See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234682977

Backflashover Analysis For 132 kV Kuala Krai-Gua Musang Transmission Line

Conference Paper · December 2008

DOI: 10.1109/PECON.2008.4762716

CITATIONS READS
5 480

6 authors, including:

Junainah Sardi Zainal Kadir

Technical University of Malaysia Malacca Universiti Putra Malaysia
20 PUBLICATIONS   203 CITATIONS    444 PUBLICATIONS   3,622 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Wan Fatimah Wan Ahmad Hashim Hizam

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Universiti Putra Malaysia
224 PUBLICATIONS   1,136 CITATIONS    214 PUBLICATIONS   3,039 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Transformer Thermal Performance View project

e-Learning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Iryani Mohamed Rawi on 07 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2nd IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (PECon 08), December 1-3, 2008, Johor Baharu, Malaysia

Backflashover Analysis For 132 kV Kuala Krai-Gua Musang

Transmission Line

J. Sardi, M.Z.A Ab Kadir, W. F. Wan Ahmad, H. Hizam, I. Mohamed Rawi, A. Ahmad

Department of Electrical & Electronics Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 Serdang, Selangor
Email: junn_83@yahoo.com

Abstract – Lightning has been a major concern to the power strokes densities of the area on which the line route range from
system researchers because it can cause damage to the 6 to 20 strokes/km2/year while the mean multiplicity of
connected electrical equipment and transmission failure. lightning strokes observed is 3[2].
One study carried out is that where the level of voltage at a This paper aims to determine overhead line
substation is observed following a backflashover analysis backflashover rate for Kuala Krai-Gua Musang line and
on a transmission line. Sample of worst case transmission investigate the influence of line parameters to backflashover
line was taken from Tenaga Nasional Berhad, which is 132 rate. PSCAD-EMTDC was employed in this study as it enables
kV Kuala Krai-Gua Musang line for the purpose of the user to schematically construct a circuit, run a simulation,
simulation using PSCAD software. An integral part of this analyze the results, and manage the data in a completely
study is the model of transmission line components such as integrated, graphical environment. Moreover, if a particular
insulator coordination gap flashover, tower model, model does not exist, PSCAD provides the flexibility of
nonlinear current dependent resistance as footing model. building custom models, either by assembling them graphically
All models are verified by accurate analysis of previous using existing models, or by utilizing an intuitively designed
researchers. Results were analyzed and influences of line Design Editor [3].Section 2 provides brief descriptions of
parameters to bakflashover rate were discussed. Practical Kuala Krai-Gua Musang line and section 3 states about line
recommendations and conclusions based on the results are modeling. Simulation results on backflashover analysis and
made for an improvement in the lightning performance of conclusions are summarized in Section IV and V respectively.
high voltage transmission line.
II. BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF KUALA KRAI – GUA
Index Terms - Backflashover analysis, lightning MUSANG TRANSMISSION LINE
performance, PSCAD, leader progression model,
backflashover rate The details of a 132kV Kuala Krai – Gua Musang line are
shown in the table 1 and figure 1 below [2].
I. INTRODUCTION
TABLE I
Backflashover occurs when lightning stroke terminates LINE DETAILS
on the overhead ground wire or tower. A stroke that so ITEM DETAILS
terminates forces currents to flow down the tower and out on
Starting Substation Kuala Krai
the ground wires. Thus voltages are built up across the
insulator string. If these voltages equal or exceed the insulator Ending Substation Gua Musang
withstand capability, flashover occurs [1]. Study on No of towers 295
backflashover is very important to evaluate lightning
performance as majority of lightning strokes terminate on Line length (km) 112.81
shield wire than phase conductor. This is because, nowadays Conductor Data 1 x 300mm2 Batang
most overhead transmission line are equip with overhead
ground wire. Insulator Data 14 disc x 146mm
Backflashover analysis was done to 132 kV overhead Line sag (max) 8.89m
transmission line between 132 kV Kuala Krai substation and Average Ground Flash Density 4 flashes/km2/year
132 kV Gua Musang substation through rural area of Kelantan.
This line was chosen as it is the worst line performance in No of Tripping (Jan2004 – 13
peninsular Malaysia which has high ground flashes density. July2007)
Lightning Detection System Lab (LDS), TNB Research records Backflashover Rate 4.19 flashes/100km/year
from Jan 2004 – July 2007 indicate that the average ground

