+ 1
I
E
R
g
o
o
1
2
2
55
simulate the coupling effects of conductors to the tower
structure. Typical capacitance values for suspension insula
tors are of the order of some 10 pF [29,30], while for pin
insulators, the capacitance is around 100 pF/unit. Ten sus
pension insulators in a string has an equivalent capacitance of
8/10 = 80 pF/string. The value of 80 pF per unit was used in
a study conducted by several of the authors in which transient
study calculations were compared with high voltage impulse
tests. The tests were performed on a fullscale substation
mock up consisting of strain and rigid bus work, disconnect
switches and suspension and post insulators [2,32]. With the
selected capacitance values, good agreement was obtained
between the test and computer simulation results [2]. Capaci
tance values for nonceramic insulators are an order of mag
nitude less for comparable ceramic insulators.
The backflashover or flashover mechanism of the
insulators can be represented by volttime curves. The volt
time characteristics of insulators can be represented as a
function of insulator length [1]. The insulator flashover volt
age can be calculated using Eq. (33) during the simulation,
and compared to the actual insulator voltage. If the insulator
voltage exceeds this voltage, a flashover occurs across the
insulator. The front time for the arcing can be quite steep,
(around 20 ns) and is determined by the physics of air gap
breakdown. For a simplified analysis, a detailed arcing
model for flashover is not necessary, and a shortcircuit (ideal
switch) representation will be adequate.
(3.3)
where:
V
vt
=Flashover voltage, kV
K
1
=400*L
K
2
=710*L
L=Insulator length, m
t=Elapsed time after lightning stroke, s
In EMTP, the volttime characteristics are modeled
using Transient Analysis of Control Systems (TACS) routine,
for the insulators that are likely to flashover at each tower.
These insulators have a voltage controlled switch across the
capacitor in their EMTP models which is closed automati
cally when the insulator voltage exceeds the flashover volt
age cal cul at ed f r om vol t  t i me cur ve, si mul at i ng a
backflashover or a flashover. The startup time (i.e., zero
time) for the volttime characteristics must be synchronized
to the instant that lightning stroke hits the shielding wire or
the tower top. Note that multiple flashovers at consecutive
towers are also possible, which are likely to reduce the peak
overvoltages. It is recommended to represent all the insula
tors that are on the path of lightning surge with their volttime
characteristics for accurate calculation of the overvoltages.
Breakdown volttime characteristics of air gaps and
insulator strings have been of interest to many researchers
and a large volume of experimental work has been reported,
as described above. The problem, however, is that knowl
edge of the performance of insulation under the stress of the
standard impulse is not sufficient to predict the performance
of i nsul at i on exposed to any nonst andard l ight ni ng
impulse. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to assume that flash
over will occur when a voltage wave just exceeds the volt
time curve at any time. The experimental volttime charac
teristic is only adequate for relating the peak of the standard
impulse voltage to the time of flashover. In order to obtain
correct results at all times to flashover, further modifications
to volttime curve would be required. Other factors which
call for investigation beyond volttime curve are given in [1].
Additional information on VoltTime Curves are given in the
discussions and closure of a paper published by Front Tran
sients Task Force[35].
Generally, when producing hand calculations addi
tional exploration and modifications of volttime curves may
not be worth the effort if some corrective multipliers can be
used instead. In complex programs, like EMTP, accurate rep
resentation of the short and long air gap (insulator strings and
spark gaps) breakdown subject to standard and nonstandard
lightning impulses is necessary for insulation coordination
studies. Two alternatives are possible to overcome the short
comings of volttime characteristics. The first is to produce
experimentally flashover characteristics for surges of all
kinds and shapes that may occur in practice. The second is to
develop an analytical procedure to predict the performance of
insulation as a function of impulse voltage waveform, time to
flashover, gap configuration and others. The first alternative
may be difficult, if not impossible, simply because the light
ning overvoltages may be too large for available generators to
reproduce them. Therefore, the second alternative seems to
be more attractive especially if the EMTP type models devel
oped can be validated by tests performed in the high voltage
laboratories.
Fig. 3.3 Impedance Model of a WoodPorcelain Combination. (Switches
close after flashover)
The Integration Methods  Various approaches
have been proposed to evaluate the strength of the insulation
V K
K
t
v t
+
1
2
0 75 .
56
under the lightning overvoltages. The approaches may be
grouped into two main categories. The first is the integration
methods which employ the equalarea criterion to determine
the time to breakdown. The basic principles is to integrate
the difference between the applied voltage and a constant
voltage in time. Breakdown is assumed to take place when
the integral reaches a fixed value depending on gap configu
ration and voltage polarity. As seen from Eq. (34) describ
ing the integral, this approach enables to take into account
the applied voltage waveform of any shape.
(3.4)
The values DI, U and k (in most cases k is different
from unity) need still to fit the standard 1.2 ?s x 50 ?s
impulse volttime curve in the following manner. Three
points on the volttime curve have to be known, and then
parameters DI, U and k are determined by solving a nonlin
ear system of three equations with three unknowns. Refer
ence voltage U corresponds approximately to the voltage
defining the dielectric withstand of an air gap subjected to a
standard lightning impulse of positive polarity defined in
[21]:
(3.5)
where U
50
is the mean value of breakdown voltage
and is the standard deviation.
The EMTP model based on this method has some
limitations. It has been reported that for longer gaps (2m or
longer) parameters DI, U and k cannot be determined
because the algorithm for solving the system of three nonlin
ear equations with three unknowns no longer converges [21].
