See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268390314

Estimation of load capacitance and stray inductance in lightning impulse

voltage test circuits

Article  in  Electric Power Systems Research · November 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.epsr.2014.11.007

CITATIONS READS

2 1,142

3 authors:

Božidar Filipović-Grčić Dalibor Filipović-Grčić

University of Zagreb Končar Electrical Engineering Institute
186 PUBLICATIONS   321 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   133 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Petar Gabrić
Končar Electrical Engineering Institute
5 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

DAHVAT View project

CIGRE WG C4.61: Lightning transient sensing, monitoring and application in electric power systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Božidar Filipović-Grčić on 18 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the
Electric Power Systems Research journal in the following source:

Božidar Filipović-Grčić, Dalibor Filipović-Grčić, Petar Gabrić, Estimation of load

capacitance and stray inductance in lightning impulse voltage test circuits, Electric
Power Systems Research, Volume 119, February 2015, Pages 439-446, ISSN 0378-
7796, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2014.11.007.

Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections,
structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this
document.

Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A
definitive version was subsequently published in Electric Power Systems Research,
[Vol. 119, 2015].

© Copyright 2015 Elsevier S.A.

Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing,

formatting and technical enhancement may not be reflected in this document. For a
final version of this work, please refer to the published source:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2014.11.007

URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378779614004064

1
 Estimation of Load Capacitance and Stray Inductance in Lightning
Impulse Voltage Test Circuits
Božidar Filipović-Grčić a,*, Dalibor Filipović-Grčić b, Petar Gabrić b
a,
* Corresponding author: B. Filipović-Grčić (e-mail: bozidar.filipovic-grcic@fer.hr)
is with the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb,
10000 Zagreb, Croatia, tel.: +385 1 6129 714; fax: +385 1 6129 890.
b
D. Filipović-Grčić (e-mail: dfilipovic@koncar-institut.hr) and P. Gabrić (e-mail:
pgabric@koncar-institut.hr) are with the Končar Electrical Engineering Institute, 10000
Zagreb, Croatia.

Abstract: In order to obtain the lightning impulse voltage waveshape regarding front

time, time to half and relative overshoot magnitude within the limits prescribed by IEC

60060-1, it is useful to accurately estimate the test circuit parameters, e.g. load

capacitance and circuit inductance. A stray inductance consists of the inductance of

impulse generator and the inductance of connecting leads. Load capacitance consists of

voltage divider capacitance, test object and parasitic capacitances. In practice, the test

object capacitance is often unknown. Capacitance measurement takes time and makes

testing procedure more complex. Also, it is very difficult to estimate parasitic

capacitances although their influence can sometimes be significant.

This paper presents a new genetic algorithm (GA) based method for fast and accurate

estimation of load capacitance and circuit inductance during lightning impulse voltage

testing of a capacitive load. Computational and experimental verification of the method

is successfully performed for standard and non-standard lightning impulse waveforms

with various relative overshoot magnitudes.

Keywords: lightning impulse voltage testing, genetic algorithms, load capacitance,

stray inductance

2
 1. Introduction
High voltage equipment has to be tested with lightning impulse (LI) voltage in order

to prove the capability against such overvoltages. In order to simulate the effect of

transient overvoltage on high voltage equipment the various national and international

standards define the impulse voltages and their appliance to a test object. Time

parameters of lightning impulse voltage are shown in Fig. 1 according to IEC standard

[1].

Fig 1. Lightning impulse voltage time parameters [1]

Tolerances of 1.2 µs ± 30 % for front time T1 and 50 µs ± 20 % for time to half-value T2

are permitted. The test circuit has an inductance which consists of the inductance of

impulse generator, ground leads and the connecting leads. In some cases inductance

causes overshoot and oscillation at the crest of the lightning impulse voltage waveform.

Overshoot usually occurs when the connecting leads from impulse generator to test

object are very long and the inductance is comparably high. In case of a test object with

high capacitance, low values of the impulse generator front resistors are used which in

some cases can lead to oscillations occurrence. Fig. 2 shows the overshoot β which

3
represents the increase of amplitude of an impulse voltage due to a damped oscillation

(frequency range usually 0.1 MHz to 2 MHz) at the peak caused by the inductance of

the test circuit and the load capacitance.