1-4244-2405-4/08/$20.00 ©2008 IEEE 1494

2nd IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (PECon 08), December 1-3, 2008, Johor Baharu, Malaysia

Ground Resistance (Ohm) 2 - 558 Tower footing is determine using current dependence
of tower footing resistance given by [4]
Soil Resistivity (Ohm-m) 200 - 3000 (2)
Ro
Rt =
I
1+
8.84m Ig
being Ro the footing resistance at low current and low
4.32m fequency, Ig the limiting current to initiate sufficient soil
ionization, I the stroke current through the resistance. The
limiting current is given by
3.66m

1 Eo ρ (3)
3.66m Ig = ×
2π Ro 2
where  is the soil resistivity (ohm-m) and Eo is the soil
ionization gradient ( ≈ 300kV/m).
18.9m
D. Insulator coordination gap flash model
The comprehensive analyses of the discharge
development have confirmed that, discharge development
always consists of three different phases: corona inception,
streamer and leader propagation. Time to breakdown tc can be
5.7m
expressed as a sum of three components:
tc = ti + ts +tl (4)
where ti describes the corona inception time, ts the time the
Fig. 1: Tower configurations and dimensions streamers need to cross the gap or to meet the streamers from
the opposite electrode, and tl the leader propagation time. As
III. MODELING FOR BACKFLASHOVER ANALYSIS corona inception voltage is far below the breakdown voltage
and taking into account the high rate of rise of the applied
A. Overhead transmission lines voltage, corona inception time can be neglected without
Overhead transmission line is modeled using introducing large errors [5]. For streamer propagation time:
Frequency Dependent (Phase) Model which uses curve fitting 1 § E ·
= 1.25¨ ¸ − 0.95 (5)
to duplicate the frequency response of a line or cable. It is the ts ¨E ¸
most advanced time domain model available as it represents © 50 ¹
the full frequency dependence of all line parameters (including where E is the maximum gradient in gap before breakdown
the effect of a frequency dependent transform). It is useful for (kV/m) and E50 is the average gradient at CFO voltage.
studies wherever the transient or harmonic behaviour of the For leader propagation time
dL ª V (t ) º (6)
line or cable is important [3]. Each span is represented by a = KV (t )
« 0−E »
multiphase untransposed line model and the phase conductor dt ¬g − L ¼
and shield wire are explicitly modeled between towers [4]. being V(t) the voltage across gap (kV), L the leader length (m),
g the gap length and constants K and E0 for air gaps, post
B. Transmission tower insulators, negative polarity lightning are equals to 1.0
Tower is modeled using several segments of single m2/kV2sec and 670 kV/m.
conductor distributed parameter model or Bergeron model [4].
The surge impedance of the transmission line tower and the E. Lightning stroke
tower travel time of wave propagation down the tower are Lightning stroke is represented by a current source of
required. Surge impedance for each tower in the Kuala Krai – negative polarity. The peak current is statistically related to the
Gua Musang line is given by TNB and its value range 100 – steepness or time to crest of the current waveform. The
200 ohm. For each case of tower structures, the travel time steepness increases as the peak current increases, however, the
from tower top to ground can be estimated as front time increases with peak current [6].
h
τ= (1)
F. Details of simulation
c
Where h is height of the tower in and c is the speed of light, 3 x Figure 2 shows the system modeled for the simulation
108 ms-1 of backflashover analysis of 132 kV Kuala Krai – Gua Musang
transmission line. The last 10 towers models with its span
C. Tower footing resistance length between towers for the line are shown in the figure. This
simulation examines the critical current, BFR and probability

1495
 2nd IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (PECon 08), December 1-3, 2008, Johor Baharu, Malaysia

of transformer damage when the line is strike by lightning. The ( )

