Performance of HRC Fuse and MCCB in Low

Voltage Distribution Network

George Eduful1 and Joseph Ekowcole2
1
Electricity Company of Ghana, Research and Development, P.O. Box 5278, Accra-North, Ghana
[email protected]
2
Electricity Company of Ghana, Health and Safety, P.O. Box 1980, Kumasi, Ghana,
[email protected]
Abstract- In this paper, application of HRC fuses and MCCBs in power supply which is equally critical to essential customers
low voltage distribution network is examined. Performance of like hospitals.
HRC and MCCB are compared under a typical system
performance condition. The law of equivalence of contact wear
was used to determine life expectancy of MCCB. It is shown It is instructive to note that, for specific applications, the
that MCCBs are not economically viable in areas where characteristics of fuse-links and circuit breakers may vary
incidence of short-circuit faults are rampant. Where electro- considerably. Making a rational choice requires proper
dynamic stress associated with circuit interruptions is of a major understanding of these differences. Giving preference to
concern, application of HRC fuses is proposed. The study goes either circuit breakers or fuses is based on interrupting and
further to recommend a suitable combination of MCCBs and current limiting behaviour of these devices. Optimum
HRC fuses as effective means of protecting distribution
performance of HRC fuse or MCCB can be obtained when
transformers.
these underlining factors are critically examined. In this
Keywords: HRC fuse, MCCB, Short-circuits, Let-through paper, application of HRC fuses and MCCBs in low voltage
Energy, Electro-dynamic stress distribution network is examined relative to their operational
characteristics. Performance of MCCBs is compared under a
typical system performance conditions. It is shown that the
I. INTRODUCTION MCCBs are technically and economically prohibitive in areas
Since the days of Edison and Swan in the 1870s, fuse-link has where incidences of fault interruptions are high. The study
served the power industries with varying degree of protection goes further to recommend a suitable combination of MCCBs
[1, 2]. Its development has moved from a simple weak link to and HRC fuses as effective of protecting distribution
a sophisticated and reliable device with a very high transformers.
interrupting and current-limiting capability [3]. Mordy, chief
engineer to the Brush Electrical Engineering Company, II. BASIC THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
patented the first cartridge fuse-link filled with arc-quenching
materials in the 19th century [1]. Today, High Rupturing Proper understanding of operational characteristics of fuses
Capacity HRC fuses are applied in distribution and industrial and circuit breakers is a key in making a rational choice
networks as protector against overloads and short-circuit regarding their areas of application. This section reviews the
currents. basic characteristic features of HRC fuses and MCCBs

An alternative protection device became available when the HRC FUSES - HRC fuses are enclosed in high-grade
moulded case circuit breaker MCCB was developed. Due to insulation (often ceramic) material, resistant to rapid
its comparable properties, these breakers are often used temperature and pressure rise. Fuse-element in HRC fuses are
instead of fuses. In Ghana, the Electricity Company is surrounded by high grade silica sand, acting as an arc
changing from the use of HRC fuses to MCCBs as a means of extinguishing medium. The silica sand cools the fuse-element
addressing protection challenges in their low voltage during passage of normal current and this enables less
distribution network. The reason is found to be related to a material to be used for a given rated current [5]. Special
study [4] where incidence of distribution transformer failures feature in the operation of HRC fuses is the effect of the silica
has been attributed to indiscriminate use of copper conductor sand on short-circuits. On short circuit fault current, the fuse
to replace blown fuses. Other reason advanced to justify the element suddenly disintegrates, rapidly dispersing it through
replacement rests on poor sensitivity of fuse to earth fault the adjacent silica sand and forming a high resistance material
currents, without having to recognize that conditions that known as fulgurate [6]. The formation of fulgurate rapidly
make HRC fuses insensitive to earth fault can also “blind” forces the current to zero, severely restricting the current and
MCCBs to earth faults. In an attempt to address earth fault energy let through by the fault. It is this phenomenon that
problems, others have suggested the use of earth leakage gives the HRC fuse its current limiting and high breaking
breaker in main distribution boards. Whilst this concept puts capacity properties [5]. The curve in Fig 1 represents the
safety of personnel at premium, it disregards stability of relation between the prospective short circuit current and the
virtual melting time the HRC fuse-link.

