Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations MintJulep on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

VFD power cable shielding (screening) issues 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

jraef

Electrical
May 29, 2002
11,342
I have been heavily promoting the use of VFD shielded power cable in my installations, and most of the problems I have experienced in the past have been diminishing to near extinction. But today, I went to a site with MULTIPLE motor failures connected to a VFD system that I designed, but was altered before purchase and installed by neanderthals. So in my investigation, I found that ALL of the repeated motor failures are happening in the exact same type of application, wherein they took the one single drive I had put into an MCC, and used it to run 4 smaller motors (12A drive running 4 motors that are 2.7A each) on evaporator coils in a cold room. The motors are supposedly "inverter duty" (but I find that is often about as reliable as a fox telling the farmer that the chickens are safe), I could not see the actual motors. So at first glance it SHOULD have been OK in theory. They did install a Load Reactor on each drive, then they used VFD shielded cable, one that has 3 power leads, 3 symmetrical ground leads nested in them, an overall braided shield over those 6 and a separate EGC (Electrical Grounding Conductor, a term used in the US similar to a "PE" conductor). The typical linear distance from MCC to evaporator set is between 300 and 400 ft, through open cable tray. The VFDs did not show faults in the fault logs, other than Power Loss faults typical of being powered down from opening the MCC cubicle doors.

The only big problem I can find with the installation is that the neanderthal electricians just routed the cables haphazardly (as in a bowl of spaghetti) in cable tray along with other full voltage motor leads and the incoming power leads, and then when they ran the shielded cable to the motors, they cut and taped off the shields at the motor connection box end, so they are shielded only at the VFD end. The motor lead cable goes from the MCC to a fiberglass box on the side of each evaporator, and inside is a local disconnect switch, a power splitter block, and a ground bar, to which the EGC is attached, along with 14ga ground wires from the motors. Motor leads from this box to the motors themselves are NOT shielded any longer, they used what appears to be non-shielded flexible wire through gland fittings on the box. I always tell people to ground both ends of shields on POWER cables, because the intent is to form a sort of Faraday cage. But what does / could happen if only one end is grounded? Could this possibly explain the multiple motor failures?

More relevant info:
(1) The motor re-winder that has repaired these has told the user that the motors are failing on "single phasing", which makes no sense to me. The VFDs in question should trip out on loss (or severe imbalance) of output phase current. I have provided the end user with EASA photos of typical single phase motor failures and typical turn-to-turn insulation failures due to standing waves, they have yet to share that with the re-winder to confirm his findings.

(2) To my horror, the user deliberately CHOSE to remove the separate Manual Motor Starters at the evaporators which were to be protecting the individual motors. So there is NO realistic motor overload protection for these 2.7A motors, other than the OL setting of the VFD, which is set at 10.8A. I have told my contact on the job site that this violates the NEC, but the decision came from a manager, so he said he does not want to challenge him and has asked that my report de-emphasize that issue (not likely). Still, these are evaporator coil fans, it is virtually impossible to overload them, and they are only 3 months old so no time for normal bearing wear. While I was there today the VFDs were at 55-60Hz and the 4 motors were drawing only 4.5 - 4.8A collectively for all 4 motors.

My theories at this point are:
1) The lack of shield grounding at one end rendered the shield ineffective, so standing wave generation caused first-turn insulation failure, which the motor re-winder was unfamiliar with and misidentified as single phase damage.

2) The lack of shielding is causing rapid bearing EDM damage and failure, which causes the motors to overload, which again, the re-winder misidentified as damage from single phasing.

3) None of this has any importance whatsoever, and all of it was just caused by the neanderthals who did the motor hookups likely not making good connections at the splitter blocks. Still, I would have expected the VFD to trip on that though.

Please share your thoughts.

"Will work for (the memory of) salami"
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

My thought? Evap fans can be blocked by ice. No motor protection so pfffffT! followed by "um, ah, that looks like a single phase burnout".

Perfect setup for that eventuality with the described crummy setup.

Keith Cress
kcress -
 
Since you are focusing on effects of shield grounding at only one end, I'll mention a "data point" that may or may not have relevance. It concerns a particular medium voltage system with triplex shielded cables analysed for breaker switching surges (not vfd surges) as summarized on page "5-20" (page 177 of pdf) here:

EPRl EL-5862, Volume 1
Turn Insulation Capability of Large AC Motors, Volume 1…
5.6 SENSITIVITY STUDY FOR ONE CONFIGURATION…

a) Shielded cables bonded only at the motor reduce the surge level at the motor [compared to bonded at both ends] . This assumes a cabIe length of at least 30 m so thc external component will not quickly appear at the motor. However, effective cable impedance is increased at the supply end, which can shorten rhe risetime.

b) Shielded cables bonded only at the supply end increase the impedance seen by the motor capacitance, thus increasing the risetime [compared to bonded at both ends}. Again this assumes a cable at least 30 m long. However. the level seen at the motor is not much reduccd since most motors have an impedance much Iarger than thc motor cable.

