See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/3274941

Parameters of lightning strokes: A review

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery · February 2005

DOI: 10.1109/TPWRD.2004.835039(410) · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
147 4,858

13 authors, including:

Pritindra Chowdhuri William Chisholm

Tennessee Technological University Kinectrics
72 PUBLICATIONS   1,033 CITATIONS    123 PUBLICATIONS   2,731 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

MASARU Ishii Michael Marz

The University of Tokyo American Transmission Company
250 PUBLICATIONS   2,907 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   563 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CIGRE B2.007 View project

P. Chowdhuri View project

All content following this page was uploaded by William Chisholm on 25 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

346
Parameters of Lightning Strokes: A Review
Lightning and Insulator Subcommittee of the T&D Committee
Abstract—The paper presents the statistical data of the signifi-
cant parameters of lightning flash, collected by many researchers
over many years around the world. The significant parameters of a
lightning flash are: peak current, waveshape and velocity of the re-
turn stroke, the total flash charge and I2 dt. Negative first strokes
have traditionally been considered to produce the worst stress on
the system insulation. The subsequent negative strokes have sig-
nificantly lower peak current but shorter wavefronts. This may
stress the system insulation more. The positive strokes have about
the same median current value as the negative first strokes and
longer fronts, thus producing less stress. However, their duration
is longer than that of the negative strokes. Therefore, the system
insulation may be damaged because of the lower volt-time char-
acteristic for long-duration waves. The positive strokes may also
cause more thermal damage because of their significantly higher
charge and I2 dt. The relationship between the return-stroke ve-
locity and the current peak is a significant parameter in estimating
lightning-induced voltages and also in estimating the peak current
from the radiated electromagnetic fields of the lightning channel.
For better accuracy, the current and the velocity should be mea-
sured simultaneously. Better methods to measure the stroke cur-
rent need to be developed. Correlation coefficient between various
lightning parameters is another important parameter which will
affect the analysis significantly. Lightning characteristics should be
classified according to geographical regions and seasons instead of
assuming these characteristics to be globally uniform.
Index Terms—Lightning parameters, lightning statistics.
I. INTRODUCTION
A N accurate knowledge of the parameters of lightning
strokes is essential for the prediction of the severity of
the transient voltages generated across power apparatus either
by a direct stroke to the power line/apparatus, or by a nearby
lightning stroke (indirect stroke). However, no two lightning
strokes are the same. Therefore, the statistical variations of
the lightning-stroke parameters must be taken into account in
assessing the severity of lightning strokes on the specific design
of a power line or apparatus.
The lightning return-stroke current and the charge delivered
by the stroke are the most important parameters to assess the
severity of lightning strokes to power lines and apparatus. The
return-stroke current is characterized by a rapid rise to the peak,
, within a few microseconds and then a relatively slow decay,
reaching half of the peak value in tens of microseconds. The
return-stroke current is specified by its peak value and its wave-
shape. The waveshape, in turn, is specified by the time from zero
Manuscript received March 28, 2003. Paper no. TPWRD-00144-2003.
P. Chowdhuri, J. G. Anderson, W. A. Chisholm, T. E. Field, M. Ishii,
J. A. Martinez, M. B. Marz, J. McDaniel, T. R. McDermott, A. M. Mousa,
T. Narita, D. K. Nichols, and T. A. Short are members of the Task Force 15.09
on Parameters of Lightning Strokes.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2004.835039
0885-8977/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005
to the peak value ( , front time) and by the time to its subse-
quent decay to its half value ( , tail time). The tail time being
several orders of magnitude longer than the front time, its statis-
tical variation is of lesser importance in the computation of the
generated voltage. The generated voltage is a function of the
peak current for both the direct and indirect strokes. For back-
flashes in direct strokes and for indirect strokes the generated
voltage is higher the shorter the front time of the return-stroke
current [1]. The front time (and the tail time, to a lesser extent),
influence the withstand capability (volt-time characteristics) of
the power apparatus. The charge in a stroke signifies the energy
transferred to the struck object. The ancillary equipment (e.g.,
surge protectors) connected near the struck point will be dam-
aged if the charge content of the stroke exceeds the withstand
capability of the equipment. The return-stroke velocity will af-
fect the component of the voltage which is generated by the in-
duction field of the lightning stroke [1]. Field tests have shown
that the parameters of the first stroke are different from that of
the subsequent strokes.
Lightning being random in nature, its parameters must be ex-
pressed in probabilistic terms from data measured in the field.
The objective of this report is to present the statistical data of
the significant parameters collected by many researchers over
many years around the world.
II. DATA ACQUISITION TECHNIQUES
Compilation of lightning parameters is best accomplished by
direct measurements on actual lightning. Data gathering can be
accelerated by triggered lightning, whereby a rocket trailing a
thin conducting wire is shot toward a charged cloud. The rocket
is struck by lightning as it approaches the charged cloud and
the trailing thin wire is evaporated by the heavy current flow,
thus simulating the lightning channel. The first stroke cannot be
simulated by triggered lightning. It does simulate the subsequent
stroke.
As tall structures are struck more frequently by lightning,
the return-stroke current has traditionally been measured by in-
stalling current transducers either at the top or the bottom of
tall towers. The output of the current transducer is then fed into
a recording device. The magnitude of the return-stroke current
has also been measured by magnetic links, which are small bun-
dles of high retentivity steel laminations about three centime-
ters long, placed at various locations on the shield wires and
transmission-line tower legs. The currents flowing through these
parts magnetize the magnetic links, and the peak current can be
estimated from the magnetization of the magnetic links. How-
ever, such measurements have long been discarded because of
unreliability. The peak of the return-stroke current has also been
estimated by measuring the radiated magnetic field of the light-
ning stroke. The relationship between the peak current, ,
CHOWDHURI et al.: PARAMETERS OF LIGHTNING STROKES: A REVIEW 347

