30th International Conference on Lightning Protection - ICLP 2010
(Cagliari, Italy - September 13th -17th, 2010)
ICLP 2010
EFFECT OF POSITIVE STREAMER INHIBITION ON EXPOSURE OF
OVERHEAD CONDUCTORS TO DIRECT LIGHTNING STRIKES
Farouk A. M. Rizk, Life Fellow, IEEE
The author is with Expodev Inc and Lightning Electrotechnologies Inc, St. Lambert, Quebec, Canada, J4S 1W2
farouk.rizk@expodev.com
ABSTRACT
It has been shown that a positive upward connecting leader
from an overhead conductor spans a considerable part of
the lateral attractive distance of the conductor. This justifies
the effort to search for means to suppress streamers/upward
leaders from such conductors.
A new simplified model accounts for the initiation and time
growth of glow corona from a cylindrical conductor high
above ground under linearly rising fields due to cloud
charges or negative downward leaders.
The model was applied to assess lightning exposure of a
streamer-inhibited ground wire as well as its application to
lightning protection of adjacent power conductors.
The paper confirms the prospect of successful application of
streamer inhibition due to space charge shielding (ultra-
corona) as a means for lightning protection.
Finally streamer inhibition by using larger conductor
diameters or conductors provided with an insulating layer
was also considered and the limitations of both techniques
were pointed out.
1 INTRODUCTION
It is well known that negative cloud charges prior to
the descent of a negative stepped leader induce positive
charges on grounded conducting structures leading to
electric field intensification in the structure top vicinity
and possible formation of positive corona discharges
from such structures [1]. This effect becomes more
pronounced the higher the ambient ground field due to
the inducing cloud charges and the higher the grounded
structure, i.e. the higher the space potential at the
grounded structure tip position. The aforementioned
grounded structures may include masts, buildings, ground
wires, down conductors etc. For a structure of a given
height, as the ambient ground field intensifies, a critical
space potential may be reached at which a positive
upward leader is initiated, which is characterized by a
lower voltage gradient that decreases with higher current
and also decreases at longer leader duration [2], [3]. With
voltage gradients that can be as low as a few kV/m, the
upward leader can span long distances without excessive
space potential demand as would otherwise be the case
for positive streamers, which have a minimum voltage
gradient of approximately 400kV/m. Positive upward
leaders could form on tall structures in ambient fields due
to cloud charges, without the occurrence of a nearby
downward leader, resulting in an upward flash [4]. For
grounded structures of moderate heights (tens of meters)
however, critical conditions for formation of continuous
upward leaders can only be satisfied in the presence of a
downward leader. In this situation the upward leader may
be directed to encounter the downward leader in a so-
called final jump resulting in a downward flash [5].
Grounded structures of a given height are known to
collect downward leaders within a zone that depends on
the downward leader charge (prospective return stroke
current) and which for overhead conductors can be
characterized by a so-called maximum attractive distance
[5]. It should be clear from this simplified picture that the
longer the distance spanned by the upward positive
leader, the longer the maximum attractive distance of the
structure. Conversely, if the length of the upward positive
leader could be shortened or completely eliminated, this
would have the desirable effect of reducing the attractive
distance of a grounded conductor. It should be noted
however that even complete elimination of the upward
connecting leader would not totally eliminate downward
flashes, since a grounded structure could still be struck
through negative streamers that are always present ahead
of an approaching negative downward leader.
There is ample experimental and theoretical evidence
[2], [3], [5] that the presence of a positive streamer of
critical size constitutes the prerequisite for continuous
positive leader formation. One may therefore be led to
believe that streamer inhibition should necessarily have a
beneficial effect which impedes positive leader
formation. However there is also ample experimental and
theoretical evidence from research on long air gaps [3],
[6], to indicate that for any electrode if space charge
effects due to cloud charges are neglected, as long as the
1028-1
streamer onset voltage is below the critical leader
inception level, raising the streamer onset voltage, or
space potential, will have practically no effect on leader
onset.
It follows therefore that positive leader suppression
from a ground conductor in lightning storm conditions is
a complex problem which can not simply be solved by
any action that causes streamer inhibition.
The objectives of this paper are multifold:
 Quantify the effect of the distance spanned by the
upward connecting leader on the maximum attractive
distance of regular overhead conductors.
 Explore the advantages and limitations of some
techniques for inhibition of positive streamer
formation on such conductors, with particular
reference to streamer suppression by ultra-corona
[7].
 Assess the effect of streamer inhibition on positive
upward connecting leader inception level.
 Evaluate the effect of raising the positive upward
continuous leader space potential on the maximum
attractive distance and accordingly on conductor
exposure to direct lightning strikes.
2 MODELING OF LIGHTING ATTACHMENT
PROCESS
The mathematical model used to account for positive
leader inception has been described in several previous
papers [3], [5], [8] where the model findings were
compared to extensive laboratory experiments on large
air gaps as well as field experience with lightning
incidence.
According to this model the attachment process starts
effectively when critical space potential conditions on a
ground conductor are met for the creation of continuous
upward leader. For a regular uninhibited conductor of
radius r o and height h above ground, the mean critical
ground field E gc0 is given by [5]:
2247 (kV, m) (1)
E gc 0 
5.15  5.49 ln r0
h
2h
ln
r0
This is followed by an upward leader trajectory which
will end in either an encounter with the descending
negative leader in a final jump, characterized by streamer
breakdown between the two leader tips, or in an aborted
positive leader. As explained in a previous publication
[9], the leader speed in the model varies with the
magnitude of the effective space potential at the leader tip
at any point during the attachment trajectory, so that the
ratio between the negative and positive leader speed
varies continuously.
From this type of analysis, it is possible to assess the
role played by the upward connecting positive leader in
the attachment process and consequently the impact of
positive streamer suppression on the maximum attractive
distance, as will be shown below.
3 MODELING OF CORONA PERFORMANCE
OF STREAMER INHIBITED CONDUCTOR
Consider a ground wire of radius r o installed at height
h above ground, immersed in a uniform ambient field
caused by a negatively charged cloud, which rises to
reach a maximum value E gm in a time duration t o ,
corresponding to a maximum space potential
U m = E gm .h.
Assume that the conductor is in a glow or ultra-corona
mode [7], [10], [11]. The problem is similar to that of a
sphere in free space analyzed in [12], [13]. A simplified
model has been presented in [14] to describe the
generation and time growth of the positive ion space
charge zone surrounding the conductor. Only a summary
of the derivations will be presented here.
The basic equations include the continuity equation:

rE   o (2)
r
where  is the volume charge density and E the electric
field at a radial distance r, and Poisson’s equation:
l 
rE    (3)
r r o
The first boundary conditions relates to the field at the
surface of the conductor in corona:
E ro   Eci (4)
The other boundary condition relates to the frontier of
the corona zone at r = R:
1028-2
 R analytical solution with that of a numerical solution of
U sp t    E r dr  R  E R   ln
2h
(5) (2), (3) with the boundary conditions (4), (5).
ro
R
From (5), (10) an approximate relationship is obtained
where U sp (t) is the space potential, equal to E g (t).h, at between U sp (t) and U(R):
any time t.
2h
ln
U R   U sp t  
The last term in (5) refers to the potential U(R) at the R
limit of the cylindrical space charge zone and assumes (11)
2h
that the conductor height h is much larger than the corona 1  ln
boundary radius R(t). If this condition is not well R
satisfied, the logarithm in (5) should be replaced by
From which E f can be expressed as:
 h  h2  R2 
ln .

 R 
 U sp t 
Ef  (12)
 2h 
If at any instant the corona current per unit length is i, R 1  ln 
solution of the above equations yields:
 R

The growth of the space charge zone will be governed

ro2 Eci2  ro2 
E r  
i by the simple differential equation:
 1  2 
r 2
2 o   r 
dR U sp t 
(6)  E f  (13)
dt  2h 
R 1  ln 
 r  
i
(7)
 R
2rE r 
For R(t)>> r 0 , integration of (13) yields the following
At the limit of the space charge boundary (frontier), implicit expression for the time growth of the space
the electric field E f =E(R) is approximately given by: charge boundary radius R:

2  ( t  U sp t   t ci  U ci )
Ef 
i
(8) R t   (14)
2 o   2h 
3  2 ln R t 
 
The total corona space charge per unit conductor
length is: where U ci is the corona inception space potential and

q t   2  o R t   E f  ro E ci 
t ci is the corona inception time, which is solved
(9) numerically to determine R(t).

