1742

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 25, NO. 3, JULY 2010

A Practical Evaluation of Surge Arrester Placement for Transmission Line Lightning Protection
Karthik Munukutla, Member, IEEE, Vijay Vittal, Fellow, IEEE, Gerald T. Heydt, Life Fellow, IEEE, Daryl Chipman, and Brian Keel, Senior Member, IEEE

AbstractThe use of metaloxide varistor surge arresters (MOVs) in lightning protection of overhead transmission lines to improve reliability is of great interest to electric utilities. However due to economic reasons, it is not possible to completely equip an overhead transmission line with surge arresters at each transmission structure. In this paper, an evaluation of lightning protection design on a 115 kV transmission line using surge arresters, utilizing a model based on eld data, is presented. The model developed is used for computer simulation using the Alternative Transients Program. Various design procedures aimed at maximizing the reliability of service on the transmission line using a minimal number of surge arresters are analyzed. Different designs considered for transmission line lightning protection using MOV arresters include: the use of a different number of surge arresters per tower, distance between towers with surge arresters and the dependence of these congurations on tower footing resistance. The lightning protection designs are analyzed using lightning ashover charts, proposed in this paper. Also, an analytical model of two 115 kV transmission lines in Southwest U.S. has been developed and different surge arrester location strategies used on these transmission lines have been analyzed. Practical experiences and effectiveness of various lightning protection designs used on these transmission lines are discussed. Index TermsBackashover, lightning protection, overhead transmission lines, surge arresters, surge arrester location, transmission engineering.

I. LIGHTNING PROTECTION OF OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES XPERIENCES of various utilities have proven that the use of line surge arresters is an efcient technique in improvement of lightning performance of overhead transmission lines [1], [2]. Surge arresters avoid lightning ashovers by maintaining the voltage across insulators on a transmission line below the insulation withstand capability. In general, for transmission lines without shield wires, the use of surge arresters at every insulator location is an alternative for shield wire protection [3]. For transmission lines with shield wires, line surge arresters are used at remote locations where line

Manuscript received June 01, 2009; revised November 02, 2009, December 16, 2009, December 18, 2009. First published April 05, 2010; current version published June 23, 2010. Paper no. TPWRD-00417-2009. K. Munukutla is with Entergy, Jackson, MS 39205 USA (e-mail: karthikmunukutla@gmail.com). V. Vittal and G, Heydt are with the Department of Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering at Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA (e-mail: vijay.vittal@asu.edu; heydt@asu.edu). D. Chipman and B. Keel are with the Salt River Project, Phoenix, AZ 85034 USA (e-mail: Daryl.Chipman)@srpnet.com; Brian.Keel@srpnet.com). Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TPWRD.2010.2040843

maintenance is difcult or at places of high ground resistivity (e.g., rocky terrain, sand) [4]. In contemporary transmission engineering, line surge arresters are used on several key transmission lines to improve the reliability of service. However due to economical reasons, it may not be possible to equip the line with surge arresters at each transmission structure. These requirements motivate a study to design a strategy aimed at minimizing the number of surge arresters to achieve a desired lightning protection. Several studies [2], [5][8] have been performed to assess the lightning protection of transmission lines. However, the effectiveness of surge arrester installation location in transmission line lightning protection has not yet been fully quantied. In this paper, the lightning performance improvement offered by various surge arrester location strategies and use of different number of surge arresters per tower on transmission lines with shield wires is discussed. This paper presents a non-statistical deterministic study on the Alternative Transients Program (ATP), which is the commonly used and the public domain version of the Electromagnetic Transients Program (EMTP), to estimate the improvement of lightning performance of transmission lines using different surge arrester location strategies. Analytical models of two transmission lines in the Southwest U.S., considering the characteristics of each line section, are constructed based on eld measurements. Accurate tower-by-tower representation of transmission line components is developed based on the modeling guidelines given in [9][12]. Surge arresters are modeled using the frequency dependent equivalent circuit recommended by an IEEE working group [13]. Arrester location strategies that can be used on the transmission lines were analyzed using parametric and sensitivity studies. These studies help in identifying the strategies useful in locating line surge arresters on transmission lines. Various strategies analyzed in this study are: installation of different number of surge arresters per tower, distance between towers with surge arresters. The lightning protection design strategies are analyzed with the help of tables described in this paper as lightning ashover charts. These charts are a graphic representation of those components that are expected to ashover for a given lightning strike event. In effect, the lightning ashover charts present the probability of an insulator back ashover when a lightning stroke of a specied magnitude strikes a transmission tower. This paper is organized as follows: the modeling details and data for the study transmission lines are presented in Section II. In Section III, an illustration of a case study on a 115 kV line

