IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 12, No.

3, July 1997

1168

ult ipulse ightning Currents and Metal-Oxide Arresters

M. Darveniza, L.R. Tumma,
University of Queensland
Australia

B. Richter
ASEA Brown Boveri
Switzerland

D.A. Roby
ASEA Brown Boveri
Australia

ABSTRACT

2.1 Plasma generation

Multiple stroke lightning ground flashes can impose surges of exceptional severity on exposed distribution surge arresters. This
paper describes a series of tests on metal-oxide (MO) arresters
and varistors to study surface flashover mechanisms. The results show that the more likely causes of surface flashover were
- plasma generation, manufacturing defects of the varistor surface coating, dielectric properties of the surface coating and the
electrode contact system. For multipulses, plasma enhancement
and varistor surface coating were found to play a dominant role
in surface flashover.

Plasma could be created near the edges of a varistors metallisation, accumulating with each successive puls
multipulse. The generated plasma would not deionise in the
inter-pulse time intervals of about 35 ms, whereas deionisation
could take place in the
dard lightning impulse test with
single pulses separated b
cause of plasma production is
metallisation and the resulting increase in current density at the
edge.

9. Introd~ction
In our earlier study [l],several makes of gapless metal-oxide
(MO) arresters were tested using single and multiple impulse
currents under the representative service conditions and also
under the conditions specified in the Standards [2,3]. Comparisons of the effects of multipulse and standard current impulses
show important differences. The result of major significance
is that multipulse currents can give rise to changes in varistor
characteristics (including failure) that are not evident during
tests with single impulses [l].While multipulse currents caused
changes in the electrical characteristics of the varistors including
some that lead to thermal instability, the most common limiting effect was to cause surface flashover of the varistors. This
indicates that the effects of multipulses may not be purely a
thermal energy problem, rather discrete failure mechanisms (by
surface flashover) appear to be involved.

This paper describes tests on MO varistors from one manufacturer; different surface finishes were used to examine surface
flashover phenomena. These flashover studies are discussed in
section 2 . Based on this study, a multipulse test proposal for
distribution arresters is described in section 3.

2. Flashover Studies
The probable causes of surface flashover of varistors are - a)
plasma created near the edge of metallisation, b) the varistor
outer surface (glass) possibly affected by humidity, c) the likelihood of material defects at the outer edges of the varistor and
d) partial discharges produced at the edges and surface possibly
affecting the dielectric strength. Studies were conducted to examine these four possible causes of surface flashover and these
are reported in this section.

96 SM 398-8 PWRD A paper recommended and approved by the IEEE

Surge Protective Devices Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering
Society for presentation at the 1996 IEEWPES Summer Meeting, July 28
- August 1, 1996, in Denver, Colorado Manuscript submitted December
27, 1995, made available for printing June 3, 1996

Plasma generation was investigated by placing a metal spacer

between two varistors and using sextuple currents. During impulsing, the varistor surface and the metal spacer were photographed with a high speed camera (400 frames/second). The
photographic method is illustrated in Figure 1. Photographs
of pulses 1 to 6 in a given sextuple current reveal that plasma
intensity and size increase with each succeeding pulse. It is obvious that the accumulated plasma can aid surface flashover on
the varistor surface.

2.2 Varistor surface coating

Dielectric behaviour of the varistor surface coating has a major influence on withstand capability towards surface flashovers.
Tests on MO surge arresters and varistors with different surface
finishes were conducted to examine the surface flashover mechanisms. More details of this study can be found in [4].

Experimental tests
Five types of tests were c
ed out to determine the comparative performance of five varistor surface finishes. The tests included three applied essentially in accordance with IEC 99-4 [3],
namely, (i) single 8 / 2 0 p s impulse currents applied to the varistors (initially at room temperature) at one-minute intervals; (ii)
single impulse operating duty tests, in which two groups of five
8/20ps impulses were applied at one-minute intervals with the
test object pre-heated to 6OoC and energised at rated voltage,
thirty minutes separated the two groups; after each current application and for thirty minutes after the final application, 1.05
times the continuous operating voltage was maintained on the
test object to check for thermal stability; (iii) two single 4/10ps
high lightning impulse currents, the first applied with the test
objects at room temperature and the second with the sample
pre-heated to 60C. After the second impulse, thermal stability
was checked in the usual way. The other two types of tests used
multipulse currents, in particular quintuple (five-pulse) 8 / 2 0 p s
impulse currents, applied in such a way to provide a comparison
with the single-impulse tests and the single-impulse operating
duty tests; namely, (iv) multipulse currents (inter-pulse intervals of 35 ms) applied to test samples at ambient temperature
and pre-heated to 60C. When more than one quintuple sequence was used, they were applied at intervals of 30 minutes;

