PFISTERER I SEFAG Presentation PFISTERER I SEFAG

WELCOME

PFISTERER SEFAG AS EXPERIENCED AND

• SEFAG`s History on Composite Insulators
INNOVATIVE MANUFACTURER OF THE
• Examples for Applications with SILCOSIL
COMPOSITE INSULATOR SILCOSIL©
• Compact Lines
OVER MORE THAN 30 YEARS
• Next Step ahead….

• Lattice Tower Compact Line?

CABLE SYSTEMS   I    COMPONENTS  I OVERHEAD LINES I  RAILWAY CATENARY SYSTEMS

PFISTERER I SEFAG SEFAG`s Historical Data – I of V PFISTERER I SEFAG

1981 • Formation of SEFAG EXPORT AG

1979 • First Installation of Composite Insulators into Loetschberg Tunnel

SHORT INTRODUCTION OF PFISTERER SEFAG AG 1978 • Common Development with Co. Dätwyler for the first Com-
posite Insulators for Swiss Railway

1975 • Design and Manufacturing of the first Hollow Core Composite

Insulator

1965 • Development and Manufacturing of Components for T&D

for Swiss Energy Market

1959 • Component Manufacturing for PFISTERER`s Product Portfolio

1957 • Foundation of SEFAG AG "Schweizerische Elektrotechnische

Fabrik AG"

SEFAG`s Historical Data – II of V PFISTERER I SEFAG SEFAG`s Historical Data – III of V PFISTERER I SEFAG

1993 • Availability of complete Services regarding Vibration Issues such

1999 • Introduction of polymeric Arrester and Railway Insulator
as Damper and Recorder Supply, Field Measurements and
Production with Silicone Rubber HTV-Technology for SIEMENS
analytical Investigations
1998 • Design and Supply for the World`s first 420 kV-Compact Line
1990 • Supply of 420 kV Composite Insulators for NOK Switzerland
with Composite Braced Line Post Insulator Arrangement
• First Involvement into Conductor Vibration Issues
1997 • Complete Material Supply Package for 132 kV Line in Ethiopia
1988 • Design and Manufacturing of SEFAG`s String and Line Hardware
including Towers, Conductors, Insulators
1987 • Establishment of Line Hardware Department including Design
1995 • Design and Supply of Components for 220 kV Double Circuit
and Engineering Services
Line including Tubular Poles
1986 • Installation of first Composite Insulators into the Swiss
1995 • Design and Production of complete range of ABC Material
Transmission Network
• Certification according to ISO 9001

1
SEFAG`s Historical Data – IV of V PFISTERER I SEFAG SEFAG`s Historical Data – V of V PFISTERER I SEFAG

2006 • Completion of new Manufacturing Hall

2006 • Introduction of new Group Structure/Change of Name 2009 • Successful Recertification for ISO 9001: 2008

2005 • Kick-Off for Extension of Swiss Composite Insulator Production 2009 • LOI for TenneT`s 420 kV Compact Line in Netherlands
in Malters 2009 • Contract for Swiss Gotthard Tunnel (57 km Double Railway
2005 • Extension of available Hollow Core Dimensions Track)

2004 • Certification according to ISO 9001:2000 2009 • Supply of complete Strings for the 500 kV HVDC in Finland

2003 • Integration of Hardware Assemblies (RSA) into 2008 • Supply of Insulators for 800kV HVDC Project Yunnan and
SEFAG/PFISTERER Group Guangdong
2007 • 3rd Generation of Braced Line Posts for DEWA`s 420 kV Section
2002 • Supply of 2nd Generation of 420 kV Braced Line Post
2000 • Foundation of SEFAG IXOSIL AG, former Dätwyler AG -
Extension of LSR-capabilities

Experiences PFISTERER I SEFAG PFISTERER I SEFAG

Insulator String/Line Hardware

• Silicone Rubber Insulator • Manufacturer since 1921 in

Manufacturer since 1975/1979
• Up to 550 kV AC, 800kV DC
• Specialities such as Compact
Line Arrangements, Station Post
• Hollow Cores
• New Building and Manufacturing
Line established!
Germany, transferred to EXAMPLES FOR APPLICATIONS WITH SILCOSIL
Malters (CH) in 1987
• Up to 550 kV
• Clients such as NGK, LAPP,
Sediver, ABB, SIEMENS etc
• Damper Portfolio
• Anti-Vibration Package

Applications with Silcosil – I of XV PFISTERER I SEFAG Applications with Silcosil – II of XV PFISTERER I SEFAG

