224
2, MAY 2007
Review of New Developments in the Modeling
of Lightning Electromagnetic Effects on
Overhead Lines and Buried Cables
Michel Ianoz, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—In the last 20 years, the widespread use of sensitive
electronic devices has increased the interest in transients, in par-
ticular those caused by lightning (direct and/or indirect). After
a short review of the modeling methods achieved in the last 25
years for indirect lightning electromagnetic effects and the valida-
tion of these models using electromagnetic pulse simulators and
triggered lightning, this paper focuses on four significant new de-
velopments in this field achieved in the last years. They concern
the decontamination of the natural lightning current from mea-
surements on elevated structures, the possibility of using statisti-
cal methods to infer lightning current values from electric field
measurements of lightning-detection systems, and the calculation
of field-to-transmission line coupling to complex networks and to
shielded cables. These numerical calculations today permit ap-
proximative solutions and effect orders of magnitude helpful for
a correct electromagnetic compatibility design for very complex
configurations to be obtained.
Index Terms—Electromagnetic effects, lightning, shielded
cables, tall structures.
I. INTRODUCTION
N THE last 15–20 years, the widespread use of sensitive
I electronic devices in data-transmission networks, in power
system equipment (circuit breakers, disconnectors, control and
protection circuits), and in household appliances has increased
interest in transients. Transients caused by lightning (direct
and/or indirect) can be one of the major causes of malfunc-
tion or even destruction of electrical equipment. In particular,
lightning-induced voltages, which can cause microinterruptions
of the power supply or disruption in telecommunication or data-
transmission networks during thunderstorms, have been seri-
ously revisited due to the increasing demand by customers for
good quality in the power supply and reliability in the trans-
mission of information. The opening of the telecommunication
market, followed now by that of the electrical power is only
accelerating this trend.
There is no clear evidence in the power system literature
about the relation between the number of outages during thun-
derstorms and lightning flash density in the proximity of the
failure place. However, a case reported in Sweden, in which
Manuscript received January 30, 2007.
The author, retired, was with the Power System Laboratory, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology of Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland He is
currently an Honorary Professor at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of
Lausanne (e-mail: michel.ianoz@epfl.ch).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEMC.2007.897149
0018-9375/$25.00 © 2007 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 49, NO.
(Invited Paper)
one high-voltage and several distribution transformers exploded
during a heavy thunderstorm, leaving 11 000 people without
electricity for 24 h, is symptomatic for the impending danger
of lightning, in particular as it occurred in a highly developed
country [1]. This case has also shown that the interruption of
information and electric supply in a modern society can have
severe consequences. A lightning stroke in the proximity of a
big hotel in Lausanne, Switzerland, induced a voltage in the
satellite antenna and destroyed the TV sets in the building. Sev-
eral years ago (July 11, 2002), direct lightning strokes on trees
during heavy thunderstorms caused accidents in Germany; an-
other stroke on an ammunition storage near the town of Samara,
Russia, triggered a big explosion [2].
Measured data on lightning-induced voltages have been ob-
tained and published by different authors. For overhead power
lines, a measurement performed on an unergized distribution
line of 13 kV in Mexico shows a peak voltage of about 45–
50 kV induced by a lightning stroke of unknown intensity and
location [3]. A two-year survey of lightning-induced voltages
on telecommunication lines has been performed in the 1990s
by the Centre National d’Etudes des Télécommunications in
France [4]. A total number of 16 000 short events (lightning
pulses on the telecommunication line, lightning and/or switch-
ing pulses on the mains) have been recorded at nine sites during
the measurement period. From these events, 27 peak values
exceeded 1.5 kV, with a maximum value of 3.5 kV, which rep-
resents a dangerous value for any kind of telecommunication
equipment.
The interaction between lightning and installations can be
any one of the following.
1) Direct, if a lightning stroke directly hits a line connected
to the installation or the equipment.
2) Indirect, if the strike is at a distance and the currents
are induced by the electromagnetic field generated by the
lightning discharge.
In recent years, significant progress has been achieved in
modeling the lightning discharge in the return-stroke channel,
the field-to-transmission line coupling, and to some extent, also
in nonlinear protection element modeling. This progress gives
the possibility to estimate, on one hand, the level of overvoltages
caused by direct lightning strokes on lines or grounding wires,
or induced by nearby lightning electromagnetic fields, and on
the other hand, the efficiency of different protection concepts by
using numerical calculations.
IANOZ: REVIEW OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MODELING OF LIGHTNING EM EFFECTS
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the lightning electromagnetic field cou-
pling to a multiconductor line.
After a review of the modeling methods of indirect lightning
electromagnetic effects achieved in the last 20 years, this paper
will concentrate on a few developments obtained recently.
1) The problem of lightning strikes on tall constructions, like
telecommunication towers.
2) The estimation of lightning peak currents from measured
fields using lightning location systems (LLSs).
3) The modeling of lightning-induced voltages on complex
distribution systems.
4) The modeling of coupling to shielded cables.
II. REVIEW OF THE MODELS USED TO COMPUTE LIGHTNING
ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECTS ON OVERHEAD
LINES AND CABLES
To analyze the effects of indirect lightning strikes on trans-
mission lines or various kinds of circuits, it is necessary to go
through the following steps.
1) The development of lightning return-stroke models, which
means the modeling of the spatial–temporal distribution
of the current in the lightning channel.
2) The calculation of the electromagnetic field radiated by
such a current distribution including propagation effects
over a soil with finite conductivity.
3) The evaluation of the voltages resulting from the coupling
between the electromagnetic field and the line conductors.
A schematic view of the coupling of the field due to the
lightning discharge to a multiconductor line is shown in Fig. 1.
This modeling procedure has been successfully initiated by
Master and Uman in 1984 [5] and widely used in the following
years (for an exhaustive review, see, for instance, [6]–[9]). Vali-
dation by comparison with experimental data and experimental
simulation will be discussed later in this paper.
A. Lightning Return-Stroke Current Models
Many return-stroke models have been developed during the
last 30 years. As proposed by Rakov [10], they can be classified
as a function of their sophistication in describing the physical
process that takes place in the lightning discharge. Here, we will
review only the most-used models for practical calculations as
they permit a quite good estimation of the electromagnetic field
225
produced by the lightning discharge, which is the second step
in modeling the indirect effects of the lightning strokes.
These models specify the spatial–temporal distribution of the
channel current based on the current at the channel base, since
it is only the channel-base current that can be measured directly
and for which experimental data are available [11]. In these
models, the return-stroke current can be simply related to the
specified channel-base current. They have been conceived to
describe the field change due to the return-stroke phase, the
total return-stroke field being the sum of the return-stroke field
change plus the final value of the field produced by the preceding
leader phase [6]. These models are also called “engineering
models” due to their simplicity that permits the return-stroke
current to be related to a channel-base current known from
measurements in a straight form [10].
The most popular of these models are probably the trans-
mission line (TL) model [12], the traveling current source
(TCS) model [13], the modified TL (MTL) model [14]–[16],
the Diendorfer–Uman (DU) and the modified Diendorfer–Uman
(MDU) models [17], [18]. All these models have been analyzed
in detail in [7], and it is concluded that, for most engineering
coupling calculations, any one of the models is adequate. They
all produce fields that are reasonable approximations to available
measured fields from natural lightning and are within a factor
of 2 or so of each other. This conclusion is also supported by
the results published in [19], where the aforementioned models
are compared on the basis of simultaneously measured channel-
base currents, return-stroke speeds, and electric fields at about
5 km from triggered lightning in Florida.
In order to use the “engineering models,” the knowledge of
the lightning current at the channel base is needed.
A large number of natural lightning currents have been mea-
sured by Berger during the 1950s and 1960s, at a station based at
Monte San Salvatore in south Switzerland [20]. These measure-
ments remain the largest collection of data. Peak distributions
for negative first strokes, negative subsequent strokes, and pos-
itive strokes as well as typical wave shapes for the first and
subsequent strokes, based on Berger’s measurements, can be
found in [21].
