TEMC-184-2007 1

Response of Grounding Electrodes to Impulsive

Currents: an Experimental Evaluation Impulse IG IG
Generator
∆ VR Rs 30 to 60 m
S. Visacro, Member, IEEE and G. Rosado
90º electrode Soil
Ch1 R
Ch2 under test
Auxiliary
Oscilloscope electrodes
Abstract—Experimental results for the transient behavior of
grounding electrodes are presented to clarify fundamental IG
Remote
aspects of the grounding response to lightning currents. It is earth
shown that, for fast current waves, the value of impulsive Fig. 1. Representation of the experimental setup. Impulsive current waves
grounding impedance ZP of short electrodes is smaller than its are impressed by an impulse generator from the electrode under test to an
low frequency resistance RLF while electrodes longer than the auxiliary grid. Both the current and the developed grounding potential rise
effective length have a resistance value smaller than impulsive in relation to remote earth are measured using a two channel oscilloscope.
impedance. The values found for the ratio ZP/RLF in the
experiments are lower than those resulting from numerical III. PRIMARY RESULTS
simulation for electrodes shorter than the effective length.
Typical results, consisting of the waves of impressed current
Index Terms— lightning, response of grounding electrodes and developed potential rise measured for each tested electrode
to lightning currents, impulsive impedance, impulse coefficient. and condition, are illustrated in Fig. 2, which also includes the
voltage measured at the generator output.
I. INTRODUCTION
600 8
300 4
When subjected to lightning currents, grounding electrodes
6
present a peculiar behavior that is usually quite different from the 3

Current (A)
Voltage (V)
400

Current (A)
Voltage (V)
200
one presented to low frequency currents, such as short-circuits. As 2 4

discussed in [1], this behavior comprises different aspects, the 100

1
200
2
response to impulsive currents and the ionization process being the
0 0 0 0
most relevant ones. This work is dedicated to the first aspect only. 0 100 200 300 0 2 4 6 8 10
In lightning protection, the impulsive grounding impedance is Time (µs) Time (µs)
frequently used to represent the response of grounding electrodes Fig. 2. Typical result: measured current (thin line) and grounding potential
to lightning currents. It is given by the ratio between the peaks of rise (thick line) waves. Dashed line: voltage at the generator output
developed voltage and current waves: ZP=VP/IP. (case – current: 1.2/54 µs - soil: 116 Ω.m – 3 m vertical rod – r = 0.7 cm)
In most practical engineering conditions, the measurement of ZP
The experiments were systematically repeated to verify the
is not a feasible task and the grounding resistance is measured
consistency of the results. The curves presented in Figs. 3 to 5
instead. Since it is measured by instruments that usually employ a
correspond to typical results obtained in each case.
frequency signal below 1 kHz, it is known as the low frequency
resistance RLF. The ratio between ZP and RLF for a given electrode 700 16 200 6
600
arrangement, known as the impulse coefficient, is used to estimate 12 150
500
Current (A)
Voltage (V)

Current (A)
Voltage (V)

the grounding impedance from the measured resistance RLF. 400

4
8 100
Some references consider this coefficient to be always larger than 300
2
or equal to unity, assuming the impulsive impedance to be larger 200 4 50
100
than the low frequency resistance in most cases. The evaluation of 0 0 0 0
this questionable assumption, which depends very much on the 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (µs)
hypothesis adopted for the behavior of soil parameters [2-3], Time (µs)

motivated this experimental work. Fig. 3. Results for a horizontal electrode - 3 m long, 0.5 m deep, r = 0.7 cm,
soil: 180 Ω.m, RLF = 64 Ω, TF of the current wave ( ): 0.4 µs (thin
continuous line), 1.3 µs (thick continuous line), 3.5 µs (dashed line).
II. DEVELOPMENTS
600 2,5 600 2,5
In order to investigate and understand how the impulsive
2 2
impedance and low frequency resistance are related, an
Current (A)
Voltage (V)
Current (A)
Voltage (V)

400 400
1,5 1,5
experimental evaluation was developed. The circuit represented in
1 1
Fig. 1 was used to provide practical results. 200 200
0,5
0,5
Typically, the front-time of natural lightning currents TF ranges 0 0
0 0
from 10 µs to 0.4 µs, with median values around 3.5 µs and 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0 2 4 6

