Invited Lecture at VI International Symposium on Lightning Protection ( VI SIPDA)
November 19 - 23, 2001, Santos, Brazil.
LIGHTNING PROTECTION ASPECTS
FOR APPLICATIONS OF OPTICAL FIBRE GROUND WIRE
William A. Chisholm
Kinectrics (the former Ontario Hydro Research Division)
800 Kipling Avenue KL206 Toronto, Ontario CANADA M8Z 6C4 (W.A.Chisholm@ieee.org)
Abstract Three aspects of lightning protection are
described for optical-fibre ground wire (OPGW) on
overhead lines. Test methods for reproducing the observed
damage from direct lightning strokes to OPGW are
converging but need further development. Application of
OPGW underneath the phase conductors is shown to
enhance line lightning reliability. Economic costs of this
application are considered. Finally, the co-ordination of
high-voltage line protection with low-voltage circuits for
OPGW accessories is considered to develop of surge arrester
requirements from grounding impedance.
1 INTRODUCTION
Optical-fiber networks can be constructed efficiently
using the same towers as existing power transmission
systems. There are three important protection aspects
that need to be addressed in this application.
The OPGW is often substituted in place of a conventional
overhead groundwire, used for lightning protection at the
top of the transmission towers. Direct lightning strokes
to cables causes metal loss and other damage. Simulation
of this damage in test methods should reflect the high
probability of occurrence over the design life. Test levels
must be related to the accepted risk. Selection of test
parameters for a typical test method is illustrated. Details
of the testing methods still need to be standardised and
some proposals are suggested.
In cases where risk of damage to OPGW from direct
strikes is extreme, it is possible to realise important
improvements in lightning protection by placing the
composite conductor below, rather than above, the phase
conductors. This underbuilt arrangement reduces the
impressed insulator voltages under lightning conditions.
The reduction in backflashover rate is significant in areas
of high soil resistivity.
1
Jody P. Levine and Craig Pon
Easy local access to fibre-optic networks will improve
local communications infrastructure by many orders of
magnitude. There is great synergy in developing areas
where simultaneous cellular telephone network
development is also intense. Transmission line towers
offer secure and favourable locations for both optical and
cell-phone repeaters. However, typical repeaters need
power. Small amounts of reliable electric power can be
derived from the transmission line itself. Higher amounts
of power will bring a low-voltage circuit from a
distribution system up to a transmission line tower that
may be struck by lightning many times in its design life.
Co-ordination of overvoltage protection of the two
networks will be needed for adequate link reliability.
2 DIRECT DAMAGE TESTS AND STANDARDS
2.1 Field Observations
In applications where overhead groundwires are replaced
with optical-fiber ground wire (OPGW), direct lightning
stroke damage can result in metal loss or broken strands.
Over time, the fiber may degrade, or in severe cases direct
thermal damage can occur. Reports of OPGW damage
in Brazil and other areas [1] suggest that the existing test
specifications [2], which were met during acceptance
testing of the cables, have not protected the industry
adequately from lightning damage.
One estimate of the possible damage rate of OPGW can
be obtained from a survey of conductor damage on most
of the Hydro-One distribution system. This 119,000-km
network of one-phase and three-phase low-voltage
systems has an overall record of 1260 damaged
conductors from lightning in six years. These damages
occurred as follows:
574 damaged conductors, ranging from #2 up to
556 kcmil ACSR
Invited Lecture at VI International Symposium on Lightning Protection ( VI SIPDA)
November 19 - 23, 2001, Santos, Brazil.
362 damaged drop leads, usually bare copper of #4
AWG used up to 150 A.
324 damaged secondary wires, ranging from #4
Aluminum to #1/0 for normal 200-A service.
The Hydro-One distribution system ACSR conductors are
