energies

Article
Safety Analysis of Grounding Resistance with Depth
of Water for Floating PVs
Jae Woo Ko 1 , Hae Lim Cha 1 , David Kwang-Soon Kim 1 , Jong Rok Lim 1 , Gyu Gwang Kim 1 ,
Byeong Gwan Bhang 1 , Chang Sub Won 2 , Han Sang Jung 3 , Dong Hyung Kang 4 and
Hyung Keun Ahn 1, *
1 Department of Electrical Engineering, Konkuk University, 120 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05029,
Korea; zeusko@naver.com (J.W.K.); haelim219@gmail.com (H.L.C.); davidkskim0324@gmail.com (D.K.-S.K.);
bangsil82@hanmail.net (J.R.L.); rbrhkd00@naver.com (G.G.K.); bbk0627@naver.com (B.G.B.)
2 Power Conversion R&D Center, LS IS Co., Ltd., LS-ro 116 beon-gil 40, Dongan-gu, Anyang-si 14118,
Gyeonggi-do, Korea; cswon@lsis.com
3 Water Facility Research Center, K-Water Institute (KWI), 125, 1689 beon-gil, Yuseong-daero, Yuseong-gu,
Daejeon 34045, Korea; han-sang@kwater.or.kr
4 Operation & Management Team, K-Water Institute (KWI), K-Water Hapcheon Dam Office, 705,
Hapcheonhosu-ro, Yongju-myeon, Hapcheon-gun 50215, Gyeongsangnam-do, Korea;
kowa1995@kwater.or.kr
* Correspondence: hkahn@konkuk.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-2-450-3481

Academic Editor: Tomonobu Senjyu

Received: 28 July 2017; Accepted: 28 August 2017; Published: 1 September 2017

Abstract: Underwater grounding methods could be applied in deep water for grounding a floating
PV (photovoltaic) system. However, the depth at which the electrodes should be located is a
controversial subject. In this study, grounding resistance was measured for the first time by
analyzing the water temperature at different water depths in an area where a floating PV system is
installed. The theoretical calculation of the grounding resistance has a maximum error range of 8%
compared to the experimentally measured data. In order to meet the electrical safety standards of
a floating PV system, a number of electrodes were connected in parallel. In addition, the distance
between electrodes and number of electrodes were considered in the test to obtain a formula for
the grounding resistance. In addition, the coefficient of corrosion was obtained from an electrode
installed underwater a year ago, and it was added to the formula. Through this analysis, it is
possible to predict the grounding resistance prior to installing the floating PV system. Furthermore,
the electrical safety of the floating PV system could be achieved by considering the seasonal changes
in water temperature.

Keywords: floating PV system; grounding resistance; electrical safety; underwater grounding

1. Introduction
Photovoltaic (PV) systems have become one of the major sustainable energy resources as a
practical solution to environmental problems. The energy generated by PV systems have played an
important role over the last decade in the evolution of the electricity field, offering a unique opportunity
for the growth of mixed production of electricity on a large scale [1–3]. The energy produced by PV
systems in Europe, which currently amounts to 4% of the peak demand on the continent (with 51 GW
installed), could reach a maximum of 25% of European demand in 2030, contributing significantly
to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and decreasing use of fossil fuels [4,5]. When a PV
system is installed in structures on land, there are critical issues such as choosing the location, ensuring
structural safety, and considering the interference of shadows. In addition, it is necessary to address

Energies 2017, 10, 1304; doi:10.3390/en10091304 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2017, 10, 1304 2 of 12

public concerns as well as resolve potential licensing issues for installations in areas such as farmlands
or forests. Therefore, a floating PV system on a water surface has been recently suggested as an
alternative [6]. The floating PV is a new concept and is not at the commercial stage at present. Only
some demonstrator projects are currently being installed worldwide [7]. In a floating PV system,
the PV module is installed and operated in humid areas (on bodies of water or in wetlands) and the
electricity produced is transmitted to the power grid for end users. The installation of the system is
understandably more difficult compared with land-based PV systems; however, the power generation
efficiency of a floating PV system is 10–15% higher than that of a land-based PV system because of the
ambient temperature drop, which is caused by the absorption of the evaporation heat and reflection of
light from the water surface [8–12]. There is also a positive effect on the proliferation of green algae [13].
In Australia, it was reported that 40% of the water in a reservoir could be lost through evaporation [14].
A floating PV system could prevent this phenomenon and manage water resources more efficiently.
Despite the rapid increase in the number of PV power stations, their safe grounding system design
is rarely analyzed in the literature [15]. A grounding system must be installed to prevent possible
damage by lightning or current leakage. Furthermore, it allows for the flow of normal or fault currents
into the earth without exceeding operating and equipment limits or affecting service continuity in an
adverse manner [16]. Any form of physical contact made with improperly grounded lightning currents
could be extremely dangerous to human life. The steep rise in lighting current within microseconds,
coupled with the inductance of the object it strikes, could generate step or touch potentials with values
well above the safety limit that the human body can endure. Lightning has been acknowledged as a
primary source of power quality degradation in power systems [17]. There have been an enormous
amount of studies conducted on various aspects of the grounding system, with the most recent ones
as found in the literature [18–21]. The specifications for the safe design of a PV system are currently
defined by International Standards: NEC (National Electrical Code) 2011 [22] and UL (Underwriters
Laboratories Inc.) 1741 for the countries of North America [23]. Lightning and surge protection is the
main issue of the standard IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) 62305 (parts 1 to 4). Each
part provides basic criteria for the protection of structures and services, risk management methods,
lightning protection system (LPS), and protection against lightning electromagnetic impulse (LEMP),
respectively [24–27]. It is common knowledge that the grounding resistance should be less than
approximately 10 Ω, as required by the electrical utility laws. Unfortunately, grounding methods for
floating PV systems are not clearly established yet. Under these circumstances, there have been some
experimental studies concerning grounding safety in a floating PV system [28]. It is possible to draw
grounding cables to the surface in a shallow reservoir or lake and hook them up in the same manner
as performed in land-based PV systems. It would be very inefficient to install the grounding cable on
land outside a deep lake or dam. This paper presents an underwater grounding method that uses the
water resistivity instead of earth resistivity to calculate the theoretical resistance, which was predicted
and validated by measuring the grounding resistance and temperature variations associated with
water depth.