Therefore, the model is suitable only for shorter gaps. Fur
thermore, various studies show that Eq. (34) is valid only for
limited conditions [22,23]. For example, it cannot take into
account the geometry of the electrodes, whereas, it is well
known that different overvoltages are obtained for rodrod
and rodplane gaps. Experimental results reported in [25]
indicate that 50% breakdown voltage U
50
, obtained for wave
form similar to standard impulse, is 60% lower than the
breakdown voltage produced with identical impulse but
chopped at certain level. The 60% ratio (for standard wave
form and chopped one) applies to positive rodplane gaps,
decreases with negative polarity to 24% and again is different
for rodrod gap configuration (40% and 33% for positive and
negative impulses, respectively).
The Leader Development Method  The second
method, classified as a physical approach, is the leader devel
opment method. Special consideration is given to breakdown
parameters and to physical aspects associated with the dis
charge mechanism. The method is partially based on experi
mental results which, in turn, lead to some analytical
formulations.
By solving a set of differential equations leader
development is calculated, and then volttime breakdown
characteristic is obtained in a numerical process which from
physical standpoint can be described as follows. When the
applied impulse attains a certain value, streamers develop
from the rod into the gap space. Once the streamers cross the
gap, ionizing waves propagate along the streamer channel
until they reach the relatively high conductive zone near the
electrode. At that time the leader starts to develop and pro
gressively bridges the whole gap. Depending upon gap
arrangement and polarity, both phases (streamer and leader)
can develop only from one or either electrodes. When the
gap is closed by the leader and the applied voltage is still
high enough, intense ionizing waves lead to the arc develop
ment which completes the breakdown.
In the numerical algorithm, first the leader velocity
is empirically formulated as a function of the applied voltage,
leader length, gap length, gap geometry and electric field
intensity with two contributing factors, i.e., leader core and
corona cloud. Then this equation is combined with the cir
cuit equation determined by the experimental condition and
solved numerically in a time step loop until the breakdown as
described below.
From [4], the t ime t o breakdown (t
c
) can be
expressed as:
t
c
= t
i
+ t
s
+ t
l
(3.6)
where:
t
i
=Corona inception time, assumed zero
t
s
=Streamer propagation time
t
l
=Leader propagation time
For t
s
:
(3.7)
where:
t
s
=Streamer propagation time, ?sec
E=Maximum gradient in gap before breakdown,
kV/m
E
50
=Average gradient at CFO voltage, kV/m
For t
l
:
(3.8)
where:
V(t)=Voltage across gap, kV
L=Leader length, m
g=Gap length, m
and
DI ty U t U dt
k
to
td
( ( ) ' )
U U U ' ( . ) .
50 50
1 2 5 0 96
1
125 0 95
50
t
E
E
s
_
,
. .
( )
( ) dL
dt
K V t
V t
g L
E
o
1
]
1
1
57
Using the differential equation of (38), the leader
length can be solved as a function of time. The breakdown
occurs when the leader length L is equal to gap length g
and the corresponding time specifies the t
l
in Eq. (36).
This method can yield the breakdown volttime
characteristics of a long gap with any impulse wave in
extremely short time (e.g., less than 1 ?sec impulse rise time).
It can be applied to a very wide range of experimental condi
tions such as gap configuration (rodplane and rodrod),
impulse voltage polarity (positive and negative), any impulse
voltage waveform, and a gap length up to 7m. It has been
reported [24, 26] that calculations of leader development and
breakdown volttime characteristics were carried out and
results were compared with experimental results obtained by
authors, as well as, previously published by other research
ers. Very good agreement was obtained for various gap con
fi gurations wit h vari ous volt age waveforms. Further
investigation of associated physical phenomena is expected
in the future.
3.1.4 Corona
It has been well known for some time that corona
has a significant effect on overvoltage surges associated with
lightning strikes to overhead lines [5, 711]. The important
work carried out by Wagner, Cross and Lloyd
[7] resulted in
the following important conclusions concerning corona
effects:
1.For high magnitude positive surges, the corona effect is
independent of the conductor size and geometry. The same
applies for negative polarity surges except for one conductor
size (24 millimeter diameter).
2.For low voltages, the effect differs due to different corona
inception voltages.
3.Weather conditions have no significant impact on corona
distortion.
4.The coupling factor between phases increases with
increasing surge voltage.
5.The tail of the surge is not influenced by corona.
The essence of the corona effect on the impulse is the
introduction of a time delay to the front of the impulse
corresponding to the loss of energy necessary to form the
corona space charge around the conductor. The time delay
introduced by corona takes effect above the coronainception
voltage (V
i
) and varies with surge magnitude. This variation
with voltage can be expressed as a voltagedependent
capacitance (C
k
) which is added to the geometrical capacitance
of the transmission line.
The coronainception voltage (V
i
) for a single conductor
above earth is given by the streamer approach as follows [1]:
(3.9)
where:
r = Conductor radius, cm
h = Conductor height, cm
The modeling details of corona can be expressed by curves of
charge (q) versus impulse voltage (V). These q/V curves can
be divided into three parts:
1.Below corona inception, the q/V curve is a straight line
determined by the geometrical capacitance.
2.Above coronainception V
i
, the q/V curve shows an initial
capacitance jump (C
i
)
plus an increase in capacitance which is
voltage dependent as long as the voltage is increasing.
3.For decreasing voltages, the q/V curve again is practically
determined by the geometrical capacitance.
