This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.
Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
Identifying Lightning Channel-Base Current
Function Parameters by Powell Particle Swarm
Optimization Method
Gun Yang, Fangrong Zhou, Yi Ma, Zhanqing Yu, Yijun Zhang, and Jinliang He, Fellow, IEEE
AbstractThis paper proposes the Powell (PPSO) method. The
particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm is combined with the
Powell algorithm to identify the parameters of lightning channel-
base current function. The method can overcome the problem of
premature convergence for PSO algorithm, and improve the anal-
ysis accuracy. The Heidler function is used to represent the light-
ning channel-base current. We have compared the PPSO method
and genetic algorithm (GA) on reaching the desired peak value of
the current Im and the maximum time rate of change of current
(di/dt)m a x . The results show that the parameters of Heidler func-
tion evaluated by the PPSO method can achieve more accurate
values of Im and (di/dt)m a x than those evaluated by GA. Also,
we have compared the PPSO method, the NelderMead particle
swarm optimization (NMPSO) method, and PSO method using the
measured channel-base current. The results show that the PPSO
method is better than the NMPSO and PSO method to determine
the channel-base current function parameters. The PPSO method
is an efficient method to identify the channel-base function param-
eters, which can improve the digitalization of lightning monitoring
equipment. This approach is also useful in research related to light-
ning characteristics and lightning protection.
Index TermsChannel-base current, genetic algorithm (GA),
heidler function, nelderMead particle swarm optimization
(NMPSO) method, powell particle swarm optimization (PPSO)
method.
I. INTRODUCTION
IGHTNING current and the lightning electromagnetic
L fields (LEMF) are one of the most serious threats to human
life and technical equipment. It is well known that the lightning
current plays an important role in calculating the LEMF and we
need to choose a suitable channel-base current function toward
the LEMF calculation for the engineering model [1].
Manuscript received March 19, 2017; revised April 18, 2017; accepted May
9, 2017. Date of publication; date of current version. (Corresponding author:
Gun Yang.)
G. Yang, Z. Yu, and J. He are with the State Key Lab of Power Systems,
Department of Electrical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084,
China (e-mail: yangg15@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn; yzq@tsinghua.edu.cn; hejl@
tsinghua.edu.cn).
F. Zhou and Y. Ma are with the Yunnan Power Grid, Kunming 650200,
China (e-mail: 1615963884@qq.com).
Y. Zhang is with the Laboratory of Lightning Physics and Protection Engi-
neering, Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
(e-mail: zhangyj@cams.cma.gov.cn).
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.2017.2705485
0018-9375 2017 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.
1
There are several kinds of functions, proposed by researchers,
to represent the channel-base current. Bruce and Golde pre-
sented the double exponential functions to represent the channel-
base current in 1941 [2], but the first derivative of the current
functions at the time of onset t = 0 is discontinuous, which is not
suitable to calculate the LEMF. Then, Heidler presented a func-
tion in 1985 [3], which has no problem with the discontinuities
at any point. Feizhou and Shanghe proposed the pulse function
to represent the channel-base current in 2002 [4]. Javor and Ran-
cic proposed the new channel-base current (NCBC) functions
in 2011 [5]. Also, Andreotti and Verolino presented an NCBC
function to represent the channel-base current in 2015 [6]. The
most widely used among them is Heilder function, which has
been also used in the IEC 62305-1 [7].
The natural lightning current is not easy to be obtained due
to its random striking point. Therefore, the lightning current
measurement sensors are usually installed at high towers that
are easily hit by lightning. Berger acquired 135 current wave-
shapes of subsequent return strokes from 1943 to 1972 with the
current measurement sensors installed at Mount San Salvatore
towers [8]. Janischewskyj et al. also acquired the lightning cur-
rent waveshapes at the 553-m-high Toronto Canadian National
Tower [9]. On the other hand, we can obtain the lightning current
through triggered lightning [10], and furthermore, the triggered
lightning current may be measured, but for natural lightning
currents the results are obtained just from measurements to tall
structures, not to flat terrain.
