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

net/publication/322100748

Investigations on Tower Footing Impedance with regards to Frequency

Dependence

Conference Paper · May 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 176

4 authors, including:

François Grange Alexandre SELLIER

SES-EUROPE SES Europe
26 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   187 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Towers impedance View project

Lightning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexandre SELLIER on 28 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Investigations on Tower Footing Impedance with
regards to Frequency Dependence
F. GRANGE1, I. TANNEMAAT2, A. SELLIER1 and S. FORTIN3
SES-EUROPE, 30 avenue du Général Leclerc, 38 200 Vienne, FRANCE
TENNET TSO B.V., Utrechtseweg 310, 6800 AS Arnhem, NETHERLANDS
Safe Engineering Services and technologies, Laval, CANADA
francois.grange@sestech.fr
Abstract
When designing and maintaining a high voltage
overhead line the tower footing impedance is of great
importance. In most cases a value as seen by the current
at power frequency can be taken into account to
characterize the grounding system. In some cases an
impedance value at higher frequency might lead to
different values. Measurements are however often
performed at relatively low frequencies (50 Hz to 5 kHz).
This paper explores frequency dependence of tower
footing impedance. A comparison between measurements
and simulations of tower footing impedance has been
performed in order to assess the validity of the low
frequency approach. Ten different tower grounding
structures are investigated in the frequency range from
DC to 5 kHz. For comparison purpose they were chosen
based on the footing design, soil characteristics and
number of connected shielding wires.
Main results have shown a good convergence
between measurements and simulations for DC results.
High frequency measurement tests reveal major
limitations which require additional investigations.
Keywords: Tower footing, impedance, measurement,
calculation, earthing, insulation coordination, CDEGS
1. Introduction
The goal of a grounding system in a high voltage
environment is to:
1. guarantee the electrical safety regarding
a. step- and touch potentials close to the tower
b. conductive (through earth) influence on nearby
objects
2. ensure equipment integrity and service continuity
regarding:
a. fault currents
b. lightning currents.
One of the important characteristics of a grounding
system is its ground impedance, i.e. the total impedance
seen by current injected into the grid and flowing through
the earth to a point located (infinitely) far away. In
lightning protection, measurement of the ground
impedance of tower footings is of major interest [1].
Each of the above functions can have specific
requirements regarding the tower footing design,
depending on the local characteristics of the high voltage
1
grid, the soil characteristics and the keraunic level. For
most functions (1a, 1b, and 2a) the impedance at power
frequency of the tower is of importance. Lightning
currents (2b) may however be considered to have high
frequency characteristics, which may lead to a different
value for the tower footing impedance to take into
account..
To check if a tower earthing is designed properly and
complies with the requirements, measurements have to be
performed [1]. Various measurement techniques can be
applied, all with their advantages and disadvantages [3].
Some authors have shown that the low frequency
methods used by most utilities can be inaccurate and
inappropriate [4]. However, most of the commercial
measurement equipment may be considered 'low
frequency' measurement devices, which measure from
around power frequency (50 Hz in Western Europe) to a
frequency that is higher than power frequency, circa
5 kHz. The main advantage of performing measurements
at higher frequencies is that they can be carried out
without disconnecting any shielding wire(s) connected to
the tower: at such a frequency, the connected shielding
wire(s) will be seen as high impedances, preventing the
current that is injected into the tower footing to flow to
adjacent towers through the shielding wires. Using low
frequency measurements to characterize tower footing
impedances is only valid under certain limited conditions
[5]. To establish a representative value of tower footing
impedances for lightning purposes, an impulse
measurement may be performed. However, due to the
lack of reliable dedicated instruments, impulse
measurements are not regularly performed and have until
recently not been performed before neither in the
Netherlands nor in France. More generally, most of the
measurement values and methods that can be found in the
technical literature and standards are based on 'low
frequency' measurements [6].
In this paper, we focus on the comparison and
analysis of different measurement and modeling
techniques of tower footing impedances with regards to
frequency dependence. The goal of the work is to
characterize the frequency dependence of the impedance
of tower footings, in order to be able to determine the
lightning performance of high voltage overhead lines.
The main objective of this research work is to determine
a method to theoretically evaluate tower footing
impedances in situations where the low frequency
resistance is not valid.
2. Determination of tower footing impedance
A common way to determine the tower footing
impedance is by measuring the 'fall-of-potential'. In
theory the potential difference between the tower and
earth is measured at varying distance while injecting a
current. The result will be a graph as shown in figure 1. A
logarithmic shape can be recognized. When plotting the
values with the distance inverted (1/distance) a straight
line can be drawn, see figure 2.
1,0
Impedance (Ω)
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0 20 40
Distance (m)
Fig. 1. Potential difference between soil and tower
1,0
0,8
Impedance (Ω)
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0 0,02 0,04
1/distance (1/m)
Fig. 2. Impedance value and slope; measured values and trend line
Two important parameters can be extracted from
figure 2, being:
1. The impedance value at zero-crossing, which
represents the actual tower potential (to far earth).
With 1A injection, the voltage is equal to the
impedance.
2. The steepness/slope of the line, representing the
equivalent soil resistivity or soil characteristics as
seen by the current that flows into the ground [8].
Note: The actual result depends on the tower footing