978-1-61284-788-7/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE

 Peak

Time
Current

prospective
Fault current

Cut-off
current

Current
Overload Short circuit
Time
Fig. 1: Cut-off current characteristics of HRC
Fig.2: Characteristics of MCCB

The usual way of determining the current limiting property of Figure-2 represents characteristics of MCCBs. It is shown
a protective device is by means of cut-off or let-through that the performance of MCCB is relatively better at low level
current characteristics. The cut-off current characteristics are fault conditions. When operating in their instantaneous over
used to determine the maximum electrodynamic stresses to current range, majority of today’s MCCBs will clear a fault in
which equipment is exposed to. Unrestricted electromagnetic 0.03second, 2 cycle clearing time [5].
stress can result in equipment damage. By their Figure-3 shows cut-off or let-through current of MCCB
characteristics, the HRC fuse severely restricts the amount of compared with HRC fuses under short circuit condition. The
damage cause by the electromagnetic stress. According to [5] I2t value of the circuit breaker rises considerably with
the HRC fuse can open in less than one cycle of the AC increasing short-circuit currents and obtains far greater values
power frequency (0.0083secs); circuit breakers cannot match than with HRC fuses.
this speed [7]. In general, HRC fuse have a lower let-through Peak prospective
current than reliable current limiting circuit breakers. When Fault current
properly selected, the HRC fuse guarantees interruption
MCCB Cut-off
without fail. They are primarily regarded as providing short
current
circuit protection only and are rated in excess of 200kA in
terms of short-circuit ratings[ 5].
HRC Cut-off
MCCB - They are electrically operated switching devices current
designed to automatically protect electric circuits from
overload currents and short circuit currents. Conventionally,
MCCBs have two mode of operation: thermal for overload
currents and electro-magnetic for short circuit currents. The
thermal part usually consists of a bimetallic strip that, in the
case of an overload current, bends and releases tripping Time
mechanism to force open contacts. In the event of a short-
circuit current the magnetic component creates an electro- Fig.3: Comparing Cut-off characteristics of HRC fuse and
magnetic field which causes a plunger to force contacts apart. MCCB
MCCBs are available in a wide range of ratings- 10A to III. ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF INTERRUPTIONS
thousands of amps, and with short-circuit interrupting ratings AND THE REMAINING LIFETIME OF MCCB
up to 200 kA [8]. Their current-limiting properties are not as
faster as HRC fuses due to mechanical inertia of the MCCB Generally, remaining lifetime of MCCB is a function of
tripping mechanism. For higher levels of fault current, HRC contact erosion which is based on two parameters; the rated
fuse tend to allow a lower level of incident energy than a short circuit current ISC(max) and the allowable number of
similarly-sized circuit breaker [5]. interruption at rated short circuit current N(allow). When the
allowable number of interruptions at any percentage of rated
short-circuit current is known, the remaining lifetime can be
determined. Generally, the allowable number ranges from 3
to 5 times at 100% rated short-circuit current [6] [9].

