21, rue d’Artois, F-75008 PARIS C4-305 CIGRE 2012

http : //www.cigre.org

A Review on EHVAC Transmission Line Lightning Performance

D. CORREIA, D. BRASIL, L. MONTEZUMA, C. CAMPINHO, A. CARVALHO

Operador Nacional Sistema Elétrico – ONS
Brazil

SUMMARY

One of the conclusions of the Large Disturbance Panel of the 2010 Cigré Session is that the main
cause of blackouts is related to adverse weather conditions and that such kind of impact is likely to
increase in the future. Therefore, in order to avoid a great level of load interruption, electric power
system installations must be designed properly to withstand as much as possible such events.
One of the main cause of faults in transmission systems is lightning (direct or indirect strokes). On top
of that, lightning may also be the trigger of a series of faults that lead to large disturbances. As an
example, in 1999, a lightning struck a bus bar of an EHV substation and led to a blackout that affected
the southern and south-eastern electric Brazilian system.
ONS (in Portuguese: Operador Nacional do Sistema Elétrico) – the Brazilian system operator, has the
responsibility of guaranteeing a minimum performance standard for all transmission lines of the
Brazilian Interconnected Power System. In this sense, ONS sets out minimum requirements to be met
by all new transmission lines and attests the compliance of these lines in relation to the requirements
through the analysis of their basic design, including electrical studies.
Every year, an average of three to five EHV transmission lines is commissioned in the Brazilian
system and each one of them is possibly going to be granted to a new utility, which may have different
design practices. Taking into account that a standard methodology for the assessment of transmission
line lightning performance is not established in the Grid Procedures, and that the results obtained
through different methodologies and/or parameters may be very different, it is important that a
common basis for comparison and analysis is available to all involved.
The purpose of this paper is to raise this issue, focusing the discussion on whether it is appropriate to
establish a unified methodology and a set of guidelines, parameters and data to be used in the
calculation. The evaluation of the lightning performance of a typical 500 kV transmission line
comparing and discussing the results from the application of two different methods will be also
addressed, as well as and a comparison with the actual performance of the Brazilian system 500 kV
transmission lines. The presentation of results of an evaluation of the lightning density in Brazil is also
presented.

KEYWORDS

EHVAC Transmission lines; Lightning performance.

delmocorreia@ons.org.br
1 INTRODUCTION

According to the structure of the Brazilian electric industry sector, transmission lines of line voltage
equal to or greater than 230 kV compose what is called the main grid transmission system, whose
operation is coordinated by ONS. The concession of new transmission lines to this grid is granted by
a minimum value auction. The bidding winner is the one that requires the lowest annual revenue to
implement, operate and maintain the line, as well as its terminals, for a concession period of 30 years.
Furthermore, transmission utilities are expected to make the transmission facilities that belong to the
grid duly available, being liable to penalizing actions should the facilities be unavailable. Although it
is broadly accepted that this economic stimulus is enough to guarantee the adequate performance of
transmission lines, it is not in the interest of ONS that utilities are penalized, but to make sure that the
system is as reliable as possible.
In this sense, the establishment of performance standards for the transmission system with respect to
the transmission system administration is a key activity to ONS. To assure compliance with these
standards, general minimal requirements are imposed to the system functional elements, particularly to
transmission lines. This idea is well established in Module 2 of the Grid Procedures: “Performance
Standards of the Transmission System and Minimum Requirements for its Installations” [1]. In
addition to the general minimum requirements included in the Grid Procedures, specific requirements
to a given particular new installation may be established on a technical document that is an integrant
part of the auction process.
After the auction process, the utility – the bidding winner – must present within two months a
transmission line basic project. With regard to lightning performance, studies comprising the
definition of the tower configuration (shielding angle, phase and ground wire geometry), insulation,
preliminary grounding system etc. must prove beforehand that the requirements will be met.
The concession of every new line is granted to a special purpose company, what leads to a multitude
of different utilities, that can be private or state owned. Due to the fact that the minimum requirements
are performance goals and do not impose methodology and parameters to be applied by utilities and
also due to the diversity of utilities, it is of fundamental importance that ONS has a proven and
accepted methodology for an objective quantification of the transmission lines performance.
The adequate definition of the functional requirements to be attained by them must take into account
both predicted and historical performances. For the last decade, ONS has analyzed more than one
hundred basic transmission line projects of different utilities.
In this context, the purpose of this paper is to present a comparative approach of different
methodologies and parameters for the prediction of transmission line lightning performance and to
identify if the use of simplified methodologies lead to results similar to the ones obtained with the use
of more complex and detailed methodologies. Furthermore, the issue of the need of establishing
standard parameters will be also addressed.
Publications like 1991 Cigré Guide [2] are an important reference that should be taken into account at
lightning performance analysis. However, as a guide, it does not intend to recommend a methodology,
parameters and simplifications. The authors understand that it is advisable to revise the guide, taking
into account recent advances in the subject and including a recommendation for the assessment of
transmission line lightning performance.
Based on a typical 500 kV transmission line, the paper compares the results obtained by different
methodologies and presents a sensibility analysis of the most influential parameters. The goal is to
provide a reflection concerning how to deal with the issue in the Brazilian new transmission line
granting process.
As a basis for comparison, the paper presents also an evaluation of the actual performance of the
Brazilian transmission lines based on a ten year survey.

