Electric Power Systems Research 153 (2017) 119–127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electric Power Systems Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/epsr

Lightning grounding system of a tall-mast for human safety

John J. Pantoja ∗ , Francisco Roman, Francisco Amortegui, Carlos Rivera
Departamento de Ingeniería Eléctrica y Electrónica, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional de Colombia–Sede Bogotá, Carrera 30 # 45-03, Edificio
411, Bogotá, Colombia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Numerical techniques enable realistic analysis of lightning currents effects on tall structures includ-
Received 29 April 2016 ing actual installation conditions. Characteristics such as the frequency dependence of soil parameters,
Received in revised form 24 January 2017 inductances and capacitances due to nearby metallic elements, and the actual geometry of the structure
Accepted 16 February 2017
and its grounding system are commonly neglected or simplified in lightning grounding system design.
Available online 6 March 2017
In this paper, the impact of neglecting these characteristics on a tall-mast lightning grounding system
design is discussed. The effects are determined using three risk assessment approaches based on energy
Keywords:
calculation, voltage thresholds, and current integration, which allows comparing the performance of the
Lightning
Lightning earthing system
grounding system under different conditions. Results obtained from numerical simulations and then
Frequency dependence of soil verified by measurements show that a metallic protecting fence not connected to the earthing mesh
Grounding produces lower human safety risks to lightning currents than when it is connected. This result is in oppo-
Human safety sition to common design practices and shows the need to assess each specific grounding design under
Lightning protection true conditions to guarantee human safety requirements.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction lations are performed with electrostatic simulations tools. This is