and the radiated electric field, , was derived from the trans- and =coefficient of correlation.
mission-line model of the lightning stroke for a lossless earth If x and y are independently distributed, then , and
[2]: . The cumulative probability that
and :
and (1)
(5)
where c=velocity of light in free space, D=distance of the
stroke from the antenna, =velocity of the return-stroke, and
where , and
=peak magnetic induction.
. Similarly, if , the joint cumulative
probability is given by:
III. STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF LIGHTNING
STROKE PARAMETERS (6)
From field data on lightning strokes to masts, chimneys, etc.,
The conditional probability density function of y for a given
the statistical variation of the lightning stroke parameters can
can be found by change of variables [5], [6]:
be approximated by a log-normal distribution, where the statis-
tical variation of the logarithm of a random variable, x, follows
the normal (Gaussian) distribution. In that case, the probability (7a)
density function, p(x), of x is given by [1], [3], [4]:

(7b)
(2)
where
where =standard deviation of , and =median value
of x. Putting, , the cumulative
probability, , that the parameter will exceed x, is given by
integrating (2) between u and , giving: and

(8a)
(3)
This new log-normal distribution of y has then a median
value, , which is the antilog of b and a standard deviation,
As an example, if the critical current of flashover of an over- . b can be written in an alternate form:
head power line is 20 kA, then from Table I,
and .

(8b)
; or . or (8c)
That is, the probability of a negative first-stroke current greater
than 20 kA is 82.11%. where
The joint probability density function of two stroke parame-
ters, x and y, can be expressed as: (8d)

and
(4)
(8e)
where
Such relationships, i.e., (8c), among lightning parameters
have been found and are shown later (Table XI). For cumulative
probability of y from to :
By putting and ,

(9)
348 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005

If, however, the conditional is for x within a range, e.g., to TABLE I

, then (7a) needs to be integrated: STATISTICAL PARAMETERS OF FIRST NEGATIVE RETURN-STROKE
CURRENT [4], [9]–[11]

(10)

Two examples of the conditional probability are shown below.

In the first example, the limiting current is 20 kA, i.e., Note 1: References [4], [9]–[11] suggest that the measured
for a given front time of current, . Assuming distribution of the first negative stroke is better approximated
median current from Table I, , , me- by two straight lines intersecting at 20 kA when plotted on a
dian front time, and , and applying probability paper. Then, for ,
(9), the cumulative probability is shown below for three values and ; for , , and
of the correlation coefficient, , between and . . However, the log-normal approximation of the
entire distribution can be represented by: , and
.
Note 2: is time interval between the 10% and 90%
of the current peak on the current wavefront,
.
; ;
Such analysis is applicable for estimating outage rates for ; ; =max. current rate
strokes to nearby ground and also for backflash outages. Without of rise on wavefront.
the conditional of front time, the cumulative probability of cur- Note 3: .
rent exceeding 20 kA, by applying
(3).
Without the conditional of ,
The second example pertains to gapless MOV surge protec-
tors for the case of a lightning stroke hitting a phase conductor
of a shielded line [7]. For a perfectly shielded line, the shielding
current will be equal to the critical current, and no insulator and .
flashover will occur. However, currents lower than the shielding
current may hit the phase conductors; the charge in the light- IV. FIRST NEGATIVE RETURN-STROKE CURRENT
ning flash will then be absorbed by the surge protector. If this
charge exceeds the limit of the protector, then the surge protector The log-normal characteristics of the negative-polarity first
will be damaged. Assuming the shielding current, , stroke are shown in Table I where is the standard deviation of
and the limiting charge of the surge protector, (i.e., the log (base e) of the variate.
), what is the probability for Most of the data were taken by Berger [8], which were later
, given ? The statistical parameters of the analyzed and updated [4], [9]–[11]. Fig. 1 shows the waveshape
positive-polarity lightning flash are as follows: , of the typical return-stroke current as recorded by Berger.
, , and . From The cumulative probability distribution, , of the re-
(10), putting and , taking the lower limit of to turn-stroke current, , can be estimated from (3) by replacing x
be very small, e.g., : with and with (median value). The values of and
are given in Table I. A much simpler form for , approx-
imating the log-normal distribution for the return-stroke current
and
in (3), was given by Anderson [12]:

(11)