configuration and the soil characteristics. Especially close
to the tower (up to ca. 15 to 20 meter for a tower with a
foot of 10 m by 10 m) the measured values may not
follow the logarithmic shape of the curve. It is
recommended to use the values that result in a line that is
as straight as possible.
2.1 Measurements
Where the theory is quite simple and straight
forward, there is a practical consideration to take into
account when measuring the tower footing impedance.
To inject a current in the tower, a current return probe is
needed. Whereas the fall-of-potential of the tower is the
subject of interest, the probe also has a fall-of-potential,
refer to figure 3. The influence of this on the
measurements depends on the size of the probe and the
distance to the tower. It is therefore recommended to
perform the measurements into another direction, so that
only the fall-of-potential of the tower is measured. An
example is given in figure 4 with 'Profile 1'.
Due to limitations in space and accessibility it is not
always possible to perform measurements in another
direction. In that case it is common to perform a single
point of measurement at circa 61.8% of the distance of
the current return probe, in the same direction [9].
61,8 %
Impedance (Ω)
Profile 1
Profile 2
60 80
Distance (m)
Fig. 3. Different measurement profiles – example for item B2
This method is however not very accurate, since the
measured value may differ a few percent from the actual
value. To gather conservative results it might be best to
have the measurement point at >61.8% of the distance,
since the value will then be higher.
0,06 0,08
Current
return
M probe
Profile 2
Fig. 4. Visualization of measurement directions with respect to the
current return probe
2.2 Simulations
Simulations can be performed with specially
designed computer software. The tower footing design is
represented in a model, and the soil characteristics need
to be known. They can be acquired by performing
measurements according to the Wenner-method. They are
necessary to develop accurate simulation models to be
compared with the measured ground impedance of the
towers. The impedance of a grounding system can be
obtained by measuring the fall of potential on the
surrounding earth during a current injection in the
structure under study [7].
For this research all simulations are carried out with
the CDEGS package, which includes several calculation
2
modules based on different methods. Details are through it. It is a critical factor in the design of earthing
introduced later in this paper. Regarding the simulations systems. Soil resistivity measurements are performed to
the user has the option to perform the 'fall-of-potential'- build a model of the different layers of the soil, assumed
method, or simply have the software generate a to be horizontally stratified. Individual measurements
representative value (direct reading). must be carried out for various inter-electrode spacings to
establish the slope of the curve of apparent resistivity.
3. Scope of work Knowledge of the resistivity of the deeper layers is
The scope of the study concerns towers of different important because the spread of current in the ground
design at various locations within the Netherlands. For varies depending on the resistivity.
comparison purpose they were chosen based on the The soil resistivity measurements were carried out
footing design, soil characteristics and number of using the well-known Wenner 4-pin method at each
connected shielding wires. Table I gives an overview. tower site. The measurements have been performed using
a tellurometer CA 6472 by Chauvin Arnoux at a
TABLE I: Overview of the selected objects frequency of 128 Hz, and were analysed using the
Soil # RESAP module of the CDEGS package [11]. Based on a
ID Tower footing design resistivity shielding best fit using the steepest-descent approach with the
(Ω.m) wires Sunde-curves, RESAP can determine the characteristics
A-5 1x block (large) on 25 m poles ~ 15 0 of a multilayer soil that best reproduces specified
A-9 2x blocks (large) on 25 m poles ~ 10 2 apparent resistivity measurement results
A-10 2x blocks (large) on 25 m poles ~ 10 2
A-12 4x 10 m long poles ~ 10 2
A-19 4x blocks (small) on 2 m poles ~ 100 2 3.2 Tower footing impedance measurements
A-26 1x tube (driven); 10 m ~ 30 2 The tower footing impedance measurements are
A-27 2x horizontal blocks (small) ~ 20 2 performed according to the method of Fall-Of-Potential,
A-28 2x horizontal blocks (small) ~ 50 2 using tellurometers SYSCAL Junior from IRIS
B-2 4x 10 m long poles ~ 15 0 Instrument and CA 6472 from Chauvin Arnoux.
B-3 4x blocks (small) on 2 m poles ~ 15 0 For the study, the SYSCAL Junior is used for quasi-
DC measurements and the CA 6472 is used for Super
The general areas where the towers under study are Low Frequency (SLF-128 Hz), Ultra Low Frequency
located are highlighted with blue circles in Figure 5. In (ULF-2539 Hz) and Very Low Frequency (VLF-5078
general it may be assumed that the lighter parts (in the Hz) measurements. Also, selective readings were
East) have a higher soil resistivity. conducted for all towers with the Pylon Box from
Chauvin Arnoux to ensure results without external
influence.
With the C.A 6474, the pylon box allows to assess a
pylon's earth resistance even if it is part of a parallel earth
network, by selective measurement of the pylon in
question. The Chauvin Arnoux’s Pylon Box works with
four current sensors (Ampflex) positioned around the
footings of the pylon.
Since the 128 Hz measurements with and without
selective reading gave similar results they are not
separately mentioned in this paper.
Amsterdam
The Hague 4. Tower footing impedance modeling
The ground impedance calculations and
Arnhem measurement simulations are performed using three
different modules of the CDEGS software package,
namely the MALT, MALZ, and HIFREQ modules [11].
All three modules can compute the potential rise of
energized electrodes buried in layered soils. They use
similar techniques, based on the Moment Method. They
differ mainly by the approximations they make in the
calculations:
 MALT considers that all connected electrodes are
Source: Wikipedia.org equipotential: it ignores possible potential drop along
Fig. 5. Map of the Netherlands, with the locations of the systems under conductors due to their impedance or to induction
study effects.
3.1 Soil resistivity measurements  MALZ accounts for the potential drop due to the
Soil resistivity measurements characterize the impedance of conductors but ignores induction
capability of the soil to resist the flow of electric current effects.