2 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

The Grid Procedures as well as the auction documents state the following technical requirements
concerning the lightning performance of new EHVAC transmission lines:

2
 The total number of faults due to lighting for lines whose voltage level is higher than or equal to
345 kV should be lower than or equal to one outage per 100 km a year. For the 230 kV voltage
level this figure should be lower than or equal to 2 outages per 100 km a year.
 The towers should be designed with at least two ground wires, arranged in such way to shield
properly the phase conductors. For the predominant terrain profile of the region, the lightning fault
probability due to direct strokes should be lower than 10-2 outages per 100 km a year.

3 BASIC PARAMETERS AND REFERENCE CASE

3.1 Transmission line data

The basic reference case for analysis is a 500 kV transmission line with the configuration and main
characteristics shown in Figure I.

 Conductor
o 4 x 636 MCM ACSR Grosbeak;
o Bundle: 4 sub-conductors 45.7 cm apart;
10 m
o Phase distance: 10 m, horizontal;
o Height at tower: 30 m;
o Insulator string: 26 insulators 5 ¾”;
10 m
o Positive polarity critical flashover:
20  External phases: 2150 kV;
degrees  Internal phase: 2080 kV;
 Shield wire
o 2 x 3/8” EHS galvanized steel;
30 m o Height at tower: 40 m;
o Tower shielding angle: 10º to 40º (20º for the
basic reference case);
 Typical terrain: rolling;
 Typical span: 450 m.

FIGURE I: GEOMETRY OF THE BASIC REFERENCE 500 KV TRANSMISSION LINE

3.2 Lightning stroke data

A ground to earth lightning density of 10 strokes per km² a year has been assumed. Only the first
stroke of negative polarity lightning flashes has been considered and was represented as shown in
Figure II.
I max
Ts 
Imax di / dt I
Td  25s rsg

Imax/2
rsc

Ts Td

FIGURE II: LIGHTNING CURRENT FIGURE III: ELECTRO-GEOMETRIC MODEL

It has been considered that the statistical performance of the lightning flash may be represented by a
log-normal distribution, with the parameters of amplitude and wave front listed in Table I.
For the reference case, Cigré distribution has been used [2] and a sensivity analysis has been made
with different sources of reference, also included in the same table. As a sensitivity analysis, the co-
sinus exponent has been varied from zero to 4.

3
TABLE I - STATISTICAL PARAMETERS OF THE LIGHTNING FLASH
Reference Amplitude distribution Wave front distribution
I50% I16% β (*) (dI/dt)50% (dI/dt)16% β (*)
(kA) (kA) (kA/µs) (kA/µs)
Cigré – BF [2] 33.3 61 0.605 24.3 44.2 0.599
Cigré – SF [2] 61.1 231 1.330 24.3 44.2 0.599
Popolansky [3] 25 61 0.892 5 34 1.917
Cianos Pierce [4] 20 50 0.916 22 44 0.693
Berger [5] 28 60 0.762 12 24 0.693
Morro do Cachimbo [6] 45 71.3 0.460 9.3 (**) 12.6 0.300
(*) β = ln(V50%/V16%); (**) S30 Distribution

