International Journal of Emerging

Electric Power Systems

Volume 9, Issue 5 2008 Article 6

Modelling 132 kV Substation for Surge

Arrester Studies
Mohd Zainal Abidin Ab Kadir∗ Hatta Mohamed Ariff†
Aida Maria Azmi‡

∗
Universiti Putra Malaysia, mzainal@eng.upm.edu.my
†
Universiti Putra Malaysia, hatta@citycampus.utm.my
‡
Universiti Putra Malaysia, aida.azmi85@yahoo.com

Copyright 2008
c The Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved.
 Modelling 132 kV Substation for Surge
Arrester Studies∗
Mohd Zainal Abidin Ab Kadir, Hatta Mohamed Ariff, and Aida Maria Azmi

Abstract

Insulation coordination models are an essential part of power system studies and are used
to determine the performance of a transmission line or substation. This paper generalizes the
guidelines and parameters to be used in modelling the substation and in performing the analysis
on the prediction of the transformer damage. Modelling parameters and the substation layout
design are based and adapted from 132/11 kV Simpang Renggam – Ayer Hitam substation in Johor
Baharu, Malaysia, courtesy of the Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB). The model is based on the
single phase line model, as was suggested by the IEEE, to be adequate to represent the substation
in transient analysis simulation. Extensive analyses on the placement of the surge arresters at the
substation and a prediction of the transformer damage are also presented. The results obtained
from this analysis are then compared with the suggested Basic Lightning Insulation Level (BIL)
by the TNB, according to the standards, for assessing the percentage of transformer damage and
optimizing the substation performance in terms of its reliability and cost effectiveness.

KEYWORDS: insulation coordination, lightning, basic lightning insulation level (BIL), surge
arrester

∗
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the Engineering Department of the
Tenaga Nasional Berhad (Transmission and Substation) for their cooperation and kind supply of
various technical data.
 Ab Kadir et al.: Modelling 132 kV Substation for Surge Arrester Studies

1. INTRODUCTION

Lightning is a natural hazard that is more prevalent in the tropical region than
elsewhere. Lightning activity in South East Asia, especially in Malaysia, ranked
as one of the highest in the world. Tenaga Nasional Berhad Research (TNBR)
Malaysia has recorded as high as 320 kA lightning impulse current in Malaysia
using their lightning detection network system (LDNS) (TNBR, 2008). Every
year, million dollars worth of damage is caused by the devastating effects of
lightning including to electrical power systems. The transmission line trip in
Malaysia is majorly caused by lightning, which is about 70%.
In Malaysia, the average number of thunderstorm days per year is between
79 (Kudat) and 202 (Bayan Lepas) (Malaysian Meteorological Department,
2003). Therefore, thorough knowledge on insulation coordination studies is
urgently needed strategic planning and protection of the expensive assets
especially in the substation section. Lightning overvoltages are fast front
overvoltages with times to crest from 0.1-20µs. For substations, shielding failure,
backflash and induced overvoltages generate surge voltages that impinge on the
substation equipment. Lightning induced voltages are generally below 400 kV and
are important only for lower voltage systems. The incoming surges caused by the
backflashover are more severe than that caused by shielding failures. As these
surges travel from the stroke terminating point to the station, corona decreases
front steepness and the crest magnitude. The shield wire has significant impact on
the wave propagation. A shield wire grounded at each tower makes the
propagation velocity of the ground mode wave component very close to the
conductor mode component. The magnitude of the surges caused by a
backflashover ranges from 70% to 120% of the positive polarity critical flashover
voltage (CFO) of the line insulation. The front steepness is a function of the
conductor size, the distance between the location of the backflashover and the
station (IEEE PES, 1999).
A number of researchers have developed protection scheme methods using
a wide variety of protection devices. Computer modelling of substation helps
engineers understand how protection systems behave during faults and other
disturbances. The PSCAD/EMTDC transient simulator was used to model the
effect of a fault on the protection and control system in a 132/11 kV distribution
substation. The operating response of each protection and control relay and the
associated circuit breakers were monitored and stored in an event data base
suitable for knowledge extraction studies.
Travelling wave theory was used in the earlier attempts to explain non-
uniform voltage distribution in a winding (Chowdhuri, 1996). According to this
theory, the winding behaves like a transmission line. Any transient disturbance,
such as lightning stroke terminating on a phase conductor can be analyzed by use

