IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 62, NO.
4, AUGUST 2020
Considerations of Photovoltaic System Structure
Design for Effective Lightning Protection
Yang Zhang , Hongcai Chen , Member, IEEE, and Yaping Du
Abstract—Photovoltaic (PV) systems are susceptible to lightning
strikes. During a lightning strike, an induced overvoltage is gener-
ated in the PV system. This overvoltage can damage the inverters
connected to the dc cables. In this article, a comprehensive study is
presented to address the installation issues that will influence the
induced voltage between the +dc and –dc cables in the PV system.
By using the partial element equivalent circuit method, the skin
effect and ferromagnetic property of the mounting structures are
well modeled. The wiring in the PV module is also considered in
the simulation. The influences of the mounting systems, lightning
protection systems, PV frames, and dc cable arrangements are
thoroughly investigated. The simulation results and discussions
provide guidance for PV structure design for maximizing light-
ning protection performance without adding additional protective
devices.
Index Terms—Lightning protection, photovoltaic (PV) system
design, partial element equivalent circuit (PEEC), solar energy,
transient analysis.
I. INTRODUCTION
OLAR energy is one of the most promising renewable en-
S ergy for substituting conventional energy [1], [2]. Recently,
photovoltaic (PV) systems have been installed extensively due
to technological advancement, demand-driven, and policy en-
couragement. The total solar capacity has reached 390 625 MW
by the end of 2017, with a growth rate of 31.6% compared to
that in 2016 [3]. IRENA estimated that the total solar capacity
might reach up to some figure between 1760 and 2500 GW by
2030, which will share as much as 13% of global electricity
generation.
As the PV installation increases rapidly in the energy market,
the safe operation of PV systems has attracted lots of attention.
Manuscript received January 26, 2020; revised March 6, 2020, March 29,
2020, and April 17, 2020; accepted April 25, 2020. Date of publication May
18, 2020; date of current version August 13, 2020. This work was supported
in part by grants Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation
under Project 2019A1515110008, and in part by the Research Grants Council
of the HKSAR under Project 15210018 and Project 15204414. (Corresponding
author: Hongcai Chen.)
Yang Zhang is with the Department of Building Services Engineer-
ing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong (e-mail:
16103271g@connect.polyu.hk).
Hongcai Chen is with the Academy for Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies,
Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518057, China
(e-mail: hc.chen@live.com).
Yaping Du is with the Department of Building Services Engineering, Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong (e-mail: ya-ping.du@polyu.
edu.hk).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available online
at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEMC.2020.2990930
0018-9375 © 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on July 22,2021 at 11:56:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1333
Lightning is one of the major threats to PV system because of
their higher, unsheltered installed positions, and larger installed
areas. It has been reported that averagely 26% of PV system
damages are caused by lightning [5]. The replacement of dam-
aged devices and the interruption of power supply have caused
huge losses to investors. Therefore, reliable PV systems that can
withstand lightning strikes are necessary.
Research on the lightning effects on PV systems [4] has just
started recently. In [5], scientific background and essential as-
sumptions into the design of lightning protection systems (LPS)
for PV systems and the aspects of standardization were dis-
cussed. The field measurement was presented in [6] and [7], and
the performance of a PV system under both direct and indirect
lightning strikes was investigated. High-speed dataloggers were
used to monitor the voltage at the terminals of PV arrays. Experi-
mental tests [8]–[10] on individual PV modules or reduced-scale
models were used to study the transient behavior of a PV system.
Overvoltage at the dc side was addressed in [8]–[15]. While,
transient voltages at the ac side [16], [17] were also studied.
The effects of a grounding grid and the grounding method of a
PV plant could be found in the literature [18]–[20]. The effect
of frequency-dependent soil and electrode arrangements on the
system behavior was evaluated. Risk assessment and economic
benefits [21]–[24] were also discussed while evaluating light-
ning protection schemes. Recently, the degradation of the PV
module under impulse voltage [25]–[29] was investigated. The
measurement showed that the efficiency of some PV modules
declined after they were exposed to the high voltage of several
kV. The selection of surge protective devices (SPDs) [14] was
also evaluated.
These studies, however, are mainly focused on the simulation
of individual PV modules using over-simplified models. They
cannot provide a complete and systematic evaluation of the
lightning protection design of PV systems. For example, the
wiring structure in PV modules is always omitted because of
computational complexity. Consequently, the transient voltages
resulting from the presence of the wiring system in PV modules
cannot be considered.
In the PV system, the most venerable component is the power
inverter [30]. Lightning strikes may cause temporary interrup-
tions or permanent damage to electronic devices, mainly power
inverters. In addition to high maintenance costs, improvement
of the antilightning performance of a PV system mainly in-
dicates the protection of power inverters. The PV system can
be improved in several aspects, such as the system structure,
SPD arrangement, physical parameters, etc. Proper structure
1334 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 62, NO. 4, AUGUST 2020

Fig. 1. Configuration of the PV moudule.

