ABB Kabeldon. Laboratory Report. Mechanical test of Service Distribution Cabinets, SDC and SDCM

Transcription

1 Title: Mechanical test of Service Distribution Cabinets, SDC and SDCM Date: Page 1 of 29 Reference: Author: Approved by: Bertil T Larsson Claes H Söderström Report No.: 1141 Distribution: Summary Type tests according to the standard IEC , Cable Distribution Cabinets (CDC) and IEC 60529, IP Code, has been performed on the enclosures SDC 448, SDC 698 and SDCM 698. ABB Kabeldon manufactures these cabinets. The enclosures fulfill the requirements for operation in an arctic climate of 50 C according to the standard. ABB Automation Technologies AB, Box 531, S Alingsås, Sweden, Tel , Fax

2 Report No.: 1141 Page 2 of 29 Content Summary...1 Content...2 Introduction...3 Description...3 Test objects...3 Scope of test...3 Test equipment...4 Test sequence...5 Test Verification of structural strength...5 Test Verification of resistance to static load...5 Test Verification of resistance to chock load...6 Test Verification of resistance to torsional stress...6 Test Verification of impact force withstand...6 Test Applicable to CDCs designed for operation at ambient temperatures....6 Test Applicable to CDCs designed for operation in an arctic climate...7 Test Verification of mechanical strength of doors...8 Test Metal inserts in synthetic material...8 Test Mechanical shock impacts induced by sharp-edged objects...8 Test Mechanical strength of the base...9 Test IPX4 according to IEC protection against water...9 References...11 Photos from the test...12

3 Report No.: 1141 Page 3 of 29 Introduction Type test has been preformed on cable distribution cabinet type SDC and SDCM manufactured by ABB Kabeldon. The tests are preformed according to the standards IEC ( ), Low-voltage switchgear and controlgear assemblies Part 1: Type tested and partially type-tested assemblies and ( ), Part 5: Particular requirements for assemblies intended to be installed outdoors in public places Cable distribution cabinets (CDCs) for power distribution in networks. The test for the IP Code is done in accordance with the standard IEC ( ), Degree of protection provided by enclosures (IP Code). The test series took place at ABB Kabeldon s laboratory during December 2003 and January On the SDC the tests have been done on the smallest and largest cabinet and on the largest, SDCM cabinet. The SDCM type of cabinet is designed with an upper part for a kwh meter or other equipment. The tests were done according to the demands for CDC designed for operation in an arctic climate. The part of the test that requires either 25 or 50 C was done at ETL SEMKO, Stockholm, Sweden. The laboratory report from ETL SEMKO (Ref. No ) has ABB Kabeldon report number The enclosures fulfill the requirements for operation in an arctic climate of 50 C according to the standard. Description Test objects Three different sizes of enclosures were taken from the stock. They are all made in steel sheet material. The dimensions are (in mm); length 682 (SDC 448), 1310 (SDC 698), depth 312 (all sizes), height 889 (SDC), 1523 (SDCM). The base on which the enclosures are mounted is 400 mm high. SDC 448 with 400 A busbars, article number: (Picture 6) SDC 698 with 630 A busbars, article number: (Picture 7) SDCM 098 without busbars, article number: (Picture 8) Those three enclosures have gone trough all test sequences if nothing else is stated.

