IEEE 998 Technical Report on Current and Proposed LP Models

For review by WG D5 at April 2008 IEEE meeting in San Francisco Prepared by F. DAlessandro, Corresponding Member of WG D5 OVERVIEW: There are two parts to this report, namely: 1. Arguably, the main issue of contention is the protective / capture distance or attractive radius afforded by masts and shield wires according to the EGM variants in the literature. 2. The second issue, which follows from the first, is how the final design for a substation would look when the protection areas and requirements of the particular protection technique are applied.

Part 1: Comparison of protection area results using three different EGMs

1.1 BACKGROUND A review of the correspondence relating to the submission of an Improved EGM for the IEEE 998 standard clearly demonstrates that protective distance calculations are perceived as being at the heart of the controversy. However, it should be remembered that it is not until a complete design is performed that one can observe the final results from a particular method. For example, one method may give a smaller protective distance but completely ignore the interception probability of the substation equipment, whilst another may use larger distances but also assign capture distances to the substation equipment. With regard to the latter situation, the Improved EGM stipulates that all items in a substation (equipment, buses etc. as well as the protective masts and shield wires) are capable of launching an upward leader. Hence, they all have a non-negligible probability of intercepting the downward leader and receiving a direct strike. Therefore, the concept of competing features is applied in the Improved EGM, requiring protection distance calculations for all non-self-protecting equipment and buses present in the substation. 1.2 CALCULATION SUMMARY The calculations will be carried out for protective masts and shield wires, like those used in the two examples in Annex B of IEEE 998 for 69 kV and 500/230 kV substations. The three EGMs or methods that will be compared are the: Simple EGM / Rolling Sphere Method (RSM), as presented in B5 of IEEE 998; Revised EGM as described by Mousa et al. and presented in B4 of IEEE 998; and Improved EGM as described in the April 2007 submission to IEEE 998. The calculations involved with the first two methods are described in detail in the current version of IEEE 998 and so will not be repeated here. The third method is based on the research of Eriksson (1987) and, likewise, this method was described in the submission document and so will not be described again here. However, for traceability of the calculations, the key equations to be used are summarised below.

1.2.1 Simple EGM / RSM The simple EGM, first introduced by Whitehead in the late 1960s, links two important parameters of the lightning stroke to an earthed structure, namely the prospective peak stroke current, Ip, and the striking distance, S. One of the empirical relationships obtained for S, using the downward leader charge and the electric field for air breakdown to link it to the stroke current is given by S = 10 Ip 0.65 (1a) where S is in metres and Ip is in kA. There are several variants of the striking distance relation, and in the early 1990s the IEEE adopted the following relation for application in the power transmission industry: S = 8 Ip 0.65 (1b) The significance of the striking distance for the attachment process is that if a downward leader tip gets within a distance S from a point on a structure, and that point is capable of launching a connecting upward leader, then that point will be the one to which the lightning channel connects. In other words, the striking distance quantifies the range of capture of a strike for a given peak current. The protective distance afforded by a mast or shield wire of height h relative to a lower object or the ground is given by Rp = [16 h Ip0.65 h2] (2) 1.2.2 Mousas Revised EGM After Eriksson, in the late 1970s, pointed out some of the deficiencies in the simple EGM (see Clause 5.1.3 of IEEE 998), Mousa & Srivastava (1988) developed the Revised EGM. The Revised EGM model differs from Whiteheads model in several ways, namely: The stroke is assumed to arrive only in a vertical direction. A value of 24 kA is used as the median stroke current. The differing striking distances to masts, wires, and the ground plane are taken into consideration via a correction factor, k. Hence, the Revised EGM uses the relationship S = 8 k Ip 0.65 (meters) (3)

as a basis, where k = 1 for the ground plane or shield wires and k = 1.2 for masts and towers. The use of the coefficient k is clearly an acknowledgement that the striking distance has a dependence on the geometry of the prospective strike point. Other than the introduction of this factor to take into account, empirically, the differences between masts and wires, the descriptions provided in IEEE 998 Sections 5.2 and 5.4 provide no elucidation of the means by which protective distances might be calculated according to the Revised EGM. Lacking this further information, it is assumed the relevant distances are computed using Eq. (3) and hence have no height dependence.