at an average height of 10 m and the average ground flash
density in the province is 1.0 flashes per km2 per year.
Using these values, it is possible to anticipate an average
number of 10,000 lightning flashes per year to the
network from Equation (1) below. Over six years, the
damage rate becomes (574 / 60,000) or about 1 % per
lightning flash.
2.2 Incidence of Lightning Strokes
A ground flash density Ng (lightning strokes per square
km per year) can be obtained for an area of OPGW
installation using automatic lightning detection equipment
[3] and a sufficient period of observation to yield 400
observations in the selected study area. In some areas
where automatic equipment has not been deployed, the
global measurements of Optical Transient Density can be
used, along with an approximate conversion factor of 10
optical transients per ground flash [4].
The number of flashes to the overhead line can be
estimated using the following expression [5]:
28ht0.6 b
N N g
10 (1)
N is the flashes/100 km/year to the line
Ng is the ground flash density per km2 per year
ht is the height of the conductor (or overhead
groundwire) at the tower
b is the overhead ground wire separation in m
When there are two or more overhead shield wires, the
total number of flashes N lightning shall be assumed to
split equally and uniformly along the exposed spans. A
small proportion, equal to b divided by the span length in
meters, can be deducted for direct strokes to the tower.
If possible, the proportion of positive and negative
flashes should also be established. Otherwise a fraction
of Fneg=95% negative and Fpos=5% positive flashes can
be used in subsequent calculations.
A 100-km transmission line, with 35-m overhead
groundwires, will be struck approximately 100 times per
year in an area of moderate ground flash density (Ng = 4).
To the extent that distribution system conductors are
2
similar in construction, size and stranding to some
OPGW, a damaging lightning flash to OPGW on this
100-km line could be expected every year at the damage
rate of 1%. This would give a predicted damage rate of
one case per 100 km-year, in close agreement with an
observed OPGW damage rate of 0.08 cases per year in
Japan [1].
2.3 Damage or Failure Criteria
The lightning damage from a 1% flash may be minor for
example a single strand could break and the damage
may be repaired easily without affecting the optical link.
For this reason, users must be careful to specify an
appropriate damage criterion that reflects their reliability
requirements. Typical damage criteria have included:
The number of broken strands exceeds a given integer
The remaining tensile strength falls below 75% or
80% of rated tensile strength
A transient or permanent change in the optical
attenuation of the fibers is measured
The optical fibers are exposed to the environment
after the test
The exposure interval Y in years between damage, and the
line length L in km, will be specified by the user. It may
not be realistic to expect that the product YL can exceed
1200 - 1500 km-yr .
2.4 Lightning Peak Current
Normally, for calculations of transmission line lightning
performance, the peak magnitude of the first stroke in the
flash is of the greatest interest. The probability of a
stroke current in excess of a value of I* kA is
approximated from Bergers data [6] as [7-9]:
1 (2)
P( I I *) 2.6
I *
1
31
where I* is in kA. The first stroke has a 1% chance of
exceeding a peak current of 180 kA. However, other
parameters of the lightning flash may be more likely to
damage conductors. Figure 1 shows the effect of a
waveform approximating component 'A' of IEC 60794:
120 kA peak, 25 s rise and action integral of 2 (kA)2s.
The most visible effect is that of the spraying of the fuse
wire onto a broad patch of the surface of the conductor.
Damage is often imperceptible, and is limited to a slight
flattening of the surface of the strands. This effect is
typical of high-current (50-200 kA), slow-rise (4-40 s)
short duration (10-300 s) test waves, and is entirely
unlike the broken strands observed in the field.
Invited Lecture at VI International Symposium on Lightning Protection ( VI SIPDA)
November 19 - 23, 2001, Santos, Brazil.