0.85 µs respectively for first and subsequent strokes. Thus, in this Time (µs)
Time (µs)

work, low amplitude current waves with front-times ranging from Fig. 4. Results for a 12 m horizontal electrode - 0.5 m deep, r = 0.7 cm,
0.4 µs to 4 µs and time-to-half-peak values around 60 µs were soil: 4 kΩ.m, RLF = 486 Ω, TF of the current wave ( ): 0.5 µs (thin
impressed to some simple electrode arrangements, consisting of continuous line), 2.5 µs (dashed line).
vertical rods and horizontal electrodes buried 0.5 m deep in the 50 2 50 2

soil. Different electrode lengths were tested in two conditions: low 40

1.5
40
1.5
Current (A)
Voltage (V)
Current (A)
Voltage (V)

and high resistivity soils (respectively around 100 Ω.m and 30 30

1 1
4 kΩ.m). 20 20
0.5 0.5
10 10

0 0 0 0
Manuscript received August 28, 2007.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6
Prof. Visacro is the Head of the Lightning Research Center (LRC) of
Time (µs) Time (µs)
Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), where Eng. Rosado develops
research activities supported by the CNPq- Brazilian Research Council. Fig. 5. Results for 18 m long horizontal electrode - 0.5 m deep, r = 0.7 cm,
Prof. Visacro is also with the Electrical Eng. Dept. at UFMG. (e-mail: soil: 300 Ω.m, RLF = 24 Ω , TF of the current wave ( ): 0.6 µs (thin
Lrc@cpdee.ufmg.br). continuous line), 1.2 µs (thick continuous line), 3 µs (dashed line).
TEMC-184-2007 2

The experimental results obtained in this study relating the waves, this coefficient is below unity, around 0.9 to 0.85, for
impulse coefficient (ZP/RLF) to the electrode length are presented electrodes shorter than the effective length (3 and 6 m) but it is
in Fig. 6 for different values of soil resistivity, along with three significantly larger than unity for longer electrodes. Front times
curves taken from reference [4]. These curves were obtained via from 0.5 µs to 1.2 µs correspond to a set of coefficients
numerical simulation [5] and refer to vertical rods from 3 m to respectively around 1.3 to 1.5 (for 12 m long electrodes) and 1.6 to
30 m long. 1.9 (for 18 m long electrodes).
Fig. 7 shows the transient impedance Z(t) [9] of electrodes
Ref. [4] - 100 Ω.m Ref. [4] – Soil: 1 kΩ.m
TF= 0.8 µs TF= 0.8 µs buried in both low and high resistivity soils.
2
TF= 0.6 µs - 90 Ω.m 600 70
RLF = 486 Ω 60
TF= 1.2 µs - 90 Ω.m 500
1.5 50

Z ( t ) (Ω)
Z ( t ) (Ω)
400
TF= 0.7 µs - 250 Ω.m 40
Z P / R LF

300 30 RLF = 24 Ω
1
TF= 3.0 µs - 250 Ω.m 200 20
1
TF= 3.5 µs - 90 Ω.m 10
100
0.5 TF=2.5 µs - 3.9 kΩ.m
2 0 0
3 TF= 0.5 µs - 3.9 kΩ.m Ref. [4] - 100 Ω.m 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
TF= 8 µs Time (µs)
0 Time (µs)
0 3 6 12 18 30
'

Electrode Length (m) (a) high resistivity soil: 4 kΩ.m (b) low resistivity soil: 300 Ω.m
horizontal electrode 12 m long horizontal electrode 18 m long
All electrodes are horizontal except those indicated by x
(x1: 100 Ω.m, TF= 0.5 and 3.5 µs; x2: 3.9 kΩ.m, TF= 0.5 µs; x3: 3.9 kΩ.m, TF= 3.5 µs) Fig. 7. Transient grounding impedance Z(t) - v(t)/i(t): ratio of the
instantaneous values of voltage and current waves - TF of the current wave:
Fig. 6. Impulse coefficient ZP/RLF: experimental results of this study along around 0.5 µs ( ) and 1.3 µs.
with results obtained via numerical simulation [4].

Basically, the coefficients obtained by simulation are equal to
1.0 for electrodes from 3 m to a certain threshold of length. Above
this threshold, the coefficient presents a linear increase with the
electrode length. This threshold depends on soil resistivity and
front time, as indicated in Fig. 6. According to [4], horizontal and
vertical electrodes have similar behavior and the results for vertical
electrodes can be used also for a conservative estimate of the
impulse coefficient of horizontal electrodes.
IV. ANALYSES OF THE RESULTS
Figs. 3 to 5 show some interesting results. In all cases, except
for the long electrode of Fig. 5, the current wave is advanced in
relation to voltage, denoting the relevance of the capacitive effect
in the soil. This effect is very significant in high resistivity soils,
even for the slow current wave, as shown in Fig. 4. According to
Fig. 3, it is small in very low resistivity soils, since both current
|Z (ω)| (Ω)
In the high resistivity soil, the transient impedance of the
electrode is much smaller than the low frequency resistance along
the whole time scale. This is a consistent indicative of a impulse
coefficient below unity, as found in the experiments.
However, as the electrode buried in the low resistivity soil has
values of Z(t) lower and higher than RLF along the time scale, the
result is not conclusive regarding the impulse coefficient.
To complement this analysis, the complex grounding impedance
Z(ω) [6] was calculated for the 12m long electrode buried in both
the low and high resistivity soils, using Fast Fourier Transform [7].
Fig. 8 shows this parameter along the frequency range of interest.
Typically, the frequency content of lightning currents extends up
to around 100 kHz and 1 MHz respectively for first and subsequent
negative strokes.
500 10
RLF = 486 Ω
400 0
ΘZ (Degree)

