Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Paper accepted for presentation at 2003 IEEE Bologna Power Tech Conference, June 23th-26th, Bologna, Italy

Line surge arrester selection to improve lightning performance of transmission lines
J.A. Tarchini and W. Gimenez
used as simulation tools to estimate the lightning performance of the studied line. It provides additional results concerning the application of surge arresters to improve such a performance, and illustrates the influence of tower footing resistance on arrester energy stress. II. INCIDENCE OF LIGHTNING IN OVERHEAD LINES The double 132 kV transmission line considered in this paper crosses a desert flat region near Mendoza city, where it is rather difficult to obtain a good tower footing resistance. In addition, this region has a high lightning activity with a ground flash density of 4,3 strokes/km²/year. This line, which represents an important link between EDEMSA utility and CTM power plant, has very poor lightning performance (especially in summer) of the order of 15 outages/100 km line/year. According to data collected between 1997 and 2001, lightning is the cause of 68% of the interruptions of the line. In order to assess the incidence of direct lightning strikes over the line, expressed by the number of strokes each 100 km of line per year, the Leader Progression Model (LPM) [5,6] was used to determinate the total exposure area of the line, as described in what follows.
1.70 22.30

Abstract-- Line arresters are considered as an effective mean to improve the lightning performance of transmission lines, particularly in areas with high soil resistivity and lightning ground flash density. This paper describes a case study concerning a 132 kV transmission line of EDEMSA (Empresa Distribuidora de Electricidad de Mendoza, Argentina), and investigates the most adequate solution concerning surge arrester location and type. The different variables, that have an influence on energy stress calculations, are evaluated to select the arrester characteristics. EMTP96 models are used to estimate the critical currents that exceeds arresters rated energy stress during direct lightning return-strokes for different tower footing resistance values. The analysis is carried out with reference to arresters of different classes in order to select the kind of protection to adopt along the line in order to minimising the arrester outage due to energy stress. Index Terms—Line arresters, lightning transmission lines, EMTP, energy stress. performance,

I. INTRODUCTION ightning is one of the main sources of non-programmed interruptions in transmission lines. As known, lightning strokes to transmission lines may cause failures essentially via two phenomena: shielding failure (SF) and backflashover (BF) [1,2,3]. Both concur to the formation of the overall number of flashovers of the transmission line. In shielding studies, the protection angles of ground wires can be set considering the acceptable rate of flashover due to direct impacts over the phase conductors. However, the total flashover rate is mainly influenced by the backflashover rate, which strongly depends on the value of grounding resistance of the ground wires at each tower footing. The lower the grounding resistance, the lower the number of expected interruptions due to backflashover. In areas with high soil resistivity, however, there is a technical limit which prevents the footing resistance improvement, and, in turn, the decrease of the flashover rate of the line. For these cases, such as the 132 kV line studied in this paper, the use of line surge arresters represents a proper solution to improve the Lightning Performance of the line. This paper follows a previous study [4] in which the Leader Progression Model and EMTP96 were
J. A. Tarchini is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Bologna, 40136 Bologna, Italy (e-mail: jtarchini@edemsa.com). W. Gimenez is with the GISEP. National Technological University, 3000 Santa Fe, Argentina (wgimenez@frsf.utn.edu.ar)

L

19.50 16.50 13.50

Fig. 1: 132 kV line configuration

A. Strikes to the line Each line tower is 22.3 m high and has a shielding angle between the ground wire at the top, and the upper phase conductors of 31,3 degrees. The line geometry is shown in Fig. 1. To calculate the total number of strokes to the line, the

