Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MAY 2008
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Praise be to Allah s.w.t. to Whom we seek help and guidance and under His
benevolence we exist and without His help this project could not have been
accomplished.
I also would like to thank all my friends for the numerous ideas and helpful
hands throughout this project. I wish to thank the grateful individuals from TNB
Transmission Line group.
ABSTRACT
There was a recent incidence where a direct lightning strike on the earth
shielding conductor of a 275/132kV quadruple circuit transmission line had caused the
breakage of the conductor at four points. Three short conductors connecting the line
arrester installed on the 132kV line were not affected. The location of the affected
arrester was not at the nearest tower to the point of strike but at the adjacent tower. The
arresters at the nearest tower were not affected. This phenomenon was studied using
ATP-EMTP simulation. Transmission tower is modeled according to the multi storey
tower proposed by Masaru Ishii which was validated through theory and calculation.
Simulation results show that the phenomenon cannot be conclusively reproduced within
the ATP-EMTP simulation. Study indicating the fact that the phenomenon may be a
one-off special case event. Overhead line is modeled by applying the PI subroutine file.
This project also study the protection of simple structures from lightning strikes. The
most common and simplest form of lightning protection is by using a vertical rod which
has the function of intercepting a lightning stroke before it can strike a nearby object it is
protecting, and then discharging the current to ground. In this simulation study, 1500
strokes were applied in a square plot ground area of 1km² and the number of flashes to
ground per square kilometer per year (Ng) is 15 strokes/ km²/year. A Monte-Carlo
technique is used to manipulate the statistical distribution of lightning strokes. The
program is written in C-language using MATLAB simulation.
vi
ABSTRAK
Baru-baru ini, satu kejadian telah berlaku di mana panahan petir pada
talian bumi, talian penghantaran atas 275/132kV litar berkembar empat (quadruple
circuit) telah menyebabkan talian bumi terputus kepada empat bahagian. Penangkap
kilat pada bahagian bawah talian 132kV pada menara talian penghantaran yang
berdekatan tidak berfungsi, sebaliknya penangkap kilat pada menara bersebelah yang
berfungsi. Menara penghantaran dimodel berdasarkan kepada model bertingkat yang
dicadangkan oleh Masaru Ishii. Model disahkan melalui kiraan dan teori. Keputusan
daripada simulasi kajian yang dijalankan tidak dapat membuktikan kejadian ini berlaku
melalui ATP-EMTP. Aturcara Simulasi ATP-EMTP telah digunakan dalam mengkaji
panahan petir terhadap litar berkembar empat. Talian atas dimodelkan dengan
menggunakan model PI yang sedia ada dalam EMTP. Simulasi menunjukkan fenomena
di atas tidal dapat ditunjukkan melalui simulasi dan ia mungkin merupakan kes terpencil.
Projek ini juga mengkaji perlindungan daripada struktur yang mudah terhadap panahan
kilat. Struktur yang asas dan mudah untuk perlindungan petir ialah dengan
menggunakan rod tegak dimana ia berfungsi memintas penahan petir sebelum ia
memanah kawasan sekitar yang dilindungi dan kemudian menyahcas arus ke bumi.
Untuk kajian simulasi ini, 1500 panahan telah dikenakan pada segiempat sama yang
berukuran 1 panjang dan lebar kawasan bumi. Bilangan panahan ke bumi per
per tahun (Ng) adalah sebanyak 15 panahan. Teknik Monte-Carlo telah digunakan untuk
manipulasi statistik taburan panahan petir. Program ini menggunakan bahasa C dalam
Simulasi MATLAB.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Problem Statement 2
1.3 Objective 4
1.4 Scope of Project 5
1.5 Organization of Thesis 5
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Lightning Problem for Transmission Line 6
2.2 Effects on Transmission Line Protection 7
2.2.1 Backflashover 7
2.3 Travelling Wave
viii
3 METHODOLOGY 31
3.1 ATP-EMTP Simulation 31
3.2 Typical EMTP Applications 32
3.3 Creating Simulation File 33
3.4 Creating Punch File 35
3.5 Simulation 36
3.6 Plot File 37
3.7 Transmission line 37
3.8 Transmission tower 38
3.9 Insulator String 44
3.10 Lightning source selection 44
3.11 Monte Carlo Simulation 47
3.12 Project Flow 50
ix
REFERENCES 76
Appendix A 80
x
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Flashover rate for different circuit without line surge arrester 23
2.2 Flashover rate for different circuit with line surge arrester 23
3.1 Parameter of the 275/132kV quadruple tower model 42
4.1 Voltage between each phase and insulator string at tower 3 63
4.2 Voltage between each phase and insulator string at tower 4 63
4.3 Lightning stroke with effective striking distance 71
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF SYMBOLS
V - Voltage
θ - Angle
Ω - Ohm
I - Current
kV - Kilo-Volt
R - Resistance
L - Inductance
C - Capacitance
µs - Micro-second
kA - Kilo-Ampere
mH - Millie-Henry
µF - Micro-Farad
t - Time
% - Percent
- Probability current
xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Figure 1.1 Transmission line had caused the breakage of the conductor at four
portions[1]
Figure 1.2 The direct stroke on shield wire between T70-T71 affected three TLAs
installed at T69 and T68 [1]
4
There are standard methods to design and install the lightning protection devices
for structures. Among the concepts used is the rolling sphere method which determines
the exposed areas to lightning strikes. Lightning rods, usually the conventional Franklin
rods, are installed on top of buildings and structures is protect the exposed areas from
lightning threats. The rolling sphere method described above is based on a number of
assumptions such as the average lightning peak current, which may limit the protection
reliability to a certain condition only. This simulation work aims to consider all possible
lightning current magnitudes and the corresponding ground flash density. The simulation
is run for long time (teens or hundreds of years) and this is possible using a computer
simulation. The performance of the designed lightning protection can then be studied.