The excess capacitance (C
k
) to be added during the second
stage of the q/V curve is given by [4]:
(3.10)
where:
C
i
=Initial capacitance jump, constant
K=Corona constant
V
i
=Corona inception voltage, kV
V=Instantaneous impulse voltage, kV
and the sum of the excess capacitance (C
k
) and geometric
capacitance (C
g
) is the dynamic capacitance (C
dyn
):
C
dyn
= C
k
+ C
g
(3.11)
The corona constant K varies with conductor diameter and the
number of subconductors as well as the polarity of the applied
surge voltage. For a 31mm conductor diameter, the constant
varies from 4.8 x 10
3
pF/kVm for a single conductor and
positive polarity surges to 2.4 x 10
3
pF/kVm for 8
Configuration Polarity
K
m
kV
2
2
sec
1
]
1
E
kV
m
o
1
]
1
Air Gaps, Post
Insulators
Positive
Negative
0.8
1.0
600
670
Cap and Pin
Insulators
Positive
Negative
1.2
1.3
520
600
( ) ( ) [ ]
V r r
h
r
kV
i
+
_
,
23 1 122
2
0 37
. ln
.
( )
C C K V V
k i i
+
58
subconductors and positive polarity surges. For negative
polarity surges, the constant is approximately half of these
values.
Fig. 3.4 Linear Corona Model
The coupling factor between phases increases due to corona
and is given by:
(3.12)
In this equation, K
c
is the coupling factor in corona, K
g
is the
geometric coupling factor, and C
g
is the geometric capacitance
[4]. K
g
is calculated using the method in [1].
Corona models such as the linear one suggested in Figure 3.4
can be used to model the dynamic capacitance region of the q/
V curve in a piecewise linear fashion [8,9]. However, a
number of problems remain:
1.The model is constructed of lumped elements and must,
therefore, be lumped at sufficiently small intervals along the
line that error introduced by the discretization is minimal. A
minimum interval length of 50 meters has been suggested,
however, smaller intervals are likely necessary.
2.The model does not adequately address corona in a multi
phase calculation. Here, the voltage dependence of the corona
should be transformed into a charge dependence, because
corona depends on the electric field around the conductor.
3.The available data on corona parameters of actual three
phase overhead lines is insufficient to enable general practical
application of these type of models.
Until better data is available along with complete models in
such programs as the EMTP, the approach of Weck can be
used to estimate the variation of the steepness of lightning
overvoltages impacting on substations with travel length [5].
His approach relies upon the observation that for voltages
substantially higher than the coronainception level, the time
delay as a function of travel distance, becomes linear, that is,
in this region, the steepness of the overvoltage is independent
of the voltage value. This yields the following relationship:
(3.13)
where S
o
is the original steepness of the overvoltage, S is the
new steepness after the waveform travels for a distance d, and
A is a constant. The constant A is a function of a line geometry
only and is dependent as well on surge polarity. Typical values
are given in Reference [5].
Although corona effects may reduce the peak of lightning
related overvoltages by 5  20% [9], in some studies corona is
neglected in order to be on the pessimistic side. The
complexity of corona modeling and associated burden on the
computer CPU time are the other reasons for such an approach.
3.2. Substation
The overall substation models are derived from the substation
layout drawings. The views from all three ordinal directions
are very beneficial to locate the exact position of substation
equipment.
3.2.1 Buswork and Conductors
The buswork and conductors between the discontinuity points
inside the substation, and connections between the substation
equipment are explicitly represented by line sections. These
line sections are modeled by untransposed distributed
parameter sections with modal surge impedances, if they are
longer than 3m; otherwise, a lumped parameter inductance of
1.0 ?H/m is used. The line parameters can be calculated using
a line constants EMTP routine. Note that the minimum
conductor length with distributed parameter representation
dictates the simulation time step. In some studies, busbar
sections longer than 15m are modeled with distributed
parameters to increase the simulation time step. However,
caution must be exercised when performing lightning
overvoltage calculations for GasInsulated Substations (GIS).
Since the surge impedance of the gasinsulated buswork (GIB)
is considerably smaller than the surge impedance of the air
insulated line or buswork, typically about 60 ohms, traveling
wave reflection at the GIB entrance could rapidly result in
sizable overvoltages at the open disconnect position within the
GIB (i.e., due to multiple reflections). In such scenarios it is
critical not to assume a lumped model for the GIB, regardless
of the length.
Cables are represented by distributed parameter line sections.
Typical surge impedance valves are between 3060 ohms with
velocity of propagation equal to 1/3 to 1/2 of speed of light.
K K C C
c g k g
/ / + 1
S
S
A d
o
+
1
1
59
Fig. 3.5 Circuit Breaker Representations and Capacitance to Ground Valves
for Various Substation Equipment
3.2.2 Substation Equipment
The substation equipment, such as circuit breakers,
substation transformers, and instrument transformers, are
represented by their stray capacitances to ground. The capac
itance of CVTs should also be represented. Figure 3.5 sum
marizes circuit breaker circuit diagrams and minimum
capacitance values used in lightning studies for different
types of substation equipment, when the actual data is not
available. These data are based on supplier information, and
only the lowest values are reported as a pessimistic assump
tion. If the disconnect switches or breakers have more than
one support, appropriate capacitances should be added to the
model. Furthermore, if some of the substation equipment are
close to each other, such as closer than 3m to 5m, their capac
itances can be grouped together for simplification. The open/
close status of circuit breakers/switches should be consid
ered, and can be represented by ideal switches.
Line traps are not necessarily found on every phase.
Most line traps have a small distribution arrester in parallel
with protection, which pass through a lightning surge.
In lightning studies, conducted to design trans
former protection at the terminals against high voltage, high
frequency disturbances, the most conservative and therefore
pessimistic approach would be to represent the transformer
as an open circuit. To increase the level of accuracy when
setting up a terminal model of a transformer, it is recom
mended to account for the capacitance of the winding and the
capacitance of the bushing to which the winding is con
nected. Values of the winding capacitance, supplied by IEEE
Working Group on Transient Recovery Voltages, together
with capacitance values for outdoor bushings are presented in
[28]. A resistance equal to the surge impedance of the wind
ing can be placed across the capacitance.
