Revisiting Lightning Protection Trends In The Electric Utility Industry In The Dawn Of The New Millennium

Francisco de la Rosa, Senior Member, IEEE

UANL, FIME San Nicolfis de 10s Gana, N.L.

C r o Tirado Ruiz, Member, IEEE als

Instituto Tecnol6gico de la Laguna Torreh,Coah. Mexico

Mexico

Abstract. We revisit some of the most significant aspects on lightning protection of transmission lines, trying to ascertain the fundamental concerns. We examine the concepts that were first involved in the definition of structure attractiveness.W then have a e glance at the different Electro Geometrical (EGM) models and at how they evolved into more sophisticatedmodels that try to explain the connection process between downward and upward streamers to complete the lightning discharge. We review recent literature to see the tendency on lightning protection of transmission lines in the new millennium.
Keywords: Lightning protection, transmission lines, metal oxide

Nevertheless, a question is often raised: To what extent can the experimental lightning data fiom elevated towers be extrapolated to structures of lower heights, like transmission and distribution installations? Also, since current practice advocates for structure designs with smaller shielding angles, the question remains on what is the ideal structure design that will minimize shielding failures or particular applications. We then realize about the necessity to review improved models that can take into consideration the upward leader inception that develops from .multiple points on earth and that creates the final path of the approaching downward leader.
So, tower geometry, terrain profile, nearby elevated objects, etc. are parameters that will be more and more involved when we try to defining the point to where the final jump of the downward leader will be established. Also, when we look at the leader inception theory we realize that the phenomenon is unquestionably charge-driven. This imposes the need to find a reliable relation of this parameter with lightning peak current - that we have been more familiar with - when performing shielding failure analysis.

surge arresters,leader progression, leader inception.

I. INTRODUCTION
The physical phenomenon that takes place during a cloud-toground lightning discharge is certainly so complex that no theory has ully explained the intricate process that involves the transfer of cloud-based charge through several stages, that end with the interception of the downward leader with one of several competing upward streamers. The aim of this document is to portray the most significant approaches to the problem from the perspective of transmission line lightning protection. We do not intend to make a comprehensive review of every model that has been presented to study the incidence of lightning to power lines. We believe that the different Electro Geometric Models (EGM) proposed in the past have provided much valuable insight into the understanding of the shielding failure mechanism. Also, observations of lightning strikes to instrumented towers have allowed us to get a hold of valuable lightning field data that have established the basis for improved engineering applications. Resultant lightning peak current distributions have made possible Monte Carlo - type studies to estimate the lightning performance of power lines and stations

We believe that leader inception models have to be implemented so that more accurate exposure areas in transmission lines can be identified. This will allow a proper handling of charge effects and electric field enhancement by structure geometry. Also, the influence that factors such as structure height and terrain topography may have on modifying the attractive radius of phase conductors, will be more appropriately handled. These efforts will definitely contribute to optimizing the transmission line structure designs, namely their shielding angles, to attain an improved shielding against direct strokes. Finally, by looking at recent experimental observations and assisted by some analytical calculations, we can recognize a definite trend for protection of transmission lines with Metal Oxide Surge Arresters, We can, however, distinguish a number of questions for which we find no satisfactory answer and that will undoubtedly require of M e r clarification: a) How to choose the right protection scheme of surge arresters in multiple circuit lines.

0-7803-6420-1/00/$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE

2583

Is there a difference in surge arrester protection requirements for shielded and unshielded lines?. We believe the latter can require of additional energy dissipation considerations or the adoption of tailored grounding resistance schemes that will allow the even distribution of lightning currents to ground through multiple trajectories. Is there a recommended cost-effective procedure for grounding transmission towers in high resistivity terrain? This will become particularly important for the protection of isolated towers. Is the issue of energy dissipated through surge arresters by the passage of multiple strokes of lightning fully resolved? How has the idea on an equivalent single pulse test current progressed? Is there a real difference on performance, lifetime, failure rate, etc. between different transmission line surge arresters designs, namely gapped, gapless (and maybe soon built-in types)? Need for regional GFD data along transmission line corridors to better establish where arrester protection is really justified.
1 .ANALYSIS OF ATTRACTlVENESS OF FREE1 STANDING STRUCTURESTO LIGHTNING STROKES

