Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
daniel.olason@gmail.com
tebdrup2@gmail.com
SUMMARY
In November 2008 the Danish government decided that all overhead lines below 400 kV should be
replaced by underground cables. This is due to a demand of reducing the overall visibility of the
transmission system, sometimes referred to as the beautification of the transmission system. The
agreement furthermore included to reinforce some of the existing 400 kV transmission lines. This is
due to both increasing wind penetration and power flow between Scandinavia, Germany and possible
future connections. As a part of reinforcing the 400 kV transmission system in Jutland, Denmark, the
Danish TSO (Energinet.dk) is in the process of constructing a new gas insulated substation (GIS) in
Revsing. As a part of this process, new Eagle pylons will replace some of the existing Donau pylons.
The new Eagle type pylon is meant to reduce the visual impact of transmission lines.
The reliability of the substation in Revsing is of great importance as it is part of the 400 kV systems
backbone between Sweden, Norway, Germany and the offshore windfarms in Horns Rev. The design
of the insulation coordination for GIS must therefore be studied carefully.
During a disconnector operation in GIS, very fast transient (VFT) may generate overvoltages (VFTO)
inside the enclosure. Because the gas insulated system must be viewed as non-self-restoring, it is
important to ensure that the voltage inside the GIS does not exceed the insulation strength. This must
therefore be accounted for, when conducting an insulation coordination study of a GIS.
This article describes how the VFT phenomenon occurs inside the GIS and how it may generate
overvoltages. This includes an explanation of how it is generated, what causes it and why it is so fast.
A schematic consisting of the surge impedances from the manufacturer of the GIS is simulated and
compared to the same model with a number ofcapacitances added (representing the corresponding
component). These added capacitances were not modelled by the manufacturer, but were added in
order to further increase the level of detail. This is important as VFT may also be generated by circuit
breaker (BRK) operations, a ground switch or due to a fault [1]. A detailed model is more likely to
detect a VFT generated by e.g. a fault than a simplified model.
It is shown via simulations in a EMTP software, how the level of modelling detail affects the results.
As may be seen from the simulation results, there is a significant difference between the voltage
characteristics when simulating the GIS with and without the added components. The difference is
approximately 1.5 p.u., and is apparent 35 ns from when the disconnector operation is performed. It is
of interest to investigate what the primary cause of this difference is. A further analysis of this
difference, lead to a closer look at how the breaker is represented in the model from the manufacturer
and the model with the added components.
A comparison of the two models revealed the importance of detailed modelling, especially all of the
capacitances which are present in the GIS for e.g. circuit breaker, disconnector (DS) and spacers.
KEYWORDS
Very fast transients, GIS modelling, EMTP modelling, VFTO, VFT modelling.
Introduction
The insulation material used in GIS is Sulphurhexauoride gas (SF6) which greatly increases the
insulation strength from 27 kV/cmbar for air, to 89 kV/cmbar[2, p.348]. The GIS is pressurized and
the operating pressure of the GIS systems is 4.5 to 5.3 bar. The high insulating strength of SF6 has
however some disadvantages as well. The type of gas used (SF6) is one of the factors responsible for
the generation of very fast transients (VFT) inside the GIS. The overvoltage generated by VFT may
range from 1.7 - 2 p.u. according to IEC 60071-4.There are however other sources which indicate
higher overvoltages e.g. as high as 2.5 p.u.[3, p.1]. Even though the overvoltage is only reported to
reach levels below 3.0 p.u. it must be investigated, especially for higher voltage systems. This is due to
the fact that as the voltage level of the system rises, the ratio between the switching withstand levels
and the system voltage decreases as shown in table 1. The switching impulsewithstand level (SWIL) is
used as a reference of the overvoltage [5], as VFT often originate from a switching event. According
to [4, p.612], a 20% safety margin should be applied in insulation coordination studies of gas insulated
substations.
Table 1: Switching impulse withstand level (SWIL) in comparison to the system voltage IEC60071-1.