0885-8977/$26.00 2010 IEEE

MUNUKUTLA et al.: PRACTICAL EVALUATION OF SURGE ARRESTER PLACEMENT

1743

Fig. 1. Steel lattice-type tower design and conductor arrangement (A, B, C are phase conductors and D, E are shield conductors). Fig. 2. Steel windmill-type tower design and conductor arrangement (A, B, C are phase conductors and D is the shield conductor).

section showing the effectiveness of various strategies involving surge arresters in transmission line lightning protection is presented. Sensitivity study with respect to different modeling methods is presented in Section IV. Analysis of results obtained from studies, similar to those in Section III, performed on two actual 115 kV lines in the Southwest U.S. and suggestions based on practical experience are discussed in Section V. II. MODELING DETAILS AND DATA USED A. Study Transmission Lines Two transmission lines from the Southwestern U.S. are chosen as test beds for analysis. The rst is denominated KRS and this is a 115 kV line largely built with steel transmission towers. The second is denominated FM and this too is a 115 kV line largely built with wooden transmission structures. The basis for the selection of these transmission lines is the signicant reduction in number of outages and trips caused by lightning activity in the region after the installation of line surge arresters. Data for these transmission lines such as the conductor arrangement, line length, line parameters, tower structure and location, tower grounding resistance, line outage and tripping data, line elevation data, lightning data in the region was collected to analyze the line lightning performance. Figs. 1 and 2 show the conductor arrangement and details of the transmission towers used on these lines. Table I describes the parameters corresponding to KRS 115 kV line and FM 115 kV line, respectively. B. Modeling Guidelines The modeling guidelines used for the analysis performed are selected from various [9][12]. Modeling details used for representing various transmission line components are described as follows. Overhead lines: Overhead lines (phase conductors and shield wires) are modeled by means of several line spans of multi-phase untransposed distributed parameter frequency dependent line model (this is the so-called Jmarti

TABLE I TRANSMISSION LINE DATA FOR LINES KRS AND FM

model). The line terminations are modeled as long enough line sections to avoid reections that could affect the overvoltage at the insulator location [9]. Steel and wooden transmission towers: Transmission towers are modeled by using separate sections between the cross arms. Since on all the transmission towers of wood pole construction, the shield wires are grounded through a steel wire, the equivalent surge impedance of the steel wire is used to represent its surge impedance. For steel transmission towers, each section of a pyramidal shaped tower is approximated by an equivalent cone whose surge is calculated from (1) and [12] impedance (1) where is the height of the tower in meters, is the radius of the base of the equivalent cone in meters. The shield conductors are assumed to be earthed through the tower. Tower footing resistance: Tower footing resistance is assumed to decrease with increase in discharge current through the grounding electrode. The footing resistance

1744

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 25, NO. 3, JULY 2010

TABLE II MOV ARRESTER DATA (TAKEN FROM [15])

TABLE III LFC FOR LINE A WITH NO SURGE ARRESTERS INSTALLED (50 kA, 1.2/50 S STANDARD LIGHTNING IMPULSE)

is therefore modeled as nonlinear current changing resisgiven by [9], [10] shown as tance

