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

net/publication/3928261

Lightning arc damage to optical fiber ground wires (OPGW): parameters and
test methods

Conference Paper · February 2001

DOI: 10.1109/PESS.2001.969990 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
25 1,772

3 authors, including:

William Chisholm Pritindra Chowdhuri

Kinectrics Tennessee Technological University
147 PUBLICATIONS 3,404 CITATIONS 72 PUBLICATIONS 1,143 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by William Chisholm on 26 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Lightning Arc Damage to
Optical Fiber Ground Wires (OPGW):
Parameters and Test Methods
William A. Chisholm, Jody P. Levine
Pritindra Chowdhuri

Abstract - The present version of IEEE Standard 1138 [1] gives no guidance regarding the possible damage to OPGW
from exposure to lightning. Industry experience with conventional overhead ground wires has settled on an overall
diameter in excess of 12 mm for good long-term mechanical performance. This may not be enough to protect optical
fibers from long-term damage, Test specifications, using tbe existing body of knowledge for calculation of Iigbtning
tripout rates, can be derived from existing practice in IEEE Standard 1243 [2], supplemented by empirical fits to
observations of the distribution of total flash charge as measured by Berger [3]. Test procedures can also be
recommended, based on practical experience obtained using a variety of approaches that include IEEE Standard 4 [4]
and IEC 60794 [5].

MOT1VATION

Overhead ground wire and exposed phase conductor selection practices generally assume that, if sufficient wire
cross section is provided to meet ac fault current requirements, there will be little risk of conductor damage from
direct lightning strokes. Data from the Ontario Hydro distribution system support this assertion, Of a total of nearly
34,000 separate components damaged by lightning in the observation period of 1994 to 1999, only 574 were broken
conductors. This gives an average failure rate of about (574 / (90,000 km x 6 years) ) = 0.1 breaks per 100 km per
year in an area with an average ground flash density of 1.0 flashes per kmz per year. Japanese experience in an area
with similar flash density [12] gave a similar damage rate of “0.08 cases/year for every 100 km”.

In developing areas with high ground flash density, such as Brazil, optical-fiber ground wire (OPGW) is being
applied rapidly to reinforce communications infrastructure. Figure 1 [6] shows that this application has not been
without difficulty.

Figure 1: Lightning Damage to Optical Fiber Ground Wire (OPGW)

(from Prof. Silvirio Visacro Filho [lrc(jijcpdee.uf mg.br]
)

0-7803-7173-9/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE 88

0-7803-7031-7/01/$10.00 (C) 2001 IEEE

 Brazilian standards for OPGW testing now tend to be more stringent than those described in IEEE Standard 1138
[1]. Tests are carried out specifically to establish the ability of an OPGW cable to resist the damaging effects of
direct lightning strokes, without affecting the attenuation of the enclosed optical fibers. Generally, these tests
use various parts of IEC standard 60794 to simulate the localized damage [5].

EXPOSURE MODEL

Stroke Incidence

For transmission and distribution lines, the exposure to direct lightning strokes is approximated by an exposure
width. The recommended expression in IEEE Standards 1243 and 1410 [2,7] is:

28h:’ + b
N=Ng (1)
[) 10

N is the number of flashes/1 00 km/year

N~ is the ground flash density (flashes per km2 per year)
ht is the height of the conductor (or overhead groundwire) at the tower
b is the overhead ground wire separation in m

Peak Stroke Current

Normally, for calculations of transmission line lightning performance, the peak magnitude of the first stroke in the
flash is of the greatest interest, The probability of a stroke current in excess of a value of I* M is approximated
from Berger’s data [3] as [2,7,8]:

(2)

where I* is in kA.

The first stroke has an impressive peak current, with a 1% chance of exceeding 180 kA. However, other parameters
of the lightning flash may be more likely to damage conductors.

Rate of Current Rise

The rate of current rise of lightning subsequent strokes is very steep, with values that can exceed 100 kAlps. Based
on direct observations, and supplemented with a survey [9] of observations of the rate of change of electric field, a
median rise time of 50 to 100 ns can be proposed for the subsequent stroke current. If OPG W designs are
susceptible to the associated pinch (radial inward) forces, then test procedures should ideally reproduce this
steepness, rather than a standard 1.2-us rise time (appropriate for first strokes) or the typical 4-ps, 8-VS or 20-vs rise
times associated with testing surge arresters. The IEEE Task Force on lightning parameters has recommended a
0,1/1 O-ps voltage wave for subsequent stroke testing, However, there are considerable practical difficulties in
generating a current wave with this steepness, using medium-voltage impulse generators,

