325

Impulse Efficiency of Simple Grounding

Electrode Arrangements
Leonid Grcev
Department of Electrical Engineering, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University
Karpos 2 bb, P.O. Box 574, 1000 Skopje, Macedonia
Leonid.Grcev@IEEE.org

Abstract—Grounding basic function as the earth termination Then, the influence of the fast front current pulses can be ana-
of the lightning protection systems is to effectively disperse the lyzed in time domain [3].
lightning current to earth without causing any danger to people
or damage to installations. However, due to the inductive phe- II. FREQUENCY DEPENDENT INDUCTIVE BEHAVIOR
nomena, the grounding performance might be much worse at
high frequencies in comparison to low frequencies, which might The basic quantity that characterizes the low frequency per-
deteriorate the efficiency of the protection during fast front formance is the grounding resistance defined as:
lightning current pulses. This paper provides simple empirical R =V I (1)
formula for a first approximation of the impulse efficiency of
some common arrangements of vertical and horizontal ground where I is the current injected at a point in the grounding sys-
electrodes for typical lightning current waveforms. The effects of tem and V is the voltage between such point and the remote
the soil ionization are disregarded; therefore, the new formula neutral ground (both are RMS values). For typical grounding
leads to a conservative estimate of the upper bound of the im- systems, V is practically equal to the electric potential with a
pulse impedance.
reference point at the remote neutral ground.
This concept is extended to frequency domain by a com-
I. INTRODUCTION
plex harmonic impedance [3]:
The grounding dynamic behavior during lightning stroke is Z ( j ω) = V ( j ω) I ( j ω) (2)
complex and generally depends on the ground electrodes’ ge-
Here complex quantities V ( jω) and I ( jω) are phasors of the
ometry, the soil’s electrical properties, and the lightning cur-
rent waveform properties. Related to the latter, the main influ- harmonic electric potential at the feed point in reference to the
ence has: the current intensity and the current pulse front time. remote neutral ground and the injected current, respectively, in
In case of high lightning currents the electric field at the a frequency range from 0 Hz up to the highest frequency of
ground electrodes might become larger than the electric interest in the transient studies. It is worth noting that Z ( jω)
strength of the soil, resulting in breakdown and sparks dis- (2) reduces to R (1) at dc.
charge. This phenomenon improves the grounding system
performance so its ignoring always gives conservative results.
On the other hand, due to the frequency dependent inductive
phenomena, the grounding performance might be much worse
during fast front lightning current pulses, which can deterio-
rate the efficiency of the protection.
The previous analysis was often based on the quasi-static
approximation, which constrains the analysis to slow front
pulses [1]. In addition, the most of the previous approaches
use unrealistic lightning current waveforms approximated by
cosine [1] or exponential [2] functions that are characterized
by a convex wave front with a maximum current derivative at
t = 0. Fig. 1. Typical inductive or capacitive behavior of the grounding harmonic
impedance in the high frequency range.
This paper improves the analysis in the both mentioned as-
pects. Firstly, it applies the full-wave analysis method appli- Figure 1 presents typical frequency dependence of the
cable for both slow and very fast front lightning current pulses
grounding harmonic impedance Z ( jω) (2). Two frequency
based on the rigorous electromagnetic field theory approach
[3]. Secondly, realistic lightning current pulse waveforms are ranges may be distinguished: the low frequency (LF) range,
used, which reproduce the observed concave rising portion of where the impedance is frequency independent and practically
typical recorded lightning current pulses [4]. equal to the dc resistance, Z ( j ω) = R , and the high frequency
The analysis of the inductive related dynamic behavior may (HF) range, where the impedance is frequency dependent.
be carried out in two steps. First, the frequency dependent Speaking in circuit terms, the HF grounding behavior may be
inductive behavior can be analyzed in frequency domain. categorized as inductive when Z (ω) / R > 1 , capacitive when

