How to test for damaged insulation inside conduit?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jon456

Senior Member
Location
Colorado
About 18 months ago, we had a large (1MW) solar system installed by a contractor on our commercial property; the power is being sold to a local utility.

Between each of the four 250kW, 480V 3-phase grid-tie inverters and the PV distribution panel, there are (3) 500 MCM CU-XHHW feeders installed in 4" conduit; most of this conduit is buried PVC. But there is one section of feeders (to Inverter #4) that is in EMT elevated along the back of some buildings. Two runs of buried PVC conduit are filled with standing water that entered through in-ground pull boxes. However, two of the conduit runs are continuous between the distribution panel and the inverters, and presumably are not filled with water. The elevated EMT is essentially dry inside.

Between the PV distribution panel and the PV main service gear, there are (18) 350 MCM CU-XHHW feeders installed in (3) parallel runs of 4" conduit. This conduit is buried PVC, but enters horizontally into an electrical utility room that is below grade. Because the un-sealed conduit openings in the utility room are at the same level as the 300-foot lateral run of buried conduit, it does not contain standing water (any water entering that conduit would drain out the openings in the utility room).

Problem 1: About a year ago, we experienced some faults: in the PV distribution panel, the 400A OCPD for Inverter #4 tripped several times; this is the only inverter with feeders in EMT conduit. It would trip either in the early morning when the system was coming online, or in the evening as solar production was tapering off. Each time after it tripped, we were able to successfully reset the breaker. We confirmed that Inverter #4 was operating correctly and was not exceeding its maximum rated output of 303A (additionally, the internal breaker in the inverter never tripped). We also swapped out the #4 OCPD in the distribution panel to ensure it was not defective, but the replacement also tripped. We had the feeders meggered, but each conductor showed no leakage. In all, the breaker tripped four times in early May 2013. We put a data logger on the feeders for a one-month period to try to capture the trip event data, but the breaker never tripped again. So we've been in a "holding pattern" to see if any other problems develop. My theory is that one of the feeder conductors has damaged insulation, exposing the copper wire. Most of the time, there is a sufficient air gap between this exposed wire and the EMT to prevent shorting (and to prevent the megger from seeing any leakage). But during early May 2013 (the first warm month since the system was put into operation), the wire was moving due to thermal expansion/contraction, just enough to cause a section of wire with damaged insulation to short out to the EMT on the four occassions where it tripped. After the breaker tripped, the wire would cool and contract, thus clearing the fault. Each time it shorted, some metal burned away to the point that now it's no longer able to close the air gap, explaining why it's no longer tripping the breaker.

Problem 2: As part of the installation of the solar system, the (16) 500 MCM AL-XHHW electrical service feeders bringing 480V 3-phase utility company power into our facility had to be removed from their four conduits and pulled back into two conduits (to free up conduits for the new solar feeders to the PV main service gear). The contractor who was installing the solar system also did this work. Last week, one of the conduits containing half our facility service feeders failed catastrophically: some of the phase conductors in the underground PVC conduit shorted out, destroying all eight wires within. Additionally, out of the remaining eight service feeders in the second conduit, we discovered leakage to ground on one phase conductor and one grounded conductor (neutral).

Problem 3: We also just discovered that another one of our inverter feeders, in buried PVC conduit, is leaking electricity into the water within that conduit.

In summary, of the six feeder runs that were installed during this project, we have three with confirmed faults. This does not give us confidence in the integrity of the remaining feeders. We will be bringing in a third-party electrical contractor to perform testing of all the feeders. We believe megger tests will be authoritative on all the sections of feeders that are submerged in water (which is the majority of the total length of wires). However, we are trying to determine how to conduct conclusive integrity tests on the hundreds of feet of wire in the conduit that is essentially dry. Obviously it would be difficult and costly to pull out all the feeders for a visual inspection.

Is there an established way to test for damaged wire insulation while it's still inside the conduit?
 

north star

Senior Member
Location
inside Area 51
+ ( ) +

"Is there an established way to test for damaged wire insulation while it's still inside the conduit?"
IMO, ...No, ...not an effective, 100% certainty way........Gunna have to pull
`em out to be sure.........Besides, ...if 3 of the 6 feeders are already
confirmed to be "damaged", then the [ irrefutable ] laws of statistical
probability are not in your favor. :happysad:


+ ( ) +
 

Jon456

Senior Member
Location
Colorado
Are these devices not collectively considered "meggers"? My understanding of insulation resistance testers is that they fall into two categories: non-destructive and destructive. Applying a non-destructive voltage to the conductors may not show any leakage (insulation damage) if there is sufficient air gap surrounding the area where the conductor core is exposed. One can use a device to apply a voltage sufficiently high enough for an arc to bridge that air gap (e.g., a "thumper"), but in doing so, you risk permanently damaging the wires being tested.
 

Jon456

Senior Member
Location
Colorado
IMO, ...No, ...not an effective, 100% certainty way........Gunna have to pull
`em out to be sure.........Besides, ...if 3 of the 6 feeders are already confirmed to be "damaged", then the [ irrefutable ] laws of statistical probability are not in your favor.
I agree with you that the odds are not in our favor. However, in addition to the cost, difficulty, and down-time involved with pulling all the feeders and visually inspecting them, we also run the risk of damaging any good wires when they get re-pulled. Sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.