design can minimize the impact of lightning on the system if

these factors are addressed appropriately at the design stage.
The objective of this article is to address some issues regarding
the system structure design for maximizing lightning protection
performance without adding additional SPDs. Structure design
factors including the PV module type, PV mounting system,
dc cable arrangement, and external lightning protection are
considered in this article. Fig. 2. Configurations of the PV installation. (a) One-leg mounting structure
with a non-isolated LPS. (b) Four-leg mounting structure with a non-isolated
The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section II LPS. (c) One-leg mounting structure with an isolated LPS. (d) Four-leg mounting
briefly introduces system components that may affect the per- structure with an isolated LPS.
formance of PV systems. Configurations of these components
for lightning transient simulation are described. Section III
introduces the simulation method. Section IV investigates the
influences of various design options for the system on lightning
protection. Finally the conclusion and design guidelines for
effective lightning protection are summarized in Section V.
Fig. 3. Configuration of a PV string with 3 PV units.
II. SYSTEM COMPONENTS FOR LIGHTNING
TRANSIENT SIMULATION
A typical PV system consists of PV modules, dc cables, and
their electrical accessories, mounting systems, as well as LPS.
As these components carry lightning currents during a lightning
strike, their arrangement will affect the protection performance
of the system. In this section, configurations and modeling issues
for lightning transient analysis of PV systems are addressed.

A. Description of the PV Module
PV systems of concern can be described at three levels, i.e.,
1) PV modules, 2) PV units, and 3) PV strings.
A PV module is a packaged, connected assembly of PV cells
with or without a metal frame. PV cells within a PV module
are connected in series to achieve a high voltage output, as the
voltage produced by a single cell is limited. Fig. 1 shows the
dimension of a PV module investigated. A collection of 36 cells
are connected in series to reach a maximum output voltage of
37.8 V. The cells are sealed in the module thus they are protected
from the environment. DC cables are provided to connect these
cells in series.
Several PV modules are installed in a mounting system to
form a PV unit. In the investigated system, a unit consists of 8
PV modules as shown in Fig. 2.
A PV string consists of several PV units connecting in series
to reach a sufficiently high voltage. The output of the string is
connected to an inverter. Thus, the dc power generated by solar
energy can be converted to ac power. The PV string considered
in this article includes 3 units with a total of 24 PV modules as
shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 4. Configuration of the PV mounting systems. (a) One-leg mounting
structure. (b) Four-leg mounting structure.
B. Description of the Mounting System
A PV mounting system for PV modules is generally made
of aluminum alloy, low-carbon steel, or stainless steel. The legs
of the mounting system are usually connected to the grounding
grid to achieve equipotential bonding. Thus, the configuration
of the mounting system has a great influence on the lightning
protection performance of the PV system. Two types of mount-
ing systems are commonly used, as shown in Fig. 4. They are
classified according to the number of mounting legs, namely,
one-leg structures and four-leg structures.
C. Description of the External LPS
An external LPS in a PV farm includes air-termination rods
down conductors and earth electrodes. The external LPS are
essential for the protection of PV systems due to it is the main
channel for discharging lightning currents. Two types of external

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on July 22,2021 at 11:56:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
ZHANG et al.: CONSIDERATIONS OF PV SYSTEM STRUCTURE DESIGN FOR EFFECTIVE LIGHTNING PROTECTION
Fig. 5. Configuration of external LPS for the PV system. (a) Isolated external
LPS. (b) Nonisolated external LPS.
Fig. 6. Two types of PV frames. (a) Frameless PV module. (b) PV module
with the metal frame.
Fig. 7. Typical configuration of the dc loop.
LPS are commonly applied, namely isolated and nonisolated
LPS, as shown in Fig. 5.
The isolated LPS are commonly used when there is a high risk
of damage caused by the direct lightning current. An isolated
LPS consists of a free-standing mast, including the air terminal
and the down conductor as shown in Fig. 5(a). The mast is
separated from the PV mounting structure at a distance.
In a nonisolated LPS, the air terminal is directly installed on
the PV mounting structure as shown in Fig. 5(b). The metallic
mounting structure can be utilized as the down conductor of
the LPS. The lightning current will be discharged to the earth
through the mounting structure in a direct strike to the air
terminal.
D. Description of the PV Frame
Traditional PV modules are commonly embedded in a metal
frame as shown in Fig. 6 (b). The frame can help to fix and
seal the PV module and protect the module from damages
during transportation and installation. Frameless PV modules
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on July 22,2021 at 11:56:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1335
are attracting more and more attention in recent years due to their
artistic view as shown in Fig. 6 (a). Leaking currents are greatly
reduced in the frameless PV modules. Thus, the efficiency of
the PV system is improved. The frameless PV module can
also reduce potential-induced degradation, which will prolong
the life span of the module. Meanwhile, the frameless module
certainly reduces the possibility of electric shock.