4 Report No.: 1141 Page 4 of 29 Scope of test The test consists of the applicable parts for steel cabinets in the standards IEC and test 1 2 Resistance to static load Resistance to shock load Resistance to torsional stress Verification of impact force withstand Replaced by the next test, arctic climate test 1 3 CDCs designed for operation in an arctic climate Mechanical strength of doors Not applicable Resistance to mechanical shock impacts Mechanical strength of the base IEC Test for second characteristic numeral 4 with oscillating tube or spray nozzle Test equipment Solid metal ball 15,7 kg to verify the resistance to impact force withstand (Picture 1) Sandbag 16,0 kg to verify the resistance to shock load (Picture 2) Solid metal ball Ø 200 mm, metal sphere radius 100 mm Steel striker element 4,7 kg to verify the resistance to shock impacts induces by sharp-edged object Steel fixture to support and fastening the cabinet (Picture 3) Steel beam in a T-form, 4.6 x 3.5 m to fasten the above fixture Steel fixture for the roof, to verify the resistance to torsional stress Dynamometer, Piab kg A2848 (Picture 4) Ratchet pulley block, Lug-all, model Lifting crane ABUS, 250 kg Spray nozzle 10 l/min, Manufactured by PTL Dr. Grabenhorst GmbH, Typ P05.24, Nr (Picture 5) Standard designed access probe, 2.5 mm according to IEC Manufactured by PTL Dr. Grabenhorst GmbH, Typ P10.16, Nr Standard designed access probe, 1.0 mm according to IEC Manufactured by PTL Dr. Grabenhorst GmbH, Typ P10.17, Nr Various cords, shackles and bolts to prepare and fix the cabinet due to the test

5 Report No.: 1141 Page 5 of 29 Test sequence Test Verification of structural strength Performance The enclosure was fixed in the support in an upright position during this test. The enclosure was during the entire test tightened to the base with bolts in accordance to normal handling. Test Verification of resistance to static load Test 1 Evenly distributed load on the roof of N/m 2 (Picture 9) Type of enclosure Roof area (m 2 ) Calculated load (N) Calculated load (kg) Test load (kg) SDC x0.682 = x8500 = /9.8 = SDC x1.31 = x8500 = /9.8 = SDCM x1.31 = x8500 = /9.8 = Result from test 1 The enclosures SDC 448 and SDC 698 have been tested, but not the SDCM 098 as the roof has the same size as SDC 698. The enclosures passed the test. Test 2 A force of N applied to the front and back upper edges. Performance A force of N was applied to the front and back edge of the roof. Pulley block and a dynamometer were used to tighten the force. All three enclosures have been tested. (Pictures 10-13). Result from test 2 The enclosures under test were not affected in a way that it changed the electrical performance or the security. The only reason for remark was for the SDCM 098. As it is taller than the SDC (634 mm) the torque at the base is higher. While the force was applied backwards a small gap appeared in the lower right corner between the enclosure and the base (picture 13). The 2.5 mm test probe did penetrate during the time the force was applied. When the force was released the gap partially went back and the 2.5 mm probe did not penetrate. After some minutes it went back almost to its original position and the 1.0 mm probe did not penetrate. In every one of this cases there were an adequate clearance from hazardous parts.

6 Report No.: 1141 Page 6 of 29 Neither the 2.5 nor the 1.0 mm probe did penetrate except the above mentioned. Locks and doors were functioning as before the test. The clearance distances were not changed. The requirement of the IP class was hereby fulfilled. Test Verification of resistance to chock load Performance The enclosures were during the test in an upright position, attached to the steel beam with the fixture. The 16 kg sandbag was hung in a lift truck and was caused to fall from 1 m height to the center of each side of the enclosures. (Picture 14). Result All three enclosures have been tested. During and after the different blows no sign of affect could be seen on any of the enclosures. Locks and doors functioned as normal. The clearance distances were not changed and the IP class remains. Test Verification of resistance to torsional stress Performance The enclosures were during the test in an upright position, attached to the steel beam with the fixture. A fixture was attached to the roof in which the pulley block and the dynamometer were tightened. The force of 2 x N was applied during 30 s, in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions. (Pictures 15-18). Result All three enclosures have been tested. On the SDC 098, the largest enclosure and without busbars mounted, the doors twisted during the time the force was applied. In one place in the lower left corner the 1.0 mm probe did penetrate. After the test the doors went back almost to its normal position and the opening disappeared, the test probe did not penetrate. An hour after the test the doors had gone back to their normal position with no twisting. The locks and doors were functioning as normal and remained closed during the entire test. The clearance distances were not changed and the requirement of the IP class was fulfilled. Test Verification of impact force withstand Test Applicable to CDCs designed for operation at ambient temperatures. This test is replaced by the next test.