2. Calculation of Grounding Resistance

2.1. Measurement of Grounding Resistance

The fall-of-potential method is widely used to measure grounding resistance. E is the electrode to
be measured, and C is the electrode used to apply a current, as shown in Figure 1. P is the electrode
used to measure the potential difference at E. The power source is connected between E and C, and
the current is passed through the earth to obtain the potential difference between E and P. When the
current I (A) flows to the earth, the potential difference between E and P is V (V). The grounding
resistance is then obtained, assuming that P and C are at equal potentials.
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 3 of 12
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 3 of 12
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 3 of 12

Figure 1. Fall-of-potential method.

Figure 1. Fall-of-potential method.
Figure 1. Fall-of-potential method.
2.2. Equivalent Resistance of Multilayer Resistance
2.2. Equivalent Resistance of Multilayer Resistance
The most
2.2. Equivalent practicalof
Resistance measurements
Multilayer Resistanceof the earth’s resistivity utilize a formula that assumes that the
The
earthmost practical
is made measurements
of homogeneous of the
layers. earth’s resistivity
However, in the caseutilize a formula that assumes
of non-homogeneous that the
layers, the
The most practical measurements of the earth’s resistivity utilize a formula that assumes that the
resistivity of each layer should be substituted with the equivalent resistivity.
earth is made of homogeneous layers. However, in the case of non-homogeneous layers, the resistivity
earth isThemade of homogeneous
equivalent resistivity with
layers.
can the
However, in
be calculated
the casethatof the
non-homogeneous layers, the
of each layer should be substituted equivalentassuming
resistivity. resistivity of each layer is
resistivity
connectedof each layer
in parallel should
with be
,ρ cansubstituted
, ⋯ with
, ascalculatedthe equivalent
shown in Figure resistivity.
2a: that the resistivity of each layer is
The equivalent resistivity be assuming
The equivalent resistivity 0 can be calculated assuming that the resistivity of each layer is
connected inin
parallel ℎ + as ℎ shown
+ℎ inℎ Figure
ℎ 2a: ℎ ∞
connected parallelwith
withρ1 , ρ, 2 , ρ,3 ··· , ⋯ = in+Figure
, as shown + 2a:+ . (1)
hℎ1 +
+hℎ2 ++hℎ3 hℎ1 hℎ2 ℎ
h3 ∞
When the driven rod is grounded to the== ++ shown
earth as + in+
+ + .. 2b, the equivalent resistivity
Figure (1) (1)
ρ0 ρ ρ2 ρ3 ρ4
( ) can be expressed as given in Equation (2): 1
When
When thedriven
the drivenrod
rodisisgrounded
grounded to
to the
the earth
earth as
as shown
shownin inFigure
Figure2b,
2b,the
theequivalent
equivalentresistivity
resistivity
( ) can be expressed as given in =
Equation (2): .
(ρm ) can be expressed as given in Equationℎ(2): ℎ − (ℎ + ℎ ) (2)
+ +
= l (ℎ + ℎ ).
ρm =ℎ + ℎ + − l −(h1 +h2 )
. (2) (2)
h1 h2
ρ + ρ2 + 1 ρ3

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Equivalent resistivity of a multilayer. (a) Without driven rod; (b) with driven rod.
(a) (b)
3. Modeling of Multilayer Resistance According to Water Temperature
Figure 2. Equivalent resistivity of a multilayer. (a) Without driven rod; (b) with driven rod.
Figure 2. Equivalent resistivity of a multilayer. (a) Without driven rod; (b) with driven rod.
3.1. Measurement of Water Temperature According to Water Depth
3. Modeling
The of
of Multilayer
water
Resistance
resistivityResistance
According
is divided into
to
zones in to
Water
deep
Temperature
water. The different resistivity of each layer
3. Modeling Multilayer According Water Temperature
results from the variation in water temperature with depth. This experiment was conducted at the
3.1.Hapcheon
Measurement Dam,
of located
Water Temperature
in the southern
According to Water
part of
Depth
3.1. Measurement of Water Temperature According to the Korean
Water Depthpeninsula. The dam is used to control
floods
The andwater consists of 790iskm
resistivity 3 of pondage, and has a total area of 925 km2 and an average water depth
divided into zones in deep water. The different resistivity of each layer
The
of over
results water
from30 m. resistivity
the The
variation isindivided
variations in water
water into zones in
temperature
temperature deep
with
with water.
depth
depth. The
were
This differentatresistivity
measured
experiment every
was of each
1 m from
conducted layer
1atmthe
results
Hapcheonfrom
to 30 m belowthe variation
Dam,the in
surface.
located water
in The temperature
the monthly
southernaverages with
part of were depth. This
then calculated
the Korean experiment
fromThe
peninsula. the damwas
daily is
dataconducted
to controlthe
to compare
used at
and and
Hapcheon
floods analyze
Dam, the
consists seasonal
located
of 790inkmvariations.
the
3 ofsouthern
pondage,partand of
hasthe Korean
a total peninsula.
area of 925 km2 and Theandam is used
average water todepth
control
floods and It consists
is knownof that790the
km 3 of temperature
water pondage, decreases
and has a as we
total go deeper
area of 925 below
km 2 and
the surface
an of thewater
average water,depth
of over 30 m. The variations in water temperature with depth were measured at every 1 m from 1 m
of to
overas 30
shown
m. The in Figure
variations3a–c.inFigure
water 3atemperature
shows the variations
withthendepthin water temperature
were measured in spring and fall,
30 m below the surface. The monthly averages were calculated from theatdaily
every 1m
data tofrom
compare 1 m to
respectively. Figure 3b,c indicate the variations in water temperature in the summer and winter,
30and
m below
analyze thethe
surface.
seasonal The monthly averages were then calculated from the daily data to compare
variations.
respectively. In the summer, there is a considerable difference of more than 20 °C between the
and analyze the seasonal
It is known that the variations.
water temperature decreases as we go deeper below the surface of the water,
temperatures at the surface and 30 m below the surface, as shown in Figure 3b. Therefore, a difference
as It
shown
is known in Figure
that 3a–c. Figuretemperature
the water 3a shows thedecreases
variationsasinwe water temperature
go deeper below in the
spring and fall,
surface of the
in resistivity between layers is expected. On the other hand, there is little difference in the water
respectively.
water, as shown Figure 3b,c indicate
in Figure the variations
3a–c. Figure 3a shows in water temperature
the variations in the temperature
in water summer and winter, in spring
andrespectively. In the summer,
fall, respectively. Figure 3b,c there is a considerable
indicate the variations difference
in waterof temperature
more than 20in°C thebetween
summerthe and
winter, respectively. In the summer, there is a considerable difference of more than 20 C difference
temperatures at the surface and 30 m below the surface, as shown in Figure 3b. Therefore, ◦ a between the
in resistivity between layers is expected. On the other hand, there is little difference in the water
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 4 of 12