0-7803-7967-5/03/$17.00 ©2003 IEEE

the number of strokes per year for each tower is N st = N g * Aeqt . which is the maximum distance a lightning stroke of a given current amplitude can hit the structure (or ground wire) or the phase conductors. the total area of exposure is calculated also from LD as: TABLE 2: SHIELDING FAILURE RATE OF THE CONSIDERED LINE FOR THE CURRENT PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION ADOPTED.2.6N l ∫ p(I)dI Ic ∞ Aeqs = 2 S ∫ p( I ) ∗ LD( I )dI (2) Considering the ground flash density of the region Ng. (5) σ Where p(I) is the density probability distribution of current amplitude.80E-02 1.054 SHIELDING FAILURE RATE SFR 0. SFAT is the shielding failure area of each tower. and the regional ground density. the Shielding Failure Rate is. The total shielding failure area expected (SFA). the distance from which lightning strikes the phase conductors. Lateral Distance Variation 100 90 80 70 60 TABLE 1: CALCULATED PARAMETERS FOR THE CONSIDERED STATISTICAL CURRENT DISTRIBUTION AREA EXPOSURE TOWER AREA EXPOSURE SPAN NUMBER STROKES TOWER NUMBER STROKES SPAN STROKES/100 km LINE Aeqt Aeqs Nst Nss Nl 8.8]: BFR = 0. considering 100 km of line is: SFA = 100 * ( SFA = 100 * ( N s +1 1 LD [m] 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 DOUBLE LINE H=22 m Current [kA] Fig. In Table 1 we show the results for the considered line. ∑ SFAT + ∑ SFAS )[ km 1 Ns 2 / 100 km ] Ns 1 iC (4) For each tower we can calculate the relevant total equivalent exposure area (Aeqt) by taking into account the concept of LD and assessing a lognormal distribution for the lightning current amplitude [1] as follows. and SFAS is the shielding failure area of each span. σ is the logarithmic standard deviation and Imed the median value of current amplitude. 1) Footing resistance values The terrain near the line has a rocky nature. which makes it difficult to achieve good grounding. EDEMSA personnel measured the footing resistance of each tower with an ∑N st + ∑N 1 Ns ss (3) Where Ns is the number of spans in 100 km of line. 2. Shielding Analysis Also for the shielding failure area for each structure and span use was made of the LPM. . as it will be illustrated later. N s +1 1 ∑ π ∫ SFW I min Ic 2 ( I ) p( I )dI + ∑ 2 S I min ∫ SFW ( I ) p( I )dI Aeqt = π ∫ p( I ) ∗ LD 2 ( I )dI p(I) = z= 2 1 e −(z /2) 2πσI ln(I/I med ) Considering the standard CIGRE peak current probability distribution as previously.26E-01 50. LIGHTNING EFFECTS IN TRANSMISSION LINES A. eluding the shield effect of the ground wire is calculated.20E-02 3. (1) SFR = N g SFA [ strikes / 100 km / year ] Results are shown in Table 2. with a span length (S) of 300 m. For the considered line. calculated with a software program provided by CESI [7] based on the LPM. 2: Lateral Distance of the structure as a function of the lightning current. the LD value is determined by means of the LPM that allows its calculation at each individual tower and span. The critical current depends strongly on the footing resistance of ground wires at each tower.77E-03 3. The lateral distance variation for the structure under study.main parameter to consider is the Lateral Distance (LD).48 III. The number of strokes per year for each span is N ss = N g * Aeqs The number of strokes for 100 km of line per year Nl is therefore: Nl = N s +1 1 (6) The lightning current distribution earlier mentioned is used also for the backflashover analysis. PARAMETER SHIELDING FAILURE AREA SFA 0. In this paper. In this case. for each tower and span. The backflashover rate of the line can be determined as a function of such a critical current [1. assuming the CIGRE statistical distribution [1] for lightning current peak amplitude. is shown in Fig. For each span. Backflashover calculation An EMTP96 model was developed to estimate the lightning critical current (Ic) from which backflashover occurs.232 B.