(2)

where is the tower footing resistance (in ohms) at low current and low frequency, is the lightning current through the footing, and is the limiting current that can initiate soil ionization given by [9] as (3) where is the soil ionization gradient which is a xed value (about 300 kV/m) and is the soil resistivity in ohm-m. Note that is in A in (3). Lightning stroke: a lightning stroke is modeled as a current source with parallel impedance equal to the lightning channel surge impedance. The magnitude of a lightning current is a probability function. This study assumes a worst case scenario (since this is a lightning protection design problem) using the concave wavefront described in [10] (referred as CIGRE-type waveform in [14]) with typs and tail time, ical lightning stroke front time, s (represented as a 1.2/50 s waveform). The concave wavefront described in [10] is called as the standard lightning impulse in this paper. Insulator: insulators are modeled as a capacitance in parallel to a ashover switch. The ashover switch is modeled based on two methods: standard withstand capability curve (SWCC) and leader development method (LDM), as described in [10]. Surge arrester: a nonlinear - characteristic of surge arrester is modeled by a frequency dependent model suggested by IEEE [13]. An 84 MCOV (maximum continuous operating voltage) metaloxide surge arrester is used for the analysis shown. The parameters used to obtain the model are shown in Table II.

using the modeling procedures described in the previous section. 2) Using ATP simulations, the critical stroke currents producing back ashover were calculated and lightning ashover charts (LFCs) were drawn. Lightning current magnitudes producing back ashover for different values of footing resistance are estimated. 3) The improvement in lightning protection by the use of surge arresters was estimated repeating the simulations discussed in step 2. 4) Finally, the sensitivity of the study performed was analyzed for different modeling procedures involved in designing insulators. To illustrate the analysis performed on the two transmission lines under study, a line section comprising 11 spans of KRS 115 kV transmission line (referred as line A) designed in ATP using the data obtained from eld measurements is considered. A. Effect of Surge Arrester Location Distance For the analysis of surge arrester location strategies, tables similar to Table III called lightning ashover charts are used. Table III presents the lightning ashover chart for a 50 kA, 1.2/50 s standard lightning impulse with no installed surge arresters on the line. Lightning ashover chart for a specic line section depicts the effectiveness of lightning protection design when a lightning stroke of specic intensity hits a transmission line. They are drawn as follows: For a specic stroke location, the transmission tower at which ashover occurs is noted; a tower at which a ashover occurs is denoted by F (unshaded box in the chart) while a tower at which no ashover is observed is denoted by N (lightly shaded box in the chart). LFCs for different lightning stroke intensities and different lightning protection designs are drawn and compared to obtain the best possible conguration required for a specic lightning performance. LFCs are used only to offer a visual depiction of the results of the ashover study and may not be of any further signicance. The effect of the surge arrester location with respect to the point of impact of lightning stroke on lightning protection is studied with the help of lightning ashover charts shown in Tables IV and V. Tables IV and V present the lightning ashover

III. TEST RESULTS: THE USE OF A LIGHTING FLASHOVER CHART FOR LIGHTNING PROTECTION EVALUATION The approach used to analyze the effect of different surge arrester congurations on the transmission line is as follows. 1) Critical sections of KRS and FM transmission lines with prior lightning activity and with improvements in lightning protection using surge arresters were represented in ATP

MUNUKUTLA et al.: PRACTICAL EVALUATION OF SURGE ARRESTER PLACEMENT

1745

TABLE IV LFC FOR LINE A WITH SURGE ARRESTERS TWO SPANS APART (50 kA, 1.2/50 S STANDARD LIGHTNING IMPULSE)

TABLE VI LFC FOR LINE A WITH SURGE ARRESTERS ON ALL PHASES (50 kA, 1.2/50 S STANDARD LIGHTNING IMPULSE)

TABLE V LFC FOR LINE A WITH SURGE ARRESTERS THREE SPANS APART (50 kA, 1.2/50 s STANDARD LIGHTNING IMPULSE)

