WG 3.3.11 Meeting Agenda May 19, 2015 San Diego CA
Meeting Agenda for WG 3.3.11
“Continuous Revision of C62.11”
Bahia Resort Hotel, San Diego CA
Tuesday May 19, 08:00-13:30
Jonathan Woodworth – Chair
Christine Goldsworthy – Vice Chair
1. Call the Meeting To Order
2. Review IEEE Meeting Rules and behavior instructions.
3. Introductions around the room were made.
4. Approval of Fall 2014 Meeting Minutes Located at→ Unapproved Minutes on SPD Site
5. Approve and/or add to agenda
6. Par Review and Status. All activities on schedule
7. C62.11 Development Timetable
Date / MilestoneAugust 31, 2013 / Submit PAR for PC62.11 (Complete)
February 28, 2015 / Last date for submission by Task Forces to WG Chair of proposals and outlines for any new text or major revisions of existing text
Spring 2015 Meeting / Review progress of TF’s. Discuss and resolve problems associated with proposals and outlines
August 31, 2015 / Last date for submission of drafts of new text or major revision to Task Force
Fall 2015 Meeting / Review progress of TF’s. Discuss and resolve problems associated with drafts
February 29, 2016 / Last date for submission by Task Force to WG Chair of new text and all non-editorial revisions
Spring 2016 Meeting / Discuss and resolve problems associated with new text submitted by TF’s
August 31, 2016 / Last date for submission of final corrections and minor revisions to draft standard
Fall 2016 Meeting / Last date to discuss and resolve problems associated with draft prior to balloting
December 1, 2016 / Test Standard sent out for ballot
Feb 28, 2017 / Standard sent to Rev Com for approval
During 2017 and 2018 / BRC resolves comments and negative ballots. Discuss at meetings as necessary. Re-circulate new drafts as necessary to resolve comments and negative ballots.
December 31, 2018 / Par expiration with one or two year extension
8. 15-30 Minute Arrester Testing Q&A Session.
Any questions about arrester standards and tests are allowed. This is meant for new members and experienced members to share knowledge.
9. Assignments to Discuss
a. Section 8.1 Insulation Withstand Testing
The overall objective of this section is to improve the test procedures to cover
· The option to test or calculate withstand level of the arrester
· Clarify if 60hz testing is appropriate to estimate switching surge withstand
· Consider whether to use 1000 m or 1800 m elevation in the withstand level requirement.
Meeting Discussion Summary
Mike Comber clearly presented the issue revolving around the method of calculating the switching surge withstand of arresters. The graph below shows the curve presently being specified in IEC 60099-4-2014 and second curve being proposed by Hubbell that is more realistic. Hubbell argues that using the lower curve results in the requirement to design housings longer than what has been used in the past. Since past performance of the shorter arrester has been excellent relative to flashover, it seems inappropriate to now specify longer housings based on little data.
Action Item: TF 8.1
Chris Kulig will lead a TF to further look into this proposal - Bengt, Reinhardt, Christine will also be in the TF. Chris K will run more tests. Hubbell proposes to used very high gradient blocks instead of capacitors.
b. Section 8.6 C62.11-2012 Accelerated Aging tests of Polymer Housings
Task Force: Tim Smith Chair,
The issue is that the present tests in 8.6.2 is quite redundant with 8.7 1000hr test. The only difference is that the insulating hanger is not evaluated in 8.7. The proposal is to draft a section for the insulating hanger and eliminate the requirements in 8.6.2 with respect to the housing.
Meeting Discussion Summary
In Tim’s absence, we did not further discuss whether to merge these tests again after coming close to an agreement in the Spring 2014 meeting not to do so. What we did discuss was proposed text by Tim to include UV tests on station class arresters.
Action Items
· Consider using same new text for both distribution and station class except for distribution also state tests on insulating hanger.
· Check all ASTM numbers.
· Discuss the new proposed evaluation at the next meeting.
c. Seal Integrity Test for Distribution Arresters: Section 8.9.3.3 and Section 8.22 are redundant. It can be simplified somehow. Try to unify these two sections –
Meeting Discussion Summary
Jon Woodworth discussed the text added to rationale of both seal pumping and MDCL tests. They can be found in this document.
