1

Lightning Characterization for Flashover Rate Calculation of Overhead Transmission Lines

Juan A. Martinez, Member, IEEE, and Ferley Castro-Aranda, Member, IEEE
AbstractLightning characterization for engineering applications is not easy: a flash can be either of negative or positive polarity; negative flashes can consist of several strokes; the waveform and the parameters of the first and the subsequent strokes are very different from each other. This paper is aimed at exploring the influence that a complete characterization of a lightning flash will have on the flashover rate of a transmission line using a Monte Carlo procedure that has been implemented in an electromagnetic transients program. Index Terms-- Overvoltages, Modeling, Monte Carlo Method, Power System Lightning Effects, Sensitivity, Statistics.

II. MODELING FOR LIGHTNING OVERVOLTAGE CALCULATIONS The models used to represent the different parts of the transmission line are detailed in the following paragraphs. 1) The transmission line (shield wires and phase conductors) is modeled by means of several spans at each side of the point of impact. Each span is represented as a multi-phase untransposed constant- and distributed-parameter line section, whose parameters are calculated at 500 kHz [6]. 2) The line termination at each side of the above model, needed to avoid reflections that could affect the simulated overvoltages around the point of impact, is represented by means of a long enough section, whose parameters are also calculated at 500 kHz. 3) A tower is represented as an ideal single conductor distributed-parameter line. This model can suffice for single circuits with towers shorter than 50 meters [2]. 4) Phase voltages at the instant at which the lightning stroke impacts the line are included, and their values are deduced by randomly determining a phase reference angle. 5) A lightning stroke is represented as an ideal current source (infinite parallel impedance) whose parameters, as well as its polarity, are randomly determined according to the distribution density functions recommended in the literature [1] - [3], [7], [8]. See Section III for more details. 6) The representation of insulator strings relies on the application of the leader progression model [2], [8], [9]. The leader propagation is deduced from the following equation
V (t ) dl = k l V (t ) El 0 dt g l

I. INTRODUCTION everal aspects should be considered when specifying return strokes for digital simulation of lightning overvoltages in transmission lines: a lightning flash is a transient phenomenon with a random nature; several types of lightning flashes can be distinguished [1], [2], although only two, positive and negative, will be considered in this paper, i.e. downward and upward flashes will have the same treatment; a ground flash can consist of multiple strokes [1] - [3]; there can be some correlation between the main parameters of a stroke, but there is no correlation between the parameters of the first and the subsequent strokes of a flash. In addition, lightning discharges follow tortuous paths, and the usual assumption of a vertical leader channel is not realistic, see the companion paper [4]. The aim of this paper is to analyze the performance of overhead transmission lines considering the statistical data of the most important lightning parameters (waveform, polarity, multiplicity, correlation). The study will be based on the Monte Carlo procedure developed and implemented by the authors in an electromagnetic transients program [5]. The paper has been organized as follows. Section II includes a summary on the models used for representing the transmission line in lightning overvoltage calculations. Lightning characterization, as assumed in this paper, is detailed in Section III. The main features of the Monte Carlo procedure are summarized in Section IV. The results derived from the application of the modified procedure to the test line are summarized in Section V.
Juan A. Martinez is with the Departament dEnginyeria Elctrica, Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain. Ferley Castro-Aranda is with the Grupo de Investigacin en Alta Tensin at the Escuela de Ingeniera Elctrica y Electrnica, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia.

(1)

where V(t) is the voltage across the gap, g is the gap length, l is the leader length, El0 is the critical leader inception gradient, and kl is a leader coefficient. For a more detailed description of this model see also [4]. 7) The footing impedance is represented as a non-linear resistance whose value is approximated by the following expression [1], [6], [10]
RT = R0 1+ I / I g
I g

E0 2 2R0

(2)

where R0 is the footing resistance at low current and low frequency, I is the stroke current through the resistance, and Ig is the limiting current to initiate sufficient soil ionization, being the soil resistivity (ohm-m) and E0 the soil ionization gradient (400 kV/m) [11].

1-4244-0493-2/06/$20.00 2006 IEEE.