3.3 Electro-geometric model – Strike distance

The electro-geometric model [4] [8] [9] states that lightning will strike shield wire, conductor or
ground when it reaches a spacing from these targets called strike distance, as schematically
represented in Figure III. The strike distance is a function of the cloud charge and thus indirectly of the
lightning current and may be approximated by a normal probability distribution with average
rs  rs50%  10I 0.65 and standard deviation   10% , with rs in (m) and I in (kA).
As basic reference case, the same rs has been adopted both to conductor cables and shield wires,
calculated by following expression:
rs  (1   ) 10I 0.65  9 I 0.65
As a sensitivity analysis, the results have been also calculated using different rs for conductor cables
and shield wires, as follows [2].

rsc  7.1 I 0.75 ; rsg  6.4 I 0.75

3.4 Tower top voltage

The tower top voltage due to a stroke on the shield wires has been calculated according to the model
and parameters presented in Figure IV.

Lightning current Tower surge impedance: 150 Ω;

Shield wires Shield wire surge impedance: 590 Ω;
Tower impedance Grounding impedance: 5 to 40 Ω.
Grounding impedance

FIGURE IV: TOWER TOP VOLTAGE CALCULATION MODEL

Vtop as a function of grounding impedance is presented in Figure V, for a lightning stroke at the tower
or at mid-span. The steeper the wave front, the higher the tower top voltage. Also, lightning strokes at
the tower are more critical (higher Vtop) than at mid-span.

4 RESULTS USING DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND/OR PARAMETERS

4.1 Simplified methodology – FLASH

Since the fifties of last century, research and experiment results on transmission line lightning
performance have been reported [2]. There are several possible methodologies and much software has
been developed to contribute in this matter. FLASH is a software broadly used at transmission line
design engineering and developed by an IEEE group [10]. FLASH version 1.9 has been used here.

4
 (A) (B)
FIGURE V: TOWER TOP VOLTAGE FOR LIGHTNING STROKE AT THE TOWER (A) AND AT MID-SPAN (B)

4.2 Probabilistic methodology

The results obtained with the use of FLASH are compared to the ones obtained with the use of a
software developed by the authors in the seventies during the 765 kV Itaipu transmission system
design and whose methodology has been based on the know-how available at that time
[11][12][13][14][15].
The predicted shielding failure and back-flashover rater have been calculated statistically through
Monte Carlo random variable generation, as described schematically bellow.
a) A lightning flash current intensity is randomly generated through its probability of occurrence;
b) For a pre-determined transmission line transversal width, a shut point is randomly generated;
c) For the lightning current fixed in (a), the electro-geometric model is sketched;
d) The exposition of conductor cable, shield wire and earth are determined with random variable
generation, taking into account the lightning incidence angle with the vertical. It is verified whether
conductor, shield wires or ground have been hit;
e) If a conductor cable has been hit, then the insulation stress is calculated, considering the lightning
current intensity and cable surge impedance. The operating voltage and angle (0 to 360o) may also
be randomly generated;
f) If a shield wire has been hit, then:
 Following parameters are generated from probability distribution:
o Lightning current wave front;
o Location of the lightning hitting point on the span;
o Grounding impedance;
 From the lightning current intensity, wave front, grounding impedance and location of the
hitting point on the span, the tower top voltage, previously tabulated, is obtained;
 Taking into account the coupling factor between shield wires and conductor cables, corrected by
the cable radius variation due to corona [16], the insulation stress is calculated; The operating
voltage may be taken into account, considering an angle randomly generated (0 to 360o);
g) Stress is compared to withstand, which can be considered constant and equal to the critical
flashover voltage – CFO, or may be considered statistically; the convolution between stress and
withstand provides the information whether one or more phase insulations have flashed over;
h) After repeating the random process a quantity of times large enough as to adequately represent the
phenomenon statistically, the number of outages due to shielding failure and back flashover is
determined, weighted by the lightning discharge of the region and the influence area, leading to the
SFR and BFR.

4.3 Results
4.3.1 Shielding failure rate

5
Figure VI presents the results related to the shielding failure rate of the basic reference case, in
function of the shielding angle and keeping constant the distance between shield wires and conductor
cable at the tower. The influence of the formulation used for the striking are shown for the basic case,
with rsc  rsg  rs  (1   ) 10I 0.65  9 I 0.65 and for the sensitivity analysis, with rsc  7.1 I 0.75
and rsg  6.4 I 0.75 . The results obtained with FLASH 1.9 are also shown.
It can be seen that the results may vary substantially with the methodology and parameters used. For
instance, the SFR vary almost one order of magnitude (from 0.8 up to 4) for a 30º shielding angle. The
same variability may also be found if one fixes the design requirements. For example, a SFR of
0.4/100 km a year may be obtained for shielding angle varying from 18º up to 27º, depending on the
methodology and parameters chosen.

