IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO.

2, APRIL 2005 867

A Method of a Lightning Surge Analysis

Recommended in Japan Using EMTP
A. Ametani, Fellow, IEEE, and T. Kawamura, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—EMTP has been widely used in Japan to analyze that should be done based on discussions of the recommended
switching and lightning overvoltages to design power stations models.
and substations from the viewpoint of insulation coordination.
The Japanese standard of high voltage testing, JEC-0102-1994,
and the insulation design and the coordination of an 1100-kV II. RECOMMENDED MODELING METHOD [5]–[10], [15]
line of Tokyo Electric Power Company were mostly based on Fig. 1 illustrates a basic configuration of a model system rec-
EMTP simulations. This paper presents a method of a lightning
surge analysis using the EMTP recommended in the Japanese ommended for a lightning surge simulation.
standard and related guidelines, and suggests further work to be
done based on discussions of applicable limits and problems of the A. Number of Towers
recommended models. Five towers from a substation gantry are to be considered,
Index Terms—EMTP, insulation coordination, lightning surge, because traveling waves reflected from the towers affect a light-
substation. ning surge voltage in the substation. The first reflection, when
lightning strikes the first tower at , from the 6th tower (next
I. INTRODUCTION to the last = 5th tower in Fig. 1) arrives at the substation entrance
after two travel times T between the first and the sixth towers.
A LIGHTNING surge overvoltage is a dominant factor to
determine the insulation level of a substation. It is very
hard to observe the lightning overvoltage experimentally, and
For example,
gives the time
with light velocity
. Thus, a simulation result is accurate
up to 10 , which is enough in general to observe the maximum
thus a numerical simulation has been adopted to investigate
overvoltage and the time to the peak.
it [1]–[10]. The EMTP [11]–[13] has been widely used since
the 1970s in conjunction with increasing usage of digital com- B. AC Sources and Matching Termination
puters. In Japan, the EMTP was introduced in 1976, and has
become a powerful tool to investigate a transient in a power The left side of the last tower is represented by a multiphase
system since 1980. In 1982, a Working Group (WG) of a Light- matching impedance (resistance matrix), which is given as a
ning Surge Analysis1 was established in the IEE of Japan to characteristic impedance matrix including a mutual impedance
develop and propose a sophisticated but commonly recognized of the transmission line at a dominant transient frequency
method of a lightning surge analysis using the EMTP [5]–[10], defined by [16]:
and was dissolved in 2000. Based on the method developed by
the WG, switching, fault and lightning surge analyses had been
carried out on an 1100-kV transmission system by the EMTP
for its optimized and rationalized insulation design and coordi-
nation [14]. A successful completion of the 1100-kV project had
(1)
led to rationalization of the Japanese standard of high voltage
testing, JEC-193-1973 in that time, and a special committee for where , : total line length.
renewing the standard was established in 1991 in cooperation An ac voltage source is connected to the other side of the
with the WG. A new standard, JEC-0102-1994, was completed matching impedance as illustrated in Fig. 1 to take into account
and issued in 1994 [15]. the effect of the ac steady state voltage on a lightning surge.
This paper summarizes the method of a lightning surge anal-
ysis developed by the WG and applied to the 1100-kV system C. Lightning Current and Impedance
design and to the JEC-0102-1994, and suggests further work
A lightning current is represented by a ramp waveform with
the wavefront duration and the wavetail .
Manuscript received March 17, 2003; revised January 31, 2004. Paper no. Occasionally, a concave current of which the waveform is de-
TPWRD-00106-2003.
A. Ametani is with Doshisha University, Kyo-Tanabe, Kyoto, Japan (e-mail: fined in the following equation is adopted in Japan to represent
aametani@mail.doshisha.ac.jp). a real lightning current more accurately [5], [17]:
T. Kawamura is with the Shibaura Institute of Technology, Minato-ku, Tokyo,
Japan.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2004.839183
(2)
1Chairman: T. Kawamura from 1982 to 1994 and A. Ametani from 1994 to
2000. where is the peak current , i.e., .
0885-8977/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
868 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 2, APRIL 2005

Fig. 1. Simplified illustration of the recommended model system for a lightning surge simulation.

TABLE I
RECOMMENDED VALUES OF LIGHTNING PARAMETERS

The recommended value of the lightning current amplitude is

given in Table I for various transmission voltages in Japan.
The impedance of a lightning path is represented as a parallel
resistance to a current source as illustrated in Fig. 1. The resis-
tance value is taken to be 400 , which was derived by Bewley
[18]. Fig. 2. A model circuit of a tower.

