722
2, APRIL 2005
An Engineering Model for Transient Analysis
of Grounding System Under Lightning Strikes:
Nonuniform Transmission-Line Approach
Yaqing Liu, Nelson Theethayi, and Rajeev Thottappillil, Member, IEEE
AbstractA nonuniform transmission line approach is adopted
in this paper for modeling the transient behavior of different types
of grounding systems under lightning strikes in time domain by
solving Telegraphers equations based on finite-difference time-do-
main (FDTD) technique. Electromagnetic couplings between dif-
ferent parts of the grounding wires are included using effective
per-unit length parameters ( , , and ), which are space and time
dependent. The present model can predict both the effective length
and the transient voltage of grounding electrodes accurately, while,
an uniform transmission line approach with electrode length de-
pendent per-unit length parameters [19][22] fails to predict the
same. Unlike the circuit theory approach [1][4], the present model
is capable of predicting accurately the surge propagation delay in
the large grounding system. The simulation results for buried hor-
izontal wires and grounding grids based on the present model are
in good agreement with that of the circuit and electromagnetic field
approaches [3], [9]. From an engineering point of view, the model
presented in this paper is sufficiently accurate, time efficient, and
easy to apply.
Index TermsGrounding, lightning, transient analysis, trans-
mission line and finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) methods.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE grounding system, containing a network of vertical
and horizontal conductors, is an important part of any
distributed electrical system such as electrified railway systems,
communication towers, power systems, and large buildings.
Often it is required to estimate the influence of the grounding
system on the spread of surge voltages and currents within
the electrical system during lightning strikes. For this pur-
pose, many researchers have developed different models for
analyzing the transient behavior of grounding systems under
lighting strikes. Those models can be classified as circuit
approach [1][4], electromagnetic field approach [5][13], and
transmission-line approach [14][22].
Since the electromagnetic field approach solves full
Maxwells equations in frequency domain, it has minimum
assumptions, but this model is too complex to be implemented.
Further when the grounding structure is large, the computation
time is very large. Circuit approach could be in time domain and
includes all the mutual coupling between the grounding wires,
Manuscript received October 28, 2003; revised April 14, 2004. This work was
supported by Bombardier Transportation (Signal), Sweden. Paper no. TPWRD-
00542-2003.
The authors are with the Division for Electricity and Lightning Research,
ngstrmlaboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala 751 21, Sweden (e-mail:
Yaqing.liu@hvi.uu.se; Rajeev.Thottappillil@hvi.uu.se).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2004.843437
0885-8977/$20.00 2005 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO.
but it cannot predict the surge propagation delay. Transmission
line approach can be either in time domain or in frequency
domain, it could include all the mutual coupling between the
different parts of the grounding wires, and at the same time could
predict surge propagation delay. For the transmission-line ap-
proach, the authors in [14] and [15] applied the transmission-line
concept only to each of the small segments of the grounding
conductors in order to derive the equivalent resistive matrix for
solving the circuit equations. In [16][22], uniform transmis-
sion-line concept was used, which means that the per-unit length
parameters of the grounding conductors are constant along the
conductor. In [16], Sundes equations of frequency-dependent
per-unit length longitudinal impedance and transversal admit-
tance for a single grounding conductor with infinite length on the
surface of the soil were used for the buried grounding conductor
by changing the radius of the conductor, , to ( is the
buried depth of the conductor). It is not certain that such an
extension is valid. Further, for the maximum transient voltage,
there was about a 13%40% difference between the simulations
and experiments. In [17], the per-unit length parameters were
calculated using Sundes equation for a one-meter length wire.
Using those parameters, the transient analysis of grounding
wires with different length was carried out in time domain.
This means it is assumed that the per-unit length parameters are
independent of the length. This method can predict the effective
length of the grounding electrodes, but it has been found from
our investigations that this method gives incorrect transient
voltages at injection point of the wires. On the other hand, it
has been realized that the grounding conductors of finite length
subjected to lightning impulses do not have a field structure that
is really transverse electric and magnetic (TEM) or quasi-TEM,
consequently, the per-unit length parameters ( , and ) should
include the influence of the conductor length. Based on the above
fact, some authors [19][22] computed the total conductance, in-
ductance and capacitance of the finite length wire using Sundes
integral equations and distributed the parameters equally on a per
unit length basis. Using the distributed parameters, the transient
analysis was carried out by solving Telegraphers equations.
However, this method fails to predict the effective length of the
grounding conductors. Here, the effective length is defined as the
length of the grounding conductor, beyond which the transient
voltage at injection point is length independent, for a given
lightning impulse and soil properties. This definition is similar
to the definition of the effective area of grounding grid in [9].