Fig 2. Determination of overshoot β magnitude from the recorded lightning impulse

voltage and base curve
Overshoot magnitude β is the difference between the extreme value of the recorded

impulse voltage curve and the maximum value of the base curve. The base curve is an

estimation of a full lightning impulse voltage without a superimposed oscillation. The

relative overshoot magnitude β′ represents the ratio of the overshoot magnitude to the

extreme value and it is defined by expression (1).

Ue −Ub
β ' = 100 ⋅ % (1)
Ue

According to [1], the relative overshoot magnitude shall not exceed 10 %.

In high voltage laboratories, lightning impulse voltages are most commonly produced

using the Marx lightning impulse generator [2]. Equivalent circuit of the impulse

generator is shown in Fig. 3.

4
 Fig. 3. Single-stage impulse generator circuit

The generator capacitance C1 is slowly charged from a DC source until the spark gap

G breaks down. Resistor R1 primarily damps the circuit and controls the front time T1,

while resistor R2 discharges the capacitors and controls the time to half T2. C2 represents

the capacitance of test object and all other capacitive elements which are in parallel to

the test object (e.g. capacitor voltage divider used for measurement, additional load

capacitor, sometimes used for avoiding large variations of T1 and T2 if the test objects

are changed, and parasitic capacitances). L represents the inductance of impulse

generator and the connecting leads.

Available values of R1 and R2 are limited in practice and therefore the standardized

nominal values of T1 and T2 are difficult to achieve. Changing these resistors on the

generator usually requires a trial-and-error process or accumulated experience with

previous impulse tests on similar equipment. For this reason it is obvious that the simple

and easy-to-use method for generator parameter determination would make lightning

impulse testing procedure less complicated and less time-consuming.

Many published papers deal with the calculation of impulse generator parameters:

Thomason [3] determined circuit formulas of the most commonly used impulse

generators circuits; Feser [4], Kannan and Narayana [5] and Del Vecchio et al. [6]

investigated circuit design for the lightning impulse testing of transformers; Khalil and

Metwally [7] developed a computerized method to reconfigure the impulse generator

5
for testing different types of objects. Methods described in the previously mentioned

papers use C2 as an input parameter which means that the load capacitance should be

known or measured before testing. In practice, test object capacitance is often unknown

and the measurement of it takes time and makes testing procedure more complex. Also,

parasitic capacitances cannot be taken into account by this approach although their

influence can be significant especially when testing low capacitance objects of large

dimensions.

Genetic algorithm [8,9] and other optimization methods [10,12] have already been

used for curve fitting based estimation of lightning impulse parameters such as peak

value, front time and time-to-half-value.

However, the aim of this paper is to introduce a new genetic algorithm [13] (GA)

based method for obtaining test circuit parameters in case of a capacitive load testing.

The main advantage of this method is a fast estimation of the load capacitance and test

circuit inductance from the recorded lightning voltage impulse and from the known

values of generator capacitance, front and discharge resistance. Once when all circuit

parameters are known it is less complicated to determine circuit elements which will

provide T1, T2 and β’ that are within limits prescribed by [1]. Hence, the presented

method saves time and makes the reconfiguration of impulse generator easier.

2. Analysis of the lightning impulse voltage test circuit

The method presented in this paper estimates lumped stray inductance and load

capacitance in a test circuit. In the real situation, a stray inductance consists of the

inductance of impulse generator and the inductance of connecting leads while load

capacitance consists of voltage divider capacitance, test object capacitance and their

parasitic capacitances. By taking this into account a more realistic equivalent scheme of

the test circuit would be obtained. However, this model is more complex and solving it

6
would take more time and the algorithm has to be fast in order to be applied in practice.