So based on sensitivity analysis for the above configuration, according to b), grounding at supply end only would give slower rise time and slightly-reduced level which would make the motor surge environment less severe (compared to grounding at both ends). Whether this conclusion applies to your configuration, I have no idea...


=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
 
It is common to ground the shield at the supply end only. This is a shield, not a grounding conductor. if the field end of the shield is connected current may flow in the shield, causing a voltage drop and partially defeating the principle of the Faraday shield.
Any electrician who has installed any amount of 4-20 mA current loops will always insulate the field end of the shield and the shield drain wire.
You don't want the shield to form part of a ground fault circuit.
The Canadian code requires de-rating of power cables when sheath currents may cause overheating. A common and acceptable means to avoid sheath heating and derating is to insulate the sheath, armour or shield at the field end.
If your equipment grounding conductor is outside of the cable the impedance seen by a ground fault may be too high. In the event of a ground fault this may cause the fault current to be too low. We want the ground fault current to be high enough to cause an instantaneous trip. We don't want to wait for an inverse time trip in the event of a ground fault.
Another issue is the ampacity of the shield and the NEC. Shields may not have an ampacity rating. With an external grounding conductor, a shield grounded at both ends may become the lowest impedance ground fault current path and may not have sufficient ampacity.
The interleaved conductors are a different case. If these are grounded at both ends then currents caused by induced high frequency voltages will be dissipated as heat. This will limit the magnitude of the induced high frequency voltages. They will also provide an excellent low impedance ground path.
I doubt that the insulated shields are part of the problem.
However grounding the interleaved conductors at both ends may be a good idea.
I am assuming that the interleaved conductors are the same ampacity as the power conductors.
Other possible reasons for failure?
Loose connections.
If the control system may drive the fans above rated speed they may overload. Check to see that the frequency limit of the VFD is bullet proof.
The reactor may be inadequate.
Get a scope on the motors to check for standing waves.
Consider a 1:1 isolating transformer in place of the reactor.
Point out that the installation does not meet the NEC and is not as designed. The warrantee is VOID. The installation must be brought up to spec and up to code before you are legally able to continue to assist. You will not put your ticket at risk by assuming any liability for non-compliant installations.
And;
Evaporators? Water and/or moisture damage is a strong possibility. You may have water dripping on the motors during the defrost cycles.


Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter
 
What I've learned matches up with what Bill wrote...

Best to you,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies
 
The far end shield "connect or isolate" debate has been going on for decades. There are audio people that think that grounding is bad ("you do not want hum" - don't listen to them) and there are transmission line guys thinking mostly about the wave impedance and reflected waves (they definitely have a few good views) and their concern may also be that there should be a low impedance return path for HF stray currents so as to avoid frame voltage that drives current through the bearings to the shaft (also a good thing to consider, if the motor shaft is connected via a counductive coupling to a grounded machinery). Then, there are NEC guys, their concern is what happens during a ground fault. Bill has a strong point there.

I do lots of measurements on VFD motors and I have seen so many different problems that I sometimes wonder if any laws of Nature apply at all. But, I have decided that at least Ohm's Law, Lenz' Law and Maxwell's Laws are correct and useful. You just have to interpret the installation, the measurements, what people are telling you and - not the least - what you can see for yourself.

A "sloppy" installation by "neanderthals" usually doesn't have much influence. If cables are nicely lined up in a tray or not can have some aesthetical implications, but very seldom any electrical consequences.

A motor reactor usually is a good thing. But what if one of the neanderthals put a small ferrite core there? Seen that. It doesn't work. But I was told that there were motor reactors. Go inspect and see for yourself.

A common mode filter? OK, it definitely reduces voltage stress between Winding and slot wall. But it doesn't do much to the Winding-Winding stress.

Motor voltage measurements need to be done from motor terminal to motor frame. It is very difficult to get a good measurement if you measure terminal-terminal, simply because no (yes, I say no) so-called insulated battery driven portable oscilloscope has the necessary common mode rejection. You need an extremely good isolation amplifier or a differential probe with at least 10 MHz BW. The Fluke DP120 works, it has 20 MHz, but a limited voltage range (1200 V peak).