The model can be enhanced by adding the inductive
transformer model and relevant capacitances between wind
ings, windings to core and windings to ground as well as
bushing capacitances. The winding and core capacitances
constitute together a crude potential divider in which the volt
age divides inversely to the capacitance. Capacitances can be
determined from the geometry of the coil and core structure,
or from manufacturers and tables. The model is used to cal
culate the surge transfer from windingtowinding as in the
case of generator (or motor) protection studies.
Recently developed transformer model, described
in [16], can accurately determine how a voltage applied to
one set of terminals is transferred to another set of terminals.
This model duplicates the transformer behavior, over a wide
range of frequencies and acts like a filter suppressing some
frequencies and passing others. The use of frequency depen
dent transformer model is important when determining the
surge that appears on a generator bus when a steepfronted
surge impinges on the high voltage terminals of the generator
stepup transformer. The model presented in [28] allows the
simulation of any type of multiphase, multiwinding trans
former as long as its frequency characteristics are known
either from measurements or from calculations based on the
physical layout of the transformer.
The substation modeling approach outlined above
is much easier and quicker to implement as compared to a
simplified approach described in literature in which the bus
work is represented by distributed parameter lines between
major discontinuities inside the substation, and the line
parameters are modified to include the capacitance of the
substation equipment, if the total capacitance is less than
1000 ?F. In this approach, if the total equipment capaci
tances are larger than 1000 ?F, explicit lumped capacitance
representation for the power system equipment must be used.
3.2.3 Insulators and Bus Support Structures
The bus support structures are represented by a dis
tributed parameter model with surge impedances calculated
from the structure geometry, and with velocity of propagation
equal to the speed of light, similar to the transmission line
bus tower models [1]. Typical bus support configurations are
shown in Fig. 3.6. The representative grounding resistance
inside the substations is usually between 0.1 to 1 ohms.
Comparative simulations showed that the support structures
do not have much impact on the simulation results, and can
510
be neglected. However, the capacitance to ground of all insu
lators should be represented, since the substation capacitance
is one of the critical parameters that modify lightning surge
waveshapes.
Fig. 3.6 Insulator and Bus Support Structure Representation. Bus Support
Structure: a. Common to All Phases. b. Individual for Each Phase.
3.3. Surge Arresters
The voltagecurrent characteristics of metaloxide
surge arresters are a function of incoming surge steepness.
Protective characteristics for surge arresters showing crest
discharge voltage versus timetocrest of discharge voltages
are available from manufacturers [12]. The arresters can be
modeled as nonlinear resistors with 8 x 20 ?s maximum volt
agecurrent characteristics. An iterative nonlinear resistor is
preferable. The pseudo nonlinear resistor should be avoided
if possible, especially in simulations that involve high fre
quencies or backflashovers. This is due to the fact that the
solution algorithm allows for an incorrect operating point for
one timestep while switching from one segment to another
on the piecewise linear representation of the current versus
voltage characteristics. Note that the nonlinear arrester char
acteristics need to be modeled up to at least 20 to 40 kA,
since high current surges initiated by close backflashovers
can result in arrester discharge currents above 10 kA. The
arrester lead lengths at the top and at the bottom must be con
sidered to account for the effects of additional voltage rise
across the lead inductance. A lumped element representation
with an inductance of 1.0 ?H/m will be sufficient.
It is a well known fact that, unlike the resistive ele
ments, experimentally obtained arrester terminal voltage and
current do not reach their peak values at the same time. The
frequency dependent characteristics of arresters may be of
significant importance when excited by fast transient surges.
There have been few attempts to produce frequency depen
dent surge arrester models such as the model suggested by
IEEE Surge Arrester Committee which is fairly accurate for a
wide range of surge wavefronts [13,33]. The drawbacks of
this model are the increased computational time due to sev
eral nonlinear elements, and the difficulty in choosing the
parameters of the model.
A new surge arrester model which can reproduce
metal oxide surge arrester characteristics over a wide range
of frequencies such as lightning, switching, and temporary
overvoltage curves is described in Reference [2]. The model
includes only one nonlinear element, thereby, expected to be
computationally efficient. The detailed circuit diagram along
with typical parameters for this model is provided in [2].
The high voltage terminals of transformers are gen
erally protected by surge arresters. Additional arresters may
be necessary at the line entrance and at intermediate loca
tions inside the substation depending upon the BIL require
ments. In substation design studies, the optimum location of
the arresters inside the substation is one of the outcomes of
the study. In all studies, the energy through the arresters
must be monitored, and verified that the maximum allowed
energy dissipation is not exceeded. Furthermore, if the
arrester current increases beyond 40 kA, it may create hot
spots in the blocks due to high rate of rise times associated
with backflashovers.
3.4. Sources
3.4.1 Initial Conditions
The instant of lightning stroke with respect to the
instantaneous steadystate ac voltage must be coordinated to
maximize its impact for worst case conditions. This can be
achieved by properly selecting the magnitude and phasing of
the threephase sinusoidal voltage sources at the terminating
point of the transmission lines.
In transmission line design studies, one of the
objectives is to determine the highest line outage rate which
is generally maximized by finding the minimum critical
lightning current that causes insulator backflashovers. The
insulator stress is a combination of the voltage due to light
ning current and the powerfrequency voltage. If the light
ning hits the tower when the contribution of ac power
frequency voltage to the insulation stress is maximum, the
backflashover can occur with a smaller lightning current.
