2015 International Symposium on Lightning Protection (XIII SIPDA), Balnerio Cambori, Brazil, 28th Sept. 2ndOct. 2015.
Calculation of Backflashover Outage Rate of
Transmission Lines: A Discussion on Traditional
Methodologies and Recent Advances
Fernando H. Silveira Silvrio Visacro
LRC Lightning Research Center
UFMG Federal University of Minas Gerais
Brazil
silveira@cpdee.ufmg.br
Abstract This work presents a discussion on the traditional
methodologies presented by CIGRE and IEEE to calculate the
lightning outage rate of high voltage transmission lines in terms
of backflashover occurrence. The main aspects of such
methodologies are reviewed. The simplifications and
approximations adopted to determine the outage rate are
discussed. Systematic simulations are developed considering a
typical 138-kV line configuration. The obtained results in terms
of peak overvoltage, critical current and backflashover rate are
compared with those obtained by an advanced methodology
composed by an accurate electromagnetic model (HEM) to
calculate the overvoltage across insulator strings and an
elaborate model (Disruptive effect DE) to evaluate the flashover
occurrence across insulators. Very distinct backflashover outage
rates were presented. In general, CIGRE and IEEE
methodologies yield large and lower outage rate, respectively, in
comparison to those estimated by the advanced methodology.
The results indicate the need of incorporating the recent
advances of the area in the calculation of outage rate, aiming the
improvement of the quality of the results given by traditional
methodologies.
KeywordsBackflashover, Current waveform representation,
Grounding, Lightning performance of transmission lines,
Traditional methodologies.
I. INTRODUCTION
Lightning is the main source of outages on high-voltage
transmission lines. Such lightning outages are related to three
mechanisms: Flashover, backflashover, and the mid-span
flashover. In regions with moderate or high resistivity soils, the
backflashover prevails [1-2].
The evaluation of the lightning performance of
transmission lines is based on the calculation of the outage rate
per 100 km of the line per year. Such calculation consists on a
complex procedure that involves several factors that are
capable to influence the resulting outage rate. It is important to
note that the correct specification of such rate has a
fundamental impact on determining convenient protective
practices to improve the lightning performance of such lines.
This work was supported by The State of Minas Gerais Research
Foundation (FAPEMIG), under grant TEC APQ-02141-14.
978-1-4799-8754-2/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE
Ronaldo E. de Souza Filho
The literature presents two important methodologies based
on analytical approaches to estimate the lightning outage rate
of transmission lines, proposed by CIGRE [3] and IEEE [1,4-
5]. Such methodologies are very popular and wide used,
mainly due to their easiness of application.
However, it is important to note that such methodologies
adopt several simplifications and approximations, whose
generality of application is not deeply verified, such as the
modeling of the impulsive behavior of grounding system, the
representation of lighting currents that are the source of the
resulting overvoltage across line insulator strings, the criteria to
define the insulator flashover, etc.
Such approximations may affect the calculated outage rate,
leading to erroneous performance evaluation of high-voltage
lines, influencing, therefore, decisions regarding its protection.
Since 2012, the CIGRE WG C4.23 is working on the
revision of the CIGRE brochure 63 Guide to procedures for
estimating the lightning performance of transmission lines
that compiles the main aspects of CIGREs methodology [3].
Such revision aims to update its content since on the last years
several advances concerning the calculation of the lightning
performance of transmission lines have been presented in the
literature.
In this context, this work aims to present a discussion on
the main aspects of the CIGRE and IEEE methodology to
estimate the backflashover rate of high voltage transmission
lines and evaluate the impact of some relevant approximations
on the calculation of the resulting outage rate. Moreover, the
results obtained by such methodologies are compared to those
calculated using a methodology based on the calculation of the
resulting overvoltages across insulator strings by the HEM
model [6] and the estimation of the backflashover occurrence
using the Disruptive effect model (DE) [7]. The developed
analyses presented in this work consider a typical configuration
of a 138-kV line.
II. MAIN ASPECTS OF CIGRE AND IEEE METHODOLOGIES
The calculation of the lightning performance of high-
voltage transmission lines by means of CIGRE and IEEE
methodologies assumes analytical formulations to describe the
226
 100
transient behaviour of the resulting overvoltages due to direct CIGRE
lightning strikes to the line, including the voltage reflection on 80 IEEE

