- CA 6416 6417
- ETT2010 Certification Elements Descriptions
- 33KV EARTHMAT 1DESIGN
- Insulation Resistance (IR) Values _ Electrical Notes & Articles
- 2391 Revision Questions 1.pdf
- 34-ST-25-44
- Control_Building_Users_Guide_EXDOC-XX19-en-110.pdf
- How to Determine Correct Number of Earthing Electrodes Strips Plates and Pipes Part 1
- Spl Bsts Jandaha Earthmat.cal 005
- Earthing Systemdesign
- CSC-211 Multifunction Protection IED Technical Application Manual_V1.01
- Electrical Systems
- 1.1 Micm
- GM150 Commissioning Manual
- Earthing in Substation
- C14-21
- 56161791 SAMI STAR Optional Equipment
- ACS300-04
- MiCOM P72x Manual Global File P72x en T B21
- Cohabitation of High and Low Currents
- electricalSafety.pdf
- VB-C10-E_final
- KS 1876-1-2010 Overhead Power Lines for Kenya - Code
- Plaquette_SES-CDEGS
- 90NetManual.pdf
- ASC-e
- 1 - Earthmat Design
- 420_OPI_21743802_en_0705.pdf
- Protec - Aspirating-Smoke Detection
- VFD M User Manual
- Digital Lock
- Catalog RT2DB - (English)_ind 4
- aptitude test
- Ruuskanen v. Modelling the Brushless Excitation System for a Synchronous Machine
- CBS-20140304 Managers Daily Reportdd-20140227
- Current Affairs January Digest PDF
- Feb Current Gk Examsbook
- Civil Services Mentor April-May 2014
- Resume Cover Letterss
- Input Voltage
- 30325b
- uC002 Developing in C With the Keil uVision2 IDE
- Electric Distribution
- Electrical&Electronics
- SEM-287. Optimal Power Point Tracking System for Solar
- EE 010 604 Digital Signal Processing
- SEM-287. Optimal Power Point Tracking System for Solar

Lightning Protection

9

th

-13

th

November, 2009 – Curitiba, Brazil

THE INFLUENCE OF THE SOIL PARAMETERS DEPENDENCE WITH

FREQUENCY ON IMPULSE GROUNDING BEHAVIOR

Rafael S. Alípio

1

, Marco A. O. Schroeder

1

, Márcio M. Afonso

1

, Tarcísio A. S. Oliveira

1

1

Electrical Engineering Department (DEE), Federal Center of Technological Education of Minas Gerais (CEFET-MG)

rafael@dppg.cefetmg.br; schroeder@des.cefetmg.br; marciomatias@des.cefetmg.br; tarcisio@des.cefetmg.br

Abstract - This paper investigates the influence of the soil

electrical conductivity and permittivity dependence with

frequency in grounding response to lightning currents.

Simulated results for soil with frequency variation of its

parameters show: i) a significant reduction of the amplitude

values of the transient voltages and impulse impedance; ii) an

increase of the expected effective length of electrode; iii) a

significant reduction of the impulse coefficient with values, in

some cases, below unity. These effects are more relevant for

high-resistivity soils and are due to the pronounced

capacitive effect observed when the soil parameters

dependence with frequency is included in simulations.

1 INTRODUCTION

The grounding systems are an important element for good

electrical systems performance, mainly when they are

subjected to faults. Their basic function is to disperse the

current of fault to earth without causing any potential

differences or induced voltages that might endanger

people or damage equipments. Grounding performance

and design at low frequencies are well established and

described in classical books and international standards

[1], [2]. However, when subjected to lightning currents,

grounding electrodes present a very particular behaviour,

usually referred as grounding impulse behaviour [3].

Recently, several computational models to evaluate the

grounding performance to high-frequency currents have

been developed based on different approaches [4]-[7].

These powerful tools play an important role in the

investigation of the grounding impulse behaviour, since

they allow performing different analysis to relate the

grounding performance and some typical variables (soil

resistivity and permittivity, grounding dimensions, etc.)

[8]. Therefore, such tools have been widely applied in the

grounding analysis to understand and improve its

performance to lightning currents.

