Electric Power Systems Research 166 (2019) 190–198

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electric Power Systems Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/epsr

Failure risk analysis under switching surges in power transmission systems T

a a,⁎ b a
A.H. Hamza , Samy M. Ghania , Ahmed M. Emam , Ahmed S. Shafy
a
Benha University, Cairo, Egypt
b
Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The insulation of the power transmission systems is exposed to stresses not only during normal operating but also
Insulation coordination by the transient overvoltages. Transient overvoltages are originated by different sources such as lightning,
Insulation failure Risk analysis switching and faults. The switching surges have become dominant factor in the insulation design of Extra High
Switching overvoltages Voltages and Ultra High Voltages systems. Insulation failure probability under transient surges is the main
Transmission lines insulation
impressive concern in the studies of insulation coordination and failure risk. In this paper the failure risk of
insulation under switching overvoltages generated during energization of unloaded transmission line are com-
puted using the statistical approach. In the calculation, both the statistical characteristics of the overvoltages and
statistical distribution of insulation flashover probabilities are tackled. The statistical distributions of en-
ergization overvoltages on a typical 500 kV transmission-line are derived from the results of 100 energization
cases with statistical switching using Alternate Transient Program (ATP). The most important factors affecting
the insulation flashover probabilities and the failure risk are demonstrated. The effects of number of towers in
parallel, the switching overvoltages profile, the front time of the overvoltages waveform and the non-standard
atmospheric conditions on the failure probability are investigated. Failure risk analysis is analyzed using dif-
ferent probability distribution schemes.

1. Introduction
Insulation coordination is defined as the selection of the dielectric
strength of equipment in correlation with the voltages that can prob-
ably appear on the system. These prospective voltages are which the
equipment should be intended to withstand including the service en-
vironment and the characteristics of the available protective devices
[1,2]. The first task of the insulation coordination process is to analyze
the system and to determine the different imminent electrical stresses
that the insulation should endure without any damage. Accordingly, the
different levels of insulation strength and insulation characteristics
should be selected. Lightning strokes were considered for very long
time the major and dominant source of transient overvoltages in
transmission systems. Nowadays, in EHV and UHV systems concerns are
no longer be oriented to lightning overvoltages as they became a di-
minished danger to insulation systems [3–5]. This is due that the
switching surges cause the greatest stresses on system insulation and
consequently dictate insulation levels throughout the system for EHV
and UHV electrical power systems. Consequently, the insulation level of
EHV and UHV power systems is determined by the magnitude of
switching overvoltages [6–8]. This biasing imposed to the switching
surges needs to be more fulfilled regarding the insulation failure risk
probabilities under switching operations. For insulation self-restoring,
the selection can be properly performed by using probabilistic techni-
ques which have become the more sophisticated and preferred techni-
ques [9–12]. This paper presents a full investigation of transmission line
switching surges with statistical analysis under different configurations
and environmental conditions using different probabilities techniques.
Moreover, it presents the failure risk analysis of a typical transmission
line of 500 kV with including the different parameters and configura-
tions. The transmission line model is simulated using the Alternate
Transient Program (ATP) and the MATLAB software package to perform
the statistical analysis of the switching overvoltages. Also the failure
risk of insulation due to these overvoltages are analyzed and in-
vestigated. Failure risk analysis is performed based on the extracted
simulation results of the overvoltages and the insulation flashover
probabilities considered for the system under study. The study focused
on the transient overvoltages generated due to the energization of the
transmission lines at no load that are considered the most significant
type of switching surges on the transmission lines [13,14]. The effects
of the various parameters on the overvoltages and the insulation
flashover probabilities are presented. This paper is organized as follows:

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ashamza55@yahoo.com (A.H. Hamza), Samy.ghaniah@feng.bu.edu.eg (S.M. Ghania), ahmed.emam@eng.cu.edu.eg (A.M. Emam),
Ahmed.ahmed03@feng.bu.edu.eg (A.S. Shafy).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2018.10.010
Received 7 April 2018; Received in revised form 12 July 2018; Accepted 10 October 2018
Available online 26 October 2018
0378-7796/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A.H. Hamza et al. Electric Power Systems Research 166 (2019) 190–198