7 Report No.: 1141 Page 7 of 29 Test Applicable to CDCs designed for operation in an arctic climate. This part of the test was carried out at ABB Kabeldon and was done only at ambient temperature. Complementary test is done at the SEMKO laboratory at 50 ºC. Test 1, on an empty CDC. The enclosures were lying down in between the metal sphere and the steel beam or on the floor. The ten considered weakest points were identified. A lever arm was used together with a steel ball with radius 100 ± 2 mm to give the force of N on the selected points. Tin bars were used at the end of the lever arm to obtain the necessary force. (Picture 19). Result The considered weakest points: In the middle of the front door, in two places; approximately 8 mm inward dent on the largest enclosure during the load time, with no remaining deformation. (Picture 20). At the bottom middle part, in two places; approximately 16 mm inward dent on the largest enclosure during the load time. Immediately after the test there was 8 mm remaining deformation. The IP class remained. Close to the door hinges, both sides; no visible affect, no deformation. In the middle of the back sheet; approximately 7 mm inward dent on the largest enclosure during the test, with no remaining deformation. In front of the lower busbar; the same result as the previous. (Picture 21 shows the different places on the front). On the revolving seal covering the outlet opening on both sides; approximately 3 mm inward dent during the test, with no remaining deformation. (Picture 22). All three enclosures have been tested. No test point had any visible damage or remaining deformation. The doors, hinges and looks functioning as normal. The IP class remained intact as well as the clearance distances. Test 2, a CDC containing equipment and connected to voltage Performance The test was performed with three different size apparatus to provide the minimum clearances inside the enclosure. The largest size of both equipment and enclosure was chosen, as it is the worst case. Test was only done on the largest enclosure. Enclosure: SDC 698 Apparatus: Switch-fuse SEKOB 250, fuse-switch disconnectors SLC 0 and SLC 00. The enclosure was connected to earth and the equipment was connected to AC voltage during the entire test. It was performed in the same manner as the previous one. (Pictures 23-24). Result No puncture or flashover occurred. No visible damage. The enclosure passed the test.

8 Report No.: 1141 Page 8 of 29 Test 3, impact of a solid metal ball 15 kg Performance The enclosures were placed in an upright position during the test, attached to the steel beam with the fixture. The 15,7 kg metal ball was hung in a lift truck and was caused to drop from 1 m height and impact each side of the enclosures. (Pictures 25-28). Result Two sizes of the enclosures were tested, SDC 448 and SDC 698. The different parts, like doors and sides are identical for other sizes. Approximately 4 mm inward dent were caused on both right and left hand side of the enclosures. (Picture 26). In the front the impact caused a 9 mm inward dent in the worst case, on the SDC 698. On the back the impact caused a 6 mm inward dent in the worst case, on the SDC 698. The impact did not cause any other damage and the doors and locks were functioning as before. The IP degree of protection and the clearance distances remained. The enclosure passed the test. Test Verification of mechanical strength of doors Performance and result A load of 50 N was applied backwards on the fully opened door, on the top of the door at 300 mm from the hinged edge. (Picture 29 30). The test was done at one enclosure, SDC 698 as the doors and hinges are identical for the different sizes of enclosures. The enclosure was not affected. Doors and locks remained as before the test. The IP class and the clearance distance remained intact. Test Metal inserts in synthetic material. Not applicable to this type of enclosure. Test Mechanical shock impacts induced by sharp-edged objects Performance The enclosures were lying down on the steel beam or on the floor. The considered weakest point on each vertical side was identified. A steel striker element was raised to 0.4 m and allowed to drop and impact the enclosures. (Picture 31). The three enclosures have been tested. Only test 1, in ambient temperature was done in this sequence. Test 2, at 25 ºC has been preformed at SEMKO.

