Evidence & Qualification
Different evidence types answer different questions.
Qualification requires a transparent link between the claim, the evidence family, the tested or modelled configuration, the applicable boundary conditions and the project acceptance criteria.
Different evidence types
Normative Context
NFPA 850, IEEE C57.156 and CIGRE TB 537 provide terminology, risk and engineering context. They are not product certifications or universal performance endorsements.
Direct Test Evidence
EDF 2002, CEPEL 2004, EDF-Les Renardières 2022 and LAPEM 2022 are treated as separate test-campaign evidence families. Results apply within the tested configurations and protocols.
Independent Observation
Bureau Veritas inspected selected EDF-Les Renardières test conditions. The independent scope is limited to the conditions and records actually witnessed.
First-Party Technical Analysis
SERGI and TPC publications interpret selected test, model and field data. They can be technically valuable but are not independent corroboration.
Model-Based Engineering
CFD and FSI support design decisions when geometry, connected volumes, fault inputs, boundary conditions, model correlation, sensitivity and limitations are documented.
Field and Project Evidence
Documented field activations and customer records support project-specific claims. They do not constitute universal guarantees.
How to Qualify a Protection Architecture
Access the Global Experience & Evidence Portfolio
Scope and evidence boundary
This page describes engineering principles and documented evidence within defined configurations. Applicability depends on transformer topology, fault scenario, connected oil volumes, hydraulic impedance, protection clearing time, site constraints and project-specific engineering validation.
SERGI solutions complement electrical protection, monitoring, fire protection, cybersecurity, physical security, structural measures and recovery planning. They do not eliminate all risk or constitute a universal performance guarantee.