(8)
1
85( Ppos 1)1 / 2.0 Q positive coulombs

Figure 1: Damage to OPGW from Lightning Impulse Current of 120 kA

(25s rise time, 2 (kA)2s, IEC 60794)

2.5 Total Flash Charge Figure 2: Damage to OPGW from Lightning Continuing Current
delivering 165 C ( 220 A x 750 ms, IEC 60794)
The amount of charge in the total flash is a dominant
factor in conductor damage. The charge, rather than the In contrast to the difficulty in generating a simulated
impulse peak or the integral of the square of current over lightning stroke with a steep rate of current rise, it is fairly
time, is correlated with arc damage mainly because the arc easy to build a test circuit to deliver total charge using a
root voltages tend to be constant for a wide range of DC source. The IEC 60794 standard [10] gives no
currents. Berger [5] gives observed levels of negative guidance on charge level, but does identify that most
and positive flash charges as follows: charge is to be delivered as a DC component (called
Component C) with a duration of 0.25 to 0.75 s. Polarity
Table 1: Typical Lightning Flash Charge Parameters [5] is not identified at all. Figure 2 shows the typical damage
to an OPGW for a total charge of 165 C, delivered as
Parameter Negative Flash Positive Flash 220 A for 0.75 s. The anticipated damage features,
Charge, coulombs Charge, coulombs
including metal erosion and broken strands, are
No. of Observations 94 26
95% will exceed 1.3 C 20 C reproduced by the test method.
Median 7.5 C 80 C
5% will exceed 40 C 350 C
2.6 Typical Worked Example for Test Parameters
Bergers data on total flash charge [5, Figure 3] can be A worked example has been provided as input for the
well approximated at the low-probability end of the data revision of IEEE Standard 1138 [2]. A double-circuit
by the following two equations: transmission line, with 45-m towers, was assumed to pass
through an area of the central USA where the ground flash
1 (3) density is 4.0 flashes per km2 per year. Based on
P(Qnegative)
Qnegative
1.7 Equation (1), this line will receive 110 flashes per 100 km
1 per year. Half of these flashes will strike each of the two
7 overhead shield wires, less probably at midspan and more
(4) probably near the tower. If a five-year return period
1
P(Q positive) 2.0 (Y=5) is used to determine an acceptable damage
Q positive
1 criterion, then the basic probability level for stroke
85 current, rate of rise and charge will be 1/(5x55) or
P=0.0036 assuming there is an OPGW only on one side of
Equations (3) and (4) need to be inverted to give the the line. Using an observed rate of 98% negative and 2%
charge test levels from the design probability level. positive flashes, the probability design levels for negative
and positive charge will be 0.0036/0.98 = 0.00371 and
For total negative flash charge: 0.0036/0.02 = 0.182, respectively.

Pneg =100 km /(Y * NOPGW * L * Fneg) (5) The negative probability level requires an extrapolation of
1
(6) Bergers observations. It is reassuring that a similar
7( Pneg 1)1 / 1.7 Qnegative coulombs extrapolation of the log-normal distributions of Bergers
negative stroke current data has been proven correct by
For total positive flash charge: supporting observations from wide-area lightning location
networks, collecting more than 107 flashes per year.
Ppos=100 km /(Y * NOPGW* L * Fpos) (7)

