1522

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 56, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2014

Evaluation of Lightning-Induced Currents on Cables

Buried in a Lossy Dispersive Ground
Javad Paknahad, Student Member, IEEE, Keyhan Sheshyekani, Senior Member, IEEE, Farhad Rachidi, Fellow, IEEE,
Mario Paolone, Senior Member, IEEE, and Abdenbi Mimouni

AbstractThe paper discusses the effect of frequency dependence of soil electrical parameters (also called soil dispersion) on
lightning currents induced on the shield of buried cables. To this
aim, a full-wave approach based on the finite element method is
used in which soil dispersion is incorporated into the model using
available analytical formulae obtained from experimental data. It
is shown that the soil dispersion can affect the induced currents
only for soils with very low conductivities ( 0.003 S/m). It is
also shown that, depending on the burial depth of the cable, for
poorly conducting soils with conductivities lower than 0.0005 S/m
or so, the soil dispersion can result either in an increase or in a
decrease of the induced current peak.
Index TermsCable modeling, dispersive soil, finite element
method (FEM), lightning channel.

I. INTRODUCTION
URIED cables used for power transmission, communication, and control purposes are exposed to external electromagnetic fields such as those generated by lightning return
strokes and high-voltage transmission lines. These electromagnetic fields can induce large currents and voltages on nearby
buried cables. The induced disturbances can damage the cable
insulations or affect the transmitted data. Hence, the calculation
of the currents induced on buried cables is crucial and have been
addressed in different works (see [1][7]).
Different methods such as transmission line (TL) theory [2],
finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) technique [5][6] along
with some simplified and analytical solutions [7] have been
proposed to calculate the lightning-induced currents on buried
cables. Transient response of a power cable including lowconducting layers has been studied by an FDTD method in [8].
More recently, lightning-induced currents on buried cables have
been evaluated using the finite element method (FEM), considering both vertically- [9] and horizontally-stratified ground [10].
In these methods, the soil is assumed as a medium characterized
by constant electrical parameters. However, the soil electrical

Fig. 1. Geometry for the calculation of lightning-induced currents on a cable

buried in a lossy dispersive ground.

Manuscript received April 18, 2014; revised June 22, 2014; accepted July 17,
2014. Date of publication August 13, 2014; date of current version December
11, 2014.
J. Paknahad and K. Sheshyekani are with the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran 1983963113, Iran
(e-mail: javadpaknahad@gmail.com; k_sheshyekani@sbu.ac.ir).

F. Rachidi and M. Paolone are with the Ecole

Polytechnique Federale de
Lausanne, Lausanne 1015, Switzerland (e-mail: farhad.rachidi@epfl.ch; mario.
paolone@epfl.ch).
A. Mimouni is with the University of Ibn Khaldoun, Tiaret 14000, Algeria
(e-mail: abdenbi.mimouni@gmail.com).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEMC.2014.2341831

parameters (i.e., soil conductivity and relative permittivity) feature a frequency-dependent behavior over the frequency range
of interest (see e.g., [11], [12]), which might affect the currents
induced on buried cables.
Recently, the effect of soil dispersion (i.e., frequency dependence of soil conductivity and relative permittivity) on lightninginduced voltages on overhead lines has been discussed in [13]
and [14]. Lightning performance of grounding systems has also
been investigated when the grounding conductors are buried in
a lossy dispersive soil [12], [15].
Within this context, in this paper, a full-wave approach based
on the FEM solutions to Maxwells equations is used for the
evaluation of lightning-induced currents on the shield of cables buried in a lossy dispersive soil. To this aim, the model
proposed by Longmire and Smith [11] is used for the representation of frequency dependence of soil conductivity and relative
permittivity. The analysis is first done for a single-core sheathed
cable, making reference to the available measured waveforms of
induced currents associated with artificially initiated lightning
[3]. Then, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to assess the effect
of the frequency dependence of soil electrical parameters on
lightning currents induced on the shield of the buried cables.
The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section II,
the finite element modeling of the whole problem including the
lightning channel and the cable system is briefly described.
Numerical results and relevant discussion are presented in
Section III. Conclusive remarks are given in Section IV.