The allowable number of interruptions (Nallow (i)) of

breaking operations (Ni) at any breaking current (ISCi) is
usually described by equation (2) (generally referred to as the V. DISCUSSION
law of equivalence of contact wear [10]). The law permits Table-1 shows number of fuse blow-outs on the selected
calculation of the number of breaking operations which must distribution transformers. Earth fault was observed to be
be performed to reach a level of wear. leading in terms of the causes of the blow-outs. This is
followed by short-circuits faults. The trend is found to be in
The remaining life (RL) is then obtained by equation (1) agreement with general knowledge that the most common
given below [10]. type of fault in a power system is a single-phase-to-earth fault
[3]. However, many earth faults produce only relatively low
⎡ 1 n ⎛ I SCi ⎞ ⎤
b levels of fault current due to impedance of fault current path.
RL(%) = 1 − ∑ N i
⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ × 100 (1) As a result, performance of MCCB was estimated based on
⎢ a i =1 ⎜⎝ I SC (max) ⎟⎠ ⎥ short-circuit current levels of the respective distribution
⎣ ⎦
transformers, neglecting the line impedance.
Where, Ni is the number of interruptions at current ISCi,
The allowable number of breaking operations of a 40kA rated
ISC(max) is rated short-circuit current, Nallow (max) is the
MCCB relative to the respective short-current of the
allowable number of interruption at ISC(max).
transformers is shown in Fig.5. The breaking short-circuit
current of the transformers are expressed as percentage of
−b short-circuit rated current of the MCCB. For 100, 200, 315
⎛ I ⎞
N i = a × ⎜ SCi ⎟ (2) and 500kVA transformers, the percentage breaking short-
⎜I ⎟ circuit currents are 7.5, 14.5, 24 and 36.7% respectively.
⎝ SC (max) ⎠
Where, a and b are constant depending on circuit breaker On account of this, the remaining lifetime of the MCCBs on
type the various transformers was estimated. From Table-2, it is
seen that at 205 short-circuit current interruptions, the
In this study, a and b parameters are taken as 4 and 1.5 remaining lifetime of the MCCB on the 100kVA transformer
respectively. This gives a general representation of wear on is 9.7%. The remaining lifetime of the MCCBs on the rest of
breaker contacts [6][9] [10]. the transformers are almost eroded beyond their respective
allowable number of interruptions.
IV. EXAMINING PERFORMANCE OF HRC FUSE
AND MCCB
Data on low voltage fuse blow-outs on 100, 200, 315 and
500kVA distribution transformers from three operational
districts of the Electricity Company of Ghana were taken and
analyzed. The causes of the blowout were examined and the
respective fault levels relative to the transformer capacities
calculated. To examine the performance of MCCB, a
hypothetical scenario was assumed; installed HRC fuses were
deemed to have been replaced with MCCBs. The number of
fuse blowouts was regarded as number of MCCBs’ breaking
operations. Number of allowable interruption of the MCCB
on each of the transformers was obtained from Fig.4 which is
based on equation (2). The remaining lifetime was estimated Fig.5: Allowable number of breaking operations of a 40kA
at an assumed MCCB short circuit rating of 40kA. rated MCCB relative to the respective short-current of the
transformers
1100

1000

900
Performance of MCCBs - District ‘C’ as shown in Table-1
800
was the worst case of short-circuit faults compared to the
700
other two districts. Short-circuit faults on the 100, 200, 315
berofInterruptions

600 and 500kVA transformers accounted for 50, 38, 55 and 50%
500 of fault activities in the district respectively.
Num

400

300 Life expectancy in this study was defined as a ratio of

200 allowable number of interruption to the number of short
100 circuit events. The life expectancy of the MCCBs on the
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
respective transformers is determined and shown in Table-3.
On account of this, the economic viability of the MCCBs at
100 x (Isci/Isc(max))

Fig-4: Allowable number of interruption as a function of

percentage of rated MCCB short-circuits breaking current the three districts can now be compared to HRC fuses.
 Table-1: Number of fuse blow-outs from selected distribution transformers in three districts in a month
District ''A''
No. of Fuse Causes of Blow-outs and % contribution of each cause Affected Customers
Capacity of Blow-out
transformer Overload Earth Fault Short-circuit
500kVA 15 13% 45% 42% 300
315kVA 13 7% 50% 43% 250
200kVA 18 0 55% 45% 213
100kVA 9 0 60% 40% 80
Total 55 843

District ''B''
No. of Fuse Causes of Blow-outs and % contribution of each cause Affected Customers
Capacity of Blow-out
transformer Overload Earth Fault Short-circuit