To represent traveling-wave attenuation and distortion, an

D. Tower and Gantry parallel circuit is added to each part, as illustrated in Fig. 2. The
values of the and are defined in the following equation:
A transmission tower is represented by four distributed-pa-
rameter lines [19], as illustrated in Fig. 2, where
tower top to the upper phase arm upper to
middle middle to lower;
lower to tower bottom.
Table I gives typical values of the surge impedance. (4)
The propagation velocity of a traveling wave along a tower
is taken to be where
—traveling time along the tower;
—attenuation along the tower;
(3) tower height.
AMETANI AND KAWAMURA: A METHOD OF A LIGHTNING SURGE ANALYSIS RECOMMENDED IN JAPAN USING EMTP
A substation gantry is represented by a single distributed line
with no loss.
E. Tower Footing Impedance
A tower footing impedance is suggested in Japan to be mod-
eled as a simple linear resistance , although a current-de-
pendent nonlinear resistance is recommended by the IEEE and
the CIGRE [1]–[4] and the inductive and capacitive characteris-
tics of the footing impedance are well-known. A recommended
value of the resistance for each voltage class is given in Table I.
F. Archorn Flashover
An archorn flashover is represented either by a piecewise
linear inductance model with time controlled switches as illus-
trated in Fig. 3(a) or by a nonlinear inductance in Fig. 3(b) based
on a leader progression model [20], [21]. The parameters
( to 3) and assuming the initial time
in Fig. 3(a) are determined from a measured result of the V-I
characteristic of an archorn flashover. Then the first EMTP sim-
ulation with no archorn flashover is carried out in Fig. 1, and
the first flashover phase and the initial time are determined
from the simulation results of the voltage waveforms across
all the archorns. By adopting the above parameters, the second
EMTP simulation only with the first phase flashover is carried
out to determine the second flashover phase. By repeating the
above procedure until no flashover occurs, a lightning surge
simulation by the piecewise linear model is completed. Thus,
a number of pre-calculations are necessary in the case of mul-
tiphase flashovers, while the nonlinear inductance model needs
no pre-calculation and is easily applied to multiphase flashovers.
The detail of the leader progression model is explained in [20],
and that of the nonlinear inductance model in [21].
G. Transmission Line
Most transmission lines in Japan are of twin-circuit vertical
configuration with two ground wires, and thus are composed
of eight conductors. It is recommended to represent the line
by a frequency-dependent line model of the EMTP. But, a dis-
tributed-line model with a fixed propagation velocity, attenua-
tion and surge impedance, i.e., fixed-parameter distributed-line
model explained in [12, Sec. 4.2.2.4], is often used.
H. Corona Wave Deformation
Japanese guideline neglects corona wave deformation, al-
though it is taken into account in the CIGRE and the IEEE
guidelines [1]–[4].
I. Arrester
An inductance of a lead wire and the arrester itself is con-
nected in series to the arrester model, because it affects a tran-
sient voltage and current of the arrester. Also, a capacitance of
the arrester is considered if necessary. To represent a very fast
impulse characteristic of the arrester, an IEEE model [22] or a
model of a nonlinear resistance with a nonlinear inductance [23]
is occasionally adopted. The latter model takes into account the
hysterisis of an arrester – characteristic by adding the non-
linear inductance to the nonlinear resistance in series.
869
Fig. 3. An anchorn flashover model. (a) A piecewise linear mode. (b) A
nonlinear inductance model.
J. Substation
1) Gas insulated bus and cable: A cable and a gas-insulated
bus are represented either as three single-phase distributed
lines with its coaxial mode surge impedance and propaga-
tion velocity or as a three-phase distributed line system.
For a gas-insulated substation involves quite a number
of gas-insulated buses/lines, the pipes are, in most cases,
eliminated by assuming the voltage being zero.
2) Circuit breaker (CB), disconnector, transformer, bushing:
A CB and a disconnector are represented by lumped ca-
pacitances between the poles and to the earth. A trans-
former is also represented by a capacitance to the earth un-
less a transferred surge to the secondary circuit is needed
to be calculated. A bushing is represented by a capaci-
tance. Occasionally, it is represented by a distributed line.
3) Grounding mesh: A grounding mesh is in general not con-
sidered in a lightning surge simulation, and is regarded as
a zero-potential surface. When dealing with an incoming
surge to a low-voltage control circuit, the transient voltage
of the grounding mesh should not be assumed zero, and its
representation becomes an important but difficult subject.
III. DISCUSSIONS OF APPLICABLE LIMITS AND PROBLEMS
A. Lightning Current and Impedance
1) Lightning current waveform: Measured results of a light-
ning current show a concave shape [17], [24]. An archorn
flashover characteristic being affected by the current
derivative, it has been decided not to adopt a double-ex-
ponential waveform. Calculated results of a maximum
voltage at a tower top show that the double-exponential
waveform produces a far greater voltage than those in the
other waveforms [25]. In the region of smaller than
