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

net/publication/354009333

Transients in solar photovoltaic systems during lightning strikes to a

transmission line

Article  in  International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems · January 2022

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2021.106885

CITATIONS READS

0 50

3 authors:

Yang Zhang Hongcai Chen

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Southeast University (China)
23 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   218 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ya Ping Du
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
177 PUBLICATIONS   1,148 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Lightning Transient Simulation View project

Intelligent Power Transformer Diagnosis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hongcai Chen on 23 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Transients in Solar Photovoltaic Systems During
Lightning Strikes to a Transmission Line
Yang Zhanga, Hong Cai Chenb,*, and Yaping Dua

a Department of Building Services Engineering, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
b School of Automations, Southeast University, Nanjing, China

Abstract—With the rapid growth of solar energy generation, lightning hazards to photovoltaic (PV) plants have received
attention increasingly. Many PV plants are built in the transmission corridor, leading to an increased occurrence of lightning
damages. These damages are caused by lightning strikes to the transmission line nearby, which have not been well addressed in the
literature. This paper investigates the transient behaviors of a practical PV plant when a nearby transmission line is struck by
lightning. Three types of lightning damages are investigated, namely failure of PV inverters, breakdown of bypass diodes, and arcing
between metallic parts. Both bypass diode breakdown and arcing-related incidents in the PV systems have not been analyzed
systemically in the literature. In this paper, the numerical results of lightning transients are presented. The simulated induced voltage
is consistent with the observed result in the practical plant. Several protection measures against lightning to the PV systems are
proposed to achieve better protection performance.
Index Terms— photovoltaic system design, lightning protection, indirect lightning strike, transient analysis, transmission line.

1. INTRODUCTION
Solar energy is one type of the most promising renewable energy for substituting conventional energy [1, 2]. Thanks to the
recent technological advancement, demand-driven, and policy encouragement, photovoltaic (PV) systems [3, 4] have expanded
extensively. With the rapid expansion of solar energy generation, incidents caused by lightning are increasingly reported. It has
been reported in [5] that lightning-related incidents account for 26% of all the reported incidents in the systems.
Lightning strikes to power systems [6-10] have been widely studied in the past few years. For renewable systems, most of
the work investigates the lightning threats to wind turbines [11, 12], while, the work related to the lighting protection of PV
systems is still limited. Both direct and indirect lightning strikes can bring severe damages to the PV panels or other devices in
PV plants. Direct strikes generate substantial transients on the PV panels or conductor frames, and damage PV cells or electronic
devices connected. A large number of studies have been then carried out to address PV protection under direct strikes [13-18].
However, according to the study [19], most of the lightning-related damages were caused by indirect strikes, due to their frequent
occurrence and fast-front waveforms. There are two scenarios of indirect strikes in a PV plant. One is the lightning strike to the
ground. The induced overvoltage and potential rise at the site may lead to a failure of the system. The other is the lightning strike
to an object in the vicinity, such as a tall building [20, 21] or a transmission line [22]. The lightning current discharged through
the object may damage neighboring low-voltage networks. Recently, the incidents caused by lightning strikes to nearby objects
are frequently reported. PV plants, due to the low-height and location, are seldom struck directly by lightning, but are damaged
frequently by the strike to nearby objects.

Figure 1. The PV plant under an HV transmission line.

PV plants can be often found near HV transmission lines. Fig. 1 shows a practical PV plant located in the transmission
corridor. The plant was constructed on hills with an area of 247 acres and a total installed capacity of 50 MW. Recently, failures
of PV equipment or devices in such a PV plant have been reported increasingly. Most of these failures were caused by lightning
strikes to the transmission line in the vicinity. Similar problems were also found in roof-mounted PV systems [23, 24] and PV

1
power suppliers for monitoring equipment or telecommunication equipment installed in the transmission corridor.
Consequently, the lightning strike to nearby objects becomes a great threat to the PV systems.
Any failure of PV systems caused by lightning could reduce the return of investment, interrupt the power supply of the
monitor system and base stations, or even cause electrical fires. However, the failure mechanisms have not been addressed
well in the literature. In addition, very little work on the solution or guidelines has been presented in the literature for enhancing
the lightning protection of the PV systems.
This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of PV system failures caused by lightning strikes to an HV transmission line.
A practical PV plant built in a transmission corridor is selected for discussion. Three types of lightning damages including the
failure of PV inverters, breakdown of bypass diodes, and arcing between metallic parts are investigated in detail. Apart from
the analysis of lightning-induced overvoltages, the design solutions for preventing the damages are proposed according to the
results from the simulation and experiment.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces a preliminary analysis of damages in the PV plants
caused by indirect lightning strikes. Section 3 presents the modeling methodology and simulation tool for numerical
investigation. Section 4 analyzes the simulation results of transients in the PV system when the transmission line is struck by
lightning. In Section 5, the performance of the PV system with and without SPDs being installed are investigated. The measures
for improving lightning protection performance are discussed. Guidelines are provided finally for effective and efficient design
of lightning protection for the PV plants in Section 6.

2. TYPICAL LIGHTNING DAMAGES IN PV SYSTEMS

A practical PV plant has a large number of PV arrays working independently. Each array is composed of several PV strings
connected in parallel to a PV inverter. The outputs of several PV inverters are connected to a boosting transformer before
supplying the power to the grid. The PV string consists of several PV modules connected in serials to output a DC voltage of
several hundred voltages. System failures in the PV plant during a lightning strike may be caused by the failure of PV inverters,
breakdown of bypass diodes, arcing between PV frame and wires, and others.
2.1 PV Inverters
A power inverter plays a vital role in energy conversion in the PV system. It transforms the DC power generated by the PV
modules into three-phase AC power. The inverter used in the PV system can be classified into four categories: centralized
inverter, string inverter, multi-string inverter, and micro inverter. Both the string inverter and multi-string inverter become more
and more popular due to their higher energy conversion rate, more extensibility and lower installation cost. However, they are
susceptible to lightning transients and have a low overvoltage withstanding capacity. A direct or indirect lightning strike could
induce overvoltages in the DC cables as shown in Fig. 2 (black wires), and cause damages to the PV inverters connected to them.
This issue has drawn a lot of attention recently [14].

Figure 2. A DC cable loop in a PV string (black wires).

