Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
http : //www.cigre.org
S.SUN G.TREMOUILLE
Alstom Grid Alstom Grid
China France
SUMMARY
With the increasing demand of power energy, the UHV power transmission technologies attract all the
attention of power utilities and manufacturers with distinct advantages in the power transmission of
large capacity and long distance. However, it also raises the challenges on the lightning overvoltage
protection of UHV substations.
This paper presented a lightning invasion overvoltage study on 400kV AC substation and 1000kV
UHVAC substation in order to compare the effect of different EMT equipment model on lightning
invasion overvoltage level of HV and UHV substation. Focus will be done on modelling, as
simplification done for lower voltage level may no more be accurate for UHV issues. Discussion will
be made on the impact for several modelling axis:
OHL: power frequency pre-stressed overhead line model; overhead line model without pre-stressed
voltage.
Corona effect: dynamic additional capacitance model
Tower: single vertical losses line model ; multi-story tower model
Footing resistance: constant resistor model ; ionization model
Insulator flashover: critical flashover voltage model; V-Time curve flashover model
Surge arrester: non-linear resistance model; frequency dependent model
GIS: includes circuit breaker, disconnector, elbow, insulator supporter and connection bus bar
This study is carried out by PSCAD/EMTDC. Necessary sensitivities studies will be carried out prior
to the discussion, in order to have a quantities approach.
KEYWORDS
Shujie.sun@alstom.com
1 INTRODUCTION
As transmission lines appeared at the beginning of the 20th century, the hazard of lightning on
transmission lines became obvious. With the increase of the operating voltage of transmission lines,
the proportion of lightning accident also increases among a total number of trip accidents. It is known
that lightning strikes inject steep front current impulses to the overhead transmission lines, and cause
travelling waves which propagate along the overhead line and invade into substations where they
cause lightning invasion overvoltages and pose a risk to any items of equipment connected. Due to the
different position of the strike point, there are two kinds of lightning invasion over voltage. One is
back flashover referring to the lightning strikes on tower (or shielding wire) which increases the tower
top voltage over the insulator strength, then lead to backward
flashovers from the tower to an overhead line conductor.
Another one is shielding failure which refers to the lightning
strikes directly on the overhead line conductor due to the
shielding wire protection failure.
Lightning overvoltage could be recognized as a dominant
factor to determine the insulation level of a substation. Thus
the resulting over voltage must be compatible with the
dielectric withstand of the different equipments of substation.
Lightning invasion overvoltage in substation can be modelled
and analysed by electromagnetic transient methodology
considering the travelling wave and transient energy
exchange in the network. Different modelling methods of the
network component, such as lightning impulse, overhead line
and tower, substation components and other related
equipment, are recommended and discussed in IEC 60071-4
with the voltage level up to 750kV.
With the increasing demand of power energy, the UHV
power transmission technologies attract all the attention of power utilities and manufacturers with
distinct advantages in the power transmission of large capacity and long distance. However, it also
raises the challenges on the lightning overvoltage protection of UHV substations. Equipment
modelling for lightning over voltage in UHV substation may require more accurate method. Based on
the lightning over voltage study of 400kV (HV) substation and 1000kV (UHV) substation, the impact
of different equipment models to the overvoltage result have been studied and discussed.
2 MODELLING
An accurate representation of a network component is essential for reliable power system transient
analysis. The simulation of transient phenomena may require a representation of network components
valid for a frequency range. In order to achieve accurate simulation, the mathematical models with
frequency dependence of parameters should be taken into account in the network components
modelling. The overvoltage in substation due to the lightning strikes the overhead line is a transient
phenomenon with the frequency range from 10 kHz to3 MHz. Modelling guidelines for representation
of network component in lightning overvoltage simulations have been proposed in many references
[1]. The lightning stroke is modelled as an ideal current source with impulse lightning current as the
input signal, of which amplitude and wave shape are determined by statistical method considering the
region and overhead line configuration[2]. In this paper, focus will be on the modelling of different
network component which are summarized as below:
2.1 TOWER MODEL
Several tower models have been developed over the years, they were developed using a theoretical
approach [2][3] or based on an experimental work [4][6]. Single vertical lossless line model and multi-
story model are adopted in this study for
comparison. Single vertical
lossless model as
Single vertical lossless line model reference
2
Multi story model
as " advanced
model"
The simplest representation of the over head line tower is a lossless distributed-parameter transmission
line, characterized by surge impedance and a travel time [5]. Figure 1 shows the geometric
configuration of the tower body, while related surge impedance can be calculated by (1).