To further simplify the analysis of the time growth of Substituting for R(t) in (12) determines E f from which
the space charge zone, it will be assumed that the the corona current per unit length is determined as:
condition ro E ci  R t   E f will be satisfied such that the
 2  ro E ci  2 
i t   2 o   E f  
voltage drop along the corona zone could be
approximated by integrating (6) to obtain:   (15)
  R  
R

 E r dr  R  E R 
ro
(10) and the corona charge per unit length is determined
from (9) above.

Validation of this approximation has been done, as Again if the condition R h is not well satisfied, the
reported below by comparing the results of the simplified

1028-3
  2h 
logarithmic term ln  in (11), (12), (13) and (14)
 R
 h  h2  R2 
above should be replaced by ln   .
 R 
3.1 Stability of Space Charge Zone
It has been previously shown [7] that the ultra-corona
zone on a positive cylindrical conductor of radius r o and
height h above ground will remain stable i.e. in glow
mode, as long as the rate of change of space potential U sp
does not exceed a critical value:
 
d
Ea  h     Eci2  ln 2h  (16)
dt  ro 
where E a is the mean ambient field.
Another formulation for ultra corona stability [14]
yields a critical glow corona current per unit conductor
length:
icrit  2 o Eci2 (17)
If this corona current per unit length is exceeded, the
glow corona zone will become unstable and streamers are
produced.
It will be shown below, under which conditions, such
critical corona currents can be reached, due to a very
close-by descending negative leader. This is an important
concept since as long as the ultra-corona layer is stable,
no streamers and accordingly no upward connecting
leader can be launched from the streamer-inhibited
conductor.
3.2 Glow-Corona Induced Space Potential
Consider a streamer-inhibited conductor of radius r o ,
height h above ground, immersed in a mean ambient field
E a (t) which rises linearly with time to reach a value E gm
in a time duration t o . Variation of the glow-corona
charge q(t) per unit conductor length will be expressed by
(9). The expression for the glow-corona space potential at
any point at a radial distance d from the conductor will
depend on whether such a point is within or outside the
corona space charge zone.
Consider a point within the corona space charge zone,
having a corona boundary (frontier) field E f , situated at a
radial distance d from the conductor axis. The induced
space potential U ii at the point concerned can be
approximated by:
U ii d   U R   R  d   E f (18)
For a negative descending leader, the radial
dimensions of the space charge zone will be limited as
will be shown below, so that the points of interest for
calculation of the induced space potential will normally
be outside the corona zone i.e. d>R. The induced space
potential U io can then be determined from:
q t t   2 h 
U io d   ln  (19)
2 o  d 
where q t (t) is the total charge per unit conductor
length, obtained by adding the conductor surface charge
per unit length to q(t) of (9).
The positive glow-corona induced space potential at
the position of an adjacent conductor U i (d) will
obviously have a polarity opposite to that due to cloud
charges and/or descending negative leader. For example
considering a power conductor of height h c , a distance d
from a streamer-inhibited ground wire of height h gw , the
continuous upward leader onset space potential will be:
U c  U co  U i d  (20)
where U co is the continuous upward leader onset
space potential in the absence of space charge, related to
E gco of (1) with h = h c , by:
U co  hc  E gco (21)
4 MODEL RESULTS
4.1 Significance of Positive Leader Zone
Fig. 1 shows variation of lateral attractive distance of a
regular uninhibited overhead conductor as function of
height, for a prospective return stroke current of 31kA.
The conductor radius is 1.5cm, cloud base height H cl :
2000m and maximum ground field due to cloud charge:
10kV/m. Also shown is the length of the positive upward
connecting leader at the instant of streamer breakdown
between the positive and negative leader tips, indicating
positive leader lengths in the tens of meters range. It is
clear that according to model results, the positive upward
connecting leader plays a major role in the lightning
1028-4
attachment process.
0.6
Fig. 2 shows, for the same parameters as in Fig. 1, the
length of the final jump, characterizing streamer

Final Jump/Attractive Distance(pu)

0.5
breakdown between the two leader tips, in per unit of the
lateral attractive distance, as function of conductor 0.4
height. It is shown that if the positive upward connecting
leader could be suppressed, the lateral attractive distance 0.3
of the conductor could be approximately reduced by a
factor of two. 0.2
120
Attractive 0.1
100 Distance

