2017 International Symposium on Lightning Protection (XIV SIPDA), Natal, Brazil, 2nd 6th October 2017.
The Peak Value of Lightning-Induced Voltages in
Overhead Lines for High Resistivity Soils
Jos Osvaldo Saldanha Paulino
Departamento de Engenharia Eltrica
Escola de Engenharia da UFMG
Belo Horizonte, Brazil
josvaldo@cpdee.ufmg.br
AbstractThis paper presents an approximate formula for
the peak value of the lightning-induced voltages in an aerial line
over high resistivity soils. In its derivation, it is considered the
transmission line return stroke model (TL) and a trapezoidal
current waveform. The formula is an improved version of a
previously expression presented by the authors, whereas its
validity range is extended from 1000 Ohmsm to 10000 Ohmsm.
The paper also illustrates the formula application in the
assessment of the indirect lightning performance of overhead
distribution lines.
Keywordscomponent; formatting; style; styling; insert (key
words)
I. INTRODUCTION
The calculation of lightning-induced voltages (LIVs) in an
overhead conductor is relevant in order to develop cost-
effective protective methods for power distribution lines and
telecommunication lines. For instance, the theoretical
assessment of the lightning flashover rate of a power
distribution line allows the specification of the relevant line
components in order to achieve a desired performance. Are
examples of these components the supporting structure
(including clearances), type of insulators, grounding scheme
and resistance, and installation of surge arresters.
New modeling techniques and powerful computers allow
the calculation of the LIVs considering realistic line topologies,
which include complex line configurations, presence of surge
arresters, and the shielding effect provided by nearby structures
[1]-[3]. Although these techniques are very useful to
investigate the effect of realistic lines, they have the drawback
of requiring sophisticated software and large computational
resources. The latter is particularly relevant when it is
necessary to compute the indirect flashover rate, when
hundreds thousands of simulations are required.
On the other hand, the assessment of the indirect flashover
rate through the LIV peak value, although approximate, can
yield fast and sufficiently accurate results for many
applications. A LIV peak-value formula was originally derived
by Rusck [4], considering perfectly conducting soils. This
formula was lately expanded by Darveniza [5] to take into
account lossy soils. An improved formula was proposed by
Paulino et al. [6] considering a step current waveform, which
was lately expanded to a more general version [7]. More
This work was partially supported by CNPq (Brazilian National Council
for Scientific and Technological Development).
Celio Fonseca Barbosa
Diretoria de Redes Convergentes
Fundao CPqD
Campinas, Brazil
grcelio@cpqd.com.br
recently, Zhang et al. [8] proposed a LIV peak-value formula
considering stratified ground and Rizk et al. [9] proposed a
LIV peak-value formula for high-resistivity ground which is
based on a number of correction coefficients.
The peak value formula from Paulino et al. [7] was limited
to soil resistivities up to 1000 m. However, many areas
experiencing high lightning-related problems have soil
resistivities higher than 1000 m. Therefore, the aim of this
paper is to expand the LIV peak value formula presented in [7]
to soil resistivity values up to 10000 m.
This paper is organized as follows. Initially, Section II
extends and validates the computer code TIDA for high-
resistivity soils. Section III derives the new peak value formula
and validates it against TIDA results. Section IV illustrates the
new formula application in the assessment of a power
distribution line flashover rate. Section V discusses some
relevant aspects of the approximations considered and
Section VI draws the main conclusions.
II. EXTENSION OF THE COMPUTER CODE TIDA FOR HIGH
RESISTIVITY SOILS
The computer simulations presented in [7] were carried out
with the TIDA code [10] that uses the time-domain formulation
proposed in [11]. References [12]-[13] show that this
formulation has a limitation at close range, especially for poor
conducting earth. In [14], the authors analyze the impact of this
limitation on the lightning induced voltages in aerial
distribution lines at close range (50 m) and show that it is
significant only for very poor conducting earth. Therefore,
= 1000 m is considered as an upper limit for the earth
resistivity for using the formulation proposed in [11] for LIVs
calculation at close range (50 m). Up to such resistivity value
and aerial distribution lines, the errors can be neglected.
Considering the electric field component originated in the
current flowing in the ground near the point of impact of the
stroke, a new formulation for the horizontal electric field was
proposed for the close range in [12]. This new formulation is
now incorporated into TIDA code.
The TIDA code was already validated for soils with
resistivity up to 1000 m [10]. Recently Rizk et al. [15]
presented some LIV calculations for high-resistivity soils using
the 3-D FDTD method. The LIV were calculated in an aerial
 2017 International Symposium on Lightning Protection (XIV SIPDA), Natal, Brazil, 2nd 6th October 2017.
line 10 m height and 3400 m long, over soil with resistivities 1 s T 12 s, and a return-stroke velocity v in the range
varying from 0 to 20 km. A stroke current 25 kA peak and 30 m/s v 150 m/s. The LIV peak value VP is given by:
2/100 s waveshape was used in the simulations, and the
relative soil permittivity was r = 4. The striking point was VP k VR VS (1)
aligned with the line center and is y = 50 m away from the line.
where VR is the parcel that considers a perfect soil and was
Fig. 1 and 2 show a comparison between results from TIDA derived by Rusck [4], while the second parcel VS was
code and from Rizk results [15]. It can be seen in the figures proposed by the authors [7] to include the contribution of
that, for soils up to 4 km, the correlation between the results finitely conducting soil to the total induced voltage:
is very good. For soils with resistivities in the range of 8 to
20 km there are some significant differences in the
waveforms, fronts but the peak values are almost the same. It is
V R 15 I 0
2
h 1 1 ;
2 (2)

