21, rue dArtois, F-75008 PARIS

http : //www.cigre.org

C4-304

CIGRE 2012

Lightning invasion overvoltage study for UHVAC substation

S.SUN
Alstom Grid
China

G.TREMOUILLE
Alstom Grid
France

SUMMARY
With the increasing demand of power energy, the UHV power transmission technologies attract all the
attention of power utilities and manufacturers with distinct advantages in the power transmission of
large capacity and long distance. However, it also raises the challenges on the lightning overvoltage
protection of UHV substations.
This paper presented a lightning invasion overvoltage study on 400kV AC substation and 1000kV
UHVAC substation in order to compare the effect of different EMT equipment model on lightning
invasion overvoltage level of HV and UHV substation. Focus will be done on modelling, as
simplification done for lower voltage level may no more be accurate for UHV issues. Discussion will
be made on the impact for several modelling axis:

OHL: power frequency pre-stressed overhead line model; overhead line model without pre-stressed
voltage.
Corona effect: dynamic additional capacitance model
Tower: single vertical losses line model ; multi-story tower model
Footing resistance: constant resistor model ; ionization model
Insulator flashover: critical flashover voltage model; V-Time curve flashover model
Surge arrester: non-linear resistance model; frequency dependent model
GIS: includes circuit breaker, disconnector, elbow, insulator supporter and connection bus bar

This study is carried out by PSCAD/EMTDC. Necessary sensitivities studies will be carried out prior
to the discussion, in order to have a quantities approach.

KEYWORDS
UHV, Insulation-coordination, Fast-front, Overvoltage, EMT, Modelling

Shujie.sun@alstom.com

INTRODUCTION

As transmission lines appeared at the beginning of the 20th century, the hazard of lightning on
transmission lines became obvious. With the increase of the operating voltage of transmission lines,
the proportion of lightning accident also increases among a total number of trip accidents. It is known
that lightning strikes inject steep front current impulses to the overhead transmission lines, and cause
travelling waves which propagate along the overhead line and invade into substations where they
cause lightning invasion overvoltages and pose a risk to any items of equipment connected. Due to the
different position of the strike point, there are two kinds of lightning invasion over voltage. One is
back flashover referring to the lightning strikes on tower (or shielding wire) which increases the tower
top voltage over the insulator strength, then lead to backward
flashovers from the tower to an overhead line conductor.
Another one is shielding failure which refers to the lightning
strikes directly on the overhead line conductor due to the
shielding wire protection failure.
Lightning overvoltage could be recognized as a dominant
factor to determine the insulation level of a substation. Thus
the resulting over voltage must be compatible with the
dielectric withstand of the different equipments of substation.
Lightning invasion overvoltage in substation can be modelled
and analysed by electromagnetic transient methodology
considering the travelling wave and transient energy
exchange in the network. Different modelling methods of the
network component, such as lightning impulse, overhead line
and tower, substation components and other related
equipment, are recommended and discussed in IEC 60071-4
with the voltage level up to 750kV.
With the increasing demand of power energy, the UHV
power transmission technologies attract all the attention of power utilities and manufacturers with
distinct advantages in the power transmission of large capacity and long distance. However, it also
raises the challenges on the lightning overvoltage protection of UHV substations. Equipment
modelling for lightning over voltage in UHV substation may require more accurate method. Based on
the lightning over voltage study of 400kV (HV) substation and 1000kV (UHV) substation, the impact
of different equipment models to the overvoltage result have been studied and discussed.
2

MODELLING

An accurate representation of a network component is essential for reliable power system transient
analysis. The simulation of transient phenomena may require a representation of network components
valid for a frequency range. In order to achieve accurate simulation, the mathematical models with
frequency dependence of parameters should be taken into account in the network components
modelling. The overvoltage in substation due to the lightning strikes the overhead line is a transient
phenomenon with the frequency range from 10 kHz to3 MHz. Modelling guidelines for representation
of network component in lightning overvoltage simulations have been proposed in many references
[1]. The lightning stroke is modelled as an ideal current source with impulse lightning current as the
input signal, of which amplitude and wave shape are determined by statistical method considering the
region and overhead line configuration[2]. In this paper, focus will be on the modelling of different
network component which are summarized as below:
2.1

