1
Tower Modeling for Lightning Analysis of
Overhead Transmission Lines
Juan A. Martinez, Member, IEEE, and Ferley Castro-Aranda, Student Member, IEEE
Abstract—A sensitivity study of the lightning flashover rate of
transmission lines is presented in this paper. The study is aimed
at analyzing the influence of the tower model on the flashover
rate derived from the application of a time-domain Monte Carlo
procedure. The main conclusion from the simulation results
presented in this paper is that the selected tower model can
significantly affect the flashover rate and its influence will
increase with the tower height.
Index Terms—Transmission Lines, Lightning Overvoltages,
Insulation Coordination, Modeling, Simulation.
I. INTRODUCTION
M odeling for simulation of lightning overvoltages is a
very difficult task. Although modern simulation tools,
e.g. EMTP-like programs, allow users to implement very
advanced models and reproduce transients very accurately,
there is no full agreement on the most adequate representation
for those parts of an overhead transmission line involved in
lightning overvoltages. Due to the nature of the physical
phenomena caused by lightning, an extremely complicated
model would be needed to obtain accurate enough results. The
experience has proved that some simplified models can be
used to represent some parts of the line in many cases; e.g. a
constant distributed-parameter representation of line
conductors will usually suffice in these studies [1]. On the
other hand, the random nature of lightning adds some
uncertainties (e.g. no two lightning strokes are the same [2]),
which makes difficult the validation of models using actual
lightning records.
One of the transmission line parts whose influence can be
significant is the tower. As pointed out in a recent publication
[3], the response of a tower is an electromagnetic problem,
although its study is usually relied on a circuit approach, i.e.
the tower is represented by means of one or several line/surge
impedance sections that are assembled taking into account the
tower structure [4] – [11].
The various models proposed to date for representing the
tower response to a lightning stroke can be categorized in
several ways, see [3] and [12]. Basically, two approaches
have been applied: models have been derived from
experimental results or from theoretical studies. Two
important aspects mentioned in [3] are the different
Juan A. Martinez and Ferley Castro-Aranda are with the Departament
d’Enginyeria Elèctrica, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 08028 Barcelona,
Spain.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA. Downloaded on August 12, 2009 at 09:51 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
definitions on which the calculation of the surge impedance is
based and the different waveshapes used to represent the
injected current.
This paper presents the main results of a study aimed at
analyzing the influence of the tower representation on the
lightning flashover rate of overhead transmission lines.
Several approaches were selected to represent a tower.
Section II provides a summary of modeling guidelines for
lightning simulations using a time-domain simulation tools,
i.e. an EMTP-like program. A review of tower models is
presented in Section III. The main principles of the Monte
Carlo procedure used to obtain flashover rates are
summarized in Section IV. The configuration of the test lines
and the main simulation results derived with the various tower
models used in this paper are presented in Section V.
II. MODELING GUIDELINES
Modeling guidelines used in this work are summarized
below [1], [13].
• The transmission line is represented by several multi-phase
untransposed distributed parameter line spans at both sides
of the point of impact. This representation is made by
using either a constant-parameter model, whose parameters
are calculated at 500 kHz.
• A line termination is needed at each side of the above
model to prevent reflections. In this work, this is achieved
by adding a long enough section at each side.
• Footing impedance modeling is one of the most critical
aspects. The option chosen in this work is a nonlinear
resistance RT given by
Ro
RT = (1)
1+ I / I g
being Ro the footing resistance at low current and low
frequency, Ig the limiting current to initiate sufficient soil
ionization, I the stroke current through the resistance. The
limiting current is given by
E ρ
Ig = o 2 (2)
2πRo
where ρ is the soil resistivity (ohm-m) and E0 is the soil
ionization gradient (400 kV/m).
• The representation of insulator strings is based on the
leader progression model. When the applied voltage
exceeds the corona inception voltage, streamers propagate
along the insulator string; if the voltage remains high
enough, these streamers will become a leader channel. A
 2

