Methodologies for evaluating the lightning

performance of transmission lines

Methodologies pour levaluation du comportement
de lignes de transport face la foudre


by

M. T. Correia de Barros, J. Festas, H. Milheiras, N. Felizardo (IST - Universidade Tcnica de
Lisboa / Instituto da Energia - INTERG), M. Fernandes (REN - Rede Elctrica Nacional), J.
Sousa (LABELEC)



Abstract - A significant number of faults in overhead transmission lines is due to lightning. Digital
simulation has a very important role on predicting the lightning performance of transmission and
distribution lines.
The stochastic nature of the lightning current characteristic parameters, as well as of its own, led
to the development of probabilistic methods for predicting lightning performance. Different
methodologies have been developed and recommended by organizations like IEEE and CIGR.
In the present paper a comparative study of the different methodologies is presented. The
computer program DESCARGA was developed at IST/INTERG based on CIGR
recommended practices. Results obtained with this program for different transmission lines are
compared with those obtained by FLASH, a program developed by IEEE.



Resum - Un nombre significatif des dfauts dans les lignes de transmission sont d'origine
atmosphrique. La simulation numrique joue un rle important dans l'estimation du taux
de dfaillance d la foudre des lignes de transport et de distribution.
La nature stochastique du phnomne ainsi que les paramtres du courant de foudre sont
l'origine du dveloppement des mthodes probabilistes qui permettent d'estimer le taux de
dfaillance. Diffrentes mthodes ont t recommandes et dveloppes par des
organisations comme l'IEEE et la CIGRE.
Ce document prsente une tude comparative des diffrentes mthodes. Un logiciel,
Descarga, bas sur les recommandations de la CIGRE a t dvelopp l'IST/INTERG.
Les rsultats obtenus avec celui ci sont compars ceux obtenus avec le logiciel FLASH
dvelopp l'IEEE.
1. Introduction

A significant number of the faults on overhead transmission lines are due to lightning. Lightning
faults may be single or multiphase, and their elimination causes reclosing cycles, voltage dips and
outages. Therefore, the outage rate of a line and the quality of the delivered voltage depend on the
lightning performance of the line.
A computer program for predicting the number of lightning faults on a transmission line is an
important tool for establishing line design practices and choosing the adequate lightning
performance techniques.
Many procedures have been presented over the years with the aim of predicting the lightning
performance of transmission lines. In many cases, such procedures have been based on
simplifications and assumptions which are proved later to be inaccurate or incomplete, leading to
estimations far from the experienced lightning performances.
Modern understanding about lightning phenomena and lightning attraction mechanisms allowed to
develop methods for estimating the lightning performance of overhead lines which avoid such an
empiricism. The work by Anderson [5] was pioneer with this respect
More recently, international pre-normative institutions, such as IEEE and CIGR, have paid a
great interest to the subject, and extensive overview work was developed by working groups
where the most knowledgeable experts were present. This work led to guidelines for estimating
the lightning performance of transmission lines which are internationally accepted.
The work done by the IEEE working group is based on the work done by Anderson [5] and
includes several versions of a computer program, FLASH. This program estimates the lightning
performance of a given line using the procedures exposed in [1] and [2] depending on the version
of the program.
The procedures developed by the CIGR working group are exposed in [3]. Based on these
procedures a computer program that also estimates the lightning performance of transmission
lines, DESCARGA, was developed at IST/INTERG [9].
The present paper is written with the aim of doing a comparative study between both, FLASH
and DESCARGA, programs. For this purpose, the performance of seven transmission lines is
estimated using both programs. The lines were chosen so that they would cover different voltage
levels, different geometries and different keraunic level regions.