In order to improve the digitalization of lightning current
monitoring equipment and make it convenient to calculate the
LEMF, researchers are demanded to identify the parameters of
measured lightning channel-base current rapidly. So, Vujevic
et al. proposed the least squares method to estimate the Hei-
dler function parameters [11]. Lundengard et al. proposed the
Marquardt least-squares method to estimate the measured light-
ning current parameters [12], [13]. Chandrasekaran and Punekar
presented the genetic algorithm (GA) to determine lightning
channel-base current function parameters [14] and Liu et al. pre-
sented the NelderMead particle swarm optimization (NMPSO)
method to identify the lightning channel-base current function
parameters [15].
In this paper, we proposed the Powell particle swarm op-
timization (PPSO) method. The particle swarm optimization
(PSO) algorithm is combined with the Powell algorithm to
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
Fig. 1. Triggering lightning system.
Fig. 2. Diagrammatic sketch of triggered-lightning.
identify the lightning channel-base current function parameters.
We have also compared the PPSO method with GA, NMPSO,
and PSO method in this paper.
II. LIGHTNING CHANNEL-BASE CURRENT DATA ACQUISITION
The measured lightning channel-base current data analyzed in
this paper were collected in a triggered-lightning experiment site
located in Conghua, a district in the northeast of Guangzhou,
China [16]. Fig. 1 shows the triggered lightning system. Six
launchers are established for launching triggered-lightning rock-
ets. Fig. 2 is the diagrammatic sketch of triggered-lightning. The
fine steel wire is carried by the rocket. The launch controller
of the rocket and lightning channel-base current data acquisi-
tion system are operated in the control room that is covered
with iron sheet, located about 90 m northwest to the launching
site and connected to a grounding system with a resistance of
7 . The triggered-lightning channel-base current is measured
by Rogowski coil, which is installed at the bottom of the trig-
gered lightning channel. Then, the current signal is transmitted
to an oscilloscope in the control room through a point-to-point
optical fiber transmission system. The current signal, a volt-
age value that is linearly proportional to the triggered-lightning
channel-base current value, is recorded with the oscilloscope.
The oscilloscope with a current range of 50 kA works at
a sampling rate of 10 MHz; the sampling time interval of
measured channel-base current is therefore 0.1 s. The record-
ing length of the oscilloscope is 1 or 2 s per event.
III. LIGHTNING CHANNEL-BASE CURRENT FUNCTION
Lightning channel-base current can be expressed by current
functions. In this paper, we adopt the sum of two Heilder func-
tions to express the channel-base current.
The triggered-lightning can be regarded as the subsequent
return stroke of the natural lightning. Besides, the sum of two
Heilder functions has been used to represent the channel-base
current wave shape of the subsequent return stroke [17]. There-
fore, we adopt the sum of two Heilder functions in this paper.
The functions are given by the following equation [14]:
Im 1 (t/11 )n 1
i(0, t) = et/ 1 2
1 (t/11 )n 1 + 1
Im 2 (t/21 )n 2
+ et/ 2 2 (1)
2 (t/21 )n 2 + 1
where Im 1 , Im 2 are the amplitudes of the channel-base current,
11 , 21 are the front time constants, 12 , 22 are the decay-time
constants, n1 , n2 are the exponents (210), and 1 , 2 are the
amplitude correction factors:
11 12 1
1 = e 1 2 (n 1 1 1 )
n1
21 22 1
2 = e 2 2 (n 2 2 1 )
n2
. (2)
IV. PPSO METHOD
A. PSO Algorithm
The PSO algorithm was proposed by Eberhart and Kennedy
in 1995 [18], which has been widely used since its origin [19].
