01414786

8/12/2019 01414786

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/01414786 1/4

___________________________________________ 0-7803-8560-8/04/$20.00©2004IEEE

LIGHTNING ARRESTER MODELING USING ATP-EMTP

Trin Saengsuwan and Wichet Thipprasert

Department of Electrical Engineering Faculty of Engineering Kasetsart University50 Phaholyothin Rd., Jatujak Bangkok 10900 Thailand

Tel.(662) 579-7566 ext.1501 Fax.(662) 942-8555 ext.1550E-mail: [email protected],[email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper describes operating analysis of metaloxide surge arrester, IEEE and Pinceti model, usingATP-EMTP. Nowadays the Provincial ElectricityAuthority (PEA) and the Metropolitan ElectricityAuthority (MEA) mostly use lightning arrester fromOhio Brass and Precise brand. The lightning arrestermodels base on the Ohio Brass :PVR 221617 21kVand Precise: Precise PAZ-P09-1 9 kV 10kA class 1

by apply standard impulse current wave (8/20 sec).The models can predict the operation of the metaloxide surge arrester in the system within 10% errors.

.

1. INTRODUCTION

Metal Oxide Surge Arrester has been in service since1976. They protect major electrical equipment fromdamage by limiting overvoltage and dissipating the

associated energy[5]. Metal Oxide surge Arrester should be highly reliable in most application becausethe metal oxide surge arrester are less fail than siliconcarbide arrester as a result of moisture ingress andcontamination.

Metal Oxide Surge Arrester have been designed for the protection of overhead distribution equipment,and these arrester are replacing silicon carbidearrester on many systems. Experience has shown thatmost failures of silicon carbide arrester occur becausegap sparkover.These failures have been reduced usingMetal oxide surge arrester, by moisture ingress or contamination, to a level low enough to permit

repetitive sparkover at or near normal operatingvoltage. Because metal oxide valve elements aremuch more non-linear than silicon carbide elements,gaps are not required in metal oxide surge arrester designed with protective characteristicsapproximately the same as silicon carbide arresters.Elimination of gaps, the arrester element most likelyto fail, should result in a significant improvement inreliability. On the other hand, the elimination of gapsresults in an increased probability of failure of metaloxide surge arrester on system overvoltage lower thannormally required to cause the sparkover of gappedarresters. Another aspect of reliability that has not

been examined is the relative surge current discharge

capacity of metal oxide and silicon carbide valveelements. Because the experience with metal oxidedistribution arresters is limited, the most realisticmethod available for estimating the long-runfrequency of surge failures of metal oxide surgearrester is to compare their surge discharge capabilityto that of silicon carbide arresters. Consideration of

published test data on both kinds of arresters leads tothe conclusion that metal oxide surge arresters might

be more vulnerable to high energy lightning surgethan silicon carbide arresters. Although a conclusionfrequently reached in failure studies of silicon carbidearresters is that lightning surges account for arelatively small percentage of total failures, surgefailures of metal oxide surge arresters could besignificant in areas of high lightning intensity[2].

The advantages of the metal oxide surge arrester incomparison with the silicon carbide gapped arrester are:-

1. Simplicity of design, which improvesoverall quality and decreases moistureingress.

2. Easier to maintenance especially to clear arc.

3. Increased energy absorption capability.The disadvantage of the metal oxide surge arrester occors at the normal power frequency. Voltage iscontinually resident across the metal oxide and

produces a current of about one milliampere. Whilethis low-magnitude current is not detrimental , higher currents, resulting from excursions of the normal

power frequency voltage or from temporary over-voltages such as from faults or ferroresonance,

produce heating in the metal oxide. If the temporaryovervoltage are sufficiently large in magnitude arelong in duration, temperatures may increasesufficiently so that thermal runaway and failure occur [6]. This paper describes operating analysis of metal oxide surge arrester, IEEE and Pinceti model,using ATP-EMTP. The lightning arrester models baseon the Ohio Brass :PVR 221617 21kV and Precise:Precise PAZ-P09-1 9 kV 10kA class 1 by apply

standard impulse current wave (8/20 sec). Themodels can predict the operation of the metal oxidesurge arrester in the system within 10% errors.

377

8/12/2019 01414786


___________________________________________ 0-7803-8560-8/04/$20.00©2004IEEE

2. IEEE MODEL

The model recommended by IEEE W.G 3.4.11[1]is shown in Fig.1. In this model the non-linear V-Icharacteristic is obtained by means of two non-linear resistors (tagged A0 and A1) separated by a R-L filter.For slow surges the filter impedance is extremely low

and A0 and A1 are practically connected in parallelOn the contrary, during fast surges, the impedanceof the filter becomes significant, and causes a currentdistribution between the two branches. For precisionsake, the current through the branch A0 rises when thefront duration decreases.

