connect the ground electrode to the station equipment in such a way that should one grounding conductor or ground electrode be damaged, no single metal structure or equipment frame may become isolated;…” This Rule is enforced by the Ontario Electrical Safety Authority as follows: 21 • Each remote grounding station has to be connected to the substation by redundant paths which is either: – a double ground conductor (bare or OHG) or – a looped ground connection to the substation through 2 or more circuits) • If underground shielded cables (Concentric Neutral, tape shield etc..) are used, the cable shield shall not be considered a current return path (don’t count on it). • If OHL are used, the neutral cannot be considered a sufficient path for fault current return • In addition, the grounding system shall exhibit a GPR < 5000V and be safe (V_Step ≤ Safe V_Step; and V_Touch ≤ Safe V_Touch) 22 • If any of the above conditions cannot be achieved, then the remote ground station and the substation have to be safe as standalone. – Full short‐circuit applicable, – No allowance for ground fault current split factor – No allowance to consider an interconnected ground grid resistance This rule is understandable for a substation with remote electrodes (counterpoise terminated by a ground rod). However, for WTG and Solar PP it’s a big challenge 23 For Wind PP, any WTG grounding station is considered remote to the main substation and needs to comply with the above rule (safe as standalone), or use redundant ground conductors (double or looped ground or both) A Typical WPP Plant Feeder Ground has to be doubled Single Ground Conductor System Double Ground Conductors 1 24 Fully looped or mixed lopped and double ground conductors may be used. Mix of Double and Looped Ground Conductors Looped Ground Conductors 25 For Solar PP., each inverter station is considered remote to the main substation and needs to comply with the above rule (safe as standalone, or use redundant ground conductors (double or looped ground or both) 26 Main Implications of OSC Rule 36‐302 (3)(a) for Solar & WPP • Extraordinary cost increase especially on difficult soils (500Ohm.m and above) up to 15,000$ per WTG • Improved Personnel Safety ? – Safety is achieved with standard calculations without need to apply this Rule – UG and OH systems layout are such that the ground conductor cannot be severed without cutting the communication cable and hence cannot be unnoticed. The intent of redundancy is thus achieved through a careful and methodic trench and OHL layout. – Even if the ground conductor is voluntarily severed without touching the communication system, part of phase to ground current will still flow in the concentric neutral and hence a split factor should be allowed to be applied for the standalone cases. – Due to inductive coupling and outer jacket insulation the split factor component of the concentric neutral is more stable than that of the bare ground conductor. 27 1 Challenges for the Design of Wind and Solar Power Plant Grounding System for Personal Safety WPP Grounding System Design Challenges on High Resistivity Ground IEEE PES 2016 General Meeting Boston MA July 17‐21 2016 IEEE PES 2016 General Meeting, Boston, MA, July 17‐21, 2016. Presentation by: Presentation by: Andrew Cadmore CEng MIET, RES Ltd., Principal Electrical Design Engineer 2 Project 'A' Project A Windfarm, Windfarm Ontario, Canada (2010/11) , ( / ) 98.9MW (43x 2.3MW turbines) project ~60km north‐east of Thunder Bay. Project required 10.3km (49 spans) of new build d l i it 230kV t dual circuit 230kV transmission line from the new Point Of i i li f th P i t Of Interconnection Switching Station (POI) to the new Windfarm 230/34.5kV Main Substation (WF Sub). RES were responsible for 230/34.5kV Main Substation (WF Sub). RES were responsible for all project electrical design works, inc. 230kV POI through to LV terminals at base of each wind turbine. 