The adequate design of lightning protection systems of tall
structures is a basic requirement to guarantee the human safety
and to avoid cultural, economic, or social losses. Protection systems
should guarantee that voltages, currents, and energy induced by a
lightning strike are lower than well-defined thresholds. Currently,
computational tools can be used for this task; however, modeling
induced voltages due to lightning currents injected into natural soil
presents different challenges. On one hand, there is not a mod-
eling technique that reproduces the impulsive response of the
currents and materials, the ionization process, and non-linearity
[1,2]. On the other hand, the available models and characterization
techniques of the dynamic behavior of electromagnetic param-
eters of soils present inconsistencies [3]. Usual assumptions of
frequency independent soil parameters are far from actual values
for most soils and produce important deviations in the calculation
of induced voltages [1,4].
For these reasons, the performance of earthing systems is com-
monly assessed using calculations and simulations based on a
pure resistive ground behavior. When this happens, most simu-
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jjpantojaa@unal.edu.co (J.J. Pantoja), fjromanc@unal.edu.co
(F. Roman), fjamorteguig@unal.edu.co (F. Amortegui), cariverag@unal.edu.co
(C. Rivera).
mainly true due to the fact that substations grounding systems
are almost always calculated for relatively low frequency fault
currents. However, in some cases lightning currents, with high
frequency components, could impact structures such as masts or
protecting fences.
The effect of the frequency dependency of soil parameters on the
ground potential rise (GPR) of grounding electrodes due to lightning
currents has been analyzed by different authors using experimen-
tal results [1,5,6], numerical simulations [2,3] and electromagnetic
models [7]. These studies revealed that neglecting the frequency
dependence of the soil parameters produces an overestimation of
the induced voltages. This overestimation is more pronounced in
low conductivity soils, due to their strong frequency dependence;
and in short impulses, such as associated with lightning subsequent
return strokes, due to their higher frequency content. These effects
become relevant for soil resistivity above 1000 m [8].
Recently, numerical simulations have been used to study, in
more detail, the effects produced by lightning strikes taking into
account realistic earthing system characteristics [3,9]. In Ref. [9],
the step and touch voltage distribution around a GSM base station
are used to assess the earthing design using a full-wave electro-
magnetic simulation in time domain. Similar analyses have been
performed for wind turbines [3,10]. These studies have shown that
the inclusion in the simulation of details and nearby structures,
usually neglected in grounding system analyses, produces signifi-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2017.02.013
0378-7796/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
120 J.J. Pantoja et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 153 (2017) 119–127
Fig. 1. Installation of the 30 m high Corona current measuring mast in the campus
of the Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
cant changes in its response to induced voltages due to lightning
currents [11].
In the present work, the grounding system of the 30 m tall mast
shown in Fig. 1 is analyzed using numerical simulations. This struc-
ture was installed in a quite deserted street at the Universidad
Nacional de Colombia campus to investigate Corona currents in
high masts. The mast base is isolated by a 2 m high square metallic
fence, called here “metallic enclosure”, separated 2 m from the mast
centre. However, due to its location and to protect people walking
or staying in the vicinity of the metallic enclosure, lightning induced
over voltages around the structure are calculated. The effect of the
metallic enclosure is investigated in order to evaluate a possible
voltage induction due to inductive or capacitive effects, instead of
the pure resistive ones.
This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, the methodology
used for the lightning protection system assessment is presented.
Then, in Section 3, the numerical approach to calculate induced
voltages due to lightning currents is validated. In Section 4, the
earthing system design is described and numerical results are pre-
sented. Finally, Section 5 presents the conclusions.
2. Risk assessment methodology
The main purpose of the mast is to measure corona currents
and local atmospheric conditions in its top. However, the mast is
prone to be impacted by lightning and touch and step voltages
could be expected in the metallic enclosure. Therefore, a special
risk assessment was performed.
Risks caused by transient electric signals in human beings are
still being studied [12]. Dangerous effects of currents on persons
have being widely studied since the beginnings of the cities electri-
fication. A reference study is the published by Dalziel in Ref. [13],
where lethal levels for both AC electric currents and capacitor dis-
charges are presented. In Ref. [13], Dalziel proposed the energy
criterion to calculate the maximum current levels I and exposition
times t before ventricular fibrillation occurs, by using the relation
K2 = I2 t, where K is the energy constant that depends on the body
weight. In Ref. [14], the study of physiological effects of electric cur-
rents is extended to DC and impulse shocks, while voltage, current,
and energy thresholds are discussed. This study refers to 25 J and
10 J as lethal and dangerous energy levels, respectively; however,
it also concludes that more research is required.
Here, the designed protection system is assessed by means of
three parameters commonly used: the energy delivered to a per-
son, the step voltage, and the severity parameter. To obtain these
parameters, both step- and touch voltages generated by a light-
ning current injected in the earthing system are calculated using
numerical simulations.
2.1. Numerical simulation
2.1.1. Simulation setup
The induced over voltages were calculated by simulating a direct
lightning strike on the top of the mast. A numerical simulation
in CST Microwave Studio using a transient solver was performed.
The lightning current is represented by an ideal current source at
the tower’s top. To characterize a level III or IV scenario of the
international standard IEC 62305-1, a 100 kA, 10/350 ␮s double
exponential impulse current source was used to represent a first
positive current impulse. In addition, to maximize inductive and
capacitive effects in the induced voltages, a shorter waveform of
100 kA, 1/50 ␮s was considered. This waveform is based on the first
negative lightning current impulse according to IEC 62305-1.
The simulation volume has a 30 m side length and is centered at
the mast. To represent the fact that locally the currents spread in all
directions into the soil, the simulation volume was set considerably
larger than the simulated structure. While the side length of the
grounding mesh is 5 m, the side length of the simulation volume is
30 m. In full-wave lightning phenomena simulations, the reported
boundary conditions are the following: – Absorbing boundary con-
ditions (ABC) in all the boundaries [15], – ABC with perfect electric
conductor (PEC) ground [16], or – fully PEC [17]. ABC are used to
truncate the computation domain by reducing the amplitude of the
reflections of the electromagnetic waves impinging the simulation
borders while PEC is used to provide a closed path for the lightning
current [17]. In the performed simulation, absorbing wave bound-
ary conditions were used on all the faces of the simulation volume
as reported in [18]. In this simulation setup, it was verified that the
effect of the reflected waves from the boundaries on the variables
of interest is negligible since an error of 2.6% was obtained when
results were compared with a simulation volume of a 40 m side
length.
2.1.2. Soil parameter frequency dependency
Different models to calculate the frequency dependence of soil
parameters are available. A comparison between some of these
models is presented in Refs. [3,19]. Recently, a causal model with
strong experimental support has been proposed to address this
effect [6]. In this paper, the Messier model, which provides results
in good agreement with experimental data for soils with moder-
ate and low resistivity and which satisfies causality [3], is used.
 J.J. Pantoja et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 153 (2017) 119–127 121

Fig. 2. Classification of alternating currents of 15 Hz–100 Hz in current–time areas

according to their effects. Effects: 1 – None, 2 – None physiopathological effect,
3 – Non fibrillation risk, 4 – Fibrillation risk (5%), 5 – Fibrillation risk (<50%), 6 –
Hearth attack, burns, fibrillation risk (>50%). Based in the international standard IEC
60479-2.

