Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Failure of Towers During Observation Period 2

    Încărcat de

    Rm1262
    21 vizualizări7 pagini
    Failure of Towers During Observation Period 2

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    Failure of Towers During Observation Period 2

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    21 vizualizări7 pagini

    Failure of Towers During Observation Period 2

    Încărcat de

    Rm1262
    Failure of Towers During Observation Period 2

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 7
    2.2 Specifications 2.2,11S Cod: Fe acajcen wire condition tests, the ower il be kept eer observation. for five minutes afer qeaded up to ultumate loads, (i.e. 100%) 2.2.2 JEC Code ‘As pet TEC'652, tinder Normal as well 25 conductor conditions of Toading, the time setae which toads are msinsined may Us ns ston as possible for each i iate steps of loading, Piatti’ toads’ (-ie" 100%), the loads Oo For ad for one mime” The tower can te Pele mmjoo% loading for a longer period WP Uf a seam of five minutes, but should the [owe fail ‘daring this period, the test shall be ‘eonsidered valid, since iW has withstood for one minute 3.0 TOWER. ‘TESTING STATION (TTS )AT CPRI, BANGALORE. During the passage of time, CPRI has been actively engaged in. augmenting, the test facilities with fninimum cost 19 test even special towers. This way it has been possible to test number of conventional towers up to 800 kV and unconventional towers touch as Guyed tower, composite towers, Rectangular Based towers, Tubular towers and Narrow based tower. Perhaps, CPRI Tower Testing Station is the only one inthe country which has been able to achieve this feat. The data's available are regularly tbeing used for Research & development activities 4.0 TESTING OF TOWERS 4.1 Pre-Testing Arrangements For testing the following protesting activities arc to tbe carried out viz., i) Stub setting & Welding ii) Erection iif) Load cell calibration iv) Attaching haulage wire rope with load cells to the tower & rigging, 4,2 Testing Procedure ‘The loads are simulated by application through pretested steel wire ropes..The loads are measured by calibrated Load cells and indicators. The loads ‘are applied in stages of 25,50,75,90,95 & 100 %. ‘These are kept under obseryation at the end of each stage of loading. The observation period commences ‘ny afler all the pull of points are. loaded appropriately corresponding to each stage of loading “The observation period is monitored by use of period of observation is as ‘any visible deformation, which is ‘associated with sudden release of loads. Generally here will be slight release of loads (maximum of od these are not ‘The tower is tested for the following load cases 1. Bott Stip Test 2. Normal Condition Test 3. Broken Wire Test (On successful completion of the above test the tower is tested for destruction test. 5.0 ASSESSMENT OF OBSERVATION PERIOD About 290 towers have been tested in the Prototype Tower Testing Station of CPRI. The ‘transmission towers can fail due to number of causes Failure of tower can be due to improper design, defective material and fabrication ,faulty erection and improper procedure followed during. testing Since testing is the last stage in the process and failure during testing can be due to one or more or all of the causes mentioned above .It is reasonable 10 ‘adopt amore practical approach to assess the observation period ‘based on the failure of towers obiained during Full scale testing From the data base of tested towers, it was 26 towers had failed during the Observation period itself after the tower was fully loaded up to the ultimate loads Summary of various towers failed during observation period for different Voltage classes are ‘given in Table - 1, A further analysis has also been attempted for the voltage classes by considering See va3, NOS of towers have failed during the "on Period in each of the of voltage class of 352 5.13 From the Table 1 it canbe seen that for voltage class of 33 to 220 kV 9 Nos of towers Cut of 13 (about 70 % ) have failed during the observation period of 010 60 seconds Only 4 Nos ( about 30% Jof the towers have failed during ‘observation period of 61 to 300 seconds. 5.14 From the Table 1 it can also be Seen that for ‘Voltage class of 400 kV and multicircuit only 7 Nos of towers out of 13 (about 54% ) have failed during the observation period of 0 to 60 seconds However 12 Nos.