C. Lumb
36-WG11/Capetown/130 November 2002
TC 36 Beijing decisions on Part2 (36/192/CD) Note : For some comments of an editorial or minor technical nature no decision is recorded these matters were left to the discretion of the Working Group Date :2002-09-24 Comment number
1
National Committee
IT
Clause/ Subclause
Document Title
Paragraph Figure/ Table
Type of comment (General/ Technical/Editorial)
General
TC 36 Discussion/Decision
2
FR
General
3
FR
General
TC 36 Discussion/Decision
COMMENTS
Proposed change
Document : 36/191/CD OBSERVATIONS OF THE SECRETARIAT on each comment submitted
The title of the publication would Suggestion would be to change the Guidance (sic) is required on this seem not to be in line with the title of the further publication as per from Central Office – In the IEC decision agreed at the Stockholm TC 36 decision: i.e “Guidance for the guides have a special status. meeting, September 2000: see selection…” decision 15 in the reference minutes It was noted that the proposed standard is a technical specification. It was agreed to leave the title as it is. This document is bringing a new thinking in the field of contaminated insulators. In particular, a good emphasis is put on the shape of the insulators and their suitability for different environments. The FNC fully supports this position. However, we find that a critical The FNC suggests to define another Agreed – In effect the suitability of parameter is missing completely ratio Klg equal to the leakage distance insulator profiles depends also on from the document : it is the length divided by the spacing of the this ratio. of the insulator string which has a insulators. Klg should be defined and large effect on the cost of the its use as a corrective factor WG to consider and integrate. complete overhead line. The FNC described in clause 10. suggests to define another ratio Klg equal to the leakage distance divided by the spacing of the insulator. The higher this ratio, the more suitable the insulator for the application. Noted that this follows on from a French comment on Part 1 (See comment 33 of Annex D). The meeting agreed that the working group should consider this matter and integrate it into the next draft.
1
C. Lumb
Comment number
4
36-WG11/Capetown/130 November 2002 National Committee
JP
Clause/ Subclause
Paragraph Figure/ Table
1
Type of comment (General/ Technical/Editorial)
General
TC 36 Discussion/Decision 5
IT
1
1st alignment
Editorial
TC 36 Discussion/Decision 6
SE
2
Editorial
3.1
Technical
TC 36 Discussion/Decision
7
IT
TC 36 Discussion/Decision 8 JP
3.1
Note
Editorial
COMMENTS
Proposed change
OBSERVATIONS OF THE SECRETARIAT on each comment submitted
Document [2] is not published yet. Agreed. Therefore, some technical data It is clearly noted in the introduction (Tables 1 to 4, correction factors of that the factors are not finalised. Kps, K ad, Ksp, etc.) in this draft can not be judged. This draft should be distributed as 2nd CD after close technical discussion at CIGRE TF 33.13.01. Noted project leaders comment that it is clearly stated that not all factors are finalised As referred in the foreword, the Suggestion would be to replace the Acceptable ? document will be published as TS. term “guide” with “international Technical Specification”. Agreed Why reference to IEC 61245 (d.c.) if Delete reference to IEC 61245 Agreed – This reference was left over the scope of this document is a.c. from a cut and paste. Agreed The definition of “Unified specific Suggestion would be to consider in This point has been raised on IEC creepage distance” could cause this document the definition of 60815-1. Will follow the decision confusion in the application of the Specific creepage distance that is taken on 36/187/CD rules for the dimensioning of the currently referred in numerous IEC surface insulation. The new publications. proposal is to consider the highest operating voltage across the insulator while the current practice is the phase to phase value of the highest voltage for the equipment. Noted that it had been decided in the decisions on part 1 to retain USCD IEC 815 (1986) To correct “IEC 60815 (1986)” Noted
2
C. Lumb
Comment number
36-WG11/Capetown/130 November 2002 National Committee
Clause/ Subclause
Paragraph Figure/ Table
Type of comment (General/ Technical/Editorial)
COMMENTS
USCD is related to the highest operating voltage across the insulator. This may lead to practical problems because this voltage is not part of the insulation coordination standard (IEC60071) and therefore many users do not specify this voltage at the time of ordering.
