See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262673167

HIGH FREQUENCY BEHAVIOR OF GROUNDING SYSTEMS CONSIDERING THE

FREQUENCY DEPENDENCE OF SOIL PARAMETERS

Conference Paper · May 2014

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.2772.6409

CITATIONS READS

6 403

4 authors, including:

Johny Montana Javier Herrera-Murcia

Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María National University of Colombia
34 PUBLICATIONS   76 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   86 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jorge Ivan Silva

Corporación Universidad de la Costa
24 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Revista Energía en Movimiento - Siemens View project

SEGUIMIENTO DE DESEMPEÑO Y OPERACIÓN A TRANSFORMADORES DE DISTRIBUCIÓN QUE OPERAN CON ACEITES DIELÉCTRICOS DE ORIGEN VEGETAL INSTALADOS
POR EL OPERADOR DE RED DE ENERGÍA ELECTRICA DE LA REGIÓN CARIBE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Johny Montana on 15 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 GROUND’2014 International Conference on Grounding and Earthing
&
th
& 6 International Conference on
Lightning Physics and Effects
6th LPE Manaus, Brazil May, 2014

HIGH FREQUENCY BEHAVIOR OF GROUNDING SYSTEMS CONSIDERING THE FREQUENCY

DEPENDENCE OF SOIL PARAMETERS

J. Montaña* J. Herrera** J. Rios* J. Silva***

*Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María (Valparaiso-Chile)
** Universidad Nacional de Colombia (Medellín-Colombia)
*** Coorporación Universidad de la Costa (Barranquilla-Colombia)

Abstract - This paper presents an analysis of different
configurations of grounding systems considering the
frequency variation of soil parameters and its comparison
to the homogenous soil case. In order to obtain these
results, the hybrid electromagnetic method (HEM) was used
due to its versatility and because this method allows
considering the soil behavior directly in the frequency
domain.
high resistivity values, in order to determine the
differences between the frequency-dependent and
homogenous soils.
After the comparisons, a set of conclusions will be
outlined in order to determine the magnitude of
differences between models.

2 – HYBRID ELECTROMAGNETIC METHOD

1 - INTRODUCTION
A methodology for describing the electromagnetic
behavior of structures which may be represented by
Previous works have shown that the soil electric
cylindrical conductors known as the Hybrid
constitutive parameters present a frequency dependency
Electromagnetic Model – HEM was used [9], [11]. The
[1], [4], [7], [8], [11]. The frequency variations have been
conductors of the grounding system are divided into a
studied from 100 Hz to 3-5 MHz because it is the main
finite number of linear segments using the thin-wire
bandwidth associated with lightning phenomena. The
approximation in which the segment radius must be
studies have been conducted for different types of soils
smaller than its length. Each segment is then considered
and for different humidity values. Some works have also
as a source of electromagnetic field produced by two
proposed empirical equations in order to compute the
current components: a transversal current (IT) and a
resistivity and permittivity values in the frequency range
longitudinal current (IL) which are assumed constant
mentioned above [4], [5], [6], [12], [13], [14], [15].
along each segment.
Nowadays, the grounding systems analysis traditionally
does not consider the frequency variation of the soil
parameters; the analysis takes only into account the low
frequency resistivity value (up to 1 kHz) and the relative
permittivity values measured by means of laboratory test
at high frequencies [2], [11].
Figure 1 - Current components
Several works have shown the influence of the
frequency-dependent soil parameters in assessing its The electromagnetic coupling between each pair of
influence in several situations as in determining the segments is calculated using the expressions for the
back-flashover for a given insulator string, the lightning scalar and magnetic vector potentials and assuming an
induced voltage on and overhead line and the average potential of the segment V and a voltage drop
overvoltage appearing on overhead lines due to direct along it ΔV as shown in equations (1) and (2). Using this
lightning impacts, among others [12], [14], [15]. The assumption, the coupling impedances matrixes ZT and ZL
results have shown large differences between the are calculated and related to the currents and voltages
homogeneous and frequency-dependent soil models. according to (1) and (2)
In this work in order to assess the behavior of grounding V  ZT IT (1)

systems under the circumstances mentioned above, the

frequency response of these kind of systems are
V  ZL I L (2)

described by the impedance seen from the current

injection point is presented. This impedance is computed
by means of a relation of the current injected to the
voltage at the same point.
Typical grounding configurations as a grounding rod,
grounding mesh and counterpoise will be used for this
study. Two different types of soils will be used: low and
Once these coupling matrixes are obtained, circuital
relations between voltages and currents allow the system
to be represented in a compact form and solved for its
nodal voltages. Once these voltages are known, the
current distribution along the grounding system can also
be calculated.
Since all the calculations involved in this methodology
are carried out in the frequency domain, the frequency 1000
Fast-front
dependence of the soil parameters, skin effect and Slow-front