we assume the line as divided in six sections of different length. 2 and 3) and tower footing resistance values. In the simulations carried out in this paper. In order to model the flashover across the air insulation. and its volt-time curve variation was determined as [2] 710 V = ( 400 + 0. 6. The arresters have a characteristic of 98 kV of MCOV and a 10 kA discharge of 300 kV. R0 L0 L1 DISTRIBUTION RT RT RT RT RT 45 < 15 < 10 < 30 < Fig. t is the time to flashover (µs) and W is the gap or insulator length. Its implementation needs a lower investment respect of the other case. 1 Footing Resistance [Ohm] Where V is the flashover strength (kV). 4: Line model for EMTP96 simulation BFR (Flashover/100 km/year) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 10 15 CASE Nr.1 = 147 . 2 Each tower was considered as a transmission line. The backflashover rate of the line for Ng = 1 [stroke/km2/year] is shown in Fig. seven poles of the line were considered.11 [10] was used in the simulations (see Fig. These conductors have the worst coupling factor with the ground Fig. 3: Distribution of tower footing resistance. 6: BFR for different tower footing resistance values and arrester location (for Ng =1 stroke/km2/year) We now consider the distribution of the tower footing resistance shown in Fig.3 m) and rT is the tower base radius (rT =2. C i0 R1 i1 60 < RT Fig. The arrester energy stress and failure rate will be dealt with in section 5. In the line model used for simulations. depending on their location. For simulation models soil ionization effects were not considered. 3 45 60 CASE Nr. with a surge impedance (Zt) calculated as [2]:   2H T Z t = 60 ln( 2 ) . but better than for Case 1. 3 as a percentage of the total measured values. 7 Z c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Z c R t R t R t R t R t R t R t Fig. The results are shown in Fig.0 m). and thus the largest overvoltage stress. 5: Frequency dependent model of surge arrester. From [10] 4) Simulation Results The lightning performance of the line was first determined for different arrester locations (Cases 1. as a function of the arrester location and the value of footing resistance. corresponding to the six footing resistance values of Fig. Case 3: Surge arresters at each pole: this configuration is expected to give the best protection and line performance for each tower footing resistance considered.75 )W t (8) 30 CASE Nr. Case 1: No surge arresters Case 2: Surge arresters each every two poles (odd poles for example): line performance is expected to be worst than for Case 3. 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% HM <1 0O HM HM HM HM <1 5O <4 5O <3 0O <6 0O <1 17 O HM TOWER FOOTING wire. a TACS [9] routine was used to control logic switches applied to the volt-time curve values of the air gap. The model is shown in Fig. The CFO of line insulation is 550 kV. 3) Line surge arresters The use of surge arresters can provide different protection levels to the line. 4.important dispersion in results. 2) Simulation Model The line model developed in EMTP96 is based on a constant parameter transmission line model at a frequency of 100 kHz.1Ω rT   (7) Where HT is the tower height (HT =22. 3 and investigate how to locate the arresters along the line in order to reduce the backflashover rate up to a target value.4. with a ground of resistivity ρ=500 Ohm⋅m. assumed constant for each pole. 5). 6. The surge arrester model proposed by the IEEE WG 3. For accomplishing that. having the same value of tower footing resistance for each pole. The highest dc value was 117 Ohm. We then evaluate the BFR for each line section and for . surge arresters were applied only at the bottom phase conductors.

