IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 17, NO.

1, JANUARY 2002 123

An Improvement for the Selection of Surge Arresters

Based on the Evaluation of the Failure Probability
Luis Montañés, Miguel García-Gracia, Member, IEEE, Mariano Sanz, and Miguel Angel García

Abstract—An improvement on the typical selection procedure

of arresters is presented. The analysis shows that the risk of failure
of an arrester depends on several parameters (the striking point,
the lightning current waveform, the arrester itself and the system
configuration). Therefore, the selection of the optimal arrester de-
pends on how well its stresses can be estimated. After the appli-
cation of the typical selection procedure, the power system simu-
lations are carried out using the Electromagnetic Transients Pro-
gram (EMTP) for each suitable arrester. From these results the
failure probability of each arrester is calculated, which permits the
optimal selection from several valid arresters by the comparison of
their risk of failure.
Index Terms—Energy absorption capability, failure probability,
lightning, overhead ground wire, surge arresters.
I. INTRODUCTION
S URGE arresters are vital elements in the protection of
equipment in substations against different types of over-
voltages [1].
As the protective ratio increases, the energy demands on the
arrester also increase. The selection procedure of an arrester for
a specific application is basically a compromise between protec-
tive ratio and energy capability. The selection of an arrester with
an adequate energy capability is not obvious due to the highly
nonlinear voltage stress and current characteristics ( – ) of the
arresters.
In this paper, a method to evaluate the risk of failure of a surge
arrester is proposed. Frequently, it is accepted that an arrester
with a higher energy capability reduces the risk of failure [2],
however, the evaluation of the failure probability is more com-
plex. It depends on several parameters such as:
• statistical data of the lightning current waveform;
• the proximity of the stroke from the arrester (further
distances result in less severe overvoltages due to
attenuation);
• the type of arrester selected (its energy capability, its –
characteristic, etc.);
• the system configuration.
The failure probability of surge arresters is evaluated as the
sum of:
• the probability of the stroke hitting on the phase conductor
and producing the arrester failure;
Manuscript received August 10, 1999.
L. Montañés is with ERZ, Grupo ENDESA, Zaragoza, Spain (e-mail:
LMontanes@erz.es).
M. García-Gracia, M. Sanz, and M. A. García are with the Departa-
mento de Ingeniería Eléctrica, Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain (e-mail:
mggracia@posta.unizar.es).
Publisher Item Identifier S 0885-8977(02)00540-X.
Fig. 1. Lightning stroke with a triangular wave shape.
• the probability of the stroke hitting on the ground wire
(OGW) and producing the failure of the arrester.
The failure probability has been obtained using EMTP, and
by applying the procedure developed in this paper. The resulting
failure probability gives rise to a further selection criteria for the
arrester. After applying the typical selection procedure, it per-
mits the discrimination between several valid arresters from the
comparison of their risk of failure. The procedure has been ap-
plied to a power substation as an example, however its applica-
tion could be extended to power line protection.
II. LIGHTNING CURRENT PARAMETERS
There are a wide variety of stroke current waves, and each
lightning flash may contain more than one stroke. A simplifica-
tion in the calculation is achieved if we consider the first one as
the most severe [3].
The waveform of a lightning stroke has been approximated by
a triangular wave (Fig. 1), which is usually represented by three
parameters: peak value of stroke current ( ), rise time ( from
0 to ), and time-to-half value ( up to 50% of ).
The magnitude of the current waveform , and the rise and
fall times ( and ) will vary with every lightning stroke. The
parameters that describe the waveform of a lightning stroke are
studied from their experimental statistical distribution.
The front steepness of a lightning stroke is much faster
than the tail time, so it has a negligible influence on the
energy absorption in comparison with the peak current and
the time-to-half value. Therefore, in order to obtain a more
simplified method, the rise time value is fixed at 2 s [4].
The cumulative frequency distribution of the peak current can
be approximated by a fractional type distribution, a logarithmic
normal distribution or an exponential type [5]. In this study, the
first two distributions have been considered without finding rel-
evant differences between both of them. For simplicity, only the
fractional distribution is presented, where the expression for the
peak current is given by
(1)

0885–8977/02$17.00 © 2002 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on September 26,2022 at 07:31:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
124 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 17, NO. 1, JANUARY 2002

and adopting the same distribution to express the cumulative

frequency distribution of the tail duration we have

(2)

where the constants and must be deduced from experi-

mental observations, as well as and .