This paper is aimed overcoming some of the above said draw-
backs and differences in the existing transmission line models
LIU et al.: AN ENGINEERING MODEL FOR TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF GROUNDING SYSTEM 723

nique [24]. The most important step for solving Telegraphers

equations during the transient period is to estimate the effective
per-unit length parameters ( , and ) of the conductor for each
segment at each time step. The details of this transient analysis
will be described after presenting the calculation of the elec-
trical parameters. While solving Telegraphers equations using
FDTD method, is equal to , the length of each segment.
Once the segment length is fixed, the time step, , for the sim-
Fig. 1. Illustration of a single conductor, the discritization, and the coupling. ulation should be chosen so that the should be greater
than the maximum velocity of the wave propagation in the soil,
, which ensures the stable and consistent results. Here
for grounding systems. For the first time, a nonuniform trans-
is the speed of light in air.
mission line approach is used for analyzing the transient be-
havior of grounding wires under lightning strikes by solving A. Calculation of the Electrical Parameters
Telegraphers equations. All the mutual coupling between dif-
ferent parts of the grounding wires is included using effective The per-unit length series resistance of each segment can be
per-unit length parameters ( , and ), which are space and time calculated using
dependent. By means of finite-difference time-domain (FDTD)
(1)
technique [24], Telegraphers equations are solved numerically
in time domain, which makes this model time efficient, and easy
Here, is the radius of the conductor, is the resistivity of the
to apply. Moreover, the model can be easily extended to com-
conductor. Other per-unit length parameters, such as self and
plex grounding structures, such as a buried grid with large size.
mutual inductance, earth resistance and susceptance, can be de-
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II, the model
rived based on electromagnetic field theory [23]. Those elec-
is derived starting from basic electromagnetic principles. Sec-
trical parameters are the function of the soil properties and the
tion III presents the calculations for the effective length of a
geometry of the system. The image principle should be used for
horizontal grounding conductor using the present model and it
the calculation of the earth resistance and susceptance param-
is compared with the uniform transmission line approach that
eters, because the soil is assumed to be semi-infinite medium
uses electrode length dependent per-unit length parameters. In
and it has different conductivity and permittivity compared to
Section IV, the simulation results for different type of grounding
the air. For the inductance, the image does not exist, because we
structures are analyzed using the proposed model and compared
assumed that air and soil are nonmagnetic materials and they
with circuit theory approach and electromagnetic field approach
have the same permeability .
[3], [9]. Finally, discussions and conclusions are presented.
The elements of earth resistance matrix can be calculated by
(2)
II. METHODOLOGY OF THE MODEL
A single horizontal electrode buried in a half space homo-
geneous soil is used here for demonstrating the nonuniform
transmission line approach of the transient analysis of grounding (2)
structures. Such a horizontal grounding conductor is illustrated
in Fig. 1. The conductor is assumed as a thin wire and divided into when , it is self earth resistance of segment, , when ,
small segments in order to calculate the electrical parameters it is the mutual earth resistance between two segments and
(inductance, earth resistance and susceptance matrixes . Here, is the uniform dissipation current density flowing
of the conductor). The segment length should be chosen in such a from the axis of segment, , to the soil.
way that the mutual coupling between the segments is effectively is the reflection coefficient due to the dif-
taken into account. This means one can not choose large segment ferent conductivities of the air and the soil. is the average
lengths for the simulations as this situation will correspond to induced voltage per meter on the surface of the segment, , due
the uniform transmission line approach with electrode length to the dissipation current from segment , and is the resis-
dependent per-unit length parameters (See Section II-B). In tivity of the soil. , , and are the length of the segments, ,
order to over come this, in the present model, the segment length and image, . and are the distances between the source
should be small enough so that each segment during the wave point and the field point.
propagation contributes to the coupling phenomena (explained The elements of the susceptance matrix are given by (3)
in Section II-B). Consequently, the number of segments, ,
should be large, but at the same time, the length of each segment,
, should satisfy the thin wire assumption, that is,
( is the radius of grounding conductor). In the present work, a
segment length of 0.5 m to 2 m was found to be satisfactory.
After having known the electrical parameters, one could use
Telegraphers equations to simulate the transient behavior of (3)
the grounding electrode. For this purpose, we used FDTD tech-
724
when , it is self susceptance of segment, , when
the mutual susceptance between two segments and . Here,
is the uniform charge density on the axis of the segment, , and
is the reflection coefficient
due to the different permittivities of the air and the soil.
average induced voltage per meter on the surface of the segment,
, due to the charge on the segment . is the permittivity of
the soil.