0.7 , no significant difference is observed. The CIGRE
waveform (50%: , 5%: by 30/90%
definition) [17] is found to produce a far smaller voltage.
It should be noted that the maximum voltage appears at
the time in the ramp and wave cases,
while it appears at the time ( : traveling time
along the tower) in the double-exponential wave case.
2) Lightning-path impedance: The lightning-path
impedance of 400 in Fig. 1 was derived by Be-
wley [18], but the value seems not correct, because the
lightning velocity is assumed equal to the light velocity
in free space. On the contrary, Diesendorf suggested the
value as 1000 to 2000 [26]. Fig. 4 shows the effect of
the lightning-path resistance on a lightning overvoltage
870
Fig. 4. Effect of a lightning-path impedance on a substation entrance
overvoltage.
Fig. 5. Measured results of archorn flashover phases on a 77-kV transmission
3 2 
line single-phase FO, two-phase FO, three-phase FO.
at the entrance of a 500-kV gas-insulated substation [9].
It is observed that the greater the resistance, the higher
the overvoltage. With , the overvoltage is
increased by about 7% in comparison with that with
. A similar trend is observed at a transformer
terminal. The reason for the increase is readily explained
as an increase of a current flowing into a tower and a
ground wire by increasing the lightning-path resistance.
When an arrester is installed, the difference is decreased.
The impedance value of a real lightning path has not been
made clear, and requires further investigation.
B. Ac Source Voltage
An ac source voltage is often neglected in a lightning surge
simulation. It has however been found that the ac source voltage
affects a flashover phase of an archorn especially in the case of
a rather small lightning current. Fig. 5 is a measured result of ar-
chorn flashover phases as a function of the ac source voltage on
a 77-kV transmission line in Japan for a summer [24]. The mea-
surements were carried out in two 77-kV substations by surge
recorders installed in the substations. From the recorded volt-
ages and currents, Fig. 5 was obtained. The figure clearly shows
that the archorn flashover phase is quite dependent on the ac
source voltage, i.e., a flashover occurs at a phase of which the ac
voltage is in the opposite polarity of a lightning current. Table II
shows a simulation result of archorn peak voltages (archorn not
operating) on the 77-kV line and on a 500-kV line [27]. The sim-
ulation was carried out in a similar circuit to Fig. 1, but another
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 2, APRIL 2005
Fig. 6. Simulation results of archorn flashover phases corresponding to Fig. 5
 2
: single-phase FO : two-phase FO. (a) A simple distributed line model.
(b) Recommended tower model.
TABLE II
MAXIMUM ARCHORN VOLTAGES AND THE TIME OF APPEARANCE
five towers were added instead of the gantry and the substation.
The parameters are the same as those in Table I for a 77-kV
system, except the lightning current of 40 kA based on the field
measurement [24]. The lower phase archorn voltage is relatively
smaller than the other phase archorn voltages on the 500-kV
line compared with those on the 77-kV line. Thus, an archorn
flashover phase on an EHV line is rather independent from the
ac source voltage, and the lower phase flashover is less probable
than the other phase flashover. On the contrary, flashover proba-
bility is rather same on each phase and a flashover is dependent
on the ac source voltage on a low-voltage line.
C. Tower Model
1) Problem of Recommended Tower Model: Fig. 6 shows
simulation results of archorn flashover phases by a simple dis-
tributed line “tower model” i.e., neglecting the RL circuit in
Fig. 2 with the parameters in Table I, and by the recommended
model illustrated in Fig. 2. The simulation circuit is the same as
that described for Table II in the previous section. This figure
should be compared with the field test result shown in Fig. 5.
It is clear that the recommended model can not duplicate the
field test result, while the simple distributed line model shows
a good agreement with the field test result. The reason for the
poor accuracy of the recommended model is that the model was
developed originally for a 500-kV line on which the lower phase
AMETANI AND KAWAMURA: A METHOD OF A LIGHTNING SURGE ANALYSIS RECOMMENDED IN JAPAN USING EMTP
TABLE III
MEASURED AND CALCULATED SURGE IMPEDANCES OF VERTICAL CONDUCTORS
flashover was less probable as explained in Section III-B. Thus,
the recommended tower model tends to result in lower flashover
probability of the lower phase archorn. An – parallel circuit
between two distributed lines in Fig. 2 represents traveling-wave
attenuation and distortion along a tower. The and values
were determined originally based on a field measurement [ in
(4)], and thus those are correct only for the tower on which the
measurement was carried out. Sometimes, the R-L circuit gen-
erates unreal high frequency oscillation. This indicated a neces-
sity of further investigation of the – circuit.
2) Impedance and Admittance Formulas: A number of
tower models have been proposed, but most of them are not
general, i.e., a tower model shows a good agreement with a
specific case explained in the paper where the model is pro-
posed. The following IEEE/CIGRE formula of the tower surge
impedance is well known and is widely adopted in a lightning
surge simulation [2], [4]:
(5)
where is the equivalent radius of