ln
worth to mention that [15] also presents results with r = 10, y 1 1 2 2
where the wave front times are somewhat larger than those
shown in Fig. 2, but the peak values are roughly the same.
1 (3)
Therefore, it comes out that the new TIDA code version VS 3 v r 3 I 0 ;
can be used for calculating LIVs for soil resistivities up to y
4 km, and LIV peak values for soil resistivities up to where:
20 km. vr
1 ;
2
r
2 1 v v r 1
2

Fig. 1. LIV calculated by TIDA code and Rizk et al. [15] for a 10 m height,
3400 m long line, and 2/100 s stroke current waveform. Soils resistivities
varying from 0 to 2 km.
T;
150 v r
y
T is the return stroke current front-time in s and h is the line
height, I0 is the peak value of the stroke current, is the soil
resistivity, y is the closest distance between the lightning
striking point and the line, vr is the relative velocity of the
return stroke (vr = v/c), v is the return stroke velocity and c is
the light velocity. The factor k=0.915 is needed to account for
the delay between the voltages VR and VS, as discussed in [6].
The peak value is calculated at the closest point along the
line with respect to the flash, as the maximum induced voltage
occurs at this point [6].
Paulino et al. [16] showed that the use of the median value
for the stroke current front time (T = 5.63 s) and the relative
return stroke velocity vr = 0.4 s lead to flashover rates very
close to those computed using the probabilistic variation of
these parameters in the Monte Carlo method. Therefore, the
values above will be assumed in this paper, which leads to a
simplification in (2):

VR 0.0568 I 0 h ln

1 1 2 ,
2
(4)

1 1 2
2

where = 337.8 / y.

In order to extend the validity of (1) to high resistivity soils,

Fig. 2. LIV calculated by TIDA code and Rizk et al. [15] for a 10 m height,
3400 m long line, and 2/100 s stroke current waveform. Soils resistivities
varying from 4 to 20 km.
III. IDERIVATION OF THE PEAK-VALUE FORMULA
In a previous paper [7], the authors presented an
approximate formula for the evaluation of the peak value of
LIVs in an aerial line, considering soil resistivity values from
100 to 1000 m, stroke current front-time T in the range
it is necessary to add a third term that takes into account the
contribution of the conducted current flowing through the
channel base [12]. Therefore, the peak value VP becomes:
VP k VR VS VHRS , (5)
where VHRS is the voltage component due to the conductive
current.
 2017 International Symposium on Lightning Protection (XIV SIPDA), Natal, Brazil, 2nd 6th October 2017.
For the relatively slow-rising current considered (5.63 s
front-time), it is reasonable to assume a quasi-static approach at
the close range from the strike. Based on this assumption, one
can use the late-time expression for the horizontal electric field
at ground surface [12], which is:
1
E HS I0 2 . (6)
2 y