Since smaller magnitude lightning currents are more proba
ble, the possibility of line outage due to backflashovers
increases. In general, the outer conductors in a transmission
line will experience the highest insulation stress since the
coupled voltage on these conductors are lower than the inner
511
conductors. Thus, while setting the initial magnitude and
angle of the ac power frequency voltage, the phase which is
most likely to flashover due to relative conductor position
must be selected. For a negative polarity lightning stroke,
+1.05 pu (opposite polarity) ac voltage will maximize the
insulation stress and thereby the line outage rate. The slope
of the insulator voltage versus time characteristics together
with the front time of the lightning stroke are some of the
parameters that may cause slight deviations in this recom
mended voltage to obtain the worst case conditions.
In substation design studies, it is desirable to maxi
mize the steepness and magnitude of the linetoground volt
age surges toward the substation. The steepness is directly
related to the arcing mechanism across the flashing insulator
while the magnitude jumps up to the tower top voltage after
the backflashover. Thus, if the tower voltage has sufficient
time to build up before the backflashover, the worst case
overvoltages can be observed. Setting the magnitude of the
power frequency voltage to +0.5 pu for a negative polarity
lightning strike will minimize the insulator stress and delay
the backflashover which will maximize the voltage surge.
Other power frequency voltages will cause earlier backflash
overs on the other phases. Note that under these conditions,
two of the phases may backflashover at the same time due to
similar voltages across the insulators, and give the impression
of reduced current and/or energy at the substation arresters
due to current sharing which may not be the case in reality.
3.4.2 Lightning Stroke
The lightning stroke is represented by a current
source of negative polarity. The parameters of a lightning,
such as crest, front time, maximum current steepness, and
duration, are determined by a statistical approach considering
the ground flash density at the location. These parameters
are all statistical in nature, and are also used in calculation of
LFOR and MTBF. They are generally characterized by log
normal distributions. Note that the peak current is statisti
cally related to the steepness or time to crest of the current
wave form. The steepness increases as the peak current
increases, however, the front time increases as well with peak
current. The detailed calculation procedure for these parame
ters is shown in the CIGRE Guide, Reference [4].
A rigorous approach would require the front of the
lightning current source to be upwardly concave, however,
for practical purposes, a linearly rising front at the selected
maximum current steepness is sufficient. In this case, a nega
tive triangular wave shape for the lightning current source
can be selected. Note that the double exponential impulse
model given in EMTP should be used only with caution since
this model does not accurately reflect the concave wave
shape of the wave front. Typical lightning current values for
backflashovers and direct strokes are discussed below.
Backflashover  Lightning strokes of high magni
tude, in the range of 20 kA up to values rarely exceeding 200
kA, cause the backflashovers. In this current range, median
front times (30%  90%) range from about 3 ?s at 20 kA to
about 8 ?s at 200 kA. Maximum current steepness ranges
from about 20 kA/?s at 20 kA to about 48 kA/?s at 200 kA [4,
20].
Direct Lightning Stroke  Lightning strokes of
amplitude below the critical shielding current, generally less
than 20 kA, can bypass the overhead shield wires and strike
directly on the phase conductors. The maximum lightning
current that can strike the phase conductors of any given
overhead transmission line can be predicted by using the
methods recommended by the IEEE Working Group on the
Estimation of Lightning Performance of Overhead Lines
[14]. The recommended method employs a modified electro
geometric model for the case of perfect shielding. As dis
cussed in Reference [1], it can be shown that the maximum
shielding failure current is equal to:
(3.14)
where:
(3.15)
and
Y
o
= (Y
G
+ Y
C
)/2
A
s
=m
2
 m
2
2

2
B
s
= (m
2
+ 1)
C
s
=(m
2
+ 1)
m=(X
C
 X
G
)/(Y
G
 Y
C
)
Coefficient is less than 1.0 and its value is
reduced when the height of the phase wires is increased. In
Reference [1], the adopted values are expressed in terms of
the voltage of the line =0.8 for EHV lines and =0.67 for
UHV lines. In Reference [34], is taken as a continuous
function of the height of the phase wires:
=.36 + .168 1n (43  Y
O
) for Y
O <
40m(316)
where X
C
and X
G
are the horizontal positions, and
Y
C
and Y
G
are the vertical positions for the phase conductor
and ground wire, respectively.
For the unshielded lines, insulation coordination
studies are generally performed with the highest direct stroke
current that a phase conductor can receive without creating a
flashover of the tower insulation (CFO + 3).
In regard to the typical current amplitudes involved
in backflashovers and in direct strikes, the following should
be noted:
I S
max
.
. 0029
1 54
S Y
B B A C
A
o
s s s s
s
_
,
2
512
a)Regardless of mechanism by which a lightning
voltage surge is generated (backflash or direct strike), the
maximum amplitude of the surge may be taken equal to 1.2 x
CFO, where CFO is the critical flashover voltage of the insu
lation. The 1.2 multiplier accounts for two effects:
i)the fact that the CFO is a median value and hence
the insulation can carry higher voltages 50% of the time, and
ii) the CFO is based on the standard 1.2 x 50 ?s
impulse waveform. The withstand voltage will hence be
higher for steeper fronts and may also be higher for some
nonstandard waveforms.
b) In determining the maximum stroke current
which can cause shielding failures, References [1] and [34]
use a model in which the striking distance to ground is taken
equal to S, where S is the striking distance to the wires, and
= 1.0 is a factor which is a function of either the voltage or
the height of the phase wires. As noted in the discussion of
[14] by A. Mousa, varying with voltage (or height of the
conductors) produces results which are inconsistent with the
physics of the problem. Reference [31] presents a revised
electrogeometric model in which the striking distance to
ground is kept constant. This second approach is more con
sistent with the physics of the problem.