The presented method cannot differentiate all individual inductances and capacitances

mentioned above. However, estimation of lumped inductance and capacitance in a test

circuit proved sufficient for practical application. In [2], [14] and [3] it is demonstrated

that the calculations can be made much more easily if certain approximations are used,

and these are found not to introduce appreciable errors in practice. Even more

complicated circuit representations have been examined, particularly by Thomason [3],

but the resulting expressions are of little more than academic or mathematical interest,

especially as the stray capacitances and inductances are distributed throughout the

circuit and no precise numerical values can be assigned to them. Therefore in practice it

is convenient to simplify the calculations and use equivalent circuit shown in Fig. 3.

Since in this paper excellent results were obtained by using equivalent circuit shown in

Fig. 3 it is not convenient to take into account a more realistic equivalent scheme of the

test circuit because it would not significantly improve the results. For that reason, a

simplified circuit represented in Fig. 3 was used. The capacitances of the test object and

of the voltage divider (and their stray capacitances) were lumped together in C2, while

the total inductance within the generator – load circuit is combined to a single

inductance L. Laplace transform of the circuit for lightning impulse voltage testing form

Fig. 3 is shown in Fig. 4.

1
U0 sC1 1
s sC2

Fig. 4. Laplace transform of the circuit for lightning impulse voltage testing

7
Voltage U1 is determined by using the expression (2).

U0 ⋅Z2 , (2)
U 1 (s) =
s (Z 1 + Z 2 )

where:

 1 
R 2 ⋅  R1 + sL + 
1  sC 2  . (3)
Z1 = ; Z2 =
sC 1 1
R1 + R 2 + sL +
sC 2

The output voltage U2 is calculated in frequency domain using the expression (4).

U 1 (s) ⋅ Z 4 , (4)
U 2 (s) =
Z3 + Z4

where:

1 . (5)
Z 3 = R 1 + sL ; Z 4 =
sC 2

The output voltage is expressed in the time domain using the inverse Laplace transform:

U 2 (t ) = L−1 (U 2 ( s ) ) (6)

3. Method for estimation of circuit inductance and load capacitance

Exact values of all circuit parameters are unknown in practice. Nominal test circuit

parameters and their tolerances are given by manufacturers or can be more or less

accurately measured, but always with measurement uncertainty. The charging voltage

U0, also, is not exactly known. GA based method determines circuit inductance L and

load capacitance C2 for standard and non-standard lightning impulse waveforms. GA

selects L and C2 in a wide boundary range of values and R1, R2, C1 and U0 in a narrow

boundary range around nominal values. All these parameters form a vector Vi, an

individual solution, while a group of vectors forms a population in GA terminology.

Fig. 5 shows the flowchart of the described method.

8
 Fig. 5. Method flowchart

The first step is to obtain the input data consisting of the recorded impulse voltage

from the measuring system, R1, R2, C1, U0 and their tolerances. GA generates the initial

population of vectors Vi, i=1…n. Population size n specifies how many individuals there

are in each generation. Initial population is created randomly and it satisfies the defined

bounds of parameters R1, R2, C1, U0, L and C2. After the creation of the initial

population, the output voltage U2 is determined in time domain for each Vi.

Since the GA performs many calculations finding an acceptable solution, it is very

important to minimize the execution time. To achieve this, it is helpful to reduce the

number of calculations by comparing measured waveform with GA results in several

representative points only. Therefore, characteristic points (tcp, Ucp) are selected on

measured waveform front (at 10 %, 30 %, 50 %, 75 %, 90 % and 100 % of the

9
amplitude), tail (at 90 %, 75 %, 60 %, 50 %, 40 % and 30 % of the amplitude) and at the

local extremes in case of oscillatory impulses. For each tcp, voltage U2 is calculated with

circuit parameters selected by GA and compared to measured values. Describing the

waveform by characteristic points is a great advantage because it significantly reduces

calculation time and enables this method to be used during laboratory impulse testing.

The fitness function is the objective function minimized by the GA [15]. In this case,

the fitness function takes into account the voltage percentage error for each

characteristic point. Fitness function is calculated using the expression (7).