and with the stroke current distributions assumed, as illustrated by Mousa and Srivastava [7]. Here we will only mention that in 1985 IEEE [6] adopted the following equation to describe striking distances to transmission lines:

r, = 1 0 rg = 0.9rs

, where r, is the striking distance to the conductor in m r, is the striking distance of the ground in m and Io is the lightning peakument in kA.

c) Leader inception models

In 1987 Eriksson [8]presented a description of a simplified model that in summary brings up again the leader charge concept first discussed by Golde in (1). In it, an electric field enhancement factor defined by structure shape and the attainment of a critical field intensity at the structure extremity as a criterion for the initiation of an upward leader, were the m i aspects considered. an
The outcome of this work was that generalized relationships between attractive radius and structure heights could be established as a fimction of prospective stroke current. However, it was found that the collection volumes of the structures were also a h c t i o n of the specific value of the leader charge. The expression that relates attractive radius as a function of structure height, for the range of common line structures, is reported in [8], as follows:

a) Pioneering work On the assumption that a leader charge of l C would be equivalent to a typical lightning current, Golde [l] proposed in 1945 that the attractive radius Ra of a free-standing structure could, on average, be describedby:

where H is the structure height.

This early suggestion is in reality one of the basic assumptions Franklin rods relied on to establish their protective area. This also shaped the basis for relating the am-active radius to the amount of charge that is associated with the downward leader channel. The original assumption of assigning a value of 20 kA to a typical lightning current was later changed to 35 kA [2] following some experimental observations in Switzerland [3] and elsewhere [4]. This also suggested that the attractive radius could extend beyond 2 times the structure height [ 5 ] .

Ra =

.0.84H0.6

(4)

For a median peak current value of 35 U, this relation closely follows the trend of equivalent attractive radius observed for a large number of practical structures and described in [8]:

Ra = 16.6H0.

(5)

for which the following expression that combined both, the analytical approach and the experimental observations was suggested in [8]:

b) Electro Geometricalmodel (EGM)

A great deal of effort has been devoted to relate the attractive radius, here referred to as the striking distance, to the magnitude of the lightning peak current. We will not describe every model since all of them make use of different constants, however they all share a common objective. Maybe the most significant differences between the several EGM models have to do with the consideration of verticallyapproaching or stroke-angle-distribution downward leaders

Later in 1990 Dellera and Garbagnati [9] proposed a more complex leader progression model. They worked out a refined representation of all parameters involved in the progression of the negative downward channels and in the inception and propagation of positive upward streamers from earthed structures.
To represent the upward leader, this model makes use of

0-7B03-6420-11001$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE

25 84

parameters obtained from laboratory experiments involving large gaps subjected to long front type of surges, like those typical of switching phenomena. The reason for this is that the electric fields developed during the tests around earthed structures have been observed to be of similar characteristics to those occurring during the propagation of downward leaders in the real event [9]. The definition of the transition from corona to leader involves the use of a critical radius of the earthed electrode, from which it is supposed that an upward leader can develop. The model further analyzes the development of divergent fields on spherical and cylindrical symmetry. The charge in the channel of the downward leader is simulated in the model using laboratory observations on the amount of charge required to sustain the leader propagation through the air
0
0

III. SOME MODEL COMPARISONS

The models of equations (2-3) (6) expressed in terms of and number of flashes to a transmission line can be, respectively, expressed as [SI:

N = 0.004Td1.35(b4N1.09) + N = 0.004Td'*25(b+ 28H0'6)

(8)
(9)

where: number of flashes to a the line per 100 km per year N= number of thunderstorm days per year in the line Td= vicinity the horizontal spacing between the shield wires in m b= average height of the shield wires in m H= If we make a brief check, we can realize that the deviation between the predictions of the two expressions (8) and (9), will, to a great extent, depend on the value assigned to Td. For example, for a Td of 30, they show their closest agreement for H in the region 25-30m, showing differences beyond 20 % for heights larger than 40 m.