flashover occurs when the leader crosses the gap between III. TOWER MODELING. A REVIEW
the cross-arm and the conductor. The total time to Although the lightning response of a transmission line
flashover can be expressed as follows tower is an electromagnetic phenomenon, the representation
tt = tc + ts + tl (3) of a tower is usually made in circuit terms. There are some
where tc is the corona inception time, ts is the streamer pro- reasons to support this approach: such representation can be
pagation time and tl is the leader propagation time. Usually implemented in general purpose simulation tools, e.g. EMTP-
tc is neglected, while ts is calculated as follows like programs, and it is easy to understand by the practical
E50 engineer.
ts = (4)
1.25E − 0.95E50 Several tower models have been developed over the years,
where E50 is the average gradient at the critical flashover they were developed using a theoretical approach [4], [5], [9]
voltage and E is the maximum gradient in the gap before - [11] or based on an experimental work [8]. The simplest
breakdown. The leader propagation time, tl, can be obtain- representation is a lossless distributed-parameter transmission
ned from the following equation line, characterized by a surge impedance and a travel time.
The first models were deduced by assuming a vertical
dl ⎡ V (t ) ⎤
= klV (t ) ⎢ − El 0 ⎥ (5) leader channel that hits at the tower top. In fact, the response
dt ⎣ g − l ⎦ of a tower is different to horizontal stroke currents (the return
where V(t) is the voltage across the gap, g is the gap length, stroke hits somewhere in midspan) from the response to
l is the leader length, El0 is the critical leader inception vertical stroke currents (the return stroke hits at the tower
gradient, and kl is a leader coefficient. The leader propaga- top). In addition, the surge impedance of the tower varies as
tion stops if the gradient in the unbridged part of the gap the wave travels from top to ground. To cope with this
falls below El0. behavior, some corrections have been introduced into the first
• Phase voltages at the instant at which the lightning stroke models and more complicated models have been developed:
impacts the line must be included. For statistical calcula- they are based on non-uniform transmission lines, [14], [15],
tions, they are deduced by randomly determining the phase or on a combination of lumped and distributed-parameter
voltage reference angle and considering a uniform circuit elements [8] – [11]. The latter approach is also
distribution between 0º and 360º. motivated by the fact that in many cases it is important to
• The lightning stroke is represented as a current source. Fig. obtain the lightning overvoltages across insulators located at
1 shows the concave waveform chosen in this work, it is different heights above ground; this is particularly important
the so-called Heidler model. when two or more transmission lines with different voltage
Lightning stroke parameters are assumed independently levels are sharing the same tower.
distributed, being their statistical behavior approximated by In this paper only constant-parameter line models are
a log-normal distribution, with the following probability analyzed.
density function [2] Basically, the models based on a constant-parameter circuit
⎡ 2⎤ representation can be classified into three groups: they were
1 ⎛ ln x − ln xm ⎞
p( x) = exp⎢− 0.5⎜⎜ ⎟ ⎥ (6) deduced by representing the tower as a single vertical lossless
2π xσ ln x ⎢ ⎝ σ ln x ⎟⎠ ⎥
line, a multiconductor vertical line or a multistory model. A
⎣ ⎦
where σlnx is the standard deviation of lnx, and xm is the short summary of each approach is provided below.
median value of x. a) Single vertical lossless line models
The first models were developed by using electromagnetic
kA
field theory, representing the tower by means of simple
I100 IP
geometric forms, and assuming a vertical stroke to the
I90 tower top. Wagner and Hileman used a cylindrical model
and concluded that the tower impedance varies as the
wave travels down to ground [4]. Sargent and Darveniza
used a conical model and suggested a modified form for
I50 the cylindrical model [5]. Chisholm et al. proposed a
modified equation for the above models in front of a
horizontal stroke current and recommended a new model
I30
for waisted towers [7]. This latter model was
recommended by CIGRE [13], although the version
presently implemented in the Flash program is a modified
t30 t90 th time one [12]. The other models have been also implemented in
Fig. 1. Parameters of a return stroke – Concave waveform (I100 = the Flash program [16].
peak current magnitude, tf (= 1.67(t90 – t30))= rise time, th = tail time). Although the surge propagation velocity along tower
elements can be assumed that of the light, the multiple