Electric Traction Insulators for Railway Suspension/Tension Insulators 1/4

• railway tunnel since 1913

• problems with porcelain • typical rating 120 kN, 160 kN,
• requirements for new insulators: 210 kN, 300 kN or 500 kN
• standard end fittings and
+ reduced weight for hardware
by 2 • creepage distance in accor-
increased train speed
+ high failing load by 2 dance to pollution level
+ maintenance-free insulator
no cleaning since 1979
tension tower
Swiss Loetschberg Tunnel
420kV/500kN
15 kV-service for more
than 20 years

2
Applications with Silcosil – III of XV PFISTERER I SEFAG Applications with Silcosil – IV of XV PFISTERER I SEFAG

Suspension/Tension Insulators 2/4 Suspension/Tension Insulators 3/4

tension set
420kV/300kN

• typical rating 120 kN, 160 kN, 210 kN, 300 kN or 500 kN • 400 kV DC in Greece
• standard end fittings and hardware • extreme pollution by sea
• creepage distance in accordance to pollution level • unreliable glass strings

Applications with Silcosil – V of XV PFISTERER I SEFAG Applications with Silcosil – VI of XV PFISTERER I SEFAG

Suspension/Tension Insulators 4/4 Phase Spacer – 1/2

• 500 kV DC between Sweden and

Finland Phase Spacer in Switzerland for 420kV
• strategically important Link Alp Crossing

Applications with Silcosil – VII of XV PFISTERER I SEFAG Applications with Silcosil – VIII of XV PFISTERER I SEFAG

Phase Spacer – 2/2 ERS with Braced Line Post

2 Poles per Container

Phase Spacer for Railway Supply 132kV 420kV Bypass 420kV Bypass with Braced Line Post

3
Applications with Silcosil – IX of XV PFISTERER I SEFAG Applications with Silcosil – X of XV PFISTERER I SEFAG

Braced Line Post Arrangement Tripod Post 800 kV DC

• 145kV system
• Carbon-fibre reinforced
Concrete Pole for
+ reduced weight
+ excellent corrosion performance

Applications with Silcosil – XI of XV PFISTERER I SEFAG Applications with Silcosil – XII of XV PFISTERER I SEFAG

Tripod Post 800 kV DC Post 800 kV DC

Tube Bending Tripod Bending

Tripod used as support

Tripods used in
the cascades of for a current
the valve hall measurement device

Applications with Silcosil – XIII of XV PFISTERER I SEFAG Applications with Silcosil – XIV of XV PFISTERER I SEFAG

Hollow Cores
Hollow Core 800 kV DC

420kV Current
Transformer
420kV/145kV Bushings

145kV CT
Housings

145kV Cable
Termination

4
Applications with Silcosil – XV of XV PFISTERER I SEFAG PFISTERER I SEFAG

Hollow Core 800 kV DC

Compact Lines

800 kV HVDC Wall

Bushing in Suidong
Converter Station

Thoughts on Compact Solutions – I von VII PFISTERER I SEFAG Thoughts on Compact Solutions – II von VII PFISTERER I SEFAG

Reasons for Compact Line Arrangements: Right of Way

• Reduction of construction costs. material

• Optimization of energy delivery in the case of restricted
Right of Way. cost for permission
• Redundancy due to bracing longrod. at least “2”
• Reduction of influence by electromagnetic field. compensation
• aesthetic-visual impact, “pleasing to public”. less optical
disturbance H-Mast (wood), 4 systems,
• in service since the 80ies.
e. g. in Greece for 150 kV single system, span of 230 m,
span of 170 m, ROW=35 m
ROW=34 m

Example from the American literature

Thoughts on Compact Solutions – III von VII PFISTERER I SEFAG Thoughts on Compact Solutions – IV von VII PFISTERER I SEFAG

Principles EMV

• Due to the nature of the three phase system, the magnetic (and
electric) fields add to zero if all phases have the same distance
245 kV
• The smaller the phase spacing the more equal the distance
between the single phases becomes from a point below or next
to the line => the smaller the magnetic field becomes
• As the conductors are closer to the tower with a compact line,
the magnetic field at a certain distance from the tower becomes
230 kV 420 kV generally smaller

5
Thoughts on Compact Solutions – V von VII PFISTERER I SEFAG Thoughts on Compact Solutions – VI von VII PFISTERER I SEFAG

EMV EMV

Pole centre
simulated and measured Results of
a lattice Tower 420 kV

Ref.: Optimum Conductor Arrangement of Compact Lines for Electric and Magnetic Field Minimization…

