,&3'(1
SIMULATIONS OF LIGHTNING IMPULSE
RESIDUAL VOLTAGE TEST OF SURGE
ARRESTERS IN MATLAB-SIMULINK
Kaveri Bhuyan
Department of Electric Power Engineering,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Trondheim, Norway
kaveri.bhuyan@ntnu.no
Abstract— Assessment of the dynamic characteristics of surge
arrester is an important aspect of insulation coordination.
Computer simulation of residual impulse voltage test of surge
arrester models have been done using Alternative Transients
Program (ATP) and Power systems computer aided design
(PSCAD) design softwares. In this paper, the models have been
developed in MATLAB Simulink. The accuracy of the models are
ascertained by comparing the results with the manufacturer’s
design data.
Index Terms— Surge arresters, Residual voltage, Impulse,
Simulations, MATLAB Simulink
I.INTRODUCTION
Metal oxide surge arresters are used to protect medium
and high voltage systems and insulation of equipment
against over voltages. Surge arresters are often subjected
to high voltage stresses due to high earth resistance of the
grid grounding system, sealing defects and
environmental contamination, resonance and switching
and lightning over voltages, repeated transients of long
duration and large magnitude [1, 2]. Metal-oxide surge
arresters are designed to be highly resistive under normal
operation and conductive under transient over voltages.
The duration of arrester current flow depends on
overvoltage duration [3]. Thus, surge arresters have a
nonlinear voltage versus current (V-I) characteristic [4-
5].
The most widely used frequency-dependent surge
arresters models for accurate simulation of surge arrester
behavior under different kinds of stress are the IEEE [6],
Pinceti–Gianettoni [7] and the Fernandez–Diaz model
[8]. The protective performance of these surge arrester
models are determined by the residual voltage test [9]. In
this paper, surge arresters from different manufacturers,
nominal discharge currents and rated voltage levels are
simulated using MATLAB SIMULINK. The main
objective is to perform lightning impulse residual voltage
test and compare the simulated results with manufacturer
data. The proposed approach will help to select optimum
arrester model for transient studies.
‹,(((
Saibal Chatterjee
Department of Electrical Engineering,
North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology,
Nirjuli, Arunachal Pradesh, India
saibalda@ieee.org
II.MODELS DESCRIPTION
The IEEE [6], Pinceti–Gianettoni [7] and the Fernandez–
Diaz [8] surge arrester models are considered for
investigation in this work. The referred models [6-8] are
described below:
I. The IEEE model [6]
Fig. 1 IEEE model [6]
The IEEE model [6] (Fig. 1) has two non-linear resistances
A0 and A1, and five linear elements L0, R0, L1, R1 and C0. The
function of the inductive elements is to characterize the
model behavior with respect to fast surges [6, 8]. The non-
linear elements are represented by non-linear resistances
(A0 and A1) whose variations are given by equation (1) and
the nonlinear V-I characteristics are shown in Fig. 2 [6].
The per unit voltage values are referred to the peak value of
the residual voltage measured during a discharge test with a
10 kA, 8/20 μs lightning current impulse.
V–I characteristic of the surge arrester depend upon the
wave shape of the arrester current and is expressed as [10,
11]:
i = p (v/ Vref ) q (1)
where i and v are the arrester discharge current and residual
voltage respectively, p and q are constants of device and Vref
is an arbitrary reference voltage near to the rated voltage,
Vr.
Vref is calculated using the expression given as [12]:
Vr = kVref (2)
Where value of k varies between 0.9 to 0.98
The constants p and q for the segment between (I0,V0) to into account any physical dimension of the arrester for
(I1,V1) in V-I characteristics can be obtained from the parameter calculation. This model can give satisfactory
following expressions [12]: results for discharge currents within a range of times to
p = I0 / (V0/Vref) q (3) crest for 1 μs to 30 μs [7].
q = ln (I1/I0)/ ln (V1/V0) (4)
III. Fernandez–Diaz model [8]

Fig. 4 Fernandez–Diaz model [8]