The elements of the inductance matrix can be calculated by
assuming that the current, , along the axis of segment, , is
uniform. Then, the self inductance, , of the segment, , and
mutual inductance, , between two segments and , are given
by
Here, and are the average voltage drop per meter along
the surface of the segment, and due to the longitudinal current
. is the permeability of the soil. If the segments and are
perpendicular to each other, the mutual inductance is zero.
B. Procedure of Transient Analysis
In this paper, the single horizontal grounding conductor is
treated as a nonuniform transmission line. After discritizing the
conductor to segments, the electrical parameter matrices for
all of the segments
and
can be calculated by using (2), (3), and (4a), (b), respectively.
The series resistance of the conductor is the same for all the
segments. After knowing the electrical parameters of the wire
and the injection current source that corresponds lightning im-
pulse, the transient behavior of the grounding conductor can be
simulated using Telegraphers equations (5a) and (b)
Here, , are the unknown distributed voltage and
current along the grounding wire. is the per-unit length
series resistance. , and are the effective
per-unit length inductance, conductance and capacitance of the
conductor, respectively, at position and time . Telegraphers
equations (5a), (b) are solved using FDTD method [24]. The
most important stage while solving (5a), (b) is to estimate the
effective per-unit length parameters , , and , .
at each time step for each segment.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 2, APRIL 2005
, it is Before we describe the methodology on how one calculates
the effective per-unit length parameters of segment , ,
, and , for each time step in the present work, it is
necessary to understand how the uniform transmission line
is the approach with electrode length dependent per-unit length
parameters works.
1) Electrode Length Dependent Per-Unit Length Pa-
rametersUniform Transmission Line Approach: Uniform
transmission line approach in [19][22] included the influence
of the length of the grounding conductor on the per-unit length
parameters by calculating the total conductance, inductance
and capacitance of the finite length wire and distributing the
parameters equally on a per unit length basis as follows. The
per-unit length parameter, , was calculated using Sundes
(4a) expression (6a) with the assumption that dissipation current
along the conductor is uniform [23]. The per-unit length pa-
rameters and (6b), (c), were calculated in [19][21] using
(4b)
the relationship and
(6a)
(6b)
(6c)
In (6a)(c), and are the length and the radius of the con-
ductor, respectively, and is the buried depth of the conductor.
It should be noted that the expressions of and in (6b), (c) are
incorrect, because the above said relationship between , and
are only valid for homogeneous medium [24]. While dealing
with half space soil, based on the principle in Section II-A, the
reflection coefficient due to an air-soil interface for the calcula-
tion of , and are different, so, the per-unit length parame-
ters of the conductor should be calculated as shown below using
(7a)(c).
(7a)
(7b)
(7c)
(5a) The per-unit length parameters, , , and , in (7a)(c) can also
be derived from the parameter matrices , and , which
(5b) are described as below. The conductance in (7a) can be calcu-
lated as
(8a)
.. (8b)
LIU et al.: AN ENGINEERING MODEL FOR TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF GROUNDING SYSTEM
We defined the unit column vector in (8b) as a resistive coupling
coefficient vector for a uniform dissipation current distribution
along the conductor. In general, any element in this vector is the
ratio of the dissipation current of the corresponding segment to
the dissipation current of the ith segment. Similarly, under the
uniform charge distribution, in (7b) can also be calculated as
(9a)
.. (9b)
. tween different segments should not be always taken
In (9b), the unit column vector is defined as susceptance cou-
pling coefficient, which is similar to (8b), but the ratio is cor-
responding to the charge on each segment. Under the uniform
longitudinal current distribution, in (7c) can be calculated as
(10a)
.. (10b)
. based on three different regions of the transient period.
Here, the unit column vector in (10b) is defined as inductive
coupling coefficient vector, which is also similar to (8b), but
the ratio is corresponding to the longitudinal current on each
segment. The derivation of (7a), (b), (c) from (8), (9), and (10)
proves the fact that Sundes equations (7a), (b), (c) have fully
included all the mutual coupling between the segments of the
conductor.
The transient analysis with uniform transmission line ap-
proach in [19][22] was implemented using Telegraphers
equations (5a), (b), and the per-unit length parameters, , ,
and , are constant along the conductor length based on (6a), (b),
(c). But for the conductors with different length, the per-unit
length parameters are different. In this approach, it is clear that,
for the whole current impulse duration, there exists full mutual
coupling between the various segments of the conductor owing
to the length dependent constant per-unit length parameters.
The above said transient analysis is not physical as explained
below.
