11 views

Uploaded by Bernardo NG

- Summary of Insulation Coordination Standard
- Cable Fittings
- IEEE Std C57.21
- Insulation Enhancement System
- Bridge
- Transmission Lines
- 02-LineConstants Siemens.ppt
- V-2186-004-A-111 Data Sheet for Telecom Tower ANDRY Rev.02
- Insulators
- TRANSMISSION-LINE-COMMISSIONING-Publication_No.292.pdf
- Guidelines to the Construction of a Low-Voltage Assembly Complying With the Standards IEC 61439 Part 1 and Part 2
- Earthing Design Calculation Alstom
- Dead Tank and Live Tank
- VD from1119 to 300619 181231 final vendor directory.pdf
- trf-template2006final_iec
- summary_of_operation.pdf
- 76-09 (1)
- insu-tape
- Insulator
- Accesories for Medium Voltage Distribution Network

You are on page 1of 5

Lines

R. Bhattarai

1

, R. Rashedin, S. Venkatesan, A. Haddad, H. Griffiths, N. Harid

High Voltage Energy Systems Group, School of Engineering, Cardiff University, United Kingdom

1

BhattaraiR@Cardiff.ac.uk

AbstractThis paper presents a comparative lightning

performance study conducted on a 275 kV double circuit

shielded transmission line using two software programs, TFlash

and Sigma-Slp. The line performance was investigated by using

both a single stroke and a statistical performance analysis and

considering cases of shielding failure and backflashover. A

sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the relationship

between the flashover rate and the parameters influencing it. To

improve the lightning performance of the line, metal oxide surge

arresters were introduced using different phase and line

locations. Optimised arrester arrangements are proposed.

Index TermsLightning Overvoltages, Statistical Analysis,

Electrogeometric modelling, Sensitivity Analysis, Surge Arrester

I. INTRODUCTION

Lightning is a major cause of overhead line faults.

Between 5% to 10% of the lightning-caused faults are thought

to result in permanent damage to power system equipment

[1]. Therefore, the analysis of lightning performance is

fundamental when designing new lines and for uprating

existing lines to higher voltages.

Lightning is a natural phenomenon with random behaviour,

and hence a complete study of the lightning performance of

an overhead line should also include a statistical approach [2].

Computer software packages have been developed for the

evaluation of lightning performance of overhead lines. In this

study, two widely-available programs, viz. TFlash and Sigma-

Slp have been used in a comparative study of the lightning

performance of a generic 275 kV double circuit line.

Both software packages make use of the travelling wave

method for the computation of electromagnetic transients

along the line [3, 4]. TFlash employs a Stroke Incidence

Table (SIT) together with an Electrogeometric Model (EGM)

or the EPRI stroke attraction model while Sigma-Slp uses a

Monte Carlo statistical method in combination with the EGM

to determine strike points on the line. Both programs are

capable of modelling the application of line surge arresters.

In this paper, single and statistical stroke analyses were

made with different amplitudes of the injected stroke current

in order to estimate the flashover performance of the studied

transmission line. In this investigation, both shielding failure

and backflashover were considered. Detailed sensitivity

analysis studies were carried out to determine the relationship

between the flashover rate and the parameters influencing it;

such as tower footing resistance, ground flash density and

front time of the lightning impulse. The overvoltage

magnitude and impulse shape on the struck phase conductor

is computed for both the shielding failure and backflashover

cases.

To improve the lightning performance of the line, the

application of metal oxide surge arrester was studied using

different arrester configurations and locations. The computed

results indicate that arresters installed on the top phase of

each circuit give the most significant improvement in

lightning performance when combined with low tower

footing resistance. Optimised locations of surge arresters

were then derived for practical applications.

II. SIMULATED LINE DATA

A 35km long, 275kV double circuit line with 300m span

length was selected in this study. The height of the steel-

lattice towers of the line is assumed to be 36.88m. The surge

impedance of the tower was calculated to be 173.1 using (1)

[2, 5].