3.5.Time Step and Simulation Time
The accuracy of the digital simulation can be affected by the
use of a time step that is too large or too small. The timestep
selection depends upon the steepness of the surge, the
minimum length of traveling wave models, plus the use of
flashover gaps and surge arresters with significant lead
lengths. As a general guide:
range of time step = 1 to 20 ns; typical = 5 ns
range of simulation length = 20 to 50 s, typical 40 s
4. MODEL VALIDATION
4.1. Field Tests
One of the specific goals of an EPRI investigation was to study
and model the type of transient which is generated during a
backflashover of transmission line insulation in close
proximity to a substation [2,18]. The flashover initiates a
steepfronted surge, the existence of which is important to the
insulation design of substation in the voltage range up to 242
kV. A fullscale mockup of a 115 kV rated (550 kV BIL)
substation was constructed at EPRIs High Voltage
Transmission Research Center (HVTRC) in Lenox,
Massachusetts, to investigate the behavior of nonstandard
voltage impulses on substation insulation [2,18]. In the
substation, the phasephase and phaseground clearances,
amount and type of insulation was reproduced according to
standard design procedures of a utility which participated in
the study. The substation contained a combination of
795 kcmil aluminum strain bus and 5" diameter aluminum
rigid bus with various types of insulators, capandpin
switches, station post insulators, and 7 standard 5.75"
suspension insulators on strain bus deadends. The switches
were installed to provide reflections under different operating
modes as well as realistic substation equipment gap
configurations. Other typical substation air gaps (rodrod,
ringring, and conductorstructure) were also incorporated
into the substation design.
High voltage flashover tests were conducted by applying
phasetoground and phasetophase impulses. The impulses
were generated by discharging a bank of capacitors into the
tertiary winding of a singlephase autotransformer and then
through a peaking gap and capacitor which resulted in an
impulse having a shape of 0.2/200 ?s applied to the test object.
4.2. Substation Modeling and Model Validation
Computer simulations of several flashover tests
were performed for benchmarking the substation model
using EPRI version 1.0 of the EMTP. The substation mockup
and test circuit were modeled based on guidelines similar to
the ones described in this paper. Modeling of the individual
elements was as detailed as possible. For example, even the
shortest connections between two insulator supports were
represented by distributed parameters; ground mode attenua
tions were modeled; the stray capacitance of each insulator
was also modeled.
The phase conductors were represented using a line
model which takes into account the distributed nature of the
phase conductors. It also reflects the dependence of the line
toground coupling and of the earths damping on the spec
tral contents of the surge. The insulators are represented by
capacitances, and three different types of insulators were
used in the substation (capandpin, station post, and suspen
sion), each of which has a different stray capacitance. The
nodes, where the insulators are connected together on the
support structure, are connected to the grounding cable by
copper conductors. This cable was part of the line setup;
therefore, it was represented as distributed parameter line
segments. The grounding cable was solidly grounded at the
substation entrance. The grounding conductors, which con
nected the towers to the grounding cable, were represented
with lumped linear elements. More detailed information
concerning the model is available in Reference [2].
The incoming voltage surge waveshape was mod
eled in as much detail as possible. The substation stress is
given by the voltage impinging on the substation from an
incoming line. The steep voltage entering the substation is
assumed to be the result of a backflashover of the line insula
tion in close proximity to the substation. The magnitude of
the voltage is limited by lightning arresters at the substation
entrance. These conditions were represented in the computer
study.
Good agreement was found between the calculated
513
voltage waveforms, as determined by EMTP, and oscillo
grams obtained by direct measurements of the impulses in
the substation. Therefore, it was concluded that the bench
marking was satisfactory. More detailed information con
cer ni ng t he compari son bet ween measur ement s and
calculations is available in Reference [2].
5. CASE STUDY
The modeling guidelines described in this paper are
applied in a system study where a lightning surge analysis of
an uprated substation is performed. The substation is uprated
from 115 kV to 230 kV maintaining 550 kV BIL insulation.
The specific objectives of the study are to evaluate the sever
ity of lightning overvoltages stressing the substation, and to
establish the extent of the overvoltage control required to
achieve the desired lightning performance. Overvoltage con
trol consists of selecting optimum rating and location for the
surge arresters inside the substation.
Previous work has shown that steep lightning over
voltages, caused by line insulation backflashovers close to
the substation, typically define the limiting scenarios for
insulation design of compact and uprated HV (i.e., up to
242 kV) substations. Computer simulations were performed
to investigate the overvoltages due to lightning strike at a
nearby tower. An enhanced version of the BPAs M39 EMTP
is used for the simulations described in this section.
5.1. Computer Model
Based on the guidelines described in this paper and
using the substation layout drawings, an EMTP model for the
230 kV, 550 kV BIL substation and its incoming transmis
sion lines were developed as shown in Figs. 5.1 and 5.2. In
the computer simulations, the lightning is assumed to strike
the first tower outside the substation on 230 kV line #2 at
tower T2. The lightning stroke is captured by the shield wire
at the point of connection to the tower (i.e., its highest point)
and is represented as a current source with a negative triangu
lar waveshape. The parameters of the lightning stroke, such
as crest, rise time, and duration, are determined considering
the line dimensions and lightning incidence data for the site
of the substation [3,4]. The lightning stroke parameters used
in this study are given below.
Peak Current=110 kA
Time to Crest=3 s
Half Time= 75 s
These parameters are based on the MTBF rate of
200 years for the substation. This assumes that substation
would fail, if a lightning more than 110 kA would strike the
first tower of either of the two incoming lines. The strikes
further away from the substation are less severe.
After the lightning stroke hits the shield wire, tower
top voltage increases, resulting in voltage rise across the
insulator strings supporting the phase conductors. There is a
50% probability of insulator flashover, if its voltage reaches
the critical flashover voltage (CFO). It is well recognized
that the flashover voltage is also dependent upon the steep
ness of the voltage; that is, insulator flashover voltage has
volttime dependency.