E. Description of the DC Cables
As dc cables are usually installed in free air, they are designed
with double-layer insulation and are superior corrosion resistant.
DC cables connect PV modules, inverters, and other electrical
components in the system Fig. 7 shows a typical configuration
of the DC loop. The layout of dc cables has a great influence
on the induced voltage caused by lightning. An optimal layout
of dc cables can greatly reduce the damage to the PV system
caused by lightning. This is generally achieved by reducing the
loop formed by the dc cables. In this regard, the magnetic flux
passing throws the loop is reduced, then the induced voltage is
reduced.
III. SIMULATION METHODOLOGY
In this article, the lightning induced voltages on the PV system
and the inverter are calculated using the partial element equiva-
lent circuit (PEEC) method. The details of the PEEC model as
well as the lightning current source are introduced in this section.
A. Lightning Waveform
Based on the polarity of its electric charge transferred and the
travel direction of its initial leader, lightning can be categorized
into four types: downward (positive and negative) and upward
(positive and negative) lightning. According to the observation
[31], 90% of lightning is downward negatively charged. Upward
lightning is barely initiated except for tall objects over 100 m. In
the simulation, the first negative lightning stroke is considered. It
is defined using the Heidler’s equation according to IEC 62305
[32], as follows:
imax (t/T )n
i (t) = exp(−t/T ) (1)
η 1 + (t/T )n
where current peak imax = 100 kA, its correction coefficient
η = 0.986. Front-time coefficient T and stroke duration time τ
are, respectively, equal to 1.82 and 285 μs. Current steepness
factor n = 10.
B. Calculation Methodology
Lightning transients are generally solved using electromag-
netic field methods. The PEEC method [33]–[35] is an efficient
method for modeling electromagnetic couplings in a wire struc-
ture, and is preferred for modeling PV systems. Conductors in
the PV system such as structural steels, PV wirings, cables,
etc. are all modeled using the PEEC method based on their
geometry information. The detail of the modeling procedure
is presented in [36]. It is noted that structural steels used in the
PV systems are treated as a linear magnetic material because
1336
Fig. 8. Representative equivalent circuit for conductors in the PV unit. (a) The
configuration of a PV unit. (b) Diagram example of an equivalent circuit for two
conductors.
it is deeply saturated when it carries the lightning current [37].
Eddy current effects of conductors are taken into account by
using analytical formulas for skin effect [38] and discretization
method [39], [40] for proximity effect. The vector fitting method
[41], [42] is then adopted to transform the frequency-dependent
impedance into an equivalent circuit for time-domain transient
analysis. The configuration of a PV unit and the equivalent
circuit for conductors in the PV system is obtained as shown in
Fig. 8. As shown in Fig. 8(b), the equivalent circuit for any two
conductors in the PV unit includes resistance, inductance and
ground capacitance, as well as mutual capacitance and mutual
inductance. To visualize the diagram of the whole PV units,
equivalent circuits for four configurations mentioned in Fig. 2
are displayed in Fig. 9. For the sake of simplicity, only a part of
the coupling effect is illustrated in the figure.
C. Simulation Results and Analysis
Lightning transients in practical PV systems are simulated
with PEEC-based software: TAES [42]. Several designs and
installation issues of PV systems are investigated by comparing
the transient performance under different configurations of the
PV systems.
The induced voltage between the ±dc cables is one of the most
prominent problems reported in the industry as well as literature.
It often leads to the interruption of the PV system because
the dc cables are connected to vulnerable electronic devices,
such as inverters. The purpose of this article is to help PV
system designers reduce the induced voltage at PV inverters by
simply changing the system structure without adding additional
protective devices.
The simulation is performed under different system configu-
rations in order to investigate the influence of the arrangement
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on July 22,2021 at 11:56:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 62, NO. 4, AUGUST 2020
Fig. 9. Representative equivalent circuits for the PV unit. (for simplicity,
mutual coupling between two elements is not present in the figure). (a) One-leg
mounting structure with a non-isolated LPS. (b) Four-leg mounting structure
with a nonisolated LPS. (c) One-leg mounting structure with an isolated LPS.
(d) Four-leg mounting structure with an isolated LPS.
of key components, including mounting systems, external LPS,
module frames, and dc cables. The striking point is at the top of
the air terminal. Since the most affected system is hit directly by
lightning, the induced voltage at the neighbor system will not be
evaluated. In the simulations, we use a ground resistance with
a value of 3 Ω, which is in the range suggested by international
standards, such as IEC62305-3 [43].