0885-8977/97/$10.00 0 1996 IEEE

1169
(v) multipulse operating duty tests carried out in a similar way
to the single-impulse operating duty tests, except that a quintuple sequence (time intervals 35 ms), without point-on-wave
timing control, was applied in place of each group of five single
impulses.

2.2.1 Test results

The results are under three headings - impulse current tests,
operating duty tests and high lightning impulse current tests.
Impulse c u r r e n t tests

The tests were applied to groups of samples to explore the

limits of significant change and failure for single-impulse and
multipulse applications. The effects of single impulse currents
ranging from 4 to 40kA were compared with quintuples ranging
from 5 to 1lkA. For the operating duty tests, the single- and
multipulse currents were varied between 6.5 to 1lkA. The high
4/1Qps currents ranged from 40 to 90kA.
T h e Test samples

Each of the twenty five test samples contained a single varistor diameter 38.2 mm; rated current 5kA, rated voltage 6.25kV and
continuous operating voltage 5kV. The samples had five types
of surface finishes - three were on varistors alone and two were
assembled as arresters. The five types are described and the
samples are identified as follows A) varistor with glass coating (samples L1 to L6)
B) varistor with glass coating plus silicone varnish (samples 1
to 6)
C) as in B), but assembled as an arrester but without a polymer
housing (samples AS1 to 3, AS6)
D) varistor with glass coating bonded to a silicone moulding
(samples S1 to 3, S6)
E) complete silicone moulded arrester containing a glass coated
varistor bonded to the silicone housing (samples AF1 to 3).
Type C and E samples were tested using the fittings as supplied.
Type A, B and D samples required the use of a special fitting,
which included disc electrodes (similar to those in the type C
and E samples) and a supporting jig comprising two aluminium
end plates (80x8Qx11.3mm)and four insulated clamping screws.
The varistor samples were placed between the end plates and
clamped with suitable pressure.

Before a n d after diagnostics

The effects of a test on each sample were monitored in two ways.
Gross effects such as physical damage or marked changes in current and voltage oscillograms (and derived power and absorbed
energy) were easy to identify routinely during the course of the
testing. Likewise, thermal stability was easy to check during
the operating duty and high current tests, by monitoring the
leakage current for up to thirty minutes (after application of
the impulses) with the sample energised at 1.05 times the continuous operating voltage.
More subtle changes in the electrical characteristics were identified by before and after diagnostic tests. These included measurements of the 1.4 mA DC and AC reference voltages and of
the discharge residual voltage at 5kA. All the diagnostic tests
were made with the test samples at about the same ambient
temperature (within 2OC). The changes were characterised by
after/before ratios of the diagnostic test results. It should be
noted that most arrester testing standards allow changes of 0.95
to 1.05 (in some cases 0.9 to 1.1)as acceptable.

The results of the single impulse tests on five samples using

currents in the range 4 to 40kA are given in Table 1. Apart from
some small burn marks on the block of one sample (2 type B), no
gross effects were observed. Also, there were only small changes
in the electrical characteristics, as indicated by the after/before
ratios which are in the range 0.942 to 1.045. It is considered
that the small burn marks on type B sample 2 (near the outer
edge of one electrode) were caused by a mechanical defect rather
than a flaw in design. It can be concluded therefore that the
single impulse tests with currents up to 40kA had no deleterious
effects on the samples irrespective of surface finish.
A very different picture emerges on examination of the multipulse test results for nine test samples given in Table 2. The
quintuple currents used for the tests varied between 5 and IlkA.
Four of the samples failed by surface flashover, namely 1 of 3
type A varistors (at lOkA), both type B varistors (at 6kA) and
1 of the 3 type C varistors (at 11kA). The surface flashovers
occurred just on or just below the glass surface of the varistors.
The remaining samples showed no evidence of gross damage or
degradation in electrical characteristics (with after/before ratios
in the range 0.987 to 1.05).
Operating d u t y tests
The results of single impulse and multipulse operating duty
tests on 6 samples are given in Table 3 with currents of 6.5 to
1lkA. The single impulse operating duty tests were only made
on one type (E) and no significant effects were evident. Likewise, no significant effects were caused by multipulse operating
duty tests, i.e. no gross effects, no thermal instability and only
small changes in the after/before ratios (range 0.989 to 1.05, except for one value of 1.075 for the negative DC reference voltage
of type E sample AF2 - this is likely to be an artifact due to
the order of testing, as it is known that DC reference voltage is
influenced by the order in which tests of different polarity are
made).
High lightning impulse c u r r e n t tests
Table 4 shows the test results for currents in the range 40 to