[
Z T = 60 ln cot 0.5 tan _ 1 (ravg / H T ) ] (1)
r1 h2 + r2 (h1 + h2 ) + r3 h1
With : ravg = H T = h1 + h2
h1 + h2
l1 Z t1
2r1
R1 L1
l2
Z t1
l3
h2 R2 L2
Z t1
2r2 R3 L3
h1 l4
Zt 2
R4 L4
2r3
Rf
Ionization model
Due to the high value of earth current during a lightning strike, ionization of the soil should be taken
into account so that tower footing resistance could be represented as non-linear resistors proposed in
[1], of which characteristic can be determined by formula (2):
3
R 0 I f I g )
R0
R(I f ) R (I ) (I f I g ) E0
1 f
I
(2) with Ig
Ig 2R 02
Where:
R0 low-current and low-frequency resistance (ohm);
If lightning current through the footing impedance (A);
soil resistively (ohm.m);
E0 soil ionization gradient (recommended value from IEC60071-4[1] is 400 kV/m).
2.3 INSULATOR FLASHOVER MODEL
As explained at the beginning, during
Voltage control
the back flash, the lightning strikes at swith model , as
the shield wire or the tower top while reference
the lightning current incepts into the
tower which increases the tower top
voltage, as well as the voltage stressed
over the line insulator. If the voltage at V-Time curve
the tower top is over the insulator flashover volatge as
" advanced model"
strength, then the back flashover occurs.
As the result the voltage travelling wave
will invade into the substation. Thus the insulator flashover model is very important to the lightning
overvoltage of the substation equipment. However, due to the statistical factor involved in this process
such as environment, insulator pollution, etc, it is difficult to achieve the accurate insulator flashover
model. Two models recommended by IEC 60071-4 are described as below:
Critical flashover voltage (CFO) model [7]
This model consider that the break down voltage of the line insulator is the impulse voltage level at
which the probability of flashover of the insulator is 50%. For configurations such as conductor-upper
structure and conductor-cross arm, the influence of the insulators on the strength is negligible so that
the strength of these configurations is close to that of air gaps.
For the purpose of estimating the breakdown strength of overhead line insulator strings for negative
polarity, in order to determine the magnitude of surges propagating into a substation, the following
formula may be used, where d is the air gap length in metre.
U 50% = 700 d (kV crest)
The formula is applicable to sea-level, thus altitude correction has to be considered when applying the
insulation co-ordination procedure.
V-Time curve flashover model
The breakdown of air gap as an insulator is a function of environmental conditions in addition to the
fast front voltage build up. In this study, it can be expressed by a simplified method proposed in [8][9]
K2
V fo = K 1 + 0.75 , K1 = 400 L, K 2 = 710 L
t
Where V fo is the flashover voltage ( kV)
L is the equivalent air gap length (m)
t 0.75 is the elapsed time after lightning stroke
4
2.4 SURGE ARRESTER
For the modeling of surge arrester
in EMT study, two typical
configurations are proposed by non linear resistance,
as reference
IEC60071-4[1]. The non-linear
resistance model is recommended
firstly where the behavior of surge
arrester is related to the Voltage-
Current curve based on lightning frequency dependant
model as " advanced
impulse testing from manufacturer. model"
However, this simple model can
only present well at one frequency.