SOpClm for positive leaders 100 pC/m for negative leaders

that according to [9] are consistent with the values of charge associated with the smallest peak lightning current in negative first strokes. For larger values of current the following expression derived from experimental evidence is used to determine charge and current relationship:
= 0.0761.68

[C], with I in l ~ 4

(7)

The charge per unit length of the channel can be determined from (7) considering the height of the cloud base for the particular case under study. The model also uses a function that defines leader velocity as function of height, as observed from laboratory experiments and field observations. Therefore, for negative downward leaders a ratio between the velocity of downward and upward leaders is assumed as 4:1 at the inception of the upward leader and as 1:l just before the connection of the two Ieaders. The leader extension is defined based on laboratory observations that place the needed field strength somewhere around 3 kVIcm. Finally the direction of the leader propagation, also determined fiom laboratory observations, is basically related to the field pattern and the model just relates it to the direction of maximum gradient, along an equipotential line at a distance from the leader tip equal to the leader extension. The model does not take tortuosity of the channel into account.

In terms of number of strikes to the line, the DelleraGarbagnati leader progression model predicts a number of strikes to a line 30-40 % lower than predicted by the less sophisticated model of equation (6) for lines on flat terrain [lo]. The advantage of this model really resides in its capability to accounting for orographical changes along the line path. It can for example, reveal the increased exposure of that circuit on a double circuit line lying at the downhill side of the slope for a line built along a mountain.

IV.ANALYTICAL ESTIMATIONS OF LIGHTNING

INCIDENCE TO TRANSMISSION LINES To further illustrate the differences expected to be found from the different EGM models, Monte Carlo simulation was used to determine the lightning frequency to a transmission lines via a computational program. The EGM model allows us to take into account the random nature of lightning by choosing the peak current value from statistical distributions. Then, for every simulated cloud-to-ground flash event, we can determine the contact point as: ground plane, shield wires or phase conductors. Calculations that involve line parameter data (surge impedance, CFO, footing resistance, etc.) help us determine the voltage across the insulators strings and decide whether backflashover occurs. This leads to the determination of line outage index.
We analyzed a 115 kV transmission line in Southem Mexico [ll] to compare with experimental observations. All line towers are the same construction, with three arms at each side for holding the phase conductors and with two shield wires that

0-7803-6420-1/00/$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE

2585

provide a shielding angle of less than 15 degrees to the outerm.ost conductor (central). The phase conductor configuration at every side of the tower thus looks quasi vertical. The total line height is 29m, and the separation between ground wires is 8m. Table '[ shows the number of flashes to the line obtained with the program using two different EGM models, and also compared w t simplified equations (8) and (9). A moderate ih lightning incidence equivalent to a Td of 40-thunderstorm days level was considered. This was determined from ground flash density measurements along the line path.
TABLE 1.- Number of flashes to the line for different formulations

grounding resistance values around 15 SZ, but could not precise the values for all towers on solid rock.

V.LIGHTNING PROTECTION TRENDS.

