(
=
(
(2)
where ,
ln
are the median value and the standard deviation
of the natural logarithm of the lightning crest current
distribution, respectively, taking values =61.1 kA and
ln
=1.34 for I20 kA, else =33.3 kA and
ln
=0.61 [42, 43].
Following, the rate of lightning strikes to phase conductors
resulting in line insulation flashover, called shielding failure
flashover rate, SFFOR (flashovers/100 km/yr), which is
normally used together with backflashover rate to estimate the
expected lightning outage rate of an overhead transmission
line, can be expressed as [1]
( ) ( )
MSF
0.2
c
I
g
I
SFFOR N W I f I dI =
}
(3)
where I
c
(kA) is the minimum shielding failure current causing
flashover of insulation. This critical lightning crest current can
be calculated as [1]
2
c
s
CFO
I
Z
= (4)
where CFO (kV) is the critical lightning impulse flashover
voltage of the line insulation and Z
s
() is the conductor surge
impedance under corona.
From equations (1) and (3) it is obvious that the estimation
of SFR and SFFOR of an overhead transmission line requires
knowledge of N
g
and f(I), both associated with the lightning
activity in the region along the line, the formulation of the
shielding failure width, W, and the estimation of the maximum
shielding failure current, I
MSF
. The latter tasks can be achieved
by using different lightning attachment models in shielding
analysis, based on Figure 1 and Table A of Appendix. It must
be mentioned that although most of the models of Table A
were either derived based on field data of specific lines or
developed to describe lightning attachment in a more physical
ground, in this work they are used in their original form so as
to evaluate their application in shielding analysis of
transmission lines. Also, the SFR calculation methodology,
employing the shielding failure width expressions shown in
Table A, refers to vertically descending lightning leaders in
accordance with the IEEE Std 1243 method [1].
Figure 2 shows the variation of W with lightning crest
current for several lightning attachment models for a typical
345 kV line; the intersection of the curves with Xaxis,
corresponding to W = 0, denotes I
MSF
. Obviously, there are
significant differences in W both in terms of value and rate of
Figure 1. Shielding analysis of overhead transmission lines according to (a)
electrogeometric models, (b) Erikssons and (c) statistical and generic models.
h
m
, h
p
height of shield wire and phase conductor, respectively; shielding
angle; R horizontal separation distance between shield wire and phase
conductor; S striking distance to shield wire and phase conductor; D striking
distance to earth surface; R
m
, R
p
attractive radius of shield wire and phase
conductor, respectively; W shielding failure width.
Figure 2. Shielding failure width versus lightning crest current according to
several lightning attachment models. Maximum shielding failure current is
denoted by the intersection of the curves with Xaxis.
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 19, No. 6; December 2012 2157
decrease with lightning crest current, thus also in I
MSF
, among
lightning attachment models. These variations may affect
significantly the estimated SFR and SFFOR of overhead
transmissions lines; this is demonstrated in what follows.
3 SHIELDING FAILURE RATE
CALCULATION RESULTS
3.1 EFFECT OF LIGHTNING ATTACHMENT MODEL
Figure 3 shows the variation of shielding failure rate, SFR,
with shielding angle of a 345 kV single circuit overhead line;
SFR was calculated according to equation (1) by using the
lightning crest current distribution suggested in [42]. As
expected, due to the marked differences in W and I
MSF
among
lightning attachment models (Figure 2), SFR varies
significantly among models both in value and rate of increase
with increasing shielding angle. An increasing SFR with
shielding angle has also been found through computer
simulations of lightning attachment in [32, 33, 35].
Figure 4 shows the variation of SFR with shield wire height
by considering a ratio of phase conductor height to shield wire
height h
p
/h
m
= 0.75 and a reducing shielding angle with
transmission line height, as found for the typical overhead
transmission lines given in [42]. Notable differences in value
of SFR, up to 400 times, are observed among lightning
attachment models; Borghetti et al model [28] yields no
shielding failures for these typical lines, which is considered as
unrealistic. As line height increases, SFR
augments for
statistical and electrogeometric models [Figure 4a], remains
practically constant for Erikssons model [20] [Figure 4b], but
decreases for generic models [Figure 4b]. According to the
authors opinion, for typical overhead transmission lines it is
logical for SFR to increase with line height.