Further, in the grounding study, it is of major importance

the adequate soil modelling [9]. In the most part of works,

which deal with lightning transients in grounding, the soil

electrical conductivity and permittivity are usually

assumed to be constant, equal to its low-frequency values

and frequency independent. However, measurements of

the soil electromagnetic behavior show that both

parameters are strongly frequency dependent [9].

Experimental data obtained in [9] for a large number of

soil samples indicate an increase of the soil conductivity

and a reduction of the relative permittivity when

frequency rises from about 100 Hz to 2 MHz [9]. This

important effect is usually neglected, likely due to

historical and cultural reasons or even due to ignorance.

Nevertheless, depending on the soil characteristics at low

frequency and the type of transient occurrence, important

differences in the results of grounding simulations may be

found, if the soil parameters dependence with frequency is

disregarded. The main objective of this work is to

elucidate such differences. For this, it is investigated the

influence of the soil parameters variation with frequency

in the computation of some very fundamental grounding

quantities related to its impulse performance, namely

transient voltages, impulse impedance, impulse coefficient

and effective length.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the

electromagnetic model used for representing the

grounding electrodes. Section 3 discusses in brief the

formulation proposed in [10] for expressing the frequency

variation of soil parameters, which is used in the analysis

presented herein. The influence of such variation in

grounding impulse behaviour is then analysed in Section

4. Finally, Section 5 presents the conclusions.

2 ELECTROMAGNETIC GROUNDING MODEL

The grounding model employed in simulations performed

in this work is based on the Hybrid Electromagnetic

Model (HEM), described in detail in [5], with some

suitable modifications [7]. Simulations are performed in

frequency-domain in order to include the frequency

dependence of the soil parameters. The time-domain

response is then obtained by application of an inverse

Fourier transform.

369

The grounding system is represented by a set of

cylindrical electrodes. Each electrode is source of a

transversal current I

T

and longitudinal current I

L

. The

current I

T

generates a divergent electric field at a generic

point. Considering each pair of electrodes, this current

promotes capacitive and conductive couplings (self and

mutual ones). The current I

L

generates a nonconservative

electric field and a magnetic field at a generic point.

Considering each pair of electrodes, this current promotes

inductive and resistive couplings (self and mutual ones).

The superposition of both transversal and longitudinal

effects of the current sources leads to the final

electromagnetic equations, which describe the grounding

transient behaviour [5], [7]. The application of Moment

Method numerical technique and modified image theory

leads to final results [7].

3 SOIL MODELLING

In this work is used a formulation for expressing the

frequency dependence of the electrical soil parameters

(electric conductivity σ and electric permittivity ε),

originated from measurements of several soil samples of

Brazil, covering very different soil types and geological

structures [9]. The measurements were performed in a

frequency range of 100 Hz to 2 MHz. From a statistical

analysis of the experimental results, the following

formulation was obtained for σ and ε frequency

dependence computation [10]:

0 6

cotang

2 2 10

j i j

α

π ω

σ ωε σ α

π

( | | | |

= + ∆

| | (

×

\ ¹ \ ¹ ¸ ¸

∓ ∓ (1),

where σ

0

is the electric conductivity at low frequency, ω is

the angular frequency and i and α are statistical

parameters, which are responsible for the frequency

dependence of soil conductivity and permittivity. In this

work it is used median values for i and α, which are,

respectively, 11.71 S/m and 0.706. The soil magnetic

permeability is assumed to be equal to the vacuum

magnetic permeability and frequency independent [9].

Further details regarding fitting of soil parameters and the

experimental setup can be found in [9].

4 RESULTS

The evaluated grounding configuration corresponds to

horizontal electrodes, buried on 0.5 m depth, with radius 1

cm and of different lengths, from 5 to 80 m.

Two soil models were adopted, that is: Soil 1 – soil

represented by only its low-frequency electric

conductivity σ

0

(three representative values considered in

this work: 10, 2 and 1 mS/m) and relative permittivity

equal to 15, both parameters frequency independet. Soil 2

– soil with the inclusion of frequency variation of its

parameters and the same previous low-frequency values of

conductivities. In simulations, the effects of the soil

ionization are disregarded.

The electrode excitation was obtained by the injection of a

typical double exponential current wave of 1 kA and

1.2/50 µs. In all simulations, the current injection was

made in the electrode beginning point.