III. FAILURE PROBABILITY OF AN ARRESTER

A. Probability of the Stroke Hitting on the Phase Conductor or
on the OGW
Fig. 2. Vulnerability of phase conductor.
The OGW intercepts lightning strokes that would otherwise
have terminated on the phase conductors. However, complete
where and are represented in Fig. 2, and can be evaluated
shielding is not always achieved, and so it is necessary to cal-
for each peak current ( ) solving (4)–(6).
culate the probability of strokes hitting the phase conductor and
those hitting the OGW.
B. The Probability of the Stroke Hitting on the OGW and
A phase conductor or OGW have an area in which it will
Producing the Failure of the Arrester
draw strikes on itself. This area is limited by a circle of radius
, which is defined as the critical distance, and centered on the Considering a fractional type distribution for the peak current
object. There are different expressions to calculate [6], and in given by (1) and the time-to-half given by (2), the proba-
this paper we have adopted the IEEE Working Group [3] bility distribution is obtained by the derivative of the cumulative
distribution.
(3) • Probability distribution of the peak current

The probability of the stroke hitting on the ground, the phase (10)
conductor or the OGW, depends on the value of the peak current,
and the location of the ground wires with respect to the phase
conductor.
According to [7] we construct the diagram of Fig. 2, and the • Probability distribution of the time-to-half :
following equations are obtained:
(11)
(4)
(5)
Then, the probability of the stroke hitting on the OGW and
(6)
producing damage to the arrester is given by
where is a multiplication factor to account for the different at-
tractiveness of the phase wire and the ground, and can be eval- (12)
uated by the expression [6]:
where is the minimum peak current value which implies the
(7) arrester failure, and is dependent on each time-to-half value .
The peak current that causes the energy dissipated by the
The intersection of these circles permits the shielding failure arrester to be greater than its energy capability is evaluated by
distance ( s) to be calculated, and the probability of the stroke simulation (EMTP) for each . Thus, the expression
hitting on the phase conductor or the OGW.
For a given peak current we can calculate the probability
of the strike on phase conductor or OGW in the form: (13)
• stroke to OGW:
represents the probability of a stroke hitting on the OGW and
(8) . Multiplying by the probability for
each time-to-half value, and adding all these terms, (12) is
obtained.
• stroke to line:
The flow chart corresponding to the calculation of the prob-
ability of the stroke hitting on the OGW and producing the ar-
(9) rester failure is shown in the Appendix.

Authorized licensed use limited to: MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on September 26,2022 at 07:31:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
MONTAÑÉS et al.: AN IMPROVEMENT FOR THE SELECTION OF SURGE ARRESTERS 125

Fig. 3. The distribution of the energy absorption capability is unknown, and it

is approximated by a step funcion.

C. The Probability of the Stroke Hitting on the Phase

Conductor and Producing the Arrester Failure
In the same way that the probability of the arrester failure is
evaluated when the stroke hits on the OGW, the probability of
the stroke hitting on the phase conductor and producing damage
to arrester can be calculated:
Fig. 4. Single-circuit line of the substation of Alcañiz (Spain).
(14)

where is the minimum peak current value which implies

the arrester failure, considering that the stroke now hits on the
phase conductor.

D. The Whole Failure Probability

To summarize, the failure probability of an arrester is
evaluated as

(15)
Fig. 5. Configuration of the 132-kV line of “La Oportuna.”

