2010 Asia-Pacific International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, April 12 - 16, 2010, Beijing, China
A Survey on Cigre And IEEE Procedures for the
Estimation of The Lightning Performance of
Overhead Transmission and Distribution Lines
Carlo Alberto Nucci
University of Bologna - Department of Electrical Engineering
Viale Risorgimento,
carloalberto.nucci@unibo.it
Abstract- This lecture focuses on lightning performance of
transmission and distribution lines. Modeling procedures and
source data recommended by CIGRE and IEEE are reviewed
and compared. Emphasis is given to differences, when present,
between procedures proposed in the two frameworks. First,
transmission lines performance is covered, with special attention
to statistical distribution of lightning current amplitude, to the
attachment process, and to the assessment of the shielding failure
and backflashover rates. Distribution lines performance is then
dealt with, with special attention to electromagnetic coupling
models, to statistical procedures to evaluate the line lightning
performance, and to the influence of the distribution line
. - IEEE Std 1410-2004 "Guide for improving the lightning
configuration on the final results. Joint CIGRE-CIRED WGs
have produced relevant documents that this lecture is in part
aimed at summarizing and at comparing with what accomplished
on the same subject within the IEEE framework. The need for
re-assessment of data and modeling procedures is emphasized,
and reference to new initiatives in this respect is also made.
I. INTRODUCTION
The need for improved power quality is nowadays
imperative, and this the reason for the permanent increasing
interest on the assessment of the lightning performance of
both transmission and distribution lines systems by
researchers and engineers.
An exhaustive survey of all documents published on this
subject within the two most important technical/scientific
engineering environments, namely CIGRE and IEEE is
beyond the scope of this keynote speech. The main aims of
this keynote speech are to briefly summarize what is the
suggested practice within CIGRE and IEEE, and to report on
some of the most relevant research activities presently carried
out in the two frameworks.
There are other several important documents published by
the two institutions dealing with lightning and/or lightning
protection, but, as we are dealing essentially with the
evaluation of the lightning performance, this keynote speech
will be developed making reference basically to the following
'reference' documents, namely:
for CIGRE:
- CIGRE WG 33-01, "Guide to Procedures for Estimating
the Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines",
CIGRE Technical Brochure, Nr. 63, October 1991 [1];
978-1-4244-5623-9/101$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
2 - 40136 Bologna, Italy
- Joint CIREO- CIGRE WG C4.402, "Protection of MV
and LV networks against lightning. Part I: common
topics", CIGRE Technical Brochure, Nr. 287, February
2006 (and Part II: Lightning protection of Medium
Voltage networks, in press) [2];
for IEEE:
- IEEE Std 1243-1997, IEEE Design Guide for Improving
the Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines, 1997
[3];
performance of electric power overhead distribution
lines", 2004 [4].
II. LIGHTNING CURRENT DISTRIBUTIONS
In what follows we shall limit the discussion essentially to
negative downward return strokes. The frequency distribution
of first return-stroke lightning current peaks adopted by
CIGRE [1] has been derived from the available measurements
of 338 negative downward flashes, collected in several parts
of the world on various structures (76 flashes on lines and 262
on masts and chimneys) of different heights, in general, less
than about 60 m. One-hundred twenty-five measurements are
taken from those recorded at the Berger's tower [5]. The
lowest current value contained in the data sample is 3 kA. The
cumulative distribution of these peak current peaks has a
median value of about 34 kA. Berger et al. [5] have proposed
to approximate the lightning current distribution by a
lognormal one with the following median and logarithmic
standard deviation: f.Jl = 31.1 kA, OJ = 0.484. The analytical
expression of the density function of such a distribution is the
following:
(1)
As noted by Anderson and Eriksson [6], such a lognormal
distribution can be better represented by two sub-distributions
that divide, in a first approximation, the shielding failure and
backflashover domains. Table I reports the median and the
logarithmic standard deviation of these two sub-distributions.
1124
 TABLE! subsequent return stroke current amplitude (Is) may be larger
PARAMETERS OF THE FIRST STROKE DISTRIBUTIONS ADOPTED BY CIGRE.
than the critical current that determines the shielding failure
Shielding failure Backflashover flashover (Ie):
Parameter of(1) domain domain
1<20 kA 1>20 kA
0.05
0.10
Median value [kA] 61 33.3
Logarithmic st dev 1.33 0.605 o.so -- Cigre
1.00
2.00 - - IEEE
5.00
A similar, more simple, distribution is the one adopted by 10.00
IEEE [3]. It has been suggested by Anderson [7] and the 20.00
cumulative probability of lightning current If to exceed �
e... 30.00
40.00
current I is given by: so.oo
� 60.00
:0
C1l 70.00
.0
(2) 80.00
e
a. 90.00
95.00
I\.
98.00 ,
99.00 ,
99.SO ,
Such a cumulative distribution is assumed valid for currents ,
99.90
in the interval between 2 and 200 kA and assumes parameter 99.95
,
,
..
1111 = 31 kA. 99.99

It is worth reminding that, in addition to those of first 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00

negative return stroke ones, in [1] median and logarithmic Current [kA)
standard deviations of other parameters relevant to the
Fig. 1 Comparison between the first stroke lightning current distributions
lightning currents of first and subsequent return strokes are
adopted by CIGRE and IEEE.
reported, such as: front time duration, maximum front
steepness, tail time together with charge and Joule integral
values, etc. I

Fig. 1 shows the popular comparison between the first
,
stroke lightning current distributions adopted by CIGRE and
IEEE.
As analyzed by Rakov and Uman in [8], the minimum peak
current value included in these distributions corresponds to a
truncation of the statistical distribution, which is, therefore,
affected by the lower and upper limits of the measurement
equipments adopted to record lightning current events. Rakov
[9] has shown that, for a log-normal distribution, the
parameters of a measured, truncated statistical distribution,
together with the knowledge of the lower measurement limit,
can be used to recover the parameters of the actual
untruncated distribution.
Concerning the statistical distribution of the subsequent
return stroke current peaks, both ClGRE and IEEE report
some information of importance in the calculation of the
shielding failure (which means in the range of low values of
lightning currents). Indeed, although the amplitude of first
stroke lightning currents is generally larger than the
corresponding subsequent return strokes, in the range of lower
values of first stroke lightning currents, in [1] it is reported a
probability value of 12% that subsequent return stroke current
peaks be larger than the corresponding first stroke. In
particular, in [1] the median value and the logarithmic
standard deviation of the approximated log-normal frequency
distribution of subsequent return stroke current amplitudes are
reported, namely: fl[ = 12.3 kA, cy[ = 0.53.
On the other hand, in [3] an approximated formula is
reported that provides the cumulative probability that the
+[ 1��I1)
P(Is>lc)= 2.7
(3)
1
where parameter IS.11 = 12 kA.
It is worth observing that the statistical distributions of the
lightning current parameters inferred from experimental data
recorded by means of tall instrumented towers are affected by
the presence of the tower itself. Such an influence involve the
presence of reflections in the measured current waveform
(Guerrieri et al., [10]; Rachidi et al. [11]; Bermudez et al. [12];
Rachidi et al. [13]; Pavanello et al. [14,15]) and a bias in
current amplitude distribution towards higher median values,
due to the tower ability to attract lightning flashes that tends to
increase for flashes with larger currents (Sargent [16]; Mousa
and Srivastava [17]; Pettersson [18]; Rizk [19]; Sabot [20];
Borghetti et al. [21]. Concerning this last aspect, methods to
obtain the statistical distributions of lightning current
parameters at ground level starting from those above
mentioned obtained from instrumented towers, have been
proposed in [18-21]. It is worth realizing, however, that this
issue is of practical interest only distribution lines for which
indirect lighting is of major importance, as shown by
Borghetti et al. [21].
New statistical distribution of lightning current peak values
have been collected in several countries after the publication
of the 'reference' statistics above mentioned. In Austria,
during the period 2000-2007, Diendorfer et al. [22] have
collected 457 upward negative flashes initiated from the 100-
m Gaisberg tower; in Japan the results illustrated by Takami

1125
and Okabe [23] concern the analysis of 120 current
waveforms measured by means of 60 different transmission
line towers; in USA, by means of the triggered lightning
facility available at the International Center for Lightning
Research and Testing of the University of Florida (e.g. [24]),
statistics of 206 return stroke currents have been analyzed by
Schoene et al. [25]; in Brasil, Visacro et at. [26] presented the
results of a statistical analysis obtained from lightning current
measurements realized on a 60 m tower (Morro do Cachimbo)
in the near Belo Horizonte region in Brazil. An impressive
amount of data concerning lightning peak current has also
been obtained by means of Lightning Location Systems (LLS)
in the last years e.g. [27, 28]. Some issues on the difference of
the lightning current median value inferred by LLSs -
generally lower - and the median value from instrumented
tower measurements - generally higher - have been addressed
in several papers (see [27] for a useful summary), and to a
certain extent they have motivated the critical re-assessment
of all these available measurements, which is one of the issues
presently dealt with by the recently established CIGRE WG
C4.407 (htlp://sc4wg407.ing.unibo.itl).
III. AITACHMENT
The designer of a power system needs to evaluate the
flashover rate of an overhead power line for a selected
insulation level to meet the reliability criteria set for the
system. The lightning flashover rate (lightning performance of
the line) is the sum of:
• direct strikes flashover rate;
• nearby strikes flashover rate;
• flashover rate from failures of protective equipment.
Only first strokes of negative downward flashes are
generally taken into account in lightning performance studies
considering that: i) upward flashes occur mainly from very tall
structures or mountain-top installations; ii) the majority of
downward flashes are of negative polarity (except for tall
structures and in the few regions with frequent winter
thunderstorms) and iii) subsequent-stroke peak current is on
average about 40% of the first stroke.
To predict the lightning performance one needs the
knowledge of the lightning activity (the ground flash density
Ng (fllkm2/yr»; of the exposure to lightning and of the
lightning consequences.
Concerning the lightning exposure, CIGRE [1] and IEEE [3]
make reference to simplified models capable of estimating the
lightning strike incidence to transmission lines, with the aim
of providing suitable engineering procedures to evaluate both
incidence of lightning strikes and optimal position of shielding
wires.
As known, these two aspects are related to the physical
processes involved in the final stage of the progression of the
downward leader (both CIGRE and IEEE makes reference to
downward negative progressing lightning leaders). The
downward motion of a lightning leader approaching ground is
assumed to continue unperturbed unless critical field
conditions develop allowing a juncture with a nearby vertical
object generally called final jump.
1126
Several researchers have contributed to the development of
engineering models aimed at representing this complex
phenomenon; nowadays it is generally accepted that the
models applied to calculate lightning incidence on
transmission can be grouped in two main categories:
• conventional models based on the so-called
electrogeometric model (EGM) (e.g. [29,30,17]), which
are based on the preliminary work of Golde [31];
• more recent models based on the simulation of the leader
progression (LPM) (e.g. the works by Dellera and
Garbagnati, [32,33] and by Rizk [19,34]).
The use of the EGM is reported in both CIGRE [1] and
IEEE [3] references; CIGRE, as we shall see later, makes
reference also to LPM. The basic concept of the EMG is that
it takes into account the downward lightning leader only,
without taking into consideration the upward (positive) leader
from the structure. It assumes that the leader channel is
perpendicular to the ground plane and that the flash will stroke
the tower if its prospective ground termination point lies
within the attractive radius r. The attractive radius depends on
several factors, such as: charge of the leader, its distance from
the structure, type of structure (vertical mast or horizontal
conductor), structure height, nature of the terrain (flat or hilly)
ambient ground field due to cloud charges.
direct stroke
nearby stroke
h
Fig. 2 Simplified representation of the electrogeometric model for a vertical
structure of height h.
In particular, for the evaluation of the lateral attractive
distance (dt> of a vertical structure of height h, the EGM
compares the striking distance of the vertical structure (re)
with the one of the ground (rg) as shown in Fig. 2.
The general expression of rc and rg are reported below.
rc ArJh
=
(4)
rg = Ar/h (5)
The value of the ground striking distance rg can be also
expressed as follows:
kr;; rg = (6)
Therefore, taking into account both attractive conductor
and ground attractive radii, lateral attractive distance (dt)
becomes:
(7)
dt =rc forh2':rg
Table II summarizes the values experimentally inferred and
adopted in the literature.
 TABLE II It is also worth mention that in [1] the approach of Eriksson
PARAMETERS ARc, ARC; AND B OF THE EGM AVAILABLE IN THE [39] for the calculation of the lightning flash collection rate of
LITERATURE.

[ - [ ]
an overhead line is reported too.
(1: Young et at.[29]; 2: Armstrong and Whitehead [l]; 3: Brown and
Whitehead [30]; 4: Love [35]; 5: Andersson [7]; 6: IEEE T&D
Ns -- Ng 2(14h1000
06)+b

J
28h06+b
Committee [36,37]; 7: IEEE T&D Committee 1992 [3])
lOOkm - Ng b
(9)

A
Parameter b
Tc T�
Such an expression provides the flash collection rate N.,. in
27 for h<18 m fl/100km/yr, as a function of the ground flash density Ng, the

1. -
27 (4 62444 h) 27 0.32
tower height h and the separation distance between the
overhead ground wires (or, in absence of them of phase wires).
It has been obtained assuming a stroke-current peak equal to
for h>18m
the median value of 35 kA and by combining the analytical
2. 6.7 6 0.8 expression for the attractive radius with empirical results.
It is worth mentioning that the above models, largely
3. 7.1 6.4 0.75 adopted within IEEE and CIGRE, have been recently re­
4. 10 10 0.65 discussed within the framework of CIGRE WG C4.404
6.4 for UHV
"Lightning Interception", and that a summary paper is
5. 10 8.0 for EHV 0.65
I for others
expected to appear within one year on Electra.

8
22
6. 8 Y 0.65 IV. LIGHTNING PERFORMANCE ESTIMATION OF OVERHEAD
for 4.8<r,,<7.2 TRANSMISSION LINES
3.6+ 1.71n {43 - h )
for y<40m A. Shielding failureflashover rate
7. 1 0 3.6 + {
1.71n 43 - 4 0) 0.65 Both IEEE and Cigre procedures for the calculation of the
for y>40m shielding failure flashover rate (SFFOR), make reference to
the geometry shown in Fig. 3. In particular, for a specific
The procedure adopted by Cigre, as earlier mentioned, value of stroke current, arcs of radii rc are drawn from the
makes reference also to results based on the use of the LPM. phase conductors and from the shield wires; in case the EGM
The LPM has been developed from knowledge of discharge is adopted also the horizontal line at a distance rg from the
physics on long air gaps under switching surge conditions earth can be drawn. A shielding failure is a stroke that
with the hypothesis of a good similarity between propagation terminates on a phase conductor, in spite of the presence of
and inception of downward and upward leaders at laboratory overhead ground wires.
tests and lightning phenomena in spite of the lOx difference in Dc Dg
scale. The downward propagation of the leader in the LPM is
determined using the charge simulation method [38] in which
fictitious line charges as particular solutions of Laplace and
Poisson's equations are used to calculate the leader electric
field at any point satisfying boundary conditions. Such a
solution method can be replaced by means of the use of
numerical methods like Finite Difference or Finite Elements.
Simple expressions have been inferred by using the LPM
relating the lateral attractive distance (dl) and the lightning
current peak I:
(8)

Fig. 3 Geometry adopted in [I] and [3] for the calculation of the shielding
Table III summarizes the values of (8) inferred by using the failure rate (SFR).
LPM.
TABLE III:
PARAMETERS C, A AND R OF (8). For such a geometry it is possible to determine the flash
Parameter c A B
collection rate as:
00

Eriksson [39] 0 0. o 84h 6 0.27ho02 Ns 2NgL f[Dg(l) Dc(I)]f(l)dl

= + (10)
Rizk [34]
0 4.27ho41 0.55 Where L is the line length (typically 100 km), j{J) is the
Dellera-Garbagnati [33] 3ho6 density function of the lightning current amplitude distribution.
0.028h I
By integrating only the exposure area of the phase conductors

1127
(the one corresponding to Dc in Fig. 4, we obtain the so-called
shielding failure rate (SFR):
J,m"
SFR= 2NgL jDJ(I)d1
The integration limits of (11) can be determined in view of
the following. As shown by Fig. 4 by increasing the lightning
currents the value of Dc decreases until a point at which all
three striking distances meet and Dc becomes zero. This point
defines the [max value of (11).
100
calculation of the [min but also suggests more sophisticated
procedures that take into account: I) the whole line response
considering the line configuration and II) different ways for
(11) the calculation of the line critical flashover. The first point can
be approached by representing the line response by means of
Electromagnetic Transient Programs. Concerning the second
point, CIGRf: suggests the following approaches based on the
use of i) insulation voltageltime curve [3,40,41] (similar to the
IEEE approach), ii) integration method [42-49] and iii)
physical models representing the corona inception streamer
and leader phases along the line insulation [50-51].

B. Backjlashover rate
As known (e.g. [1]), when lightning strikes the tower (or
the overhead ground wires), the current on the tower and
ground impedances causes the rise of the tower voltage. A
small fraction of the tower and shield wires voltage is induced

!�
'';:1 ",.
,-
ffi in the phase conductors due to the electromagnetic coupling,
nevertheless the tower and shield wires voltage becomes much
L.�
b� .......,::"-----_�'- �------���-+- larger than the phase conductors voltages. If that voltage
50 100
o 50 difference exceeds a critical value, a flashover occurs called
Fig. 4 Geometry adopted in [I] and [IEEE Std.] for the calculation of the "back flash" or "back flashover" and the corresponding
lmax value of (1 1). minimum lightning current that produces such a flashover is
called "critical current". The term "back" refers to the fact that
the highest voltage is on a part of the power system normally
The SFR provides the number of strokes that terminate on at ground potential, namely the line tower or the shielding
the phase conductor. Not all of these will result in flashover. wires.
However, if the voltage produced by a stroke to the conductor The calculation of the critical current Ie depends, in general,
exceeds a critical voltage value, a flashover occurs. Thus the to the following parameters:
SFR includes both the strokes that cause flashover and those • waveshape and amplitude of the lightning current;
that do not. To determine the shielding failure flashover rate
• tower model;
SFFOR, is necessary to calculate the voltage across the line
• flashover criteria (e.g. volt-time characteristic or others);
insulation. The IEEE procedure suggests to approximately
• transmission line models including all line conductors
calculate such a voltage as:
(electromagnetic-coupling);
E = 1 Z"/lrge
2 (12) • tower grounding models;
• presence surge arresters;
Where: [ is the lightning current and Z."lrge is the conductor
• representation of power system components (e.g.
surge impedance under corona calculated as:
transformers);
Z,"rge = 60 2h 2h
In--Jn- (13) • possible representation of the soil ionization.
Re
r The procedure adopted by CIGRf: (essentially the same
reported by Hileman in [53]) for the calculation of the line
In which h is the average phase conductors heights, r the
backflashover rate (BFR) is specifically aimed at calculating
phase conductor radius and Rc the corona radius of the
the critical current and the consequent BFR value. In
conductor that refers to an electric field of 1500 kV1m.
particular, the CIGRf: procedure analytically calculates the
If the voltage E of (12) is set to the Critical Flashover
backflashover critical current by making reference to
Voltage (CFO)I, negative polarity, then the critical current, at
simplified representation of the travelling phenomena that
and above which flashover occurs can be determined. This
take place for both cases of a lightning strike to a tower or to
value corresponds to the lower integral limit Imin of (11):
an overhead ground wire. Due to the typical front times of
1 = 2 ZCFO
.
rom
(14)
lightning current, in the order of 1-4 I1S, longer than typical
travelling times of transmission line towers, many models
surge
assume that the tower response is dominated by transverse
The CIGRE procedure adopts a similar procedure for the
electromagnetic wave mode. However, in order to represent
the tower response as proposed by [1] or in EMTP-like
I The CFO is the crest value of the impulse wave which, under programs, the transmission tower response needs to be
specified conditions, causes flashover through the surrounding
evaluated using distributed parameter circuits and/or a
medium on 50% of the applications.
combination of that and lumped circuits. To do this, models,

1128
which can be treated by using the travelling wave theory, and where:
methods to calculate the parameter values of these models V is the flashover strength in kV;
have been largely studied in the literature on the subject. An t is the time to flashover in I-lS (for a time interval
example of a detailed transmission tower model, widely used between 0.5 and 16 I-ls);
to carry out analysis by EMTP-like programs, is the W is the gap or insulator length in m.
"multystory model" (Ishii et at. [54]); another paper that is
worth mentioning is the one by Ametani and Kawamura [55].
Voltage Crest at 2� valuation at6�
In [1], the BFR is given by the probability of exceeding the
critical current multiplied by the number of flashes to the
....
S
shield wires, NL• However, since the crest voltage and the "0
flasho�er v?ltage are both functions of the time-to-crest tf of
>
...
0

the hghtnmg current, the critical current previously �..

� 0.5
determined is variable. Therefore, the BFR considering all the �
""

0.6Nd f f(I f{tI)dldtI

possible time-to-crest values is:
:aco
..E
IJ
BFR '" oc (15)
=
t 0
Z
o l,Ur)
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
where j(Jltf) is the conditional probability density function of Time in Microseconds

the stroke current given the time-to-crest and j(tf) is the Fig. 5 Tower-top voltage for 350 m span overhead line with various footing
probability function of the time-to-crest value. Note that, in resistance (Rf) values. Adapted from [IEEE Std. 1243, 1997) for a combined
order to obtain the BFR for strokes to the tower and stroke and overhead ground wire impedance equal to 300 n.
to the spans, the BFR obtained for strokes to the tower is
multiplied by a coefficient, equal to 0.6 [1, 53].
The IEEE procedure emphasizes that the voltage given by
Another, more simplified procedure for the calculation of
(17) is valid for standard lightning-impulse waveshapes only
the BFR, is also illustrated in [1] as the BFR resulting from
and that for time to flash greater than 16 I-lS the CFO strength
the application of equation (15) can be obtained by using of an
of 490 kV1m should be adopted.
equivalent time-to-crest value Te. Such a value is
Finally, it is important to remind that within IEEE, the
approximately the median value of time to crest for the
popular code Flash v.1.9 (http://ewh.ieee.orgisoc/pes/lpdl/)
specific critical current. With such a value, since a single
has been made freely available, which allows one to evaluate
equivalent front is used, the BFR is reduced to:
00
the lightning performance of some typical transmission line
BFR=0.6NL ffV):i1=0.6NLP(I>lc) (16) using the models above mentioned.
It is also worth mentioning the activity more recently
The approach adopted by IEEE in [3] is based on the carried out within CIGRE by WG C4.406 [65], aimed at
estimation of the voltage across the line insulation at two clarifying some aspects regarding the behavior of grounding
specific time instants [36] (see Fig. 5), namely: a first electrodes when they are subjected to lightning currents, using
evaluation in correspondence of the full impulse-voltage a distributed circuit approach.
waveshape, peaking as shown at 2 I-ls, and a second evaluation
at 6 I-ls, a time at which reflections, also from adjacent towers, V. LIGHTNING PERFORMANCE ESTIMATION OF OVERHEAD
may affect the voltage across the insulator. Such an evaluation DISTRIBUTION LINES
assumes a fixed value of the overhead ground wire surge
impedance combined with the tower surge impedance (Zs). Fig.
5 shows that for tower footing resistance Rf values larger than The lightning performance of overhead distribution lines is
2." a significant voltage on the tail of the voltage waveshape is generally represented by means of curves reporting how many
lightning faults per year a distribution line may experience, as
obtained justifying the evaluation in correspondence of 6 I-ls.
a function of their insulation levels. Experience and
As pointed out by the IEEE procedure, such a tail time
observations show that many of the lightning-related outages
depends to the system configuration and also an approximated
of low-insulation lines are due to lightning that hits the ground
formula for its calculation is given.
in proximity of the line [4]. Moreover, due to the limited
The voltage stress across the line insulators is computed,
height of distribution lines of medium and low voltage
per ampere of lightning stroke current, adopting a specific
distribution networks as compared to that of the structures in
value of the tower surge impedance plus the tower footing
their vicinity, indirect lightning strokes are more frequent
impedance components in correspondence of the wave time of
events than direct ones, and for this reason the literature on
2 I-ls. In order to estimate the backflash critical current this
value is compared with the voltage given by equation (17 that ) this subject (see the bibliography of [4]) focuses mostly on
such a type of lightning events. This is the reason why in what
provides the volt-time curve of the line insulation.
follows we shall focus mainly on lightning-induced voltages.
T:mplIlse _ flashover (t) 400
=
( + ;o\�)w (17) The evaluation of the lightning performance of distribution
systems is greatly affected by:

1129
 • model for the description of lightning attachment [4,56];
• adopted lightning current distribution [57];
• modeling of the lightning induction mechanism [58];
• statistical procedure [4, 56].
A. Comparison between two procedures
The statistical procedure adopted by IEEE in [4] is
conceived for the case of an infinite single conductor
overhead line with and without the presence of a grounded
shielding (or neutral) conductor. It is based on the application
of a statistical method, essentially the one proposed by
Wagner and Mc Cann [59], and on the use of the so-called
simplified formula by Rusck [60], for the calculation of the
maximum amplitude of the lightning induced voltages on the
line. Details of the procedure are given in [4]. For comparison
purposes, it is important to emphasize that the simplified
Rusck formula, applies only to the simple case of a step
lightning current waveform and to an infinitely-long single­
conductor line above a perfectly conducting ground.
Moreover, in the IEEE Std. 1410 the mitigation effect due
to the presence of a grounded neutral or shielding wire is
taken into account simply by a factor, which depends on
grounding and proximity of the grounded conductor to the
phase conductors. Such an equation has been obtained by
assuming the grounded wire as a non-illuminated conductor
and with continuous grounding connections Rusck, [60].
The procedure adopted by CIGRE is the one firstly
proposed by Borghetti and Nucci in [61] and then finalised by
Borghetti et al. [56]. It is summarized in [2,62] and briefly
described in what follows. Let us consider an equivalent
single-conductor distribution line. Using a Monte Carlo
approach, an adequate number of lightning events is generated,
each characterized at least by the following random variables:
the peak value of the lightning current Ip, its time to peak tf
and the position of the strike location with respect to the
distribution line2• For the two lightning parameter values, the
relevant statistical probability distributions are used, while the
stroke locations are considered to be uniformly distributed
around the line. It is worth mentioning that as verified by
Borghetti et al. [56] Monte Carlo-based procedure essentially
gives the same results of the IEEE Std. method when the
induced voltages are evaluated by using the Rusck formula
instead of using the LIOV code (clearly, with the same values
of return-stroke velocity, line height, and using the same EGM
adopted in the IEEE Standard). Other variables may be added
to take into account the effects of specific line characteristics,
e.g. the instantaneous value of the industrial frequency voltage,
in order to simulate the surge arrester performance [63,56]. If
the distance of the stroke location from the line is beyond the
2 When the ground is not perfectly conducting (finite ground conductivity),
the maximum induced voltage does not necessarily occur at the point closest
to the stroke location. It is therefore more suitable for the analysis to consider
a matched line of finite length within an indirect stroke location area wide
enough to include all the lightning events that can induce a voltage causing an
insulation flashover. Typically, for a 1-2 km long line the indirect stroke area
is in the range of 4-8 km2 For the same reason, the induced voltages should,
in general, be calculated all along the line and not only at the point of the line
closest to the stroke location.
1130
lateral distance, the event is considered as an indirect flash
and the maximum amplitude of the induced voltages is
computed, otherwise it is considered a direct flash. For the
calculation of the induced voltages the procedure adopted in
the CIGRE documents makes use of a more accurate/general
model for the lightning induction mechanism, namely the
LIOV (Lightning induced overvoltage) computer code3 [58].
As mentioned in Section II, the statistical distributions of
the lightning current parameters are affected by reflections at
tower and, moreover, the current amplitude distributions of
the lightning events collected by towers are biased toward
values higher than those of the distributions of the flashes to
ground. These aspects are deliberately disregarded in both
IEEE and CIGRE procedures, although the author feels that it
would be worth addressing this problem.
Fig. 6 shows the comparison between the results presented
in [4], with those reported in [2,62]. In both cases the same
expression for the lateral distance, line characteristics of the
line conductor and lightning current amplitude probabilistic
distribution are adopted, along with the same annual ground
flash density, and it is assumed that overvoltages cause
flashover when exceed a value of 1.5 'CFO (the 1.5 factor is an
approximation that accounts for the tum up in the insulation
volt-time curve).
The IEEE and CIGRE methods predict, indeed, basically
the same results when setting as inputs of the LIOV program i)
a value of lightning current parameter t.J·lower than 1 Ils, inde­
pendently of the amplitude Ip, ii) an infinite value for the
ground conductivity and, iii) a sufficiently large value for the
line length (e.g. equal or greater than 1 km). However, Fig. 6
shows that the results significantly differ, when also the tf
lightning current parameter is considered as a random variable,
taking also into account the correlation coefficient between Ip
and t.J probability distributions. The results obtained by using
the procedure described in [56] for the case of a low ground
conductivity are also presented, which show that the
resistivity of the ground significantly worsens the indirect­
lightning performance of the overhead line.
B. Effect of shield wires
Concerning the shielding wires, the effect of the presence
of a grounded shield or neutral conductor is estimated in [4]
by using the following equation, again proposed by Rusck [60],
which provides the ratio between the lightning induced
voltage on the line conductor U' and the value of the induced
voltage on the conductor without the shielding wire U:
3 The LIOV code has been developed in the framework of an international
collaboration involving the University of Bologna (Department of Electrical
Engineering), the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Power Systems
Laboratory), and the University of Rome "La Sapienza" (Department of
Electrical Engineering). The code is based on the field-to-transmission line
coupling formulation of Agrawal et al. suitably adapted for the case of an
overhead line illuminated by an indirect lightning electromagnetic field; the
return stroke electromagnetic field is calculated by assuming the MTLE
engineering model by Nucci et al. and using the Cooray-Rubinstein formula
for the case of lossy grounds (See Annex 3 for a brief description of the
mentioned models),.
 Z"v_c curve B and C are obtained by forcing tf to be equal to 1 f-ls, in
1- h,w.
1] =
U' =
(18) order to make the comparison consistent and to emphasize the
U h Z,w +2Rg
impact of the grounding spacing on the results. Fig. 7 shows
where hsw is the height of the shielding wire, h is the height of that the equation (18) gives quite accurate results only for
the line conductor, Zsw is the surge impedance of the shielding short spacing values between two adjacent groundings, in
wire, Zsw-c is the mutual surge impedance between the accordance with the findings of [63].
shielding wire and the line conductor and Rg is the DC
grounding resistance. This formula was obtained by Rusck
assuming the grounded neutral or shielding wire as a non­
illuminated conductor and with continuous grounding
10.000

<:-
connections. The results shown in Fig. 5 of [4] refers to the E
-'"
0
case of1J=0.75. 0 1.000

It is worth mentioning the work by Piantini [64] who has �QJ

>
successfully extended the use of the Rusck model for the 0
J::
0.100

</)
calculation of the lightning-induced voltages on overhead C1l
u:::
---<o--(A) IEEE Sld_ 1410 2004 -
lines with shield wire in case the lightning stroke does not 0.010
Rusck (B_2) and (B.3)

--(B) If=1 �s (groundings each 30 m)

face the shield wire grounding. " (C) If=1
-- -- SOO m)
- ---- ---- ---- ---- --------- - ---- - -- - - ---- ---- -- , ---- -- ---- ---- ---- ------ ,
�s (groundings each

1E+2
- -- - -- 0.001

0." • • 50 100 150 200 250

CFO (kV)
Iii
OJ Fig_ 7 Comparison between the line flashover rate curve of [4] (A) and those

�
>-

E
10 \��ElDCi;'; obtained by using the procedure used in some CIGRE brochures, enforcing tf
= 1 �s for each event, for the case of two different shielding wire grounding
a
a
�D�-D-�D-,�. spacing, namely 30 m (B), and 500 m (C)-
\
�\ As a final comment it is important to mention that it is
!!! _ ____ ____ ____ __ _ __ ____ \
l __ _ _ _ ____ ___ _ _ __ __ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ _ _

OJ expected that the next edition of IEEE St. 1410 will include
>
a � \
.c the above mentioned procedure that has been initially adopted
CfJ
ro
0:::
· -
I
· �-- 1
\\ • ···········i
in some reference CIGRE documents.

- - =e= -·--fEEE- Gij"rdei --- - - --

'0 0.1
ci
z
- ----Ds- - (ideal ground) VI. CONCLUSIONS
Several 'reference' documents have been published in the
----[J---- (lossy ground) last decades by two of the world's most authoritative
0.01 -+---'=='-r---j--
- -------,- ----i----'---T---
--= -- ---'-----i
o 100 200 300 scientific/technical institutions, such as CIGRE and IEEE, in
CFO [kV) the area of the lightning performance of transmission and
Fig_ 6 Comparison between the lightning performances of a single-conductor distribution lines. This paper was aimed at showing what are
IO-m high distribution line evaluated by using the procedure IEEE Std 14 10 the main differences in some of these documents and at
[4] (solid curve) and the method proposed in [58] for two different values of mentioning the more recent activity in this field, which is
ground conductivity (infinite: triangles-dashed curve, and 0_001 S/m: squares­ expected to result in revised versions of the above mentioned
dashed curve)_ Ip and tr are lognormally distributed as proposed in Anderson
and Eriksson [ 1980]. The assumed annual ground flash density is documents.
1flashlkm2/year. (Adapted from [2]) The main conclusions that can be drawn are the following:
for the problem of interest the approaches proposed in the two
Note that the use of the procedure proposed in the above
frameworks are somewhat equivalent.
mentioned CIGRE references allows to evaluate more realistic
The main differences, when present, lie in the fact that
line configurations than those typically considered in [4]. For
some approaches/methods proposed so far within CIGRE can
instance it is possible to properly take into account the
be considered to be more general than those proposed within
presence of periodical grounding of shield wires and of
IEEE, in that they take into account more variables of the
protection devices like surge arresters at some points along the
problem. The relevant drawback is that no software tool has
lines, as described by Paolone et at. in [63].
been made freely available so far within CIGRE, while within
Fig. 7 shows the comparison between the flashover rate
IEEE - thanks in part to the inherent simpler approach - some
curve of Fig. 5 of [4] (curve A) and those obtained by using
computer code, such as Flash v.19, has been made available,
the procedure proposed within CIGRE, with the shielding
which can serve either as professional tools capable of
wire grounded each 30 m (curve B), and grounded each 500 m
providing a first approximate, yet extremely useful, answer on
(curve C), for the case of a line above an ideal ground4. Both the lightning performance of typical overhead transmission
lines or as reference for beginner researchers when simple
4 The line configuration with the same shielding factor value used in [4] (0_75) cases are dealt with.
has been assumed: the line is composed by a ID m high conductor, with In the coming future, it is expected that the next edition of
diameter equal to 1 em, with a shielding wire placed at 837 m above a
perfectly conducting ground, having the same diameter, and Rg=O_ IEEE St 1410 dealing with the lightning protection of

1131
distribution lines will contain some of the more recent Janischewskyj, V. Shostak, c.A. Nucci, A.M. Hussein, J.S. Chang, "
methods/results already accepted within CIGRE; also, the On Return-Stroke Currents and Remote Electromagnetic Fields

author trusts that within CIGRE some computer code will be Associated with Lightning Strikes to Tall Structures. Part I:
Computational Models", 1. Geoph. Research, 112, 2007.
soon freely available for researchers and engineers working in
the lightning protection area. [16] Sargent M.A., "The Frequency Distribution of Current
Magnitudes of Lightning Strokes to Tall Structures", IEEE Trans.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Power Apparatusand Systems, PAS-91(5), pp. 2224-2229,
September/October 1972.
The author expresses his gratitude to Dr. M. Paolone for his
[17] Mousa A.M. and K.D. Srivastava, "The implications of the
contribution in the final preparation of this keynote speech,
electro geometric model regarding effect of height of structure on the
which is based on the invited lecture given by this author at
median amplitude of collected lightning strokes", IEEE Trans.
the X International Symposium on Lightning Protection PowerDelivery, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1450 -1460, 1989.
(SIPDA), Curitiba, Nov. 2009.
[18] Pettersson P., "A unified probabilistic theory of the incidence of
direct and indirect lightning strikes", IEEE Trans. Power Delivery,
REFERENCES
vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1301 -1310, July 1991.
[1] CIGRE WG 33-01 (convener A. Eriksson), "Guide to Procedures
[19] Rizk F.A.M., "Modelling of lightning incidence to tall
for Estimating the Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines",
structures", "Part I: theory", vol. 9, no. 1, January 1994.
Cigre Brochure 63, October 1991.
[20] Sabot A., "An engineering review on lightning, transient
[2] CIGRE- CIRED JWG C4.402 (convener F. Rachidi) "Protection
overvoltages and the associated elements of electrogeometric
of MV and LV networks against lightning. Part 1: common topics",
compatibility", in Proc.9th Int. Symposium on High Voltage
CIGRE Technical Brochure, Nr. 287, February 2006.
Engineering, Graz, Austria, 1995.
[3] IEEE Std. 1243, "IEEE Guide for Improving the Lightning
[21] Borghetti A., C.A. Nucci, M. Paolone, "Effect of tall
Performance of Transmission Lines", June 26, 1997.
instrumented towers on the statistical distributions of lightning
[4] IEEE Working Group on the lightning performance of current parameters and its influence on the power system lightning
distribution lines, "Guide for improving the lightning performance of performance assessment", European Transactions on Electrical
electric power overhead distribution lines", IEEE Std 1410, 2004. Power, Vol. 13, No. 6, November/December 2003, pp. 365-372.
[5] Berger K., R. B. Anderson, and H. Kroninger, "Parameters of [22] Diendorfer G., H. Pichler, and M. Mair, "Some parameters of
lightning flashes," Electra, no. 41, pp. 23-37, July 1975. negative upward-initiated lightning to the Gaisberg tower (2000-
[6] Anderson R. B. and A. J. Eriksson, "Lightning parameters for 2007)," IEEE Trans. on EMC, vol. 51, no. 3, Aug. 2009.
engineering applications," Electra, no. 69, pp. 65-102, Mar. 1980. [23] Takami 1. and S. Okabe, "Observational results of lightning
[7] Anderson 1.G., "Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines", current on transmission towers," IEEE Trans. PWRD, vol. 22, no. I,
chapter 12 in Transmission Line Reference Book, Electric Power pp. 547-556, Jan. 2007.
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1981. [24] Rakov V.A., C.T. Mata, M.A. Uman, K.J. Rambo, "Review of
[8] Rakov V.A., M. A. Uman, Lightning Physics and Effects, Triggered-Lightning Experiments at the ICLRT at Camp Blanding,
Cambridge Univ. Press, UK, 2003. Florida", Proc. of 2003 IEEE Bologna PowerTech Conference,

[9] Rakov V.A., "On estimating the lightning peak current
distribution parameters taking into account the lower measurement
limit", Elektrichestvo 2: 57-9, 1985.
[10] Guerrieri S., C. A. Nucci, F. Rachidi, and M. Rubinstein, "On
the influence of elevated strike objects on directly measured and
indirectly estimated lightning currents," IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol.
13, no. 4, pp. 1543-1555, Oct. 1998.
[11] Rachidi F., W. Janischewskyj, A.M. Hussein, C.A. Nucci, S.
Guerrieri, B. Kordi, J.S. Chang, "Current and electromagnetic field
associated with lightning return strokes to tall towers", IEEE Trans.
on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 43, No. 3, August 2001.
[12] Bermudez J.L., M. Rubinstein, F. Rachidi, F. Heidler, and M.
Paolone, "Determination of reflection coefficients at the top and
bottom of elevated strike objects struck by lightning", Vol. 108, No.
Dl4, Journal of Geophysical Research, 2003.
[13] Rachidi F., V. Rakov, C.A. Nucci, J.L. Bermudez, "The effect of
vertically-extended strike object on the distribution of current along
the lightning channel", 1. Geoph. Res., Vol. 107, No. D23, 2002.
[14] Pavanello D., F. Rachidi, V.A. Rakov, c.A. Nucci, 1.L.
Bermudez, "Return Stroke Current Profiles and Electromagnetic
Fields Associated with Lightning Strikes to Tall Towers: Comparison
of Engineering Models", Journal of Electrostatics,
doi:10.1016/j.elstat.2006.09.014, Vol. 65, pp. 316-321, May 2007.
[15] Pavanello D., F. Rachidi, M. Rubinstein, J.L. Bermudez, W.
June 23-26, 2003.
[25] Schoene 1., M.A.Uman,V. A. Rakov, K. 1. Rambo, J. Jerauld, C.
T. Mata, A. G. Mata, D. M. Jordan, and G. H. Schnetzer,
"Characterization of return stroke currents in rocket-triggered
lightning," 1. Geophys. Res., vol. 114, D03106, 2009.
[26] Visacro S., J. A. Soares,M. A. O. Schroeder, L. C. L.
Cherchiglia, and V. 1. de Sousa, "Statistical analysis of lightning
current parameters: Measurements at Morro do Cachimbo Station," J.
Geophys. Res., vol. 109, pp. DOII05-I-DOII05-11, 2004.
[27] CIGRE WG C4.404 (convener G. Diendorfer, "Cloud-to-ground
lightning parameters derived from lightning location systems: The
Effects of System Performance", CIGRE Technical Brochure Nr. 376,
April, 2009.
[28] Cummins K.L. and M.J. Murphy, "An Overview of Lightning
Locating Systems: History, Techniques, and Data Uses, With an In­
Depth Look at the U.S. NLDN IEEE Trans. on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, vol. 51, no. 3, August 2009.
[29] Young F.S., J. M. Clayton and A. R. Hileman, "Shielding of
Transmission Lines," IEEE Trans. on PAS, vol. 82, pp. 132-154,
1963.
[30] Brown G.W. and E. R. Whitehead, "Field and Analytical
Studies of Transmission Line Shielding", IEEE Transactions on PAS,
vol. 88, pp. 617-626, 1969.
[31] Golde R.H., "The Frequency of occurrence and the distribution

1132
of lightning flashes to transmission lines", AIEE Trans., 64, pp. 902� voltage time characteristics of large air-gaps with lightning impulses",
910, 1945. IEEE Trans. on PAS, vol. 96. pp. 227-233. 1977.

[32] Dellera L., E. Garbagnati, "Lightning stroke simulation by [51] Wek K.H., "Lightning protection of substations. Comments to
means of the leader progression model (Part I)". IEEE Trans. on previous documents and results of decided calculations", Document
PWRD, Vo1.5, No.4. November 1990. CIGRE 33-86 (TFOI.02) 03 IWD. 10 + 11 p. Private communication.

[33] Dellera L., E. Garbagnati,"Lightning stroke simulation by means [52] Pigini A, "Performance of large air gaps under lightning
of the leader progression model (Part II)". IEEE Trans. on PWRD, overvoltages, experimental study and analysis of accuracy of
Vol. 5, No. 4. November 1990. predetermination methods". IEEE Paper S8 SH 592-8. 9 p, 1988.

[34] Rizk F.A.M., "Modelling of Lightning Incidence to tall [53] Hileman AR., Insulation Coordination for Power Systems,
structures. Part I: Theory". IEEE Trans. on PWRD, Vol. 9, No. I, Marcel Dekker, NY, 1999.
January 1994. [54] Ishii M., T. Kawamura, T. Kouno, E. Osaki, K. Shiokawa, K.
[35] Love E.R., , "Improvements on lightning stroke modeling and Murotani, T. Higuchi, "Multistory Transmission Tower Model for
applications to the design of EHV and UHV transmission lines", M. Lightning Surge Analysis", IEEE Trans. on PWRD, VoI.6-3, 1991.
Sc.Thesis, University of Colorado, 1973. [55] Ametani A and T. Kawamura, "A Method of a Lightning Surge
[36] IEEE Working Group on Estimating the Lightning Performance Analysis Recommended in Japan Using EMTP", IEEE Trans. On
of Transmission Lines, "A Simplified Method for Estimating PWDR, Vol. 20, No. 2, April 2005.
Lightning. Performance of Transmission Lines", IEEE Transactions [56] Borghetti A, C.A Nucci, M. Paolone, "An Improved Procedure
of Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-I04, pp. 919-932, 1985. for the Assessment of Overhead Line Indirect Lightning Performance
[37] IEEE Working Group on Estimating the Lightning Performance and its Comparison with the IEEE Std. 1410 Method", IEEE Trans.
of Transmission Lines, "IEEE Working Group Report - Estimating on PWRD, Vol. 22, Issue: 1, Jan. 2007.
Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines II - Updates to [57] Borghetti A, C.A Nucci, M. Paolone, "Estimation of the
Analytical Models," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. Statistical Distributions of Lightning Current Parameters at Ground
PWRD-8, no. 3, pp. 1254-1267,1993. Level From the Data Recorded by Instrumented Towers", IEEE
[38] Singer H., H. Steinbigler, P. Weiss, "A Charge simulation Trans. on PWRD, Vol. 19, Issue: 3, July 2004..
method for the calculation of High Voltage fields", IEEE PES Winter [58] Nucci C.A, F. Rachidi, Interaction of electromagnetic fields
Meeting, January 1974. generated by lightning with overhead electrical networks, The
[39] Eriksson A J., "The incidence of Lightning Strikes to Lightning Flash, ed. V. Cooray, pp. 425 � 478, IEE Power and
Transmission Lines", IEEE Trans. on PWRD, Jul. 1987, pp. 859-870. Energy Series 34, The Inst. of Electrical Engineers, London, 2003.

[40] Darveniza M., AE. Vlastos, "The generalized integration [59] Wagner C.F., G.D. Mc Cann, "Induced Voltages on
method for predicting impulse volt-time characteristics for non­ Transmission Lines", AIEE Transactions, Vol. 61, pp. 916- 930,
standard wave shapes � a theoretical basis", IEEE Trans. on 1942.
Electrical Insulation, vol. 23, no. 3. pp. 373-381, 1988. [60] Rusck S., "Induced lightning overvoltages on power
[41] Baldo G., A Pigini, K. H. Weck, "Nonstandard lightning transmission lines with special reference to the overvoltage
impulse strength", Part IV of the document CIGRE 33-81 (SC) 03 protection of low voltage networks," Transactions of the Royal
11010. 29 p. Private communication. 1981. Institute of Technology, Stockholm, vol. 120, 1958.

[42] Witzke R.L., TJ. Bliss, "Surge protection of cable connected [61] Borghetti A and C. A Nucci, "Estimation of the frequency
equipment", AlEE Trans. vol. 69. pp. 527-542. 1950a. distribution of lightning induced voltages on an overhead line above

[43] Witzke R.L., T.J. Bliss, "Co-ordination of lightning arrester a lossy ground: a sensitivity analysis," Proc of XXIV Int. Conference

location with transformer insulation level", AlEE Trans. vol. 69, on Lightning Protection, Birmingham, UK, 1998.

pp.964-975. 1950. [62] CIGRE WG C4.401 (convener C.A Nucci), "Lightning-Induced

[44] Akopian AA, "On impulse discharge voltages across high Voltages on Overhead Power Lines. Part IV: Application of Theory

voltage insulation as related to the shape of the voltage wave", to the Assessment of the Lightning Performance of Distribution

CIGRE Paper 411 15 p. 1954. Lines.", Electra, in press, 2010.

[45] Jones AR., "Evaluation of the integration method for analysis [63] Paolone M., C. A Nucci, E. Petrache, and F. Rachidi,

of non-standard surge voltages", AIEE Trans. vol. 73, pp. 984-990. "Mitigation of lightning-induced overvoltages in medium voltage

1954. distribution lines by means of periodical grounding of shielding

wires and of surge arresters: modeling and experimental validation,"
[46] Kind D., "Die Aufbauflache bei Stossspannungsbeanspruchung
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 423-431, Jan. 2004.
technischer Elektrodenanordnungen in Luft", ETZ-A vo1.79, 1958.
[64] Piantini A, "Lightning protection of overhead power distribution
[47] Rusck S., "Effect of non-standard surge voltage on insulation",
networks", invited lecture, Proc. 29th Int. Conf. on Lightning
CIGRE paper 403, Paris, 1958.
Protection, Uppsala, 23rd � 26th June 2008.
[48] Caldwell R.O., M. Darveniza, "Experimental and analytical
[65] CIGRE WG - 4.406 (convener S. Visacro), "The response of
studies of the effect of non-standard waveshapes on the impulse
grounding electrodes to lightning currents", Electra, in press, 201 O.
strength of external insulation", IEEE Trans on PAS, vol. 92, pp.
1420-1428. 1973.

[49] Alstad K., J. Huse, A Schei, "Lightning impulse flashover

criterion for overhead line insulation", paper 42.19. 4 P ISH, Milan,
1979.

[50] Suituki T., K. Miyake, "Experimental study of the breakdown

1133