2.2 Bypass diodes

A bypass diode is connected in parallel to the PV module in reverse polarity. It works in the reverse state in normal conditions.
While, it turns to the forward mode and acts as a by-pass, when the module is shadowed or fails to generate power. Thus, other
modules connected in series can continue to generate power. The bypass diode has a low reverse withstand voltage [25]. In this
study, the bypass diodes are 15A10 with a 1 kV reverse withstand voltage. The electrical breakdown of bypass diodes is
frequently observed in PV plants. It is mainly due to the following reasons:
• Withstanding voltage of the bypass diodes is low.
• The loop formed by the DC cables in the PV module can generate an induced voltage that is high enough to damage the
bypass diodes during lightning strikes.
• The bypass diodes do not have any specific protection measures against lightning.

2
2.3 Arcing on the panel surface
When lightning strikes a PV system or a structure nearby, the ground potential will rise to a high level. The potential of the
PV frame will also rise to a considerable high level because it is connected to the grounding grid. The potential difference
between the PV frame and the wire in the module might cause a flashover. The resultant arc will also lead to degradation of the
PV module, broken-in glasses, or even destruction of the module [26, 27]. Fig. 3 shows the damage caused by the arcing during
an indirect lightning strike.

Figure 3. Observed arcing on the panel surface.

3. SYSTEM MODEL AND SIMULATION APPROACH

Various components and devices in a PV plant are required to model for lightning transient analysis. These include PV
modules, grounding grids, inverters, surge protection devices (SPDs), towers, transmission lines, etc. Since this paper primarily
addresses the protection at the DC side of the PV system, the equipment on the AC side such as transformers, AC cables, are
not considered. As these components and devices can be represented with a wire structure, the partial element equivalent
circuit (PEEC) method [28-32] is applied to analyze lightning transients in the system. The PEEC method transforms the
electromagnetic field problem into an equivalent electrical circuit and represents the original problem using resistance,
inductance, and capacitance. In our work, the PEEC model is enhanced by a vector fitting technique, so that the frequency-
dependent resistance is replaced with a ladder circuit as shown in Fig. 4. The enhanced PEEC method has been extensively
used to calculate lightning transients in large power systems because of its high computational efficiency and excellent
compatibility with nonlinear devices [33]. In the analysis presented in the following sections, a simulation tool [33] developed
using the PEEC method is adopted for the lightning transient analysis. The tool has been introduced and verified in [32, 34]
for PV system simulations.

Conductor 1 Conductor 2

C13

C12 C23

L12

R1 L1 R2 L2
C1 C2 C3

Figure 4. Diagram example of an equivalent circuit for two conductors.

Lightning transients in a typical PV plant under a 110 kV transmission line shown in Fig. 5(a) are investigated. Two
scenarios are considered in the simulations, as shown in Fig. 5(b) and (c). In the first scenario, the PV array is located in the
middle of the span, and the grounding system of the PV plant is not connected to that of the transmission line tower due to the
large separation distance. In scenario 2, the PV array is located next to a tower and the grounding grids of the PV plant and
transmission line tower are connected. Each conductor in the PV system is divided into small segments and is represented
using the equivalent circuit shown in Fig. 4. Key modeling issues of other system components and devices for lightning
transient simulations are described in the following subsections.

3
 C

2
c
2
m
0

(a)

165m 155m

PV array

(b)

165m 155m

PV
array

(c)
Figure 5. Configuration of a PV array under a transmission line. (a) Overview of the system. (b) Sideview of scenario 1. (b) Sideview of scenario 2.

3.1 Lightning return stroke

A lightning flash can be classified to be negative or positive according to its polarity. While negative flashes are the most
frequently observed on the ground. Upward lightning is barely initiated except for tall objects in excess of 100 m. In the
following transient simulation, the first negative lightning return stroke [35] is selected. It is represented by a lumped current
source with the waveform defined by Heidler’s equation [36]. The return stroke current has a waveform of 1/200 s and a
magnitude of 100 kA, which represents a very severe stroke or the worst scenario.
Two different scenarios are considered in the transient analysis, as illustrated in Fig. 5(b) and (c), i.e., (1) a lightning strike
to the overhead ground conductor, and (2) a lightning strike to the tower.

3.2 PV system model

A PV system contains various kinds of conductors, such as thin wires in the PV cell, C-profile steel in the mounting
structure, DC cables, etc. The configurations and dimensions of the PV modules and their mounting system are presented in
Fig. 6(a) and Fig. 6(b). The parameters of these conductors are listed in Table I. They are modeled using the method introduced
in [32] and the schematic diagram of its equivalent circuit obtained by PEEC is also shown in Fig. 6. In our model, the PV cell
is modeled by thin wires without considering the material and their dimensions are introduced in detail in Fig. 6(b). The
distance between the top metallic conductors of the mounting structure and the thin wires of the PV cell is considered to be 35
mm.
The grounding grid for the PV system is made from 40 × 4 mm2 flat steel and is buried in the ground with a depth of 1 m.
The mesh size of the grid is 5 m × 15 m, as shown in Fig. 6(c). The foot of each PV mounting system is connected to the grid
through the flat steel. Since the structure steel shows weak ferromagnetism when it carries lightning current, it is treated as a
linear magnetic material in the simulation [29]. As indicated in [37], the grounding impedance may significantly change during
a direct lightning strike. Ignoring the grounding impedance will lead to inaccurate calculation results. To consider the influence
of the soil, a circuit model [38] incorporating conductor impedance, ground admittance, and other inductive and capacitive
components is developed. In this model, both skin effect and ionization effects are included which was also verified through

4
experiments as in [38]. Fig. 6(c) shows the configuration of the grounding grid and a PV string installed above it and the
equivalent circuit for a section of the grounding grid.

L1 R1 L2 R2
310 cm

220 cm
70 cm

inductive coupling

(a)
112.5 cm
35 mm
6 cm
2
c 7c
2 +DC
12.5 cm m 0m
0 54
cm
-DC

120 cm
(b)

1.2 m

Lvi1 Lvi2
2.6 m - Ri Li

+ Rvi2 Rvi2

Gvi1 Gvi2 Cj Gvi1 Gvi1

1.2 m Rgi Ci Rgj

Cvi1 Cvi2 Cvi2 Cvi2

15 m Grounding grid
(c)
Figure 6. The system configuration of a PV string and its accessories. (a) the mounting structure. (b) the PV module. (c) the PV string with the grounding
grid (top view).