According to equation (1), the estimated SFR would be
higher the wider the W within the range of shielding failure
currents and the higher the I
MSF
of the line. Therefore, as can
be deduced from Figures 3 and 4, SFR is higher for those
electrometric models that yield comparatively shorter striking
distances to line conductors (smaller A and B in Table A) and
use a higher ratio of striking distance to line conductors over
striking distance to earth surface (bigger in Table A). In an
analogous way, SFR is higher for those generic models that
yield comparatively shorter attractive radii of line conductors
within the range of shielding failure currents (smaller , E, F,
and G in Table A). In addition, SFR is much more sensitive to
shielding angle and transmission line height variations for the
electrogeometric models, thus also for the IEEE Std [1], which
also generally yield the highest SFR values among models; the
latter is more marked for relatively big shielding angles
(Figure 3) and high overhead transmission lines (Figure 4).
These results can be attributed to the fact that in
electrogeometric models W is defined on the basis of striking
distance [Figure 1a] and by assuming the latter independent of
conductor height (Table A), which both result in a less
sensitive W to lightning crest current (Figure 2) and
transmission line geometry variations.
A great variability in SFR, thus also SFFOR, among
lightning attachment models is also evident in the results of
Figure 3. SFR variation with shielding angle. N
g
=1 strike/km
2
/yr.
Figure 4. SFR variation with shield wire height for typical overhead
transmission lines. h
p
/h
m
= 0.75; lightning crest current distribution suggested
in [42]; N
g
=1 strike/km
2
/yr.
2158 P. N. Mikropoulos and T. E. Tsovilis: Estimation of the Shielding Performance of Overhead Transmission Lines
Table 1, referring to the average height of 275 kV and 500 kV
transmission lines; tower geometries are shown in Figure 5. SFR
and SFFOR in Table 1 were calculated according to equations (1)
and (3), respectively, for N
g
= 1 strike/km
2
/yr, the lightning crest
current distribution suggested in [42] and by using values for the
critical shielding failure current I
c
9 kA and 12 kA for the 275 kV
and 500 kV lines, respectively.
From Table 1 it is obvious that all lightning attachment models
agree in predicting higher SFR for the upper phase conductors of
the double circuit 275 kV line, as a result of the shielding effect
provided to the lower phase conductors by, besides shield wire,
the higher phase conductors; this has also been shown for the 150
kV and 400 kV lines of the Hellenic transmission system in [40].
In addition, with the exception of Suzuki et al model [15] yielding
SFFOR for the middle phase conductors, as well as Borghetti et al
[28] and Cooray et al [30] models that yield zero SFFOR for the
upper phase conductors, all lightning attachment models predict
shielding failure flashovers only for the upper phase conductors.
This is in accordance with results obtained through computer
simulations with the aid of SigmaSlp and TFlash programs
[44]; however, the computed SFFOR values (~1.4
flashovers/100km/yr) are significantly higher than those
shown in Table 1. Nevertheless, the suggestion made in [44]
to install line arresters only at the upper phase conductors so
as to improve the lightning performance of the 275 kV
doublecircuit line as regards to shielding failure flashover, is
Figure 5. Transmission line towers of (a) 275 kV, CFO = 1646 kV [44], (b)
500 kV [32] BIL = 1550 kV. Shield wire and phase conductor sags: 6.7 m and
7.1 m for the 275 kV line, 9.5 m and 12 m for the 500 kV line.
Table 1. SFR and SFFOR of 275 kV and 500 kV lines (strikes/100 km/yr).
substantiated by the findings of Table 1. Also, for the 500 kV
line all lightning attachment models, with the only exception
of Suzuki et al model [15], yield zero SFFOR, in accordance
with field observations reported recently in [34].
3.2 EFFECT OF LIGHTNING CREST CURRENT
DISTRIBUTION
The estimated SFR of an overhead transmission line
according to equation (1) depends, besides lightning
attachment model, on lightning crest current distribution.
Table 2 shows statistical parameters of several lightning crest
current distributions reported in literature. Distributions No. 1
and No. 5 have been derived from field measurements in
Austria [45, 48] and Japan [47], respectively. Distribution No.
2, referring to strokes to flat ground [46], has been adopted by
IEEE Std 998 [49]. The IEEE Std 1243 [1] suggests for SFR
calculations the use of distribution No. 3; the latter and
distribution No. 4 are considered equivalent according to [43].
The lightning crest current distributions of Table 2 were
employed in equation (1) to demonstrate their effect on SFR of
typical transmission lines. Results are shown in Figures 6 and
7 for the electrogeometric model of IEEE Std [1], Erikssons
model [20], Rizks generic model [22] and statistical model.