propagation effects are easily included. 800

Current (A)
3- FREQUENCY DEPENDENCE OF SOIL 600
Previous works have shown the frequency variation of
soil parameters [7], [11], [13], [15]. Some of them have 400

presented analytical equations from experimental tests in

order to compute the resistivity and relative permittivity at 200

a specific frequency range. In [3], [4], [5], [6] the relative

permittivity and resistivity frequency dependence is 0
0 2 4 6 8 10
calculated based on the values measured at a low Time (s) x 10
-5

frequency value (100 Hz). Recent experimental works
carried out by Visacro [1], [15] show a frequency
variation for both parameters but only the resistivity
parameter has a dependence of the value measured at
low frequency. Visacro also presented an equation for
the permittivity that is independent of the type of soil;
these equations are presented below.
0
 ( ) 
1  1.2 106  00.73   f  100 
0.65
 
 r ()  7.6 103  f 0.4  1.3
where 0 is the resistivity value measured at 100 Hz.
Equation (4) is valid for frequencies higher than 10 kHz.
Below it, using the value of relative permittivity given by
(4) at f = 10 kHz is suggested. Based on these equations
the relative permittivity and resistivity values were
computed for the simulations presented below.
Figure 2 – Current waveforms for simulations
where the current peak value selected for all the
simulations was 1 kA.
5 – RESULTS
a. Grounding Rod
(3)
The response of a 3 m long vertical electrode buried 0,5

m, with 7 mm of radii in different types of soils was
simulated considering the following cases: 1) constant
(4)
soil parameters ( = 0 and r = 20); 2) frequency-
dependent soil parameters determined from equation (3)
and (4). Two types of responses are shown, first the
magnitude of impedance in frequency domain (Figure 3)
and second, the simulations in time domain for slow-front
and fast-front current waves, see Figure 4.
38
Constant
36 Dependent

34
Impedance (Ohms)

4 - CURRENT WAVEFORMS 32
Based on international standard IEC-62305-1 [16], the
30
injected current waveforms were defined using the
parameters established for the first stroke of a lightning 28
flash (10/350 µs) and for the subsequent stroke
(0,25/100 µs). This Standard uses the equation (5) to 26

obtain the current impulses.

24
10
 t 
I  1   t  2  (5)
22 2
i
3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10
10
e Frequency (Hz)
k t 
 1  a. 100 Ωm

where 300
Constant
I peak current Dependent
k correction factor (2-10) 250
t time
1 front time constant
Impedance (Ohms)

200
2 tail time constant
150
In the following, the current waveform based on the first
stroke parameters will be called the “slow-front current” 100
and for the subsequent stroke case, “fast-front current”.
The current waveforms used along the simulations are
50
shown in Figure 2.
0 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (Hz)
b. 800 Ωm
 2000
b. Horizontal cable
Constant The lightning response of a 30 m long horizontal
Dependent
1800 electrode buried 0,5 m with 7 mm of radii in different soils
1600 was simulated, considering the same cases mentioned
1400
above.
Impedance (Ohms)

1200 80
Constant
1000
70 Dependent

800
60
600

Impedance (Ohms)
50
400

200 40

0 2 3 4 5 6 7 30
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (Hz)
20
c. 6000 Ωm
Figure 3 – Simulated Impedance of grounding rod for different 10
resistivity values.
0 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10
35 35
Constant Constant Frequency (Hz)
30 30
a. 100 Ωm
Dependent Dependent
Nodal Voltage [kV]

Nodal Voltage [kV]

25 25

20 20
250
15 15 Constant
10 10 Dependent
5 5
200
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Impedance (Ohms)

Time [s] Time [s]

a. 100 Ωm b. 100 Ωm
150
300 300
Constant Constant
250 Dependent 250 Dependent
Nodal Voltage [kV]

Nodal Voltage [kV]

200 200 100

150 150

100 100
50
50 50

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Time [s] Time [s]
0 2
c. 800 Ωm d. 800 Ωm 10 10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7

2000 2000 Frequency (Hz)

Constant Constant
Dependent Dependent b. 800 Ωm
Nodal Voltage [kV]

Nodal Voltage [kV]

1500 1500

500
1000 1000
Constant
450 Dependent
500 500
400
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 350
Impedance (Ohms)

Time [s] Time [s]

e. 6000 Ωm f. 6000 Ωm 300

Figure 4 – Simulated GPR of grounding rod for different
250
resistivity values. Slow-front current (a, c and e), Fast-front
current (b, d, and f). 200

150
From the previous results it is possible to conclude that,
the higher the resistivity the higher the differences 100

between frequency dependent and constant parameters 50

soil model. From the frequency domain analysis it can be 0 2 3 4 5 6 7
seen that differences between models start at about 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (Hz)
kHz for low, medium and high resistivity values. The
differences found for the low resistivity values case are c. 6000 Ωm
near to 30% and 2,6 times higher than for the high
Figure 5 – Simulated impedance of horizontal cable for different
resistivity case. resistivity values.