( about 92% Jof the towers have failed during, observation period of 0 to 180 seconds, failed during observation period for 33 to 220 kV and 400kv & multicircuit towers From Table I it can be seen "that ‘number of and angle towers for 33 to 220 kV voltage class that have failed during Observation period of 0 t0 60 seconds are 3 out of 4 (73%) and 6 out of 9 (about 67%) From Table Il it can be scen that number of Suspension and angle towers for 400kv é& multi Sireuit towers that have failed during observation Period of 0 to 60 seconds are quite low , however it is found that towers failing between 0 to 180 seconds are very well represented 3 gut of 4(75%) and 8 out of 9 (about 89 %) respectively. 5.16 Table IV and V show number of towers failed during different type of test for 33 t0 220 kV and KV & multicircuit towers. It can be seen that umber of failures under broken wire condition are ‘more than normal condition, Table IV shows that number of towers for 33 to 220 KY voltage class that have failed during observation Period of 0 to 60 seconds are 3 out of 4 (75%) and 6 Out of 9 (about 67%) for normal condition and broken wire condition tests respectively, Table V shows that number of towers for 400 kV and ticircuilt towers that have failed during bservation period of 0 to 180 seconds are very well Feoscnted 4 out of 4 (100%) and 8 out of 9 (about 89%) respectively. 33-220 kV and 400 kV and multicircuit, 5.2 Findings of the study 5.2.1 It can be stated from the above analysis that very few towers in the voltage range of 33-220 kV have failed beyond 60 seconds. However for towers in the range of 400 KV & multicircuits there are failures during observation period beyond 60 seconds, however except for a freak case most of the towers that have failed are between 0 to 180 seconds. 5.2.2. Analysis based on type of tower for 33-220 kV & multicircuits show that more number of angle towers have failed then suspension tower during ‘observation period. No distinction in observation period for suspension and angle towers could be brought out as can be seen that most of suspension and angle towers in the voltage range of 33-220 kV have failed during 0 to 60 seconds and for towers in the range of 400 kV & __multicircuits have failed between 0 to 180 seconds 5.2.3. Analysis based on type of tests for 33-220kV and 400 KV & multicircuits show that more number of towers have failed under broken wire condition then normal condition during observation period ‘No distinction in observation period for type of tests could be brought out As can be seen that most of the towers in the voltage range of 33-220kV have failed during 0 to 60 seconds and 400 kV & ‘multicircuits have failed between 0 180 seconds for broken wire condition and normal condition. 5.2.4To sum up the observation period can be classified for the two categories 33-220kV and 400 KV & multicircuits No distinction can be made for the different type of towers and tests and the ‘observation period can be as identified for the two categories, 6.0 DISCUSSION ‘The probability based Design of overhead transmission lines are increasingly being recommended by various national standards in place of Deterministic method. In view of the above review ‘on the observation period for the towers subjected to full scale testing as per (IS: 802 or IEC 652) national or international standards is most essential. . 353 ‘The main reason behind this is to design towers as supports to ensure more reliable and cost effective ‘economic power supply. In validating the design, by prototype testing, the ‘most important factor to be considered and being debated in various forums is the waiting period duration. The transmission line Engineers in the field of design of tower in power sectors shall throw @ new light on the subject “Waiting period for towers subjected to full scale testing” by thoroughly reviewing existing national and international codes. ‘The present IS code recommends $ minutes against ‘one minute period by IEC. Most of the countries follow the later. Many towers have been tested for exports in our tower testing station. Though the towers are tested as per IEC standards. Clients! purchasers from Gulf Countries and Australia insisted for 5 minutes waiting period as they are concerned about the safety and reliability of power ‘transmission, This clearly shows the utilities aroutd the world pay much attention towards this subject to avoid failures. It can be seen from Table 1, among the towers that failed during waiting period. though many towers failed during first minute of the waiting period, ‘some towers failed during 2, 3", 4 and 5* minute also. It confirms that if the tower withstood the

    S-ar putea să vă placă și