In the system under study section, a typical 500 kV transmission line Table 1
system in Egypt extended from High–Dam to Taba is modelled using The main parameters of the transmission system under study.
ATP program. Full description of the system is presented to be in- Parameter Value
vestigated and to be analyzed for the switching overvoltages and con-
sequently used for failure risk probability analysis. Energization of Voltage level 500 kV
Number of circuits 2
transmission line section of 244 km long extended from O_Mousa bus to
Number of bundle conductors 3
Taba bus is to be focused for statistical analysis of the switching surges. Diameter of a single conductor 30.6 mm
In the insulation flashover probability distribution section, the break- Spacing between bundle conductors 47 cm
down probability of one tower or one insulation string is provided using Number of sky wires (grounding) 2
the well-known Gaussian cumulative distribution function and the main Diameter of sky wire 11.2 mm
Number of circuits per tower 1
simulation parameters are derived. In the overvoltages probability
Span 400 m
distribution section, by using statistical switches in ATP/EMTP, the
statistical switching analysis is provided for two kinds of statistical
switching variations. In the risk of failure calculation section, the risks
of failure of insulation (ROF) are calculated using direct method and
four different continuous distribution probability density functions. In
the factors affecting the risk of failure due to energization overvoltages,
the different factors affecting the ROF are investigated. Finally, the
article provides the main conclusions regarding the ROF and it would
be considered as pre-design and useful tool for insulation coordination
and future failure risk analysis in power systems.

2. System under study

Fig. 1 shows the system under study for a typical 500 kV trans-
mission system in Egypt extended from High–Dam to Taba. This system
is to be investigated and to be analyzed for the switching overvoltages.
The last transmission line section of 244 km long extended from
O_Mousa bus to Taba bus is to be focused for statistical analysis with
considering different switching surges. Simulation of the considered
section of the transmission lines is modeled using the most advanced
model JMARTI model which is a frequency dependent model and thus
suitable for switching transients studies [15–17]. The main parameters
of the transmission system used are presented in Table 1. Phase
Fig. 2. The tower configurations and conductor arrangements of 500 kV line.
conductors are assumed to be transposed ideally and there are two
ground wires with directly tower grounding. The soil resistivity is as-
sumed to be100 Ω.m. and the different lengths of 500 kV transmission
lines of the considered system are shown in Fig. 1. The tower config-
urations and conductor arrangements are shown in Fig. 2. The time step

Fig. 1. Typical Egyptian 500 kV transmission network under study.

191
A.H. Hamza et al. Electric Power Systems Research 166 (2019) 190–198

used for all simulations is 1 μs. The rated voltage of the system is
500 kV, and the base value is the maximum phase to ground voltage
449 kV. To demonstrate the energization of unloaded transmission line
which can cause the higher overvoltage in power system, the line was
switched using the circuit breaker at the sending end at O_Mousa while
the receiving end circuit breaker is kept opened. Firstly, The simulation
is performed using Alternate Transient Program (ATP) for modeling the
power transmission line with system components. Secondly, the ana-
lysis of the switching overvoltages simulation results are performed
using MATLAB software package to perform the failure risk analysis.

Fig. 3. The center phase tower window parameters.

3. Insulation flashover probability distribution

The insulation flashover probability is expressed by the well-known • h: The conductor height.
cumulative Gaussian distribution function as given by (1) [18,19].
V 2 Based on the configuration of the typical Egyptian 500 kV towers
1 − 1 ⎛ V −σCFO ⎞ shown in Fig. 2, the conductor height (h) is 22 m and tower width (ω) is
P = F (V ) =
σf √2π
∫ e 2⎝ f ⎠ dV
1.6 m and the minimum center phase strike distance is 3.4 m. Using (6),
U0 (1)
the gap factor (kg) is 1.21 for the center phase. The critical flashover
This function is characterized by three parameters: voltages (CFOcwf) calculated by (4) and (5) at standard conditions are
1226 kV and 1230 kV, respectively which are approximately with the
• CFO = U : The voltage which has a probability of flashover equal
50 same values. So in this study the CFOcwf for dry condition for the center
50%; also called the critical flashover voltage. phase is considered 1230 kV or 2.74 p.u. The CFO for wet condition can
• σ : Standard deviation of the representative Gaussian distribution; σ
f f be considered from 4% to 9% lower than the CFO for dry condition
describes the degree of scatter in breakdown voltages about their [19], in this study the highest value of 9% is taken for the worst case. So
mean value as given by (2). the CFOcwf for wet condition for the center phase is considered 1120 kV
• U0: the truncation voltage which is the maximum voltage below or 2.49 p.u. The values for the standard deviation of the insulation
which a disruptive discharge is no longer possible which can be flashover probability distribution (σf) derived from a large number of
considered to be four standard deviations below the critical flash- test results [9,19] are in between (0.05–0.06) of the CFO for switching
over voltage as shown in (3). impulses. In the current study a standard deviation of a 0.05 of the CFO
σf = U50 − U16 (2) is considered. So σf is 61.5 kV (0.137 p.u.) for dry conditions and 56 kV
(0.124 p.u.) for wet conditions at critical wave front. Based on these
U0 = U50 − 4*σf (3) data and calculations, the insulation flashover probability distribution
U16 in (2) refers to the voltage which has a probability of flashover of for both dry and wet conditions are simulated as shown in Fig. 4. The
16%. The minimum CFO for one tower at standard atmospheric con- statistical withstand voltage (SWV) can be obtained from the insulation
ditions and critical front time of the switching surge can be obtained by: flashover probability distribution. The SWV is the voltage that has a
probability of flashover of 10% or probability of withstand of 90% and