Highest voltage for
equipment Um [kVRMS]
24
52
123
145
245
420
765
Ratio [p.u.]
7.40
5.89
5.48
5.49
4.75
3.06
2.48
Even if the overvoltage does not reach the SIWL, the overvoltage may speed up the aging and
degradation process of the GIS [5, p.1]. It is however questionable if it should be compared to the
lightning impulse withstand level (LIWL) instead of SIWL. The reason for this is that the fast rise of
the VFT should perhaps rather be placed in a protective category with lightings
Figure 1: During a DS operation a travelling wave is generated which may cause overvoltages in the
GIS. The dashed line indicates the current path in this specific switching scenario.
VFT has two main characteristics
1. Are in the highest frequency range in power systems: 1 to 50 MHz [3, p.1].
The reason for the high frequency is the overall compactness and construction of the GIS. This means
that from a modelling perspective it may be considered as
several short sections of transmission lines in series, each with
its own surge impedance. An example is shown in figure 2,
where a closed disconnector is modelled according to [6]. This
results in a vast number of discontinuities. In Revsing there
are 8 bays with 4 DS for each bay, resulting in a total number
of 32 DS, again resulting in a total number of 224 surge
impedance to be modelled, only with respect to the DS. This
results in many reflections and refractions of the travelling
wave occurring at the points of discontinuity, which may
superimpose each other. As a result, high frequency
Figure 2: Modelling of a closed
overvoltages will appear in the GIS [7].
disconnector in GIS [6].
2. Have a rise time of 4 to 100 ns.
The reason for the fast rise time of the VFT is due to several factors, which are further explainedlater
in this paper.
AC
Supply
voltage
Load
voltage
Figure 3: Voltage on each side of a DS during the opening sequence, which can lead to a trapped
charge on the load side
The amplitude of the trapped charge will have consequences on the magnitude of the travelling wave
which is transmitted during sparking, when the DS is closed again. The worst case scenario would be
if the voltage potential on the floating section would be 1 p.u. and the voltage on the other side of the
DS would be -1 p.u. or vice-versa. This wouldresult in a 2 p.u. between the DS contacts. There are
however limits to the amplitude of the trapped charge. That is to say that the voltage amplitude will
according to various sources never reach 1 p.u. e.g. IEC 60071-4 states that the maximum trapped
charge will reach 0.5 p.u., but according to [5] and generally throughout this study a worst case
scenario of 1 p.u. should and will be investigated.
Where:
kT= Toepler spark constant = 0.510-2 [Vsec/m] , for: air, N2 and SF6.
(E/p)0 = Breakdown field strength [V/mbar].
h = Field efficiency factor (1 for a uniform field and 0 for radius of curvatureapproaching zero) [2,
p.203].
p = Gas pressure [bar].
The breakdown field strength (E/p)0will according to [8, p.4], increase in proportion to the pressure of
the insulation gas. Meaning that at e.g 5 bar the breakdown field strength becomes 89 kV/cmbar5 =
445 kV/cm. Given a GIS pressure of 5 bar and a uniform field, the rise time is equal to 14.9 ns. This
correlates well with the definition of VFT which defines the rise time as between 4-100 ns.
Modelling components
All components are modelled in general according to IEC 60071-4. Detailed information regarding the
GIS components from the manufacturer was not available. Due to this reason and the fact that IEC
60071-4 does not specify values for each component, the authors searched for other sources to obtain
values for a similar system. Each component value and modelling method is shown in figure 6.
Generating the spark
This process may be modelled according to [5] and [10] with an exponentially decaying resistance in
series with a small resistance. This is based on a worst case assumption were a spark of maximum
amplitude is considered. The spark resistance is shown in the following equation [10].
/
[]
Where:
Rarc is the arcing resistance = 0.5 .
Ropen is the resistance of the gap = 1012.
is a time constant = 0.610-9 s.