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008 1

 International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 5, Art. 6

of travelling wave (Hileman, 1999). A lightning stroke to a conductor or the

closing of a breaker produces travelling waves of voltage e and current I that are
related by a surge impedance Z equal to e/i that travels along the conductor at the
speed of light c (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Relationship between e and i (Hileman, 1999)

2. MODELLING GUIDELINES

There are various modelling strategies for lightning transient studies have been
presented elsewhere. Here is the summary of modelling guidelines that had been
adapted for this work and based on the IEC and IEEE standards.

2.1 SUBSTATION MODEL

Substations can be considered as the most crucial parts in power systems. This is
because it consists of such an expensive equipment that is the power transformer
which is the essential part to the system to operate as a feeder check point either
as stepping up or stepping down the incoming line voltage. There are many
studies describing how one could model the substation for transient analysis
studies (TNBR, 2008, Malaysian Meteorological Department, 2003, IEEE PES,
1999, Chowdhuri, 1996, Hileman, 1999)
Most of the substation element can be modelled by means of surge
capacitance (IEEE Modelling and Analysis of System Transient WG, 1996, IEEE
Power Engineering Society, 1999, IEEE Power Engineering Society, 1996, IEC,
1993). The simplest substation model is modelled by representing only the power
transformer surge capacitance neglecting the buswork and conductor elements in
the substation. In more complex substation model, other crucial element such as
capacitive voltage transformer and current transformer are also included (IEEE
Modelling and Analysis of System Transient WG, 1996). To make the model to
be as precise as possible to reality, all the substation element is modelled. These
elements are also being modelled by means of surge capacitance. IEEE Working
Group had recommended such guidelines to determine the value of these input

http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss5/art6 2
 Ab Kadir et al.: Modelling 132 kV Substation for Surge Arrester Studies

parameters. However, these input parameters are always determined by the

substation layout which different layout may lead to different values.

2.2 TOWER MODEL

At least two different type of tower representation could be modelled; that are the
distributed line model and the multistory model (Ab Kadir, 2006). The former
always regarded as the simplest tower model, and is widely been used for medium
height tower in favor of lines below 500kV and the latter is reported for tall tower
(Ab Kadir, 2006 and Martinez, 2004). In this work, the distributed model and
lossless tower are used where the surge impedance and the tower travel time of
wave propagation are required.

2.3 TOWER FOOTING RESISTANCE

The significant of this aspect could be very critical for tower modelling. This is
because it derives the propagation of voltage reflection within the tower as the
lower the resistance is, the lower the peak voltage at the tower top (Ab Kadir,
2006). However the influence of this element also derives by the surge current,
hence make it as a nonlinear element with surge current dependent. This nonlinear
element is determined by equations 1 and 2.

Rg
Rf = (1)
I
1+
Ig

where
Rf = tower footing resistance, ohm
Rg = tower footing resistance at low current and low frequency, ohm (assumed
to be 10 ohm)
I = surge current into ground
Ig = limiting current initiating soil ionization, kA

Eo
Ig = ρ (2)
2πRg 2

where
ρ = soil resistivity, ohm-m (assumed to be 100 ohm-m)
Eo = soil ionization gradient (about 300 kV/m) (Hileman, 1999)

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008 3

 International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 5, Art. 6

2.4 ARRESTER MODEL

Several models of arrester had been described elsewhere in literature (IEC, 1993,
Martinez, 2004 and IEEE WG 3.4.11, 1992). Most of the arrester model must
include two nonlinear resistances A0 and A1 as shown in Fig. 2 whilst Fig. 3
shows its non-linear characteristics of the two non-linear resistances. However for
different approach, it is basically using different type of lumped parameter
arrangement. The frequency-dependent surge arrester model which was
recommended by IEEE WG 3.4.11 (1992) is used in this work. This is because the
model was reported as the most accurate representation based on single phase line
model (Goudarzi and Mohseni, 2004). Adjustment procedure of parameters is
described in by IEEE WG 3.4.11(1992).