Proceedings, 18th Int. Zurich Symposium on EMC, Munich 2007

Authorized licensed use limited to: PUC MG. Downloaded on June 12,2010 at 12:03:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
326
Z (ω) / R < 1 or resistive when Z (ω) / R ≈ 1 .
The limiting frequency between the LF resistive and HF
inductive ranges FC , often referred as characteristic fre-
quency, depends on the ground electrodes’ characteristic
length A C and the earth’s resistivity ρ [5], [6]:
FC = 0.3 ρ A C −0.43
Here, FC is in MHz, ρ is in Ωm and A C is in meters. The
characteristic length A C is here defined as the distance be-
tween the current injection point and the most distant point of
the ground electrode arrangement. Equation (3) implies that
FC is smaller in earth with smaller ρ and for ground elec-
trodes with larger A C , Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Dependence of FC on characteristic length of ground electrodes A C
and earth’s resistivity ρ .
The grounding harmonic impedance is a system function
where the lightning current is excitation and the potential at
the feed point is the response. Z ( jω) may be observed as a
frequency characteristic of a “filter” that might modify high
frequency components of the response. It has to be noted,
however, that the practical importance of the HF inductive
behavior for the grounding dynamic performance depends on
the frequency content of the lightning current pulse.
III. INFLUENCE OF THE LIGHTNING CURRENT PULSE FRONT
The high frequency content of the lightning current pulses
is determined by their front times. Faster front pulses have
higher frequency content. This is illustrated in Fig. 3b for sev-
eral current pulses with different front times. All pulses have
the same peak value I m = 1kA and the same pulse width
T2 = 50μs , but four different values of the zero-to-peak times:
T1 = 0.2μs , 0.5μs , 1μs and 5μs . In this case the harmonic
impedance exhibit inductive behavior above FC ≈ 200 kHz ,
Fig. 3a. The pulse with slowest front time ( T1 = 5μs ) does not
have enough frequency content above 200 kHz to be affected
by the inductive part of the harmonic impedance above 200
kHz. However, pulses with faster fronts have high frequency
content above 200 kHz which results in short potential peaks
during the current pulse rise, Fig. 3b.
Therefore, groundings with smaller FC subjected to slower
front current pulses have better grounding performance.
Proceedings, 18th Int. Zurich Symposium on EMC, Munich 2007
Authorized licensed use limited to: PUC MG. Downloaded on June 12,2010 at 12:03:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IV. GROUNDING DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR
In this study we have used two lightning current waveforms
corresponding, respectively, to typical first and subsequent
return strokes, based on observations of Berger et al [7] cho-
sen by Rachidi at al [8] to fit typical experimental data, ap-
proximated by the so-called Heidler function [4], which repro-
(3) duces the observed concave rising portion of a typical current
waveform.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3. (a) Harmonic impedance of 3-m vertical electrode in soil with
ρ = 10 Ωm and ε r = 10 (b) Potential at feed point for current pulses with
four different front times.
The first return-stroke current pulse (designated by i(t) in
Fig. 4a) is characterized by a peak value of 30 kA, zero-to-
peak time of about 8 μs and a maximum steepness of 12
kA/μs, whereas the subsequent return stroke current (desig-
nated by i(t) in Fig. 4b) has a peak value of 12 kA, zero-to-
peak time of about 0.8-μs and a maximum steepness of 40
kA/μs.
The grounding dynamic behavior is illustrated in Fig. 4 for
a 12-m long vertical electrode constructed of copper with 0.7
cm radius in earth with 100 Ωm resistivity and relative permit-
tivity of 10. The low frequency grounding resistance is
R = 10.3 Ω , and the harmonic impedance Z ( jω ) exhibits
inductive behavior above FC ≈ 100 kHz .
Figure 4 shows the response to the typical first (a) and sub-
sequent (b) lightning current pulses [9]. This figure is used to
illustrate the basic quantities that characterize the grounding
dynamic behavior: i(t) – the injected current pulse, v(t) – the
potential at the injection point, and z(t) – the transient imped-
ance (this time domain quantity is coined transient impedance
or alternatively transient resistance):
z (t ) = v(t ) i (t ) (4)
In addition the impulse impedance Z is defied as the quo-