3
 HIFREQ accounts for both the impedance of TABLE II: Measured soil resistance
conductors and for induction effects. It also allows Short Apparent Medium Apparent
modeling above-ground conductors, making it spacings resistance spacings resistance
possible to include adjacent towers including the (m) (Ω) (m) (Ω)
shielding wires in the simulations. 0.1 19.7 3 14.2
The computed values listed in the table for each 0.2 20.7 5 13.7
frequency correspond to the following six different 0.3 20.0 7 14.0
simulation techniques: 0.5 18.5 10 14.7
1. Direct reading with MALT 0.7 19.0 20 12.5
2. Direct reading with MALZ 1 17.8 30 8.0
3. Direct reading with HIFREQ 2 15.6 50 7.7
4. Fall-Of-Potential with MALZ
5. Fall-Of-Potential with HIFREQ (no shielding wires) The measurement results were analysed using the
6. Fall-Of-Potential with HIFREQ (with shielding RESAP module of the CDEGS package. The best fitting
wires) soil representation results in a three layer soil model,
In the Direct Reading type of simulation, only the refer to Table III. In most cases a three-layer soil model
tower footing is included in the simulation model. gave the best fit. In some cases a four-layer model was
Current is injected in the tower footing and the return used.
TABLE III: Soil resistivity
current electrode is not modelled. The impedance is
obtained simply by dividing the potential rise of the Layer Resistivity (Ω.m) Thickness (m)
tower footing by the injected current. 1 20.2 0.6
In the Fall-Of-Potential type of simulation, the actual 2 14.4 14
field measurement setup (including a return current 3 6.3 ∞
electrode and the measurement electrodes) was
reproduced in the model. Two variants of this approach 5.2 Tower footing impedance measurements
were used, one excluding the measurement and current results
injection cables and the other including those cables. This In most of the cases the measurements were
last type of simulation uses the capability of HIFREQ to performed in a different direction than that along which
take into account the inductive couplings due to the the current return probe was placed. The measurement
proximity of the measurement and injection cables, and points were determined from location '0', which is the
should in principle be the most realistic simulation middle of the tower, between the tower legs, and then
method to compare with the measurements. steps of 5 m or 10 m were taken. The values for the DC-
measurement for tower B-2 are given in Table IV.
5. Calculation and measurement results
The remainder of this section presents modeling TABLE IV: Tower footing impedance measurement values
details for structure B-2 as an example. In section 5.4 a Distance Value Distance Value
summary of all results is given. (m) (Ω) (m) (Ω)
0 0.47 30 0.71
5.1 Soil resistivity measurement results 5 0.53 40 0.73
As an example, Figure 6 shows the location of the 10 0.61 50 0.73
apparent soil resistivity measurement traverse for tower 15 0.64 60 0.75
B-2. The measurement profile is located symmetrically 20 0.67 65 0.75
with respect to the tower, and reaches a minimum 25 0.70 70 0.75
distance of 25 m from the tower. This configuration was
selected to minimize the influence of the tower footing on The result is plotted in figure 7 with the inverted
the measurements while recording the properties of the distance, ignoring the values that are close to the tower
soil as near as possible to the tower [10]. footing (0 m to 15 m).
1,0