1.3 Objective
1) To study and investigate a recent incident where a direct lightning strike on the
earth shielding conductor of a 275/132kV quadruple circuit transmission line as
below:
a) Arrester at the nearest to the point of strike is not effected rather further down
at the next tower.
b) Lightning strike at shielding wire caused the breakage of conductors at four
points.
5
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
When a direct lightning stroke occurs, lightning current of large amplitude will
be injected into the transmission line. Lightning can strike on transmission lines in many
ways. However, only the lightning strokes, which can cause transients on phase
conductors of the transmission line, may influence the surge arrester. They are: direct
stroke to a phase conductor and strike to the overhead shield wire or tower, which then
flashes over to the phase conductor [10].
2.2.1 Backflashover
Wave shape and amplitude of lightning current are influenced by some stochastic
factors, including geographic location, geologic conditions, climate and weather, etc.
Thus, they change every time. But investigations show that although the lightning
currents differ every time in waveform and magnitude, all exhibit the basic
characteristics of a double-exponent wave. It can be given by:
9
(2-1)
where:
(2-2)
Figure 2.2 Lightning current shape, according to IEEE guidelines (negative polarity)
.
Peak current amplitude (lightning) and rise time of lightning stroke can effect to
the overvoltage that occur in transmission line because the higher peak current
magnitude and shorter front time will increase the overvoltage. It can be shown in
Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4. This will lead to backflashover [11].
(2-3)
where:
The critical flashover voltages U50% of 275 kV and 132kV circuits are 1120 kV
and 880kV respectively. Flashover voltage of all line insulators in the simulated section
is randomly varied, according to the normal distribution. Standard deviation for the line
insulation flashover voltage was 3% [2].
(2-4)
where:
The Ground Flash Density, Ng, has a linear effect on lightning outage rates.
There have been important developments in measurements of Ng, in the 1980s. Based
on a power-law regression between CIGRE Lightning Flash Counter readings and local
thunder days (TD) values for the same period [8]. Ng is given as:
Ng = 0.04 T (2-5)
The flash/100km/year, , is used to calculate total hit on the transmission line which is
given by:
(2-6)
where:
(2-7)
where R0 is the low current footing resistance (non-ionized soil) and the critical value of
the lightning current is given by the soil ionization threshold field, Eg, using the equation:
(2-8)
where:
A direct stroke to a transmission line is very rare and most of the lightning strikes
to the top of a transmission tower. As a result, in calculation of lightning, tower models
have been developed using a theoretical approach or an experimental work. The accurate
representation of the transmission tower has been the subject of much discussion. In
lightning surge simulations, the tower model used can range from simple lumped
inductances or resistance to complicated nonuniform transmission line circuits.
Representation of the tower as a lumped element is only valid if surge current rise time
is long compared to surge travel time in the tower. So for a steep-front wave the tower
must be modeled as a distributed parameter element [4].
Several formulas for the tower surge impedance have been used in the past.
Wagner’s and Hileman’s model indicates that the tower impedance varies as the wave
travels from top to bottom, being lowest at the tower top and increasing as the wave
travel down the tower [9]. Kawai later performed measurements on isolated tower
(without ground wires connected) and obtained similar result, although the magnitudes
were appreciably lower [9]. Later on Chisholm et al. performed some experiments and
found that the tower response to a horizontal current, resulting from a midspan stroke, is
different from the response to a vertical surge, where the tower impedance decrease
from top to bottom [9]. All these result are obtained considering the tower alone, without
ground wires connected [9].
18
Next, Ishii et al, measured the surge response of the typical double circuit 500kV
transmission tower, with ground wires, for vertical stroke current. Based on this
measurement, they developed a multistorey transmission tower model to be used in the
multiconductor analysis with ElectroMagnetic Transients Program (EMTP). The
multistorey transmission tower model consists of distributed parameter lines
representing tower surge impedance and parallel R-L circuits representing an attenuation
of a travelling wave along the tower [5].
The surge impedance expression proposed by Sargent [5] has been widely used
as a tower model for traveling wave calculation. According to this expression, the tower
under measurement is approximated by a cone, and a surge impedance of 170Ω is
obtained for this shape. In this case, it is treated that the velocity of surge propagation in
the tower is equal to the velocity of light (300 m/µs) and there is no surge attenuation.
On the other hand, a surge impedance of 100Ω to 115Ω, a surge propagation velocity of
210 to 240 m/µs and a surge attenuation coefficient of 0.8 to 0.9 obtained by Kawai et
al. through experiments on an actual tower used as second model [5].
The transmission line tower model, used in simulation is presented in Figure 2.9.
The value of R can be obtained by calculating and dividing the tower into upper and
lower truncated cones as shown in Figure 2.10. Section of the tower from the bottom
crossarm to the ground is represented as propagation element, which is defined by the
surge impedance ZT and wave propagation speed on the tower was taken to be equal to
the velocity of light. Sections on the tower top [between tower top and top crossarm and
between crossarms] modeled as inductance branches. Branch inductance is determined
according to the section length, tower surge impedance and the propagation velocity. In
the parallel to the inductance branches a damping resistors are introduced [19].
