Lightning Attachment Models and
Perfect Shielding Angle of Transmission Lines
Pantelis N. Mikropoulos' and Thomas E. Tsovilis
High Voltage Laboratory, School of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Aristotle University ofThessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece,
lpnm@eng.auth.gr
Abstract- General relationships for the estimation of the
perfect shielding angle of overhead transmission lines have been
derived by performing shielding analysis on the basis of several
lightning attachment models, including a recently introduced
statistical one. The interdependence of perfect shielding angle,
transmission line height and minimum current causing flashover
of insulation is demonstrated as influenced by the lightning
attachment model employed in shielding analysis. There is a
great variability in perfect shielding angle among lightning
attachment models; this is demonstrated for 150 kV and 400 kV
lines of the Hellenic transmission system. The applicability of
lightning attachment models in perfect shielding angle
calculations is evaluated based on the shielding performance of
transmission lines; the IEEE Std 1243:1997 yields consistent
results with respect to the shielding performance of the lines.
Index Terms-- Direct stroke shielding, lightning, perfect
shielding angle, overhead transmission lines.
I. INTRODUCTION
The shielding design of transmission lines against direct
lightning strokes to phase conductors, that is the appropriate
positioning of shield wires with respect to phase conductors,
can be achieved by implementing electrogeometric models
[1], representative of their application is the method
suggested by IEEE Standard 1243:1997 [2], which employ a
relation between striking distance and lightning peak current
in their calculations [3]-[12]. Alternatively, shielding design
may be realized by employing models based on more solid
physical ground of lightning attractiveness [13]-[21], called
hereafter, in accordance with Waters [22], generic models.
Recently, a statistical approach in shielding design has been
introduced [23]-[25] by implementing a lightning attachment
model derived from scale model experiments [26]-[28].
A perfect shielding is achieved when lightning strokes
possessing peak current greater than the minimum current
causing flashover of insulation are intercepted. Apparently,
some of the less intense strokes may not be intercepted by the
shield wires and strike to phase conductors, however these are
not expected to cause flashover. In practice, an effective
shielding of transmission lines against direct lightning strokes
to phase conductors is realized based on an acceptable
shielding failure flashover rate.
The present study provides general relationships for the
estimation of the perfect shielding angle of transmission lines,
which have been derived by performing shielding analysis on
the basis of electrogeometric, generic and the recently
978-0-947649-44-9/09/$26.00 ©2009 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Stantec Inc. HQ. Downloaded on May 12,2023 at 06:15:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
proposed statistical model. The interdependence of perfect
shielding angle, transmission line height and minimum
current causing flashover of insulation is demonstrated as
influenced by the lightning attachment model employed in
shielding analysis. Findings are discussed and further
elucidated through an application to typical 150 kV and
400 kV lines of the Hellenic transmission system. The
applicability of lightning attachment models in perfect
shielding angle calculations has been evaluated based on the
shielding performance of transmission lines.
II. PERFECT SHIELDING ANGLE FORMULATION BASED ON
DIFFERENT LIGHTNING ATTACHMENT MODELS
A. Electrogeometric models
Electrogeometric models have historically been employed
in transmission line shielding providing acceptable protection
against direct lightning strokes to phase conductors and they
are still widely used [2]. Shielding analysis according to
electrogeometric models follows based on Fig.l. The striking
distance to conductors, S, is assumed to be related solely to
the prospective lightning peak current, I and can be associated
to striking distance to earth surface, D, by using a factor y as
B
S=AI =yD (1)
where I is in kA, S, D are in meters and factors A, Band yare
given in Table I as proposed by different authors. For a
design lightning peak current equal to the minimum current
causing flashover of insulation, L, the latter can be calculated
based on the geometrical and electrical characteristics of the
transmission line [2], a descending lightning leader will strike
to the phase conductor when reaching the arc between M and
N; hence, a shielding failure width, W, is defmed (Fig. 1).
With decreasing shielding angle a, W decreases, thus there is
a critical shielding angle which corresponds to W = 0,
hereafter called perfect shielding angle, ape Geometrical
analysis similar to that given in [29] yields the following
expression, approximating well the perfect shielding angle
a
p
= sin- l (1_r hm+hpJ
2AI:
(2)
where, factors A, B, yare given in Table I, Ie is in kA, and
h« (m), hp (m) are defmed in Fig. 1.
 C. Generic models
Following Eriksson's work, generic lightning attachment
models have been developed which also consider the
inception of the upward connecting discharge emerging from
the prospective struck object [14]-[21]. Thus, based on
different leader inception criteria, expressions of the attractive
I'
~, radius of an object, R, defined as the longest lateral distance
,
I
from the object where lightning attachment occurs, have been
I
hm I
I D proposed in the general form
I hp
I
I
I (5)
I