4.1 Transient voltages

To evaluate the influence of the soil parameters variation

with frequency on the transient voltages in grounding, it is

considered a 60 m long horizontal electrode, buried in

both Soil 1 and 2, with σ

0

=10, 2 and 1 mS/m. Fig. 1

illustrates the amplitude [|Z(ω)|, Fig. 1(a)], and the angle

[θ(ω), Fig. 1(b)], of the harmonic grounding impedance

Z(ω). The harmonic impedance is frequency independent

and equal to the low frequency ground resistance R, in the

low frequency (LF) range, for both Soil 1 and 2.

Nevertheless, as frequency rise, a different behaviour of

Z(ω) is observed, depending on the soil model. Results for

10

1

10

2

10

3

10

4

10

5

10

6

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

f (Hz)

Z

(

ω ωω ω

)

(

Ω ΩΩ Ω

)

Soil 1

Soil 2

2 mS/m

10 mS/m

1 mS/m

(a)

10

1

10

2

10

3

10

4

10

5

10

6

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

f (Hz)

θ θθ θ

(

ω ωω ω

)

(

d

e

g

r

e

e

s

)

10 mS/m

2 mS/m

1 mS/m

Soil 1

Soil 2

(b)

Fig. 1 - 60 m horizontal electrode. (a) Amplitude and (b) Angle

of the harmonic grounding impedance

0.5 m

L=60 m; radius=1 cm

Soil 1 or 2

370

Soil 1 exhibit an inductive behaviour and the amplitude of

Z(ω) becomes larger than R, being this effect more

relevant for more conductive soils. These results are in

accordance with some classical ones, for example, those

presented by Grcev in [11]. On the other hand, when the

soil parameters dependence with frequency is considered

(Soil 2), the capacitive effect become relevant, especially

for high-resistivity soils [θ(ω)<0, Fig. 1(b)]. The

capacitive effect plays an important role in the grounding

performance and it is responsible for the reduction of

|Z(ω)|. Indeed, as may be observed in Fig. 1(a), the

frequency dependence of the soil parameters leads to

reduction of the amplitude values of Z(ω) in the high

frequency (HF) range.

The transient voltages at the injection point, for both Soil

1 and 2, and σ

0

=10, 2 and 1 mS/m, are illustrated,

respectively, in Figs. 2, 3 and 4. Results for Soil 2 exhibit

an appreciable reduction of the overvoltage values. Also,

the voltage wave has its front shape distorted, with the

reduction of the front-wave slope. Both features become

more pronounced for high-resistivity soils, as may be

observed in Figs. 3 and 4. Along the wave tail it is

observed a similar behaviour above a certain instant of

time, which depends of σ

0

being larger for less conductive

soils (about 0.8, 15 and 25 µs for, respectively, σ

0

=10, 2

and 1 mS/m).

The obtained results for the transient voltages are in

perfect consonance with that obtained for the harmonic

grounding impedance. First, the influence of the soil

parameters variation with frequency, in reducing the

overvoltage values, is more pronounced in less conductive

soils. Similarly, the great reductions of the amplitude of

the harmonic impedance are observed for high-resistivity

soils. Second, the main differences are observed in front

wave region, which are associated with the HF

components. It may be understood, since the harmonic

grounding impedance present similar behaviour, for both

Soil 1 and 2, in the LF range, and significant differences

in the HF range.

4.2 Impulse impedance and effective length

When an impulsive current wave is injected in a long

grounding electrode, the corresponding electromagnetic

wave propagates along the electrode [3]. While the wave

is propagating, it has its amplitude attenuated and also

distorted with a reduction of the front-wave slope along

the propagation direction. As a consequence of

attenuation, the current that is dispersed to ground along

the electrode presents a nonuniform distribution with the

decrease of the linear current density (A/m) along the

conductor [3]. The concept of effective length of electrode

is just derived from such considerations. It is a limiting

electrode length from which grounding impedance

reductions are not observed [3]. It occurs due the fact that

0 1 2 3 4 5

0

5

10

15

20

t (µ µµ µ s)

v

t

(

k

V

)

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

5

10

15

20

t (µ µµ µ s)

v

t

(

k

V

)

Fig. 2 - Transient voltage at injection point, σ

0

=10 mS/m

0 1 2 3 4 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

t (µ µµ µ s)

v

t

(

k

V

)

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

10

20

30

40

50

t (µ µµ µ s)

v

t

(

k

V

)

Fig. 3 - Transient voltage at injection point, σ

0

=2 mS/m

0 1 2 3 4 5

0

25

50

75

t (µ µµ µ s)

v

t

(

k

V

)

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

25

50

75

t (µ µµ µ s)

v

t

(

k

V

)

Fig. 4 - Transient voltage at injection point, σ

0

=1 mS/m

the current wave attenuation to this limiting length is

strong so that the current dispersion to ground from this

point is negligible.