One of the main problems pertaining to the measurement of
natural lightning currents is the contamination due to the ele-
vated structures on which these measurements are performed.
This point will be discussed in what follows as significant
progress has been achieved in the last years permitting the de-
contamination of these measurements.
Before discussing these developments, we will describe a
short review of the modeling of lightning electromagnetic effects
by presenting the achievements pertaining to the two remaining
steps, i.e., the field propagation over the ground and the field-
to-transmission line coupling.
B. Electromagnetic Field Propagation Over the Ground
By regarding the lightning channel as an antenna over a per-
fectly conducting plane and by solving Maxwell’s equations in
terms of retarded scalar and vector potentials, equations for the
electromagnetic fields can be obtained [22], in which the light-
ning current distribution as a function of height and time needed
226 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 49, NO. 2, MAY 2007

The equivalent coupling circuit described by (1)–(4) is shown

Fig. 2. Geometry used for the calculation of overvoltages induced in a trans-
mission line by an incident electromagnetic field.
Fig. 3. Equivalent “coupling” circuit describing the electromagnetic coupling
between an incident electromagnetic field and a transmission line.
for these expressions is given by the return-stroke models men-
tioned previously.
An exhaustive presentation of the calculation methods of the
electric and magnetic field components due to the lightning
channel has been presented by the author in [9].
C. Field-to-Transmission Line Coupling Models
The development of field-to-transmission line coupling mod-
els started in the 1970s to calculate the effects of electromagnetic
pulse (EMP) on transmission lines (see, for instance, [23]).
It has been shown [24], [25] that among the various coupling
models that are commonly adopted in the power literature to
describe the coupling between lightning return-stroke fields and
overhead lines, only the model by Agrawal et al. [26] and its
equivalent formulations [27]–[29] are to be considered rigorous
within the limits of the TL approximation.
Recall that the Agrawal model is expressed by the following
equations (see Figs. 2 and 3 for the parameter definition):
∂us (x, t) ∂i(x, t)
+ R i(x, t) + L
= Exi (x, h, t) (1)
∂x ∂t
∂i(x, t) ∂us (x, t)
+ G
us (x, t) + C
= 0. (2)
∂x ∂t
The Agrawal model is written in terms of a scattered voltage
us (x, t). The total voltage u(x, t) is given by the sum of the
scattered voltage us (x, t) and the so-called incident voltage1

h
ui = − Ezi (x, z, t)dz ≈ −Ezi (x, 0, t)h. (3)
0
Thus
u(x, t) = us (x, t) + ui (x, t). (4)
1 The total field is given by the sum of the incident fields E and B , namely
i i
the field radiated by the channel plus the ground-reflected field, and the scattered
field.
in Fig. 3.
From a conceptual point of view, the difference between the
aforementioned model for a single line and a multiconductor
line model is just quantitative, the unique voltage and current
propagating on the line, and the respective field components
being replaced by vectors and the unique line parameters (re-
sistance, inductance, and capacitance) by matrices of self- and
mutual inductances and partial capacitances between the lines
and between the conductors and the ground.
Further details concerning the deduction of the equations for
a single line and their forms for multiconductor lines known as
the Baum–Liu–Tesche (BLT) equation and its solution can be
found, for instance, in [30].
Different codes using these models for plane wave [high-
altitude EMP (HEMP)] coupling have been developed in the
frequency and time domain. Specific codes applied to the light-
ning electromagnetic effects have been written at the University
of Florida [31], by Tesche (LCC: lightning coupling calculation)
[30], at the Centre National d’Etudes des Télécommunications
in France [32], at the University of Uppsala in Sweden [33],
at the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry,
Tokyo [34], and at Tokyo and Shizuoka Universities [35] in
Japan.
The previously discussed return-stroke and coupling mod-
els have been translated into the computer program lightning-
induced overvoltages (LIOV) [6], developed in parallel at the
University of Bologna and at the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology of Lausanne in the framework of an international
research collaboration (www.ing.unibo.it/die/liov/).
III. VALIDATION OF THE FIELD-TO-TRANSMISSION
LINE COUPLING MODELS
The validation of the electromagnetic field coupling to lines,
or circuits, concerns different models like those for straight par-
allel lines, tree-shaped networks or circuits, nonlinear protection
elements, and for shielded cables.
Independent of the source type and the kind of situation to
be simulated, the mathematical modeling of the coupling pro-
cess is similar, which means that, if the model is validated, the
conclusions will reasonably apply to different kinds of sources,
circuits, or protection elements. As explained in the previous
section, the coupling modeling has been achieved using the
Agrawal model based on the TL approximation. The first way
to validate the method is to compare the results given by the TL
approximation and by scattering theory that can be considered
as an “exact” method [36]. A new method of calculation based
on an iterative process that corrects the TL approximation has
been proposed [37]. By using this approach, it is shown that af-
ter one or two iterations, the extended Agrawal model can give
very accurate results with respect to the “exact” approach based
on the scattering theory.
Another way of validation is the comparison with measure-
ments. This has been done using either EMP simulations or
triggered and natural lightning electromagnetic fields.
IANOZ: REVIEW OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MODELING OF LIGHTNING EM EFFECTS
Fig. 4. Tree-shaped structure in the SEMIRAMIS EMP simulator (reproduced
from [40]).
Fig. 5. Comparison between calculation with the Agrawal model and mea-
surement in the SEMIRAMIS EMP simulator for the EM field coupling on a
network (reproduced from [40]).
A. Validation Using EMP Simulators
The use of EMP simulators to validate lightning electromag-
netic effects by a comparison between theory and experiment
can be considered as satisfactory for a perfectly conducting
ground [12], [38] and quite reasonable for a soil with finite con-
ductivity [32]. The case of a perfect conducting ground was sim-
ulated using the bounded-wave EMP simulator SEMIRAMIS of
the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne in which
the field is a very uniform plane wave in a defined working vol-
ume [39]. A tree-shaped circuit was installed inside the working
volume of the simulator, as shown in Fig. 4 [40].
Fig. 5 shows the comparison between a calculation performed
using the Agrawal coupling model and the measurement of the
current induced on one end of the branched circuit illuminated in
the SEMIRAMIS simulator. The excitation field in the working
volume of the simulator had a time of rise of about 10 ns, a
decay time of about 250 ns, and a peak value of the vertical
electric field component of 50 kV/m.
As seen in Fig. 5, the agreement between calculation and
measurement shows a satisfactory agreement [40].
For performing the comparison for soil with finite conductiv-
ity, a model of a three-phase line with or without a grounding
conductor was built. The induced current measurements were
made on a 30-m-long, 3-m-high overhead test line mounted on
plastic material supports and open circuited at both ends. A
grounding wire short-circuited at both ends was also fixed at a
height of 50 cm above the wire.
227
Fig. 6. Relative position of the three-phase test line under the EMP simulator
(reproduced from [41]).
Fig. 7. Example of comparison between calculation and measurement of cur-
rent induced at one extremity of the grounding wire (adapted from [41]).
The test line was then installed under a half-loop hybrid
radiated-wave EMP simulator of the Centre d’Etudes de Gra-
mat, France, which is 150 m large (diameter of the half-loop)
and 30 m high (Fig. 6). This simulator produces a horizontally
polarized field along 30 m of the line [41].
Here, we show an example of the comparison for the current
induced at the extremity of the grounding wire (see Fig. 7) [41].
It can be seen that while the wave shapes of the two curves are
in good agreement, there is a disagreement of about 23% in the
peak values. This difference can be explained by considering
that the calculation is performed assuming a uniform incident
field intensity of 25 kV/m, while in reality, the field is decreasing
at the line extremities. On the other hand, a correct simulation
of the earthing of the grounding wire at the two ends and the
value of the ground conductivity are two error sources that are
difficult to avoid.
