IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. EMC-22, NO.
3, AUGUST 1980 157
Protection of Buried Cable From Direct Lightning Strike
HSI-TIEN CHANG, MEMBER,
Abstract-This paper presents studies of protection schemes for
buried cables. A formula is introduced that gives the maximum peak
lightning current for various ground resistivities. Maximum and
minimum arcing distances beneath the surface are calculated using
the internal breakdown gradient of the soil. The susceptible region for
a buried cable is shown to be related to the maximum arcing distance,
while the number of buried shield wires required for adequate
protection is determined by the minimum arcing distance. The
effectiveness of the proposed protective schemes is demonstrated by
electrogeometrical theory. Finally, the qualifications of the new
schemes are discussed.
Key Words-Lightning, buried cable, protection.
I. INTRODUCTION
W HEN a buried cable is struck by lightning, puncture of
Tits outer jacket is almost inevitable [1], [2]. Burn-
through of the metal shield is also possible [2]-[4] if the
lightning current is of long duration. After the outer jacket
is punctured, lightning current flowing on the metal shield
could produce high voltage between the shield and the core,
causing a complete breakdown in the inner jacket [51, [6].
The first step in protecting buried cables from the effects of
lightning, therefore, is to protect them from direct strikes,
and is the subject of this paper.
Various schemes for protection have been suggested in
the past, but they have failed to give the desired level of
protection [81, [9] for reasons that are discussed later in the
report. In the last decade, few new technologies have been
introduced for the protection of buried cables [9], [10], due
in part to the fact that cost tradeoffs between protection and
penalty with the earlier technology have been reached for
communications systems. However, buried cables con-
nected to important networks, such as military installations,
weapon storage areas, or nuclear-related facilities, require a
high degree of protection from lightning.
This paper first examines the lightning-strike mechanism
beneath the surface of the earth. It then presents studies of
the protective zone under buried shield wires. Finally,
various protective schemes for buried cables are proposed
and the reasons they provide a high degree of protection to
the cables are explained.
II. ARCING DISTANCES
When lightning current J strikes the earth, the electric
field in the ground at distance r from the stroke point is
given by'
Jp
) 2xr2
er)
2,tr
Manuscript received December 3, 1979; revised March 10, 1980.
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy.
The author is with the Advanced Electrical Systems Division, Sandia
Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87185. 505-264-5317.
1 All units used in equations are in the International (SI) System of
units.
0018-9375/80/0800-0157$00.75 1980 IEEE
IEEE
where p is the soil resistivity in ohm-meters. If the breakdown
voltage gradient of the soil is eo, soil breakdown occurs until
e(r) = eo, or for a distance
ro=(2JP ) 1/2 (2)
Substantial differences have been measured between the
internal and surface breakdown gradients of the soil [ I 1]. The
radius of ionization of soil within the ground is determined by
using the internal breakdown gradient in (2). Some typical
values of internal breakdown gradient of soils ranging from 1.2
to 2.3 MV/m are given in Table I [I I].
The maximum current that may be used in (2) is limited by
the specific resistance of the upper layers of the ground in a
given location, according to Mikhailov and Sokolov [ 12].
They have established a formula for the maximum current as a
function of resistivity:
)x 103 A.
=
m 16+
~p22 (3)
This equation compares well with measurement data [12] in
the resistivity range of 150 < p < 1100 flrm. However, data
are insufficient to determine the validity of this equation for
other soil-resistivity ranges.
Table II lists resistivity values for a wide range of soil types
[13]. Values range from 100 to 1000 Ql-m for various types of
terrain. The maximum current from (3) for p = 100 Q-m is
216 000 A, an amplitude exceeded in less than one percentile
of lightning strikes. For the purpose of this study, (3) is
considered applicable to soil resistivity down to 100 f-m. The
maximum ionization radius as a function of resistivity is
obtained by substituting (3) into (2):
1031/2 26 +
(16P 2 x
106
rO
~-2ieo,J
\ (4)
Here rom is the maximum value of ro.
An upper bound for (4) is obtained when the soil breakdown
gradient is the minimum expected, or about 106 V/m according
to Table I. This upper bound (plotted in Fig. 1) shows that the
maximum radius rm of ionization inside the soil is 1.85 m.
Because of the applicable range of (3), discussions in this
~~~~~~~~~~~~(1)
report are limited to soil with resistivity between 100 and 1100
Q-m.
The radius ro is not necessarily the same as the distance
across which a lightning strike would arc to a nearby cable.