E. Distribution of the Energy Absorption Capability

As it is well known, the energy capability of the arrester is a
probabilistic function [8], [9]. However, in this study we have
considered that the probability of failure is 100% if the energy
exceeds the published capability, and 0% otherwise, which is a
limitation on the precision of the results presented. Therefore,
as it is indicated in other works [10], the energy capability test
should perhaps involve the whole surge arrester subjected to
different currents, and data published by manufacturers should
include the distribution of the energy absorption capability of
the surge arresters.
Considering that this distribution function were known, as
is shown in Fig. 3, we would have for each value of energy
higher than a value of probability between 0 and 1. There-
fore, in the expressions (12), (14), and (15) and would
be the values of the peak current corresponding to . In
order to complete these expressions, we need simply to intro-
duce the failure probability associated to each value of the en-
ergy capability.
As this probabilistic function is not usually available, a step
function has been considered in the analysis (see Fig. 3). It
should be noted that the energy absorption capability is a value
that will be higher than the energy discharge capability pub-
lished by manufacturers and considered here. So, again, the ap-
proximation taken into account has a conservative character.
IV. CASE STUDY
A. System Power Configuration
The proposed method has been applied to a real case
(“Alcañiz” substation, Spain), which the single line diagram
is shown in Fig. 4. The voltage of the system is 132 kV with
550-kV BIL insulation. The configuration of the single-circuit
line with one shield wire corresponding to the 132-kV line of
“La Oportuna” is shown in Fig. 5.
In the computer simulations, the lightning is assumed to strike
the first span outside the substation on 132-kV line. If the light-
ning stroke is captured by the shield wire, the voltage across

Authorized licensed use limited to: MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on September 26,2022 at 07:31:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
126 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 17, NO. 1, JANUARY 2002

TABLE I TABLE II
CONSTANTS OF CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF LIGHTNING SURGE ARRESTERS DATA
STROKE CURRENT WAVEFORMS

the insulator strings rises. When a backflashover takes place, a

surge propagates toward the substation. The severity of the over-
voltages at the substation depends on how far the strick is away
from the substation.
The amplitude and front of wave are reduced by the corona
effect. This effect limits dangerous overvoltages in the substa-
tion to those originating in the closest part of the line, which
we define as the influence zone. Furthermore, the lightning
impulse is normally reduced before entering the substation
by the lightning current paths to ground through shield wires
or by flashovers across the line insulators. Therefore, the risk
of failure of the surge arresters is greater when the striking
point is situated closer to the substation. In other words, larger
distances result in less severe overvoltages due to stronger
distortion and attenuation effects.
Lightning overvoltages in the phase conductor can be due to
direct strokes. On the other hand, direct strokes to the substation
have been ignored considering that the substation is perfectly
shielded.

B. EMTP Simulation Considerations

In the EMTP simulations, the total simulation time was
chosen to be sufficiently large for a complete analysis, being set
to 0.7 ms, and considering a 0.1-ns time-step. Decreasing the
time step, identical results have been observed, which validate
this election.
The tower is represented as a distributed parameter line
( ) terminated by a resistance representing the
tower footing impedance ( ).
At the substation the power transformer is represented by an
open circuit where the footing impedance of the substation is
1 .
Ten spans have been considered. Each span has been modeled
by a multi-phase model, considering the distributed nature of
the line parameters. The surge impedance values considered are
700 for the OGW, and 420 for the phase conductors. Finally,
the insulators are modeled with their flashover characteristics.
C. Statistical Values
Statistical parameters must be deduced from experimental
observations [5], [11]. In this paper, the constants and
considered are and according to [12].
Constants of cumulative frequency distribution of the lightning
stroke current waveform and time-to-half value are shown in
Table I [12].
D. Results
In a typical application of a surge arrester the highest pro-
tective ratio is desirable. However, as this margin increases the
Fig. 6. Probability of failure for the study case, and when a well-shielding or
no shielding is considered in the example.
energy demands on the arrester also increase. Correct applica-
tion requires a judicious compromise.
According to the actual application practice, we found that
several arresters were suitable. This problem is illustrated by
means of the following example.
At the position in Fig. 4, from a database containing more
than six hundred arresters, we found that the arresters shown in
the Table II could be selected according to the actual application
practice.
There are different acceptable arresters for this position, thus
the selection between them can be based on an engineering judg-
ment, or by a systematized method as is suggested in this paper.
The selection of the optimal arrester from the valid arresters
shown in the Table II is not obvious. Because of highly nonlinear
voltage-current ( – ) characteristics of the arrester, the energy
discharge capability provided by the manufacturer can never be
considered as an estimation of the risk of arrester failure.
The failure probability of each surge arrester shown in the
Fig. 6 is evaluated by the application of the procedure devel-
oped above. For example, from these results we found that the
arrester Q132 has an energy discharge capability 108 kJ (22%)
higher than the arrester Q108, however its failure probability is
only 0.4% higher. On the other hand, the protective ratio of the
arrester Q132 is 34% worse than the protective ratio of the ar-
rester Q108.
The optimal arrester, considering those from Table II, must
exhibit a high protective ratio and a low probability of failure.