+

=

2 1

1

tan 5 . 0 cot ln 60

h h

r

Z

avg

T

(1)

where, r

avg

is the weighted average tower radius given by (2).

) (

) (

2 1

1 3 2 1 2 2 1

h h

h r h h r h r

r

avg

+

+ + +

= (2)

where,

r

1

, r

2

and r

3

are the radii at the top, midsection and base of the

tower respectively, and

h

1

and h

2

are the tower heights from base to midsection and

midsection to the tower top respectively.

The line is assumed to be located on flat terrain with a

ground flat density of 0.5 flashes per kilometre square per

year (fl/km

2

/yr). It is also assumed that there is no nearby

object present to cause an induced voltage flashover on the

line.

The phase conductors were twin 175mm

2

Lynx type

ACSR conductors with a bundle spacing of 30.48cm and a

single Lynx ACSR conductor was used for earthwire. The

individual conductors have a 19.53mm diameter. The phase

and earth conductors were assumed to have a 7.05m and

6.66m mid-span sag respectively. The Tower structure and

conductor geometry are shown in Fig. 1.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on March 4, 2009 at 11:15 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

The line insulator strings are composed of 16 individual

glass insulator discs having 170mm spacing and each disc has

a creepage distance of 540mm which is equivalent to a total

string length of 3.31m (including the length of the fittings at

top and bottom of the string). The calculated critical

flashover voltage (CFO) of the insulator string is 1646kV.

To study the lightning performance of the line with surge

arresters, metal oxide arresters with a nominal discharge

current of 10kA, a Maximum Continuous Operating Voltage

(MCOV) of 220kV and an energy capability of 7.8kJ/kV were

used. The voltage-current characteristic of the arrester used

in this work is shown in Fig. 2.

III. LINE MODELLING TECHNIQUES

The details of the transmission line modelling in the

software are as follows:

The line consists of 116 spans with each span represented

as a multiphase untransposed distributed parameter line

section. To avoid reflections on the line, a sufficiently long

section is added to each side of the studied line. At line ends,

Sigma-Slp connects coupling matrices while TFlash adds

matching impedances in order to avoid reflections. Each

simulated span section is further divided into shorter sections

to enable stroke simulation at a number of points along the

span.

In TFlash, the tower is modelled as a simple transmission

line with constant surge impedance, and terminated with a

footing resistance. In Sigma-Slp, the tower is modelled by a

propagation element model represented by the tower surge

impedance and its propagation length. The propagation

length is equal to the height of the tower.

A non-linear footing resistance, as derived by Weck [2] and

given in (3), is used in both programs

g

T

I

I

R

R

+

=

1

0

(3)

With;

2

0

2 R

E

I

g

g

= (4)

where, R

0

is the low-current tower footing resistance, is the

soil resistivity, I is the stroke current through the tower

footing and, E

0

the soil ionisation threshold [400kV/m].

In TFlash, the Disruptive Effect (DE) method [6] is used as

the default insulator flashover model whereas Sigma-Slp, uses

a leader progression method. The DE method defines the

disruptive index by

[ ] dt A t V DE

B

= ) ( (5)

where, V(t) is instantaneous value of the impulse voltage, and

A and B are constants; A represents the minimum voltage

below which breakdown cannot occur and B is a coefficient

indicating that the breakdown process is not linear. When the

disruptive index, DE, reaches a critical value, breakdown

would occur.

The leader progression method [2] is represented by

d

t u

l

l

e E

l d

t u

d V

) (

0015 . 0

0

) (

170

= (6)

where, V

l

is the leader velocity, d the gap distance, l

l

the

leader length, u(t) the applied voltage and, E

0

the voltage

gradient (520kV/m).

The power frequency voltage may influence the insulator

flashover. This influence is taken into account by calculating

the voltage across the insulators through a 360

0

phase cycle,

and the flashover rate is determined using its average.

