Risk-Based Arrester Placement in Substations: A Multi-Objective Probabilistic Approach
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
This study proposes a risk-based arrester placement framework in substations using a multi-objective probabilistic approach that combines electromagnetic transient (EMT) modeling, Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) for uncertainty propagation, and NSGA-II to generate a set of cost–risk Pareto solutions. The model incorporates lightning and switching surge sources, equipment characteristics (BIL/LIWV, arrester V–I curves, energy duty limits), and technical–economic consequences (EENS, interruption costs). A case study on a double busbar substation with eight candidate points shows three representative solutions: minimum-cost (3 arresters), knee-point (5 arresters), and minimum-risk (7 arresters). The knee-point solution—arresters at incomers L1–L2, the main bus, and HV & MV transformer terminals—reduces Expected Risk by ≈ 58% and SAIDI by ≈ 57% compared to the deterministic baseline (arresters only at incomers), with improved insulation coordination margins (e.g., p95 of the transformer HV terminals drops from ~712 kV to ~635 kV) and energy reserves of ≥30% over manufacturer specifications. Sensitivity analysis identifies ground grid resistance (Rg), lightning peak current, and strike position as the primary risk drivers, indicating that co-optimization of arresters and grounding has the potential to further improve performance. The results confirm that this approach is robust and economical, and ready to be adopted as a basis for protection investment decisions in modern substations.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
[2] V. Ravichandran, F. Proto, A. Andreotti, “Surge arrester optimal placement in distribution networks: comparison of LLP, EMT and a hybrid approach,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 234, 110744, 2024.
[3] F. Safaei, M. Niasati, “A new method for surge arrester placement in high-voltage substations considering environmental effects,” IET Science, Measurement & Technology, 2024.
[4] I. M. Dudurych, T. J. Gallagher, J. Corbett, “EMTP analysis of the lightning performance of a HV transmission line,” IEE Proceedings – Generation, Transmission and Distribution, vol. 150, no. 4, pp. 501–506, 2003.
[5] T. L. de Castro Assis, M. C. Tavares, A. S. Bretas, “Lightning performance of transmission lines with and without surge arresters: Comparison between a Monte Carlo method and field experience,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 149, pp. 169–177, 2017.
[6] R. Shariatinasab, B. Vahidi, S. H. Hosseinian, A. Ametani, “Optimization of Surge Arrester’s Location on EHV and UHV Power Networks Using Simulation Optimization Method,” IEEJ Transactions on Power and Energy, vol. 128, no. 12, pp. 1465–1472, 2008
[7] M. S. Savić, A. M. Savić, “Substation lightning performance estimation due to strikes into connected overhead lines,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1752–1760, 2015.
[8] J. A. Martinez, F. Castro-Aranda, “Lightning Performance Analysis of Overhead Transmission Lines Using the EMTP,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 2200–2208, 2005.
[9] I. F. Gonos, L. Ekonomou, F. V. Topalis, “Probability of backflashover in transmission lines due to lightning strokes using Monte-Carlo simulation,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 107–111, 2003
[10] P. Sarajcev, “Monte Carlo method for estimating backflashover rates on high-voltage transmission lines,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 119, pp. 8–17, 2015
[11] M. Karami, M. Bisavard, H. Jahanirad, “Monte Carlo simulation for probability of back flashover in 230 kV transmission lines,” IET High Voltage, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 197–205, 2020.
[12] M. Khodsuz, A. Mirzaei, S. Sarmadi, M. Hassanzadeh, “Transmission line lightning performance improvement using external-gap line arresters (EGLA),” IET Science, Measurement & Technology, 2022.
[13] J. Takami, S. Okabe, “Observational Results of Lightning Current on Transmission Towers,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 547–556, 2007.
[14] P. Chowdhuri et al. (IEEE T&D Lightning & Insulator Subcommittee), “Parameters of lightning strokes: A review,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 346–358, 2005.
[15] F. M. Gatta, A. Geri, M. Maccioni, S. Lauria, “Monte Carlo Evaluation of the Impact of Subsequent Strokes on the Backflashover Rate of HV Overhead Transmission Lines,” Energies, vol. 9, no. 3, 139, 2016.