9 Report No.: 1141 Page 9 of 29 Result The enclosures SDC 448 and SDC 698 have been tested. Other sizes have identical parts. Impact number: On the front door; on the locking device, SDC 698. There were clear marks of the sharp edge; the lock functioned as before. (Picture 32). On the revolving seal covering the outlet opening on both sides, SDC 698; clear marks of the sharp edge. In one case the 1.0 mm but not the 2.5 mm test probe did penetrate. (Pictures 33-34). Right lower backside of the enclosure SDC 448; clear mark of the sharp edge, no other damage. The requirement according to the standard is fulfilled. The clearance distances remains. Test Mechanical strength of the base Performance The enclosures were lying down on the steel beam. The arm of a lever was used together with one or two steel tube respectively with diameter 60 and length 200 mm. The force is calculated according to the formula F = 3.5 N / mm x L. Tin bars were used at the end of the lever to obtain the necessary force according to the below table. The larger enclosures manufactured (SDC/M 473 and SDC/M 698) have an extra support in the middle of the base. The bases for SDC and SDCM are identical. Only the smallest and largest enclosures according to the table below have been tested. Enclosure Length of the base (mm) Calculated force (N) Number of tubes SDC x 3.5 = SDC / 2 = x 3.5 = Result The down dent on the smaller enclosure was approximate 20 mm with 5 mm remaining down dent on the lowest part. This part of the base is underneath the ground level. This small enclosure (SDC 448) has no extra middle support in the middle. (Picture 35). The down dent on the largest enclosure was approximate 21 mm with 5 mm remaining down dent on the lowest part. (Pictures 36-37). The enclosures passed the test. The IP class and clearance distances were intact. Test IPX4 according to IEC protection against water Test objects Three different sizes of enclosures were taken from the stock. They are all made in steel sheet material. The dimensions are (in mm); length 682 (SDC 448), 1310 (SDC 698), depth 312 (all sizes), height 889 (SDC), 1523 (SDCM). The base on which all the enclosures are mounted is 400 mm high.

10 Report No.: 1141 Page 10 of 29 SDC 448 with 400 A busbars, article number: (Picture 6) SDC 698 with 630 A busbars, article number: (Picture 38, 39) SDCM 698 with 630 A busbars, article number: (Picture 44, 45) Those three enclosures have gone trough the test sequences if nothing else is stated. Performance The enclosures with its base were put on a pallet on the ground and sprinkled with a standardized spray nozzle according description in IEC 60529; for classification IPX4, protection against splashing water. The spray nozzle gives 10 liter per minute and the sprinkling continued for 5 minutes, 6 minutes in case of the largest enclosure. The enclosures were sprayed from all practicable directions. A dielectric test was done immediately after the sprinkling of water. To measure the amount of water, pieces of cloth were put on the busbar. The cloths were weighed both before and after the sprinkling. Three different sizes of enclosures were used; SDC 448 and 698 and SDCM 698. Result On the SDC 448 there was a little penetration of water. It was mainly in the left hand corner and some water drops on the both sides at the bottom part (pictures 41 43). The cloth that was hung over the busbars was practically dry after the test. No water reached the busbars or PEN bar. On the SDC 698 there was a little more penetration of water. Apart from the earlier mentioned there was some water drops on the inner part of the roof, a few on the inside of the doors and on the PEN bar. The weight of the cloth on the busbars increased with 13 grams. The SDCM 698 is the largest enclosure. With larger doors the means for penetration of water is greater. The result was very similar to the previous test, with some more water. The amount of water was more obvious on the inside of the doors. The cloth weighted 84 grams more than before the test and after wiping the water inside the cabinet. (Pictures 46-49). The conclusion of the test is that it is difficult to totally avoid water penetration. The sprinkling is done according to the standard from all practicable directions. It allows the water to bounce and penetrate from various angels. However, the place where apparatus or other equipment is mounted is hardly affected. Only few drops were found on busbars and the place for the kwh meter. The standard say that if any water has entered, a dielectric test is to be performed. Immediately after the sprinkling, without moving the cabinets dielectrical tests were done. The tests voltage (3 500 V) was applied between all live parts and ground and between each pole and all the other poles according the standard. No puncture or flash-over occurred. The judgment is that this small amount of water penetration will not cause any problem. This is confirmed by many years of manufacturing cabinets and from previous tests. The requirements according to the standard are fulfilled. The clearance distances remains.