As this electric field component falls with the square of the

distance to the stroke (y), it is relevant only for the relatively
close range. Therefore, the effect of this field component can
be approximately captured if it is integrated up to a finite
distance d along the ground surface:
yd
I0 dy
VHRS
2 y y2
(7)

which leads to:

I0 d . (8)
VHRS
2 y y d

Comparing the results of (5) and (8) with those computed

by TIDA code, in a trial-and-error process, a good match was
found for d = 36 m and k = 0.94. Introducing the d value in (8)
leads to:
18 I 0 d . (9)
VHRS
y y 36
The results from (5) and (9) were then compared again with
those obtained from TIDA. The parameters considered for this
comparison are: 12 km long line, 5 and 10 m high, 10 kA
current peak, 5.63 s current front-time, 0.4 relative return-
stroke velocity, and distance between the stroke and the line
varying from 50 to 2000 m. The line is matched to ground at
both end, as shown in Fig. 3, and the percent differences
between the results are calculated by:
VPeak Computercode VPeak Formula
Difference (%) 100 .
VPeak Computercode
Figure 4 shows the differences between the peak values
obtained with the computer code TIDA and the new peak
value formula. For the range of parameters considered, the
maximum difference between the peak values obtained with
TIDA and the new formula is between -9% and +8% for
h = 10 m, and between -9% and +12% for h = 5 m.
Fig. 3. Line parameters and lightning stroke relative position.
Fig. 4. Assessment of the error in the total voltage Vp as given by (7), (3), (4)
and (5), for r = 10, = 100, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 5000, 8000 and
10000 m, T = 5.63 s and vr = 0.4. (a) h = 10 m; (b) h = 5 m.
IV. LIGHTNING FLASHOVER RATE OF AN AERIAL LINE IN
HIGH RESISTIVITY SOIL
To illustrate the application of the proposed peak-value
(10)
formula on the assessment of lightning performance of
overhead lines, some simulations were carried out using a
probabilistic approach similar to the one used in [16]. The
Monte Carlo Method was used as described in [17] and 106
simulations were made for each case studied.
The annual indirect lightning-induced voltage flashover rate
of an overhead line, 10 m high, in a region with 1 flash/km2/
year is showed in Fig. 5, as a function of the line critical
flashover (CFO). The values of soil resistivity used in the
simulations are 0, 200, 1000 and 5000 m, the relative return
stroke velocity is 0.4, and the current front time is 5.63 s.
Equation (4) was used for perfect conducting soil. The
maximum distance considered between the stroke striking
point and the line center was 2000 m.
Table 1 summarizes the flashover rates for three relevant
CFO values: 100, 170, and 300 kV. In Brazil, the 100 kV and
170 kV CFOs are representative of 13.8 kV and 34.5 kV power
distribution lines, respectively. The 300 kV CFO refers to a
special line design for lightning prone areas.
 2017 International Symposium on Lightning Protection (XIV SIPDA), Natal, Brazil, 2nd 6th October 2017.
Fig. 5 and Table 1 show that a distribution line with 300 kV
CFO in a region with 1 flash/km2/yr will present almost no
flashover due to LIVs for ideal soil. Moreover, the flashover
rate increases 14 times as the soil resistivity increases from 200
to 1000 m and 12 times as the soil resistivity increases from
1000 to 5000 m. A similar analysis for 100 kV CFO shows
that a five-fold increase in the soil resistivity leads to about
three times increase in the flashover rate.
According to the IEEE Guide [18], in a region with
1 flash / (km2 year) and a 10 m high distribution line, the
number of direct flashes to the line is 11.15/100 km/yr. Fig. 6
shows the indirect flashover rate from Table 1 and the
flashover rate due to direct flashes.
Fig. 5. Annual indirect LIV flashover rate calculated with the new peak-
value formula. NG = 1 flash / (km2 year), h =10 m and vr = 0.4. Phase-to-
ground LIVs and soil resistivity values: 0, 200, 1000 and 5000 m.
TABLE I. FLASHOVER RATE CONSIDERING GROUND RESISTIVITY AND
LINE CFO
Line CFO (kV)
Ground resistivity
(m) 100 170 300
It can be seen in Fig. 6 that indirect lightning is the major
concern for the 100 kV CFO lines, as the flashover rate for
indirect flashes outnumber those from direct flashes for ground
resistivity values above 200 m. On the other hand, for the
170 kV CFO lines, the indirect lightning flashes become the
main cause of lightning-related flashover only for relatively
poor conducting ground (above 1000 m). Finally, for the
special design lines (CFO = 300 kV), the indirect lightning
flashes outnumber those from direct flashes only for very high
resistivity soils (above 3700 m).
V. DISCUSSION
A. CFO correction factor
The ability of a LIV to produce insulation breakdown
depends not only on its peak value, but also on its wave shape.
Acknowledging this fact, the IEEE Guide 1410 [18] uses a
factor 1.5 to divide the LIV (CFO = LIV/1.5) in order to
evaluate the flashover rate from the LIV peak values. As
shown in [19], this correction factor shall take into account the
ground resistivity. Table II, adapted from [19], shows the
correction factor dependency on the ground resistivity and line
length. Based on this table, it can be concluded that the
flashover rates calculated in Section IV for ground resistivities
equal to or above 1000 m do not need to take into account
the CFO correction factor, as it approaches one. On the other
hand, the flashover rates calculated for ground resistivities
equal to or below 1000 m should take into account the
flashover correction factor. This means that these values may
be somewhat overestimated in Section IV.
TABLE II. CFO CORRECTION FACTORS FOR FLASHOVER RATE
ASSESSMENT BASED ON LIV PEAK VALUES.(ADAPTED FROM [19])
Line length (km)
Ground resistivity
(m) 0.8 1.2 2.0 5.0
0 1.50 1.43 1.40 1.35