P(I>Ic) (%)
tower-footing grounding. 60

Based on such overvoltages, the critical current able to 40

cause backflashover is determined. Finally, cumulative 20

distribution functions of first return stroke currents are
employed to estimate the resulting lightning outage rate of the
line.
Both methodologies consider only the calculation of the
backflashover rate associated with first return stroke currents,
in spite of recent publications had indicated the possibility of
backflashover occurrence by subsequent strokes [8-9].
Some important aspects of both methodologies are
described below.
A. Modeling
Both methodologies represent the transmission line tower
and its line conductors by means of their surge impedance.
Specifically, the IEEE methodology allows the representation
of the corona effect around the conductors.
Tower-footing grounding is generally modeled by a
resistance whose value equals the one obtained by
measurements using low frequency, low amplitude current.
Both methodologies allow representing soil ionization effect.
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ic (kA)
Fig. 1. Comparison between CIGRE and IEEE cumulative first lightning
stroke current distribution.
E. Calculation of Backflashover rate
The calculation of backflashover rate is based only on
overvoltages related to lightning striking the tower top. To
consider the effect of the lower overvoltages related to
lightning striking the line span, a correction factor (0.6) is
applied on the result. The BFR is determined by multiplying
the probability of a current to exceed the critical current, the
rate of strokes hitting the line (NL) and the 0.6 factor.
III. DEVELOPMENTS
The performed analyses considered lightning striking the
top of the 30-m-high 138 kV single-circuit transmission line
tower represented in Fig. 2. The span length of the line is
assumed 400 m long. The line CFO is 650 kV.

B. Return-stroke current: waveform and front time 2.9 m

3.03 m
parameters 1.86 m
1.65 m 3.72 m
Both methodologies calculate the resulting overvoltage 0.8 m
across insulator strings due to lightning return stroke currents

30 m
23.25 m
represented by linearly rising wavefronts. What differs is the
front time values recommended by each methodology.
Cigres methodology recommends the use of Td30 or the
minimum equivalent front time (Tm) defined as Tm = Ip/SM, 6.0 m

where SM is the maximum current derivative, as the front time.
IEEE recommends the use of a 2-s-front time since
evaluations presented in [4] indicate such parameter in the 1.5
2.5 us range corresponding to current amplitude from 50 kA
to 200 kA.
C. Criteria to evaluate flashover across insulator strings
CIGREs methodology adopts the so-called non-standard
critical flashover overvoltage (CFONS) that depends on the line
CFO, the nominal voltage of the line, tower-footing grounding
resistance and the span length between adjacent towers. The
volt-time curve method is used by IEEEs methodology.
D. Cumulative return stroke current distribution
CIGR and IEEE methodologies adopt similar but distinct
cumulative first stroke current distributions to determine the
backflashover rate of the line. CIGREs cumulative current
distribution is based on the integration of the probability
density function indicated in [3]. On the other hand, the IEEE
cumulative current distribution adopts a simplified equation
[4]. Fig. 1 illustrates both current distributions.
As can be noted, in the 20-60 kA range, both distributions
are very similar. In the large current region and for currents
below 20 kA, IEEE presents a large probability of occurrence.
Fig. 2. Geometry of the simulated 138-kV transmission line tower.
The current waveform assumed to be impressed at tower
top is represented by a linearly rising wavefront with 31 kA
peak amplitude and a Td30 front time of 3.8 s, corresponding
to the median current parameters measured by K. Berger at
Mount San Salvatore station [10].
Since CIGRE and IEEE methodologies suggest different
formulation to determine the number of strokes hitting the line
(NL), the backflashover outage rate indicated in the following
analyses assumes a same rate of 30 flashes striking the line per
100 km per year.
IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
A. Comparison between CIGRE and IEEE methodologies
results
Table I summarizes the peak overvoltages at the upper,
medium and lower insulator strings calculated by CIGRE and
IEEE methodologies considering tower-footing resistance of 20
.