the tower represented by a truncated cone, , and
, , tower top, midsection and base radii [m];
height from midsection to top [m];
height from base to midsection [m].
When the tower is not a cone but a cylinder, then the above
equation is rewritten by
(6)
where is the radius of a cylinder representing a tower
The recommended value of a tower surge impedance for each
voltage class in Table I was determined by field measurements in
Japan. Although the surge impedance is a representative value,
it cannot be applied to every tower (Table III).
Wave deformation on tower structures (L- or T-shaped iron
conductor) can be included in a lightning surge analysis, if re-
quired, based on the approach in [33].
871
3) Frequency-Dependent Effect of a Tower: The frequency-
dependent effect of a tower is readily taken into account in
a transient simulation by combining the frequency-dependent
tower impedance [28] with Semlyen’s or Marti’s line model
[34], [35] in the EMTP [36]. That is:
1) obtain frequency responses of the propagation constant
and the characteristic impedance either
from a measured result or from the frequency-dependent
impedance and the admittance formulas in references;
2) obtain the parameters of Semlyen’s or Marti’s line model
for a transient simulation from the above result.
4) Influence of Surge Impedance and Frequency-Depen-
dent Effect: It should be pointed out that the influence of
the surge impedance and the frequency-dependent effect of a
tower is heavily dependent on the modeling of a tower footing
impedance, which will be discussed in the following section.
When the footing impedance is represented by a resistive model
as recommended in Japan or by a capacitance model, then the
influence of the tower surge impedance and the frequency-de-
pendent effect of a traveling wave along the tower becomes
rather noticeable. On the contrary, those cause only a minor
effect when the footing impedance is represented either by an
inductive model or by a nonlinear resistance. Fig. 7 shows an
example [25], [36]. The measurement was carried out on a
500-kV tower by applying a current in Fig. 7(a-1) to the top of
the tower. The tower top voltage predicted by a distributed-line
model with a constant tower surge impedance and no R-L
circuit Fig. 7(c-1), differs from that by the frequency-dependent
tower model Fig. 7(b), which agrees with the measured result,
in the case of the footing impedance being a resistance. On the
contrary, in the case of an inductive footing model, the tower top
voltage obtained by the distributed-line model shows a rather
good agreement with the measured result. It should be also
noted that some 10% variation of the tower surge impedance
does not affect the result in the inductive footing impedance
case.
Thus, it is concluded that the frequency-dependent effect of
wave propagation along a tower can be neglected and the value
of the surge impedance is not significant unless a tower footing
impedance is represented by a resistive or a capacitive model.
872
Fig. 7. Influence of a tower on the tower top voltage. (a) Measured result. (b) Frequency-dependent tower model with a resistive footing impedance.
(c) Distributed-line tower model with various footing impedances.
D. Tower Footing Impedance
1) Linear Footing Impedance: It has been known in gen-
eral that the footing impedance tends to be capacitive in the
case of a high-resistivity earth, and inductive in the low resis-
tivity earth case. A problem of the representation is: the footing
impedance can be resistive, inductive and capacitive depending
on the season and the weather when a measurement is made,
i.e., the impedance is temperature- and soil moisture-depen-
dent. Therefore, it is not easy to select a model of the footing
impedance and this is the reason why a resistance model is
adopted in Japan.
2) Current-Dependent Nonlinearity: A number of papers
have discussed the current-dependence of a tower footing
impedance, and have proposed various models of the nonlinear
footing impedance. It has been a common understanding that
the current-dependence decreases a lightning surge voltage
at the tower and thus decreases a lightning overvoltage at
a substation. Therefore a simulation neglecting the current
dependence gives a severer overvoltage, i.e., a safer side result
from the insulation design viewpoint. For this reason, again a
pure resistance model is recommended in Japan.
E. Archorn Flashover Model
There exist a number of archorn flashover models. To in-
vestigate the accuracy, phase-wire voltages at the first tower in
Fig. 1 are calculated by various archorn models and are com-
pared [37]. A switch (time-controlled) model and a flashover
switch model show not satisfactory agreement especially in the
wavefront with the nonlinear inductance model of which the ac-
curacy has been confirmed to be high in comparison with an ex-
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 2, APRIL 2005
perimental result [21]. A - characteristic model and a piece-
wise linear inductance model show a reasonable accuracy ex-
cept that the maximum voltage of the former is greater and that
of the latter is lower than that calculated by the nonlinear induc-
tance model. It might be noteworthy that a current and energy
consumed by an arrester in a substation are dependent on an ar-
chorn model. The switch and the flashover switch models result
in much higher energy consumed by an arrester.