2. Line exposure to lightning

How often an overhead transmission line is likely to be struck by lightning must be known to
assess its lightning performance. For this purpose, the first step is to characterize the lightning
activity in the region crossed by the line. This activity is characterized directly the ground flash
density N
g
(number of flashes to ground per square kilometer per year). This parameter is
measured by the lightning location and measurement systems, and, when local measurements are
not available, is evaluated either from the thunderstorm day, T
d
(average number of days per year
on which thunder is heard), or by thunderstorm hour, T
h
(average number of hours per year on
which thunder is heard).
Both FLASH and DESCARGA programs include the ground flash density according to:
T 04 . 0 N
25 . 1
d g

(1)
and FLASH also allows lightning activity to be described by the thunderstorm hour:

,
_

,
_

25 . 1
1
1 . 1
h
g
04 . 0
T 054 . 0
N
(2)

The second step for evaluating the lightning performance of an overhead line is to evaluate the
number of lightning strokes that hit the line, this is the exposure of the line to lightning, which is a
function of the line geometry. Version 1.6 of FLASH uses the equation:

) b h
av
4 (
10
N
N
09 . 1 g
l
+
(3)

where h
av
is the average height of the line and b the width. This IEEE guideline was modified, and
FLASH version 1.7 uses the same equation as recommended by CIGR:

) b h 28 (
10
N
N
6 . 0 g
l
+
(4)

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
15 25 35 45 55
h (m)
N
l
Flash 1.6
Descarga


Fig. 1 - Influence of the parameter h on the lightning incidence to a line (Td = 15; b = 0). Comparison between
the results given by equations equations (3) and (4), considering an average sag of 7 m.

Although using at present the same equation, the two programs do not give exactly the same
results. Indeed, the input parameter h required by both programs has different meanings: the
tower height according to CIGR and the height of the upper conductor at the tower for FLASH.


3. Characterization of the lightning discharge

The lightning discharge current is defined by its shape and characteristic parameters. Given the
random nature of lightning, the parameters identifying each stroke follow probabilistic laws which
have to be considered.
IEEE guidelines consider a triangular shape (fig. 2), and the characteristic times of lightning
currents are considered constant (2 s /50 s). The current amplitude follow a probabilistic law
given by the cumulative probability of exceeding the amplitude I:

P
I
I

+

_
,

1
1
31
2 6 .

(5)

where I is given in kA.

t
f
I
[
kA
]
t [s]
A
1
A
2


Fig. 2 - Lightning current shape, according to IEEE guidelines.
This triangular shape is implemented in FLASH.

CIGR guidelines considered a concave front current (fig. 3).

I
10
I 30
I
90
I
100
S
10
S
30
t
30
t
30
I
[
kA
]
T
[
s
]


Fig. 3 - Lightning current shape, according to CIGR guidelines.
This concave front shape is implemented in DESCARGA.

The characteristic parameters of lightning currents follow a log-normal distribution which
probability density is given by:

f x
x
e
z
( )
( )
/
( / )

1
2
1 2
2
2


(6)
where:

z
x M

ln( / )

(7)
The probability density parameters for each current parameter is given in Table I [3].

Table I - Parameters of log-normal distribution for the lightning current, according to CIGR [3].


Parameter First stroke. Subsequent strokes.
M M
Front (s)
t
d30
= T
30
/ 0.6

3.83

0.553

0.67

1.013
Steepness (kA/s)
S
m
, Maximum
S
30/90
, 30 - 90 %

24.3
7.2

0.599
0.622

39.9
20.1

0.852
0.967
Crest Current (kA)
I
I
, Initial
I
F
, Final
Initial/Final

27.7
31.1
0.9

0.461
0.484
0.230

11.8
12.3
0.9

0.530
0.530
0.207
Tail (s)
t
h


77.5

0.577

30.2

0.933
Charge (C)
Q
I


4.65

0.882

0.938

0.882
i
2
dt (kA
2
.s) 0.057 1.373 0.0055 1.366
Interval between strokes
(ms)

35

1.066

Given equations (5) and (6), the cumulative probabilities characteristic of the lightning current
amplitude, according to IEEE and CIGR, are compared in fig. 4. The different values assumed
to characterize the log-normal distribution in the backflash and shielding failure ranges were
considered.