From (10), the probabilities for three values of the correlation
coefficient, , are shown below:
Reference [13] provides data from field tests during
1994–1997 in Japan. Sixty 500-kV double-circuit trans-
mission towers with overhead shield wires were instrumented.
The towers included 1000-kV design, but operating at 500 kV.
The tower height ranged from 40 m to 140 m, and the altitude of
the observed sites varied from 150 m to 1500 m. The lightning
stroke currents were measured by Rogowski coils, attached to
CHOWDHURI et al.: PARAMETERS OF LIGHTNING STROKES: A REVIEW
Fig. 1. Waveshape of typical return-stroke current [4].
TABLE II
STATISTICAL PARAMETERS OF LIGHTNING STROKES IN JAPAN [13]
Note: ; et al. [15] have reported extensive test results of triggered
TABLE III
STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF MULTISTROKE NEGATIVE
LIGHTNING FLASHES [10]
2.5-m long rods on the top of the towers. The amplitude of the
peak current was found to be dependent neither on tower height
nor on altitude. The statistical data are shown in Table II.
V. SUBSEQUENT NEGATIVE RETURN-STROKE CURRENTS
A ground flash very frequently consists of multiple strokes.
Based on a survey of almost 6000 flash records from different
regions of the world, Anderson and Eriksson estimated the fol-
lowing percentages (Table III) of multiple strokes in a ground
flash [10].
In general, there is no correlation between the first and the
subsequent stroke peak amplitudes. The median value of the
subsequent stroke is significantly lower than that of the first
stroke. Assuming log-normal distribution, the median value and
the standard deviation of the subsequent stroke have been pro-
posed by Eriksson as [9]:
and
349
The cumulative probability that a subsequent-stroke current
will exceed a given level, , can be estimated, similar to (3),
with the statistical parameters of (12). A simplified equation,
similar to (11) has also been proposed [14]:
(13)
Although the median value of the subsequent stroke current
is lower than that of the first stroke, the individual value of a
subsequent-stroke current can be higher than the preceding first-
stroke current; factors as high as 200% have been recorded [11].
The physical phenomena associated with artificially triggered
lightning are believed to be similar to that of the subsequent
stroke of natural lightning. However, there may be potential
disparities between triggered lightning and the subsequent
stroke of natural lightning [15]: (i) the triggered discharge
occurs under cloud conditions where a discharge may not have
occurred under natural conditions, (ii) the lower portion of
the triggered lightning channel may be contaminated by metal
vapor. However, in spite of the possible differences between
triggered lightning and subsequent strokes of natural lightning,
it will be interesting to compare the field-test results. Fisher
lightning, and have compared the various parameters obtained
from their tests and those of Berger [8] on subsequent strokes
from natural lightning, as reported by Anderson and Eriksson
[10]. These comparisons are shown in Table IV.
It should be mentioned that in their triggered lightning field
tests, Fisher et al. found very little or no correlation between
peak current and and time to half value on the current tail.
There were, however, strong correlations between the peak cur-
rent and (correlation coefficient, ) and
.
VI. POSITIVE STROKES
Less than 10% of the ground flashes are of positive polarity.
However, the incidence of positive ground flashes varies season-
ally, being more frequent in the winter. It also varies globally.
Also, very tall structures produce upward positive strokes, in
contrast to the usual downward strokes. Reference [8] states that
the analysis was made only on the downward flashes. However,
Berger suggested later that these strokes were upward negative
leaders followed by downward flash from positively-charged
cloud [16]. The parameters of the positive stroke/flash are given
in Table V.
The median value (35 kA) of the positive-stroke current in
Table V is somewhat higher than that of the first negative-stroke
current. However, this could be misleading because the max-
imum value of the positive-stroke currents are significantly
higher than that of the first negative-stroke current. According
to [8], 5% of the positive strokes exceed 250 kA, the corre-
sponding magnitude of the first negative strokes being only 80
kA.
The incidence of positive strokes significantly increases
(12) during the winter months. Winter lightning data were collected
350
TABLE IV
COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO STUDIES ON NEGATIVE SUBSEQUENT-STROKE CURRENT PARAMETERS [10], [15]
Note: ; ; ;
TABLE V
STATISTICAL PARAMETERS OF POSITIVE STROKES [8]
Note 1: (front time) is the time interval between 2-kA point
on front and the first peak.
(stroke duration) is the time interval between 2-kA point
on front and the 50% of peak current on tail.
; cave wavefront with the greatest rate of change near the peak.
. Many of the current waves have two peaks, the second one being
Note 2: Numbers in parenthesis are for negative first strokes.
Note 3: . The negative subsequent stroke current has, in general,
TABLE VI
STATISTICAL PARAMETERS OF POSITIVE STROKES IN WINTER [17]
Note: ; is the time interval between the start
of the wave and the 50% of peak current on tail.
at Fukui (at sea level) in Japan [17]. The height of the mea-
surement tower was 200 m. The statistical data on the winter
positive lightning strokes are given in Table VI. No statistical
difference was found between the cumulative statistical distri-
butions of the peak values of the positive- and negative-polarity
currents. All these incidents were upward strokes.
Two types of lightning were reported in Fukui [17]: one type
with high peak currents and strong luminosity of the lightning
channel (type-A), and the other type with small current peaks
and weak lightning-channel luminosity (type-B).