B. Validation Using Natural and Triggered Lightning
To test the coupling models, the use of actual lightning fields is
complicated by the intrinsic difficulty in performing a controlled
experiment.
Triggered lightning that gives the possibility to simultane-
ously measure the channel-base lightning current, the electric
228
Fig. 8. The principle of triggered lightning.
Fig. 9. Comparison between (a) measurement and (b) calculation of the volt-
age at the east end of the line (adapted from [45]).
or magnetic field at different distances, and the voltage or current
induced on a line situated at proximity of the stroke represents
a powerful method to validate the whole modeling process of
lightning electromagnetic effects. Triggered lightning facilities
have been created in several countries [42]–[44].
The principle of triggering lightning strokes by launching
small rockets to which a wire is attached, in a thunderstorm
clouds, is shown in Fig. 8. A comparison between the voltage
induced at one end of an aerial line situated at a few tens of
meters from the launching pad of the rockets and calculations
performed with the recorded lightning current is shown in Fig. 9
[45].
From the various results obtained from validations using dif-
ferent methods, it can be concluded that, as far as the envi-
ronment is well controlled like in a bounded wave simulator,
the coupling calculations give very close results compared to
measurements. When the environment is not under control, like
for the radiated-wave simulator or for lightning, parameters like
uncertainties about the ground conductivity value, the presence
of trees, and other objects in the vicinity of the line that can
give reflections of the field, give differences in the calculation.
The validation of the line or circuit model terminated by
nonlinear protection elements concerns not only the field-to-
transmission line coupling but also the models of gas discharge
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 49, NO. 2, MAY 2007
tubes, metallic varistor, or protective diodes. Models of such
elements using the current–voltage characteristic have been de-
veloped and validations have been performed [46], [47]. Fur-
ther work is needed in which models for nonlinear protection
elements existing in the Electromagnetic Transients Program
(EMTP) and the link between coupling codes and EMTP (see
Section IV-C) must be used.
IV. NEW DEVELOPMENTS
In what follows we will introduce and discuss the four points
on which significant progress has been achieved in recent years,
as outlined in Section I. The first two developments pertain to
the ways of obtaining as accurate as possible lightning current
values at the channel base, in order to use them in the “engineer-
ing models.” The other two points that will be discussed are the
achievements in simulating by numerical methods the lightning
electromagnetic field coupling to structures more complex than
straight parallel lines.
A. Decontamination of the Lightning Current Measurement on
Elevated Structures
1) Effect of Elevated Structures: Berger has measured the
lightning current hitting a relatively low tower (70 m height)
situated in the Alps, but measurements in recent years have been,
in general, performed on high structures like telecommunication
towers often hit by lightning. These were the Ostankino tower
in Moscow [48], the Italian telecommunication tower [49], the
Preissenberg tower in Germany [50], or the CN tower in Toronto
[51]. In 1998, Guerrieri et al. [52] observed that the statistics of
channel-base lightning currents based on measurements on high
towers may contain errors due to the reflection of the current at
the tower bottom.
Differences in the shape and peak current value in record-
ings performed at different heights of the Ostankino tower have
already been reported nearly 20 years before by Gorin and
Shkilev [53] in 1977, but since their papers were published in
Russian language, they remained unknown to the world light-
ning community. Gorin and Shkilev emphasized the mismatch
between the impedance of the lightning channel (from 600 Ω
to 2.5 kΩ), the characteristic impedance of the tower of about
300 Ωs and the grounding resistance, with a low frequency value
of 0.2 Ω. These mismatches give reflections, and the whole struc-
ture behaves like a distributed circuit [54]. Fig. 10, adapted by
Rakov [54] from Gorin and Shkilev [53], shows the different
currents at different heights.
2) Modeling of the Elevated Strike Object: In order to nu-
merically simulate the effect of the elevated strike object and
to decontaminate by calculation the experimental data obtained
by measurements on high telecommunication towers stroke by
lightning, it was necessary to develop a model of the elevated
structure [55].
One approach was to consider the structure as a transmission
line divided in several sections, which permits the nonuniformi-
ties of the object to be included in the model [56], [57].
An experimental validation of this model was performed by
Bermudez et al. [58]. A reduced scale structure of the Toronto
IANOZ: REVIEW OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MODELING OF LIGHTNING EM EFFECTS 229

Fig. 10. Return-stroke current waveforms of upward negative lightning

recorded near the top (at 533 m), in the middle (at 272 m), and near the bottom
(at 47 m) of the 540-m-high Ostankino television tower in Moscow (from [54],
where it was adapted from [53]).

CN tower was build up in the laboratory, and signals with a

narrow pulsewidth of 500 ps were injected in the model. An
overall agreement for the early-time response with the measured
results was obtained with a one-section model, while a three-
section scaled structure has reproduced the experimental data
quite accurately [55].
By performing finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) sim-
ulations on this model, Baba and Rakov have shown that the
waveguide properties of the tower regarded as a biconical an-
tenna depend on the direction of propagation of the lightning
current [59]. The current suffers no attenuation while traveling
from the tower top to the bottom, but the attenuation is sig-
nificant for a travel in the opposite direction. These results are Fig. 11. Tall tower model. (a) Reflection coefficients of the tall tower stroke
important because they render questionable the validity of the by lightning. (b) Equivalent circuit of the lightning channel and the tower
reflection coefficient at ground level determined from measure- (reproduced from [65]).
ments of the current at the top of the tower [55]. the top of the tall object. The current distribution along the
3) Modeling of the Elevated Structure Effect: Different au- lightning channel is expressed in terms of the so-called undis-
thors have tried to estimate the reflection coefficients at the turbed current I(t), the object height h, and the current reflection
top and bottom of towers [60]–[62]. Rakov [54] presents an ex- coefficients at the top and bottom of the object ρt and ρg . The
haustive discussion on the influence of tall towers on the current, “undisturbed” current is the current that would be measured at
current derivative, and radiated electric and magnetic fields. the tower top if the reflection coefficients were equal to zero.
In a more recent paper, Rakov [63] has estimated that, for The relation between the current injected into the tower
subsequent strokes, there is a difference of about 10% between iT0 (h, t) and the “undisturbed” current i0 (h, t) has been deduced
the peak current measured at an ideally grounded object of by Bermudez et al. [65] as
negligible height (h = 0) and at the top of the Berger’s tower
(h = 70 m). iT0 = (1 − ρt )i0 (h, t) (5)
Rachidi et al. [64] have proposed an extension of the “engi-
with ρt being the reflection coefficient at the tower top.
neering” models introducing the elevated strike objects.
An expression to extract the “undisturbed” current has been
The effect of a tall structure is analyzed in detail in a exhaus-
proposed by Guerrieri et al. [52] as follows:
tive paper by Bermudez et al. [65]. The reflection coefficients are
defined in Fig. 11(a) and the equivalent circuit of the lightning 1 2h
i0 (h, t) = i(h, t) for t < (6)
channel and the tower in Fig. 11(b). 1 − ρt c
A distributed-source representation of the return-stroke chan-
1  n−1 n
k
nel has been used by Bermudez et al. [65]. This new approach 1
i0 (h, t) = i(h, t) − ρ ρg (1 − ρt )i0
has permitted a generalization of various return-stroke models 1 − ρt 1 − ρt n=0 t
in order to take into account the lightning return stroke to tall  
2nh 2kh 2(k + 1)h
towers. × h, t − for <t< .
This approach does not use the assumption that identical c c c
current pulses are injected both upward and downward from (7)
230 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 49, NO. 2, MAY 2007
Here, ρg is the reflection coefficient at the bottom of the tower,
at ground level.
In the time domain, it is possible to express the current at any
height “z” of the tower as a function of the current injected into
the tower iT0 and the constant reflection coefficients ρt and ρg
by using relations (5)–(7).
