The use of Leader Progression Model

to predict lightning incidence in power lines

J. Tarchini
Department oI Electrical Engineering
University oI Bologna
40136 Bologna, Italy
e-mail: jtarchiniedemsa.com
Abstract: The Leader Progression Model |1,2,3,7| represents an attempt
to predict the lightning incidence to an earthed object, Ior instance, a
transmission line, by making use oI physical considerations. It can also
be used to simulate structures located in orographic conditions diIIerent
Irom Ilat territory, such as in valleys, hillsides and mountain tops with
the presence, when signiIicant, oI other nearby structures. This paper
proposes simpliIied Iormulas developed Irom regression analysis oI
LPM simulations to estimate the lateral distance oI transmission lines
|8|, where the lateral distance is the maximum distance a lightning stroke
can hit the structure, Ior diIIerent terrain shape (Ilat and hills) and
diIIerent current intensity.
Keywords: Leader Progression Model, Lightning Incidence,
Transmission Lines
1. Introduction
The model oI the lightning behaviour, named Leader
Progression Model LPM, developed by L.Dellera and
E.Garbagnati |1,2,3|, is based mainly on the knowledge oI
discharge process obtained Irom HV laboratory tests on
long air gaps. The simulation oI the electromagnetic Iield
development is based on a mathematical simulation
method oI charged structures |4|. Test data used into a
Iirst version oI this model by Dellera and Garbagnati,
|1,2| have been corrected, in order to better simulate the
natural phenomenon, aIter Iurther experimental
investigations carried out at the 1000 kV ENEL-CESI
testing area by M.Bernardi, L.Dellera, E.Garbagnati and
G.Sartorio |7|. This LPM model, property oI CESI, can
simulate electric Iields on structures located in diIIerent
orographic conditions ,such as in valleys, hills and
mountains with the presence, when signiIicant, oI other
structures in the vicinity.
2. LPM Model
The main steps oI the model simulation are described in
the relevant papers |1,2,3,7| and here are brieIly resumed
with reIerence to Iig. 1:
Propagation of downward channel: The downward
leader is moving towards earth when the electric Iield
produced by negative charges is greater than the negative
ionisation gradient oI air E
ion
,. The leader advancement is
calculated by deIined spatial steps, carrying negative
charges Irom cloud through a ionised channel. This
process continues up to a certain point above ground
where the downward leader tip, by means oI the so called
'Iinal jump, hits an earthed point or the upward channel .
Inception process and upward leader. The start
oI upward leaders occurs when the electrical Iield reaches
the limit gradient E
lim
at contour points oI the considered
active charges. The development process Ior the upward
leader can be described in the same manner as Ior the
downward, starting this Irom earthed structures and
developing towards the cloud.
Final Jump: During this Iinal stage, upward leaders
would incept the downward leader tip depending on the
charge transIerred and the downward leader position. The
Iinal jump length depends on the amount oI charge along
the ionised channel, related to the lightning peak current I
p


PAS
P
AS

Q
LEAD

QFULA
Q
LEAD

Q
R
E
lim

Eion
DCNCP
YC
Y
ni

Y
nf

Y
pf

Y
pi

X
pf
X
pi
X
ni
X
nf

Fig. 1: Main parameters calculated in downward and
upward leader propagation
3. Application to transmission lines
The LPM described above can be applied to an earthed
structure with a selected horizontal distance between the
downward channel and the considered structure Ior a
deIined lightning current. This model can deIine the
various impact points (structure, conductors or terrain).
A thorough analysis has been carried out to inIer
empirical Iormulations oI the lateral distance (LD)
relevant to diIIerent orographical conditions, as shown in
Fig. 2.

FLAT
SIDE
TOP

h

Fig. 2: Structure location for different terrain
conditions
Results obtained in |1,2,6| are shown in Fig. 3 to Fig 6.
For hill side and top conditions, hill angle was considered
equal to 30.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
STROKE CURENT (kA)
L
A
T
E
R
A
L

D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E

(
m
)
10 m 20 m 30 m 50 m 70 m
Fig. 3: Lateral Distance FLAT terrain 1,2,3]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
STROKE CURENT (kA)
L
A
T
E
R
A
L

D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E

(
m
)
20 m 30 m 40 m 50 m 60 m
Fig. 4: Lateral Distance SIDE VALLEY 1,2,3]
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
STROKE CURENT (kA)
L
A
T
E
R
A
L

D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E

(
m
)
20 m 30 m 40 m 50 m 60 m
Fig. 5: Lateral Distance SIDE MOUNT 1,2,3]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
STROKE CURENT (kA)
L
A
T
E
R
A
L

D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E

(
m
)
10 m 30 m 40 m 50 m
Fig. 6: Lateral Distance structure located in TOP
1,2,3]
The reason oI such analysis lies in the Iact that to
calculate the total number oI strokes to a line, the basic
parameter to consider is indeed the Lateral Distance (LD),
namely the maximum distance a lightning stroke oI a
given intensity can hit the structure.
For each calculation step, the electric Iield gradients are
evaluated by means oI the charge simulation method, and
the inception with positive upward leaders Irom the
structures or wires is estimated as a Iunction oI the line
geometry.
The application oI these concepts, allowed to determine
the Lateral Distance values Ior structures oI diIIerent
heights located in Flat terrain, the Side or the top oI a hill
or mountain, and propose simpliIied Iormulas to estimate
LD as a Iunction oI tower height and terrain condition.
4. Proposed method
The application oI the described model to diIIerent Iree
standing earthed structures located in Ilat terrain, gives an
almost linear variation oI LD with return stroke current
value.
4.1. Flat terrain
From simulation results, considering diIIerent tower
heights, and applying a regression analysis; a simpliIied
Iormula is proposed to estimate the Lateral Distance
variation Ior Ilat terrain Ior diIIerent tower heights (H
T
)
and stroke current amplitudes I
p
, as Iollows:
7 . 0
T p T f
H 3 I H 03 . 0 LD + = |8|
Using this simpliIied Iormula, is possible to Iind the
Lateral Distance variation with stroke current, Ior
diIIerent tower heights, as shown in Fig. 7.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
STROKE CURRENT [kA]
L
A
T
E
R
A
L

D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E

[
m
]
20 m
10 m
30 m
40 m
50 m
60 m
70 m
80 m
90 m
100 m
Fig. 7: Lateral distance variation applying Eq. 8
4.2. Hill Side
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
500 600 700 800 900
LDValley (+)
LDMount (-)
Lateral Distance Calculation
H = 30 m
= 11,5 kA - = 30
o
Fig 8: Lateral Distances (Hill and Valley) for Side
configuration
The same analysis was made in order to inIer the Lateral
distance variation with stroke current amplitude Ior
structures located at the side oI a hill. In this case, two LD
should be considered. The one in the 'valley side and the
other in the 'mount side. In both cases an empirical
expression was Iound in order to represent the
phenomena; they have been obtained Irom simulation
results varying the hill angle (
h
), as shown in Fig. 2, and
the tower height.
As shown in Fig. 8, Ior low stroke currents and tower
height values the LD Ior mount side becomes negative.
This negative value increases with hill angle
h
.
As in the case oI Ilat terrain, Irom simulations results
considering diIIerent tower heights and applying a
regression analysis, a new Iormula is proposed to estimate
both LD ('Valley and 'Mount Side) which depends on
tower heights, diIIerent hill angles (
h
) and stroke current
amplitudes, Ior hillside conditions.
'Valley Side proposed Iormula is:
C BH I AH LD
T p T sv
+ + = |9|
4 . 0
h
h
7 . 0
h
) (sin 40 C
sin 4 . 0 B
) (sin 1 . 0 A

=
=
=
|10|
Where:
H
T
is the tower height
I
p
is the stroke peak Current

h
is the hill angle
As an example, Ior a tower oI 30 meter height, LD
variation with stroke current value and hill angle is shown
in Fig. 9.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
STROKE CURRENT [kA]
L
A
T
E
R
A
L

D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E

[
m
]
15 DEG 30 DEG 45 DEG 60 DEG 80 DEG
Fig. 9: Side Valley LD for

30 m and different hill

angles

'Mount Side proposed Iormula is:

C BH I AH LD
T p T sm
+ + = |11|
2
h h
h
2
h
3 . 0
h
) (sin 820 sin 220 C
sin 8 . 4 ) (sin 11 B
) (sin 05 . 0 A

=
=
=
|12|
Where:
H
T
is the tower height
I
p
is the stroke Current

h
is the hill angle
As an example, Ior a tower oI 30 meter height, LD
variation with stroke current value and hill angle is shown
in Fig. 10.
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
STROKE CURRENT [kA]
L
A
T
E
R
A
L

D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E

[
m
]
15 DEG 30 DEG 45 DEG 60 DEG 80 DEG
Fig. 10: Hill Side for

30 m and different hill

angles

4.3. Top of a hill

The same analysis was made Ior the case oI a line located
at the top oI a hill, in order to Iind the LD variation with
stroke current amplitude and with the hill angle (
h
), as
well as with the tower height.
From simulation results, and applying a regression
analysis, an empirical Iormula is proposed to obtain the
Lateral Distance expression Ior diIIerent tower heights,
diIIerent hill angles (
h
) and stroke current amplitudes.
p
5 . 0
T
7 . 0
h t
I H ) (sin 22 , 1 LD =
|13|
Where:
H
T
is the tower height
I
p
is the stroke Current

h
is the hill angle
For a 30 m tower height, the LD
t
variation with current
and angle is shown in Fig. 11.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
STROKE CURRENT [kA]
L
A
T
E
R
A
L

D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E

[
m
]
0 DEG 15 DEG 30 DEG 45 DEG 60 DEG 80 DEG
Fig. 11: Top

for

30 m and different hill angles

5. Conclusion
Analytical Iormulas, Irom regression analysis oI
simulation results, to calculate the Lateral Distance oI
Iree-standing structures located in diIIerent orographic
conditions, based on Leader Progression Model concepts
have been developed. Several simulations had been
perIormed, considering diIIerent structure heights and
their location in complex terrain shape, such as at the side
or the top oI a hill or mountain. From simulation results,
least-square regression analysis oI main parameters had
been perIormed, giving new Iormulas Ior calculating the
lateral striking distance. The proposed Iormulas are
expressed in terms oI main structure and terrain
parameters: tower height and hill angle. Results obtained
with presented empirical Iormulas Iit with results obtained
by Dellera and Garbagnati in |1,2,3|. Those Iormulas
could be useIul Ior users who do not have access to the
LPM simulation code.
6. Acknowledgment
The author acknowledge the contribution oI Dr. Marina
Bernardi Irom CESI and ProI. C.A. Nucci Irom
University oI Bologna.
7. References
|1| L. Dellera, E. Garbagnati - Lightning stroke
simulation by means oI the leader progression model (Part
I) IEEE Transactions on PD. Vol.5, No.4. November
1990.
|2| L.Dellera, E.Garbagnati - Lightning stroke simulation
by means oI the leader progression model (Part II) IEEE
Transactions on PD. Vol. 5, No. 4. November 1990.
|3| CESI Int. Technical Report SR-953/1 Nov. 1986
|4| Singer H., Steinbigler H., Weiss P.: 'A Charge
simulation method Ior the calculation oI High Voltage
Iields. IEEE PES Winter Meeting, January 1974.
|5| Wagner C.F., Hileman A.R.: 'A new approach Ior the
calculation oI the lightning perIormance oI transmission
lines III-a, simpliIied method: stroke to tower" - AIEE
trans. (Powers Apparatus and Systems), vol 79, October
1960
|6| Berger K., 'Messungen und resultate der
BlitzIorschung der Jahre 1947-1954 auI dem M.S.
Salvatore, Bull. SEV Bd 46, No. 5 and 9, 1955.
|7| Bernardi M., Dellera L., Garbagnati E., Sartorio G.:
'Leader Progression Model oI Lightning: Updating oI the
model on the basis oI recent test results. Proceedings at
23rd ICLP. 1996.
|8| A.Borghetti, C.A.Nucci, M.Paolone, M.Bernardi:
EIIect oI the lateral distance experession and oI the
presence oI shielding wires on the evaluation oI the
number oI lightnnig induced voltages. Proceedings at
25th ICLP. 2000.