Fig. 2 IEEE frequency-dependent model

http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss5/art6 4
 Ab Kadir et al.: Modelling 132 kV Substation for Surge Arrester Studies

Fig. 3 Non-linear characteristic for A0 and A1 (p.u. voltage referred to Ur,8/20)

2.5 LIGHTNING MODEL

The lightning stroke is usually represented by a current source of negative

polarity. The magnitude of this current can be a few kA to over 200 kA.
According to Whitehead (1974), currents in the range of 16 to 205 kA cause all
transmission lightning outages. The parameters of a lightning, such as crest, front
time, maximum current steepness, and duration, are determined by a statistical
approach considering the ground flash density at the location. The steepness
increases as the peak current increases, however, the front time increases as well
with peak current.
The median value of strokes to overhead ground wire (OHGW),
conductors, structures, and masts is usually taken to be 31 kA (Anderson, 1981).
He also gave the probability that a certain peak current will be exceeded in any
stroke as follows:

1 (3)
P( I ) =
I
1 + ( ) 2.6
31

where
P(I) = the probability that the peak current in any stroke will exceed I
I = the specified crest current of the stroke in kA.

The time to crest in μs can be estimated as in equation 4.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008 5

 International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 5, Art. 6

I (4)
tf = 0.25
⎛1 ⎞
24 × ⎜ − 1⎟
⎝ P ⎠

Bruce and Golde suggested a double-exponential waveshape for the

lightning current stroke and it is usually used to model the lightning current
source (Golde, 1977). This type is of current wave rises to its peak fairly rapidly
and decays rather slowly by proper choice of α and β. Assuming an exponential
function as the neutralizing time, they were able to reproduce analytically a
current waveshape of the double-exponential form of

i (t ) = I (e −αt − e − βt ) (5)

where α and β are the formula constants and remain to be determined for the
impulse waveforms of lightning currents. Fig. 4 shows the double-exponential
lightning current waveform.

Fig. 4 Double exponential impulse waveform (Ab Kadir, 2006)

3. MODEL PARAMETERS

The substation model was modelled based on 132 kV Simpang Renggam – Ayer
Hitam substation. The layout drawing and some other data of the station and
towers are provided courtesy of Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB).

http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss5/art6 6
 Ab Kadir et al.: Modelling 132 kV Substation for Surge Arrester Studies

3.1 SUBSTATION PARAMETERS

Table 1 describes the comparison of capacitor value between TNB calculation

approach and IEEE recommendation base on 115 kV US substation system
model. All capacitor values for this work i.e. capacitive voltage transformer CVT,
isolator a ISOa, current transformer CT, breaker B, isolator c ISOc, busbar Bb and
power transformer, Tx were adapted based on TNB calculation approach as it
more or less agreed with the value recommended by IEEE WG 3.4.11 (1992) and
for the actual analysis.

Table 1: Comparison of capacitors value between TNB calculation and IEEE

recommendations.

Capacitor TNB (calc) IEEE recommendations

CCVT 7592.98 pF 8000 pF
CISOa 116.12 pF 100 pF
CT 385.16 pF 250 pF
CB 92.25 pF 100 pF
CISOc 116.12 pF 100 pF
CBb 82.78 pF 80 pF
CB 92.25 pF 100 pF
CTx 1485.13 pF 2027 pF

3.2 LINE AND TOWER MODEL PARAMETERS

Tower height : 28.22 [m]

Tower right of way : 5.7 [m]
Tower surge impedance : 155 [ohm]
Line length : 50 [m]
Conductor height : 23.85 [m]
Conductor DC resistance : 0.0982 [ohm/km]
No. of conductor :1
Phase conductor type : ACSR
Diameter : 2.416 [cm]
Midway sag span :7 [m]
Footing resistance : non-linear model (see section 2.3)