227
 TABLE I. PEAK OVERVOLTAGE ACROSS LINE INSULATOR STRINGS The difference between outage rates calculated by CIGRE
CALCULATED BY CIGRE AND IEEE METHODOLOGIES. RG = 20 :.
and IEEE increases for decreasing values of tower-footing
Difference in grounding resistance. This is explained by the behavior of the
Insulator Vp (kV) Vp (kV)
string CIGRE IEEE
relation to flashover models adopted by each methodology. Unlike the
CIGRE (%) volt-time curve of IEEE, the CFONS of CIGRE depends, among
Upper 489.3 499.5 +2.1 several factors, on the value of tower-footing grounding
Intermediate 502.9 514.7 +2.3
Lower 516.5 526.8 +2.0
resistance, having a directly proportional relationship with such
parameter: the larger is the tower-footing grounding resistance,
the larger is the CFONS.
As can be noted, the application of CIGRE and IEEE
B. Comparison with HEM+DE methodology
methodologies gives practically the same peak overvoltage for
each insulator string. The IEEE calculated overvoltages are just In order to evaluate the impact of the simplified procedures
2% larger than the ones calculated by CIGRE. Also, it is adopted by CIGRE and IEEE methodologies to estimate the
important to note that both methodologies indicate larger backflahover rate of high voltage transmission lines, the
overvoltages at the lower insulator string. previously obtained results are compared with those calculated
by an advanced methodology based on accurate modeling of
The critical current and the percentage of current expected system elements and the use of a more elaborate criterion to
to flashover are estimated by both methodologies based on the verify the flashover occurrence across insulators.
overvoltage developed across the lower insulator string. The
obtained results are shown in Table II. In this methodology, the Hybrid Electromagnetic Model
(HEM) is used to calculate the resulting overvoltage across
TABLE II. PERCENTAGE OF CURRENTS EXCEEDING THE PEAK REQUIRED insulator strings [6] and the Disruptive effect model (DE) [7] is
TO FLASHOVER THE LOWER INSULATOR STRING DETERMINED BY CIGRE AND applied to verify the flashover occurrence based on such
IEEE METHODOLOGIES. RG = 20 :. overvoltages. Then, the critical currents for each condition of
Outage rate the simulated transmission line are determined.
Methodology Ic (kA) %I> Ic
variation (%)
CIGRE 41 35 - The application of the aforementioned models on this
IEEE 64 13.2 -62.3 methodology aims to overcome two important drawbacks of
the traditional methodologies, namely, the calculation of the
resulting overvoltage across insulator strings and the criteria to
In spite of the very similar peak overvoltages calculated by determine the flashover of line insulators.
both methodologies as indicated in Table I, the critical current
estimated by IEEEs methodology is about 56% larger than the 1) Peak Overvoltages
one calculated by CIGREs methodology. Such difference is
mainly related to the distinct criteria of the methodologies to Table IV shows the peak overvoltages across insulator
determine the insulators flashover. According to CIGREs strings of the simulated transmission line.
methodology that uses the CFONS concept, for the simulated
conditions the critical overvoltage is about 680 kV, TABLE IV. PEAK OVERVOLTAGE ACROSS LINE INSULATOR STRINGS
(RG = 20 :).
corresponding to a 41-kA critical current. The CIGRE
cumulative current distribution indicates that about 35% of the Difference Difference
Vp Vp Vp
currents exceed such value. On the other hand, the critical Insulator
(kV) (kV) (kV)
(CIGRE in (IEEE in
overvoltage defined by IEEE methodology is based on the v-t strings relation to relation to
HEM CIGRE IEEE
HEM) (%) HEM) (%)
curve, and, in this case, equals 1088 kV, resulting on a 64-kA
Upper 551.2 489.3 499.5 -11.2 -9.4
critical current. The IEEE cumulative current distribution Intermediate 562.3 502.9 514.7 -10.6 -8.5
indicates that approximately 13% of the currents exceed such Lower 570 516.5 526.8 -9.4 -7.6
condition.
Considering a rate of 30 flashes striking the line per 100 km In terms of peak value, the overvoltages calculated by the
per year, the resulting backflashover rate calculated by CIGRE HEM model are larger than those calculated by the analytical
and IEEE methodologies are 6.3 and 2.4 outages/100 km/year, formulations of CIGRE and IEEE. The peak overvoltages of
respectively. It is noted that the application of IEEE CIGRE and IEEE are about 11% to 9% and 9% to 8% lower,
methodology results on about 60%-lower outage rate. respectively, the larger differences observed at the upper
Table III indicate the results for Rg of 10 and 40 :. insulator string.
2) Critical currents and outage rate
TABLE III. SAME AS TABLE II BUT FOR RG OF 10 AND 40 :.

