Carlo Alberto Nucci, Mario Paolone, Marcos Rubinstein
The aim of this document is to provide an extended description and application guide of methods belonging to the so-called Numerical Electromagnetic Analysis (NEA) applied to the calculation of electromagnetic transients in power systems. As known, the accurate computation of electromagnetic transients is a fundamental requirement of several studies in the area of power systems. Lightning and switching studies are, for instance, typical subjects where the accuracy of transient’s computation has a direct influence to the proper sizing of components like insulators and breakers. Traditional approaches adopted since now were based on the combination of circuit and transmission lines theories. These approaches, analytically and numerically validated by numerous contributions to the literature, rely on specific assumptions that are inherently relaxed by NEA methods. Indeed, NEA methods mostly rely on the numerical solution of the full-wave Maxwell’s equations and, in this respect, the assessment of their accuracy, as well as the description of the various numerical methodologies, have motivated the preparation of this Technical Brochure. In this context, this guide will first discuss the general aspects and limitations associated to classical circuit and transmission lines theories. In particular, the guide will make reference to the modelling approaches used to represent the most typical power system components, like transmission lines, grounding systems, towers etc., within EMTP-like simulation tools (Electromagnetic Transient Program). A first comparison with the most typical NEA methods is presented in order to discuss the main differences and better support the contents of this guide. Then, the guide focuses on the analytical formulation of the most used NEA methods like, the Finite-Difference Time-Domain (FDTD), the Transmission Line Matrix ‘TLM’, the Finite-Element Method in Time Domain (FEMTD), the Method of Moment (MoM) and the Partial Element Equivalent Circuit (PEEC) method. A further remark refers to the comparative analysis of NEA vs EMTP-like simulation approaches. Such an assessment, addressed in this document in various sections, aims at stressing the advantages and drawbacks of both methods. Indeed, NEA methods, although characterized, in general, by better accuracies, result into non-negligible computation times that require the availability of specific computation environments. Such a characteristic is due to the inherent numerical complexity of NEA solvers that require the treatment of large amount of data that, additionally, have an influence on the results accuracy. To this end, the last part of the guide refers to the benchmarking of the various NEA methods by means of typical test cases. In this respect, the members of the Cigré WG C4.501 agreed to include a specific section of the brochure aimed at providing the NEA-computed electromagnetic transients with reference to the most typical test cases like: (i) lightning surge calculation in substations, (ii) influence of grounding on lightning surge calculation in substations, (iii) surge voltages on overhead lines, (iv) lightning-induced surges on distribution lines, (v) LEMP and induced surges calculation in overhead lines above a lossy ground and (vi) simulations of very fast transients (VTFs) in GIS. Additionally, as NEA methods represent power tools for the computation of parameters of power systems components, the guide has also provided benchmarking examples for the following assessments: (a.) surge characteristics of transmission towers, (b.) surge characteristics of grounding electrodes, vertical grounding rods, horizontal grounding electrode and complex grounding configurations, (c.) influence of grounding on surge propagation in overhead transmission lines, (d.) propagation characteristics of PLC signals along power coaxial cables, (e.) lightning surge characteristics of wind-turbine towers.
2013