Action Items
1. Approve the rationale changes as shown above at the next meeting
d. Dead front Arrester Tests: Section 8.1.2.3 needs to be harmonized with IEEE 386 which has or will be dropping the DC test requirement. We still require the DC housing test – should we also drop. Verify if dropped then change the table.
Meeting Discussion Summary (Discussion Retained from Fall 2013)
In 8.1 Paul noted that this section does not quite apply to elbow arresters, i.e., can’t flash over externally, same for oil immersed arresters. Paul will look further into these missing tests and bring new proposals to the next meeting. Standard 386 for insulated connectors is being revised and the committee indicated they thought the AC tests were more stressful than the DC tests. Three different DC tests will be removed in 386 & 404- since our standard references the DC test Paul is proposing that we also remove the DC but not sure if there are other tests, like the PD extinction test (3 pC), that we still refer to 386.
Discussion from Meeting
No discussion
Action Items:
1 David Hughes will take Paul Lindemulder place on this task and bring comments to the spring 2015 meeting.
e. Transmission Line Arresters:
Taskforce Chair: Tim Smith. Members Christine Goldsworthy, James Taylor, Steve Brewer.
Goal: Determine if there are substantive items about TLA’s that should be included in next edition of C62.11.
Meeting Discussion Summary: In Tim’s absence James Taylor presented what Tim had created for the meeting. It was agreed that the fundamental scope would be:
“Define the forms of testing to be made on NGLA and EGLA to adequately assure their long term performance in service.
The specific testing may be split into three generic groups: Electrical, Mechanical and Environmental. “
The question was raised and discussed for a few minutes as to whether this should be a separate standard or integrated into C62.11. Mike Comber suggests that we write it such that it could go either way. This means we may need to maintain two documents with identical data, one as a stand-alone doc, and one as it would be integrated. To be discussed with TF.
The complete presentation is found here.
Action Item:
1. Bring a set of recommended tests to the next meeting.
2. J Woodworth to present and Overview of IEC 60099-8 at the next meeting.
The presentation was prepared for the last meeting and is contained herein:
f. 1000hr Salt Fog Test for Polymer Arresters: The existing test was introduced in the 2005 edition of C62.11, and duplicated the procedure that was introduced into IEC 60099-4 at that time. The test procedure was developed from a 1000 h salt fog test prescribed for polymer insulators in IEC 61109. It was mentioned that IEC TC37 MT4 is reviewing the procedure in light of new material that appears in IEC 62217. It is suggested that WG 3.3.11work in close cooperation with MT4 on this matter.
Action Item: . Standards Available on SPD Site
Fall 2014 Action Item: Still on hold until IEC 62217 is reviewed by WG
No discussion.
g. Harmonization between IEEE C62.11 and IEC 60099-4: There are a number of tests in these documents that are either the same or very similar. It is considered appropriate to harmonize the requirements of the two standards as much as possible. In this regard, it is highly recommended that WG 3.3.11 and IEC MT4 establish joint task forces to review these procedures for future revisions of both standards. Several tests that are not completely harmonized with IEC.
Meeting Discussion Summary
a. 60099-4 has published this past July and is now stable for 5 years.
b. It was suggested that we hold a separate session with IEC MT4 in Spring if MT4 meets with IEEE in San Diego to review further Harmonization opportunities. JJW to discuss with MT4 at next MT4 meeting in two weeks. If so, then schedule an extra hour for the discussion.
c. Request a copy of the standard for the working group to review. JJW
Action Items:
JJW has scheduled a Harmonization Meeting to be held May 19th in the afternoon at San Diego 3.3.11 meeting. Copy of IEC 60099-4 coming before that and will be in 2015 Spring Documents area of SPD Website.
h. Externally Gapped Line Arrester
This arrester type is available to the North American market and presently there is IEEE standard that covers this type of arrester. IEC Standard 60099-8 does cover this type of arrester and the working group would like to take a look at this standard to see if there is reason to consider an IEEE version.