0,8
Impedance (Ω)

0,6

0,4

0,2

Fig. 6. Apparent soil resistivity measurements location 0,0

0,000 0,020 0,040 0,060 0,080
The following values were measured up to an
electrode distance of 3x 50 meters, refer to Table II. 1/distance (1/m)
Fig. 7. Impedance value and slope

4
 From this graph a steepness of 2.14 can be 5.4 Total overview
determined, which gives a soil resistivity of 13.4 Ω.m. The computed and measured values of the ground
The zero crossing on the X-axis results in a value of impedance for Tower B-2 are given in Table VI. The
0.78 Ω for the tower footing resistance. A similar table gives results for the four types of Fall-Of-Potential
approach leads to a result of 0.66 Ω for the measurements measurements mentioned in Section 2.2, namely:
at 128 Hz (both selective and non-selective  Quasi-DC (0.25 Hz)
measurements).  Super Low-Frequency (128 Hz)
 Very Low-Frequency (5078 Hz)
5.3 Tower footing impedance modeling results
The base of the tower is a square with a side length TABLE VI: Comparison of measured and simulated values for tower
B-2
of 7 m. A volume of reinforced concrete is placed at each
corner, supporting the feet of the tower. The volumes of Method DC 128 Hz 5078 Hz
concrete measure 1.8 m long by 1.8 m wide and have a Measurement (sp) 0.75 Ω 0.62 Ω 0,55
height of 1.2 m. There are also connections between those Measurement (fop) 0.78 Ω 0.66 Ω NA
volumes of concrete by beams of reinforced concrete. MALT (dr) 0.75 Ω -------------
The thickness of the concrete on each part of the footing MALT (sp) 0.73 Ω -------------
is 30 mm minimum.
A total of six metallic poles extending out of the MALT (fop) 0.73 Ω -------------
volumes of concrete complete the tower foundation. The MALZ (dr) 0.75 Ω 0.75 Ω 0.77 Ω
poles are 9.6 m long. Four of them are installed on one MALZ (sp) 0.73 Ω 0.73 Ω 0.75 Ω
side of the tower and two on the other side. MALZ (fop) 0.76 Ω 0.76 Ω 0.78 Ω
The foundation structures are embedded in concrete. HIFREQ (dr) 0.75 Ω 0.75 Ω 0.78 Ω
In the past, studies have indicated that concrete-
encapsulated grounding electrodes present a resistance HIFREQ (sp) 0.73 Ω 0.73 Ω 0.74 Ω
lower or equal to the value which could be obtained HIFREQ (fop) 0.78 Ω 0.78 Ω 0.81 Ω
without use of concrete [13]. A graphical representation
of the tower footing model is given in figure 8. This results in the following graphical representation,
where for the simulation results the values for direct
reading are taken.