During the transient period, the current wave propagates from
the first segment to the last segment with specific interval of
time. Hence, the mutual coupling between any two segments can
exist if and only if the two segments are sourced (that is when
they carry current or charge) and in addition to that the value
of coupling coefficients should be source dependent. So, in the
uniform transmission line approach with electrode length de-
pendent parameters, the mutual coupling between different seg-
ments has been over estimated during the transient analysis. The
consequences of this over estimated mutual coupling between
the segments are shown in Section III, for example, in Fig. 2(b),
the transient voltage at injection point for the longer conductor
(e.g., 280 m) is much higher than that of the shorter conductor
(e.g., 20 m), which is incorrect from grounding system point of
725
view. This means, for the given soil parameters, conductor cross
section, and injection current impulse, the conductor with longer
length should have transient voltage at the injection point that
either equal to or less than the conductor with shorter length.
2) Per-Unit Length Parameters Varying With Space and
TimeNon-Uniform Transmission Line Approach: According
to the analysis presented in Section II-B-1, we found that
a) if the length influence should be included in the per-
unit length parameters calculation, only for uniform
source distribution, the coupling coefficients between
any two segments will be unity.
b) during the transient period, the mutual coupling be-
into account by unit coupling coefficients, because, in
the impulse duration, the source distribution along the
conductor will never be uniform.
Consequently, in transient analysis of the grounding system,
the coupling coefficients between any two segments should be
varying with time for the effective per-unit length parameter
calculations. Thus, in the present model, the effective per-unit
length parameters, , and , in Telegraphers
equations (5a), (b) are the function of space and time.
The computation of effective per-unit length parameters is
The first region is zero coupling region, which is applicable
at . As the impulse current source is not connected to the
grounding conductor, the segments of the conductor are inde-
pendent, that is, they are not coupled to each other. This situation
can be interpreted as if the conductor segments were floating.
Under above said condition, for any segment ,
the effective per-unit length parameters are,
and , and . Here, , and
are the diagonal values of the parameter matrixes ,
and .
The second region is corresponding to any time, , after
the impulse source is injected into the grounding conductor, and
it is called as transient coupling region. In this region, the mutual
coupling between different segments starts to contribute to the
calculation of the effective per-unit length parameters, , and
, based on the source distribution along the conductor. It is im-
portant to note that a segment remains floating until it is sourced
by the propagating impulse. And there will not be any mutual
coupling between a floating segment and a sourced segment.
The consequence of taking into account the time varying mutual
coupling is to decrease effective and , and at the same time
increase effective for a given segment. Depending on the type
of current impulse, the decrement of and , and increment of
will be in such a way that each segment can have values of effec-
tive per-unit length parameters which are at most, corresponding
to the maximum coupling condition, uniform source distribu-
tion, as explained in Section II-B-1. Based on this knowledge, it
is clear that the coupling coefficients between the segments for
the calculation of the effective per-unit length parameters can
only vary between zero and one.
The third region is the case where the mutual coupling
reaches a maximum and the coupling coefficients will be nearly
726 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 2, APRIL 2005

unity. This is ideal situation corresponding to DC, which will resulting effective per-unit length parameters will be smaller for
never be reached for the current impulse that corresponds to and , and larger for compared to the corresponding values
lightning. obtained using uniform source distributions.
According to the above explanation, the straightforward cal- Once the new effective per-unit length parameters, ,
culation of the effective per-unit length parameters of ith seg- and are calculated, the voltage at the ith node,
ment, , and , at is as follows. and the current through the segment i,
Using the effective , and , can be estimated by using the same procedure as ex-
, the voltage at the ith node and the current plained before.
through the ith segment can be calculated by (5a), (b).
The average voltage of the ith segment at will be III. EFFECTIVE LENGTH OF THE HORIZONTAL
GROUNDING CONDUCTOR

(11) In order to compare the present nonuniform transmission

Then, the longitudinal current along the ith segment is
, the dissipation current from this segment and
the charge on this segment at can be calculated as
(12a)
(12b)
After knowing the new source distributions, the effective per-
unit length parameters of the ith segment at can be
calculated as
(13)
where
else
else
else
which means, for the segment , the coupling from other seg-
ments, , can be included by using coupling coefficients, , even though the length of the conductor is increasing. On the
and . Those coupling coefficients are varying between
zero and 1 based on the source distribution along the conductor.
When the ratios of the sources on segments, and , are larger
than 1, we assume that the coupling coefficients between them
are 1 in order not to violate the maximum coupling conditions.