3.3 Overhead ground conductor and tower model

In the simulation, the overhead ground conductor of the transmission line is struck by lightning either in the middle of the
span or at the end of the span (tower). The ground conductor is made of JLB40-100 with a DC resistance of 0.432 /km. It is
divided into a number of segments with a length of 10 m. The 110 kV transmission tower is modeled by a simplified lattice
model as shown in Fig. 7. The tower is 27 m tall. It is made of steel Q345 with the size of L220×16, represented by a linear
magnetic material with a relative permeability of 40 under a lightning strike [29]. The grounding grid of the tower is buried in
the ground with a depth of 1 m and the vertical grounding rod is 3 m long.

TABLE I. PARAMETERS OF CONDUCTORS USED IN THE PV SYSTEM

Thickness Wide Cross-section

Items Shapes
(mm) (mm) (mm2)
Wires Laminar 0.2 1.6 0.32
DC cables Round / / 6
C profile steel U shape 3 40 120×3

5
 1.4 m
Grounding
wire

Horizontal grounding grid

12 m
Vertical grounding rod

Grounding grid
4m

15 m

Figure 7. A simplified model for the transmission tower and its grounding grid.

3.4 SPD model

SPDs are effective devices for suppressing transient overvoltages in a circuit. SPDs have a strong nonlinear characteristic.
They exhibit a high impedance when they operate at or below the nominal voltage. While the impedance of SPDs drops
significantly when the voltage exceeds the threshold. Various models of SPDs have been developed [39-41]. A compact SPD
model (Fig. 8) is used in the simulation, which consists of a nonlinear resistance, a capacitance, and an inductance [41]. The
inductance is 10 nH, which is approximated by the lead length of SPD, and capacitance is 450 pF according to the dataset.

Cp

Ls

V=f(i)
(a) (b)
Figure 8. (a) The equivalent circuit model of an SPD, and (b) the characteristic of the nonlinear resistance in the model.

4. NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION
With the models developed using the procedure presented in Section III, the transient behavior of a PV system under a
lightning strike is investigated. In this section lightning transients without any specific protection measure are simulated first
to reveal potential problems caused by lightning. Three types of lightning-generated incidents, namely, breakdown of bypass
diodes, arching between conductors and damage of the inverters are analyzed. These incidents have been reported in the
literature and have attracted lots of attention [5].
The PV array of concern includes 6 PV strings, each of which consists of 144 PV modules, as shown in Fig. 5(a). It has a
size of 30 m  15 m. The third PV string is just under the transmission line, the overhead ground conductor of which runs at
the height of 27 m above the ground. Two situations are investigated in this work. In the first case, lightning strikes the ground
conductor in the middle of the span, and the PV array is located under the striking point as shown in Fig. 5(b). The grounding
grids of the PV array and transmission line tower are disconnected. In the second case, one of the towers is struck by lightning,
and the PV array is just located next to the tower struck by lightning, as shown in Fig. 5(c). The distance between the two
adjacent towers is 320 m. The grounding grids of the PV array and transmission line tower are connected. In the simulation,
the soil resistivity is taken to be 100 Ω∙m, and the relative permittivity of soil is assumed to be 10. Note that the electrical
parameters of soil are frequency-dependent in the frequency range of lightning currents and may influence the grounding

6
impulse performance [42]. In this paper we assume constant soil parameters to simplify the discussion. The line terminations
were left open to find the maximum voltage as the worst-case consideration.

4.1 Scenario 1: A lightning strike to the overhead ground conductor

Fig. 9(a) shows the induced transient voltage between +DC/-DC cables at the inverter when the overhead ground conductor
is struck by lightning. It is found that the magnitude of the induced voltage reaches up to 16.6 kV, and exceeds the withstanding
voltage of an inverter (4 kV) as indicated in [43]. The oscillation in these waveforms is primarily caused by the reflections of
the lightning surge between two adjacent towers. As indicated in [44], during the high-frequency oscillations, the voltage is
non-linearly distributed. Since the return stroke current decays slowly at its tail, the reflection phenomenon is not strong.
Accordingly, the induced voltage in the DC circuit decreases quickly.
Fig. 9(b) shows the field measurement result recorded in a PV system in Florida [45]. The measured PV system had a
similar configuration, which consisted of a series string of PV panels. The voltage in the figure was induced by a negative
stroke approximately 7.7 km from the array. It can be seen that our calculation result and their measurement result are similar
as these two waveforms are similar in shape and frequency. This indicates that the calculation result and model are reasonable
to a certain extent. We should also admit that the coincidence of two results can be used for qualitative analysis, while, cannot
be used as an accurate verification.

(a) (b)
Figure 9. Indcued transient voltages between +DC/-DC cables. (a) calculated result. (b) measured result [45].

Figure 10. Induced voltages on bypass diodes.

Fig. 10 shows the induced voltages on the bypass diodes at panels A, B and C, as shown in Fig. 5(a). The magnitude of the
induced voltages is 10.4 kV at panel A, 12.3 kV at panel B and 12.4 kV at panel C. These voltages exceed well the breakdown
voltage and will cause irreversible damage to the bypass diodes.
Fig. 11 shows the induced voltages between the metal frame and the wire on the PV modules. The detail of the measured
position is illustrated in Fig. 5(a). The voltage at panel C has the highest magnitude of 75.31 kV. The voltage at panel A is
lower than any other panels, with a magnitude of 63.61 kV. The voltage at panel B has an intermediate value of 65.63 kV. The
magnitude of the induced voltages decreases with increasing distance to the striking point.