SFR is significantly greater for lightning crest current
distributions with relatively low and big
ln
; this, depending
on overhead transmission line geometry and lightning
attachment model, is more pronounced for relatively low
height lines according to statistical [Figure 6d] and
electrogeometric [Figure 6a] models, whereas for higher lines
according to Erikssons [Figure 6b] and generic [Figure 6c]
models. Actually, SFR was found to vary markedly among the
lightning crest current distributions of Table 2. It is important
Table 2. Lightning crest current distribution parameters.
Figure 6. SFR versus shield wire height for typical overhead transmission.
lines. h
p
/h
m
= 0.75; N
g
=1 strike/km
2
/yr; curves (1)(5) are numbered according
to the lightning crest current distributions of Table 2.
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 19, No. 6; December 2012 2159
Figure 7. SFR of a 345 kV line for N
g
= 1 strike/km
2
/yr. Bars (1)(5) are
numbered according to the lightning crest current distributions of Table 2.
to note that distributions No. 3 and 4, although considered as
equivalent in [43], may yield significant differences in SFR
(Figures 6, 7); these were found greatest, up to 130 times, for
Young et al model [7] for relatively lowheight lines.
The pronounced effect of lightning crest current distribution
on SFR, thus also SFFOR, supports the argument that the use
of a globally uniform distribution, such as that suggested by
IEEE Std [1], may result in erroneous estimation of the
shielding performance of overhead transmission lines. This is
because lightning crest current distribution varies seasonally
and geographically [43] and, even more so, there is a general
concern that the lightning crest current distribution suggested
in [42, 43] is probably biased to higher values [24, 28, 46];
certainly there is a need for accurate measurement of lightning
current parameters on seasonal and geographical basis.
3.3 COMPARISON WITH FIELD DATA
Table 3 shows SFFOR results obtained by equation (3)
using the lightning crest current distribution suggested in [42],
for the overhead transmission lines with parameters listed in
Table 4. Table 3 also shows the reported SFFOR of these lines
given in [20] from [12]. From Table 3 it is obvious that for the
Table 4. Parameters of overhead lines [20] from [12].
lines No. 17 most of the lightning attachment models, with
the exception of models [15, 17, 29], generally agree in
yielding zero SFFOR, which is consistent with field data. For
the lines No. 812 most of the models, with the exception of
generic models [22, 28, 30], generally predict shielding failure
flashovers, in consistency with field observations; however,
the estimated SFFOR values are significantly lower than the
reported ones. Hence, it can be argued that the estimated
SFFOR, although being for most of the lightning attachment
models in qualitative agreement with field observations, is
quantitatively inconsistent with field data.
The large discrepancy between the estimated and reported
SFFOR of the overhead transmission lines in Table 3 can not
be explained by the fact that the same lightning crest current
distribution was employed in calculations for lines operating in
different geographical regions around the world [40]. It could
be rather attributed to the quality of field data, as discussed in
[18], and to the uncertainty in the causes of the observed line
lightning trip outs; the latter involve both shielding failure
flashovers and backflashovers as recognized by Whitehead
[12]. Therefore, the reported SFFOR in Table 3 should be
considered, at best, as upper limit. Certainly, more and reliable
field data is needed to validate lightning attachment models
with respect to shielding performance of transmission lines.
Table 3. Reported and estimated SFFOR (flashovers/100 km/yr) of overhead transmission lines for
g
= 4.02 strikes/km
2
/yr.
2160 P. N. Mikropoulos and T. E. Tsovilis: Estimation of the Shielding Performance of Overhead Transmission Lines
Field observations on lightning performance of largescale
overhead transmission lines in Japan have been recently
reported in [50]; field data were compared with estimated
results obtained by employing a new electrogeometric model
and a satisfactory consistency was found [50]. In a previous
study [51], a good agreement between the estimated and
actual lightning strikes to shield wires of the Japanese lines
was found for the Armstrong and Whitehead
electrogeometric model [8], Rizks generic model [22] and
for the statistical model. However, an application of the
present shielding analysis employing electrogeometric and
generic models yields results inconsistent with the field data
referring to the shielding performance of these lines, which
utilize negative shielding angles. Implementing the statistical
model in shielding analysis of largescale overhead
transmission lines, that is, following a statistical rather than a
conventional deterministic approach, may yield results
consistent with the field data. A detailed analysis dedicated
to the shielding performance of largescale transmission lines
is in progress.
4 ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES FOR
EVALUATING THE SHIELDING
PERFORMANCE OF TRANSMISSION LINES
4.1 ANDERSONS SIMPLIFIED METHOD
A simplified method for estimating SFFOR of overhead
transmission lines has been proposed by Anderson [17].