If one chooses the coupling coefficients equal to the ratios of
the sources on the segments, which are larger than 1, then the
line approach with the conventional uniform transmission line
approach which uses electrode length dependent parameters
[19][21], the transient behaviors of horizontal grounding
conductors with different lengths, buried in the soil with
, and , are simulated. The cur-
rent impulses similar with lightning wave shape,
and
, are injected at one end of the conductors. The
first current impulse has 0.36 rise time, and second current
impulse has 10 rise time. The lengths of the conductors are
20, 40, 50, 80, 100, and 280 m. The radius of the conductors is
4 mm and the buried depth of the conductors is 0.75 m.
Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) are the simulation results for fast injec-
tion current, . Fig. 2(a) is
the transient voltage at the injection point for all the above said
conductors based on nonuniform transmission line approach de-
veloped in this paper. Fig. 2(b) is the transient voltage at the in-
jection point for the same conductors based on the above said
uniform transmission line approach. That is the per-unit length
parameters, , and of the conductor are calculated using
(6a), (b), (c) and they are the functions of length of the con-
ductor. Moreover, the calculation results presented in Fig. 2(b)
and Fig. 3(b) obtained using FDTD method were compared with
ATP-EMTP, and it is found that both methods gave identical
results.
In Fig. 2(a), the magnitude of the transient voltage at injection
point is decreasing and finally goes to asymptotic value when
the length of the conductor is increasing. According to the defi-
nition of the effective length of horizontal grounding conductor,
the maximum transient voltage at injection point will not de-
crease any more, when the length of the conductor exceeds a cer-
tain value. It is observed from the simulations that the effective
length of the horizontal grounding conductor for the given cur-
rent impulse and soil condition is about 40 m. When the length
of the conductor is shorter than 40 m, the longer is the conductor,
the smaller is the maximum transient voltage at the injection
point. When the length of the conductor is larger than 40 m, the
maximum transient voltage at injection point remains constant
contrary, in Fig. 2(b), it is observed that the transient voltage
at injection point is much larger for the longer conductor com-
pared to that of the shorter conductor, which is in contradiction
to the reality. It means that the uniform transmission line ap-
proach with electrode length dependent parameters in [19][21]
fails to predict the effective length for the grounding conduc-
tors. It is also observed that the transient voltages at injection
LIU et al.: AN ENGINEERING MODEL FOR TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF GROUNDING SYSTEM
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2. (a) Transient voltage at injection point of the horizontal grounding
conductors with various lengths buried in the soil with  = 1000
m for conductors with various lengths buried in the soil with  = 1000
m for
fast impulse based on the model presented in this paper. (b) Transient voltage
at injection point of the horizontal grounding conductors with various lengths
buried in the soil with  = 1000
m for fast impulse based on the uniform buried in the soil with  = 1000
m for slow impulse based on the uniform
transmission line model.
points of the conductors in Fig. 2(b) are much larger than that
in Fig. 2(a), especially for the longer conductor. The reasons for
this wrong estimation of the transient voltage at injection point
in Fig. 2(b) could be the following.
1) use of incorrect (6b), (c) for the electrode length depen-
dent per-unit length capacitance and inductance calcu-
lation as we explained in Section II-B-1). The correct
equations for the per-unit length capacitance and in-
ductance should be (7b), (c).
2) the fundamental difference between the proposed
nonuniform transmission line model and the con-
ventional uniform transmission line approach with
electrode length dependent per-unit length parame-
ters. In the proposed model, the coupling between the
segments were taken into account by time and space
varying effective per-unit length parameters, which are
dependent on the sources (current or charge) on each
segment. On the contrary, in the uniform transmission
line approach with electrode length dependent param-
eters, the mutual coupling between the segments were
727
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3. (a) Transient voltage at injection point of the horizontal grounding
slow impulse based on the model presented in this paper. (b) Transient voltage
at injection point of the horizontal grounding conductors with various lengths
transmission line model.
over estimated (i.e., the mutual coupling between the
electrode segments is always maximum and indepen-
dent of the source condition on each segment).
For example, consider the curve in Fig. 2(a) and (b) corre-
sponding to a length of 280 m, the maximum transient voltage
at the injection point in Fig. 2(b) is about 130 V, which is almost
twice of that corresponding voltage in Fig. 2(a). If one uses
uniform transmission line approach and (7) for the per-unit
length parameters calculations, the maximum transient voltage
at injection point of the same conductor decreases to about
100 V, which is smaller than that shown in Fig. 2(b), but it
was observed that the transient voltage at injection point for
the longer conductor was still larger than that of the shorter
conductor under the above said condition. Consequently, an
important point worth to be mentioned here is that even if
the per-unit length parameters were calculated using (7), the
uniform transmission line approach with electrode length de-
pendent parameters cannot predict the effective length of the
grounding conductor.