7
 Figure 11. Induced voltages between the PV metal frame and the PV wire.

4.2 Scenario 2: A lightning strike to the transmission tower

In this case, the transmission tower is struck by lightning, and transient voltages on the PV panels close to the tower are
investigated. Since the PV system is just near the transmission tower, the grounding system of the transmission line is directly
connected to the grounding system of the PV system as recommended in NFPA780 [46]. It is found that the induced voltage
between +DC/-DC cables at the inverter reaches 72.98 kV as shown in Fig. 12. It could cause damage to the equipment
connected to the DC cables, such as the PV inverter. It is noted that this voltage is much higher than that in scenario 1, because
the distances between the PV system and the tower are different in the two scenarios. The induced voltage in the PV system is
contributed by two parts. The first is the current in the overhead ground conductor, and the second is the lightning current
discharged through the transmission tower. Since the nearest tower in scenario 1 is 155 m away from the PV system, the
induced voltage is small. However, the tower is near the PV system in scenario 2. Therefore, the induced voltages between
+DC/-DC cables in scenario 2 are much larger than those in scenario 1. The ground potential rise in scenario 2 is caused by
the current flowing through the tower. This potential rise leads to a continuous overvoltage between the frame and wire in the
adjacent PV system. In both scenarios, the current reflection in the ground wire leads to the oscillation of the voltage waveform
in the PV system.

Figure 12. Induced voltages between +DC/-DC cables.

The induced voltages on the bypass diodes at panels A, B, C are shown in Fig. 13. It can be seen that the patterns of the
voltages on the bypass diodes are different from those in scenario 1. It is mainly due to the location of the tower. The closer
the PV panel to the tower, the higher the voltage induced in the diode is. For the panel installed at point C, the induced voltage
reaches 17.62 kV.

8
 Figure 13. Induced voltages on the bypass diodes.

The overvoltages between the metal frame and the wire on PV modules are shown in Fig. 14. Because of the presence of
the transmission tower, the pattern of the induced voltages in Scenario 2 is different from that in Scenario 1. In Scenario 2, the
overvoltage increases when moving from panel A to panel C. At panel A, the peak voltage is 71.49kV. However, at panel C
the peak voltage increases to 138.4kV which is almost twice as much as that at panel A. It is also noted that the voltages do
not drop to zero immediately after a number of oscillations.

Figure 14. Induced voltages between the PV metal frame and the PV wire.

4.3 Sensitivity analysis

In this part, sensitivity analysis is carried out. The influences of the lightning current waveform, soil resistivity, and height
of the tower on the lightning transient overvoltage in the PV system are discussed. Both scenarios studied above (lightning
strikes to the transmission line and strikes to the tower) are considered.
4.3.1 Influence of lightning waveform
To investigate the influence of the lightning waveform on the lightning overvoltage in the system, the first positive stroke
with a waveform of 10/350 us and a magnitude of 100 kA is selected for comparison.
4.3.1.1 Scenario 1: A lightning strike to the overhead ground conductor
Fig. 15, 16, and 17 show the induced overvoltages in the system during the first positive stroke. It can be seen that the
amplitude of overvoltage in the system under the first positive stroke is much smaller than that under the first negative strike.
The induced voltage between +DC/-DC cables is only 196 V which is considered safe for the PV inverters. The induced
voltages on the bypass diodes are all within 200 V at point A, point B and point C. Therefore, the diode will not suffer a
breakdown if the diode with suitable reverse breakdown voltage is selected. The induced voltages between the PV metal frame
and the PV wire can reach 9 kV. However, it is much less than the overvoltage under the first negative stroke. The waveshape
of the overvoltage under the first positive stroke is also quite different from that under the first negative stroke. It rises rapidly
to the peak value and then decreases to zero in tens of microseconds instead of oscillation.

9
 Figure 15. Induced voltages between +DC/-DC cables. Figure 16. Induced voltages on the bypass diodes.

Figure 17. Induced voltages between the PV metal frame and the PV wire.

4.3.1.2 Scenario 2: A lightning strike to the transmission tower

When lightning strikes the transmission tower in scenario 2, the situation is much worse. The induced voltage between
+DC/-DC cable can reach 3.69 kV and the induced voltage on the bypass diode at point C can exceed 1 kV. These overvoltages
can lead to the failure of PV inverters and bypass diodes. The waveshape of the overvoltage between the PV metal frame and
the wire in scenario 2 is quite different from that in scenario 1. The overvoltage reaches 23.9 kV in peak and then decrease
gradually without oscillation.

Figure 18. Induced voltages between +DC/-DC cables. Figure 19. Induced voltages on the bypass diodes.

10
 Figure 20. Induced voltages between the PV metal frame and the PV wire.

4.3.2 Influence of soil resistivity

The soil resistivity does not affect overvoltages at the inverter and the bypass diode as shown in Table Ⅱ and Table Ⅳ in
both scenarios. It does not affect the voltage between the metal frame and the wire in the PV module in scenario 1 (Table Ⅲ)
either. However, in scenario 2, the soil resistivity shows a significant influence on the voltage between the metal frame and
the wire as shown in Fig. 21. When the soil resistivity increases to 1000 Ω∙m, the peak voltage appears at the wave tail with a
maximum of 213 kV for points A, B and C. As the soil resistivity increases to 2000 Ω∙m, this value further increases to 309
kV. This is because the PV system in scenario 2 is located near the tower. When the lightning current is discharged into the
soil through the tower, the ground potential in the PV system will rise. Thus the voltage between the metal frame and the DC
cable is sensitive to the soil resistivity. In scenario 1, the tower is far away from the PV system, and the ground potential at the
PV system is trivial. Therefore, the overvoltage between the metal frame and the DC cable is primarily determined by inductive
and capacitive coupling and is insensitive to the soil resistivity.

TABLE II. PEAK VOLTAGE AT THE INVERTER FOR SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Soil Resistivity 100 Ω∙m 1000 Ω∙m 2000 Ω∙m

Scenario 1 16.6 16.6 16.6
Scenario 2 72.98 72.85 72.78

Figure 21. Induced voltages between the PV metal frame and the PV wire.