1,5
MALZ
HIFREQ
MALT
Measurements
Impedance (Ω)

1,0

0,5

0,0
0,25Hz 128Hz 2539Hz 5078Hz
Frequency
Fig. 9. Representation of the tower footing model

The same modeling and measurement techniques

were used for the other towers. The following figures
Fig. 8. Representation of the tower footing model (Figures 10 to 12) show the results for the magnitude of
the tower footing impedance as a function of frequency
As mentioned in chapter 4 the values for the tower for towers A-5, A-10 and A-12.
footing impedance can be determined as a direct reading,
using the single point method or using the fall-of-
potential method. The calculated values are given in the
table below.

TABLE V: Tower B2 calculated results

MALT MALZ HIFREQ
Method
(Ω) (Ω) (Ω)
Direct reading 0.75 0.75 0.75
Single point 0.73 0.73 0.73
Fall-of-potential 0.73 0.76 0.78

5
 0,5 FOP with HIFREQ FOP with MALZ
MALZ Direct reading with MALZ Direct reading with HIFREQ
HIFREQ FOP and cables with HIFREQ
0,4 MALT 32%

measurements/simulations
Measurements
Impedance (Ω)

0,3 27%

Relatve deviation
0,2 22% 128 Hz

17%
0,1
12%
0,0
0,25Hz 128Hz 2539Hz 5078Hz 7%

Frequency 2%
Fig. 10. Frequency dependence of the magnitude of A-5 tower footing
-3% A5 A9 A10 A12 A26 A27 A28 B2 B3
impedance Towers
Fig. 13. Relative deviations between measurements and simulations –
0,5 MALZ 128 Hz
HIFREQ
0,4 MALT
Measurements 50% FOP with HIFREQ
5078 Hz
Impedance (Ω)

0,3 45%
Direct reading with HIFREQ

measurements/simulations
40%
0,2 Relatve deviation 35% FOP and cables with HIFREQ
0,1 30%
25%
0,0 20%
0,25Hz 128Hz 2539Hz 5078Hz
15%
Frequency
10%
Fig. 11. Frequency dependence of the magnitude of A-10 tower footing
impedance 5%
0%
0,5 A5 A9 A10 A12 A19 A27 A28 B2 B3
MALZ Towers
HIFREQ
0,4 MALT
Measurements Fig. 14. Relative deviations between measurements and simulations –
Impedance (Ω)

0,3 5078 Hz
At 5 kHz, all simulation cases presented are in rather
0,2 poor agreement with the measurements.

0,1
0,0
0,25Hz 128Hz 2539Hz
Frequency
Fig. 12. Frequency dependence of the magnitude of A-12 tower footing
impedance
HIFREQ and MALZ FOP simulations are in very
good agreement with the measurement results carried out
in DC. Regarding the 128 Hz results, the agreement
between the HIFREQ and MALZ FOP simulations and
the measurements is again good for the A-5 and A-12
towers whereas tower B-2 shows significant differences
between the measurements and the simulations.
Figure 7 shows the relative deviation between the
measurements and simulations at 128 Hz for all towers
and Figure 8 shows the same information at 5078 Hz.
6. Discussion
For better understanding we remind that the FOP
5078Hz
simulations with and without cables are done to be more
representative of the measurements setup. This is not
necessarily closer to exact values but it introduces the
same errors as those of the measurements as it takes into
account the real situation of finite distance remote earth.
It allows modelling the current return electrode at its
actual location during the testing. Thus, FOP simulations
with and without cables globally give better agreement
with measurements as expected. Actually, simulations
without FOP consider an infinitely remote earth.
Concerning the frequency influence, capacitive
coupling to earth might appear. At very low test
frequencies, capacitive coupling between the potential
measurement lead and the earth can result in distorted
values, particularly if the contact resistance between the
potential probe and the earth is high. The greater the
length of potential measurement lead that is strung out,
the greater the coupling. To the degree that there is
coupling and poor potential probe contact with the earth,
the measured voltage tends to be representative of an
altered probe position, at a distance from the grounding