0018-9375 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

PAKNAHAD et al.: EVALUATION OF LIGHTNING-INDUCED CURRENTS ON CABLES BURIED IN A LOSSY DISPERSIVE GROUND

1523

TABLE I
HEIDLERS PARAMETERS FOR REPRODUCING TRIGGERED RETURN STROKE CURRENTS REPORTED IN [3], AND FOR TYPICAL FIRST AND SUBSEQUENT STROKES [18]
Parameters
TRS1: First triggered return stroke current at SL#1 adapted from [3]
TRS2: Second triggered return stroke current at SL#2 adapted from [3]
Typical first return stroke current [18]
Typical second return stroke current [18]

I0 1 (kA)

1 1 (s)

1 2 (s)

n1

I0 2 (kA)

2 1 (s)

2 2 (s)

n2

8.5
23.1
28
10.7

0.12
0.28
1.8
.25

14
4.74
95
2.5

2
5
2
2

3.2
9.7
6.5

14
5
2.1

95
100
230

2
5
2

TABLE II
COEFFICIENTS a n USED IN THE MODEL OF LONGMIRE AND SMITH [7]
n

an
n
an

3.4 10 6
8
1.2510 1

2.74 10 5
9
4.8

2.58 10 4
10
2.17

3.38 10 3
11
0.98

5.26 10 2
12
0.392

1.33 10 2
13
0.173

2.72 10 1
14
0

II. PROBLEM MODELING

For the calculation of lightning-induced currents on cables
buried in a lossy dispersive soil, let us make reference to Fig. 1.
The lightning return stroke channel is considered as a straight
vertical antenna above the ground. A nearby cable of length
L is buried at a depth d below the ground surface. The soil
is characterized by frequency-dependent conductivity (f) and
relative permittivity (f).
For the analysis, the problem is implemented in COMSOL
Multiphysics and we use the electromagnetic wave (EMW)
solver of the RF module, which is based on the finite element
solution of the frequency-domain vector wave [16]. This module
allows introducing the frequency dependence of soil electrical
parameters into the model.

A. Lightning Return Stroke Channel Model

In this study, the modified transmission line with exponential
decay (MTLE) is adopted for modeling of the lightning return
stroke channel with a current height decay of = 2000 m assuming a return stroke speed of v = 1.5 108 m/s [17], [18]. As
for the lightning channel-base current, Heidlers function was
used to reproduce the measured current waveforms associated
with the triggered lightning flashes in [3]. The parameters of the
used Heidlers functions are listed in Table I. Note that as discussed in [3], all strokes in classical triggered lightning are very
similar to subsequent strokes in natural lightning. In addition,
we will use typical first and subsequent return stroke current
waveforms [19] for which the Heidlers function parameters are
also reported in Table I.
Further details about modeling the lightning return stroke
channel in the frequency domain can be found in [13].
B. Model of Frequency Dependence of Soil
In this paper, analytical formulae proposed by Longmire and
Smith [11] are utilized to incorporate the frequency-dependent
behavior of the soil electrical parameters into the analysis. The

Longmire and Smith equations read

0 = 8

 
 p 1 . 5 4
S
103
; = 5
10
m

(f ) = 0 + 20

K an




n=1

r (f ) = +

K

n=1

p
10

1 . 2 8

1+
an

1 + 

10n 1


2



f
1.28

( 1p0 ) 1 0 n 1
2
f

( 1p0 )