By reviewing recent reports and technical literature on lightning protection of power transmission lines, we came to observe some interesting tendencies. What we found is that the more common alternatives considered to improving the lightning performance of transmission lines with a high incidence of lightning failures are:

r Model used Eq. (8) - IEEE simplified methd

I No.of flashes 1
to line 96 88 70 62

Eh. (9) - Erikssa's e m s s i o n M i & Carlo. IEEE &M I Monte Carlo, Love EGM ( I 1 2 ~ , ' =8 )

1. Increasing insulation level [12,131 2. Improving grounding resistance vaIues by using counterpoises, to decrease the backflashover rate [12,13,14] 3. Raising the overhead shield wire [141 4. Adding a second overhead shield wire[ 141 5. Installation of arresters in all phases and all towers [ 12,14,15] 6. Installation of arresters in some towers at selected phases [I 1, 16,17,18]
And the referred experiences are only a part of those that are underway 1191. What seems to be clear is that fiom economical considerations [14,181, the line arrester option appears to be the optimal choice among the severa1 alternatives considered. The industry also seems to be getting ready to establish the energy requirements for the massive usage of line arresters in the immediate future [20,21,22] At this point we would like to illustrate with the same transmission line example as above the effect to providing surge arrester protection at an isolated transmission tower. This is done by using ATP-EMTP sofbvare. We looked at arrester protection to one or two phases (the effect of threephase protection is obvious), and at the influence of tower footing resistance. The transmission line is represented with a multiphase model, with conductors and shield wire accurately modeled. Fig. 2 illustrates that a number of towers adjacent to that where lighting was supposed to strike were also modeled (actually 5 to each side). The line beyond the last tower was represented with a matrix of self and mutual impedances representing a surge impedance termination. The span length considered was 350 m.

To illustrate the effect of grounding resistance, Fig. 1 shows the number of outages for this line as a function of the tower footing resistance. The IEEE model was used for these calculations.
I

I
I

I I

I
1

20

40

80

80

100

Tower footing resisbnce,n

Figure 1. Calculated outage index as a function of tower footing resistance

As a reference, the eight-year average number of lightningcaused outages for the 111 km line was 13/100 M y [ll]. This corresponds to a 25 C tower resistance value i figure 1, 2 n that could well be considered as an average value since a portion of the line crossed over the mountainous chain Sierra Madre del Sur. Utility reports showed that most towers had
0-7803-6420-1/00/$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE

1
T3 T4 15 T6 T7 Fig. 2. Representation of the Transmission Line

2586

Several simulations were performed considering different stroke currents injected at tower T5. Surge arresters were simulated only at T5 to observe their efficacy in avoiding insulation flashover at this and at adjacent towers. The footing resistance considered in these simulations was 15 Q. Table I1 summarizes the results obtained from different simulations for a stroke current of 90 kA injected at tower T5.The occurrence of insulation flashover at different towers is shown in the table.
Table 11. Line performance for different protection schemes. Arresters in tower T5 only.

When arresters are installed at every tower, the grounding requirements will be different and so small resistance values may not be needed. VI. NEED FOR LOCAL LIGHTNING PARAMETERS DATA ALONG L W PATHS What has to be also acknowledged is the need for better lightning data along existing or future transmission line comdors. Utilities serving in countries where lightning location systems (LLS)are commissioned should get hold of lightning data and plan their transmission line designs and/or upgrades with this parameter at hand. Countries where this possibility does not exist should make use of simplified methods to estimate the exposure of power transmission lines in terms of the number of thunderstorm days per year in the line region. Much in the same way as it was used in equations (8) and (9) of this paper. Actually, the most of important parameter to estimate the incidence of lightning to power lines or to other utility assets is the ground flash density. If there is no LLS data available, According to [ 3 ,this can be determined as a function of the 2] number of thunderstorm days per year (Td) as follows:

I Case
No arresters
r,L__;mxrnise

I TowerT3 I
Flashover in: Phase 73
..I

_.._

IArrester Phase B I Arrester Phase C I 1Arrester Phases A.B I A,B

I I

Arrester Phases A$ I Arrester Phases B,C 1

TowerT4 I TowerT5 Flashover in: Flashover in: Phases B, C Phase C Phase C hase C PhaseC I PhaseT PhasesB.C I PhaseW PhaseY) Phase C I Phase% Phase C

I 1

From this, we can learn that by installing surge arresters to an isolated tower, we can avoid backflashovers for the analyzed line configuration only if at least phases A and C (top and bottom) or B and C (center and bottom) are protected with surge arresters. Influence o footing resistance f Footing resistance is a very important parameter regarding the lightning performance of transmission lines. In this example we also show results of simulations varying the value of the footing resistance from 10 to 100 R in all the towers. Table III presents the results for a stroke current of 90 kA injected at tower T5.

