0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

12 Aufrufe12 SeitenInvited lecture at VII Symposium on Lightning Protection (SIPDA), Curitiba, Brazil, 17-21 November 2003.

Apr 06, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

Invited lecture at VII Symposium on Lightning Protection (SIPDA), Curitiba, Brazil, 17-21 November 2003.

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

12 Aufrufe

Invited lecture at VII Symposium on Lightning Protection (SIPDA), Curitiba, Brazil, 17-21 November 2003.

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Shunt Reactor Paper
- B-233
- Influence of Long-span Crossings on the Shielding Failure Flashover Rate of the Tucurui-manaus 500kv Transmiss
- 33 Kv Line Boq and Price - Comparative
- 2. Philippine Electronics Code - Volume 1 - Identification
- energies-05-00168
- Campo Magnetico de LT
- Research
- overheadelectric00stilrich.pdf
- 25p
- Manual 000040886
- GTP_for_Towers.docx
- Grounding Systems
- Rr220204-Power Systems - i
- 3801 q3 Tl 001 r Itp Transmision (Field)
- Insulation Enhancement System
- Technical Implementation of Cross Bonding on Underground High Voltage Lines Projects (Sobral2011).pdf
- The Management of Wildlife Interactions With Overhead Powerlines
- CPT1,2,3
- 33KV EARTHMAT 1DESIGN

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

William A. Chisholm John Williamson and Shelly Burnett Greg Hodges

Kinectrics New Brunswick Power Fugro Airborne Surveys

800 Kipling Avenue KL206 Toronto, Ontario CANADA M8Z 6C4 (W.A.Chisholm@ieee.org)

adequate ground electrode surface area, achieved through

the foundations and through supplementary electrodes in For secure transmission links from nuclear and coal-fired

areas of high soil resistivity. A process for efficient power plants to important industrial and commercial

treatment is described. The process involves helicopter-

loads, the following features were used in the 1975

based reconnaissance of two-layer resistivity, validated by

ground-based Wenner resistivity surveys; Design of NB Power designs of 345-kV transmission lines to give

treatment options using simple models; Validation of favorable lightning performance:

treatment effectiveness using active impulse injection into

treated and untreated towers, using highly portable Two overhead groundwires, with good electro-

equipment. On a project involving 160 km of 345-kV lines, magnetic coupling to the phases

the process identified a significant fraction of towers that did Shielding angles of 22, providing nearly perfect

not need treatment, so that resources could be diverted to shielding for average geometry

locations with high resistivity.

Insulation length of 3.05 m, with impulse strength of

about 1650 kV BIL

1 INTRODUCTION

Low tower impedance, through the use of four guy

This text provides reference data and experimental wires in parallel with two main tower members

support for three purposes:

Figure 1 shows the tower and grounding geometry.

To show the reader that it is possible to establish soil

resistivity along existing or new transmission lines with

the use of airborne electromagnetic methods.

resistivity can be used efficiently in design or evaluation

of transmsision line grounding, leading to overall

economic benefit.

results used to validate improved ground electrodes using

active transient injection at the tower base.

TRANSMISSION LINES IN NEW BRUNSWICK

with low lightning activity. The ground flash density has

a long-term average value of 0.3-0.4 flashes per km2 per Figure 1: 345-kV Transmission Towers from New Brunswick, Canada

year has been measured both with CIGRE 10-kHz (Dimensions in feet, 0.3048 m per foot)

lightning flash counters [1] and, more recently, the North

American Lightning Detection Network [2]. A pilot project to improve the lightning performance of

the 345-kV system was initiated by NB Power in 2001.

Since transmission line surge arresters are not widely

-1-

available for this voltage class, the focus of the study was 1 (2)

to improve the transmission tower footing impedance, P ( I I *) 2. 6

I *

with a target of 20-25 at most towers. 1

31

where I* is in kA. This expression is easily inverted to

2.2 Incidence of Lightning Flashes to Line

give the current as a function of probability level:

1

A ground flash density Ng (lightning strokes per square 1 P 2.6

P

detection equipment [3] and a period of observation that

For the probability level P =0.0833, I*=78 kA. With

gives 400 observations in each selected study area. In

some areas where automatic equipment has not been 3.05 m of insulation (2500 kV at 2 s) and a coupling

deployed, global measurements of Optical Transient coefficient of 0.3, the parallel combination of skywire and

Density can be used with an approximate conversion footing impedance that will backflash at this 78-kA

factor of four grouped flashes per ground flash [4]. current level is 46 .

The lightning ground flash density in the area around Taking into account all line dimensions in Figure 1, the

Point Lepreau, New Brunswick is highly variable. Near electromagnetic coupling and other factors in the IEEE

the ocean, the density was measured to be low. However, Standard 1243 approach [6], Figure 2 shows the

50 km to the north of the Bay of Fundy, the Canadian calculated lightning outage rate as a function of footing

Lightning Detection Network (CLDN) reported a density resistance.

of more than 1.0 flash per km2 per year over three years.

The observed multiplicity of 3.5-4 strokes per flash in

New Brunswick is high, compared to global and

Canadian average values.

Brunswick from CIGRE 10-kHz lightning flash counters

show the same variability as the CLDN data. The median

value of 0.34 flashes per km2 per year, measured at

Pennfield, Shannon and Coles Isle, is used here for

estimating transmission lightning performance.

estimated using the following expression [5,6]:

28ht0.6 b

N N g (1) Figure 2: Computed Lightning Outage Rate of New Brunswick 345-kV

10 Transmission Lines as function of Footing Resistance

N is the flashes/100 km/year to the line The observed lightning performance of the NB Power

Ng is the ground flash density per km2 per year lines varies considerably from year to year, corresponding

ht is the height of the overhead groundwire at the tower loosely to the annual variation in ground flash density.

b is the overhead ground wire separation in m However, long-term average performance suggests that

average tower footing resistance is between 60 to 80 on

With the 20-m (65 foot) average tower height from some lines.