Fernandez-Diaz model [8] (Fig. 4) consists of three linear

Fig. 2 V-I characteristics for non linear resistors A0 and
A1
The inductance, L0 represents the inductance associated
with the magnetic fields in the surrounding and the resistor,
R0 is used to obtain numerical stability. The capacitance, C0
represents the external capacitance due to height of the
arrester [5]. This model can give satisfactory results for
discharge currents within a range of times to crest for 0.5 μs
to 45 μs [6-8]. The values L0, R0, L1, R1 and C0 are
determined using the physical parameters related to overall
height, diameter of block, number of columns etc. of the
arrester.
II. Pinceti–Gianettoni model [7]
elements L0, R0, and C and two non-linear resistors (A0 and
A1). It is also a simplified IEEE model [6]. R1-L1 filter
circuit between the non-linear resistors A0 and A1 (as shown
in Fig. 1) is neglected in Fernandez-Diaz model [8] and
only the inductance, L0 is taken into account. Capacitance,
C is used to represent the terminal-to-terminal capacitance
of the arrester. The resistance, R0 is connected in parallel to
A0 to avoid numerical instability and oscillations. This
model can give satisfactory results for discharge currents
within a range of times to crest from 8 μs.
III.MODELLING AND SIMULATIONS
The simulations are performed in MATLAB SIMULINK
using 8/20 μs standard lightning current impulse waveform
having amplitude of 5, and 10 kA on surge arresters models
of 15 kV, 120 kV and 150 kV rated voltages. The framework
of investigation has been shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 3 Pinceti–Gianettoni model [7]

The Pinceti–Gianettoni model [7] (Fig. 3) consists of three

linear elements L0, R0, and L1 and two non-linear resistors
(A0 and A1). It is a simplified IEEE model [6]. Comparing
the IEEE model and the Pinceti–Gianettoni model, it is seen
that in the later model the capacitor, C0 is eliminated as it
has negligible effect on the model behavior. Also, the two
resistances R0 and R1 connected in parallel with the
inductances L0 and L1 are replaced by one resistance R0
(about 1 MŸ) between the input terminals to obtain
numerical stability. The electrical data of the arrester are
used to determine the model parameters. It does not take Fig. 5 Framework of Investigation
 Table III. Model parameters for 120 kV surge arresters [6-
The reference voltage of the surge arrester elements are 8, 10]
adjusted with respect to the rated voltage and manufacturer’s
design data. To select the optimum surge arrester model,
relative errors between observed residual voltages and
manufacturer data are calculated and compared. Formulas to
calculate parameters of the circuits shown in Fig. 1, 3, and 4
were initially suggested in [6-8]. Recently, many different
procedures based on numerical optimization techniques have
been presented in literature for estimating the parameters in
less time and more accurately. In this work, optimized
values are obtained using Genetic Algorithm [13],[11], Table IV. Model parameters for 150 kV surge arresters
Powell’s Optimization method [14] and Modified Particle [6-8, 14]
Swarm Optimization (MPSO) algorithm [10]. The electrical
data of the tested surge arresters are given in Table I [10, 13,
14]. The model parameters are given in Table II, III and IV
for the three surge arresters under consideration.

Table I. Surge arrester design data [10, 13, 14]

Reference Rated voltage 15 kV

MCOV 12 kV IV.OBSERVATIONS
[13] Max.Residual 5 kA 36.72 kV Discharge currents of 5 kA, and 10 kA of 8/20 μs is applied
voltages with 10 kA 38.88 kV
8/20 μs 20 kA 43.37 kV
to the models. The residual voltages obtained are shown in
Height 183 mm Fig. 6. The maximum value of the voltage at the arrester
Reference Rated voltage 120 kV terminals (residual voltages) is recorded and compared with
MCOV 94 kV the manufacturer data to validate the model. The
[10] Max.Residual 5 kA 275 kV observations are tabulated in Table V and VI.
voltages with 10 kA 294 kV
8/20 μs 20 kA 319 kV
Height 1140 mm
Reference Rated voltage 150 kV
MCOV 120 kV
[14] Max.Residual 5 kA 367 kV
voltages with 10 kA 396 kV
8/20 μs 20 kA 449 kV
Height 1330 mm

Table II. Model parameters for 15 kV surge arresters [6-8,

13]

(a) Residual voltage obtained with initial model parameters

for 15 kV surge arrester model against 5 kA, 8/20 μs current
impulse

(b)Residual voltage obtained with optimized model

parameters for 15 kV surge arrester model against 5 kA,
8/20 μs current impulse
(c) Residual voltage obtained with initial model
parameters for 120 kV surge arrester model against (g) Residual voltage obtained with initial model
5 kA, 8/20 μs current impulse parameters for 15 kV surge arrester model against
10 kA, 8/20 μs current impulse

(d) Residual voltage obtained with optimized model

parameters for 120 kV surge arrester model against (h) Residual voltage obtained with optimized model
5 kA, 8/20 μs current impulse parameters for 15 kV surge arrester model against
10 kA, 8/20 μs current impulse

(e) Residual voltage obtained with initial model

parameters for 150 kV surge arrester model against (i) Residual voltage obtained with initial model
5 kA, 8/20 μs current impulse parameters for 120 kV surge arrester model against
10 kA, 8/20 μs current impulse

(f) Residual voltage obtained with optimized model

parameters for 150 kV surge arrester model against (j) Residual voltage obtained with optimized model
5 kA, 8/20 μs current impulse parameters for 120 kV surge arrester model against
10 kA, 8/20 μs current impulse