3 230kV Grid Connection 230kV Grid Connection Existing Remote Sub Remote Sub ‘B’ B Sub 183km New POI 230kV Sw.Sta. 47km Existing Remote Sub ‘C’ S b Sub Grid Point of Interconnection 10.3km New Windfarm 230/34.5kV Sub 4 230kV Transmission Line Design 230kV Transmission Line Design OPGW 1 129mm² OPGW 2 A1 C2 B1 B2 C1 400mm² ACSR A2 5 Soil Resistivity Soil Resistivity Electrical soil resistivity ‘ρ’ increased significantly between POI and WF Sub, as windfarm is located on the Canadian Granite Cap. Grounding analysis software was used to determine equivalent multi‐layer soil models along OHL route, terminal substations and throughout the windfarm collection system substations and throughout the windfarm collection system. OEB/HONI Transmission Code design criteria required the connected facility grounding be designed for a ground return yg g g g current of ‘Ig = 25kA’ (actual max 3.9kA) at the POI, reducing to 10.7kA (actual max 3.2kA) at WF Sub. 6 Wide Range of Soil Resistivity Wide Range of Soil Resistivity Project 'A' Range of Electrical Soil Resistivity: From 230kV POI Switching Station to Windfarm 230/34.5kV Main Substation g / 100,000 Windfarm Median WF 230/34.5kV SUB 200m from SUB 10,000 Electrical Soil Resiistivity (ohm‐m) 400m from SUB 600m from SUB 800m from SUB 800m from SUB 1000m from SUB 3300m from SUB Midway SWY/SUB 900m from SWY 1,000 790m from SWY 600m from SWY 420m from SWY 140m from SWY 60m from SWY POI 230kV SWY 100 0.1 1.0 10.0 Average Electrode Spacing (m) 100.0 7 Ground Electrodes Ground Electrodes WF Sub stand‐alone ground grid design = ‘R b d l d dd ‘ g = 29.79Ω’ even with 6x 100m ’ h vertical electrodes, reducing to ‘Zg+wf = 3.25 + j0.73Ω’ upon connection to windfarm grounding system. WF Sub grid required to be designed stand‐alone sufficient. Grounding analysis software was used to model all ground electrode systems, g y g y , allowing full consideration of internal impedances. RES specified installation of 2x low resistance OPGW sky wires, and control of RES specified installation of 2x low resistance OPGW sky wires and control of OHL pole ground electrode ‘Rtg’ values, to reduce current split factor (Sf) as seen from both ends. Rtg ≤95Ω ‐ except initial 7x poles out from POI Rtg ≤9Ω 8 Windfarm Sub Ground Grid Windfarm Sub Ground Grid -30 0 SOIL SURFACE Z AX XIS (METERS) 30 60 90 120 114 Y AX IS 84 (M ET 54 ER S) 24 WF Sub Ground Grid – 3D View -6 -36 -30 0 30 XAXIS X AXIS (METERS) 3-D View of Conductors 60 90 120 9 Windfarm Grounding System Windfarm Grounding System 3000 0 -3000 WF Sub Windfarm Grounding System – Plan View -6000 -7500 -4500 -1500 1500 4500 7500 10 230kV T L Pole Ground Electrodes 230kV T.L. Pole Ground Electrodes Project 'A' 230kV Terminal & Pole Earth Electrode Resistances 100 90 80 Earth Electrod de Resistance (ohm ms) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Earth Resistance (Design) Earth Resistance (Test) 35 40 45 50 WF Sub POI Sw.Stn. Overhead Line Structure (No.) 11 Ground Potential Rise Ground Potential Rise OESC GPR limit of ≤5kV was not practically achievable. Therefore, as an OESC permitted deviation, RES recommended p the IEEE 367 value of 25kV be the max GPR limit. IEEE 80: 2000, Table C.1, covers many transmission line scenarios for calculation of ‘S f ‘Sf ’, but did not cater for the Project 'A' scenario. Grounding ’ b did f h j ' ' i G di analysis software was used to analyse and calculate bespoke values of ‘SSf ’ allowing for: 2x parallel low resistance OPGW values of allowing for: 2x parallel low resistance OPGW conductors; variable span lengths; variable pole ‘Rtg‘ values; variable soil resistivity ‘ρ’ along OHL route. 