III. LIGHTNING STROKE PARAMETERS A summary of the lightning parameters is presented in the following paragraphs. For an updated bibliography on this subject see [1] [3]. A. Polarity Most lightning flashes are of negative polarity. The incidence of positive flashes increases during winter, although very rarely their percentage exceeds 10% [1], [3], [12], [13]. B. Multiplicity Negative flashes can consists of multiple strokes, while positive flashes have usually a single stroke. Very different percentages of single-stroke flashes have been reported in the literature: Anderson and Eriksson 45% [7]; Cooray and Perez 18% [14]; Rakov et al. 17% [15]; Diendorfer et al. 40% [16]. Less than 10% of positive flashes have multiple pulses [3]; however, since the number of recorded positive flashes is too low, it is usually assumed they are single-stroke flashes. C. Return-Stroke Waveform A concave waveform, with no discontinuity at t=0, is an accurate representation of the wave front of a negative return stroke. Fig.1 shows the Heidler model used in this work [17]. Main parameters used to define this waveform in the present work are the peak current magnitude, I100, the rise time, tf (= 1.67 (t90 t30)), and the tail time, th, i.e. the time interval between the start of the wave and the 50% of the peak current on tail. Reported waveforms for the first negative stroke show some differences in the peak zone with respect the waveform depicted in Fig. 1 [1], [3], [8]. Negative subsequent strokes do not show a very pronounced concavity of the wavefront [3]; however, they can be represented with enough accuracy by the Heidler model. Although positive return strokes do not have enough common features to produce an acceptable waveform [3], the above waveform will be also used in this work to represent them. D. Probability Distribution of Return-Stroke Parameters The statistical variation of the lightning stroke parameters can be approximated by a log-normal distribution, with the following probability density function [3]
p ( x) = 1 2 x ln x exp 0.5
ln

kA I100 I90

I50

I30

t30 t90

th

time

Fig. 1. Parameters of a return stroke Concave waveform.

second strokes are of concern for transmission insulation levels; i.e. peak current magnitudes of the third and the subsequent strokes are much lower than those of the previous strokes and they do not represent a threat to transmission lines. Consequently, only single- and two-stroke flashes are considered in this work. Although correlation between parameters of the same stroke should be usually assumed, current parameters of subsequent strokes of a negative flash are independent of the first stroke current. The peak current magnitudes of positive strokes are greater than those of negative polarity, while their front and tail times are much longer. In addition, they present a seasonal variation: the number of positive flashes increases during winter and their statistical parameters are very different from those of negative flashes [1], [12], [13], while both positive and negative flashes show similar parameters during summer. IV. MONTE CARLO PROCEDURE The following paragraphs summarize the most important aspects of the procedure developed for this work [4], [5]. a) Initially, random values (parameters of the lightning stroke, location of the leader channel, phase conductor voltages, footing resistances, insulator strengths) are calculated. b) Next, the last step of a return stroke is determined by means of the electrogeometric model [18]. c) Overvoltage calculations are performed once the point of impact has been determined. d) If a flashover occurs in an insulator string, the counter is increased and the flashover rate updated. e) The procedure is stopped when the convergence of the Monte Carlo method is achieved. V. SIMULATION RESULTS A. Line Configuration Fig. 2 shows the tower design for the line tested in this paper. It is a 400 kV line, with two conductors per phase and two shield wires. B. Transmission Line and Lightning Parameters A model of the test line was created using ATP capabilities and following the guidelines summarized in Section II.

x ln xm

ln x

(3)

where lnx is the standard deviation of lnx, and xm is the median value of x. A joint probability density function of two stroke parameters, p(x,y), can be assumed by introducing a the coefficient of correlation c. If x and y are independently distributed, then c=0, and p(x,y)=p(x)p(y) [3]. E. Return-Stroke Parameters Several statistical distributions have been presented in the literature [1] - [3], [8]. As mentioned above, negative flashes con consist of multiple strokes; however, only the first and the

The line was represented by means of three 400-m spans plus a 30-km section as line termination at each side of the point of impact. The calculations will be made by assuming that the line is over flat terrain.
TABLE I LINE CONDUCTOR CHARACTERISTICS