• The relationship between the CFO at critical wave front and the its value is 1.28σf below the CFO for Gaussian distribution considered
which equal 1151 kV (2.56 p.u.) and 1048 kV (2.33 p.u.) for dry and
strike distance approximated by (4) proposed by Gallet et al. [20].
• The switching impulse strength formula as shown in (5) which has wet conditions, respectively. The truncation voltages (U0) considered to
be four standard deviations below the critical flashover voltage that
been recognized by IEC [21].
equal 984 kV (2.19 p.u.) and 896 kV (1.99 p.u.) for dry and wet con-
3400
CFOcwf = K g * dition, respectively.
1+ ()
8
S (4)

U50min = K g *1080*ln(0.46S + 1) (5) 4. The overvoltages probability distribution

where: To find out the reasonable value of the overvoltages, it is necessary

to calculate the overvoltages values with the statistical method. The
• CFO : The critical flashover voltage at the critical wave front in
cwf
kV.
• U : The minimum 50% flashover voltage which is the same as
50 min
the CFO . cwf

• K : The gap factor, this is the ratio between the positive polarity
g
50% flashover voltage of the configuration and that of a rod-plane
configuration.
• S: The minimum strike distance in meters.

The gap factor of the center phase tower window can be calculated
by (6) [22], the parameters of the equation are shown in Fig. 3.
h 8ω
K g − center = 1.25 + 0.005 ⎛ − 6⎞ + 0.25 e− S − 0.20
⎝S ⎠
( ) (6)
where:
Fig. 4. Insulation flashover probability distribution considered for the system
• ω: The tower width. under study for dry and wet condition at the critical wave front.