When the insulator flashover occurs, a surge with a
very steep front propagates through the multiconductor
transmission line toward the substation. The severity of the
overvoltages at the substation depends on how far the struck
tower is away from the substation. Further distances result in
less severe overvoltages due to stronger distortion and attenu
ation effects due to corona and ohmic resistance. In this
study, corona effects are neglected. This assumption was jus
tified since the lightning is assumed to have stricken the first
tower outside the substation for the base case. Also, protec
tive levels for line entrance arresters are below conductor
corona starting voltage.
TABLE 5.1
CRITICAL PARAMETERS FOR
LIGHTNING ANALYSIS
Base Case
Struck Tower; 1st, 2nd, or 3rd from the substation
Tower Resistance; 1550 ohms
Arrester Placement
Line Outages
Substation Equipment Outages, Transformer, Breaker,
etc.
Lightning Current Magnitude and Rise Time
Strike to shield for backflashover or simulate direct
strokes
The total EMTP simulation time was chosen to be
sufficiently large to observe the decaying of overvoltages and
reflections from the incoming lines. In this study, the maxi
mum simulation time is set to 20 s. The simulations are
performed with a 5 ns time step. Decreasing the time step
down to 1 ns gives almost identical results, indicating that the
selected time step is sufficiently small for the transients of
interest.
5.2. Case List
In order to cover various substation operating conditions, a
simulation case list is formed considering the system
contingencies and substation equipment outages for the worst
scenarios. A base case is defined for a comparative analysis
of system parameter variations. In the base case, surge
arresters are located at all 230 kV line entrances and at all
transformer locations; however, there are no bus arresters.
Furthermore, all incoming lines are assumed to be in service
without any substation equipment outages. Several
simulations are performed with different magnitudes and rise
times of lightning strokes hitting different towers away from
the substation entrance. The effects of tower footing
resistance variations are also considered. Table 5.1 shows a
list of important parameters to be considered in general
514
lightning analysis. Sensitivity studies with respect to these
variables within the applicable range of values are strongly
recommended.
5.3 Simulation Results
The simulation results are given in terms of plots of
waveforms for the important system variables, such as line
insulator voltages, phasetoground and phasetophase
voltages at towers, tower top voltages, and tower grounding
resistance voltages. Inside the substation, phasetoground
and phasetophase voltages at all equipment locations, at
minimum clearance points, and at midway between arresters
are provided, in addition to arrester voltage, current and energy
duties. Sample waveforms for the base case are provided in
Figs. 5.3 through 5.6.
A comprehensive set of lightning overvoltage studies are
performed to establish the minimum insulation requirements.
The effects of the lightning overvoltages on the equipment
BIL, minimum phasetoground and phasetophase
clearances, and surge arrester energy duties are evaluated for
several contingencies. In some of the cases simulated, it has
been observed that the BIL rating of the substation could be
exceeded. Additional simulation results showed that by
placing line entrance arresters overvoltage control inside the
substation can be accomplished. In overall conclusion,
application of 180 kV rated metal oxide arresters at both line
entrance and all transformer locations makes it feasible to
uprate the 550 kV BIL substation from 115 kV to 230 kV.
The following power system components may be the subject
of further research for possible improvements in the existing
models:
Corona Models for Transmission Lines
Frequency Dependent Models for DoubleCircuit Lines
Frequency Dependent Models for Cables
Models for Tall Towers
Fig. 5.1 Substation EMTP Model  Transmission Line Details.
515
Fig. 5.2 Substation EMTP Model  Substation Details
516
Fig. 5.3 230 kV Line Voltage Waveforms
Fig. 5.4 Struck Tower Voltage Waveforms
Fig. 5.3 230 kV Line Voltage Waveforms
Fig. 5.5 PhasetoGround Voltage Waveforms Inside the Substations
Fig. 5.6 Arrester Voltage, Current and Energy Waveformss
518
6. CONCLUSIONS
Modeling philosophy, simplified mathematical rela
tionships and typical data are presented for various power
system components in studies of fast front transients.
Although emphasis has been on lightning surge analysis of
transmission lines and substations, modeling guidelines are
applicable for similar phenomena having the same frequency
range (i.e., 10 kHz up to 1 MHz).
Examples where such modeling guidelines are
applicable include:
a) selection of surge arrester location and rating for
protection of transmission lines, as well as airinsulated and
gasinsulatedsubstation,
b) selection/verification of clearances within sub
stations and transmission towers (i.e., phasetoground and
phasetophase),
c) calculation of flashover rates or MTBF, etc Fur
ther illustration of the modeling guidelines has also been
demonstrated through a case study. Note that field test val
idation of the modeling guidelines is reported in Ref. [2].
Altogether, this report provides a working reference
document for engineers involved in electromagnetic tran
sients simulation of transmission and distribution systems.
7. REFERENCES
[1]Transmission Line Reference Book, 345 kV and Above,
Second Edition, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
California, 1982.
[2]EPRI Substation Voltage Uprating, Volumes I and II, EPRI
EL6474, April 1992.
[3]EPRI Substation Voltage Uprating Seminar, Denver, CO,
March 35, 1992.
[4]Guide to Procedures for Estimating the Lightning
Performance of Transmission Lines, CIGRE Working Group
3301 (Lightning) of Study
Committee 33 (Overvoltages and Insulation Coordination),
Paris, October, 1991.
[5]A.J. Eriksson and K.H. Weck, Simplified Procedures for
Determining Representative Substation Impinging Lightning
Overvoltages, Paper 3316, CIGRE, Paris, 1988.