3
Invited Lecture at VI International Symposium on Lightning Protection ( VI SIPDA)
November 19 - 23, 2001, Santos, Brazil.
Using the probability models in Equations (2-8), the
following threat levels are anticipated on average once
every five years:
Peak negative stroke current -270 kA
Total negative flash charge -188 C
Total positive flash charge +180 C
The total negative flash charge of 188 C is near the
upper limit of 200 C recommended by IEC for its most
severe test [10]. In this case, with the low proportion of
positive strokes, the positive flash charge need not be
tested. Positive flashes are less damaging per coulomb
because they have a lower arc root voltage.
2.7 Proposed IEEE Test Method
The present IEEE Standard [2] for optical fibre ground
wires holds that OPGW with adequate ampacity for
typical transmission-line short-circuit requirements would
have ample I2t margin for any conceivable lightning
stroke. However, this approach does not consider either
the fast-rising nature of lightning or the high plasma
temperature associated with lightning arc roots.
Generally, damage from simulation of the first stroke is
minimal. Many possible standardized test waves for
lightning can also be criticized for use within and OPGW
standard. The IEEE 4s x 10s and 8s x 20s current
waves [11] are specific for surge arrester testing, and not
particularly appropriate for simulation of conductor
damage, even at high test levels of up to 200 kA. The
major effect of any of these waves is to melt the fuse wire
and spray it onto the tops of the OPGW strands.
The IEC test specification [10] calls for a B component
to discharge 10 C into the conductor with an average of
2 kA over 5 ms. This component exists mainly to ensure
continuous current flow in a transition from the 200-kA,
100-s impulse to the 200-A, 0.5-s continuing current of
component C.
The continuing current does progressive damage to
conductors as charge level increases. However,
test-to-test consistency cannot be achieved using the IEC
specifications alone. The proposed geometry includes a
rod electrode, a fuse wire and a spacing of 5 1 cm.
For a stable arc, this geometry needs to be magnetically
balanced with symmetric return wiring. The choices of
electrode material, radius and end treatments also affect
shot-to-shot consistency. The IEC spacing is biased
towards a stable arc with relatively high currents, and the
arc tends to wander for lower levels of charge exposure.
It has been recommended that IEEE adopt Component C
of the IEC test method, along with the following
additional specifications to make the test more practical
and repeatable:
Retain Component B to deliver 10 C for crisp
destruction of the fuse wire
Narrow the range of test currents and control the
charge using the duration
Specify negative potential at the electrode
Specify electrode material as tungsten (least damage
by arcing)
Specify a geometry of arc head that magnetically
stabilizes the arc at the center of the test geometry
The lightning arc test should be performed on OPGW
samples that leave a minimum of 2 m on either side of the
test point, to allow good distribution of tension among the
strands. This is especially important if the failure criteria
will be established with a residual strength test. The
cable should be terminated at each end and tensioned to
205 % of ultimate tensile strength (UTS). This normal
operating tension will allow realistic strand movement.
The recommended electrode is a non-thoriated tungsten
rod with 3-4 mm diameter and hemispherical tip. The
rod shall be mounted with its axis aligned with the radius
of the cable, with the tip 4-6 cm from the cable surface.
The 4-6 cm gap is from IEC 60794 is probably too large
for efficient reproduction of the lightning effects but is
the closest thing to an industry standard. The rod shall be
connected to the cable with a fuse wire that will melt
during the component B wave.
The surface of the cable in the test field can be externally
heated to 40 5 C, the maximum temperature of the
OPGW in summer conditions. This carry-over
requirement from short-circuit tests is less important for
the lightning arc test because the arc temperature is high.
The applied waveform shall include an arc-initiation
component B and a continuing current component C
applied as one continuous discharge. The arc initiation
component is a current pulse of sufficient rise and
magnitude to melt the fuse wire on the rising edge, before
the current peak. The continuing current component is
intended to simulate the damaging effects of lightning.
The direct current magnitude shall be verified with a short
circuit in place of the fuse wire. The duration shall be
adjusted to deliver the specified charge. The discharge
shall meet the specifications provided in Table 2.
4
Invited Lecture at VI International Symposium on Lightning Protection ( VI SIPDA)
November 19 - 23, 2001, Santos, Brazil.
Table 2: Simulated Lightning Current Specifications
Parameter Electrode Polarity
Negative Positive
Arc initiation Peak 2 kA Perhaps the
component same
Tail 3 0.5 ms