12 Standard v Optimised Design Standard v Optimised Design Applicable Standard and Code Requirements Applicable Standard and Code Requirements Ontario Electrical Safety Code (OESC) 24th Ed.: 2009 ‐ Rule 36‐304: Standard GPR Limit Ontario Electrical Safety Code (OESC) 24th Ed.: 2009 ‐ Rules 36‐304 & 2‐030: E t d d GPR Li it P Extended GPR Limit ‐ Permitted deviation with written OESA approval itt d d i ti ith itt OESA l IEEE 367: 1996 ‐ Clause 4.2 ‐ Possible high GPR under 'unusual circumstances' Calculation Methods IEEE 80: 2000 ‐ Table C.1: 1x Transmission Line; 0x Distribution Lines 1x 7x #10 AWG (36 8mm²) Alumoweld (ACS) Shield Wire: R 1x 7x #10 AWG (36.8mm²) Alumoweld (ACS) Shield Wire Rac = 2.94Ω/km @ 20°C 2 94Ω/km @ 20°C IEEE 80: 2000 ‐ Table C.1: 2x Transmission Lines; 0x Distribution Lines 2x 7x #10 AWG (36.8mm²) Alumoweld (ACS) Shield Wire: Rac = 2.94Ω/km @ 20°C Calculated: 1x Single Circuit Transmission Line (Check against IEEE 80, Table C.1) 1x 7x #10 AWG (36.8mm²) Alumoweld (ACS) Shield Wire: Rac = 2.94Ω/km @ 20°C ( ²) l ld ( ) h ld /k ° Calculated: 1x Dual Circuit Transmission Line 2x 7x #10 AWG (36.8mm²) Alumoweld (ACS) Shield Wire: Rac = 2.94Ω/km @ 20°C Calculated: 1x Dual Circuit Transmission Line ‐ Design approved by HONI & OESA 2x OPGW (129mm²) ACS/AA Shield Wire Rac 0 423Ω/km @ 20°C 2x OPGW (129mm²) ACS/AA Shield Wire: Rac = 0.423Ω/km @ 20°C Calculated: 1x Dual Circuit Transmission Line ‐ As‐Built approved by HONI & OESA 2x OPGW (129mm²) ACS/AA Shield Wire: Rac = 0.423Ω/km @ 20°C If (A) Rg (ohm) Sf (%) Ig (A) GPR (V) ≤5,000 >5,000 , ≤25000 29.79 10,667 21.40 18.20% 1,941 57,837 10.00% 1,067 31,779 18.22% 8 % 1,943 ,9 3 57,885 5 ,885 13.10% 1,398 41,636 5.82% 620 18,486 6.17% 658 14,090 13 Design Validation Design Validation Following site testing of as‐built works, and using the same g g , g grounding analysis software, RES undertook validation checks of design calculations based on the as‐built ground electrode resistance test data taken from the terminal substations and each line pole. Both Design and As‐Built installation were accepted and approved by HONI & OESA accepted and approved by HONI & OESA. 14 Design Validation Design Validation Project 'A' Current Split Factor Curve ‐ 230/34.5kV Windfarm Sub 3.25 21.4 3.30 50% 29.8 18000 45% 16000 40% 14000 35% 12000 30% 10000 25% 8000 20% 6000 15% 4000 10% 2000 5% 0 0.1 1.0 Current Split Factor (%) Ground Potential Rise ((volts) 20000 0% 100.0 10.0 Earth Electrode Resistance seen at Windfarm Main Sub (ohms) OEB/HONI GPR [10.67kA] (Design) OEB/HONI GPR [10.67kA] (As‐Built) Max Actual GPR [3.16kA] (Design) Max Actual GPR [3.16kA] (As‐Built) OESC 5000V (Design) Current Split Factor (Design) Current Split Factor (As‐Built) R Grid (Design) R Grid (As‐Built) R Windfarm (Design) R Windfarm (As‐Built) 15 Conclusion The grounding design criteria at Project 'A' WPP proved to be g g g j p very challenging throughout, particularly at the 230kV terminal substations. However, in‐depth modelling and analysis of the 230kV transmission line configuration, to accurately calculate ground fault current split factors, demonstrated: excellent correlation between IEEE 80 2000 Table C 1 values and analysis correlation between IEEE 80‐2000, Table C.1 values and analysis results; opportunity to improve on standard split factor values through in‐depth modelling of an enhanced OPGW conductor g p g installation; very good validation of design values through extensive on‐site testing prior to approval and commissioning. All helping to provide a confident design solution, for a very difficult grounding environment.