Although we will probably hire a new contractor to do the pulls. The original contractor did not follow industry standards or best practices. In fact, having observed a number of his feeder pulls during the job, I predicted that we would have these types of failures.
 

Ponchik

Senior Member
Location
CA
Occupation
Electronologist
By any chance would you be able to hold the original contractor responsible?

It has been only 18 months. Feeders, or any electrical installation for that matter should not give out in only 18 months unless it was a C***py installation.
 

Jon456

Senior Member
Location
Colorado
By any chance would you be able to hold the original contractor responsible?

It has been only 18 months. Feeders, or any electrical installation for that matter should not give out in only 18 months unless it was a C***py installation.
The original contractor has been put on notice and it's likely we will ultimately prevail in recouping the costs of repair. Nevertheless, we still need to find a way to determine the integrity of all the feeders along their entire lengths. That is the topic of this post so I'd prefer not to get sidetracked discussing the quality of the installation, responsibility for repair, or financial liability.
 

Jon456

Senior Member
Location
Colorado
So far, I have a call in to a third-party electrical contractor whom we will probably hire to megger test our feeders. He doesn't know of a way to conclusively test the conductors in the dry conduit, however he has a call in to a testing company to see if they can provide any insight to our problem.

I've been looking into graphical Time Domain Reflectometers, but that may not give a definitive result if the break in the insulation is small.

One idea I had was to flood the "dry" conduits with water for the megger tests. This would require sealing the low-point conduit openings so the conduit will hold water. We could use an expanding-foam duct sealant (like Polywater FST), but we would need to have a way to drain the water out of the elevated EMT after the tests are completed.

Thoughts?
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
Well you could megger them, but I'm along with the thought, that if they are failing after only 18 months, that you should just look into repulling all of the feeders. Has anyone verified that it is a continuous conduit run?

DO NOT FLOOD THE CONDUITS, you will do more harm than good.
 

Jon456

Senior Member
Location
Colorado
Well you could megger them, but I'm along with the thought, that if they are failing after only 18 months, that you should just look into repulling all of the feeders.
So what would be your recommendation? Pull out all the feeders, visually inspect each one, replace only the bad ones, and then pull back in? Or just plan on replacing all the feeders with new conductors. My concern with re-using the old ones is that they may suffer new damage during the R&R.

I would try to argue that since we know that some of the feeders were damaged, and that all of the feeders were installed by the same crews using the same techniques, that the original contractor should be responsible for replacing all feeders with new. But we're talking about 4,200 feet of 500 MCM CU-XHHW, 12,250 feet of 350 MCM CU-XHHW, and 5,450 feet of 500 MCM AL-XHHW. And that's not including the EGC's.

Has anyone verified that it is a continuous conduit run?
What do you mean by continuous?

For the inverter feeders, there are in-ground pull boxes on three of the inverter feeder runs; one set of feeders was spliced in one of these boxes. The other inverter is only 20 feet from the PV distribution panel so it's a direct run through underground conduit with no pull box. Between the PV distribution panel and the PV main service gear, there are two pull points; the PV service feeders are spliced at one of those pull point. For the facility service feeders, there is one in-ground pull point between the facility service gear and our facility's main distribution panel.

If you're asking if the conduits were tested to ensure they were continuous (no breaks) before the wire was pulled, the answer is no, they were not. The contractor didn't think it was necessary to proof, clean, or lubricate the conduits before pulling the feeders in. (In fact, the installers did not use wire pulling lubricant as a matter of practice. And the conductors were not SIMpull or any other pre-lubricated wire.)

DO NOT FLOOD THE CONDUITS, you will do more harm than good.
The harm would be what? Eventual corrosion inside the EMT? Most -- if not all -- of the in-ground PVC conduits are already flooded with rain/ground water.
 
Last edited:

Barbqranch

Senior Member
Location
Arcata, CA
Occupation
Plant maintenance electrician Semi-retired
What is the condition of the PVC conduit? Are the bends steel w/ PVC between or are they straight pulls between boxes? If PVC bends, you probably will have to replace them.
 

Jon456

Senior Member
Location
Colorado
What is the condition of the PVC conduit? Are the bends steel w/ PVC between or are they straight pulls between boxes? If PVC bends, you probably will have to replace them.
The condition of the PVC conduit is unknown. All the conduit was newly installed during the construction except for the (5) 4" PVC conduit in the ground between the electrical utility room (where the facility's main distribution panel is located) and the main service gear (with an in-ground pull box midway). The facility's service feeders occupy two of these five old conduits and the solar service feeders occupy the other three. The contractor did not inspect, clean, proof, or swab these 15 year old conduits before reusing them, even though the pull box was filled with mud above the tops of the conduits. One of these conduits contain half the facility's service feeders which catastrophically failed last week. I suspect that the short circuit which occurred in these (8) 3-phase 480V/1,000A feeders very probably blew a hole through the conduit containing them.

I believe that all of the conduit in-ground is PVC with no steel sweeps.
 