1.28

1 0 n 1

(1)

p 1 . 2 8
n
1
10
10

where 0 is the low-frequency conductivity at 100 Hz, f is

the frequency, ranging from dc to 5 MHz, (f) and r (f ) are
respectively the soil conductivity and relative permittivity at
each frequency, p is the water percentage of soil, and an are
coefficients presented in Table II [11]. It has been shown that
(1) satisfies the KramersKronig relationships and thus provide
causal results [20].
Typical curves associated with the frequency dependence of
the soil relative permittivity and conductivity for different values
of the soil water contents are shown in Fig. 2.
C. Model for Buried Cable
The underground cable modeled in this paper is a 15-kV
XLPE coaxial power cable, covered with an insulating jacket
buried 0.9 m under the ground surface, corresponding to the cable used in the experimental study [3]. The cable cross-section
as well as the model geometry is shown in Fig. 3. The cable
modeling includes the inner conductor, insulations, shield, and
the insulating jacket. The dimension and the relative permittivity for each insulation section are reported in Fig. 3(a). Note
that in these simulations, the cable shield and the inner conductor were assumed to be perfect electric conductors (PEC). In
our modeling, the radius of the inner conductor is very small
compared to the mesh dimensions. Due to this fact and to avoid
a large and inefficient matrix system in the FEM formulation,

1524

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 56, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2014

(a)

Fig. 4. Position of the considered three stroke locations, two cable configurations with lengths of 133 and 60 m, and the instrumentation stations.

(b)
Fig. 2. Frequency dependence of the soil. (a) Relative permittivity and (b) conductivity over the frequency range of interest for different values of the soil water contents: p = 1.65% ( 0 = 0.0005 S/m), p = 5.3% ( 0 = 0.003 S/m),
p = 11.6% ( 0 = 0.01 S/m).

Fig. 3.

(a) Cable cross section and (b) model implemented in COMSOL.

it is legitimate to model the inner conductor as a sequence of

mesh edges. This is similar to the method used in [13] for TL
modeling.
III. NUMERICAL RESULTS
A. Comparison With Measurements
To evaluate the effect of the frequency dependence of soil
electrical parameters on lightning-induced currents on the shield
of the cable, we first compare our results with measurement
data presented in [3]. The geometry of the problem is shown
in Fig. 1 for which the experimental results were obtained at
the International Center for Lightning Research and Testing
(ICLRT) at Camp Blanding, FL, USA, where currents induced
by triggered and natural lightning events were measured at both
ends of the shield of the buried coaxial power cable [3]. The
cable length is L = 133 m and its shield is grounded at both
terminations by means of two grounding rods: one is of length
12 m and diameter of 0.4 cm at the instrument station IS1,

to which corresponds a dc ground resistance of 60 ; and the

other is of length 24 m and diameter of 0.4 cm at the instrument
station IS2, to which corresponds a dc ground resistance of 37 .
The inner conductor at both ends is open circuited. To compare
with the measurement data, currents induced on the cable shield
are calculated at IS2 for two different stroke locations namely
SL#1, SL#2 whose distances from the cable terminations are
shown in Fig. 4. The integral form of Amperes law was used to
compute the induced current. In doing so, the induced current
was calculated by integrating the azimuthal component of the
magnetic field H along a circular path around the cable in
which the cable is placed in the center of this path.
By doing so, we are actually evaluating the sum of the currents
in the shield and the inner conductor. This is reasonable since
the inner conductor current is much smaller than the shield
current [7].
For comparison with the measurement results, we calculated
the current induced on the cable shield at IS2 due to the considered two triggered return stroke currents TRS1 and TRS2 shown
in Table I, for stroke locations SL#1 and SL#2, Fig. 5. We also
calculated the current induced on the cable shield at IS1 due to
the considered triggered return stroke current TRS2, for stroke
location SL#2, Fig. 6.
The analysis is done for both soils with constant (CP) and
frequency-dependent (FD) electrical parameters [(f), r (f )].
Also shown in Figs. 5 and 6 are the results obtained using
the TL theory presented by Petrache et al. [2]. It is seen from
Figs. 5 and 6 that the obtained results in this paper are consistent with the measurement results in terms of their early time
response. For the late time response, the proposed model shows
a better performance compared to the TL method. Moreover, it is
seen in these figures that the dispersive soil results in a slight decrease of predicted current, which is in better agreement with the
measurement data, compared to the results obtained considering a soil with constant electrical parameters. The discrepancies
between the simulation and the measurement results might be
due to uncertainties related to the soil electrical parameters and
their possible nonhomogeneities and the representation of the
ground rods. Recent studies have shown indeed that the latetime response of induced currents is significantly affected by
horizontal stratification of the soil [10], [21].