F. Transmission Line, Feeder, Gas-Insulated Bus
1) Frequency-Dependent Transmission Line Impedance:
Although a frequency-dependent line model, i.e., Semlyen’s or
Marti’s model [34], [35], is recommended, the maximum error
of Marti’s model is observed to be about 15% at the wavefront
of an impulse voltage on an 1100-kV untransposed vertical
twin-circuit line in comparison with a field test result [38]. The
estimation of possible errors incurred by using these models
in a lightning overvoltage simulation is not straightforward,
because it involves a nonlinearity due to an archorn flashover
dependent on a lightning current, an ac source voltage, a
flashover phase and so on. This is an important subject to be
investigated in future.
2) Finite Length of a Line and a Gas-Insulated Bus:
Carson’s and Pollaczek’s earth return impedance of an over-
head line and an underground cable were derived based on
the assumption of an infinitely long line. A real line is not
infinitely long at all. The separation distance of a UHV/EHV
transmission line between adjacent towers and the length of a
gas-insulated bus are in the same order of their height . If the
condition that is far greater than and is far greater than the
radius , is not satisfied, Carson’s and Pollaczek’s impedances
AMETANI AND KAWAMURA: A METHOD OF A LIGHTNING SURGE ANALYSIS RECOMMENDED IN JAPAN USING EMTP
are not applicable. Fig. 8 shows an example of the impedance
of a finite-length line evaluated by the following equation [39]:
(7)
where
;
;
horizontal separation between conductors and ;
, height of conductors i and j;
complex penetration depth [40].
It should be clear in Fig. 8 that Carson’s impedance assuming
an infinitely long line is far greater than that of a real finite line,
when is not greater enough than 1. The reason for this is
readily understood from the following equation [41]:
(8)
(9)
As is clear from the above equations, involves mutual
coupling from the infinitely long conductor “ ”, while in-
volves mutual coupling from the conductor “ ” with the finite
length . In fact, becomes infinite because of the infi-
nite length, and thus “per unit length” impedance is necessarily
defined. It should be noted that the per-unit length impedance
of (8) has included the mutual coupling from the infin-
itely long conductor “ ”. On the contrary, , if we define
the per unit length impedance in (9), includes the mutual cou-
pling only for the finite length . Thus
(10)
On the contrary, the per-unit length admittance of an infinitely
long line is smaller than that of a finite-length line.
From the above discussion, it should now be clear that
Carson’s and Pollaczek’s earth return impedances may not be
applied to a lightning surge analysis, because the separation
distance between adjacent towers is the same order as the
line height. The same is true for a gas-insulated bus, because
its length, height and radius are in the same order. This requires
further work which is interesting and significant.
It is noteworthy that the propagation constants of a finite line
is nearly the same as that of an infinitely long line, but the char-
acteristic (surge) impedance is smaller, because of a smaller se-
ries impedance and a greater shunt admittance of the finite line.
Furthermore, the ratio of the surge impedances of two finite lines
is nearly the same as that of two infinitely long lines. Finally,
traveling-wave reflection, refraction and deformation on the fi-
nite line is not much different from those on the infinitely long
line.
873
Fig. 8. Finite line impedance in comparison with Carson’s impedance. fin =
finite line, (7). (a) Resistance. (b) Inductance.
3) Feeding Line From a Transmission Line to a Substation—
Inclined Conductor: A feeding line from the first tower to the
substation via the gantry in Fig. 1 is inclined, i.e., the height is
gradually decreased. As a result, its surge impedance is also de-
creased gradually and thus no significant reflection of traveling
waves occurs along the feeding line until the substation entrance
in physical reality. Because the surge impedance (about 70 )
of a gas-insulated bus or a bushing is much smaller than that of
an overhead line (300 to 500 ), noticeable reflection appears
at the substation entrance, if the inclined configuration of the
overhead feeding line is not considered. It is better to consider
the inclined configuration of a feeding line if an accurate simu-
lation is required. A maximum difference of 7% in a substation
entrance voltage is observed when the inclined configuration is
considered [42].
G. Corona Wave Deformation
The reason for corona wave deformation being not considered
in a lightning surge simulation in Japanese guideline is that a
simulation result neglecting the corona is expected to be higher
than that considering corona and thus the result is on a safer side
from the insulation viewpoint. The possible errors incurred by
ignoring corona are observed to be less than 10% when light-
ning strikes the first tower in Fig. 1 [8]. Although sophisticated
corona models have been proposed [43], [44], the reliability and
stability in a lightning overvoltage simulation is not confirmed.
It is noteworthy that the corona wave deformation can result
in a higher overvoltage at a substation entrance under a specific
condition. Fig. 9 shows a field test result of a normalized voltage
874 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 2, APRIL 2005