1.2.3 Erikssons Improved EGM Eriksson found that the attachment of lightning to a structure is not only determined by the striking distance but also by the successful interception of the downward leader by the upward leader. Hence, the interception process was found to depend on the structure height, the relative positions of the two leaders and their relative velocities of approach. Using this physical model, Eriksson defined the protective or capture distance as the attractive radius, Ra . For masts and towers up to 60 m in height, Eriksson defined the attractive radius as: Ra = 0.84 h 0.6 Ip 0.74 (meters) (4a)

For horizontal conductors and shield wires up to 60 m in height, Eriksson defined the attractive radius as: (4b) Ra = 0.67 h 0.6 Ip 0.74 (meters)

1.3 RESULTS The plots below show the dependence of the protective distance with mast or wire height, according to each model, for different BILs. 1.3.1 Masts
20

15 Protective distance (m)

10

EGM comparison for BIL = 350 kV - MASTS Simple EGM / RSM Revised EGM (Mousa) Improved EGM (Eriksson)

10

20 Mast height (m)

30

40

Figure 1a: Protective or capture distance (attractive radius) comparisons as a function of protective mast height for the 69 kV substation example in Annex B of IEEE 998. BIL = 350 kV, Ip = Imax = 2.57 kA for RSM & Improved EGM, Ip = Imax = 2.03 kA for Revised EGM.

60

Protective distance (m)

40

20
EGM comparison for BIL = 1800 kV - MASTS Simple EGM (RSM) Revised EGM (Mousa) Improved EGM (Eriksson)

10

20 Mast height (m)

30

40

Figure 1b: Protective or capture distance (attractive radius) comparisons as a function of protective mast height for the 500 kV switchyard example in Annex B of IEEE 998. BIL = 1800 kV, Ip = Imax = 13.20 kA for RSM & Improved EGM, Ip = Imax = 9.11 kA for Revised EGM.

40

30 Protective distance (m)

20

10

EGM comparison for BIL = 900 kV - MASTS Simple EGM (RSM) Revised EGM (Mousa) Improved EGM (Eriksson)

10

20 Mast height (m)

30

40

Figure 1c: Protective or capture distance (attractive radius) comparisons as a function of protective mast height for the 230 kV switchyard example in Annex B of IEEE 998. BIL = 900 kV, Ip = Imax = 6.60 kA for RSM & Improved EGM, Ip = Imax = 4.99 kA for Revised EGM.

1.3.2 Wires / Catenaries

20

15 Protective distance (m)

10

5
EGM comparison for BIL = 350 kV - WIRES Simple EGM / RSM Revised EGM (Mousa) Improved EGM (Eriksson)

10

20 Mast height (m)

30

40

Figure 2a: Protective or capture distance (attractive radius) comparisons as a function of shield wire height for the 69 kV substation example in Annex B of IEEE 998. BIL = 350 kV, Ip = Imax = 2.57 kA for RSM & Improved EGM, Ip = Imax = 2.03 kA for Revised EGM.

50

40

Protective distance (m)

30

20

10

EGM comparison for BIL = 1800 kV - WIRES Simple EGM (RSM) Revised EGM (Mousa) Improved EGM (Eriksson)

10

20 Mast height (m)

30

40

Figure 2b: Protective or capture distance (attractive radius) comparisons as a function of shield wire height for the 500 kV switchyard example in Annex B of IEEE 998. BIL = 1800 kV, Ip = Imax = 13.20 kA for RSM & Improved EGM, Ip = Imax = 9.11 kA for Revised EGM.