FIGURE VI: SHIELDING FAILURE RATE IN FUNCTION OF THE SHIELDING ANGLE, FOR DIFFERENT STRIKING DISTANCE
FORMULATION

Table II presents a sensibility analysis of the influence of some parameters on the shielding failure
rate, considering constant following parameters:
 Shielding angle: 30º;
 Vertical distance between conductor and shield wire at the tower: 10 m;
 Basic case striking distance ( rs  9 I 0.65 ).

TABLE II – SHIELDING FAILURE RATE FOR DIFFERENT LIGHTNING STATISTICAL PARAMETERS

Case Exponent of the lightning Distribution of the Number of Flashover of
flash distribution with the lightning amplitude the external phase per
vertical 100km a year
1 2 Cigré/SF 0.919
2 0.5 Cigré/SF 0.984
3 3 Cigré/SF 0.891
4 4 Cigré/SF 0.872
5 2 Popolansky 0.774
6 2 Cianos Pierce 0.914
7 2 Berger 0.671

4.3.2 Back flashover rate

Table III presents the results related to the back flashover rate of the basic reference case, in function of
the grounding impedance, for a shielding angle of 20º and vertical distance between shield wires and
conductor at tower of 10 m and the distributions of lightning amplitude and wave front of the Cigré
Guide/BF [2]. It has been considered that all discharges have hit the tower.

6
TABLE III – BACK FLASHOVER RATE IN FUNCTION OF GROUNDING IMPEDANCE
Grounding Number of Flashover per 100km a year
Resistance External Internal Double Triple Line
(Ω) Phases Phase Flashover
5 0.0108 0.0048 0.0018 0 0.014
10 0.0258 0.0054 0.0042 0 0.027
15 0.084 0.017 0.012 0 0.089
20 0.337 0.058 0.035 0.001 0.358
30 1.418 0.368 0.353 0.030 1.373
40 3.253 0.905 0.814 0.231 2.882

Figure VII presents a sensibility analysis of the influence of the statistical distribution of lightning
amplitude and wave front. The results obtained with FLASH are also plotted.

FIGURE VII: BACK FLASHOVER RATE IN FUNCTION OF GROUNDING IMPEDANCE FOR DIFFERENT STATISTICAL
DISTRIBUTION OF LIGHTNING AMPLITUDE AND WAVE FRONT

It can be seen that the results may vary substantially with the methodology and parameters used. For
instance, the BFR vary almost one order of magnitude (from 0.7 up to 4.5) for a grounding impedance
of 30 Ω. Also a BFR of 1/100 km a year may be obtained for grounding impedance varying from 15 Ω
up to 33 Ω, depending on the methodology chosen.

TABLE IV – BACK FLASHOVER RATE FOR DIFFERENT LIGHTNING STATISTICAL PARAMETERS

Case Line BF Rate
(100km a year)
1- Basic Case 2.882
2 - Case with exponent of the lightning flash distribution with vertical equal to 4 3.781
3 - Case considering withstand voltage represented by a normal distribution, 2.938
standard deviation of 3%
4 - Case considering strokes hitting tower (60%) and mid span (40%) 2.311
5 - Case with grounding impedance representation 4.351

Table IV presents a sensibility analysis of the influence of some parameters on the back flashover rate,
considering constant following parameters:
 Shielding angle: 20º;
 Vertical distance between conductor and shield wire at the tower: 10 m;
 Statistical distribution of lightning amplitude and wave front: Cigré Guide/BF [2];
 Grounding impedance: 40 Ω;
 Basic case striking distance ( rs  9 I 0.65 ).