ratio for the negative polarity case defined in the following

equation on a 6.6-kV line [45], [46]:

(11)

where
—normalized by applied voltage ;
maximum phase-wire (PW) voltage at the receiving
end (substation entrance);
normalized voltage with no corona discharge.
The experiment was carried out on a 6.6-kV line with one
phase wire and one ground wire which were terminated by re-
sistances and at the remote end. An impulse voltage up
to 800 kV was applied to the sending end of the ground wire.
The back flashover in Fig. 9 was represented by a short circuit
of the ground and phase wires. For corona wave deformation
decreases a traveling-wave voltage on a line, it is a common un-
derstanding that the line voltage is decreased by the corona wave
deformation and thus the ratio is less than 1. In the case of no
corona discharge, is nearly equal to 1 on a short distance line.
It was observed that a measured result of on a single-phase
line was less than 1.
Fig. 9(a) shows that in the case of no back-flashover be-
comes greater than 1 as the applied voltage is increased, i.e., K
Fig. 9. Measured result of normalized voltage ratio —Effect of corona wave
corona discharge occurs. On the contrary in Fig. 9(b), is less deformation. (a) Without back-flashover. (b) With back-flashover.
than 1. The reason for the phenomena is readily explained as a
result of different attenuation on a phase wire and a ground wire
due to corona discharge, and negative reflection of a heavily at-
tenuated traveling wave on the ground wire. The phenomena
are less noticeable in the positive polarity case. Details are ex-
plained in [45] and [46]. The phenomena have been also real-
ized qualitatively by an EMTP simulation. The increase of a
phase-wire voltage at a substation entrance is expected to be
more pronounced on an EHV/UHV transmission line on which
a corona discharge hardly occurs on a phase wire because of a
multiple bundled conductor, while a heavy corona discharge is
expected on a ground wire.

Fig. 10. Phase-to-phase lightning surge on a 77-kV line.