0.001
10.001
20.001
30.001
40.001
50.001
60.001
70.001
80.001
90.001
100.001
0 100 200
Ip [kA]
P
(
I
)

%
Descarga (SFR range)
Descarga (BFR range)
Flash 1.7


Fig. 4 - Cumulative probability of the lightning current exceeding the amplitude I, according to IEEE and CIGR
guidelines.


4. Modeling of the system components

4.1 Tower surge response model

FLASH program allows to consider different types of the tower geometry, and the tower surge
impedance is evaluated accordingly (see Annex).
CIGR guidelines, independently from the tower configuration, suggests that the surge impedance
equation corresponding to a type 4 tower (see Appendix) is used. However, the identification of
the tower geometry parameters is somehow meaningless. Therefore, a typical surge impedance
value of 150 is considered in DESCARGA.

4.2 Tower footing resistance

The tower footing behavior is characterized by a lumped resistance in both methodologies. This
resistance is constant according to IEEE guidelines, while in CIGR the effect of soil ionization is
taken into account. The decrease of the tower footing resistance when the lightning current
amplitude exceeds a critical value I
g
is given by:

g
0
i
I
I
1
R
R
+
(8)

where R
0
is the low current footing resistance (non-ionized soil) and the critical value of the
lightning current is given by the soil ionization threshold field E
g
using the equation:

2
0
g
g
R 2
E
I


(9)

4.3 Transmission line modeling

The main difference between the lightning performance evaluation procedures implemented in
FLASH and DESCARGA, as regards the transmission line modeling, is related to corona. This
effect is not taken into account in DESCARGA, while it affects the wave impedance of the
ground wires in the FLASH program. However, experience shows that this does not significantly
affect the computation results.

4.4 Evaluation of insulator overvoltages

In the computation of the voltage at each insulator string following a lightning stroke, the current
wave reflections at adjacent towers and tower footing is taken into account. In FLASH the
insulator overvoltage is evaluated and compared to the insulator flashover voltage at two fixed
time instants only (2 and 6 s), while the complete wave shape is computed in DESCARGA.

4.5 Evaluation of insulator flashover voltage

A voltage-time curve is considered by IEEE to evaluate the flashover of the insulator strings:

V
t
W
D
+

_
,
400
710
0 75 .

(10)
where V
D
is the flashover voltage in kV, t is the time to flashover in s and W is the insulator
string length in m.

CIGR suggests the use of a leader propagation model:

1
]
1

.
o L
E
x
u(t)
u(t). K = ) t ( v

(11)

where v(t) is the leader velocity, u(t) is the voltage applied to the insulator string, Eo is the electric
field needed to begin the leader taken as 585 kV/m, x is the length of air and K
L
is a constant
taken as 7.875x10
-7
.


5. Evaluation of line performance

5.1 Shielding failure

The phase conductors exposure to lightning is evaluated using an electrogeometric model, the
striking distance being:

b
I A S (12)

where I is the lightning current amplitude and A, b are the model parameters. IEEE and CIGR
adopt different values for these parameters and also for the lightning stroke direction, which is
always vertical in FLASH, while can have any direction in DESCARGA.
According to CIGR guidelines parameter A is considered dependent on the stroke object height
(line or ground):

74 . 0 6 . 0
I h 67 . 0 S (13)

According to IEEE the striking distance to the line is given by:

65 . 0
I 10 S (14)

while the striking distance to ground is dependent on the line conductors height:

S S
soil

(15)

where

c
h
22
(16)

Results in fig. 5 show the difference between the calculation methods, and how it is influenced by
the tower height.

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0.5 5.5 10.5 15.5 20.5
Ip [kA]
S

[
m
]
DESCARGA
FLASH
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)


Fig. 5 - Striking distance of lightning to line.
In the case of program DESCARGA, five different heights were considered:
(a) h=50 m, (b) h=40 m, (c) h=30 m, (d) h=20 m and (e) h=10 m.