TOWER MODEL

Several tower models have been developed over the years, they were developed using a theoretical
approach [2][3] or based on an experimental work [4][6]. Single vertical lossless line model and multistory model are adopted in this study for
Single vertical
comparison.
lossless model as
Single vertical lossless line model
reference

2
Multi story model
as " advanced
model"

The simplest representation of the over head line tower is a lossless distributed-parameter transmission
line, characterized by surge impedance and a travel time [5]. Figure 1 shows the geometric
configuration of the tower body, while related surge impedance can be calculated by (1).

Z T = 60 ln cot 0.5 tan _ 1 (ravg / H T )

With : ravg =

r1 h2 + r2 (h1 + h2 ) + r3 h1
h1 + h2

(1)
H T = h1 + h2
Z t1

l1

2r1

L1

R1

l2
Z t1

h2

l3

R2

L2
Z t1

2r2

R3

h1

l4

L3
Zt 2

R4

2r3

L4

Rf

Figure 1 Tower configuration

Figure 2: Multi-story tower configuration

Multi-story model
This model is composed of four sections that represent
Each section consists of a lossless line in series with
resistance included the attenuation of the traveling
corresponding electrical model are calculated from the
provided in [6].
2.2

the tower sections between cross-arms [4].

an inductance in parallel with a damping
waves (Figure2).The parameters of the
tower geometry data, more information is

TOWER FOOTING RESISTANCE MODEL

Generally two types of tower footing resistance

model are used: one is simplified constant
resistance, the other one considers surge current
magnitude dependent characteristics due to soil
ionization [1].
Constant resistance model

Constant resitance
model ( 10 Ohm) as
reference

Ionazation, current
dependant model as "
advanced model"

To conservative consideration, the tower footing

resistance can be presented as its power
frequency footing resistance. Normally the
resistance value is required to limit within 10ohms. Thus in this simulation 10ohms resistance is
adopted.

Ionization model
Due to the high value of earth current during a lightning strike, ionization of the soil should be taken
into account so that tower footing resistance could be represented as non-linear resistors proposed in
[1], of which characteristic can be determined by formula (2):

R 0 I f I g )

R0

R(I f ) R (I )
I

1 f

Ig

(I f I g )

(2)

with

Ig

E0
2R 02

Where:
R0
low-current and low-frequency resistance (ohm);
If
lightning current through the footing impedance (A);

soil resistively (ohm.m);

E0
soil ionization gradient (recommended value from IEC60071-4[1] is 400 kV/m).
2.3

INSULATOR FLASHOVER MODEL

As explained at the beginning, during

Voltage control
the back flash, the lightning strikes at
swith model , as
the shield wire or the tower top while
reference
the lightning current incepts into the
tower which increases the tower top
voltage, as well as the voltage stressed
V-Time curve
over the line insulator. If the voltage at
flashover
volatge as
the tower top is over the insulator
" advanced model"
strength, then the back flashover occurs.
As the result the voltage travelling wave
will invade into the substation. Thus the insulator flashover model is very important to the lightning
overvoltage of the substation equipment. However, due to the statistical factor involved in this process
such as environment, insulator pollution, etc, it is difficult to achieve the accurate insulator flashover
model. Two models recommended by IEC 60071-4 are described as below:
Critical flashover voltage (CFO) model [7]
This model consider that the break down voltage of the line insulator is the impulse voltage level at
which the probability of flashover of the insulator is 50%. For configurations such as conductor-upper
structure and conductor-cross arm, the influence of the insulators on the strength is negligible so that
the strength of these configurations is close to that of air gaps.
For the purpose of estimating the breakdown strength of overhead line insulator strings for negative
polarity, in order to determine the magnitude of surges propagating into a substation, the following
formula may be used, where d is the air gap length in metre.