temperatures at the surface and 30 m below the surface, as shown in Figure 3b. Therefore, a difference
in Energies 2017, 10,
resistivity 1304
between layers is expected. On the other hand, there is little difference in the4 of 12
water
temperature with changing water depth in the winter. Accordingly, no major difference in resistivity
temperature with changing water depth in the winter. Accordingly, no major difference in resistivity
would be found between the layers. Figure 3d shows a graph of the monthly average air temperature
would be found between the layers. Figure 3d shows a graph of the monthly average air temperature
and the highest and the lowest water temperature for each month. The highest water temperature
and the highest and the lowest water temperature for each month. The highest water temperature
recorded tends to be greater than the average air temperature. It also shows that the difference between
recorded tends to be greater than the average air temperature. It also shows that the difference
the highest and the lowest water temperatures is smallest in the winter (January) while it is the largest
between the highest and the lowest water temperatures is smallest in the winter (January) while it is
in the summer (August) reaching around 22 ◦ C. It is therefore expected that the resistivity of water
the largest in the summer (August) reaching around 22 °C. It is therefore expected that the resistivity
willofshow
waterhuge differences
will show at the surface
huge differences ofsurface
at the water and in deeper
of water and inwater.
deeper water.
According to observations made over a period of one
According to observations made over a period of one year, the year, thetemperature
temperatureofofthethe water
water dropped
dropped
during
duringthethe
winter,
winter, began
begantotorise
risesteadily
steadilyininthe
the spring, and reached
spring, and reachedaamaximum
maximumininthe the summer,
summer, before
before
gradually
gradually decreasing throughout the fall and winter. The water temperature at approximately 3030
decreasing throughout the fall and winter. The water temperature at approximately mm
below the surface shows little difference over
below the surface shows little difference over the year.the year.

Figure Seasonal
3. 3.
Figure Seasonalwater
water temperature againstwater
temperature against water depth
depth at Hapcheon
at Hapcheon Dam Dam
(a) in(a) in spring
spring and(b)
and fall; fall;
(b)in
insummer;
summer;(c) (c)ininwinter;
winter; and (d) monthly water temperature and average temperature.
and (d) monthly water temperature and average temperature.

3.2.3.2. Experiment
Experiment onon WaterResistivity
Water ResistivityAccording
Accordingto
to Temperature
Temperature
Generally,
Generally, thethe resistivity
resistivity of materials
of materials tendstends to increase
to increase as theas the temperature
temperature increases.
increases. The
The electrical
resistivity was corrected for the soil temperature and referenced to 25 C, as shown in Equation (3) in
electrical resistivity was corrected for the soil temperature and referenced
◦ to 25 °C, as shown [29]:
Equation (3) [29]:
1
== σT== σ25 [11++α( T( −−2525◦ C°C)
)], , (3) (3)
ρT
where is the electrical resistivity at temperature T (in °C), is the electrical conductivity at T,
where ρ T is the electrical resistivity at temperature T (in ◦ C), σT is the electrical conductivity at T,
σ25°C is the electrical conductivity at 25 °C, and α is the correction factor per °C accounting for the
σ25 ◦ C is the electrical conductivity at 25 ◦ C, and α is the correction factor per ◦ C accounting for the
linear increase in soil conductivity with temperature. Water samples were taken from places such as
linear increase in soil conductivity with temperature. Water samples were taken from places such as
rivers, reservoirs, and the Hapcheon Dam, where a floating PV system could be installed in order to
rivers, reservoirs, and the Hapcheon Dam, where a floating PV system could be installed in order to
measure the water resistivity according to the variations in water temperature. The water samples
were set in a thermo-hygrostat and the resistivity was measured by controlling the external
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 5 of 12