The PSO algorithm is a kind of optimization algorithm, where
each particle can be described with a set of position array and a
set of velocity array. The position array represents the feasible
solution of the problem and the velocity array represents the
direction of particle movement. The particle can achieve the
global optimal solution via studying the best global solution and
the best neighborhood solution among the swarm. The details of
the PSO algorithm have been introduced in [18] and [19]. The
key content of the algorithm is the update equations for particle
positions and velocities, which are defined as follows [19]:
vij (k + 1) = w(k)vij (k) + c1 r1 (pbestij (k) xij (k))
+ c2 r2 (gbestj (k) xij (k)) (3)
xij (k + 1) = xij (k) + vij (k + 1) (4)
where k is the number of iterations, w(k) is the adjustable evo-
lutionary coefficient for particle velocity when the number of
iterations is k, c1 and c2 are the learning coefficients, r1 and r2
are the random numbers whose value range is [0, 1], vij (k) is
the jth dimension velocity component of the ith particle when
the number of iterations is k, xij (k) is the jth dimension position
component of the ith particle when the number of iterations is
k, pbestij (k) is the jth dimension individual optimal position
component of the ith particle when the number of iterations is
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
YANG et al.: IDENTIFYING LIGHTNING CHANNEL-BASE CURRENT FUNCTION PARAMETERS
k, and gbestj (k) is the jth dimension component of the optimal
position of the whole particle swarm, gbest, when the number
of iterations is k.
The fitness function, or the error function, is also important
for the PSO algorithm, because it can select the global opti-
mal solution by comparing the fitness value of each particle.
The expression of the fitness function is not unique to different
problems. The specific expression of the fitness function will be
introduced in this paper.
B. Powell Algorithm
The Powell algorithm is an efficient method for finding the
minimum of a function of several variables without calculating
derivatives [20], [21], which can find the values of n parameters
x1 , x2 , . . . , xn to make the value of the function, or fitness
function, f (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) is a minimum. The iteration of the
procedure is as follows [21].
1) Initialize the iteration parameters, let the number of it-
erations be np owell = 1 and select the starting point p0 ,
p0 = [x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ], and linearly independent direc-
tions, d1 , d2 , . . . , dn .
2) For r = 1, 2, . . . , n, calculate r so that f (pr 1 + r dr )
is a minimum and define pr = pr 1 + r dr .
3) Find the integer m, 1 m n, so that f (pm 1 ) f (pm )
is a maximum, and define  = f (pm 1 ) f (pm ).
4) Calculate f3 = f (2pn p0 ), f2 = f (pn ), and f1 =
f (p0 ).
5) If the following equations are both true:
f3 < f1
(f1 2f2 + f3 )(f1 f2 )2 < 0.5(f1 f3 )2
(6)
then, define = (pn p0 ), calculate so that f (pn + ) is
a minimum, let dm = and use d1 , d2 , . . . , dn as the new di-
rections and pn + as the starting point for the next iteration,
namely, p0 = pn + .
Otherwise
6) Using the old directions d1 , d2 , . . . , dn for the next itera-
tion and use pn for the next p0 , namely, p0 = pn .
7) If the number of iterations or the minimum error meets
the convergence condition, then stop iteration and output
p0 . Otherwise, go to the next iteration and the number of
iterations npow ell = npow ell + 1.
C. PPSO Method
The PPSO method, applied in this paper, is actually the PSO
algorithm combined with the Powell algorithm. The PPSO
method can effectively overcome the problem of premature
convergence for PSO algorithm and improve calculation accu-
racy. Thus, we adopt the PPSO method to determine lightning
channel-base current function parameters.
In this paper, the main steps for the PPSO method are as
follows:
1) Initialize the parameters of the PPSO method, let the num-
ber of iterations nppso = 1.
3
2) Update the particle positions and velocities using PSO
algorithm in the current iteration and obtain the optimal
position of the whole particle swarm, gbest, in the current
iteration according to their fitness values.
3) Adopt the Powell algorithm: Let p0 = gbest as the start-
ing point and search the better point with the linearly in-
dependent directions, where the iteration of the procedure
has been introduced in Section IV-B.