Outage rate Table V compares the critical currents and the probability
Rg
:)
(:
Methodology Ic (kA) %I> Ic variation of backflashover occurrence calculated by HEM-DE and
(%) CIGRE methodologies. The results assume the cumulative
CIGRE 66.1 9.6 -
10 return-stroke current distribution recommended by CIGRE.
IEEE 108.4 3.7 -62
CIGRE 25.9 62.9 -
40
IEEE 37.1 38.5 -39

228
TABLE V. COMPARISON OF THE CRITICAL CURRENTS AND PERCENTAGE
OF CURRENTS EXCEEDING THE PEAK REQUIRED TO FLASHOVER THE LOWER
INSULATOR STRING (HEM-DE X CIGRE). RG = 20 :.
Methodology Ic (kA)
%I> Ic Outage rate
variation (%)
HEM-DE 50.2 21.5 - 3) Effect of the cumulative return stroke current
CIGRE 41 35 +63%
HEM-CFONS 37.1 39.5 + 84%
As can be noted from the results of Table V, the HEM-DE
methodology estimates larger critical current and,
consequently, a lower expectation of backflashover occurrence.
The probability of occurring backflashover is about 22% and
35% according to HEM-DE and CIGRE methodologies,
respectively. If one considers a rate of 30 flashes striking the
line per 100 km per year, the estimated backflashover rate of
the line would be about 4 and 6.3 outages, respectively. In this
case, CIGREs methodology estimates a 63% larger outage
rate.
The difference in the resulting outage rate is not only
related to the different estimated overvoltage, but mainly to the
criteria to estimate the flashover occurrence. If the CFONS were
used to determine the critical current related to the HEM
overvoltage (see the last line of Table V), such value would be
37 kA, representing a 40% probability of backflashover
occurrence. This means 84%-increase of the resulting outage
rate related to the overvoltages calculated by the HEM model,
3.9 to 7.1 outages/100 km/year. In this specific case, the use of
CFONS may be considered conservative since it estimates lower
critical current in comparison to the one related to DE model
application.
The comparison of the critical current and probability of
backflashover occurrence determined by HEM-DE and IEEE
methodologies is shown in Table VI. In this case, the
cumulative return-stroke current distribution recommended by
IEEE is considered.
TABLE VI. COMPARISON OF THE CRITICAL CURRENTS AND PERCENTAGE
OF CURRENTS EXCEEDING THE PEAK REQUIRED TO FLASHOVER THE LOWER
INSULATOR STRING (HEM-DE X IEEE). RG = 20 :.
Outage rate
Methodology Ic (kA) %I> Ic
variation (%)
HEM-DE 50.2 22.2 - the resulting outage rate, the IEEEs methodology, based on
IEEE 64 13.2 -41%
HEM-volt-time
59.2 15.7 -29%
curve
According to the results of Table VI, the application of
IEEE methodology resulted in 41%-lower probability of
backflashover occurrence in relation to the one calculated by
HEM-DE methodology. For a rate of 30 flashes striking the
line per 100 km per year, the estimated backflashover rates are
4 and 2.4 for HEM-DE and IEEE, respectively.
If the volt-time curve was considered as the criterion to
estimate the insulator flashover related to the HEM
overvoltage, the resulting critical current would increase from
50 to 59 kA, decreasing the probability of backflashover
occurrence from 22% (4 outages) to 16% (2.8 outages).
229
This result indicates that, for this condition, the use of volt-
time curve as the method to estimate the occurrence of
flashover across insulators may underestimates the resulting
outage rate.
distribution
Fig. 3 illustrates the resulting outage rate estimated by the
HEM-DE methodology for tower-footing grounding
resistances of 10, 20 and 40 : as a function of the adopted
cumulative return stroke current distribution. The results
indicate that the use of the IEEE cumulative return stroke
current distribution gives larger outage rates for 10--, and 20-
-tower footing grounding resistance (+130% and 3.4%,
respectively) and lower outage rate for 40--tower footing
grounding resistance (-2.7%).
10
9.25 9
9
CIGRE
8
IEEE
7
6
BFR
5 4
3.87
4
3
2
1 0.55 1.26
0
10 20 40
Rg (:
:)
Fig. 3. Effect of the cumulative return stroke current distribution on the