Figure 1, b=13 m and the average ground flash density of

0.34 / km2-year, Equation (1) gives a stroke incidence rate 3 MODELS OF TOWER RESISTANCE

of only 6 flashes per 100 km per year. For an outage rate

of 0.5 per 100 km per year, the probability level that Figure 1 shows that each tower has four natural

would cause backflashover is 0.0833. electrodes, consisting of two anchors (for pairs of guy

wires) and two foundations. Each foundation (R11 and

2.3 Lightning Peak Current for Backflashover R22) is 2.4 m deep and an average of 0.7 m wide, giving

an area of 9.4 m2. The foundations are separated by

Normally, for calculations of transmission line lightning 13 m. The rock anchors (R33 and R44) have 3.3-m length,

performance, the peak magnitude of the first stroke in the 0.03-m width and 1.5-m square anchor plates at the

flash is of the greatest interest. The probability of a buried ends, giving a prism of area 12.2 m2. Rock

stroke current in excess of a value of I* kA is anchors are 13 m apart and 9.2 m from each foundation.

approximated from Bergers data [7] as [6]:

-2-

There are four important effects in transmission line R11 = R22 = 155 ; R33 = R44 = 131

grounding geometric resistance, contact resistance,

impulse impedance and ionization under lightning surge If the four natural electrodes were widely separated, their

conditions. The model for geometric resistance is parallel resistance for =1000 -m would be 35 . The

updated [4] to improve accuracy for an extremely wide effect of the mutual resistances among electrodes can also

range of electrode shapes. Models for contact resistance, be important. The mutual resistances Rmn of closely

impulse impedance and ionization must be placed into the buried spheres in uniform soil are:

context of a wide range of two-layer soil conditions.

3.1 Geometric and Contact Resistance Method Rmn (5)

4 d mn

There are several possible methods to solve for the

resistance of the resulting four-electrode geometry. The R13 = R14 = R23 = R24 = 8.7

simplest model [8,9] uses a geometric resistance Rg of the R12 = R34 = 6.1

overall shape, given approximately by:

A 4x4 matrix of self and mutual resistances is then solved

e 2 e s 2

(3) to give the electrode currents associated with a unit

Rg ln potential. In the case of Figure 1, the value for uniform

2 s A

1000 -m soil is R total = 41 .

where:

e is the effective resistivity at the dimension s, -m 3.3 Galerkin (Variational) Method

s is the distance from the center of the electrode to its

outermost point, m Elsherbiny, Chow and Salama [10] extend a variational

A is the surface area of the overall electrode, m2 method initally used for capacitance calculations to the

purpose of calculating the resistance of multiple, closely

In this case, the distance s is 6.9 m, A is 173 m2 and, for coupled vertical ground rods in two-layer soil. They first

1000 -m effective resistivity, the geometric footing define a function f as:

resistance would be 36 .

f ( x ) x sinh 1 x 1 x 2 (6)

An accurate expression for a wide range of spheriod

shapes is given by Equation 3a, which relies on the three- The self resistances of electrodes of radius r, lower

dimensional distance g rather than maximum distance s : coordinate a and upper coordinate b is:

e 11.8 g 2 (3a) r ba

Rg ln R11 f r 1

(7)

2 g A 2 (b a ) 2

g is the rms electrode radius, g rx2 ry2 rz2 The mutual resistance term between vertical rods with

lower coordinates a1, a2, upper coordinates b1,b2 and

In cases where the electrode is approximated by a thin separation d is:

wire frame, there will be an additional contact resistance

calculated from the upper-layer resistivity 1 and the d

R12 R21

overall length of wire l: 4 (b2 a1 )(b1 a1 ) (8)

b2 a1 b b a a a b

Rc 1 (4)

l f d f 2 1 f 2 1 f 2 1

d d d

There is at least 24 m of wire in the ground, but the

broad dimensions of each of the eight main foundation Again, a simple matrix is solved using the more accurate

legs gives a much larger surface area. The contact variational expressions for the resistance terms. The self

resistance would thus be much less than 10 . resistances from Equation (7) with =1000 -m are:

The self resistances of each of the four tower electrodes The mutual resistances Rmn from Equation (8) are:

can be computed using Equation (3) or traditional R13 = R14 = R23 = R24 = 8.6

expressions for geometric shapes. R12 = R34 = 6.1

-3-

The 4x4 matrix of self and mutual resistances is then

solved to give the electrode currents associated with a

unit potential. In the case of Figure 1, the value for

uniform 1000 -m soil is R total = 37 .

that it can be extended simply and accurately to model the

mutual resistance of rods that penetrate two different soil

layers. Treatment of the rock-anchor end plates with this

approach is more difficult.

Figure 4: Error in Equation 9, Empirical Calculation of Effective

3.4 Modeling of Two-Layer Soil Resistivity, compared to Elliptic Integral solution

For a set of one or more concentric ring electrodes buried 3.5 Modeling of Soil Ionization

in the upper of two soil layers, it is possible to compute

an effective resistivity value from the ring diameter r, the With large impulse currents, the local electric field

soil depth d, and the upper and lower resistivity values 1 gradient at the extremity of small electrodes can exceed

and 2 from: levels at which ionization will occur. For many types of

soil, the size and shape of the resulting corona envelope

1 can be estimated using a gradient of 300-400 kV/m. For

1 2 C 0.8

concentrated electrodes, the ionization increases the area

1.4 2 (9)

1 A and dimension s in Equation (3), leading to a reduction

in geometric resistance. For distributed electrodes, the

1 proportial increase in area is small, so the main effect of

1 2 C 0.8 0.5

r ionization is to reduce the contact resistance approx-

1.4 2 2

1 1 d imated by Equation (4).

