Testing Connection Leads for Transmission

Line Arresters
Arresters
February 8, 2020 8 min read

▪
Transmission line surge arresters (TLSAs) are applied on
overhead lines to improve outage performance and, particularly
at EHV, to limit magnitude of switching overvoltages. There are
two basic types – externally gapped (EGLAs) and non-gapped line
arresters (NGLAs). NGLAs are comprised of a column of metal
oxide varistors (MOVs) packaged in a fiberglass-reinforced
polymeric housing and are installed between phase conductors
and towers using connection leads. One end is typically fitted with
a disconnector to break the electrical connection in the event of
arrester failure. Installation configurations fall into three broad
groups: Mounted onto tower structure or hung from a cross-arm;
hung from conductor; or installed in parallel to line insulator as
part of the insulator assembly
Service experience has shown that, from the electrical point of
view, application of NGLAs typically improves line performance
with relatively few failures. Nonetheless, utilities have reported
that installations are sometimes compromised by mechanical
issues such as failure of connection leads or disconnectors. While
arrester standards do not include mechanical tests or
requirements for the connections, IEC 60099-5 suggests an
arrester life expectancy of at least 25 years. Given these
considerations, EPRI began a research project to better
understand causes of lead breakages so that necessary functional
improvements could be included in future user specifications. This
edited contribution to INMR by Martin Hughes of EPRI reviews
findings and offers insight into requirements for mechanical
testing, with focus on NGLAs since these are the type most
commonly applied in the United States.

Background
NGLA installations should be designed to minimize mechanical stress on
connection lead and disconnector since these components (and the disconnector in
particular) are generally not able to tolerate high mechanical loads. Other
important mechanical design considerations are:

• Connections should allow free movement of phase conductors, which can take
the form of conductor swing, Aeolian vibrations, galloping and sub-span
oscillations;
• Connections and associated hardware should withstand all mechanical forces to
which they are subjected;

• Connections must be durable enough to withstand fatigue due to movement;

• Installations and connections should not place excessive mechanical loading on

the arrester or on disconnector attachments;

• Arrester disconnection should occur in a controlled manner, without

consequential damage to the unit or to other equipment.

Lead wires are used to connect an arrester unit to the phase conductor or to a
grounded part of the line support structure and there are two types of lead
configurations:

1. Flexible rope type wires with crimped lug connectors

These configurations are mostly used in applications where the lead is not
subjected to high mechanical loads (as in Fig. 1).

2. Chain intertwined with lead wire

These configurations have been successfully applied in cases where significant
mechanical loads are expected.

Since the primary function of the lead is to establish an electrical connection, it

should be designed to carry (a) low magnitudes of continuous current flowing
through the arrester during normal operation; (b) high impulse discharge currents
when the arrester conducts a surge; and (c) power frequency fault current if the
arrester fails. Since the lead also implicitly establishes a mechanical connection, it
is also necessary to consider these mechanical forces when designing the lead
attachment.
Fig. 1: Typical TLSA connection lead fitted with lugs.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Fig. 2 shows examples of common lead failures, which include:

• Lead wire pulling out of the lug, a common problem and possibly the result of
mechanical overload or poor crimping of the lead connection;
• Edge of the crimped lug ‘sawing’ into the lead conductor thereby severing strands
and mechanically weakening the lead, such as when a mechanically loaded lead is
not aligned with the lug;

Chain connections where the electrical lead connection woven through the chain
wears down due to continuous lead movement.
Fig. 2: Typical NGLA lead failures.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Load Characterization Testing
Current standards do not provide guidance specific to applying line arresters nor do
they prescribe mechanical tests for leads. Therefore, with the goal of developing
suitable laboratory test methods for leads and disconnectors, EPRI constructed a
simulated field test to quantify typical in-service mechanical lead loads under
different environmental conditions. The simulated field test measures mechanical
loading of the arrester and leads under actual service conditions while also
monitoring and recording any mechanical degradation on the components. This
information then provides a good basis for subsequent laboratory testing.