TABLE III. THE MAGNITUDE OF INDUCED VOLTAGE BETWEEN THE METAL FRAME AND THE WIRE FOR SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)
Panel A Panel B Panel C
Soil Resistivity
Front Tail Front Tail Front Tail
100 Ω∙m 63.61 \ 65.63 \ 75.31 \
1000 Ω∙m 63.61 \ 65.63 \ 75.31 \
Scenario 1
2000 Ω∙m 63.61 \ 65.63 \ 75.31 \

100 Ω∙m 71.49 21.5 97.8 21.8 138.4 22

Scenario 2 1000 Ω∙m \ 213 \ 213 \ 213
2000 Ω∙m \ 309 \ 309 \ 309

11
 TABLE IV. INDUCED VOLTAGE ON BYPASS DIODES IN SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Soil Resistivity Panel A Panel B Panel C

100 Ω∙m 10.4 12.3 12.4
1000 Ω∙m 10.4 12.3 12.4
Scenario 1
2000 Ω∙m 10.4 12.3 12.4

100 Ω∙m 8.7 11.6 17.62

Scenario 2 1000 Ω∙m 8.54 11.42 17.59
2000 Ω∙m 8.6 11.4 17.63

4.3.3 Influence of a tower grounding system

To investigate the influence of the tower grounding system on the overvoltages at the PV system, three different tower
grounding systems are selected for comparison. Fig. 22(a) shows the basic ground grid for the tower used in the previous
investigation. Fig. 22(b) shows the extended grounding grid by adding horizontal branches. Fig. 22(c) shows the one by adding
two additional vertical grounding rods in each horizontal branch. The overvoltages at the PV system are shown in Table Ⅴ-
Ⅶ. As seen from these tables, the tower grounding system has a negligible impact on the overvoltages in the PV system
except for the residual voltage (overvoltages appear at the wave tail) between the PV frame and the wiring under scenario 2.
Because of a lower grounding resistance, the tower with the grounding grid (c) has a lower residual voltage.

Horizontal grounding grid

Vertical grounding rod

4m 4m

4m

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 22. The investigated tower grounding systems.

TABLE V. PEAK VOLTAGE AT THE INVERTER FOR SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Grounding system Type1 Type2 Type3

Scenario 1 16.6 16.6 16.6
Scenario 2 72.98 72.8 72.7

TABLE VI. THE MAGNITUDE OF INDUCED VOLTAGE BETWEEN THE METAL FRAME AND THE WIRE FOR SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)
Panel A Panel B Panel C
Grounding system
Front Tail Front Tail Front Tail
Type1 63.61 \ 65.63 \ 75.31 \
Type2 63.61 \ 65.63 \ 75.31 \
Scenario 1
Type3 63.61 \ 65.63 \ 75.31 \

Type1 71.49 21.5 97.8 21.8 138.4 22

Scenario 2 Type2 71.51 16.9 97.8 17.3 139.1 17.5
Type3 71.51 13.8 97.9 14.1 139.3 14.3

TABLE VII. PEAK VOLTAGE ON BYPASS DIODES IN SCENARIO 1 & 2. (UNIT: KV)

Grounding system Panel A Panel B Panel C

Type1 10.4 12.3 12.4
Type2 10.4 12.3 12.4
Scenario 1
Type3 10.4 12.3 12.4

Type1 8.7 11.6 17.62

Scenario 2 Type2 8.6 11.6 17.62
Type3 8.7 11.4 17.6

4.3.4 Influence of tower height

Table Ⅷ-Ⅹ shows the influence of tower height on the overvoltage in both scenarios. In scenario 1, the overvoltage is
sensitive to the tower height because the overvoltage is mainly induced by the current flowing in the transmission line. Thus

12
the distance between the transmission line and PV plant has a great influence on the voltage. However, because the major
contribution of overvoltages in scenario 2 comes from the current flowing through the tower. Therefore, the influence of the
tower height on the overvoltage is not so significant in scenario 2.

TABLE VIII. PEAK VOLTAGE AT THE INVERTER FOR SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Tower height 20m 25m 30m

Scenario 1 20.4 16.6 8.29
Scenario 2 77.08 72.98 65.38

TABLE IX. THE MAGNITUDE OF INDUCED VOLTAGE BETWEEN THE METAL FRAME AND THE WIRE FOR SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Tower height Panel A Panel B Panel C

20m 78.16 80.23 91.12
25m 63.61 65.63 75.31
Scenario 1
30m 32.97 34.2 38.66

20m 75.34 103.2 147

Scenario 2 25m 71.49 97.8 138.4
30m 64 87.6 123.9

TABLE X. PEAK VOLTAGE ON BYPASS DIODES IN SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Tower height Panel A Panel B Panel C

20m 12.8 15.12 15.3
25m 10.4 12.3 12.4
Scenario 1
30m 6.2 8.3 8.7

20m 9.02 12.17 18.5

Scenario 2 25m 8.7 11.6 17.62
30m 7.82 10.67 16.3

5. PROTECTION SCHEMES FOR THE PV SYSTEM

Lightning protection of PV systems did not receive enough attention in earlier times. However, with the increasing lightning-
related damages being reported, the industry began to pay attention to this issue. Since then, grounding grids and SPDs have
been considered as a standard protection measure for the PV system. This section firstly analyzes the lightning transient in the
system when SPDs are installed at the PV inverter and discusses existing issues that vulnerable to lightning damages. Then,
solutions are proposed according to the simulation and experiment results.
5.1 Installation of SPDs for the inverters
In order to constrain the lightning overvoltages at a PV inverter, SPDs are proposed to install in each DC circuit at the PV
inverter, as shown in Fig. 23. Simulation is performed again in both scenarios after the installation of SPDs. The clamping
voltage of these SPDs is 2.5 kV. In the simulation induced voltages in the DC circuit at the inverter are evaluated. The voltages
between the metal frame and the wire in the PV modules, and the voltages on the bypass diodes are calculated as well to
investigate the influence of these SPDs on the transient voltages on other components.
After installing the SPDs at the inverter in the DC circuit, the induced voltages between +DC/-DC cables at the inverter
are clamped to a safe level in all these cases as shown in Table II. These results explain well why PV inverters can always
survive under lightning in practical PV plants as long as SPDs are provided at their DC input ports.

Panel C Panel B Panel A

-DC
Inverter
+DC
+

Figure 23. Installation of SPDs for inverter protection.

TABLE XI. PEAK VOLTAGE AT THE INVERTER FOR SCENARIO 1 AND SCENARIO 2. (UNIT: KV)

+DC/-DC +DC/ground -DC/ground

Scenario 1 1.86 2.5 2.5
Scenario 2 3.2 2.5 2.5

13
 Table Ⅻ shows the magnitude of induced voltages between the metal frame and the wire of PV modules in both scenarios
of a lightning strike. As seen in the table, the voltage magnitude is much lower in Scenario 1 when SPDs are installed. The
voltages are limited to 30 kV at panel A and panel C, and to 35kV at panel B.

