energize - April 2010 - Page 32

TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION

Pr i vati sati on of el ectr i ci ty compani es
l eads t o an el ect r i ci t y mar ket t hat
becomes more and more competitive.
To limit costs, companies often reduce
the investments by using aging equipment
and by overloading power transformers.
Oil-filled transformer explosions are then
more and more frequent and they result in
dangerous fires, ver y expensive damages
and possi bl e envi ronmental pol l uti on.
To limit these consequences, protective
walls may surround the transformers to
limit the propagation of the explosions
whi l e spri nkl ers exti ngui sh the i nduced
fire. In order to complete this chain of
protection a strategy has been developed
to prevent transformer tank rupture. This is
based on the direct mechanical response
of a depressurisation set to the tank inner
dynamic pressure induced by electrical
faults. Once a fault occurs, the explosion
is prevented by the fast depressurisation
of the transformer induced by the quick
oil evacuation to a reservoir.
This paper starts with a short review of
experi ments that expl ai n the physi cal
phenomena l eadi ng t o t he t ank
explosions. A numerical tool is developed
to describe unsteady non uniform pressure
phenomena fol l owi ng the arc i gni ti on.
This simulation tool deals with two-phase
fl ows, unsteady compressi bl e, vi scous
fl ow, el ectromagneti c forces, thermal
and gravi ty effects and 3D model i ng.
Simulations are performed on an industrial
200 MVA transformer geometry to evaluate
a strategy based on a quick oil evacuation
to prevent transformer explosions.
Experimental tests
A compl et e exper i ment al st udy was
per f or med by CEPEL, t he Br az i l i an
i ndependent hi gh vol tage l abor ator y
and SERGI Hol di ngs to understand the
explosion process and establish strategies
to prevent it.
Test configuration
The exper i ment s consi st ed of ar ci ng
tests in three industrial size oil-immersed
transformers (up to 5 m long) with their
internal components (windings, cables,
etc) and equipped with sensors (pressure,
temperature, acceleration). Their large
dimensions enabled the detailed study of
the pressure non-uniform distribution inside
the tank. Furthermore, since transformer
expl osi ons ar e ver y danger ous and
uncontrollable, transformer protection had
to be installed during the experimental
tests. The unit shown in green in Fig. 2, is
based on the direct mechanical response
of a depressurisation set (DS) to the tank
i nner pr essur e i nduced by el ect r i cal
faults.
The detailed conclusions of the tests can
be found in [2] and are summarised in the
next paragraphs
First main conclusion: the vaporisation
saturation process
When an electrical arc is ignited inside
the transformer oi l, i t vapori ses al most
instantaneously, producing a significant
gas volume (Fig. 3). The generated gas
volume was found to be a logarithmic
function of the arc energy, which seems
Protection of oil-flled
transformers against explosions
by G Perigaud, SERGI Holdings,
Oil filled transformer explosions can result in dangerous spillages, expensive damages and possible environmental pollution. To prevent explosions,
a fast depressurisation strategy based on a quick oil evacuation was developed and its efficiency was experimentally tested. The tests showed
that an electrical fault generates a dynamic pressure peak which activates the protection within milliseconds, avoiding tank explosion.
Fig. 1: Transformer tank rupture. ( from [1])
Fig. 2: CEPEL tests configuration.
energize - April 2010 - Page 34
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
to be in accordance with the vaporization
process and especially with the saturation
of the vaporisation for high energy arcs.
Indeed, after the arc has vaporised the
surrounding oil and created a gas bubble,
it stays within that volume using its energy to
crack the oil vapour rather than continuing
directly vaporising the oil: this results in a
smoother vaporisation process. The first
stage of vaporisation process is almost
i nstantaneous and because of the oi l
inertia, the gas is ver y quickly pressurised,
generating a high pressure peak.
Second main conclusion: the pressure
wave propagation
Experimental pressure profiles are shown
in Fig. 4. Each curve shows the pressure
evolution near each sensor respectively
located in positions A (at the opposite
side of the arc, close to the protection), B
(relatively close to the arc) and C (where
the arc is ignited).