U 2 calculated (t cp ) − U cp (t cp ) (7)
ε= ⋅ 100 (%)
U cp (t cp )

The algorithm stops when the voltage percentage errors of all characteristic points are

lower than the user defined limit value or when a certain time elapsed. All calculations

are performed using Matlab software on PC Intel core i5 CPU, 2.53 GHz with 4 GB

RAM and a selected time period of 1 min was enough to reach the stopping criteria.

If stopping criteria is not fulfilled, then selection, crossover and mutation are

performed. The stochastic uniform selection function chooses the parents for the next

generation based on fitness results. The elite count specifies the number of individuals

that are guaranteed to survive to the next generation (in this case 50). Crossover fraction

specifies the fraction of the next generation, other than elite individuals, that are

produced by crossover (in this case 80 %). The remaining individuals are produced by

mutation. The scattered crossover function creates a random binary vector. It then

selects the genes for which the vector value is a 1 from the first parent, and the genes for

which the vector value is a 0 from the second parent, and combines the genes to form

the child. Mutation functions create small random changes in individuals from a

population, and they provide genetic diversity and enable the GA to search a broader

10
space. Adaptive feasible mutation was used which randomly generates directions that

are adaptive with respect to the last successful or unsuccessful generation. A step length

is chosen along each direction so that bounds are satisfied.

If T1, T2 or β’ are not acceptable, it is necessary to modify the test circuit parameters.

This usually requires changing R1 and/or R2 and/or introduction of additional capacitor

Cad in parallel with the test object. Now, with known L and C2, one can easily calculate

output voltage using the finite pool of R1, R2 and Cad available in a high voltage

laboratory instead of trial-and-error voltage applications in actual test circuit.

In case of a purely capacitive test objects, maintaining the T1 is much more

complicated than maintaining the T2. Stray inductance L and front resistance R1 tend, in

general, to retard the length of the wave front. The inductance also introduces

oscillations in the wave [3]. It may be impossible to realize standard waveforms within

the standard tolerances for certain test circuits and test objects. In such cases extension

of front time T1 or overshoot may be necessary (guidance for such cases should be given

by the relevant Technical Committee).

Of all parameters used in the GA based method it is noticed that only the population

size significantly affects the GA convergence rate and execution time, while the

influence of other parameters is small. At first, a smaller population sizes were used but

the convergence rate was slow and the execution time was long. Execution time of this

algorithm should not be longer than a few minutes (in this paper a 1 min criterion

adopted) in order to be applied in practice. It is noticed that the increase of population

size to a certain value improves the convergence rate and shortens the execution time to

an acceptable value. Satisfactory convergence rate and acceptable execution time were

11
achieved with the population size of 500 in case of computational verification and with

the population size of 2000 in case of experimental verification.

4. Verification of the presented method

The presented method is verified in the following sections:

4.1 Computational (numerical) test.

4.2 Tests with recurrent surge generator.

4.3 Tests in high voltage laboratory.

4.1 Computational verification

All circuit parameters are exactly known in this example and the method’s ability to

determine L and C2 is tested. The following cases are examined:

a) U2 without oscillations, L=0, GA selects only C2;

b) U2 with oscillations L=26.5 - 1950 µH, relative overshoot β’=9.09 - 33.33 %, GA

selects L and C2.

In both cases other parameters are C1=50 nF, C2=1 nF while R1 and R2 are varied to

provide standard and non-standard waveforms with T1=0.6 - 1.8 µs and T2= 30 - 70 µs.

GA input values are R1, R2, C1, U0 and characteristic points from U2. The size of GA

population in each generation is n=500. GA task is to choose L and C2 in a fairly wide

range of values (boundaries 0.1 - 20 nF for C2 and 10 - 4000 µH for L) and to find the

output voltage which best fits the inputted U2. Table 1 shows estimated C2 for case a).

Tables 2-6 show estimated C2 and L for case b).