However, as the reflection coefficients are frequency de-
pendent, the expression for the current at a height “z” must
be written in the frequency domain as a function of ρt
(ω) and ρg (ω), and then, transformed in the time domain
[65].
If the reflection coefficients ρt (ω) and ρg (ω) can be deter-
mined, the “undisturbed” current can be directly inferred in the
frequency domain from the measured current I(z, ω), and then,
transformed in the time domain.
Bermudez et al. [86] have proposed a method for the de-
termination of the ground reflection coefficient ρg (ω) based
on two simultaneous current measurements, and an estimation
of the top reflection coefficient ρt (ω) based on an extrapolation
technique using measured current waveforms at the top of the
tower. In the paper, it is shown that, at the top of the tower, it
is not the reflection coefficient as a function of frequency, but
only an approximative, frequency-independent expression that
can be determined.
An original way to determine these coefficients was intro-
duced by the same authors in [65]. This method is based on
an adaptation of genetic algorithms proposed by Bermudez
et al. [66].
The idea of applying the biological principle of natural evo-
lution to artificial systems has been introduced at the end of the
1980s. The genetic algorithms used for the calculation of vari-
ous parameters are often also called “evolutionary computation”
(see, for instance, [67]).
To use this technique, the expression of the “undisturbed” cur-
rent i0 (h, t) is written as the sum of two functions introduced by
Heidler in 1985 [68]. The genetic algorithm gives the possibility
to extract the reflection coefficients and the parameters needed
to determine the Heidler functions from the experimental cur-
rent data measured simultaneously at two different heights of
the tower.
An alternative approach to the Rachidi and coworkers’ dis-
tributed source representation [64], [65] was proposed by Baba
and Rakov [69], [70]. They have used a lumped series voltage
source at the junction between the lightning channel and the
strike object. Such a representation respects appropriate bound-
ary conditions at the attachment point.
The generalization of various return-stroke models in order
to take into account the lightning return stroke to tall towers,
using the models proposed in the works of Rachidi et al. [64]
and Bermudez et al. [65], [66], has permitted to perform an-
alytical calculations of the effect of elevated structures on the
lightning current shape and to compare these results with the
measurements performed by Gorin and Shkilev on the Ostank-
ino tower (see Fig. 10) [53]. The calculatioins were performed in
a work by Pavanello et al. [71]. The simulation was performed
on a 168-m-high tower (the height of the Preissenberg tower in
Germany).
As expected, the calculation of the current distribution along
the tower and along the channel at different time instants, as
predicted by each considered current model (see Section II-A),
have shown the following.
1) The current distribution along the tower is independent of
the model [55].
2) All the models present a discontinuity at the front.
The calculated results show a better effect of the current
reflection at the top and the bottom of the tower as compared to
the measurements of Gorin and Shkilev (Fig. 10). The current
at the tower base has a higher peak value due to the contribution
from the reflected wave at the ground level [71].
This concentration of efforts in recent years to find the meth-
ods for decontaminating the lightning currents measured on tall
structures should permit to have reliable values for the channel-
base current and to continue to use the “engineering models”
for indirect lightning effect calculations.
B. Estimation of Lightning Peak Currents Using LLSs
It is known that LLSs permit the calculation of accurate val-
ues of the peak electric or magnetic fields. For determining
lightning current values from such measurements, a relation be-
tween the electric field and the current must be found. Even if
such estimations cannot completely replace the measurements
of lightning currents on elevated structures, the knowledge of
peak current values can help the decisions pertaining to mitiga-
tion and choice of protection level for different installations in
different locations on the earth.
Estimation methods have received an increased attention in
the last few years due to the widespread use of lightning-
detection systems. Deterministic approaches have permitted ex-
pressions relating the far electromagnetic field to the currents at
the channel base, for some return-stroke models to be found [72].
All these expressions involve a certain number of parameters
such as the return-stroke speed, which, in most practical cases,
is unknown. The speed value must, therefore, be estimated but
it differs from stroke to stroke exhibiting a large statistical
variation [73]–[75]. Due to this large speed variation, the idea
was to use statistical approaches. This kind of approach was
supported by the fact that the large number of existing lightning-
detection systems permit to acquire a large number of the mea-
sured data.
Such an approach is introduced by Rachidi et al. [76]. In the
paper, the authors apply the method to the TL lightning current
model, but as emphasized in the paper, the method can also be
used for more complex lightning current models.
For the TL model, the far electric field peak value is related
to the lightning current peak value by
υ
E= I. (8)
2πε0 c2 r
The authors have determined the estimate of the probability
density function (pdf) of the electric field ηE as a function of
the pdfs of the return-stroke speed and current, ην and ηI , and of
the standard deviation functions σν and σI of the same values,
IANOZ: REVIEW OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MODELING OF LIGHTNING EM EFFECTS 231

as
1 1
ηE ∼
= 2
ηv ηI + ρvI σv σI . (9)
2πεo c r 2πεo c2 r
If any correlation between current peak and return stroke is
neglected, relations (8) and (9) become
1
ηE ∼
= ηv ηI . (10)
2πεo c2 r
It can be seen that relation (10) has the same form as (8). The
author’s comment is that this similarity gives “to some extent
a theoretical justification” to the use of LLSs to determine a Fig. 12. Interface between a single-phase LIOV line and the EMTP96 or
statistical lightning peak current value from the measured elec- Matlab–SPS model of its left termination, accomplished by means of a lossless
Bergeron line (reproduced from [81]).
tric fields. This means that it is possible to obtain channel-base
lightning current values using the following.
1) The high number of electric field peak values measured
by the LLSs all over the world.
2) A reasonable rich data of return-stroke speed values mea-
sured in different locations than the current measurements,
provided that the dispersion of these values is contained
in reasonably small limits.
In this way, the statistical method proposed by the au-
thors [76] permits to estimate the channel-base current values
to be used in the “engineering models” of the spatial–temporal
distribution of the current in the lightning discharge, needed
to determine lightning-induced voltages in various types of
Fig. 13. Comparison between simulated and measured induced currents at one
installations. By using appropriate data from LLSs from observation point of the network. Network termination: one end short-circuited,
different locations on the earth, it is possible to focus, in a more three ends open circuit (reproduced from [81]).
precise way, on the right current values for the mitigation of
installations in a particular region.

C. Extension to Networks With Several Branches

The field-to-transmission line coupling equations can be ap-
plied not only to straight parallel lines but also to tree-shaped
networks with several branches. Different approaches in this
sense have been presented in the literature [40], [46], [77], [78].
In order to take into account the presence of more complex
types of terminations, line discontinuities, or complex system
topologies, the LIOV code has been interfaced with the EMTP96
and with Matlab–SPS [79]–[81].
The link between LIOV and EMTP achieved in collaboration
between the University of Bologna and the Swiss Federal In-
stitute of Technology of Lausanne is based upon the following
principle: distribution lines are considered as formed by a num-
ber of line segments similar to those schematically represented
in Fig. 12.
The various line segments are interconnected by means of
shunt impedances or nonlinear devices (surge arresters) to form
a typical distribution line.
The idea is to leave the task of solving the transmission line
coupling equations to the LIOV program for each of the line seg-
ments, and the task of solving the boundary conditions involving
complex differential equations to EMTP96 or to Matlab–SPS.
The validation of the LIOV–EMTP96 or of the LIOV–
Matlab–SPS links has been achieved using a complex network
of 24 lines.
Fig. 14. Distribution line illuminated by a return-stroke lightning electromag-
netic field.
The network was placed under an EMP simulator and illumi-
nated by the plane electromagnetic wave typical of this kind of
installation. The voltages induced in different points of the net-
work have been measured. By using the measured electric field
under the simulator in the absence of the network, a numerical
simulation with LIOV linked to the two aforementioned codes
was performed and the calculated voltages were compared to the
measured ones. As shown in Fig. 13, the agreement is very good.