90kA applied to eight test samples of all five types. The two
glass coated type A varistors failed by surface flashover at 65kA.
One of the type B varistors (glass coating plus silicone varnish) exhibited partial surface flashover damage at 72kA and
the other failed by surface flashover at 90kA. The one type
C sample showed a burn mark near an electrode after tests
at 90kA; its residual voltage was unaffected, but the DC and
AC reference voltages were reduced significantly (by about 20
percent). In contrast, the samples with glass coated varistors
bonded to silicone mouldings (types D and E) showed no GOSS
effects from the 90kA tests, remained thermally stable, experienced little change in the residual voltage, but had significantly
reduced reference voltages.

1170

Surface defects
During the fabrication of varistors, an outer insulating surface
is provided by spraying glass or insulating material on to the
varistor material and fusing it at aboul 500C. After surface
coating, varistor ends are usually metallised with aluminium
and bonded at about 50OoC. Because of manufacturing procedures and material handling, some varistors may have surface
contamination or irregularities on or near surface.
It is likely that surface irregularities or contamination could contribute to the initiation of processes leading to surface flashover.
An irregularity might take the form of a localised defect in the
outer insulating material or at its boundary with the varistor
material. Such a defect would produce a localised concentration
in the electrical field, which could cause a localised (partial)
discharge and begin the process which ultimately resulted in
surface flashover. It is of course well known that contamination
can degrade the dielectric properties of an insulating surface
and this can also lead to surface flashover.

2.4 Electrode contact system

The electrode contact system with the varistors is also an important design feature. If the electrodes are not properly aligned
with the varistors, sparking could result during the passage of
impulse currents. Consequently, withstood multipulses could
produce plasma or partial discharges in the air, which over time
could alter the dielectric properties of the varistor surface and
produce a condition likely to lead l o surface flashover. Once discharges are initiated, they are sustained by the sizable current
flowing through the portion of the material which has not broken down. Flashover is completed when a discharge elongates
and develops into a short circuit.

Before discussing the test results of flashover investigations, it

is of interest to make an overall comparison with the multipulse
current and operating duty tests reported previously [l] for five
makes of fully assembled 5kA distribution surge arresters (d
in porcelain housings). The previous tests showed that most
failures were also by surface flashovers caused by multipulse
currents in the range 5 to 9kA. As with the present test results,
surface flashovers at relatively low currents (5 to 6kA) were
associated with varistors that appeared to have simple or no
special finish on the varistor surfaces. However, if there was a
special coating on the varistor surfaces, the arresters were able
to withstand higher multipulse currents. It is also of interest to
note that two of the previously tested arresters failed by thermal
instability after appLcation of multipulse currents
Consideration is now given to the results from the current series
of tests. Metal-oxide varistors with five different surface finishes
were tested with 8/2Ops impulses, multipulses and high current
impulses. The varistor material and the processing were the
same for all the blocks. The difference was only in the treatment
of the surface after the glass coating.
The results have to be seen in two separate dimensions. The
first dimension concerns the varistor material itself. In none of
the tests did a material failure occur. But changes in the characteristics were observed:
e The change in the residual voltage was negligible.

o The change in the reference voltage was significant and depended on the stress the
was seen after the high c
impulse test. This phenomenon
is well knowii and is a CO
m e b both the large magdude
and the high steepness of the high current impulse.
The second (surface dielectric) dimension showed the failure
mode of the tested samples; all failures (independent of the
impulse stress) were surface flashovers. Here again two main
groups were noticed.