measure the water resistivity according to the variations in water temperature. The water samples were
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 5 of 12
set in a thermo-hygrostat and the resistivity was measured by controlling the external temperature.
A conductivity
temperature. A meter was alsometer
conductivity usedwasfor also
measurements at every 5 ◦ at
used for measurements C for the5 whole
every range
°C for the of 5–30
whole
◦
range C,
as of
well as °C,
5–30 for as
resistivity measurements
well as for required to required
resistivity measurements reduce errors.
to reduce errors.
The experimental results in Figure 4 illustrate
The experimental results in Figure 4 illustrate that that thethe
resistivity of water
resistivity ranged
of water rangedfrom 15–35
from 15–35Ω ·m
with a reference temperature ◦
of 25 of C,25
and
Ω·m with a reference temperature °C,tended to increase
and tended withwith
to increase decreasing temperature.
decreasing temperature.
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 5 of 12

temperature. A conductivity meter was also used for measurements at every 5 °C for the whole range
of 5–30 °C, as well as for resistivity measurements required to reduce errors.
The experimental results in Figure 4 illustrate that the resistivity of water ranged from 15–35
Ω·m with a reference temperature of 25 °C, and tended to increase with decreasing temperature.

Figure4.4.Resistivity
Figure Resistivityof
ofwater
water from
from various
various sources
sourcesagainst
againsttemperature.
temperature.

The results obtained from the experiment were remarkably consistent with the theoretical value
The results obtained from
Figure the experiment
4. Resistivity were
of water from remarkably
various consistent
sources against with the theoretical value
temperature.
calculated from Equation (3), with 0.39% error. The temperature coefficient calculated based on the
calculated from Equation (3), with 0.39% error. The temperature coefficient calculated based on the
above experiment was used for
The results modeling the grounding resistivity.
above experiment was obtained
used forfrom the experiment
modeling were remarkably
the grounding consistent with the theoretical value
resistivity.
calculated from Equation (3), with 0.39% error. The temperature coefficient calculated based on the
3.3. Modeling Groundingwas
above experiment Resistivity for a Floating
used for modeling PV System
the grounding According to a Multilayer Structure
resistivity.
3.3. Modeling Grounding Resistivity for a Floating PV System According to a Multilayer Structure
The3.3.
underwater grounding
Modeling Grounding for aforfloating
Resistivity a FloatingPV system must be installed at a specific water depth,
The underwater grounding for a floating PVPV System According
system must be to a Multilayer
installed at Structure
a specific water depth, in
in contrast to a land-based PV system, as shown in Figure 5. In this case, the system can be divided
contrast The
to a main underwater
land-based PVthe grounding for
system,section a floating PV
as shown in Figure system must be
5. In this installed
case, at a specific
the system water
can depth,
bethe
divided into
into three
in contrastsections:
to a land-basedfirst
PV system, asbetween the surface
shown in Figure and
5. In this top
case, theof the electrode,
system can be divided second
three main sections:
section into
including the first
the sections:section
electrode, between
and section
the third the surface
section and
between top of the electrode, the second section
three main the first between the surface andthe top bottom of the electrode
of the electrode, the second and the
including ofthe
bottom section
theelectrode,
water
including andEach
body.
the the section
third
electrode, andsection
has between
a different
the third the bottom
section resistivity;
between of the
thetherefore,
bottom of electrode
electrodeand
a different
the andthe
the bottom
formula should of
thebewater body.
usedbottom Each
of section
the water
to calculate has
body.
the total a different
Each section has
equivalent resistivity;
a different
resistivity therefore,
resistivity;
instead aexisting
different
therefore,
of the formula
a different
formula.formulashould
should be used to
be used
calculate the totalto equivalent
calculate the total equivalent
resistivity resistivity
instead instead
of the of the existing
existing formula. formula.

Figure 5. Design for an underwater grounding system for a floating PV (Photovoltaic) system.
Figure 5. Design for an underwater grounding system for a floating PV (Photovoltaic) system.
The resistivity for the section above the electrode (ρup) of length l (m) located between sections i
Figure 5. Design for an underwater grounding system for a floating PV (Photovoltaic) system.
and k in a multilayer
The resistivity for the structure can be obtained
section above with
the electrode (ρup ) of length l (m) located between sections i
and k inThe
a multilayer
resistivity structure can be
for the section obtained
above with (ρup) of length l (m) located between sections i
the electrode
and k in a multilayer structure can be obtained with
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 6 of 12

∑ix−=11 h x
ρup = , (4)
∑ix−=11
hx
ρx

where hx is the distance between the layers and ρx represents the resistivity of the layers. On the other
hand, the resistivity of water for the section including the electrode with length l (m) is given by

l
ρelectrode = . (5)
l −∑kx− 1
=i h x
∑kx− 1 hx
=i ρ x + ρk

Finally, the resistivity of the water for the section between the bottom of electrode and the bottom
of the water body can be expressed as (A = water depth)

∑ xA=k+1 h x
ρdown = hx
. (6)
∑ xA=k+1 ρx

Therefore, the total resistivity of the water is ρtotal = ρelectrode + ρdown , which can be calculated by
adding Equations (4)–(6) as shown below:

∑ix−=11 h x l ∑ xA=k+1 h x
ρtotal = + + . (7)
∑ix−=11
hx hx l −∑kx− 1
=i h x ∑ xA=k+1
hx
ρx ∑ik==11 ρx + ρk ρx

In conclusion, final grounding resistance in the floating PV system is shown in Equation (8) by
substituting Equation (11) into basic grounding resistance equation:
 
i −1
 ∑ x =1 h x l ∑ xA=k+1 h x
+ l − ∑ k −1 h x
+ 
∑ix−=11
hx hx
hx ∑ xA=k+1
ρx =1
∑ik= 1 ρx + x =i
ρk
ρx
4l
R grounding resistance = ln . (8)
2πl d
If the sections are infinite, it is possible to analyze by integral. To use this method, variation of
water temperature according to depth of water should be indicated as a formula.