In DESCARGA, the shielding failure flashover rate is computed using the equation:

max
c
I
I
S g
dI ) I ( f X N 2 SFFOR (17)

where X
S
defines the phase conductor exposure to lightning, which is dependent on the lightning
current amplitude I. I
max
is the amplitude of the current for which X
S
=0 and I
c
corresponds to the
minimum overvoltage able to flash the insulators. The probability f(I) is evaluated according to (6).
In FLASH, the influence of the lightning current amplitude in the phase conductor exposure is not
taken into account, an average value
~
X
S
being considered. The following equation is used:

[ ]
mx crit
I I
S
_
g
P P X N 2 SFFOR (18)

where probabilities P
I
are evaluated according to equation (5).

5.2 Backflashover

In DESCARGA, the backflashover rate is computed using the equation:

( ) dI I f N BFR
C
I
l

(19)

where I
c
is the minimum current that leads to insulator backflash in the phase conductor showing
the lowest coupling with the shield wire, according to the system component models previously
referred and considering that the system voltage at the striking time is 80% of the nominal voltage.

The backflashover rate in FLASH is computed according to the equation:

NC
1 i
i i l
) P t ( N BFR
(20)

where NC is the number of phase conductors and t
i
is the period of time in which each phase is
dominant. This concept is related to the system voltage at the different phases when lightning
strikes, as well as the different coupling factors between each phase and the shield wire. P
i
is the
probability of the lightning current exceeding a backflashover critical value. This is evaluated with
respect to each phase, according to the system component models previously described and
taking into account the phase shift between the sinusoidal voltages and the different coupling
factors between each phase and the shield wire.


6. Results

In this section, the results of the lightning performance of seven overhead transmission lines from
the Portuguese transmission system, covering voltage levels from 60 kV to 400 kV, different line
configurations and keraunic levels (fig. 6), are presented.
The results computed by the programs FLASH (version 1.7) and DESCARGA are compared
and the differences explained according to the models used by each method.

Line-1
U
N
= 60 kV
h = 18.8 m
b = 0 m
T
d
= 15 day/year
U
N
= 60 kV
h = 18.8 m
b = 0 m
T
d
= 15 day/year

Line-2
U
N
= 150 kV
h = 27.2 m
b = 9.6 m
T
d
= 7 day/year

Line-3
U
N
= 150 kV
h = 32 m
b = 8.5 m
T
d
= 7 day/year


Line-4
U
N
= 220 kV
h = 36.3 m
b = 12.8 m
T
d
= 10 day/year

Line-5
U
N
= 220 kV
h = 48.6 m
b = 0 m
T
d
= 16 day/year

Line-6
U
N
= 400 kV
h = 52.5 m
b = 12 m
T
d
= 8 day/year


Line-7
U
N
= 400 kV
h = 35.6 m
b = 16 m
T
d
= 5 day/year

Fig. 6 - Line configurations.

As mentioned previously, the lightning performance of an overhead line depends on the ground
flash density of the region and on the incidence of lightning strikes to a l ine. Therefore, the
calculation of both factors are shown, comparing the results from FLASH and DESCARGA
obtained for the seven lines previously chosen.

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Line-1 Line-2 Line-3 Line-4 Line-5 Line-6 Line-7
Lines
N
g

(
f
l
a
s
h
/
k
m
2
/
y
e
a
r
)
Descarga
Flash 1.7


Fig. 7 - Ground flash density

From figure 7 it can be seen that the values computed by the FLASH and DESCARGA for the
ground flash density are the same in all cases considered.
This is so because both programs use the same model for the evaluation of this parameter.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Line-1 Line-2 Line-3 Line-4 Line-5 Line-6 Line-7
Lines
N
l

(
f
l
a
s
h
/
1
0
0
k
m
/
y
e
a
r
)
Descarga
Flash 1.7


Fig. 8 - Line incidence of lightning strokes.

Concerning the incidence of lightning strokes to the line, the results obtained using FLASH and
DESCARGA do not differ (figure 8), except for line-6. This difference is explained taking into
consideration the model used in DESCARGA, which is based in the tower height, and the model
in FLASH that uses the height of the shield wires, being this different for the above mentioned
line.

6.1 Shielding failure rate

Further to the exposure to lightning, the shielding failure rate of a line is influenced by the critical
current, which is defined as the minimum value of current needed for shielding failure occurrence.