First : only the blocks with glass coating (types A, B and C)

failed. Second : the blocks which were completely assembled
and moulded in silicone (types D and E) did not fail any of
the tests. The pure glass coating is very sensitive to moisture,
grease, dust, etc. If severe conditions such as high humidity have
to be met, treatment of the glass surface with silicone proves to
be effective, although for extreme conditions it was suggested
to combine this with a leaching process which removes the sirface alkali [5]. The best behaviour is shown in a complete surge
arrester where the silicone housing is directly moulded onto the
blocks thereby providing increased dielectric strength. It should
be noted that polymer housings inhibit moisture ingress and
surface contamination, but not problems related to material defects, surface defects and electrode contact system. Examples of
the importance of surface defects are (i) the failure of one sample L2 (type A) on the first impulse of a lOkA quintuple whereas
another sample L1 (of the same type) passed more severe single
impulse tests (refer Tables 1 and 2), and (ii) the failure of one
polymer housed arrester at 9.5kA quintuple current.

A glass surface may contain a few mono-molecular layers of gel

(water) under conditions of high humidity. As a result
conductivity of the glass surface increases when comp
a glass surface under dry conditions. This surface conductance
re dependence of the
ionic conduction (conductivity
with increasing temperatures). In the sam
ion of multipulses (by
current impulses), could
surface. During the
pauses between the pulses of a given multipulse, the
erated due to surge absorption could flow from the m
material to the glass surface and raises its temperature, lowering its surface resistance and so producing surface current flow
and leading to surface flashover. During single pulse testing,
the time interval betwee
ssive impulses is selected to
be 60 s. With 60 s time
he glass surface has time to
cool down because of its
th the surrounding air.
A survey of Australian service experience for about 1I years
(1980-1991) on gapless
oxide surge arresters [6] s
major causes of arrest
es were faulty varisto
electrical storm activity, porcelains and moisture
more direct study was adertaken by Darveniza, et. a1 [7].with
the view to determine the conditi
apped silicon-carbide
surge arresters in service on Aus
distribution systems.
By chance, twelve MO arresters were included in the hundreds
of arresters recovered from service, and these were
and examined. Of t
arresters, three arr
found to be faulty.
faulty arresters were dismantled and the internal components inspected. T w o of the service
failed arresters showed heavy carbonisation deposits and surface
flashover tracks on the outer surface of the varistors. This may
be due to surface flashover by a discharge current, berause. of t,he
presence of moisture. The third service failed arrester showed
enhancement of surface conductivity on one of the varistors.

1171
This type of phenomenon was also observed on the tested sample surfaces, which failed during multipulse tests.
Single and multipulse impulse tests on varistors reveal that relatively low magnitude multipulse currents, when compared to
single impulse currents, could cause surface flashover. This indicates that a comparable plasma enhancement should have occurred with multipulses. In the case of multipulses, plasma enhancement very likely plays a dominant role in the breakdown
initiation.
It may be, especially at higher temperatures, that at the edges
of the blocks, where naturally the highest field strength is, the
possibility of ionisation is higher when the impulses are very
frequent as they are with multipulses. This is possibly due to an
increase of free electrons and ions forming a plasma, which does
not have time to neutralise between the individual multipulses.
These effects need further and more in depth investigation.
The varistor results show how important it is to have a good
electrode contact system and a good surface coating around the
varistors with high dielectric strength when exposed to extreme
conditions such as high humidity. For these reasons, the complete arresters with one varistor seem to perform very well in
the conducted tests.