4) Compare the value of f (p0 ) and f(gbest) when the Powell
algorithm has stopped. If f(p0 ) < f(gbest), then update the
optimal position of the whole particle swarm, gbest =
p0 , and its corresponding fitness value f(gbest). Otherwise,
use the old optimal position, gbest, and its corresponding
fitness value f(gbest) for the next PPSO method iteration.
5) If the number of iterations or the minimum fitness value
meets the convergence condition, then stop iteration and
output gbest. Otherwise, go to 2) and the number of iter-
ations nppso = nppso + 1.
V. RESULTS
A. Comparisons to the GA
The literature [14] has introduced the GA to determine Hei-
dler function parameters according to the peak value of the
current Im and the maximum time rate of change of currents
(di/dt)m ax .
In order to compare the PPSO method and GA, we adopt
the same initial parameters as in [14]: The population is set to
be 30, the generations are chosen to be 100 and the stopping
(5) criteria with a deviation of 106 or less. The fitness function of
the PPSO method is the same as in [14]:
   
 Im d Im c   (di/dt)m ax d (di/dt)m ax c 
f =    
+
(7)
Im d (di/dt)m ax d 
where Im d is the peak value of desired channel-base cur-
rent, Im c is the peak value of computed channel-base current,
(di/dt)m axd is the desired maximum time rate of change of cur-
rent, (di/dt)m axc is the computed maximum time rate of change
of current.
In (1), n1 and n2 are set to be a constant value (= 2) as in
[14]. The function parameters include six constants Im 1 , Im 2 ,
11 , 12 , 21 , and 22 that are to be evaluated by the PPSO
method. The PPSO method search is started with 30 randomly
generated population values.
Fig. 3 shows the flowchart of the PPSO method to find the
Heidler function parameters to attain the desired peak current
and (di/dt)m ax . So, the maximum iterations Nppso = 100 and
stopping criteria erppso = 106 . The simulation time interval
used for this example is 0.001 s. We do not list the detail steps
for the Powell algorithm in Fig. 3, because the detail steps have
been introduced in Section IV-B and C. The stopping criteria
for the Powell algorithm in this paper are np owell > 5 or f (p0 ) <
f (gbest).
The results have been shown in Tables I and II. Note that,
in order to calculate accurately, we retain eight decimal places
in calculation. While we only list the results that retain two
decimal places in Table I, such as 10.38 in Table I is actually
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY

TABLE II
COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE PPSO METHOD AND THE GA WITH THE
EVALUATED PARAMETERS SHOWN IN TABLE I

Adopted Desired Desired PPSO PPSO GA GA

sequence value of value method method computed computed
number (di/dt) m a x of I m computed computed value of value of
(kA/s) (kA) value of value of (di/dt) m a x I m (kA)
(di/dt) m a x I m (kA) (kA/s)
(kA/s)

No. 1 12 12 12 12 11.98 11.99

No. 2 20 12 20 12 19.90 12.01
No. 3 40 12 40 12 40.36 12.07
No. 4 60 12 60 12 61.17 12.00
No. 5 120 12 120 12 119.8 11.97

Note that, we can also evaluate the Heidler function param-

eters using the PPSO method for different values of Im with a
constant value (di/dt)m ax .

B. Comparisons to PSO and NMPSO Method

The literature [15] has introduced the NMPSO method, PSO
algorithm combined with NelderMead method [22], to iden-
tify the channel-base function parameters. Also, the NMPSO
method can overcome the problem of premature convergence
for the PSO algorithm, and improve calculation accuracy. There-
fore, we have compared the PPSO method, the NMPSO method,
and the PSO method using the measured channel-base current.
The populations of the three methods are all set to be 100 and
the generations are chosen to be 100. The fitness function of the
three methods is the same

N 2
k =1 (Im easure Icalculate )
f= (8)
N |Im easure |m ax
where Icalculate is the calculated channel-base current, Im easure
is the measured channel-base current, |Im easure |m ax is the max-
imum absolute value of array Im easure , N is the length of array
Fig. 3. Flowchart of the PPSO method to find the Heidler function parameters
to attain the desired peak current and (di/dt)m a x .