Comparing Tables IV–VI, it should be noticed that the front
time and duration of the positive strokes are significantly longer
and the front steepness is lower than that of the negative strokes.
The same is true for the winter positive strokes compared to that
of the summer positive strokes.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005
VII. TYPICAL LIGHTNING CURRENT WAVESHAPES
More than 90 percent of the cloud-to-ground strokes are of
negative polarity, except for seasonal and regional variations.
According to [8], the positive-polarity stroke currents do not
have enough common features to produce an acceptable mean
waveshape. This could also be partly due to the small number
of positive strokes recorded.
The waveshape of the mean negative first stroke current is
shown in Fig. 1. Most of the data came from Berger’s work on
Mount San Salvatore in the southern part of Switzerland, col-
lected by a 60-m mast. This waveshape has distinctly a con-
higher in magnitude. The front time is based on the first peak,
and the peak amplitude on the second peak.
shorter wavefront than that of the negative first stroke current.
The negative subsequent stroke currents do not show the pro-
nounced concavity of the wavefront of the first stroke current.
This is shown in Fig. 2 [4].
The concavity of the negative first stroke current, i.e., the ini-
tial slow rise followed by fast rise, may be attributed to the up-
ward streamer from the object to be struck reaching out to the
downward streamer from the cloud [4]. The slow-rising upward
streamer carries comparatively small current. However, when
the upward streamer meets the downward leader, the current
rises fast. As the subsequent strokes are not preceded by up-
ward streamers, the wavefront of these strokes do not show the
concavity.
Several empirical equations have been proposed for the wave-
shape of the negative first stroke current [9], [11], [18], of which
the equation proposed in [18] has been widely used. This is
given by:
(14)
where =peak current, =correction factor of the peak cur-
rent, , , =time constants determining current rise-
and decay-time, respectively, and n=current steepness factor. It
was stated in [18] that the usual double-exponential function to
represent a transient waveshape has a discontinuity of its first
derivative at ; therefore, it is not convenient for the LEMP
calculations. This difficulty does not arise with (14).
CHOWDHURI et al.: PARAMETERS OF LIGHTNING STROKES: A REVIEW
Fig. 2. Examples of negative-polarity return-stroke currents [4]. Uppermost
curve: first stroke; middle curve: second stroke; bottom curve: third stroke.
VIII. STROKE CHARGE
Most of the charge delivered by lightning flashes does not
occur during the current pulses with the high current peaks. In-
stead, it is contained in the slow continuing low-magnitude cur-
rents between or after the high current peaks. To some extent,
a flash behaves like an arc welder as far as surface ablation and
arc ignition is concerned. Reference [8] provides observational
results for a large number of flashes. However, for delivered
charge, statistics of the highest magnitudes of charge are of most
concern, and only a few observations always exist at the end of
any probability curve. Hence, for the data of most interest, the
probable error is the highest.
Following [8] and assuming log-normal probability distri-
bution, the parameters for the statistical distribution of the
stroke/flash charge were developed and given in Table VII. The
numbers in parenthesis in Table VII are from [15].
The following approximate cumulative probability equations
for delivered charge were developed from data in [8], where
is the probability that the charge Q (in coulombs) will be
exceeded in a single flash.
Total charge delivered by a negative flash:
(15)
Total charge delivered by a positive flash:
(16)
Charge delivered by a negative first stroke:
(17)
351
TABLE VII
STATISTICAL PARAMETERS OF STROKE/FLASH CHARGE [8], [15]
TABLE VIII
STATISTICAL PARAMETERS OF FLASH E = I dt [8], [15]
Charge delivered by a negative subsequent stroke:
(18)
Charge delivered by a positive stroke:
(19)
The charge delivered by positive and negative strokes is only
within the first two milliseconds. Charge beyond that time is
classified as in a continuing current.
Another way to assess the thermal severity of a lightning flash
is to estimate the integral of of the flash. Table VIII shows
the data from [8]. is the median value of . The num-
bers in parenthesis are from [15].
It should be borne in mind that is a measure of thermal
severity if the current flows into a constant resistance. For most
lightning strikes the current flows into either a cathode spot
whose voltage drop is quasiconstant or into an impedance that
reduces dramatically as current increases making much less
heating.
IX. RETURN-STROKE VELOCITIES
The field data from four papers [19]–[22] were investigated.
In [19], both the straight-line velocity and the track (two-dimen-
sional) velocity were tabulated for 36 strokes each. Of the 36
points, only 7 were for the first stroke. In [20], 16 more mea-
surement points were given. However, they were not given in
tabular form, and the velocities were plotted without differen-
tiating between the first and the subsequent strokes. Therefore,
the data from [20] could not be used. Of the 14 data points in
[21], only 4 were from the first stroke. In [22], of the 63 data
points, 17 were for the first strokes. Hence, of the 113 measured
velocities, 28 were for the first stroke and 85 were from the sub-
sequent strokes. Table IX compares the mean and the standard
deviation of the return-stroke velocity for both the first and the
subsequent strokes.
It has been observed that the return-stroke velocity, for both
the first and the subsequent strokes, decreases as the stroke pro-
gresses upwards toward the cloud [22]. Therefore, the average
352 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005