PAKNAHAD et al.: EVALUATION OF LIGHTNING-INDUCED CURRENTS ON CABLES BURIED IN A LOSSY DISPERSIVE GROUND

1525

Fig. 5. Comparison of the induced currents on the cable shield at IS2 for
(a) triggered return stroke current TRS1 shown in Table I striking SL#1 and
(b) triggered return stroke current TRS2 shown in Table I striking SL#2. The
cable length is L = 133 m. C P : = 0.0017 S/m and r = 10, FD: p =
3.6% ( 0 = 0.0017 S/m).

Fig. 7. Lightning-induced current on the shield of the buried cable shown

in Fig. 1 at IS2 due to a typical first return stroke (see Table I) striking
SL#1. The cable length is L = 133 m. The soil is characterized by (a) CP:
= 0.0005 S/m, FD: p = 1.65%. (b) CP: = 0.003 S/m, FD: p = 5.3%.
(c) CP: = 0.01 S/m, FD: p = 11.6%.
Fig. 6. Comparison of the induced currents on the cable shield at IS1 for
triggered return stroke current TRS2 shown in Table I striking SL#2. The cable
length is L = 133 m. CP: = 0.0017 S/m and r = 10, FD: p = 3.6%
( 0 = 0.0017 S/m).

B. Effect of Frequency Dependence of the Soil

Electrical Parameters
In order to further evaluate the effect of soil dispersion on the
induced current on the shield of buried cables, we considered the
same 133-m long cable system shown in Fig. 1 buried in a soil
with different water content percentage of p = 1.65%, 5.3%, and
11.6% which are respectively associated with soil conductivities
of 0 = 0.0005, 0.003, and 0.01 S/m. Note that these soil conductivities are values usually measured at low frequency used as
reference for the case of constant soil electrical parameters. Induced currents were calculated considering typical waveforms
associated with first (Fig. 7) and subsequent (Fig. 8) return
strokes, characterized by different frequency contents. The considered strike location is SL#1 (see Fig. 4). From Fig. 7, it is
seen that for the first return stroke current, the effect of soil dispersion on the induced currents is negligible. Results shown in
Fig. 8 reveal that for a typical subsequent return stroke current,
however, the effect of the soil dispersion becomes noticeable

only for poorly conductive soils (i.e., lower than 0.003 S/m).
In fact, the effect of soil dispersion on the induced currents is
more pronounced for lightning return stroke currents characterized by higher frequency contents (i.e., a shorter time-to-peak
values).
C. Effect of Cable Length
The same configuration as in Fig. 8 was repeated considering
a cable length of 60 m (instead of 133 m), keeping the same
distance between the strike location and the line left termination
IS2 (130 m). The induced currents were computed at IS2 for
different soil conductivities of 0 = 0.0005, 0.003, and 0.01 S/m
and presented in Fig. 9. A comparison between Fig. 9 and Fig. 8
shows that the length of cable does not markedly contribute to
the effects of soil dispersion on the induced currents.
D. Effect of Stroke Location
In the final study, we consider the same cable system (with
a length L = 60 m) shown in Fig. 1 while the lightning is
supposed to strike the ground at SL#3, 50 m to the left of IS2

1526

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 56, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2014

Fig. 8. Lightning-induced current on the shield of the buried cable shown in

Fig. 1 at IS2 due to a typical subsequent return stroke (see Table I) striking
SL#1. The cable length is L = 133 m. The soil is characterized by (a) CP:
= 0.0005 S/m, FD: p = 1.65%. (b) CP: = 0.003 S/m, FD: p = 5.3%.
(c) CP: = 0.01 S/m, FD: p = 11.6%.