tient of the peak values of v(t) and i(t):
Z = Vmax I max . (5)
Another common parameter is the impulse coefficient A de-
fined as:
A= Z R. (6)
Figure 4a shows the case of the first stroke. The first stroke
current pulse i(t) does not have significant frequency content
above FC ≈ 100 kHz . Consequently, the response, that is, the
potential pulse waveform v(t) is substantially determined by
the LF part of Z ( jω ) = R . Potential pulse v(t) waveform is
not significantly modified in comparison to the current pulse
i(t) waveform and their maximums occur at the same time
(Fig. 4a). Although the transient impedance z(t) goes very fast
to some high value (larger than 50 Ω) it quickly settles to the
low frequency resistance value (R = 10.3 Ω) during the current
rise.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4. Lightning current pulse i(t), transient potential v(t) and transient im-
pedance z(t) of 12-m vertical ground electrode. (a) Response to typical first
stroke current pulse. (b) Response to typical subsequent stroke current pulse.
The transient impedance z(t) determines the duration of the
two different transient states:
• the initial surge state characterized by time varying
z(t), referred here as the fast transient period, and
• the latter stationary condition characterized by nearly
constant z(t), nearly equal to the dc resistance R, re-
ferred here as the slow transient period.
Here, after about 3-μs the fast transient period is practi-
cally finished. Since maximums of the current and potential
pulses occur during the slow transient period, Z = R and A = 1.
Authorized licensed use limited to: PUC MG. Downloaded on June 12,2010 at 12:03:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
327
For the subsequent stroke current injected in the same ver-
tical electrode the situation is different, Fig. 4b. The subse-
quent stroke current pulse has much steeper front than the first
stroke. Consequently, it has significant frequency content
above 100 kHz and therefore the response is influenced by the
inductive part of the Z(jω). The “filter” amplifies the HF com-
ponents of the pulse, which results in a large peak Vm of the
transient potential v(t) during the front of the current i(t) (Fig.
4b). Typically for inductive behavior, the potential pulse pre-
cedes the current pulse. This causes larger value of the im-
pulse impedance, Z = 15.7 Ω, than the low frequency resis-
tance, R = 10.3 Ω, and the impulse coefficient of about A =
1.5. The transient impedance z(t), similarly to the case of the
first stroke (Fig. 4a), rises very rapidly to a high value (of
about 47 Ω), but also quickly (in about 1 μs) settles to values
near the low frequency value (R = 10.3 Ω).
V. IMPULSE IMPEDANCE AND EFFECTIVE LENGTH
Figure 5 shows the simulation results of the ground resis-
tance R and the impulse impedance Z of the vertical ground
electrode with lengths in a range from 3-m to 30-m in earth
with resistivity: 10-Ωm, 100-Ωm and 1000-Ωm and for light-
ning current waveforms related to the first and the subsequent
strokes.
Fig. 5. Ground resistance R and impulse impedance Z of vertical ground elec-
trode with lengths from 3 to 30-m, earth resistivity: 10, 100 and 1000 Ωm and
first and subsequent stroke lighting current waveforms.
The impulse impedance of ground electrodes with smaller
length is equal to the ground resistance, that is, the impulse
coefficient is equal to one. The impulse impedance decreases
with increase of electrode length, but later becomes constant,
while the resistance continues to decrease resulting in increase
of the impulse coefficient. Therefore, only a certain electrode
length is effective in reducing the impulse impedance, which
is referred as effective length Aeff. The effective length is larger
in more resistive earth and for slow front currents pulses, such
as the first stoke current pulse.
VI. IMPULSE EFFICIENCY OF A SINGLE VERTICAL ELECTRODE
The impulse coefficient of a single vertical ground elec-
trode as a function of the electrode length is illustrated in Fig.
Proceedings, 18th Int. Zurich Symposium on EMC, Munich 2007
328