20
Four general classes of devices that have been used to limit over voltage and
permit low (more economical) insulation levels of equipment [7]:
¾ Spark gaps
¾ Expulsion-type arresters
¾ Gapped valve-type arrester
¾ Gapless-Metal oxide arrester
Overvoltage protective devices use spark gaps connected in series made with a
nonlinear silicon carbide (SiC) material. The spark gaps provided high impedance
during normal conditions. Nowadays, the physical construction of modern high voltage
surge arrester consists of metal oxide discs inside a porcelain or polymer insulator.
Line surge arresters are installed on 132kV lines, mainly to reduce double circuit
outage rate. Line surge arresters are normally installed on all phase conductors of one
circuit of the double circuit line. Arresters are installed on all towers of the considered
132kV line as shown in Figure 2.11. With this arrester installation configuration, double
22
circuit outages are eliminated, but there exists possibility to have flashovers on the
circuit without arresters [2].
Lightning stroke performance of the line without line surge arresters is presented
in Table 1 (per circuit flashovers). As expected, the majority of the flashovers happen on
132kV circuits. Line lightning performance strongly depends on the tower footing
resistance. For the tower footing resistance less than 10Ω, zero flashover rate is obtained
(line is equipped with two shield wires with a negative shielding angle) [2].
23
Table 2.1 Flashover rate for different circuit without line surge arrester
(flashover/100km/year). Refer to Figure 2.6 for location of C1, C2, C3 and C4.
The number of double circuit flashovers depends on the tower footing resistance,
and may reach value of 35 % of the line total flashover rate, for the tower footing
resistance of 40Ω. The number of the triple circuit flashovers (simultaneous flashovers
24
on two 132kV circuit and on one 275kV) is very low. The best improvement in the line
total flashover rate is obtained by the installation of the arrester on the bottom
conductors of both 132kV circuit and on the one top conductor of one 132kV circuit (the
best three arrester installation configuration) [2].
When line surge arresters are installed on all phase conductors of one 132kV
circuit, double circuit flashover are completely eliminated (actual installation on the
considered transmission line). But, it is to note that with this arrester installation
configuration line total flashover rate remains high. Arrester installation configuration
with the arresters on the bottom conductors of both 132 kV circuits and on the one top
conductor of one 132 kV circuit is very attractive, because this configuration
substantially reduce line total flashover rate, reducing in the same time line double
circuit flashover rate [2].
There are five types of the line/cable in ATP (EMTP) which are[16]:
A Monte Carlo method is a technique that involves using random numbers and
probability to solve problems. The term Monte Carlo Method was coined by S. Ulam
and Nicholas Metropolis in reference to games of chance, a popular attraction in Monte
Carlo, Monaco. It is a method for iteratively evaluating a deterministic model using sets
of random numbers as inputs. This method is often used when the model is complex,
nonlinear, or involves more than just a couple uncertain parameters. Monte Carlo
technique can be used in order to build the computer program for the evaluation of the
performance of overhead lightning shielding system. Analysis of atmospheric
overvoltage in power plants or transmission line there was always a problem how to
26
determine amplitude of the lightning current which is striking the protected object and
cause overvoltage. Development a computer program to represent an algorithm which
will determine the mentioned amplitude in same range for entered protected object is
necessary. The program is based on a statistical Monte Carlo analysis on the 3-
dimensionally simulated system.
Similarly, the fields of influence of a horizontal wire above ground can be represented
by a horizontal cylinder (Figure 2.14). Figure 2.15 also illustrates the fields of influence
of a rectangular block above ground which can be used to represent a building structure
or a patch of trees, etc. In all cases, the field of influence of the ground plane is
represented by a horizontal plane at its effective striking distance rs above the ground.
The termination point of the lightning stroke is determined on the basis that an object
will be struck if its field of influence is meet first by the leader tip on its way to ground.
As in the case of the example given in Figure 2.13, stroke A will terminate on the rod
and stroke B will terminate on the ground [17].
(2-9)
28
Figure 2.13 Fields of influence of a vertical rod and ground. Rs and rsg are the
effective striking distances of the vertical rod and ground respectively [17]
(2-9)
where I is the stroke current in kA and P(1) is the probability of current exceeding I.
Striking distance is related to stroke current magnitude.
(2-10)
The most common and simplest form of lightning protection is using a vertical
rod which has the function of intercepting a lightning stroke before it can strike a nearby
object it is protecting, and then discharging the current to ground [17].
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Main menu Tool bar icons Component tool bar Circuit window
Simulation file is created by keying the parameter of the circuit into the
components which are called out to the circuit window. A data window will pop out
after clicking on that component and the required parameters for the component will
show up. The input data can directly inserted to the special column provided in the data
window.
The EMTP input data structure consists of several important parts that consist of
the simulation setting or called miscellaneous data cards as shown in Figure 3.2. It
control the simulation setting as time interval between processing loop, the maximum
simulation and several frequency parameter that effected the inductance and capacitance
value in the branch section. The second part of the input data is called branch segment.
In this segment, the parameter of the transformer, transmission line, and basic element
34
are placed in the special columns provided in the data window by clicking on that
element.
The third part is the source segment where all the source parameter are placed.
The procedure to insert the data is same with branch segment as shown in Figure 3.3.