4. Simulations and Experiments for the Measurement of Grounding Resistance

MATLAB simulations and measurements of grounding resistance in this study were conducted to
validate the proposed equation. The resistivity of water was 19.66 Ω·m when the water temperature
reached the reference temperature (25 ◦ C) in the experiment. The distance between layers was set as
0.5 m considering the minimum length of the electrode.
The values shown in Table 1 were used to simulate Equation (8). An experiment was performed
at the Hapcheon Dam in order to verify the results of this simulation. The grounding resistance
was measured every 1 m by lowering the electrode until it reached the maximum depth of 30 m.
A standard electrode was used for the simulation and an M-1000U was used to measure variations in
the temperature of the water at different depths. Grounding resistance was measured by the KEW
4106 (Kyoritsu), which has 0.1 Ω of resolution and ±2%rdg of accuracy. The prime parameters in this
study are the water temperature and the consequent variations in water resistivity. Therefore, in order
to obtain accurate results, the electrode was located at the measuring depth for 5 min as a stabilizing
time until the temperature of the electrode was the same as that of the water.
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 7 of 12

Table 1. Simulation parameters for the grounding resistance.

Parameter Value
Resistivity of water 25 ◦C 19.66 Ω·m
Energies 2017, 10, Length
1304
of electrode 0.5 m 1m 1.8 m 7 of 12

Diameter of electrode 12 mm 14 mm 16 mm
Table 1. Simulation parameters for the grounding resistance.
Distance between the layer 0.5 m
Depth of Parameter
water 40 m
Value
Resistivity of water 25 °C 19.66 Ω·m
5. Considerations for the Design of a Grounding System for 1Floating
Length of electrode 0.5 m m 1.8 m
PV Systems
Diameter of electrode 12 mm 14 mm 16 mm
Unlike land-based PV systems,
Distance between thethere are three important
layer 0.5 mconsiderations for the design of a
Depth
grounding system for floating PVofsystems:
water (1) the coefficient40
ofmparallel connection; (2) corrosion of
electrodes; and (3) coefficient of seasonal variation. These factors should be considered in case the
5. Considerations for the Design of a Grounding System for Floating PV Systems
grounding system is installed underwater.
Unlike land-based PV systems, there are three important considerations for the design of a
grounding
5.1. Coefficient system for
of Parallel floating PV systems: (1) the coefficient of parallel connection; (2) corrosion of
Connection
electrodes; and (3) coefficient of seasonal variation. These factors should be considered in case the
In general,
groundingthe electrodes
system areunderwater.
is installed connected in parallel to obtain a grounding resistance that meets
standards. For instance, in the case where two electrodes with grounding resistance R (Ω) are connected
5.1. Coefficient
in parallel, of Parallel
the equivalent Connectionwould be R/2 (Ω) ideally. However, in reality, the coefficient of
resistance
parallel connection
In general,is the
added, as shown
electrodes in Equation
are connected (9): to obtain a grounding resistance that meets
in parallel
standards. For instance, in the case where two electrodes with grounding resistance R (Ω) are
connected in parallel, the equivalent resistance would R be R/2 (Ω) ideally. However, in reality, the
R0 = η . (9)
coefficient of parallel connection is added, as shown in
Z Equation (9):
R is one grounding resistance and Z is the number = .of electrodes and η is the coefficient(9)
of parallel
connection. RThe
is one grounding resistance and Z is the number of electrodes and η is the coefficient of parallel can be
coefficient of parallel connection has been determined experimentally and
appliedconnection.
to a floatingThePV system.of parallel connection has been determined experimentally and can be
coefficient
Figure 6 shows the PV
applied to a floating system. of parallel connection for grounding resistance, which was
coefficient
Figure 6 shows
calculated by changing the numberthe coefficient of parallel
of electrodes andconnection for grounding
the distance resistance, which
between electrodes. Basedwason the five
calculated by changing the number of electrodes and the distance between electrodes. Based on the
equations in Figure 6, the final calculated coefficient of parallel connection is given by Equation (10):
five equations in Figure 6, the final calculated coefficient of parallel connection is given by Equation
(10):
η f = [−06068 ln(l) + 0.1613] ln(Z) + 0.0068l + 0.9495. (10)
= −0.068 ln( ) + 0.1613 ln( ) + 0.0068 + 0.9495. (10)

Figure 6. Coefficient of parallel connection vs. the number of electrodes (floating PV system).
Figure 6. Coefficient of parallel connection vs. the number of electrodes (floating PV system).
5.2. Coefficient of Corrosion
5.2. Coefficient of Corrosion
There should be corrosion on the electrodes installed underwater for long periods and it
increases
There shouldthebegrounding
corrosionresistance. To confirm
on the electrodes the tendency
installed of increasing
underwater grounding
for long periodsresistance,
and it increases
the grounding resistance. To confirm the tendency of increasing grounding resistance, electrodes have
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 8 of 12

Energies 2017, 10, 1304 8 of 12

been installed in the dam and reservoir for a year. Measurements were carried out once every three
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 8 of 12
months,electrodes have been
and the results areinstalled
indicatedin the dam and
in Figure reservoir
7 after for a year. correction.
temperature MeasurementsIn were
ordercarried
to seeout
difference
once every three months, and the results are indicated in Figure 7 after temperature correction. In
by environment
electrodes have clearly,
been temperature
installed in thecondition
dam and was adjusted
reservoir equally
for a year. in this paper
Measurements even
were though
carried out two
order to see difference by environment clearly, temperature condition was adjusted equally in this
installing
once areas
every have
three similar
months,temperature.
and the results are indicated in Figure 7 after temperature correction. In
paper even though two installing areas have similar temperature.
order to see difference by environment clearly, temperature condition was adjusted equally in this
paper even though two installing areas have similar temperature.