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008 7

 International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 5, Art. 6

3.3 SURGE ARRESTER

Height : 1.45 [m]

No. of parallel column :1
Arrester rating : 120 [kV]

3.4 LIGHTNING MODEL

Sequential mode lightning stroke : range of 20 to 200 [kA]

Norton equivalent current source resistance, RN : 500 [ohm]
Polarity of lightning current : Negative
Waveshape : Random non-standard
lightning

The lightning is modelled using double exponential waveform and

waveshapes are randomly varied to represent the nature of lightning. The use of
non-standard waveshape in lightning surge analysis is an important one especially
in demonstrating the effect and behaviour of power apparatus and systems under
this stress (IEEE Task Force 15.09, 1994).
The nonlinear resistors, A0 and A1, can be modelled as a piecewise linear
V-I characteristics defined point by point. The number of points selected to
represent the nonlinear resistance depends on the smoothness desired. In this
project, approximately few points ranging from 10 A to 20 kA were selected. The
V-I points for the nonlinear resistor A0 and A1 can be seen in Table 2 (IEEE WG
3.4.11, 1992). The model for the surge arrester adopted for the study is a
recommended model by IEEE for insulation coordination studies. It is modelled
as a non-linear resistors with 8/20us maximum volt-time characteristics, as it is a
function of incoming surge. As suggested by IEEE Modelling and Analysis of
System Transient Working Group (1996), this nonlinear characteristics need to be
modelled up to at least 20 to 40 kA, since the high current surges initiated by
close backflashovers can result in arrester discharge currents above 10 kA.

http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss5/art6 8
 Ab Kadir et al.: Modelling 132 kV Substation for Surge Arrester Studies

Table 2: V-I points for nonlinear resistor (A) A0 and (B ) A1.

(A) (B)
I (kA) V (pu) I (kA) V (pu)
0.01 1.40 0.01 1.40
0.1 1.54 0.1 1.54
1 1.68 1 1.68
2 1.74 2 1.74
4 1.80 4 1.80
6 1.82 6 1.82
8 1.87 8 1.87
10 1.90 10 1.90
12 1.93 12 1.93
16 2.00 16 2.00
20 2.10 20 2.10

4. APPLICATION OF THE MODELS TO BACKFLASHOVER STUDIES

The case studies demonstrate four cases of investigation concerning the effect of
the backflashover and the influence of arrester presence in the system. The
lightning hits the top of the last tower and cause the backflashover across the
insulator on the tower. When a backflashover occurs, part of the surge current
will be transferred to the phase conductors through an arc across the insulation
strings. This surge current creates a transient voltage on the phase conductors that
will then propagate to the end of line substation and may, if designs are not
correct, cause damage to connected equipment. The backflashover will also cause
a temporary line-to-ground fault that will be cleared by a circuit breaker.
Therefore, a line outage will result in every case as well as the possibility of
equipment damage. Below are the lists of mentioned case studies:

i. With both arresters (SA1 and SA2) are installed

ii. Only SA2 is installed
iii. Only SA1 is installed

The voltage level at four crucial points had been monitored, that are E1 at
the substation entrance, E2 at the first surge arrester to protect the capacitive
voltage transformer, CVT, E3 at the second surge arrester and finally at the power
transformer, E4. Two main locations or points will be observed which are the E2
and E4, where there are transformers located at these points. Model of the
substation for the case studies is shown in Fig. 5.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008 9

 International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 5, Art. 6

Fig. 5 Substation model for case studies

http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss5/art6 10
 Ab Kadir et al.: Modelling 132 kV Substation for Surge Arrester Studies

Case 1: With both arresters (SA1 and SA2) are installed

The result of the simulation can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3: Maximum voltages at different lightning currents for case 1.