Since unrealistic values of the peak current magnitude can be generated using these parameters, the distributions have been truncated for both polarities at 500 kA. An analysis of the effect that this can have on the flashover rate is presented in Section VII.
TABLE III STATISTICAL PARAMETERS OF RETURN STROKES BASE CASE

Type Phase conductors Shield wires

1
10 m

Diameter (mm) 31.63 12.60

2

Resistance ( /km) 0.05501 0.642

Parameter I100, kA tf, s th , s

CURLEW 94S

Negative x lnx 34.0 0.740 2.0 0.494 77.5 0.577

Positive x lnx 40.0 0.980 10.0 1.210 230.0 1.330

14.05

40 cm

10 m

10 m

B
5.1m

C
22.5m (10.5m) 26.1m (14.1m) 31.25m (21.25m)

17.2m

The phase conductor reference angle had a uniform distribution, between 0 and 360 degrees. Insulator string: a Weibull distribution was assumed for El0. The mean values were those shown in Table II, while the standard deviation in both cases was 5%. Footing resistance: normal distribution, Rm=50 , =5 . The footing resistance parameter, Rm, is the mean value of the resistance at low current and low frequency. The value of the soil resistivity was 500 ohm-m. The stroke location, before the application of the electrogeometric model, was generated by assuming a vertical path and a uniform ground distribution of the leader. No flashovers other than those across insulator strings, e.g. flashovers between conductors, have been considered. C. Simulation Results The influence of the flash polarity was analyzed following two different approaches. First, all flashes were assumed either only negative or only positive. After 40000 runs with each polarity, the flashover rate was respectively 0.590 and 0.683 per 100 km-year for negative and positive flashes. Next, the polarity was randomly determined by assuming that a 10% of the flashes were positive. The flashover rate was 0.588 per 100 km-year, which is about 2% lower than that which can be obtained from weighting the above results according to the percentage assumed for each type of flash. Fig. 3 and 4 show the results derived from the base case with each polarity. From these results the following conclusions can be derived: There is a range of peak current magnitudes for each type of flashover and a range of values that cause no flashover. Since the parameters assumed for each polarity were different, the distributions are also different, although backflashovers are not caused with peak current magnitudes below 100 kA, neither with negative nor with positive strokes. The value of the rise time with which backflashovers are caused shows a different range for each polarity: no backflashovers were caused by negative strokes with a rise time above 5 s, while there were backflashovers caused by positive strokes with a rise time longer than 10 s. The main factors that contribute to the latter result are the insulator strength, which is lower under positive strokes, and the tail duration of these strokes, which is much longer than that of negative strokes. According to the leader

7.164m

Fig. 2. 400 kV line configuration (Values within parenthesis are midspan heights).

The surge impedance of towers was calculated according to the expression suggested by CIGRE [8]. A value of 134 was estimated for all towers. Table II shows the parameters to be used in the insulator equation that was presented in Section II. The value of the average gradient at the critical flashover voltage was assumed to be the same that El0 for both negative and positive flashes. The striking distance of insulator strings was in all cases 3.212 m.
TABLE II LEADER PARAMETERS

Parameter kl, m2/(V2s) El0, kV/m

Negative Flashes 1.3E-6 570

Positive Flashes 1.2E-6 490

Only single stroke flashes were initially considered. A return stroke was represented by a concave waveform, with parameter n, to be specified in equation (6), equal to 5. The following probability distributions were assumed: Stoke parameters were determined assuming a log-normal distribution for all of them. Table III shows the values used for each parameter. Initially, parameters were independently distributed, i.e. c=0.