The effect of corona coupling in the line is considered in

TFlash while it is ignored in Sigma-Slp.

Fig. 1. 275 kV double circuit shielded transmission line tower showing

its conductor coordinates. Values in parenthesis are midspan heights.

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

0 10 20 30 40

Arrester Cur rent (kA)

D

i

s

c

h

a

r

g

e

V

o

l

t

a

g

e

(

k

V

)

Fig. 2. Surge arrester voltage-curve.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on March 4, 2009 at 11:15 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (s)

O

v

e

r

v

o

l

t

a

g

e

(

k

V

)

TFlash

Sigma-Slp

(a) Shielding failure flashover

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Time (s)

O

v

e

r

v

o

l

t

a

g

e

(

k

V

)

TFlash

Sigma-Slp

(b) Backflashover

Fig. 3. Overvoltage magnitude and shape on phase conductor A1

computed using TFlash & Sigma-Slp.

The EGM is used to determine the strike point on the line.

In this investigation, more than 20000 stokes are used for the

electromagnetic simulations. The conductor and earth

striking distance used in the software are given by [2, 7]

65 . 0

10 I R

c

= (7)

( ) [ ]

65 . 0

43 ln 7 . 1 6 . 3 I h R

e

+ = for h < 40 m (8)

65 . 0

5 . 5 I R

e

= for h > 40 m (9)

where, R

c

is the striking distance to a line conductor, R

e

is the

striking distance to earth, I is the lightning impulse current

magnitude and, h is the height of the tower.

IV. SINGLE STROKE ANALYSIS

For the single stroke studies, the overvoltage magnitude

and impulse shape on the phase conductor during shielding

failure and backflashover are computed. A 32kA, 2/75

impulse current is applied to phase conductor A

1

at the tower

position to simulate a shielding failure flashover on the line.

A low current tower footing resistance of 10 and 200 m

soil resistivity were assumed. Fig. 3a shows typical impulse

voltage on the phase conductor. As can be seen in the figure,

similar voltage impulse magnitudes were obtained with the

two models. However, close examination of the results

reveals that the TFlash model predicts a slightly higher

overvoltage magnitude and a faster initial rise time compared

with the Sigma-Slp model. For the backflashover studies, a

200kA lightning impulse was injected on to the shield wire at

a tower position. A low current tower footing resistance of

80 and a soil resistivity of 1600m were adopted, which

allow backflashover to be initiated. Fig. 3b shows a typical

impulse shape of overvoltage computed on the phase

conductor during backflashover. Here again, we can observe

that the results obtained with TFlash model indicate slightly

higher magnitudes of overvoltage and faster rise times

compared with the Sigma-Slp model.

V. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Statistical flashover analysis of the studied line is carried

out to assess the risk of flashover considering the random

behaviour of lightning. The flashover rate (number of flashes

per 100km per year) is used as the basic parameter in the

sensitivity analysis, and the performance of the line is

analysed with different arrester configurations.

The programs used in this investigation (Sigma-Slp and

TFlash) use slightly different approaches for simulating

random behaviour of lightning. In Sigma-Slp, random

lightning strokes are generated with magnitudes between 1.2

and 161.1kA and with rise times in the range between 1.2 and

4.38 s. A fixed half time of 75 s is assumed. The impulse

shape varies randomly, with a sample size of 2000. In

TFlash, however, the stroke current range can be selected

from 1kA to 300kA, and the range is divided up to 512

current bins. In order to match the two models, as closely as

possible, 32 stroke current beans and a current range from

2.5kA to 160kA were selected.

In the TFlash model, the selected lightning current impulse

shape was used for the entire statistical calculation without

any variation. Again, for close matching of the two models,

simulations were carried out with a 2/75 lightning impulse.

A. Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis studies were carried out to determine

the relationship between the flashover rate and the parameters

influencing it, such as tower footing resistance, ground flash

density (GFD) and front time of the lightning impulse.