This included the impulse and ramp type source that important in transient study. The
final part is the plot segment and this is where the voltage at different nodes are
requested for plotting purpose. This step is carried out with the probe components
located at the measured nodes.
35
This process is quiet similar to the simulation process but the result from the
computation are the punch file usually with extension of *.pch instead of the*.pl4 file
obtained from normal simulation. This file could further be pasted inside the main input
data file by connecting directly the component to the system circuit in circuit window
36
and thus automatically called out when needed by “INCLUDE” command inside the
input data file of the EMTP simulation. Figure 3.4 shows the data window for
transmission line.
3.5 Simulation
Simulation involve the simplest procedure involving the used of the EMTP
command line. By clicking the “Run ATP” command or simply press F2, the simulation
process can now begin. The time needed to finish the simulation depends on the
complexity of the simulation file, number of branch that are requested to be plotted, time
interval between computation loop and the maximum time of the simulation. Some
complex simulation will take about three hours to finish and consume large amount of
computer main memory.
37
As the result of the request node in the simulation, a *.pl4 file will be created
after the simulation has ended. This file can be plotted using the external software
specially design for viewing the result such as PCPlot and TPPlot that usually support
three plot data for each graph. This chart viewing software especially for ATP versions
of EMTP can only be used in MSDOS environment and with DBOS simulation software
running. There is another new plotting program called plotXY to generate scientific line
plots using data collected from *.pl4 file.
In this simulation the PI model was used. The geometrical and material data for
the overhead line conductors are specified as below [16]:
The transmission model consists of seven sections divided at the upper, middle
and lower phase cross arm positions (not including insulator strings) is shown in Figure
3.6. Each section consists of a loss free transmission line and a lumped constant
consisting of a damping resistance shunted by an inductance
39
The surge impedance takes into account of the tower configuration, the height
and the radius of the tower. There are shown in Figure 3.7 and Figure 3.8. The
parameters of the 275/132kV quadruple tower model is shown in Table 3.1. These data
are determined by using the following equations.
(3-1)
(3-2)
(3-3)
(3-4)
where:
= Damping coefficient
V = Surge propagation velocity
R = Resistance
r = Radius of tower
H = Height
L = Inductance
Figure 3.9 Modified M.Ishii’s tower model for a quadruple circuit line tower
modeling
44
The lightning source was simulated by using Heidler model with 20kA
magnitude and 0.5µs front time. The current surge is a single stroke with positive
polarity. The current source can be represented by the following equation and the wave
shape of the fast front current surge by using Heidler model is shown in Figure 3.11.
(3-5)
45
where:
A 20MV DC type source was used as the lightning input step voltage. It is
injected at the middle point on the earth wire between tower 2 and tower 3. Figure 3.12
shows the input voltage waveform
(MV)
(µs)
Figure 3.11 Waveform of fast front voltage surge using Heidler model, 20MV with
0.5µs fast front time
46
Figure 3.12 Waveform of voltage using DC model, 20MV with 0.5µs fast front time
Figure 3.13 shows voltage at the tower top when using a DC model source as an
input. Waveform of multistorey tower is influenced by the surge attenuation. The surge
will propagate from the tower top to the tower base. From Figure 3.13, voltage at the
tower top rose approximately to 1.7MV. The traveling wave will travel to the tower base
in 0.3µs and the tower base voltage at that point is -1.0MV. After that, the wave will
reflect to the tower top at 0.6µs time scale and voltage rose up to 1.0MV. This
phenomenon will be repeated and can be explained by using the lattice diagram.
47
a) The calculation of random values includes the parameters of the lightning stroke
phase conductor voltages, the footing resistance and the insulator strength.
b) Overvoltage calculations are performed once the point of impact has been
determined.
48
c) If a flashover occurs in an insulator string, the run is stopped and the flashover
rate is updated.
d) The convergence of the Monte Carlo method is checked by comparing the
probability density function of all random variables to their theoretical functions;
the procedure is stopped when they match within the specified error.
The overall procedure is illustrated in Figure 3.14. Note that for a specific
design, the lightning parameters as well as the soil resistivity are allowed to vary in
accordance to known distribution functions. For each sample, a two part analysis is
performed. The first part determines the lightning termination point (and thus the
probability of shielding failure). For this purpose, the electrogeometric model for
lightning termination is used. This method determines the probability of shielding failure
for any power line in a general terrain. Figure 3.14 illustrates the basis of the method.
The lightning streamer is assumed to propagate from the top with equal distribution per
unit area. When it approaches the power line, it will terminate at the nearest point within
the striking distance of the lightning. From this construction, the probability of shielding
failure is computed.
49
N=1
N=N+1
No
Is N > Nmax
Yes
Generate reports
The project focuses on the model of 275/132kV quadruple transmission line and
transmission tower to investigate the performance of transmission line due to lightning
strike. Protection of simple structure is done by using MATLAB Simulation. The overall
project flow is shown in Figure 3.15 and Figure 3.16 shows the protection of simple
structure (vertical rod) due to lightning strikes flow chart.
51
Start
Literature Review
Literature work and review on the surge analysis of the
transmission line and tower and protection of simple
structure from lightning strike
System Optimization
Report Writing
Done
Figure 3.16 Protection of simple structure (vertical rod) due to lightning strikes.