0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Line-1 Line-2 Line-3 Line-4 Line-5 Line-6 Line-7
Lines
I

[
k
A
]
Descarga
Flash 1.7

Fig. 9 - Minimum critical current for shielding failure occurrence


From figure 9 it is observed that, for every line, the critical current evaluated by the program
FLASH is higher than the critical current of DESCARGA, the reason being twofold:
1. The value of surge impedance given by DESCARGA is higher than the value computed
using FLASH (due to corona effect consideration).
2. The model used in DESCARGA considers the U
50
voltage for the critical current
evaluation, which is always lower than the value considered by FLASH.


0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Line-1 Line-2 Line-3 Line-4 Line-5 Line-6 Line-7
Lines
I

[
k
A
]
Descarga
Flash 1.7

Fig. 10 - Maximum critical current for shielding failure occurrence

In figure 10 it is shown the maximum critical current for shielding failure occurrence.
The analysis of these results shows that the results given by the program FLASH are higher than
the values obtained using the DESCARGA program. It is to be emphasized the very high values
achieved for line-6 when using the FLASH program, which is due to the high sensitivity of this
program in respect to the tower height.

0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Line-1 Line-2 Line-3 Line-4 Line-5 Line-6 Line-7
Lines
S
F
F
O
R

(
f
l
a
s
h
/
1
0
0
k
m
/
y
e
a
r
)
Descarga
Flash 1.7


Fig. 11 - Shielding failure flashover rate

In figure 11 it is shown the shielding failure flashover rate (SFFOR) evaluated by the programs
FLASH and DESCARGA, where it can be observed that the SFFOR given by DESCARGA is
higher than the computed value of FLASH, except for line-6.
From the lines studied, three cases are to be further explained: the line-5, the line-6 and the line-7.
The line-5 has a SFFOR much higher than all the others because of its height, the low efficiency
of protection given by the shielding wire and the high keraunic level of the region.
According to the results given by the program DESCARGA the line-6 have a zero shielding
failure rate. This is so because the minimum critical current is greater than the maximum current
above which there is no shielding failure.
On the other hand, the program FLASH shows a non negligible value of SFFOR once in this
program the relationship described for DESCARGA does not exist.
In the case of line-7 the program FLASH evaluates the SFFOR as being zero, the reason being
the efficient shielding protection of the line.

6.2 Backflashover

In this sub-section a comparative analysis between FLASH and DESCARGA programs is made
for the backflashover (BFR) rate and for the average critical current as functions of the earth
resistance for the different voltage rated lines.

60kV: Line-1
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
5 25 45 65 85 105
R(

)
B
F
R

(
s
t
r
i
k
e
/
1
0
0
k
m
/
y
e
a
r
)
Flash 1.7
Descarga
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
5 25 45 65 85 105
R(

)
I
c
m
e
d

[
k
A
]
Flash 1.7
Descarga
Fig. 12 - Backflasover rate Fig. 12a - Average critical current
Line-1: h=18.8, b=0, T
d
=15 Line-1: h=18.8, b=0, T
d
=15
From the previous figures (figure 12 and 12a) it can be seen that, except for small values of earth
resistance, the backflashover rate evaluated by DESCARGA is higher than the BFR computed
by FLASH.
This results are explained by the lower critical current evaluated by DESCARGA when
compared to the same calculation done by the FLASH program.
However, for small earth resistance values the critical current given by FLASH is lower because
of the combined effect of several parameters such as the critical voltage(U
50ns
), the tower
equivalent surge impedance (Z
W
) and the earth resistance.

