Electric Power Systems Research 127 (2015) 206–212

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electric Power Systems Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/epsr

Lightning protection of overhead transmission lines using external

ground wires
Mladen S. Banjanin a,b,∗ , Milan S. Savić a , Zlatan M. Stojković a
a
Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Belgrade, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73, 11120 Belgrade, Serbia
b
Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of East Sarajevo, Vuka Karadžića 30, 71123 East Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, a new kind of overhead transmission line (OHL) lightning protection system based on
Received 26 June 2014 external ground wires is analyzed. Instead of a standard ground wire, two ground wires placed at the top of
Received in revised form 4 April 2015 separate external towers located at both sides of the protected line are used. This type of protection should
Accepted 4 June 2015
be applied in specific circumstances for protection of short OHL sections which are highly endangered by
Available online 24 June 2015
lightning. The distance between external protection system and OHL is calculated by using EMTP-ATP.
Calculations are performed in order to avoid flashovers from the point where lightning strikes the external
Keywords:
protection system to the protected OHL. A rolling sphere method is used to calculate the height of external
External ground wire
Lightning protection
ground wires above OHL phase conductors to avoid shielding failures. An experiment in a high voltage
Overhead line laboratory is performed to verify the dimensions of the external protection system from the aspect of
Fast-front transients shielding failures. According to the results of simulation and experiment, the optimal dimensions of the
Flashover external protection system are determined.
High specific soil resistivity © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Lightning is the most frequent cause of overhead transmission
line (OHL) trip outs in many countries. Although the impact of light-
ning overvoltages to the OHLs has been considered since the first AC
transmission lines were built, it has also been frequently discussed
in recently published scientific papers [1–3].
There are different methods for reduction of the OHL trip out
rate caused by lightning: installation of ground wires at the OHL,
reduction of the tower grounding impedance, increase of an OHL BIL
(Basic Lightning Insulation Level), installation of underbuilt wires,
installation of line arresters, etc. When introducing a new pro-
tection method, some investment is required and a cost-benefit
analysis is a part of every such project.
The lightning performance of an OHL can be evaluated by using
simple empirical formulae [4,5], specialized software [2,6] or by
direct registration of OHL trip outs caused by lightning [3].
Installation of ground wires is the basic method for protec-
tion of an OHL against lightning. Back-flashovers are the most
∗ Corresponding author at: Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of East
Sarajevo, Vuka Karadžića 30, 71123 East Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Tel.: +387 65 381 961.
E-mail addresses: banjanin@ymail.com (M.S. Banjanin), savic ms@eunet.rs
(M.S. Savić), zstojkovic@etf.rs (Z.M. Stojković).
frequent kind of trip outs in the case when an OHL is equipped
with ground wires. At medium voltage OHL with high tower foot-
ing impedance almost every lightning strike to the line causes a
trip out. An increase of the OHL BIL decreases the probability of trip
out. Reduction of the OHL tower footing impedance can be done
by using bentonite [7]. Underbuilt wires, installed below the phase
conductors, are also used to reduce the OHL trip out rate caused by
lightning [8,9].
On the most critical sections of an OHL route, line arresters can
be installed. For full reduction of OHL trip outs, surge arresters
must be installed in every phase [10]. When using line arresters
on medium voltage OHLs on a terrain with high specific soil resisti-
vity, problems can occur when lightning strikes with a high current
amplitude near the tower top what causes a large portion of the cur-
rent to flow through the arresters. In such a situation, the energy
absorbed by the arrester can exceed its capacity and the arrester
can be destroyed [8,11].
In this paper, a new kind of OHL protection against lightning
is analyzed. This kind of OHL protection was mentioned for the
first time in [12] and its application has been suggested in [13].
Instead of a standard ground wire placed at the top of the OHL
towers, an external system of ground wires for OHL protection is
analyzed. This protection system is graphically presented in Fig. 1.
Ground wires on external towers are installed on both sides of the
protected OHL in such a way that the probability of shielding fail-
ure is negligible. In this manner lightning strikes occur only on the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2015.06.001
0378-7796/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 M.S. Banjanin et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 127 (2015) 206–212