The best thing is to measure from motor terminals to motor frame and do the math (ch1-ch2, ch2-ch3, ch3-ch1) in the scope. You need to compensate your probes very carefully before you do this measurement, but that is about all you need to care about. Measuring with motor frame as reference potential removes all common mode rejection problems and will tell you the true stress that the motor windings see. Both Winding-Winding and Winding-Frame.

Oops - I got carried away! Sorry, But there's more to say about this. I have seen installations where several motors were connected to one drive and where some reflected waves combined destructively so that the peak voltage was quite low, while other motors did see constructive wave-fronts that took the insulation down. All that differed was the cable length from the distribution boxes along the conveyor system.




Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
 
You don't disagree.

Read again: " It is very difficult to get a good measurement if you measure terminal-terminal, simply because no (yes, I say no) so-called insulated battery driven portable oscilloscope has the necessary common mode rejection".

It is the insulated scopes that don't have the common mode rejection needed. Even the lowly Fluke DP does the job. But it has a limited voltage range. I use a low ohm voltage divider consisting of Three 230 V incandescent lamps to overcome that. A resistive voltage divider limits the BW too much. At least if you want to keep size and dissipation down.

But that is history. I now use a Metrix OX 7204, which has more than ample band-width - and can do the math. Not all scopes can.

Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
 
Here was a previous thread where the possible effects of grounding only one end of power cable shield was discussed:
thread238-295115

=====================================
(2B)+(2B)' ?
 
whew! Great to ask this here!!!!!!!

Consider a 1:1 isolating transformer in place of the reactor. NOT! If this were on 50 or 60hz INPUT to vfd side, fine, but NOT on output. You CAN use autofmr on output as we have done may times, but the reason is to change the vfd vs motor voltage - not an issue here.....

But what does / could happen if only one end is grounded? Could this possibly explain the multiple motor failures? Jraef, as you know, but are trying to cover all bases, tying ground at both ends WILL NOT CAUSE FAILURE. The tie both ends is to capture electromagnetic field INSIDE the cable, vs old fashion tie one end only 'at the source' - to prevent outside electrostatic field getting INTO the cables (like signal wires). It sounds like you may be questioning your 20 yrs experience in this: DON'T.

The failures are from something else, not from NOT tying motor end of motor cable shield to ground.

 
Mike,
The point was, they did NOT tie the motor end to ground, it was taped off, not connected to anything. The shield was only connected to ground at the VFD end.


I was not given a chance to connect a scope yesterday. I am not allowed per company policy because of Arc Flash safety requirements, only certified technicians are now allowed to handle tools. Technically, I was not allowed to open the MCC cubicles either because the bus was still energized. But I digress...

More data emerged today in the form of photos taken by the customer after he went up on a lift to where the evaporator coils are. Turns out that the cable they told the contractor to use is apparently NOT the cable they had used, the electrical contractor did his own thing. So it does NOT have symmetrical grounds nested in with the conductors, it ONLY has the EGC and an aluminum foil shield. Actually, it looks almost like it is a Mylar shield, very flimsy.

I also got a photo of the motor windings from the re-winder, it looks a lot more like an insulation failure at the first turn than a single phasing failure to me.

I'll upload these to my photobucket site at home tonight and post them here, I am blocked from photobucket and all other photo upload sites I have tried from my work PC.




"Will work for (the memory of) salami"
 
Ack! I wish I could append...

Another revolting development, 5 more motors failed today... [cry]

"Will work for (the memory of) salami"
 
I thought the maximum length allowed is all the cable lengths added together if you are feeding multiple motors with one vfd.

Its not the physical distance from the VFD to the motor.
length from vfd to most of the motors = 100

measured length = 100 x 5 = 500
so if max is below 500 then you would have problems.

Used to do multiple motors on one vfd and this was a rule you had to pay attention to so your motors did not fail.

I thought some vfd manufacturers had this note in it. Cant remember which one had a detailed explanation of this issue?
 
If that cable is anything like the Okonite CLX that is marketed as VFD cable, those three "shields" are each 1/3 of the EGC and no separate EGC is necessary or appropriate. As an EGC, they should, of course, be connected at both ends. Obviously a tape shield shouldn't be connected at both ends, but is also (as you well know) completely worthless in this application.
 
Dude

The total cable length is more a question of how tough it will be for the drive to handle cable capacitances and does not primarily influence the overvoltage at the motor end.