1 C ionized electrodes can be obtained with the following

1d

e 1 adaptation [9] of the Korsuncev similarity analysis:

r

1 C

d

sRg 1 2 es 2 1 I

1o ln 2

Figure 3 shows the results of this expression and Figure 4 1 2 A Eo s 2

shows the error, relative to an elliptic integral solution.

1 min 1o, 0.263 20.308 (10)

where:

1 is the upper layer resistivity (near the electrode)

I is the current in kA

Eo is the ionization gradient of 400 kV/m

A, s, Rg and are as defined in Equation (3)

and, with a typical value of Eo=400 kV/m, a current of

I >230 kA would be needed to initiate ionization of the

overall foundation to reduce the geometric resistance.

This can be neglected. The effect of ionization on the

contact resistance can be estimated by treating each of the

Figure 3: Ratio of Effective Resistivity to Upper Layer Resistivity as

function of ratio of Electrode Radius r to Upper Layer Depth d. four foundation elements independently. For the

Parameter: Lower to Upper Layer Resistivity, Corrected from [9 ] individual rock anchor s =3.3 m, A=12.1 m2 and

ionization will occur at 5 kA. In the case of high upper-

The error shown in Figure 4 remains within 6% for a layer resistivity, ionization will reduce the contact

wide range of resistivity and radius:depth ratios. As will resistance by a factor of three over the practical range of

be noted in Section 4, the errors in estimates of layer stroke currents.

resistivity and depth are more serious and a simplified

approach is appropriate.

-4-

3.6 Numerical Methods

software modeling tools that automatically segment the

individual footing elements, calculate self and mutual

impedances and then solve for total resistance to remote

earth. In cases of rectangular or disc-shaped electrodes,

buried at moderate depth compared to extent, the

agreement between numerical models and the simplified

approach of 3.1 and 3.4 is usually better than 5%.

4 RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS

Figure 6: MF conductivty (in mS/m) for eastern Canada [11]

4.1 Radio Frequency Measurements

Each of these maps indicates that the south part of New

The World Atlas of Ground Conductivity [11] gives Brunswick, bordering on the USA state of Maine, has a

continental maps for the VLF part of the spectrum give conductivity of about 1 mS/m, corresponding to a

values of effective ground conductivity in mS/m and are resistivity =1000 -m. The complex nature of the

subject to the following conditions: geology in the region is more apparent in Figure 4

because the depth of penetration of the 1-MHZ signals

Application to frequencies up to 30 kHz (16 m into 1 mS/m) is smaller than at 30 kHz (91 m) and

No allowance for seasonal variations, most variation is found near the surface. The penetration

Calculated from physiographical and geological data depth can be calculated from:

used to define boundaries of the land

Represent effective ground conductivities for 1

(11)

propagation, including any effect of terrain

f

Figure 5 shows the values for New Brunswick and a Where f is the frequency, is 1.26 H/m and is the

separate figure in the appendix shows values for the conductivity in S/m. At frequencies below 1 MHz and

South American continent. conductivity above 0.1 mS/m, the effect of dielectric

permittivity can be ignored. It is important to recoginze

that the ground conductivity in areas like New

Brunswick, with folded or metamorphic geology, can

vary by four orders of magnitude over 10-30 m distance.

of resistivity for nine locations along two circuits of

345 kV transmission lines in New Brunswick.

Frequency (MF) of effective ground conductivity in

mS/m, standardized to 1 MHz. These maps are based on

proof of performance measurements for AM broadcast

antennas and other relevant information. They contain no

allowance for seasonal variations.

Figure 7: Wenner Probe Measurements from NB Power 345-kV

Transmssion Corridors (data courtesy Shore Acres Enterprises)

-5-

There is a wide range of apparent resistivity values at 4.3 Airborne Electromagnetic Measurements

small probe spacing. The readings for six of the nine

values are asymptotic to 1000 -m, corresponding Techniques for remote measurement of earth resistivity,

reasonably to the 30-kHz conductivity value (1 mS/m) using helicopters or small airplanes, have existed since

reported in Section 4.1. The apparent resistivity values the 1970s. These methods have proved to be increasingly

measured at probe spacing of 16 m and 32 m give useful in searches for buried mineral deposits, water or

reasonable estimates of the effective resistivity of other buried, electrically conductive anomalies. In the

electrodes with the same diameter, and this is seen in early 1990s, it was realized that the surface layer data,

Figure 8 as a large tower-to-tower variation. Traverse often discarded in processing, gave good estimates of the

data were taken in several directions (along and at right electrical resistivity of quaternary sediment over poorly

angles to the line direction), and the range in apparent conducting granite. The method was validated by the

resistivity values is shown at each site. Geological Survey of Canada and other groups using

borehole samples to establish depth and resistivity of the

overburden.

was carried out along the length of a pair of 345-kV

transmission lines. Five coplanar coils and one coaxial

coil were monitored for magnitude and phase at fixed

frequencies ranging from 400 Hz to 100 kHz. The

information content at the higher frequencies was

adequate to allow numerical inversion to obtain two-layer

resistivity with a physical resolution of better than 100 m.

Validation of the resistivity values was carried out using

conventional Wenner resistivity measurements at nine

locations.