6
grid that is determined by a weighted average of the earth
potentials along the length of the lead. When the length of
lead strung out is great, the measured value tends to
approach the actual grid impedance, particularly at higher
frequencies. At the same time, the inductive coupling
between the current injection lead and a parallel potential
lead located a few meters away cannot be ignored in very
low soil resistivity locations such as the present study. As
proof, we observe large differences between the MALZ
and HIFREQ results at 5 kHz due to the fact that MALZ
neglects inductive coupling.
To explain simulations results divergences, a short
description of the respective methodologies of the
HIFREQ and MALZ programs, based on Maxwell’s
equations in the frequency domain, is given in the sequel.
On the one hand, the HIFREQ software module
computes the electromagnetic fields due to energized
conductors in a multilayer medium, using a full wave
solution (i.e. without any approximation) for the Hertz
vector potential 𝛱⃗ caused by an electric dipole located in
the medium. Indeed, in the frequency domain, that is for a
single-frequency excitation, the electric field 𝐸⃗ , the
magnetic field 𝐻 ⃗ , and the scalar potential 𝜓 can be
conveniently expressed in terms of the Hertz vector
⃗ as 𝐸⃗ = 𝛾 2 𝛱⃗ − ∇𝜓 , 𝐻⃗ =𝜃∇×𝛱 ⃗ , 𝜓 = −∇ ⋅
potential 𝛱
⃗𝛱 , where 𝛾 is the propagation constant, and 𝜃 the
complex conductivity [14]. The Hertz vector potential is
found to satisfy the wave equation given by:
1 the HIFREQ, MALT and MALZ software modules do
⃗ = 𝛾 2𝛱
∇2 𝛱 ⃗ − 𝐽
𝜃 not give the same results due to the use of different
where 𝐽 is the current density associated with the
energized conductor. By solving this equation, one can
find that the general expressions for the components of 𝛱 ⃗
caused by current flowing along a conductor are
determined by path integrals along the conductor, and are
expressed in terms of:
𝑒 −𝛾𝑅
𝑀=
𝑅
where 𝑅 is the distance between the observation point and
the source.
On the other hand, in the MALZ software module,
the computations of the electromagnetic fields are
performed using a hybrid approach derived from a
combination of the field theory approach and the circuit
theory approach. This hybrid approach has been built in
order to avoid the complicated analytical expressions and
the serious computational difficulties arising from the
field theory approach [15]. Indeed, the use of the circuit
theory approach leads to a number of simplifications,
such as not taking into account the inductive coupling
between conductors at very high frequencies, which
permits easy and accurate solutions of a large number of
problems. However, the effects of these simplifications
on the accuracy of the results can be variable depending
on several parameters, such as frequency, characteristics
of the medium, etc. For example, there may be a
frequency interval between very low and very high
frequency cases where the simplification introduced by
neglecting the inductive mutual coupling becomes
7
unacceptable. It is worth noting that this effect is very
pronounced only for cases where the soil resistivity is
low and thus resistance do not exceed 0.1 Ω. Thus, one
can determine if the expected measured ground
impedance is on the order of such value by using the
simplification presented in the measurements section.
Consequently, for 5 kHz frequency simulations, only
the HIFREQ results are reliable. At the same time, the
low frequency agreement gives a real validity to
simulations. Nevertheless, on can note from comparisons
between measurements and simulations that relative
deviations are quite large and above 10 % for 7 towers
out of 9. Thus, 5 kHz measurements can be suspected to
be misleading. As a rigorous process have been followed
according to Chauvin Arnoux method, we can consider
that equipment performances are limited.
7. Conclusion