With a given inception current magnitude in surge arrester, when the time to crest of current is
decreased from 8us to 1.3us, the voltage developed across the arrester can increase by approximately
6% [10]. In lightning overvoltage phenomenon, the lightning current impulse incepted into the surge
arrester normally would not be the standard impulse shape as in the manufacture testing. Thus another
frequency-dependent surge arrester model is recommended by IEEE working group, where the non-
linear V-I characteristic of an arrester is represented with two sections of nonlinear resistance
designated by different V-I curve to represent different front separately. There are two R-L filter
adopted to separate these two sections. Under the slow-front surges, this R-L filter has very little
impedance and the two non-linear sections of the model are in parallel. Under fast-front surges the
impedance of the R-L filter becomes more significant. Thus this frequency-dependent model will give
good results for current surges with times to crest from 0.5 us to 40 us [10].
Non-linear resistance model
This non-linear resistor model for surge arrester use 8/20 s characteristics as the V-I curve. The
leader of surge arrester to the ground is represented as an inductance which is about 1uH/m. It is also
equipped with stray capacitance when the surge arrester is applied in GIS.
Frequency dependent model
As described before, the frequency dependent model is presented in Fig.3, where A0 and A1 are two
non-linear resistances. For slow-front surges, A0 and A1 are in parallel. For fast- front surges, the V-I
characteristic of A0 is dominant in this model.
L0
However, this frequency dependent model L1
5
equipment and also simulation time. In this study, the influence of the full GIS model and simplified
GIS model where elbow or insulator support are neglected to the overvoltage result is studied based on
HV and UHV substation.
6
3 SYSTEMS
In order to compare the impact of different EMT equipment model on lightning invasion overvoltage
level of HV and UHV substation, numerous simulations have been carried out based on the 400kVAC
GIS substation and 1000kV AC GIS substation system configuration and component parameters are
described as below:
3.1 400KV GIS AC SUBSTATION
Figure 8 shows the main electrical connection of 400kV
GIS substation, where two incoming lines connect with SA SA
recorded.
Figure 8 400kV GIS main electrical connection
Table 1 Incoming line conductor parameters Table 2 Parameters of entrance terminal towers
3.2 1000KV GIS AC SUBSTATION
Figure 9 shows the main electrical connection of Line1 Line 2
7
Table 3 Parameters of entrance terminal towers Table 4 Incoming line conductor parameters
3.3 LIGHTNING INVASION OVERVOLTAGE SIMULATION
Simulation conditions
1Lightning stroke current
The determination of lightning strike current and its inception point at overhead line are well-
explained in [7]. In this study, lightning stroke current is represented by ideal current source, with the
impulse current shape as described in table 5
8
Table 6: Simulation cases
Simulation results: The simulation is carried out by power system transient 1. pu 1.1U n 3
simulation tool PSCAD/EMDC. Lightning overvoltage at main components 2
in the substation are measured and listed in table 7~10.
Advanced GIS
All Advanced
Advanced Air
Surge Arrester
Power Source
Gap Arcing
All Simple
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Insulator
Advaced
Footing
Corona
Elbow
model
Tower
model
Air -SF6 Bushing 1,80 p.u. 1,79 p.u. 1,85 p.u. 1,79 p.u. 1,77 p.u. 1,83 p.u. 1,81 p.u. 1,82 p.u. 1,75 p.u. 1,79 p.u.
Voltage transformer 2,18 p.u. 1,93 p.u. 2,11 p.u. 1,93 p.u. 2,20 p.u. 2,19 p.u. 2,18 p.u. 2,11 p.u. 2,08 p.u. 2,01 p.u.
GIB 1,94 p.u. 1,84 p.u. 1,91 p.u. 1,88 p.u. 2,00 p.u. 1,97 p.u. 1,95 p.u. 1,95 p.u. 2,02 p.u. 1,90 p.u.
Surge Arester 1,76 p.u. 1,75 p.u. 1,76 p.u. 1,79 p.u. 1,77 p.u. 1,77 p.u. 1,76 p.u. 1,78 p.u. 1,87 p.u. 1,78 p.u.