Fig. 5 shows the ratio of the attenuation constant for soil 2

(α2) and soil 1 (α1), with σ

0

=10, 2 and 1 mS/m, along the

frequency range of interest. As may be observed, at LF

range, the ratio is near to the unity. As frequency rise, the

ratio become smaller than unity, that is, the attenuation in

Soil 1 is more pronunced than in Soil 2. This behavior is

due to the high values of soil permittivity observed in

experimental data of typical soils and obtained by

application of the formulation described in Section 3.

Above certain frequency, wich depedents of σ

0

value, the

influence of the conductivity increase with frequency

becomes more relevant and the ratio is larger than unity.

Such frequency increase with the soil conductivty at low

frequency (σ

0

).

Fig. 6 shows the simulation results of the low frequency

ground resistance R and the impulse impedance Zp of

horizontal ground electrodes in a range from 5 to 80 m,

for both Soil 1 and 2, with σ

0

=10, 2 and 1 mS/m.

371

10

2

10

3

10

4

10

5

10

6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

f (Hz)

α αα α

2

/

α αα α

1

σο=10 mS/m

σο=2 mS/m

σο=1 mS/m

Fig. 5 - Ratio of the attenuation constant for soil 2 (α2) and soil

1 (α1)

According to Fig. 6, the value of the ground resistance is

larger for less conductive soils and decrease with the

increase of the electrode length. Similarly, the impulse

impedance, for both soil models, presents larger values for

less conductive soils and decrease with the increase of the

electrode length; nevertheless at a certain length it

becomes constant, while the LF resistance continues to

decrease. Therefore, only a certain electrode length is

effective in controlling the impulse impedance, which is

referred as effective length ℓ

ef

. The effective length

decreases with soil conductivity σ

0

and frequency rise.

This can be understood as both parameters are responsible

for increasing ground losses, leading to an increase in the

attenuation of the current wave that propagates along the

electrode [3].

Fig. 6 also shows two very important differences between

simulated results for Soil 1 and 2. First, it may be

observed that the effective length is larger for soil with

frequency variation of its parameters (Soil 2). This effect

is more appreciable in less conductive soils and probably

is due to the reduction of the attenuation constant of soil

in the intermediate frequency range, when its parameters

are assumed to be frequency dependent (Fig. 5). Second,

the values of impulse impedance for soil with frequency

variation of its parameters (Soil 2) are lower than that

obtained for soil represented by only its LF parameters

(Soil 1), especially for high-resistivity soils. Such

difference between the obtained values becomes larger

above the effective length for Soil 1, since the impulse

impedance continues to decrease for Soil 2. As a

conclusion, the reduction of the amplitude levels of the

transient voltages, due to the soil parameters variation

with frequency, is more significant for electrodes lengths

larger than the effective one for Soil 1.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

10

0

10

1

10

2

10

3

Electrode Length (m)

R

,

Z

p

(

Ω ΩΩ Ω

)

2 mS/m

1 mS/m

R

Zp, Soil 1

Zp, Soil 2

10 mS/m

Fig. 6 - Low-frequency ground resistance R and impulse

impedance Zp of horizontal ground electrode of 5-80 m, in both

Soil 1 and 2, and σ

0

=10, 2 and 1 mS/m

4.3 Impulse coefficient

The impulse coefficient A is a typical parameter in the

analysis of transients in grounding, which allows a simple

comparison between the grounding performance at low

and high frequencies. It is defined as the ratio between the

impulse impedance and the LF ground resistance. The

results obtained in subsection 4.2, directly impact in

computation of the impulse coefficient.