According to this method, instead of using (3) which
requires numerical integration, SFFOR can be estimated
simply as
( ) ( ) ( )
MSF
0.1
g c c
SFFOR N W I P I P I = (
(5)
where N
g
(strikes/km
2
/yr) is the ground flash density, W(I
c
)
is the shielding failure width for the minimum shielding
failure current causing flashover of line insulation, I
c
, and
I
MSF
is the maximum shielding failure current. In equation
(5) P(I) is the probability of lightning crest current being
greater than I, which is approximated for the lightning crest
current distribution suggested in [42] by the following
expression
( )
2.6
1
( )
1 31
P I
I
=
+
[17]. (6)
Figure 8 shows a comparison between SFFOR results
obtained according to equations (3) and (5); the
electrogeometric model of IEEE Std [1] and the lightning
crest current distribution suggested in [42] were employed
in these calculations. SFFOR varies with transmission line
height in a similar manner for both conventional [equation
(3)] and Andersons [equation (5)] method. However,
owing to the simplifications in equation (5) with respect to
equation (3), deviations in SFFOR between methods could
be significant, for example up 50% in Figure 8, depending
on transmission line parameters (geometry and insulation
level) and on the lightning crest current distribution and
lightning attachment model used in calculations. Hence,
Andersons method, although straightforward for
engineering applications, should not be considered, contrary
to Andersons [17] and Hilemans [52] suggestion, as
equivalent to the conventional method [equation (3)], but
should be rather used for a rough estimation of SFFOR of
overhead transmission lines.
Figure 8. Comparison between SFFOR results obtained by equations (3) and
(5) for typical overhead transmission lines. h
p
/h
m
= 0.75; N
g
= 1 strike/km
2
/yr.
4.2 ERIKSSONS AND CHINESE STANDARD
SIMPLIFIED METHODS
Eriksson [20] proposed a worst case simplified method, as
an alternative to the conventional shielding failure rate
calculation methodology presented in Section 2. SFR
(strikes/100 km/yr) and SFFOR (flashovers/100km/yr) are
expressed as a function of the rate of lightning strikes to
transmission line, N
s
(strikes/100 km/yr)
( )
0
MSF
I
s
SFR N f I dI =
}
(7)
( )
MSF
c
I
s
I
SFFOR N f I dI =
}
(8)
where I
c
(kA) is the minimum current causing flashover of line
insulation, I
MSF
(kA) is the maximum shielding failure current
and N
s
= 0.1N
g
(28h
0.6
+b), where h (m) is the line height and b
(m) the separation distance between shield wires.
In an analogous way to Erikssons method, the Chinese Std
[53] proposes a proportional relationship between SFR and N
s
,
similar to that derived based on field data in Russia [54], as
3.9
86
10
h
s
SFR N
o  


\ .
= (9)
where is the shielding angle (deg) and h (m) is the
transmission line height.
To evaluate Erikssons [equation (7)] and Chinese Std
[equation (9)] methods, Figure 9 shows the normalized SFR
with respect to N
s
, that is, the ratio of SFR to N
s
, as a function
of shield wire height for typical transmission lines. Figure 9
also shows the normalized SFR for the IEEE Std [1],
Armstrong and Whitehead electrogeometric model [8], Rizks
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 19, No. 6; December 2012 2161
generic model [22] and statistical model; SFR and N
s
were
calculated according to the conventional method (Section 2)
and lightning incidence calculations methodology presented in
[51], respectively. From Figure 9 it is evident that A. J.
Erikssons method yields normalized SFR values (~3%) which
are approximately 10 times bigger than those obtained by the
Chinese Std [53] and IEEE Std [1] methods and by the
lightning attachment models. Although in [20] Erikssons
method results were consistent with the reported SFFOR data
shown in Table 3, the normalized SFR values obtained by
Figure 9. Variation of normalized SFR with shield wire height for typical
overhead transmission lines. Lightning crest current distribution suggested in
[42]; h
p
/h
m
= 0.75.
Erikssons method in Figure 9 are certainly exceptionally big.
This, as also discussed in [55], can be attributed to the fact that
A. J. Erikssons method is based on the unrealistic assumption
that all lightning strokes with crest currents lower than I
MSF
are
terminating to the phase conductors. It also suggests that the
field data in Table 3 should be considered at best as upper
limit, as also noted in Section 3.3.