N s = N g 28h 0.6 + S g / 10 , (8)
Gua Musang substation is represented by a capacitor. The last P(I) the probability the stroke current equals or exceeds the
tower connected to the substation. Tower 286 is connected to a critical backflashover current,
matching impedance to avoid reflections. Simulation is done
P ( I ) = 1 /[1 + ( I c / 31) 2.6 ] (9)
by injecting a set of lightning current (0-200kA) to tower 286,
289, 290, 292 and 295 which is arbitrarily chosen to illustrate
the randomness of lightning activity. Each time lightning where Ng is the ground flash density (flashes/km2/year), h is the
strikes at top of the tower, voltage level at the substation tower height and Sg is the horizontal distance between ground
entrance will be measured. Minimum current required to cause wires.
a backflashover (critical current, Ic) and maximum voltage at
substation (Vmax), are recorded for every case. 250

Lightning current (kA)

200

150
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
100
Line A Line B Line C Line D Line E Line F Line Line Line I Line J Line
50

0
Substation 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Maximum voltage at substation (kV)
Z
Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower Tower tower 286 tower 289 tower 290 tower 292 tower 295
286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295

Fig. 3: I-V curve backflashover analysis of 132 kV Kuala Krai

– Gua Musang transmission line
108.9km 680m 260m 440m 720m 180m 745m 190m 400m 296m 50m

TABLE III
BFR AND PROBABILITY OF TRANSFORMER DAMAGE FOR
Fig. 2 Simulation modeled for backflashover analysis of 132 BACKFLASHOVER ANALYSIS OF 132 KV KUALA KRAI – GUA
kV Kuala Krai – Gua Musang transmission line MUSANG TRANSMISSION LINE.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Case Tower Ic(kA) BFR Probability of voltage
Table 2 shows results for backflashover analysis of exceeds BIL (%)
132 kV Kuala Krai – Gua Musang transmission line. 1 286 134 1.18 33.2
2 289 37 21.05 88.9
TABLE II
RESULTS FOR BACKFLASHOVER ANALYSIS OF 132 KV KUALA 3 290 69 6.04 67.5
KRAI – GUA MUSANG TRANSMISSION LINE 4 292 43 16.28 81.7
5 295 80 4.26 63
Case Tower Ic (kA) Vmax (kV)
1 286 134 1400
2 289 37 987
3 290 69 1302 Table 3 shows the highest Ic was recorded when lightning
4 292 43 1002 strike tower 286 due to the lowest soil resistivity (400 ohm-m)
5 295 80 602 and low footing resistance (74.34 ohm) owned by this tower
compared to the other towers. This condition will therefore
Figure 3 shows a graph of lightning current versus increase the insulation level and hence more current is needed
maximum voltage at substation (I-V curve). With the basic to breakdownthe gap. As a result, this situation gives beneficial
lightning insulation level (BIL) of a 132 kV transformer at effect to transmission line performance. The relation between
substation is 550 kV, the probability of the transformer damage the critical current Ic and tower footing resistance, tf is also
can easily be approximated. The backflashover rate (BFR) for shown in equation (10).
each case was calculated using equation (7), (8) and (9)
respectively [7] and is shown in Table 3, together with the I c = (U 50 NS − U PF ) / K SP ª¬ Re (1 − c ) + α T ZT (TA − cTT ) / t f º¼ (10)
probability of transformer damage for each case.
BFR = 0.6 N s P(I ) (7) where U50NS is the non-standard critical flashover voltage, UPF
being Ns the number of strokes terminate on the ground wire is the peak value of operating voltage, KSP is span factor, c is
per 100 km-year and is given by the coupling factor, ZT is tower surge impedance, TA is the