U 50% = 700 d (kV crest)

The formula is applicable to sea-level, thus altitude correction has to be considered when applying the
insulation co-ordination procedure.
V-Time curve flashover model
The breakdown of air gap as an insulator is a function of environmental conditions in addition to the
fast front voltage build up. In this study, it can be expressed by a simplified method proposed in [8][9]
K2
V fo = K 1 + 0.75 , K1 = 400 L, K 2 = 710 L
t
Where V fo is the flashover voltage ( kV)

L is the equivalent air gap length (m)

t 0.75 is the elapsed time after lightning stroke

2.4

SURGE ARRESTER

For the modeling of surge arrester

in EMT study, two typical
non linear resistance,
configurations are proposed by
as reference
IEC60071-4[1]. The non-linear
resistance model is recommended
firstly where the behavior of surge
arrester is related to the Voltagefrequency dependant
Current curve based on lightning
model as " advanced
impulse testing from manufacturer.
model"
However, this simple model can
only present well at one frequency.
With a given inception current magnitude in surge arrester, when the time to crest of current is
decreased from 8us to 1.3us, the voltage developed across the arrester can increase by approximately
6% [10]. In lightning overvoltage phenomenon, the lightning current impulse incepted into the surge
arrester normally would not be the standard impulse shape as in the manufacture testing. Thus another
frequency-dependent surge arrester model is recommended by IEEE working group, where the nonlinear V-I characteristic of an arrester is represented with two sections of nonlinear resistance
designated by different V-I curve to represent different front separately. There are two R-L filter
adopted to separate these two sections. Under the slow-front surges, this R-L filter has very little
impedance and the two non-linear sections of the model are in parallel. Under fast-front surges the
impedance of the R-L filter becomes more significant. Thus this frequency-dependent model will give
good results for current surges with times to crest from 0.5 us to 40 us [10].
Non-linear resistance model

This non-linear resistor model for surge arrester use 8/20 s characteristics as the V-I curve. The
leader of surge arrester to the ground is represented as an inductance which is about 1uH/m. It is also
equipped with stray capacitance when the surge arrester is applied in GIS.
Frequency dependent model

As described before, the frequency dependent model is presented in Fig.3, where A0 and A1 are two
non-linear resistances. For slow-front surges, A0 and A1 are in parallel. For fast- front surges, the V-I
characteristic of A0 is dominant in this model.
L0
L1
However, this frequency dependent model
requires an iterative procedure to determine the
parameters where corrections on different
R0
R1
elements are necessary until a satisfactory
C
A0
A1
behavior is obtained. The initial values can be
obtained through formulas that take into account
both the electrical data and the physical
parameters [10].
Figure 3 Frequency dependence model
2.5

GIS MODEL

The main components of GIS which should be taken into account in lightning study are circuit
breaker, disconnector, voltage transformer, current transformer, bus conductor, elbow, insulator
supporter, and so on. The GIS component can be represented as line model defined by related surge
impedance and length with a phase to ground stray capacitance which is recommended by IEC600714. The value of surge impedance of GIS components depends on their geometrical dimensions. In SF6
insulated cable, the velocity of voltage travelling wave is equal to 3 108 m / s [11].
It is known that in electromagnetic transient simulation, accurate modeling can achieve the result
which is more corresponded to reality. Then it is preferred to model each GIS component consistent
with its geometry configuration. However, accurate modeling of GIS requires detailed information of

equipment and also simulation time. In this study, the influence of the full GIS model and simplified
GIS model where elbow or insulator support are neglected to the overvoltage result is studied based on
HV and UHV substation.