150kV: Line-2 and Line-3
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
5 25 45 65 85 105
R()
B
F
R

(
s
t
r
i
k
e
/
1
0
0
k
m
/
y
e
a
r
)
Flash 1.7
Descarga
0
1
2
3
4
5 25 45 65 85 105
R()
B
F
R

(
s
t
r
i
k
e
/
1
0
0
k
m
/
y
e
a
r
)
Flash 1.7
Descarga
Fig. 13 - Backflasover rate Fig. 14 - Backflasover rate
Line-3: h=32, b=8.5, T
d
=7 Line-2: h=27.2, b=8.5, T
d
=7

0
50
100
150
200
250
5 25 45 65 85 105
R()
I
c
m
e
d

[
k
A
]
Flash 1.7
Descarga
0
50
100
150
200
250
5 25 45 65 85 105
R()
I
c
m
e
d

[
k
A
]
Flash 1.7
Descarga
Fig. 13a - Average critical current Fig. 14a - Average critical current
Line-3: h=32, b=8.5, T
d
=7 Line-2: h=27.2, b=8.5, T
d
=7
In the figures 13, 14, 13a, 14a it is shown the backflashover rate and the critical current for two
lines of equal operating voltage located in regions with the same keraunic level.
Although there is no much difference between the values obtained for the two lines, some
differences are to be explained.
In the line-3, the critical current values achieved by the DESCARGA program are always greater
than the critical current values achieved by FLASH. This is so because the critical current is
evaluated according to the non-normalized voltage U
50
which is proportional to the earth
resistance and to the operating voltage.
Therefore, in result of a bigger critical current computed by the DESCARGA program, the
backflashover rate evaluated by this program is always smaller.
A different example is found for the line-2 where, in some cases, the DESCARGA program
evaluates a higher critical current but a smaller backflashover rate. This is due to the difference
between the probability distribution functions of the current magnitude assumed by the two
programs.
220kV: Line-4 and Line-5
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
5 25 45 65 85 105
R(

)
B
F
R

(
s
t
r
i
k
e
/
1
0
0
k
m
/
y
e
a
r
)
Flash 1.7
Descarga
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
5 25 45 65 85 105
R(

)
B
F
R

(
s
t
r
i
k
e
/
1
0
0
k
m
/
y
e
a
r
)
Flash 1.7
Descarga
Fig. 15 - Backflasover rate Fig. 16 - Backflasover rate
Line-4: h=36.3, b=12.8, T
d
=10 Line-5: h=48.6, b=0, T
d
=16

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
5 25 45 65 85 105
R(

)
I
c
m
e
d

[
k
A
]
Flash 1.7
Descarga
0
50
100
150
200
250
5 25 45 65 85 105
R(

)
I
c
m
e
d

[
k
A
]
Flash 1.7
Descarga
Fig. 15a - Average critical current Fig. 16a - Average critical current
Line-4: h=36.3, b=12.8, T
d
=10 Line-5: h=48.6, b=0, T
d
=16

In the above figures there is a difference between the results obtained by the two programs.
In the line-4 the backflashover rate curve evaluated using the DESCARGA does not follow the
equivalent curve computed by the FLASH program. This difference can be explained by the
accuracy of the DESCARGA program is only guaranteed for earth resistance values well below
100.
The remaining differences are due to the higher critical current evaluated by DESCARGA and the
resulting lower backflashover rate.
Concerning the line-5 the situation is almost the same, the difference being the accuracy interval is
higher than the line-4.
Once again, the greater critical current evaluated by the DESCARGA program results in a lower
backflashover rate, except for some earth resistance values. As explained previously, this
exceptions are due to different probability distribution functions assumed by the two programs.
400kV: Line-6 and Line-7
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
5 25 45 65 85 105
R()
B
F
R

(
s
t
r
i
k
e
/
1
0
0
k
m
/
y
e
a
r
)
Flash 1.7
Descarga
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
5 25 45 65 85 105
R()
B
F
R

(
s
t
r
i
k
e
/
1
0
0
k
m
/
y
e
a
r
)
Flash 1.7
Descarga
Fig. 17 - Backflasover rate Fig. 18- Backflasover rate
Line-6: h=52.5, b=12, T
d
=8 Line-7: h=35.6, b=16, T
d
=5
0
100
200
300
400
5 25 45 65 85 105
R()
I
c
m
e
d

[
k
A
]
Flash 1.7
Descarga
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
5 25 45 65 85 105
R(

)
I
c
m
e
d

[
k
A
]
Flash 1.7
Descarga
Fig. 17a - Average critical current Fig. 18a - Average critical current
Line-6: h=52.5, b=12, T
d
=8 Line-7: h=35.6, b=16, T
d
=5

The results achieved for the 400kV lines are shown in figures 17, 18, 17a, 18a.
From the analysis of this figures it is concluded that the backflashover rate evaluated by the
FLASH and DESCARGA programs is smaller in comparison to lower voltage level lines. This
decrease in the backflashover rate is due to the higher critical voltage level evaluated by both
programs.