4
0 .00 20

0.0 0 0 8 0.0 0 0 7

0 .00 16

0.0 0 0 6

Probability

0 .00 12

Probability
1 40 2 20 30 0 38 0 4 60

0.0 0 0 5 0.0 0 0 4 0.0 0 0 3 0.0 0 0 2 0.0 0 0 1

0 .00 08

0 .00 04

0 .00 00

0.0 0 0 0 140 200 260 320 380 440 500

P e a k c u rre n t m a g n itu d e (k A )

P e a k c u r re n t m a g n itu d e (k A )

a) Strokes to shield wires that caused flashover

0 .0 00 2 0

a) Strokes to shield wires that caused flashover

0 .0 0 0 2 0

0 .0 00 1 6

0 .0 0 0 1 6

Probability

0 .0 00 1 2

Probability
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

0 .0 0 0 1 2

0 .0 00 0 8

0 .0 0 0 0 8

0 .0 00 0 4

0 .0 0 0 0 4

0 .0 00 0 0

0 .0 0 0 0 0 8 12 16 20 24

P e a k c u rr e n t m a g n it u d e (k A )

P e a k c u rre n t m a g n itu d e (k A )

b) Strokes to phase conductors that caused flashover

0.100
With flashover

b) Strokes to phase conductors that caused flashover

0.070 0.060
With flashover Without flashover

0.080

Without flashover

Probability

0.060 0.040 0.020 0.000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Probability

0.050 0.040 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

40

45

50

55

Rise tim e ( s)

Rise time ( s)

c) Rise time distribution of strokes to shield wires and towers Fig. 3. Distribution of negative stroke currents.

c) Rise time distribution of strokes to shield wires and towers Fig. 4. Distribution of positive stroke currents.

progression model, a flashover can be caused after the peak voltage if the tail is long enough and not too steep. D. Discussion The log-normal distribution used to characterize the statistical variation of the peak current magnitude of a return stroke can provide unrealistic values of this parameter; e.g. I100 > 1200 kA. Although strokes with a peak current magnitude above 500 kA have been recorded (Lyons et al. mention a negative stroke with 957 kA and a positive stroke with 580 kA [19]), they are very rare. Therefore, all simulations were performed by truncating the peak current magnitude at 500 kA. However, this can affect the flashover rate. Consider the parameters used to characterize positive flashes, see Table III. According to a log-normal distribution with these values, the probability that the maximum current exceeds the limit 400 kA is 0.94%, while the probability will be 0.50% if the truncation limit is 500 kA. However, the flashover rates obtained with these two limits would be 0.480 and 0.683, respectively. Although the difference between probabilities of occurrence is very small, the difference between flashover rates is rather large. That is, the flashover

rate is sensitive to the limit selected for truncating the peak current magnitude. However, the flashover rate due to negative flashes is not so sensitive to this truncation limit. This different performance is due to the different parameters of both distributions and can be easily justified from results depicted in Fig. 3a and Fig. 4a: if the truncation limit for negative strokes was moved from 400 to 500 kA, the flashover rate increase would be very little; however, it is evident, that the increase would be much larger for positive strokes. E. Sensitivity Analysis Two sensitivity studies aimed at analyzing the influence of some parameters of the lightning flash and the influence of a correlation factor were performed. These studies were also performed in the previous work [5], but the representation of the insulator strings was different and only negative flashes were analyzed. Fig. 5 and 6 show the main simulation results obtained for each type of flash. In all figures the flashover rate is calculated per 100 km-year. The conclusions derived from these results are discussed below.

5
4.0
= 100 ohm-m = 1000 ohm-m R 0=100 ohm

4.0
= 100 ohm-m = 1000 ohm-m

Flashover rate

3.0

3.0
Flashover rate

2.0

R0 =20 ohm

2.0

R0=100 ohm R0=20 ohm

1.0

1.0

0.0 10

20 30 40 Peak current magnitude (kA)

50

0.0 10

20 30 40 Peak current magnitude (kA)

50

a) Flashover rate vs. peak current magnitude (tf = 2 s, c = 0)

2.5 2.0
Flashover rate = 100 ohm-m = 1000 ohm-m

a) Flashover rate vs. peak current magnitude (tf = 10 s, c = 0)

2.5 2.0
Flashover rate R0 =100 ohm = 100 ohm-m = 1000 ohm-m

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1

R0=100 ohm
R0 =20 ohm

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

R 0=20 ohm

3 Rise time (s)

10

15
Rise time ( s)

20

25

b) Flashover rate vs. rise time (I100 = 34 kA, c = 0)

0.8

b) Flashover rate vs. rise time (I100 = 40 kA, c = 0)

1.0 0.8

Flashover rate

Flashover rate

0.6

0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

0.4

0.2

0.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Correlation coefficient 0.7 0.8 0.9

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Correlation coefficient

c) Total flashover rate vs. correlation coefficient Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis. Negative flashes (Ng = 1 fl/km ).
2

c) Total flashover rate vs. correlation coefficient Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysis. Positive flashes (Ng = 1 fl/km2).