eventually inferring a solution that satisfies our target. if any. arrester energy depends on the lightning stroke amplitude and footing resistance value.9 45<Rt<60 Ohm 3 7. A sensitivity analysis has been carried out. surge . Time to half value: Energy increases with it. The energy dissipated through the arrester depends on different quantities and a sensitivity analysis was carried out considering the following parameters: Voltage: it depends strongly on ground footing resistance at each pole. will increase with the stroke current.6 [flashovers/100 km/year].0 30<Rt<45 Ohm 3 4. voltage across the arrester. 2 and 3). If we fix the target backflashover rate for the whole line as 50% of this value. Stoke peak current for different tower footing resistance values For different tower footing resistance values. TABLE 3: SOLUTION THAT ALLOWS FOR THE TWO ASSUMED CURRENT DISTRIBUTIONS A REDUCTION OF 50% OF THE BFR TOWER Case of Arrester BFR RESISTANCE Location Rt<15 Ohm 1 3.6 15<Rt<30 Ohm 2 6. and arrester energy stress depends essentially on the stroke current amplitude. 8. For the line under study. The current variation for different tower footing resistance is calculated in order to find the energy stress limit. up to a certain critical lightning peak current where flashover appears in other phases (which depends on footing resistance). voltage varies as a function of the tower footing. 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 10 Ohm 45 Ohm 50 15 Ohm 60 Ohm 100 30 Ohm 150 200 Stroke Current [kA] Fig. line arresters have to be dimensioned or selected in such a manner that they would rarely fail when stressed.1 [flashovers/100 km/year]. In case of more than one solution. flashovers that appear on the conductors without arresters absorb most of the energy. Strokes to tower top IV. in order to select the proper arrester. It is worth mentioning that we use the same arrester configuration for each pole belonging to the same section of line. Considering the tower footing resistance distribution of Fig.0 0. As shown in Fig.1 0 10 Ohm 45 Ohm 50 15 Ohm 60 Ohm 30 Ohm 100 150 Stroke Current [kA] 200 Fig.Arrester Discharge Energy [kJ] various cases of arrester location (1. considering the different parameters that affects its energy calculation.0 1. In both cases. when tower footing resistance values are larger than 30 Ohm. This situation is shown in Fig. When voltage across the arrester increases. our calculations show that we can get such a value with the solution shown in Table 3. Depending on the line configuration. 100. lightning peak current and time to half-width of the impinging waveshapes are considered in arrester failure calculations.1 Rt>60 Ohm 3 9. more current flows through it. Arrester energy stress calculation Traditionally line arresters have been applied to protect unshielded transmission lines. Current: the critical lightning peak current from which energy dissipated within the arrester is larger than the rated one specified for each arrester class. In particular we get a total BFR for the line of 6.6 1) Influence of stroke current The voltage drop of the tower footing resistance. For the case presented in this study we considered for arrester energy calculations the effect of lightning strokes hitting the phase conductors (shielding failure effect) or the ground wire (backflashover effect). to select the proper arrester class as a function of its energy stress. 6. resulting from a lightning flash to the tower top. the most convenient from the technical-economical point of view can be selected. was determined by means of EMTP96 simulations. the overall calculated backflashover rate of the line without surge arresters (Case 1) is 13. 8: Arrester Current vs. backflashover of line insulation in other phases without arresters provides a parallel path to ground through which a portion of the stroke is diverted from the arrester. For a fixed current. This increase in stress (in terms of voltage and current through the arrester) will result in more energy.0 Surge Arrester Current [kA] 10. 7: Arrester energy for different stroke peak current. ARRESTER SELECTION A. Backflashover critical current decreases with the increase of tower footing resistance value. 7. and time-to-half values. In terms of reliability.