7
Case 1 is the basic case and considers that the incidence angle of the lightning flash with vertical has a
statistical distribution with exponent of 2. Case 2 considers exponent of 4 and consequently discharges
almost vertical. So there is higher shield wire incidence and an increase of BFR (around 30%).
Case 3 refers to the results obtained with the conductor voltage withstand being represented
statistically by a normal distribution with standard deviation of 3%. A small influence on the BFR may
be observed (around 2%).
Case 4 takes into account a probability of 40% of a lightning discharge to hit mid-span and 60% the
towers. As the tower overvoltage is smaller for discharges at mid-span, especially for wave front time
shorter than 3 µs, the results show a significant reduction (around 20%).
Case 5 considers the ground impedance modeled [17] as shown in Figure VIII, with the following
parameters:
 Soil resistivity: ρ = 1000 Ωm;
 Grounding resistance: Rd = 40 Ω;
 Surge impedance of each grounding cable: Z0 = 200 Ω;
 Length of each grounding cable: ℓ = 25 m;
 Light velocity: v = 300 m/µs.
tv
The answer of this model to a step is given by Z (t )  Rd   Z 0  Rd  e .
2

FIGURE VIII: GROUNDING MODEL

The significant increase in the amount of flashovers (around 80%) shown in the results may be
attributed to the response of the tower impedance, that leads to a higher voltage than the one caused by
the leakage resistance, especially for more steep wave fronts (up to 4µs).

5 STATISTICAL PERFORMANCE SURVEY

5.1 Database
Since 1998, ONS has been collecting and storing in a database reliability data for the most important
functional elements of the system, including transmission lines, shunt compensation, transformers etc.
All disturbances (forced outages, shut downs, faults, etc.) are reported by utilities through a computer
system for data collection and classified by them according to a structure previously agreed with ONS.
According to the database mentioned above, the origin of a transmission line forced outage may be
classified as internal, secondary, operational and external. Outages of internal origin are related to the
energized parts of the component and/or of terminal equipment, including switching devices, circuit
breakers and potential and current transformers. Outages whose cause could not be identified are
classified as undetermined. Faults caused by lightning have also been computed.
All outages, be they monopolar or tripolar, have been included in the present statistics. Even outages
that have been eliminated through automatic restart after a time less than 1 minute have also been
computed. It is important to emphasize that intentional switching operations for changing the system
topology are not considered in this statistics. We may take as examples the disconnection of a
transmission line for voltage control or of a generation unity for load control.

8
In the present paper, all the analysis will focus on the 500 kV operation grid transmission lines,
totalizing 232 circuits and 33428 km. Figure IX presents a comparison between the set of 500 kV
transmission lines and the universe of all operation grid with transmission lines with voltage equal to
or greater than 230 kV.

5.2 Universe
For the purpose of the present analysis, i.e. to evaluate if the transmission lines have or not met the
requirements imposed in the Grid Procedures, data for the period comprised from 2002 up to August
2011 have been chosen due to data homogeneity. Throughout this period of analysis, undetermined
outages represent 24% of the total.
In the present paper, all the analysis focus on the 500 kV operation grid transmission lines, totalizing
232 circuits and 33428 km in 2011. Figure IX presents a comparison between the set of 500 kV
transmission lines and the universe of all operation grid with transmission lines with voltage equal to
or greater than 230 kV.

Number of circuits All circuits All 500kV circuits

1008 1040
966
865 875 899
778 820
717 755

195 195 214 223 229 232

143 162 174 182

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Length (km) All circuits All 500kV circuits

90757 94307
83763 87108
78879 81636
73735 76158
65468 70363

29497 31580 32189 33428

24462 26272 28387
21171 23391
17468

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

FIGURE IX: OPERATION GRID AND 500 KV TRANSMISSION LINES

5.3 Statistics
Lightning flashover rate All 500kV circuits Requirement

1,00

0,46 0,43 0,48 0,45

0,35 0,37 0,32 0,38 0,34 0,26

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

FIGURE X AVERAGE OF THE 500KV TRANSMISSION LINE LIGHTNING PERFORMANCE

In average 26% of the 500 kV transmission lines have had at least one fault due to lightning in the
observation period comprised between January 2002 and August 2011. The yearly figure varies from
22% up to 30%. From the total amount of outages, 18% have been, in average, attributed to a fault due
to lightning. The yearly figure varies from 12.4% up to 21.9%.
Figure X shows the average of the 500kV transmission line lightning performance, compared with the
performance requirements included in the Grid Procedures (less than or equal to 1/100 km/year for
500 kV transmission lines).
The statistical histogram and distribution of the lightning flashover rate throughout the period
comprised between January 2002 and August 2011 of 500 kV transmission lines is shown in Figure

9
XI. Three sets are distinguished: all 500 kV transmission lines, lines commissioned before 2000 and
lines commissioned after this year.