-10
300
and voltage waveforms are quite similar and have almost -20
simultaneous peaks. But, even in this case, the effect is clearly 200
-30
noticed in the detail of Fig. 3 that refers to the shortest front-time 100
-40
wave. Also, with only the exception of Fig. 5, the impulsive 0 -50
103
1000 10
10000
4
10 5
100000 10 6
1000000 3 4 5 6
impedance ZP is smaller than the low frequency resistance. 10
1000 10
10000 10
100000 10
10000
Frequency (Hz)
The experimental results of Fig. 5 are very unique. Considering Frequency (Hz)

the 18-m-long electrode buried in the low resistivity, the capacitive (a) high resistivity soil (4 kΩ.m) - 12 m long horizontal electrode
effect prevails for an impressed 3.5-µs-front-time current, as it 40 35
happens for short electrodes (Figs. 3 and 4). However, as the front- RLF = 29.9 Ω
30
30 25
ΘZ (Degree)

time is decreased, the inductive effect becomes dominant,

|Z (ω)| (Ω)

20
significantly delaying the current wave in relation to the voltage. 20 15
10
It is very impressive the transition of the grounding impedance of 10 5
this electrode from a value lower than RLF to a higher value. While 0
0
the front-time is decreased from 3 µs to 0.6 µs, ZP increases from 103
1.E+03 104
1.E+04 105
1.E+05 106
1.E+06
-5
10
3
1.E+03 10
1.E+04
4
10
1.E+05
5
10
1.E+
6