From Figure 9 it can also be seen that for typical overhead
transmission lines the normalized SFR according to the
Chinese Std method [53] decreases with shield wire height
being lower than 0.3%. It must be noted that the Chinese Std
method [53] is based on field data; however, equation (9) does
not consider the height of the phase conductors, as discussed in
[54], and more importantly the lightning crest current
distribution, which affects significantly both SFR (Section 3.2)
and, as shown in [51], N
s
.
The normalized SFR was found to vary significantly among
lightning attachment models. As can also be deduced from
Figure 9, generic models generally yield the lowest normalized
SFR, and predict a decreasing normalized SFR with shield
wire height in agreement with the Chinese Std method [53],
however in contrast with IEEE Std [1], statistical and
electrogeometric models. According to the authors opinion, it
is more realistic for normalized SFR to increase with line
height of typical transmission lines. Nevertheless, it is
important that, with the exception of Suzuki et al model [15],
all lightning attachment models yield a SFR/N
s
ratio lower
than 0.4% for typical transmission lines.
4.3 COMPUTER SIMULATIONS OF LIGHTNING
ATTACHMENT
Shielding performance of overhead transmission lines can be
evaluated with the aid of computer simulations of lightning
attachment. Studies [32, 34] report simulation results on
maximum shielding failure current and shielding failure rate of
a typical 500 kV overhead transmission line; tower geometry
is shown in Figure 5b. Figure 10 shows a comparison of the
simulation results on SFR normalized for N
g
= 1 strike/km
2
/yr
with those obtained by employing in shielding analysis several
lightning attachment models; the estimated SFR results in
Figures 10a and 10b refer to the average line height and were
obtained for the lightning crest current distributions reported in
[32] and [34], respectively.
The SFR computed through simulations in [34] is in
satisfactory agreement with that estimated on the basis of
electrogeometric models [Figure 10b]; the latter generally
yield the highest SFR among lightning attachment models.
However, there is inconsistency between the SFR values
obtained through computer simulations in [32] and [33] and
those yielded from lighting attachment models [Figure 10a];
the former are ~100 times in [32] and ~10 times in [33] bigger
Figure 10. Comparison of SFR obtained through computer simulations in
(a) [32, 33] and (b) [34] with that estimated according to different
lightning attachment models. 500 kV line shown in Figure 5b; N
g
= 1
strike/km
2
/yr.
2162 P. N. Mikropoulos and T. E. Tsovilis: Estimation of the Shielding Performance of Overhead Transmission Lines
Figure 11. Maximum shielding failure current of the 500 kV transmission line
shown in Figure 5b. Dashed line denotes the critical current I
c
.
than the latter, which are generally lower than 0.1
strikes/100km/yr. A possible reason for this discrepancy
could be an erroneous application of the probability density
function of the lightning crest current distribution in SFR
computations in [32] and [33]. Nevertheless, in [35]
computer simulations of lightning attachment for a 400 kV
line yielded SFR results consistent with that yielded by some
electrogeometric models.
The computer simulation approach for evaluating the
shielding performance of the 500 kV line is further assessed
in Figure 11, which shows a comparison among maximum
shielding failure current, I
MSF
, results referring to average
line height. Computer simulations [32, 33] and Suzuki et al
model [15] yield I
MSF
values higher than 12 kA, which is
the minimum shielding failure current causing flashover of
line insulation, I
c
, calculated from equation (4) according to
[1]. This together with the fact that the 500 kV line on flat
terrain does not experience shielding failure flashovers,
SFFOR = 0 according to field data [34], clearly indicate
that Suzuki et al model [15] and computer simulations of
lightning attachment in [32] and [33] underestimate the
shielding performance of the 500 kV overhead transmission
line.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The present work provides the means for the shielding
performance of overhead transmission lines to be
evaluated on the basis of different categories of lightning
attachment models. The effects of lightning attachment
model, transmission line parameters and lightning crest
current distribution on shielding failure rate, SFR, and
shielding failure flashover rate, SFFOR, of typical
transmission lines have been quantified. Alternative
approaches to the method recommended by IEEE Std 1243
for assessing the shielding performance of transmission
lines, including computer simulations of lightning
attachment, have been evaluated.
Through an application to typical overhead transmission
lines it has been shown that:
SFR varies within 400 times among lightning attachment
models. Electrogeometric models, thus also IEEE Std
1243, yield generally higher SFR and SFFOR than A. J.
Eriksons, statistical and generic models; this is more
pronounced for relatively big shielding angles and high
overhead transmission lines.
As line height increases, SFR augments for statistical and
electrogeometric models, remains practically constant for
A. J. Erikssons model, but contrary decreases for generic
models; the latter is considered as unrealistic.