Thoughts on Compact Solutions – VII von VII PFISTERER I SEFAG PFISTERER I SEFAG

New Mast Concepts

SEFAG`s Development of Compact Lines

500kV Mead-Phoenix Arizona

420kV ERS
Switzerland

230/69kV Arizona
420kV
420kV
Sweden 138kV Brazil
Switzerland Photos: Courtesy of INMR

PFISTERER I SEFAG 420 kV, the 1st Generation – I von II PFISTERER I SEFAG

Installed Design

Swiss Arrangement
1st Generation with Hollow Core
• high-load requirements
(>100kN)
• comprehensively tested
design for Swiss line
• in service since 1998
• tubular post with double
bracing
• average creepage needs

6
420 kV, the 1st Generation – II von II PFISTERER I SEFAG PFISTERER I SEFAG

Comparison of Tower Concepts

420kV
420kV traditional
compact 2nd Generation with Solid Core
19 m
steel lattice tower of
8.6 m 125kV-line and Swiss
compact tower for
125kV 400kV/132kV-line as well
9m as standard design

420 kV, the 2nd Generation – I von II PFISTERER I SEFAG 420 kV, the 2nd Generation – II von II PFISTERER I SEFAG

Arrangement 1

• low-load requirements
• 90° angle between
insulators
• solid single Post with single
Bracing
• identical striking distance
in balance with creepage
distance

PFISTERER I SEFAG 420 kV, the 3rd Generation – I of XII PFISTERER I SEFAG

Energy Transport in the Emirates

3rd Generation with optimized Solid Core

7
420 kV, the 3rd Generation – II of XII PFISTERER I SEFAG 420 kV, the 3rd Generation – III of XII PFISTERER I SEFAG

Principle Solutions

50 m 9.6 m

• Gas-insulated Line (GIL)

since 1975 in operation, expansive (2 MEuro/km)

• Cable
less Experience, around 1.2 MEuro/km (Tunnel)
• Compact Transmission Line

Experience since the Eighties, 0.4 MEuro/km (Single Circuit)

Idea
January
for Compaction
2006

420 kV, the 3rd Generation – IV of XII PFISTERER I SEFAG 420 kV, the 3rd Generation – V of XII PFISTERER I SEFAG

Suspension Pole Loading for Suspension Pole

Load Case Forces Comment

simulated as pair of forces
Normal Load Fx=38/55 kN* as resulting force under a
Condition Fy=23/33 kN* force angle of 31° to the
horizontal post**
Broken Condition Fz=104/149 kN not simulated because the
pivoted crossarm will move
Longitudinal and the force becomes a
Fz=45/64 kN tensile force well below the
Cascade
specified values
simulated as single force
Fx=0 kN
Maintenance Case under a force angle of 90°
Fx Fy=72/102 kN*
to the horizontal post**

Fy * includes safety factor of line/includes additionally

Fz safety factor of 1.42 for composite insulators
** see sketch below force angle 31° or 90°

420 kV, the 3rd Generation – VI of XII PFISTERER I SEFAG 420 kV, the 3rd Generation – VII of XII PFISTERER I SEFAG

Simulation and Testing Mechanical – Braced Line Post

movement/deflexion [mm]

Normal Load
40

35 Normal Load f at y-position

30

25

20

15 f at x-position

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Fres [kN]

movement/deflexion [mm]
70

60 Maintenance
50

40 f at x-position

f at y-position

FEM-Simulation Testing in 1:1

30

20

showed Thresholds Scaling Position y 10

Position x
Maintenance
Maintenance 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Fres [kN]

8
420 kV, the 3rd Generation – VIII of XII PFISTERER I SEFAG 420 kV, the 3rd Generation – IX of XII PFISTERER I SEFAG

Mechanical Testing in Full Size Solutions

bent Steel Flange

absolut
Displacement on absolute Displacement Delta Top in Delta Middle
Force in kN Top in mm in Post Middle in mm mm in mm
double beam
Before Test 122.5 118.3 single beam
After Test 122.5 118.6 0 0.3
before after

420 kV, the 3rd Generation – X of XII PFISTERER I SEFAG 420 kV, the 3rd Generation – XI of XII PFISTERER I SEFAG

Jumper Post Design Impressions

420 kV, the 3rd Generation – XII of XII PFISTERER I SEFAG PFISTERER I SEFAG

Impressions

Next Step ahead….