Authorized licensed use limited to: MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on September 26,2022 at 07:31:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
MONTAÑÉS et al.: AN IMPROVEMENT FOR THE SELECTION OF SURGE ARRESTERS
Fig. 7. Representation of the protective margin (protective ratio minus 1 and
expressed as a percentage) and of the probability of nonfailure (1 minus the
failure probability).
Fig. 8. Influence of the statistical parameters (T and I ) in the probability
of failure.
From the results obtained (shown in the Fig. 7) the arrester Q108
is selected as the best solution. Furthermore, a quantification of
the performance level for each arrester is obtained.
This method could be applied to investigate the energy stress
on line arresters. In this case, the major difference is to give a
higher weighting to the probability of failure than to the protec-
tion ratio.
The influence of the statistical parameters ( and ) in
the evaluation of the failure risk is analyzed in Fig. 8 for several
arresters. As it can be observed in this figure, the highest influ-
ence is due to the value of the peak current . In Fig. 9, the flowchart corresponding to the calculation of the
On the other hand, the failure probability can be related to the
average life of the arresters as follows:
(16)
where is the length of the influence zone, is
the whole probability failure and is the number of
flashes/100 km/year.
V. CONCLUSION
Based on experimental statistical distribution of the parame-
ters that describe the lightning current waveform, the risk of ar-
Authorized licensed use limited to: MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on September 26,2022 at 07:31:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
127
Fig. 9. Flow chart.
rester failure is obtained by application of the method proposed.
As is shown in the results, the probability of failure cannot be
associated to the energy discharge capability due to the highly
nonlinear characteristics of the arrester. According to the actual
application practice, several arresters are found to be suitable.
On the basis of this study, a quantification of the performance
level for each of these arresters is obtained, which permits an
optimal selection.
APPENDIX
probability of the stroke hitting on the OGW and producing the
failure of the arrester is shown. This program has been devel-
oped in C++ language in which the calls to EMTP simulations
are controlled.
To determinate (the minimum peak current of the stroke
that causes the arrester failure when the stroke hits on the
OGW for each ) a Newton–Raphson algorithm is used. The
process starts with an initial value . Considering
s and for each , the circuit is simulated with EMTP.
is varied using the Newton–Raphson algorithm, where the
energy dissipated ( ) by the arrester is compared with its
energy capability ( ). This process is used for each from
(4 s) to (200 s), using a step of 1 s.
128
The method used in the case of the stroke hitting on the OGW
is similar to the case of a hit on the phase conductor, and so only
the first one is presented in this Appendix.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Greenwood, Electrical Transients in Power Systems, 2nd ed. New
York: Wiley, 1991.
[2] ABB, “Selection guide for ABB HV surge arresters,” HV Switchgear
SESWG/A—2300E, Asea Brown Boveri, 1990.
[3] IEEE Working Group on Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines,
“A simplified method for estimating lightning performance of transmis-
sion lines,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-104, pp. 919–932,
Apr. 1985.
[4] K. Nakada et al., “Energy absortion of surge arresters on power distribu-
tion lines due to direct lightning strokes,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery,
vol. 2, pp. 1779–1785, Oct. 1997.
[5] K. Miyake, T. Suzuki, and K. Shinjou, “Characteristics of winter light-
ning current on Japan Sea Coast,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 7,
pp. 1450–1457, July 1992.