ZTh
+ ~0 Ω RB
VTh
-
1 kΩ

Step or Contact Voltage

Fig. 3. Thevenin equivalent circuit used to calculate the current and energy deliv-
ered to a human being.

Using this model, the frequency response of the soil permittivity Fig. 4. Setup for a direct lightning strike simulation. (a) Lateral and (b) perspective
and conductivity can be calculated as [20] views.
  
ε∞ 0
εr (ω) = 1+ (1) Fig. 2 is based on alternating currents below 100 Hz, extrapolations
ε0 fε∞
to transient currents are used. In Ref. [22], for example, a current
   impulse of 199 A and 340 ns of time to half value, which corresponds
4fε∞ to 13.5 J, is used as a reference value to assess grounding systems
 (ω) = 0 1+ [S/m], (2)
0 against lightning.
To calculate the energy given by the lightning induced step and
where ε0 is the free-space permittivity,  0 is the DC or low fre- touch voltages, the methodology of the Thevenin equivalent circuit
quency conductivity, ε∞ = 8ε0 , and f is the frequency. The complex proposed in Ref. [21] and shown in Fig. 3 was used. In the calcula-
 
permittivity in a material is given by ε = ε0 (εr − jεr ), where εr = tions, the Thevenin voltage, VTh , corresponded to the step or touch
/ (ωε0 ). Therefore, a soil can be characterized using just  0 , which voltage, the Thevenin impedance, ZTh , was neglected, assuming that
can be calculated as the inverse of the low-frequency soil resistivity the feet contact resistance was zero, and the body resistance, Rb ,
LF . was assumed to be 1000 . Finally, the energy was calculated as
 
2.2. Assessment parameters V 2 (t)
W= P (t) dt = dt, (4)
Rb
2.2.1. Energy calculation
The first estimated parameter is the amount of energy delivered where V (t) is the step or touch voltage calculated as a function of
to a person by a lightning induced overvoltage. The limit of the time and P (t) is the dissipated power as a function of time.
amount of energy W in Joules, which a person could withstand
without fibrillation risk, can be calculated using both the Dalziel 2.2.2. Step voltage threshold
curve shown in Fig. 4 and Eq. (3): The second method used to assess the lightning protection
system was to compare the induced step voltage with a voltage
W = I 2 · R · t [J] , (3)
threshold calculated as [23]:
where I and t are the pair of current and time values along the
(165∼250) + g
Dalziel curve in Fig. 4 and R is the human body resistance estimated Ust = √ , (5)
T
in 1000 , as specified in the IEEE Std. 80 [21]. When the energy
that a person could withstand is calculated using Dalziel’s charac- where g is the soil resistivity and T is the lightning duration. Using
teristic curve, a constant energy value of 10 J is obtained. Although g = 70 m and T = 1 ms, a 10.12 kV threshold voltage is obtained.
122 J.J. Pantoja et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 153 (2017) 119–127
Fig. 5. Calculated step voltage induced at 2.83 m from a direct lightning strike on
a soil with  = 70 m. Simulation results are obtained using a resistive soil with
constant parameters  = 70 m and εr = 1 and using the Messier model for a soil
with LF = 70 m.
This expression is restricted to long duration lightning strikes, such
as the first positive impulse.
2.2.3. Severity parameter Si1.4
The third method is to use a parameter for safety condition
for ventricular fibrillation when short duration impulsive currents
flow in the human body. The criterion applies for healthy adults
and currents due to touch, transfer, and step voltages. The severity
parameter Si1.4 is given by [24,25]