Total Flask C%arge

The amount of charge in the total flash is a dominant factor in conductor damage. The charge, rather than the
integral of the square of current over time (the action integral or 12t), is correlated with arc damage mainly because
the arc root voltages tend to be constant for a wide range of currents, Berger [3] gives figures for negative and
positive flash charges as follows:

0-7803-7173-9/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE 89

0-7803-7031-7/01/$10.00 (C) 2001 IEEE

 Table 1: Typical Lightning Flash Charge Parameters [3]

Parameter No, of 95°A will exceed Median 50/. will exceed

Observations
Negative Flash
94 1.3 7.5 40
Charge, coulombs
Positive Flash
26 20 80 350
Charge, coulombs

Berger’s data on total flash charge [3, Figure 3] can be well approximated at the low-probability end of the data by
the following two equations:

P(Q negative)
= 1 *, (3)

[)
Q Wgatlw
1+
7

(4)

In contrast to the difficulty in generating a simulated lightning stroke with a steep rate of current rise, it is fairly easy
to build a test circuit to deliver total charge using a DC source. The IEC 60794 standard [5] gives no guidance on
charge level, but does identifi that the charge is to be delivered as a DC component (called Component C) of a to-
be-agreed-upon magnitude and duration. Again, the practical implications of OPGW testing using total charge will
be discussed below.

Yjpical Worked Example for Establishing Test Parameters

A double-circuit transmission line, with 45-m towers, is assumed to pass through an area of the central USA where
the ground flash density is observed to be 4.0 flashes per km2 per year. Based on Equation (1), this line will receive
110 flashes per 100 km per year. Half of these flashes will strike each of the two overhead shield wires, less
probably at midspan and more probably near the tower. If a five-year return period is used to determine an
acceptable damage criterion, then the basic probability level for stroke current, rate of rise and charge will be
1/(5x55), that is P=O.0036, assuming there is an OPG W only on one side of the line. With a rate of 98’-?4.negative
and 2940positive flashes, the probability design levels for negative and positive charge will be 0.0036/0.98 = 0.00371
and 0.0036/0.02 = 0.182, respectively.

It should be noted that this probability level will require an extrapolation of the observations. It is reassuring that a
similar extrapolation of the log-normal distributions of Berger’s stroke current data has been proven correct by
supporting observations from wide-area lightning location networks, collecting more than 107 flashes per year.

Using the probability models in Equations 2-4, the following threat levels are anticipated on average once every five
years:

Peak negative stroke current -270 kA

Total negative flash charge -188 c
Total positive flash charge +180 C

The total negative flash charge of–188 C is near the upper limit of 200 C recommended by IEC for its most severe
test [11 ]. In this case, with the low proportion of positive strokes, the positive flash charge need not be tested, as it is
less damaging per coulomb (it has a lower arc root voltage).

0-7803-7173-9/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE 90

0-7803-7031-7/01/$10.00 (C) 2001 IEEE

 TEST METHODS

A wide range of test methods has been suggested to simulate lightning arc damage, as shown in Figure 1. There is
more agreement on the possible failure criteria:

o The remaining strength of the cable is acceptable, typically 75-80% of breaking strength
e The number of broken strands is less than some specified number
o The optical attenuation during the test does not change, usually by more than 0.1 dB
c1 The optical fibers are not exposed to the environment after the test

Generally, the damage from simulations of the first stroke is minimal. Figure 2 shows the results of a 100-kA,
20150-vs current stroke; Figure 3 shows the results of a 150 kA, 4/1 O-ps current stroke. The major effect of any of
these waves is to melt the fhse wire and spray it onto the tops of the OPGW strands.

Figure 2: Damage to OPGW After 100-kA, 20/50-ps Test Current (nominal)

Figure 3: Damage to OPGW After 150-kA, 4/1 O-~s Test Current (nominal)

0-7803-7173-9/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE 91

0-7803-7031-7/01/$10.00 (C) 2001 IEEE

 The IEC test specification calls for a “B” component to discharge 10 C into the cable with an average current of 2
kA over 5 ms. This component exists mainly to ensure continuous current flow in a transition from the 200-kA,
100-ps impulse to the 200-A, 0.5-s continuing current.