Figure 8: Apparent Resistivity Values at 16-m and 32-m Probe Spacings

In spite of the interference from the transmission lines,

the helicopter-based electromagnetic survey provided a

It is reasonable to assume, based on the geology of high level of detail and accuracy that was well supported

eastern Canada, that there will be a highly variable layer by the ground results in a wide range of soil conditions.

of overburden above a deep underlying rock layer. For Table 2 shows the interpreted values from simultaneous

the survey area, the rock layer tends to be homogeneous measurements at five frequencies from a helicopter at the

on a distance scale of 10 km, where the product of same towers where Wenner resistivity surveys were

overburden thickness and resistivity can change by two carried out.

orders of magnitude on a distance scale of 100 m. This

assumption was used to model a common bottom-layer To make an engineering comparison of the differences

resistivity of 748 m for towers 316, 338, 355, 364, 368 between the two sets of resistivity data, Equation 9 was

and 371. Table 1 shows the upper and lower layer used to compute effective resistivity values e for values

resistivity values fitted to each of the sets of Wenner of r=7 m and r=20 m. Figure 9 shows the comparison on

probe data. log-log scales along with results of power-law regression.

Table 1: Best-Fit Two-Layer Interpretation of Wenner Resistivity Data Table 2: Best-Fit Two-Layer Interpretation of Airborne Resistivity Data

NUMBER LAYER LAYER LAYER NUMBER LAYER LAYER LAYER

RESISTIVITY DEPTH RESISTIVITY RESISTIVITY DEPTH RESISTIVITY

1 (m) 2 1 (m) 2

(-m) (-m) (-m) (-m)

3_316 2823 1.6 748 381.6 2.4 1106.5

3_316

3_320 1880 4.0 2857 1718.2 75 234.7

3_320

3_338 3735 39.9 748 7274.7 0 7274.7

3_338

3_342 14084 2.5 4137 4329.8 0 4159.6

3_342

3_355 2190 1.0 748 546.2 0 547.6

3_355

3_362 3820 3.8 7978 5342.3 0 2426

3_362

3_364 197 1.6 748 854.5 3.8 149.4

3_364

3_368 506 32.4 748 510.4 73.6 136

3_368

3_371 370 35.3 748 277.7 40.6 335.9

3_371

-6-

For Tower 342, the Wenner method shows the presence 5 DESIGN OPTIONS FOR GROUNDING

of a thin, high-resistivity layer that was missed by the

airborne method. In this case, both measurements gave With the large variation in soil resistivity, simplified

the same bottom-layer resistivity. Regressions between methods for analyzing the electrode performance and its

the data sets for both 7 m ane 20 m radius give nearly effect on lightning performance become important. A

linear exponents and high correlation coefficients. strong advantage of empirical methods, such as those

described in [1,2,4], is that they simplify a design process

to set the configuration and total wire length at each

tower to achieve a desired level of improvement.

various combinations of electrically conductive concrete

(ECC), buried wire, surface wire and flat rolled steel.

The resistivity values obtained for nine towers were used

to estimate the footing resistances in each case using

some simplifications. Most electrode configurations

Figure 9: Comparison of Airborne Electromagnetic and Wenner-based approximated a 20x30 m rectangle, which would have a

Effective Resistivity Values for 7-m and 20-m disc electrodes

geometric resistance of 0.02 e, where e is the effective

resistivity of the two-layer soil for that diameter of

The tower-to-tower variation in resistance was computed

electrode. The contact resistance of the electrode with the

using the two-layer soil data from the airborne electro-

upper soil layer 1 was estimated separately.

magnetic survey, along with r=s=7 m in Equations 3, 4

and 9. Figure 10 shows the variation along two lines on

the same right of way in New Brunswick. Tower 3306 is Table 4: Resistance Estimates: Rectangle Loop Electrode Configurations

next to Tower 9018.

Tower Now Surface Buried Surface Surface Surface Surface

3003-1 3003-2 3003-3 3003-4 3003-5 3003-6

Contact 0.0163 0.0085 0.0231 0.0349 0.0142 0.0222

Geo- 0.0196 0.0196 0.0196 0.0229 0.0196 0.0196

Metric

Series L 0 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.7 1.7

3_316 234 60.5 42.1 83.4 119.1 56.4 79.1

3_320 263 86.5 75.4 103.0 134.6 84.4 99.5

3_338 298 75.3 49.8 104.5 150.9 69.3 99.3

3_342 1185 309.9 203.9 410.3 589.5 282.5 395.7

3_355 189 50.2 36.7 68.8 97.0 47.4 65.0

3_362 633 218.4 192.2 248.2 319.6 212.2 242.9

3_364 48 17.9 19.8 22.7 27.5 19.1 20.7

3_383 70 22.9 22.4 29.9 38.3 23.5 27.6

3_371 60 20.7 21.3 26.7 33.6 21.6 24.6

conducting concrete (ECC), 0.5 m wide, set over surface

wires and covered with sufficient material to mitigate step

potentials, was thought to be effective at most of the

difficult towers. The ECC reduces the inductance and

contact resistance, making longer radial lengths more

effective.

calculated from Airborne Resistivity Measurements

-7-

Table 5: Resistance Estimates: Radial ECC Electrodes on Surface options all provide a good reduction, with more

expensive options being more effective.