9
DE
3.1
T
Proposed change
OBSERVATIONS OF THE SECRETARIAT on each comment submitted
Apply phase to earth voltage based This point has been raised on IEC on “highest voltage for equipment Um” 60815-1. Will follow the decision to express USCD. taken on 36/187/CD This applies also for IEC60815-1 (IEC 36/187/CD).
Using the highest operating voltage does conflict to existing standards. In IEC 60071, the highest voltage for equipment Um is defined as that voltage “for which the equipment is designed in respect to its insulation as well as other characteristics which relate to this voltage...” As dimensioning of creepage distance is purely a matter of insulation any specific creepage distance shall be based on Um.
TC 36 Discussion/Decision 4 10
DE
5
T
TC 36 Discussion/Decision st
11
JP
8
12
JP
9.1
1 paragraph st 1 paragraph
Editorial Editorial
Noted that it had been decided in the decisions on part 1 to retain USCD See comment 10 of Annex D) It is not clear a preliminary choice of Delete this item It is not clear what should be deleted possible candidate insulators are and why. Is it the whole clause ? made in IEC60815-1, for example, even a preliminary choice of The WG feels that this summary of possible candidate insulators principle is very useful – maybe it requires a decision about type of should be copied to Part 1 ? system voltage and material. Agreed that the repletion should be avoided but that the summary of principle should be in one of the parts. This was left to the working group. Figure 5 is not included in IEC To replace “Figure 2 and/or Table 3 of Correct 60815-1(CD). IEC 60815-1” “are as” should read “areas” Correct
3
C. Lumb
Comment number
36-WG11/Capetown/130 November 2002 National Committee
Clause/ Subclause
Paragraph Figure/ Table
1st paragraph 13
JP
9.1
Type of comment (General/ Technical/Editorial)
Technical
TC 36 Discussion/Decision Table 3 14
JP
9.1
Technical
TC 36 Discussion/Decision Table 4 15
JP
9.1
Technical
TC 36 Discussion/Decision total 16
DE
9.1
E
TC 36 Discussion/Decision Table 3 17
DE
TC 36 Discussion/Decision
T
COMMENTS
In general, the coastal areas are located at the site exposed to salt spray directly.
Proposed change
OBSERVATIONS OF THE SECRETARIAT on each comment submitted
To delete “or coastal areas”
Not acceptable A wall bushing on the leeward side of a building 1 km from the coast receives no spray, but is in a coastal area. Agree to retain “coastal areas” working group to consider the comment to possibly make the meaning clearer. Fog-shape profile insulators have Only one acceptable mark should be As indicated in the draft these successful field experience under indicated in the column of Fog-shape tables/marks are not finalised. This the industrial and agricultural areas profile for Industrial / Agriculture comment will be passed on to the in Japan. areas. WG for discussion. Working group to consider Fog-shape profile insulators have Only one acceptable mark should be As indicated in the draft these successful field experience under indicated in the column of Fog-shape tables/marks are not finalised. This the industrial and agricultural areas profile for Industrial / Agriculture comment will be passed on to the in Japan. areas. WG for discussion. Working group to consider Repetition of clauses from other Delete paragraph Agreed that repetition shall be standards or parts of standards (see avoided, however this information is IEC60815-1) shall be avoided useful and necessary here. Suggest keeping it. Agreed that the paragraph should be retained because it is useful information For longrod and post insulators, the Define terms Typical examples of these profiles term “plain profile” and “fog-shape are given in Figure 2. This was profile” are not defined in this considered sufficient – what is the standard or in any other part. opinion of IEC CO and the delegates ? Agreed that it would be impractical to have a definition of every type of profile. Agree that terminology must be consistent.