728 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 2, APRIL 2005

Fig. 4. Illustration of the horizontal grounding conductors with 20 m and 100

m lengths.

Fig. 3(a) and (b) are the transient voltages at the injection
point of the same conductors, but for the slow current impulse,
, based on the present
model and the uniform transmission line approach with elec-
trode length dependent parameters. In Fig. 3(a), it is found that
for the slow current impulse and same soil condition, the ef-
fective length of horizontal grounding conductor is about 80 m,
which is longer compared to the fast current impulse in Fig. 2(a).
Comparing Fig. 3(a) and (b), it shows that the simulation (a)
results are similar for the conductors with 20 m, 40 m, 50 m
and 80 m. In Fig. 2(a) and (b), for the fast current impulse, it
is also found that for the conductor with length of 20 m, the
transient voltages at injection point are similar. This means that
the uniform transmission line approach with electrode length
dependent parameters in [19][21] is valid when the length
of the grounding conductor is much smaller than the effective
length and the injection current has slow rise times. The slower is
the injection current, the more is the uniform transmission-line
approach with length dependent parameters suitable for the
transient analysis of horizontal grounding conductors with
longer length. This indicates that when the injection current is
changing very slowly, the uniform transmission-line approach
with electrode length-dependent parameters could be suitable
for the horizontal grounding conductors with any length. It
should be mentioned that the effective length of horizontal (b)
grounding conductor is also the function of the soil parameters.
Fig. 5(a). (a) Transient voltage at different points for horizontal grounding
conductor 20 m and 100 m for fast impulse, and soil with " = 50,  = 100
m
IV. VERIFICATION OF THE MODEL and  = 1 based on the present model. (b) Transient voltage at different points
for horizontal grounding conductor 20 m and 100 m for slow impulse, and soil
In order to verify the present nonuniform transmission line with " = 50,  = 100
m and  = 1 based on present model.
approach, the transient behaviors of horizontal grounding con-
ductors and the grounding grids with different sizes are simu- Comparing the simulation results in Fig. 5(a) and (b) based
lated and compared with circuit theory approach and the elec- on the present approach with that in [3] based on circuit and
tromagnetic field approach [3], [9]. electromagnetic theory approaches, it is observed that the dif-
ference in the voltages at point A is between 2%9% for both
A. Horizontal Grounding Conductors fast and slow impulse currents. At points B and C, the simulation
As shown in Fig. 4, the radius of the horizontal grounding results of the present approach are similar to that of the circuit
conductor is 7.5 mm, and the lengths of the conductors are 20 theory approach, but for both of the approaches, when compared
m and 100 m. The conductors are buried at 0.5-m depth in the to electromagnetic field approach, the differences could be up to
soil with , and . Two different 50%. The reason could be due to the different domains (time do-
current impulses, main and frequency domain) adopted in the models. This phe-
and , are injected nomenon needs more investigations and is beyond the scope of
at the end of the conductors. The first injection current has 1/5 this paper.
wave shape and the second injection current has 10/100- On the other hand, in Fig. 5(a) and (b), it is also observed
waveshape. All of those simulation parameters corresponding that nonuniform transmission line approach predicts the wave
to geometry, material properties and injection current impulse propagation delay, which is same as that of electromagnetic
are same as that in [3], to which we compare. field approach [3], while, the circuit theory approach [3] could
Figs. 5(a) and (b) are the transient voltages at points A, B and not simulate the wave propagation delay. This is because the
C of both the conductors. In Fig. 5(a), the injection current is 1/5 nonuniform transmission line approach and electromagnetic
impulse, and in Fig. 5(b), the injection current is 10/100- field approach use space and time discritization in the simula-
impulse. It is observed that the results in Fig. 5 are comparable tion, when the Telegraphers equations or Maxwells equations
with that in [3]. are solved, while the circuit theory approach only involves time
LIU et al.: AN ENGINEERING MODEL FOR TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF GROUNDING SYSTEM
Fig. 6. The structure of the grids 1 2 1, 2 2 2, and 6 2 6.
discritization in the simulation, when the node equations are
solved.