(i) Effect of footing resistance

It was found that the shielding failure flashover rate

(SFFR) is not affected by footing resistance and a constant

SFFR of 0.7 and 0.63 fl/100km/yr was obtained in TFlash and

Sigma-Slp respectively. Fig. 4a illustrates the effect of

footing resistance on the backflashover rate. As can be seen

in the figure, the backflashover rate (BFR) evaluated by

Sigma-Slp, for a given value of footing resistance is higher

than that computed by TFlash.

(ii) Effect of ground flash density (GFD)

The effect of GFD on SFFR is shown in Fig. 4b. As can be

seen, the SFFR calculated using the Sigma-Slp model is

lower than the SFFR computed using the TFlash model.

The difference may be attributed to the different stroke

statistics patterns of the two models. In the TFlash model,

45% to 50% of the current bins are in the low-current range

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on March 4, 2009 at 11:15 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

which is more likely to result in shielding failures. On the

other hand, in the Sigma-Slp model, only 10% to 15% of the

total number of strokes are likely to hit the phase conductor as

a result of shielding failure. Therefore, the majority of

strokes in the Sigma-Slp simulations hit the shield wire or the

tower top resulting in higher backflashover rates.

(iii) Effect of impulse shape

The computed effect of lightning impulse shape on the line

flashover rate is shown in Fig. 4c. Only results from the

TFlash model were shown since it is possible to vary the

impulse front time in this case. From Fig. 4c, it can be seen

that, for fast front times (< 2s), the BFR increases as the

front time decreases. The simulations show that SFFR is not

influenced by variations in the front time; a constant value of

0.7 fl/100km/yr is obtained.

B. Flashover Performance of the Line with Surge Arresters

The objective of this study was to estimate the

improvement in flashover rate by implementing surge

arresters on the line. Different arrester configurations and

locations were analysed and compared to assess

improvements in lightning performance of the line. In these

studies, low current tower footing resistance value was varied

from 10 to 80 keeping the ratio of soil resistivity to

footing resistance constant (/R

0

= 20). An initial study was

carried out with arresters positioned at every tower and on

every phase conductor. This resulted in a zero flashover rate,

but, practically the configuration would be too expensive.

It is well known [8] that, in the low current range, the

lightning strikes hit only the top phase conductors of the two

circuits during shielding failure. This suggests that the

majority of shielding failures for this tower design would

occur on the top phases. Table I shows typical results of an

electrogeometric model (EGM) study obtained with Sigma-

Slp and Fig. 5 shows an example of graphical display of

lightning strokes hitting the line for different current

magnitudes, which were obtained with TFlash. Based on

these studies, four practical different arrester configurations

were studied, and are shown in Table II. In the table, the

black spots on the phases represent the application of an

arrester on that phase.

As can be seen in the table, the Sigma-Slp modelling shows

that the application of arresters substantially improves the

flashover rate. By placing arresters on the top phases only, a

zero SFFR is obtained. However, this arrangement only

suppresses backflashover under low footing resistance

conditions. On the other hand, with arresters installed on the

bottom phases only, a zero backflashover rate is obtained at

expense of shielding failure. When arresters are installed on

the top and bottom phases, both shielding and backflashover

failure can be suppressed. Therefore, to improve the

lightning performance, it is recommended to install arresters

only in the top phases at towers with low footing resistance

and in the top and bottom phases at towers with high footing

resistance.

TABLE I

EGM REPORT IN SIGMA-SLP

G

F

D

M

e

d

.

s

t

r

o

k

e

c

u

r

r

e

n

t

(

k

A

)

T

o

t

a

l

s

t

r

o

k

e

T

o

e

a

r

t

h

T

o

t

o

w

e

r

T

o

s

h

i

e

l

d

w

i

r

e

T

o

p

h

a

s

e

A

1

T

o

p

h

a

s

e

B

1

T

o

p

h

a

s

e

C

1

T

o

p

h

a

s

e

C

2

T

o

p

h

a

s

e

B

2

T

o

P

h

a

s

e

A

2

0

.