H. Phase-to-Phase Lightning Surge

Most of the previous studies on a lightning overvoltage IV. CONCLUSIONS

concerned an overvoltage to the earth. A phase-to-phase over-
voltage, however, can damage insulation between phases such
as core-to-core insulation in a gas-insulated bus in which
three-phase cores are enclosed in the pipe. Fig. 10 shows an
EMTP simulation result of an inter-phase lightning overvoltage
at a substation entrance on a 77-kV vertical twin-circuit line,
when phases a and b’ flashovers. The simulation was carried out
on a system composed of a 10-km 245/77-kV quadruple circuit
line and a 10-km 77-kV line. The 77-kV line was connected to a
substation through a three-phase underground XLPE cable with
the length of 500 m. Because of a lower attenuation of aerial
propagation modes, the phase-to-phase overvoltage becomes
greater than the phase-to-earth overvoltage especially in the
case of a lightning strike to a tower far from a substation.
The phase-to-phase lightning overvoltage needs further
investigation.
This paper has explained a lightning surge simulation using
the EMTP recommended in the Japanese guideline, and dis-
cussed problems of the recommended models. Summarizing the
discussions, the following remarks, which needs further inves-
tigation, have been made clear.
1) Tower modeling should be investigated in connection with
modeling of a tower footing impedance. When the footing
impedance is inductive, a sophisticated tower model such
as a frequency-dependent model is not necessary. The
tower footing impedance can be resistive and reactive de-
pending on the earth resistivity and permittivity, i.e., the
soil temperature and moisture which show seasonal vari-
ation and weather dependence.
2) Carson’s and Pollaczeck’s earth-return impedances as-
suming an infinitely long line can not be applied to an
AMETANI AND KAWAMURA: A METHOD OF A LIGHTNING SURGE ANALYSIS RECOMMENDED IN JAPAN USING EMTP
overhead line between towers and a gas-insulated bus, be-
cause the line/bus length is in the same order of the height,
and the bus height is also in the same order of its radius.
Thus, an earth-return impedance of a finite-length con-
ductor has to be taken into account.
3) Similarly, an inclined configuration of an overhead line
from the first tower to a substation entrance is to be con-
sidered, if an accurate simulation is required.
4) Corona wave deformation does not always reduce a light-
ning overvoltage.
5) A phase-to-phase overvoltage can exceed a phase-to-earth
overvoltage especially in the case of lightning far from a
substation and multiphase flashovers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful to all the WG members.
REFERENCES
[1] “A simplified method for estimating lightning performance of transmis-
sion lines,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-104, p. 919, 1985.
[2] “Estimating lightning performance of transmission lines, II—update to
analytical models,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. PWRD-8, p. 1254,
1993.
[3] IEEE Guide for Improving the Lightning Performance of Transmission
Lines, IEEE Standard 1243-1997, 1997.
[4] Guide to Procedures for Estimating Lightning Performance of Transmis-
sion Lines, CIGRE SC33-WG01, Tech. Brochure, Oct. 1991.
[5] “A New Method of a Lightning Surge Analysis in a Power System,” IEE
Japan WG Report, Tech. Rep. 244, Mar. 1987.
[6] “Various Parameters of a Lightning Surge Analysis in Power Stations
and Substations and the Influences Thereof,” IEE Japan WG Report,
Tech. Rep. 301, Jun. 1989.
[7] “A New Method for Estimating Lightning Surge in Substations,” IEE
Japan WG Report, Tech. Rep. 446, Nov. 1992.
[8] “An Estimating Method of a Lightning Surge for Statistical Insulation
Design of Substations,” IEE Japan WG Report, Tech. Rep. 566, Oct.
1995.
[9] “Modeling for an Accurate Estimation of a Lightning Surge,” IEE Japan
WG Report, Tech. Rep. 704, Nov. 1998.
[10] “Power System Transients and EMTP Analyzes,” IEE Japan WG Report,
Tech. Rep. 872, Mar. 2002.
[11] W. S. Meyer, EMTP Rule Book, 1st ed. Portland, OR: B.P.A., 1973.
[12] H. W. Dommel, EMTP Theory Book: B.P.A., Aug. 1986.
[13] Japanese EMTP Committee, EMTP Test Cases Book, Jun. 1987.
[14] N. Yamada et al., “UHV AC transmission,” J. IEE Japan, vol. 102, pp.
969–1051, 1982.
[15] High-Voltage Testing Method, IEE Japan, JEC-0102-1994, 1994.
[16] A. Ametani, Distributed-Parameter Circuit Theory. Tokyo, Japan:
Corona Publishing Co., Feb. 1990.
[17] R. B. Anderson and A. J. Eriksson, “Lightning parameters for engi-
neering application,” Electra, no. 69, p. 65, 1980.
[18] L. V. Bewley, Traveling Waves on Transmission Systems. New York:
Dover, 1963.
[19] M. Ishii et al., “Multistory transmission tower model for lightning surge
analysis,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. PWRD-6, no. 3, p. 1372,
Jul. 1991.
[20] T. Shindo and T. Suzuki, “A new calculation method of breakdown