I, kA E1, kV E2, kV E3, kV E4, kV

20 426 195 191 195
40 759 216 204 208
60 1055 222 214 226
80 1321 228 220 231
100 1564 232 223 235
120 1794 235 226 241
140 2011 241 228 247
160 2213 246 229 253
180 2414 250 231 259
200 2603 255 232 264

E1 until E4 is tabled at different values of lightning currents. The lightning

currents are in negative polarity and it was increased in the range of 20 kA to 200
kA.
The voltage values of E1, E2, E3 and E4, as expected, are in good
agreement with what has been reported by Savic and Stojkovic (1994). The
values of E1 are the lightning impulse voltages measured at the substation
entrance. This trend is the same for all cases in the latter.
The value for E2 however decreases and this is because of the surge arrester
which is well-operated in discharging the overvoltage. Whilst the values of E3
and E4 are recorded to be low except values of E4, which are slightly higher than
the values of E3. This is due to the effect of travelling wave of short distance,
whereby there is a reflection coming from the point where the transformer is
connected. As a result, this will increase the voltage seen at the point of E4.

Case 2: Only SA2 is installed

The result of this simulated case study can be seen from Table 4. The lightning
current is set same as in case 1.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008 11

 International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 5, Art. 6

Table 4: Maximum voltages at different lightning currents for case 2.

I, kA E1, kV E2, kV E3, kV E4, kV

20 426 228 205 208
40 759 306 220 225
60 1055 361 231 234
80 1321 408 240 245
100 1564 454 250 259
120 1794 498 261 274
140 2011 541 271 287
160 2213 584 280 300
180 2415 626 290 311
200 2603 667 298 322

As expected, the higher the lightning current, the higher the voltage
measured at the substation entrance. However, the voltage is then decreased as it
went through towards point E2. The values of E3 and E4 are decreasing and this
shows that SA2 operated well.
The data in Table 4 shows that, without SA1 operating, the transformer at
point E2 can be damaged by the lightning current, and in this case, at lightning
currents exceeding 140 kV. As the probability of lightning current exceeding a
specific value is easily calculated from formula (3), it is straightforward to convert
the results given as Table 4 into curves giving the probability of the voltage at the
transformer exceeding a specific value, the basic impulse level usually being the
one of interest as voltages above this value can be taken as causing damage to the
transformer. Fig. 6 displays the relevant curves from this analysis.

http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss5/art6 12
 Ab Kadir et al.: Modelling 132 kV Substation for Surge Arrester Studies

Fig. 6 The probability of failure for E1, E2, E3 and E4 for case 2

Case 3: Only SA1 is installed

The result for case 3 is shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Maximum voltages at different lightning currents for case 3.

I, kA E1, kV E2, kV E3, kV E4, kV

20 426 205 235 237
40 759 223 284 291
60 1055 229 346 350
80 1321 239 397 407
100 1564 247 429 445
120 1794 256 452 471
140 2011 264 467 488
160 2213 271 479 502
180 2414 279 490 513
200 2603 286 500 522

When there is only SA1 installed, the values at point E2, E3 and E4 were
decreased to lower values. This is because of the operation of SA1 which is
discharged the overvoltage at point E1 before it went to the transformer and other

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008 13

 International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 5, Art. 6

equipments. Considering the BIL of the transformer, that is 550 kV, the data in
Table 5 shows that without SA2, the values of lightning current that can cause
damage to the protected transformer is higher than 200 kA and this will give a less
chance of the transformer failure or damage due to the overvoltages.
Using the figure allows the production of Table 6 that gives the probability
of transformer damage for case 2 by a single lightning strike to the tower closest
to the substation. Higher percentages are clearly expected in this form of analysis
as it would otherwise suggest that the systems are appropriately immuned for
providing protection against transients.

Table 6: Probability of transformer damage due to a lightning strike at the tower

closest to the substation (case 2)

Probability Of Damage To Transformer, %

Case E2 E4
2 29 -

Considering the highest lightning current is 200 kA, point E4 of case 2

predicts no damage at all to the CTX while point E2 predicts damage 29 times for
100 lightning strike events. Given the capital cost of the transformer it would
suggest that this would still be the big loss could happen in case of this particular
surge arrester is not operated.