5

3

1

.

5

2

0

0

0

0

1

4

0

5

4

3

3

1

4

8

4

0

2

8

0

0

0

2

9

8

0

0

-0. 05

0

0. 05

0. 1

0. 15

0. 2

0. 25

0. 3

0. 35

0. 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Low Curre nt Footi ng Re si sta nce (ohm)

B

F

R

(

f

l

/

1

0

0

k

m

/

y

r

)

TFl as h

Sigma-Slp

(a) Flashover rate vs. low current footing resistance

(GFD = 0.5 fl/km

2

/yr, /R0 = 20)

0

0. 2

0. 4

0. 6

0. 8

1

1. 2

1. 4

1. 6

0 0. 2 0. 4 0. 6 0. 8 1 1. 2

GFD (fl / km

2

/ yr)

S

F

F

R

(

f

l

/

1

0

0

k

m

/

y

r

)

TFlash

Si gma-Slp

(b) Flashover rate vs. GFD (R0 = 10 , = 200 m)

-0. 1

0

0. 1

0. 2

0. 3

0. 4

0. 5

0. 6

0. 7

0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 3 3. 5 4

Front Ti m e (s)

B

F

R

(

f

l

/

1

0

0

k

m

/

y

r

)

(c) Flashover rate vs. lightning impulse front time in TFlash

(GFD = 0.5 fl/km

2

/yr, R0 = 10 , = 200 m)

Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis

Fig. 5. Stroke view at different current magnitude in TFlash

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on March 4, 2009 at 11:15 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Table III shows the results obtained with the TFlash model,

which agree with the previous findings. The SFFR obtained

in this case is slightly higher while the BFR lower.

TABLE II

FLASHOVER RATE (SIGMA-SLP MODEL)

DIFFERENT ARRESTER CONFIGURATIONS

Footing

Resistan

ce

()

Shielding Failure Flashover Rate (fl/100km/yr)

10 0.63 0 0.63 0.63 0

20 0.63 0 0.63 0.63 0

30 0.63 0 0.63 0.63 0

40 0.63 0 0.63 0.63 0

50 0.63 0 0.63 0.63 0

60 0.63 0 0.63 0.63 0

70 0.63 0 0.63 0.63 0

80 0.63 0 0.63 0.63 0

Backflashover Rate (fl/100km/yr)

10 0 0 0 0 0

20 0 0 0 0 0

30 0 0 0 0 0

40 0.03 0 0 0 0

50 0.08 0.01 0 0 0

60 0.14 0.03 0.01 0 0

70 0.26 0.07 0.02 0 0

80 0.35 0.11 0.03 0 0

Total Flashover Rate (fl/100km/yr)

10 0.63 0 0.63 0.63 0

20 0.63 0 0.63 0.63 0

30 0.63 0 0.63 0.63 0

40 0.67 0 0.63 0.63 0

50 0.72 0.01 0.63 0.63 0

60 0.78 0.03 0.65 0.63 0

70 0.90 0.07 0.66 0.63 0

80 0.99 0.11 0.67 0.63 0

mark indicates surge arrester in the phase

TABLE III

FLASHOVER RATE (TFLASH MODEL)

DIFFERENT ARRESTER CONFIGURATIONS

Footing

Resistan

ce

()

Shielding Failure Flashover Rate (fl/100km/yr)

10 0.70 0 0.70 0.70 0

20 0.70 0 0.70 0.70 0

30 0.70 0 0.70 0.70 0

40 0.70 0 0.70 0.70 0

50 0.70 0 0.70 0.70 0

60 0.70 0 0.70 0.70 0

70 0.70 0 0.70 0.70 0

80 0.70 0 0.70 0.70 0

Backflashover Rate (fl/100km/yr)