Advertisement

Instrumenting an energized installation was not cost justified in this case since only
the mechanical forces on the lead are of interest. Three typical arrester
configurations were therefore installed on a de-energized test line commissioned at
EPRI’s High Voltage Test Facility in Lenox, MA in Jan. 2015 (see Fig. 3).
Mechanical loads in the leads are monitored continuously but only maximum load
over a 2-minute interval is logged. Special precautions were taken to ensure load
cells and their added weight did not influence the loads in the leads. A dedicated
weather station was used to continuously reconcile impact of the outdoor
environment during testing and backed up by another logging weather station
attached to a mast only a short distance away. The most important parameter, wind
speed, is monitored with a 2-D ultrasonic type anemometer, which has no moving
parts to wear out or to introduce errors from drag. Ultrasonic anemometers have
the further advantage of more accurately measuring lower wind speeds.
 Fig. 3: EPRI’s
arrester test installation in Lenox.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Load measurements taken over an 18-month period for each of the three arresters
were then compared and data from the position experiencing the highest loads was
reduced to a simplified test cycle. An acceleration factor was achieved by applying
loads at much shorter time intervals (16 hours of testing equivalent to one year of
service life). The original intent was to develop a test that enabled accelerated
ageing of just the arrester leads. However this was later extended to mechanical
testing of the arrester body as well.

Accelerated Ageing Testing

To simulate tensile forces in arrester leads, a test rig was built enabling a series of
load cycles to be applied precisely to the leads and hence the arrester body (see
Fig. 4).
 Fig.
4: Accelerated ageing test rig.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
The intent of the test rig was to closely simulate the types of failures experienced
by arrester leads in the field and to achieve this in an accelerated timeframe. Once
a repeatable and realistic failure mode has been achieved, the device can then
evaluate and compare different lead configurations and materials. Method of load
application (i.e. actuator type and location) changed during the project based on
types of physical degradation experienced by leads during the course of testing.
For example, the initial lead loading method was using a pneumatic actuator, as
seen in Fig. 4. However, it was discovered that the arrester’s relatively low inertia
resulted in an unrealistically low load limit in the lead, no matter the size of
actuator or pressure used.
Fig. 5: Accelerated ageing test rig with top actuator.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
The next generation of load application method was by swinging the arrester to
fixed angles, which when released resulted in desired loads in the leads (see Fig.
5). This more closely resembles how an arrester lead is actually loaded, i.e. via
conductor and arrester wind motion, but required the top link of the arrester to be
replaced with a simple pivot. The loads in leads were easily controllable with this
method of actuation and the higher test loads required could be obtained.
Nevertheless, this test configuration resulted in frequent failure of the arrester’s top
attachment stud. Although such failures have been reported in the field, the high
rate experienced during testing indicted that this loading method was not realistic.
The final and still used generation of load application is via an underslung lever
mechanism that contacts and pushes the bottom of the arrester (see Fig. 6). An
advantage of this approach is that the arrester with its original top link assembly
can be tested without modification.
Fig. 6: Accelerated ageing test rig with under-slung actuator.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
The leads of arresters tested using this rig configuration have exhibited closest
comparison to types of failures actually experienced in service (see Fig. 7).
Subsequent testing in the current rig will evaluate the effect on life expectancy of
undesirable lead lug orientations (e.g. tightened so they are not in-line with the
load) as well as different lead materials and configurations.
Fig. 7: Comparison of failure modes.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
In addition to accelerated ageing of arrester leads, the impact of repetitive shock
loading on arrester functionality will be monitored. A selection of arresters has
been electrically tested prior to being used for lead ageing. After an equivalent 30
years of mechanical testing, these will be electrically tested once more to allow
comparison.

Conclusions
Non-gapped line arresters are increasingly being applied to improve lightning
performance of transmission lines. While these arresters perform well electrically,
their installation is often compromised by failures of the connection leads or the
disconnector. Service experience shows that many of these failures are due to
installation related issues. For example, connections between arrester and
energized conductor or grounded structure are often subjected to static and
dynamic loads which could lead to fatigue or overloading, resulting in either
broken connections or damage to the arrester. The fact that present test standards
do not address requirements for arrester connecting leads prompted EPRI to
develop a mechanical measurement and testing approach to better understand these
issues. However, method of testing must be carefully selected so that failure modes
most closely replicate those actually experienced in service. Even minor changes to
test rig configuration can result in significant variations in types of failure
observed.
References
1. Cigré WG 33.11 Task Force 03: “Application of metal oxide arrester
to overhead lines”, Electra No. 186, October 1999, pp 83-112.
2. Williamson J., “Lightning Protection and Surge Arrester Application
on NB Power Transmission Lines”, IEEE PES Transmission and
Distribution Conference and Exposition, 2008.
3. Overhead Transmission Line Lightning and Grounding Reference
Book 2011. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2011. 1023429.
4. Application of Transmission Line Surge Arresters. EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 2010. 1019954.
5. Guide for the Application of Transmission Line Surge
Arresters. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1017709.