(see Fig. 4) which is referred to as a side stroke. For this case,

we present the induced currents at IS2 (see Fig. 10) and IS1 (see
Fig. 11) due to a typical subsequent return stroke. From Figs. 10
and 11, it is seen that the induced currents for a side stroke take
negative polarity. An examination of Figs. 8(a), 9(a), 10(a), and
11(a) shows that the dispersive soil leads to an increase in the
peak value of the induced current for poorly conducting soils
(i.e., 0 <= 0.0005 S/m).
To further study the effect of soil dispersion on the induced
currents, for the same case, we increase the burial depth of
the cable to d = 10 m for which the induced currents at IS2
are shown in Fig. 12. As it can be seen from this figure and
contrary to the previous examples, the soil dispersion results,
interestingly, in a decrease of the induced current peak. This
observation deserves some further discussion. As known (e.g.,
[22]), losses due to the finite ground conductivity have twofold
effects on the induced currents along an underground cable: 1)
the effect on the surge propagation along the cable, and 2) the
effect on the exciting electromagnetic fields. The first effect
always results in an attenuation of the surges. The exciting electromagnetic field can be considered as due to 1) the contribution
of the field due to the source (lightning channel), and 2) the contribution of the induced currents in the soil. Fig. 13 shows the
underground exciting magnetic field (in absence of the cable)

Fig. 9. Lightning-induced current on the shield of the buried cable shown in

Fig. 1 at IS2 due to a typical subsequent return stroke (see Table I) striking
SL#1 (the distance between the strike location and the line left termination IS2
is 130 m). The cable length is L = 60 m. The soil is characterized by (a) CP:
= 0.0005 S/m, FD: p = 1.65%. (b) CP: = 0.003 S/m, FD: p = 5.3%.
(c) CP: = 0.01 S/m, FD: p = 11.6%.

associated with different soil conductivities and obtained for two

observation points located at different depths (i.e., d = 0.9 m
and d = 10 m) at 50 m from the channel. As seen from this figure, at both depths, when the soil conductivity decreases from
= 0.01 S/m to = 0.001 S/m, the azimuthal exciting magnetic field increases. However, as the soil conductivity is further
decreased to values lower than = 0.001 S/m, the azimuthal
exciting magnetic field follows an opposite trend for the considered depths. In other words, as the soil conductivity increases
from = 0.0001 to = 0.001 S/m, the azimuthal magnetic
field tends to increase at depth d = 0.9 m and decrease at depth
d = 10 m. This is exactly what happens for the case of a dispersive soil with = 0.0005 S/m for which the soil conductivity
increases with frequency increasing. Thus, depending on the
depth of the observation point, the dispersive effect could result
in either an increase or a decrease in the azimuthal magnetic
field. Therefore, the induced current is affected in a similar
way as shown in Figs. 11(a) and 12. Results obtained for the
azimuthal magnetic field were also checked versus those obtained by the FDTD method developed in [23], Fig. 14.

PAKNAHAD et al.: EVALUATION OF LIGHTNING-INDUCED CURRENTS ON CABLES BURIED IN A LOSSY DISPERSIVE GROUND

1527

Fig. 12. Lightning-induced current on the shield of buried cable shown in

Fig. 1 at IS2 due to a typical subsequent return stroke striking SL#3. The
cable length is L = 60 m. The cable burial depth is d = 10 m. The soil is
characterized by: CP: = 0.0005 S/m, FD: p = 1.65%.

Fig. 10. Lightning-induced current on the shield of the buried cable shown
in Fig. 1 at IS2 due to a typical subsequent return stroke (see Table I) striking
SL#3. The cable length is L = 60 m. The soil is characterized by (a) CP:
= 0.0005 S/m, FD: p = 1.65%. (b) CP: = 0.003 S/m, FD: p = 5.3%.
(c) CP: = 0.01 S/m, FD: p = 11.6%.

Fig. 13. Azimuthal component of the exciting magnetic field (without cable) for r = 50 m. (a) d = 0.9 m, (b) d = 10 m. The soil is characterized by
constant electrical parameters.

