Comparative Analysis of TOV Results Generated by Various Software:

A Comprehensive Review
Introduction
The following figure (Fig 1) shows the load flow of the target substation having one incoming feeder and two outgoing
feeders for which TOV analysis is carried out connected to the grid. Different transient programs like DIgSILENT, EMTP
and PSCAD are used to carry out TOV study and the results are being compared. The load flow results and the TOV
magnitude from EMTP and PSCAD is compared with DIgSILENT results as it is the input provided. Here in this document,
only LG fault is simulated and analysed as it is the major cause of TOV.

Outgoing Feeder 2
Incoming Feeder
Outgoing Feeder 1

Target Substation 132 kV

Target Substation 33 kV

Fig 1: Load Flow of Target Substation

DIgSILENT
TOV
The figure (Fig 2) shows the network diagram of the target substation to which TOV analysis is carried out. The following
cases are studied:
 LG fault on 33 kV bus
 LG fault on 132 kV bus
 Outgoing Feeder 1 Incoming Feeder Outgoing Feeder 2

Target Substation 132 kV

Target Substation 33 kV

Fig 2: Network Diagram in DIgSILENT

 LG fault on 33 kV bus

During LG fault on 33 kV bus, the maximum TOV observed is 47.44 kVp (1.70 p.u.). The figure (Fig 3) shows the voltage
waveform on 33 kV bus during LG fault.

Fig 3: LG Fault on 33 kV Bus

 LG fault on 132 kV bus

During LG fault on 132 kV bus, the maximum TOV observed is 163.49 kV p (1.46 p.u.) and the steady state voltage observed
after fault is 108.52 kVp (0.97 p.u.). The figure (Fig 4) shows the voltage waveform on 132 kV bus during LG fault.
 Fig 4: LG Fault on 132 kV Bus

EMTP
Load Flow
The target substation is modelled and verified by comparing the load flow of the model with the input network load flow.
The figure (Fig 5) shows the target substation modelled in EMTP. The load flow results are compared in the below table
(Table 1).
Slack: 138.3746kVRMSLL/_15.5285
142.4077kVRMSLL /_-100.5539
142.4077kVRMSLL /_139.4461
133.4847kVRMSLL /_-115.6581

122.9776kVRMSLL /_-112.8970
142.4077kVRMSLL /_19.4461
/_124.3419

122.9776kVRMSLL /_127.1030
133.4847kVRMSLL /_4.3419

122.9776kVRMSLL /_7.1030
M_S_132

P:297.0424
Q:103.3422
133.4847kVRMSLL

Phase:15.5285
Vsine_z:Q_S_132

I:
1.3122/_-3.65
V1:135.5496/_11.1366 1.3122/_-123.65 V1:136.1843/_14.2569
LF LF6

B_S_132
PQbus:LF1

Slack:LF6

PQbus:LF2

V2:0.0000/_101.1366 1.3122/_116.35 V2:0.0000/_-75.7431

Q_S_132

V0:0.0000/_101.1366 I1:1.3122/_-3.65 V0:0.0000/_-75.7430

+

Va:135.5496/_11.1366 I2:0.0000/_86.35 Va:136.1843/_14.2569

Vb:135.5496/_-108.8634 I0:0.0000/_86.35 Vb:136.1843/_-105.7431
70.552299MVAR

Vc:135.5496/_131.1366 Vc:136.1843/_134.2569
Outgoing_feeder_1 Incoming_Feeder Outgoing_feeder_2
97.943001MW

V1:138.3746/_15.5285
141.9504MW
9.1789MVAR
33kVRMSLL

33kVRMSLL

V2:0.0000/_63.4349
LF

LF
Ik1:0.6059/_7.44 Load1

Ik1:0.5117/_-21.51Load2

V0:0.0000/_-153.4349
Va:138.3746/_15.5285
Ik2:0.0000/_-82.56
Ik0:0.0000/_-82.56

Vb:138.3746/_-104.4715
Ik2:0.0000/_90.00

Vc:138.3746/_135.5285
0.6059/_-112.56

Ik0:0.0000/_0.00
0.6059/_127.44

0.5117/_-141.51
0.5117/_-21.51
0.6059/_7.44

0.5117/_98.49
Pk:141.9504
Qk:9.1789

Pk:97.9430
Qk:70.5523
Ik:

Ik:
CP model

CP model

CP model

CP model

CP model

CP model
TLM11

TLM12
TLM1

TLM2

TLM3

TLM4
14.7

14.7
60

60

V1:137.4747/_14.8115
V2:0.0000/_-75.1885
+

V0:0.0000/_-75.1885
Va:137.4747/_14.8115
Vb:137.4747/_-105.1885
Vc:137.4747/_134.8115

T arget_Substation_132_kV
Tx1_132_33_kV

Tx2_132_33_kV
1

132/33
132/33

V1:33.1700/_-17.2737
-30

-30

V2:0.0000/_72.7262
2

V0:0.0000/_72.7263
Va:33.1700/_-17.2737
Vb:33.1700/_-137.2737
Vc:33.1700/_102.7263

T arget_Substation_33_kV
Ik1:1.0033/_-35.47
Ik2:0.0000/_114.53

-20.00000001MVAR

-20.00000001MVAR
17.99870001MVAR

Ik0:0.0000/_0.00
1.0033/_-155.47
1.0033/_-35.47

1.0033/_84.53
ZZ_1

ZZ_2

33kVRMSLL

33kVRMSLL

33kVRMSLL
Capacitor_bank_1

Capacitor_bank_2
54.7600MW

Pk:54.7600
Qk:17.9987
0.3659Ohm

0.3659Ohm

LF

LF

LF
Load

Ik:
+

+
12.7 R3

R4

0
0

0
12.7

Fig 5: Network Diagram in EMTP

 Table 1: EMTP vs DIgSILENT Load Flow Comparison
Incoming Feeder

DIgSILENT EMTP % Error

Active Power (P) 297.69 297.04 0.22

Reactive Power (Q) 104.25 103.34 0.87

Voltage (V) 138.37 138.37 0.00

Outgoing Feeder 1

DIgSILENT EMTP % Error

Active Power (P) 141.95 141.95 0.00

Reactive Power (Q) 9.18 9.18 0.00

Voltage (V) 135.14 135.55 0.30

Outgoing Feeder 2

DIgSILENT EMTP % Error

Active Power (P) 97.94 97.94 0.00

Reactive Power (Q) 70.55 70.55 0.00

Voltage (V) 136.06 136.18 0.09

Target Substation 132 kV

DIgSILENT EMTP % Error

Active Power (P) 54.90 54.83 0.13

Reactive Power (Q) 21.12 20.34 3.69

Voltage (V) 137.40 137.47 0.05

Target Substation 33 kV

DIgSILENT EMTP % Error

Active Power (P) 54.76 54.76 0.00

Reactive Power (Q) 18.00 18.00 0.00

Voltage (V) 33.13 33.17 0.12

From the above table (Table 1), it is observed that the value of P, Q and V are within the error percentage of 5%. This
signifies that the network modelled is same as the given input network.

TOV
The figure (Fig 5) shows the network diagram of the target substation to which TOV analysis is carried out. The following
cases are studied:
 LG fault on 33 kV bus
 LG fault on 132 kV bus
 LG fault on 33 kV bus

During LG fault on 33 kV bus, the maximum TOV observed is 48.94 kVp (1.79 p.u.). The figure (Fig 6) shows the voltage
waveform on 33 kV bus during LG fault.

Fig 6: LG Fault on 33 kV Bus

 LG fault on 132 kV bus

During LG fault on 132 kV bus, the maximum TOV observed is 151.67 kVp (1.37 p.u.) and the steady state voltage observed
after fault is 115.69 kVp (1.05 p.u.). The figure (Fig 7) shows the voltage waveform on 132 kV bus during LG fault.