The implementation ofthe spark resistance equationin EMTP and simulation results from EMTP is
shown in figure 5, where the variable resistance is a function of time. As can be seen from figure 5 the
Figure 5:Simulations results from PSCAD/EMTP and the implemetation of the spark generator.
value of the variable resistance decays from 1 T to zero in app. 20 ns. This correlates well with the
limits between 4 - 100 ns for VFT, more specifically the 14.9 ns aspreviously mentioned.
Simulation results
The following case study will be simulated for each model:
A trapped charge of 1 p.u. will be simulated in order to account for the worst case scenario.
The following locations will be measured for each model:
Load side DS, OHL terminal, Transformer terminal, Reactor terminal.
SF6/air
Bushing
58 / 3.7 m
58 / 4.1 m
58 / 3.5 m
15 pF
58 / 39.9 m
120 pF
51 / 0.9 m
4 nF
Surge arrester
242 / 3 m
Transformer
80 pF
15 pF
58 / 1 m
15 pF
58 / 1 m
58 / 2.8 m
15 pF
58 / 5 m
Voltage
transformer
DS
58 / 5 m
SF6/air
Bushing
58 / 3.7 m
58 / 4.1 m
58 / 3.5 m
15 pF
58 / 39.9 m
120 pF
51 / 0.9 m
4 nF
Surge arrester
242 / 3 m
Reactor
80 pF
Voltage
transformer
350 pF
58 / 1 m
10 pF
58 / 2.7 m
Circuit breaker
15 pF
15 pF
DS
Load side DS
15 pF
350 pF
58 / 1 m
58 / 2.8 m
58 / 5 m
58 / 5 m
15 pF
58 / 1 m
15 pF
DS
OHL
58 / 5 m
58 / 5 m
SF6/air
Bushing
58 / 3.7 m
58 / 4.1 m
58 / 3.5 m
58 / 77.5 m
51 / 0.9 m
242 / 3 m
15 pF
58 / 5 m
80 pF
Voltage
transformer
DS
58 / 2.8 m
58 / 2.1 m
15 pF
80 pF
Voltage
transformer
Figure 7 : Simulation results from PSCAD/EMTP, comparing the model constructed by the
manufacturer and the custom model, measured at the DS terminal.
Shown in figure 8is the simulation results for the voltage simulated the OHL terminal, for both the
manufacturer and custom model.
Figure 8: Simulation results from PSCAD/EMTP, comparing the model constructed by the
manufacturer and the custom model, measured at the DS terminal.
The maximum overvoltage at the OHL is well below 2 p.u for both of the models. There is an apparent
difference in the simulation results between the two types of models.Shown in table 2are all of the
peak voltage p.u. measured for each model. Marked in red/bold is the maximum simulated
overvoltage. Not only are the waveforms very different, but it is apparent that the overvoltage for the
custom model is higher than for the manufacturer model. They are however both well below 2 p.u. and
thereby well below the SIWL limit.
Table 2: P.u. values for the different measuring points for the manufacturer and custom.
Model
Manufacturer
Custom
DS
1.447
1.699
OHL
1.323
1.758
Transformer
1.032
1.045
Reactor
1.032
1.050
A closer look at the simulation previously shown in figure 7 reveals a special area of interest where the
main difference is shown. Further analysis of the cause of this difference leads to a closer look at the
termination of the breaker in the two types of models.
Shown in figure 9 is the breaker termination, used as the breaker model in the manufacturer model.
The model is terminated by an open end, representing an open circuit breaker.The graph shown in
figure 9 is a simulation of the manufacturer model and thecustom model, this time using the open
circuit breaker model shown in figure 9, for the custom model as well (replacing the one shown in
figure 6). This was performed in order tosee if the main difference between the manufacturer model
and the custom model shown in figure 7 would disappear.
58 / 5 m
58 / 5 m
58 / 1 m
58 / 2.7 m
Figure 9 : Simulation results from PSCAD/EMTP, comparing the model constructed by the
manufacturer and the custom model, measured at the DS terminal using the open circuit breaker model
(shown on the right side).