Since A0 resistance is greater than A1 resistance forany given current, the faster the current surge, thehigher the residual voltage. This because highfrequency current are forced by the L1 inductance toflow more in the A0 resistance than in the A1

resistance[1].The comparison of the calculated peak values with

the measured values shows that the frequencydependent model gives accurate results for discharge

currents with times to crest between about 0.5 s and

45 s.

Fig. 1 IEEE Frequency-Dependent Model

The main problem of this model is how to identify

its parameters. The W.G.3.4.11 suggests an iterative procedure where corrections on different elements arenecessary until a satisfactory behavior is obtained.The starting values can be obtained through formulasthat take into account both the electrical data (residualvoltages), and the physical parameters (overall height,

block diameter, columns number)[3]. The inductance L1 and the resistance R1 of themodel comprise the filter between the two non-linear resistances. The formulas for these two parametersare :-

L1 = 15d/n µH. (1)

R 1 = 65d/n (2)

where d is the estimated height of the arrester in meters (use overall diamensions from catalog data) n is the number of parallel columns of metal oxide in the arrester

The inductance L0 in the model represents theinductance associated with magnetic fields in theimmediate vicinity of the arrester. The resistor R 0 isused to stabilize the numerical integration where themodel is implemented on a digital computer program.

The capacitance C represents the terminal-to-terminalcapacitance of the arrester.

L0 = 0.2d/n µH. (3)

R 0 = 100d/n (4)

C = 100n/d pF. (5)

The non-linear V-I characteristics A0 and A1 can beestimated from the per unitized curves given in Fig.3.

The efforts of the working group in trying tomatch model results to the laboratory test data haveindicated that these formulas do not always give the

best parameters for the frequency-dependent model.However, they do provide a good starting point for

picking the parameters. An investigation was made by the working group into which parameters of themodel had the most impact on the results. Toaccomplish this, a model base on the precedingformulas was set up on the Electromagnetic transients

Program[1].

3. PINCETI MODEL

The model here presented derives from thestandard model[1], with some minor differences. Bycomparing the model in Fig. 1 and in Fig.2, it cannoted that:

1. the capacitance is eliminated, since itseffects on model behavior is negligible.

2. the two resistances in parallel with theinductances are replaced by one resistance

R (about 1 M) between the input

terminals, with the only scope to avoidnumerical troubles.The operating principle is quite similar to that of

the IEEE frequency-dependent model.

Fig. 2 Pinceti Model

The definition of non-linear resistorscharacteristics (A0 and A1) is base on the curve shown

in Fig.3. These curve derives from the curves proposed by IEEE W.G.3.4.11, and are referred to the peak value of the residual voltage measured during adischarge test with a 10 kA lightning current impulse(Vr8/20);

Fig. 3 Static characteristics of the non-linearelements. The Voltage is in p.u. referred to the

Vr8/20.

L1

R1

A0

A1

L0

R0

C

L0

R

L1

A0

A1

378

8/12/2019 01414786


___________________________________________ 0-7803-8560-8/04/$20.00©2004IEEE

V(pu.) V(kV.) V(pu) V(kV.)

10 0.875 24.763 0 0

100 0.963 27.253 0.769 21.7627

1000 1.05 29.715 0.85 24.055

2000 1.088 30.79 0.894 25.3002

4000 1.125 31.838 0.925 26.1775

6000 1.138 32.205 0.938 26.5454

8000 1.169 33.083 0.956 27.0548

10000 1.188 33.62 0.969 27.4227

12000 1.206 34.13 0.975 27.5925

14000 1.231 34.837 0.988 27.9604

16000 1.25 35.375 0.994 28.1302

18000 1.281 36.252 1 28.3

20000 1.313 37.158 1.006 28.4698

A.

A0 A1 Steep front 30.2

Arrester Rating 9

L1 = 0.15106

L0 = 0.050353

R0 = 1 Meg.

microHen.

microHen.

kV.

kV.


10 0.875 48.65 0 0

100 0.963 53.5428 0.769 42.7564

1 00 0 1 .05 58 .38 0. 85 47 .2 6

2000 1.088 60.4928 0.894 49.7064

4000 1 .125 62.55 0 .925 51.43

6000 1.138 63.2728 0.938 52.1528

8000 1.169 64.9964 0.956 53.1536

10000 1.188 66.0528 0.969 53.8764

12000 1.206 67.0536 0.975 54.21

14000 1.231 68.4436 0.988 54.9328

16000 1 .25 69.5 0 .994 55.2664

1 80 00 1 .28 1 7 1. 223 6 1 55 .6

20000 1.313 73.0028 1.006 55.9336

A.