Tower Now Surface Surface Surface Surface

Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Table 7: Estimated Lightning Performance of 345-kV Transmission Line

4x16 6x16 2x16 8x16 Using Various Ground Electrode Treatments

2x32

Contact 0.0128 0.0091 0.0097 0.0071

Geo- 0.0145 0.0120 0.0079 0.0114 WIRE CONCRETE LIGHTNING

metric TREATMENT LENGTH LENGTH TRIPOUT

Series L 0 0 0 0 OPTION (0.5m wide) RATE

3_316 234 47.0 34.7 33.2 28.4 /100 km-year

3_320 263 65.5 51.4 40.8 45.9 None 0 0 1.21

3_338 298 58.7 43.0 42.0 34.9 Two concrete 108 m 48 m 0.77

3_342 1185 240.6 177.8 168.8 146.6 slabs, 4 wires

3_355 189 38.9 28.9 27.1 24.0 4 slabs, wires 86 m 96 m 0.60

3_362 633 164.7 130.5 100.1 118.2 Rolled steel loop 36 m 100 m 0.58

3_364 48 13.4 10.8 7.8 9.9

Electrically 74 m 74 m 0.48

3_383 70 17.3 13.6 10.8 12.1

Conducting

3_371 60 15.6 12.3 9.5 11.2 Concrete (ECC)

4x16m Surface 64 m 0 0.48

The ECC electrode treatment uses about 7 kg per meter, Wire

depending on surface roughness, and the product costs Twin-wire Loop 236 m 0 0.46

about $Cdn 2/kg in small quantities. Considering the Buried Loop 118 m 0 0.38

rough terrain in New Brunswick, the (2x16m, 2x32m) 4x16m ECC 64 m 64 m 0.37

electrode cost estimated using $19/m for surface-installed 6x16m wire 96 m 0 0.36

ECC, would be $1800 and 700 kg per tower. Table 6 2x16m 2x32m 128 m 0 0.33

suggests, however, that a reduced treatment of 4x16 m wire

electrodes would be adequate for three of the nine towers. 8x16m wire 96 m 0 0.31

6x16m ECC 96 m 96 m 0.28

Table 6: Resistance Estimates: Radial Wire Electrodes on Surface 2x16 2x32m 96 m 96 m 0.24

concrete

Tower Now Surface Surface Surface Surface 8x16m ECC 128 m 128 m 0.23

Wire Wire Wire Wire

4x16 6x16 2x16 8x16

2x32 5.3 Different Treatments at Each Tower

Contact 0.01869 0.01366 0.01415 0.01077

Geo- 0.01450 0.01200 0.00792 0.01144 The dimension s in Equation 3 that gives a 20- footing

metric resistance was computed using the two-layer soil

Series L 2 1.33 2.66 1 resistivity measured with the Airborne Electromagnetic

3_316 234 65.6 48.9 48.5 39.9 method, along with Equations 4 and 9. This dimension

3_320 263 78.6 61.3 51.9 53.9

can be used to estimate the length of radial wire or

3_338 298 82.6 61.3 61.4 49.8

concrete needed at each tower. Figure 11 shows the

3_342 1185 325.2 243.4 234.7 199.9

3_355 189 53.8 40.2 39.6 33.1

required value of s for pairs of adjacent towers. Of the

3_362 633 189.1 149.3 119.9 133.4 132 towers shown, a total of 32 towers are satisfactory

3_364 48 16.5 13.0 11.4 11.7 with no treatment. The median treatment to 20 would

3_383 70 22.3 17.2 15.7 15.0 need s=19 m, which could be achieved with radial wires

3_371 60 19.8 15.4 13.8 13.5 of 12 m out from each of the four existing footings to a

ring of 19-m radius.

Section 5.3 develops the idea of specifying a different

treatment at every tower, based on the local resistivity.

used to estimate a composite lightning outage rate for the

NB Power 345-kV lines, using the assumption that the

rest of the line would have similar geology. Without

treatment, Table 7 shows that the estimated lightning

performance with the present grounding would be about

1.21 tripouts per 100 km per year. The various treatment

Figure 11: Value of dimension s for 20- Resistance

-8-

The scatter in Figure 11 reflects the observed changes in similar to those used to interpret Wenner resistivity data

resisitivity across the right of way at a tower separation of for multiple probe spacings.

approximately 50 m.

ground wires, provides an upper limit to the cost that

would be supported by grounding improvements. Table 8

from [6] shows the large benefits for typical double-

circuit construction.

Table 8: Typical Performance Improvement through Addition of Single

Shield Wire, Located Under Existing Phase Conductors

Voltage Class Outage Rate Underbuilt OPGW

115-kV 2-Circuit 7 / 100 km/year 1.8/100km/year

230-kV 2-Circuit 1 / 100 km/year 0.2/100km/year

500-kV 2-Circuit 0.3/100 km/year 0.05/100km/year

A trial calculation for the 345-kV line in Figure 1 shows

that a practical underbuilt ground wire would only 6.2 Testing Between Groundwires and Towers

improve the lightning performance by a factor of two.

Overhead groundwires are sometimes insulated from the

6 TESTING OPTIONS FOR TRANSMISSION LINE towers to minimize 1-MHz reradiation or to reduce

GROUND ELECTRODES induced-current loss. In these cases, two-terminal

resistance measurement between tower and overhead

Electrical utilities make frequent use of specialized four- groundwires can be effective, especially if temporary

terminal resistance meters, adapted for outdoor use and bond wires are applied at ajacent towers to form a low-

the range of resistances found in power systems. impedance return path. While it involves consderable

Resistance values in Figure 10 range from less than 10 work, temporary separation of the overhead groundwires

to more than 800 . Equipment capable of delivering from the tower (on insulators) is sometimes carried out to

accurate results over this wide range should be selected. enable accurate measurements in diagnostic campaigns.