53
CHAPTER 4
SIMULATIONS RESULTS
AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the simulations carried out, namely the ATP-
EMTP simulation for surge arrester study and the MATLAB simulation for the lightning
protection study. For the surge arrester study, a 275/132kV quadruple transmission line
system consisting the transmission line and 5 towers was simulated. Two source model
were used, namely the Heidler model and DC model. The transmission tower was
modeled according to modified M.Ishii’s model.
The lightning protection study incorporating the Monte Carlo probability concept
was simulated using MATLAB simulation. The equation described in section 2.11.3
were utilized.
54
RT
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7
Figure 4.1 shows a complete multistorey tower model simulated in the ATP-
EMTP program. A lightning strike with 20kA peak and 0.5µs fast front time was chosen
as the input. The lightning current surge was injected in the top of a standalone tower.
The parameters of the tower model are as shown in Table 3.1. Figure 4.2 shows the
resultant output voltages at the tower top, tower base and at each crossarm of the tower.
The purpose of this simulation is to show the traveling waves propagate from the tower
top to the tower base. As can be seen in Figure 4.2, the voltages along the tower is
reducing starting at the tower top towards the tower base. There is also a slight time
delay due to propagation delay.
55
Figure 4.2 Voltage at tower top, tower base and each crossarm of the tower
To tower 1 To tower
4,5
275kV B
132kV B
Tower 2 Tower 3
Figure 4.3 The simulation circuit of 275/132kV quadruple circuit transmission line,
and transmission towers.
Figures 4.4 to 4.9 show the voltage oscillograms at each of the crossarm position
corresponding to each conductor as well as corresponding voltage across the insulator
strings of 275kV and 132kV circuits at tower 3. Voltages at red phase and blue phase at
circuits 275kV in Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5 show the same voltage swing pattern. The
voltage of red phase rose about 4MV which is maximum voltage approximately 1.8µs
and maximum insulator string voltage at each phase is 2MV. Then, Figure 4.6 and
Figure 4.7 show the voltage at yellow phase circuit 275kV and red phase circuit 132kV.
As can be seen, the voltage rose sharply to 2.25MV which is maximum voltage
approximately 2.5µs and insulator string at each phase is swing between 0.1MV to -
0.1MV. Figure 4.8 and figure 4.9 show the same phase voltage pattern and insulator
voltage swing. As can be seen in Figure 4.8, the maximum blue phase voltage and
insulator string at circuit 132kV are 1.25MV at 4.4µs and 0.5MV at 9 µs. Figure 4.9
57
shows the maximum yellow phase voltage and insulator string is 1.5MV at 4.4µs and
0.4MV at 9 µs.
Figure 4.4 Voltage at red phase and insulator string tower 3 (275kV)
Figure 4.5 Voltage at blue phase and insulator string tower 3 (275kV)
58
Figure 4.6 Voltage at yellow phase and insulator string tower 3 (275kV)
Figure 4.7 Voltage at red phase and insulator string tower 3 (132kV)
59
Figure 4.8 Voltage at blue phase and insulator string tower 3(132kV)
Figure 4.9 Voltage at yellow phase and insulator string tower 3(132kV)
Figure 4.10 to Figure 4.15 show the voltage oscillograms at each crossarm for
tower 4. Figure 4.10 shows the maximum red phase voltage and insulator string at
circuit 275kV are 1.1MV at 4.4µs and 0.5MV at 9 µs. Then, Figure 4.11 and Figure 4.12
show the maximum voltage at blue and yellow phase, and insulator string at circuits
275kV have same voltage which is 1.2MV at 6µs for phase voltage and 0.1MV for
insulator string. Voltage at red phase at circuit 132kV is decreased by 0.3MV but still
show the same pattern voltage swing in Figure 4.13. Figure 4.14 shows the voltage at
blue phase and insulator string at circuit 132kV. The maximum phase voltage is 1.1MV
60
at 4.5µs and for insulator string is 0.4MV. This follows by Figure 4.15 which is the
maximum yellow phase voltage is 1.2MV at 6µs and insulator string is 0.1MV
Figure 4.10 Voltage at red phase and insulator string tower 4 (275kV)
Figure 4.11 Voltage at blue phase and insulator string tower 4 (275kV)
61
Figure 4.12 Voltage at yellow phase and insulator string tower 4 (275kV)
Figure 4.13 Voltage at red phase and insulator string tower 4 (132kV)
62
Figure 4.14 Voltage at blue phase and insulator string tower 4 (132kV)
Figure 4.15 Voltage at yellow phase and insulator string tower 4 (132kV)
Table 4.1 shows the tabulated data for the maximum voltage at each phase
voltage and insulator string at tower 3. Table 4.2 shows the tabulated data for maximum
voltage at each insulator string at tower 4. From Table 4.1 and Table 4.2, it can be seen
that the differential voltage between phase voltage and string insulator at tower 3 is
higher than tower 4. The configuration of surge arrester is shown in Figure 4.16 using L
arrangement of arrester. Based on critical flashover voltage, it shows that all surge
arresters at both towers which are tower 3 and tower 4 at circuit 132kV were affected by
the lightning strike.