1. Plots of Fig. 5 and 6 show the flashover rate as a function of the median values of the peak current magnitude and the rise time of the return strokes, using the footing resistance as a parameter. Although the values are different, the trend is the same for both polarities: the rate increases with the peak current magnitude and decreases with the rise time. In addition, the influence of the tower footing resistance is not very significant for low values of the soil resistivity, for which the value of R0 is rather unimportant. 2. Only correlation between the probability density functions of the peak current magnitude and the rise time is assumed. The results shown in Fig. 5c and 6c are similar to those presented in [5]: the BFOR is very sensitive to the coefficient of correlation between the peak current magnitude and the rise time, while the SFFOR remains practically constant, irrespectively of the value of c; consequently, the Total Flashover Rate decreases as the coefficient of correlation increases. These results confirm the importantce that the parameter correlation can have on the flashover rate, since values equal or greater than 0.4 have

been suggested for c [8]. F. Subsequent Strokes Several aspects must be accounted for the incorporation of the second stroke into the flashover rate calculation: there is no correlation between current parameters of the first and the second stroke, there is an interval (about several ms) between strokes of the same flash, and there may be spatial separation between strokes within a flash (e.g., in a work reported by Rakov and Uman, 24.5% of subsequent strokes created a termination different to that of the first stroke [1], [20]). Table IV shows the parameters used to represent the second stroke. A log-normal distribution was assumed for all of them. From previous results and the parameters of this table, one can foresee that the second stroke will have a negligible effect on both the BFOR and the SFFOR if the second stroke follows the path of the first one: in the previous case backflashovers were caused with peak current magnitudes above 100 kA (see Fig. 3a), and only 3 strokes that reached a phase conductor did not cause flashover.

6 TABLE IV PARAMETERS OF SUBSEQUENT NEGATIVE STROKES BASE CASE [7] [8] R.B. Anderson and A.J. Eriksson, Lightning parameters for engineering applications, Electra, no. 69, pp. 65-102, March 1980. CIGRE WG 33-01, Guide to Procedures for Estimating the Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines, CIGRE Brochure 63, 1991. A. Pigini et al., Performance of large air gaps under lightning overvoltages: Experimental study and analysis of accuracy of predetermination methods, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1379-1392, April 1989. IEC 60071-2, Insulation Co-ordination, Part 2: Application Guide, 1996. A.M. Mousa, The soil ionization gradient associated with discharge of high currents into concentrated electrodes, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1669-1677, July 1994. S. Yokoyama, K. Miyake, T. Suzuki and S. Kanao, Winter lightning on Japan sea coast - Development of measuring system on progressing feature of lightning discharge, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1418-1425, July 1990. A. Asakawa et al., Two types of lightning discharge to a high stack on the coast of the sea of Japan in winter, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1222-1231, July 1997. V. Cooray and H. Perez, Some features of lightning flashes observed in Sweden, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 99, no. D5, pp. 10683-10688, 1994. V.A. Rakov, M.A. Uman and R. Thottappillil, Review of lightning properties from electric field and TV observations, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 99, no. D5, pp. 10745-10750, 1994. G. Diendorfer, W. Schulz and V.A. Rakov, Lightning characteristics based on data from the Austrian lightning location system, IEEE Trans. Electromag. Compat., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 452-464, Nov. 1998. F. Heidler, J.M. Cvetic and B.V. Stanic, Calculation of lightning current parameters, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 399-404, April 1999. IEEE Std. 1243-1997, IEEE Guide for improving the lightning performance of transmission lines, 1997. W.A. Lyons, M. Uliasz and T.E. Nelson, Large peak current cloud-toground lightning flashes during the summer months in the contiguous United States, Mont. Weather Rev., vol. 126, pp. 2217-2233, 1998. V.A. Rakov and M.A. Uman, Some properties of negative cloud-toground lightning flashes versus stroke order, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 95, pp. 5447-5453, 1990. Y. Goto and K. Narita, Electrical characteristics of winter lightning, J. Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 449-458, 1995. K.L. Cummins, E.P. Krider and M.D. Malone, The US National Lightning Detection Network and applications of cloud-to-ground lightning data by electric power utilities, IEEE Trans. on Electromag. Compat., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 465-480, November 1998. S.M. Chen, Y. Du, L.M. Fan, H.M. He, and D.Z. Zhong, A lightning location system in China: Its performances and applications, IEEE Trans. Electromag. Compat., vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 555560, Nov. 2002. K.L. Cummins, A review of lightning information for power systems analysis, Trans. & Dist. Conf. and Exp., Sept. 7-12, 2003.