A campaign of measurements was performed to
obtain soil resistivity and tower footing resistance of ten
towers. Tower footing resistances were measured by the
Fall-Of-Potential testing procedure on a distance of
110 m for each pylon. Measurements in the range from
Quasi-DC to 5 kHz have been performed. The analysis of
measurements shows an important diversity of soils and
tower footing resistances. Models were developed for
each tower using soil resistivity models obtained using
the RESAP software module and using the data on
foundations of pylon given by TenneT. Simulations using
computation methods. HIFREQ gives the more accurate
results as it takes propagation phenomena into account.
There is a very good agreement between
measurements and simulations up to Super Low
Frequencies. At 5 kHz, measurement results cannot be
fully trusted as no validation can be provided by the
equipment manufacturers in spite of the use of their
method. As simulations have been validated here, further
work is needed to identify the origin of the deviation in
the measurements.
As perspectives, high frequency and impulse
response of tower grounding systems requires additional
studies to characterize its behavior. An impulse generator
is under development to characterize tower footing
impedance response to lightning impacts. Further work
will emphasize on transient behavior of towers struck by
lightning.
References
[1] V. Cooray, Lightning Protection Book. Lucknow, India: Inst. Eng.
Technol., 2010.
[2] IEEE Guide for measuring earth resistivity, earth impedance and
earth surface potentials of a ground system, Part I - Normal
Measurements, IEEE Standard 81, 1983
[3] N. Harid, D. Lathi, H. Griffiths and A. Haddad, “Characterization
of Ground Electrodes Under Low Voltage Variable Frequency and
Impulse Energization,” in Proc. Asia-Pacific International
Conference on Lightning (APL), Nagoya, Japan, 2015,
 [4] E. Petrache, W. A. Chisholm, and A. Phillips, “Evaluating the
transient impedance of transmission line towers,” in Proc. 9th Int.
Symp. Lightning Protection, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, Nov. 2007, pp.
1–5.
[5] S. Visacro, “A comprehensive approach to the grounding response
to lightning current,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 22, no. 1,
pp. 381–386, Jan. 2007.
[6] Earthing of power installations exceeding 1 kV a.c. CEI EN
50522,
07 2011.
[7] E. D. Sunde, Earth conduction effects in transmission systems,
Dover Publications, New York, 1968 (Book).
[8] EPRI, “Guide for Transmission Line Grounding: A Roadmap for
Design, Testing, and Remediation: Part I - Theory Book”
[9] G. F. Tagg, Earth resistances. Georges Newnes Limited, London,
1964 (Book).
[10] J. Ma and F.P. Dawalibi, “Study of Influence of Buried
Metallic Structures on Soil Resistivity Measurements IEEE
Journal Paper.
[11] CDEGS Software Package, Safe Engineering Services &
technologies ltd., Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Version 15, 2015.
[12] Principes de conception et de réalisation des mises à la terre, EDF,
Direction des Etudes et Recherches, NI (January 1984) H115
[13] Paul Wiener, « A Comparison of Concrete-Encased Grounding
Electrodes to Driven Ground Rods,” IEEE Transactions, Vol IGA-
6, No 3, May/June, 1970.
[14] F. D. Dawalibi and A. Selby, “Electromagnetic fields of energized
conductors,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 8, No.3,
July 1993, pp 1275-1284
[15] F. D. Dawalibi and R. D. Southey, “Analysis of Electrical
Interference from Power Lines to Gas Pipelines Part I:
Computation Methods,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,
Vol. 4, No.3, July 1989, pp 1840-1846
[16] J. Ma, F.P. Dawalibi, "Influence of inductive coupling between
leads on resistivity measurements in multilayer soils", Power
Delivery IEEE Transactions on, vol. 13, pp. 999-1004, 1998,
ISSN 0885-8977.

View publication stats