Fig. 14 shows an example of an overhead distribution line
including the presence of a power transformer and two surge
arresters (see [82] for further details, including the modeling of
the various power components).
The overvoltages induced by a typical subsequent return
stroke (peak value of the channel-base current equal to 50 kA
and maximum time derivative of 43 kA/ µs) at three points of
the line, calculated using the LIOV–EMTP link, are shown in
Fig. 15.
232
Fig. 15. Overvoltage calculated at three points (L, M, and K) of the overhead
distribution line shown in Fig. 14, ignoring the presence of the surge arrester
located at point K (adapted from [83]).
The stroke location is equidistant from the line termination
and at 50 m from the line center. By using the aforementioned
approach, it is possible to simulate and analyze the effect of
protection elements installed at the entrance of a substation.
This analysis has shown (Fig. 15) that if the protection device
(surge arrester) is efficient with respect to the relevant equip-
ment, other points along the line can still remain at high potential
creating a danger of flashover across the insulator chains and by
consequence microinterruptions [83].
The link between a coupling code and EMTP allows a more
accurate estimation of lightning-induced voltages on realistic
distribution lines, since now all the models of power system
components contained in the EMTP library are promptly avail-
able. Other EMTP-linked coupling codes have been proposed
by other authors [84]–[86].
D. Coupling of Lightning Electromagnetic Field to
Shielded Cable
1) Computation Method: Shielded cables are frequently
used to protect telecommunication lines against electromagnetic
disturbances. In most of the today’s power network substations,
shielded cables are also used for data-transmission lines.
The first attempts to calculate currents induced by external
electromagnetic fields on inner conductors protected by a sheath
have been made for EMP studies in the late 1970s [87] and
separately in the early 1980s [30], [88].
The main problem when dealing with shielded cables is the
determination of the transfer impedance. Despite several ana-
lytical expressions proposed for the calculation of the transfer
impedance of braided cables, like those of Tyni, Demoulin, or
Kley [30], measurement remains today the only method to ob-
tain a reliable result.
Another problem that must be faced is the fact that, in par-
ticular for the calculation of lightning electromagnetic effects,
the time-domain approach is more convenient, while the transfer
impedance can be measured and expressed only in the frequency
domain.
The first attempt to propose a combined time- and frequency-
domain method has been presented in 1999 by Orzan et al.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 49, NO. 2, MAY 2007
Fig. 16. Experimental arrangement at camp Blanding. (a) Different positions
of the mobile launcher with respect to the buried cable. (b) Buried cable setup
(reproduced from [93]).
[89]. The method used a lightning-induced voltage numerical
calculation, similar to LIOV linked to EMTP. It was validated by
comparison with measurements under an EMP simulator [89].
Significant advances have been achieved in the last two years
by Petrache et al. [90], who have also combined the time- and
frequency-domain approaches in several steps to solve the prob-
lem of lightning-induced currents in buried shielded cables.
The model is implemented in two computer codes. The first
one is a time-domain code that solves the coupling between
the electromagnetic field and the sheath of a buried shielded
cable. The computation of the lightning electromagnetic field
in the ground was performed using Corray’s expression [90],
[91]. The calculated current is transformed and used as an input
into a frequency-domain code that also contains the measured-
frequency-dependent transfer impedance.
Also, by using the link to the EMTP code that was mentioned
under Section II-C, complex terminations of the sheath can also
be taken into account [90].
2) Experimental Validation: The experimental validation of
the previously described calculation method was performed us-
ing the rocket triggering lightning [92] at the Camp Blanding
facility in Florida. The results of this validation were presented
in a paper by Petrache et al. [93].
The measurements of the current induced by the lightning dis-
charge were performed on a buried coaxial 15 kV power cable,
both in the cable sheath and in the inner conductor. Simultane-
ously, the horizontal magnetic field above the ground and the
lightning current at the channel base have also been measured.
The triggering rockets were launched from a mobile launcher
placed in different positions with respect to the buried cable. The
different launching points and the cable position are indicated
in Fig. 16(a).
The ways in which the buried cable was installed, termi-
nated, and the instruments used for the measurement of the
horizontal component of the lightning magnetic field are shown
in Fig. 16(b).
IANOZ: REVIEW OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MODELING OF LIGHTNING EM EFFECTS
Fig. 17. Comparison between experimental measurement and calculation for
the current induced in the buried cable shield (reproduced from [93]).
Fig. 18. Comparison between experimental measurement and calculation for
the current induced in inner conductor of the buried cable (reproduced from
[93]).
The cable sheath was connected to grounding electrodes at the
two ends, one of 12 m and the other of 24 m length, respectively.
The dc measurement of the grounding electrodes gave the values
of 60 and 37 Ω, respectively. The ground conductivity can vary
significantly in Florida due to rainfall. A value of 1.6 × 10−2 to
1.8 × 10−3 S/m [19] was adopted in the calculations.
Figs. 17 and 18 present a comparison between the measure-
ments and calculations. Fig. 18 shows the comparison between
the current induced in the cable shield by a first return stroke
of a single-stroke flash recorded on August 18, 2002, in strike
location 1 [see Fig. 16(a)]. Fig. 20 shows the comparison be-
tween the current induced in the inner cable conductor by the
third return stroke of a four-stroke flash recorded on July 22,
2003, in strike location 2 [see Fig. 16(a)].
V. LIGHTNING STUDIES ALL OVER THE WORLD
This paper reviewed the basic approaches to simulate indirect
lightning, or electromagnetic effects, and to emphasize a few
subjects on which a remarkable progress has been achieved in
recent years.
Many centers all over the world, where research on lightning
is performed, have been referred to directly or indirectly through
the references of the paper. These centers are in alphabetical or-
233
der in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Sweden,
Switzerland, and the U.S.
However, before drawing the conclusion, the author would
like to mention that studies on lightning are going on in many
other places. Without pretending to be exhaustive, he, therefore,
would list very briefly the following.
1) Lightning phenomena and its effects have been studied
already in the 1960s and 1970s by G. N. Alexandrov in
Leningrad (today St. Petersburg), Russia, M. V. Kostenko
from the State Technical University of St. Petersburg, and
more recently, by E. M. Bazelian, and N. I. Petrov from
the High Voltage Research Institute in Russia.
2) Studies on the direct and indirect effects of lightning have
been performed in the 1970s by the group of G. Dragan
from the University “Politecnica” of Bucarest, Romania.
3) Studies on the effect of the return-stroke branched chan-
nel have been performed during many years by R. Zich,
G. Vecchi, and F. Canavero of the Politecnico di Torino,
Italy.
4) Studies pertaining to the lightning phenomenology have
been intensively carried out in the United States, at the
University of Florida by M. A. Uman and V. A. Rakov, at
the Philips Laboratory by C. Baum and R. Gardner, at the
Arizona University by Ph. Krider, and by J. Willett.
5) Studies on lightning current modeling have been per-
formed by A. Moini at the University Amir-Kabir from
Teheran, Iran.
6) Studies on the numerical simulation of lightning currents
injected in the grounding structure of power network sub-
stations by X. Cui and his group at the North China Power
University of Beijing, China.
7) Studies of lightning discharges in tropical regions by sci-
entists from Japan and Malaysia.
8) Studies by the groups of S. Visacro and A. Piantini on
lightning return-stroke characterization modeling and in-
duced effects in Brazil.
9) Studies by H. Torres on lightning in tropical region in
Columbia.
10) Studies on lightning protection and risk estimation by
Z. Flisowski (Poland) in collaboration with C. Mazzetti
(Italy).
11) The European COST Action P18 “The Physics of Light-
ning Flash and its Effects” with the participation of
five countries, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, France, and
U.K., is also going on (2005–2009).
VI. CONCLUSION
During the last few years, new developments have led to
a remarkable progress in the modeling of lightning indirect
effects. The use of natural and triggered lightning or of EMP
simulators has validated different numerical simulation models.