30

Protective distance (m)

20

10
EGM comparison for BIL = 900 kV - WIRES Simple EGM (RSM) Revised EGM (Mousa) Improved EGM (Eriksson)

10

20 Mast height (m)

30

40

Figure 2c: Protective or capture distance (attractive radius) comparisons as a function of shield wire height for the 230 kV switchyard example in Annex B of IEEE 998. BIL = 900 kV, Ip = Imax = 6.60 kA for RSM & Improved EGM, Ip = Imax = 4.99 kA for Revised EGM.

1.4 CONCLUSIONS For masts: 1. The Revised EGM of Mousa is the least conservative of the three methods evaluated. 2. The Improved EGM of Eriksson is the most conservative of the three methods evaluated, at least for the mast height range typically used in practice for substation shielding. 3. The simple EGM / RSM is very limited in its application because it can only be used for mast heights up to the equivalent striking distance. For example, for a BIL = 69 kV / Imax = 2.57 kA, the method cannot be used for masts taller than about 15 meters. For shield wires: 1. The simple EGM / RSM does not distinguish between masts and wires, hence for some of the taller wire scenarios it is less conservative than the revised EGM of Mousa. 2. The Improved EGM of Eriksson is more conservative than either of the other methods for all wire heights up to at least 30 meters. 3. Once again, we see the limited nature of the simple EGM / RSM in that it can only be used for mast heights up to the equivalent striking distance. In all cases for masts and wires, it can be seen that the Improved EGM of Eriksson can handle all heights and also provides a quantitative dependence of the protective distance on the height of the shielding mast or wire.

Part 2: Analysis of substation protection examples in Annex B of IEEE 998

2.1 INTRODUCTION This second part of the report focuses on the question of how the final design for a substation would look when the protection areas and requirements of the Improved EGM are applied to masts and/or shield wires. In this regard, reference will be made to the two examples in Annex B of IEEE 998, namely the 69 kV and 500/230 kV substations. The main parameters relevant to the 69 kV and 500/230 kV substations are presented in Table 1. Values have been taken from Annex B where available, otherwise they have been estimated with standard formulae.
Table 1: Summary of parameters relevant to lightning protection calculations for the two substation examples in Annex B of IEEE 998-1996.

SubstationprotectioncalculationsSimpleEGM/RSM
Substation voltage(kV) 69 Equip/bus BIL(kV) 350 Busheight (m) 4.3 5.8 10 8.5 6.1 11.9 16.8 9.1 Zeff () 300 300 300 336 336 336 336 336 Imax (kA) 2.57 2.57 2.57 5.89 5.89 5.89 11.79 11.79 Probability (%) 99 99 99 97 97 97 86 86 MastS (m) 14.8 14.8 14.8 25.3 25.3 25.3 39.8 39.8 WireS (m) 14.8 14.8 14.8 25.3 25.3 25.3 39.8 39.8

230

900

500

1800

SubstationprotectioncalculationsMousa's"RevisedEGM"
Substation voltage(kV) 69 Equip/bus BIL(kV) 350 Busheight (m) 4.3 5.8 10 8.5 6.1 11.9 16.8 9.1 Zeff () 300 319 409 314 336 336 336 336
#

Imax

230

900

500

1800

(kA) 2.57 2.41 1.88 6.31 5.89 5.89 11.79 11.79

Probability (%) 99 99 99 96 97 97 86 86

MastS (m) 17.7 17.0 14.5 31.8 30.4 30.4 47.7 47.7

WireS (m) 14.8 14.2 12.1 26.5 25.3 25.3 39.8 39.8

ThesevaluesareclosebutnotidenticaltothosepresentedbyMousa'scomputercode.

SubstationprotectioncalculationsEriksson's"ImprovedEGM"
Substation voltage(kV) 69 Equip/bus BIL(kV) 350 Busheight (m) 4.3 5.8 10 8.5 6.1 11.9 16.8 9.1 Zeff () 300 300 300 336 336 336 336 336 Imax (kA) 2.57 2.57 2.57 5.89 5.89 5.89 11.79 11.79 Probability (%) 99 99 99 97 97 97 86 86 MastS (m) n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a* WireS (m) n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a*

230

900

500

1800

*Stri ki ngdi s tancei s afuncti onofhei ght.