63
Table 4.1 Voltage between each phase and insulator string at Tower 3
Tower 3 Phase Insulator Phase Voltage – String
Voltage(MV) Voltage (MV) Insulation Voltage (MV)
R phase (275kV) 4 2 2
B phase (275kV) 4 2 2
Y phase (275kV) 2.25 0.1 2.15
R phase (132kV) 2.25 0.1 2.15
B phase (132kV) 1.25 0.5 0.75
Y phase (132kV) 1.5 0.4 1.1
Table 4.2 Voltage between each phase and insulator string at Tower 4
Tower 4 Phase Insulator Phase Voltage – String
Voltage(MV) Voltage (MV) Insulation Voltage (MV)
R phase (275kV) 1.1 0.5 0.6
B phase (275kV) 1.2 0.1 1.1
Y phase (275kV) 1.2 0.1 1.1
R phase (132kV) 0.9 0.1 0.8
B phase (132kV) 1.1 0.4 0.7
Y phase (132kV) 1.2 0.05 1.15
64
Figure 4.18 (a) and (b) show the distribution of lightning flashes on a 1 km²
ground area with an Ng of 15 strikes/ km²/year over 100 year period with lightning
strokes terminating on structure which is vertical rod with current 2.5kA, 10kA and
20kA. The striking distance is influenced by the lightning current. For this study, the
range of current is between 2.5-20kA. According to Figure 4.18 (c), the higher lightning
current will bring wider striking distance, it can be seen corresponding to 20kA current.
66
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 4.19 to Figure 4.22 show the lightning strokes (represented by dots)
terminating on structure (vertical rod), and the surrounding ground-plan view with of
current 2.5, 5 and 10kA. It shows that the protection area is influenced by the current
magnitude which is lightning strike. A vertical rod is placed in the middle of a square
plot of ground of area of 1 and 1500 strokes were applied to the area under study.
that can withstand from the lightning strike. is field of influenced of object where is
given by:
(4-1)
The protection area is influenced by the lightning stroke current and height of the
rod. Height (h) of rod above a flat roof or horizontal plane are considered to protect
points on that plane up to a horizontal distance r from a horizontal conductor or to
horizontal radius r from a vertical rod, where r is given by:
(4-2)
(4-3)
69
Figure 4.19 Vertical rod and its effective striking with current 2.5kA
Figure 4.20 Vertical rod and its effective striking with current 5kA
70
Figure 4.21 Vertical rod and its effective striking with current 10kA
Figure 4.22 Vertical rod and its effective striking with current 15kA
Table 4.3 shows lightning stroke (kA) with effective striking ( , height of rod
(h) and probability of lightning strikes (P). The protection area is influenced by the
71
lightning stroke current and height of the rod. The radius of effective striking is able to
determine the height of the rod that can with stand from the lightning strike.
Table 4.3 Lightning stroke (kA) with effective striking ( , height of rod (h) and
probability of lightning strike (P).
Lightning stroke (kA) Effective striking Height of rod (h) Probability of
(meter) (meter) lightning strike
2.5 15 2 0.9986
5 22 5 0.9914
10 36 18 0.9499
15 78 45 0.8685
Figure 4.23 and Figure 4.24 show the basic implementation of 3-dimensional of
the electrogeometric model of the lightning stroke on structures such as building that
required to be protected. In both cases, the field of influence of the ground plane is
represented by a horizontal plane at its effective striking distance (equation 2-9)
above the ground. The termination point of the lightning stroke is determined on the
basis that an object will be struck if its field of influence is met first by the leader tip on
its way to ground. Other strokes will terminate on the ground if they do not meet the
field of influence.
72
Figure 4.23 Field of influence of a rectangular block above ground which can be used
to represent a building structure or a patch of trees with current 2.5kA with 2
dimensional electrogeomatric model.
Figure 4.24 Field of influence of vertical cylinder can be used to represent a building
structure or a patch of trees with current 2.5kA (3 dimensional electrogeomatric model).
73
CHAPTER 5
5.1 Conclusion
The ATP-EMTP simulation study is supposed to show that the arrester at the
nearest point of strike is not effected rather the ones further down at the next tower.
This can also be explained from the travelling wave theory where at the exact location of
the strike, the current splits into 2 (I/2). As it travels to the next tower, the traveling
surge induced coupled voltage, which is a fraction of the traveling voltage. As a result,
the total stress is higher at the adjacent towers compared to the exact location. In the
incident sited, when lightning stroke the earth wire, the wire snapped and fell. Both
portions then broke again due to high current and caused the breakage of the conductor
at four portions. Based on the result obtained, all surge arrester at both tower (tower 3
and tower 4) were affected by the lightning strike. From the simulation results,
differential voltage between the phase conductor and the crossarm at the insulator string
for each phase shows that the adjacent tower which is tower 4, has less differential
voltage than nearest tower (tower 3). Therefore, the simulation results show that the
74
A study which focus on many factors such as circuit outage, flashover and
backflashover, insulation failure and shielding failure has been done. The ATP-EMTP
simulation program has been used to carry out the study and the results explain the
phenomenon from theoretical and practical points of view. For transmission line
modeling, the configuration of the overhead line must be known such as number,
location and spacing between conductors. Besides that, skin effect and other properties
may also be considered in the model. The configuration of the tower structure such as
height and radius must be known. The phenomenon which may include the travelling
wave effect (reflection etc) has been studied to prove that when a lightning strikes, the
arrester at the nearest to the point of strike is not effected rather the one further down at
the next tower.
Monte Carlo concept has been used to estimate the probability of lightning
strikes and lightning protection of simple structures. The most common and simplest
form of lightning protection is by the use of a vertical rod which has the function of
intercepting a lightning stroke before it can strike a nearby object it is protecting, and
then discharging the current to ground. The analytic method used is based on a 3-
dimensional implementation of the electrogeometric model. The protection area is
influenced by the lightning stroke current and height of the rod. The radius of effective
striking is able determine the height of the rod that can withstand the lightning strike.