Fig. 1. External ground wire (EGW) protection system against lightning strikes for
horizontal (left) and vertical (right) configuration of phase conductors.
Fig. 2. EGW protection system on the most critical sections of the OHL.
external protection system and the OHL is influenced only by
induced overvoltages. The influence of induced overvoltages
decreases with the increase of the nominal system voltage.
An external ground wire (EGW) protection system configuration
for the most vulnerable sections of an OHL is shown in Fig. 2 (top).
When the distance between the external tower and OHL tower
footings is short, there is a possibility for their interaction when
lightning strikes the external protection system. In this case, the
distance of the groundings can be increased by repositioning the
external towers along the span, Fig. 2 (bottom).
2. Dimensioning of the external protection system
There are two scenarios in which a trip out on an OHL protected
by an external protection system can occur:
a) Shielding failure of the external protection system and direct
strike to the OHL tower or phase conductor, marked with (a) in
Fig. 3.
b) Flashover from the point of lightning strike on external protec-
tion system to the OHL phase conductor, marked with (b) in
Fig. 3.
The three dimensions from Fig. 3, D, L and H, must be correctly
calculated to avoid these scenarios:
Fig. 3. Scenarios in which trip out of an OHL protected by external protection system
can occur for horizontal (left) and vertical (right) configuration of phase conductors.
207
Table 1
Default parameters values for calculations.
Element Value Element Value
External tower 45 m Tower surge impedance [4] 150 
height
Equivalent radius 5m Ground wire surge impedance 550 
of the tower
footing
D – the distance between EGW and OHL phase conductor [m]. This
must be determined to minimize the probability of a flashover
from an EGW to a phase conductor when lightning strikes an EGW.
L – the distance between external tower and OHL phase conduc-
tor [m]. This must be determined to minimize the probability of
a flashover from an external tower to the OHL phase conductor
when lightning strikes the top of the tower.
H – the height of EGW above OHL phase conductors [m]. This
must be determined to minimize the probability of the external
protection system shielding failure.
2.1. Determination of the distance between EGW and OHL phase
conductor – D
The EGWs can be placed as close as possible to the protected
OHL to ensure a low probability of shielding failure. The mini-
mum distance is determined so that there is a low probability of
a flashover from the point of lightning strike at EGW to a protected
OHL. The distance D is modeled as an air gap with a Leader Pro-
gression Model (LPM) flashover characteristic (1) [14–17] and this
model is implemented in the EMTP-ATP program [6]:
 u(t) 
v = 170 · d · − E0 · e(0.0015·(u(t)/d)) (1)
d−l
where d is the air gap distance [m], u(t) is the instantaneous over-
voltage value [kV], l is the leader length [m], E0 is the critical leader
inception gradient [kV/m], the value around 545 [kV/m] should be
used [16].
In practical calculations a corona inception time in the LPM can
be neglected [14,15], while the streamers propagation time is com-
pleted when the applied voltage reaches a value of E0 [15]. The
leader velocity should be modeled by Eq. (1).
In Table 1, the default parameters values of the network ele-
ments used in all calculations in this paper are presented. Models
of elements applied in simulations are used from the international
technical documents [4,14,15] and in accordance with conclusions
presented in [17].
A lightning current waveshape 5.63/77.5 ␮s/␮s has been used
in all calculations corresponding to the negative lightning strikes
[14,18]. A lightning strike is represented as a non-ideal current
source consisting of an ideal current source with double ramp
waveshape [15] parallel to the lightning channel surge impedance
which is assumed to be 1000  [17]. Although there are some more
accurate models of the lightning current waveshape, as Cigre source
[14] or Heidler source [19], sensitivity analysis shows that, in the
case when LPM model of air breakdown is used, the application
of advanced lightning current models has small influence to the
estimated results [17].
The tower footing impedance is calculated by using the equation
for semi-spherical configuration. The ionization effect in the soil
around a tower footing is modeled according to [14]. The impulse
model of the tower footing impedance decreases the maximum
overvoltages, so that more critical results are obtained by neglect-
ing the frequency dependence of soil parameters [20].
The maximum overvoltages on the external protection system
appear in the case when lightning strikes the middle of the EGW
span and this case is analyzed when calculating the distance D. It is
208 M.S. Banjanin et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 127 (2015) 206–212
Fig. 4. Possible positions of the EGWs for horizontal (left) and vertical (right)
arrangement of conductors.
assumed that a flashover from an EGW to an OHL phase conductor