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA. Downloaded on August 12, 2009 at 09:51 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 3

paths of the lattice structure and the cross-arms introduce DT1 rT1
some time delays; consequently the time for a complete
r1 ZT1
reflection from ground is longer than that obtained from a
DT2 rT2
travel time whose value is the tower height divided by the
speed of light. Therefore, the propagation velocity in the r2 ZT2
DT3 rT3
above models was reduced to include these effects in the
tower response. r3 ZT3
DT4 rT4
b) Multiconductor vertical line models
Each segment of the tower between cross-arms is repre- h1 h2 h3 h4
sented as a multiconductor vertical line, which can be r4 ZT4
reduced to a single conductor. The tower model is then a
single-phase line whose section increases from top to
ground, as shown in Fig. 2. This representation has been D’B
analyzed in several references [9] - [11]. rB
DB
A modified model was presented in [10] which included
the effect of bracings (represented by lossless lines in Fig. 2. Multiconductor vertical line model.
parallel to the main legs) and cross-arms (represented as DT1 rT1 ZA1
lossless line branched at junction points), being the final
representation that shown in Fig. 3. ZT1 ZL1
c) Multistory model DT2 rT2 ZA2
It is composed of four sections that represent the tower ZT2 ZL2
sections between cross-arms. Each section consists of a DT3 rT3 ZA3
lossless line in series with a parallel R-L circuit, included
ZT3 ZL3
for attenuation of the traveling waves, see Fig. 4. DT4 rT4 ZA4
The parameters of this model were deduced from experi-
h1 h2 h3 h4
mental results. The values of the parameters, and the
model itself, have been revised in more recent years [17]. ZT4 ZL4
The approach was originally developed for representing
towers of UHV transmission lines. A study presented in
[18] concluded that it is not adequate for representing D’B
towers of lower voltage transmission lines; according to DB rB
this study, the tower model for shorter towers can be
Fig. 3. Multiconductor vertical line model, including bracings and
simpler than that assumed by the multistory model, i.e.
cross-arms.
four lossless lines with a smaller surge impedance would
suffice. In any case, the propagation velocity is that of the r1
light. ZT1,h1,vt
For more details on models and parameter calculations the h1 R1 L1
reader is referred to the original papers.
Note that the overvoltages that can be obtained by means ZT2,h2,vt
of digital simulation when the simplest models are used h2 R2 L2
should be the same between terminals of all insulator strings,
since these models do not distinguish between line phases. In ZT3,h3,vt
fact, some differences will result due to the different coupling h3
R3 L3
between the shield wires and the phase conductors located at
different heights above ground. ZT4,h4,vt
r2 R4 L4
IV. MONTE CARLO PROCEDURE
The following paragraphs detail the most important aspects
h4
of the procedure developed for the calculation of the lightning
flashover rates of transmission lines [19].
a) The calculation of random values includes the parameters
of the lightning stroke (peak current magnitude, rise time,
tail time, and location of the leader channel), phase r3
conductor voltages, the footing resistance and the insulator
strength. Fig. 4. Multistory model.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA. Downloaded on August 12, 2009 at 09:51 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 4