Fig. 1. Shielding analysis according to electrogeometric models. h m shield
wire height; hp phase conductor height; a shielding angle; S striking distance
to shield wire and phase conductor; D striking distance to earth surface;
W shielding failure width.
TABLE I
FACTORS A, B AND )ITO BE USED IN(I)
where R is in meters, I (kA) is the prospective lightning peak
current, h (m) is the struck object height and factors ~ E and
F are listed in Table II according to different authors.
TABLE II
FACTORS ?,E AND F TO BE USED IN(5)

Electrogeometric model A B )I Generic model ? E F

Wagner & Hileman [3] 14.2 0.42 I Rizk [I5] 1.57 0.45 0.69
Iforh <18m Petrov et al. [19]' 0.47 0.67 0.67
S. Ait-Amar & Berger [21] 3 0.20 0.67
Young et al. [4] 27)1 0.32 ~forh >18m
462-h • using as h in (5) the object height plus 15 m.
h: shield wire height
Armstrong & Whitehead [5] 6.72 0.80 l.ll Following a shielding analysis similar to that of Rizk [15],
Brown & Whitehead [6] 7.1 0.75 l.ll
according to Fig. 2 a shielding failure will occur when the
Love [7] 10 0.65 I
descending lightning leader enters the shielding failure width
Whitehead [8] 9.4 0.67 I
W, which is given as
Anderson [Ill and IEEE WG [121 8 0.65 liP'

. IEEE Std 1243 [2] 10 0.65 liP"

p = 0.64 for UHV lines, 0.8 for EHV lines, and I for other hnes
(6)
•'p = 0.36+0.17In(43-h) for h < 40 rn, p = 0.55 for h > 40 m where h is
the phase conductor height Thus, for a design lightning peak current equal to the
B. Eriksson's model minimum current causing flashover of insulation L; the
Eriksson [13], proposed a modified electrogeometric model perfect shielding angle, corresponding to W = 0, is given with
by introducing the attractive radius in shielding design, the aid of(5) and (6) as
defmed as the "capture" radius at which the upward leader
initiated at the struck object intercepts the downward
lightning leader. Attractive radius, R, is given as (7)

R = 0.67ho.6 I°.74 (3)

where R is in meters, h (m) is the struck object height and I
(kA) is the prospective lightning peak current. Eriksson,
performing a shielding analysis similar to that of the
electrogeometric models, used, instead of S in Fig. I, the
attractive radius to draw arcs from the shield wire and phase
conductor up to the phase conductor height. Based on
geometrical analysis similar to that given in [29], the perfect
shielding angle can be expressed as
(4)
where hm (m) and hp (m) are defined in Fig.l, and Rm (m),
Rp (m) are calculated from (3) for I = L;
where factors ~, E, and F are given in Table II, Ie is in kA,
and h« (m) and hp (m) are defmed in Fig. 2. It must be
mentioned that models [19] and [21] do not refer to the
transmission line geometry; however, employing these
models in perfect shielding angle calculations may provide
useful information concerning their applicability.
D. Statistical model
Recently, investigations on the interception probability of
an air terminal through scale model experiments made
possible the formulation of distributions for striking distance
and interception radius [27], and, thus, a statistical approach
in shielding design has been proposed in [24]. Interception
radius is considered as statistical quantity with a mean value,
referring to 50% interception probability , called critical
interception radius, Rei> and a standard deviation a. It is given
with reference the striking distance to earth surface as