0 1.9 0.1 0.0004 100 1.43 1.35 1.28 1.23

200 13.4 2.2 0.1 1000 1.34 1.30 1.20 1.10

1000 42 11.3 1.4

5000 132 56.2 16.4 B. Line losses

The new peak-value formula was validated with simulation
results obtained with the computer code TIDA, which uses a
lossless line model. The TIDA results compared well to results
from 3-D FDTD [8], for soils with resistivities values up to
4 km. However, it is important to highlight that the line used
in this comparison was 3.4 km long and the distance between
the stroke and the line was only 50 m. On the other hand, the
peak value formula was validated using a 12 km long line and
stroke striking distances ranging from 50 to 2000 m.
Rachidi et. al [20] concluded that, for LIV calculation, the
losses in the line can be neglected if the line length is lower
than the inverse of the attenuation constant calculated for the
maximum frequency of interest. According to Hidalen [21],
the maximum frequency associated to a waveform can be
assessed from its front-time T as:
Fig. 6. Indirect lightning flashover rate for a line 10 m high and ground flash
density of 1 flash / (km2 year), and the expected number of direct flashes.
 2017 International Symposium on Lightning Protection (XIV SIPDA), Natal, Brazil, 2nd 6th October 2017.
1 , (11) For the 12 km line considered in this paper, the farthest
f point for a strike aligned with the line center is about 6 km
4T
from the strike. Fig. 9 shows the time-derivative of the
where f is the frequency. The LIV front-time is always greater magnetic field at 6 km from the strike, for 5000 m, 10000
than the stroke current front-time [19], that is 5.63 s in this m and perfect soil. In this case, the propagation effects cause
paper. Therefore, the maximum frequency associated with the not only a delay on the time-derivative wave, but also a small
LIV is about 45 kHz. reduction on its peak value. As the voltages induced close to
the 12 km line extremities are unlikely to affect the LIV peak
Fig. 7, adapted from [20], shows that the inverse of the value at the line center, it follows that the propagation effects
attenuation constant for 10000 m soil and 45 kHz is 20 km. of the electromagnetic fields can be neglected for the study
This means that, for the conditions considered in this paper, the carried out in this paper.
effect of the lossy ground on the surge attenuation along the
line is not significant.