According to Sunde [8], [9], streamers will extend in various
directions beyond ro. If the electric field is assumed to have a
radial symmetry about the lightning channel, the streamer
158 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. EMC-22, NO. 3, AUGUST 1980

TABLE I has zero potential. In this case, the arcing distance to a buried
INTERNAL BREAKDOWN GRADIENT OF SOILS [ 1 1]
cable is
Gradient

Gravel, moist 1.2 - 1.9

r I -r 0 1+ eo
e
(6)
I
Gravel, dry 2.1 - 2.3
Sand, moist 1.3 - 2.3
The arcing distance calculated in this manner is the maximum;
the arcing distance calculated from (5) is the minimum.
Sand, dry 1.7 - 1.9
Measurements of the effective corona radius of a conductor
Mixture (75% clay and 25% fine in air showed that breakdown occurs at eo = 1.4 MV/m. On
sand), moist 2.1
the other hand, arcing occurs between two conductors a
considerable distance apart when the average gradient is I -

TABLE II
MV/m. Thus the ratio eoIe, is about 1.4. Based on this result,
SOIL RESISTIVITIES [131 Sunde [8], [9] suggested that an adequate value for the ratio of
eole in the soil is 2 because the ionization must be more
Resistivity complete to provide substantially better conductivity than does
Terrain p(SI-m)
the soil. The arcing distance is, therefore, greater than 2 ro but
Dry sand coastal land 500
less than 3 ro. Similar observations [14] were reported by
Marshy forested flat land 125 Hayaski using X-ray films placed underneath the ground
Rich agricultural land 100 electrode in the soil.
Pastoral land, medium hills 200 Since the maximum value of rO is 1.85 m (rm), the maximum
Rocky land, steep hills 500
arcing distance to a buried cable is 5.5 m (3 rm). Thus a cable
buried more than 5.5 m below the surface would have minimal
Mountain regions 1000
susceptibility to a direct strike. This situation may not hold if
the soil resistivity along the streamer path varies beyond the
I~
limit of 100 to 1100 fl-m considered here.
-1 ~~~~~~~~ I I

III. PROTECTIVE SCHEMES

In the last section, the maximum arcing distance was
2.0 computed as 5.5 m. A circle of 5.5-m radius from the location
of the cable may intersect the surface of the earth, as shown in
r Fig. 2. The intersected area ab is the region susceptible to
1.8
lightning for this cable. To protect the cable, shield wires must
1.7 be installed to intercept the lightning current struck inside this
E
1.6 region.
C- 1.2 Given a radius of ionization rm, minimum arcing distance is
1.4
2 rm (3.7 m) according to the discussions in the last section.
Accordingly, shield wires should be located within 3.7 m from
1.3 any points in the susceptible region to ensure interception of
1.2 lightning current. In addition, spacing between the cable and
1. 1 the shield wires must be sufficient to prevent sparkover.
1.0 These are the basic ideas for the proposed protective
0 100 200 400 600 800 1000 1100 schemes. The effectiveness of such schemes is demonstrated
P (JL-m ) by the electrogeometrical technique [ 15], [16] shown
Fig. 1. Maximum radius of ionization inside the soil. graphically in Figs. 3 and 4. Let point 1 be the location of the
protective structure and point 2 the structure to be protected.
radius is given by Arcs of circles of radius equal to the striking distance (SD)
intersect at point 3. Lightning in region A will, therefore, not
strike either structures I or 2. A stroke in region B is outside
r (eO)O (5) the striking distance of structure 2 but within the striking
distance of structure 1. For this reason, lightning will be
where el is the average voltage gradient required for arcing diverted to structure 1. Likewise, lightning in region C will be
between the outer boundary of the ionization region and an diverted to structure 2. The probable attraction of strikes is to
object located at r1. If a buried cable is present, the symmetry structure 1 in region D and 2 in region E. Lightning discharge
is disturbed. The potential of the cable at the point nearest the in region F can be attracted to either structure.
lightning strike may be less than 20 percent of the earth If lightning strikes the surface where structure I is located
potential at the same point in the absence of a cable. To (as in the example shown in Fig. 3), the discharged region on
estimate the largest arcing distance, it is assumed that the cable the right side of structure I is F, E, or C. Based on the
CHANG: BURIED CABLE AND LIGHTNING STRIKES 159
a' a
EARTH SURFACE b b'
t // / / / ,,/ / / / / 7N I I, I -7'7
/f
/

A1
5.5m
5. 5m\
I
I
CABLE I
Fig. 5. Configuration of single-shield wire.