1.4
Si1.4 = |ib (t) | dt
where ib (t) is the current through the body. The limit of the severity
parameter is 1.52 A1.4 ms for negligible probability of ventricular
fibrillation and 2.96 A1.4 ms for a probability of 5% [24,25].
3. Validation of the simulation
First, a validation of the numerical simulation was performed.
The validation consisted in the comparison of numerical results
with theoretical and experimental data for simplified cases. The
step voltage induced due to a direct lightning strike to earth was
considered for this purpose.
3.1. Theoretical comparison
The step voltage given on the ground surface at a distance r0
from the lightning strike, with a step length l, soil conductivity ,
and a lightning current I (t) as a function of time, can be calculated
as [11]
I (t)
1 1
Up (t) = − .
2 r0 r0 + l
For the numerical simulation, the lightning channel was repre-
sented using a 15 m long cylindrical perfect conductor connected
to a current source buried 0.5 m, as shown in Fig. 4. A soil with a
low frequency resistivity of 70 m was used. The step voltage was
measured by integrating the electric field calculated in the simu-
lations using the integration line shown in Fig. 4a. The step length,
represented as the arrow number 2 in this figure, was 1.4 m and the
distance to the lightning channel was 2.83 m.
Fig. 6. Step voltage induced due to an impulsive current at 0.23 m from the current
injection and with a step of 0.7 m. Measurement results are taken from Ref. [1].
Simulation results are obtained using a 2nd order fit of the soil parameters reported
in Ref. [1] and using the Messier model for a soil with LF = 2700 m.
Fig. 5 shows the comparison between step voltages obtained
from theoretical and simulation results. A good agreement is
observed between both approaches, validating the numerical simu-
lation. In Fig. 5 is also shown the calculated step voltage considering
the frequency dependency of the soil parameters. To include the
soil Messier model in the electromagnetic simulator, a dielectric
dispersion fit with an error of 3.7% with respect to the parameters
produced by the model was used. As previously reported [1,3,8],
the effect of this frequency dependency is to reduce the peak value
of the induced voltages, as it is confirmed in Fig. 5.
(6)
3.2. Experimental results comparison
In Ref. [1], impulsive currents are impressed from a hemispheric
electrode to a distant auxiliary grid while the induced step volt-
age at the soil surface is measured. Using the simulation setup
presented in previous paragraph, the developed step voltage was
calculated. In this case, the soil parameters with the frequency
dependence between 100 Hz and 4 MHz are used, since they were
calculated in Ref. [1] from impulsive current measurements. In
the simulation, an extrapolation of these data up to 100 MHz was
used. For comparison, another simulation using the soil parameters
obtained with the Messier model was performed.
Fig. 6 shows the induced voltage obtained from measurements
and simulations. This figure shows that the voltage simulated using
both sets of soil parameters, predicts well the waveform experi-
mentally obtained. Although the voltage obtained using the Messier
model presents a higher peak value, this result describes the gen-
eral behavior of the induced voltage only with the lowest frequency
resistivity reported in Ref. [1]. This can be considered as an adequate
response due to the high dependence of the voltage waveform on
the response of the soil parameters.
(7)
4. Lightning earthing system assessment
4.1. Earthing system design
The lightning protection design consisted of two concentric
squared earth loops around the tower, as shown in Fig. 7. To avoid
unauthorized personnel access, the mast base is protected with a
2 m high square metallic enclosure. This metallic enclosure is not
bonded to the earthing mesh and it is separated 2 m from the mast
 J.J. Pantoja et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 153 (2017) 119–127 123

Fig. 7. Simulation Setup. (a) Perspective, (b) lateral, and (c) top views.

center. Due to the metallic enclosure geometry included in the
design, high electric field intensities are presented at its corners [9].
For this reason, the protection assessment was based on calculating
the step- and contact- induced voltages at the metallic enclosure
corners. These voltages were calculated by integrating the electric
field in the paths shown in Fig. 7a; where the step length is 1 m and
the touch path is formed by two straight lines, one horizontal and
one vertical with respective lengths of 1 m and 1.5 m.
Three possible situations of the metallic enclosure were con-
sidered. In the first one, the metallic enclosure is removed, in the
second case, the corners of the metallic enclosure are bounded to
the earthing mesh, while in the third case the metallic enclosure is
not connected to the earthing mesh.
4.2. Effect of the metallic enclosure
Figs. 8 and 9 show the respective induced voltages due to first
positive and first negative lightning impulses. These figures show
that the earthing condition of the metallic enclosure has an impor-
tant effect on the waveform and amplitude of the induced voltages.