Fig. 11. Lightning-induced current on the shield of buried cable shown in

Fig. 1 at IS1 due to a typical subsequent return stroke (see Table I) striking
SL#3. The cable length is L = 60 m. The soil is characterized by (a) CP:
= 0.0005 S/m, FD: p = 1.65%. (b) CP: = 0.003 S/m, FD: p = 5.3%.
(c) CP: = 0.01 S/m, FD: p = 11.6%.

A comparison between Fig. 13 and Fig. 14 shows that the FEM

results perfectly match their FDTD counterparts.
It is worth noting that as we use a full-wave approach, the
whole components of the lightning radiated electromagnetic
fields inside and above the ground can be easily calculated.
Hence, one can obtain the induced voltages by integrating the
vertical component of the electric field along a straight vertical path between the cable and a point well below the ground
surface at which the electric field becomes negligible. In lossy
ground, however, due to the finite ground conductivity, a complete transverse magnetic propagation is not satisfied. Hence,
the total electric field is not conservative and the integral of the
electric field between any two points is path-dependent. As a
result, we preferred in this paper to present simulation results
only in terms of the induced currents.

1528

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 56, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2014

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

Fig. 14. Azimuthal component of the exciting magnetic field (without cable)
for r = 50 m. (a) d = 0.9 m, (b) d = 10 m calculated by the FDTD method.
The soil is characterized by constant electrical parameters.

[10]

[11]

IV. CONCLUSION
The effect of soil dispersion on the currents induced on the
shield of buried cables due to a nearby lightning return stroke
was evaluated. The analysis was carried out by making use
of a full-wave solution to Maxwells equations by means of
the COMSOL Multiphysics. It was shown that the effect of
frequency dependence of soil conductivity and relative permittivity on the induced currents on the shield of cables depends
on a combination of factors such as frequency content of the
lightning return stroke current, the soil conductivity, and the
burial depth of the cable. In general, it was shown that the soil
dispersion can affect the induced currents only for soils with
very low conductivities, and in particular for subsequent return
stroke currents which are characterized by high-frequency content. It was also shown that, depending on the burial depth of the
cable, for poorly conducting soils with conductivities lower than
0.0005 S/m, the soil dispersion can result in either an increase
or a decrease of the induced current.

[12]
[13]

[14]
[15]

[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]

REFERENCES
[1] E. Petrache, M. Paolone, F. Rachidi, C. A. Nucci, V. A. Rakov, M. A.
Uman, D. Jordan, K. J. Rambo, J. Schoene, A. Cordier, and T Verhaege,
Measurement of lightning-induced currents in an experimental coaxial buried cable, presented at IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Summer Meeting,
Toronto, Canada, 2003.
[2] E. Petrache, F. Rachidi, M. Paolone, C. Nucci, V. A. Rakov, and M. A.
Uman, Lightning-induced disturbances on buried cables. Part I: Theory,
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 498508, Aug.
2005.
[3] M. Paolone, E. Petrache, F. Rachidi, C. A. Nucci, V. A. Rakov, M. A.
Uman, D. Jordan, K. Rambo, J. Jerauld, M. Nyffeler, and J. Schoene,
Lightning-induced disturbances on buried cables. Part II: Experiment

[20]

[21]
[22]
[23]