Im easure , N = 300 for this example.
The NMPSO method divided the populations into five groups,
TABLE I where each group has 20 particles. The NelderMead method is
EVALUATED PARAMETERS USING THE PPSO METHOD FOR DIFFERENT VALUES also used for each iteration of the NMPSO method.
OF (di/dt) m a x WITH Im OF 12 KA
The function parameters in (1) include eight constants Im 1 ,
Im 2 , 11 , 12 , 21 , 22 , n1 , and n2 , which are evaluated by the
Sequence number Im 1 1 1 1 2 Im 2 2 1 2 2 three methods. The initial population values, which are gener-
(kA) (s) (s) (kA) (s) (s)
ated randomly, are the same for three methods.
No. 1 10.38 0.95 3.84 7.58 4.30 127.08 The measured lightning channel-base current data analyzed
No. 2 11.81 0.63 2.46 4.67 4.64 133.49 in this paper were collected in a triggered-lightning experiment
No. 3 11.20 0.26 2.33 7.59 3.67 272.49
No. 4 11.25 0.16 3.00 2.59 6.60 214.56
site located in Conghua, China.
No. 5 11.26 0.07 4.06 11.99 8.07 132.91 Fig. 4 shows the flowchart of the PPSO method to find the
Heidler function parameters using the measured channel-base
current. So, the maximum iterations Nppso = 100 and the simu-
lation time interval used for this example is 0.1 s. The stopping
10.38224123 in calculation, 132.91 is actually 132.91011076 criterion for the Powell algorithm remains the same.
in calculation, and so on. The results in Table II show that the The results have been shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 5(a) shows the
Heidler function parameters evaluated by the PPSO method can comparisons between the PPSO method, the NMPSO method
achieve more accurate values of Im and (di/dt)m ax than the and, the PSO method to evaluate the parameters of mea-
parameters evaluated by GA. sured channel-base current. From Fig. 5(a), we can get some
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
YANG et al.: IDENTIFYING LIGHTNING CHANNEL-BASE CURRENT FUNCTION PARAMETERS
Fig. 4. Flowchart of the PPSO method to find the Heidler function parameters
using the measured channel-base current.
conclusions that the PPSO method can effectively overcome
the problem of premature convergence for the PSO method,
and improve the calculation accuracy, namely, attain smaller fit-
ness value among the whole iteration procedure. The NMPSO
method can reach the same minimal fitness value as the PPSO
method among the whole iteration procedure. From the number
of iteration shown in Fig. 5(a), the PPSO method is faster than
the NMPSO method to achieve the minimal fitness value among
the whole iteration procedure. The time that the PPSO method
costs to reach the minimum fitness value of 4.8 104 is
5.47 s, whereas the NMPSO method is 6.12 s.
Fig. 5(b) shows the calculated channel-base current using
evaluated Heidler function parameters, which is obtained by
the PPSO method. The evaluated Heidler function parameters
are Im 1 = 15.1150 kA, Im 2 = 9.6910 kA, 11 = 0.1403 s,
12 = 7.6340 s, 21 = 100 s, 22 = 12.0520 s, n1 = 2,
and n2 = 2. The calculated values of peak correction factors
are 1 = 0.8255 and 2 = 0.0170 using (2). The calculated
error using (8) is 4.56 104 . From the calculated error and
the comparisons shown in Fig. 5(b), we can conclude that the
5
Fig. 5. Calculated results: (a) comparisons between the PPSO method, the
NMPSO method, and the PSO method to evaluate the parameters of measured
channel-base currents and (b) comparisons between calculated channel-base
current using the PPSO method and measured channel-base current.
PPSO method is an efficient method to identify the channel-base
function parameters.
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper proposed the PPSO method, the PSO algorithm
combined with the Powell algorithm, to identify the lightning
channel-base current function parameters. The Heidler function
is used to represent the lightning channel-base current.