TABLE VII LFC FOR LINE A WITH SURGE ARRESTERS ON TWO PHASES (50 kA, 1.2/50 S STANDARD LIGHTNING IMPULSE)

charts when surge arresters are located on the transmission towers spaced two spans and three spans, respectively. In case of a lightning stroke on a transmission tower, it is observed that the location of surge arresters across all the phase insulators of that tower prevents back ashover. Also, it is observed that the location of surge arresters on towers adjacent to a tower hit by a lightning stroke prevents the induced traveling wave from traveling further and therefore reduces the number of insulators that ashover. B. Effect of Different Number of Surge Arresters Per Tower The effectiveness of using different number of surge arresters per tower is studied using lightning ashover charts shown in Tables VIVIII. Table VI is a lightning ashover chart for the line A using a 50 kA, 1.2/50 s current wave with surge arresters across all the phase insulators while Table VII is drawn for surge arresters across two phase insulators. Table VIII is a lightning ashover chart with surge arresters across two phase insulators for an 80 kA, 1.2/50 s standard lightning impulse. The following three observations are from Tables VIVIII: Usage of surge arresters on all phases of transmission tower provides protection to the transmission tower for all values of lightning current. Usage of two surge arresters per transmission tower provides complete protection to a transmission tower against lightning stroke of magnitude 50 kA. However, this method is ineffective for a lightning stroke of magnitude 80 kA

TABLE VIII LFC FOR LINE A WITH SURGE ARRESTERS ON TWO PHASES (80 kA, 1.2/50 S STANDARD LIGHTNING IMPULSE)

since ashover is expected to occur on the unprotected phase. LFCs are not symmetrical owing to the nonuniformity of the line conguration (e.g., change in footing resistances, tower surge impedances across the line). C. Effect of Tower Footing Resistance Fig. 3 presents the effect of tower footing resistance on lightning stroke magnitude that produces back ashover for a denite number of surge arresters per tower. It is estimated that with surge arresters on all phases of a transmission tower, a lightning stroke of magnitude 85 kA or higher at the tower can produce a

1746

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 25, NO. 3, JULY 2010

Fig. 5. Plot showing the expected number of back ashovers versus spacing between poles with surge arresters for different congurations of surge arrester placement (for 80 kA, 1.2/50 s standard lightning impulse). Fig. 3. Effect of footing resistance on lightning protection designs. TABLE X COMPARISON OF BACK FLASHOVER RATE FROM THE STUDY WITH IEEE FLASH PROGRAM 1.9

TABLE IX EFFECTIVENESS OF USAGE OF DIFFERENT NUMBER OF ARRESTERS PER TOWER FOR LINE A

Plots in Figs. 4 and 5 indicate that spacing of surge arresters every 1, 2, or 3 span lengths apart on a transmission line can help in improvement of lightning protection. However, installing surge arresters on two phases of a tower can only help with partial improvement in lightning protection (which is observed to be 50 kA lightning stroke for the line A). IV. RESULT VALIDATION AND DESIGN SENSITIVITY STUDY Using the actual distribution of footing resistances for the transmission lines, the back ashover rate was computed using the IEEE ash program (Version 1.9, described in IEEE Standard 1243 [4]). This back ashover rate was compared with an approximate back ashover rate computed from the study results using CIGRE guidelines [10]. The results for the analysis are presented in Table X for a keraunic level of 40 thunder days per year. A slight overestimation of the back ashover rates from the study results is due to the usage of 1.2/50 s lightning waveform and neglecting corona for the study. A sensitivity study aimed at estimating the effect of different modeling techniques associated with insulator strings is performed to obtain an estimate of the accuracy of the study performed. The modeling techniques used for comparison are standard withstand capability curve (SWCC) (dened in IEEE Std. 1243 [9]) and leader development method (LDM) (dened in CIGRE guidelines [10]). To analyze the sensitivity of modeling techniques, the minimum current producing back ashover is estimated at every tower along the line designed for the case study (in Section III) using ATP-EMTP for different waveforms. Fig. 6 shows the analysis for linear ramp 1.2/50 s waveform while Figs. 7

Fig. 4. Plot showing the expected number of back ashovers versus spacing between poles with surge arresters for different congurations of surge arrester placement (for 50 kA, 1.2/50 s standard lightning impulse).

ashover at the adjacent tower. Table IX summarizes the minimum lightning current handled by a transmission tower without having insulator back ashover using different number of surge arresters on a tower (as shown in the plots in Fig. 3). D. Comparison of Various Arrester Protection Designs Figs. 4 and 5 show the plot of the expected number of ashed insulators as a function of spacing between the poles having surge arresters for different lightning current magnitudes. These gures present a comparison of lightning protection offered by the two congurations: 1) surge arrester on every phase of a transmission tower and 2) surge arresters on two phases of a transmission tower.