2.2 DESIGN EXAMPLE The design example chosen for making the comparisons discussed above is the 69 kV substation. Two designs will be carried out utilizing masts only and wires only. As noted in IEEE 998-1996, to ensure comparability of the results from different design methods, the following criteria were adhered to: a) Maximum height of mast or shield wire support point is 30.5 m; b) Maximum span of shield wires is 183 m; and c) No more than four shield wires are to be connected to a support structure. 2.2.1 Mast shielding of the 69 kV substation The mast shielding layout according to the Revised EGM is shown in Fig. 3. It appears that the 3 m rods located on the towers at points g, h, p and q are a common feature across all of the design methods, so these will be retained for comparability.

Figure 3: The 69 kV substation shielding layout according to Mousas Revised EGM, taken from Fig. B.4-1 of IEEE 998-1996.

The procedure to be followed for the Improved EGM implementation is as follows: a) Select the required protection level or interception efficiency. Referring to Table 1, for the 69 kV substation, for a BIL of 350 kV, a level of 99% is required. This value corresponds to a maximum allowable bypass stroke current of 2.57 kA, i.e., substation equipment can handle up to 2.5 kA. b) Compute the attractive radius for all competing features requiring protection, i.e., busses (using Eqn. 4b) and equipment (using Eqn. 4a), taking heights into account. From Table 1, the heights are 4.3 m (bus & equipment), 5.8 (bus) and 10 m (equipment). The corresponding attractive radii of these competing features are 3.2 / 4.1, 3.9 and 6.7 m. c) Draw circles (equipment) or parallel lines (busses) corresponding to the attractive area of each competing feature. These are shown in the plan view of Fig. 4. Attractive areas for busses are shown in purple and for equipment in red. d) Assume a protective mast height. For ease of comparison, a common mast height of 15.2 m will be used. Compute the attractive radius for a 15.2 m mast using Eqn. (4a), i.e., 8.6 metres. e) Determine viable or practical mast locations on the site, taking the attractive radius values into account. As an initial pass, the location and number of masts is assumed to be the same as that proposed by Mousa for the Revised EGM calculations given in IEEE 998, i.e., masts a, b, c, d, e and f shown in Fig. 4. f) Draw circles corresponding to the attractive area of each mast. These are shown in blue in the plan view of Fig. 4. g) If the mast attractive areas (blue) overlap all of the competing feature (bus and equipment) attractive areas, the substation is protected at a level of 99% (Imax = 2.57 kA). However, as can be seen in Fig. 4, there are some bus areas that could receive a direct lightning strike. These areas are marked by a yellow lightning bolt. Furthermore, there are two locations where the bus dead-end structures could be susceptible to a strike. These two points are shown by green lightning bolts in Fig. 4 and arrows point to the corresponding attractive areas not covered. h) Since the mast attractive areas do not overlap all of the competing feature areas, it is necessary to relocate one or more masts and/or add one or more masts to obtain the required coverage. In this particular example, there are various actions that could be taken, for example: i. Masts d, e and f can be moved to the left in Fig. 4, i.e., closer to the busses that they presently do not adequately protect; ii. Moving mast b to the right will help; iii. Use taller masts at d, e and f; or iv. An additional mast between d and f. A suitable modification to the layout resulting in a final design is shown in Fig. 5. An additional 15.2 m mast and minor relocation of the three original masts d, e and f result in a completely protected substation at the 99% protection level (these masts are shown by yellow crosses in Fig. 5).

Figure 4: The 69 kV substation mast shielding calculations according to the Erikssons Improved EGM. The calculations show that the same layout as Mousas Revised EGM does not fully protect the substation.