75
5.2 Recommendation
Based on the simulation study on 275/132kV quadruple transmission line, below are two
computer softwares are suitable to be used in future study :
¾ Sigma slp is PC Windows based software, which has been specially developed to
enable quick and easy determination of transmission line lightning performance.
This software provide an alternative way to bring the precise result on
275/132kV quadruple circuit transmission line in term of to prove that the surge
arrester location of the affected arrester was not at the nearest tower to the point
of strike but affected at the adjacent tower. The arresters at the nearest tower
were not affected.
REFERENCES
[1] Iryani Mohamed Rawi, “Tripping report- Post mortem study on the root cause of
earth wire failure between T70-T71 and TLA(gapless type) at T68 &T69 for
132kV BLKG-SRDG line”, Engineering Department (Lines and cable)TNB
Transmission Division, 2007
[2] Y.A Wahab, Z.Z Abidin and S.Sadovic, “Line Surge Arrester Application on the
Quadruple Circuit Transmission Line”, IEEE Bologna Power Tect Conference,
June 23, 2003.
[3] C.A.Nucci and F.Rachidi, “ Lightning Induced Voltage”, IEEE Transmission and
Distribution Conference, April 14 , 1999.
[5] Masaru Ishii, Tatsuo Kawamura, Teruya Kouno, Eiichi Ohsaki, Kazuyuki
Shiokawa Kaneyoshi Murotani and Takemitsu Higuchi, “Multistory transmission
Tower Model For Lightning Surge Analysis”, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery ,Vol. 6, No. 3, July 1991
77
[7] Siti Rugayah Binti Dugel, “Insulation Coordination of Quadruple Circuit High
Voltage Transmission Line using ATP-EMTP”,Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
2007.
[9] T. Hara and 0. Yamamoto, “Modelling of a transmission tower for lightning surge
analysis, IEE Proc.-Cener. Transm. Distrib., Vol. 143, No. 3, May 1996
[12] Haifeng Li, Gang Wang and Zhiwei Liao, “Distinguish Between Lightning
Stroke and Fault Using Wavelet – Multiresolution Signal Decomposition”, IEE,
Michael Faraday House, Six Hills Way, Stevenage, SGI 2AY, 2004
78
[13] Toshiaki Ueda, Takamitsu Ito, Hideto Watanabe, Toshihisa Funabashi and Akihiro
Ametani, “A Comparison between Two Tower Models for Lightning Surge
Analysis of 77kV System”, IEEE Transaction, 2000.
[18] A.C.Liew and J.P.Wang, “Multiple Flashovers Across Same Phase In Different
Towers”,1996
APPENDIX A
a=0.4; % coordinate x
b=0.5;% coordinate y
c=0.6; % coordinate x
d=0.5;% coordinate y
%start simulation
x=rand(data,1);
y=rand(data,1);
[lat,lon] = SCIRCLE1(a,b,r4);
[p,t] = SCIRCLE1(c,d,r5);
for h=1:s
for k=1:data;
if x(k)>=c&y(k)>=d
if x(k)<=p(h)& y(k)<=t(h)
x(k)=c;
y(k)=d;
end
end
if x(k)<=c&y(k)>=d
if x(k)>=p(h)& y(k)<=t(h)
x(k)=c;
y(k)=d;
end
end
if x(k)<=c&y(k)<=d
if x(k)>=p(h)& y(k)>=t(h)
x(k)=c;
y(k)=d;
end
end
if x(k)>=c&y(k)<=d
if x(k)<=p(h)& y(k)>=t(h)
x(k)=c;
y(k)=d;
end
end
end
end
for i=1:s
for j=1:data;
if x(j)>=a&y(j)>=b
if x(j)<lat(i)& y(j)<=lon(i)
x(j)=a;
y(j)=b;
end
end
83
if x(j)<=a&y(j)>=b
if x(j)>=lat(i)& y(j)<=lon(i)
x(j)=a;
y(j)=b;
end
end
if x(j)<=a&y(j)<=b
if x(j)>=lat(i)& y(j)>=lon(i)
x(j)=a;
y(j)=b;
end
end
if x(j)>=a&y(j)<=b
if x(j)<=lat(i)& y(j)>=lon(i)
x(j)=a;
y(j)=b;
end
end
end