occurs from the point of the lightning strike at the middle of EGW.
In Table 2, the calculated values of the distance D for different
lightning current amplitudes and different specific soil resistivities
are shown. The distance D should not be shorter than the OHL clear-
ance for switching impulse voltage. This is important in the case
when small values of distance D (for example 1.7 m from Table 2)
at EHV lines are considered.
2.2. Determination of the distance between external tower and
OHL phase conductor – L
The minimum distance L is determined so that there is a low
probability of a flashover from the external tower to an OHL phase
conductor in the case when lightning strikes the top of the external
tower. Calculation is performed in the same manner as the calcu-
lation of distance D, only the lightning strike point is at the top of
the external tower and flashover appears from the external tower
to an OHL phase conductor.
The calculated values for distance L are given in Table 3. The dis-
tance L should not be shorter than the OHL clearance for switching
impulse voltage. This is important in the case when small values
of distance L (for example 1.1 m from Table 3) at EHV lines are
considered.
2.3. Determination of the EGWs above OHL phase conductors
height – H
It is assumed that the sag of OHL phase conductors and sag of
EGWs are the same. In that case, the height of the external towers
above the OHL towers is almost the same as the height of the EGW
above the OHL upper phase conductors.
To protect OHL against shielding failures EGWs should be pos-
itioned in the area marked as A in Fig. 4. The area A can be easily
drawn for any value of striking distance RS and for any value of dis-
tance D by using rolling sphere method [21] or electrogeometric
model [22]. External towers must be placed at least at the distance
L from the OHL phase conductors.
Some advanced methods, as self-consistent upward leader
propagation model (SLIM) [23], can also be used for estimation of
the area A from Fig. 4. In this paper, the rolling sphere method,
which is based on electrogeometric model, is applied because it
has been widely used in engineering applications for lightning pro-
tection design.
From the aspect of shielding failures, the external protection
system efficiency depends on the lightning current amplitude
which is applied in calculations of external protection system con-
figuration. For the very important objects a suggested lightning
current amplitude is 3 kA [19], which occurs with a probability of
Fig. 5. Standard (left) and modified (right) external tower geometry.
1% according to [19], or with a probability of 0.23% according to [4].
With an increase of minimum shielding failure current, the proba-
bility of a shielding failure rises, so the value of 3 kA is suggested.
The striking distance value corresponding to the lightning current
of 3 kA is equal to 20 m (2) [19]:
RS = k · I a = 10I 0.65 (2)
where I is the lightning current amplitude [kA] and k, a are
constants.
Application of these values for the lightning current amplitude
as well as for the striking distance in a rolling sphere method leads
to the 99% of protection efficiency against shielding failures.
EGWs can be positioned in area A from Fig. 4 by applying two
types of external tower geometries:
1) Standard external tower (ET) geometry, shown in Fig. 5 (left). In
this case, higher external towers with simple geometry can be
used.
2) Modified external tower (ET) geometry, shown in Fig. 5 (right).
In this case, lower external towers but with more complicate
geometry have to be used.
Cost-benefit analysis must be performed to calculate the invest-
ment prices of both solutions to make the decision on the better one.
In Fig. 5, only configurations for horizontal arrangement of conduc-
tors are shown. Same analysis can be applied for vertical conductor
arrangement.
3. Results of the experiment
The experimental verification of the external protection sys-
tem dimensions from the aspect of shielding failures has been
conducted in a high voltage laboratory at the School of Electri-
cal engineering in East Sarajevo. Experiment was performed on
a model with scaled dimensions. Dimensions D and L defined in
Fig. 3 with values from Tables 2 and 3 were not experimentally veri-
fied. Because of that, the soil characteristics, propagation of impulse
voltages on external protection system, reduction of the front and
tail time of the impulse voltage due to the scaled dimensions of the
experimental setup etc. were not of importance in the experiment.
The experiment was performed with a standard lightning
impulse voltage of waveform 1.2/50 ␮s/␮s [24]. The output voltage
of the impulse generator was set to the maximum value of about
410 kV. The waveshape of the lightning impulse voltage used in
the experiment and captured with digital oscilloscope is shown in
Fig. 6.
The experiment was conducted for a default striking distance of
50 cm, which is equivalent to 20 m in real scale. The dimensions of
the experimental set up were scaled for 40 times. Phase conductors
 M.S. Banjanin et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 127 (2015) 206–212 209