We have compared the PPSO method and GA on reaching
the desired peak value of the current Im and the maximum time
rate of change of currents (di/dt)m ax . The results show that the
parameters of Heidler function evaluated by the PPSO method
can achieve more accurate values of Im and (di/dt)m ax than
the parameters evaluated by GA.
Also, we have compared the PPSO method, the NMPSO
method, and the PSO method using the measured channel-base
current. The results show that the PPSO method is better than
the methods of NMPSO and PSO to determine the channel-base
current function parameters.
Note that the PPSO method can use the sum of more than
two Heidler functions when evaluating the channel-base cur-
rent parameters.
The PPSO method is an efficient method to identify the
channel-base function parameters, which can improve the digi-
talization of lightning monitoring equipment. This approach is
also useful in research related to lightning characteristics and
lightning protection.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY

REFERENCES
[1] V. A. Rakov and M. A. Uman, Review and evaluation of lightning return
stroke models including some aspects of their application, IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 403426, Nov. 1998.
[2] C. E. R. Bruce and R. H. Golde, The lightning discharge, J. Inst. Elect.
Eng., vol. 88, pp. 242245, 1941.
[3] F. Heidler, Traveling current source model for LEMP calculation, in
Proc. 6th Int. Zurich Symp. Electromagn. Compat., 1985, pp. 157162.
[4] F. Z. Zhang and S. H. Liu, A new function to represent the light-
ning return-stroke currents, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 44,
no. 4, pp. 595597, Nov. 2002.
[5] V. Javor and P. D. Rancic, A channel-base current function for light-
ning return-stroke modeling, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 53,
no. 1, pp. 245249, Feb. 2011.
[6] A. Andreotti and L. Verolino, A new channel-base current function for
lightning studies, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 57, no. 6,
pp. 15391546, Dec. 2015.
[7] Protection Against LightningPart I: General Principles, IEC Standard
IEC 62305-1, 2006.
[8] K. Berger, Novel observations on lightning discharges: Results of re-
search on Mount San Salvatore, J. Franklin Inst., vol. 283, pp. 478525,
1967.
[9] W. Janischewskyj, A. M. Hussein, V. Shostak, I. Rusan, J. X. Li, and
J. S. Chang, Statistics of lightning strikes to the toronto canadian na-
tional tower (19781995), IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 12, no. 3,
pp. 12101221, Jul. 1997.
[10] X. Liu et al., Experiment of artificially triggering lightning in China, J.
Geophys. Res., vol. 991, pp. 1072710732, 1994.
[11] S. Vujevic, D. Lovric, and I. Juric-Grgic, Least squares estimation
of Heidler function parameters, Eur. Trans. Elect. Power, vol. 21,
pp. 329344, 2011.
[12] K. Lundengard, M. Rancic, V. Javor, and S. Silvestrov,Estimation of pulse
function parameters for approximating measured lightning currents using
the Marquardt least-squares method, in Proc. Int. Symp. Electromagn.
Compat., 2014, pp. 571576.
[13] K. Lundengard, M. Rancic, V. Javor, and S. Silvestrov, Application of
the multi-peaked analytically extended function to representation of some
measured lightning currents, Serbian J. Electr. Eng., vol. 13, no. 2, 2016
[14] K. Chandrasekaran, and G. S. Punekar, Use of genetic algorithm to de-
termine lightning channel-base current-function parameters, IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 235238, Feb. 2014.
[15] P. Liu et al., Simulation research on the lightning current waveform
parameter estimation, in Proc. Chin. Soc. Electr. Eng., vol. 29, 2009,
pp. 115121.
[16] Y. J. Zhang et al., Experiments of artificially triggered lightning and
its application in Conghua, Guangdong, China, Atmos. Res., vol. 135,
pp. 330343, 2014.
[17] C. A. Nucci, F. Rachidi, M. Ianoz, and C. Mazzetti, Lightning-induced
voltages on overhead lines, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 35,
no. 1, pp. 7586, Feb. 1993.