is equivalent to a quintuple (five-pulse) t&n of 8/20ps current

impulses for the same magnitudes of energy absorbed, charge
delivered and current discharged by the surge arrester. The simulation results were also verified with laboratory tests. Limited
tests were carried out on a MO arrester with quintuple trains of
8/20ps impulses and equivalent single impulses at 9kA. Comparisons of before and after reference voltages (at 1 mA) have
shown them to be the same. Further studies are required to see
if the quintuple 8/20ps currents are more likely to produce failures by surface flashover than j. single (with equivalent energy)
39.4/101.5ps impulse.
Some of the varistor failures clearly reveal that surface flashover
mechanisms were initiated at the cathode electrode; a tongue
of discharge (plasma) extending from the cathode end rapidly
spread towards the anode. These observations could easily be
made from the test samples which were partially damaged.
The elongation mechanism of the discharge column may be
due to electric breakdown in the high field region at the d i s
charge tip. The presence of these fields is suggested by the tip
branching noted at negative polarity. This may be caused by
avalanches triggered by photo-ionisation in the pre-tip region.
This phenomenon is somewhat similar to streamer breakdown
in air, which exhibits pronounced branching. Once injected into
the surface material, the electron multiplication is thought to
be analogous to that in gas discharge. The electrons entering
at the cathode electrode will drift towards the anode under the
influence of the field (or the plasma) gaining energy between
collisions and losing it on collisions. On occasions the free path
may be long enough for the energy gain to exceed the lattice
ionisation energy and an additional electron is produced on collision. The process is repeated and may lead to the formation
of an electron avalanche similar to gases.
Further investigations are needed to explain the occurrence of
failures, which appear to depend on the time between the im-

pulses (especially for types A and B coatings). It appears, that

the shorter time between the pulses the higher is the failure
rate. One expects if peak value and the steepness of the current are kept the same while varying the inter-pulse time, the
energy accumulated should lead to failures such as cracking or
puncture in the material, but not surface flashovers.

Photographs of tested samples

Colour photographs were made of all the tested samples and
these illustrate several features - (i) the occasional presence of
minor imperfections on the block prior to any testing, and (ii)
minor burn marks and surface flashover damage on the varistors
referred to in the multipulse current tests and the high lightning
current tests. The reproduction quality in black and white is
not of great value and so they are not included in the text of
the paper. But they do reproduce well as coloured slides.

3. Multipulse test sequence proposal

The lightning impulse tests specified in Standards, eg. [3], are
intended to demonstrate that arresters are stable and discharge
lightning surges without failure. During these standard laboratory lightning impulse tests, the time interval between successive impulses is selected to be one minute. However, lightning
have multiple strokes producing 2 to over 20 (average 3 or 4)
with inter-stroke time intervals of 15 to 150ms (average 30 to
40ms). This difference in time intervals is significant in view of
this investigation and that of Darveniza and Mercer [SI.
Because of the damaging effects of sextuple currents on 5kA arresters (both of the gapped Sic type [8] and of the MO type),
consideration should be given to the introduction of multipulses
in lightning impulse current operating duty tests. Current Standards either follow the IEC procedure of applying 4 groups of
5 single impulses applied at 1 minute (min) intervals with 30
min between groups, or the ANSI procedure of applying 20 single impulses at 1 min intervals. The multiple current testing
might be implemented by applying a set of four (4) quintuple
(five-pulse) trains of 8/20ps currents (with inter-pulse intervals
of 40 ms) at 30 minute intervals if following the IEC, or at 5
min intervals if following ANSI [9], with an arrester being energised with power frequency voltage. In either case, the total
number of applied 8/20ps impulses remains at 20, and the total elapsed time remains about the same for each :.( 120 min
according to IEC and 20 min for ANSI). Quintuples could be
applied 1-2 seconds after energisation at the rated voltage of the
arrester. The rated voltage could be reduced to the maximum
continuous operating voltage (MCOV of the arrester) 10 seconds
after each multipulse. After each multipulse application and for
thirty minutes after the h a 1 application the MCOV could be
maintained on the test object to check for thermal stability.
Based on the above guidelines, the authors proposed a multipulse test procedure for inclusion in AS1307-part 2. The
adopted multipulse test procedure is slightly different from the
procedure generally used for operating duty tests. These changes
comprise:

(a) The application to the arrester of four groups of quintuple

8/20ps lightning impulse currents in combination with energisation by a specified voltage and frequency (AS1307-Part 2,
Clause 7.5.1). The total elapsed time of each quintuple set could
be in the range of 0.1 s to 0.25 s. The time interval between the
quintuple groups could be 25 to 30 minutes.

1172
(b) There is no need to time the application of the quintuple
impulses with respect to the power frequency voltage waveform.
(c) Rated voltage should be applied at least 10 s prior to the
application of first lightning impulse current and the arrester
should be pre-heated to 60f3C. The applied voltage should
be reduced to 1.05 continuous operating voltage 10 s after each
quintuple set of current impulses, and should be maintained
for the 25 to 30 minutes between groups of quintuple currents.
Rated voltage should be re-applied before the application of the
next set of quintuple currents. After the fourth quintuple set,
1.05 times the continuous operating voltage should be maintained for 30 minutes to check thermal stability.
The criteria for assessing the effects of the multipulse tests are
(evident within thirty minutes), b) subsequent changes in residual voltages (limited to 5 % ) , c) d.c.
reference voltages (limited to 10%) and d) power-losses (limited
to 5%). This operating duty test protocol is a reflection of field
conditions likely to occur on distribution systems in service. In
addition, no significant abnormalities should be found in the
current and voltage oscillograms recorded during the tests.