Authorized licensed use limited to: Stantec Inc. HQ. Downloaded on May 12,2023 at 06:15:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Adopting from [7] the values of 10 and 0.65 for factors A' and
B', respectively and by using the value of CI for negative
- -0- - :..=- - '" lightning according to Table III, equation (11) becomes
L>
: a ""o---.-----"-i---l~
[2.72I~.65ln(11m/ hp )-0.0I zh1,;3 ]
I
I _ -I
I
I ap-tan () . (12)
I
I
l1m-hp
I
I
I
Equation (12) refers to critical interception and is used
hereafter for perfect shielding angle calculations according to
the statistical model. It is important to note that for a given
Fig. 2. Shielding analysis according to generic models . a shielding angle; h m,
hp height of shield wire and phase conductor, respectively ; Rm, Rp attractive
transmission line geometry the interception radii Rm and Rp
radius of shield wire and phase conductor, respectively; W shielding failure are statistical quantities; they vary, besides lightning peak
width; LlR horizontal separation distance between shield wire and phase current, with interception probability according to (8).
conductor . Therefore also the shielding failure width, as given by (6), is
accordingly statistically distributed indicating, thus, a non
(8) deterministic value for the perfect shielding angle.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

where Rei is in meters, h (m) is the struck object height and
D (m) is the striking distance to earth surface. The Fig. 3 shows the variation of the perfect shielding angle, ap ,
coefficients CI and Cz, and (J in formula form are given in with shield wire height, as calculated by employing the
Table III [27]. lightning attachment models described in Section II. It is
obvious that there is a great variability in ap among models;
TABLE III
however, all models are consistent in predicting a smaller ap
COEFFICIENTS C], Cz AND EXPRESSION OF a TO BE USED IN (8)
with increasing shield wire height and decreasing minimum
Positive Lightning Negative Lightning current causing flashover of insulation, L: Considering that
the curves in Fig. 3 were obtained for a fixed ratio of hlhm
0.235 0.90 1.9(h/DYO.7S 0.272 1.24 5.0{h/ D t A3
and that Ie is directly related to the basic insulation level of
the transmission line, it can be deduced that all models are
Equation (8) can be used for shielding analysis by using a consistent in predicting a smaller perfect shielding angle with
known relation between striking distance to earth surface, D, increasing transmission line height and decreasing insulation
and lightning peak current, I, commonly expressed as level of the line. However, the effect of transmission line
D = A'IB' . Thus, based on Fig. 2 and by using the critical height is much more pronounced for the electrogeometric
interception radii of shield wire and phase conductor as models; the latter, thus also IEEE Std [2], generally yield
calculated from (8), the shielding failure width W at critical smaller ap , even negative values for relatively high lines
interception is contrary to the generic, Eriksson's and statistical model
yielding positive ap values. The variability of perfect
(9) shielding angle among lightning attachment models is also
obvious in Table IV referring to typical 150 kV and 400 kV
Hence, the perfect shielding angle at critical interception is
given as

20 25 20 25
Shieldwire heit:lht(m) Shield wire height (m )
where h« (m) and hp (m) are defmed in Fig. 2 and CI is given 40 40

in Table III. By considering also the neighboring effects on ~ [,s'= : : : - - - -

~20 ~~20
30

the shield wire interception radius of the phase conductor ~

~_ ~,~~ ::::
[25], [28], equation (10) becomes I': [.':[ '>.'.~:~
-;

-'-~. ~ ~'-~".~ ::::!i~' ··· I':

v

>., _.:~~~ ~:.~3.t.

~ '10 hpIh",-O .7S,I . -SkA I~ "' · 10 -,
~-20
a..
- Eled rogeoll19lnc rrode ls
- - IEEE Std 1243
...
' ...
Fsl
16j
~-20
a..
~~O~~~I;':~~
- -IEEEStd1243
<,,
' -,
-30 _ • • Slahstica lmodal "', 2 -30 - · · Stallst ical rrode l ' .