b) The last step of a return stroke is determined by means of TABLE I

CHARACTERISTICS OF WIRES AND CONDUCTORS
the electrogeometric model, using the approach suggested
in IEEE Std. 1243 [16]. Type Diameter Resistance
c) Overvoltage calculations are performed once the point of (mm) (Ω/km)
impact has been determined. Overvoltages caused by Phase conductors CURLEW 31.63 0.05501
nearby strokes to ground are not simulated, since their Shield wires 94S 12.60 0.642
effect can be neglected for transmission insulation levels.
d) If a flashover occurs in an insulator string, the counter is 10 m
increased and the flashover rate updated.
e) The convergence of the Monte Carlo method is checked by
comparing the probability density function of all random
variables to their theoretical functions; the procedure is 14.05 m 40 cm
stopped when they match within the specified error. 31.25m
(21.25m)
10 m 10 m
V. SIMULATION RESULTS A B C 26.1m
5.1m (14.1m)
A. Test Lines
Fig. 5 shows the tower design of the lines tested in this 22.5m
(10.5m)
paper. Main characteristics of phase conductors and shield 17.2 m
wires are presented in Table I.
B. Transmission Line and Lightning Parameters
A model of the test line was created using ATP capabilities
and following the guidelines summarized in Section II. 7.164 m
• The lines were represented by means of eight 400-m spans
a) Test line 1
plus a 30-km section as line termination at each side of the
point of impact. 17 m

• The parameters used in the insulator equations were kl, = 2.2 m

1.3E-6 m2/(V2s) and El0, = 570 (kV/m). The value of the

average gradient at the critical flashover voltage, E50, was
A1 C2
assumed to be the same that El0. The striking distance of 13 m
insulator strings was 3.212 m. 40 cm
15.6 m
• Only negative polarity and single stroke flashes were
considered. B1 B2
16 m
The following probability distributions were assumed for
44.1 m
each random value: (34.1 m)
• The phase conductor reference angle had a uniform 2.2 m
37.6 m
C1 A2
distribution, between 0 and 360 degrees. 13.6 m
(25.6 m)

• A Weibull distribution was assumed for parameter El0, 29.8 m

(17.8 m)
which must be specified in the insulator equation. The
22 m
mean values are those mentioned above, while the standard (10 m)
deviation was 5%. 25.5m
• A normal distribution was assumed for the footing
resistance, being the mean value of the resistance at low
current and low frequency 50 Ω and the standard deviation
5 Ω. The soil resistivity was 500 ohm-m.
• The stroke location, before the application of the electro-
geometric model, was generated by assuming a vertical 6.212 m
path and a uniform ground distribution of the leader.
b) Test line 2
No flashovers other than those across insulator strings, e.g.
flashovers between conductors, have been considered. Fig. 5. 400 kV line configurations (Values within parenthesis are
midspan heights).
C. Simulation Results
[12], the model proposed by CIGRE [13], the multi-
The following models were used with each test line: conductor model presented in [10], and the multistory
• Towers of the test line 1 were represented using the twisted model [8], being the parameters in this latter model calcu-
model presently implemented in the FLASH program [16], lated according to the equations presented in [10] and [18].

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA. Downloaded on August 12, 2009 at 09:51 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 5

• Towers of the test line 2 were represented using the 0

CIGRE model, the conical model implemented in the -2 0

FLASH program, the multiconductor model presented in
-4 0

Current (kA)
[10], and the multistory model, whose parameters were
calculated again according to [10] and [18]. -6 0

A first study was performed to analyze the results that can -8 0

be obtained with each tower model. The simulations were
-1 0 0
made without including insulator strings in the line model, i.e.
they were represented as open switches. Fig. 6 shows some 2500
W a is t
results derived with the two test lines; these plots depict the M u lt is t o r y
2000

Voltage (kV)
overvoltages caused by two different return strokes across the M u l ti c o n d u c t o r

insulator strings of the outer phase of first test line tower and 1500

an upper phase of the second test line, respectively. One can

1000
observe that the calculated overvoltages can be very different
when the return stroke waveshape has a very short rise time, 500
being the differences derived with slow fronted waveshapes T e s t L in e 1
4000
much smaller. On the other hand, the phase at which the
C o n ic a l
higher overvoltages will be caused depends on the tower M u lt is t o r y
3000
model for a configuration such as that of the test line 1, while M u l ti c o n d u c t o r