Fig. 2. Lightning-susceptible region ab.

3
A,' I \
/, \
SURFACE 1 I ' It
,,,,11-, I , I....-- I I I I., I - I I . I I I

F> // E A

2< SD
Fig. 6. Electrogeometrical analysis for single-shield-wire configuration.
SD- STRIKING DISTANCE \
1: PROTECTING STRUCTURE So
2: STRUCTURE TO BE PROTECTED
/ /
lm//
;/ v9
> '~'I"I[
F"3.7m -2
Fig. 3. Illustration of ineffective shielding on the right side of the If 3m
protective structure. A' 3.7m
I or- 5.5m I
I I
A I
Fig. 7. Electrogeometrical analysis for dual-shield-wire configuration.

(3 rm) as the SD to the buried cable moves the intersections of

Fig. 4. Illustration of effective shielding on the right side of
protective structure.
discussions in the last paragraph, the lightning is diverted to
structure 2, rendering the shielding ineffective. On the other
hand, the shielding is effective if lightning discharges at
regions D, B, or A as demonstrated in the example shown in
Fig. 4. In this case, intersecting point 3 is below the surface,
while that in Fig. 3 is above the surface. For an effective
shielding, therefore, the intersecting point of the circles of
radius equal to the SD must be below the surface.
We now consider a practical example. A cable is buried
4.5 m below the surface with the susceptible region ab at
-6.5 m, as shown in Fig. 5. The shaded area in this figure is
the intersection of circles having radii of 3.7 m and center
points at a and b, the outermost points of the susceptible
region. A single shield wire located inside the shaded area is
sufficient to protect the cable since every point in the
susceptible region is within 3.7 m from this wire.
To demonstrate the effectiveness of such a protective
system, the shield wire is located 1 m below the surface, as
shown in Fig. 6. In this figure, points I and 2 are the
intersection of circles with SD 3.7 m, while points 3 and
4 are those with SD = 5.5 m. A conservative approach of
using 3.7 m (2 rm) as the SD to the shield wire and 5.5 m
the circles to points 5 and 6. All these points are below the
surface of the earth, and the shielding is, therefore, effective
according to the electrogeometrical theory. In most situations,
the radius of ionization ro is smaller than its maximum value
the rm. Using 2 ro as SD to the wire and 3 ro as SD to the cable,
points 7 and 8 intersect even below points 5 and 6. A
protective scheme is, therefore, effective if the intersections of
circles using 3.7 m (2 rm) as SD to wire and 5.5 m (3 rm) as SD
to cable are below the surface of the earth.
Fig. 7 shows another example of a cable buried at 3 m below
the surface. Let the distance between 0 and C be 3 ro. The
shield wires should then be located within 2 ro from point 0.
On the other hand, the shield wires should also be within 3.7 m
from the outermost points a and b of the susceptible region.
Shield wires located inside the shaded areas shown in Fig. 7
satisfy this condition. In this case, two shield wires are
required that may be located I m below the surface for the
purpose of illustration as shown in this figure. Circles using
3.7 m as SD to wires and 5.5 m as SD to cable intersect at
points I and 2, which are below the surface of the earth. Once
again shielding is effective.
The same technique can be applied to determine the number
of shield wires for other depths of cable burial.
IV. DISCUSSION
Since the purpose of shield wires is to intercept all lightning
= current, the shield wire should withstand a severe lightning
current [17], [18] by itself. For this reason, wires comparable
to AWG no. 6 [19] or larger are preferred.
160 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. EMC-22, NO. 3, AUGUST 1980
Once the shield wires are selected and their locations
determined, calculations should be made to ensure that
spacings between the cables and shield wires are wide enough
to prevent sparkover. Sufficient spacing is one factor to
consider in determining whether a single- or many-wired
configuration should be used. For example, the buried cable
can be brought closer to the surface with many shield wires.
However, the separation between cable and shield wires may
not be sufficient to prevent sparkover. Plumer [201 has studied
high-voltage sparkover versus air gap for various rise times of
lightning current. The same approach can be extended to study
the sparkover inside the soil.
Cables and shield wires are usually buried less than 2 m
from the surface in commercial communication networks.
Often this depth is within the radius of ionization, according to
Fig. 1. Shield wires thus share the lightning current rather than
intercept all of it. In addition, in many cases it can be shown
from the electrogeometrical theory that the locations of shield
wires used in a commercial network did not effectively shield
the cables.