TABLE IX
COMPOSITE FIELD DATA ON VELOCITY OF RETURN STROKES NEAR GROUND [19], [21], [22]

TABLE X
COMPOSITE FIELD DATA ON RETURN-STROKE VELOCITY [19], [21], [22]
DATA FROM REF. [22] FOR CHANNEL LENGTH OF AT LEAST 0.7 km

velocity measured over a longer channel length will be lower
than that for a shorter channel length. In [22], two sets of data
were given; one set for observations at ground levels, and the
other set for channel lengths of at least 0.7 km. These data, to-
gether with the data from [19] and [21] are shown in Table X.
There is significant disparity in results among the three
studies. These differences may be attributed to: i) region; ii)
sample size; iii) channel length; iv) experimental error. The
tests in [19] were performed in South Africa; the tests in [21]
were performed in Albany, NY; and the tests in [22] were at the
Kennedy Space Center in Florida and at the Langmuir Labora-
tory near Socorro, NM. The mean first return-stroke velocities
in Florida and New Mexico were 66 and 150 , A relationship between the return-stroke current and its ve-
respectively; similarly, for the subsequent strokes 110
and 130 , respectively. The measurement error in [21]
was estimated to vary between 30 to 60%, and the maximum
error in [22] was estimated to be 35% or less. The estimated
error in [19] is not known. In [21], some measurements were
taken within 300 m of the ground, and some within 1 km of the
ground. In [22], some measurements were taken near ground
(1.3 km or less), and some were taken over a minimum of 0.7
km of channel measured from the ground. For [19], the channel
length and height are not exactly known, but is estimated to be
longer [22].
As the return-stroke currents were not measured concurrently,
the cumulative distribution of velocity was calculated first from
the field data, and then this distribution was matched with the
CIGRE cumulative distribution of current [2], [9]. The perti-
nent log-normal parameters of the currents have been shown in
Table I.
Two empirical equations relating the velocity to the current of
the first stroke are widely used. One equation was proposed by
Lundholm [23] and Rusck [24], and the other by Wagner [25].
These equations are plotted in Fig. 3. The disparity is caused
mainly because the old AIEE current distribution was assumed
in the derivation of these equations.
locity is proposed:
(20)
The velocity is plotted as a function of the return-stroke current,
, in Fig. 4.
X. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN LIGHTNING PARAMETERS
As shown in Section III, correlation between lightning pa-
rameters significantly influences the estimation of the cumula-
tive probability. Once the correlation coefficient, , between
CHOWDHURI et al.: PARAMETERS OF LIGHTNING STROKES: A REVIEW
Fig. 3. Velocity vs. first-stroke current from composite field data.
I = 31:1 kA,  = 0:48. (a) Lundholm-Rusck equation; (b) Wagner
equation.
Fig. 4. Proposed velocity vs. first-stroke current relationship. I = 31:1 kA,
 = 0:48.
the current and another parameter, y, is known, then the effec-
tive median value of the variate can be found from (8a), and
the probability density function can be estimated from (7b). It
should be borne in mind that certain uncertainties exist in the es-
timation of . Table XI shows , a and d of (8c), and
of (8a). was taken from [4] and [8]; a and d were computed
from (8d) and (8e), respectively; was computed from
(8a) where was taken from Tables I and V for the negative
first strokes and the positive strokes. The values of for the
negative subsequent strokes were computed from the 95% and
5% cumulative probabilities given in Table I of [8].
XI. REGIONAL VARIATION OF RETURN-STROKE CURRENT
The regional variation of the return-stroke current is illus-
trated in Tables XII and XIII. The data was taken from the Na-
353
tional Lightning detection network (NLDN) by Global Atmo-
spherics, Inc. The recent improvements of NLDN has been de-
scribed in [33], [34]. The data shown in Tables XII and XIII
are from the central, northwest and southeast regions of U.S.A.
for four lightning seasons, represented in two 2-year periods
(1997–1998 and 1999–2000). These three regions were selected
to represent the most extreme differences in the characteristics.
The areas of the three regions are rectangular, designated with
the southwest and northeast corners by the latitudes and longi-
tudes of these corner points. The log-normal plots of the cumu-
lative probabilities are shown in Figs. 5–7.
The absolute uncertainty in peak current is 20–30% which
is due mainly to modeling errors. The random error between
regions is small due to the large number (typically 6–7) of sen-
sors that are used to estimate the peak current for each individual
flash.
The median current and the standard deviation were
computed from the raw data provided by Global Atmospherics,
Inc. As there is no significant regional variation in the instru-
mentation, the differences in the lightning parameters are pre-
dominantly due to the difference in the climates in the three re-
gions. It should be noted that the cumulative probability pro-
files do not entirely fit the log-normal distribution. They seem
to have different slopes in the entire range of current, similar
to the two-slope characteristic of the Berger data [4]. It should
also be noticed that the median value of the positive strokes does
not always exceed that of the negative strokes, e.g., southeast
region of the USA. The small percentage of positive flashes is
probably biased by the misclassification of some small positive
cloud to-cloud discharges as cloud-to-ground flashes [33].
XII. DISCUSSION
Most of the measurements reported here were taken on tall
towers with current transducers either located at the top or the
bottom of the structure. There are several sources of error as-
sociated with such measurements. First, the measured median
current will be different from that to flat ground [26]. Second, re-
flections at both ends of the tower of the traveling current waves
along the tower will distort the recorded current wave.
In recent years, from the National Lightning Detection Net-
work (NLDN), the return-stroke current is estimated from the
radiated magnetic field of the lightning stroke by (1), assuming
the transmission-line model of stroke channel. Several errors are
encountered in this method of measurement: i) the return-stroke
velocity is a function of the peak current; therefore, the assump-
tion of a constant velocity is incorrect; ii) several models of the
return stroke have been proposed; none has been accepted as
superior to the others; iii) for nearby strokes, the assumption of
the radiation field is not acceptable; iv) even when the stroke is
distant, the radiated field is attenuated when it reaches the an-
tenna, the degree of attenuation being a function of the ground
resistivity.
The NLDN system was calibrated with peak currents from trig-
gered lightning return strokes lowering negative charge mea-
sured at the NASA Kennedy Space Center, Florida. The radiated
field of the triggered lightning was measured by six sensors,
one in Georgia and five in Florida, ranging from 117.9 km to
354 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005

TABLE XI
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AND DERIVED FUNCTIONS
CONDITIONAL MEDIAN, y x = ax
j

TABLE XII
REGIONAL VARIATION OF NEGATIVE RETURN-STROKE CURRENT IN THE USA.

TABLE XIII
REGIONAL VARIATION OF POSITIVE RETURN-STROKE CURRENT IN THE USA.

426.8 km from the trigger site [36]. The tests were later repeated
with about three fold larger data set [37]. A relationship between
the peak current and the magnetic signal strength was proposed
[2]:
(21)
where SS is the signal strength of the magnetic field in arbitrary
units and . This assumed a return-stroke velocity to
be . However, a triggered lightning does not rep-
resent a natural lightning. Moreover, the return-stroke velocity
in a natural lightning is related to the peak current. Using this
relationship from data on negative triggered lightning to pos-
itive strokes is highly unjustified. The attenuation of the radi-
ated field will depend upon the soil resistivity as well as the fre-
quency (waveshape) of the radiated signal. Therefore, applica-
tion of (21) to other natural lightning and to other regions would
result in significant error.
CHOWDHURI et al.: PARAMETERS OF LIGHTNING STROKES: A REVIEW 355

Fig. 5. Cumulative probability distribution of lightning strokes in the central region of U.S.A. (a) Negative strokes; (b) positive strokes.