5. CONCLUSION

Detail modelling guidelines and parameters for the 132 kV substation in Simpang
Renggam - Ayer Hitam, Johor are successfully presented. In case of insulation
coordination studies, it is important to understand the modelling concept and to
accurately model the system. Furthermore, analysis the impact of lightning on the
equipments connected at the substation is very crucial as outages can result in
costly damage to the expensive assets. This modelling guideline can easily be
adapted to different substations either for the same purpose or other power
system-related studies. The simulations showed the significance of surge arrester
for protection especially when located before expensive equipments such as
transformer.
The surge arrester plays an important role to protect the transformer as what
have been demonstrated in this paper. The results showed that the default
arrangement of TNB substation (case 1) was well protected but the cost of
implementation of such arrangement is high. The placement of arrester is
crucially needed in order to optimize the substation performance in term of its
reliability and cost effectiveness. The arrester is best suited for optimized

http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss5/art6 14
 Ab Kadir et al.: Modelling 132 kV Substation for Surge Arrester Studies

performance if it is installed near to the crucial point compared to the substation

entrance.
The substation model for lightning surge propagation studies was
successfully done and the effect of lightning on substation and effect of having
surge arrester as protection was successfully studied. The BIL and the voltage
level at certain points were compared and the probability of failure of the
transformer in the substation was predicted.

6. REFERENCES

[1] TNBR, “Lightning Detection Network System Database”, 2008.

[2] Malaysian Meteorological Department, “Lightning Data”, 2003.
[3] IEEE Power Engineering Society (PES), “IEEE Std 1313.2-1999: Guide
for the application of the insulation coordination”, 1999.
[4] Chowdhuri P, “Electromagnetic Transients in Power Systems,” Research
Study Press Ltd., 1996
[5] Hileman A R, “Insulation coordination for power system”, New York:
Marcel Dekker, Inc, 1999
[6] IEEE Modeling and Analysis of System Transient WG, “Modeling
guidelines for fast front transients” IEEE Transactions On Power Delivery,
vol. 11, pp 493-506, 1996.
[7] IEEE Power Engineering Society, “IEEE Std 998-1996: Guide for direct
lightning stroke shielding of substation”, 1996.
[8] IEC, “Insulation coordination Part 1: Definition, Principle and rules” IEC
71-1: International Standard, 1993.
[9] Ab Kadir M Z A, “Improved coordination gap model in insulation
coordination studies”, PhD Thesis, University of Manchester, 2006.
[10] Martinez L A and Castro-Aranda F, “Modelling overhead transmission
lines for line arrester studies”, IEEE Power Engineering Society General
Meeting, 2004.
[11] IEEE WG 3.4.11, “Modelling of Metal Oxide Surge Arresters”, IEEE
Trans. On Power Delivery, vol. 7, pp. 393-398, 1992.
[12] Goudarzi A and Mohseni H, "Evaluation of mathematical models of metal
oxide surge arrester for energy absorption study," presented at 39th
International Universities Power Engineering Conference, 2004.
[13] Whitehead E R, “CIGRE survey of the lightning performance of EHV
transmission lines”, ELECTRA 33, pp 63-89, 1974.
[14] Anderson J G, “Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines,” Chapter
12 of Transmission Line Reference Book, Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 1981.
[15] Golde R H, “ Lightning”, Academic Press, New York, 1977.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2008 15

 International Journal of Emerging Electric Power Systems, Vol. 9 [2008], Iss. 5, Art. 6

[16] IEEE Task Force 15.09, “Review of research on nonstandard lightning

voltage waves”, IEEE Trans. On Power, vol. 9, pp. 1972-1981, 1994.
[17] Savic M and Stojkovic Z, “High voltage substation equivalent circuits in
the lightning performance estimation”, IEE Proc. Gener. Transm. Distrib,
Vol 141, No. 2, 1994.

http://www.bepress.com/ijeeps/vol9/iss5/art6 16