SFR varies significantly among lightning crest current
distributions referring to different regions around the
world. Therefore, the use of a globally uniform
distribution, such as that suggested by IEEE Std 1243, may
result in erroneous estimation of SFR, thus also SFFOR.
There is a need for accurate measurement of lightning
current parameters on seasonal and geographical basis.
SFR and SFFOR are bigger for lightning crest current
distributions with relatively low median value; this is more
marked for relatively lowheight transmission lines
according to statistical and electrogeometric models, but
contrary for higher lines according to Erikssons and
generic models.
SFR varies notably, up to 130 times, among the lightning
crest current distributions suggested by IEEE Task Force
15.09 for engineering applications; this clearly suggests
that these distributions should not be considered as
equivalent for SFR estimation.
The estimated SFFOR of several overhead transmission
lines is generally in qualitative agreement but
quantitatively inconsistent with field data; it is lower than
the reported SFFOR in literature and can be attributed to
the quality of the field data. Certainly, more and reliable
field data is needed to validate lightning attachment
models with respect to shielding performance of
transmission lines.
Andersons method, although straightforward for
engineering applications, should not be considered as
equivalent to the methodology suggested by IEEE Std
1243, but should rather be used for a rough estimation of
SFFOR of overhead transmission lines.
Normalized SFR, that is, the ratio of SFR to the rate of
lightning strikes to overhead transmission line, is generally
lower than 0.4% for typical lines. A. J. Erikssons
simplified method yields exceptionally big normalized
SFR values (~3%); this is considered as unrealistic for
typical overhead transmission lines.
The SFR and maximum shielding failure current obtained
through computer simulations of lightning attachment, as
reported in literature for a 500 kV overhead transmission
line, are generally higher than that estimated by
implementing in shielding analysis several lightning
attachment models.
IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Vol. 19, No. 6; December 2012 2163
6 APPENDIX
Table A. General expressions for the evaluation of the shielding performance of overhead transmission lines; symbols are defined in Figure 1
REFERENCES
[1] IEEE Guide for improving the Lightning Performance of Transmission
Lines, IEEE Std. 12431997, 1997.
[2] IEC 600712, Insulation Coordination, 1996.
[3] J. Takami, S. Okabe, and E. Zaima, Study of lightning surge overvoltages
due to direct lightning strokes to phase conductors, IEEE Trans. Power
Del., Vol. 25, pp. 425433, 2010.
[4] P. N. Mikropoulos and T. E. Tsovilis, Lightning attachment models and
maximum shielding failure current of overhead transmission lines:
Implications in insulation coordination of substations, IET Gener. Transm.
Distrib., Vol.4, pp.12991313, 2010.
[5] R. H. Golde, Lightning Protection, London U.K., Academic Press, Vol. 2,
pp. 545564, 1977.
[6] C. F. Wagner and A. R. Hileman, The lightning strokeII, AIEE Trans.
Power App. Syst., Vol. 80, pp. 622642, 1961.
[7] F. S. Young, J. M. Clayton, and A. R. Hileman, Shielding of transmission
lines, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., Vol. S82, No. 4, pp. 132154, 1963.
[8] H. R. Armstrong and E. R. Whitehead, Field and analytical studies of
transmission line shielding, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., Vol. 87, pp.
270281, 1968.
[9] G. W. Brown and E. R. Whitehead, Field and analytical studies of
transmission line shieldingII, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., Vol. 88,
pp. 617626, 1969.
[10] E. R. Love, Improvements in Lightning Stroke Modeling and
Applications to Design of EHV and UHV Transmission Lines, M.Sc.
thesis, Univ. Colorado, Denver, CO, 1973.
[11] D. W. Gilman and E. R. Whitehead, The mechanism of lightning
flashover on highvoltage and extrahighvoltage transmission lines,
Electra, No. 27, pp. 6596, 1973.
[12] E. R. Whitehead, CIGRE survey of the lightning performance of EHV
transmission lines, Electra, No. 33, pp. 6389, 1974.
[13] L. D. Darveniza, F. Popolansky, and E. R. Whitehead, Lightning
protection of UHV lines, Electra, No. 41, pp. 3969, 1975.
[14] A. M. Mousa and K. D. Srivastava, Modelling of power lines in
lightning incidence calculations, IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 5, pp.
303310, 1981.
[15] T. Suzuki, K. Miyake and T. Shindo, Discharge path model in model
test of lightning strokes to tall mast, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst.,
Vol. 100, pp. 35533562, 1981.