The probability that a surge arrester could be damaged due to a direct lightning stroke to a pole depends on the probability density function of peak value of lightning current (P(I)) and the probability density function of time to half-value of current waveshape (P(Th)). In this paper we use Arrester Discharge Energy [kJ] . P( Af ) = ∫ P( Wc ) p( Ws )dWs 0 ∞ Fig. 12 shows the effect of the time to half value of the stroke current for different current peak values and fixed tower footing resistance.0 kJ respectively. 12: Arrester discharge Energy for 10 Ohm of tower footing resistance V. 900. 5%. 11: Arrester discharge energy for different tower footing resistance values WC is the energy capability for a probability of failure of P(Wc). for different values of lightning peak current and time to half value. Fig. To represent the cumulative distribution. where the rated energy capability supplied by the manufacturer (WR) is assumed to have a zero probability of failure. In general. we considered a rated energy capability WR of 548 kJ.5 kJ. The arrester risk depends on the probability density function of energy stress p(Ws) (which is expressed in terms of random variables of lightning) and the cumulative distribution function of energy capability P(Wc) [12].0 kJ.4E+06 Arrester Discharge Energy [J] 1. Increasing the duration of lightning stress increases the arrester energy absorption.0E+05 6. Fig. tower footing resistance increasing leads to the increase of arrester current and energy duty.0E+00 0 50 100 150 200 150 kA 80 kA 100 kA Time to half value [µs] Fig. The next step is to calculate the density function of energy stress probability. 1370. 2) Influence of footing resistance Arrester discharge current and energy depends on the tower footing resistance value. 1036. 9: Stroke Critical current for different time to half value Fig. 10 and 11 show the arrester current and the discharged energy across it.arrester current increases with tower footing resistance increasing. namely the current which allows to reach the rated arrester discharge energy (550 kJ) across the SA. for 0%.3 kJ. and estimate the probability of arrester failure.0 kJ and 1466. 1203.0E+05 2. Thus. 50% and 70% probability of failure.375 Fig. 1. respectively. 10: Arrester current for different footing resistance values 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 20 40 60 80 40 kA 80 kA Footing Resistance [Ohm] Fig.5 4 WR Z (10) WC WR − 2. arresters placed in towers with lower footing resistance are more stressed than arresters in towers with larger footing resistance.0E+06 8. From this lightning peak current value.0E+05 0.5 0. P(Wc) = f ( Z= ( + 1 )5 WC ) = 1 − 0 . the energy capability WC is 550. 9 shows the critical lightning peak current. energy duties are determined statistically. 180 170 160 CRITICAL CURRENT [kA] 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 50 100 150 200 Th [us] 10 OHM 15 OHM 30 OHM 45 OHM 60 OHM 3) Influence of time to half value Energy discharged across the arrester is the integration over the time of instantaneous power stressing it. APPLICATION CRITERIA To predict the arrester risk of failure P(Af) [11].0E+05 4. and increasing the time to half value of lightning waveshape [Th].2E+06 1. for each footing resistance considered. 1%.3 kJ. 800 700 Surge Ar rester Current [A] 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 20 10 kA Stroke Current 20 kA Stroke Current 40 60 80 Footing Resistance [Ohm] (9) The probability of arrester energy capability P(Wc) can be approximated [11] by a Weibull cumulative distribution. 20%.