and model validation, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 47, no. 3,
pp. 509520, Aug. 2005.
E. Petrache, M. Paolone, F. Rachidi, C. A. Nucci, V. Rakov, M. Uman, D.
Jordan, K. Rambo, J. Jerauld, M. Nyffeler, and J. Schoene, Lightninginduced currents in buried coaxial cables: A frequency domain approach
and its validation using rocket-triggered lightning, J. Electrostatics,
vol. 65, pp. 322328, 2007.
B. Yang, B. H. Zhou, B. Chen, J. B. Wang, and X. Meng, Numerical study
of lightning-induced currents on buried cables and shield wire protection
method, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 323331,
Apr. 2012.
N. Theethayi, Y. Baba, F. Rachidi, and R. Thottappillil, On the choice
between transmission line equations and full-wave Maxwells equations
for transient analysis of buried wires, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.,
vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 347357, May 2008.
F. M. Tesche, A. W. Kalin, B. Brandly, B. Reusser, M. Ianoz, D. Tabara,
and P. Zweiacker, Estimates of lightning induced voltage stresses within
buried shielded conduits, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 40,
no. 4, pp. 492504, Nov. 1998.
Y. Baba, N. Tanabe, N. Nagaoka, and A. Ametani, Transient analysis
of a cable with low-conducting layers by a finite-difference time-domain
method, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 488493,
Aug. 2004.
J. Paknahad, K. Sheshyekani, and F. Rachidi, Lightning electromagnetic
fields and their induced currents on buried cables. Part I: The effect of an
ocean-land mixed propagation path, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.,
to be published, 2014, doi: 10.1109/TEMC.2014.2311923.
J. Paknahad, K. Sheshyekani, F. Rachidi, and M. Paolone Lightning
electromagnetic fields and their induced currents on buried cables. Part II:
The effect of a horizontally stratified ground, IEEE Trans. Electromagn.
Compat., to be published, 2014, doi: 10.1109/TEMC.2014.2311926.
C. L. Longmire and K. S. Smith, A universal impedance for soils,
Defense Nuclear Agency, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Topical Rep., Jul.
1Sep. 30, 1975.
R. Alipio and S. Visacro, Frequency dependence of soil parameters:
Effect on the lightning response of grounding electrodes, IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 132139, Feb. 2013.
M. Akbari, K. Sheshyekani, and A. Pirayesh, F. Rachidi, M. Paolone, A.
Borghetti, and C. A. Nucci, Evaluation of lightning electromagnetic fields
and their induced voltages on overhead lines considering the frequencydependence of soil electrical parameters, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 12101219, Dec. 2013.
K. Sheshyekani and M. Akbari, Evaluation of lightning-induced voltages
on multiconductor overhead lines located above a lossy dispersive ground,
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 683690, Apr. 2014.
M. Akbari, K. Sheshyekani, and M. R. Alemi, The effect of frequency
dependence of soil electrical parameters on the lightning performance of
grounding systems, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 55, no. 4,
pp. 739746, Aug. 2013.
RF.Module Users Guide COMSOL 4.2, COMSOL, Silverwater, N.S.W.,
Australia, May 2011.
C. A. Nucci, C. Mazzetti, F. Rachidi, and M. Ianoz, On lightning return
stroke models for LEMP calculations, presented at the 19th Int. Conf.
Lightning Protection, Graz, Apr. 1988.
F. Rachidi and C. A. Nucci, On the Master, Lin, Uman, Standler and the
Modified Transmission Line Lightning return stroke current models, J.
Geophys. Res., vol. 95, pp. 2038920394, Nov. 1990.
F. Rachidi, W. Janischewskyj, A. M. Hussein, C. A. Nucci, S. Guerrieri,
B. Kordi, and J. S. Chang, Current and electromagnetic field associated
with lightning return strokes to tall towers, IEEE Trans. Electromagn.
Compat., vol. 43, no. 3, Aug. 2001.
D. Cavka, N. Mora, and F. Rachidi, A comparison of frequencydependent soil models: Application to the analysis of grounding systems,
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 177187, Feb.
2014.
J. O. S. Paulino, C. F. Barbosa, and W. C. Boaventura, Lightning-induced
current in a cable buried in the first layer of a two-layer ground, IEEE
Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 956963, Aug. 2014.
F. Rachidi, Electromagnetic environment in the vicinity of a tall tower
struck by lightningA review, IEEE J. Trans. Power Energy, vol. 132,
no. 6, pp. 573578.
A. Mimouni, F. Rachidi, and M. Rubinestein, Electromagnetic fields of
a lightning return stroke in presence of a stratified ground, IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 413418, Apr. 2014.