Fig. 7 illustrates the impulse coefficient for horizontal

electrode, considering results of subsection 4.2, for both

Soil 1 and 2. For Soil 1, the impulse impedance is equal to

the ground resistance for electrode lengths below the

effective one (Fig. 6). Hence, the impulse coefficient for

such soil model is equal to one for lengths smaller than

the effective and above unity for lengths larger than the

effective. These results are in agreement with that

obtained by Grcev [11]. Nevertheless, when the soil

parameters dependence with frequency is taken into

account (Soil 2) a completely different behaviour is

obtained. As illustrated in Fig. 7, it is observed a

significant reduction of the impulse coefficient and, the

most important, it is noted values of A smaller than unity,

mainly for high-resistivity soils. In the analysed cases, for

Soil 2, the ratio Zp/R is within the range 0.9-5.24, 0.76-

1.7 and 0.66-0.95, respectively, for σ

0

=10, 2 and 1 mS/m.

These results are in conformity with a recent experimental

work [12]. According to this work, and as it was shown in

this paper, the capacitive effect in high-resistivity soils is

more pronounced than usually assumed in some

traditional studies and is at least partially responsible for

the values of impulse coefficient below unity [12].

372

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Electrode Length (m)

I

m

p

u

l

s

e

c

o

e

f

f

i

c

i

e

n

t

1

1

2

3

2

3

1 - 10 mS/m

2 - 2 mS/m

3 - 1 mS/m

Soil 1

Soil 2

Fig. 7 - Impulse coefficient of horizontal ground electrode of 5-

80 m, in both Soil 1 and 2, and σ

0

=10, 2 and 1 mS/m

5 CONCLUSION

This paper presents a study of the influence of the soil

parameters variation with frequency in grounding

performance to lightning currents. From the obtained

results and presented analyses, the following main

conclusions can be drawn:

1. When the soil parameters dependence with frequency is

taken into account, it is observed a significant capacitive

effect, which is responsible for the reduction of the

amplitude values of both transient voltages and impulse

grounding impedance. These reductions are more

pronounced for high-resistivity soils.

2. The effective length of the grounding electrode,

obtained by simulations, is larger for soils with frequency

variation of its parameters. As a consequence, larger

reductions in both transient voltages and impulse

impedance are expected for electrode lengths larger than

the effective one obtained for soils represented by only its

low-frequency parameters.

3. A significant reduction of the impulse coefficient and

also values below unit are observed, when the soil

parameters dependence with frequency is included. This

behaviour is due to the capacitive effect and is in

accordance with some experimental results.

4. The negligence of the soil parameters dependence with

frequency leads to conservative, but unrealistic results. In

some applications, for example, those associated with

lightning performance of transmission lines, in order to

optimize the tower footing design, more realistic and

accurate results should be used.

6 REFERENCES

[1] G. F. Tagg, Earth Resistances. London, U.K.: Newnes,

1964.

[2] IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, IEEE

Std. 80-2000, 2000.

[3] S. Visacro, “A comprehensive approach to the grounding

response to lightning currents,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,

vol. 22, nº 1, pp. 381-386, Jan., 2007.

[4] L. Grcev and F. Dawalibi, “An electromagnetic model for

transients in grounding systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,

vol. 5, nº 4, pp. 1773-1781, Oct., 1990.

[5] S. Visacro and A. Soares, “HEM: A model for simulation

of lightning-related engineering problems,” IEEE Trans.

Power Del., vol. 20, nº 2, pp. 1206-1208, Apr., 2005.

[6] J. C. Salari and C. Portela, “A methodology for

electromagnetic transients calculation – An application for

the calculation of lighting propagation in transmission

lines,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 22, nº 1, pp. 527-536,

Jan., 2007.

[7] R. S. Alípio, M. A. O. Schroeder, M. M. Afonso, and T. A.

S. Oliveira, “Electromagnetic fields of buried conductors,”

in Proc. 2008 Int. Conf. Grounding Earthing (GROUND

2008), pp. 399-402.

[8] G. C. Rosado, S. Visacro, F. S. Almeida and A. L. Senna

Filho, “Experimental evaluation of the transient response of

grounding electrodes subjected to impulsive currents,” in

Proc. IX Int. Symp. Lightning Protection (SIPDA 2007).

[9] C. M. Portela, “Measurement and modeling of soil

electromagnetic behavior,” in Proc. of IEEE Int. Sym.

Electromagnetic Compatibility, Seattle, WA, 1999, pp.

1004-1009.