Continuing DC magnitude 225 265 A Perhaps 400
Current A
Total Charge Integral I dt Qnegative Qpositive
20% 20%
A single specified value of -250 A eliminates questions of
damage consistency for various current/time
combinations. This level is high compared to most
continuing-current measurements on natural or triggered
lightning but still realistic and easy to achieve in testing.
The tolerance on current accounts for ripple of
three-phase rectifiers. The tolerance on charge is carried
over from the original USA military standard 1757A [13]
to account for variations in arc behaviour during typical
testing.
The conductor damage from shot to shot can vary, so five
samples shall be tested with a negative electrode. If
Qpositive is more than twice Qnegative, then an additional five
samples should be tested with a positive electrode
potential. Standard welding handbooks suggest that a
positive arc root is three times more damaging than
negative, meaning that positive lightning can often be less
damaging than negative lightning in spite of higher charge
levels.
The selected damage criteria will normally be monitored
during the electrical tests and tested to mechanical
destruction after the samples have cooled completely.
Improved testing techniques are available that have a
better relation between typical lightning stress and typical
lightning parameters. One of these techniques, plasma
gouging, has the advantage of producing the correct
plasma temperature of 30,000 K rather than an electric arc
temperature of perhaps 6000 K [10]. However, the IEEE
also recognizes the merit of the IEC approach and
considers that it will be feasible to adjust test
specifications to match the increasing body of
observations of damage to existing OPGW.
3 UNDER-BUILT OPGW APPLICATIONS
It may not be realistic to expect damage-free operation of
OPGW for many years. For example, many OPGW can
meet several damage criteria for 104 C of negative flash
charge (corresponding to a 100-km length of line on 35-m
towers, exposed to one year of operation at Ng = 4).
However, few samples of practical OPGW can meet the
5
negative charge requirement (-497 C) if 300 km of the
same line are to be operated in the same area without
damage for ten years. In the latter case, users could be
forced to implement redundant elements such as twin
OPGW or a grid rather than linear network topology.
One option, not normally considered but attractive in
many respects, is to move the OPGW to a position under
the phase conductors. This will eliminate exposure of
the OPGW to direct lightning flashes, and a much lighter
conductor can then be used. In addition, there will be a
significant improvement in the lightning performance of
common transmission line configurations with an
under-built OPGW installation. Generally, under-built
shield wires can be as effective as partial use of surge
arresters in improving lightning performance. Table 3
shows typical results that could be obtained for one family
of double-circuit tower designs in Ontario (Ng=1) for an
area of high soil resistivity.
Table 3: Typical Performance Improvement through Addition of Single
Shield Wire, Located Under Existing Phase Conductors
Normal Lightning Outage Rate With
Voltage Class Outage Rate Underbuilt OPGW
115-kV 2-Circuit 7 / 100 km/year 1.8/100km/year
230-kV 2-Circuit 1 / 100 km/year 0.2/100km/year
500-kV 2-Circuit 0.3/100 km/year 0.05/100km/year
Lines with four overhead groundwires are already used
near Itapu in Brazil. Inboard mounting of OPGW is a
useful option for these lines. The choice of underbuilt,
rather than overhead location is an option that may also be
feasible when OPGW are fitted to an existing line. There
are many mechanical and electrical considerations that
affect the choice:
Relative sag of phases and OPGW as a function of
circuit load
Maintenance of adequate ground clearance
Quantity and positions of insulating phase-to-OPGW
spacers within spans
Additional vertical and overturning wind and ice
loads on towers from the OPGW
Many of these concerns must be addressed in
conventional All-Dielectric Self Supporting (ADSS) cable
applications, which are another option in cases where
lightning damage is a concern. However, unlike ADSS,
retrofit of high-strength OPGW underneath phase
conductors can provide an opportunity to reduce
bottom-phase sags and improve thermal ratings at the
same time that they improve lightning performance.
Invited Lecture at VI International Symposium on Lightning Protection ( VI SIPDA)
November 19 - 23, 2001, Santos, Brazil.
4 COORDINATION OF HV AND LV SYSTEMS
The widespread use of OPGW will sometimes require the
installation of repeaters, distribution routers and other
electronic devices, powered from a connection to a
low-voltage system. Several different approaches for
developing a low power from a high-voltage supply are
described in the literature and experience. Most of these
options can affect lightning performance, or in turn be
damaged by lightning.
4.1 Insulation of overhead groundwire sections
In Canada, overhead groundwire sections are sometimes