Table 2
Calculated values of distance D.

Lightning current I [kA] 40 60 80 100 120

Probability P(I) [%] (2) 34.0 15.2 7.8 4.5 2.9

 [m] R [] Span length Distance D [m]

1000 32 1.7 2.5 3.4 4.3 5.1
2500 80 3.0 4.0 4.8 5.7 6.5
200 m
5000 159 3.9 5.1 6.3 7.4 8.5
10,000 318 5.5 7.2 8.7 10.1 11.4

1000 32 2.8 4.2 5.6 7.0 8.4

2500 80 3.6 5.2 6.6 8.0 9.4
400 m
5000 159 4.7 6.2 7.8 9.3 10.8
10,000 318 6.0 8.1 10.0 11.8 13.5

Table 3
Calculated values of distance L.

Lightning current I [kA] 40 60 80 100 120

Probability P(I) [%] (2) 34.0 15.2 7.8 4.5 2.9

 [m] R [] Span length Distance L [m]

1000 32 1.1 1.7 2.2 2.8 2.9
2500 80 1.9 2.6 3.2 3.7 4.4
200 m
5000 159 2.7 3.4 4.4 5.2 5.9
10,000 318 3.4 4.6 5.8 6.8 7.8
1000 32 1.4 2.1 2.8 2.9 3.2
2500 80 2.5 3.1 3.7 4.4 5.1
400 m
5000 159 3 4.2 5.2 6.2 7.1
10,000 318 4.1 5.6 6.9 8.1 9.3

(left), with the elements bolded to be noticeable. In Fig. 8 (right)

Fig. 6. Standard lightning impulse voltage of waveform 1.2/50 ␮s captured with
digital oscilloscope for time division of 12 ␮s.
and EGWs were modeled with copper wires with a diameter of
1.5 mm.
The symbolic diagram of electrode locations in the experimental
setup is shown in Fig. 7. EGWs are marked with E, while OHL phase
conductors are marked with F. Different positions of the output
wire from impulse generator are marked with 1, 2 and 3 which
simulates the progression leader position before the final jump.
An example of the test system set up for a vertical arrangement
of conductors for a double circuit 110 kV OHL is shown in Fig. 8
Fig. 7. Electrode positions for 400 kV (left) and 110 kV (right) OHLs with horizontal
and vertical arrangement of conductors respectively.
schematic diagram of the test system is presented. The output from
the impulse generator is marked with 1, EGWs are marked with 2
and upper phase conductors of protected OHL are marked with 3. A
double circuit OHL is used in the experiment for a vertical conductor
configuration to increase the probability of shielding failures.
Lightning discharges which penetrate the test system, as those
in Fig. 7 marked as 2 and 3, do not have a probability of strik-
ing the protected OHL. This conclusion is obtained both from the
experimental and simulation results. According to the results of
experiment, the discharge marked as 1 in Fig. 7 and in Fig. 8, repre-
senting stepped leader coming vertically to the axis of the OHL, has a
probability of nearly 50% to hit the protected OHL. The external pro-
tection system configuration is designed for the striking distance
of 20 m so probability of shielding failure is 0.5%. Further inves-
tigations are performed with the aim to exclude the theoretical
possibility of shielding failures.
The results of the experiment for the case of 400 kV and 110 kV
OHLs with horizontal and vertical arrangement of conductors
respectively for the discharge marked as 1 in Fig. 7 are shown
in Table 4. Protection efficiency (PE) is calculated as a fraction
of the number of strikes to EGWs and all strikes to the test sys-
tem. The experiment was performed for the minimal and maximal
dimensions of the OHL towers installed in Serbian power network.
The distances between OHL phase conductors and OHL axis of
symmetry are marked as Xfh and Xfv for horizontal and vertical
arrangements of conductors respectively.
The difference in length between the striking distance to OHL
phase conductors and the striking distance to EGWs is marked as
R:
R = R13 − R12 (3)
where R13 is the striking distance from the output of the impulse
generator to the OHL middle or upper phase conductors, depending
on the phase conductor configuration, R12 is the striking distance
from the output of the impulse generator to the EGWs. Both R13
and R12 distances are defined in Fig. 8 (right).
It is concluded that the R13 for horizontal and vertical arrange-
ment of conductors must be at least 11% (2 m) and 10% (1.8 m)
210 M.S. Banjanin et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 127 (2015) 206–212