0.0
80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Length (m)

Conductor Height (m)

60 Positive Leader Fig.2 Variation of the final jump by streamer
breakdown between positive and negative leaders in per
40
unit of the lateral attractive distance, for different heights
of a regular conductor. I=31 kA, H cl =2000m. Maximum
20
ground field due to cloud charge:10 kV/m.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

TABLE 1
Conductor Height (m)
COMPARISON BETWEEN RESULTS OF SIMPLIFIED ANALYTICAL AND
Fig.1 Variation of attractive distance and upward NUMERICAL SOLUTIONS.
positive leader length with height of a regular conductor,
for a prospective return stroke current of 31 kA. Basic Simplified Numerical Solution
H cl =2000m, E g =10 kV/m, r 0 =1.5 cm. Parameters Analytical
R,m Ef, q, R,m Ef, q,
4.2 Modeling of Glow-Corona Zone kV/m C/ kV/m C/
m m
r 0 =0.005m
Table 1 shows a comparison between results of the h=50m
simplified analytical solution summarized above and the E gm =10kV/m 14.70 11.75 9.20 14.25 11.17 8.43
numerical solution, regarding the final glow-corona t 0 =10s
boundary radius R, electric-field E f at the boundary, and r 0 =0.005m
corona charge q(t 0 ) per unit conductor length. The h=50m
E gm =80kV/m 0.286 2043 32.03 0.294 1998 32.27
agreement is found good and justifies use of the
simplified analytical approach. t 0 =1ms

Fig. 3 shows growth of the corona zone with time, for

a 1cm-diameter, 30m high streamer-inhibited ground Fig. 4 shows variation with time of the glow-corona
wire, immersed in an ambient ground field, due to cloud charge per unit conductor length, of the same conductor,
charge, which rises up to 20kV/m in 10s. It is shown that at 50m height, for maximum ground fields reached
the corona boundary radius reached 18.6 m covering a linearly in a 10s period of 20kV/m and 10kV/m. It is
large part of the conductor-ground gap, so that in such shown that glow-corona charge increases significantly at
case the assumption of a corona zone that is symmetrical the higher ambient field
around the conductor will not be accurate. This situation
will be improved for higher conductors or lower ground
fields. Particularly for corona zones created by the
ambient field due to a negative descending leader, due to
the much shorter time involved as shown below, the
corona boundary radius will be substantially smaller. In
this example the corona boundary speed v f at t=10s
reached 2.35 m/s.

1028-5
 Fig. 6 shows variation of the glow-corona boundary
20
radius with the maximum ambient field due to a
18
descending negative leader, for a 1cm-diameter, 50m
(m)

16
high streamer-inhibited conductor, for fields in the range
Corona Boundary Radius

14
of 40-80 kV/m and a rise time of 1ms. Here it is shown
12
that the corona boundary radius is two orders of
10
magnitude smaller than the conductor height. At a field
8
of 80kV/m the corona frontier speed v f at t=1ms reached
6
299.6m/s
4
2
0 2.5E-05
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Corona Charge/Unit Length (C/m)

Time (s)
2.0E-05

Fig.3 Variation of corona boundary radius with time 1.5E-05

for a 30 m high, 1 cm-diameter streamer-inhibited ground
wire. Maximum ambient field due to cloud charges: 20 1.0E-05
kV/m. Rise time:10 s.
5.0E-06
.
2.5E-05 0.0E+00
(C/m)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

2.0E-05 Time (s)

Corona Charge/Unit Length

Fig.5 Variation of corona charge per unit length of a 50

1.5E-05 m high (Upper Curve) and a 30 m high (Lower Curve),1
cm-diameter streamer-inhibited conductor with time due
1.0E-05 to cloud charge field. Maximum field: 20 kV/m. Rise
time:10 s.
5.0E-06 0.30
Corona Boundary Radius (m)

0.0E+00 0.25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0.20
Time (s)

Fig.4 Variation of corona charge per unit length with 0.15

time of a 50 m high,1 cm-diameter streamer-inhibited
ground wire. Maximum ambient field due to cloud 0.10
charges: 20 kV/m (Upper Curve) and 10 kV/m (Lower
Curve). Rise time:10 s. 0.05

0.00
Fig. 5 shows the growth of glow-corona charge with 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
time for 50m and 30m high conductors, with maximum
Maximum Ambient Field (kV/m)
field due to cloud charge of 20kV/m reached in 10s
duration. It is clear that under otherwise the same Fig.6 Variation of corona boundary radius of a 50 m
conditions, significantly more glow-corona charge is high,1 cm-diameter streamer-inhibited conductor as
produced for the higher conductor. function of linearly rising mean ambient field due to
descending negative leader. Rise time:1 ms.
For a descending leader, the space potential rise at the
conductor position was simulated by a linear variation Fig. 7 shows, for the same parameters as above,
with time, where the rise time was estimated as 1.67 variation of the corona current per unit length as function
times the duration that the space potential took to of the maximum ambient field. This demonstrates that
increase from the 30% to the 90% level. substantially higher corona current is produced at such
higher rates of ambient field change.

1028-6
 Fig. 8 shows variation of glow-corona charge per unit recent measurements by Shao et al [16], where a typical
conductor length, of the 1cm-diameter, 50m high negative leader speed was reported to be 2*105 m/s. Of
streamer-inhibited conductor, with the maximum ambient special interest to this paper are negative leader speeds
field, induced by a descending negative leader in the close to ground at heights typical of ground wires. In this
range 40-80 kV/m. It is demonstrated that despite the respect, Berger and Vogelsanger [17] previously reported
limited time of 1ms, substantial corona charge is that for negative leaders striking an experimental tower at
generated. To show the significance of these charges, Monte San Salvatore, the leader speed varied in the range
consider a charge per unit length of 30µC/m from the 1.9*105 – 2.2*105 m/s. In this paper therefore a negative
50m high conductor, the induced space potential at a leader speed of 2*105 m/s has been adopted.
radial distance of 10m would be 1.24MV.
40 The lateral distance of the descending leader from a
Corona Current / Unit Length (mA/m)

streamer-inhibited ground wire of 1cm-diameter and 30m

35
height was selected so that as the leader descends to the
30
conductor height, the gap between the leader and the
25 conductor is bridged by streamer breakdown (final jump),
20 with a mean streamer gradient of 500kV/m. Since at any
height the leader tip potential varies with leader corona
15
charge i.e. with prospective return stroke current, this
10 means that the leader-conductor distance at the final
5 jump has to be increased, at higher prospective return
0
stroke current. It is required to determine the rate of
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 change of the space potential at the conductor position
Maximum Ambient Field (kV/m)
i.e. with the conductor removed, in order to verify
whether the critical rate required for instability of glow
Fig.7 Variation of maximum corona current per unit
corona has been exceeded. According to (16) this critical
length of a 50 m high,1 cm-diameter streamer-inhibited
rate amounts to 29.6kV/µs, for a 1cm-diameter ground
conductor with maximum descending negative leader-
wire, at 40m height.
induced ambient field.Rise time: 1 ms.
3.5E-05 In Fig. 9 the return stroke current has been changed in
the range 3-25kA. It is found that at the instant of final
Corona Charge / Unit Length (C/m)

3.0E-05
jump, the maximum rate of change of space potential did
2.5E-05 not exceed 18.8kV/µs. This means that the streamer-
inhibited conductor will maintain stability of the glow-
2.0E-05
corona zone until a final jump takes place by streamer
1.5E-05 breakdown.
1.0E-05 25
Rate of Change Space Potential (kV/us)

5.0E-06
20
0.0E+00
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Maximum Ambient Field (kV/m) 15

Fig.8 Variation of corona charge per unit length of a 50

m high,1 cm-diameter streamer-inhibited conductor as 10
function of linearly rising mean ambient field due to a
descending negative leader Rise time:1 ms. 5

4.3 Stability of Space Charge Zone 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
An important quantity in the determination of the rate Stroke Current (kA)
of change of the space potential due to descending
Fig.9 Variation of the maximum rate of change of the
negative leader fields is the negative leader speed. Rakov
space potential at the instant of the final jump as function
and Uman [4] summarized various measurements and
of the prospective return stroke current.hc=30 m,
estimates of negative stepped leader speeds and found
r0=0.5 cm.Negative leader speed:2*10^5 m/s.
that results vary in a wide range. In [15] Uman indicated
a mean speed of 2*105 m/s. This corresponds to relatively

1028-7
 4.4 Lightning Exposure
Inhibited Conductors
As stability of the glow-corona zone will be
maintained until the instant of final jump, it follows that
the positive upward connecting leader will be practically
suppressed, thereby reducing substantially the overall
attractive distance [5] of the conductor. This means that
the electrical shadow of a streamer-inhibited ground wire
will be substantially reduced, compared to a regular
ground wire. This is presented in Fig. 10, where the
overall attractive distance of a regular conductor of 1cm-
diameter is compared to that of a streamer-inhibited
conductor of the same diameter. The practical advantage
of a streamer-inhibited conductor is quite clear,
particularly for situations where back-flashover
constitutes a severe problem.
140
(m)
120
100
Overall Attracive Distance
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30
Conductor Height
Fig.10 Variation of overall attractive distance of
regular and streamer-inhibited conductor with height
above ground.
Another potential application is the down conductor of
a wind turbine blade, where streamer suppression on the
down conductor will tend to favour strikes to the so-
called lightning receptors, instead of strikes penetrating
the blade, which could lead to blade damage.
4.5 Protective Mechanism
Inhibited Ground Wire
For a conventional ground wire, protection of adjacent
power conductors is achieved by launching a continuous
upward connecting leader from the ground wire before
that could happen from the protected conductor. A
fundamental question therefore is since a streamer-
inhibited conductor could not launch upward connecting
leaders before the final jump, what would be the
mechanism of protection? The answer to this question is
two-fold. First the power conductor should be placed so
of Streamer- that no streamer breakdown from the negative downward
leader could take place to the protected power conductor
instead.
It can be shown that the critical protective angle c to
satisfy this criterion can be expressed as [14]:
1  hgw  hc 
 c  sin 1  

(22)
2 h
 gw  h0 
where h gw is the streamer-inhibited ground wire height,
h c is the power conductor height and h 0 is a height
characterizing ground objects in the terrain crossed by the
line. (22) applies where the ground wire height is greater
than the striking distance to ground [18].
The other conservative criterion requires that positive
upward leader inception from the protected regular
conductor does not take place before streamer breakdown
occurs to the streamer-inhibited ground wire. This is
Regular
achieved by space charge shielding, where glow-corona
charge from the streamer-inhibited ground wire, induces
such a space potential at the protected conductor position
as to suppress positive leader onset. This means that in
effect geometric shielding with a regular ground is
replaced by space charge shielding by a streamer-
Inhibited
inhibited conductor. A numerical example will make this
concept clear.
40 50 60 70 Consider a tower with two streamer-inhibited ground
(m) wires of 1cm-diameter and height of 40m. The wires are
12m apart and the outer power conductors are vertically
below the ground wires. The power conductor height is
30m. The coordination return stroke current is 10kA. A
negative descending leader is 20.78m lateral distance
which corresponds to the final jump h f by streamer
breakdown at the ground wire height. The continuous
leader inception space potential of the power conductor,
eqn.(1) above, is 2016kV. The applied space potential at
the power conductor position at the instant of final jump
to the inhibited ground wire is 3867kV, which without
space charge shielding would certainly produce a
of Streamer
continuous upward connecting leader. However corona
space charge from a 10kV/m ground field due to cloud
charges and the transient glow-corona due to the
descending leader field in a 1ms duration, produce an
opposing space potential of 2201kV. The net space
potential at the power conductor position therefore
amounts to 1666kV. This is below the 2016kV required
for continuous upward leader onset. The conductor is
therefore adequately protected by space charge shielding.
In this example the space potential has been
suppressed due to space charge by a factor of
1028-8
3867/1666=2.32. Another way of looking at this result is height.
that the critical leader inception space potential has been
enhanced by a certain factor due to space charge effect. Two other techniques were considered. The first is
geometrical by increasing the conductor radius. However
Fig. 11 shows the dependence of the lateral attractive as previously shown by Carrara and Thione [6] and
distance on the leader onset space potential enhancement confirmed in Fig. 12, the conductor size will have an
factor, for a 30m high power conductor, of 1.5cm radius, effect on the critical leader inception ground field, only
for two values of the return stroke current. The initial with radii above approximately 10cm, which is not all
values correspond to attractive distances without space practical. The other point is that such large conductors
charge effects. It is shown that the attractive distance is are susceptible to deteriorated corona performance due to
substantially reduced at high values of the leader onset surface protrusions and water drops.
space potential enhancement factor.
The other technique considered is that of an insulated
100
conductor. A 1cm-diameter conductor was provided with
90
an insulation layer of different thicknesses. Fig. 13 shows
Lateral Attractive Distance (m)

80 that indeed, increasing the insulating layer thickness

70 would increase the streamer onset space potential
60 compared to the original bare conductor. However if
50 compared to a bare conductor of equal outside diameter,
40 the effect is negligible. This confirms previous theoretical
30
and experimental studies [19]. Furthermore the corona
performance of such insulated conductor will be sensitive
20
to water drops and as shown above, the effect on positive
10
upward leader onset will be negligible. Field experience
0
[20] has demonstrated that insulated low voltage
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
Leader Onset Space Potential Enhancement Factor (pu)
conductors suffer lightning induced punctures. This
further puts in question the value of insulated conductors
Fig.11 Dependence of lateral attractive distance on
for improved lightning performance.
upward connecting leader onset space potential
600
enhancement factor of a 30 m high conductor ,for
Streamer Onset Space Potential (kV)

prospective return stroke currents of 31 kA(Upper Curve) 500

and 10 kA (Lower Curve).
400
4.6 Techniques for Streamer Inhibition
300

Streamer inhibition treated throughout the above

200
analysis is based on thin wire-clad conductors previously
described and tested in [7]. These conductors have the 100
advantage of a corona performance insensitive to rain.
0
80
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Leader Inception Ground Field (kV/m)

70 Insulation Thickness (mm)

60 Fig.13 Variation of streamer onset space potential of a

50 1 cm-diameter (inner) insulated conductor as function
of insulating layer thickness (Upper Curve) and a bare
40
conductor of the same outer diameter (Lower Curve).
30 Insulation relative permittivity: 3, h=30 m.
20
5 CONCLUSIONS
10

0
1. Upward connecting leader spans a substantial part
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 of the lateral attractive distance of a conductor,
thereby justifying interest in means for
Conductor Radius (m)
streamer/upward leader suppression.
Fig.12 Dependence of critical continuous leader 2. A new simplified model has been summarized
inception ground field on conductor radius at a 50 m which accounts for initiation and growth of glow-

1028-9
 corona space charge from a positive conductor
above ground, exposed to a linearly rising ambient
field due to cloud charges or charges associated
with a downward negative leader.
3. It has been shown that for linearly rising ground
fields due to cloud charges reaching up to 20kV/m
in a 10s duration, the space charge zone will
occupy a substantial part of the conductor-ground
gap.
4. Glow-corona charge per unit conductor length
from an inhibited ground wire, increases with
conductor height and with the maximum ambient
field due to cloud charges and could reach values
in excess of 20µC/m.
5. Glow-corona boundary in ambient fields due to a
descending negative leader, with typically 1ms
duration, remains close to the conductor, with a
typical radius below 30cm, in a field of 80kV/m,
for a 50m conductor height.
6. For realistic streamer-inhibited ground wire
heights, glow-corona currents due to descending
negative leader fields, could reach several tens of
milliamperes per unit conductor length.
7. For a 50m high streamer-inhibited ground wire,
the glow-corona charge per unit conductor length,
in an 80kV/m field due to a descending negative
leader, reaches 30µC/m.
8. In a typical situation of a 1cm-diameter streamer-
inhibited ground wire at a 30m height above
ground, it was shown that the critical space
potential rate of rise, and accordingly critical
corona current per unit conductor length, is not
reached until the conductor is struck in a final
jump by streamer breakdown.
9. The overall lateral attractive distance of a
streamer-inhibited ground wire, determining the
so-called electrical shadow, is substantially
smaller than that of a corresponding regular
conductor.
10. Induced space potential due to glow-corona
charge from a streamer-inhibited ground wire
impedes upward leader formation from adjacent
power conductors, leading to considerable
reduction of their lateral attractive distance.
11. For effective protection using streamer-inhibited
ground wires two criteria must be fulfilled:
 The power conductor must be placed
so that no streamer breakdown from
the negative leader to the conductor
could take place prior to a streamer
breakdown to the ground wire.
 Space charge shielding due to glow-
corona must be such as to prevent
upward leader initiation from the
power conductor, prior to streamer
breakdown to the ground wire.
12. Streamer/upward leader inhibition by using large
conductors is confirmed to be impractical.
13. Streamer/upward leader inhibition by using
insulated ground wire has been shown to be
insignificantly different from using a bare
conductor of the same overall diameter.
6 REFERENCES
[1] R.H. Golde, “Lightning Protection”, Book, Edward Arnold
Publisher, London, U.K., 1973.
[2] Les Renardières Group, “Long Air Gap Discharges at Les
Renardières: 1973 Results”, Electra, No.23, pp.53-157, July 1972
and No.35, pp.49-156, July 1974.
[3] F.A.M. Rizk, “A model for switching leader inception and
breakdown of long air gaps”, IEEE Trans., Vol. PWRD-4, No.1,
pp.596-606, January 1989.
[4] V.A. Rakov, M.A. Uman, “Lightning Physics and Effects”, Book,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2003.
[5] F.A.M. Rizk, “Modeling of transmission line exposure to direct
lightning strokes”, IEEE Trans., Vol. PWRD-5, No.4, pp.1983-
1997, November 1990.
[6] G. Carrara, L. Thione, “Switching surge strength of large air gaps:
a physical approach”, IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-95, No.2, pp.512-
524, March/April 1976.
[7] F.A.M. Rizk, “Analysis of space charge generating devices for
lightning protection: performance in slow varying fields”, IEEE
Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 25, No.3 pp.1996-2006, July,
2010.
[8] F.A.M. Rizk, “Modeling of lightning incidence to tall structures,
Part II: Applications”, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol.9,
No.1, pp.172-193, 1994.
[9] F.A.M. Rizk, “Modeling of substation shielding against direct
lightning strikes”, IEEE Trans. on Electromagnetic Compatibility,
in Press.
[10] C.A.E. Uhlig, “The ultra corona discharge, a new phenomenon
occurring on thin wires”, in High Voltage Symposium, National
Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 1956.
[11] N.G. Trinh and J.B. Jordan, “Modes of corona discharges in air”,
IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-87, No.5, pp.1207-1215, May 1968.
[12] N.L. Aleksandrov, E.M. Bazelyan, R.B. Carpenter, M.M. Drabkin
and Y.P. Raizer, “The effect of coronae on leader initiation and
development under thunder storm conditions and in long air
gaps”, J. Phys. D.: Applied Physics, Vol.34, pp.3256-3266, 2001.
[13] N.L. Aleksandrov, E.M. Bazelyan and T.P. Raizer, “The effect of
corona discharge on lightning attachment”, Plasma Phys. Rep.,
Vol.31, No.1, pp.75-91, 2005.
[14] F.A.M. Rizk, “Exposure of overhead conductors to direct
lightning strikes: Effect of positive streamer inhibition” paper
accepted for publication, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, 2010
[15] M. Uman, “The Art and Science of Lighting Protection”, Book,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2008.
[16] X.M. Shao, P.R. Krehbiel, R.J. Thomas and W. Rison, “Radio
interferometric observations of cloud-to-ground lightning
phenomena in Florida”, J. Geophys. Res., Vol.100, pp.2749-2783,
1995.
[17] K. Berger, E. Vogelsanger, “Photographic lightning research of
the years 1955-1965 at Monte San Salvatore”, in German, Bull.
SEV, Vol.57, pp.599-620, 1966.
[18] W.A. Chisholm, J.G. Anderson, “Lightning and Grounding,”
Chapter 6, in EPRI Transmission Line Reference Book, Third
Edition, 2003.
1028-10
[19] M.Abdel-Salam, A.A. Turkey, A.A. Hashem,” The onset voltage
of coronas on bare and coated conductors”, J.Phys.D: Appl. Phys,
31, pp.2550-2556, 1998.
[20] H. Geldenhuys, “Performance and design of overhead LV bundle
conductor systems in an environment of high lightning activity
and high pollution”, CIRED, 18th International Conference on
Electricity Distribution, Session Number 1, June, 2005.

1028-11