Figure 7. Grounding resistances of floating PV systems at the dam and reservoir (temperature
Figure 7. Grounding resistances of floating PV systems at the dam and reservoir (temperature corrected).
corrected).

BasedFigure
on
Based 7.on
the Grounding
measured resistances
values
the measured of
above,
values floating
above, PV systems
theoretically
theoretically at the dam
calculated
calculated and reservoir
coefficients
coefficients (temperature
of corrosion
of corrosion are given in
are given
in corrected).
Table 2; coefficients of corrosion for the dam and reservoir are marked separately since these places
Table 2; coefficients of corrosion for the dam and reservoir are marked separately since these places
have different installation environments.
have different installation environments.
Based on the measured values above, theoretically calculated coefficients of corrosion are given
in Table 2; coefficients of corrosion for the2.dam
Table and reservoir
Coefficients are marked separately since these places
of corrosion.
Table 2. Coefficients of corrosion.
have different installation environments.
Coefficient of Corrosion (Ω/Month)
Cu of Corrosion
Coefficient Stainless
(Ω/Month)
Table 2. Coefficients of corrosion.
Dam 1.20 0.50
Cu Stainless
Reservoir 0.74 of Corrosion0.57
Coefficient (Ω/Month)
Dam 1.20
Cu 0.50
Stainless
Reservoir
5.3. Coefficient of Seasonal Variation 0.74 0.57
Dam 1.20 0.50
Reservoir
The resistivity of water 0.74
varies remarkably 0.57indicates that the grounding
for each season. This
5.3. Coefficient of Seasonal
resistance Variation
depends on the depth at which the electrode is installed underwater. Figure 8 shows the
5.3.variation
Coefficient of Seasonal
in water Variation
temperature by water depth for a year.
The resistivity of water varies remarkably for each season. This indicates that the grounding
resistanceThe resistivity
depends of water
on the depthvaries remarkably
at which for eachisseason.
the electrode Thisunderwater.
installed indicates thatFigure
the grounding
8 shows the
resistance depends on the depth at which the electrode is installed underwater. Figure 8 shows the
variation in water temperature by water depth for a year.
variation in water temperature by water depth for a year.

Figure 8. Monthly temperature changes by water depth.

Figure 8. Monthly temperature changes by water depth.

Figure 8. Monthly temperature changes by water depth.
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 9 of 12
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 9 of 12

The most significant change in temperature occurs on the water surface, which implies that the
grounding resistance
The most on the
significant surface
change will undergooccurs
in temperature the largest
on thechange. The grounding
water surface, resistance
which implies thatwas
the
calculated basis
grounding variation
resistance of water
on the temperature
surface as the
will undergo shown in Table
largest 3. The grounding resistance was
change.
calculated basis variation of water temperature as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Coefficients of variation by season.

Depth of Table 3. Coefficients

Maximum Differenceof variation by season. of Variation
of Coefficient
Water (m) Water Temperature (°C) by Season (Ω)
Maximum Difference of Coefficient of Variation
Depth of Water (m)
1~5 23 Temperature (◦ C) 15.513
Water by Season (Ω)
6~10 19 12.815
1~5 23 15.513
11~156~10 17 19 11.46612.815
16~20
11~15 15 17 10.11711.466
21~25
16~20 12 15 8.09410.117
21~25
26~30 7 12 4.7218.094
26~30 7 4.721

6. Results and Discussion

6. Results and Discussion
Simulation results show that the grounding resistance of a 1.8 m length electrode is the smallest
Simulation results the
at 48.36 Ω. The shorter show that and
length the grounding
diameter ofresistance of a 1.8
the electrode, themhigher
lengththeelectrode
groundingis the smallest
resistance.
at 48.36 Ω. The shorter the length and diameter of the electrode, the higher the grounding
The smaller surface area indicates that the amount of current required to discharge is relatively small. resistance.
The
The smaller surface
deeper the area
burial indicates
depth, that the
the greater theamount
groundingof current required
resistance, to discharge
as shown in Figure is relatively small.
9; this tendency
The deeper the burial depth, the greater the grounding resistance, as shown in Figure
is contrary to the distribution of the water temperature with respect to water depth. Figure 10 shows 9; this tendency
is contrary
both to the distribution
the theoretically of the
calculated water
values andtemperature with respect
practically measured to water
values depth.
of the Figureresistance.
grounding 10 shows
both the theoretically
The maximum calculated
errors between values
the and practically
theoretical and measuredmeasured
valuesvalues of the ±8.88,
were ±8.14, grounding resistance.
and ±6.45%, for
The maximum errors between the theoretical and measured values were ± 8.14, ± 8.88,
electrodes with lengths of 0.5 m, 1 m, and 1.8 m, respectively. It was difficult to predict an accurate and ± 6.45%,
for electrodes
grounding with lengths
resistance of 0.5
because m, 1ism,
water and 1.8 m, respectively. It was difficult to predict an accurate
a fluid.
grounding resistance
Furthermore, because
Figure waterthat
9 shows is athe
fluid.
error increases with decreasing electrode length because
Furthermore, Figure 9 shows that the error increases
electrode resistance is less affected by the multilayer with
structure of decreasing
water, which electrode length division
is a theoretical because
electrode
made for resistance is less affected by the multilayer structure of water, which is a theoretical division
predictions.
made for predictions.

Figure 9. Comparison between grounding resistance and water temperature.

temperature.
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 10 of 12
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 10 of 12

Energies 2017, 10, 1304 10 of 12

Figure
Figure 10.10. Theoreticaland
Theoretical andmeasured
measured values
valuesofofgrounding
groundingresistance.
resistance.