7. Conclusions

This work allowed to understand the behavior of two computer programs that estimate the
lightning performance of transmission lines, FLASH and DESCARGA, as well as the lightning
mechanisms involved.
Although FLASH program is based in more complete models of line and tower representation,
both programs give BFR results very alike for all lines in study.
Concerning SFFOR, the program DESCARGA gives higher results than FLASH. This is due to
the fact that DESCARGA considers discharges with any inclination while FLASH considers only
vertical ones.
From both programs we take that the lines in study are well shielded, because the number of
backflashovers is much bigger than the number of direct flashovers.
It is not possible to valid the estimated results with real cases because of the high number of
necessary registers that are not possible to get during the life time of any line. Yet we think that
both programs, considering the validity of its models, are useful tools in predicting the lightning
performance of transmission lines.


Appendix

The types of tower geometries considered in FLASH and the corresponding equations for the
tower surge impedance calculation are as follows:

h
T
2r

Tower type 1: Sargents cone


1
]
1

,
_

+

2
2 2
T
r
r h
2 Ln 30 Z

h
T
2r

Tower type 2: H shape
2
Z Z
Z
2 1
T
+

60
h
r
Ln 90
r
h
Ln 60 Z
1

,
_

+
,
_

60
h
b
Ln 90
b
h
Ln 60 Z
2

,
_

+
,
_

h
T
2r



1
]
1

,
_

1
r
h 2
2 Ln 60 Z
T

Tower type 3: Hilemans cylinder

d
bs
d
tp
h
T
l
ms
h
1

Tower type 4: Chisholms belt.

( )
1
]
1

,
_

2 Ln 60
Z tg
1
Ln 60
4
Z
1
T


( ) [ ]

'
+ +

2
T
1 T bs T ms 1 tp
1
h
h h . d h . l h . d 5 . 0
arctg 5 . 0 Z



References

[1] - IEEE WG on Estimating Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines, A Simplified Method for
Estimating Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines, IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-104, No. 4, pp. 919-932, April
1985.

[2] - IEEE WG Report, Estimating the Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines II - Updates to Analitical
Models, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. PWRD-8, No. 3, pp. 1254-1267, July 1993.
[3] - Cigr WG 33-01, Guide to Procedures for Estimating the Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines,
Cigr Monograph No. 63, October 1991.

[4] - A. J. Eriksson, An Improved Electrogeometric Model for Transmission Line Shielding Analysis, IEEE
Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. PWRD-2, No. 3, July 1987.

[5] - J. G. Anderson, Transmission Line Reference Book - 345 kV and Above, Second Edition, 1982, Chapter
12, Electric Power Reserch Institute, Palo Alto, California.

[6] - A. J. Eriksson, The Incidence of Lightning Strikes to Transmission Lines, IEEE Trans. on Power
Delivery, Vol. PWRD-2, No. 3, pp. 859-870, July 1987.

[7] - G. Le Roy, C. Gary, B. Hutzler, J. Lalot, C. Dubanton, Les proprits dilectriques de lair et les trs
hautes tensions, Collection de la Direction des tudes et Recherches dlectricit de France.

[8] - M. T. Correia de Barros, M. Fernandes, S. Simes, Faults due to Lightning and the Quality of Electrical
Energy Supply, IST - Universidade Tcnica de Lisboa / Instituto da Energia - INTERG.

[9] - M. Fernandes, Estudo de Sobretenses em Subestaes Blindadas, Master Thesis, Thechnical
University of Lisbon, October 1995.