TABLE XII. PEAK VOLTAGE BETWEEN THE METAL FRAME AND THE WIRE FOR SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Panel A Panel B Panel C

Without SPDs 63.61 65.63 75.31
With SPDs 27.94 34.71 28.29
Scenario 1
Reduction 56% 47% 62%

Without SPDs 71.49 97.8 138.4

Scenario 2 With SPDs 38.53 88.21 130.9
Reduction 46% 9.8% 5.4%

TABLE XIII. PEAK VOLTAGE ON BYPASS DIODES IN SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Panel A Panel B Panel C

Without SPDs 10.4 12.3 12.4
proposed 4.99 6.05 5.46
Scenario 1
Reduction 52% 50.8% 56%

Without SPDs 8.7 11.6 17.62

Scenario 2 proposed 6.98 7.56 8.5
Reduction 19.7% 34.8% 51.8%

The results look quite different in Scenario 2. The induced voltage at panel A is reduced significantly when the SPDs are
installed. However, the induced voltage increases apparently with increasing distance from the installation position of the
SPDs. At panel A, the voltage difference is 38.53 kV. The voltage at panel B is more than twice that at panel A, reaching a
value of 88.21 kV. At panel C, the voltage difference increases to 130.9 kV. These large voltage differences indicate that there
is a high possibility of a partial breakdown or even permanent failure of the module. The calculation results are in agreement
with the field observation and also agree with the experiment results indicated in [27].
Table ⅩⅢ shows the induced voltages on the bypass diodes at panels A, B, C. It can be seen that the voltages on the bypass
diodes are much lower compared with the results without SPDs being provided. However, these voltages still exceed the
withstanding voltage of the bypass diodes. It is also noted that the diodes in Scenario 2 suffer from a much higher voltage than
that in Scenario 1. Thus, installing SPDs at the PV inverter cannot effectively protect the bypass diodes from breakdown during
a lightning strike. This is the reason why the damage of bypass diodes is continuously observed, although SPDs are provided
somewhere in the plant.
It can be stated that installing SPDs at the inverter can effectively prevent the failure of PV inverters. However, it can neither
eliminate the arcing in the PV modules nor protect the bypass diodes under an indirect lightning strike.

5.2 Prevention of arcing between the PV frame and wire

In order to further restrict the voltage between the metal frame and the wire in a PV module, additional sets of SPDs should
be provided in the system. One possible option is to install these SPDs at the remote end of a DC circuit, as shown in Fig. 24.

Another set of SPDs

installed at remote side
Panel C Panel B Panel A

-DC
Inverter
+ + +DC

Figure 24. SPD protection for the PV system.

TABLE XIV. PEAK VOLTAGE BETWEEN THE METAL FRAME AND THE WIRE IN SCENARIOS 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Panel A Panel B Panel C

Without SPDs 63.61 65.63 75.31
Proposed 27.8 33.6 13.1
Scenario 1
Reduction 56.3% 48.8% 82.6%

Without SPDs 71.49 97.8 138.4

Scenario 2 Proposed 27.2 69.2 29.3
Reduction 61.95% 29.2% 78.8%

14
 TABLE XV. PEAK VOLTAGE ON BYPASS DIODES IN SCENARIOS 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Panel A Panel B Panel C

Without SPDs 10.4 12.3 12.4
Proposed 4.16 5.15 5.8
Scenario 1
Reduction 60% 58.13% 53.2%

Without SPDs 8.7 11.6 17.62

Scenario 2 Proposed 6.03 7.21 8.66
Reduction 30.6% 37.84% 50.85%

Table ⅪV shows the induced voltages between the PV metal frame and PV wire after the installation of SPDs at the remote
end of three PV panels. In scenario 1, the magnitude of induced voltages at panel A and panel B is not significantly changed.
However, the voltage at panel C is reduced to 13 kV after SPDs are installed at the remote side. In scenario 2, the magnitude
of induced voltages is 27 kV at panel A, 69 kV at panel B and 29 kV at panel C. Compared with the cases in which the SPDs
are only installed at the inverter, these voltages are largely constrained after adopting the protection scheme even if the
transmission tower is very close to the PV modules. Thus, the lightning discharge on the surface of the PV module can be
constrained.
For comparison, the induced voltages on bypass diodes at panels A, B, C are also listed in Table ⅩV. It can be observed
that the voltages do not significantly change, compared with the case in which SPDs are only installed at the inverter. This is
because the induced voltages on the bypass diodes are mainly contributed by the wiring structure in the PV panels. Thus, it is
difficult to limit the induced voltage in each module by installing SPDs at two ends of the DC circuit.
5.3 Protection of the bypass diodes
To avoid lightning damages to the bypass diodes, one particular measure proposed is to raise the withstand voltage of the
diode box. This measure can be realized by connecting several bypass diodes in series using a diode box as shown in Fig. 25(a).
This measure has been validated experimentally in the laboratory as shown in Fig. 25(b). In the experiment, an impulse from
a combination wave generator is firstly injected into a single bypass diode in reverse polarity. Both the current through the diode
and the voltage on the diode are recorded by a digital oscilloscope. The test is repeated several times. It is found that the diode
does not conduct current if the voltage is below 1.9 kV. The diode current, however, appears with a high-frequency oscillation
when the voltage reaches 1.9 kV. The bypass diode could recovery itself if the subsequent impulse voltage is less than 1.9 kV.
Fig. 26 shows both the voltage and current in the diode when the magnitude of the diode voltage reaches 1.9kV. When the
applied voltage exceeds 2 kV, the bypass diode suffers from an irreversible breakdown. This indicates that a single bypass diode
can withstand an impulse with a magnitude of less than 1.9 kV.

V+
OSC

or
...

CT V-
(a) (b)
Figure 25. (a) Series connection of the bypass diodes in a diode box. (b) The diagram of the experiment on the bypass diode.

Figure 26. Critical breakdown state of a bypass diode (Channel 1: current probe with the ratio of 100:1, Channel 2: voltage probe with the ratio of 100:1).