10 0 0 0 0 0

20 0 0 0 0 0

30 0 0 0 0 0

40 0.01 0 0 0 0

50 0.04 0 0 0 0

60 0.09 0.02 0 0 0

70 0.15 0.03 0 0 0

80 0.25 0.05 0.02 0 0

Total Flashover Rate (fl/100km/yr)

10 0.70 0 0.70 0.70 0

20 0.70 0 0.70 0.70 0

30 0.70 0 0.70 0.70 0

40 0.71 0 0.70 0.70 0

50 0.74 0 0.70 0.70 0

60 0.79 0.02 0.70 0.70 0

70 0.85 0.03 0.70 0.70 0

80 0.95 0.05 0.72 0.70 0

mark indicates surge arrester in the phase

VI. CONCLUSION

Two similar models of transmission line were studied using

Sigma-Slp and TFlash software packages. Satisfactory

agreement is given by the two models.

It was shown that the lightning performance of overhead

transmission lines can be improved by applying surge

arresters. Arresters on the top phases improve shielding

failure flashover rate, and when applied to the bottom phases

they allow improvement of backflashover rate. Adequate

selection of the arrester configuration in the line can

significantly improve lightning performance and may reduce

the financial burden.

REFERENCES

[1] T. Short, "Application of the IEEE Guide for Improving the Lightning

Performance of Electric Power Overhead Distribution Lines (Std. 1410-

1997)," in IEEE T&D Conference, 1999.

[2] CIGRE Working Group 33-01, "Guide to Procedures for Estimating the

Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines," CIGRE Brochure 63,

1991.

[3] T. E. McDermott and V. J. Longo, "Advanced computational methods

in lightning performance the EPRI Lightning Protection Design

Workstation," Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, 2000. IEEE,

2000.

[4] Y. A. Wahab, Z. Z. Abidin, and S. Sadovic, "Line surge arrester

application on the quadruple circuit transmission line," Power Tech

Conference Proceedings, 2003 IEEE Bologna, 2003.

[5] W. A. Chisholm, Y. L. Chow, and K. D. Srivastava, "Travel Time of

Transmission Towers," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and

Systems, vol. PAS-104, pp. 2922-2928, 1985.

[6] U. Savadamuthu, K. Udayakumar, and V. Jayashankar, "Modified

disruptive effect method as a measure of insulation strength for non-

standard lightning waveforms," Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on,

vol. 17, pp. 510-515, 2002.

[7] "IEEE guide for improving the lightning performance of transmission

lines," IEEE Std 1243-1997, 1997.

[8] S. Sadovic, R. Joulie, S. Tartier, and E. Brocard, "Use of line surge

arresters for the improvement of the lightning performance of 63 kV

and 90 kV shielded and unshielded transmission lines," Power

Delivery, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 12, pp. 1232-1240, 1997.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on March 4, 2009 at 11:15 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

- Summary of Insulation Coordination StandardUploaded byAhsan Mubashir
- Cable FittingsUploaded bypvkrishnaji
- IEEE Std C57.21Uploaded byRicardo Rivas Zuñiga
- Insulation Enhancement SystemUploaded byram_kisna007
- BridgeUploaded byArijit Singh
- Transmission LinesUploaded byfrimponge
- 02-LineConstants Siemens.pptUploaded byArmando Amaral
- V-2186-004-A-111 Data Sheet for Telecom Tower ANDRY Rev.02Uploaded byahmad kusuma
- InsulatorsUploaded byEdison Selvaraj
- TRANSMISSION-LINE-COMMISSIONING-Publication_No.292.pdfUploaded bymohit mudgal
- Guidelines to the Construction of a Low-Voltage Assembly Complying With the Standards IEC 61439 Part 1 and Part 2Uploaded bysmpasane
- Earthing Design Calculation AlstomUploaded byashish saha
- Dead Tank and Live TankUploaded bylalith kumar
- VD from1119 to 300619 181231 final vendor directory.pdfUploaded byAnonymous jCIrzhhR
- trf-template2006final_iecUploaded byAnanda Fitriani
- summary_of_operation.pdfUploaded byGhassen Laouini
- 76-09 (1)Uploaded bysajuaanalsa
- insu-tapeUploaded byyavuz772
- InsulatorUploaded byMuhammad Aftabuzzaman
- Accesories for Medium Voltage Distribution NetworkUploaded byFederico
- Motor - Medium VoltageUploaded bywfjerr
- Transformer Oil Tester Series IIJ-IIUploaded byJosé Roberto Escobar Urbina
- 130010109054_2150908Uploaded byNewCandle
- ElectronicsUploaded byVijin P Chandran
- Docdownloader.com Electrical Thumb Rules Part 1Uploaded byGurme santoshkumar
- APP Megohm PoorMansStepTestUploaded byCarlos
- 230kv Gis Vt Ind Test ReportUploaded byAe Suwaphan
- Llm HelicopterUploaded byvihang
- Finite Element Response SensivityUploaded byBMWrider1453
- Syscal Switch SummaryUploaded byLuis Trigueros Ramos