As can be seen from the simulation in figure 9 the main difference disappeared. This shows the
importance of simulating, using the correct values for thecapacitors, when representing a breaker
inGIS. For this study the voltage atthe DS will result in a higher value with capacitors representing the
breaker,instead of simulating with an ideal open end.
Conclusion
As may be seen from table 2 that the maximum voltage will never reachthe switching limits of
2.45p.u. As was mentioned earlier, it is however questionable if it should be compared to the
switching voltage limit, wereVFT should perhaps rather be placed ina protective category with
lightings. This would increase the allowable p.u.overvoltage to be as high as 3.32 p.u. placing it even
further away from thelimit.
Modelling the GIS should be done in great detail.
Especially modelling the capacitance of components
is very important as componentscapacitances greatly
influence the simulation result. Modelling each small
detail may however be troublesome and difficult to
simulate. Ifthe geometrical data is available a
simplification, as shown in figure 10, would however
be possible.
There is a need to model all of the capacitances in detail and as is shown in this paper, the capacitance
of thebreaker is important as it greatly influences the results. This is evident as modelling with the
correct components (capacitances) resulted in a VFTO of 1.758 p.u. compared to 1.323 p.u. without
the corresponding components.
REFERENCES
[1]
P. Bolin, H. Koch, Gas insulated substation GIS, in: Power Engineering Society General
Meeting, 2006. IEEE, 2006, p. 3.
[2] E. Kuffel, W. Zaengl, J. Kuffel, High voltage engineering: fundamentals Electronics &
Electrical, Newnes, 2000.
[3] Modeling guidelines for fast front transients, Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on 11 (1)
(1996) 493 - 506. doi:10.1109/61.484134.
[4] A. R. Hileman, Insulation Coordination For Power Systems, CRC Press, 1999.
[5] M. F. Tomasz Kuczek, Modeling of overvoltages in gas insulated substations,
"PrzegladElektrotechniczny" (Electrical Review) 04a/2012, ABB Corporate Research Center in
Krakow, Poland.
[6] D. Povh, H. Schmitt, O. Volcker, R. Witzmann, P. Chewdhuri, A. E. Imece, R. Iravani, J. A.
Martinez, A. Keri, A. Sarshar, Modeling and analysis guidelines for very fast transients, Power
Engineering Review, IEEE 17 (13) (1996) 71. doi:10.1109/MPER.1996.4311053.
[7] D. Pinches, M. Al-Tai, Very fast transient overvoltages generated by gas insulated substations,
in: Universities Power EngineeringConference, 2008. UPEC 2008. 43rd International, 2008, pp.
1 - 5. doi:10.1109/UPEC.2008.4651627.
[8] S. Boggs, F. Chu, N. Fujimoto, A. Krenicky, A. Plessl, D. Schlicht, Disconnect switch induced
transients and trapped charge in gas-insulated substations, Power Apparatus and Systems, IEEE
Transactions on PAS-101 (10) (1982) 3593 - 3602. doi:10.1109/TPAS.1982.317032.
[9] A. Haddad, D. Warne, I. of Electrical Engineers, Advances in High Voltage Engineering, IEE
Power and Energy Series, Institution of Electrical Engineers, 2004.
[10] M. Stosur, M. Szewczyk, W. Piasecki, M. Florkowski, M. Fulczyk, Gisdisconnector switching
operation; vfto study, in: Modern Electric PowerSystems (MEPS), 2010 Proceedings of the
International Symposium, 2010, pp. 1 - 5.
[11] ABB, Gas-insulated Swithcgear ELK-3, product brochure (2010)
[12] J. A. Martinez, P. Chowdhuri, R. Iravani, A. Keri, D. Povh, Modeling guidelines for very fast
transients in gas insulated substations, Report Prepared by the Very Fast Transients Task Force
of the IEEE Working Group on Modeling and Analysis of System Transients