Ng = 0.04Td.25 flashesh2/year
VII. CONCLUDING REMARKS

(10)

RatT3,T4
I on

RatT5
Io n . 30n 100 n
~~

Location
arresters (T5)

A,BC

300 100 R 100 R

A;BF ABF
ABF A.BC

200 n 10 R

10 n 10 n

10 n

A,C
A,C
A,C

30 R
100 n

30 R
10

of Flashover occurrence None Towers 3,4 Towers 3,4 None None . None Towers 5,4,3 None

The present review makes a description of the evolution of the models to determine the lightning exposure of transmission lines to lightning strokes. The leader inception model provides a mechanism to better understand the final stage of the discharge. This can be used to refine the estimation of lightning strokes to lines considering the influence of orographical factors along the line paths. From the several alternatives under consideration to improve the lightning performance of transmission lines, the one we perceive wt the highest potential for application in the short ih term is the installation of line arresters, either at all phases and all towers or at selected towers and phases. To better estimate the incidence of lightning and more appropriately design the lightning protection scheme, we advise to look for better and improved lightning data along transmission line comdors and around other utility assets.

Note that in this particular case where arrester protection is provided only at one tower, a low grounding resistance value is required to avoid insulation flashovers. Actually a good performance is observed even if the adjacent towers are kept with high resistance values. The reason for this is that the current is diverted to ground mostly through the arrester at tower T5 when it is grounded with 10 R or less.

W I . REFERENCES
[ I ] Golde, R.H., The frequency of occurrence and the distribution of lightning flashes t transmission lines, AlEE Trans., Vol 64 1, pp 902o 910,1945

0-7803-6420-1/00/$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE

2587

[2] Golde, R.H., Lightning performance of high voltage systems, Trans. SAIEE, Vol60, Pt 12, December 1969 [3] Berger, K., The Earth Flash, Lightning, Vol. 1, Chapter 5, Academic Press, London, 1977, Edited by R.H. Golde. [4] Popolansky, F.. Frequency distribution of frequencies of lightning currents, Electra No. 22, pp. 139-146,1972 [SI Golde, R.H., The lightning conductor, Lightning, Vol 2, Chapter 17, Academic Press, London, 1977, Edited by R.H. Golde [6] IEEE Working Group on Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines, A simplified method for estimating the lightning performance of transmission lines, IEEE Trans. PAS-104. pp 919-932, April. 1985 [7] Mousa, M. A and Srivastava,K.D., Discussion to paper: [8] [8] Eriksson, A.J.. The incidence of lightning strikes to power. lines, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, PWRD-2, No. 3,1987 [9] Dellera, L, and Garbagnati, E, Lightning stroke simulation by means of the leader progression model. Part I: Description of the model and evaluation of exposure of free-standing structures, Part 11: exposure and shielding failure evaluation of overhead lines with assessment of application graphs, IEEE Trans, 1990, PWRSJ, (4), ppp2009-2029. [IO] C:IGRE Report 63, 1991, Guide to procedures for estimating the lightning performance of transmission lines [ l l ] D la Rosa, F. and Velkquez, R, Application of MOSA in T&D e systems in Mexico 1996 IEEE T&D Conference hceedings,pp 248254, Los Angeles, Califomia, Sept. 25-20 [I21 Short, T., Warren, C.A., Burke, J.J., Bums, C.W., Godlewski, J.R, Graydon, F., Morosini, H., Application of Surge Arresters to a 115 kV circuit, 1996 IEEE T&D Conference Proceedings, pp 276-282, Los Angeles, Califomia, Sept. 25-20 [I31 Tarasiewicz, E., J., Analysis of lightning outage reduction versus cost for overvoltage protection of transmission lines, CIGRE lntemational Colloquium on lnsulation Coordination, Paper 33-3.2, Sept 2-3, 1997, Toronto, Canada [I41 Babik, J, and Lamb,M., Virgina Powers use of polymer housed surge arresters to protect 138 kV transmission lines, 1996 IEEE T&D Conference Proceedings, pp 282-287, Los Angeles, Califomia, Sept. 2520 [I51 Yamada, T., Narita, T., Ota, H., Saito, K., Zaima, E., Ohashi, T., Hirako, H., Field experience of line arresters in TEPCO, Paper 33-3.1, CIGRE lntemational Colloquium on Insulation Coordination, Sept. 2-3, 1997, Toronto, Canada [I61 Icastrup, O., Nigri, A., Maldonado, P , Campones do Brasil, D. 0 . . . Mareira, F.A., Zanetta, L.C.. Lightning performance assesmeat with line arresters, 1996 IEEE T&D Conference Proceedings, pp 288-293 Los Angeles, Califomia, Sept. 25-20