W W ~ ~ 45 20 W ~ ~ ~

Shield wire height (m) Shield wire height (m)

Fig. 3. Perfect shielding angle as a function of shield wire height.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Stantec Inc. HQ. Downloaded on May 12,2023 at 06:15:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
lines of the Hellenic transmission system. In Table IV, the TABLE VI
EFFECTIVE SHIELDING ANGLE OF TYPICAL 150kV AND 400 kV OVERHEAD
calculated values of ap correspond to line geometries at the LINES OF THE HELLENICTRANSMISSION SYSTEM
tower and average height along the line; the basic line Lightningattachmentmodel 150kV 400kV
parameters are given in Table V. All models yield greater ap Wagner & Hileman 3 21 13
at average transmission line height than at the tower as a Young et al. 4 34 26
result of the sag of the shield wire and phase conductor; this Armstrong & Whitehead 5 17 12
Brown & Whitehead 6 16 11
also indicates that ap varies along the length of the line. The
Love 7 24 18
electrogeometric models yield generally negative ap values, Whitehead 8 23 18
which deviate considerably from the actual shielding angles Anderson fill and IEEE WG 12 18 6
of the studied transmission lines. However, in practice an IEEE Std 1243 2 18 9
effective shielding of transmission lines is realized based on Eriksson 13 7 15
Rizk 15 30 29
an acceptable shielding failure flashover rate, SFFOR. For a Petrovet al. 19 24 25
given line geometry SFFOR (flashovers/1 OOlan/year), Ait-Amar & Berger 21 24 12
normally used together with backflashover rate to estimate Mikropoulos & Tsovilis 25 19 15
the expected outage rate of a transmission line, is given as
From Tables IV and VI it can be deduced that the effective
L VSF shielding angle shows less variability than perfect shielding
SFFOR = O.2Ng f W(I)j(I)dI (13) angle among models . It is important to note that for SFFOR =
r.
0.05 flashovers/lOOkm/year the electrogeometric models, in
where Ng (flashes/kmvyear) is the ground flash density,JtI) is agreement with the other models, yield positive shielding
the probability density function of the stroke current angles agreeing with the actual shielding angles (Table V).
amplitude distribution, W (m) is the shielding failure width The applicability of a lightning attachment model in perfect
and I MSF (kA) is the maximum shielding failure current. For a shielding angle calculations can be evaluated based on the
design value of SFFOR = 0.05 flashovers/lOOkm/year, shielding performance of transmission lines; this is illustrated
commonly used in shielding design and by assuming Ng = 5 in Fig. 4. Lines with actual shielding angles greater than the
flashes/kmvyear, the effective shielding angles for the studied corresponding calculated perfect shielding angle should
overhead lines are listed in Table VI. These calculations refer experience shielding failures, whereas lines with actual
to average line height, employ the JtI) distribution suggested shielding angles smaller than the corresponding calculated
in [30] and values for Ie and I MSF found according to [2] and perfect shielding angle should show superior shielding
[31], respectively, and consider the variation of W with the performance. The shielding performance of the lines is
lightning attachment model used for shielding analysis . generally underestimated for Eriksson's model [13] (Fig. 4a)
and for the electrogeometric models [5] and [6], whereas
TABLEIV
PERFECT SHIELDING ANGLE OF TYPICAL 150kV AND 400 kV OVERHEAD overestimated for Rizk 's [15] (Fig. 4b) and Young et al. [4]
LINES OF THE HELLENIC TRANSMISSION SYSTEM models . The IEEE Std [2] (Fig . 4c), electrogeometric models
150kV 400kV [3], [7] and [8] as well as the statistical model [25] (Fig. 4d)
Tower
Average
Tower
Average yield generally consistent results with respect to shielding
Liahtninz attachmentmodel heizht height performance of transmission lines, whereas inconsistency
Wagner & Hileman 3 -12 -I -12 -4
Young et al. 4 16 23 12 18 have been found for the generic models [19] and [21].
Armstrong& Whitehead 5 -35 -21 -15 -7
50
Brown & Whitehead 6 -36 -23 -18 -10 (a) Eriksson [13)

Love 7 -14 -3 -3 4
Whitehead 8 -16 -5 -5 3
Anderson [J 1l and IEEE WG 12 -32 -18 -31 -22
IEEE Std 1243 2 -24 -10 -22 -9
Eriksson 13 6 2 15 14
Rizk 15 15 17 21 22
Petrovet al. 19 12 12 18 18 ." -rc
Ait-Amar & Berger 21 5 6 7 7 50
Mikronoulos & Tsovilis 25 0 7 3 8 40 (c) IEEE SId 1243(2 )