12
 Table 1
Estimated C2, circuit without stray inductance
T1/T2 R1 R2 Estimated Number of
(µs) (Ω) (Ω) C2 (nF) generations
0.6/30 203.9 812.7 0.9999998 7
0.6/50 198.7 1376.2 0.9999996 7
0.6/70 196.2 1940.6 0.9999999 7
1.2/30 432.4 781.5 1.0000003 7
1.2/50 413.0 1343.7 1.0000000 7
1.2/70 404.3 1906.8 0.9999998 8
1.8/30 683.8 751.5 1.0000000 7
1.8/50 641.5 1313.1 0.9999967 5
1.8/70 622.6 1875.2 0.9999924 5

Table 2
Estimated C2 and L (relative overshoot 9.09 %)
T1/T2 Exact Estimated Estimated Number of
(µs) L (µH) L (µH) C2 (nF) generations
0.6/30 26.5 26.501 0.9999 11
0.6/50 26.0 25.977 1.0001 14
0.6/70 25.8 25.793 1.0002 11
1.2/30 110 109.99 1.0000 11
1.2/50 107 106.98 1.0001 10
1.2/70 105 105.01 0.9999 9
1.8/30 255 255.09 0.9995 9
1.8/50 248 248.00 1.0000 9
1.8/70 240 239.97 1.0001 10

Table 3
Estimated C2 and L (relative overshoot 16.67 %)
T1/T2 Exact Estimated Estimated Number of
(µs) L (µH) L (µH) C2 (nF) generations
0.6/30 45.0 44.995 1.0000 10
0.6/50 43.5 43.502 0.9999 10
0.6/70 43.5 43.506 1.0000 10
1.2/30 187 186.93 1.0002 8
1.2/50 181 180.96 1.0001 9
1.2/70 178 177.96 1.0001 9
1.8/30 447 446.85 1.0002 9
1.8/50 425 424.90 1.0004 8
1.8/70 410 410.06 0.9998 9

13
 Table 4
Estimated C2 and L (relative overshoot 23.08 %)
T1/T2 Exact Estimated Estimated Number of
(µs) L (µH) L (µH) C2 (nF) generations
0.6/30 73.5 73.464 1.0005 10
0.6/50 71 71.025 0.9999 9
0.6/70 70.5 70.669 0.9984 9
1.2/30 310 310.27 0.9991 9
1.2/50 298 298.06 0.9999 10
1.2/70 290 290.06 0.9998 8
1.8/30 745 744.09 1.0007 8
1.8/50 695 694.49 1.0002 8
1.8/70 670 669.27 1.0006 8

Table 5
Estimated C2 and L (relative overshoot 28.57 %)
T1/T2 Exact Estimated Estimated Number of
(µs) L (µH) L (µH) C2 (nF) generations
0.6/30 121 121.13 0.9994 8
0.6/50 116 116.00 1.0005 8
0.6/70 115.5 115.57 0.9996 10
1.2/30 515.5 515.28 1.0006 8
1.2/50 490.5 490.19 1.0005 8
1.2/70 475 475.00 1.0001 8
1.8/30 1270 1269.8 1.0001 8
1.8/50 1160 1159.7 1.0005 7
1.8/70 1110 1109.3 1.0011 7

Table 6
Estimated C2 and L (relative overshoot 33.33 %)
T1/T2 Exact Estimated Estimated Number of
(µs) L (µH) L (µH) C2 (nF) generations
0.6/30 210 210.00 0.9999 8
0.6/50 195 195.18 0.9988 10
0.6/70 195 194.91 1.0007 8
1.2/30 900 899.24 1.0003 7
1.2/50 850 849.92 1.0001 8
1.2/70 820 820.64 0.9988 8
1.8/30 2340 2339.7 1.0001 8
1.8/50 2050 2049.5 1.0001 7
1.8/70 1950 1951.4 0.9995 7

Figs. 6-8 show comparison between input (original) waveform and calculated waveform

obtained with estimated L and C2.