C. Propagation effects on the inducing fields

When calculating LIV in high resistivity soils, an important
aspect is the magnetic field attenuation as it propagates from
the stroke striking point to the line. The attenuation of a unit
step magnetic field as it travels over homogeneous lossy
ground can be obtained from the expression developed by Wait
[22]. This expression can be used with the convolution theorem
[23] to calculate the attenuation of the magnetic field produced
by an arbitrary waveform. In order to do so, a current
waveform having 10 kA peak and 5.63 s front time was
obtained from the Heidler function [24] and used to compute
the undisturbed magnetic field calculated using the formulation Fig. 8. Time-derivative of the magnetic field produced by a 10 kA peak and
contained in [11]. 5.63 s current waveform, at 500 m from the flash, with and without
considering the propagation effects (p.e.) over 5000 m and 10000 m lossy
According to Cooray [25], the inductive effects of a ground.
radiated electromagnetic field are associated with the time-
derivative of the magnetic field. Fig. 8 shows the time-
derivative of the magnetic field generated by the referred
current waveform, at 500 m from the stroke for 5000 m and
10000 m soil resistivity. In the same figure is shown the
waveform for perfect soil, i.e., without the propagation effects
(p.e.). It can be seen in this figure that, apart from a small-time
delay, the magnetic field time-derivative is practically
undisturbed by the propagation effects. It is worth to mention
that the LIVs relevant to line flashover are those induced by the
close flashes.

Fig. 9. Time-derivative of the magnetic field produced by a 10 kA peak and

5.63 s current waveform, at 6 km from the flash, with and without
considering the propagation effects (p.e.) over 5000 m and 10000 m lossy
ground.