TABLEV

...
PARAMETERS OF TYPICAL 150kV AND 400 kV OVERHEAD LINES OF THE "
HELLENIC TRANSMISSION SYSTEM '
Shield Upper phase Shielding Shieldingangle
Operating
voltage
t, wire conductor angle at at average
(kA) height height tower height
(kV) (Deg)
(m) (m) (Deg)
150 4 33.0 27.8 31 23 Fig. 4. Perfect shielding angle versus actual shielding angle. Empty and solid
400 8 45.1 36.5 19 16 points depict lines showing superior shielding performance [5] and
Sag of shIeldWIre and phase conductor. 5.5 m and 8.6 m, respectIvely experiencingshieldingfailures [32], respectively.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Stantec Inc. HQ. Downloaded on May 12,2023 at 06:15:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Finally, it must be mentioned that in the present analysis
subsequent strokes possessing current magnitudes bigger than
minimum current causing flashover of insulation have not
been considered in determining SFFOR of transmission lines.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
General relationships for the estimation of the perfect
shielding angle of transmission lines have been derived by
performing shielding analysis on the basis of several lightning
attachment models. There is a great variability in perfect
shielding angle among lightning attachment models. The
effect of the transmission line height is much more
pronounced for the electrogeometric models; the latter, thus
also IEEE Standard 1243:1997, generally yield smaller
perfect shielding angles, even negative ones for relatively
high transmission lines contrary to the generic, Eriksson's
and statistical model yielding positive perfect shielding
angles. The effective shielding angle calculated by assuming
an acceptable shielding failure flashover rate is less variable
among lightning attachment models. These fmdings are
demonstrated through an application to typical 150 kV and
400 kV overhead lines of the Hellenic transmission system.
The applicability of lightning attachment models in perfect
shielding angle calculations has been evaluated based on the
shielding performance of transmission lines reported in
literature. Consistent results have been derived for the
statistical model and some electrogeometric models, as well
as for the IEEE Standard 1243:1997.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Th. E. Tsovilis wishes to thank the Research Committee of
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki for the support provided
by a merit scholarship.
REFERENCES
[1] R. H. Golde, Lightning Protection. London U.K.: Academic Press,
1977, vol. 2, pp. 545-564.
[2] IEEE Guide for improving the Lightning performance of Transmission
Lines, IEEE Std. 1243-1997, Dec. 1997.
[3] C. F. Wagner and A. R. Hileman, "The lightning stroke-II," AlEE
Trans. PA&S, pp. 622-642, Oct. 1961.
[4] F. S. Young, 1. M. Clayton and A. R. Hileman, "Shielding of
transmission lines," IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. S82, no. 4, pp.
132-154, 1963.
[5] H. R. Amstrong and E. R. Whitehead, "Field and analytical studies of
transmission line shielding," IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. 87, pp.
270-281, Jan. 1968.
[6] G. W. Brown and E. R. Whitehead, "Field and analytical studies of
transmission line shielding-II," IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. 88,
pp. 617-626, May 1969.
[7] E. R. Love, "Improvements in lightning stroke modeling and
applications to design of EHV and UHV transmission lines," M.Sc.
thesis, Univ. Colorado, Denver, CO, 1973.
[8] E. R. Whitehead, "CIGRE survey of the lightning performance ofEHV
transmission lines," Electra, vol. 33, pp. 63-89, 1974.
[9] A. M. Mousa and K. D. Srivastava, "Modelling of power lines in
lightning incidence calculations," IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 5, no.l,
pp.303-310,Jan.1981.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Stantec Inc. HQ. Downloaded on May 12,2023 at 06:15:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[10] T. Suzuki, K. Miyake and T. Shindo, "Discharge path model in model
test of lightning strokes to tall mast," IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst.,
vol. PAS-I00, no. 7, pp. 3553-3562, Jul. 1981.
[11] 1. G. Anderson, "Transmission Line Reference Book - 345 kV and