Table 1
Risk assessment parameters calculated from simulated voltages.

Excitation Metallic enclosure Delivered energy (J) Step voltage Severity parameter Si1.4 (A1.4 ms)
(kV)

Touch to the Step Touch to the Step

metallic metallic
enclosure enclosure

First positive impulse Without – 18.0 8.4 – 6.7

100 kA 10/350 Bonded to the earthing mesh 7.4 61 15.5 3.3 15.8
Not bonded to the earthing mesh 9.7 0.8 3.8 3.9 0.8

First negative impulse Without – 2.7 – – 0.9

100 kA 1/50 Bonded to the earthing mesh 2.3 6.8 – 0.6 1.7
Not bonded to the earthing mesh 2.1 0.2 – 0.7 0.07
124 J.J. Pantoja et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 153 (2017) 119–127

Fig. 8. Magnitude of the step and touch voltages produced by a 100 kA, 10/350 ␮s
lightning strike at the tower top, considering the earthing system: (a) without metal-
lic enclosure, (b) with a metallic enclosure bonded to the earthing mesh, and (c) with
a metallic enclosure not bonded to the earthing mesh.
Fig. 9. Magnitude of the step and touch voltages produced by the 100 kA, 1/50 ␮s
lightning strike at the top of the tower considering the earthing system (a) without
metallic enclosure, (b) with a metallic enclosure bonded to the earthing mesh, and
(c) with a metallic enclosure not bonded to the earthing mesh.
 J.J. Pantoja et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 153 (2017) 119–127
Fig. 10. Experimental setup used to measure the touch voltage produced by an
impulsive current injected into the mast base.
4.3. Lightning earthing system design assessment
Using the calculated voltages, the proposed lightning risk
assessment methodology was applied to the earthing system. The
energy levels for each case were calculated applying Eq. (4) to the
voltage waveforms presented in Figs. 8 and 9. Table 1 shows that
removing the metallic enclosure from the simulations yields to very
high energy values delivered by the step path. For the other con-
sidered cases, with the metallic enclosure bonded and not bonded
to the earthing mesh, the delivered energy levels are below the 10 J
limit for the touching integration line. However, for the step path,
the not bonded condition is the only one that is below the limit.
For both impulses, the design with the enclosure not bonded to the
earthing mesh delivers less energy than the earthed one.
Peak step voltages are also presented in Table 1, which shows
that the design with the enclosure not bonded to the earthing mesh
has lower voltage levels than the step voltage threshold of 10 kV
determined by using Eq. (5).
The severity parameter Si1.4 was calculated applying Eq. (6) to
the current produced in a body resistance of 1 k by the voltage
waveforms presented in Figs. 8 and 9. Table 1 shows that the limit of
2.96 A1.4 ms is not surpassed in any case for the 1/50 ␮s waveform.
For the 10/350 ␮s waveform, both simulations: with and without
the metallic enclosure bonded to the earthing mesh surpass the
2.96 A1.4 ms limit. The best performance according to this parame-
Fig. 11. Schematic of the setup used to generate and measure the impulsive current injected in the mast base.
125
Fig. 12. Measured injected current produced by the impulse generator.
ter was obtained when the enclosure is not bonded to the earthing
mesh since it does not surpass the step-voltage limit and slightly
surpass the touch-voltage limit.
It is important to note that the three calculated approaches indi-
cate that the lowest risk to persons in the vicinity of the mast is
obtained for the case when the metallic enclosure is not bonded
to the earthing mesh. Although the 1/50 ␮s waveform is shorter
than the maximum values of lightning parameters defined by the
standard IEC 62305-1 for the first negative impulse (i.e. 100 kA,
1/100 ␮s), the obtained energy levels are considerable below the
threshold of 10 J for the not bonded design.
The calculated results indicate that there is an influence of the
impulse waveform on the risk assessment parameters.
4.4. Experimental test
An experimental test was performed to verify that the design
with the enclosure not bonded to the earthing mesh provides a
lower risk when the mast carries impulsive currents. An impulse
current of −1.1 kA, 17/62.5 ␮s was injected into the base of the mast
126 J.J. Pantoja et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 153 (2017) 119–127
Fig. 13. Measured touch voltages induced due to a −1.1 kA impulsive current
injected in the mast with the metallic enclouse in two configurations: (a) bonded to