Figure 4 Elbow

2.6

Figure 5 Insulator support

LINE CORONA MODEL

As the voltage reaches the corona inception voltage, the corona effect happens which can change the
shielding wire surge impedance and increase the coupling efficient between transmission line and the
shielding wire. Thus the induced voltage in transmission line is increased and the voltage over the
insulator is decreased. Besides, the amplitude and steepness of the voltage travelling wave front is
decreased, therefore the lightning invasion voltage into the substation could be changed.
In this study, the overhead line model without and with corona effect is studied to investigate the
impact of corona effect to the overvoltage result. The corona effect can
be represented using discrete classical components. This is achieved by
dividing the line into sections of a given length and connecting one or
two branches containing a diode, a capacitor and a DC voltage source
to each section. In EMT simulation, corona model in OHL can be
modeled by a circuit with diodes and capacitors to mathematical
descriptions of the q-v curve characterizes. Fig 6 shows the equivalent
circuits of corona model proposed by Wagner and Lloyd [11]. Where
the capacitance C 0 represents the additional capacitance of line while
the DC source Vi represents the corona inception voltage. Below the
corona inception voltage level, C 0 is prevented from charging by the
diode, maintaining the whole line capacitance as the natural
capacitance value.
Figure 6 Corona equivalent circuits

2.7

POWER SUPPLY MODEL

The power-frequency voltage when the lightning strikes at the overhead line can be represented as a
power-frequency voltage source and an adaptation resistor in series. Lightning overvoltage study in
substation considering the power-frequency voltage or neglect the
power-frequency voltage is simulated corresponding to investigate its
impact to the overvoltage in substation. In the simulation where the
power frequency voltage of the substation is considered, the negative
lightning strikes at the overhead line when the power frequency
voltage achieves the positive maximum value.
Figure 7 Power supply model

SYSTEMS

In order to compare the impact of different EMT equipment model on lightning invasion overvoltage
level of HV and UHV substation, numerous simulations have been carried out based on the 400kVAC
GIS substation and 1000kV AC GIS substation system configuration and component parameters are
described as below:
3.1

400KV GIS AC SUBSTATION

Figure 8 shows the main electrical connection of 400kV

GIS substation, where two incoming lines connect with
two transformers through one and half breaker scheme.
The overhead line parameters are described in table 1
and 2. 400kV GIS parameters are from project data,
where the capacitance of insulator supporter here is
adopted as 3.8pF. The rated voltage of surge arrester is
360kV; it has one column with the length of 1.95m.
Residual voltage under 10kA lightning impulse and 1kA
switching surge are 836kV and 702kV. The lightning
overvoltage at the main components, such as bushing,
voltage transformer, power transformer, gas insulated
bus , surge arrester and bus conductor inside GIS (see
Figure3), are measured during the simulation and the
maximum overvoltage of each type of component are
recorded.

SA

SA

Bushing

PT

CB
DS

GIB

GIB

SA

SA

Tr

Tr

Figure 8 400kV GIS main electrical connection

Table 1 Incoming line conductor parameters

3.2

Table 2 Parameters of entrance terminal towers

1000KV GIS AC SUBSTATION

Figure 9 shows the main electrical connection of

1000kV Huainan UHV GIS substation of China
[12]. The overhead line parameters are described
in table 3 and 4. The surge arrester rated voltage is
828 kV. Residual voltage under 20kA lightning
impulse and 2kA switching surge are 1620kV and
1460kV. More detailed parameters can be found
from [12]. Maximum lightning overvoltage is
measured at the same component as described in
400kV GIS. In 1000kV GIS the capacitance
voltage transformer is applied. Thus the lightning
overvoltage at the capacitance voltage transformer
has been measured as well.

Line1

Line 2

Shunt reactor

Shunt reactor

SA

SA

CVT

CVT
Bushing

CB
DS

GIB

SA
CVT

SA
CVT

Figure 9 1000kV GIS UHV Huainan Substation

Table 3 Parameters of entrance terminal towers

3.3

Table 4 Incoming line conductor parameters

LIGHTNING INVASION OVERVOLTAGE SIMULATION

Simulation conditions
1Lightning stroke current

The determination of lightning strike current and its inception point at overhead line are wellexplained in [7]. In this study, lightning stroke current is represented by ideal current source, with the
impulse current shape as described in table 5