Fig 7: LG Fault on 132 kV Bus

PSCAD
Load Flow
The target substation is modelled and verified by comparing the load flow of the model with the input network load flow.
The figure (Fig 8) shows the target substation modelled in PSCAD. The load flow results are compared in the below table
(Table 2).
 Z1 = 0.14 57 [ohm] + j5.037 [ohm]

13 2.0 [kV], 50.0 [Hz]

V
142.7

100.0 [MVA]
RL

RL
15.5285

Ph
RRL

RRL
V = 134.8

V = 135.6
Timed

Q = -9.602
P = -140.5

Q = -70.91
P = -97.44
Breaker
Logic

V
A

V
A
MS BS BRK_B
Tim ed Closed@t0

V = 137.9

P = 295.6
Q = 113
Breaker
Logic

BRK_M

V
A
BRK_M
Closed@t0

BRK_B
QS

V = 134.8

V = 137.9

V = 135.6
Q = -9.602
P = -140.5

Q = -70.91
P = -97.44
P = 295.6
Q = 113
V
A

V
A

V
A
Tim ed

PI Section

PI Section

PI Section

PI Section

PI Section

PI Section
Breaker
BRK Logic
Closed@t0

V = 136.9

V = 136.9

V = 136.9
Q = -16.02
P = -141.9

Q = -71.85
P = -97.69
Q = 108.8
P = 294.9
V
A

V
A

V
A

BRK
M132

M_132
Tim ed

V = 136.9
Fault

Q = 20.92
P = 55.28
Logic

V
A
1.02237

1.02237
ZIG-ZAG Grounding…
#1

#1
#2

#2 Phase A Phase B Phase C

#1

#1

#1
V = 33.01

#2

#2

#2
Q = 18.28
P = 55.14
V
A

Timed
BRK_L

Breaker
BRK_L Logic
Closed@t0
M33
V = 33.01
Q = 18.28
P = 55.14
V
A

P+jQ

12.7 [ohm]
Fig 8: Network Diagram in PSCAD

Table 2: PSCAD vs DIgSILENT Load Flow Comparison

Incoming Feeder

DIgSILENT PSCAD % Error

Active Power (P) 297.69 295.6 0.70

Reactive Power (Q) 104.25 113 8.39

Voltage (V) 138.37 137.9 0.34

Outgoing Feeder 1

DIgSILENT PSCAD % Error

Active Power (P) 141.95 140.5 1.02

Reactive Power (Q) 9.18 9.60 4.58

Voltage (V) 135.14 134.8 0.25

Outgoing Feeder 2

DIgSILENT PSCAD % Error

Active Power (P) 97.94 97.44 0.51

Reactive Power (Q) 70.55 70.91 0.51

Voltage (V) 136.06 135.6 0.34

 Target Substation 132 kV

DIgSILENT PSCAD % Error

Active Power (P) 54.90 55.28 0.69

Reactive Power (Q) 21.12 20.92 0.95

Voltage (V) 137.40 136.9 0.36

Target Substation 33 kV

DIgSILENT PSCAD % Error

Active Power (P) 54.76 55.14 0.69

Reactive Power (Q) 18.00 18.28 1.56

Voltage (V) 33.13 33.01 0.36

From the above table (Table 2), it is observed that the value of P, Q and V are within the error percentage of 10%. This
signifies that the modelled network is same as the given input network.

TOV
The figure (Fig 8) shows the network diagram of the target substation to which TOV analysis is carried out. The following
cases are studied:
 LG fault on 33 kV bus
 LG fault on 132 kV bus

 LG fault on 33 kV bus

During LG fault on 33 kV bus, the maximum TOV observed is 45.90 kVp (1.64 p.u.). The figure (Fig 9) shows the voltage
waveform on 33 kV bus during LG fault.

Fig 9: LG Fault on 33 kV Bus

 LG fault on 132 kV bus

During LG fault on 132 kV, the maximum TOV observed is 97.44 kVp (0.86 p.u.). The figure (Fig 7) shows the voltage
waveform on 132 kV bus during LG fault.
 Fig 10: LG Fault on 132 kV Bus

Conclusion
TOV analysis of the target substation is studied in different EMT tools and the results are compared in the table below.

EMTP PSCAD
DIgSILENT
TOV Cases
(p.u.)
p.u. %Error p.u. %Error
LG fault on 33 kV
1.70 1.79 5.29 1.64 3.53
bus
LG fault on 132 kV
0.97 1.05 8.25 0.86 11.34
bus

From the table it is observed that the variation in the TOV noted from different EMT tools is less than 15%.

Further studies have to be done to improve the modelling and reduce the error percentage between the tools.