the earthing mesh and (b) not bonded to the earthing mesh.
as shown in Fig. 10. Details of the experimental setup are shown in
the equivalent circuit presented in Fig. 11. Two capacitors in series
were discharged through a spark gap to produce an impulsive cur-
rent. The current waveform was measured with a 618 ␮ coaxial
resistance and the touch voltage was measured using a high volt-
age probe. Resistive matching impedance in parallel was used in
the 50  measurement cable to reduce high frequency noise. The
terminal located at 20 m from the metallic enclosure consists of two
posts buried 1.5 m with an equivalent resistance to earth of 7.45 .
Fig. 12 shows the measured injected current. This waveform is
impulsive as expected and presents some oscillations in the wave
front due to the resonance of the circuit inductance and the coaxial
capacitor formed by the enclosure and the mast and due to the
reflections of in the mast and the measurement wiring.
Fig. 13 shows the measured induced touch voltages between the
metallic enclosure and a terminal placed on the ground at a dis-
tance of 1 m from the enclosure. It is shown that the magnitude of
the measured peak induced voltage with the metallic enclosure not
bonded to the earthing mesh is almost three times lower than in the
case when the enclosure is bonded to the earthing mesh. In addi-
tion, Figs. 12 and 13 show that the touch voltage for the grounded
enclosure case follows the injected current waveform, indicating
that the coupling is mainly resistive. This is not the case for the
metallic enclosure not bonded to the earthing mesh. It is important
to note that these results hold for soils with higher resistivity than
the here considered since as the soil resistivity becomes higher, the
resistive coupling yields less determinant.
Differences between measured and simulated results are proba-
bly due to simplifications in the model, such as temporal invariance
in the soil resistivity, soil homogeneity, and system isolation.
Additionally, during the experimental campaign, the connection
between the mast and the metallic enclosure was performed with
a single conductor. This connection could involve parasitic induc-
tances that were not easily represented in the simulation.
5. Conclusions
Different techniques to assess the risk performance of a light-
ning protection system against transient currents, based in energy,
voltage thresholds, and current integral, were used in the earthing
system of a high mast. By using these methods similar conclusions
were obtained, since the design with the best performance yields
lower levels than the suggested thresholds for each method.
Particularly, it is shown that a metallic enclosure placed around
the mast in the condition of not-bonded to the earthing mesh com-
pared with the earthed one, produces lower energy and voltage
levels to a person touching it. This result was corroborated during
an experimental campaign, when current impulses were injected
to the actual mast.
This paper shows the importance of including both accurate rep-
resentations of the actual earthing system of high masts and the
expected fast changing lightning current impulses. A risk assess-
ment methodology is proposed and full wave electromagnetic
simulations are included in the procedure to consider possible
inductive or capacitive effects when a lightning current impacts
the structure.
Work in the use of recent computational tools to include differ-
ent lightning phenomena in the protection system analysis, such as
the soil ionization and non-linearity, is in progress. Particularly, the
possibility of a ground flashover between the earthing mesh and the
not-bonded metallic enclosure will be analyzed using detailed sim-
ulations, in which specific materials and dimensions are included.
Acknowledgments
This work was developed under the research project “Sistema
para la Captura y Almacenamiento de la Energía Proveniente de
Nubes de Tormenta” and financially supported by the Colombian
Administrative Department of Science, Technology and Innovation
Colciencias under the contract No.795-2011. Authors would like to
thank to PhD. Nicolás Mora Parra from Montena Technology S.A.
for the valuable contributions about the numerical simulations.
References
[1] S. Visacro, R. Alipio, M.H. Murta Vale, C. Pereira, The response of grounding
electrodes to lightning currents: the effect of frequency-dependent soil
resistivity and permittivity, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 53 (2) (2011)