192
A.H. Hamza et al.
Fig. 5. The simulated network from O_Mousa to Taba using ATP/EMTP for
statistical study of energization overvoltages.
statistical studies are performed using statistical switches in ATP/EMTP
as shown in Fig. 5. In the statistical switching analysis, two kinds of
statistical variations were considered. The first statistical variation is
the phase angle (point-of-wave) when the line circuit breakers receive
the command to close. A uniform distribution from 0 to 360° is assumed
for this variation. The second statistical variation is the difference in
closing times between the three phases. A normal distribution with
standard deviation of 1 ms is assumed for this variation. The random
nature of the switching overvoltages may be described by any dis-
tribution function. The most popular distribution is the Normal or
Gaussian distribution [5]. However, the extreme value positive skew
distribution and the Weibull distribution have been frequently em-
ployed [27]. The probability density functions of the Normal, Weibull,
and Generalized Extreme value distributions are given by (7), (8) and
(9), respectively.
2
1 −1 ( v−σμ ) o
fs (v ) = e 2 o
σo 2π (7)
b
b V b − 1 −( Va )
fs (V ) = ⎛ ⎞ e
a ⎝a⎠ (8)
−1
⎪ e (−(1 + kz ) k )*(1 + kz )(−1 − k ) k ≠ 0
1
⎧ 1
fs (V ) = σ
⎨ 1 (−z − e−z )
⎪ σe k=0
(9)
⎩
where:
fs (v ) : the probability density function.
σo : the standard deviation of the distribution.
μo: the mean value of the distribution.
b: the shape parameter.
a: scale parameter.
v−u
z: standardized value, z ≡ β .
k: continuous shape parameter.
β: continuous scale parameter.
u: continuous location parameter or the modal value.
The peak values of the switching overvoltages have been derived
from the results of 100 cases of energization by the Case Peak Method
which is widely used for purpose of insulation coordination and risk of
failure calculation [21].
Fig. 6 shows the histogram distribution and the best fitted prob-
ability density functions of the energization overvoltages at Taba bus at
no load. The probability density functions of the three distributions
introduced above (Normal, Weibull and Generalized extreme value) in
addition to Kernel distribution are considered for the switching over-
voltages distribution. The kernel distribution produces a nonparametric
probability density estimate that adapts itself to the data, rather than
selecting a density with a particular parametric form and estimating the
parameters. This distribution is defined by a kernel density estimator, a
smoothing function that determines the shape of the curve used to
generate the probability density function, and a bandwidth value that
controls the smoothness of the resulting density curve. The statistical
distributions fitting parameters and the overvoltages distribution key
values, (mean values, 2% statistical overvoltages (SOV)) are obtained
and summarized in Table 2. The fitted distributions are tested by Kol-
mogorov-Smirnov Goodness of Fit (GOF) test which shows how the
selected distribution fits to the obtained data and help to decide which
193
Electric Power Systems Research 166 (2019) 190–198
model describes the data in the best way as summarized in Table 3.
From the obtained results showed in Table 2, Fig. 5 and Table 3 it can
be noted that:
• The probability density function of the fitted distributions follows
approximately the same shape as the histograms of the overvoltages.
• The nonparametric kernel distribution comes very close to the ori-
ginal data.
• The mean value of the switching overvoltages obtained in the range
of 2.03 p.u. and the SOV in the range of 2.35 p.u.
• The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test did not reject the fitted distributions
for the three continues statistical distributions used for all values of
significance level (α) from (0.01–0.2). Note that the null hypothesis
(H0) will be accepted for all values of α less than the P-value.
• According to Kolmogorov–Smirnov Goodness of Fit test the Normal
probability distribution describes the collected data in the best way,
then the Generalized Extreme Value distribution, then the Weibull
distribution.
5. Risk of failure calculation results
The failure risk of insulation during the energization of
O_Mousa–Taba line section with no load for both dry and wet condition
are calculated. Based on the results of different parameters of the
probabilities distributions of overvoltages obtained and summarized in
Table 2 and the insulation flashover probability distribution shown in
Fig. 3, the risks of failure of insulation (ROF) are calculated using direct
method and four different continuous distribution probability density
functions for the switching overvoltages as follows:
5.1. Direct method
In this method the collected values of the overvoltages peaks of the
voltage vector obtained for case peak method are used directly in the
risk of failure calculation. Table 4 presents the risk of failure calcula-
tions performed to obtain the total flashover rate or the total risk of
failure for the case under study. The probabilities of flashover under
each voltage level for dry (pfod(v)) and wet (pfow(v)) conditions are
obtained from the insulation flashover probability shown in Fig. 4.
The risks of failure for each voltage level (Risk (v)) under both dry
and wet conditions are the probability of occurrence of this voltage
(0.01) times the probability of flashover under this voltage multiplied
by 0.5. The risks of failure for the 100 energization cases give a total
risk of failure (ROF) of 0.00019 for dry conditions and 0.00573 for wet
conditions.
Consequently, it gives 0.019 flashover per 100 breaker (or
switching) operations for dry conditions and 0.57 for wet conditions. It
should be noted that the polarities of the switching overvoltages are
assumed to be positive because the insulation has lower flashover
probabilities under overvoltages of negative polarities and the calcu-
lated risk of failures are multiplied by 0.5 due to this assumption.
5.2. Continuous distributions for switching overvoltages
In this method, the switching surge flashover rates or the risks of
failure under switching surge for 1 tower and (n) towers in parallel are
calculated using (7) and (8), respectively [23].
Em
1
ROF1 =
2
∫ P (V ) fs (V ) dV
E1 (10)
Em
1
ROFn =
2
∫ [1 − qn] fs (V ) dV
E1 (11)
Where:
ROF1: The risk of failure for 1 tower.
A.H. Hamza et al. Electric Power Systems Research 166 (2019) 190–198

Fig. 6. The histogram distribution and the best fitted probability density functions of the energization overvoltages at Taba bus at no load.

Table 2 Table 4
The statistical probability distributions fitting parameters. Results for Risk Of Failure calculation by Direct method.
# Distribution Parameters Mean 2% SOV Energization no. OV (p.u.) Flashover prob. Risk of failure