- Accelerating the Vehicle Development Process by Employing EMI and EMC Numerical Analysis Assisted by High Performance ComputingUploaded byBernardo NG
- Accurate Modelling of Frequency-Dependent Transmission Lines in Electromagnetic Transient SimulationsUploaded byBernardo NG
- Connected Car InfographicUploaded byBernardo NG
- Automotive EMC Analysis Using the Hybrid Finite Element Boundary Integral ApproachUploaded byBernardo NG
- Automotive Component EMC Testing 2011Uploaded byBernardo NG
- Comparison of Surge Arrester ModelsUploaded byBernardo NG

- LC3237D62UUploaded byJohn Pallissard
- Timer LavarropasUploaded bytesaurus
- 12607552.pdfUploaded byDanail Dachev
- SLIIT Y3E1 Embedded Systems Engineering Project - Home Automation System using MSP430Uploaded byShalitha Madhawa
- DAR Plus Operator_s Guide 400468-1 Rev CUploaded byEduardo Cudia
- PillerUploaded byEnrique Ribero
- STW21NM50N MOSFETUploaded byrigow
- Thomson DPL5000HTUploaded byZeljko
- Electricity Basics WsUploaded bylp456
- Mobile HardwereUploaded byanil8481
- OPGWOPPCUploaded byBogdan Bunea
- 2287275 89178002EN Manual - Short Instructions 917 CoulometerUploaded byLam Ah Kao
- Ups Powercom Kin-1000apUploaded byvhanzu
- LEP4201_00 Electrical Fields and Potentials in the Plate CapacitorUploaded byArturo Mendoza
- ISD1700Uploaded byKevin De La Cruz
- 00-SAIP-51Uploaded byRodolius Libao
- Free Electronic Circuits & 8085 Projects » Blog Archive Arrange in Ascending Order - Free Electronic Circuits & 8085 ProjectsUploaded byMayankLamba
- Coleman 58013 Owners ManualUploaded by21st-Century-Goods.com
- 113329265-Automotive-Equipment-eBook-Krisbow.pdfUploaded byRio Andreas Nainggolan
- TTester_1.10k_EN_140409-1Uploaded byDomingo Arroyo
- APM2301AAC-TR.pdfUploaded bynishatiwari82
- 6SE7087-6CX86-2AA0Uploaded byYahyaMoummou
- Simulation Model of Hydro Power Plant Using Matlab New.lijalemUploaded byMarsilasDarsema
- DataComHW4MaykieUploaded byMaykie W.A.
- Mat InfoUploaded byVaneet Thakur
- SSR-tech-01Uploaded bySenSeiMK
- Technical data.docUploaded bySaeedAhmedKhan
- ACS_FiberOpticUploaded byDinesh Reddy
- Experiment 24 Electric Equipotentials and FieldsUploaded byTomás Rojas
- 5BH TIUploaded byalguna54