end
scatter(x,y,2)
plot(p,t,'r')
hold
scatter(x,y,2)
plot(lat,lon,'r')
r=0.1
[X,Y,Z] = cylinder(r);
X=X+0.5;
Y=Y+0.5;
h=1.0;%high of rod
h=h-1;
z=Z+h;
z(1,:)=z(1,:)-h;
surf(X,Y,z)
hold
r2=0.005
[X,Y,Z] = cylinder(r2);
X=X+0.6;
Y=Y+0.5;
Z=Z+1.0;
h=0.5;%high of rod
h=h-1;
z=Z+h;
z(1,:)=z(1,:)-h
surf(X,Y,z)
r3=0.005
[X,Y,Z] = cylinder(r3);
X=X+0.4;
Y=Y+0.5;
Z=Z+1.0;
h=0.5;%high of rod
h=h-1;
z=Z+h;
z(1,:)=z(1,:)-h
surf(X,Y,z)
r4=0.1000005
[X,Y,Z] = cylinder(r4);
X=X+0.5;
Z=Z+0.5;
Y=Y+0.5;
85
h=0.1;%high of rod
h=h-1;
z=Z+h;
z(1,:)=z(1,:)-h
surf(X,Y,z)
r=0.2; %radius
data=1500; %random lightning strike
a=0.4; % coordinate x
b=0.5;% coordinate y
c=0.6; % coordinate x
d=0.5;% coordinate y
%start simulation
x=rand(data,1);
y=rand(data,1);
[lat,lon] = SCIRCLE1(a,b,r);
s=size(lat) %data for circle
for i=1:s;
for j=1:data;
if x(j)>=a&y(j)>=b
if x(j)<=lat(i)& y(j)<=lon(i)
x(j)=a;
y(j)=b;
end
end
if x(j)<=a&y(j)>=b
if x(j)>=lat(i)& y(j)<=lon(i)
x(j)=a;
y(j)=b;
end
end
if x(j)<=a&y(j)<=b
if x(j)>=lat(i)& y(j)>=lon(i)
x(j)=a;
y(j)=b;
end
end
if x(j)>=a&y(j)<=b
if x(j)<=lat(i)& y(j)>=lon(i)
86
x(j)=a;
y(j)=b;
end
end
end
end
scatter(x,y,2)
plot(lat,lon,'r')
Rod
r=0.005
[X,Y,Z] = cylinder(r);
X=X+0.5;
Y=Y+0.5;
h=50;%high of rod
h=h-1;
z=Z+h;
z(1,:)=z(1,:)-h
surf(X,Y,z)
hold
r=47/100; %radius
data=1500; %random lightning stike
a=0.5; % coordinate x
b=0.5;% coordinate y
%start simulation
x=rand(data,1);
y=rand(data,1);
[lat,lon] = SCIRCLE1(a,b,r);
s=size(lat) %data for circle
for i=1:s;
for j=1:data;
if x(j)>=a&y(j)>=b
if x(j)<=lat(i)& y(j)<=lon(i)
x(j)=a;
y(j)=b;
87
end
end
if x(j)<=a&y(j)>=b
if x(j)>=lat(i)& y(j)<=lon(i)
x(j)=a;
y(j)=b;
end
end
if x(j)<=a&y(j)<=b
if x(j)>=lat(i)& y(j)>=lon(i)
x(j)=a;
y(j)=b;
end
end
if x(j)>=a&y(j)<=b
if x(j)<=lat(i)& y(j)>=lon(i)
x(j)=a;
y(j)=b;
end
end
end
end
scatter(x,y,2)
plot(lat,lon,'r')
r=0.1
[X,Y,Z] = cylinder(r);
X=X+0.5;
Y=Y+0.5;
88
h=1.0;%high of rod
h=h-1;
z=Z+h;
z(1,:)=z(1,:)-h;
surf(X,Y,z)
hold
r2=0.005
[X,Y,Z] = cylinder(r2);
X=X+0.6;
Y=Y+0.5;
Z=Z+1.0;
h=0.5;%high of rod
h=h-1;
z=Z+h;
z(1,:)=z(1,:)-h
surf(X,Y,z)
r3=0.005
[X,Y,Z] = cylinder(r3);
X=X+0.4;
Y=Y+0.5;
Z=Z+1.0;
h=0.5;%high of rod
h=h-1;
z=Z+h;
z(1,:)=z(1,:)-h
surf(X,Y,z)
r4=0.1000005
[X,Y,Z] = cylinder(r4);
X=X+0.5;
Z=Z+0.5;
Y=Y+0.5;
h=0.1;%high of rod
h=h-1;
z=Z+h;
z(1,:)=z(1,:)-h
surf(X,Y,z)
89
hold
%start simulation
x=rand(data,1);
y=rand(data,1);
[lat,lon] = SCIRCLE1(a,b,r1);
[p,t] = SCIRCLE1(c,d,r2);
s=size(lat) %data for circle
s=size(p)
for h=1:s
for k=1:data;
if x(k)>=c&y(k)>=d
if x(k)<=p(h)& y(k)<=t(h)
x(k)=c;
y(k)=d;
end
end
if x(k)<=c&y(k)>=d
if x(k)>=p(h)& y(k)<=t(h)
x(k)=c;
y(k)=d;
end
end
if x(k)<=c&y(k)<=d
if x(k)>=p(h)& y(k)>=t(h)
x(k)=c;
y(k)=d;
end
end
90
if x(k)>=c&y(k)<=d
if x(k)<=p(h)& y(k)>=t(h)
x(k)=c;
y(k)=d;
end
end
end
end
for i=1:s
for j=1:data;
if x(j)>=a&y(j)>=b
if x(j)<=lat(i)& y(j)<=lon(i)
x(j)=a;
y(j)=b;
end
end
if x(j)<=a&y(j)>=b
if x(j)>=lat(i)& y(j)<=lon(i)
x(j)=a;
y(j)=b;
end
end
if x(j)<=a&y(j)<=b
if x(j)>=lat(i)& y(j)>=lon(i)
x(j)=a;
y(j)=b;
end
end
if x(j)>=a&y(j)<=b
if x(j)<=lat(i)& y(j)>=lon(i)
x(j)=a;
y(j)=b;
end
end
end
end
scatter(x,y,2)
plot(p,t,'r')
91
hold
scatter(x,y,2)
plot(lat,lon,'r')