Fig. 6. Cumulative probability distribution of lightning distribution in the northwest region of the USA. (a) Negative strokes; (b) positive strokes.

Additionally, this method estimates only the current peak; it
cannot estimate the waveshape of the current. Reference [27]
provides a comprehensive discussion on the limitations in the
measurement of lightning parameters.
The amplitude of the return-stroke current being the most im-
portant parameter of lightning in estimating the severity of the
overvoltage across insulators, an urgent need exists to develop
new techniques to measure lightning return-stroke current. One
possibility is to measure the intensity of luminosity of the light-
ning channel and relate it to the current amplitude [17]. Sev-
eral attempts have been made to measure the return-stroke lu-
minosity [17], [28]–[30]. The profiles of the channel luminosity
against time showed striking resemblance to the double-expo-
nential impulse current wave. The cumulative probability dis-
tribution of the channel luminosity distribution also showed re-
semblance to the cumulative probability distribution of the cur-
rent [30]. However, the analysis of [30] showed the relation-
ship between the luminosity and current is neither linear nor
quadratic. Although a definite correlation was found in [17], no
mathematical formulation was given. However, as was pointed
out in [17], atmospheric conditions, such as rain and fog, will
distort the luminosity and will pose a problem in the calibration.
Another possibility is the spectroscopic study of the lightning
channel to determine its electrical characteristics.
The front time of the return-stroke current is another impor-
tant parameter which is often overlooked. Shorter front time will
produce higher voltages across insulators for both direct and in-
direct strokes [1]. Therefore, this parameter needs to be mea-
sured accurately, and an analytical expression which closely fol-
lows the field data should be specified.
The present standards specify a double-exponential mathe-
matical expression to represent the lightning return-stroke
356
Fig. 7. Cumulative probability distribution of lightning distribution in the southeast region of the USA. (a) Negative strokes; (b) positive strokes.
currents. However, questions have been raised about the
adequacy of this double-exponential waveshape since the
publication of Berger’s data showing concave wavefront of
the negative-polarity first stroke. Of the several analytical ex-
pressions suggested for the concave current wavefront, the one
proposed by Heidler [18] and shown in (14) has been widely
used. Three examples of waveshape plotted by using (14) are
shown in Fig. 8.
None of the three examples in Fig. 8 resembles Fig. 1. The
following questions need to be addressed for considering a con-
cave wavefront to be a standard:
a) Is the concavity caused by the upward streamer from the
struck tower? If the upward streamer is responsible for
the concavity, then the concave wavefront should not be
standardized. Many, perhaps most, wavefronts of the re-
turn stroke do not show the concave characteristic.
b) How will the concave wavefront be specified? The front
time may be specified as . In addition, the
maximum steepness ( in should be specified
along with its location on the wavefront.
The severity of insulator voltage stress caused by direct
strokes is not a function of the return-stroke velocity. However,
the induced voltage is a function of return-stroke velocity for
indirect lightning strokes [1]. Moreover, it has been postulated
that the return-stroke velocity is a function of the return-stroke
current, increasing with increase of the current peak [23]–[25].
Therefore, the relationship between the current and the velocity
of the return stroke needs to be known to estimate the voltage
induced by the indirect stroke.
Simultaneous measurement of the return-stroke velocity and
the current has not been done in the previous studies; velocity
and current were matched on the basis of equal probability of
occurrence, e.g., the median value of the velocity was matched
with the median value of the current [23]–[25]. Simultaneous
measurement of velocity and current is highly desirable.
All field data show that the first stroke peak current is signif-
icantly higher than the subsequent stroke currents for the nega-
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005
tive strokes; however, the steepness of the first negative stroke
is less than that of the subsequent negative strokes. Therefore, it
is possible for an insulator to survive the first stroke but to flash
over during the subsequent stroke. The volt-time characteristics
of the insulator under voltages of different front times will also
play a decisive role in its survival.
The median value of the peak positive stroke current is some-
what higher than that of the negative stroke (Table V). The steep-
ness of the positive stroke current is significantly lower and its
duration is longer than that of the negative stroke. Therefore, the
voltage across an insulator will be lower under a positive stroke.
However, it may spark over because of the longer front time and
time to half value of the applied voltage. Therefore, research
on the volt-time characteristics of insulators under nonstandard
lightning voltages for both polarities of voltage should have pri-
ority.
Because of the significantly longer duration of the positive
stroke, its charge and are higher than that of the negative
stroke. This may increase ablation damage at its terminal point.
Worse still, a positive stroke may exceed the thermal capability
of a surge protector because of larger charge (Table VII).
The NLDN data shown in Tables XII and XIII, and in
Figs. 5–7 are widely different from the data for the other parts
of the world, shown in the previous Tables. The NLDN median
currents of both polarities are significantly lower than those of