14
 160
140
120
100

U2 (kV)
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
t (µs)
Fig. 6. Comparison of original 0.6/30 µs impulse voltage waveform (colored lines) and
estimated waveform (black dotted lines)
160
140
120
100
U2 (kV)

80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
t (µs)
Fig. 7. Comparison of original 1.2/50 µs impulse voltage waveform (colored lines) and
estimated waveform (black dotted lines)
160
140
120
100
U2 (kV)

80 β’=33.33 %
β’=28.57 %
60 β’=23.08 %
β’=16.67 %
40 β’=9.09 %
β’=0 %
20
Estimation
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
t (µs)
Fig. 8. Comparison of original 1.8/70 µs impulse voltage waveform (colored lines) and
estimated waveform (black dotted lines)

15
Fig. 9 shows the change of fitness value ε throughout generations for waveform

1.2/50 µs and relative overshoot β’=9.09 %.

25

20
Fitness value (%)

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Generation

Fig. 9. Change of fitness value ε throughout generations for waveform 1.2/50 µs and
β’=9.09 %

In all cases algorithm successfully estimates C2 and L with high precision within the

following stopping criteria: a time period of 1 min elapsed or the fitness value of 0.2 %

is achieved. The largest percentage differences between estimated and known C2 and L

are 0.16 % and 0.24 %, respectively.

4.2 Tests with RSG

RSG is a low voltage single stage equivalent of a high voltage impulse generator. It is

usually used to study the voltage distribution in high voltage windings during impulse

voltage stresses.

Parameters of impulse circuit are in fact parameters of RSG so, in this case, the exact

values of circuit parameters are unknown, but the nominal values are stated by RSG

manufacturer. Fig. 10 shows the test setup. The impulse voltages are recorded using a

digital oscilloscope (500 MHz, 1 GS/s) connected to PC.

16
 Recorded
waveform

Data
acquisition

Digital
oscilloscope

Recurrent
surge generator

Fig. 10. Test setup for generation of low voltage impulses with RSG

RSG parameters are U0=250 V, R1=6.8 Ω, R2=100 Ω, C1=470 nF, C2=100 nF and L is

varied (10 µH, 20 µH and 30 µH). GA selects L from 0.1 µH to 2 mH and C2 from

10 nF to 200 nF. The size of GA population in each generation is n=2000. Fig. 11

shows the comparison between measured and calculated (GA obtained) waveforms.

Measured and GA obtained waveforms show excellent agreement.

320
280
240
200
U2 (V)

160
120

80
40
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
t (µs)

Fig. 11. Comparison of measured and estimated impulse voltage waveforms

17
Percentage differences between real and estimated C2 and L cannot be exactly

determined because the exact values of circuit parameters are unknown, but only the

nominal values are stated by RSG manufacturer. Nevertheless, comparison of estimated

and nominal values shows a good agreement (Table 7).

Table 7
Estimated C2 and L
Nominal Estimated Estimated Number of
L (µH) L (µH) C2 (nF) generations
10 10.8 107.7 11
20 20.6 103.7 7
30 30.7 103.3 7

4.3 Tests in high voltage laboratory

In Section 4.1 the exact values and in Section 4.2 the nominal values of all circuit

parameters were known. In this case L and C2 are unknown. The tests are performed on

oil-paper insulated inductive voltage transformer Um=245 kV and SF6 insulated current

transformer Um=765 kV. The measurement of impulse voltages was carried with

measurement systems consisting of digital impulse analyzing system and capacitor

voltage divider which fulfill the requirements of [1], [17] and [18].

4.3.1 Oil-paper insulated inductive voltage transformer Um=245 kV

Fig. 12 shows the test setup for lightning impulse voltage testing of an oil-paper

insulated inductive voltage transformer in high voltage laboratory. Parameters of the

test circuit are: U0 (618 to 798 kV), R2=1600 Ω, C1=50 nF and R1 is varied. GA selects

L from 0.1 µH to 1 mH and C2 from 0.5 nF to 10 nF.

18
 Leads

Impulse
voltage
generator

Capacitor
voltage Inductive voltage
divider transformer

Fig. 12. Lightning impulse voltage test of oil-paper insulated inductive voltage
transformer (Um=245 kV) in high voltage laboratory

C2 consists of voltage divider capacitance (nominal value 817 pF), test object

capacitance (unknown) and parasitic capacitances (unknown). At first the impulse

voltage is recorded with R1=142 Ω (yellow curve in Fig. 13).