500kVA 23 25% 38% 37% 240

315kVA 12 35% 45% 20% 270
200kVA 11 14% 56% 30% 145
100kVA 8 8% 50% 42% 100
Total 54 755

District ''C''
No. of Fuse Causes of Blow-outs and % contribution of each cause Affected Customers
Capacity of Blow-out
transformer Overload Earth Fault Short-circuit
500kVA 15 20% 30% 50% 300
315kVA 13 0% 45% 55% 250
200kVA 18 12% 50% 38% 213
100kVA 9 3% 47% 50% 80
Total 55 843

Table-2: Remaining lifetime of the MCCBs on the various transformers

Expo ne ntia l De c a y M e tho d

kVA ra ting o f P e rc e nta ge o f ( Is c i/Is c ) Allo wa ble num be r o f R e m a ining life tim e (%)
tra nfo rm e rs Inte rruptio ns
100 7.5 205 9.7
200 14.5 18 0.62
315 24 9 0.06
500 36.7 5 0

Table-3: Allowable number of interruptions and life expectancy of MCCB

District 'C'
Transformer kVA Number of Short circuit event Allowable number of MCCB Life span
rating interruptions (month(s))
100 8 205 27
200 7 18 2.5
315 7 9 1.3
500 5 5 1
The total number of short-circuit faults recorded in the three and critical loads exposed to frequent bombardment of let-
district over a period of one year is shown in Table 4. through energy by short-circuit faults.
Obviously, the number of HRC replacement in the period will
be equal to the number of short-circuit recorded. From the Generally, characteristics of the MCCB and HRC fuse in the
estimated life span of the MCCBs as presented in Table-3, the area of smaller over-currents present useful information;
equivalent number of replacement relative to the short-circuit tripping time for MCCB is shorter compared with HRC fuse.
faults was calculated, see Table-4. This characteristic makes the MCCB suitable for use in over
load condition. It should be noted that the strategic location of
It was found that the use of 40kA MCCB on the 500, 315 and the MCCB addresses the abuse of the HRC fuses. This is
200kVA protection is not economically viable. An average because the MCCB would still protect the transformer
economic benefit (for the three districts combined) of about irrespective of indiscriminate use of copper link to replace
500% was realized for the use of HRC fuses compared to the blown fuses at the low voltage side of the transformer.
MCCBs. Application of MCCB may be considered in areas
where power supply disturbances are relatively low. On the
other hand, the HRC fuse appears to be useful in areas of high
incidence of short circuit faults.

Table-4 shows economic implication for the use of HRC and Transformer
MCCB over a period one year.
District A

Unit Unit
Number Number of Number of price price Total
Total Price
MCCB
of short HRC MCCB of of Price
MCCB($)
circuit replacement replacement HRC MCCB HRC($)
($) ($)
500kA 76 76 12 6.5 250 912 3000
315kVA 67 67 6 6.5 250 435 1500
200kVA 97 97 1.3 6.5 250 630 325 HRC
100kVA 43 43 0.17 6.5 250 279 42
District B