B. Grounding Grids With Different Sizes
In order to show that the present approach can be easily ex-
tended to complex grounding grids with large size under lighting
strikes, three different grids of size, 1 1, 2 2 and 6 6, as
shown in Fig. 6, are simulated and compared with that in [9]
which is based on electromagnetic field approach. The advan-
tage of the present model for simulating the transient behavior
of grounding grid is that the coupling between any two seg-
ments (e.g., conductive and capacitive coupling between two
perpendicular segments) can be easily included by the same
principal as described in Section II-B-2, which was used for a
single horizontal grounding conductor. The radius of the con-
ductors is 7 mm. All grids are buried at 0.5 m depth in the ho-
mogeneous soil with , and
The rise time of the current impulse is defined as a time pe-
riod, which is from to maximum value.
According to this definition, the rise time in [9] is about 0.30.4
. In our simulation, the double-exponential current impulse,
, is chosen to approximate
the injection currents used in [9]. The rise time is about 0.36 ,
the decay time, from to maximum value, is
about 26.8 . The injection point is at point A, the corner of
the grounding grids. All these parameters in the simulations are
selected, the same as that in [9], for comparing the result with
that presented in [9].
Fig. 7 shows the transient voltage at the injection point A for
the above three grid configurations. It shows that for 1 1 grid,
the maximum transient voltage is about 51 V, which is same as
that in [9], and for 2 2 and 6 6 grids, the maximum transient
voltage is about 33 V, which is 13% less, compared with that in
[9]. This difference could be due to the fact that the injection
current is not exactly same as that in [9]. The simulation results
with the present approach also predicts that when the size of the
grid is larger than 2 2, the transient voltage at injection point
remains constant, which is in agreement with the conclusion in
[9]. The advantage of the proposed model is that the compu-
tation time for the calculation was only few minutes, which is
much smaller compared with electromagnetic field method.
729
Fig. 7. Transient voltage at injection point for grids 1 2 1, 2 2 2, and 6 2 6.
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
An engineering model for the transient analysis of grounding
system under the lightning strikes based on nonuniform trans-
mission line approach is presented in this paper, and compared
with different approaches in the literature [3], [9].
The model presented in this paper can predict both the
effective length of horizontal grounding conductor and the
transient voltages on the wire accurately. However, the uniform
transmission line approach with electrode length dependent
per-unit length parameters in [19][22] fails to predict the
effective length and the transient voltage at the injection point.
Consequently, the present model overcomes certain drawbacks
of the above said uniform transmission line approaches. The
uniform transmission line approach with electrode length
. dependent parameters is only valid when the length of the
grounding conductor is much smaller than the effective length
and the injection current has slow rise times.
Also, the simulation results for the grounding grids with
different sizes and horizontal grounding conductors are com-
parable with that based on circuit theory and electromagnetic
field approaches [3], [9]. Moreover, the present model can
simulate the wave propagation delay, which is impossible with
circuit model [3], as the space discritization is not used in
circuit theory approach. On the other hand, the present model is
much simpler and more time efficient than the electromagnetic
field approaches, because only Telegraphers equations need
to be solved using FDTD technique and the effective per-unit
length parameters for each segment at each time step need to
be calculated. The equations for calculating the per-unit length
parameters matrixes, , and , of the grounding system
are also simple and direct.
As the present model is in time domain, it is possible to in-
clude soil ionization in the future by increasing the radius of the
grounding conductor when the electric field on the surface of
the conductor exceeds the critical value of soil ionization. This
is because the increase in radius of the grounding conductor is
nothing but changing the electrical parameters ( , and )
of the grounding system.
730
The model presented here used electrical parameters matrixes
and instead of using and for
the calculation of the effective and for each seg-
ment at each time step. This is because each element, or , pp. 10731081, Oct. 1987.
in and matrixes is only related with segments and ,
and independent of other segments, while, the elements, and
, in and matrixes, owing to the inversion of and
, include the influence from other segments. Consequently,
when a coupling between segments and should be only in-
cluded, one should use and matrixes, and not and
matrixes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the very helpful discus-
sions with Dr. M. Lorentzou. Practical discussions with Prof.
V. Scuka are also acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Ramamoorty, M. M. B. Narayanan, and S. Parameswaran et al.,
Transient performance of grounding grids, IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 20532059, Oct. 1989.
[2] A. Geri, Behavior of grounding systems excited by high impulse cur-
rents: the model and its validation, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 14, no.
3, pp. 10081017, Jul. 1999.
[3] A. Geri and S. F. Visacro, Grounding systems under surge conditions:
comparison between a field model and a circuit model, in ICLP,
Cracow, Poland, Sep. 26, 2002.
[4] A. F. Otero, J. Cidras, and J. L. del Alamo, Frequency-dependent
grounding system calculation by means of a conventional nodal analysis
technique, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 873878, Jul.
1999.