MUNUKUTLA et al.: PRACTICAL EVALUATION OF SURGE ARRESTER PLACEMENT

1747

ashover at the 115 kV insulators is higher for 1.2/50 s standard lightning wave than for 3 s/100 s double exponential wave. Different insulator models perform differently for different waveforms. In case of linear ramp waveform, both LDM and SWCC methods produce similar results; however they produce varied results for CIGRE-type waveforms. SWCC is a method modeled for linear ramp-type waveform while LDM is a generalized method and is applicable to any type of waveform. SWCC produces conservative estimates for lightning currents and is computationally less burdensome than LDM.
Fig. 6. Minimum lightning peak currents causing back ashover for LDM and SWCC (using 1.2/50 s linear ramp waveform).

V. ANALYSIS ON THE KRS AND FM LINES A systematic analysis was performed on the KRS and FM 115 kV transmission lines to determine the improvements offered by surge arrester protection designs similar to those used in the case study discussed in this paper. Lightning ashover charts for various sections of the line are used to determine the performance of the line for previously recorded lightning activity at the vicinity of the line. The following observations were made from the analysis: Location of surge arresters in a regular span of 1, 2, or 3 span lengths can result in optimal improvement in line lightning performance. These surge arrester location congurations not only reduce the failure rate by insulator ashover on a tower with surge arresters but also reduce the number of ashed insulators on towers without surge arresters due to a lightning stroke. The probability of ashover is less for KRS line than FM line due to the use of surge arresters two span lengths apart (i.e., on every alternate pole). Such a conguration of surge arrester arrangement also helps with the reduction of the overall outage rate due to lightning. Digital fault recorder (DFR) data on the lightning induced faults on the transmission lines suggests that most fault locations are local high altitude locations (observed from the line altitude data). Therefore, it is suggested that transmission towers at local peaks or high altitude locations be protected with surge arresters locations which are one span length apart. The effect of lightning stroke on a transmission tower or the surge arrester location design is independent of the transmission tower type used for construction. VI. CONCLUSION

Fig. 7. Minimum lightning peak currents causing back ashover for LDM and SWCC (using 1.2/50 s standard lightning impulse).

Fig. 8. Minimum lightning peak currents causing back ashover for LDM and SWCC (using 3/75 s double exponential wave).

and 8 present the results for 1.2/50 s standard lightning impulse and 3/70 s nonstandard double exponential waveform, respectively. The following conclusions can be drawn from the results shown in Figs. 68: The nonuniformity in the lightning currents causing backashover at the tower insulators is due to the changes in tower footing resistances and tower surge impedances. The magnitude of lightning current at which insulator backashover occurs at a transmission tower is dependent upon the type of injected current waveform. It can be observed that minimum lightning peak causing back

Determination of effective surge arrester locations is dependent on the analysis of over voltages caused by lightning strokes on overhead transmission lines with and without existing surge arresters. Accurate determination of over voltages generated due a lightning stroke necessitates the accurate equivalent representation of electrical equipment such as overhead transmission lines, tower footing resistance, insulators, and existing surge arresters. In this paper, systematic ashover analysis has been performed for a case study involving a 115 kV overhead line using various possible surge arrester arrangement techniques such as using different number of surge arresters per tower and varying the distance between towers with surge arresters. The effect of

1748

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 25, NO. 3, JULY 2010

factors such as footing resistance, model design accuracy on arrester arrangement design on a transmission line was illustrated. The lightning ashover chart is proposed to obtain a convenient visual depiction of simulation results. This chart shows the effectiveness of arresters by showing which insulators ashover for various lightning stroke intensities. A similar approach was implemented in a tower by tower representation of two transmission lines in the Southwest U.S. to estimate the improvements offered by the lightning protection design using surge arrester. Based on practical considerations and study results, possible lightning designs using surge arresters were suggested.