6. Different cases are illustrated for earth resistance values of ground electrode arrangements illustrated in the first column
10, 100 and 1000-Ωm and for the first and subsequent stroke of the Table I indicate very similar linear functions for the
current pulses. Impulse performance is worse for longer elec- impulse coefficient as in Fig. 6, only the values of both α and
trodes in better conductive earth, which characteristic fre- β in (7)–(8) are reduced by extents given in the Table I.
quency FC is smaller, and for faster varying pulses, such as
subsequent strokes, which have higher frequency content. TABLE I
(Please note in Fig 6 that A = 1 for ρ = 1000 Ωm and first REDUCTION FACTOR OF THE IMPULSE COEFFICIENT FOR MULTIPLE VERTICAL
GROUND ELECTRODE ARRANGEMENTS [9]
stroke.) Horizontal electrodes are slightly less effective at
power frequency in comparison to vertical ones, but have bet- Ground Electrode Reduction factor
ter impulse efficiency; however, both exhibit very similar be- Arrangement for both α and β
havior. Taking into account necessary simplifications, results
in Fig. 6 for the impulse coefficient of a vertical ground elec-
A
1.00
trode can be used also for a conservative estimate of the im-
pulse coefficient of horizontal electrodes.

A
0.90
A

A
0.80
A

A 1.00

Fig. 6. Impulse coefficients of a single vertical ground electrode [9]
Dependence of the impulse coefficient A on the electrode
length is nearly linear and may be approximated with a line for
lengths equal and larger than the effective length [9]
A = 1 (A ≤ A eff ); A = αA + β, (A ≥ A eff ) (7)
Consequently the effective length Ae may be determined for
A =1 :
A eff = (1 − β) α (8)
All dependences of the impulse coefficient A for the cases
illustrated in Fig. 6 may be approximated with three lines (7).
The coefficients α and β can be approximated by the follow-
ing formulas for other values of the earth resistivity ρ and
zero-to-peak time of the lightning current pulse T1 in μs [9]:
α = 0.025 + e ( 1 ) ; β = 0.17 + e ( 1 )
0.257 0.555
−0.82 ρ⋅T −0.22 ρ⋅T
(9)
All results are for 0.7 cm electrode radius and 1 m depth of
burial of the horizontal electrode, but since the results does not
significantly depend on these parameters, formulas (7)–(9) can
be used for a first approximation of other similar practically
important cases.
VII. IMPULSE EFFICIENCY OF SOME COMMON GROUND
ELECTRODE ARRANGEMENTS
Multiple ground electrode arrangements improve the low-
frequency ground resistance, but they also improve the im-
pulse efficiency. The simulation results for several common
A A 0.90
A
0.80
A
A A
VIII. REFERENCES
[1] B. R. Gupta, B. Thapar, “Impulse impedance of grounding systems”,
1978 IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Paper A 78 563-9.
[2] Jinliang He, Yanqing Gao, Rong Zeng, Jun Zou, Xidong Liang, Bo
Zhang, Jaebok Lee, Sughun Chang, “Effective length of counterpoise
wire under lightning current”, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 20, pp.
1585-1591, April 2005.
[3] L. Grcev, F. Dawalibi, “An electromagnetic model for transients in
grounding systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 5, pp. 1773-
1781, Oct. 1990.
[4] F. Heidler, “Analytische Blitzstromfunktion zur LEMP- Berechnung,” in
Proc. 18th Int. Conf. Lightning Protection, Munich, 1985, pp. 63–66.
[5] L. Grcev, “Improved earthing system design practices for reduction of
transient voltages,” in Proc. 1998 CIGRÉ Session, pp. 1-6
[6] L. Grcev, "Improved design of transmission line grounding arrange-
ments for better protection against effects of lightning," in Proc. Int.
Symp. on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Roma, Italy, 1998, pp. 100-
103.
[7] K. Berger, R. B. Anderson, and H. Kroninger, “Parameters of lightning
flashes,” Electra, No. 41, pp. 23-37, 1975.
[8] F. Rachidi, W. Janischewskyj, A. M. Hussein, C. A. Nucci, S. Guerrieri,
B. Kordi, J-S Chang, “Current and electromagnetic field associated with
lightning–return strokes to tall towers”, IEEE Trans. on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, Vol. 43, pp. 356-367, 2001.
[9] L. Grcev, “Impulse efficiency of ground electrodes”, IEEE Trans. Power
Delivery, submitted.

Proceedings, 18th Int. Zurich Symposium on EMC, Munich 2007

Authorized licensed use limited to: PUC MG. Downloaded on June 12,2010 at 12:03:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.