(k)Residual voltage obtained with initial model
parameters for 150 kV surge arrester model against 10
kA, 8/20 μs current impulse
(l) Residual voltage obtained with optimized model
parameters for 150 kV surge arrester model against 10
kA, 8/20 μs current impulse
Fig. 6 Residual voltages obtained against discharge currents
of 5 kA, and 10 kA of 8/20 μs impulse applied to surge
arrester models of 15 kV, 120 kV and 150 kV rated voltage.
Table V. Error percentage obtained using the initial
parameter values
Table VI. Error percentage obtained using the optimized
parameter values
V.CONCLUSIONS
The IEEE W.G. 3.4.11, Pinceti–Gianettoni and Fernandez–
Diaz models are developed in MATLAB Simulink. These
frequency dependent surge arrester models are subjected to
5 kA, and 10 kA of 8/20 μs lightning impulse current
waveform. The impulse current waveforms have been
generated in MATLAB. The residual voltage appearing
across the arrester terminals are recorded. The effectiveness
of the developed models was tested by comparing with the
manufacturer’s residual voltage test results. The accuracy of
the models is ascertained from the relative error values of
the residual voltages which do not exceed 1.02 %.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Kaveri Bhuyan is funded by ERCIM Alian Bensoussan
Fellowship for carrying out her research works at NTNU,
Norway. The second author acknowledge the support of
DST-FIST Program project number ETI-211/2007, dated
28-04-2008 for this work.
REFERENCES
[1] Mohammad Akbar, and Monir Ahmad, "Failure Study of
Metal-Oxide Surge Arresters," Electric Power Systems
Research, vol. 50, pp. 79-82, May 1999.
[2] E. C.Sakshaug, J.J.Burke, and J.S.Kresge, "Metal Oxide
Arresters on Distribution Systems: Fundamental
Considerations," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol.
4, pp. 2076-2089, October, 1989.
[3] G. L. Goedde, L. J. Kojovic, M. B. Marz, and J.J.
Woodworth, "Series Graded Gapped Arrester Provides
Reliable Overvoltage Protection in Distribution Systems,"
IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, vol. 3, pp.
1122-1127, 2001.
[4] J. A. Martinez, and D.W Durbak, "Parameter Determination
for Modeling Systems Transients-Part V: Surge Arresters,"
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery vol. 20, pp. 2073-
2078, July 2005.
[5] A. Bayadi , N. Harid, K. Zehar, and S. Belkhiat "Simulation
of Metal Oxide Surge Arrester Dynamic Behavior under Fast
Transients ", The International Conference on Power Systems
Transients - IPST, New Orleans, USA, 2003.
[6] IEEE Working Group 3.4.11 "Modeling of Metal Oxide
Surge Arresters," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, pp.
302-309, 1992.
[7] P. Pinceti, and M. Giannettoni, "A Simpli¿ed Model for Zinc
Oxide Surge Arresters," IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, pp. 393-398, 1999.
[8] F. Fernandez, and R. Diaz, "Metal Oxide Surge Arrester
Model for Fast Transient Simulations," International
Conference on Power System Transients, Rio De Janeiro,
Brazil, 2001.
[9] A. Haddad, P. Naylor, I. A. Metwally, D. M. German, and
R.T. Waters "An Improved Non-Inductive Impulse Voltage
Measurement Technique for Zno Surge Arresters," IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 10, pp. 778-785, April,
1995.
[10]M. Nafar, G.B. Gharehpetian, T. Niknam, "Improvement of
Estimation of Surge Arrester Parameters by Using Modified
Particle Swarm Optimization," Energy, Volume 36, pp. 4848-
4854, August, 2011.
[11]A. Bayadi "Parameter Identification of Zno Surge Arrester
Models Based on Genetic Algorithms," Electric Power
Systems Research, vol. 78, pp. 1204-1209, July, 2008.
[12]M. Garcia-Gracia, S. Baldovinos, M. Sanz, and L. Montanes,
"Evaluation of the Failure Probability for Gapless Metal
Oxide Arresters," IEEE Transmission and Distribution
Conference, vol. 2, pp. 700-705, April, 1999.
[13]C.A. Christodoulou, I.F. Gonos, and I.A. Stathopulos,
"Estimation of the Parameters of Metal Oxide Gapless Surge
Arrester Equivalent Circuit Models Using Genetic
Algorithm," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 81, pp.
1881-1886, October, 2011.
[14]C.A.Christodoulou, V.Vita, L. Ekonomoub, G.E. Chatzarakis,
and I.A. Stathopulos "Application of Powell’s Optimization
Method to Surge Arrester Circuit Model Parameters", Energy
35,pp.3375-3380,2010.