Table 5 Lightning stroke applied in lightning over voltage simulation

2System configuration

To evaluate the over voltage level of GIS substation during the lightning stroke, different cases of
network configuration are taken into account, depending on the state of each breaker and disconnector.
In this lightning overvoltage study of HV and UHV GIS, the configuration of one incoming line
connected with one transformer (line1 connects transformer 1) is applied as the base of modelling
comparison. Besides, the GIS substation is modelled in single phase A with related bus bar length
based on GIS drawing, with phase A conductor insulator flashover for back flash.
3) Simulation cases

With the GIS configuration presented before , several simulation cases have been taken to the
lightning overvoltage study in order to compare the impact of different equipment models to the
overvoltage result , as well as its influence degree to the HV and UHV voltage level. As presented
before, for each component involve in the lightning invasion overvoltage in substation, there are two
different models listed. In the following simulation, basic simulation case is the one with all simplified
component EMT model. Table 6 shows the modelling application details of other cases.

Table 6: Simulation cases

Advanced
Footing

Advanced Air
Gap Arcing

Advanced
Surge Arrester

Advanced
Elbow

Advanced GIS
Insulator

Advanced
Corona

Advanced
Power Source

All Advanced
model

Air -SF6 Bushing

Voltage transformer
GIB
Surge Arester
Transformer
End of Busbar

Advaced
Tower

Back Flash - 1000kV

1. pu 1.1U n 3

All Simple
model

Simulation results: The simulation is carried out by power system transient

simulation tool PSCAD/EMDC. Lightning overvoltage at main components
in the substation are measured and listed in table 7~10.

1,80 p.u.
2,18 p.u.
1,94 p.u.
1,76 p.u.
1,82 p.u.
2,18 p.u.

1,79 p.u.
1,93 p.u.
1,84 p.u.
1,75 p.u.
1,86 p.u.
1,93 p.u.

1,85 p.u.
2,11 p.u.
1,91 p.u.
1,76 p.u.
1,89 p.u.
2,11 p.u.

1,79 p.u.
1,93 p.u.
1,88 p.u.
1,79 p.u.
1,94 p.u.
1,93 p.u.

1,77 p.u.
2,20 p.u.
2,00 p.u.
1,77 p.u.
1,90 p.u.
2,20 p.u.

1,83 p.u.
2,19 p.u.
1,97 p.u.
1,77 p.u.
1,95 p.u.
2,19 p.u.

1,81 p.u.
2,18 p.u.
1,95 p.u.
1,76 p.u.
1,84 p.u.
2,18 p.u.

1,82 p.u.
2,11 p.u.
1,95 p.u.
1,78 p.u.
1,81 p.u.
2,11 p.u.

1,75 p.u.
2,08 p.u.
2,02 p.u.
1,87 p.u.
2,30 p.u.
2,08 p.u.

1,79 p.u.
2,01 p.u.
1,90 p.u.
1,78 p.u.
2,15 p.u.
2,02 p.u.

Advanced
Footing

Advanced Air
Gap Arcing

Advanced
Surge Arrester

Advanced
Elbow

Advanced GIS
Insulator

Advanced
Corona

Advanced
Power Source

All Advanced
model

Air -SF6 Bushing

Voltage transformer
GIB
Surge Arester
Transformer
Busbar

Advaced
Tower

Shield Failure - 1000kV

All Simple
model

Table 7: 1000kV Huainan GIS lightning invasion overvoltage result in kV Back flashover

1,76 p.u.
1,88 p.u.
1,84 p.u.
1,80 p.u.
2,02 p.u.
1,88 p.u.

1,76 p.u.
1,88 p.u.
1,84 p.u.
1,80 p.u.
2,03 p.u.
1,88 p.u.

1,76 p.u.
1,88 p.u.
1,84 p.u.
1,80 p.u.
2,02 p.u.
1,88 p.u.

1,76 p.u.
1,88 p.u.
1,84 p.u.
1,80 p.u.
2,02 p.u.
1,88 p.u.

1,75 p.u.
1,91 p.u.
1,84 p.u.
1,78 p.u.
2,01 p.u.
1,91 p.u.

1,75 p.u.
1,87 p.u.
1,83 p.u.
1,80 p.u.
2,02 p.u.
1,87 p.u.