Progress for a better modeling of these effects will surely be
achieved in the future. One very important parameter for the
simulation is the ground conductivity, as shown, for instance,
in [38]. However, this value cannot be determined with enough
234 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 49, NO. 2, MAY 2007
precision along long lines or cables. Ways for improving the
determination of its value will probably be found.
Lightning will always remain a natural phenomena with so
many arbitrary parameters that its perfect modeling will proba-
bly never be achieved. It should, however, be admitted today that
the simulation tools presented in this paper, based on an indirect
approach represented by the “engineering” models, permit the
estimation with a reasonable accuracy of the effects of indirect
lightning on overhead lines and buried cables, and as a conse-
quence, an improvement in the mitigation and protection of the
electromagnetic compatibility.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to acknowledge many years of friendly
collaboration and fruitful discussions with Dr. F. M. Tesche on
field propagation and coupling problems. He also considers that
without the nearly 20 years collaboration with Dr. F. Rachidi
from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne,
the completion of this review would not have been possible.
The author would also like to emphasize many years of close
collaboration on this subject with Prof. C. Mazzetti from the
University of Rome and Prof. C. A. Nucci from the Univer-
sity of Bologna. Many helpful discussions and interaction with
Dr. W. Radasky form Metatech Corporation, Prof. M. A. Uman
and Prof. V. Rakov from the University of Florida, Dr. M. Rubin-
stein from the High Specialized School of Engineering of West
Switzerland, and Dr. C. Baum from Philips Laboratory, as well
as many years of fruitful collaboration on coupling problems
with the NEMP Labor from Spiez (Switzerland) and Electricité
de France are also acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Lundquist, “Effects on the society of an intense lightning storm,” pre-
sented at the 21st Int. Conf. Lightning Protection (ICLP), Berlin, Germany,
Sep. 22–25, 1992, Paper 8.01.
[2] Izvestia, Jul. 2, 2006.
[3] F. de la Rosa, R. Valdiviva, H. Perez, and J. Losa, “Discussion about the
induction effects of lightning in an experimental power distribution line
in Mexico,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1080–1089, Jul.
1988.
[4] B. Djebari, L. Guérin, and M. Gléonec, “Conducted EM disturbances on
the telecommunication terminal equipment ports,” presented at the Int.
Symp. EMC 1994, Rome, Italy, Sep. 13–16, Paper B-5.
[5] M. J. Master and M. A. Uman, “Lightning induced voltages on power lines.
Theory,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-103, no. 9, pp. 2502–
2518, Sep. 1984.
[6] C. A. Nucci, F. Rachidi, M. Ianoz, and C. Mazzetti, “Lightning-induced
overvoltages on overhead lines,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.,
vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 75–86, Feb. 1993.
[7] C. A. Nucci, “Lightning-induced voltages on overhead power lines. Part I:
Return-stroke current models with specified channel-base current for the
evaluation of the return-stroke electromagnetic fields,” Electra, no. 161,
pp. 75–102, Aug. 1995.
[8] C. A. Nucci, “Lightning-induced voltages on overhead power lines. Part
II: Coupling models for the evaluation of the induced voltages,” Electra,
no. 162, pp. 121–145, Oct. 1995.
[9] M. Ianoz, “Lightning electromagnetic effects on lines and cables,” pre-
sented at the 12th Int. Zurich Symp. EMC, Zurich, Switzerland, Feb.
18–22, 1997, Tutorial T3.
[10] V. A. Rakov, “Lightning electromagnetic fields: Modeling and measure-
ments,” presented at the 12th Int. Zurich Symp. EMC, Zurich, Switzer-
land, Feb. 18–20, 1997, Paper 11C1.
[11] C. A. Nucci, G. Diendorfer, M. A. Uman, F. Rachidi, M. Ianoz, and
C. Mazzetti, “Lightning return stroke current models with specified
channel-base current: A review and comparison,” J. Geophys. Res.,
vol. 95, pp. 20395–20408, Nov. 1990.
[12] M. A. Uman and D. K. McLain, “Magnetic field of lightning return stroke,”
J. Geophys. Res., vol. 74, pp. 6899–6910, 1969.
[13] F. Heidler, “Traveling current source model for LEMP calculation,” pre-
sented at the 6th Symp. Tech. Exhib. Electromagn. Compat., Zurich,
Switzerland, Mar. 5–7, 1985.
[14] C. A. Nucci, C. Mazzetti, F. Rachidi, and M. Ianoz, “On lightning return
stroke models for LEMP calculations,” presented at the 19th Int. Conf.
Lightning Protection, Graz, Austria, Apr. 1988.
[15] C. A. Nucci and F. Rachidi, “Experimental validation of a modification
to the transmission line model for LEMP calculations,” presented at the
8th Int. Symp. Tech. Exhib. Electromagn. Compat., Zurich, Switzerland,
1989.
[16] V. A. Rakov and A. A. Dulzon, “A modified transmission line model
for lightning return stroke field calculations,” presented at the 9th
Int. Symp. Tech. Exhib. Electromagn. Compat., Zurich, Switzerland,
1991.
[17] G. Diendorfer and M. A. Uman, “An improved return stroke model
with specified channel-base current,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 95, no. D9,
pp. 13621–13644, Aug. 1990.
[18] R. Thotappilil, D. K. McLain, M. A. Uman, and G. Diendorfer, “Extension
of the Diendorfer–Uman lightning return stroke model to the case of a
variable upward return stroke speed and a variable downward discharge
current speed,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 96, no. D9, pp. 17143–17150, Sep.
1991.
[19] R. Thotappilil and M. A. Uman, “Comparison of lightning return-stroke
models,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 98, no. D12, pp. 22903–22914, Dec. 1993.
[20] K. Berger, R. B. Anderson, and H. Kroninger, “Parameters of lightning
flashes,” Electra, no. 41, pp. 23–37, 1975.
[21] M. A. Uman, The Lightning Discharge. New York: Academic, 1987.
[22] M. J. Master and M. A. Uman, “Transient electric and magnetic fields
associated with establishing a finite electrostatic dipole,” Amer. J. Phys.,
vol. 51, pp. 118–126, 1983.
[23] M. Ianoz, C. A. Nucci, and F. M. Tesche, “Transmission line theory
for field-to-transmission line coupling calculations,” Electromagnetics,
vol. 8, no. 2–4, pp. 171–211, 1988.
[24] C. A. Nucci, F. Rachidi, M. Ianoz, and C. Mazzetti, “Comparison of two
coupling models for lightning-induced overvoltage calculations,” IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 330–339, Jan. 1995.
[25] V. Cooray, “Calculating lightning-induced overvoltages in power lines: A
comparison of two coupling models,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.,
vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 179–182, Aug. 1994.
[26] A. K. Agrawal, H. J. Price, and S. H. Gurbaxani, “Transient re-
sponse of a multi-conductor transmission line excited by a nonuniform
electromagnetic field,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. EMC-
22, no. 2, pp. 119–129, May 1980.
[27] C. Taylor, R. S. Satterwhite, and C. W. Harrison, “The response of a termi-
nated two-wire transmission line excited by a nonuniform electromagnetic
field,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. AP-13, no. 6, pp. 987–989,
Nov. 1965.
[28] F. Rachidi, “Formulation of the field-to-transmission line coupling equa-
tions in terms of magnetic excitation fields,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn.
Compat., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 404–407, Aug. 1993.
[29] C. A. Nucci and F. Rachidi, “On the contribution of the electromagnetic
field components in field-to-transmission lines interaction,” IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 505–508, Nov. 1995.
[30] F. M. Tesche, M. Ianoz, and T. Karlsson (1996). EMC analysis meth-
ods and computational models. New York: Wiley [Online]. Available:
http://www.tesche.com to be published.
[31] G. Diendorfer, “Induced voltage on an overhead line to nearby lightning,”
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 292–299, Nov.