[16] R. H. Golde, The frequency of occurrence and the distribution of lightning
flashes to transmission lines, AIEE Trans, Vol. 64, pp. 902910, 1945.
2164 P. N. Mikropoulos and T. E. Tsovilis: Estimation of the Shielding Performance of Overhead Transmission Lines
[17] J. G. Anderson, Transmission Line Reference Book 345 kV and Above,
2nd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, ch. 12., 1982.
[18] IEEE Working Group, A Simplified method for estimating lightning
performance of transmission lines, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., Vol.
104, pp. 919932, 1985.
[19] A. M. Mousa and K. D. Srivastava, A revised electrogeometric model
for the termination of lightning strokes on ground objects, Intl. Aerosp.
Ground Conf. Lightning and Static Electricity, Oklahoma City, OK,
USA, pp. 324352, 1988.
[20] A. J. Eriksson, An improved electrogeometric model for transmission
line shielding analysis, IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 2, pp. 871886,
1987.
[21] P. Chowdhuri and A. K. Kotapalli, Significant parameters in estimating
the striking distance of lightning strokes to overhead lines, IEEE Trans.
Power Del., Vol. 4, pp.19701981, 1989.
[22] F. A. M. Rizk, Modeling of transmission line exposure to direct
lightning strokes, IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 5, pp. 19831997,
1990.
[23] L. Dellera and E. Garbagnati, Lightning stroke simulation by means of
the leader progression model, IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 5, pp.
20092029, 1990.
[24] F. A. M. Rizk, Modeling of lightning incidence to tall structures, IEEE
Trans. Power Del., Vol. 9, pp. 162193, 1994.
[25] N. I. Petrov and R. T. Waters, Determination of the striking distance of
lightning to earthed structures, Proc. R. Soc., London A, Vol. 450, pp.
589601, 1995.
[26] N. I. Petrov, G. Petrova, and R. T. Waters, Determination of attractive
area and collection volume of earthed structures, 25th Intl. Conf.
Lightning Protection, Rhodes, Greece, pp. 374379, 2000.
[27] X. Yuan, Investigation on the Striking Distance of Lightning Strokes to
Overhead Lines, Ph.D. dissertation, Tennessee Technological Univ.,
Cookeville, TN,USA, 2001.
[28] A. Borghetti, C. A. Nucci, and M. Paolone, Estimation of the statistical
distributions of lightning current parameters at ground level from the
data recorded by instrumented towers, IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol.
19, pp. 14001409, 2004.
[29] S. AitAmar and G. Berger, A modified version of the rolling sphere
method, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 16, pp. 718725,
2009.
[30] V. Cooray and M. Becerra, Attractive radius and the volume of
protection of vertical and horizontal conductors evaluated using a self
consistent leader inception and propagation model SLIM, 30th Intl.
Conf. Lightning Protection, Cagliari, Italy, paper No. 1062, 2010.
[31] R. T. Waters, Lightning phenomena and protection systems, Advances
in High Voltage Engineering, M. Haddad and D. Warne, Eds. IEE Power
& Energy series 40, pp. 107114, 2004.
[32] J. He, Y. Tu, R. Zeng, J. B. Lee, S. H. Chang, and Z. Guan, Numeral
analysis model for shielding failure of transmission line under lightning
stroke, IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 20, pp. 815822, 2005.
[33] B. Vahidi, M. Yahyaabadi, M. R. B. Tavakoli, and S. M. Ahadi, Leader
progression analysis model for shielding failure computation by using
the charge simulation method, IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 23, pp.
22012206, 2008.
[34] B. Wei, Z. Fu, and H. Yuan Analysis of lightning shielding failure for 500
kV overhead transmission lines based on an improved leader progression
model, IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 24, pp. 14331440, 2009.
[35] M. R. B. Tavakoli and B. Vahidi, Transmissionlines shielding failure
rate calculation by means of 3D leader progression models, IEEE
Trans. Power Del., Vol. 26, pp. 507516, 2011.
[36] P. N. Mikropoulos and T. E. Tsovilis, Striking distance and interception
probability, IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 23, pp. 15711580, 2008.
[37] P. N. Mikropoulos and T. E. Tsovilis, Interception probability and
shielding against lightning, IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 24, pp. 863
873, 2009.
[38] P. N. Mikropoulos and T. E. Tsovilis, Interception probability and
proximity effects: Implications in shielding design against lightning,
IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 25, pp. 19401951, 2010.