Fig. 8. Experimental (left) and schematic (right) model of the test system for vertical arrangement of conductors for a double circuit 110 kV OHL.

Table 4
Experimentally obtained protection efficiency as a function of R.

Horizontal arrangement of conductors (single circuit 400 kV OHL) Vertical arrangement of conductors (double circuit 110 kV OHL)

Xfh Xeh Hh R [cm] PE [%] Xfv Xev Hv R [cm] PE [%]

0 50 0 53
4m 10.8 m 3.1 m 3.5 88 2.5 m 6.0 m 1.0 m 3.5 90
10 cm 27 cm 7.8 cm 4.5 93 6.3 cm 15 cm 2.5 cm 4.0 95
5.0 100 4.5 100

3.5 80 3.5 83
10 m 17.6 m 10.4 m 5.6 m 14.5 m 6.1 m
4.0 90 4.0 93
25 cm 44 cm 26 cm 14 cm 36.3 cm 15.3 cm
5.0 100 4.5 100

respectively greater than the R12 to obtain 100% protection effi-

ciency of the external protection system against shielding failures.
The discrepancy between the results for horizontal and vertical
configurations results from the fact that, for a vertical configura-
tion, the upper phase conductors are closer to the EGWs than the
middle conductor in a horizontal configuration.
For generalization R13 must be at least 11% greater than the
R12 for both configurations of the OHLs for full protection against
shielding failures. This means that the striking distance to the OHL
should be calculated by using Eq. (2) with the constants values
k = 10 and a = 0.65, while the striking distance to the external pro-
tection system should be calculated using Eq. (2) with the constants
values k = 8.8 and a = 0.65. Application of the different constants in
the Eq. (2) and application of different striking distances to the earth
and to the phase conductors is summarized in [5]. Fig. 9. Reduction of the area A according to the results of experiment for horizontal
(left) and vertical (right) arrangement of conductors.
Although the results estimated on the scaled system are useful,
it must be taken into account that this system is not fully equivalent
to the real system. The flashover characteristics of long air gaps are as well as to the external protection system. Such type of calcula-
different from those of short gaps. The power frequency voltage at tions leads to the reduction of the area A as it is shown in Fig. 9. The
EHV lines can have some influence to the point where lightning minimum height of EGWs above OHL phase conductors is increased
strikes and this is not modeled. The modeling of the lighting strike in comparison with the minimum height obtained from Fig. 4.
with an impulse voltage of 1.2/50 ␮s/␮s is not completely accurate.
Verification of the experimental results should be performed in a 5. Conclusion
high voltage laboratory with a greater maximum output voltage in
the MV range. A new kind of OHL protection against lightning based on the
EGWs is analyzed. Application of the ground wires on separate
4. Final dimensions of the external protection system structures has been suggested in IEEE Std 1243-1997 [13] where
following benefits of the external protection technology have been
The area A, where EGWs should be positioned and which is noticed:
defined in Fig. 4, must be modified according to the conclusion
obtained from the experiment to achieve full protection of an OHL 1) This kind of protection provide extreme negative shielding
against shielding failures. This could be performed by applying sug- angles, which minimize induction losses at the OHL and provide
gested constants for calculation of the striking distances to the OHL excellent security from shielding failures.
 M.S. Banjanin et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 127 (2015) 206–212
2) OHL tower height and wind loading of the towers and their
footings can be reduced by applying this type of protection.
The general conclusion about this type of protection is that the
external protection technology is an expensive option, but provide
excellent lightning performance for the protected OHL [13].
This type of protection is not suggested to be widely used, but
rather to solve specific lightning related issues which cannot be
solved by applying standard OHL protection methods. There are
different protection methods for improving lightning performance
of OHLs, but only line arresters and presented external protection
system can eliminate OHL trip outs caused by lightning.
When OHL trip out rate should be reduced to zero by the appli-
cation of line arresters, they must be installed in every phase and at
every tower of the protected OHL section. If high efficiency is neces-
sary in a long period of time continual monitoring of the arresters is
needed and replacement of destroyed arresters must be performed