[5] F. Dawalibi, Electromagnetic fields generated by overhead and buried
short conductors, part Isingle conductor, IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
vol. PWRD-1, no. 4, pp. 105111, Oct. 1986.
[6] , Electromagnetic fields generated by overhead and buried short
conductors, part IIground networks, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol.
PWRD-1, no. 4, pp. 112119, Oct. 1986.
[7] L. Grcev and F. Dawalibi, An electromagnetic model for transients
in grounding system, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 5, no. 4, pp.
17731781, Oct. 1990.
[8] L. D. Grcev, Computer analysis of transient voltages in large grounding
systems, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 815823, Apr.
1996.
[9] L. D. Grcev and M. Heimbach, Frequency dependent and transient
characteristics of substation grounding system, IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 172178, Jan. 1997.
[10] R. Andolfato, L. Bernardi, and L. Fellin, Aerial and grounding system
analysis by the shifting complex images method, IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 10011009, Jul. 2000.
[11] R. G. Olsen and M. C. Willis, A comparison of exact and quasistatic
methods for evaluating grounding systems at high frequencies, IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 10711081, Apr. 1996.
[12] B. Nekhoul, C. Cuerin, P. Labie, G. Meunier, and R. Feuillet, A finite
element method for calculating the electromagnetic fields generated by
substation grounding systems, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 31, no. 3, pp.
21502153, May 1995.
[13] B. Nekhoul, P. Labie, F. X. Zgainski, and G. Meunier, Calculating the
impedance of a grounding system, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 32, no. 3,
pp. 15091512, May 1996.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 2, APRIL 2005
[14] A. P. Meliopoulos and M. G. Moharam, Transient analysis of grounding
systems, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-102, no. 2, Feb. 1983.
[15] A. D. Papalexopoulos and A. P. Meliopulos, Frequency dependent char-
acteristics of grounding systems, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 2, no. 4,
[16] F. Menter and L. Grcev, EMTP-based model for grounding system anal-
ysis, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 18381847, Oct. 1994.
[17] C. Mazzetti and G. M. Veca, Impulse behavior of grounding elec-
trodes, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-102, no. 9, pp.
31483156, Sep. 1983.
[18] Y. Liu, M. Zitnik, and R. Thottappillil, An improved transmission-line
model of grounding system, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol.
43, no. 3, pp. 348355, Aug. 2001.
[19] R. Velazquez and D. Mukhedkar, Analytical modeling of grounding
electrodes transient behavior, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-
103, no. 6, pp. 13141322, Jun. 1984.
[20] M. I. Lorentzou, N. D. Hatziargyriou, and B. C. Papadias, Time domain
analysis of grounding electrodes impulse response, IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 517524, Apr. 2003.
[21] S. Devgan and E. R. Whitehead, Analytical models for distributed
grounding systems, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., pt. III, vol. PAS-92,
no. 5, pp. 17631770, Sep./Oct. 1973.
[22] R. Verma and D. Mukhedkar, Impulse impedance of buried ground
wire, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-99, no. 5, pp. 20032007,
Sep./Oct. 1980.
[23] E. D. Sunde, Earth Conduction Effects in Transmission Systems: Bell
Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated, pp. 146148.
[24] C. R. Paul, Analysis of Multiconductor Transmission Lines. New York:
Wiley, ch. 5, p. 60.
Yaqing Liu was born in Jiangsu, China, in 1969. She received the M.S. degree
in plasma physics in July 1996 from Shanghai Institute of Optics and Fine Me-
chanics, the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Later, she was doing research in the
same institute as an Assistant Researcher. Since 2000, she is a Ph.D. student at
Division for Electricity and Lightning Research, Uppsala University.
Her main research areas are electromagnetic compatibility, modeling of com-
plex grounding systems, lightning protection to power and railway systems.
Nelson Theethayi was born in India, in 1975. He received the B.E. in electrical
and electronics from University of Mysore, India, and the M.Sc. (Eng.) from
the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, in 2001. Since the year 2001 he has
been a Ph.D. student at the Division for Electricity and Lightning Research,
ngstrm Laboratory, Uppsala University, Sweden.
His main research areas are electromagnetic compatibility, lightning mod-
eling, and lightning protection to power and railway systems.
Rajeev Thottappillil (S88M92) was born in India in 1958. He received the
B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from University of Calicut, India in 1981,
and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from University of
Florida, Gainesville, in 1989, and 1992, respectively.
Since 1995 he has been working at Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
where in 2000 he was promoted to the rank of Full Professor in the Division for
Electricity and Lightning Research, ngstrm Laboratory. His main research in-
terests are electromagnetic compatibility, lightning, and electromagnetic theory.