Karthik Munukutla (S07M09) received the B.Eng. degree in electrical engineering from Osmania University, Hyderabad, India, in 2007 and the M.S. degree in electrical engineering from Arizona State University, Tempe, in 2008. Currently, he is a Planning Engineer with Entergy, Jackson, MS.

REFERENCES
[1] A. Schei, Application of metal oxide surge arresters to overhead lines, Electra, no. 186, pp. 82114, Oct. 1999. [2] L. C. Zanetta, C. Ede, and M. Pereira, Application studies of line arresters in partially shielded 138 kV transmission lines, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 93100, Jan. 2003. [3] IEEE Guide for the Application of Metal Oxide Surge Arresters for Alternating Current Systems, IEEE Std. C62.22-1991, Jul. 1998. [4] IEEE Guide for Improving the Lightning Protection of Transmission Lines, IEEE Std. 1243-1997, Jun. 1997. [5] J. A. Martinez and F. Castro-Aranda, Lightning performance of overhead transmission lines using the EMTP, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 22002210, Jul. 2005. [6] I. M. Dudurych, T. J. Gallagher, J. Corbeit, and M. V. Escudero, EMTP analysis of the lightning performance of a HV transmission line, Inst. Elect. Eng. Trans. Gen. Transm. Distrib., vol. 150, no. 4, pp. 501506, Jul. 2003. [7] L. Ekonomou, I. F. Gonos, I. A. Stathopoulos, and F. V. Topalis, Lightning performance evaluation of hellenic high voltage transmission lines, Electric Power Syst. Res., vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 703712, Apr. 2008. [8] H. Schmitt and W. Winter, Simulation of lightning overvoltages in electrical power systems, presented at the Int. Conf. Power System Transients, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Jun. 2428, 2001. [9] IEEE Task Force on Fast Front Transients, Modeling guidelines of fast front transients, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 493506, Jan. 1996. [10] CIGRE Working Group 33-01, Guide to procedures for estimating the lightning performance of transmission lines, CIGRE Tech. Brochure 63, Oct. 1991. [11] J. A. Martinez-Velasco and F. Castro-Aranda, Modeling of overhead transmission lines for lightning studies, presented at the Int. Conf. Power System Transients, Montreal, QC, Canada, Jun. 2005, paper 47-24b. [12] M. Darveniza, M. A. Sargent, G. J. Limbourn, L. A. Choy, R. O. Caldwell, J. R. Currie, R. H. Holcombe, and R. Frowd, Modeling for lightning performance calculations, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-98, no. 6, pp. 19001908, Nov. 1979. [13] IEEE Working Group 3.4.11, Modeling of metal oxide surge arrester, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 302309, Jan. 1992. [14] Alternative Transient Program Rule Book, Can/Am EMTP User Group, 1997. [15] Hubble Power Systems, Protecta Lite Systems. Columbia, SC. [Online]. Available: http://www.lightshine.ae/pdf/polymer/Protecta%20Arrester%20Application.pdf

Vijay Vittal (S78F97) received the B.E. degree in electrical engineering from the B.M.S. College of Engineering, Bangalore, India, in 1977, the M.Tech. degree from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India, in 1979, and the Ph.D. degree from Iowa State University, Ames, in 1982. Dr. Vittal is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the Director of the Power Systems Engineering Research Center (PSERC), and is Ira A. Fulton Chair Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at Arizona State University, Tempe.

Gerald T. Heydt (S62M64SM80-F91LF08) is from Las Vegas, NV. He received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, in 1970. His industrial experience is with the Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, IL, and E. G. & G., Mercury, NV. Dr. Heydt is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. Currently, he is the Site Director of a power engineering center program at Arizona State University, Tempe, where he is a Regents Professor.

Daryl Chipman received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from Montana State University, Bozeman, in 1999. He participated in a three-year rotating engineer program followed by six years specializing in transmission maintenance engineering. Currently, he is a Senior Engineer with the Salt River Project, Phoenix, AZ.

Brian Keel (M98SM08) received the B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois, Champaign, in 1988 and 1989, respectively. Brian has 20 years of experience in the power industry and is the Manager of Transmission System Planning with the Salt River Project, Phoenix, AZ.