- a) thermal stability

Further work is needed to correlate laboratory studies using

multipulse tests with service performance of MO arresters in
the field. This work is in progress.

ents
Support for this work (which was carried out at the University
of Queensland) has been provided by the Australian Research
Council, the Australian Electricity Industry Research Board
and by ASEA Brown Boveri Power Transmission (Australia).

5. References
1. M. Darveniza, D. Roby and L.R. Tumma, Laboratory
and Analytical Studies of the Effects of Multipulse Lightning Current on Metal-Oxide Arresters, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 9, April 1994, pp. 764-71

2. AS. 1307-1986, Surge Arresters (Diverters) Part 2 Metal

Oxide Type for A.C. Systems, Standards Australia, North
Sydney, Australia 2060.

Surge Arresters, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol.

8, July 1993, pp. 1035-44.
9. ANSI/IEEE Standard C62.11, Standard for Metal-Oxide
Surge Arresters for AC Power Circuits, 1987.

BIOGRAPHY
Mat Darveniza, born in Australia in 1932, is a g
University of Queensland (BE, DEng) and of London (PhD).
He is Professor (Personal Chair) in Electrical Engineering at
. His research interests are in lightthe University of Quee
ning, high voltage and
cal insulation. He is a Fellow of the
IEEE, the Institution of Engineers Australia and the Academy
of Technological Sciences and Engineering. He is past-chairman
of the IEEE Australian Council and of the PE Chapter, Queensland.
L.Reddy Tumma, born in India in 1960, obtained his BE from
the Osmania University, India in 1982, ME from Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India in 1984 and PhD from the
University Queensland, Australia in 1995. He worked in industry for over four years in the field of switchgear protectio
is a member of the IEEE.
Bernhard Richter, born in Germany in 1950, obtained the Dip1.Ing (FH) in 1973 from the Technical High School (Beuth) and
the Dip1.-Ing. in 1979 from the Technical University of Berlin.
After five years as a scientific assistant at the Institute of Highvoltage of the University of Berlin he joined BBC, now ABB, in
1985, where he works now in the development of surge arresters.
Besides other international activities he is member of the JEC
working groups 06 of T C 81 arid 05 of SC 37 A.

David A. Roby, born in India in 1951, is an electrical engineering graduate from the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
(B.Tech.). He is the Business Unit Manager - Surge Arresters
with ABB Power Transmission Pty Limited and a member of
subcommittee EL/7/3 - Surge Arresters. His research interests
are in gapless metal-oxide technology, system protection and
low energy self blast circuit breakers.

3. IEC Standard 99-4, Surge Arresters Part 4,Metal-oxide

Surge Arresters without Gaps for A.C. Systems, 1991-11,
First Edition.
4. M. Darveniza, L.R. Tumma, B. Richter and D. Roby,
The Effects of Multipulse Currents and other Lightning
Parameters on the Performance of Surge Arresters, 22nd
International Conference on Lightning Protection, 19-23
September 1994, Budapest, Hungary
5.

J.B. Birks, Ed., Modern dielectric materials:, Heywood &

Company, London, 1960.

6. J. Diesendorf, Over-voltage protective devices, Short

course program on Insulation Coordination in High Voltage AC Systems, The University of Queensland, Brisbane,
23-26 November, 1993.
7. M. Darveniza and D.R. Mercer, The Reliability of Distribution Surge Arresters, Proc. lEEE/KTH Power Tech.
Cord., Stockholm, June 1995, Paper No. SPT HV 11-010010, pp. 327-31.
8. Darveniza and D.R. Mercer, Laboratory Studies of the
Effects of Multipulse Lightning Currents on Distribution

Figure 1: Plasma enhancement measuring method using a

high speed camera

1173

Table 1: Summary of after/before ratios of the single impulse test results

Lt

Type of
surface
coating
A

3
AS1

B
C

s2

Sample
No.

