Scribd
Upload
273 views

MESA Case-Study Lightning-Protection 3

The document summarizes a case study of the lightning protection system designed for an industrial power plant in Mount Isa, Australia. The system was designed to comply with Australian standard AS1768 and provide direct strike protection for structures using protection levels I and II. Risk calculations were performed using the standard's methodology to ensure protection provided acceptable risk levels. The lightning protection system for various buildings and infrastructure on the site was designed using 3D modeling and the rolling sphere method, with air terminals and bonding providing coverage. Some modifications were recommended to further reduce risks.

Uploaded by

Chrystal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
273 views

MESA Case-Study Lightning-Protection 3

The document summarizes a case study of the lightning protection system designed for an industrial power plant in Mount Isa, Australia. The system was designed to comply with Australian standard AS1768 and provide direct strike protection for structures using protection levels I and II. Risk calculations were performed using the standard's methodology to ensure protection provided acceptable risk levels. The lightning protection system for various buildings and infrastructure on the site was designed using 3D modeling and the rolling sphere method, with air terminals and bonding providing coverage. Some modifications were recommended to further reduce risks.

Uploaded by

Chrystal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 34

CASE STUDY

LIGHTNING PROTECTION
OF AN INDUSTRIAL PLANT
Robert Kane
MESA Conference
Brisbane 8th July 2015

CASE STUDY SITE


Diamantina Power Station (DPS) Mt Isa

DPS is a new Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT)


power station, comprising of two 120MW units,
large 132kV switchyard and various buildings and
plant facilities.
It supplies the power requirements for Mt Isa and
the surrounding mines.
3

Control Room and Warehouse Buildings

The Cooling Tower

The Water Treatment Plant/Building


and Raw Water Tanks

A single 120MW Unit, showing the GT & HRSG,


Power Building (Substation) and Cooling Tower

The 132/11kV Switchyard

LIGHTNING PROTECTION DESIGN


The project objective was to design a direct strike Lightning
Protection System (LPS) for the plant.
The key design criteria were:
Fully compliant with AS1768:2007
Confirm the need for direct strike protection; and that the
level of protection manages to an acceptable level of risk.
Where practical, make use of adjacent buildings & structures.
Protection Level I (PLI) to be used for gas hazardous zones.
Protection Level II (PLII) to be used for other structures/systems.
Check structures are appropriately bonded to earth.
9

RISK CALCULATIONS
AS1768 provides a spreadsheet with in-built formulae for calculating
the risks and comparing to predetermined acceptable levels of risk for:
Loss of Human Life
Loss of Cultural Heritage

Loss of Essential Services


Economic Loss

Relevant parameters for the installation are entered for:


Structure Dimensions
Environment
Protection Measures

Under Protection Measures,


can set the efficiency of LPS:

Structure Attributes
Service Lines
Loss Categories
Protection Level
PL

LPS Efficiency

Sphere Radius
a (m)

0.98

20

II

0.95

30

III

0.90

45

IV

0.80

60

10

Risk Assessment Calculation from AS1768

11

ROLLING SPHERE METHOD


AS1768 specifies the Rolling Sphere Method (RSM) for the
design of a LPS with the air terminals positioned to establish a
zone of protection over the whole structure.
The protection efficiency
used in the risk assessment
corresponds to the radius
of the sphere to be used.
The sphere is brought up
to and rolled over the air
terminals to determine the
zone of protection.
12

The Benefits of 3D Modelling


Allows Rolling Sphere Method to be easily applied to
complex structures.
Clearly Identifies elements protruding from the zone of protection.

13

RESULTS OF SITE AUDIT & DESIGN


Central Control Room (CCR) and Warehouse:
The CCR included a communication antenna and solar
hot water mounted on roof.

Risk assessment using PLII showed that surge


protection also required at cable entry to CCR to achieve
acceptable levels of risk for Loss of Essential Services
and Economic Loss.
The LPS was designed using a 30m rolling sphere and air
terminals mounted on 7 free-standing masts.
14

LPS coverage over the Central Control Room and


Workshop Buildings

15

Power Buildings (Substations):


Comprising a block building with air-conditioner units on western
end, emergency generator on eastern end and supply
transformers on southern side. HV cables supplying the
transformers were underground (and included surge arrestors).
Risk assessment using PLII showed that surge protection also
required at the point of cable entry to the building to achieve
acceptable levels of risk for Loss of Human Life; Loss of Essential
Services and Economic Loss .