Action Item
Any tests that may be required for this test are rolled into the TLA taskforce.
i. Maintenance and Improvement of Rationale – Identify parts of the rationale that will need to be revised or sections added based on the above listed items. It is the intention of the chair to ask each person responsible for changes in the standard to also take the responsibility of modifying the rationale. Ongoing
j. Arrester Misapplications
Steve Hensley indicated that customer practice of hanging “stuff” off the arrester is causing failures and the lack of standards addressing this issue is a gap
Meeting Discussion
It was agreed that this is an application guide issue.
Action Item
Tom Rozek, can you add this to your agenda for the next meeting of 3.4.14. JJW
k. Short Circuit Testing
Meeting Discussion
J Woodworth presented an overview of several vague issues related to short circuit testing of arresters. The discussion was mostly held the prior day in WG 3.4.14, but several of the items should be discussed in this working group. The presentation can be reviewed here.
Action Items for 3.3.11
a. Consider if there is any value in the vent opening time. Can or should it have a pass or fail criteria? Why is it required to measure opening time? Should the Rationale be modified to say something about this.
b. Should we consider another class of arrester that can survive one or more recloses.
c. Should we discuss the fact that this test does not represent reclose scenarios?
d. Should the rationale indicate that if an arrester passes the test, that it would pass all other durations at the same current.
l. 8.1Insulation withstand altitude requirements James Taylor
Is it really necessary to have 1800m as the standard value? Is 1800m an altitude in North America which is most common in reality, or is it more the exception?
There have been occasions when an arrester needs to be specially designed to meet 1800m insulation withstand level “as standard”, but then is anyway used below 1000m 9 times out of 10. It would be more effective that any site which really is higher than 1000m could state the altitude in their specification and steps be taken accordingly as necessary (as per IEC).
Proposal: Change the default IEEE altitude to 1000m (as per IEC)
Purpose: Remove the need to “over dimension” arresters unnecessarily.
Meeting Discussion
James presented his argument for this harmonization to other equipment standards in IEEE and IEC. Mike Comber relayed his experience on this subject matter during the development of 2012 edition. The general consensus was that we would put this topic back on the table for more discussion.
A task force was established to bring the pro and con agreements to the next meeting in Spring 2015.
TF - Standard Altitude Limit
Chair: Andrew Steffen, Mike Comber, James Taylor, Christine Goldsworthy
Action Items
1. Mike Comber to share with TF the rationale for not changing the standard altitude upper limit from 1800 meters down to 1000 meters.
2. Andrew to bring pros and cons to the next meeting and lead discussion on subject.
m. 8.14 – 8.15 Energy James Taylor
Is it possible to merge the Switching surge energy rating test (8.14) and Single-impulse withstand rating test (8.15) in a suitable way, for example as in IEC?
IEEE cl 8.14 is in kJ/kV and relates conceptually to (a part of) IEC Operating Duty test. IEEE Cl 8.15 is in Coulomb and conceptually is the IEC Repetitive charge test.
Charging gives of course an energy, and so it is just to also calculate the energy during the test. Switching surge energy test as per IEEE could be simplified and made only with the thermal test, as in IEC.
Energy strength for multiple stresses has already been tested in the charging test.
Proposal: Harmonize IEEE and IEC energy/charge testing in a closer way. Purpose: Reduced required testing.
Meeting Discussion
It was not clear what James was asking for in this request. He will review
Action Items
i. James Review again and bring to next meeting.
ii. At a minimum however it may be good for the energy levels to be harmonized between IEC and IEEE. Jon Woodworth to present a comparison document.
n. 8.16 Duty cycle test James Taylor
In the 2012 edition of C62.11 many new tests were added, but other (interrelated) tests have not been removed or revised. Given the other testing made, the Duty-cycle test (8.16) should be able to be removed (at least for station arresters), as lightning impulses give relatively negligible stress compared to that otherwise verified in separate energy tests. If need be, the high current test could form part of a thermal test, as in IEC.
If the test is to remain (in one form or another); then the allowable 10% change in 8.16.4c is seemingly large, and should be tightened (eg to +/- 5%).
Proposal: Remove the duty-cycle test (at least for station arresters) and, perhaps, rationalize the remaining requirements.
Purpose: Reduced required testing
Meeting Discussion