Voltage (kV)
it will be always the upper phase for double-circuits.
2000
The second study was aimed at deducing the flashover rate
that could be obtained with each tower model and each test
1000
line by varying the median values of the peak current
T e s t L in e 2
magnitude and the rise time of the return stroke current. In all
0
cases the median value of the tail time was 77.5 µs, while the 0 1 2 3
T im e ( µ s )
values of the standard deviation for each parameter of the
a) Imax = 120 kA, tf = 0.8 µs, th = 77.5 µs
return stroke waveshape, see Fig. 1, were as follows [2]: peak
0
current magnitude (I100), 0.740 kA; rise time (tf), 0.494 µs; tail
time (th), 0.577 µs. Fig. 7 and 8 show the flashover rates that -2 0

were derived with some tower models. The rates were

-4 0
Current (kA)

obtained per 100 km/year and assuming Ng = 1 fl/km2. The

trend of the flashover rate is the same with all of them: it -6 0

increases with the peak current magnitude, but it decreases as -8 0

the median value of the rise time increases. As for the
-1 0 0
differences between models, they could be predicted from the
depicted results: the highest and the lowest rates are derived 1200
W a is t
from the multistory and the multiconductor models, 1000 M u l ti s t o r y

respectively. Only when the median values of the peak current M u ltic o n d u c to r

magnitude and the rise time are below 20 kA and above 3 µs,
800
Voltage (kV)

respectively, the rates obtained with different models are very 600

similar. 400

200
VI. CONCLUSIONS T e s t L in e 1

A statistical study of the lightning flashover rate of trans- 1500

C o n ic a l
mission lines was made. The main goal was to analyze the 1200 M u l ti s t o r y

influence that some tower models can have on the flashover M u ltic o n d u c to r
Voltage (kV)

rate. Two test lines were used in calculations. The main con- 900

clusions derived from simulation results were that the tower 600
representation can have a significant influence on the
flashover rate, but this influence depends on the line 300
T e s t L in e 2
configuration and the tower heights: the taller the tower the 0
0 3 6 9 12 15
greater the differences obtained with different tower models. T im e ( µ s )
Some care is advisable when selecting the model and calcula-
ting its parameters, although these aspects are less critical b) Imax = 120 kA, tf = 5 µs, th = 77.5 µs
when tower structures are about or less than 30 meters. Fig. 6. Tower model performance (R0 = 50 Ω, ρ = 500 Ω.m).

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA. Downloaded on August 12, 2009 at 09:51 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 6

2 .5 VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
C IG R E
2 .0 W aist
The second author wants to express his gratitude to the
M ultico ndu ctor Universidad del Valle (Cali, Colombia) for the support
Flashover rate

1 .5 M ultistory received during the preparation of his Ph.D.

1 .0 VIII. REFERENCES
0 .5
[1] IEEE TF on Fast Front Transients (A. Imece, Chairman), “Modeling
guidelines for fast transients,” IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 11,
no. 1, pp. 493-506, January 1996.
0 .0
[2] IEEE TF on Parameters of Lightning Strokes, “Parameters of lightning
10 20 30 40 50
strokes: A review,” to be published in IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery.
P e a k c u rre n t m a g n itu d e (k A ) [3] L. Grcev and F. Rachidi, “On tower impedance for transient analysis,”
IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1238-1244, July 2004.
a) Test line 1 [4] C.F. Wagner and A.R. Hileman, “A new approach to the calculation of the
5 .0 lightning performance of transmission lines – Part III,” AIEEE Trans. Part
III, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 589-603, October 1960.
C IG R E [5] M.A. Sargent and M. Darveniza, “Tower surge impedance,” IEEE Trans.
4 .0 C on ic al on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 680-687, May 1969.
Flashover rate