[39] P. N. Mikropoulos and T. E. Tsovilis, Lightning attachment models and
perfect shielding angle of transmission lines, 44th Universities Power
Engineering Conference, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, paper 203, pp. 15,
2009.
[40] P. N. Mikropoulos and T. E. Tsovilis, Interception probability and
shielding performance of overhead transmission lines, 30th Intl Conf.
Lightning Protection, Cagliari, Italy, paper No. 1274, 2010.
[41] P. N. Mikropoulos, T. E. Tsovilis, and D. E. Zlitidis, Software
development for the evaluation of the shielding performance of overhead
transmission lines, 45th Universities Power Engineering Conference,
Cardiff, Wales, UK, paper No. 84, 2010.
[42] CIGRE Working Group 33.01, Guide to procedures for estimating the
lightning performance of transmission lines, Tech. Bul. 63, 1991.
[43] Lightning and Insulator Subcommittee of the T&D Committee,
Parameters of lightning strokes: A review, IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
Vol. 20, pp. 346358, 2005.
[44] R. Bhattarai, R. Rashedin, S. Venkatesan, A. Haddad, H. Griffiths, and
N. Harid Lightning performance of 275 kV transmission lines, 43rd
Universities Power Engineering Conference, Padova, Italy, paper 138,
pp. 15, 2008.
[45] G. Diendorfer, Lightning properties derived from lightning location
systems and tower measurements, invited talk at the 9th Intl Conf. on
Electromagnetic Interference and Compatibility, Banglore, India, pp. 1
5, 2006.
[46] A. M. Mousa and K. D. Srivastava, The Implications of the
electrogeometric model regarding the effect of height of structure on the
median amplitude of collected lightning strokes, IEEE Trans. Power
Del., Vol. 4, pp. 14501460, 1989.
[47] J. Takami and S. Okabe, Observational results of lightning current on
transmission towers, IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 22, pp. 547556,
2007.
[48] W. Schulz, K. Cummins, G. Diendorfer, and M. Dorninger, Cloudto
ground lightning in Austria: A 10year study using data from a lightning
location system, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 110, D09101, DOI:
10.1029/2004JD005332, 2005.
[49] IEEE Guide for Direct Lightning Stroke Shielding of Substations, IEEE
Standard 998, 1996.
[50] S. Taniguchi, T. Tsuboi, S. Okabe, Y. Nagaraki, J. Takami, and H. Ota,
Improved method of calculating lightning stroke rate to largesized
transmission lines based on electric geometry model, IEEE Trans.
Dielectr. Electr. Insul., Vol. 17, pp. 5362, 2010.
[51] P. N. Mikropoulos and T. E. Tsovilis, Estimation of lightning incidence
to overhead transmission lines, IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 25, pp.
18551865, 2010.
[52] A. R. Hileman, Shielding of Transmission Lines, Insulation
Coordination for Power Systems, Boca Raton, FL,USA, CRC Press,
Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 241265, 1999.
[53] Chinese Standard of Design Technology for Overvoltage Protection of
Power Apparatus, SDJ779.
[54] M. Bazelyan and Yu. P. Raizer, Lightning attraction by objects,
Lightning Physics and Lighting Protection, U.K., Institute of Physics
Publishing, pp. 251252, 2000.
[55] A. M. Mousa and K. D. Srivastava, Discussion of [20].
Pantelis N. Mikropoulos (M06SM10) was born in
Kavala, Greece in 1967. He received the M.Eng. and
Ph.D. degrees in electrical and computer engineering
from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTh),
Thessaloniki, Greece, in 1991 and 1995, respectively.
He held postdoctoral positions at AUTh and the
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. He was
Senior Engineer with Public Power Corporation SA,
Athens, Greece. In 2003 he was elected Assistant
Professor and in 2010 Associate Professor in High Voltage Engineering at
AUTh. Since 2005 he has been the Director of the High Voltage Laboratory at
AUTh. His research interests include the broad area of highvoltage
engineering with emphasis given to air and surface discharges, electric
breakdown, lightning protection and insulation coordination for power
systems.
Thomas E. Tsovilis (S09M11) was born in
Piraeus, Greece in 1983. He received the M.Eng. and
Ph.D. degrees in electrical and computer engineering
from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTh),
Thessaloniki, Greece, in 2005 and 2010, respectively.
He collaborates, as a Research Associate, with the
High Voltage Laboratory of AUTh, and since 2012 he
has been working, as R&D Manager of the Electrical
Protection Systems division, for Raycap Corporation.
His research interests include lightning protection and
insulation coordination for power systems.
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.