insulated from the towers to minimize 1-MHz reradiation.
Usually, a single insulator disk can be used without
affecting lightning performance. The insulated OHGW
also develop induced currents from the resultant magnetic
field of the phase currents. These induced currents can be
used to provide power at several locations along the line.
On a double-circuit 230-kV line, Hydro-One found that an
insulated shieldwire, offset only 1 m from the center of the
tower, developed an open-circuit voltage of 1200-1700 V
with a short-circuit current of 50-75 A as the load currents
ranged from 580 to 780 A. Multi-tap measurements
showed that it would be feasible to develop tower currents
of 3-14 A at three positions along the 49 km line. These
tower currents could be used to develop isolated
instrument power using current transformers (CT) as long
as the CT insertion impedances that are low compared to
the tower footing resistances and the inductive reactance
of the OHGW loop.
4.2 Electrostatic potential dividers
Insulation of overhead groundwire sections has also been
used to develop a high electrostatic voltage from the
capacitive coupling of phase voltages. In these cases, rod
gaps were provided to ensure an efficient flashover from
OHGW to tower under any lightning surge condition.
HydroQuebec [14] tested a 4-km isolated OHGW section,
on a 735-kV single-phase line. They used a 50 kV to
220-V transformer and semiconductor regulator to deliver
20 kW to a remote microwave station. In Saskatchewan,
a 2-W instrument was powered using an aluminum panel
near an energized conductor.
Lightning protection of the high-impedance transformers
needed to step down the electrostatic voltage is difficult.
Metallic-oxide surge arresters provide too much shunt
capacitance in this application. The transformer insul-
ation tends to puncture under lightning impulse before
protective gaps can operate, making this option less
suitable for areas of high lightning flash density.
6
4.3 Solar panels
Remote sites can obtain continuous power from solar
panels, regulators and storage batteries at costs of roughly
$US 300 per continuous watt. This cost assumes a 50:1
oversupply factor for reliability in a fixed-panel
installation, optimized for winter exposure at 45 North
latitude. However, several issues limit the effectiveness
of the solar panel solution. Partial shading of the solar
panels by tower members, additional wind load,
probability of damage to panels during handling and
installation, battery lifetime, adequate surge arrester
energy absorption capabilities and precise specification of
wire routing all need to be considered.
4.4 High-impedance resistive dividers
Specialised disc insulators, coated with semiconductive
glaze, have been used sporadically for treatment of
difficult contamination problems. Generally, a glaze
current of 1 mA has been found to be effective, especially
for improved icing performance. Strings of
semiconducting-glaze disc insulators and specialised
high-impedance step-down transformers can provide ac
power at the level of 3 to 10 W per string. In this case,
the lower impedance of the power supply (compared to
electrostatic approaches) relaxes the requirements on
impedance and commercial metallic oxide surge arresters
can be used to protect the high-voltage side of the power
supply.
4.5 External Power Supplies
In cases where power levels are sufficiently high to need a
connection to a nearby distribution system, there is a
novel surge co-ordination problem. A high-voltage
network, with possible fault currents of 30 kA, would
generally introduce unexpected stresses into the secondary
side of the distribution line connection. Specifications for
suitable ac surge protective devices may require
development of special components. The more complex
problem of lightning surge coordination from the stricken
transmission tower through to the distribution system also
needs to be considered.
Generally, when a low-voltage supply is brought onto a
transmission tower, the lightning risk is great but some
appropriate protection options are reasonably clear. The
tower can be treated as Lightning Protection Zone LPZ0
in the terms of IEC Standard 61312 [15]. The interior of
a metal lattice tower will form a screened area
corresponding to LPZ1. A solid metallic enclosure to
protect sensitive electronics will normally be present to
form LPZ2. The surge arrester and bonding
Invited Lecture at VI International Symposium on Lightning Protection ( VI SIPDA)
November 19 - 23, 2001, Santos, Brazil.
requirements for adequate lightning performanceat each
interface are well described in the IEC approach.
However, the presence of tower fault current imposes
additional requirements on the ac protection aspects. The
potential rise at the tower base will be a function of the
available fault current, tower footing resistance in the
line, the line length, the span length, the overhead
groundwire surge impedances and the substation
grounding resistances. Considering a 20- resistance
and a 300-m span length, the fault current at the center of