15
 TABLE XVI. BREAKDOWN VOLTAGE OF THE BYPASS DIODES.

Number in series Number of samples Minimum breakdown voltage (kV)

1 10 1.98
2 5 4.0
3 5 5.85

In the second step, several bypass diodes are connected in series. The impulse test is repeated to examine the reverse
breakdown voltage of the circuit. The test results are shown in Table ⅩⅥ. The diode box suffers from irreversible breakdown
when the voltage increases to 4 kV for 2 series-connected bypass diodes. The breakdown voltage increases to about 6 kV for
3 series-connected bypass diodes. Therefore, it can be concluded that by connecting a few bypass diodes in series, the total
withstands voltage of the circuit can be improved. The withstand voltage is generally linearly proportional to the number of
bypass diodes connected in series.

6 CONCLUSION
This paper investigated the transient behaviors of a PV plant during a lightning strike to the transmission line nearby. With
the PEEC method, lightning-induced voltages in the PV system were simulated. Significant overvoltages were observed and
could cause damages to the PV systems, if protection measures were not provided appropriately. Simulation results were
generally consistent with the field observation reported in the literature in some cases.
The sensitivity analysis is conducted to investigate the influences of the lightning current waveform, soil resistivity, tower
grounding system, and the tower height on induced overvoltages in PV systems. The results from the sensitivity analysis show
that the lightning current waveform greatly affects the amplitude and the waveshape of the overvoltages. When the rise time
of the lightning current increases, the amplitude of the overvoltages will decrease greatly and the overvoltage will not oscillate
under the first positive stroke. The soil resistivity and the configuration of the tower grounding system do not affect
overvoltages at the inverter and the bypass diode. Also, they do not affect the voltage between the metal frame and the wire in
the PV module in scenario 1. However, they can influence the voltage between the metal frame and the wire in scenario 2.
The influence of the tower height on these overvoltages for both scenarios shows a similar trend: as the tower height decreases,
the overvoltages will increase.
Simulations were also performed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed measures against lightning. The
recommendations on the design of effective lightning protection for the PV systems are summarized as follows:
1) The PV plant could suffer from serious lightning damages when a nearby transmission line is struck by lightning. The
induced voltages generated in the DC circuit may cause the failure of PV inverters and electrical breakdown of bypass
diodes. The damage becomes much severe when the PV system is close to the tower. Meanwhile, significantly induced
voltages between the PV frame and wire could cause a flashover on the PV panels which might lead to permanent damage
to the PV modules.
2) SPDs installed at a PV inverter can effectively restrict the voltage on the inverter. The damage to the inverters is then
seldom reported in practical systems as the SPDs are usually provided at the inverter. These SPDs cannot, however, reduce
the induced voltages in the DC wire of each panel, which would lead to the breakdown of bypass diodes. The induced
voltage between the PV metal frame and the wire increases significantly if it is located far away from the SPDs installed
in the DC circuit.
3) To reduce the induced voltages between the metal frame and the wire, installing SPDs at the remote end of the DC circuit
is recommended. It is found that the induced voltage between the PV metal frame and the wire is largely restricted after
the SPDs are installed on the remote side.
4) To protect the bypass diodes from breakdown, connecting installing series-connected bypass diodes is recommended. This
arrangement will increase the withstanding voltage of the total circuit.
The analysis of lightning transients in the PV system is performed mainly via computer simulation. In the future, more
experiments will be considered, including triggered lightning experiments, to further investigate the lightning transients in the
PV systems with various complex configurations and to provide effective lightning protection approaches for the PV systems.

Acknowledgment
This work was supported in part by Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation under Grant
2019A1515110008, in part by the Research Grants Council of the HKSAR under Grant 15210018 and Grant 152080119, and
in part by the Research Committee of HK PolyU.

REFERENCES
[1] A. Zahedi, "Solar photovoltaic (PV) energy: latest developments in the building integrated and hybrid PV systems," Renewable Energy, vol. 31, no. 5,
pp. 711-718, 2006.
[2] B. Kumar Sahu, "A study on global solar PV energy developments and policies with special focus on the top ten solar PV power producing countries,"
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 43, pp. 621-634, 2015.