A0 A1


10 0.875 48.65 0 0

100 0.963 53.5428 0.769 42.7564

1000 1.05 58.38 0.85 47.26

2000 1.088 60.4928 0.894 49.7064

4000 1 .125 62.55 0 .925 51.43

6000 1.138 63.2728 0.938 52.1528

8000 1.169 64.9964 0.956 53.1536

10000 1.188 66.0528 0.969 53.8764

12000 1.206 67.0536 0.975 54.21

14000 1.231 68.4436 0.988 54.9328

16000 1 .25 69.5 0 .994 55.2664

1 80 00 1 .2 81 71 .2 236 1 5 5. 6

20000 1.313 73.0028 1.006 55.9336

A.

A0 A1

To define the inductances, the following equationscan be used:-

2

2

r1 r8T 20

1 n

r820

r1 r8T 20

0 n

r820

V -V1

L = • •V µH. 64 V

V -V1

L = • •V µH. 7

12 V

where Vn = is the arrester rated voltage Vr1/T2 = residual voltage at 10 kA fast front current

surge (1/T 2 s). The decrease time is not explicitly written because different manufacturers may use different values. This fact does not cause any trouble, since the peak value of the residual voltage appears on the rising front of the impulse Vr8/20 = residual voltage at 10 kA current surge with

a 8/20 s shape

The proposed criteria does not take intoconsideration any physical characteristic of thearrester. Only electrical data are needed.

The equations (6) and (7) are base on the fact that parameters L0 and L1 are related to the roles that theseelements have in the model. In other words, since thefunction of the inductive elements is to characterizethe model behavior with respect to fast surges, itseemed logical to define these elements by means of data related to arrester behavior during fast surges[2].

4. EXAMPLE OF SIMULATION

4.1 Data using in the model (Precise PAZ-P09-1

9 kV 10kA class 1)

IEEE Model

Table 1. Parameter using in the IEEE Model

Pinceti Model

Table 2. Parameter using in the Pinceti Model

4.2 Data using in the model (Ohio Brass

PVR 221617)

IEEE Model


Pinceti Model



10 0.875 24.7625 0 0

100 0.963 27.2529 0.769 21.7627

1000 1 .05 29.715 0 .85 24.055

2000 1.088 30.7904 0.894 25.3002

4000 1.125 31.8375 0.925 26.1775

6000 1.138 32.2054 0.938 26.5454

8000 1.169 33.0827 0.956 27.0548

10000 1.188 33.6204 0.969 27.4227

12000 1.206 34.1298 0.975 27.5925

14000 1.231 34.8373 0.988 27.9604

16000 1.25 35.375 0.994 28.1302

18000 1. 281 36. 2523 1 28 .3

20000 1.313 37.1579 1.006 28.4698

A.

A0 A1

134

36

12.6906

4.23022

1

kV.

kV.

Steep front

Arrester Rating

L1 =

L0 =

R0 =

microHen.

microHen.

Mega.

d ( higher m.) 0 .302

n 1

L1 4.53

R1 19.63

L0 0.0604

R0 30.2

C 331.126

V ref( A0) 33.6204

V ref( A1) 27.4227

PF.

kV.

kV.

microHen.

Ohm

microHen.

Ohm

m.

Number of Columne

d (h ig he r m. ) 0 .3 16

n 1

L1 4.74

R1 20.54

L0 0.0632

R0 31.6

C 316.4557

V ref( A0) 66.0528

V ref( A1) 53.8764

PF.

kV.

kV.

microHen.

Ohm

microHen.

Ohm

m.

Number of Columne

379

8/12/2019 01414786


___________________________________________ 0-7803-8560-8/04/$20.00©2004IEEE

Arrester Ohio Brass 21 kV PVR number 221617

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Steep

Current

1 .5 k A. 3 .0 k A. 5 k A. 1 0 k A. 2 0 k A. 4 0 k A. 5 0 0 A . % E

r r o r

IEEEModel

Pinceti Model

Arrester Precise Type:PAZ-P09-1,10 kA

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

Steep

Current

5 kA. 10 kA. 20 kA. 500 A.

% E

r r o r

IEEE Model

Pinceti Model

5. MODELING RESULTS

5.1. Modeling results of Precise PAZ-P09-1

Table 5. Modeling results and errors in each model prepare With manufacture’s data sheets.