1 GEV k = −0.28964, β = 0.15674 and 2.02 2.37 pfod(v) pfow(v) Risk d(v) Risk w(v)
u = 1.9709
2 Normal σ0 = 0.1591 and μ0 = 2.0255 2.03 2.35 1 2.24 0.00014 0.02182 6.9E-07 0.00011
3 Weibull a = 15.576 and b = 2.0888 2.04 2.33 2 1.86 5.4E-11 1.6E-07 2.7E-13 7.8E-10
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
99 2.04 1.8E-07 0.00015 9.2E-10 7.7E-07
100 2.18 2.1E-05 0.00573 1E-07 2.9E-05
Table 3
Kolmogorov-Smirnov GOF Test results for the Energization overvoltages.
Calculation Dry Wet
Distribution GEV Normal Weibull
Total risk of failure 0.00019 0.00573
Sample size 100 100 100 Total ROF rate for 100 energization cases 0. 019 0. 57
Statistic 0.06835 0.0672 0.0906
P-Value 0.7123 0.73133 0.36265
Rank 2 1 3 P(V): The flashover probability under a given voltage level for 1
tower.
Reject the fitted distribution for different values of (α) significance level” or Not”? fs(v): The probability density function of the overvoltages.
q: The probability of no flashover under a given voltage level for 1
Significance level 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01
(α)
tower which equals to (1 − P(V) ).
Critical value 0.106 0.121 0.134 0.149 0.161 n: The number of towers in parallel.
Reject GEV No No No No No The distributions of the switching overvoltages due to the en-
distribution ergization of the transmission line at no load for Taba bus-bar are ob-
Reject Normal No No No No No
tained and represented by three types of continuous probability density
distribution
Reject Weibull No No No No No functions (Normal, Weibull and Generalized Extreme Value) and one
distribution discrete probability density function (Kernel). Fig. 7 show the risk of
failure obtained for each voltage level for the four considered over-
voltages probabilities distributions for dry and wet con-
ROFn: The risk of failure for n parallel towers.
dition,respectivly. The area under the shown curves represents the total
E1: The minimum overvoltages (1 p.u.).
risk of failure due to energization overvoltages for each type of
Em: The maximum overvoltages.

194
A.H. Hamza et al. Electric Power Systems Research 166 (2019) 190–198

Fig. 8. The calculated risk of failure for dry and wet conditions for different
number of towers in parallel.
Fig. 7. Risk of failure for dry and wet conditions for the different distributions
of the energization overvoltages considered. Table 6
The Insulation strength keys values and the calculated Risk Of Failure for the
Table 5 different number of towers in parallel.
Summary of the results for different methods of Risk of failure calculation. Number of towers 1 100 200 300 400 500
ROF% Direct Normal Weibull GEV Kernel
Dry CFO 2.74 2.40 2.37 2.35 2.34 2.33
σf 0.14 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05
Dry 0.019 0.017 0.006 0.015 0.024
SWV 2.57 2.32 2.29 2.28 2.27 2.26
Wet 0.57 0.53 0.41 0.58 0.63
SSF 1.09 0.987 0.974 0.970 0.966 0.962
ROF% 0.017 0.77 1.17 1.47 1.71 1.92

considered overvoltages distributions. The total risk of failure rate for Wet CFO 2.49 2.19 2.16 2.14 2.13 2.12
σf 0.12 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
one tower obtained by the various methods are summarized in Table 5.
SWV 2.33 2.11 2.09 2.07 2.06 2.06
From the results shown in Table 5, and Fig. 7 and with taking the direct SSF 0.991 0.898 0.889 0.881 0.877 0.877
method results as a reference, the Normal and Generalized Extreme ROF% 0.53 8.96 11.38 12.88 13.97 14.83
Value distributions give better results than the other distributions
considered for the switching overvoltages. This is consistent with the
Kolmogorov–Smirnov GOF results for the overvoltage shown in Table 3. taken into consideration especially for wet condition, the risk of
For clear understanding of the various parameters affecting the risk failure reaches to 14.83% for 500 towers in parallel.
of insulation failures, the risk of failure is calculated only by the Normal • The SSF is less than unity for all the considered cases except the case
distribution of the switching overvoltages in the remaining case of for 1 tower for dry condition because the energization occurs at no-
study. load without any control method and this lead to a higher risk of
failure probabilities.
6. Factors affecting the risk of failure due to energization • The SSF for dry and wet conditions varies only by 1% for dry con-
overvoltages ditions and 1.5% for wet conditions for n between 200 and 500
towers.
The risks of failures for the transmission line are affected by the
overvoltages distribution keys values and the insulation flashover
probability distributions keys values. The parameters affecting the risk 6.2. The overvoltages profile
of failure for the transmission system under study considered are:
The calculated risks of failures obtained in the above section depend
6.1. Number of towers in parallel on assumption that the switching overvoltages are constant at every
tower along the line, while in reality the overvoltages at the opened end
The flashover probabilities of the insulation are increased with in- of the line is usually higher than the overvoltages at the switched end of
creasing the considered number of towers in parallel for the same the line, hence the tower insulators are not at the same stress as as-
voltage level. Fig. 8 presents the calculated risk of failure for different sumed. Fig. 9 shows the mean values and its best fitted linear function
number of towers in parallel for dry and wet conditions. Table 6 sum- of the energization overvoltages along the transmission line at no load.
marizes the calculated risk of failure for the different considered The risk of failure considering the overvoltages profile along the line
number of towers for dry and wet conditions. The statistical safety are calculated using a number of equivalent towers ne instead on n,
factor (SSF) which equal the ratio between the statistical withstand where ne can be calculated from (12) and (13) [24–26]. The value of
voltage(SWV) and the 2%SOV are calculated based on 2%SOV of 2.35 factor γ is the ratio between the mean value of the sending end over-
p.u. From the obtained results, it can be summarized that: voltages and the mean value of the receiving end overvoltages taken
from the linear equation that best fit the distributions of the mean va-
• The risk of failure increases if the number of towers in parallel are lues of overvoltages.