what highly increase costs of maintenance. Also, when an OHL is
protected by line arresters there is a probability of span flashovers
in the case when lightning with high current amplitude strikes the
middle of long spans.
Considering the previously mentioned, the following advan-
tages of the external protection technology in comparison with line
arresters could be noticed:
1) By application of the external protection system it is possible to
reduce an OHL trip out rate to zero in a long period of time even
at the terrains with very high soil resistivity and with very high
keraunic level.
2) Efficiency of the external protection system is constant during
a period of exploitation, while arresters must be monitored and
replaced to keep high efficiency level.
3) Maintenance costs, efficiency and reliability of this protection
system are better in comparison to line arresters protection
technology, but initial costs are higher.
4) This kind of protection can be used for protection against span
flashovers and shielding failures. Line arresters protect OHL
against flashovers at line insulators, but there is still a proba-
bility of span flashover when lightning with the high current
amplitude strikes the middle of long span. Also, line arresters do
not protect OHL against shielding failures what in some cases can
make problems (for example shielding failures at the entrance
OHL spans in front of the substation).
There are a lot of different problems in power networks caused
by lightning and some of those problems can be solved only by using
external protection technology. Some of the possible applications
of the external protection system are:
1) Protection of the OHL few spans in front of the substation. In such
cases, only induced overvoltages appear in a substation and min-
imal BIL of the equipment can be used. That reduces equipment
costs greatly.
2) Protection of the short OHLs between two substations. In such
cases, only induced overvoltages appear in substations and min-
imal BIL of the equipment can be used. That highly reduces an
equipment cost, while possible flashovers with high short cir-
cuit currents are avoided. Typical examples for this scenario are
short OHLs, consisting of few spans, connecting a large hydro
power plant built in river gorge with the substation.
3) In some cases, at rocky terrain, ground wires must be removed
from the OHLs to reduce the short circuit currents flowing
through the wires. In such cases external protection technol-
ogy can be applied, especially if OHL is placed in the area with
high keraunic level.
211
4) At very long spans (river crossings etc.) ground wires are fre-
quently removed from the OHL towers to reduce mechanical
strain of the towers and their foundations. Line arresters are typ-
ically used in such case, but they cannot eliminate probability of
span flashovers. External protection system is suggested as a
solution.
In the first two cases external protection system protects both
the OHL against flashovers and the equipment in the substation
against lightning overvoltages, allowing reduction of the equip-
ment BIL.
External protection system has the following disadvantages:
1) Higher initial costs in comparison with line arresters technology
(but costs of maintenance are lower). Initial costs include the
purchase of land near the protected OHL where external tow-
ers would be installed and investment in equipment including
external towers, their groundings and ground wires.
2) Transport of the material from the factory to the installation site.
3) Practical implementation can be very expensive in the case
when protected OHL has very high towers because the external
towers must be higher than the OHL towers.
4) This kind of protection is new so further investigations must be
performed to verify the proposed dimensions.
Some further investigations include:
1) Cost-benefit analysis of initial and maintenance costs of the
external protection system compared to line arresters and other
protection technologies.
2) Calculations of induced overvoltages at the OHL phase conduc-
tors in the case when lightning strikes the external protection
system. This is important when protection of medium voltage
lines is considered.
Taking into account the foregoing it can be concluded that the
external protection system can be applied in cases when a short
OHL section needs to have very high level of reliable lightning pro-
tection in long period of time.
References
[1] Z.G. Datsios, P.N. Mikropoulos, T.E. Tsovilis, Estimation of the minimum shiel-