11 Report No.: 1141 Page 11 of 29 References IEC Low-voltage switchgear and controlgear assemblies Part 1: Type-tested and partially type-tested assemblies ( ) IEC Low-voltage switchgear and controlgear assemblies Part 5: Particular requirements for assemblies intended to be installed outdoors in public places Cable distribution cabinets (CDCs) for power distribution in networks ( ) IEC Degrees of protection provided by enclosures (IP Code) ( )

12 Report No.: 1141 Page 12 of 29 Photos from the test 1. Solid metal ball, 15.7 kg 2. Sandbag 16.0 kg 4. Dynamometer, Piab kg 3. Steel fixture to support the cabinets 5. Spray nozzle

13 Report No.: 1141 Page 13 of Cabinet SDC Cabinet SDC Cabinet SDCM Cabinet SDC 698 with static load 364 kg

14 Report No.: 1141 Page 14 of Cabinet SDC 698 with force backwards 11. Cabinet SDC 698 with force forwards

15 Report No.: 1141 Page 15 of Cabinet SDCM 098 with force forwards 13. Cabinet SDCM 098; during the force was applied backwards

16 Report No.: 1141 Page 16 of Cabinet SDC 698 with sandbag 16 kg 15. Cabinet SDC 698; torsional stress

17 Report No.: 1141 Page 17 of Cabinet SDC 698; torsional stress 17. Cabinet SDCM 098; Small gap during torsional stress 18. Cabinet SDC 448; torsional stress

18 Report No.: 1141 Page 18 of Cabinet SDC 698; force applied by a metal sphere 20. Cabinet SDC 698; force applied by a metal sphere

19 Report No.: 1141 Page 19 of Cabinet SDC 698; weak points on the front 22. Cabinet SDC 448; force by a metal sphere on the revolving seal

20 Report No.: 1141 Page 20 of Cabinet SDC 698; force by a metal sphere, with equipment and connected to ac voltage Cabinet SDC 698; impact of a solid metal ball

21 Report No.: 1141 Page 21 of Cabinet SDC 698; impact of a solid metal ball 300 mm from hinge 29. Cabinet SDC 698; mechanical strength of doors

22 Report No.: 1141 Page 22 of Cabinet SDC 698; mechanical strength of doors 31. Cabinet SDC 698; impact by sharp-edged object

23 Report No.: 1141 Page 23 of Cabinet SDC 698; impact by sharp-edged object

24 Report No.: 1141 Page 24 of Cabinet SDC 448; mechanical strength of the base 36. Cabinet SDC 698; mechanical strength of the base. Arrow points to the middle support.

25 Report No.: 1141 Page 25 of Cabinet SDC 698; mechanical strength of the base 38. Cabinet SDC 698; before IP test with sprinkling water

26 Report No.: 1141 Page 26 of Cabinet SDC 698; IP test with sprinkling water 40. Cabinet SDC 698; some water drops on apparatus

27 Report No.: 1141 Page 27 of Cabinet SDC 448; test of protection against water, sprayed from all practicable directions 42. Cabinet SDCM 448; cloths on busbars to measure water penetration 43. Cabinet SDCM 448; water drops inside cabinet bottom left hand side

28 Report No.: 1141 Page 28 of Cabinet SDCM 698; before IP test with sprinkling water 45. Cabinet SDCM 698; IP test with sprinkling water

29 Report No.: 1141 Page 29 of Cabinet SDCM 698; water drops inside cabinet on the division between the compartments Cabinet SDCM 698; water drops on the breaker and on inside of the doors