120 120%

100 100%

80 80%

Frequency all lines

Frequency

60 Frequency lines comissioned before 2000 60%

Frequency lines comissioned after 2000
Percentage all lines
40 Percentage lines comissioned before 2000 40%
Percentage lines comissioned after 2000

20 20%

0 0%

Lightning flashover rate

FIGURE XI STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE LIGHTNING PERFORMANCE OF THE 500 KV
TRANSMISSION LINES

A summary of the results is presented in Table V. Only 8.9% of all 500 kV transmission lines have not
met the lightning performance requirements. For the set of lines commissioned before and after 2000,
respectively 6.5% and 10.9% have not met the requirements. This can indicate that the design of the
old lines was made in a more conservative way.

TABLE V – SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR 500 KV TRANSMISSION LINES LIGHTNING PERFORMANCE
Description All 500 kV 500 kV lines 500 kV lines
lines bef. 2000 after 2000
Quantity of lines 246 108 138
Lines that have not had fault due to lightning 100 (40.7%) 49 (45.4%) 51 (37.0%)
Lines that have met the lightning performance 224 (91.1%) 101 (93.5%) 123 (89.1%)
requirements
Lines that have not met the lightning 22 (8.9%) 7 (6.5%) 15 (10.9%)
performance requirements

6 LIGHTNING DENSITY MAPS

Figure XII shows the cloud to ground lightning density map for the Brazilian territory, generated from
the records of light pulse captured from space by LIS aboard TRMM satellite during the assessment
period comprised between the years 1998 and 2009 [19].
The raw data of lightning were treated to consider: the sampling variation of the sensor, for different
points of the earth surface, since the TRMM is not geostationary; the variation of detection efficiency
of the sensor due to the fact it may be day or night in the monitored region; the distortion of the light
pulse caused by geomagnetic effects; and the average proportion of cloud to ground discharges in
relation to the total events recorded by the LIS, since the sensor is not able to distinguish cloud to
ground and intra-cloud discharges. To estimate the average ratio of cloud to ground lightning strikes
records from the surface detection network (BrasilDat) have been used.
A grid composed of cells with 25 km x 25 km resolution has been plotted. Each grid cell contains the
value of annual average lightning density. The density values of the map, represented by different
shades of color, were calculated by application of a GIS - Geographic Information System that uses
the numerical IDW – Inverse Distance Weighted – interpolation method, based on the annual mean
values of the grid density.

10
The map contains a color scale with ten density values. Density values below 0.5 or above 17 strokes
per km² a year are represented in light mauve and red respectively. Intermediate values of these limits
are represented by shades of color palettes of the intermediate scale.
This map, that has been prepared with ONS support, will be available for utilities and may be become
a reference for lightning performance studies.

FIGURE XII CLOUD-TO-GROUND LIGHTNING DENSITY MAP

7 CONCLUSIONS

The simulations show that results obtained through different methodologies and parameters may be
different, depending on the methodology and parameters chosen. SFR and BFR may vary almost one
order of magnitude for a shielding angle of 30º or a grounding impedance of 30 Ω, respectively. For
the same design requirements, this may lead to a transmission line with shielding angle varying around
10º and grounding impedance varying around 20 Ω, depending on the methodology and environmental
parameters adopted.
With a proper methodology and parameter selection, it is almost always possible to prove the
compliance of the basic design with the requirements. It is also important to emphasize that the
definition of environmental data as ground resistivity and lightning density are the responsibility of the
utility. At the basic design phase, the utility do not have to prove the accuracy of the data adopted.
Looking at the survey performance statistics, in average, 500 kV transmission line lightning
performance meet the requirements. Another possible conclusion is that, among the lines whose
lightning performance do not meet the requirements, there are figures much greater than the limit of 1
outage/100 km a year. Actually, there are lines with more than 5 outages/100 km a year.
Only 8.9% of all 500 kV transmission lines have not met the lightning performance requirements. For
the set of lines commissioned before and after 2000, respectively 6.5% and 10.9% have not met the
requirements. This may indicate that the design of the old lines was made in a more conservative way.
Environmental data worse than expected or the choice of a methodology less conservative may be
cited among the possible reasons for a line lightning performance being worse than the designed one.
Whatever the reason, so far ONS has not interfered on the values adopted by the utility or required