I D.C. reference I

Sinele impulses applied

__
v

30kA, 40kA and five single

pulses of 20kA at an
interval of 1 min.
4, 7.5, 10, 15, 23, 32 and
38kA
20 kA and 40kA
2 cycles of 5 single pulses
with peak values of 6kA
5 single pulses of 25kA,
and sinEle pulses of 26
and 40kA

Type of
surface
coating

Stress applied

No.

AF3

2 groups of five l l k A single

pulses
2 quintuples of l l k A
with test object at 60C
quintuples of 5.5, 6.5 & lOkA
with test object at 60C
2 quintuples of l l k A
2 quintuples of l l k A
with test object at 60C
2 quintuples of l l k A
with test object at 60C

Sample

AS3
S6

C
D

AF2

voltages 1.4mA
+ive 1 -ive
0.959 I 1.008

A.C. reference
voltages 1.4mAp
+ive 1 -ive
0.992 1.029

0.955

1.045

,995

1.032

1.015

1.031

0.971
0.954

1.022
1.043

0.992
0.991

1.035
1.017

1.026
1.005

1.022
1.001

0.942

1.006

0.995

1.031

1.03

1.016

Discharge
residual voltage
+ive I -ive
1,019 1.026

D.C. reference
voltages 1.4mA
+ive I -ive
1.01 1 1.03

A.C. reference
voltages 1.4mAP
+ive I -ive
1.03 I 1.02

Discharge
residual voltage
+ive I -ive
1.03 1 1.02

1.024

1.029

1.03

1.048

1.021

1.05

1.006

1.023

1.012

1.026

1.016

1.022

1.W
0.989

1.05

1.016

1.017
1.032

1.03
1.05

1.014
1.03

1.018
1.021

1.006

1.075

1.018

1.032

1.014

1.00

Remarks

t results

AS3

IB
IC

s3
AF1

ID
IE

I90kA

I 90kA

I-

I-

I 0.795 I 0.884

I
I
I
I 90kA I 0.791 I 0.909
I 90kA 1 0.734 I 0.859
I

1II 0.818 I 0.868

I
I
I 0.788 I 0.855
I 0.78 I 0.824

II

II

I 0.991 I 1.00

I failed

I Burn mark near

I 0.992 I 1.009 I
I 1.00 I 1.021 1

HV electrode

1174

M. Darveniza, L.R. Tumm B. Richter and D.A. Roby.

We are pleased to respond to the interesting points raised by
the discussers. It is a common comment from manufacturers
and suppliers of metal-oxide distribution arresters that there
total failure rate is small and only a small percentage of
arrester failures can be attributed to lightning. This is in
accord with arrester performance surveys carried out by
Utility Association (eg. by AP 33 in Australia). Yet individual
electricity utilities speak of arrester failures as a cause for
concern. And most people would agree that metal-oxide
arresters have not been in service long-enough to establish
their long term reliability.
general view is that laboratory
tests with multipulses hav
wn that failures can occur for
current magnitudes and pulse multiplicities that are realistic
simulation of those caused by natural lightning in the field.
Further, it is clear that the capacity of an arrester to withstand
the effects of multipulses is a function of the design, in
particular of the dielectri
erties of the coating on the
that the proposal to include a
varistor surfaces. So we
multipulse test procedure (as an optional test) in the Standards
will be of value and should result in arrester designs with an
adequate capacity to withstand impulse currents from
multiple-stroke lightning flashes.

ISCUSSlON
JOHN B. F'OSEY (Westfield Centei, OH) The authors have
reported failures of unhoused blocks caused by multipulse
discharges Also reported is "Blocks which were completely
assembled and moulded in silicone (types D and E) did not fail any
of the tests" and "showed no evidence of gross damage or

degradation

in

electrical characteristics"

Even though no housed arresters failed, a proposal 1s advanced that

consideration be given to the introduction of multipulse in the
operating duty tests

Would the authors please clarify how data from the testing of
assembled arresters supports the suggested change in standards?
The published test data does not seem to support the proposal, but
instead shows unassembled blocks fail but assembled arresters are
immune to the proposed multipulse test procedure.
Manuscript received August 14, 1996.