800
700
600
500
U2 (kV)

400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
t (µs)

Fig. 13. Comparison of measured and estimated impulse voltage waveforms in case of
testing the oil-paper insulated inductive voltage transformer

This waveform contains some oscillations with front time T1=0.77 µs and tail time

T2=42.4 µs. According to [1] T1 is too short.

19
Increasing the external front resistor R1 value helps to damp oscillations while the value

of external leads inductance causes an oscillatory natural response of the system. The

critical serial resistance Rc for the circuit to be non-oscillatory is given by the following

well-known equation:

L (8)
Rc = 2
C

where:

1 1 1 (9)
= +
C C1 C 2

This equation is suitable for determining the limiting values for the front resistor R1.

In this case Rc=264 Ω. Since high voltage laboratory has a finite pool of R1, the closest

value obtained was R1=295 Ω. L increases with R1 due to the stray inductance of the

resistors, so it is better to choose R1 slightly higher than calculated Rc.

Measurement and simulation results are shown in Fig. 13 and Table 8.

Table 8
Estimated C2 and L
Nominal Measured U0 Estimated Estimated Number of
R1 (Ω) T1/T2 (µs) (kV) L (µH) C2 (nF) generations
142 0.77/42.4 618 45.8 1.96 16
212 0.88/51.6 687 49.6 1.88 11
295 1.07/58.4 740 53.7 1.80 14
464 1.88/60.1 770 88.7 1.91 10
550 2.20/62.8 798 105.3 1.94 10

It can be seen that the oscillations are heavily damped when R1=295 Ω which is close to

calculated Rc, while T1 and T2 are within the limits of [1]. Other examples in Table 8

only show how front resistors introduce stray inductances and that this can be taken into

account.

Estimated C2 is quite stabile as expected and varies from 1.80 nF to 1.96 nF. Increase

of R1 damps the oscillation and reduces peak voltage without affecting wave tail and, as

20
a consequence, T2 increases. In Fig. 13, the charging voltage U0 of the impulse generator

was increased in order to compensate the influence of R1 on peak voltage reduction.

4.3.2 SF6 insulated current transformer Um=765 kV

Fig. 14 shows the test setup for lightning impulse voltage testing of SF6 insulated

current transformer in high voltage laboratory.

Current
transformer
Leads

Capacitor
voltage
divider
Impulse
voltage
generator

Fig. 14. Lightning impulse voltage test of SF6 insulated current transformer (Um=765
kV) in high voltage laboratory

Parameters of the test circuit are: U0=1640 kV, R2=1236 Ω, C1=53.6 nF and

R1=420 Ω. GA selects L from 0.1 µH to 1 mH and C2 from 0.5 nF to 10 nF. C2 consists

of voltage divider capacitance (nominal value 613 pF), test object capacitance (261 pF,

measured with Schering bridge and standard capacitor) and parasitic capacitances

(unknown value). GA simulation gives C2=1.69 nF and L=99.9 µH after 12 generations.

Fig. 15 shows measured and estimated impulse waveforms.

21
 1600
1400
1200
1000
U2 (kV) 800
600
400
200
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
t (µs)
Fig. 15. Comparison of measured and estimated impulse voltage waveforms in case of
testing the SF6 insulated current transformer Um=765 kV

There is a significant difference between estimated C2 and the sum of capacitances of

the test object and voltage divider. This implies that parasitic capacitances have great

influence on C2 and cannot be disregarded.

Fig. 16 shows a comparison between measured and estimated waveforms when

parasitic capacitances are excluded from the simulation.

2000
1750
1500
1250
U2 (kV)

1000
750
500
250
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
t (µs)
Fig. 16. Comparison of measured and estimated impulse voltage waveforms in case of
testing the SF6 insulated current transformer Um=765 kV; parasitic capacitances are not
included in simulation

22
Load capacitance is set to a sum of voltage divider and test object capacitances while

circuit inductance is varied from 0 to 200 µH. It is obvious that even when test object

capacitance value is known it may not be enough for accurate estimation of impulse

voltage waveform.

According to the previous statement, it can be concluded that a test object capacitance

measurement may give insufficient information about a total load capacitance.