[6]M. Khalifa, High Voltage Engineering, Marcel Dekker Inc.,
New York, 1990.
[7]C.F. Wagner, I.W. Cross, and B.L. Lloyd, High Voltage
Impulse Tests on Transmission Lines, AIEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS 73, pp. 196209,
1954.
[8]A. Ametani, and H. Motoyama, A Linear Corona Model,
EMTP Newsletter, 1987.
[9]H. Elahi, M. Sublich, M.E. Anderson, and B.D. Nelson,
Lightning Overvoltage Protection of the Paddock 362145
kV Gas Insulated Substation, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, Vol. PWRD5, pp. 144149, January 1990.
[10]K. C. Lee, NonLinear Corona Models in the
Electromagnetic Transient Program, IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS102, No. 9, pp.
29362942, September 1983. [9]H. Elahi, M. Sublich, M.E.
Anderson, and B.D. Nelson, Lightning Overvoltage
Protection of the Paddock 362145 kV Gas Insulated
Substation, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol.
PWRD5, pp. 144149, January 1990.
[10]K. C. Lee, NonLinear Corona Models in the
Electromagnetic Transient Program, IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS102, No. 9, pp.
29362942, September 1983.
[11]M.M. Suliciu, and I Suliciu, A Rate Type Constitutive
Equation for the Description of the Corona Effect, IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS
100, No. 8, pp. 36813685, August 1981.
[12]GE Tranquell XE Station Surge Arresters, Product and
Application Guide, 1986.
[13]IEEE Working Group 3.4.11, Application of Surge
Protection Devices Subcommittee, Surge Protection Devices
Committee, Modeling of Metal Oxide Surge Arrester, IEEE
Transactions on PWRD, Vol. 7, No. 1, January 1992.
[14]IEEE Working Group on the Estimation of Lightning
Performance of Overhead Lines, A Simplified Method for
Estimating Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines,
IEEE Trans. on PAS, Vol.PAS104, No. 4, pp. 919932, 1985.
[15]G.W. Brown, Lightning Performance I; Shielding
Failures Simplified, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, Vol. 97, pp. 3338, January/February 1978.
[16]M. G. Lauby, Detailed Transformer Model for EMTP,
EMTP Review, October 1989.[17]A.M. Mousa, The Soil
Ionization Gradient Associated With Discharge of High
Currents Into Concentrated Electrodes, IEEE Trans. on
PWRD, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp 16691677, 1994.
[18]J. Panek, et. al., Substation Voltage Uprating, CIGRE,
Paper No. 33207, 1992.
[19]H.W. Dommel, Electromagnetic Transients Program
Reference Manual (EMTP Theory Book), Report Prepared for
Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon, August
1986.
[20]R.B. Anderson, and A.J. Ericksson, Lightning
Parameters for Engineering Application, Electra, No. 69, pp.
65102.
[21]M. Rioual, et. al., Short and Long Air Gaps (Insulator
Strings and Spark Gaps) Modeling for Lightning Studies with
the EMTP Program, EPRI, Palo Alto, California, 1989.
[22]C. F. Wagner and A. R. Hileman, Mechanism of
Breakdown of Laboratory Gaps, AIEE Transactions, Vol. 80,
pp. 604622, 1961.
[23]T. Harada, et. al., VT Characteristics of Air Gaps for
Steep Front Impulses, ISHMilan, 52.06. 1979.
[24]T. Shindo and T. Suzuki, A New Calculation Method of
Breakdown Voltage Time Characteristics of Long Air Gaps,
IEEE Transactions on PAS, Vol. PAS 104, pp. 15561563,
June 1985.
[25]A. Pigini, et. al., Performance of Large Air Gaps under
519
Lightning Overvoltages: Experimental Study and Analysis of
Accuracy of Predetermination Methods, IEEE Transaction
on PWRD, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 13791392, April 1989.
[26]M. Darvenniza and R.H. Stillman, An Improved Method
for Calculating the Impulse Strength of Wood Porcelain
Insulation, IEEE Transactions on PAS, Vol. PAS98, No. 6,
pp 19091915, November/December 1979.
[27]A. Greenwood, Electrical Transients in Power Systems,
Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, 1991.
[28]A. Morched, L. Marti and J. Ottevangers, A High
Frequency Transformer Model for the EMTP, IEEE Trans.
on PWRD., Vol. PD8, No. 3, 1993.
[29]E. Kuffel, W.S. Zaengl, High Voltage Engineering
Fundamentals, Pergamon Press, 1984.
[30]J.S.T. Looms, Insulators for High Voltages, Peter
Peregrinus Ltd., 1988.
[31]A.M. Mousa and K.D. Srivastava, A Revised
Electrogeometric Model for the Termination of Lightning
Strokes on Ground Objects, Proc. of Int. Aerospace and
Ground Conf. on Lightning and Static Electricity, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, pp. 342352, April 1988 (available through
NTIS).
[32]Panek, J., Elahi, H., Lux, A., LaPanse, R., Stewart, J.,
Nilsson, S., Porter, J., Substation Voltage Uprating, Int.
Conf. on Large High Voltage Electrick Systems (CIGRE),
Paper 33207, Aug. 30  Sep. 5, 1992.
[33]EMTP Newsletter, Vol.5, #1, p 1, ZnO Arrester Model for
Fast Surges.
[34]IEEE Working Group on Estimating the Lightning
Performance of Overhead of Transmission Lines, Estimating
Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines II: Updates to
Analytical Models, IEEE Trans. PWRD8, No., July 1993,
pp 12541267.
[35]IEEE Fast Front Transients Task Force, Modeling
Guidelines for Fast Front Transients, IEEE 1995 Winter
Power Meeting, Paper No. 95WM2782 PWRD.