4
C. Lumb
Comment number
36-WG11/Capetown/130 November 2002 National Committee
Clause/ Subclause
Paragraph Figure/ Table
Type of comment (General/ Technical/Editorial)
Table 3
18
DE
T
SE
TC 36 Discussion/Decision
Proposed change
“Plain profile”, “alternating shed” Use“open profile”, “standard and fog-shape profile” do not reflect profile”,”fog-type profile”. typical shed profiles of longrod and post insulators Add the following description to “standard profile”: 1) Standard profile has plain sheds with moderate inclination 2) Shed inclination can be adapted to meet specific environmental conditions, e.g., steeper shed inclination is recommended for coastal areas. 3) Alternating shed profile may be used under heavy wetting conditions. Also with alternating shed profiles different shed inclinations can be applied
OBSERVATIONS OF THE SECRETARIAT on each comment submitted
Is a description necessary ? Guidance required. Also DE is requested (as in 36/198/CC) to supply drawings of typical longrod and post insulator profiles.
IEC60815-1 shall be ammended accordingly, i.e. in Clause 10.2 and relevant figures (page 20). Typical profile for longrod and post insulators shall be defined and described. The previous decision on Part 1 to base the descriptions on “open profile”, “standard profile” and “fog-type profile” made when considering a comment on 36/187/CD was noted. There was an additional proposal from Germany for the combination of Tables 3 and 4 with “open profile”, “standard profile” and “fog-type profile” as the comment headings. This proposal was accepted.
TC 36 Discussion/Decision
19
COMMENTS
9.2 and Tables 1 through 4
Technical
The text states insulators as “unsuitable” at many places, even though they would be suitable from a technical point of view, however with unnecessary amount of creepage for the condition.
We have no proposal at this stage, but the description as “unsuitable” for insulators that may be overdimensioned for its purpose does not sound good.
This is in part corrected by the introduction of the Klg factor proposed by France which corrects for this. However agree that "unsuitable" is not totally satisfactory for these cases. The WG will search for a better term. Any suggestions welcome. Agreed to use of the “efficient” “normal” and “inefficient”
5
C. Lumb
Comment number
36-WG11/Capetown/130 November 2002 National Committee
Clause/ Subclause
Paragraph Figure/ Table
Type of comment (General/ Technical/Editorial)
9.2 Tables 1 to 4 20
FR
TC 36 Discussion/Decision
21
DE
10
T
10
Editorial
10.1
Technical
TC 36 Discussion/Decision
22
IT
TC 36 Discussion/Decision
23
SE
TC 36 Discussion/Decision
COMMENTS
Proposed change
OBSERVATIONS OF THE SECRETARIAT on each comment submitted
This may be the answer to the SE We disagree with the wording of the Replace “Recommended” by “Lower comment above. notes for the raison indicated in the USCD” previous French comment. Replace “Acceptable” by “Standard Opinions welcome USCD” Replace “Unsuitable” by “Higher USCD” The ratio between these values is defined in sub-clause 10.1. The length of the string must be taken in account. Noted that it was previously agreed that the working group would consider this matter and revise the draft accordingly. It is not clear what is the base for Please explain and give relevant As previously stated, these values the correction values in the formulas references. are not finalised. However they are and diagrams largely based on the recommendations of IEC 60815 1986. For example: Kld rises for l/d above 4.5 – which is the limit given for l/d in 60815 1986. However the slope of the curve still needs discussion in the WG. The meeting noted that further explanation is given in CIGRE 158. It was left to the working group to consider this matter. The meeting also suggested that the working group should consider horizontal and vertical orientation factors. The symbols in the sketches should The symbols were adapted from IEC be specified and unified when 60815-1 to help comprehension. It is referred to the same geometrical agreed that they should now be parameter of insulator profile. unified. Agreed that the symbols should be unified. Correction factors are given also on The terminology “unsuitable” should See discussion on 9.2 and Tables “unsuitable” insulators (1,25). The be reserved to when the creepage is above result will be an even longer unsufficient. creepage for cases where the creepage is already an overkill. The meeting noted that this matter was covered by the previous French comment on item 3 and it was agreed that the working group would consider this matter.
6
C. Lumb
Comment number
24
36-WG11/Capetown/130 November 2002 National Committee
JP
Clause/ Subclause
Paragraph Figure/ Table
Type of comment (General/ Technical/Editorial)
10.1
Technical
10.2 - 7
General
10.2
Technical
10.2
Technical
TC 36 Discussion/Decision
25
JP
TC 36 Discussion/Decision
26
JP
TC 36 Discussion/Decision 27
28
29
SE
DE
JP
10.2
10.3
E Figure (Graph)
Technical
COMMENTS
Figure 1 is based on the example of recommendable profile. Kps of recommendable profile should be reference point.