The continuing current alone does progressive damage to cables as charge level increases. However, test-to-test
consistency cannot be achieved using the IEC specifications alone. The proposed geometry includes a rod electrode,
a fuse wire and a spacing of 5 +/- 1 cm. The IEC spacing is intended to be wide enough limit the effect of the
particle jet from the electrode, but is too wide for the arc to be consistently stable. For a stable arc, this geometry
needs to be magnetically balanced with symmetric return wiring. The choices of electrode material, radius and end
treatments also affect shot-to-shot consistency. If IEEE intends to adopt the component C of the IEC test method,
the following additional specifications are recommended to make the test more practical and repeatable:

e Retain Component B for crisp destruction of the fuse wire

e Narrow the range of test currents and control the charge using the duration
e Speci@ negative potential at the electrode
e Specifj electrode material as tungsten (least damaged by arcing)
o Speci@ a geometry of arc head that magnetically stabilizes the arc at the center of the test geometry

A lower-cost test could be achieved more practically using plasma gouging techniques, which have the advantage of
producing the correct plasma temperature of 30,000 K rather than an electric arc temperature of perhaps 6000 K
[10].

0-7803-7173-9/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE 92

0-7803-7031-7/01/$10.00 (C) 2001 IEEE

 REFERENCES:

[1] IEEE Standard Construction of Composite Fiber Optic Overhead Ground Wire (OPGW) for Use on
Electric Utility Power Lines, IEEE Standard 1138-1994
[2] IEEE Guide for Improving the Lightning Performance of Overhead Transmission Lines, IEEE
Standard 1243-1997, December 1997
[3] K. Berger, R. B. Anderson and H. Kroninger, “Parameters of Lightning Flashes”, Electra, No. 41, pp 23-37,
1975
[4] IEEE Standard Techniques for High-Voltage Testing, IEEE Standard 4-1995, October 1995
[5] IEC Standard 60794, International Electrotechnical Commission, 3 rue de Varembe, 1211 Geneva,
Switzerland
[6] Email communication from Prof. Silvirio Visacro Filho [lrc@cpdee.ufmg. br]
[7] IEEE Guide for Improving the Lightning Performance of Electric Power Overhead Distribution
Lines, IEEE Standard 1410-1997, December 1997
[8] Guide to Procedures for Estimating the Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines, CIGRE
Brochure 63, October 1991
[9] M.A. Uman, V.A. Rakov, G.H. Schnetzer, K.J. Rambo, D.E. Crawford and R.J. Fisher, “Time derivative
of the electric field 10, 14 and 30 m horn triggered lightning strokes”. Journal of Geophysical Research,
Vol. 105 No. D12, June 27,2000
[10] W.A. Chisholm and C. Pen, “Development of Realistic Lightning Arc Tests for Optical Fiber Ground
Wires (OPGW)”, V International Symposium on Lightning Protection, Sao Paulo, Brazil, May, 1999.
[11] IEC Standard 60124-1: 1990-03: Protection of structures against lightning Part 1: General Principles,
International Electrotechnical Commission, 3 rue de Varembe, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
[12] M. Yokoya, Y. Katsuragi, Y, Goda, Y. Nagata, Y. Asano, “Development of Lightning-Resistant
.- Overhead
Ground Wire”, IEEE Trans. PWRD-9 No.3~ July 1994

BIOGRAPHIES

William A. Chisholm (SM ‘91) received a BASC in Engineering Science and an M.Eng from the University of
Toronto, and a Ph.D in Electrical Engineering from the University of Toronto, He has been a researcher in high
voltage transmission line reliability and operation for more than 25 years at Ontario Hydro and its successor
companies (now Kinectrics). He is chairman of the Lightning and Insulator Subcommittee of the IEEE.

Jody P. Levine (M ’89) received a BASC and an MASC in Electrical Engineering from the University of Waterloo.
She has been working in the high-voltage laboratory of what is now Kinectrics since 1990, and has considerable
experience with surge current generation. She is an active member of the high-voltage working groups in the IEEE
Surge Protective Devices Committee.

Pritindra Chowdhuri (F ’96) received B. SC. in Physics, M. SC. in Applied Physics from Calcutta University, M.S.
in electrical engineering fi-om Illinois Institute of Technology and D.Eng. from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
After working for the industry for over 30 years, he joined the Center for Electric Power, Tennessee Technological
University as professor of electrical engineering in 1986, Prof. Chowdhuri is the chairman of the IEEE T&D Task
Force on Lightning Parameters.

0-7803-7173-9/01/$10.00 © 2001 IEEE 93

0-7803-7031-7/01/$10.00 (C) 2001 IEEE

View publication stats