Transformer 1,82 p.u. 1,86 p.u. 1,89 p.u. 1,94 p.u. 1,90 p.u. 1,95 p.u. 1,84 p.u. 1,81 p.u. 2,30 p.u. 2,15 p.u.
End of Busbar 2,18 p.u. 1,93 p.u. 2,11 p.u. 1,93 p.u. 2,20 p.u. 2,19 p.u. 2,18 p.u. 2,11 p.u. 2,08 p.u. 2,02 p.u.
Table 7: 1000kV Huainan GIS lightning invasion overvoltage result in kV Back flashover
Advanced GIS
All Advanced
Advanced Air
Surge Arrester
Power Source
Gap Arcing
All Simple
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Insulator
Advaced
Footing
Corona
Elbow
model
Tower
model
Air -SF6 Bushing 1,76 p.u. 1,76 p.u. 1,76 p.u. 1,76 p.u. 1,75 p.u. 1,75 p.u. 1,76 p.u. 1,76 p.u. 1,78 p.u. 1,81 p.u.
Voltage transformer 1,88 p.u. 1,88 p.u. 1,88 p.u. 1,88 p.u. 1,91 p.u. 1,87 p.u. 1,88 p.u. 1,89 p.u. 1,91 p.u. 1,88 p.u.
GIB 1,84 p.u. 1,84 p.u. 1,84 p.u. 1,84 p.u. 1,84 p.u. 1,83 p.u. 1,83 p.u. 1,84 p.u. 1,85 p.u. 1,84 p.u.
Surge Arester 1,80 p.u. 1,80 p.u. 1,80 p.u. 1,80 p.u. 1,78 p.u. 1,80 p.u. 1,80 p.u. 1,80 p.u. 1,79 p.u. 1,77 p.u.
Transformer 2,02 p.u. 2,03 p.u. 2,02 p.u. 2,02 p.u. 2,01 p.u. 2,02 p.u. 2,02 p.u. 2,04 p.u. 2,01 p.u. 1,89 p.u.
Busbar 1,88 p.u. 1,88 p.u. 1,88 p.u. 1,88 p.u. 1,91 p.u. 1,87 p.u. 1,88 p.u. 1,88 p.u. 1,91 p.u. 1,89 p.u.
Table 8: 1000kV Huainan GIS lightning invasion overvoltage result in kV Shielding failure
Advanced Air
All Advanced
GIS Insulator
Power Source
Gap Arcing
All Simple
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advaced
Footing
Corona
Arrester
Elbow
model
model
Tower
Surge
Air -SF6 Bushing 2,56 p.u. 2,53 p.u. 2,55 p.u. 2,35 p.u. 2,75 p.u. 2,53 p.u. 2,55 p.u. 2,59 p.u. 3,04 p.u. 2,76 p.u.
Voltage transformer 2,57 p.u. 2,77 p.u. 2,55 p.u. 2,53 p.u. 2,98 p.u. 2,54 p.u. 2,54 p.u. 2,75 p.u. 2,80 p.u. 2,75 p.u.
GIB 2,76 p.u. 2,86 p.u. 2,74 p.u. 2,58 p.u. 3,09 p.u. 2,67 p.u. 2,70 p.u. 2,74 p.u. 2,96 p.u. 2,98 p.u.
Surge Arester 2,68 p.u. 2,62 p.u. 2,67 p.u. 2,58 p.u. 3,07 p.u. 2,65 p.u. 2,65 p.u. 2,65 p.u. 2,67 p.u. 2,82 p.u.
Transformer 3,29 p.u. 3,20 p.u. 3,30 p.u. 3,26 p.u. 4,11 p.u. 3,29 p.u. 3,30 p.u. 3,04 p.u. 3,01 p.u. 3,14 p.u.
Busbar 2,76 p.u. 2,90 p.u. 2,75 p.u. 2,59 p.u. 3,19 p.u. 2,65 p.u. 2,73 p.u. 2,76 p.u. 2,94 p.u. 3,16 p.u.