195
A.H. Hamza et al. Electric Power Systems Research 166 (2019) 190–198

Fig. 10. CFO for a variable time to crest.

N = [1.17 − 0.17(K g − 1)] (16)

Fig. 9. Mean values and its best fitted linear function of the energization
overvoltages along the transmission line.
0.4 σf
ne = n
1 − γ CFO
ES
γ=
ER
where:
ne: The equivalent number of towers having an Es/ER = 1, which
gives the same ROF as the actual number of towers with the specified
Es/ER ratio.
n: The actual number of towers.
ES: The mean value of the sending end voltages.
ER: The mean value of the receiving end voltages.
Table 7 summarizes the key values of the best fitted overvoltages
normal distribution along the line and the calculated risk of failure with
and without considering the overvoltage profile. The %ROF obtained
are 0.44% and 2.1% for dry and wet conditions respectively when
considering the overvoltages profile compared to 6% and 15.56% ob-
tained without considering the overvoltage profile. It is obvious that the
risks of failure are highly reduced due to the reduction of the switching
overvoltages distribution parameters along the line when considering
the overvoltages profile during the risk of failure calculation.
6.3. Wave shapes of the switching overvoltages
In most cases of EHV line switching, the predominant wave front is
not equal to the CWF but is much larger, of the order of 1000–2000 μs
and the insulation exhibits lower flashover probabilities under these
longer wave fronts [18,23]. The critical time to crest, which yields the
U50%,min, is decided by (14) and the 50% flashover voltage applied for
any time to crest is given by (15)–(17) [23].
Tcrit = [50 − 35(K g − 1)]*S
3.8
NX 2 + 0.35X +
(2 − K g )1.4
V50% (Tcr ) = V50%, min * 4.3
X2 +
(2 − K g )1.3
X = Tcr Tcrit (17)
where:
Tcr: Time to crest in μs.
(12) Tcrit: The critical time to crest in μs.
V50% (Tcr ) : The CFO at any crest time.
V50%.min: The CFO at the critical wave front.
(13) N, X: Factors depends on Kg, Tcr and Tcrit.
Fig. 10 shows the obtained 50% CFO for various times to crest
considered from the critical wave front to crest time of 2000 μs. Fig. 11
shows the obtained risk of failure for different crest times for 610
towers for dry and wet conditions. Tables 8 and 9 summarize the in-
sulation strength distribution parameters and the obtained Risks of
failure for different crest times for dry and wet conditions respectively.
The energization overvoltages of the simulated system under study has
crest time spans from 1600 μs to 1800 μs as shown in Fig. 12 for various
switching cases. The %ROFs are reduced to (8.00E-04, 0.363) for 1
tower and 610 towers respectively for dry condition. For wet conditions
the %ROFs are reduced to (0.023, 4.97) for 1 tower and 610 towers
respectively when the crest time of the overvoltage waves are taken into
consideration.
6.4. Non-standard atmospheric conditions
IEC assumed that the effects of ambient temperature and humidity
tend to cancel each other. Therefore, for insulation co-ordination pur-
poses, only the air pressure corresponding to the altitude of the location
need be taken into account for both dry and wet insulations. The cor-
rection factor Ka and the critical flashover voltage at nonstandard
condition (CFOA) are calculated according to (18) and (19) [21].
mH
K a = e ( 8150 ) (18)
CFOS
CFOA =
Ka (19)
(14)
where:
H: is the altitude above sea level (in meters) and the value of ex-
ponent m for phase to ground overvoltages in the 500 kV systems is
0.56.
(15) CFOS: the critical flashover voltages at standard conditions.