[17] Kundu,D., An approach t reducing lightning outages on 44 kV and o 27.6 kV Subtransmission circuits using line surge arresters, C E R E lntemational Colloquium on Insulation Coordination, Paper 33-3.3, Sept. 2-3,1997, Tomnto, Canada [18] Esmeraldo, P.C.V., Considerations about the use of line surge arresters, CIGRE Intemational Colloquium on Insulation Coordination, Paper 33-3.5, Sept. 2-3, 1997, Toronto, Canada [19] Schei, A., Kawamura, T., Cherchiglia, L.C.L., Comber, M.G., De la Rosa, F., Gaunt, C.T., Kobayashi, M., Michaud, J., Stenstrom, L., Volcker, O., Application of metal oxide surge arresters to overhead lines, Report of CIGRE WG33.11 TF3., Electra 186,1999. [20] Biml, D.S., Hirany, A., Clairmont, B.A., Requirements for transmission line surge arresters, CIGRE lntemational Colloquium on Insulation Coordination,Paper 33-3.6, Sept. 2-3,1997, Toronto, Canada [21] Stenstrom, L., Required energy capability based on total flash charge for a transmission line arrester for protection of a compact 420 kV line for Swedish conditions, CIGRE Intemational Colloquium on Insulation Coordination,Paper 33-3.8, Sept. 2-3,1997, Toronto, Canada [22]Kobayashi, M.,Energy absorption characteristics of gapless arresters for overhead transmission line, CIGRE Intemational Colloquium on Insulation Coordination,Paper 33-3.10, Sept. 2-3,1997. Toronto, Canada [23]Anderson, RB., and Eriksson, A.J., Lightning parameters for engineeringapplications, Electra No. 69, pp. 65-102, March, 1980.

IX.BIOGRAPHIES
Francisco de la Rosa obtained a Ph. D. on Electrical Engineering from Uppsala University in 1985. He has worked in research, academic and consultant activities in Mexico, the U.S.A. and Latin America for over 20 years. He has been a member of several CIGRE Working Groups, 33.11 Insulation Coordination and 33.01 Lightning, where he acts as the Convener since 1987 He is an IEEE Senior Member and has contributed for several years in IEEE WG on Lightning Performance of Distribution Lines.

Carlos Tirado obtained a M. Sc. on Electrical Engineering from lnstituto Tecnolbgico de La Laguna, Mexico in 1985. He has worked in academic and research activities. His fields of interest include digital simulation of transients and lightning protection. Actually he is a doctoral student at Instituto Tecnolbgico de La Laguna. He is an IEEE Member. He is also a member of CIGRE-Mexico, participating in the Lightningworking group.

0-7803-6420-1/00/$10.00 ( c ) 2000 IEEE

2588