[6] IEEE Working Group on Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines,
“IEEE working group report estimating lightning performance of trans-
mission lines II—Updates to analytical models,” IEEE Trans. Power De-
livery, vol. 8, pp. 1254–1267, July 1993.
[7] J. G. Anderson, Lightning Performance of EHV-UHV Lines, 2nd
ed. Palo Alto, CA: Electrical Power Research Institute, 1982.
[8] T. Imai, T. Udagawa, H. Ando, Y. Tanno, Y. Kayano, and M. Kan, “De-
velopment of high zinc oxide nonlinear resistors and their application
to surge arresters,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 13, no. 4, pp.
1182–1187, Oct. 1998.
[9] K. G. Ringler, P. Kirkby, and C. C. Erven, “The energy absortion ca-
pability and time-to-failure of varistors used in sation-class metal-oxide
surge arresters,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 12, pp. 203–212, Jan.
1997.
[10] M. Bartkowiak, M. G. Comber, and G. D. Mahan, Failures, “Failure
modes and energy absorption capability of ZnO varistors,” IEEE Trans.
Power Delivery, vol. 14, pp. 152–162, Jan. 1999.
[11] K. Berger, R. B. Anderson, and H. Kröninger, “Parameters of lightning
flashes,” Electra, no. 41, July 1975.
[12] J. L. Tora, Transporte de la Energía Eléctrica. Madrid, Spain: UPCO
(ICAI-ICADE), 1997.
Authorized licensed use limited to: MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on September 26,2022 at 07:31:35 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 17, NO. 1, JANUARY 2002
Luis Montañés was born in Barcelona, Spain, on January 11, 1973. He re-
ceived the B.S. degree in electrical engineering, in 1997, from the University
of Zaragoza, the M.S. degree in electrical engineering, in 1998, from the Uni-
versity of Zaragoza.
He has been working as a research engineer in of the electrical section of
CIRCE (Research center in electrical energy), and he is presently an engineer
in ERZ-Grupo ENDESA. His main research interests are high voltage, power
system protections, lightning protections and electrical transients.
Miguel García-Gracia (M’99) was born in Saint-Brieuc, France, on April 23,
1963. He received the B.S. (1989), M.S. (1990), and Ph.D. (1996) degrees in
applied physics from the University of Zaragoza.
Since 1990, he has been teaching and researching in the Department of Elec-
trical Engineering, University of Zaragoza, where he is an assistant professor.
His main research interests are in the field of electrical transients, power system
protection, high voltage, lightning protections and dielectrics.
Mariano Sanz was born in Santander, Spain on December 22, 1940. He re-
ceived the Dipl. Eng. in electrical engineering, in 1960, from the University of
Zaragoza, the B.S. degree in electrical engineering, in 1970, from the University
of Barcelona, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering, in 1990, from the
University of Zaragoza.
In 1970, he was director of AITEL S.A. In 1993, he became director of De-
partment of Automatic and Electronic of ITA. Since 1994, he is the director of
the electrical section of CIRCE (Research center in electrical energy), and since
1996 he is the director of the Electrical Engineering Department, University of
Zaragoza. He is also a member of the energy commission of the “Consejo de
la Energía del Gobierno de la Comunidad Autonoma de Aragón.” His research
interests include high voltage engineering, and power systems.
Miguel Angel García was born in Zaragoza, Spain on May 10, 1962. He re-
ceived the B.S. (1989) and the M.S. (1992) degrees in electrical engineering
from the University of Zaragoza. He is currently working toward the Ph.D. de-
gree from the University of Zarazoga.
Since 1992, he has been teaching and researching in the Department of Elec-
trical Engineering, University of Zaragoza. Since 1994 up to 1997, he has been
director of Quality Assessment of the Electrical Metrology Laboratory (Univer-
sity of Zaragoza). His main research interests are in the field of power systems,
electrical transients lightning protections and power transformers modeling.