1,76 p.u.
1,88 p.u.
1,83 p.u.
1,80 p.u.
2,02 p.u.
1,88 p.u.

1,76 p.u.
1,89 p.u.
1,84 p.u.
1,80 p.u.
2,04 p.u.
1,88 p.u.

1,78 p.u.
1,91 p.u.
1,85 p.u.
1,79 p.u.
2,01 p.u.
1,91 p.u.

1,81 p.u.
1,88 p.u.
1,84 p.u.
1,77 p.u.
1,89 p.u.
1,89 p.u.

Advanced
Footing

Advanced Air
Gap Arcing

Advanced
Surge
Arrester

Advanced
Elbow

Advanced
GIS Insulator

Advanced
Corona

Advanced
Power Source

All Advanced
model

Air -SF6 Bushing

Voltage transformer
GIB
Surge Arester
Transformer
Busbar

Advaced
Tower

Back Flash - 400kV

All Simple
model

Table 8: 1000kV Huainan GIS lightning invasion overvoltage result in kV Shielding failure

2,56 p.u.
2,57 p.u.
2,76 p.u.
2,68 p.u.
3,29 p.u.
2,76 p.u.

2,53 p.u.
2,77 p.u.
2,86 p.u.
2,62 p.u.
3,20 p.u.
2,90 p.u.

2,55 p.u.
2,55 p.u.
2,74 p.u.
2,67 p.u.
3,30 p.u.
2,75 p.u.

2,35 p.u.
2,53 p.u.
2,58 p.u.
2,58 p.u.
3,26 p.u.
2,59 p.u.

2,75 p.u.
2,98 p.u.
3,09 p.u.
3,07 p.u.
4,11 p.u.
3,19 p.u.

2,53 p.u.
2,54 p.u.
2,67 p.u.
2,65 p.u.
3,29 p.u.
2,65 p.u.

2,55 p.u.
2,54 p.u.
2,70 p.u.
2,65 p.u.
3,30 p.u.
2,73 p.u.

2,59 p.u.
2,75 p.u.
2,74 p.u.
2,65 p.u.
3,04 p.u.
2,76 p.u.

3,04 p.u.
2,80 p.u.
2,96 p.u.
2,67 p.u.
3,01 p.u.
2,94 p.u.

2,76 p.u.
2,75 p.u.
2,98 p.u.
2,82 p.u.
3,14 p.u.
3,16 p.u.

Table 9 400kV GIS lightning invasion overvoltage result in kV Back flashover

Advaced
Tower

Advanced
Footing

Advanced Air
Gap Arcing

Advanced
Surge Arrester

Advanced
Elbow

Advanced GIS
Insulator

Advanced
Corona

Advanced
Power Source

All Advanced
model

Air -SF6 Bushing

Voltage transformer
GIB
Surge Arester
Transformer
Busbar

All Simple
model

Shielding Failure - 400kV

2,42 p.u.
2,57 p.u.
2,50 p.u.
2,49 p.u.
2,76 p.u.
2,57 p.u.

2,42 p.u.
2,57 p.u.
2,50 p.u.
2,49 p.u.
2,77 p.u.
2,57 p.u.

2,42 p.u.
2,57 p.u.
2,50 p.u.
2,49 p.u.
2,77 p.u.
2,55 p.u.

2,42 p.u.
2,57 p.u.
2,50 p.u.
2,49 p.u.
2,77 p.u.
2,55 p.u.

2,65 p.u.
3,05 p.u.
3,11 p.u.
2,97 p.u.
3,77 p.u.
3,09 p.u.

2,40 p.u.
2,59 p.u.
2,51 p.u.
2,48 p.u.
2,77 p.u.
2,59 p.u.

2,42 p.u.
2,58 p.u.
2,50 p.u.
2,48 p.u.
2,77 p.u.
2,58 p.u.

2,53 p.u.
2,58 p.u.
2,64 p.u.
2,57 p.u.
2,92 p.u.
2,57 p.u.

2,53 p.u.
2,65 p.u.
2,60 p.u.
2,57 p.u.
2,92 p.u.
2,60 p.u.