Table 7
Key values of SOV normal distribution and the calculated risk of failure along the line.
Distance% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

V_mean 1.3 1.50 1.60 1.68 1.76 1.80 1.84 1.88 1.95 2.00 2.05
Std. (σ) 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 1.23 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14
Cv% 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.3 6.5 6.6 67 6.6 6.8 6.7 7
2% SOV 1.51 1.68 1.81 1.91 1.99 2.05 4.37 2.13 2.22 2.27 2.34

% ROF without voltage profile — wet (n = 610 towers) 15.56

% ROF with voltage profile — wet (n = 42 tower) 6
% ROF without voltage profile — dry 2.1
% ROF with voltage profile — dry 0.44

196
A.H. Hamza et al. Electric Power Systems Research 166 (2019) 190–198

Fig. 11. The risk of failure for different crest times for dry and wet conditions
for 610 towers. Fig. 12. Three phases voltage waveforms at the receiving end for various
switching times.
Table 8
Insulation strength distribution parameters and risk of failure for different crest
times for Dry conditions.
Tcr 1 tower 610 towers

50% CFO Cv% SSF ROF % 50% CFO Cv% SSF ROF%

146 2.74 5 1.108 1.71E-02 2.32 2.32 0.96 2.103

250 2.88 5 1.164 1.76E-03 2.44 2.32 1.01 0.399
1000 3.16 6 1.264 1.18E-04 2.58 2.88 1.06 0.056
1500 3.16 7 1.251 8.00E-04 2.48 3.49 1.01 0.363
2000 3.16 7 1.251 8.00E-04 2.48 3.49 1.01 0.363

Table 9 Fig. 13. The calculated risk of failure for different altitude above the sea level
Insulation strength distribution parameters and Risk of failure for different crest for wet conditions for 1 tower.
times Wet condition.
Tcr 1 tower 610 towers Table 10
The obtained risks of failure for different altitudes.
50% CFO Cv% SSF ROF % 50% CFO Cv% SSF ROF %
H (m) — altitudes 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 800 1000
146 2.49 5 1.007 0.524 2.11 2.32 0.877 15.56
250 2.62 5 1.059 0.099 2.22 2.32 0.923 6.41 CFOA(p.u.) 2.74 2.72 2.70 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.63 2.60 2.56
1000 2.88 6 1.152 0.007 2.35 2.88 0.971 1.70 Ka 1 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.07
1500 2.88 7 1.140 0.023 2.26 3.49 0.928 4.97 %ROF 1 tower — 0.017 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.13 0.22
2000 2.88 7 1.140 0.023 2.26 3.49 0.928 4.97 dry
%ROF n tower — 2.10 2.59 3.15 3.82 4.19 5.01 5.94 7.57 10.1
dry
%ROF 1 tower — 0.53 0.65 0.81 0.99 1.10 1.35 1.64 2.17 3.11
Fig. 13 shows the calculated risk of failures at different altitudes
wet
(H = 100, 500 and 1000) m as compared to the standard conditions %ROF n tower — 15.5 17.2 18.9 20.7 21.6 23.5 25.3 28.1 31.7
(H = 0) for the line under study for wet conditions. Table 10 sum- wet
marizes the values of the correction factor (Ka) and the calculated
CFOA and the resultant risk of failures for 1 tower and 610 towers for
both dry and wet conditions. It is noted that the obtained risk of failure loaded transmission line are derived using different methods of calcu-
increased with increasing the altitude above sea level due to the in- lation depending on the distribution of the switching overvoltages and
crement of the CFO with the altitude. The altitude of the Egyptian the insulation flashover probability. The effects of the different para-
network under study is taken as average value of 500 m above the sea meters on the risk of failure are analyzed. The risk of insulation failure
level for transmission lines in Siena (O_Mousa–Taba). The %ROF due to increases when the number of towers in parallel are taken into account,
energization of O_Mousa–Taba line at no-load at CWF increased to but their values are reduced when the overvoltages profile across the
(0.065, 5.01, 1.35 and 23.51) for (1 tower dry, n tower dry, 1 tower line are considered into account. The insulation CFO are increased
wet, n towers wet) respectively compared to (0.017, 2.10, 0.52 and when considering the actual wave front of the switching overvoltages
15.56) obtained at standard conditions. and risk of failure is highly decreased. The insulation CFO is decreased
when the altitude of the transmission line above sea level is increased
7. Conclusion due to the correction factor considered and risk of failure is highly in-
creased.
The risks of failures due to the energization overvoltages of no-