2.2.2 Wire shielding of the 69 kV substation A similar procedure is followed when using the Improved EGM for wire shielding, namely: a) Select the required protection level or interception efficiency, i.e., 99% for a BIL of 350 kV (Imax = 2.57 kA). b) Compute the attractive radius for all competing features requiring protection, i.e., busses (using Eqn. 4b) and equipment (using Eqn. 4a), taking heights into account. From Table 1, the heights are 4.3 m (bus & equipment), 5.8 (bus) and 10 m (equipment). The corresponding attractive radii of these competing features are 3.2 / 4.1, 3.9 and 6.7 m. c) Draw circles (equipment) or parallel lines (busses) corresponding to the attractive area of each competing feature (these are shown in red in Fig. 6.).

4 x 15.2 m (50 ft) lightning masts

Figure 5: The final design for the 69 kV substation using mast shielding calculations according to Erikssons Improved EGM.

d) Assume a shield wire height and arrangement. As a first attempt and for comparison purposes, the same height and arrangement as that shown in Figure B.5-2 of Annex B in IEEE 998-1996 will be used. This figure relates to rolling sphere method calculations, not Mousas Revised EGM (since the latter design is not shown in Annex B). Compute the attractive radius for a shield wire of height 12.2 m using Eqn. (4b), i.e., 6.0 metres. The attractive radius of the supporting masts can also be calculated, using Eqn. 4(a), i.e., 7.6 metres. e) Draw parallel lines corresponding to the attractive area of each wire. Also draw circles corresponding to the attractive area of each support mast and the four 3 m rods at 15.2 m height on the left of the site. Again, all of the protective areas are shown in blue in the plan view of Fig. 6. f) If the wire attractive areas (blue) overlap all of the competing feature (red bus and equipment) attractive areas, the substation is protected at a level of 99% (Imax = 2.57 kA). However, as can be seen in Fig. 6, the central bus region, highlighted by the region

shaded in yellow, is not protected and hence could receive a direct lightning strike of magnitude greater than 2.57 kA. g) The lack of protection in the central bus region can be rectified most easily in one of two ways: i. Add a shield wire, horizontally in Fig. 6, as marked by the arrows, or ii. Install a mast of minimum height 12 m next to the equipment in the center of the substation, as marked by the tip of the lightning bolt graphic in Fig. 6. 2.2.3 Conclusions The results from the 69 kV substation shielding design using both masts and wires demonstrate that the Revised EGM according to Mousa may result in under-design and hence under-protection of substations. In the mast shielding design example, an additional mast was needed and the other three masts had to be relocated. Furthermore, Mousa claims that the design could utilise lower masts (height 12.2 m). If this mast height was used, Erikssons Improved EGM would identify additional regions that are not protected. In the wire shielding design example, and additional wire was needed, although the addition of a single mast of height 12 m or higher would have also resulted in complete protection. Table 2 summarises the protection requirements of the different methods outlined in IEEE 998 with an additional column for Erikssons Improved EGM. The comparison in Table 2 highlights the fact that there are differences between the methods. In the case of Erikssons Improved EGM, the fundamental difference is the quantitative allowance that is made for the height of the masts or wires used for protection. A further improvement in the design process is the treatment of all non-self-protecting busses and equipment around the substation as potential strike points and the assignment of an attractive radius (which is proportional to the probability of a strike to the point) to these items in addition to the protective masts or wires.
Table 2: Comparison of all results for the 69 kV substation. Hardware requirements No. masts required No. wires required Fixed Angle 1 2 Empirical 1 2 Method Simple EGM Revised EGM (RSM) (Mousa) 6 6 4 4 Improved EGM (Eriksson) 7 5

Hence, the designer can be assured that the Improved EGM provides the most conservative and safe design possible whilst at the same time introducing efficiencies into the overall design via the height-dependence built into the equations that are used to compute the attractive radius of protective masts and wires.

Figure 6: Lightning protection design for the 69 kV substation using wire shielding calculations according to Erikssons Improved EGM.