5 Conclusion

The paper describes a new GA based method for estimation of load capacitance and

circuit inductance in case of lightning impulse testing of capacitive loads.

The presented method enables a fast and accurate estimation of unknown circuit

parameters: the total load capacitance, including parasitic capacitances which cannot be

disregarded when testing low capacitance objects, and test circuit inductance. The

method is successfully verified on several examples.

Future work will be focused on expanding the capabilities of the method for

estimating the test circuit parameters in case of impulse testing of low inductance loads,

such as low voltage windings of power transformers.

References

[1] IEC 60060-1, “High-voltage test techniques Part 1: General definitions and test

requirements”, Edition 3, September 2010.

[2] E. Kuffel, W. S. Zaengl, J. Kuffel, “High voltage engineering: fundamentals”,

Second Edition, Newnes, August 2000.

[3] J. L. Thomason, “Impulse Generator Circuit Formulas”, Transactions of the

American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Vol. 53, Issue: 1, pp. 169 – 176, January

1934.

23
[4] K. Feser, “Circuit Design of Impulse Generators for the Lightning Impulse Voltage

Testing of Transformers”, Bulletin SEV/VSE Bd. 68, 1977.

[5] S. R. Kannan and Y. Narayana Rao, “Generator loading limits for impulse testing

low-inductance windings” Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers,

Vol. 122, Issue 5, pp. 535 – 538, May 1975.

[6] Robert M. Del Vecchio, Rajendra Ahuja and Robert Dean Frenette “Determining

Ideal Impulse Generator Settings from a Generator–Transformer Circuit Model”,

IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 17, No. 1, January 2002.

[7] M. El-Adawy Khalil and I.A. Metwally, “Reconfiguration of impulse-voltage

generator for conducting standard lightning tests: A comparative investigation”, The

International Journal for Computation and Mathematics in Electrical and

Electronic Engineering (COMPEL), Vol. 27, Issue 2, pp. 520 – 533, 2008.

[8] K. C. P. Wong, H. M. Ryan, J. Tindle, J. Blackett and M. W. Watts, “Digital

measurement of lightning impulse parameters using curving fitting algorithms”,

Eleventh International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering, 1999. (Conf. Publ.

No. 467).

[9] W. M. Al-Hasawi, K. M. El-Naggar, “A genetic based algorithm for digitally

recorded impulse parameter estimation”, Power Tech Conference Proceedings,

IEEE Bologna, Vol. 2, pp. 23-26, June 2003.

[10] T. R. McComb, J. E. Lagnese, “Calculating the parameters of full lightning

impulses using model-based curve fitting”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,

Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 1386–1394, 1991.

24
 [11] E. A. Feilat, A. Al-Hinai, “HV impulse parameter estimation using ESPRIT-

based method”, 2nd International Conference on Electric Power and Energy

Conversion Systems (EPECS), 2011.

[12] G. Ueta, T. Tsuboi and S. Okabe, “Evaluation of Overshoot Rate of Lightning

Impulse Withstand Voltage Test Waveform Based on New Base Curve Fitting

Methods - Study on Overshoot Waveform in an Actual Test Circuit”, IEEE

Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 783-791,

June 2011.

[13] R. L. Haupt, S. E. Haupt, Practical Genetic Algorithms, (Wiley & Sons, second

edition, 2004).

[14] F. S. Edwards, A. S. Husbands, F. R. Perry, “The development and design of

high-voltage impulse generators”, Proceedings of the IEE - Part I: General, Vol.

98, Issue: 111, pp. 155-168, May 1951.

[15] User’s Guide, Genetic algorithm and direct search toolbox 2, The MathWorks,

Matlab 2009.

[16] IEC 61083-1: “Instruments and software used for measurement in high-voltage

impulse tests - Part 1: Requirements for instruments”, Edition 2, June 2001.

[17] IEC 61083-2: “Instruments and software used for measurement in high-voltage

and high-current tests - Part 2: Requirements for software for tests with impulse

voltages and currents”, Edition 1, July 1996.

25

View publication stats