6.1 Testing at Construction 6.3 Testing using Low Frequency at Tower Base

The most accurate measurements of footing resistance The configuration in Figure 12 is sometimes applied to

can be obtained after the towers have been erected, but transmission lines without insulating the overhead

before the overhead groundwires have been installed. In groundwires. In this case, the potential profile will show

this case, each tower is electrically isolated from its the same plateau in fact, the plateau will be flatter in the

neighbours and a standard fall-of-potential method can be range of 0.5-0.7D but the result will be wrong. The

used. With a four-terminal resistance meter, one potential measured ground electrode resistance will be the parallel

probe and one current probe are fixed to the tower. The combination of the electrode under test and the network

second current probe is driven at a distance D, with resistance of overhead groundwires and grounds

D>>s, the maximum electrode extent. The resistance is electrodes at adjacent towers. For a simple case with

then measured at probe distances of 50%, 55% 75% of two adjacent towers, the error is about 50%, falling to

D. In uniform soil with adequate distance D, the 46% if the profile is taken at right angles to the line. In

measured resistance will be relatively constant and will this case, it is better to take a detailed profile near the

approximate the resistance to remote earth, as shown in tower under test (for example in the distance range of

Figure 12. 0.05-0.2D) and to fit the results to an inverse-distance

relation.

Even with proper technique, including multiple potenial

probe locations and large spacing, the measured 6.4 Testing using Transient Injection at Tower Base

resistance may not have the broad plateau shown in

Figure 12. This is often an indication that the soil has Advances in portable instrumentation make it feasible to

multiple layers. There are specialized techniques that can carry out impulse injection tests on energized EHV

be adapted to interpret the measured resistance profile, transmission lines with power levels of less than 1 kW.

-9-

With a transient pulse measurement, the local electrode

can respond for a time of up to 2 s (the two-way span

travel time) before reflections from adjacent structures

contaminate the results. The impedances of the overhead

groundwires will appear in parallel with the footing under

test, but these are relatively high and easily calculated as

follows:

2h

Z11 Z 22 60 ln (12) Figure 13: Instruments for Pulse Injection Testing on 345-kV Towers

r

The Avtech instrument shown in Figure 13 produces

d 200 V pulses into a 50 load. Figure 14 shows typical

Z12 Z 21 60 ln 12 waveforms from the NB Power 345-kV Tower 316. This

d12

is a relatively representative tower with a bottom-layer

where:

resistivity of 748 -m from the Wenner survey,

d12 is the distance between OHGW 1 and 2 and

confirmed with an airborne electromagnetic survey result

d12 distance from OHGW 1 to OHGW image 2

of 1100 -m for the bottom layer. At the time of

measurement, the tower had been treated with a buried

There are two OHGW in each direction for the line in

30-m wire loop in parallel with its four natural ground

Figure 1 at a tower height of 20 m, giving values of

electrodes.

Z11=475, Z12=84 and the parallel combination of all

four OHGW giving 140 . To first order, the measured

results are corrected using:

1 (13)

RX

1 1

Rmeas 140

and signal averaging, working against two orthogonal

electrodes, was used to compare the impulse impedance

of treated and untreated transmission towers for a wide

range of treatment options. Conclusions were then

formed about the relative cost and effectiveness of

practical surface electrodes.

measurements of injected current and source voltage for

buried copper wire and conductive concrete electrodes.

Pearson Model 110 current transformer, 35MHz,

sensitivity 0.1 V/A Figure 14: Injected Current (top) and Tower Voltage for Tower 316

10:1 Voltage Probe

Avtech AVL-S pulse generator with 50- series The pulse was applied between the tower base and the the

matching resistance and 100-nF capacitor centre lead of a 50- coaxial cable, oriented at right

Laptop computer angles to the right-of-way and grounded remotely at

60 m. Current into the tower was measured with a

Flukeview software and interface cable

wideband current transformer. The reference potential

Two, 60-m reels of 50- coaxial cable and ground

lead ran along the line, centered between the overhead

rods for voltage and current reference leads

groundwires. The 60-m leads were terminated at the

12-V to 117-V inverter and 12-V 17 A-h battery remote ends in ground rods. The 60-m lead length was

selected to ensure that reflections did not distort the

measurements during the 440-ns pulse application.

- 10 -

6.5 Processing of Transient Injection Data 3_359 6x20m ECC 11.69 12.43 14.28

9_071 6x20m ECC 26.09 24.29 23.35

4x5m ECC +

The impedance ratio of tower base voltage to injected 3_362

30m loop

26.23 20.34 24.08

current in Figure 14 tends to be rather noisy at the signal 9_075 Untreated 63.36 64.31 59.22

rise and settles to a relatively constant value at the end of 3_364

2x5m ECC +

14.03 13.14 16.35

the 440-ns pulse. The initial oscillations are associated 15m loop

with transients propagating up and down the tower and 9_077 Untreated 40.43 37.18 34.56

2x5m ECC +

guy wires, eventually settling into a background 3_368

15m loop

10.42 8.92 6.41

parallel impedance of the four overhead groundwires, 9_081 Untreated 14.14 11.23 11.72

computed to be 140 . 3_371

30 m rolled

10.38 8.91 6.03

steel loop

9_084 Untreated 11.34 9.06 9.96

Four approaches were considered in the analysis. First, a

Fourier transform of the impedance was computed. This The non-physical values for Tower 3_337 may have

had considerable high frequency content that does not resulted from incorrect (open) wiring. For each pair, the

contributue to the task of estimating the impedance for improvement in impedance after treatment ranges from

lightning impulses. Three other approaches worked excellent (9_032 untreated versus 3_320 with 30-m

better. Either a 440-ns half-sine pulse (1.136 MHz) or a double loop) to mediocre (9_084 versus 3_371 in an area

quarter-sine pulse (568 kHz), matched to the excitation, of low resistivity). After applying the correction factor in

were used to filter the data. These windows reduced the Equation (13) for the parallel overhead groundwire

emphasis on the initial transient oscillations. Also, a impedance, it is also possible to compare the estimated

simple median impedance value, taken over the full resistance of the untreated towers (on the horizontal axis)