M ultic ond uc to r
[6] W.A. Chisholm, Y.L. Chow and K.D. Srivastava, “Lightning surge
3 .0 M ultis to ry
response of transmission towers,” IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and
Systems, vol. 102, no. 9, pp. 3232-3242, September 1983.
2 .0
[7] W.A. Chisholm, Y.L. Chow and K.D. Srivastava, “Travel time of
transmission towers,” IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol.
1 .0 104, no. 10, pp. 2922-2928, October 1985.
[8] M. Ishii et al., “Multistory transmission tower model for lightning surge
0 .0 analysis,” IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1327-1335,
10 20 30 40 50 July 1991.
P e ak cu r re n t m ag n itu d e (k A ) [9] A. Ametani et al., “Frequency-dependent impedance of vertical conductors
and a multiconductor tower model,” IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib.,
b) Test line 2 vol. 141, no. 4, pp. 339-345, July 1994.
[10] T. Hara and O. Yamamoto, “Modelling of a transmission tower for
Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysis: Flashover rate vs. peak current magnitude lightning surge analysis,” IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 143,
(tf = 2 µs, th = 77.5 µs, Ng = 1 fl/km2). no. 3, pp. 283-289, May 1996.
[11] J.A. Gutierrez et al., “Nonuniform transmission tower model for lightning
1 .4
transient studies,” IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 19, no. 2, pp.
1 .2 C IG R E 490-496, April 2004.
W a is t [12] Y. Baba and M. Ishii, “Numerical electromagnetic field analysis on
1 .0
measuring methods of tower surge response,” IEEE Trans. on Power
Flashover rate

M u ltic o n d u c to r

0 .8
M u ltis to ry Delivery, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 630-635, April 1999.
[13] CIGRE WG 33-01, “Guide to Procedures for Estimating the Lightning
0 .6
Performance of Transmission Lines,” CIGRE Brochure 63, 1991.
0 .4 [14] M.E. Almeida and M.T. Correia de Barros, “Tower modelling for light-
ning surge analysis using Electro-Magnetic Transients Program,” IEE
0 .2
Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 141, no. 6, pp. 637-639, Nov. 1994.
0 .0 [15] C. Menemenlis and Z.T. Chun, “Wave propagation of nonuniform lines,”
1 2 3 4 5 IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 833-
839, April 1982.
R ise tim e (µs )
[16] IEEE Std 1243-1997, “IEEE Guide for improving the lightning
a) Test line 1 performance of transmission lines,” 1997.
[17] Y. Baba and M. Ishii, “Numerical electromagnetic field analysis on
3 .5 lightning surge response of tower with shield wire,” IEEE Trans. on
3 .0 C IG R E Power Delivery, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1010-1015, July 2000.
C o n ica l [18] T. Ito et al., “Lightning flashover on 77-kV systems: Observed voltage
2 .5 bias effects and analysis,” IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 18, no. 2,
Flashover rate

M u ltico n d u cto r

2 .0
M u ltisto ry pp. 545-550, April 2003.
[19] J.A. Martinez and F. Castro-Aranda, “Lightning performance analysis of
1 .5 overhead transmission lines using the EMTP,” submitted for publication in
1 .0
IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery.

0 .5 IX. BIOGRAPHIES
Juan A. Martinez was born in Barcelona (Spain). He is Profesor Titular at the
0 .0
1 2 3 4 5
Departament d'Enginyeria Elèctrica of the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. His
teaching and research interests include Transmission and Distribution, Power System
R ise tim e (µs )
Analysis and EMTP applications.
b) Test line 2 Ferley Castro-Aranda was born in Tuluà (Colombia). He is Profesor Asociado
at the Universidad del Valle. He is currently pursuing his Ph.D. degree at the
Fig. 8. Sensitivity analysis: Flashover rate vs. rise time (I100 = 34 kA, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. His research interests are focused on the
th = 77.5 µs, Ng = 1 fl/km2). areas of Insulation Coordination and System Modeling for Transient Analysis
using EMTP.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA. Downloaded on August 12, 2009 at 09:51 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.