[18] R. Eberhart and J. Kennedy, A new optimizer using particle swarm
theory, in Proc. Int. Symp. MICRO Mach. Human Sci., 1995, pp. 3943.
[19] R. Eberhart and Y. Shi, Particle swarm optimization: developments, ap-
plications and resources, in Proc. 2001 Congr. Evol. Comput., vol. 1,
2001, pp. 8186.
[20] M. J. D. Powell, A method for minimizing a sum of squares of non-
linear functions without calculating derivatives, Comput. J., vol. 7,
pp. 303307, 1965.
[21] M. J. D. Powell, An efficient method for finding the minimum of a
function of several variables without calculating derivatives, Comput. J.,
vol. 7, pp. 155162, 1963.
[22] J. A. Nelder and R. Mead, A simplex method for function minimization,
Comput. J., vol. 7, pp. 308313, 1965.
Gun Yang was born in Yiyang, China in 1993. He is currently working toward
the M.Sc. degree in lightning protection and electromagnetic field computa-
tion in the Department of Electrical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing,
China.
His research interests include lightning protection and electromagnetic field
computation.
Fangrong Zhou was born in Guizhou province, China in March 1982. He
received the Masters degree in electrical engineering from the State Key Lab-
oratory of Power Transmission Equipment and Security and New Technology,
Chongqing University, in 2009.
He is currently a Senior Engineer in Yunnan power grid, Kunming, China.
His research interests include fault diagnosis of high-voltage equipment and
overvoltage protection of power grid.
Yi Ma was born in Yunnan, China in December 1969. He received the Under-
graduate degree in electrical engineering from Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai, China, in 1993.
He is currently a Senior Engineer and the Director of High-Voltage Insti-
tute, Yunnan power grid, Kunming, China. His research interests include fault
diagnosis of high-voltage equipment and overvoltage protection of power grid.
Zhanqing Yu was born in Zhuozi County, China in 1981. He received the B.Sc.
and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from Tsinghua University, Beijing,
China, in 2003 and 2008, respectively.
In 2008, he was a Postdoctoral Researcher in the Department of Electrical
Engineering, Tsinghua University, where he has been an Associate Professor
since 2012. His research interests include electro- magnetic compatibility and
overvoltage analysis of HVdc and HVac systems
Yijun Zhang received the B.Sc. degree in physics from Hebei Normal Univer-
sity, Hebei, China, in 1986, and the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in atmospheric
physics from Cold and Arid Regions Environment and Engineering Research
Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China, in 1989 and 1998,
respectively.
He is currently a Professor in the Chinese Academy of Meteorological
Science, Beijing, China. His research interests include atmospheric electricity,
lightning physics, and thunderstorm electricity.
Jinliang He (M02SM02F08) was born in Changsha, China, in 1966. He
received the B.Sc. degree from Wuhan University of Hydraulic and Electri-
cal Engineering, Wuhan, China, the M.Sc. degree from Chongqing University,
Chongqing, China, and the Ph.D. degree from Tsinghua University, Beijing,
China, in 1988, 1991, and 1994, respectively, all in electrical engineering.
In 1994, he was a Lecturer and an Associate Professor in 1996, in the De-
partment of Electrical Engineering, Tsinghua University. From April 1997 to
April 1998, he was a Visiting Scientist in Korea Electrotechnology Research
Institute, Changwon, South Korea, involved in research on metal oxide varistors
and high-voltage polymeric metal oxide surge arresters. From January 2014
to January 2015, he was a Visiting Professor in the Department of Electrical
Engineering, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA. In 2001, he was pro-
moted to Professor in Tsinghua University. He is currently the Chair of High
Voltage Research Institute, Tsinghua University. He is the author of six books
and 400 technical papers. His research interests include overvoltages and elec-
tromagnetic compatibility in power systems and electronic systems, lightning
protection, grounding technology, power apparatus, and dielectric material.