backflashover rate estimated by HEM-DE.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This work presented a discussion on the calculation of
backflashover outage rate of high-voltage transmission lines by
means of the traditional methodologies presented by CIGRE
and IEEE. Based on systematic simulations considering a
typical 138-kV line configuration, sensitivity analyses were
developed.
The obtained results indicate that the application of the
aforementioned methodologies yields very similar peak
overvoltages across line insulator strings. However, in terms of
the volt-time curve to estimate the flashover occurrence, is
responsible for lower values, about 62% to 39% lower in the
10-:- to 40-: tower-footing grounding resistance range, in
comparison to the rates estimated by CIGREs methodology.
The comparison of results given by the traditional
methodologies with those related to the use of the HEM model
to calculate the overvoltage across insulator strings and the
application of the DE model to evaluate the flashover
occurrence across insulators indicated a large difference among
the outage rates. Basically, CIGREs methodology estimated
63%-large outage rate in comparison to the one indicated by
the HEM-DE methodology for a 20-: tower-footing grounding
resistance. On the other hand, for the same condition, the
outage rate calculated by IEEE was 41% lower than that
estimated by HEM-DE.
 Also, considering the effect of the cumulative return stroke
current distribution adopted in lightning performance
evaluations, the results indicated that for low tower-footing
grounding resistances, the difference among the resulting
outage rates is extremely high, being the IEEE distribution
related to 130%-high outage rate (0.6 x 1.3 outages). For
tower-footing grounding resistance in the 20-to-40 : range this
difference is very small: only 3%.
REFERENCES
[1] IEEE Working Group on Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines,
A Simplified Method for Estimating the Lightning Performance of
Transmission Lines, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol.104, no.4, pp.
919-932, Apr. 1985.
[2] S. Visacro, Direct strokes to transmission lines: Considerations on the
mechanisms of overvoltage formation and their influence on the
lightning performance of lines, J. Light. Res., vol. 1, pp. 6068, 2007.
[3] CIGRE Guide to Procedures for estimating the lightning Performance of
Transmission Lines, WG 01 (Lightning), Study Committee 33, 1991.
230
[4] J. G. Anderson, Lightning Performance of Transmission Lines. In:
Transmission Line Reference Book 345 kV and Above. 2. ed.
California: Electric Power Research Institute EPRI, 1982. pp. 545-597.
[5] IEEE. Guide for Improving the Lightning Performance of Transmission
Lines. IEEE Std 1243. 1997.
[6] S. Visacro, A. Soares Jr., HEM: A Model for Simulation of Lightning-
Related Engineering Problems. IEEE Trans. Power Del., v. 20, n. 2, pp.
1026-1028, April 2005.
[7] H. Hileman, Insulation coordination for power systems. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC, 1999, pp. 627640.
[8] F.H. Silveira, S. Visacro, A. De Conti, Lightning Performance of 138-
kV Transmission Lines: The Relevance of Subsequent Strokes, IEEE
Trans. Electromagn. Compat., v. 55, pp. 1195-1200, Dec. 2013.
[9] F.H. Silveira, S. Visacro, A. De Conti, C.R. Mesquita, Backflashovers
of Transmission Lines Due to Subsequent Lightning Stroke,. IEEE
Trans. Electromagn. Compat, v. 54, n. 2, pp. 316-322, Apr. 2012.
[10] R. B. Anderson and A. J. Eriksson, Lightning parameters for
engineering application, Electra, vol.69, pp. 65-102, 1980.
[11] S. Visacro, A representative curve for lightning current waveshape of
first negative stroke, Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 31, L07112, Apr. 2004.
[12] A. De Conti and S. Visacro, Analytical representation of single- and
double-peaked lightning current waveforms, IEEE Trans. Electromagn.
Compat., vol.49, No.2, pp.448-451, May 2007.