Unit Unit
Number Number of Number of price price Total Total
of short HRC MCCB of of Price Price
circuit replacement replacement HRC MCCB HRC($) MCCB($)
($) ($) Fig.6: Proposed Distribution Pillar for Distribution
500kA 102 102 19.2 6.5 250 663 4800
Transformer Protection
315kVA 29 29 3.2 6.5 250 188.5 800
200kVA 40 40 2.2 6.5 250 260 550
100kVA 40 40 0.196 6.5 250 260 49
VI. CONCLUSION
District C
The high breaking and current limit properties of HRC fuses
Unit Unit
Number Number of Number of price price Total Total cannot be overemphasized. In areas where electro-dynamic
of short HRC MCCB of of Price Price
circuit replacement replacement HRC MCCB HRC($) MCCB($)
stress associated with circuit interruptions is of a major
($) ($) concern, application of HRC fuses is recommended. The
500kA 60 60 12 6.5 250 390 3000 study has shown that MCCBs are not economically suitable
315kVA 84 84 9.2 6.5 250 546 2300
in areas where incidence of short-circuit faults are rampant.
200kVA 84 84 4.8 6.5 250 546 1200
100kVA 96 96 0.44 6.5 250 624 110
Due to its slow response to high fault currents, equipment
exposed to frequent bombardment of let-through energy by
short circuit fault may eventually fail on MCCB protection.
It is recognized that application of HRC fuse in low voltage For optimum protection performance, a suitable combination
distribution network is occasionally abused and in some cases of HRC and MCB is recommended. The recommended
has resulted in high incidence of distribution transformer protection scheme guarantees protection of distribution
burnouts [4]. The abuse has instigated a campaign for a move transformers irrespective of abuse in the application of HRC
from the HRC fuses to MCCBs. Considering the unique fuse. It is therefore suggested that manufacturers and utility
operational characteristics and the economic implications of companies consider a review of specification to incorporate
each of the device, an optimum protection scheme for MCCB in distribution pillars where fuses are the only main
distribution transformer is proposed. protection devices.

Fig.6 shows combination of MCCB and HRC fuses for

distribution transformer protection. It is envisaged that the REFERENCES
HRC fuses will act as a first line of defense by limiting [1]. Jean-Louis GELET, September, 2007: To the Origins of fuses.
destructive short-circuit current to distribution transformers 8th ICEFA-conference organized by the LAEPT (Laboratories
 Arc Electrique et Plasmas Thermiques) and hold in Clermont-
Fd from 10th to 12th September 2007. Online source, date
accessed: 17th February, 2010. Available at
http://profuse.sc4.spirahellic.com/assets/FuseUser_Training_2.
pdf
[2]. Fuseology. Online source, date accessed: 30th January, 2010.
Available at http://profuse.sc4.spirahellic.com/historyofthefuse/
[3]. Tony Parsons, PhD, P.E., A Comparison of Circuit Breakers
and Fuses for Low-Voltage Applications. Online source, date
accessed: 9th February, 2010. Available at
www.ecatalog.squared.com/pubs/Circuit%20Protection/0600D
B0601.pdf
[4]. George Eduful* and Godfred Mensah, 2010: An Investigation
into Protection Integrity of Distribution Transformers - A Case
Study. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering
2010 Vol II, WCE 2010, June 30 - July 2, 2010, London, U.K.
ISSN: 2078-0958.
[5]. PT Williams Versatile Protection with HRC fuse links. Online
source, date accessed: 3rd April, 2010. Available at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=127
679&userType=mem
[6]. Ishmael S. Msiza and Mehmood Haffejee; MCBs versus Fuses
in Low-Voltage Applications: Critical Analysis Using the 3-
AND Convergence Classifier. Online source, date accessed:
16th January, 2010. Available at
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0709/0709.3594.pdf
[7]. Fuse link or Moulded Circuit Breaker. Online source, date
accessed: 16th March, 2010. Available at
www.hkeca.org/Chinese/html/t_paper/html/paper_3.htm
[8]. Mark Higginson and David B. Durocher: PROPER
APPLICATION & MAINTENANCE OF MOLDED CASE
BREAKERS TO ASSURE SAFE AND RELIABLE
OPERATION Copyright Material IEEE Paper No. ESW2009-
18
[9]. Online source, date assessed: 25th June, 2010. Investigation on
No-load Mechanical Endurance and Electrical Degradation of a
Circuit Breaker Model under Short Circuit Current Interruption,
PhD Thesis. Available at
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0709/0709.3594.pdf
[10]. A. PONS, A. SABOT and G. BABUSCI, January, 1993:
Electrical Endurance and Reliability of Circuit-Breakers
Common Experience and Practice of two utilities. IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 1993.
Pp 168-174