But, if there are several cables with differing lengths connected and the PWM edges reflected waves combine constructively, you will have more overvoltage than the standard Udc*1.8 formula says. If they combine destructively*, you get a lower, and broader, peak voltage.

Two examples are shown in **

The installation has one VFD for each conveyor section. The VFD supplies junction boxes at the conveyor. The motors are connected to these junction boxes with separate cables with differing lengths.


* Or, more precisely, "unconstructively" due to different cable lengths.
** Measurements taken from motor terminals to motor frame.

Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
 
Hi Jeff

I would not expect the screen connection or lack of to have any impact on the reliability of the motors. I certainly will have an impact on the electrical noise and stray voltage around the area.

The standing waves that cause first turn failure are present in both screened cable and unscreened cable, but the velocity factor of the cable changes, so the voltage rise per meter is higher for screened cable than unscreened.

A properly bonded screened cable between the motor frame and the VFD frame will reduce the transient noise voltage on the frame of the motor, but in doing so will increase the transient voltage between the stator windings and the frame. It will also increase the discharge current through the bearings for capacitively coupled voltages as the high frequency impedance will be lower.

So, in answer to your question, I do not believe that the lack of bonding on both ends of the screen will contribute to motor failure unless there is some form of cable resonance/ringing, but, depending on the drive, it is possible that the output stage of the drive is being overloaded by the capacitance of the cable as the total length probably exceeds the maximum length for the drive. In this case, one or more outputs may be "desaturating". This would normally cause an earth fault or similar, but it may be disabled or malfunctioning.
Many gate drives check that the device is fully on a very short time after the gate drive is applied. If the capacitance is too high, it can take time for the device to fully saturate and if the device is not in saturation, the gate drive is removed.
There could be a mechanism along these lines that is causing the output waveform to be assymetric and damage the stator windings.

I would suggest that as a minimum, you may need an output reactor, or better, a sinusoidal filter between the drive and the motor cables. Sometimes, just a simple "ferrite" common mode ring will make a significant improvement.

Best regards,
Mark

Mark Empson
Advanced Motor Control Ltd
 
Mark

"...or better, a sinusoidal filter between the drive and the motor cables"

I had an interesting case in Eindhoven, NL. There, a cooling system with Ziehl-Abeg fans had been installed. The motor supplier said that the fans needed sine filters and there were such filters.

In this installation, there was around one inverter failure per month. Inverter failure, not motor failure.

I have measured funny current and voltage waveforms at certain frequencies and it seems that the filter's resonance frequency and a fourth of the carrier frequency coincide so that there are large curren transients between VFD and filter. Simulations confirm that this can happen and the Q of the sine filters has now been reduced (a few ohms added in series with C). We are watching what happens. It seems to help, but we do not know for sure. Needs a few months evaluation.

So, filters can be a problem, too.



Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
 
BTW, Jeff - are those motors similar to the ones I had in Eindhoven?

They were also rather small. And there were lots of them on every inverter. The manufacturer says that those motors need sine filters. Without a sine filter, the motor will fail, he says.

I find that quite remarkable. Why deliver motors that cannot tolerate PWM? For applications where PWM is the rule.

Gunnar Englund
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
 
Hi Gunnar

Yes, been there, done that, got the tee shirt etc.
Those motors are a high slip motor designed for use with variable voltage (not inverter) control. They are typically an integral part of the fan and commonly inside out where the rotor is on the outside.
Because the rotor is very high resistance, the carrier frequency creates high slip losses in the rotor which overheats and cooks everything else!

With sinewave filters, there are two types. The cheap ones are a simple series reactor into a capacitor bank and while they give a reasonable sinewave phase to phase, they have a lousy waveform to earth. Lots of common mode through a low pass filter. If you run a long screened cable on those, you get a lot of earth current at lower frequencies. I lit up a 230V 100W light bulb with the earth currents on a three hundred meter length of cable. And to make life more interesting, the capacitors between the DC bus and the chassis are too low in value to provide a return path for the common mode current, so it has to go back to the transformer and come in via the three phase to the rectifier. We had 150V of noise at a relatively low frequency superimposed on the phase to neutral voltage and blew lamps and switchmode power supplies.

The better sinewave filters include sizable capacitors from the filter three phase output back to the DC bus on the drive to get rid of the common mode rubbish.

Most of the submersible pumps here, run on VFDs, yet they still make them with a maximum voltage of 800 volts peak. Still havbe not moved with the times!!

Best regards,
Mark.

Mark Empson
Advanced Motor Control Ltd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor