X International Symposium on

Lightning Protection
9
th
-13
th
November, 2009 Curitiba, Brazil


A SURVEY ON CIGR AND IEEE PROCEDURES FOR THE ESTIMATION
OF THE LIGHTNING PERFORMANCE OF OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION
AND DISTRIBUTION LINES

C.A. Nucci

Department of Electrical Engineering
University of Bologna, Italy
E-mail: carloalberto.nucci@unibo.it

Abstract - This lecture focuses on lightning performance of transmission and distribution lines. Modeling
procedures and source data recommended by CIGR 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. Mention is also made
to some more recent activity carried out within CIGR on the subject, concerning statistical distributions of
lightning current obtained by means of lightning location systems, lightning attachment to tall structures, and
the lightning response of grounding electrodes, some aspects of importance for evaluating the lightning
transmission line performance. 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 configuration on the final results. Joint CIGR-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.

1 INTRODUCTION

The evaluation of the lightning performance of both transmission and distribution lines is one of the key issues for
power engineers dealing with lightning protection of power systems. The need for improved power quality is nowadays
more and more imperative, and this the reason for the permanent increasing interest on the assessment of lightning
impact on power 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 CIGR and IEEE if possible is beyond the scope of this lecture. The main aim of
this lecture is on the one hand to briefly summarize what is the suggested practice on the subject in the official
documents emphasizing at the same time the main differences and, on the other hand, to report on some of the most
relevant research activities, presently carried out in the two frameworks, with the aim of revising the existing standards.
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 lecture will be
developed making reference basically to the following reference documents, namely:
for CIGR:
- CIGR WG 33-01, Guide to Procedures for Estimating the Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines, CIGR
Technical Brochure, Nr. 63, October 1991;
- Joint CIRED- CIGR WG C4.402, Protection of MV and LV networks against lightning. Part I: common topics,
CIGR Technical Brochure, Nr. 287, February 2006 and Part II: Lightning protection of Medium Voltage networks,
in press;
for IEEE:
- IEEE Std 1243-1997, IEEE Design Guide for Improving the Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines, 1997;
- IEEE Std 1410-2004 Guide for improving the lightning performance of electric power overhead distribution lines,
2004.
151


2 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 CIGR [Cigr WG 33-01, 1991] 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
twentyfive measurements are taken from those recorded at the Bergers tower [Berger et al., 1975]. 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. In [Berger et al., 1975] it has been proposed to approximate the lightning current distribution by a
lognormal one with the following median and logarithmic standard deviation:

= 31.1 kA,
I
= 0.484. The analytical
expression of the density function of such a distribution is the following:
( )
2
2
2
ln
2
1
I
I
I
I
e
I
I f

|
|
.
|

\
|

= (1)
As noted by Anderson and Eriksson [1980], 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.

Table I: Parameters of the first stroke distributions adopted by Cigr.
Parameter of (1)
Shielding failure
domain
I<20 kA
Backflashover domain
I>20 kA
Median value [kA] 61 33.3
Logarithmic standard deviation 1.33 0.605

A similar, more simple, distribution is the one adopted by IEEE [IEEE Std. 1243, 1997]. It has been suggested by
Anderson [1981] and the cumulative probability of lightning current I
f
to exceed current I is given by:
( )
6 . 2
,
1
1
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
= >
f
f
I
I
I I P (2)
Such a cumulative distribution is assumed valid for currents in the interval between 2 and 200 kA and assumes
parameter I
f,
= 31 kA.
It is worth reminding that, in addition to those of first negative return stroke ones, in [Cigr WG 33-01, 1991] median
and logarithmic standard deviations of other parameters relevant to the lightning currents of first and subsequent return
strokes are reported, such as: front time duration, maximum front steepness, tail time together with charge and Joule
integral values, etc.
Fig. 1 shows the popular comparison between the first stroke lightning current distributions adopted by CIGR and
IEEE.
152

1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.00
2.00
5.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
95.00
98.00
99.00
99.50
99.90
99.95
99.99
Current [kA]
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

[
%
]
Cigr
IEEE

Fig. 1 Comparison between the first stroke lightnign current distributions adopted by CIGR and IEEE.

As analyzed by Rakov and Uman [2003], 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 [1985] showed 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 CIGR 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 [Cigr WG 33-01, 1991] it is
reported a probability value of 12% that subsequent return stroke current peaks be larger than the corresponding first
stroke. In particular, in [Cigr WG 33-01, 1991] the median value and the logarithmic standard deviation of the
approximated log-normal frequency distribution of subsequent return stroke current amplitudes are reported, namely:

= 12.3 kA,
I
= 0.53.
On the other hand, in [IEEE Std. 1243, 1997] an approximated formula is reported that provides the cumulative
probability that the subsequent return stroke current amplitude (I
S
) may be larger than the critical current that determines
the shielding failure flashover (I
c
):
( )
7 . 2
,
1
1
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
= >
S
c
c S
I
I
I I P (3)
where parameter I
S,
= 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., 1998; Rachidi et al., 2001; Bermudez et
al. 2003; Rachidi, 2007; Pavanello et al., 2007a; 2007b; 2007c] 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, 1972; Mousa and Srivastava, 1989; Pettersson, 1991; Rizk 1994a; Sabot, 1995; Borghetti et al.,
2003]. 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 [e.g.
Pettersson, 1991; Rizk 1994a; Sabot, 1995; Borghetti et al., 2004a]. It is worth realizing, however, that this issue is of
practical interest only distribution lines for which indirect lighting is of major importance Borghetti et al., [2003].
New statistical distribution of lightning current peak values have been collected in several countries after the reference
statistics above mentioned. In Austria, during the period 2000-2007, Diendorfer et al. [2009] have collected 457 upward
negative flashes initiated from the 100-m Gaisberg tower; in Japan the results illustrated by Takami and Okabe [2007]
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. Rakov et al. 2003], statistics of 206 return stroke currents have been analyzed in [Schoene et
153

al., 2009]; in Brasil, Visacro et al. [2004] 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. [CIGR WG C4.404, 2009; Cummins and Murphy, 2009]. 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 recent [CIGR WG
C4.404, 2009] 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 CIGR WG C4.407
(http://sc4wg407.ing.unibo.it/).

3 ATTACHMENT

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 N
g

(fl/km2/yr)); of the exposure to lightning and of the lightning consequences.
Concerning the lightning exposure, CIGR [CIGR WG 33-01, 1991] and IEEE [IEEE Std. 1243, 1997] 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 CIGR 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.
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. [Young et al., 1963; Brown and
Whitehead, 1969; Mousa and Srivastava, 1989]), which are based on the preliminary work of Golde [1945];
more recent models based on the simulation of the leader progression (LPM) (e.g. [L. Dellera, E. Garbagnati,
1990a, 1990b, Rizk, 1994b]).
The use of the EGM is reported in both CIGR [CIGR WG 33-01, 1991] and IEEE [IEEE Std. 1243, 1997] references;
CIGR, 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. In particular, for the
evaluation of the lateral attractive distance (d
l
) of a vertical structure of height h, the EGM compares the striking
distance of the vertical structure (r
c
) with the one of the ground (r
g
) as shown in Fig. 2.
154

t
c
t
g
nearby sLroke
dlrecL sLroke
b
J
l

Fig. 2 Simplified representation of the electrogeometric model for a vertical structure of height h.

The general expression of r
c
and r
g
are reported below.

b
r c
I A r
c
= (4)

b
r g
I A r
g
= (5)
The value of the ground striking distance r
g
can be also expressed as follows:

c g
kr r = (6)
Therefore, taking into account both attractive conductor and ground attractive radii, lateral attractive distance (d
l
)
becomes:

( )
g c l
g g c l
r h r d
r h h r r d
=
< =
for
for
2
2 2
(7)
Table II summarizes the values experimentally inferred and adopted in the literature.

Table II: Parameters A
rc
, A
rg
and b of the EGM available in the literature.
A
Parameter
r
c
r
g

b
Young et al. [1963]
27 for h<18 m
( ) h 462
444
27 for h>18m
27 0.32
Armstrong and Whitehead [Cigr WG 33-01, 1991] 6.7 6 0.8
Brown and Whitehead [1969] 7.1 6.4 0.75
Love [1973] 10 10 0.65
Andersson IEEE WG [1985] 10
6.4 for UHV
8.0 for EHV
1 for others
0.65
IEEE T&D Committee [1981] 8
y
22
8 for 4.8<r
g
<7.2
0.65
IEEE T&D Committee 1992 [IEEE Std. 1243,
1997]
10
( ) h + 43 ln 7 . 1 6 . 3 for for y<40m
( ) 40 43 ln 7 . 1 6 . 3 + for for y>40m
0.65
IEEE substation Committee [1995] 8 8 0.65
Note: value y in Table II refers to the distance between the downward leader prospective ground termination and the vertical structure.

The procedure adopted by Cigr, as earlier mentioned, makes reference also to results based on the use of the LPM. The
LPM has been developed from knowledge of discharge physics on long air gaps under switching surge conditions with
the hypothesis of a good similarity between propagation and inception of downward and upward leaders at laboratory
tests and lightning phenomena in spite of the 10x difference in scale. The downward propagation of the leader in the
LPM is determined using the charge simulation method [Singer et al., 1974] in which fictitious line charges as particular
solutions of Laplace and Poissons 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. Fig. 3 shows the potential iso-surfaces of the final stage of the attachment process of a
30m structure in which the LPM code has been implemented by using the Finite Element Method.
155


Fig. 3 Potential iso-surfaces of the final stage of the attachment process of a 30 m structure in in which the LPM code has been
implemented by using the Finite Element Method. Results obtained at the University of Bologna by the Lightning Research Group.

Simple expressions have been inferred by using the LPM relating the lateral attractive distance (d
l
) and the lightning
current peak I:

b
l
AI c d + = (8)
Table III summarizes the values of (8) inferred by using the LPM.

Table III: Parameters c, A and b of (8).
Parameter c A B
Eriksson 0 0.84h
0.6
0.27h
0.02

Rizk 0 4.27h
0.41
0.55
Dellera-Garbagnati 3h
0.6
0.028h 1

It is also worth mention that in [CIGR WG 33-01, 1991] the approach of Eriksson [1987] for the calculation of the
lightning flash collection rate of an overhead line is reported too.

( )
(
(

+
=
(
(

+
=
b
b h
N km
b h
N N
g g s
6 . 0 6 . 0
28
100
1000
14 2
(9)
Such an expression provides the flash collection rate N
s
in fl/100km/yr, as a function of the ground flash density N
g
, the
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 the median value of 35 kA and by combining the analytical
expression for the attractive radius with empirical results.
It is worth mentioning that the above models, largely adopted within IEEE and CIGR, have been recently re-discussed
within the framework of CIGR WG C4.404 Lightning Interception, and that a summary paper is expected to appear
within one year on Electra.

4 LIGHTNING PERFORMANCE ESTIMATION

4.1 Shielding failure flashover rate
Both IEEE and Cigr procedures for the calculation of the shielding failure flashover rate (SFFOR), make reference to
the geometry shown in Fig. 4. In particular, for a specific value of stroke current, arcs of radii r
c
are drawn from the
phase conductors and from the shield wires; in case the EGM is adopted also the horizontal line at a distance r
g
from the
earth can be drawn. A shielding failure is a stroke that terminates on a phase conductor, in spite of the presence of
overhead ground wires.
156

t
q
t
c
t
c
u
c
u
q

Fig. 4 Geometry adopted in [Cigr WG 33-01, 1991] and [IEEE Std. 1243, 1997]
for the calculation of the shielding failure rate(SFR).

For such a geometry it is possible to determine the flash collection rate as:

}

+ =
min
) ( )] ( ) ( [ 2
I
c g g s
dI I f I D I D L N N (10)
Where L is the line length (typically 100 km), f(I) is the density function of the lightning current amplitude distribution.
By integrating only the exposure area of the phase conductors (the one corresponding to D
c
in Fig. 4, we obtain the so-
called shielding failure rate (SFR):
( )
}
=
max
min
2
I
I
c g
dI I f D L N SFR (11)
The integration limits of (11) can be determined in view of the following. As shown by Fig. 5 by increasing the lightning
currents the value of D
c
decreases until a point at which all three striking distances meet and D
c
becomes zero. This
point defines the I
max
value of (11).
0
50
100
0 50 100
0
50
100
0 50
u
c
= 0
t
q
t
q
u
c
l
1
l
mox
>l
1
t
c
t
c
t
c
t
c

Fig. 5 Geometry adopted in [Cigr WG 33-01, 1991] and [IEEE Std. 1243, 1997] for the calculation of the I
max
value of (11).

The SFR provides the number of strokes that terminate on the phase conductor. Not all of these will result in flashover.
However, if the voltage produced by a stroke to the conductor exceeds a critical voltage value, a flashover occurs. Thus
the SFR includes both the strokes that cause flashover and those that do not. To determine the shielding failure flashover
rate SFFOR, is necessary to calculate the voltage across the line insulation. The IEEE procedure suggests to
approximately calculate such a voltage as:

2
surge
Z
I E = (12)
Where: I is the lightning current and Z
surge
is the conductor surge impedance under corona calculated as:

c
surge
R
h
r
h
Z
2
ln
2
ln 60 = (13)
In which h is the average phase conductors heights, r the phase conductor radius and R
c
the corona radius of the
conductor that refers to an electric field of 1500 kV/m.
If the voltage E of (12) is set to the Critical Flashover Voltage (CFO), negative polarity, then the critical current, at and
above which flashover occurs can be determined. This value corresponds to the lower integral limit I
min
of (11):
157


surge
Z
CFO
I 2
min
= (14)
In the IEEE procedure, the CFO value is determined by making reference to the V-t curve of the line insulation and the
CFO employed is usually assumed as the standard CFO, negative polarity, which is typically assumed equal to 605
kV/m times the strike distance of the insulator string.
The CIGR procedure adopts a similar procedure for the calculation of the I
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
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, CIGR suggests the following approaches
based on the use of i) insulation voltage/time curve [IEEE Std. 1243, 1997, Darveniza and Vlastos, 1988, Baldo et al.,
1981] (similar to the IEEE approach), ii) integration method [Witzke and Bliss, 1950a, 1950b, Akopian, 1954, Jones,
1954, Kind, 1958, Rusck, 1958a, Caldwell and Darveniza, 1973, Alstad et al., 1979]and iii) physical models
representing the corona inception streamer and leader phases along the line insulation [Suituki et al., 1977, Wek, Baldo
et al. 1981, Pigini, 1988].

4.2 Backflashover rate
As known (e.g. [Cigr WG 33-01, 1991]), 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 in the phase conductors due to the electromagnetic coupling, nevertheless the tower and shield wires
voltage becomes much larger than the phase conductors voltages. If that voltage difference exceeds a critical value, a
flashover occurs called back flash or back flashover and the corresponding 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 at ground potential, namely the line tower or the shielding wires.
The calculation of the critical current I
c
depends, in general, to the following parameters:
waveshape and amplitude of the lightning current;
tower model;
flashover criteria (e.g. volt-time characteristic or others);
transmission line models including all line conductors (electromagnetic-coupling);
tower grounding models;
presence surge arresters;
representation of power system components (e.g. transformers);
possible representation of the soil ionization.
The procedure adopted by CIGR (the same reported by Hileman [1999]) for the calculation of the line backflashover
rate (BFR) is specifically aimed at calculating the critical current and the consequent BFR value. In particular, the
CIGR procedure analytically calculates the backflashover critical current by making reference to simplified
representation of the travelling phenomena that take place for both cases of a lightning strike to a tower or to an
overhead ground wire. Due to the typical front times of lightning current, in the order of 1-4 s, longer than typical
travelling times of transmission line towers, many models assume that the tower response is dominated by transverse
electromagnetic wave mode. However, in order to represent the tower response as proposed by [CIGR WG 33-01,
1991] or in EMTP-like programs, the transmission tower response needs to be evaluated using distributed parameter
circuits and/or a combination of that and lumped circuits. To do this, models, which can be treated by using the
travelling wave theory, and methods to calculate the parameter values of these models have been largely studied in the
literature on the subject. An example of a detailed transmission tower model, widely used to carry out analysis by
EMTP-like programs, is the multystory model (Ishii et al., [1991]); another paper that is worth mentioning is the one
by Ametani and Kawamura [2005] .
In [CIGR WG 33-01, 1991], the BFR is given by the probability of exceeding the critical current multiplied by the
number of flashes to the shield wires, N
L
. However, since the crest voltage and the flashover voltage are both functions
of the time-to-crest t
f
of the lightning current, the critical current previously determined is variable. Therefore, the BFR
considering all the possible time-to-crest values is:
( )
f
I
f
f
L
dIdt t f
t
I
f N . BFR
c
6 0
0
} }

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (15)
Where f(I/t
f
) is the conditional probability density function of the stroke current given the time-to-crest and f(t
f
) is the
probability function of the time-to-crest value. Note that, in order to obtain the BFR for strokes to the tower and stroke
and to the spans, the BFR obtained for strokes to the tower is multiplied by a coefficient, equal to 0.6 [Cigr WG 33-01,
158

1991, Hileman, 1999].
Another, more simplified procedure for the calculation of the BFR, is also illustrated in [CIGR WG 33-01, 1991] as the
BFR resulting from the application of the equation (15) can be obtained by using of an equivalent time-to-crest value T
e
.
Such a value is approximately the median value of time to crest for the specific critical current. Since a single equivalent
front is used, the BFR is reduced to:
( ) ( )
c
I
L L
I I P N . dI I f N . BFR
c
> = =
}

6 0 6 0 (16)
The approach adopted by IEEE in [IEEE Std. 1243, 1997] is based on the estimation of the voltage across the line
insulation at two specific time instants [IEEE WG on Estimating the Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines,
1985; 1993] (see Fig. 6), namely: a first evaluation in correspondence of the full impulse-voltage waveshape, peaking as
shown at 2 s, and a second evaluation at 6 s. Such an evaluation assumes a fixed value of the overhead ground wire
surge impedance combined with the tower surge impedance (Z
s
).
Fig. 6 shows that for R
f
values higher than Z
s
, a significant voltage on the tail of the voltage waveshape is obtained
justifying the evaluation in correspondence of 6 s. As pointed out by the IEEE procedure, such a tail time depends to
the system configuration and also an approximated formula for its calculation is given.

Fig. 6 Tower-top voltage for 350 m span overhead line with various footing resistance (R
f
) values.
Adapted from [IEEE Std. 1243, 1997] for a combined overhead ground wire impedance equal to 300 .

The voltage stress across the line insulators is computed, per ampere of lightning stroke current, adopting a specific
value of the tower surge impedance plus the tower footing impedance components in correspondence of the wave time
of 2 s. In order to estimate the backflash critical current, this value is compared with the voltage given by equation (17)
that provide the volt-time curve of the line insulation.
( ) W
t
t V
flashover impulse
|
.
|

\
|
+ =

75 . 0
710
400 (17)
where:
- V is the flashover strength in kV;
- t is the time to flashover in s (for a time interval between 0.5 and 16 s);
- W is the gap or insulator length in m.

The IEEE procedure emphasizes that the voltage given by (17) is valid for standard lightning-impulse waveshapes only
and that for time to flash greater than 16 s the CFO strength of 490 kV/m should be adopted.
It is worth mentioning the activity more recently carried out within CIGR by WG C4.406, aimed at clarifying some
aspects regarding the behavior of grounding electrodes when they are subjected to lightning currents, using a distributed
circuit approach.
Finally, it is important to remind that within IEEE, the popular code Flash v.1.9 (http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/lpdl/) has
been made freely available, which allows one to evaluate the lightning performance of some typical transmission line
using the models above mentioned.


5 LIGHTNING PERFORMANCE ESTIMATION OF OVERHEAD DISTRIBUTION LINES

The lightning performance of overhead lines is generally represented by means of curves reporting how many lightning
faults per year a distribution line may experience, as a function of their insulation levels. These curves are used by
power engineers in order to improve system reliability and power quality.
159

Lightning may cause flashovers on distribution lines from both direct strikes and induced voltages from nearby strikes.
Direct lightning strikes to power distribution lines cause insulation flashover in the great majority. However, experience
and observations show that many of the lightning-related outages of low-insulation lines are due to lightning that hits the
ground in proximity of the line [IEEE Std. 1410, 2004]. Moreover, due to the limited height of distribution lines of
medium and low voltage distribution networks as compared to that of the structures in their vicinity, indirect lightning
strokes are more frequent events than direct ones, and for this reason the literature on this subject (see the bibliography
of [IEEE Std. 1410, 2004]) focuses mostly on such a type of lightning events. This is the reason why in what follows we
shall focus mainly on lightning-induced voltages.
The evaluation of the lightning performance of distribution systems is greatly affected by:
model adopted to describe the lightning attachment [IEEE Std. 1410, 2004, Borghetti et al., 2007];
adopted lightning current distribution [Borghetti et al., 2004a];
modeling of the lightning induction mechanism [Nucci and Rachidi, 2003];
statistical procedure [IEEE Std. 1410, 2004, Borghetti et al., 2007].

5.1. Comparison between two procedures.
The statistical procedure adopted by IEEE in [IEEE Std. 1410, 2004] 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 [1942], and on the use of the
so-called simplified formula by Rusck, [1958b], for the calculation of the maximum amplitude of the lightning induced
voltages on the line. Details of the procedure are given in [IEEE Std. 1410, 2004]. 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, [1958b].
The procedure adopted by CIGR is the one firstly proposed by Borghetti and Nucci, [1998] and then finalised by
Borghetti et al. [2007]. It is summarized in [Joint CIRED-CIGR WG 4.402, 2006; CIGR WG 4.401, 2010 ] 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 I
p
, its time to peak t
f
and the position of the strike location with respect
to the distribution line
1
. 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. [2007] 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 [Paolone et al., 2004, Borghetti
et al., 2007]. If the distance of the stroke location from the line is beyond the 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 CIGR documents makes use of a more
accurate/general model for the lightning induction mechanism, namely the LIOV (Lightning induced overvoltage)
computer code
2
Nucci and Rachidi [2003].
As mentioned in Section 2, 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

1
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 km
2
. 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.
2
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),.
160

IEEE and CIGR procedures, although the author feels that it would be worth addressing this roblem in future
activities.
Fig. 7 shows the comparison between the results presented in IEEE Std 1410 [2004], with those reported in [CIGR-
CIRED JWG C4.402, 2006; CIGR WG C4.401, 2010]. 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
1.5CFO (the 1.5 factor is an approximation that accounts for the turn up in the insulation volt-time curve).
The IEEE and CIGR methods predict, indeed, basically the same results when setting as inputs of the LIOV program i)
a value of lightning current parameter t
f
lower than 1 s, independently of the amplitude I
p
, 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.
7 shows that the results significantly differ, when also the t
f
lightning current parameter is considered as a random
variable, taking also into account the correlation coefficient between I
p
and t
f
probability distributions. The results
obtained by using the procedure described in [Borghetti et al., 2007] 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.

5.2. Effect of shield wires.
Concerning the shielding wires, the effect of the presence of a grounded shield or neutral conductor is estimated in
[IEEE Std 1410, 2004] by using the following equation, again proposed by Rusck [1958b], 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:

'
1
2
sw sw c
sw g
h Z U
U h Z R

= =
+
(18)
where h
sw
is the height of the shielding wire, h is the height of the line conductor, Z
sw
is the surge impedance of the
shielding wire, Z
sw-c
is the mutual surge impedance between the shielding wire and the line conductor and R
g
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 connections. The results shown in Fig. 5 of [IEEE Std 1410,
2004] refers to the case of =0.75.
It is worth mentioning the work by Piantini [2008] who has successfully extended the use of the Rusck model for the
calculation of the lightning-induced voltages on overhead lines with shield wire in case the lightning stroke does not face
the shield wire grounding.

Fig. 7 Comparison between the lightning performances of a single-conductor 10-m high distribution line evaluated by using the
procedure IEEE Std 1410 [2004] (solid curve) and the method proposed in [Borghetti et al., 2007] for two different values of ground
conductivity (infinite: triangles-dashed curve, and 0.001 S/m: squares-dashed curve). I
p
and t
f
are lognormally distributed as
proposed in Anderson and Eriksson [1980]. The assumed annual ground flash density is 1flash/km2/year.

It is important to remark that the use of the procedure proposed in the above mentioned CIGR references allows to
evaluate more realistic line configurations than those typically considered in [IEEE Std 1410, 2004]. For instance it is
161

possible to properly take into account the presence of periodical grounding of shield wires and of protection devices like
surge arresters at some points along the lines, as described in Paolone et al. [2004].
Fig. 8 shows the comparison between the flashover rate curve of Fig. 5 of [IEEE Std 1410, 2004] (curve A) and those
obtained by using the procedure proposed within CIGR, with the shielding wire grounded each 30 m (curve B), and
grounded each 500 m (curve C), for the case of a line above an ideal ground
3
. Both curve B and C are obtained by
forcing t
f
to be equal to 1 s, in order to make the comparison consistent and to emphasize the impact of the grounding
spacing on the results. Fig. 7 shows that the equation (18) gives quite accurate results only for short spacing values
between two adjacent groundings, in accordance with the findings of Paolone et al. [2004].
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.000
50 100 150 200 250
F
l
a
s
h
o
v
e
r
s
/
1
0
0
k
m
/
y
r
CFO (kV)
(A) IEEE Std. 1410 2004 - Rusck (B.2) and (B.3)
(B) tf =1 s (groundings each 30 m)
(C) tf =1 s (groundings each 500 m)

Fig. 8 Comparison between the line flashover rate curve of [IEEE Std 1410, 2004] (A) and those obtained by using the procedure
used in some CIGR brochures, enforcing t
f
= 1 s for each event, for the case of two different shielding wire grounding spacing,
namely 30 m (B), and 500 m (C).

As a final comment it is important to mention that it is expected that the next edition of IEEE St. 1410 will include the
above mentioned procedure that has been initially adopted in some reference CIGR documents.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Several reference documents have been published in the last decades by two of the worlds most authoritative
scientific/technical institutions, such as CIGR and IEEE, in the area of the lightning performance of transmission and
distribution lines. This paper was aimed at showing what are the main differences in some of these documents and at
mentioning the more recent activity in this field, which is expected to result in revised versions of the above mentioned
documents.
The main conclusions that can be drawn are the following: for the problem of interest the approaches proposed in the
two frameworks are somewhat equivalent.
The main differences, when present, lie in the fact that some approaches/methods proposed so far within CIGR can be
considered to be more general than those proposed within IEEE, in that they take into account more variables of the
problem. The relevant drawback is that no software tool has been made freely available so far within CIGR, while
within IEEE thanks in part to the inherent simpler approach some computer code, such as Flash v.19, has been made
available, which can serve either as professional tools capable of providing a first approximate, yet extremely useful,
answer on the lightning performance of typical overhead transmission lines or as reference for beginner researchers
when simple cases are dealt with.
In the coming future, it is expected that the next edition of IEEE St 1410 dealing with the lightning protection of
distribution lines will contain some of the more recent methods/results already accepted within CIGR; also, the author
trusts that within CIGR some computer code will be soon freely available for researchers and engineers as well.




3
The line configuration with the same shielding factor value used in [IEEE Std 1410, 2004], namely 0.75, has been assumed: the line is composed
by a 10 m high conductor, with diameter equal to 1 cm, with a shielding wire placed at 8.37 m above a perfectly conducting ground, having the same
diameter, and Rg=0.
162

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author expresses his gratitude to M. Paolone for his contribution in the final preparation of this lecture.

8 REFERENCES

Alstad K., J. Huse, A. Schei, Lightning impulse flashover criterion for overhead line insulation", paper 42.19. 4 p ISH, Milan, 1979.
Ametani A. and T. Kawamura, A Method of a Lightning Surge Analysis Recommended in Japan Using EMTP, IEEE Trans. On
PWDR, Vol. 20, No. 2, April 2005.
Anderson R. B. and A. J. Eriksson, Lightning parameters for engineering applications, Electra, no. 69, pp. 65102, Mar. 1980.
Anderson J.G., Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines, chapter 12 in Transmission Line Reference Book, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1981.
Akopian A.A., On impulse discharge voltages across high voltage insulation as related to the shape of the voltage wave, CIGR
Paper 411 15 p. 1954.
Baldo G., A. Pigini, K. H. Weck, Nonstandard lightning impulse strength, Part IV of the document CIGR 33-81 (SC) 03 11010.
29 p. Private communication. 1981.
Berger K., R. B. Anderson, and H. Krninger, Parameters of lightning flashes, Electra, no. 41, pp. 2337, July 1975.
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. D14, Journal of Geophysical Research, 2003.
Borghetti A. and C. A. Nucci, "Estimation of the frequency distribution of lightning induced voltages on an overhead line above a
lossy ground: a sensitivity analysis," Proc of XXIV Int. Conference on Lightning Protection, Birmingham, UK, 1998.
Borghetti A., C.A. Nucci, M. Paolone, Effect of tall instrumented towers on the statistical distributions of lightning current
parameters and its influence on the power system lightning performance assessment, European Transactions on Electrical Power,
Vol. 13, No. 6, November/December 2003, pp. 365-372.
Borghetti A., C.A. Nucci, M. Paolone, Estimation of the Statistical Distributions of Lightning Current Parameters at Ground Level
From the Data Recorded by Instrumented Towers, IEEE Trans. on PWRD, Vol. 19, Issue: 3, July 2004a, pp. 1400- 1409.
Borghetti A., C.A. Nucci, M. Paolone, M. Bernardi, S. Malgarotti, I. Mastandrea, Influence of surge arresters on the statistical
evaluation of lightning performance of distribution lines, Proc. of International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to
Power Systems, 12-16 Sept. 2004b.
Borghetti A., C.A. Nucci, M. Paolone, An Improved Procedure for the Assessment of Overhead Line Indirect Lightning
Performance and its Comparison with the IEEE Std. 1410 Method, IEEE Trans. on PWRD, Vol. 22, Issue: 1, Jan. 2007, pp. 684-
692.
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.
Caldwell R.O., M. Darveniza, Experimental and analytical studies of the effect of non-standard waveshapes on the impulse strength
of external insulation, IEEE Trans on PAS, vol. 92, pp. 1420-1428. 1973.
CIGR WG 33-01 (convener A. Eriksson), Guide to Procedures for Estimating the Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines,
Cigr Brochure 63, October 1991.
CIGR WG C4.401, Lightning-Induced Voltages on Overhead Power Lines. Part IV: Application of Theory to the Assessment of
the Lightning Performance of Distribution Lines., Electra, in press, 2010.
CIGR- CIRED JWG C4.402 (convener F. Rachidi) Protection of MV and LV networks against lightning. Part 1: common topics,
CIGR Technical Brochure, Nr. 287, February 2006.
CIGR WG C4.404 (convener G. Diendorfer, Cloud-to-ground lightning parameters derived from lightning location systems: The
Effects of System Performance, CIGR Technical Brochure Nr. 376, April, 2009.
CIGR WG - 4.406 (convener S. Visacro), The response of grounding electrodes to lightning currents, Electra, in press, 2009.
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.
Darveniza M., A.E. Vlastos, The generalized integration method for predicting impulse volt-time characteristics for non-standard
wave shapes a theoretical basis", IEEE Trans. on Electrical Insulation, vol. 23 (1988) no. 3. pp. 373-381.
Dellera L., E. Garbagnati, Lightning stroke simulation by means of the leader progression model (Part I). IEEE Trans. on PWRD,
Vol.5, No.4. November 1990a.
Dellera L., E. Garbagnati,Lightning stroke simulation by means of the leader progression model (Part II). IEEE Trans. on PWRD,
Vol. 5, No. 4. November 1990b.
Diendorfer G., H. Pichler, and M. Mair, Some parameters of negative upward-initiated lightning to the Gaisberg tower (2000
2007), IEEE Trans. on EMC, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 443452, Aug. 2009.
163

Eriksson A. J., The incidence of Lightning Strikes to Transmission Lines, IEEE Trans. on PWRD, Jul. 1987, pp. 859-870.
Golde R.H., The Frequency of occurrence and the distribution of lightning flashes to transmission lines, AIEE Trans., 64, pp. 902
910, 1945.
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. 15431555, Oct. 1998.
Hileman A.R., Insulation Coordination for Power Systems, Marcel Dekker, NY, 1999.
IEEE Working Group on Estimating the Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines, A Simplified Method for Estimating
Lightning. Performance of Transmission Lines, IEEE Transactions of Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-104, pp. 919-932,
1985.
IEEE Working Group on Estimating the Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines, IEEE Working Group Report - Estimating
Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines II - Updates to Analytical Models, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. PWRD-8, no. 3, pp. 12541267, 1993.
IEEE Std. 1243, IEEE Guide for Improving the Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines, June 26, 1997.
IEEE Working Group on the lightning performance of distribution lines, Guide for improving the lightning performance of electric
power overhead distribution lines, IEEE Std 1410, 2004.
IEEE Fast Front Transients Task Force, Modeling guidelines for fast front transients, IEEE Trans. on PWRD, Vol. 11 , No. 1 , pp.
493 506, Jan. 1996.
Ishii M., T. Kawamura, T. Kouno, E. Osaki, K. Shiokawa, K. Murotani, T. Higuchi, Multistory Transmission Tower Model for
Lightning Surge Analysis, IEEE Trans. on PWRD, Vol.6-3, pp.1327-1335, 1991.
Love E.R., , Improvements on lightning stroke modeling and applications to the design of EHV and UHV transmission lines, M.
Sc.Thesis, University of Colorado, 1973.
Jones A.R., Evaluation of the integration method for analysis of non-standard surge voltages, AIEE Trans. vol. 73, pp. 984-990.
1954.
Kind D., Die Aufbauflache bei Stossspannungsbeanspruchung technischer Elektrodenanordnungen in Luft". ETZ-A vol. 79, pp. 65-
69. 1958.
Love E.R., Improvements on Lightning Stroke Modeling and Applications to Design of EHV and UHV Transmission Lines,
University of Colorado, Denver, 1973.
Mousa A.M. and K.D. Srivastava, The implications of the electrogeometric model regarding effect of height of structure on the
median amplitude of collected lightning strokes, IEEE Trans. PowerDelivery, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1450 1460, 1989.
Nucci C.A., F. Rachidi, Interaction of electromagnetic fields generated by lightning with overhead electrical networks, The Lightning
Flash, ed. V. Cooray, pp. 425 478, IEE Power and Energy Series 34, The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, 2003.
Paolone M., C. A. Nucci, E. Petrache, and F. Rachidi, Mitigation of lightning-induced overvoltages in medium voltage distribution
lines by means of periodical grounding of shielding wires and of surge arresters: modeling and experimental validation, IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 423431, Jan. 2004.
Pavanello D., F. Rachidi, V.A. Rakov, C.A. Nucci, J.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 2007a.
Pavanello D., F. Rachidi, M. Rubinstein, J.L. Bermudez, W. Janischewskyj, V. Shostak, C.A. Nucci, A.M. Hussein, J.S. Chang, " On
Return-Stroke Currents and Remote Electromagnetic Fields Associated with Lightning Strikes to Tall Structures. Part I:
Computational Models", Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, D13101, doi:10.1029/2006JD007958, 2007b.
Pavanello D., F. Rachidi, W. Janischewskyj, M. Rubinstein, A.M. Hussein, E. Petrache, V. Shostak, I. Boev, C.A. Nucci, W.A.
Chisholm, M. Nyffeler, J.S. Chang, A. Jaquier, "On Return-Stroke Currents and Remote Electromagnetic Fields Associated with
Lightning Strikes to Tall Structures. Part II: Experiment and Model Validation ", Journal of Geophysical Research, 112, D13122,
doi:10.1029/2006JD007959, 2007c.
Pettersson P., A unified probabilistic theory of the incidence of direct and indirect lightning strikes, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery,
vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1301 -1310, July 1991.
Piantini A, Lightning protection of overhead power distribution networks, invited lecture, Proc. 29
th
Int. Conf. on Lightning
Protection, Uppsala, 23
rd
26
th
June 2008.
Pigini A., Performance of large air gaps under lightning overvoltages, experimental study and analysis of accuracy of
predetermination methods". IEEE Paper S8 SH 592-8. 9 p, 1988.
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.
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", Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 107, No. D23, 2002.
Rachidi F., "Modeling Lightning Return Strokes to Tall Structures: A Review", Journal of Lightning Research, Vol. 1, pp. 16-31,
2007.
164

Rakov V.A., On estimating the lightning peak current distribution parameters taking into account the lower measurement limit,
E1ektrichestvo 2: 57-9, 1985.
Rakov V.A., M. A. Uman, Lightning Physics and Effects, Cambridge Univ. Press, UK, 2003.
Rakov V.A., C.T. Mata, M.A. Uman, K.J. Rambo, Review of Triggered-Lightning Experiments at the ICLRT at Camp Blanding,
Florida, Proc. of 2003 IEEE Bologna PowerTech Conference, June 23-26, Bologna, Italy
Rizk F.A.M., Modelling of lightning incidence to tall structures, [15a] part I: theory, [15b] part II: application, IEEE Trans.
PowerDelivery, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 162-193, January 1994a.
Rizk F.A.M., "Modelling of Lightning Incidence to tall structures. Part I: Theory". IEEE Trans. on PWRD, Vol. 9, No. 1, January
1994b.
Rusck S., Effect of non-standard surge voltage on insulation, CIGR paper 403, Paris, 1958a.
Rusck S., "Induced lightning overvoltages on power transmission lines with special reference to the overvoltage protection of low
voltage networks," Transactions of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, vol. 120, 1958b.
Sargent M.A., "The Frequency Distribution of Current Magnitudes of Lightning Strokes to Tall Structures", IEEE Trans. Power
Apparatusand Systems, PAS-91(5), pp. 2224-2229, September/October 1972.
Sabot A., An engineering review on lightning, transient overvoltages and the associated elements of electrogeometric
compatibility, in Proc.9th Int. Symposium on High Voltage Engineering, Graz, Austria, 1995.
Schoene J., M.A.Uman,V. A. Rakov, K. J. 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, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 114, D03106, 2009. DOI:
10.1029/2008JD009873.
Singer H., H. Steinbigler, P. Weiss, A Charge simulation method for the calculation of High Voltage fields, IEEE PES Winter
Meeting, January 1974.
Takami J. and S. Okabe, Observational results of lightning current on transmission towers, IEEE Trans. PWRD, vol. 22, no. 1, pp.
547556, Jan. 2007.
Suituki T., K. Miyake, Experimental study of the breakdown voltage time characteristics of large air-gaps with lightning impulses,
IEEE Trans. on PAS, vol. 96. pp. 227-233. 1977.
Visacro S., J. A. Soares,M. A. O. Schroeder, L. C. L. Cherchiglia, and V. J. de Sousa, Statistical analysis of lightning current
parameters: Measurements at Morro do Cachimbo Station, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 109, pp. D01105-1D01105-11, 2004.
Wagner C.F., G.D. Mc Cann, Induced Voltages on Transmission Lines, AIEE Transactions, Vol. 61, pp. 916- 930, 1942.
Wek K.H., Lightning protection of substations. Comments to previous documents and results of decided calculations, Document
CIGR 33-86 (TF01.02) 03 IWD. 10 + 11 p. Private communication.
Witzke R.L., T.J. Bliss, Surge protection of cable connected equipment, AIEE Trans. vol. 69. pp. 527-542. 1950a.
Witzke R.L., T.J. Bliss, Co-ordination of lightning arrester location with transformer insulation level", AIEE Trans. vol. 69, pp.964-
975. 1950b.
Young F.S., J. M. Clayton and A. R. Hileman, Shielding of Transmission Lines, IEEE Trans. on PAS, vol. 82, pp. 132-154, 1963.
165