The di spl acement of the shock wave
i n the tank can be easi l y fol l owed i n
Fig. 4. The arc ignition located in C causes
a high pressure peak, which propagates
leading to a second delayed lower peak
in B, ending in A. For each sensor, the
other pressure peaks (smaller than the
main peak) are due to wave reflections
off the walls. It has been experimentally
shown that pressure increase is not spatially
uniform in the tank, and that the pressure
waves propagate at a finite speed.
Third main conclusion: tank withstand to
high dynamic pressure
The static withstand limit of transformer
tanks is usually around 2.2 bars (abs.).
In other words, if the tank is submitted to
uniform and stabilised pressure (hereafter
called static pressure) over 2.2 bars then
the tank ruptures (see for instance [2] or
[3]). During the arcing tests performed by
Cepel and SERGI, the sensors measured
pressure peaks up to 14 bars (abs.) and no
tank rupture was noticed (Fig. 5). In fact,
thanks to the protection operation and as
shown in Fig 4, the tank was submitted to
localised pressure peaks for a ver y short
period of time (hereafter called dynamic
pressure) and the tank could withstand
these high dynamic pressure peaks. The
tests showed that if the oil evacuation out
of the tank is activated within milliseconds
by the first dynamic pressure peak before
static pressure increases, explosion can
be prevented.
Simulations of a 200 MVA transformer
explosion and its prevention
Description of the simulation tool
Ex per i ment s s howed t hat t he key
phenomena in transformer explosions and
their prevention are firstly the local pressure
increase induced by the vaporisation of
the oil surrounding the arc and secondly,
the pressure wave propagation. The core
of the simulation tool then consists of a
set of partial differential equations that
govern the fluids dynamics while the other
physical phenomena (viscosity, thermal
effect, electromagnetic effects, etc) are
model ed vi a the source terms added
in the partial differential equations. The
partial differential equation set is based
on a five-equation two-phase flow model
devel oped i n [4]. Both phases (l i qui d/
gas) are considered compressible. The
t her modynami cs of t he t wo phases
are careful l y handl ed to prevent any
theoretical or numerical problems. The
model l i ng i s dedi cat ed t o f l ows wi t h
inter faces so that both phases share a
single pressure and velocity at a given
point in the domain. The aim of this tool
i s to esti mate the pressure reparti ti on
inside the transformer tank during the first
fractions of second after the electrical
arc occurrence. All the details can be
found in [5].
Aim of the study
The present section uses the simulation
t ool i n or der t o st udy i n det ai l s t he
effects of an electrical arc occurring in a
200 MVA transformer. Moreover, it analyses
the consequences of using the strategy
presented in the first section to prevent
transformer tank explosion.
Configuration
The 200 MVA transformer is 5,75 m long,
3,25 m high and 2,5 m deep and all the
components of the transformer, such as
bushing turrets or windings are taken into
account. An electrical arc (11.5 MJ arc
generating about 3,4 m
3
of gas) ignites
near a winding, generating an 11 bar gas
bubble.
Results of the simulations
Fig. 6 shows the simulated evolution of
the pressure i nsi de the tank after the
occurrence of the gas bubble generated
by the arc. On the right side (Fig. 6b),
the tr ansfor mer i s equi pped wi th the
protection device, while on the left side
(Fig. 6a), the transformer is not protected
When the transformer is equipped with
protection, the pressurised gas bubble
creates pressure waves which propagate
throughout the transformer, reflecting and
Fig. 3: Gas bubble. (5 ms after the arc ignition) Fig. 4: Pressure profiles at different locations.
Fig. 5: Max. relative pressure measured for each test vs. arc energy.
energize - April 2010 - Page 35
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
otherwise interacting with the tank structure
(Fig. 6b). Within 3 ms, a large pressure
peak has reached the entr y of the first
bushing. Then the pressure wave triggers
the depressurization set activation within
about 10 ms after the gas bubble creation.
This induces the rapid evacuation of fluid
fr om the tr ansfor mer tank whi ch thus
generates rarefaction waves spreading
throughout the transformer. After onl y
60 ms, t he pr essur e t hr oughout t he
transformer stabilises well below dangerous
levels. When the tank is not equipped with
any protection system, and is subjected
to a similar low impedance fault, the tank
is exposed to ver y dangerous pressure
levels. For instance, 30 ms after the arc
occurrence, the pressure i n a bushi ng
reaches more than 10 bar as shown in
Fi g. 6a. Mor eover, wi t hout t he t ank
protection, the static pressure stabilises
around 6 bar and the transformer would
violently explode (as transformer tanks are
designed to withstand static pressure up to
about 2,2 bar).