Table 6. Percent error of each model prepare with manufacture’s data sheets.

From modeling results, IEEE model has errorshigher than Pinceti model in the high current testing

more than 10 kA with standard wave front (8/20 s.).When testing with the steep wave front, Pincetimodel has errors higher than IEEE model, for the

switching impulse testing, the percentage errors areequal.

5.2. Modeling results of Ohio Brass PVR 221617

Table 7. Modeling results and errors in each model prepare with manufacture’s data sheets.

Table 8. Percent error of each model prepare with manufacture’s data sheets.

From Modeling results, IEEE model has errorshigher than Pinceti model both for the standard wave

front (8/20 s.) testing and switching impulsetesting. When testing with the steep wave front,Pinceti model has errors higher than IEEE model.

6. CONCLUSIONS

When compare both simulation model with PrecisePAZ-P09-1 and Ohio Brass PVR 221617, the

percentage errors from the modeling result can bedescribes as follows :-

1. At standard wave front percentage errors of IEEE model is higher than Pinceti model.

2. At steep wave front percentage errors of IEEE model is less than Pinceti model.

3. At switching overvoltage condition percentage errors of IEEE model is nearlythe same as Pinceti model.

Both models can predict the operation of the metal

oxide surge arrester in the system. There is less than5% errors for standard wave front (8/20 s.) at 5-20kA , less than 10% errors for standard wave front

(8/20 s.) at others, less than 10% errors for steepwave front and less than 14% for switching impulsetesting.

7. REFERENCES

[1] IEEE Working Group 3.4.11 Application of SurgeProtective Devices Subcommittee Surge ProtectiveDevices committee, ”Modeling of Metal Oxide SurgeArrester,” IEEE Transaction on Power Delivery,Vol.7, No.1, pp 302-309, January 1992.

[2] P.Pinceti , M.Giannttoni, “A simplified model for zincoxide surge arrester,” IEEE Transaction on Power Delivery, Vol. 14, No.2, pp 393-398, April 1999.

[3] E.C.Sakshaug, J.J.Bruke, J.S.Kresge,”Metal OxideArrester on Distribution system FundamentalConsiderations,” IEEE Transaction on Power Delivery, Vol.4, No. 4, pp 2076-2089, October 1989.

[4] Ikmo Kim, Toshihisa Funabashi, Haruo Sasaki,Toyohisa Hagiwara, Misao Kobayashi, “A study of ZnO Arrester Model for Steep Front wave,” IEEETransaction on Power Delivery, Vol.11, No. 2, pp 834-841 April 1996.

[5] K.G. Ringler, P. Kirby, C.C. Erven, M.V. Lat, andT.A. Malkiewicz, “The Energy Absorption Capability

of Varistors used in Station Class Metal Oxide SurgeArrester,” IEEE Transaction on Power Delivery,Vol.12, No.1, pp 203-212, January 1997.

[6] Andrew R. Hileman ,”Insulation Coordination for Power systems,”Marcel Dekker,Inc., New York Basel,1999.

IEEE ModelPinceti Model IEEE Model Pinceti Model

10 kA. 30.2 32.025 32.396 -6.043 -7.272

5 kA. 26.1 26.777 26.781 -2.594 -2.609

10 kA. 28.3 28.297 28.315 0.011 -0.053

20 kA. 31.4 30.701 30.746 2.226 2.083

500 A. 22.3 23.335 23.335 -4.641 -4.641

Test (kV.) % Eorror

Impulse Test

Data Sheet(kV.)

Switching Impulse 60/2000

Lightning Impulse

8/20 (kV Crest)

Steep Current 0.5/1

IEEE Model Pinceti Model IEEE ModelPinceti Model

10 kA. 60.7 62.31 62.61 -2.652 -3.147

1.5 kA. 44.3 48.686 48.68 -9.901 -9.887

3.0 kA. 47.6 50.914 50.901 -6.962 -6.935

5 kA. 50.3 52.619 52.603 -4.610 -4.579

10 kA. 55.6 55.607 55.6 -0.013 0.000

20 kA. 63.8 60.305 60.398 5.478 5.33240 kA. 75.3 65.902 66.024 12.481 12.319

500 A. 40.3 45.93 45.846 -13.970 -13.762

% Erroor

Impulse Test

Data Sheet

(kV.)

Test (kV.)

Lightning

Impulse

8/20 s. (kV Crest)

Steep Current 0.5/1

Switching Impulse 60/2000

380

Documents

01414786