1496
2nd IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (PECon 08), December 1-3, 2008, Johor Baharu, Malaysia
travel times to point opposite phase conductor on the tower, TT
is the tower travel time, tf is the front time and, Re and T are
defined as:
Re = Z g Rt / ( Z g + 2 Rt ) (11)
αT = ( ZT − Rt ) / ( ZT + Rt ) (12)
being Zg, the surge impedance of shield wires and Rt, the tower
footing resistance. Low tower footing resistance will increase
the current required to cause flashover, thus lower the BFR [1].
The lowest Ic was recorded when lightning hit tower 289 as this
tower has the highest soil resistivity (3000 ohm-m) and high
ground resistance and thus caused a higher. Another factor that
influences the Ic is the variation of tower surge impedance, ZT.
For instance, lower ZT of tower 292 compared to tower 289
leads to the higher Ic obtained. This is particularly true when
referring to equation (10) [5]. For that reason, BFR computed
for the lightning strike tower to 292 is lower than the case of
tower 289. In other case, Ic obtained for case 5 of tower 295
which has high soil resistivity and ground resistance is higher
that the one in case 4. This is due to the span length between
tower 295 and substation which is shorter in distance i.e. 50m.
In addition, proper substation grounding strongly affected
tower 295 top voltage more than the effect from tower 295
itself, although tower 295 has a higher footing resistance [5].
As a result, tower 295 top voltage decreased which also
increased the critical current at tower 295 and thus decreased
the BFR.
Analysis for probability of voltage exceeds the BIL
has the same trend as BFR. Results obtained for all cases are in
good agreement with the works done by other researcher [8].
As far as the BFR is concerned, the value estimated seems
valid with the actual BFR data reported as per Table I, whilst
for the same analysis of the same line, result obtained by T-
Flash EPRI is reported to be 6.5 [2]. It is more difficult to say
which software and model are correct in these circumstances
but the use of transient modeling technique with
PSCAD/EMTDC must have confidence associated with it
given the modeling procedures according to the guidelines and
performance in the comparison with the real data.
V. CONCLUSION
From the simulation works, there are some findings
can be drawn. High footing resistance coupled with high soil
resistivity resulted in increasing the BFR and high probability
of transformer damage, thus decreased lightning performance
of the line. The BFR of these towers are considerably higher
than those for the rest of the line. Other line parameters such as
tower surge impedance and span lengths also influence
lightning performance of the line. The higher the tower surge
impedance, the lower the current needed to cause a
backflashover thus increases BFR. Reflection from adjacent
towers may also decrease crest voltage across the insulator
string thus decrease the BFR, provided the front time of the
1497
View publication stats
voltage is greater than twice the travel time along the span to
the adjacent towers. Lightning performance of Kuala Krai –
Gua Musang 132kV transmission line can be improved if some
modifications or improvements are made to the line such as
improving in footing resistance and install surge arrester at
transmission line especially at rogue towers. Counterpoise for
instance can be used to obtain acceptable footing impedance.
There are two types of counterpoises that are continuous and
radial counterpoises. During lightning event, a given length of
counterpoise with many radial sections attached to one tower
will provide a lower dynamic impedance that the same total
length of continuous counterpoise. However, when soil
conditions (e.g. rock) do not permit the installation of
counterpoises, line arresters are an excellent alternative. To
prevent insulation flashover, Transmission Line Arresters
(TLAs) can be installed to limit voltages between phase
conductors and the tower structure, provided they are selected
and located properly.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their sincere
gratitude to the Engineering Department (Transmission and
Substation) of the Tenaga Nasional Berhad for their
cooperation and kind supply of various technical data.
.
REFERENCES
[1] A. R. Hileman, “Insulation Coordination for Power
System”. New York. Marcel Dekker, Inc, 1999.
[2] N. Abdullah, LDS Laboratory, TNB Research,
“Lightning Performance Analysis of 132kV Kuala
Krai-Gua Musang and 275kV Kg. Awah-Paka
Transmission Lines’, Draft Report, August 2007.
[3] “Introduction to PSCAD/EMTDC V3,” Manitoba
HVDC Research Centre Inc, 2001.
[4] IEEE Working Group, “Modelling guidelines for fast
front transients,” IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol.
11, pp. 493-506, 1996.
[5] CIGRE, “Guide to procedures for estimating the
lightning performance of transmission lines,” CIGRE
Technical Brochure 63, 1991.
[6] T. Irwin and H. M Ryan, “Transmission and
Distribution: Part2,”Chapter 2 of High Voltage
Engineering and Testing: IEE Power Series 17, Edited
by H.M Ryan, Second Edition, 1998.
[7] IEEE Power Engineering Society, “IEEE guide for
improving the lightning performance of transmission
lines,” IEEE Std. 1243-1997, 1997.
[8] M. Z. Ab. Kadir, “Improved Coordination Gap
Models in Insulation Coordination Studies”, PhD
Thesis, 2006.