[10] C. M. Portela and M. C. Tavares, “Modeling, simulation

and optimization of transmission lines,” in Proc. of IEEE

Power Eng. Soc. Conf. Transmission and Distribution, São

Paulo, Brazil, Marc. 2002.

[11] L. Grcev, “Impulse efficiency of ground electrodes,” IEEE

Trans. Power Del., vol. 24, nº 1, pp. 441-451, Jan., 2009.

[12] S. Visacro and G. Rosado, “Response to grounding

electrodes to impulsive currents: An experimental

evaluation,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 51,

nº 1, pp. 161-164, Feb., 2009.

373

- CA 6416 6417Uploaded byKittisak
- ETT2010 Certification Elements DescriptionsUploaded byPhillip Black
- 33KV EARTHMAT 1DESIGNUploaded byVelavan Annamalai
- Insulation Resistance (IR) Values _ Electrical Notes & ArticlesUploaded byKush Sharma
- 2391 Revision Questions 1.pdfUploaded byMuhammad Noman
- 34-ST-25-44Uploaded byAmiroucheBenlakehal
- Control_Building_Users_Guide_EXDOC-XX19-en-110.pdfUploaded bysinambeladavid
- How to Determine Correct Number of Earthing Electrodes Strips Plates and Pipes Part 1Uploaded byRobert Galarza
- Spl Bsts Jandaha Earthmat.cal 005Uploaded byrahulnegi1917
- Earthing SystemdesignUploaded bylrpatra
- CSC-211 Multifunction Protection IED Technical Application Manual_V1.01Uploaded bymentong
- Electrical SystemsUploaded byJoseph Lloyd B. Parba
- 1.1 MicmUploaded byInsan Aziz
- GM150 Commissioning ManualUploaded byLeandro Medeiros
- Earthing in SubstationUploaded bymuhannad11061975
- C14-21Uploaded bytucurici5740
- 56161791 SAMI STAR Optional EquipmentUploaded byEnmanuel Rosales Carvajál
- ACS300-04Uploaded byLeonardoAcevedo
- MiCOM P72x Manual Global File P72x en T B21Uploaded byYahya Dar
- Cohabitation of High and Low CurrentsUploaded byTrunghieutc Hieu
- electricalSafety.pdfUploaded bySudarshan Dhumal
- VB-C10-E_finalUploaded bycipri_73
- KS 1876-1-2010 Overhead Power Lines for Kenya - CodeUploaded byColin Sillman
- Plaquette_SES-CDEGSUploaded bycarcejerome
- 90NetManual.pdfUploaded byDeco Dluxe
- ASC-eUploaded byRazvan Mares
- 1 - Earthmat DesignUploaded byAjith Ganji
- 420_OPI_21743802_en_0705.pdfUploaded byNolan Alexis Rosales Sanchez
- Protec - Aspirating-Smoke DetectionUploaded byHans Mans
- VFD M User ManualUploaded byandermark

- Digital LockUploaded byAshik Muhammed P A
- Catalog RT2DB - (English)_ind 4Uploaded byAshik Muhammed P A
- aptitude testUploaded byAshik Muhammed P A
- Ruuskanen v. Modelling the Brushless Excitation System for a Synchronous MachineUploaded byAshik Muhammed P A
- CBS-20140304 Managers Daily Reportdd-20140227Uploaded byAshik Muhammed P A
- Current Affairs January Digest PDFUploaded byAshik Muhammed P A
- Feb Current Gk ExamsbookUploaded byAshik Muhammed P A
- Civil Services Mentor April-May 2014Uploaded byAshik Muhammed P A
- Resume Cover LetterssUploaded byAshik Muhammed P A
- Input VoltageUploaded byAshik Muhammed P A
- 30325bUploaded byAshik Muhammed P A
- uC002 Developing in C With the Keil uVision2 IDEUploaded byAshik Muhammed P A
- Electric DistributionUploaded byAshik Muhammed P A
- Electrical&ElectronicsUploaded byAshik Muhammed P A
- SEM-287. Optimal Power Point Tracking System for SolarUploaded byAshik Muhammed P A
- EE 010 604 Digital Signal ProcessingUploaded byAshik Muhammed P A
- SEM-287. Optimal Power Point Tracking System for SolarUploaded byAshik Muhammed P A