Proposed change
OBSERVATIONS OF THE SECRETARIAT on each comment submitted
To revise as follows: Recommended profiles: Kps = 1.0 Acceptable profile: Kps = 1.2 Unsuitable profile: Kps = 1.5
It was felt that since the recommended profile presents and advantage with respect to others then this should mean that less creepage is necessary, hence a value of Kps less than 1. This matter was left to the working group for consideration. It was noted that members of the working group would run various profiles through the steps of the draft and compare the results obtained with their real-life performance. All parameters of shed profiles Is this necessary ? In many cases "a should be defined in details as picture is worth a thousand words". existing IEC 60815 (1986). Agreed the detail in 60815 Annex is not necessary This will be passed on the WG for Kad should be based on the long To revise as follows: discussion/confirmation. rod insulator having average Kds = 0.001Dm + 0.9 Kds = 1 (within Dm of 100) diameter of 100 mm. (In Japan, Where Dm = ….(existing IEC60815 reference insulator having Dm of p.15) 115 mm is adopted.) In case of plain and alternating sheds, Da is approximated value for Dm may be defined by the following alternating shed. Dm, average simple relations: Dm = (2Dt+Ds1+Ds2)/4 (Ds1=Ds2 for diameter should be described as plain sheds) existing IEC 60815(1986). The meeting noted that the formula given aligns with the values in IEC 60815 :1986 and left this matter to the working group for consideration. A description how to establish the Agreed correction factor for conical WG to consider insulators should be included. For average diameter replace Dm by Replace Da. Indicate in formula that values have to be given in mm The distinction of two lines should To add following indication in the be clarified like with the clause 10.7. figure. SPS class a for upper line. SPS class e for lower line.
Agreed
The labels were lost in the print process. Upper line is ribbed sheds, lower line is plain sheds.
7
C. Lumb
Comment number
30
36-WG11/Capetown/130 November 2002 National Committee
U.S.
Clause/ Subclause
Paragraph Figure/ Table
10.3
Type of comment (General/ Technical/Editorial)
General
31
SE
10.3
Technical
32
IT
10.3
Technical
33
DE
10.5
E
34
JP
10.6
Figure
Technical
35
JP
10.7
Figure
Technical
36
IT
12.1 and 12.2
Technical
37
SE
12.3
Editorial
38
JP
FIGURES
39
U.S.
COMMENTS
Dual traces exist on the graph, but there is no identifier indicating which to use or why. The diagram shows two curves merging into one at s/p=0,8. The difference in application between the two curves should be clarified. The Ksp value should be defined also for s/p> 1 Indicate in Figure precisely from where to where c is measured
Shed angle α is not clear.
Figure 2 b) Figure 2
Editorial General
Fibure 3 40
U.S.
General
Proposed change
More technical discussion on adequacy will be needed based on data and field experiences. The text of the sub-clause is not clear and it would seem incomprehensible. Type A and type B pollution should be defined in the text. Is the abbreviation word “ALS” needed? Under ribbed shed is shown as “a)” in the figure, leaving two “a)”s. Type “c)” and “d)” are both anti-fog disc profiled, but are differentiated by “Steep” and “Flatter”. But there is no differentiation in performance parameters.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE SECRETARIAT on each comment submitted
The labels were lost in the print process. Upper line is ribbed sheds, lower line is plain sheds. The labels were lost in the print process. Upper line is ribbed sheds, lower line is plain sheds. To be discussed by the WG Modify
Will add centre lines.
Shed angle α should be indicated like as Fig. D2 of existing IEC 60815(1986).
Agreed Second figure necessary for curved sheds Agreed Please supply any available information to the WG Clauses will be reworded
Suggestion would be to reword the text of the sub-clause.
To delete “(ALS)”
These are defined in part 1. Will added reference. Agreed
Change the designation to “c)”.
Agreed
Include only one Anti-Fog disc shed profile or differentiate between the two.
They are differentiated in 9.1.
8 FORM 8C (IEC) 1998-08-01