1990.
[32] A. Zeddam and P. Degauque, “Current and voltage induced on a telecom-
munication cable by a lightning stroke,” in Lightning Electromagnetics,
R. L. Gardner, Ed. Bristol, PA: Hemisphere, 1990, pp. 377–400.
[33] V. F. Hermosillo and V. Cooray, “Calculation of fault rates of overhead
power distribution lines due to lightning-induced voltages including the ef-
fect of ground conductivity,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 37,
no. 3, pp. 392–399, Aug. 1995.
[34] S. Yokoyama, “Calculation of lightning-induced voltages on overhead
multiconductor systems,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-103,
no. 1, pp. 100–108, Jan. 1984.
IANOZ: REVIEW OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MODELING OF LIGHTNING EM EFFECTS
[35] M. Ishi, K. Michishita, Y. Hongo, and S. Oguma, “Lightning-induced
voltage on an overhead wire dependent on ground conductivity,” IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 109–118, Jan. 1994.
[36] F. M. Tesche, “Comparison of the transmission line and scattering models
for computing the NEMP response of overhead cables,” IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 93–99, May 1992.
[37] S. Tkatchenko, F. Rachidi, and M. Ianoz, “Electromagnetic field coupling
to a line of finite length: Theory and fast iterative solutions in frequency
and time domains,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 37, no. 4,
pp. 509–518, Nov. 1995.
[38] M. Rubinstein, “An approximate formula for the calculation of the hori-
zontal electric field from lightning at close, intermediate, and long range,”
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 531–535, Aug.
1995.
[39] F. Arreghini, M. Ianoz, P. Zweiacker, D. V. Giri, and A. Tehori, “SEMI-
RAMIS: An asymmetrical bounded wave EMP simulator with a good
confinement inside the transmission line,” presented at the 10th Int.
Zurich Symp. EMC, Zurich, Switzerland, Mar. 9–11, 1993, Paper 109P5.
[40] S. Guerrieri, M. Ianoz, F. Rachidi, P. Zweiacker, and C. A. Nucci, “A
time-domain approach to evaluate induced currents and voltages on tree-
shaped electrical networks by external electromagnetic fields,” presented
at the 11th Int. Zurich Symp. EMC, Zurich, Switzerland, Mar. 7–9, 1995,
Paper 82M5.
[41] M. Ianoz, F. Rachidi, C. Mazzetti, and C. A. Nucci, “Response of mul-
ticonductor power lines to indirect close lightning strokes,” presented at
the Power Syst. EMC CIGRE Symp., Lausanne, Switzerland, Oct. 18–20,
1993, Paper 200-07.
[42] C. Gary, A. Cimador, and R. Fieux et al., “Research on artificially triggered
lightning in France,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-97, pp. 725–
733, 1978.
[43] K. Hori, Memoirs of the Faculty of Engineering Nagoya University, vol.
34, Nagoya, Japan, 1982, pp. 77–112.
[44] M. A. Uman, V. A. Rakov, and K. J. Rambo et al., “Triggered lightning
facility for studying lightning effects on power systems,” presented at the
23rd Int. Conf. Lightning Protection (ICLP), Florence, Italy, 1996.
[45] M. Rubinstein, M. A. Uman, P.-J. Medelius, and E. M. Thompson, “Mea-
surements of the voltage induced on an overhead power line 20 m from
triggered lightning,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 36, no. 2,
pp. 134–140, May 1994.
[46] F. M. Tesche and T. K. Liu, “Application of multiconductor transmission
line network analysis to internal interaction problems,” Electromagnetics,
vol. 6, pp. 1–20, 1986.
[47] Ph. Baraton, A. Zeddam, O. Fafif, and B. Jecko, “Détermination de la
tension parasite transitoire induite aux extrémités d’un câble coaxial par
une IEM—Analyse de la protection par un circuit non-linéaire,” presented
at the Actes 5ème Colloque Int. sur la Compat. Electromagn., Evian,
France, Sep. 12–14, 1989, Contribution EI-3.
[48] B. N. Gorin, V. I. Levitov, and A. V. Shkilev, “Lightning strikes to the
Ostankino tower,” Elektricestvo, no. 8, pp. 19–23, 1977, (in Russian).
[49] E. Garbagnati and G. B. Lo Piparo, “Nuova stazione automatica per il
rilievo delle caratteristiche dei fulmini,” (in Italian), L’Energia elettrica,
no. 6, 1973.
[50] O. Beierl, “Lightning current measurements at the Peissenberg tower,”
presented at the 7th ISH, Dresden, Germany, 1991, Paper 81.020.
[51] W. Janischewskyj, A. M. Hussein, W. A. Chisholm, J. S. Chang,
Z. Kawasaki, and P. Idzurevych, “Comprehensive measurement of light-
ning strokes to the CN Tower in Toronto,” presented at the 9th Int. Conf.
Atmos. Electr., vol. III, St. Petersburg, Russia, 1992.
[52] S. Guerrieri, C. A. Nucci, F. Rachidi, and M. Rubinstein, “On the influence
of elevated strike objects on directly measured and indirectly estimated
lightning currents,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1543–
1555, Oct. 1998.
[53] B. N. Gorin and A. V. Shkilev, “Measurements of lightning currents at
Ostankino tower,” Elektricestvo, no. 8, pp. 64–65, 1984, (in Russian).
[54] V. A. Rakov, “Transient response of a tall object to lightning,” IEEE
Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 654–661, Nov.
2001.
[55] F. Rachidi, “Modeling lightning return strokes to tall structures: A review,”
J. Lightning Res., vol. 1, pp. 16–31, 2007.
[56] I. Rusan et al., “Comparison of measured and computed electromagnetic
fields radiated from lightning strikes to the Toronto CN tower,” presented
at the 23rd Int. Conf. Lightning Protection (ICLP), Florence, Italy, 1996.
[57] V. Shostak et al., “Modeling of the electromagnetic field associated with
lightning return strokes to a complex tall tower,” presented at the 26th
Int. Conf. Lightning Protection (ICLP), Krakow, Poland, 2002.
235
[58] J. L. Bermudez et al., “On the use of transmission line theory to represent a
nonuniform vertically-extended object struck by lightning,” in Proc. 2003
IEEE Symp. EMC, Boston, MA, pp. 501–504.
[59] Y. Baba and V. A. Rakov, “On the interpretation of ground reflections ob-
served in a small-scale experiment simulating lightning strikes to towers,”
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 533–542, Aug.
2005.
[60] O. Beierl, “Front shape parameters of negative subsequent strokes mea-
sured at the Peissenberg tower,” presented at the 21st Int. Conf. Lightning
Protection (ICLP), Berlin, Germany, 1992.
[61] W. Janishewskyj, V. Shostak, J. Barratt, A. M. Husein, R. Rusan, and
J. S. Chang, “Collection and use of lightning return stroke parameters
taking into account characteristics of the struck object,” in Proc. 23rd Int.
Conf. Lightning Protection (ICLP), Florence, Italy, 1996, pp. 16–23.
[62] F. Fuchs, “On the transient behavior of the telecommunication tower at
the mountain Hoher Preisenberg,” in Proc. 24th Int. Conf. Lightning Pro-
tection, Birmingham, U.K., 1998, pp. 36–41.
[63] V. A. Rakov, “Transient response of a tall object to lightning,” IEEE
Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 654–661, Nov. 2001.
[64] F. Rachidi et al., “The effect of vertically-extended strike object on the
distribution of current along the lightning channel,” J. Geophys. Res.,
vol. 107, no. D23, p. 4699, 2002.
[65] J.-L. Bermudez, F. Rachidi, and M. Rubinstein, “Lightning return strokes
to tall towers: modeling characterization of the strike object and ex-
traction of primary current waveform,” in Recent Progress in Light-
ning Physics, C. Pontikis, Ed. Trivandrum, India: Research Signpost,
2005.