2,62 p.u.
2,60 p.u.
2,59 p.u.
2,54 p.u.
2,80 p.u.
2,59 p.u.

Table 10: 400kV GIS lightning invasion overvoltage result in kV Shielding failure

3.4

COMPARSION AND DISCUSSION

The observed impact should be compared to the safety margin used in simulation such as safety factor
Ks = 1.05 in air and 1.15 in oil, SF6 or solid insulation [7], in mean a safety margin between 0.1 and
0.3 p.u. The observed modelling results deviation should be observed have in mind this 0.1 to 0.3 p.u.
range. It should be noted that an altitude correction factor Ka (1.13 for lightning at 1000m altitude)
should also be integrated in such insulation coordination studies [7].
Shielding failure cases
As first and simple analysis on the result we can highlight that the impact of the modelling details such
as GIS bus insulator and GIS enclosure
elbow for the shielding failure case is
very low (< 0.026 p.u. for 400kV, to
0.04p.u. maximum in 1000 kV)
whatever the voltage level is.
The impact of tower modelling, tower
footing resistance modelling, insulator
flashover modeling is less than
0.015p.u. in 400 kV and became here
also negligible in our study case for
1000 kV with a maximum impact of
0.02 p.u
F
Figure 10: Shielding failure modelling deviation observed

Figure 11: Shielding failure modelling deviation 1000 kV detailed location

10

Figure 12: Shielding failure modelling deviation 400 kV detailed location

In a second hand, the impact of corona effect or the introduction of a 50 Hz (60 Hz) source is reducing
from a significant impact of 0.17 p.u. (400 kV case) to a very low impact of 0.02 p.u. in the 1000 kV
case.
Finally the surge arrester modelling method which is well known to have a main impact on the
simulation result, have here also a major impact in 400 kV case, with 1 p.u. deviation, the impact in
1000 kV reduce here also ( to 0.03 p.u.)
In all these case the impact of the model is reducing with the increase of the voltage level, at least 4
times less is 1000 kV compare to 400 kV case. (See figure 10)
This factor 4 is obtained then we compare a full advanced substation model to the reference case using
simple model for all devices.
Back flashover cases
Here we cannot observe a systematic
reduction of the impact of the model with
the increase of the voltage level. The
impact of voltage level is similar on both
voltage levels.
But general consideration such as low
impact of GIS insulator support model (<
0.02 p.u), low impact of tower footing
model (< 0.07 p.u.) are still similar.
The impact of the tower model is very low
in 1000 kV AC (< 0.04 p.u.) as such as Corona on the line (< 0.026 p.u.).
Figure 13: Shielding failure modelling deviation observed

Figure 14: Shielding failure modelling deviation 400 kV detailed location

11

Figure 15: Shielding failure modelling deviation 400 kV detailed location

Removing the main impacting model of surge arrester and power source introduction, we can show the
synthesis as Figure11 modeling is impacting more in 400 kV than in 1000 kV but in any case impact
of GIS insulator, tower footing , is low ( < 0.1 p.u.).

Figure 16: Overall consolidation impact

CONCLUSION

In EMT simulation, the network component modeling is the most important part to simulate the
accurate transient phenomenon. For the substation lighting invasion overvoltage simulation and
analysis, it requires massive modeling work to achieve the overvoltage results. Simplified and
complicated modeling methods of network component have been introduced in this paper, the
comparison of impacting on the results of different component model are achieved based on the
lightning invasion overvoltage simulation of 400kV and 1000kV AC substation. There are 10 designed
cases for each voltage level with different network component model adopted. The simulation results
are all compared to the basic simulation case which is the one with all simplified component EMT
model. Through the compared result, it can be concluded as below.
As the shielding failure case became the most of the time the design case in 1000 kV regarding
lightning issue, it is interesting to observe that this case is the less sensitive one on the modelling issue.
The most important modelling issue is observed with the surge arrester (0.03 p.u. impact, in this case)
having regard that the implementation of all advanced model introduce de variation of the simulation
result of less than 0.05 p.u., which is lower than half of minimum safety margin (0.1p.u., but selected
as 15% minimum the most of time, i.e. 0.28 p.u. in this case).
In 400 kV cases, the most severe case (for lightning issues) is the lightning back flash over given
significant result regarding the modelling option at least for overhead line lower modelling (0.2 p.u.)
Surge arrester modelling (0.83 p.u.) corona (0.18 p.u.), 50 (60) Hz power source modelling.