Above," Second Edition, 1982, chapter 12, Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, California.
[12] IEEE Working Group, "A Simplified method for estimating lightning
performance of transmission lines," IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst.,
vol. PAS-I04, no. 4, pp. 919-932, Apr. 1985.
[13] A. J. Eriksson, "An improved electrogeometric model for transmission
line shielding analysis," IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. PWRD-2, no. 3,
pp. 871-886, Apr. 1987.
[14] P. Chowdhuri and A. K. Kotapalli, "Significant parameters in
estimating the striking distance of lightning strokes to overhead lines,"
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 4, no. 3, pp.1970-1981, Jul. 1989.
[15] F. A. M. Rizk, "Modeling of transmission line exposure to direct
lightning strokes," IEEE Trans. Power Del.,vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1983-
1997, Oct. 1990.
[16] L. Dellera and E. Garbagnati, "Lightning stroke simulation by means of
the leader progression model," IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 5, no. 4,
pp. 2009-2029, Oct. 1990.
[17] F. A. M. Rizk, "Modeling of lightning incidence to tall structures,"
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 162-193, Jan. 1994.
[18] N. I. Petrov and R. T. Waters, "Determination of the striking distance
of lightning to earthed structures," Proc. Roy. Soc., London A, vol. 450,
pp. 589-601, 1995.
[19] N. I. Petrov, G. Petrova and R. T. Waters, "Determination of attractive
area and collection volume of earthed structures," in Proc. 25th Int.
Conf. Lightning Protection, Rhodes, Greece, 2000, pp. 374-379.
[20] F. D'Alessandro and 1. R. Gumley, "A collection volume method for
the placement of air terminals for the protection of structures against
lightning," Elsevier J. Electrostat., vol. 50, pp. 279-302, 2001.
[21] S. Ait-Amar and G. Berger, "Lightning protection modelling:
Applications to revisited electrogeometrical model," in Proc. 17th Int.
Conf. Gas Discharges and their Application, Cardiff, U.K., 2008, pp.
517-520.
[22] R. T. Waters, "Lightning phenomena and protection systems," in
Advances in High Voltage Engineering, ser. Inst. Elect. Eng. Power
Energy, M. Haddad and D. Warne, Eds. London U.K.: Inst. Elect. Eng.
2004, vol. 40, pp. 107-114.
[23] P. N. Mikropoulos and Th. E. Tsovilis, "Interception radius and
shielding against lightning," 29 th Int. Conf. Lightning Protection,
Uppsala, Sweden, 2008, paper 4-10, pp. 1-11.
[24] P. N. Mikropoulos and Th. E. Tsovilis, "Interception probability and
shielding against lightning," IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 24, no. 2,
pp. 863-873, Apr. 2009.
[25] P. N. Mikropoulos and Th. E. Tsovilis, "Interception probability and
neighboring effects: Implications in shielding design against lightning,"
IEEE Trans. Power Del., submitted.
[26] P. N. Mikropoulos and Th. E. Tsovilis, "Experimental investigation of
the Franklin rod protection zone," in Proc. 15th Int. Symp. High Voltage
Eng., Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2007, paper 461, pp.1-5.
[27] P. N. Mikropoulos and Th. E. Tsovilis, "Striking distance and
interception probability," IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 23, no. 3, pp.
1571-1580, Jul. 2008.
[28] P. N. Mikropoulos, Th. E. Tsovilis and T. Ananiadis, "The effect of an
earthed object on the interception radius of the Franklin rod: An
experimental investigation," Med Power'08, Thessaloniki, Greece,
2008, paper No. 77, pp. 1-6.
[29] A. R. Hileman, "Shielding of transmission lines," Insulation
Coordination for Power Systems, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group,
New York, 1999, pp. 244-254.
[30] Lightning and Insulator Subcommittee of the T&D Committee,
"Parameters of Lightning Strokes: A Review," IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 346-358, Jan. 2005.
[31] P. N. Mikropoulos and Th. E. Tsovilis, "Lightning attachment models
and maximum shielding failure current: Application to transmission
lines," in Proc. Power Tech, Bucharest, Romania, 2009, accepted.
[32] IEEE Working Group, "Estimating lightning performance of
transmission Lines II - updates to analytical models," IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1254-1267, Jul. 1993.