H. s. Brewer and M. G. Comber (Hubbell/Ohio Brass Company,

Wadsworth, OH): We read this paper with great interest,
especially with regard to the proposal for a new standard
arrester test. We would like to make a few observations
and pose a few questions to the authors.
1. Our understanding of the utility industry experience
with metal-oxide distribution arresters is that the total
failure rate is very small and only a small percentage of
those arresters which fail do so as a result of iightning.
While the existing high-current short-duration tests
prescribed in both ANSI and IEC standards may not
represent real-world lightning, they have apparently
served as an excellent means for demonstrating the
adequacy of metal-oxide arresters for real-world service.
It is possible that existing designs of metal-oxide
arresters would not meet the multikulse requirements
proposed by the authors, perhaps requiring redesign to use
larger metal-oxide elements. Could the authors comment on
the value of anticipated improvement in system reliability
resulting from the proposed multipulse test in relation to
possible product cost increases?
Investigations by Dr. Uman (University of Florida) and
Krlder (University of Arizona) have shown that
multiple strokes within a lightning fiash may be spatially
separated by distances corresponding to several typical
span lengths of a distribution line. This would suggest
that a single arrester is not likely to be exposed to
multiple strokes. This may account for the l o w rate of
lightning-caused arrester failures and would obviate the
need for a multipulse test. What are the authors thoughts
on this?
2.

Dr.

3.
The reported study was performed on metal-oxide
elements of only one manufacturer.
The elements were
directly coated with a glass collar. Other manufacturers
use other collar materials, both inorganic and organic.
Have the authors conducted simlar multipulse tests on

Mr. Posey asks why we proposed

change (multipulse test
as an optional test) in the Standards. In some arrester designs
varistor blocks are housed in hollow insulators (porcelain or
in other polymer housing) where they are in contact with air
or other material. These varistors in the arresters could
undergo similar electrical stress as the blocks under test.
Furthermore surface coatings of the blocks, or interface
between the blocks and surrounding material are different due
to the different design
e various manufacturers. So this
test proposal should p
a method to test different designs
and materials in order to detect weak designs.

The above proposal shouId also be see

fact that some porcelain housed arresters designed and tested
to pass a single 65kA impulse would fail on application of 5
to 9kA multipulses. In some cases failure occurred before all
5 impulses were complet
Both discussers note that
eported in this paper refer
to varistor blocks from one manufacturer. However, in the
preceding paper [I], we described tests on varistors of several
makes and all experienced multipulse failures with 8/20 ps
currents in the range 5 to 9kA.

continuing work?
4.
The authors previous work (and the work of others)
indicates that
a major
cause
of porcelain-housed
distribution arrester failures is moisture ingress. While
most polymer-housed arrester designs contain little free
air space and moisture ingress should be less of a
concern, it is still necessary to have some means of
detentuning that arrester performance is not degraded by
moisture ingress.
Many polymer-housed designs do not
permit simple disassembly to inspect for moisture and
therefore some electrical test evaluation means are
usually employed. Do the authors have an opinion on the
merits of a multipulse test as such an evaluation means?

Manuscript received August 30, 1996.

Reference was also made to reports of multipulse termination

points for multiple-strok
ing flashes to ground. Several
groups have reporteJ thi
g (as well as Uman and his
ed that the proportion of
colleagues) - but all hav
lightnings with multiple termination points does not exceed
35 to 40%. So multiple currents are a common experience for
arresters.
A common theme amongst most comments we have received
ulse studies is that there
(at various forums) ab0

1175
seems to be no compelling reason for them from field
experience with metal-oxide arrester failures. We are not
convinced that this is correct, eg. we agree that problems due
to moisture ingress should be less for polymer housed
arresters than for those with porcelain housings. But only
time in service will prove if this is really so. In fact, our
continuing research project is to correlate failure modes
produced in the laboratory with failure modes encountered by
arresters in the field. This work is being conducted now with
the co-operation of about fifteen utilities, who will send us
their failed and sumect arresters for examination and test.

On a general note, reference is also made to a paper [Cl] by

one of the authors describing failure modes in various types
of surge protection.
[Cl]

M. Darveniza, Failure Modes of Surge Protective

Devices, 23rd. Int. Conf. On Lightning Protection
(ICLP), Florence, Sept. 1996, Paper 6.6, Vol. 11,
pp. 640-645.

Manuscript received November 20, 1996.