Parameter I100, kA tf, s th , s

Median 12.3 1.0 30.2

Std. deviation of lnx 0.530 0.921 0.930

[9]

The calculations were repeated assuming that all subsequent strokes can have a point of impact different from that of the first stroke. The simulations were performed with the same values used in the base case, and assuming that 10% of flashes were of positive polarity and single-stroke. As for negative flashes, 45% were single-stroke, being the interval between the first and the second stroke characterized by a median of 45 ms and a standard deviation of 1.07 ms. After 40000 runs, the flashover rate increased from 0.588 (with only first strokes) till 0.660 due to the second negative strokes that caused a shielding failure. The conclusion is that subsequent strokes increase very little the flashover rate of transmission lines with rated voltages 400 kV and above. VI. CONCLUSIONS A good characterization of lightning for engineering applications is a complex task. In addition, bipolar flashes could be also considered for a more accurate characterization. Current waveforms with reversal polarities have been recorded since 1939 [1]. Although they have a very low frequency of occurrence, winter lightning studies in Japan have reported that this frequency ranges from 5 to 33% [1], [21]. Present lightning detection systems cannot provide a good estimate of all lightning parameters that are required in computer models, see [16], [22] - [24]. However, only an accurate knowledge of the parameters of the first negative stroke can be crucial for transmission lines with rated voltage 400 kV and above. Including positive polarity flashes into the return stroke characterization will in general increase the flashover rate. However, it is important to keep in mind that this will usually happen during winter months. VII. REFERENCES
[1] [2] [3] V.A. Rakov and M.A. Uman, Lightning. Physics and Effects, Cambridge University Press, 2003. A.R. Hileman, Insulation Coordination for Power Systems, Marcel Dekker, 1999. IEEE TF on Parameters of Lightning Strokes, Parameters of lightning strokes: A review, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 346-358, January 2005. J.A. Martinez and F. Castro-Aranda, Influence of the stroke angle on the flashover rate of an overhead transmission line, submitted for presentation at the IEEE PES General Meeting 2006, Montreal. J.A. Martinez and F. Castro-Aranda, Lightning performance analysis of overhead transmission lines using the EMTP, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 2200-2210, July 2005. IEEE TF on Fast Front Transients (A. Imece, Chairman), Modeling guidelines for fast transients, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 493-506, January 1996.

[10] [11]

[12]

[13]

[14] [15]

[16]

[17]

[18] [19]

[20]

[21] [22]

[23]

[24]

VIII. BIOGRAPHIES
Juan A. Martinez was born in Barcelona (Spain). He is Profesor Titular at the Departament d'Enginyeria Elctrica of the Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya. His teaching and research interests include Transmission and Distribution, Power System Analysis and EMTP applications. Ferley Castro-Aranda was born in Tulu (Colombia). He is Profesor Asociado at the Universidad del Valle (Cali, Colombia). His research interests are focused on the areas of Insulation Coordination and System Modeling for Transient Analysis using EMTP.

[4]

[5]

[6]