TABLE 4: CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION P(WA) OF ARRESTER ENERGY [KJ] FOR DIFFERENT TOWER FOOTING RESISTANCE VALUES 10 % 5% 2% 1% 0.00844 0. Zanetta – A testing method to evaluate the energy withstanding capability of metal oxide surge arresters – CIGRE SC33 Colloquium. Vol. Martinz.6 484.1 183.5 µs and a standard deviation of 0.A. VIII. Vol.1 628. Vol 8.6 303. No. Babuder. Standard reference: IEC 60071-2 . E. IEEE Working Group on Lightning Performance on Transmision Lines Report Estimating Lightning Performance of Transmision Lines II – Updates to Analytical Models – IEEE Transactions on PWD. July 1993.9 45 Ohm 152. Bill Chisholm for his assistance and advise concerning line modeling. ARRESTER FAILURE RATE AND MEAN TIME BETWEEN FAILURE [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] From these estimations. A. Nucci. Dellera. REFERENCES [1] [2] Working Group 33.0298 Arrester Failure Rate SAFR AF/1000 arresters/year 0. Vol.8 403. with a median value of 77.4 334.577. November 1990. VII. the number of direct flashes to the line must be considered.5.Lightning stroke simulation by means of the leader progression model (Part II) – IEEE Transactions on PD. we can conclude that for the line under study. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work is part of a PhD thesis developed by the author at the Department of Electrical Engineering of the University of Bologna. Backflashover effects are simulated by means of EMTP96 to infer the critical currents for each line arrester configuration and tower footing resistance.0081 0. IEE 1999. July 1997. Results are shown in Table 4 for different tower footing resistance values. S.1 425. According to LPM simulations.7 60 Ohm 151.2540% Annual number of SA failure Nfail Fail/100km/ye ar 0. 5. Hileman – Insulation Coordination for Power Systems – Marcel Decker.0479% 0. the line under study collects 50. A. Nucci.0 436. Joulie et al – Use of line surge arresters for the improvement of the lightning performance of 63 kV and 90 kV shielded and unshielded transmission lines – IEEE Transaction on PD.00427 0. V.R. Garbagnati . Toronto 1997 S.0028 0. Tarchini – Improvement of lightning performance of transmissions lines by use of line surge arresters – 26th IPST.9 446.6 434. M.4 275. April 1985. under the supervision of Prof.12.8 714. 1999. and Dr. [15] .00963 0.9 396.9 30 Ohm 144. the number of arrester failures show a reasonable RT Ohm 10 15 30 45 60 Probability of arrester failure P(Af) % 0. VI. Zagreb 1998. is shown in Table 5. CONCLUSIONS The Leader Progression Model has been successfully used to determine the strike incidence to the line and the Shielding Failure Rate from the calculation of Shielding Failure Width.5 % 0."Insulation co-ordination Part 2: Application guide". L.0 486. estimate the arrester failure rate and the mean time between failures along the line.A.0 726.0056 0. The probability of failure P(Af) for each tower footing resistance value.9 22.0242% 0. De la Rosa. as proposed in this paper. P( WA ) = ∫ ∫ f ( I )dI f ( Th )dTh = ∫ [ 1 − F ( I )] f ( Th )dTh (11) 0 Ic 0 ∞∞ ∞ The lightning performance of the considered HV transmission line can be improved by adequate arrester installation strategy.0064 0.6 757. Krakow. the arrester failure rate (number of arrester failures each 1000 SA per year) and mean time between failures (years with at least one arrester failure for each 1000 arresters installed). September 2002 L. R.2 15 Ohm 100.0448 MTBF Year/1000 Arresters 234. Considering 2 arresters in the bottom phases for each tower.C.7 336. 4.01 – CIGRE .8 668.1 375.1 % 10 Ohm 56. Bernardi for her contributions in the set up of Leader Progression Model.8 453.Garbagnati . Rakov – Lightning and its impact on power Systems – Cigré SC33 International Conference.5 81.Lightning stroke simulation by means of the leader progression model (Part I) – IEEE Transactions on PD. CESI – Int. in special Dr.Guide to procedures for estimating the lightning performance of transmission Lines.0692% 0. The authors gratefully acknowledge CESI. The arrester energy stress probability is defined by (11) [14. N. M.4.3 103. Technical Report SR-953/1 – Nov.3 [11] [12] [13] [14] value. 1986 C. November 1990. Surge Protective devices committee) – Modelling of metal oxide surge arresters. No. October 1991. TABLE 5: PROBABILITY OF FAILURE. IEEE Working Group 3. 1996 M.Dellera. August 1986. IEEE Working Group on Lightning Performance on Transmision Lines A Simplified method for estimating the Lightning Performance of Transmision Lines.8 181.L.9 133. The reliability of the design could be improved by increasing the energy capability of the surge arrester.0122 0.8 118.15].3. Sadovic. C.0547% 0. considering the line performance and power quality reliability improvement by means of the arrester application.11 – (Application of surge protective devices Subcommittee. Arrester energy rate was selected considering the different random variables of lightning and the cumulative distribution function of energy capability.48 [strokes/100 km line/year]. we can convert the number of SA failures each 100 km of line per year into a failure rate per 1000 arresters.8 187. Sadovic et al – Lightning Perfomance Improvement of 123 kV Transmission line by use of line surge arresters – High Voltage Engineering Symposium.the standard CIGRE distribution [3] for lightning current peak amplitude and time to half-value statistics.9 75. F. E.4. J.2 296.5 To calculate the arrester probability of failure P(Af). Dommel – EMTP96 Reference Manual (Theory Book) – BPA. L.