Last edited:

north star

Senior Member
Location
inside Area 51
= \ = / =


IMO, ...if this system is a "time sensitive \ losing revenue" for
the down time, ...then [ respectively ], you are wasting time !
Cut your losses and consider this an expensive lesson !
There are too many variables and "what if's" to effectively
analyze the remaining feeders, ...and to pull out, analyze &
re-use would be a risky liability [ IMO ] !

Move forward with a totally "new" & complete install [ i.e. =
"re-do" ], and have a much, much better written contract
with quality assurance \ analysis at each step along the way.

As always, ...submit the project & plans for review to the
local AHJ for their review and approval.


Put another way, ...if you owned this mess and had no
recourse against the original contractor, ...when would
you decide to move forward with a completely "new"
install, and get the system back up and generating
revenue ?

Tick, tock, ...tick, tock !.......Time is passing quickly !



= \ = / =
 
Last edited:

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
So what would be your recommendation? Pull out all the feeders, visually inspect each one, replace only the bad ones, and then pull back in? Or just plan on replacing all the feeders with new conductors. My concern with re-using the old ones is that they may suffer new damage during the R&R.

I would try to argue that since we know that some of the feeders were damaged, and that all of the feeders were installed by the same crews using the same techniques, that the original contractor should be responsible for replacing all feeders with new. But we're talking about 4,200 feet of 500 MCM CU-XHHW, 12,250 feet of 350 MCM CU-XHHW, and 5,450 feet of 500 MCM AL-XHHW. And that's not including the EGC's.


What do you mean by continuous?

For the inverter feeders, there are in-ground pull boxes on three of the inverter feeder runs; one set of feeders was spliced in one of these boxes. The other inverter is only 20 feet from the PV distribution panel so it's a direct run through underground conduit with no pull box. Between the PV distribution panel and the PV main service gear, there are two pull points; the PV service feeders are spliced at one of those pull point. For the facility service feeders, there is one in-ground pull point between the facility service gear and our facility's main distribution panel.

If you're asking if the conduits were tested to ensure they were continuous (no breaks) before the wire was pulled, the answer is no, they were not. The contractor didn't think it was necessary to proof, clean, or lubricate the conduits before pulling the feeders in. (In fact, the installers did not use wire pulling lubricant as a matter of practice. And the conductors were not SIMpull or any other pre-lubricated wire.)


The harm would be what? Eventual corrosion inside the EMT? Most -- if not all -- of the in-ground PVC conduits are already flooded with rain/ground water.

1) Read North star's response.
2) Continuous, as in, is there conduit from point A to point B, where ever those point's are. And no lube probably didn't help either.
3) The in ground conductors are in conduit approved to be buried. EMT is not designed to be filled with water. Probably wouldn't stay in anyway because of the connectors. Then read the NECA or NEMA reports on flood damaged equipment.
 

Jon456

Senior Member
Location
Colorado
EMT is not designed to be filled with water. Probably wouldn't stay in anyway because of the connectors. Then read the NECA or NEMA reports on flood damaged equipment.
I agree that EMT is not intended to be filled with water in normal service. That doesn't mean that filling it with water temporarily for testing purposes will be detrimental to it. This EMT is outdoors (and directly connected to flooded un-ground PVC) so at the very least, it is already wet inside from condensation. All the fittings are compression, so they should hold water long enough for testing purposes.

Of course we would take precautions to ensure the inverter is not flooded.
 

growler

Senior Member
Location
Atlanta,GA
500 MCM AL-XHHW. And that's not including the EGC's.

The contractor didn't think it was necessary to proof, clean, or lubricate the conduits before pulling the feeders in. (In fact, the installers did not use wire pulling lubricant as a matter of practice).

You may get away with pulling THHN without lube ( better not to take chances) but that contractor had to be nuts to pull XHHW without lube.

I don't know what it is with some people and wire lube. A couple buckets of lube and a big bag of rags will save lots of time and trouble.
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
You may get away with pulling THHN without lube ( better not to take chances) but that contractor had to be nuts to pull XHHW without lube.

I don't know what it is with some people and wire lube. A couple buckets of lube and a big bag of rags will save lots of time and trouble.
Our utility here has these really cool bags of lube. You simply put the bag in the end of the conduit and as you start pulling it breaks open and you don't even have to get your hands messy.
 

mkgrady

Senior Member
Location
Massachusetts
Cable manufacturers print instruction manuals for the installation of cables. You can probably get a copy from their website. I don't think you will find a way to remove and replace conductors that will meet the manufacturers published instructions and it is very likely that if the cables are removed for inspection they will be damaged during the removal or during the replacement.
 
Location
NE (9.06 miles @5.9 Degrees from Winged Horses)
Occupation
EC - retired
Cable manufacturers print instruction manuals for the installation of cables. You can probably get a copy from their website. I don't think you will find a way to remove and replace conductors that will meet the manufacturers published instructions and it is very likely that if the cables are removed for inspection they will be damaged during the removal or during the replacement.

I agree. Pull it out, throw it in the scrap pile. If it wasn't bad before it will be.

Use SimPul, or similar, and forget the lube.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top