401–406.
[2] M. Akbari, K. Sheshyekani, M.R. Alemi, The effect of frequency dependence of
soil electrical parameters on the lightning performance of grounding systems,
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 55 (4) (2013) 739–746.
[3] D. Cavka, N. Mora, F. Rachidi, A comparison of frequency-dependent soil
models: application to the analysis of grounding systems, IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat. 56 (1) (2014) 177–187.
[4] C. Portela, M. Tavares, J. Piscolato, Influence of earth conductivity and
permittivity frequency dependence in electromagnetic transient phenomena,
in: International Conference on Power Systems Transients–IPST 2003, New
Orleans, USA, 2003.
[5] S. Visacro, R. Alipio, Frequency dependence of soil parameters: experimental
results, predicting formula and influence on the lightning response of
grounding electrodes, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 27 (2) (2012) 927–935.
 J.J. Pantoja et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 153 (2017) 119–127
[6] R. Alipio, S. Visacro, Modeling the frequency dependence of electrical
parameters of soil, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 56 (5) (2014)
1163–1171.
[7] R. Alipio, S. Visacro, Frequency dependence of soil parameters: effect on the
lightning response of grounding electrodes, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.
55 (1) (2013) 132–139.
[8] F.H. Silveira, S. Visacro, R. Alipio, A. De Conti, Lightning-induced voltages over
lossy ground: the effect of frequency dependence of electrical parameters of
soil, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 56 (5) (2014) 1129–1136.
[9] A. Sowa, J. Waiter, Ground potential rise, step and touch voltages during
lightning strokes to GSM base station, in: International Conference on
Lightning Protection, Avignon, France, 2004.
[10] B. Markovski, L. Grcev, V. Arnautovski-Toseva, Step and touch voltages near
wind turbine grounding during lightning strokes, International Symposium
on Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC EUROPE), 2012 (2012) 1–6.
[11] J.J. Pantoja, F. Roman, Analysis of a lightning earthing system using
electromagnetic simulations, International Symposium on Lightning
Protection (XIII SIPDA), 2015 (2015) 104–108.
[12] A. Sowa, J. Wiater, Reduction of the step voltages around building during
direct lightning strike, presented at the IX International Symposium on
Lightning Protection, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, 2007.
[13] C.F. Dalziel, Dangerous electric currents, Trans. Am. Inst. Electr. Eng. 65 (8)
(1946) 579–585.
[14] L.B. Gordon, The physiological effects of electric shock in the pulsed power
laboratory, Pulsed Power Conference, 1991. Digest of Technical Papers. Eighth
IEEE International (1991) 377–380.
[15] D. Li, et al., On lightning electromagnetic field propagation along an irregular
terrain, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 58 (1) (2016) 161–171.
127
[16] H. Karami, F. Rachidi, M. Rubinstein, On practical implementation of
electromagnetic models of lightning return-strokes, Atmosphere 7 (10)
(2016).
[17] The Modelling of Lightning Strikes, CST AG, Computer Simulation Technology.
Article ID: 342, 2012.
[18] D. Johns, Designing building structures for protection against EMP and
lightning, IEEE Electromagn. Compat. Mag. 5 (1) (2016) 50–58.
[19] F.M. Tesche, On the modeling and representation of a lossy earth for transient
electromagnetic field calculations, in: Theoretical Notes, 2002, no. Note 367.
[20] M. Messier, Another Soil Conductivity Model, Internal Report, JAYCOR, Santa
Barbara, CA, 1985.
[21] IEEE Std 80-2000: IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, 2000.
[22] D.S. Gazzana, A.S. Bretas, G.A.D. Dias, M. Telló, D.W.P. Thomas, C.
Christopoulos, A study of human safety against lightning considering the
grounding system and the evaluation of the associated parameters, Electr.
Power Syst. Res. 113 (2014) 88–94.
[23] Y. Zen, Earthing Technique, Water Conservancy and Electric Power Press,
Beijng, 1979.
[24] E. Amiri, S.H.H. Sadeghi, R. Moini, A probabilistic approach for human safety
evaluation of grounding grids in the transient regime, IEEE Trans. Power
Deliv. 27 (2) (2012) 945–952.
[25] C. Portela, Frequency and transient behavior of grounding systems II –
practical application examples, presented at the IEEE 1997 International
Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Austin, Texas, United States,
August 1997, 1997.