a 100-km 230-kV line will be about 9 kA and the resulting
tower-base potential before fault clearing will be about
1 kV. According to Hasse [15], spark gap type lightning
current arresters for the LPZ0 LPZ1 interface would only
extinguish follow currents of 4 kA at the secondary system
voltage and would thus be unsuitable in this special
application. With the high local voltage, Class C zinc
oxide arresters would also need high energy absorption
capability compared to conventional cases.
The service transformer should also receive special
attention, considering the following choices:
Secondary surge arresters for all phases to
ground, placed directly across secondary
terminals
Surge arrester, co-ordinated with transformer
impulse withstand, directly across the
transformer high-voltage bushing
Fuse selection with adequate transient
overload rating (typically not current-limiting
type)
Adequate secondary-to-primary impulse
strength between the transformer windings
A separation between primary and secondary neutrals may
be preferred in this application. Bonding at the
transformer will allow a significant fraction of both
lightning stroke and transmission line fault current into the
neutrals of the distribution system. These neutral
conductors may not have sufficient cross-section area.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Test parameters and methods for reproducing the
observed damage types and rates on optical-fibre ground
wires (OPGW) need further refinement. Parts of the IEC
test method, specifically the components B and C, can be
effective. It has been recommended that the IEEE
Standard 1138 adopt this test method along with a
reasonable way to estimate the required test levels as a
function of line length and lightning exposure.
7
In cases where test parameters for reliable OPGW links
lead to excessive cost, the use of lightweight OPGW,
strung below the phase conductors using inter-phase
spacers, may be competitive with ADSS installation,
especially if a significant improvement in lightning
backflashover rates is desirable.
There are many options for providing local power for
optical repeaters, splitters and other interface components
such as cellular telephone repeaters. Continuous, low
power requirements of 100W or less can be provided with
power tapped from the transmission line itself, using
insulated overhead groundwires or semiconductive-glaze
insulators. Higher power requirements involving the use
of a secondary service from a distribution system need
special attention to the additional ratings of protective
devices along with careful interpretation of existing IEC
recommendations.
6 REFERENCES
[1] M. Yokoya, Y. Katsuragi, Y. Goda, Y. Nagata, Y. Asano,
Development of Lightning-resistant Overhead Ground Wire,
IEEE Transactions of Power Delivery Vol.9 No.3, July 1994
pp.1517-1523.
[2] IEEE Standard Construction of Composite Fiber Optic
Overhead Ground Wire (OPGW) for Use on Electric Utility
Power Lines, IEEE Standard 1138-1994
[3] O. Pinto Jr., I. Pinto, O. Mendes Jr., R. Gin, M. Saba,
M. Lacerda, J. Diniz, A. Carvalho, A. Filho, L. Cherchiglia,
Lightning in Brazil, Proceedings of IV International Seminar
on Lightning Protection, Sao Paulo, Brazil, Sept. 1997,
[4] W.A. Chisholm, J. Beattie and W. Janischewskyj, Analysis of
the Optical Transient Detector Measurements of Lightning over
North and South America, Proceedings of V International
Symposium on Lightning Protection ( SIPDA), So Paulo,
Brazil, May 1999.
[5] K.Berger, R.B.Anderson and H. Kroninger, Parameters of
Lightning Flashes, Electra, No. 41, pp 23-37, 1975
[7] Guide to Procedures for Estimating the Lightning Performance
of Transmission Lines, CIGRE Brochure 63, October 1991
[8] IEEE Guide for Improving the Lightning Performance of
Overhead Transmission Lines, IEEE Standard 1243-1997,
December 1997
[9] IEEE Guide for Improving the Lightning Performance of
Electric Power Overhead Distribution Lines, IEEE Standard
1410-1997, December 1997
[10] IEC Standard 60794-4-1 Optical fibre cables Part 4-1: Aerial
optical cables for high-voltage power lines, Jan. 1999
[11] IEEE Standard Techniques for High-Voltage Testing, IEEE
Standard 4-1995, October 1995
Invited Lecture at VI International Symposium on Lightning Protection ( VI SIPDA)
November 19 - 23, 2001, Santos, Brazil.

[12] W.A. Chisholm and C. Pon, "Development of Realistic

Lightning Arc Tests for Optical Fiber Ground Wires (OPGW),
V International Symposium on Lightning Protection, Sao Paulo,
Brazil, May, 1999.

[13] Lightning Qualification Test Techniques for Aerospace Vehicles

and Hardware, USA Department of Defense Military Standard
MIL-STD-1757A, July 1983

[14] R. Berthiaume and R. Blais, Tapping the Overhead Wire on

Transmission Lines Produces a 20kW, 60Hz Power Supply,
IREQ Rapport 1626, Direction Electrinouqe et Asservissements,
March 1977.

[15] P. Hasse, Lightning Current Arresters and Overvoltage

Arresters Different Requirements Various Devices,
Proceedings of V International Symposium on Lightning
Protection ( SIPDA), So Paulo, Brazil, May 1999