9
Advanced GIS
All Advanced
Advanced Air
Surge Arrester
Power Source
Gap Arcing
All Simple
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Insulator
Advaced
Footing
Corona
Elbow
model
Tower
model
Shielding Failure - 400kV
Air -SF6 Bushing 2,42 p.u. 2,42 p.u. 2,42 p.u. 2,42 p.u. 2,65 p.u. 2,40 p.u. 2,42 p.u. 2,53 p.u. 2,53 p.u. 2,62 p.u.
Voltage transformer 2,57 p.u. 2,57 p.u. 2,57 p.u. 2,57 p.u. 3,05 p.u. 2,59 p.u. 2,58 p.u. 2,58 p.u. 2,65 p.u. 2,60 p.u.
GIB 2,50 p.u. 2,50 p.u. 2,50 p.u. 2,50 p.u. 3,11 p.u. 2,51 p.u. 2,50 p.u. 2,64 p.u. 2,60 p.u. 2,59 p.u.
Surge Arester 2,49 p.u. 2,49 p.u. 2,49 p.u. 2,49 p.u. 2,97 p.u. 2,48 p.u. 2,48 p.u. 2,57 p.u. 2,57 p.u. 2,54 p.u.
Transformer 2,76 p.u. 2,77 p.u. 2,77 p.u. 2,77 p.u. 3,77 p.u. 2,77 p.u. 2,77 p.u. 2,92 p.u. 2,92 p.u. 2,80 p.u.
Busbar 2,57 p.u. 2,57 p.u. 2,55 p.u. 2,55 p.u. 3,09 p.u. 2,59 p.u. 2,58 p.u. 2,57 p.u. 2,60 p.u. 2,59 p.u.
Table 10: 400kV GIS lightning invasion overvoltage result in kV Shielding failure
3.4 COMPARSION AND DISCUSSION
The observed impact should be compared to the safety margin used in simulation such as safety factor
Ks = 1.05 in air and 1.15 in oil, SF6 or solid insulation [7], in mean a safety margin between 0.1 and
0.3 p.u. The observed modelling results deviation should be observed have in mind this 0.1 to 0.3 p.u.
range. It should be noted that an altitude correction factor Ka (1.13 for lightning at 1000m altitude)
should also be integrated in such insulation coordination studies [7].
Shielding failure cases
As first and simple analysis on the result we can highlight that the impact of the modelling details such
as GIS bus insulator and GIS enclosure
elbow for the shielding failure case is
very low (< 0.026 p.u. for 400kV, to
0.04p.u. maximum in 1000 kV)
whatever the voltage level is.
The impact of tower modelling, tower
footing resistance modelling, insulator
flashover modeling is less than
0.015p.u. in 400 kV and became here
also negligible in our study case for
1000 kV with a maximum impact of
0.02 p.u
F
10
Figure 12: Shielding failure modelling deviation 400 kV detailed location
In a second hand, the impact of corona effect or the introduction of a 50 Hz (60 Hz) source is reducing
from a significant impact of 0.17 p.u. (400 kV case) to a very low impact of 0.02 p.u. in the 1000 kV
case.
Finally the surge arrester modelling method which is well known to have a main impact on the
simulation result, have here also a major impact in 400 kV case, with 1 p.u. deviation, the impact in
1000 kV reduce here also ( to 0.03 p.u.)
In all these case the impact of the model is reducing with the increase of the voltage level, at least 4
times less is 1000 kV compare to 400 kV case. (See figure 10)
This factor 4 is obtained then we compare a full advanced substation model to the reference case using
simple model for all devices.
Back flashover cases
Here we cannot observe a systematic
reduction of the impact of the model with
the increase of the voltage level. The
impact of voltage level is similar on both
voltage levels.
But general consideration such as low
impact of GIS insulator support model (<
0.02 p.u), low impact of tower footing
model (< 0.07 p.u.) are still similar.
The impact of the tower model is very low
in 1000 kV AC (< 0.04 p.u.) as such as Corona on the line (< 0.026 p.u.).