the other parts of the world.
It appears that lightning statistics vary significantly from one
region to another and also from one season to another in the
same region, such as: (i) return-stroke velocities (Tables IX and
X) in South Africa [19], Albany, NY. [21], Florida and New
Mexico [22], (ii) median currents (Tables XII and XIII). Lati-
tudinal variation of lightning characteristics has been suggested
[31]. By analyzing data from New York to Florida and to the
west up to the Mississippi River, Orville suggested that the peak
return-stroke current is higher in the southern latitudes and de-
creases with increase in the latitude [32]. He proposed that the
longer lightning channels in the south, caused by the higher alti-
CHOWDHURI et al.: PARAMETERS OF LIGHTNING STROKES: A REVIEW
Fig. 8. Examples of return-stroke current plotted from (14). (a) I = 30 kA;
 = 0:96; n = 1:0  = 0:03;  = 68:0; (b) I = 30 kA;  = 0:97;
n = 10:0  = 1:0;  = 68:0; (c) I = 30 kA;  = 0:79; n = 10:0
 = 10:0;  = 68:0.
tude of the center of the negatively-charged region in the cumu-
lonimbus cloud (at ) may contribute to the higher peak
current in the southern latitudes. Apart from the meteorological
conditions, the soil resistivity may also be a factor in influencing
the lightning stroke characteristics (e.g., front time). Therefore,
it may be appropriate not to have global statistical parameters
for lightning, but regional and seasonal.
357
It should also be borne in mind that the instrumentation used
by the various researchers at different times were different. The
measurement accuracy in most cases is not known. One obvious
difference is in the trigger level. Berger’s experiments had a
trigger level of 2 kA [8], [10], whereas those in [13] were 9 kA.
Uniform standards for instrumentation should be formulated.
Lastly, correlation among the various lightning parameters is
an important parameter which should not be ignored. Two ex-
amples were given in Section III of the significance of correla-
tion on conditional probability—current front time and charge
current. These were simple computations. Computations can
get more involved in the estimation of outage rates. As an ex-
ample, the outage rates caused by lightning strikes to nearby
ground of a 10-m high line of are given below
for a ground flash density, [35].
Because of this significant influence of the correlation coeffi-
cient, , on the lightning performance of power lines, this pa-
rameter needs to be estimated accurately.
XIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Negative first strokes have traditionally been considered to
produce the worst stress on transmission-line insulation. Sub-
sequent negative strokes have significantly lower peak current
but shorter wavefronts. These subsequent strokes may stress
the system insulation more in some cases, particularly for low
footing resistances and tall structures.
Positive strokes have about the same median current value
as the negative first strokes and longer fronts. However, the
extreme current values of positive strokes tend to be higher than
the negative strokes; hence both positive and negative strokes
should be considered in the lightning simulations of overhead
power lines. Positive strokes may also cause more thermal
damage because of their significantly higher delivered charge
and .
Although it has been postulated that the return-stroke ve-
locity is related to the return-stroke current, the current and
the velocity have not been measured simultaneously. Since the
return-stroke velocity is a significant parameter in estimating
the lightning-induced voltages and also in estimating the re-
turn-stroke currents from measurements of the radiated electro-
magnetic field of the lightning channel, more research is needed
to relate the currents and their associated velocities.
Better methods for making remote measurements of stroke
current magnitudes and waveshapes need to be developed, as
well as formulation of lightning parameters according to geo-
graphic region and season instead of assuming that they are a
globally unified data set.
In making simulations of lightning performance of overhead
power lines, conservative values of stroke parameters are ad-
vised in presence of the many uncertainties that presently exist.
Until these uncertainties are resolved, it is prudent to use those
stroke values obtained by direct oscillographic measurements
358
and to recognize that approximations are inevitable. It is rec-
ommended that until more data are available:
1) The CIGRE waveshape (Fig. 1) be used whenever pos-
sible.
2) Table I be used for negative first strokes, the Anderson-
Eriksson part of Table IV be used for negative subsequent
strokes, and Tables V and VI be used for positive strokes.
3) The field-test return-stroke velocity as a function of re-
turn-stroke current in Fig. 4 be tentatively adopted.
4) The NLDN data on stroke magnitudes be viewed with
caution until the validities of the various assumptions
made in the analysis can be resolved.
5) The approximation equations [(11) and (13)] and
[(15)–(19)] be used for cases where local data are
not available. However, it should be recognized that the
extreme values at very low and high magnitudes are
inadequate.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The raw data of the NLDN system was provided by the
Vaisala-GAI, Inc. The Task Force acknowledges the fruitful
critique provided by Dr. K. L. Cummins.
REFERENCES
[1] P. Chowdhuri, Electromagnetic Transients in Power Systems. Taunton,
U.K.: Research Studies, 1996.
[2] “Performance Evaluation of the National Lightning Detection Network
in the Vicinity of Albany, New York,” Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, CA, EPRI Rep. TR-109 544, 1997.
[3] A. R. Hileman, Insulation Coordination for Power Systems. New
York: Marcel Dekker, 1999.
[4] R. B. Anderson and A. J. Eriksson, “Lightning parameters for engi-