197
A.H. Hamza et al.
References
[1] International Electrotechnical Commission, Insulation Co-ordination Part 1:
Definitions, Principles and Rules, International Electrotechnical Commission, 2006
IEC60071-1.
[2] IEEE Power & Energy Society, IEEE Standard for Insulation
Coordination—Definitions, Principles, and Rules, IEEE Std C62.82. 1-2010, 2011 6
April.
[3] Juan A. Martinez, Dan Goldsworthy, Randy Horton, Switching overvoltage mea-
surements and simulations—part I: field test overvoltage measurements, IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv. 29 (December (6)) (2014).
[4] A. Morched, B. Gustavsen, M. Tartibi, A universal line model for accurate calcu-
lation of electromagnetic transients on overhead lines and cables, IEEE Trans.
Power Deliv. 14 (July (3)) (1999) 1032–1038.
[5] Jinliang He, et al., Equivalent waveform parameters of switching overvoltages in
UHV systems, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 28 (July (3)) (2013).
[6] IEEEWorking Group 15.08.09, Modeling and Analysis of System Transients Using
Digital Programs, IEEE PES Special Publication 99TP-133-0, IEEE Operations
Center, Piscataway, NJ, U.S.A, 1998.
[7] Jeong-Boo Kim, Eung-Bo Shim, Jeong-Woon Shim, Switching overvoltage analysis
and air clearance design on the KEPCO 765 kV double circuit transmission system,
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 15 (January (1)) (2000).
[8] Mariusz Benesz, Wieslaw Nowak, Waldemar Szpyra, Rafał Tarko, Application of
statistical methods in insulation coordination of overhead power lines, 2017 18th
International Scientific Conference on Electric Power Engineering (EPE) (2017) 1–4
IEEE.
[9] CIGRE Working Group 07, Study Committee 33, Guidelines for Evaluation of the
Dielectric Strength of External Insulation, CIGRE Technical Brochure 72, 1992.
[10] Patricia Mestas, Maria Cristina Tavares, Relevant parameters in a statistical ana-
lysis—application to transmission-line energization, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 29
(6) (2014) 2605–2613.
[11] B. Gustavsen, A. Semlyen, Simulation of transmission line transients using vector
fitting and modal decomposition, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 13 (April (2)) (1998)
605–614.
[12] K. Ravishankar, D. Thukaram, Control of switching surges due to energization of
765 kV UHV transmission line, 2012 7th IEEE International Conference on
Industrial and Information Systems (ICIIS) (2012) 1–6 IEEE.
[13] D. Thukaram, H.P. Khincha, Sulabh Khandelwal, Estimation of switching transient
198
Electric Power Systems Research 166 (2019) 190–198
peak overvoltages during transmission line energization using artificial neural
network, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 76 (4) (2006) 259–269.
[14] CIGRE Working Group 33.02, Guidelines for Representation of Network Elements
When Calculating Transients, CIGRE Working Group, Paris, 1990.
[15] J.R. Marti, Accurate modelling of frequency-dependent transmission lines in elec-
tromagnetic transient simulations, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst. PAS-101 (January
(1)) (1982) 147–157.
[16] J.R. Marti, L. Marti, H. Dommel, Transmission line models for steady-state and
transients analysis, IEEE/NTUA Athens Power Tech Conference, Greece, 1993.
[17] Taku Noda, Application of frequency-partitioning fitting to the phase-domain fre-
quency-dependent modeling of overhead transmission lines, IEEE Trans. Power
Deliv. 30 (1) (2015) 174–183.
[18] A.M. Mahdy, A. El-Morshedy, H.I. Anis, Insulation failure assessment under random
energization overvoltages, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 32 (2) (1996) 214–220.
[19] A.R. Hileman, P.R. Leblanc, G.W. Brown, Estimating the switching surge perfor-
mance of transmission lines, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PAS-89 (September/
October (7)) (1970) 1455–1469.
[20] G. Gallet, G. LeRoy, R. Lacey, I. Kromel, General Expression for Positive Switching
Impulse Strength up to Extra Long Air Gaps, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. (1975)
1989–1993.
[21] IEC, Insulation Co-ordination — Part 2: Application Guide, IEC 60071-2, 1996
1996.
[22] J.K. Dillard, A.R. Hileman, UHV transmission tower insulation tests, IEEE Trans.
Power Appar. Syst. (1965) 1772–1784. April.
[23] Yang Li, Jinliang He, Jun Yuan, Chen Li, Jun Hu, Rong Zeng, Failure risk of UHV AC
transmission line considering the statistical characteristics of switching overvoltage
waveshape, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 28 (3) (2013) 1731–1739.
[24] G.W. Brown, Designing EHV lines to a given outage rate-simplified techniques, IEEE
Trans. Power Appar. Syst. (1978) 379–383.
[25] T.H. Pham, et al., Effect of externally gapped line arrester placement on insulation
coordination of a twin-circuit 220 kV line, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 27 (October
(4)) (2012).
[26] Yue Wang, An adaptive importance sampling method for spinning reserve risk
evaluation of generating systems incorporating virtual power plants, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. (2018) 5082–5091.
[27] International Electrotechnical Commission, Insulation Co-ordination Part 2:
Application Guide, International Electrotechnical Commission, 2018 IEC60071-
2,1996.