Figure 13: Shielding failure modelling deviation observed
11
Figure 15: Shielding failure modelling deviation 400 kV detailed location
Removing the main impacting model of surge arrester and power source introduction, we can show the
synthesis as Figure11 modeling is impacting more in 400 kV than in 1000 kV but in any case impact
of GIS insulator, tower footing , is low ( < 0.1 p.u.).
12
Implementation of more advance model introduces in 400 kV lightning design case (back flash) a
large deviation of 0.4 p.u. of the simulation result, it confirm that such model are mandatory for
acceptable accuracy.
So, if we cant not advise to systematically simple model for modelling lightning phenomena in 1000
kV, we can concluded that preliminary studies carried out with simple model for lightning events are
acceptable with an accuracy of 0.05 p.u. in our generic study case. Such level of confidence could not
be reach in 400 kV design case (back flashover) with simplified model.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] IEC TR 60071-4, 2004"Insulation Co-ordinationPart 4: Computational Guide to Insulation Co-
ordination and Modelling of Electrical Networks"
[2] Working Group 33-01 (Lightning) of Study Committee 33 (Overvoltages and Insulation
Coordination), 1991."Guide to Procedures for Estimating the Lightning Performance of
Transmission Lines
[3] W. A. Chisholm, Y. L. Chow "Lightning Surge Response of Transmission Towers" IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol PAS-102, No 9, September 1983
[4] Masaru Ishii, Eiichi Ohsaki, Tatsuo Kawamura, Kaneyoshi Murotani, Teruya Kouno, Takemitsu
Higuchi "Multi-storey transmission tower model for lightning surge analysis" IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol 6, No 3, July 1991
[5] C.F. Wagner and A.R. Hileman,"A new approach for the calculation of the lightning performance
of transmission lines IIIa, simplified method: stroke to tower", AIEE trans (Powers Apparatus
and Systems), vol 79, October 1960
[6] T. Yamada, A. Mochizuki, J. Sawada, E. Zaima Experimental evaluation of a UHV tower model
for lightning surge analysis IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 10, No. 1, January
1995
[7] IEC TR 60071-2, 2004."Insulation Co-ordinationPart 2: Application guide"
[8] Transmission Line Reference Book, 345 kV and Above, Second Edition, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, 1982.
[9] Applications of PSCAD / EMTDC, Manitoba HVDC Research Centre Inc.
[10] IEEE working group 3.4.11, Modelling of metal oxide surge arresters, IEEE Transaction on
power delivery, vol.7 No.1 January, 1992
[11] Andrew R. Hileman Insulation coordination for power systems, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis
Group ISBN: 0-8247-9957-7
[12] CHEN Shui-ming, WANG Wei, Analysis on UHV Substation Lightning Intruding Overvoltage
considering power frequency voltage High Voltage Engineering Vol.36.No.8, Aug 31, 2010
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Authors
Ms. Shujie SUN was born in Hunan province, China, on August 28,1982. She
graduated from Shanghai Jiaotong University in 2009 with Master degree of
Power system and automation. Shujie joined ALSTOM Grid Technology centre
in 2009 (formerly AREVA T&D China Technology Centre), now she is a senior
engineer of power system analysis.
Mr. Gilles Trmouille was born in Sens (Bourgogne), France, on August 12,
1968. He graduated from E.S.T. P (Ecole Speciale des Travaux Public du
Batiment et de l'industrie ) Paris, in 1992 as Mechanical Engineering &
Power Systems.- Since November 1999, this school is associated with
another, state-owned, French " Grande Ecole ", Ecole Nationale Suprieure
d'Arts et Mtiers (ENSAM). Gilles start is activity EDF DER (research) in the OHL test center
of EDF (Electricit de France). He joint ALSTOM Grid in 1995 (formerly CEGELEC,
AREVA T&D). He is a Member of the IEEE. He integrated the Cigre working group C4
(System Technical Performance) & B3 ( Substations)
13