ding failure flashover current for first and subsequent lightning strokes to
overhead transmission lines, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 113 (2014) 141–150.
[2] L. Ekonomou, I.F. Gonos, D.P. Iracleous, I.A. Stathopulos, Application of artificial
neural network methods for the lightning performance evaluation of Hellenic
high voltage transmission lines, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 77 (January (1)) (2007)
55–63.
[3] U.J. Minnaar, C.T. Gaunt, F. Nicolls, Characterisation of power system events
on South African transmission power lines, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 88 (2012)
25–32.
[4] Working group IEEE, A simplified method for estimating lightning performance
of transmission lines, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PAS-104 (1985) 919–927.
[5] IEEE Working Group Report, Estimating lightning performance of transmis-
sion lines II – updates to analytical models, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 8 (1993)
1254–1267.
[6] Canadian-American EMTP User Group, ATP Rule Book, distributed by the Euro-
pean EMTP – ATP Users Group Association, 2011.
[7] W.R. Jones, Bentonite rods assure ground rod installation in problem soils, IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv. PAS 99 (1980) 1343–1346.
[8] H. Sugimoto, T. Kosuge, S. Yokoyama, K. Okumura, Study of lightning protec-
tion of power distribution lines located in mountainous areas, in: Transmission
and Distribution Conference and Exhibition, Asia Pacific, IEEE/PES, 2002, pp.
677–682.
[9] S. Visacro, F.H. Silveira, A. De Conti, The use of underbuilt wires to improve
the lightning performance of transmission lines, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 27
(January (1)) (2012).
[10] J.A. Martinez, F. Castro-Aranda, Lightning flashover rate of an overhead trans-
mission line protected by surge arresters, in: IEEE Power Engineering Society
General Meeting, Tampa, FL, USA, 2007.
[11] K. Nakada, T. Yokota, S. Yokoyama, A. Asakawa, Energy absorption of surge
arresters on power distribution lines due to direct lightning strokes-effects of
212 M.S. Banjanin et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 127 (2015) 206–212
an overhead ground wire and installation position of surge arresters, IEEE Trans.
Power Deliv. 12 (1997) 1779–1785.
[12] M. Darveniza, F. Popolansky, E.R. Whitehead, Lightning protection of UHV
transmission lines, Electra 41 (1975) 39–69.
[13] IEEE Std 1243-1997, IEEE Guide for Improving the Lightning Performance of
Transmission Lines, 1997.
[14] CIGRE Working Group 33.07, Guide to procedures for estimating the lightning
performance of transmission lines, CIGRE Technical Brochure No. 63, 1991.
[15] Insulation co-ordination – Part 4: Computational guide to insulation co-
ordination and modeling of electrical networks, International Standard IEC
60071-4, First edition 2004-06.
[16] A. Pigini, G. Rizzi, E. Nati, A. Porrino, G. Baldo, G. Pesavento, Performance of
large air gaps under lightning overvoltages: experimental study and analysis
of accuracy of predetermination methods, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 4 (April (2))
(1989) 1379–1392.
[17] M.S. Banjanin, M.S. Savić, Some aspects of overhead transmission lines lightning
performance estimation in engineering practice, Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst.
(2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etep.2069 (in press).
[18] CIGRE Working Group C4.407, Lightning parameters for engineering applica-
tions, CIGRE Technical Brochure No. 549, 2013.
[19] Protection against lightning – Part 1: General principles, International Standard
IEC 62305-1, First edition, 2006-01.
[20] S. Visacro, R. Alipio, Frequency dependence of soil parameters: experi-
mental results, predicting formula and influence on the lightning response
of grounding electrodes, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 27 (2012) 927–
935.
[21] Protection against lightning – Part 3: Physical damage to structures
and life hazard, International Standard IEC 62305-3, First edition,
2006-01.
[22] A.J. Eriksson, An improved electrogeometric model for transmission line shiel-
ding analysis, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. PWRD-2 (1987).
[23] M. Becerra, V. Cooray, A self-consistent upward leader propagation model, J.
Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 39 (16) (2006).
[24] High-voltage test techniques – Part 1: General definitions and test require-
ments, International Standard IEC 60060-1, Second edition, 1989-11.