In the time domain analysis, the differences are higher 8 20

Constant Constant
when it is injected a fast-front current waveform than for Dependent Dependent

the slow-front waveform case. This is due to the more

Nodal Voltage [kV]

Nodal Voltage [kV]

6 15

representative frequency components found on the fast- 4 10

front current waveform. The difference in the peak value
is about 27% for the high resistivity case and for the fast- 2 5

front current waveform analysis. 0 0

0 50 100 150 200 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time [s] Time [s]

a. 100 Ωm b. 100 Ωm
 50 80
Constant Constant
Dependent Dependent 70
40
Constant
Nodal Voltage [kV]

Nodal Voltage [kV]

60

30 60 Dependent
40
20

20 50

Impedance (Ohms)
10

0
0 50 100 150 200
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 40
Time [s] Time [s]

c. 800 Ωm d. 800 Ωm
30
400 350
Constant Constant
Dependent 300 Dependent
20
Nodal Voltage [kV]

300 Nodal Voltage [kV] 250

200
200
150
10
100
100
50 0 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 20 40 60 80 100 Frequency (Hz)
Time [s] Time [s]

e. 6000 Ωm f. 6000 Ωm b. 800 Ωm

Figure 6 – Simulated GPR of horizontal cable for different
400
resistivity values. Slow-front current (a, c and e), Fast-front
Constant
current (b, d, and f). 350 Dependent

In these simulations the differences between soil models 300

start at about 100 kHz for low resistivity values, while

Impedance (Ohms)
250
start at about 10 kHz for high resistivity values, unlike the
previous configuration. Additionally, this configuration 200
presents large variations at high frequencies, mainly
above 1 MHz for the constant soil model, while the 150
frequency dependent model does not present the same
100
behavior. Differences between models reach 4,5 times
for high resistivity values. 50

In time domain analysis, the largest difference between 0 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 10 10 10 10 10
responses is about 25% for high resistivity values and for Frequency (Hz)
the fast-front current waveform. c. 6000 Ωm
Figure 7 – Simulated impedance of mesh grid for different
c. Mesh Grid resistivity values.
The lightning response of a square grid of 60 m side
length with unequally spaced conductors buried 0,5 m, 7 2
Constant
8
Constant

mm of radii and 15m of distance between parallel Dependent Dependent

Nodal Voltage [kV]

Nodal Voltage [kV]

1.5 6
electrodes was used as described in figure B.5 of the
IEEE-80 standard [17]. The current was injected at the 1 4

center of the grid and the results were obtained using the 0.5 2
same cases proposed above.
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time [s] Time [s]

10 a. 100 Ωm b. 100 Ωm
8 20
Constant Constant
9 Dependent Dependent
Nodal Voltage [kV]

Nodal Voltage [kV]

6 15
8

7 4 10
Impedance (Ohms)

6 2 5

5 0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time [s] Time [s]
4
c. 800 Ωm d. 800 Ωm
3 60 60
Constant Constant
50 Dependent 50 Dependent
2
Nodal Voltage [kV]

Nodal Voltage [kV]

Constant 40 40
1 Dependent
30 30
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 20 20
10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (Hz) 10 10

a. 100 Ωm 0
0 50 100 150 200
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time [s] Time [s]

e. 6000 Ωm f. 6000 Ωm
Figure 8 – Simulated GPR of mesh grid for different resistivity
values. Slow-front current (a, c and e), Fast-front current (b, d,
and f)..