PAKNAHAD et al.: EVALUATION OF LIGHTNING-INDUCED CURRENTS ON CABLES BURIED IN A LOSSY DISPERSIVE GROUND

Javad Paknahad (S14) was born in Iran, in 1989. He

received the B.S. degree from the Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnique), Tafresh
campus, Tehran, Iran, in 2011, and the M.S. degree
from Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran, in
2013, both in electrical engineering.
He is currently a Research Assistant at the Power
System Laboratory of Shahid Beheshti University.
His research interests include power system modeling and simulations, electromagnetic compatibility,
and application of electromagnetics in power system.

Keyhan Sheshyekani (M10SM13) received the

B.S. degree from Tehran University, Tehran, Iran, in
2001, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Amirkabir
University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnique),
Tehran, Iran, in 2003 and 2008, respectively, all in
electrical engineering.
He was with Ecole Polytechnique, Federale
de Lausanne, Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland, in
September 2007, as a Visiting Scientist and later as
a Research Assistant. He is currently an Assistant
Professor of electrical engineering with Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. He was an Invited Professor at the EPFL from June
to September 2014. His research interests include power system modeling and
simulation, smart grid, microgrids, and electromagnetic compatibility.

Farhad Rachidi (M93SM02F10) received the

M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1986
and 1991, respectively, both in electrical engineering.
He was with the Power Systems Laboratory, Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology until 1996. In 1997,
he joined the Lightning Research Laboratory, University of Toronto, Canada, and from April 1998
to September 1999, he was with Montena EMC,
Switzerland. He is currently a Titular Professor and
the Head of the EMC Laboratory at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland. He is the author or
coauthor of 120 scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals and more
than 250 papers presented at international conferences.
Dr. Rachidi served as the Vice-Chair of the European COST Action on
the Physics of Lightning Flash and its Effects (20052009) and the Chairman
of the 2008 European Electromagnetics International Symposium (EUROEM).
He is currently the Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, the President of the International Conference on
Lightning Protection (ICLP) and the President of the Swiss National Committee of the International Union of Radio Science (URSI). In 2005, he was the
recipient of the IEEE Technical Achievement Award and the CIGRE Technical
Committee Award. In 2006, he was awarded the Blondel Medal from the French
Association of Electrical Engineering, Electronics, Information Technology and
Communication (SEE).

1529

Mario Paolone (M07SM10) was born in Italy in

1973. He received the M.Sc. (Hons.) and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Bologna, Italy, in 1998
and 2002, respectively, both in electrical engineering.
In 2005, he was appointed as a Researcher in
Electric Power Systems at the University of Bologna
where he was with the Power Systems Laboratory until 2011. In 2010, he was with Politecnico di Milano,
Italy as an Associate Professor. He is currently an
Associate Professor at the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland, where he accepted the EOS Holding Chair
of Distributed Electrical Systems Laboratory. He is the secretary and member of
several IEEE and Cigre Working Groups. He was a Cochairperson of the Technical Committee of the ninth edition of the International Conference of Power
Systems Transients (IPST 2009). His research interests include power systems
with particular reference to real-time monitoring and operation, power system
protections, power systems dynamics, and power system transients. He is the
author or coauthor of more than 170 scientific papers published in reviewed
journals and presented at international conferences.
Dr. Paolone was the recipient of the IEEE EMC Society Technical Achievement Award in 2013.

Abdenbi Mimouni was born in Algeria, on October

16, 1970. He received the Engineers degree from the
University of Tiaret, in 1994, and the Magisters and
Ph.D. degrees from the University of Sciences and
Technology of Oran, Algeria, in 2000 and 2007, respectively, all in electrical engineering.
From 2000 to 2006, he joined the Electrical Engineering Department, University of Tiaret, Algeria,
as an Assistant, and with the LGP Laboratory, at the
same university, as a Researcher. From April 2006
to August 2007, he was with the EMC group in the
Power Systems Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne,
Switzerland as an Invited Assistant. He is currently a Lecturer and Researcher
at the Department of Electrical Engineering of the University of Tiaret. His
research interests include electromagnetic field theory, numerical techniques
applied to electromagnetic compatibility, and lightning electromagnetics. He is
the author or coauthor of more than 40 scientific papers published in reviewed
journals or presented at national and international conferences.