[66] J.-L. Bermudez, C. A. Pena-Reyez, F. Rachidi, and F. Heidler, “Use of
genetic algorithms to extract primary lightning current parameters,” pre-
sented at the Int. Symp. EMC Europe 2002. Sorrento, Italy.
[67] D. B. Vogel, Evolutionary Computation: Toward a New Philosophy of
Machine Intelligence. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 1995.
[68] F. Heidler, “Analytische Blitzstromfunktion zur LEMP-Berechnung,”
presented at the 18th Int. Conf. Lightning Protection (ICLP), Munich,
Germany, 1985.
[69] Y. Baba and V. A. Rakov, “Lightning electromagnetic environment in the
presence of a tall grounded strike object,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 110,
D09108, doi:10.1029/2004JD005505, 2005.
[70] Y. Baba and V. A. Rakov, “On the use of lumped sources in light-
ning return stroke models,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 110, D03101, doi:
10.1029/2004JD005202, 2005.
[71] D. Pavanello et al., “Return stroke current profiles and electromagnetic
fields associated with lightning strikes to tall towers: Comparison of engi-
neering models,” presented at the Int. Conf. Lightning Protection (ICLP),
Avignon, France, 2004.
[72] F. Rachidi and R. Thottappillil, “Determination of lightning currents from
far electromagnetic fields,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 98, pp. 18315–18320,
1993.
[73] V. A. Rakov, R. Thottappillil, and M. A. Uman, “On the empirical
formula of Willett et al. relating lightning return stroke peak current
and peak electric field,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 97, pp. 11527–11533,
1992.
[74] V. P. Idone and R. E. Orville, “Lightning return stroke velocities in the
Thunderstorm Research International Program (TRIP),” J. Geophys. Res.,
vol. 87, pp. 4903–4915, 1982.
[75] D. M. Mach and W. D. Rust, “Photoelectric return stroke velocity and
peak current estimates in natural and triggered lightning,” J. Geophys.
Res., vol. 94, pp. 13237–13247, 1989.
[76] F. Rachidi, J. L. Bermudez, M. Rubinstein, and V. A. Rakov, “On the
estimation of lightning peak currents from measured fields using lightning
location systems,” J. Electrostat., vol. 60, pp. 121–129, 2004.
[77] M. D’Amore and M. S. Sarto, “Time response of a network containing
field-excited multiconductor lossy lines with non-linear loads,” in Proc.
1993 IEEE EMC Symp., Dallas, TX, Aug. 9–13, pp. 436–441.
[78] K. Keroum, F. Paladian, J. Fontaine, and O. Daguillon, “Etude topologique
de systèmes constitués de lignes multifilaires interconnectées par des
réseaux linéaires soumis à une impulsion électromagnétique,” in Proc.
Actes 7ème Colloque Int. sur la CEM, Toulouse, France, Mar. 2–4, 1994,
pp. 241–246.
[79] C. A. Nucci, V. Bardazzi, R. Iorio, A. Mansoldo, and A. Porrino, “A code
for the calculation of lightning-induced overvoltages and its interface with
the Electromagnetic Transient Program,” presented at the 22nd Int. Conf.
Lightning Protection (ICLP), Budapest, Hungary, Sep. 19–23, 1994.
[80] D. Orzan, Ph. Baraton, M. Ianoz, and F. Rachidi, “Comparaison, entre deux
approches pour traiter le couplage entre un champ électromagnétique et
236 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 49, NO. 2, MAY 2007
desréseaux de lignes,” in presented at the 8ème Symp. Int. en langue
franaise sur la Compat. Electromagn., Lille, France, Sep. 3–5, 1996.
[81] A. Borghetti et al., “Lightning-induced voltages on complex distribution
systems: Models, advanced software tools and experimental validation,”
J. Electrostat., vol. 60, pp. 163–174, 2004.
[82] A. Borghetti, R. Iorio, C. A. Nucci, and P. Pelacchi, “Effect of the presence
of distribution transformers on the voltages induced by nearby lightning
on overhead distribution lines,” presented at the Int. Conf. Power Syst.
Transients, Lisbon, Portugal, Sep. 3–7, 1995.
[83] R. Iorio, C. A. Nucci, A. Porino, and F. Rachidi, “Lightning induced volt-
ages on distribution lines: Impact on distribution transformers,” presented
at the Symp. CIGRE EMC Power Networks, Lausanne, Switzerland, Oct.
18–20, 1993, Paper 300-09.
[84] A. Xémard, Ph. Baraton, and F. Boutet, “Modelling external electromag-
netic field,” presented at the Int. Conf. Power Syst. Transients, Lisbon,
Portugal, Sep. 3–7, 1995.
[85] T. Henriksen, “Calculation of lightning overvoltages using EMTP,” pre-
sented at the Int. Conf. Power Syst. Transients, Lisbon, Portugal, Sep. 3–7,
1995.
[86] M. D’Amore and M. S. Sarto, “An EMTP-compatible procedure for the
evaluation of electromagnetic induced effects on power networks,” pre-
sented at the Int. Conf. Power Syst. Transients, Lisbon, Portugal, Sep. 3–7,
1995.
[87] E. Vance, Coupling to Shielded Cables. New York: Wiley, 1978.
[88] M. Aguet, M. Ianovici, and C. C. Lin, “Transient electromagnetic field
coupling to long shielded cables,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.,
vol. EMC-22, no. 4, pp. 276–282, Nov. 1980.
[89] D. Orzan, M. Ianoz, and B. Nicoara, “Response of shielded cables to
an external electromagnetic field excitation. Modeling and experimen-
tal validation,” presented at the 13th Int. Zurich Symp. EMC, Zurich,
Switzerland, Feb. 16–18, 1999, Paper 36G3.
[90] E. Petrache, F. Rachidi, M. Paolone, C. A. Nucci, V. A. Rakov, and
M. Uman, “Lightning-induced voltages in buried cables—Part I: Theory,”
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 498–508, Aug.
2005.
[91] V. Cooray, “Underground electromagnetic fields generated by the return
strokes of lightning flashes,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 43,
no. 1, pp. 75–84, Feb. 2001.
[92] V. A. Rakov and M. A. Uman, Lightning Physics and Effects.
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003.
[93] E. Petrache, F. Rachidi, and M. Paolone, “Lightning-induced voltages in
buried cables—Part II: Experiment and model validation,” IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 509–520, Aug. 2005.
Michel Ianoz (SM’85–F’96) was born in 1936. He
received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering
from the Politechnic Institute Bucarest, Rumania, in
1958, and the Ph.D. degree in nuclear physics from
the Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia, in
1968.
From 1966 to 1973, he worked with different Inter-
national Centers for Nuclear Research in Russia and
Switzerland. In 1975, he joined the Power System
Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of
Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, where was a Pro-
fessor of electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) in the Electrical Department, and
was engaged in research activities concerning the calculation of electromagnetic
fields, transient phenomena, lightning and electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effects
on power and telecommunication networks, and biological effects of EM fields,
until he retired in 2001. He is currently an Honorary Professor. He is the coau-
thor of the books High Voltage Engineering and EMC Analysis Methods and
Computational Models. He is also the author or coauthor of about 150 scientific
papers, out of which about 60 papers have been published in internationally
reviewed journals and conferences. From 1994 to 2001, he was an Associate
Editor of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY.
Prof. Ianoz was the Chairman of the Subcommittee 77B (HF phenomena) of
the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) from 1997 to 2006 and the
President of the Swiss Committee of the International Scientific Radio Union
(URSI) from 1993 to 2005. He received the Distinguished Lecturer Award from
the IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Society (EMCS) in 2003 and 2004.
Since 1994, he has been a Fellow of the EMP. In 2000, he received the ti-
tle of Doctor Honoris Causa from the Technical University of St. Petersburg,
Russia, and the title of Consultant Professor from the North China Electric
Power University.