This report proposes protective schemes for buried cables
for earth resistivity ranging from 100 to 1100 ffrm, which
covers most soil types. The reason for such a limitation is that
the measurement data available for comparison with (3) are
mainly in these resistivity ranges. More data are required to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed schemes for
extreme soil conditions.
This report considers the first step in protecting a buried
cable; namely, protection against direct strikes. A cable may
still be susceptible to damage from strikes that do not arc
directly to it. For example, the conductive current may be large
enough to cause damage if the cable is buried outside the
arcing distance without any shield wire. If shield wires do
exist, induced current to the cable may be large enough to
cause a breakdown. Fortunately, these types of problems have
become less critical because of recent improvements in the
telephone cable. For example, Crouch [7] calculated that 2.75
mi of telephone cable can withstand 50-kA peak current in the
metal shield when the insulation breakdown of the inner jacket
is 10 kV. The inductive or conductive current would seldom
reach this magnitude if the cable is arranged as described in
this report. However, one may refer to Sunde's book [91 for
computations if this subject does become a concern.
REFERENCES
[11 R. A. Perala, Further consideration on the lightning susceptibility
of SEAFARER TAR and JSS candidate antenna cables, Mission Res.
Corp., AMRC-N-54(Rev.) 1978.
[2] M. M. Newman, J. D. Robb, J. R. Stahmann, and Ta Chen,
Lightning current electromagnetic field penetration of conducting
shells, Lightning & Transients Res. Inst., L&T Report 409, 1963.
[31 R. D. Jones, Probability of lightning strikes to buried cables and
the consequent hazards to fixed-site safeguard communications,
SAND77-0864, Sandia Lab., Albuquerque, NM, July 1977.
[41 C. E. Jackson, Probabilities of lightning current reaching circuits
inside a metallic enclosure by burning through the enclosure,
SAND77-0665, Sandia Lab., Albuquerque, NM, Mar. 1978.
[5] H. M. Trueblood and E. D. Sunde, "Lightning current observations in
buried cable," Bell Syst. Tech. J., vol. 28, pp. 278-302, 1949.
161 G. T. Hawley, The simulation of lightning dischrges to buried
communication cable as an aid to cable design, Ph.D. dissertation,
Polytechnic Inst. of Brooklyn, NY, 1970.
[71 K. E. Crouch and B. I. Wolff, "A study of lightning transients in
telephone cables," Workshop on Grounding and Lighting Pro-
tection, Atlanta, GA, 1978.
[8] E. D. Sunde, "Lightning protection of buried toll cable," Bell
Syst. Tech. J., vol. 24, pp. 253-300, 1945.
[91 E. D. Sunde, Earth Conduction Effects in Transmission Sys-
tems. New York: Dover, 1968.
[101 R. H. Golde, (Editor), Lightning, Volume 2: Lightning Protection,
San Francisco, CA: Acadamic, 1977.
[11 ] J. B. Hays and D. W. Bodle, Electrical protection of tactical
communication systems, Bell Telephone Lab., New York. 1958.
[121 M. I. Mikhailov and S. A. Sokolov, "Reducing the cost of
protecting cable mains from direct lightning action," Telecommun.,
USSR, no. 6, pp. 50-53, 1965.
[131 J. L. Marshall, Lightning Protection. New York: Wiley, 1973.
[14] M. Hayaski, "Observation of streamer caused by surge current in
the soil," Electrical Engineering in Japan, vol. 87, no. 1, pp.
27-36, 1967.
[151 E. R. Whitehead, Mechanism of lightning flashover, EEI Project
RP 50, Pub. No. 72-900, IIT Res. Inst., Chicago, IL, 1971.
[16] R. H. Lee, "Protection zone for buildings against lightning strokes
using transmission line protection practice," IEEE, Trans. Ind.
Appl., vol. IA-14, pp. 465-470, Nov.-Dec. 1978.
[17] M. A. Uman, Lightning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.
[18] N. Cianos and E. T. Pierce, A ground lightning environmentfor
engineering usage, Tech. Rep. 1, Contract L. S. 28 1TA3, SRI
Project 1834 for McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Corp., Stanford
Res. Inst., 1972.
[19] C. A. Harper, (Editor), Handbook of Wiring, Cabling, and In-
terconnecting for Electronics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.
[20] J. A. Plumer, "The role of inductance in lightning protection,"
workshop on Grounding and Lightning Protection, Atlanta. GA,
1978.