440 ns pulse time, gave a robust central value. There with the transient impedance estimates (on the vertical

were 110 samples at an interval of 4 ns in each waveform. axis) in Figure 15. While the numerical agreement

between the transient test results and the estimates from

6.6 Results of Transient Injection Measurements two-layer soil data needs refinement, the rank correlation

(r=0.7) of the data is significant.

At the time of measurement, the towers on one line had

been treated with various electrodes that had been

considered in Section 5.1. For reference, transient

injection tests were also carried out on some untreated

towers of the adjacent line. Table 9 provides a summary

of the interpreted impedances, using the three methods

described in Section 6.5.

towers.

Number Treatment Impedance Sine Impedance

() Impedance ()

Figure 15: Comparison of Footing Resistance Estimate from Airborne

30 m loop:

3_316 13.70 11.89 12.22 Electromagnetic Data with Transient Injection Test Results

single wire

9_028 Untreated 53.18 58.17 51.60

30 m loop: 7 CONCLUSIONS

3_320 13.13 11.02 10.82

double wire

9_032 Untreated 80.77 60.10 55.88 Field measurements of resistivity were analyzed by

3_331 6x20m ECC 25.80 21.39 18.17

9_043 6x20m ECC 26.98 22.97 18.63

assuming a common bottom rock layer and variable

3_337 6x20m ECC -22.82 -20.46 -2.47 overburden. At six of nine locations, the fitted underlying

9_049 6x20m ECC 58.68 40.40 27.41 resistivity was 748 -m. The fitted upper-layer thickness

3_338 6x20m ECC 39.73 38.23 39.38 and conductivity values vary over a wide range of 1-30 m

9_050 Untreated 76.72 58.79 45.99

and 200-4000 -m. At the other three locations, uniform

30m loop:

3_342

single wire

55.91 48.65 33.22 resistivity of 3000, 4000 and 8000 -m fits the data better

9_054 Untreated 63.97 65.18 61.88 than a two-layer model.

3_355 6x20m ECC 50.88 49.45 43.79

9_067 Untreated 64.12 60.13 47.74 There was a high (0.82-0.85) regression coefficient

3_357 6x20m ECC 33.10 30.31 28.73

9_069 6x20m ECC 37.67 35.94 32.17

between the effective resistivity values computed from

- 11 -

ground-based Wenner survey interpretation and from [3] R.E.Orville and G.R. Huffines, Cloud-to-Ground Lightning in

the United States: NLDN Results in the First Decade, 1989-98,

inversion results of multi-frequency helicopter-based

AMS Monthly Weather Review, May 2001.

electromagnetic surveys, measured near the operating

line. The airborne technique shows significant variation [4] H.J. Christian, R. J. Blakeslee, D.J. Boccippio, W.L. Boeck,

in resistivity along the line with a feature resolution of D.E. Buechler, K.T. Driscoll, S.J. Goodman, J.M. Hall,

better than 100 m. W.J. Koshak, D.M. Mach and M.F. Stewart, Global frequency

and distribution of lightning as observed from space by the

Optical Transient Detector, J. Geophys. Res., accepted, 2002.

Based on the 345-kV transmission line dimensions and

the measured values of resistivity, half of the towers will [5] Guide to Procedures for Estimating the Lightning Performance

have a footing resistance of more than 50 . With a of Transmission Lines, CIGRE Brochure 63, October 1991

ground flash density of 0.34 flashes per km2 per year, the [6] IEEE Guide for Improving the Lightning Performance of

expected lightning outage rate on NB Power 345-kV lines Overhead Transmission Lines, IEEE Standard 1243-1997,

would be 1.21 backflashovers per 100 km per year. December 1997

A quarter of the towers need no treatment, since they are Lightning Flashes, Electra, No. 41, pp 23-37, 1975

located in areas where the existing footings and rock

anchors will give less than 20 resistance based on the [8] W.A.Chisholm, Grounding for lighting and fault protection,

IV SIPDA: Conference, September 1997

AEM two-layer resistivity values. The remainder of the

towers can be treated with electrodes that increase the [9] W.A.Chisholm, Transmission System Transients Grounding,

extent and surface area in contact with the upper soil Chapter 10.7 of The Electric Power Engineering Handbook, ed.

layer. L.L.Grigsby, CRC/IEEE Press, ISBN 0-8493-8578-4, 2001

[10] M.M. Elsherbiny, Y.L. Chow and M.M.A. Salama, A Fast and

Electrically conductive concrete can be used to reduce the Accurate Analysis of Grounding Resistance of a Driven Rodbed

contact resistance and inductance of longer radial wires in a Two-Layer Soil, IEEE Trans. PWRD Vol.11 No.2,

but test results on thirteen configurations did not show a April 1996.

strong improvement in impulse impedance, compared to

[11] CCIR Recommendation 832, World Atlas of Ground

buried wire loops of the same size. Conductivities, 48pp, 1992 PDF version.

of 0.24 outages per 100 km per year can be achieved in

spite of the difficult grounding conditions.

generator and a digital oscilloscope, can be used to inject

400-mA transient currents into distributed or lumped

footings to measure their transient response. The

resulting potential rise can be monitored and interpreted

to give a quick go/no go indication of electrode

effectiveness under lightning impulse conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Shore Acres Enterprises in providing the resistivity data

and test electrodes.