16
[3] G. D. Kamalapur and R. Y. Udaykumar, "Rural electrification in India and feasibility of Photovoltaic Solar Home Systems," International Journal of
Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 594-599, 2011.
[4] G. Liu, "Sustainable feasibility of solar photovoltaic powered street lighting systems," International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems,
vol. 56, pp. 168-174, 2014.
[5] N. Ahmad et al., "Lightning protection on photovoltaic systems: A review on current and recommended practices," Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 82, pp. 1611-1619, 2018.
[6] M. R. Bank Tavakoli and B. Vahidi, "Statistical analysis of the lightning performance of high voltage OHLs using dynamic simulation of lightning
leaders movements," International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1024-1030, 2010.
[7] P. Gómez and J. C. Escamilla, "Frequency domain modeling of nonuniform multiconductor lines excited by indirect lightning," International Journal
of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 420-426, 2013.
[8] P. S. Georgilakis and A. G. Kagiannas, "A novel validated solution for lightning and surge protection of distribution transformers," International
Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 63, pp. 373-381, 2014.
[9] X. Wu, H. Zhang, and G. G. Karady, "Transient analysis of inductive induced voltage between power line and nearby pipeline," International Journal
of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 84, pp. 47-54, 2017.
[10] J. Snodgrass and L. Xie, "Overvoltage analysis and protection of lightning arresters in distribution systems with distributed generation," International
Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 123, 2020.
[11] X. Zhang, Y. Zhang, and X. Xiao, "An improved approach for modeling lightning transients of wind turbines," International Journal of Electrical
Power & Energy Systems, vol. 101, pp. 429-438, 2018.
[12] H. C. Chen, Y. Zhang, Y. P. Du, and Q. S. Cheng, "Comprehensive transient analysis for low-voltage system in a wind turbine under direct lightning,"
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 121, Oct 2020.
[13] J. C. Hernandez, P. G. Vidal, and F. Jurado, "Lightning and Surge Protection in Photovoltaic Installations," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol.
23, no. 4, pp. 1961-1971, 2008.
[14] Y. Tu, C. Zhang, J. Hu, S. Wang, W. Sun, and H. Li, "Research on lightning overvoltages of solar arrays in a rooftop photovoltaic power system,"
Electric power systems research, vol. 94, pp. 10-15, 2013.
[15] K. Yonezawa, S. Mochizuki, Y. Takahashi, T. Idogawa, and N. Morii, "Evaluation of SPDs for a PV system using the FDTD method taking concrete
foundations into consideration," in 2014 International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), 2014, pp. 1091-1094: IEEE.
[16] N. H. Zaini et al., "Lightning surge analysis on a large scale grid-connected solar photovoltaic system," Energies, vol. 10, no. 12, p. 2149, 2017.
[17] K. Yamamoto, J. Takami, and N. Okabe, "Overvoltages on DC side of power conditioning system caused by lightning stroke to structure anchoring
photovoltaic panels," Electrical Engineering in Japan, vol. 187, no. 4, pp. 29-41, 2014.
[18] C. A. Charalambous, N. D. Kokkinos, and N. Christofides, "External lightning protection and grounding in large-scale photovoltaic applications," IEEE
transactions on electromagnetic compatibility, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 427-434, 2013.
[19] V. A. Rakov and F. Rachidi, "Overview of Recent Progress in Lightning Research and Lightning Protection," IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 428-442, Aug 2009.
[20] Y. Baba and V. A. Rakov, "Voltages induced on an overhead wire by lightning strikes to a nearby tall grounded object," IEEE Transactions on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 212-224, Feb 2006.
[21] S. Chen, Y. Zhang, C. Chen, X. Yan, W. Lu, and Y. Zhang, "Influence of the Ground Potential Rise on the Residual Voltage of Low-Voltage Surge
Protective Devices due to Nearby Lightning Flashes," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 596-604, 2016.
[22] J. M. Chen and M. X. Zhu, "Calculation of Lightning Flashover Rates of Overhead Distribution Lines Considering Direct and Indirect Strokes," (in
English), IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 668-674, Jun 2014.
[23] K. Sakai and K. Yamamoto, "Lightning protection of photovoltaic power generation system: Influence of grounding systems on overvoltages appearing
on DC wirings," in Lightning Protection (XII SIPDA), 2013 International Symposium on, 2013, pp. 335-339: IEEE.
[24] H. Sueta, A. Mocelin, R. Zilles, P. Obase, and E. Boemeisel, "Protection of photovoltaic systems against lightning experimental verifications and
techno-economic analysis of protection," in Lightning Protection (XII SIPDA), 2013 International Symposium on, 2013, pp. 354-359: IEEE.
[25] H. Haeberlin and M. Kaempfer, "Measurement of damages at bypass diodes by induced voltages and currents in PV modules caused by nearby lightning
currents with standard waveform," in 23rd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, 2008.
[26] I. Naxakis, C. Christodoulou, V. Perraki, and E. Pyrgioti, "Degradation effects on single crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules subjected to high
impulse-voltages," IET Science, Measurement & Technology, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 563-570, 2017.
[27] I. Naxakis, E. Pyrgioti, V. Perraki, and E. Tselepis, "Studying the effect of the impulse voltage application on sc-Si PV modules," Solar Energy, vol.
144, pp. 721-728, 2017.
[28] G. Antonini, S. Cristina, and A. Orlandi, "PEEC modeling of lightning protection systems and coupling to coaxial cables," IEEE Transactions on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 481-491, Nov 1998.
[29] H. Chen and Y. Du, "Model of ferromagnetic steels for lightning transient analysis," IET Science, Measurement & Technology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 301-
307, 2018.
[30] H. Chen, Y. Du, and M. Chen, "Lightning Transient Analysis of Radio Base Stations," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 2187-
2197, 2018.
[31] H. Chen, Y. Zhang, Y. Du, and Q. S. Cheng, "Lightning Transient Analysis of Telecommunication System with a Tubular Tower," IEEE Access, vol.
6, no. 1, pp. 60088-60099, 2018.
[32] Y. Zhang, H. C. Chen, and Y. P. Du, "Lightning protection design of solar photovoltaic systems: Methodology and guidelines," Electric Power Systems
Research, vol. 174, Sep 2019.
[33] H. Chen, Z. Qin, Y. Du, Q. Wang, and Y. Ding, "TAES: A PEEC-based tool for transient simulation," presented at the 7th Asia-Pacific International
Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility (APEMC), Shenzhen, China, 2016.
[34] Y. Zhang, H. C. Chen, and Y. P. Du, "Considerations of Photovoltaic System Structure Design for Effective Lightning Protection," IEEE Transactions
on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1333-1341, Aug 2020.
[35] Protection of Structures Against Lightning: Part I General principles, vol. IEC 62305-1, 2010.
[36] F. Heidler, J. M. Cvetic, and B. V. Stanic, "Calculation of lightning current parameters," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 399-
404, 1999.
[37] M. Popov, L. Grcev, H. K. Hoidalen, B. Gustavsen, and V. Terzija, "Investigation of the Overvoltage and Fast Transient Phenomena on Transformer
Terminals by Taking Into Account the Grounding Effects," IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 5218-5227, 2015.
[38] H. Chen and Y. Du, "Lightning Grounding Grid Model Considering Both the Frequency-Dependent Behavior and Ionization Phenomenon," IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 157-165, 2019.
[39] P. Pinceti and M. Giannettoni, "A simplified model for zinc oxide surge arresters.," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 393-398,
Apr 1999.
[40] J. G. Zola, "Simple model of metal oxide varistor for Pspice simulation," IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and
Systems, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 1491-1494, Oct 2004.
[41] H. Chen and Y. Du, "A comprehensive study on the nonlinear behavior of metal oxide varistors," presented at the 33rd International Conference on
Lightning Protection (ICLP), Estoril, Portugal, 2016.
[42] R. Alipio and S. Visacro, "Frequency Dependence of Soil Parameters: Effect on the Lightning Response of Grounding Electrodes," IEEE Transactions
on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 132-139, 2013.
[43] IEC 62109-1: Safety of power converters for use in photovoltaic power systems – Part 1: General requirements, 2010.
[44] M. Popov, "General approach for accurate resonance analysis in transformer windings," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 161, pp. 45-51, 2018.

17
[45] P. Vangala, M. Ropp, K. Haggerty, K. Lynn, and W. Wilson, "Field measurements of lightning-induced voltage transients in PV arrays," in Photovoltaic
Specialists Conference, 2008. PVSC'08. 33rd IEEE, 2008, pp. 1-4: IEEE.
[46] National Fire Protection Association, "NFPA 780: Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems," 2020.

18

View publication stats