Fig. 7. Variation of the inverse attenuation constant (1/) as a function of
frequency for three ground resistivities values (r =10), adapted from [20].
VI. CONCLUSIONS
A simple formula is proposed to calculate the LIV peak
value in aerial wires over soils with resistivities values in the
range 100 10000 m. This formula is useful for the fast
assessment of the indirect flashover rate of power distribution
lines in regions where the soil resistivity main attain high
values.
The application of this formula shows that indirect
lightning is the major concern for the 100 kV CFO lines, as the
flashover rate for indirect flashes outnumber those from direct
flashes for ground resistivity values above 200 m. On the
 2017 International Symposium on Lightning Protection (XIV SIPDA), Natal, Brazil, 2nd 6th October 2017.
other hand, for the 170 kV CFO lines, the indirect lightning comparison with the IEEE STD. 1410 Method, IEEE Trans. Power
flashes become the main cause of lightning-related flashover Delivery, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 684692, Jan. 2007.
[18] IEEE Guide for Improving the Lightning Performance of Electric Power
only for relatively poor conducting ground (above 1000 m). Overhead Distribution lines. Approved 28 January 2011, IEEE
Finally, for the special design lines (CFO = 300 kV), the Standards Board. IEEE Std 1410TM- 2010.
indirect lightning flashes outnumber those from direct flashes [19] J. O. S. Paulino, C. F. Barbosa, I. J. S. Lopes, W. C. Boaventura,
only for very high resistivity soils (above 3500 m). G. C. Miranda, Indirect lightning performance of aerial distribution
lines considering the induced-voltage waveform, IEEE Trans. on
Electromag. Comp., vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1123-1131, Oct. 2015.
[20] F. Rachidi, C.A. Nucci, M. Ianoz, and C. Mazzetti, "Influence of a lossy
VII. REFERENCES ground on lightning-induced voltages on overhead lines," IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 38, no. 3, pp.250-264, Aug.1996.
[1] A. Borghetti, F. Napolitano, C. A. Nucci, and F. Tossani, [21] H.K. Hidalen; Analytical formulation of lightning-induced voltages on
"Advancements in insulation coordination for improving lightning multiconductor overhead lines above lossy ground; IEEE Transactions
performance of distribution lines," Int. Symp. on Lightning Protection on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 45, no 1, pp. 92-100, 2003.
(XIII SIPDA), Balnerio Cambori, Brazil, Sept.-Oct., 2015. [22] J.R. Wait, "Transient fields of a vertical dipole over homogeneous
[2] A. Borghetti, F. Napolitano, C.A. Nucci, and F. Tossani, "Influence of curved ground", Can. J. Phys., vol. 34, pp. 27-35, 1956.
the return stroke current waveform on the lightning performance of [23] A. Greenwood, "Electrical Transients in Power SystemsSection 2.6:
distribution lines", IEEE Trans. on Power Delvery, in print. Duhamels IntegralResponse of a Circuit to an Arbitrary Stimulus,"
[3] F. Tossani, A. Borghetti, F. Napolitano, A. Piantini, and C.A. Nucci, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 1971, pp. 2731.
"Lightning performance of overhead power distribution lines in urban [24] F. Heidler, Analitische blitzstromfunktion zur LEMP-berechnung,
areas", IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, in print. presented at the 18th Int. Conf. Lightning Protection, Munich,
[4] S. Rusck, Induced lightning over-voltages on power transmission lines Germany,1985.
with special reference to the over-voltage protection of low-voltage [25] V. Cooray, Propagation effects due to finitely conducting ground on
networks, Ph.D. dissertation, Royal Inst. Technol., Stockholm, Sweden, lightning-generated magnetic fields evaluated using Sommerfelds
1957. integrals. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Comp., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 526-531
[5] M. Darveniza, A practical extension of Ruscks formula for maximum Aug. 2009.
lightning-induced voltages that accounts for ground resistivity, IEEE
Trans. Power Delivery., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 605612, Jan. 2007.
[6] J. O. S. Paulino, C. F. Barbosa, C.; I. J. S. Lopes, W. C. Boaventura; An
Approximate formula for the peak value of lightning-induced voltages in
overhead lines. IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 25, no.2, April
2010, pp. 843-851.
[7] J.O.S. Paulino, C.F. Barbosa, C.; I.J.S. Lopes, W.C. Boaventura.; The
peak value of lightning-induced voltages in overhead lines considering
the ground resistivity and typical return stroke parameters," IEEE Trans.
on Power Delivery, vol. 26, no.2, pp. 920-927, April 2011.
[8] Qilin Zhang, Liang Zhang, Xiao Tang, and Jinge Gao, "An approximate
formula for estimating the peak value of lightning-induced overvoltage
considering the stratified conducting ground," IEEE Trans. on Power
Delivery, vol. 29, no. 2, April 2014.
[9] M. E. M. Rizk, F. Mahmood, M. Lehtonen, E. A. Badran, and
M. H. Abdel-Rahman, "Computation of peak lightning-induced voltages
due to the typical first and subsequent return strokes considering high
ground resistivity," IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, in print.
[10] J. O. S. Paulino, C. F. Barbosa, I. J. S. Lopes, and G. C. Miranda,
"Time-domain analysis of rocket-triggered lightning-induced surges on
an overhead line", IEEE Trans. on EMC, vol. 51, no. 3, Part II,
Aug.2009.
[11] C. F. Barbosa; J. O. S. Paulino, "An approximate time domain formula
for the calculation of the horizontal electric field from lightning," IEEE
Trans. on Electromag. Comp. vol.49, pp. 593-601, Aug. 2007.
[12] C. F. Barbosa and J. O. S. Paulino, "A time-domain formula for the
horizontal electric field at the earth surface in the vicinity of lightning,"
IEEE Trans. EMC, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 640-645, Aug. 2010.
[13] V. Cooray, Horizontal electric field above and underground produced
by lightning flashes, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 52, no. 4,
pp. 936943, Nov. 2010.
[14] J. O. S. Paulino, C. F. Barbosa, W. C. Boaventura, "Effect of the surface
impedance on the induced voltages in overhead lines from nearby
lightning", IEEE Trans. on Electromag. Comp., vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 749-
754, Aug. 2011.
[15] M. E. M. Rizk, F. Mahmood, M. Lehtonen, E. A. Badran, M. H. Abdel-
Rahman, "Influence of highly resistive ground parameters on lightning-
induced overvoltages using 3-D FDTD method," IEEE Trans. on
Electromag. Comp., vol 58, no. 3, June 2016.
[16] J.O.S. Paulino, C.F. Barbosa, I.J.S. Lopes, and W.C. Boaventura,
"Assessment and analysis of indirect lightning performance of overhead
lines," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 118, pp. 55-61, 2014.
[17] A. Borghetti, C. A. Nucci, and M. Paolone, An improved procedure for
the assessment of overhead line indirect lightning performance and its