voltage-time characteristics of long air gaps,” IEEE Trans. Power App.
Syst., vol. PAS-104, p. 1556, 1985.
[21] N. Nagaoka, “An archorn flashover model by means of a nonlinear in-
ductance,” Trans. IEE Japan, vol. B-111, no. 5, p. 529, 1991.
[22] “Modeling of metal oxide surge arresters,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery,
vol. PWRD-7, no. 1, p. 302, Jan. 1992.
[23] I. Kim et al., “Study of ZnO arrester model for steep front wave,” IEEE
Trans. Power Delivery, vol. PWRD-11, no. 2, p. 834, Apr. 1996.
[24] T. Ueda, M. Yoda, and I. Miyachi, “Characteristics of lightning surges
observed at 77 kV substations,” Trans. IEE Japan, vol. 116-B, no. 11, p.
1422, 1996.
875
[25] H. Motoyama, Y. Okumura, and A. Ametani, “The effects of a tower
footing resistance and a lightning current waveform on a lightning
surge,” in IEE Japan, Research Meeting, Jul. 1987, Paper PE-87-19.
[26] W. Diesendorf, Insulation Co-Ordination in High Voltage Electric
Power Systems. London, U.K.: Butterworths, 1974.
[27] A. Ametani et al., “Investigation of flashover phases in a lightning surge
by new archorn and tower models,” in Proc. IEEE PES T&D Conf. 2002,
Yokohama, Japan, 2002, pp. 1241–1246.
[28] , “A frequency-dependent impedance of vertical conductors on
a multiconductor tower model,” IEE Proc.-GTD, vol. 141, no. 4, pp.
339–345, 1994.
[29] C. A. Jordan, “Lightning computation for transmission line with over-
head ground wires,” G. E. Rev., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 180–186, 1931.
[30] C. F. Wagner, “A new approach to calculation of lightning performance
of transmission lines,” AIEE Trans., vol. 75, p. 1233, 1956.
[31] M. A. Sargent and M. Darveniza, “Tower surge impedance,” IEEE Trans.
Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-88, no. 5, p. 680, 1969.
[32] T. Hara et al., “Empirical formulas of surge impedance for single and
multiple vertical cylinder,” Trans. IEE Japan, vol. 110-B, p. 129, 1990.
[33] A. Ametani et al., “Wave propagation characteristics of iron conductors
in an intelligent building,” Trans. IEE Japan, vol. 120-B, no. 1, p. 31,
2000.
[34] A. Semlyen and A. Dabuleanu, “Fast and accurate switching transient
calculations on transmission lines with ground return using recursive
convolutions,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-95, no. 5, p. 561,
1975.
[35] J. R. Marti, “Accurate modeling of frequency-dependent transmission
lines in electromagnetic transient simulations,” IEEE Trans. Power App.
Syst., vol. PAS-101, no. 1, p. 147, 1982.
[36] N. Nagaoka, “Development of frequency-dependent tower model,”
Trans. IEE Japan, vol. 111-B, p. 51, 1991.
[37] N. Nagaoka and A. Ametani, “A lightning surge analysis considering
multiphase flashovers,” in IEE Japan, Research Meeting, 1995, Paper
HV-95-50.
[38] A. Ametani, K. Adachi, and T. Narita, “An investigation of surge prop-
agation characteristics on an 1100 kV transmission line,” IEEJ Trans.
PE, vol. 123, no. 4, p. 513, 2003.
[39] A. Ametani and A. Ishihara, “Investigation of impedance and line pa-
rameters of a finite-length multiconductor system,” Trans. IEE Japan,
vol. 113-B, no. 8, p. 905, 1993.
[40] A. Deri et al., “The complex ground return plane: a simplified model for
homogeneous and multi-layer earth return,” IEEE Trans. Power App.
Syst., vol. PAS-100, no. 8, p. 3686, 1981.
[41] A. Ametani, “Wave propagation on a nonuniform line and its impedance
and admittance,” Sci. Eng. Review, Doshisha Univ., vol. 43, no. 3, p. 136,
2002.
[42] A. Ametani and A. Ishihara, “Impedance of a nonparallel conductor
system and its circuit analysis,” in IEE Japan, Research Meeting, 1992,
Paper PE-92-173.
[43] C. de Jusus and M. T. Correia de Barros, “Modeling of corona dynamics
for surge propagation studies,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol.
PWRD-9, no. 3, p. 1564, Jul. 1994.
[44] J. F. Guiller, M. Poloujadoff, and M. Rioul, “Damping model of traveling
waves by corona effect along extra high voltage three phase line,” IEEE
Trans. Power Delivery, vol. PWRD-10, no. 4, p. 1851, Oct. 1995.
[45] A. Ametani et al., “A study of phase-wire voltage variations due to
corona wave-deformation,” in Proc. IPST ’99, Budapest, Hungary, June
1999, pp. 433–438.
[46] , “A basic investigation of substation entrance voltage variation due
to corona wave deformation,” Trans. IEE Japan, vol. 120-B, no. 3, p.
403, 2000.
A. Ametani, (M’71–SM’84–F’92) received the Ph.D. degree from the Univer-
sity of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester, U.K., in
1973.
Currently, he is a Professor at Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan.
T. Kawamura, (M’59–SM’89–F’91) received the D.Eng. degree from Tokyo
University, Tokyo, Japan, in 1959.
Currently, he is a Professor with the Shibaura Institute of Technology, Tokyo,
Japan, and is Professor Emeritus at Tokyo University.