The LPS was designed using a 30m rolling sphere, making use of
the pipe rack structure and air terminals mounted on 5 freestanding masts.
16

LPS coverage over the Power Building (Substation)

17

Cooling Tower:
Cooling tower structures are made from fibreglass
and not designed to carry the additional loads of
metal lightning masts. Also have to ensure
protection over cooling water pumps.

Risk assessment using PLII showed acceptable risk


levels.
The LPS was designed using a 30m rolling sphere
and air terminals mounted on 6 free-standing
masts.

18

LPS coverage over the Cooling Tower

19

Chiller:
The chiller structure was mostly metal, but we
wanted to also protect the exposed pipe work (not
protected by installation within pipe racks).
Risk assessment using PLII showed acceptable risk
levels.
The LPS was designed using a 30m rolling sphere
and making use of the pipe rack structure and air
terminals mounted on 2 free-standing masts.
20

LPS coverage over the Chiller

21

GT & HRSG:
The GT comprises several large steel structures and metal-clad
enclosures, which:
o Are bonded to the buried site earth grid at regular intervals.
o Act as air terminals and a down conductor network.
o Provide appropriate protection and comply with AS1768.
However specific equipment and areas need to be protected
from a direct strike, eg:
o Instruments, silencers and exposed steam lines.
o Hazardous areas (above the gas vents at the GT and HRSG
structures).
22

The risk calculation used PLI over the hazardous areas.


With surge protection at the cable point of entry, acceptable loss levels
were achieved for all risks, except Loss of Human Life.
The risk associated with Loss of Human Life at the hazardous areas is
most significantly influenced by the explosion risk. Given that the PLI
(Efficiency of Building Protection) is already set at the highest level
(0.98), it was recommended that personnel do not work on or near the
hazardous areas when there is an approaching storm.
The risk calculation used PLII over the remainder of the structure. It
found with protection at the cable point of entry, all acceptable loss
levels were achieved for all risks.
23

The LPS was designed making use of air terminals


fitted to the top of the stacks and steel structure, and using a
20m rolling sphere above the hazardous areas and a
30m rolling sphere for the remainder of the structure.
For the gas vents on top of the GT Air Intake Filters, direct strike
protection was provided over the top of the vents, but it was not
practical and cost effective to provide protection over the full 6m
high hazardous area above these vents.
DPS manages this risk, given that:

Gas (a very small amount) only vents during a start-up sequence.


Gas quickly disperses in air above the filter house.
There are no walkways or people access in the vicinity.
Plant Operators have a lightning tracking system in place.

24

GT and HRSG Unit, showing hazardous zone


protruding through the LPS coverage

25

HV Switchyard Control Building:


The LPS for the HV Switchyard had been designed and
installed with the initial construction. However the
control building hadnt been included in the LPS. It
consisted of a demountable building on posts and a
communication antenna on the roof.
The existing LPS design using a 20m rolling sphere for the
switchyard, was extended to include the control building
by adding air terminals mounted on 2 free-standing
masts.
26

LPS coverage over HV Switchyard Control


Building

27

External Gas Gate Station:


The LPS for the External Gas Gate Station had been
designed (using a 20m rolling sphere) and installed
with the initial construction.
Only required 3D modelling of the LPS to provide
consistent graphical presentation of the plants
direct strike lightning protection.

28

LPS coverage over the External Gas Gate


Station

29

Water Treatment Plant/Building:


This is a metal-clad, steel framed building.
Recommended that the steel framework on all four corners of
the building frame be bonded to the buried site earth grid.

Water Tanks:
This applied to the Raw Water Tanks, Demin Water Tank and
Potable Water Tank.

All tanks were of a solid steel construction and bonded to the


buried site earth grid at 2 opposite locations. This is
appropriate and compliant with the standard.
30

Pipe Racks and Cable Ladder:


Cables installed on aluminium cable ladders with
covers fitted, and positioned within the pipe racks.
Recommended that the cable ladders be bonded directly to the
buried earth grid at the point of entry into the Power Buildings.
Also, a few additional bonds required on the pipe rack where
bonding spacing exceeded 20m.

Floodlighting:
The Floodlight Poles around the plant had not been bonded to the
buried earth grid instead connected to the earth conductor in
the power cable to the light.
Recommended that all poles not within the zone of protection, be
bonded to the buried earth grid, and that surge protection be
fitted to the outgoing light cable at the DB.
31

Overall plant LPS coverage showing floodlight poles


penetrating the LPS coverage

32

QUESTIONS

???
Acknowledgement for 3D Modelling in SolidWorks
Tony Gibson, Gibson Design & Drafting Pty Ltd, Gladstone.

For more information


[email protected]
33

34

You might also like