According to the results, the behavior of this grounding

system is similar to the horizontal cable case. The
 differences between the soil models are considerable at
higher frequencies, mainly above 300 kHz. Once more,
the constant model present oscillations for frequencies
above 1 MHz.
In the time domain analysis, differences between peaks
values are almost 25%.
6 - RESULTS ANALISYS
Based on previous figures, it can be seen that
differences between constant parameters and frequency
dependent models are very important and they should be
taken into account. A sensitivity analysis of frequency
dependent parameters of soil was developed in [11]
varying one parameter at a time: as a conclusion, the
author showed that grounding systems behavior are
more sensitive to resistivity variations than to permittivity
variations. Visacro shows in [1] that because the
permittivity has not dependence of the type of soil.
The differences between constant parameters and
frequency dependent models for resistivity values are
higher at high frequencies. This characteristic is the main
reason of differences between peak values in transient
voltage waveforms. The higher the resistivity, the higher
the differences. For the same reason, the differences in
the tail portion of the waveform are not significant, in this
case the transient voltage is governed by low and
medium frequencies signals.
Taking into account the results presented here, the
operating grounding systems could be oversized when
considering its transient behavior as the ones shown in
[12], [14], [15].
7 - CONCLUSIONS
The frequency dependence of the soli parameters has
been shown to have a strong influence on the frequency
and time domain behavior of grounding systems. In the
frequency domain, the input impedance of several
grounding systems exhibits large differences when
compared with its homogenous ground counterpart; in
this case, the differences are high as the frequency
increases.
The frequency domain behavior defines the time domain
results. When injecting a current waveform having a
steep front, it is reasonable to expect strong differences
on the first instants of the voltage waveform produced.
This is mainly due to the fact that the differences
between the frequency dependent and homogeneous
soils occur at the high frequency range. At the tail portion
of the waveform the results are very similar for both
types of soil models.
Considering the voltage produced at the input terminal of
the ground system, this is higher for high resistivity soils.
This could result in lower risk of suffering an electric
shock accident due to touch or transferred potentials
given that the protections measurements are designed
based on a homogeneous soil scenario. Besides this, it
could be expected that the surface potentials also
change, exposing personnel to step voltages that could
reach lower values.
View publication stats
8 - REFERENCES
[1] VISACRO, S., “A comprehensive approach to the grounding
response to lightning currents,” IEEE Transaction on Power
Delivery, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 381–386, Jan. 2007.
[2] VISACRO, S., HERMOSO, B., ALMEIDA, M. T., TORRES,
H., LOBODA, M., SEKIOKA, S. “Final Report of CIGRE
WGC4.406: The response of grounding electrodes to lightning
currents”, Electra, no. 246, pp. 18–21, Oct. 2009.
[3] VISACRO, S.,PORTELA, C.M. “Investigation of Soil as a
Losy Dielectric,” ICPADM-8 IEEE International Conference on
Properties and Applications of Dielectric Materials Proceedings,
Pequin – China, pp. 515-518, Sep. 1988.
[4] PORTELA, C., “Frequency and Transient Behavior of
Grounding Systems I – Physical and Methodological Aspects”,
International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility.
IEEE 1997.
[5] PORTELA, C. “Frequency and Transient Behavior of
Grounding Systems II – Practical Aplication Examples”.
International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility.
IEEE 1997.
[6] VISACRO, S. “Modelagem de Aterramentos Eléctricos,” (in
Portuguese). Ph.D. Thesys, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
–Brazil, Jul. 1992.
[7] SCOTT, J.H., CARROLL, R.D., “Dielectric Constant and
Electrical Conductivity Measurements of Moist Rock: A New
Laboratory Method,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 72,
no. 20, pp. 5101- 5115, Oct. 1967.
[8] SCOTT, W. R., SMITH, G. S. “Measured Electrical
Constitutive Parameters of Soil as Function of Frequency and
Moisture Content”. IEEE Transaction on Geoscience and
Remote Sensing. Vol. 30, No. 3, May 1992.
[9] VARGAS, M., RONDON, D., HERRERA, J., MONTAÑA, J.,
et al, “Grounding System Modeling in EMTP/ATP. Based on its
Frequency Response,” IEEE Conference Proceedings St.
Petersburg Power Tech, Jun. 2005.
[10] NOR, N.M., HADDAD, A., GRIFFITHS, H. “Characterization
of Ionization Phenomena in Soil Under fast Impulses”. IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 21, No. 1, January 2006.
[11] MONTAÑA, J. “Grounding system, Soil electric parameters
variation with frequency and software for computing transient
voltages,” (In Spanish), PhD. Thesis, National University of
Colombia, Jun. 2006.
[12] VISACRO, S., SILVEIRA, F. “Lightning-induced voltages
calculated with the hybrid electromagnetic model considering
frequency-dependent soil parameters”. International symposium
on Lightning Protection Proceedings. Sipda 2013.
[13] VISACRO, S., ROSADO, G. “Response of grounding
electrodes to impulsive currents: An experimental evaluation,”
IEEE Transaction on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 51, pp.
161–164, Feb. 2009.
[14] VISACRO, S., ALIPIO, R., MURTA, M. H., PEREIRA, C.
“The response of grounding electrodes to lightning currents: the
effect of frequency-dependent soil resistivity and permittivity,”
IEEE Transaction on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 53, no.
2, pp. 401–406, May 2011.
[15] VISACRO, S., ALIPIO, R. “Frequency dependence of soil
parameters: Experimental results, predicting formula and
influence on the lightning response of grounding electrodes”.
IEEE Transaction on Power Delivery, vol. 27, No. 2, April 2012.
[16] Standard IEC62305. Protection against lightning – Part 1:
General principles. 2006.
[17] Standard IEEE-80. Guide for safety in AC substation
grounding. 2000.
Main author
Name: JOHNY MONTAÑA
Address: Av. España 1680, Of. B-232. Valparaiso - Chile
Phone: +56 32 2654358
E-mail: johny.montana@usm.cl