9
 PFISTERER PFISTERER
Next Step ahead – I of XVIII I SEFAG
Next Step ahead – II of XVIII I SEFAG

TenneT – the WINTRACK Project 420kV/170kV Compact Line of TenneT in Netherlands

Total Length 85 km
Phase 1: 23 km, Commissioning
in 2010
Phase 2: 62 km, Commissioning
in 2014
Challenge: ROW and minimum
Magnetic Field Stress (0.4 uT)
3 Tenderer

PFISTERER Next Step ahead – IV of XVIII PFISTERER

Next Step ahead – III of XVIII I SEFAG I SEFAG

Magnetic Field Requirements Cost and Appearance

PFISTERER PFISTERER
Next Step ahead – V of XVIII I SEFAG
Next Step ahead – VI of XVIII I SEFAG

Appearance Suspension Tower (Span 400 m)

57 m

10 m

10
 PFISTERER PFISTERER
Next Step ahead – VII of XVIII I SEFAG
Next Step ahead – VIII of XVIII I SEFAG

Angle Tower (Span 400 m) Spec for Braced Line Post 420 kV

BIL: 1425 kV
SIL: 1050 kV
50 Hz, wet Withstand: 520 kV
Corona Extinction: 275 kV
57 m

10 m

Creepage Distance: 25 mm/kV

Fault Current Rating: 50 kA/0.5 sec
Load Case 1 and 2*: Fx=± 42 kN, Fy=51 kN
Load Case 3 and 4*: Fx=± 83 kN, Fy=32 kN
Maximum Shank Field Strength: 2.5 kV/cm

* Plus additional Material Factor 1.5

PFISTERER PFISTERER
Next Step ahead – IX of XVIII I SEFAG
Next Step ahead – X of XVIII I SEFAG

Solution for TenneT Field Simulation

• Calculation done with Ansys V12 – FEM program

• 3 neighbouring phases were modelled
• State of the Art:
ƒ Shank Field Stress < 4. 5 kV/cm (here < 2.5 kV/cm)
ƒ Hardware Field Stress < 17…21 kV/cm

PFISTERER PFISTERER
Next Step ahead – XI of XVIII I SEFAG
Next Step ahead – XII of XVIII I SEFAG

Field Simulation Field Simulation

C1-B C1-A2
1.5 • The evaluation was done on
A2 (right) B1, B2 (upper) C1 (object)
phase C1 (object), which
4 3 1.0
equals to position 1 on the
0.5 previous slide
u(t) / û

0.0 • It was a static calculation

-0.5
made

-1.0 • There were initially two load

cases analyzed: lc1 and lc2
-1.5
1 2 • It was found that lc1 is more
l
c
1
l
c
2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
severe than lc 2
t

• Therefore the lc1 was used to

Voltage (kV), u(ti) = û C A B
calculated the electric fields
sin (ωt)
• The electrical field strength
Pos 1 Pos 2 Pos 3 Pos 4 Load case 1 (lc1) => 310 -155 -155
will be plotted as rms value =
t1 = 5π/6
Phase C A B B ê/√2
Load case 2 (lc2) => 269 0 -269
t2 = 2π

11
 PFISTERER PFISTERER
Next Step ahead – XIII of XVIII I SEFAG
Next Step ahead – XIV of XVIII I SEFAG

Field Simulation Field Simulation

PFISTERER PFISTERER
Next Step ahead – XV of XVIII I SEFAG
Next Step ahead – XVI of XVIII I SEFAG

Field Simulation Field Simulation

PFISTERER PFISTERER
Next Step ahead – XVII of XVIII I SEFAG
Next Step ahead – XVIII of XVIII I SEFAG

RIV and Corona Testing RIV and Corona Testing

12
 PFISTERER PFISTERER
I SEFAG
Lattice Tower Compact Line – I of XV I SEFAG

• The design of the insulated cross arm is technically more

Lattice Tower Compact Line? demanding than a normal I-string
• PFISTERER SEFAG has the most references for compact
lines ≥ 400kV
• So far compact lines are built mostly using tubular poles,
which makes this line more expensive than conventional
lines
• Is lattice tower possible too?....