REFERENCES

Ground Flash Density Measurements in Canada, January 1990 to

December 1996, Final Report for Canadian Electrical

Association Contract 179 T 382A, September 1998.

V. Turcotte, Lightning Occurrence Patterns Over Canada and

Adjacent United States from Lightning Detection Network

Observations, Atmosphere Ocean 23 Aug 2001.

- 12 -

- Shunt Reactor PaperHochgeladen vonGorka A.
- B-233Hochgeladen vonVikas Singh
- Influence of Long-span Crossings on the Shielding Failure Flashover Rate of the Tucurui-manaus 500kv TransmissHochgeladen vonzzzzzzz82
- 33 Kv Line Boq and Price - ComparativeHochgeladen vonManohar Das
- 2. Philippine Electronics Code - Volume 1 - IdentificationHochgeladen vonDonovan Paul Uy Doroin
- energies-05-00168Hochgeladen voniaessackjee
- Campo Magnetico de LTHochgeladen vonbulas17
- ResearchHochgeladen vonMurugan
- overheadelectric00stilrich.pdfHochgeladen vonErnesto Mora
- 25pHochgeladen vonVenkatasubramanian Iyer
- Manual 000040886Hochgeladen vonAnonymous 5BuRTOB9n
- GTP_for_Towers.docxHochgeladen vonabhi_ak
- Grounding SystemsHochgeladen vonAhdab Elmorshedy
- Rr220204-Power Systems - iHochgeladen vonSRINIVASA RAO GANTA
- 3801 q3 Tl 001 r Itp Transmision (Field)Hochgeladen vonrizki
- Insulation Enhancement SystemHochgeladen vonram_kisna007
- Technical Implementation of Cross Bonding on Underground High Voltage Lines Projects (Sobral2011).pdfHochgeladen vondaegerte
- The Management of Wildlife Interactions With Overhead PowerlinesHochgeladen vonanchoi050983
- CPT1,2,3Hochgeladen vonPravin Narkhede
- 33KV EARTHMAT 1DESIGNHochgeladen vonVelavan Annamalai
- ManualHochgeladen vonJulio Moreno
- Copper and ElectricityHochgeladen vonAmir Shahzad
- Term PaperHochgeladen vonKasaragadda Krishna Chaitanya
- PROHEAT 35 MANUAL.pdfHochgeladen vonrafaeldct
- Bus BarHochgeladen vonarunkumar000001
- Grounding TransformersHochgeladen vonJoni
- 24017-M2.pdfHochgeladen vonprincetorres
- Current ElectricityHochgeladen vonMaha Teja
- Cubicle GroundingHochgeladen vonalfredo_fredo_1
- Powersupply Blogs Keysight ComHochgeladen vonthangaraj_ic

- Analysis of the Performance of Active Type SFCL and FCL for Reduction CapabilityÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Under Fault Current and Over Voltage in a Dg Source Integrated Distribution SystemHochgeladen vonInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- daHochgeladen vonAbhishek Joshi
- scpbroucherHochgeladen vonsuinsas
- Plot allotment policy for Land under GSPHochgeladen vonMannan29
- Cross-Flow Staggered-Tube Heat Exchanger Analysis for High EnthaHochgeladen vonjegjegt
- Building Design CriteriaHochgeladen vonYudy Triyoga
- 26 09 13 Electrical Power Monitoring System - Data CentersHochgeladen vonHujiLoko
- Questions & Answs on M E DIESELHochgeladen vondani_lun
- ADP5090-2-EVALZ_UG-782Hochgeladen vonAndrea
- 06 MethanatorHochgeladen vonAnonymous yfGM1rkpWT
- E-014B Rev C2 Protection Relay CircuitHochgeladen vonMusab Shabbir
- Mini ProjectHochgeladen vonShawna Dyer
- AUTOMATED SKID MOUNTED PLANTSHochgeladen vonmaxirey20
- Microeconomic Analysis of American Water and Under ArmourHochgeladen vonDavid Spencer
- Physic 1 Preliminary Course 3EHochgeladen vonEdmond Ge
- Summative Test in Science 6Hochgeladen vonAJ Pacaul Abeleda
- Commercial Dispatch eEdition 5-7-19Hochgeladen vonThe Dispatch
- Chapter 5 (Pressure Change Techniques)Hochgeladen vonSamia Ibrahim
- 1 Atomic StructureHochgeladen vonSharmistha Kundu
- 4-ParaffinProductionHochgeladen voncaroline
- Fluid Mechanics ExperimentHochgeladen vonDaniel Loh
- Oxidacion Termica en Un Aceite Base Naftenico HidrotratadoHochgeladen vonCluisantony Jayco Dize
- Effect of Photon Inside a Light Ray on a Magnetic FieldHochgeladen vonInternational Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
- SIROLL CM Solutions for Cold Rolling Mills EnHochgeladen vonashbasal
- North Dakota State University_Fe and Mn Removal From WaterHochgeladen vonCourage Chigerwe
- Transmission Distribution SubstationHochgeladen vonumamaheshwarrao
- WPLHochgeladen vonManpreet Sachdeva
- MOTS-12 Welding and NDE of Welds,,Hochgeladen vonryan.s
- ANALYSIS OF LOAD OSCILLATIONS IN INSTRUMENTED IMPACT TESTINGHochgeladen vonDiego Patteri
- Complete Noise Reporrt (2)Hochgeladen vondavidfakesoface

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.