In the case of a floating PV system, an additional coefficient should be applied to Equation (9)
In the case the
considering of aaforementioned
floating PV
Figure 10. system,
Theoretical an measured
and
three factorsadditional
as below incoefficient
values should
of grounding
Equation (11): be applied to Equation (9)
resistance.
considering the aforementioned three factors as below+in (Equation ) (11):
(, )
In the case of a floating PV system,=an additional . should be applied to Equation
coefficient (9)
(11)
considering the aforementioned three factors as below in Equation
RG + α(t)t (11):
Equation (11) contains coefficient R0 = f ( l, β(t),
α(t)ηand Z ) which β. be applied for floating PV system (11)
should
+ Z( )
particularly. R0, η, R, Z mean the total (, )
= combined resistance,. coefficient of parallel connection,(11)
Equation
grounding(11) contains
resistance for acoefficient α(t) and
single electrode, andβ(t), which should
the number be applied
of electrodes, for floating
respectively. PV system
α(t) indicates
Equation
particularly.
increasing , η, (11)
R, Zcontains
R0grounding mean coefficient
the total
resistance α(t) and
combined
over time. β(t),coefficient
whichcoefficient
β isresistance,
the should be applied for floating
of parallel
of seasonal variation and it PV
connection, system
meansgrounding
the
particularly.
grounding R 0, η, R, Z mean the total combined resistance, coefficient of parallel connection,
resistance varies with season. Grounding resistance has been measured to verify Equation
resistance for a single electrode, and the number of electrodes, respectively. α(t) indicates increasing
grounding
(11) at the resistance dam,
Hapcheon for a single
andβthe electrode,
results and
are asthe number
shown of electrodes,
in Figure 11. respectively. α(t) indicates
grounding resistance over time. is the coefficient of seasonal variation and it means the grounding
increasing grounding resistance over time. β is the coefficient of seasonal variation and it means the
resistance varies with season. Grounding resistance has been measured
grounding resistance varies with season. Grounding resistance has been measured to verify toEquation (11) at the
verify Equation
Hapcheon
(11) at dam, and the dam,
the Hapcheon results
andare
theasresults
shown areinasFigure
shown11. in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Comparison between grounding resistance and electrode gap.

The errors between theoretical values and the test results ranged from −1.13 to 1.38 Ω for two
electrodes, −1.28 Figure
to 1.35 11. Comparison between grounding
and −1.33resistance
to 1.19 Ωand electrode gap.
Figure 11. Ω for three electrodes,
Comparison between grounding resistance for
andfour electrodes,
electrode gap. respectively.
The average percentage error was 1.2% for two electrodes, 1.7% for three electrodes, and 2.3% for
four The errors between
electrodes, theoretical
respectively. values
Figure 11 and the test
was calculated results
based on ranged from −1.13
data of water to 1.38
resistivity as Ω
perfor two
depth
The errors
electrodes, between
−1.28 to theoretical
1.35 Ω for threevalues and
electrodes, the
and test
−1.33results
to 1.19 ranged
Ω for from
four −
of water in May 2017. Rg in Equation (8) constantly changes, so date of measurement should for1.13
electrodes, to 1.38 Ω be two
respectively.
The
electrodes, −
average
1.28percentage
to 1.35 Ω error
for was
three 1.2% for two
electrodes,
indicated together with grounding resistance. and −
electrodes,
1.33 1.7%
to 1.19 Ω
for three
for electrodes,
four and
electrodes, 2.3% for
respectively.
four electrodes,
The average respectively.
percentage error was Figure
1.2%11for
was calculated
two based
electrodes, on data
1.7% of water
for three resistivityand
electrodes, as per
2.3%depth
for four
of water in May 2017. R g in Equation (8) constantly changes, so date of measurement should be
electrodes, respectively. Figure 11 was calculated based on data of water resistivity as per depth of
indicated together with grounding resistance.
water in May 2017. Rg in Equation (8) constantly changes, so date of measurement should be indicated
together with grounding resistance.
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 11 of 12