neering applications,” Electra, no. 69, pp. 65–102, Mar. 1980.
[5] A. Hald, Statistical Theory With Engineering Applications. New York:
Wiley, 1952.
[6] R. V. Hogg and A. T. Craig, Introduction to Mathematical Statistics, 5th
ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1995.
[7] M. Bernardi, L. Dellera, and E. Garbagnati, “Lightning parameters for
protection: an updated approach,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Lightning Protec-
tion, Birmingham, U.K., 1998.
[8] K. Berger, R. B. Anderson, and H. Kroninger, “Parameters of lightning
flashes,” Electra, no. 41, pp. 23–37, Jul. 1975.
[9] A. J. Eriksson, “Notes on Lightning Parameters for System Performance
Estimations,” CIGRE Rep. 33-86 (WG 33-01)IWD, 1986.
[10] R. B. Anderson and A. J. Eriksson, “A summary of lightning parameters
for engineering applications,” in Proc. CIGRE, 1980, Paper no. 33-06.
[11] Guide to Procedure for Estimating the Lightning Performance of Trans-
mission Lines, CIGRE Brochure 63, Oct. 1991.
[12] J. G. Anderson, “Lightning performance of transmission lines,” in Trans-
mission Line Reference Book 345 kV and Above, 2nd ed. Palo Alto,
CA: Elect. Power Res. Inst., 1987, ch. 12.
[13] T. Narita, T. Yamada, A. Mochizuki, E. Zaima, and M. Ishii, “Observa-
tion of current waveshapes of lightning strokes on transmission towers,”
IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 15, pp. 429–435, Jan. 2000.
[14] IEEE Guide for Improving the Lightning Performance of Transmission
Lines, IEEE Std. 1243-1997.
View publication stats
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005
[15] R. J. Fisher, G. H. Schnetzer, R. Thottappillil, V. A. Rakov, M. A. Uman,
and J. D. Goldberg, “Parameters of triggered-lightning flashes in Florida
and Alabama,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 98, no. D12, pp. 22 887–22 902,
Dec. 20, 1993.
[16] K. Berger, “The earth flash,” in Lightning, R. Golde, Ed. New York:
Academic, 1977, vol. 1, ch. 5.
[17] A. Asakawa, K. Miyake, S. Yokoyama, T. Shindo, T. Yokota, and T.
Sakai, “Two types of lightning discharges to a high stack on the coast
of the sea of Japan in winter,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 12, pp.
1222–1231, Jul. 1997.
[18] F. Heidler, J. M. Cvetic, and B. V. Stanic, “Calculation of lightning cur-
rent parameters,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 14, pp. 399–404,
Apr. 1999.
[19] B. F. J. Schonland and H. Collens, “Progressive lightning,” in Proc.
Royal Society, vol. 143, Ser. A, 1934, pp. 654–674.
[20] B. F. J. Schonland, D. J. Malan, and H. Collens, “Progressive lightning
II,” in Proc. Royal Society, vol. 152, Ser. A, 1935, pp. 595–625.
[21] J. S. Boyle and R. E. Orville, “Return stroke velocity measurements
in multistroke lightning flashes,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 81, no. 24, pp.
4461–4466, Aug. 20, 1976.
[22] V. P. Idone and R. E. Orville, “Lightning return stroke velocities in
the Thunderstorm Research International Program (TRIP),” J. Geophys.
Res., vol. 87, no. C7, pp. 4903–4916, Jun. 20, 1982.
[23] R. Lundholm, Induced overvoltage-surges on transmission lines and
their bearing on the lightning performance at medium voltage networks,
in Trans. Chalmers Univ. Technol., Gothenburg, Sweden, no. 188, 1957.
[24] S. Rusck, Induced lightning over-voltages on power transmission lines
with special reference to the over-voltage protection of low-voltage
networks, in Trans. Royal Inst. Technol., Stockholm, Sweden, no. 120,
1958.
[25] C. F. Wagner, “Relation between stroke current and velocity of the return
stroke,” AIEE Trans., pt. III, vol. 82, pp. 606–617, 1963.
[26] A. M. Mousa and K. D. Srivastava, “The implications of the electro-
geometric model regarding effect of height of structure on the median
amplitude of collected lightning strokes,” IEEE Trans Power Delivery,
vol. 4, pp. 1450–1460, Apr. 1989.
[27] Characterization of Lightning for Applications in Electric Power Sys-
tems, CIGRE Brochure 172, Dec. 2000.
[28] E. P. Krider, “Time-resolved spectral emissions from individual return
strokes in lightning discharges,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 70, no. 10, pp.
2459–2460, May 15, 1965.
[29] , “Some photoelectric observations of lightning,” J. Geophys. Res.,
vol. 71, no. 12, pp. 3095–3098, Jun. 15, 1966.
[30] C. Guo and E. P. Krider, “The optical and radiation field signatures pro-
duced by lightning return strokes,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 87, no. C11,
pp. 8913–8922, Oct. 20, 1982.
[31] E. T. Pierce, “Latitudinal variation of lightning parameters,” J. Appl. Me-
teor., vol. 9, pp. 194–195, 1970.
[32] R. E. Orville, “Peak-current variations of lightning return strokes as a
function of latitude,” Nature, vol. 343, pp. 149–151, Jan. 11, 1980.
[33] K. L. Cummins et al., “A combined TOA/MDF technology upgrade of
the U.S. national lightning detection network,” J. Geophys. Res., vol.
103, no. D8, pp. 9035–9044, Apr. 27, 1998.
[34] K. L. Cummins, E. P. Krider, and M. D. Malone, “The U.S. national
lightning detection network and applications of cloud-to-ground
lightning data by electric power utilities,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn.
Compat., vol. 40, pp. 465–480, Nov. 1998.
[35] P. Chowdhuri, “Estimation of flashover rates of overhead power distri-
bution lines by lightning strokes to nearby ground,” IEEE Trans. Power
Delivery, vol. 4, pp. 1982–1989, Jul. 1989.
[36] R. E. Orville, “Calibration of a magnetic direction finding network using
measured triggered lightning return stroke peak currents,” J. Geophys.
Res., vol. 96, no. D9, pp. 17 135–17 142, Sep. 20, 1991.
[37] V. P. Idone, A. B. Saljoughy, R. W. Henderson, P. K. Moore, and R. B.
Pyle, “A reexamination of the peak current calibration of the national
lightning detection network,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 98, no. D10, pp.
18 323–18 332, Oct. 20, 1993.