Conclusions
An ex per i ment al t es t s campai gn
was dedi cated to the under standi ng
of transformers expl osi on i nduced by
el ectri cal arci ng. Because transformer
explosions are uncontrollable and lead to
huge damages, the tests were performed
wi t h t r ansf or mer s equi pped wi t h an
expl osi on preventi on technol ogy that
operates at a calibrated pressure level
due to dynamic pressure peaks.
The tests showed that when an electrical
arc occurs in the tank, the oil surrounding
t he ar c i s qui ckl y vapor i sed and t he
generated gas i s pressuri sed because
the liquid inertia prevents its expansion.
The pressure difference between the gas
bubbl es and the surroundi ng l i qui d oi l
generates pressure waves that propagate
wi thi n the oi l. When the fi rst dynami c
pressure peak reaches the protecti on,
it triggers an oil evacuation that quickly
depressuri ses the tank so that no tank
rupture occurs.
During the tests, transformer tanks could
wi t hst and such hi gh pr essur e peaks
(up to 14 bar ) dur i ng sever al tens of
milliseconds even if the static withstand
l i mi t of t r ansf or mer t anks i s ar ound
2,2 bar.
Complementarily, the consequences of
arcing inside unprotected transformers
can be studied safely using computational
simulations. A numerical simulation tool
was developed for that purpose. In order
to be efficient, it has to deal with liquid and
gas and to be able to compute pressure
wave propagations. Therefore, a complete
modeling for unsteady compressible two
phase flows has been adapted and a
finite volume method was set to solve the
equations on 3D unstructured meshes.
S i mul at i ons wer e t hen r un on a
200 MVA transformer; they highlighted the
advantages of using advanced simulation
tools:
First, it gives a deep understanding of what
happens during a transformer explosion.
The simulation tool confirmed that when an
electrical arc occurs insides a transformer
tank that is not protected, the dynamic
pressure waves generated by the arc
propagate through the tank, reflects on
the wall and progressively increases the
static pressure inside the tank resulting in
its rupture.
Second, the computational tool is efficient
t o st udy t he oper at i on of expl osi on
prevention strategies such as the ones
based on a fast depressurisation induced
by oi l evacuati on. I ndeed, the resul ts
showed that thi s fast fl ui d evacuati on
generates large rarefaction waves that
propagate and depressurise the whole
tank within milliseconds thus avoiding the
static pressure build up that can not be
withstood by the tank.
Such s t r at egi es bas ed a f as t t ank
depressurisation generated by a quick oil
evacuation can thus be considered an
efficient protection against transformer
explosion.
Acknowledgement
This paper was presented at the Cigr
6th Southern Africa regional Conference,
Somerset West, 2009, and is reprinted with
permission.
References
[1] M Foata, V N Nguyen Transformer Tank Rupture
Mitigation HQ Perspective presented at IEEE
transformer Subcommittee, Fall 2006, Available:
gr ouper.i eee.or g/ gr oups/ Tr ansf or mer s/
subcommi ttees/power/TankRupture/F06-
tankRuptureH Q Perspectives-1.ppt
[2] S Muller, R Brandy, G de Bressy, P Magnier,
G Perigaud, Prevention of transformer tank
explosion, Part 1: Experimental Tests on Large
Transformers, ASME PVP08 Conference,
2008.
[3] B Culver, K Froehlich, L Widenhorn, Prevention
of tank rupture of faulted power transformers
by generator circuit breakers, European
Transactions on Electrical Power, Vol. 6, No. 1,
1996.
[4] G Allaire, S Clerc & S Kokh, A Five Equation
Model for the Simulation of Interfaces between
Compressible Fluids, Journal of Computational
Physics, vol. 181, 2, pp. 577-616, 2002.
[5] R Brandy, S Muller, G de Bressy, P Magnier,
G Perigaud, Prevention of transformer tank
explosion, Part 2: Development and Application
of a Numerical Simulation Tool, ASME PVP08
Conference, 2008.
Contact G Perigoord, SERGI Holdings,
marketing@sergi-holding.com v
Fig. 6a: Pressure evolution in an
unprotected tank.
Fig. 6b: Pressure evolution in a
transformer tank equipped with a DS.