20.4 Ω to 27.4 Ω. Since the value of RLF is equal to 24 Ω, this
front-time decrease corresponds to a transition of the impulse ratio
from 0.85 to 1.14.
In Fig. 6, the experimental impulse coefficient of vertical rods
has values smaller than those predicted by simulations, around
0.85 in the low resistivity soil and really very reduced in the high
resistivity soil, ranging from 0.3 to 0.5.
Similar trends are verified for horizontal electrodes. In the high
resistivity soil, the coefficient is much smaller than unity in all
cases, ranging from 0.3 to 0.6. In the low resistivity soil (around
100 Ω.m), this coefficient is significantly smaller than unity for
currents with the longest front time (around 0.68 to 0.77 for
electrode lengths varying from 3 to 18 m). For the short-front-time
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
(b) low resistivity soil (300 Ω.m) - 12 m long horizontal electrode
Fig. 8. Frequency diagram of the complex grounding impedance Z(ω)
[ratio of the voltage and current phasors: V (ω)/I(ω)].
At low frequency, reactive effects are negligible and the
complex impedance tends to the grounding resistance RLF. With
increasing frequency, the amplitude of Z(ω) decreases from RLF.
The impedance angle shows that the capacitive effect is very
much pronounced in the high resistivity soil and this explains the
very small impulse coefficient for the electrodes buried in this soil.
But the reduction of the impedance amplitude with increasing
frequency is still relevant in the low resistivity soil up to a certain
TEMC-184-2007
frequency. Above that, the amplitude begins to increase due to an
inductive effect, determining a minimum value for this impedance
around the frequency corresponding to the null impedance angle.
Above this threshold the impedance amplitude increases and
becomes much larger than the low frequency resistance. This
behavior is not observed for the high resistivity soil, where the
impedance amplitude remains decreasing continuously. The
experimental behavior described above is finely consistent with the
predictions of reference [1].
The relatively small impedance angle in the low resistivity soil
suggests that the significant reduction of the impedance amplitude
with increasing frequency is not due entirely to capacitive effects.
For now, it is still not clear whether this reduction results from a
combination of the capacitive effect and a decrease of soil
resistivity associated to the frequency dependence of this
parameter [10, 11].
Considering the results presented, it seems reasonable to
organize the impulsive impedance behavior in two different
domains, in reference to the effective length LEF of electrodes.
According to [1], the value of LEF is found when the minimum
impulsive impedance is achieved while increasing the electrode
length. Further increasing the electrode length does not lead to any
additional decrease of ZP, though the electrode grounding
resistance RLF still decreases. Only as reference, values of LEF
around 10, 23, 34, 50 and 85 m are indicated in [1] as rough
estimates of LEF for soils with resistivity values of 100, 500, 1000,
2000 and 5000 Ω.m respectively and considering a fast current
wave (1.2/50 µs).
In the first domain, for electrodes shorter than LEF, ZP is
expected to be smaller than RLF, leading to impulse coefficients
below unity. This is the case of all the experiments in the high
resistivity soil and of the electrodes shorter than 12 m in the low
resistivity soil.
In the second domain, electrodes longer than LEF have values of
ZP larger than RLF, leading to impulse coefficients above unity. As
the electrode length is increased further, the impulsive impedance
remains constant while its resistance decreases, leading to a
continuous increase of the impulse coefficient. The results in this
paper corresponding to long electrodes buried in low resistivity
soils and subjected to short-front-time impulsive currents are
included in this domain. This is consistent with the impulse
coefficient around 2.6 found for a 15 m long horizontal electrode
buried in a 70 Ω.m soil in the experiments described in [6], since
the effective length is expected to be shorter than 10 m for the
impressed current (front time around 0.5 µs ).
The transition of the impulse coefficient in the results of Fig. 5,
as commented in the second paragraph of chapter IV, is a good
illustration of both domains for a same electrode. The 18-m-long
electrode buried in the low resistivity soil (300 Ω.m) has its
effective length for the 3-µs-front-time current (estimated larger
than 22 m) reduced to a value shorter than the electrode length for
the 0.6-µs-front-time current (estimated shorter than 14 m).
Accordingly, the value of ZP, which is lower than RLF for the long-
front-time current, becomes larger than RLF for the short-front-time
current.
V. CONCLUSIONS
It is worth remarking that the results presented here, with
different very short front-time currents, are valuable experimental
contributions lacking in the literature and bring new insights into
the issue of the transient response of grounding electrodes.
Unlike the simulated results that basically show the impulse
coefficient equal to or larger than unity [4], the experimental
results of this work show coefficients significantly smaller than
unity for electrodes shorter than the effective length, even in low
3
resistivity soils. In this case, the ratio ZP/RLF is within the ranges
0.3 to 0.6 and 0.68 to 0.9 respectively for the tested electrodes
buried in the high and low resistivity soils. Electrodes longer than
LEF have impulse coefficient values above unity, though apparently
smaller than those predicted by simulations.
The capacitive effect in the soil is more pronounced than
usually assumed in traditional studies and is at least partially
responsible for the usual value of impulse coefficient below unity.
For the time being, the significance of the contribution of the
frequency dependence of soil resistivity to reduce the impulse
coefficient remains unclear.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Visacro, "A comprehensive approach to the grounding response to
lightning currents", IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 22, pp.381-386,
Jan. 2007.
[2] S. Visacro, W. L. F. Pinto, "Is grounding impedance really larger than
low frequency resistance?" in Proc. 2006 Int. Conf. Grounding and
Earthing - GROUND’2006, pp.185-188, Brazil.
[3] S. Visacro, A. Soares Jr., "HEM: a model for simulation of lightning-
related engineering problems", IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol.20,
No.2, pp. 1026-1208, April 2005.
[4] L. Grcev, Impulse efficiency of simple grounding electrode
arrangements, in Proc. 2007 Int. Zurich Symp. Electromagnetic
Compatibility, pp.325-328, Germany.
[5] L. Grcev, F. Dawalibi, “An electromagnetic model for transients in
grounding systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 5, pp. 1773-
1781, Oct. 1990.
[6] Saint-Privat-d’Allier Research Group, "Eight years of lightning
experiments at Saint-Privat-d’Allier",RGE, No. 9, 1982, pp. 561-582
[7] Bourg, S., Sacepe, B., Debu, T., “Deep earth electrodes in highly
resistive ground: frequency behaviour” in Symposium Record, 1995
IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, pp.
584-589, 14-18 August 1995.
[8] H. Rochereau, "Response of earth electrodes when fast fronted
currents are flowing out", EDF Bulletin de la Direction des etudes et
Recherches, Série B, No.2, 1988, pp. 13-22.
[9] R. Velazquez., D. Mukhedkar, “Analytical Modeling of Grounding.
Electrodes Transient Behavior“, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol.
PAS-103, No 6, pp. 1314-1321.
[10] S. Visacro, C. M. Portela, C.M. ,"Soil permittivity and conductivity
behavior on frequency range of transient phenomena in electric power
systems", in Proc. 1987 Int. Symp. High Voltage Engineering,
n.93.06, pp.1-4, Germany.
[11] H. S. Scott, "Dielectric Constant and Electrical Conductivity
Measurements of Moist Rocks: A New laboratory Method", Journal
of Geophysical Research, vol. 72, n. 20, pp. 5101-5115, 1967.