11
actual measurements, for instance soil resistivity, grounding resistance and lightning density. For the
latter the map shown here represents an effort of ONS in the direction of data uniformity.
So, although the results show an average good compliance with the requirements, it would be
advisable to provide an indicative methodology in the Grid Procedures and to make sure that the
environmental data are obtained before the basic design.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] ONS. “Performance Standards of the Transmission System and Minimum Requirements for its
Installations”. Grid Procedures, Submodule 2.4.
[2] Working Group 01 (Lightning) of SC 33 (Overvoltages and Insulation Coordination). “Guide to
Procedures for Estimating the Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines”. Cigré Brochure
63, October 1991.
[3] F. Popolansky. “Frequency Distribution of Amplitudes of Lightning Currents”. Electra No. 22,
1972.
[4] M. Darveniza, F. Popolansky & E. R.Whitehead. “Lightning Protection of UHV Transmission
Lines”. Electra No. 41, 1974, pages 39-69.
[5] K. Berger, R. B. Anderson & H. Kröninger. “Parameters of lightning flashes”. Electra No. 41,
1975, pages 23-37.
[6] S. Visacro, C. R. Mesquita, M. P. P. Batista, L. S. Araujo. “Updating the statistics of lightning
current measures in Station Morro do Cachimbo” (In Portuguese : Atualizacao das Estatisticas
de correntes de Descargas Atmosferidas Medidas na Estacao Morro do Cachimbo). Paper
GDS/13, XXI SNPTEE, Florianopolis, Brazil, 2011.
[7] G. W. Brown. “Lightning Performance II – Updating Backflash calculations”. IEEE
Transactions on PAS, Vol. PAS-97, No. 1, Jan./Feb. 1978, pp. 39-52.
[8] D. W. Gilmen, E. R. Whitehead. “The Mechanism of Lightning Flashover on High-Voltage and
Extra-Hight-Voltage Transmission Lines”. Electra No. 27, March 1973.
[9] E. R. Whitehead. “Cigre Survey of the Lightning Performance of Extra-High-Voltage
Transmission Lines”. Electra number 33, pages 63-89.
[10] IEEE Standard Association. “IEEE Guide for Improving the Lightning Performance of
Transmission Lines”. IEEE Std 1243-1997.
[11] D. O. C. Brasil, F. M. Resende, J. A. Jardini, A. Vian & M. P. Pereira. “800 kV Itaipú
transmission line lightning performance”, In Portuguese: “Comportamento a descargas
atmosféricas das linhas de transmissão 800 kV de Itaipú”. Paper RJ/GLT/35, IV SNPTEE, Rio
de Janeiro, 1977.
[12] M. A. Sargent & M. Darveniza. “The Calculation of Double Circuit Outage Rates of
Transmission Lines”. IEEE Transaction on PAS, Vol. PAS-86, No. 6, June 1967, pages 665-
678.
[13] J. M. Clayton & F. S. Young. “Estimating Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines”. IEEE
Transactions on PAS, Vol. PAS-83, Nov. 1964, pages 1102-1110.
[14] M. A. Sargent. “Monte Carlo Simulation of the Lightning Performance of Overhead Shielding
Networks of High Voltage Stations”. IEEE Transactions on PAS, Vol. PAS-91, 1972, pages
1651-1656.
[15] J. R. Currie, L. Ah Choy, M. Darveniza. “Monte Carlo Determination of the Frequency of
Lightning Strokes and Shielding Failures on Transmission Lines”. IEEE Transactions on PAS,
Sept. 1971.
[16] G. D. MacCan. “The Effect of Corona on Coupling Factor Between Ground Wires and Phase
Conductors”. AIEE, Vol. 62, 1949.
[17] S. S. Devgan & E. R. Whitehead. “Analytical Models for Distributed Grounding Systems”.
IEEE Transactions on PAS, 1973, pages 1763-1770.
[18] R. B Anderson & A. J. Eriksson. “Lightning Parameters for Engineering Application”. Electra
number 69, 1980, pages 65-102.
[19] K. Naccarato, O. Pinto Jr., C. Campinho. “Lightning Density maps obtained by keraunic level,
lightning detection network and satellite observation”. XI SIPDA, Paper38, 2011.

12