PFISTERER PFISTERER
Lattice Tower Compact Line – II of XV I SEFAG
Lattice Tower Compact Line – III of XV I SEFAG

Model Calculation Model Calculation

• Maximum available corridor 45 m calculated according to • Line design and load calculation in acc. to VDE 0210 with
VDE 0210 increased wind speed
• Two circuits 420 kV ƒ Conductors: 38.8 m/s up to 40 m elevation, 44.0 m/s
• Each phase with 4 conductors ACSR Dove above 40 m elevation
• 2 OPGW/earth wires
ƒ Towers: 44.6 m/s up to 40 m elevation, 50.6 m/s
• Ground clearance min 9.5 m above 40 m elevation
• Conductor-to-conductor spacing in span:
• Tower design: ASCE load factor method for tower design (LF
• Vertical: 6.68 m (> 6.27 m min req. by VDE 0210 for = 2.0)
390 m span)
• Horizontal : 10.75 m (> 5.20 m min req. by VDE 0210 • Steel S355, bolts 8.8
for 390 m span)

PFISTERER PFISTERER
Lattice Tower Compact Line – IV of XV I SEFAG
Lattice Tower Compact Line – V of XV I SEFAG

Model Calculation Model Calculation

• Maximum individual span: 390 m (corridor requirement) Standard

• Maximum Wind Span 390 m

• Maximum Weight Span 440 m
• Wire break: One OPGW + One complete phase bundle
simultaneousely in transversal wind
Short for narrow corridor
• Longitudinal forces: 100% of OPGW tension and 70% of
complete bundle tension in transversal wind

13
 PFISTERER PFISTERER
Lattice Tower Compact Line – VI of XV I SEFAG
Lattice Tower Compact Line – VII of XV I SEFAG

Tower Concepts, compared Tower Concepts, compared

Tonnage Tower

• Estimated weight = 45.3 tn

• Foundation compression = 1820 kN
• Foundation uplift = 1420 kN

Corridor: 86 m 96 m 45 m
Span Length: 550 m 550 m 355 m

PFISTERER PFISTERER
Lattice Tower Compact Line – VIII of XV I SEFAG
Lattice Tower Compact Line – IX of XV I SEFAG

Tower Concepts, compared Tower Concepts, compared

Danube Tower Compact

• Estimated weight = 43.9 tn • Estimated weight = 22 tn

• Foundation compression = 1770 kN • Foundation compression = 1620 kN
• Foundation uplift = 1390 kN • Foundation uplift = 1380 kN

PFISTERER PFISTERER
Lattice Tower Compact Line – X of XV I SEFAG
Lattice Tower Compact Line – XI of XV I SEFAG

Tower Comparison Compact versus Danube Foundation Comparison Compact versus Danube

• Compact 22.0 t/tower: 0.355 = 62.0 t/km

• Danube 43.9 t/tower: 0.5 = 87.8 t/km • Concrete 30 – 50 m3 /tower
• Average 40 m3
• Total concrete cost 600 € /m3 with forms and excavation.
• Steel 1`500 € /t + Assumed Erection 1`200 €/t
• Total 2`700 €/t
• Compact 40 m3/tower: 0.355 = 112.7 m3/km
• Danube 40 m3/tower: 0.5 = 80.0 m3/km
• ∆ st = 87.8 - 62.0 = 25.8 t/km

• ∆ f = - 32.7 m3/km

Compact cheaper by 69`660 €/km Danube cheaper by 19`620 €/km

14
 PFISTERER PFISTERER
Lattice Tower Compact Line – XII of XV I SEFAG
Lattice Tower Compact Line – XIII of XV I SEFAG

Insulator Comparison Compact versus Danube Comparison – Summary

• Compact 6x3400 €/tower:0.355= 57.465 € /km Danube Compact

Criterion Unit Tower Tower Delta
• Danube 6x800 €/tower:0.5 = 9.600 € /km Minimum required corridor m 96 45 52
Tower Height m 53 42 11
Tower Weight t 44 22 22
• ∆ i = - 47.865 €/km Steel Cost/Tower €/Tower 65'850 33'000 32'850
Steel Cost/km €/km 131'700 93'000 38'700
Steel Cost+Erection/km €/km 237'060 167'400 69'660
Foundation volume/Tower m3 40 40 0
Foundation+Erection Cost/Tower €/Tower 24'000 24'000 0
Foundation+Erection Cost/km €/km 48'000 67'620 -19'620
Insulator cost/Tower €/Tower 4'800 20'400 -15'600
Insulator cost/km €/km 9'600 57'465 -47'865
Cost/km €/km 294'660 292'485 2'175

Danube cheaper by 47`865 €/km

PFISTERER PFISTERER
Lattice Tower Compact Line – XIV of XV I SEFAG
Lattice Tower Compact Line – XV of XV I SEFAG

Comparison – not considered Factors

• Earth wires/OPGW 1 or 2
• Earthing of foundations Is lattice tower possible too?....
• Stringing work
• Cost of land
• Time for line permission … Yes, we can….

…added Value at lower Cost

PFISTERER I SEFAG

THANKS FOR THE KIND ATTENTION

15