12

Implementation of more advance model introduces in 400 kV lightning design case (back flash) a
large deviation of 0.4 p.u. of the simulation result, it confirm that such model are mandatory for
acceptable accuracy.
So, if we cant not advise to systematically simple model for modelling lightning phenomena in 1000
kV, we can concluded that preliminary studies carried out with simple model for lightning events are
acceptable with an accuracy of 0.05 p.u. in our generic study case. Such level of confidence could not
be reach in 400 kV design case (back flashover) with simplified model.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1]

IEC TR 60071-4, 2004"Insulation Co-ordinationPart 4: Computational Guide to Insulation Coordination and Modelling of Electrical Networks"
[2] Working Group 33-01 (Lightning) of Study Committee 33 (Overvoltages and Insulation
Coordination), 1991."Guide to Procedures for Estimating the Lightning Performance of
Transmission Lines
[3] W. A. Chisholm, Y. L. Chow "Lightning Surge Response of Transmission Towers" IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol PAS-102, No 9, September 1983
[4] Masaru Ishii, Eiichi Ohsaki, Tatsuo Kawamura, Kaneyoshi Murotani, Teruya Kouno, Takemitsu
Higuchi "Multi-storey transmission tower model for lightning surge analysis" IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol 6, No 3, July 1991
[5] C.F. Wagner and A.R. Hileman,"A new approach for the calculation of the lightning performance
of transmission lines IIIa, simplified method: stroke to tower", AIEE trans (Powers Apparatus
and Systems), vol 79, October 1960
[6] T. Yamada, A. Mochizuki, J. Sawada, E. Zaima Experimental evaluation of a UHV tower model
for lightning surge analysis IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 10, No. 1, January
1995
[7] IEC TR 60071-2, 2004."Insulation Co-ordinationPart 2: Application guide"
[8] Transmission Line Reference Book, 345 kV and Above, Second Edition, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, 1982.
[9] Applications of PSCAD / EMTDC, Manitoba HVDC Research Centre Inc.
[10] IEEE working group 3.4.11, Modelling of metal oxide surge arresters, IEEE Transaction on
power delivery, vol.7 No.1 January, 1992
[11] Andrew R. Hileman Insulation coordination for power systems, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis
Group ISBN: 0-8247-9957-7
[12] CHEN Shui-ming, WANG Wei, Analysis on UHV Substation Lightning Intruding Overvoltage
considering power frequency voltage High Voltage Engineering Vol.36.No.8, Aug 31, 2010

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Authors

Ms. Shujie SUN was born in Hunan province, China, on August 28,1982. She
graduated from Shanghai Jiaotong University in 2009 with Master degree of
Power system and automation. Shujie joined ALSTOM Grid Technology centre
in 2009 (formerly AREVA T&D China Technology Centre), now she is a senior
engineer of power system analysis.

Mr. Gilles Trmouille was born in Sens (Bourgogne), France, on August 12,
1968. He graduated from E.S.T. P (Ecole Speciale des Travaux Public du
Batiment et de l'industrie ) Paris, in 1992 as Mechanical Engineering &
Power Systems.- Since November 1999, this school is associated with
another, state-owned, French " Grande Ecole ", Ecole Nationale Suprieure
d'Arts et Mtiers (ENSAM). Gilles start is activity EDF DER (research) in the OHL test center
of EDF (Electricit de France). He joint ALSTOM Grid in 1995 (formerly CEGELEC,
AREVA T&D). He is a Member of the IEEE. He integrated the Cigre working group C4
(System Technical Performance) & B3 ( Substations)

13