7. Conclusions
Grounding involves connecting a conductor to the earth to protect electric circuits or electric
equipment. The grounding method for a floating PV system is slightly different from the grounding
method for a PV system on land. This is because it is difficult to install a grounding system outside
or at the bottom of a body of water where the floating PV system is located. Therefore, direct
underwater grounding methods need to be considered for these systems. Such underwater grounding
methods offer benefits in terms of cost; however, the grounding resistance is difficult to estimate.
Therefore, the temperature of the water should be measured according to its depth in the area where
the floating PV system is installed in order to predict the temperature-dependent resistivity of the
water. Grounding resistance is then calculated by modeling the resistivity based on the position of the
electrode in the water. The electrical safety of the floating PV system, which is critical in protecting it
against environmental conditions, can be achieved throughout the grounding resistance design process
and its verification.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the New and Renewable Energy Technology Program of the
Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) and granted financial resources from the
Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Republic of Korea (No. 20153010012060).
Author Contributions: Jae Woo Ko developed his own primary model for the resistance with water environments
especially focusing on the depth of water. Hae Lim Cha, David Kwang-soon Kim and Jong Rok Lim added
experimental data analysis with different seasons. Gyu Gwang Kim and Byeong Gwan Bhang established
experimental methods at 2 test sites by the technical supports from Han Sang Jung and Dong Hyung Kang with
safety issues. Chang Sub Won and Hyung Keun Ahn integrated the resistance design from the respect of system
level to guarantee the safety with times to provide reliable floating photovoltaic power station which would be
one of key systems in near future for the micro-grid network.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Biagi, M.; Falvo, M.C. Smart Micro Grid Programming for RES: From Communication to Dispatching.
In Proceedings of the IET Renewable Power Generation Conference (RPG 2014), Naples, Italy,
24–25 September 2014.
2. Brenna, M.; Falvo, M.C.; Foiadelli, F.; Martirano, L.; Poli, D. Sustainable energy microsystem (SEM):
Preliminary energy analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Smart Grid Technologies
(IEEE ISGT), Washington, DC, USA, 16–20 January 2012.
3. Capparella, S.; Falvo, M.C. Secure faults detection for preventing fire risk in PV systems. In Proceedings of the
International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (IEEE ICCST), Rome, Italy, 13–16 October 2014.
4. European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA). Connecting the Sun, Solar Photovoltaics on the Road to
Large-Scale Grid Integration; EPIA: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
5. European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA). Global Market Outlook for Photovoltaics until 2016; EPIA:
Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
6. Trapani, K.; Millar, D.L. Proposing offshore photovoltaic (PV) technology to the energy mix of the Maltese
islands. Energy Convers. Manag. 2012, 67, 18–26. [CrossRef]
7. Trapani, K.; Millar, D.L.; Smith, H.C.M. Novel offshore application of photovoltaics in comparison to
conventional marine renewable energy technologies. Renew. Energy 2013, 50, 879–888. [CrossRef]
8. Ferrer-Gisbert, C.; Ferrán-Gozálvez, J.J.; Redón-Santafé, M.; Ferrer-Gisbert, P.; Sánchez-Romero, F.J.;
Torregrosa-Soler, J.B. A new photovoltaic floating cover system for water reservoirs. Renew. Energy 2013, 60,
63–70. [CrossRef]
9. Bahaidarah, H.; Subhan, A.; Gandhidasan, P.; Rehman, S. Performance evaluation of a PV (photovoltaic)
module by back surface water cooling for hot climatic conditions. Energy 2013, 59, 445–453. [CrossRef]
10. Choi, Y.K. A Study on Power Generation Analysis of Floating PV System Considering Environmental Impact.
Int. J. Softw. Eng. Its Appl. 2014, 8, 75–84. [CrossRef]
11. Abdolzadeh, M.; Ameri, M. Improving the effectiveness of a photovoltaic water pumping system by spraying
water over the front of photovoltaic cells. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 91–96. [CrossRef]
Energies 2017, 10, 1304 12 of 12

12. Radziemska, E. The effect of temperature on the power drop in crystalline silicon solar cells. Renew. Energy
2003, 28, 1–12. [CrossRef]
13. Alam, M.Z.B.; Ohgaki, S. Evaluation of UV-radiation and its residual effect for algal growth control.
In Advances in Water and Wastewater Treatment Technology, 1st ed.; Matsuo, T., Hanaki, K., Satoh, H., Eds.;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; pp. 109–117.
14. Helfer, F.; Lemckert, C.; Zhang, H. Impacts of climate change on temperature and evaporation from a large
reservoir in Australia. J. Hydrol. 2012, 475, 365–378. [CrossRef]
15. Ma, J.; Dawalibi, F.P. Grounding analysis of a solar power generation facility. In Proceedings of the 2010
Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference, Chengdu, China, 28–31 March 2010.
16. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding.
IEEE Std 80-2000. 15 May 2015. Available online: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7109078/
(accessed on 27 July 2017).
17. Saini, M.K.; Kapoor, R. Classification of power quality events—A review. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.
2012, 43, 11–19. [CrossRef]
18. Mohamad Nor, N.; Trlep, M.; Abdullah, S.; Rajab, R. Investigations of earthing systems under steady-state
and transients with FEM and experimental work. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2013, 44, 758–763.
[CrossRef]
19. Mohamad Nor, N.; Abdullah, S.; Rajab, R.; Othman, Z. Comparison between utility sub-station and imitative
earthing systems when subjected under lightning response. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2012, 43, 156–161.
[CrossRef]
20. Mohamad Nor, N.; Rajab, R.; Othman, Z. Validation of the earth resistance formulae using computational
and experimental methods for gas insulated sub-station (GIS). Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2012, 43,
290–294. [CrossRef]
21. Mohamad Nor, N.; Abdullah, S.; Rajab, R.; Ramar, K. Field tests: Performances of practical earthing systems
under lightning impulses. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2013, 45, 223–228. [CrossRef]
22. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). National Electrical Code (NEC); NFPA: Quincy, MA, USA, 2011.
23. Underwriters Laboratories Inc. UL1741 Standard, Inverters, Converters, Controllers and Interconnection System
Equipment for Use with Distributed Energy Resources; Underwriters Laboratories Inc.: Melville, NY, USA, 2010.
24. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). IEC Std. 62305-1, Protection against Lightning—Part 1:
General Principles; IEC: London, UK, 2006.
25. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). IEC Std. 62305-2, Protection against Lightning—Part 2:
Risk Management; IEC: London, UK, 2006.
26. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). IEC Std. 62305-3, Protection against Lightning—Part 3:
Physical Damage to Structures and Life Hazard; IEC: London, UK, 2006.
27. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). IEC Std. 62305-4, Protection against Lightning—Part 4:
Electrical and Electronic Systems within Structures; IEC: London, UK, 2006.
28. Choi, Y.K. An Experimental Study on Ground Resistivity and Grounding Resistance of Water Environment.
J. Korea Acad.-Ind. Coop. Soc. 2014, 15, 2343–2348. [CrossRef]
29. Campbell, R.B.; Bower, C.A.; Richards, L.A. Change of electrical conductivity with temperature and the
relation of osmotic pressure to electrical conductivity and ion concentration for soil extracts. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. Proc. 1948, 13, 66–69. [CrossRef]

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).