D. Influence of the Mounting System
As a part of the current leaking path, the structure of a
mounting system, as well as the location of its grounding legs,
greatly affects the distribution of lightning current.
In order to investigate the influence of mounting systems, the
structures with one-leg [see Fig. 2(a)] and four-leg [see Fig. 2(b)]
with a nonisolated LPS are selected for simulation. Fig. 10
shows the induced voltage between the ±dc cables. The induced
voltage is mainly caused by inductive and capacitive couplings
between the LPS/mounting structure and the dc cables. It is
found that the performance of two structures is almost the same
(with peak voltages of 27.2 and 28.7 kV), although the four-leg
structure has more grounding points.
For a four-leg mounting structure, the selection of the ground-
ing leg also influences the lightning protection performance
of the system. No standard recommends which leg should be
connected to the grounding grid in the field. To investigate the
influence of individual grounding legs, induced voltages in the
ZHANG et al.: CONSIDERATIONS OF PV SYSTEM STRUCTURE DESIGN FOR EFFECTIVE LIGHTNING PROTECTION
Fig. 10. Voltage difference between ±dc cables in one leg and four legs
mounting systems with a nonisolated LPS.
Fig. 11. Voltage difference between ±dc cables in four legs mounting system
with different grounding methods.
TABLE I
INDUCED VOLTAGE AMPLITUDE IN FOUR LEGS MOUNTING SYSTEM WITH
DIFFERENT GROUNDING METHODS
four-leg mounting structure [see Fig. 2(b)] with different ground-
ing legs are simulated and presented in Fig. 11. The induced
voltages increase to 47.3 and 35 kV, respectively, when only Leg
2 or Leg 4 is grounded. This figure reduces to 21.5 kV when only
Leg 3 is grounded. While, the induced voltage reduces to as low
as 14.4 kV when only Leg 1 is grounded. This indicates that
the location and number of the grounding points are crucial to
the performance of lightning protection. For better comparison,
the amplitudes of the induced voltages with different grounding
legs are presented in Table I.
This phenomenon can be explained by the current distribution
in the structure with different grounding configurations. Based
on the PEEC theory, mutual coupling between perpendicular
conductors equals to zero. Thus, the primary contribution to the
induced voltage comes from the parallel conductors. For the
system with Leg 1 grounded, the lightning current is discharged
to earth through that leg directly. A small current is found in
the PV frame. Consequently, this configuration has the lowest
induced voltage. However, the lightning current goes through all
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on July 22,2021 at 11:56:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1337
Fig. 12. Voltage difference between ±dc cables protected by nonisolated LPS
and isolated LPS with (a) One-leg mounting structure. (b) Four-leg mounting
structure.
TABLE II
COMPARISON OF VOLTAGE AMPLITUDE
frame conductors in the structure with Leg 2 grounded, which
leads to a relatively high voltage. It is concluded that a four-
leg mounting structure performs better if only the leg near the
lightning rod is grounded.
E. Influence of the External LPS
The grounding method of the lightning rod has a great in-
fluence on the induced voltage in dc cables. In the simulation,
the induced voltage is evaluated under two types of LPS, i.e.,
isolated and nonisolated LPS. The mounting structures with one
leg and four legs are also considered for comparison. As a result,
there are four different configurations for simulation, as shown
in Fig. 2. Each leg of the mounting system is grounded through
a 3 Ω resistance.
As waveforms shown in Fig. 12, and peak voltages summa-
rized in Table II, the induced voltages between the ±dc cables
in the one-leg mounting structure are 10.1 and 27.2 kV for the
system with the isolated and nonisolated LPS, respectively. For
the four-leg mounting structure, these voltages become 9.21
and 28.7 kV for the isolated and nonisolated LPS. The system
1338 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 62, NO. 4, AUGUST 2020
Fig. 13. The voltage difference between ±dc cables protected by a non-
isolated LPS with (a) one-leg mounting structure, (b) four-leg mounting
structure.
TABLE III
COMPARISON OF PEAK VOLTAGES
protected with an isolated LPS has a much lower induced voltage
than that with a nonisolated LPS, no matter what the mounting
structure is adopted.
In the system protected by an isolated LPS, the lightning
current does not go through the mounting structure. The con-
ductors carrying lightning current are generally perpendicular
to the dc cables. Thus, the induced voltages in dc cables are
reduced significantly.
F. Influence of the PV Frame
The impact of the PV frame on the performance of a LPS is
seldom studied in previous literature. In modern PV systems, two
types of PV modules with and without metal frames are widely
installed. The influence of the metal frame during a lightning
strike is investigated using the simulation.
Fig. 13 and Table III show waveforms and peak values of
the voltages between the ±cables in the system with one-leg
[see Fig. 2(a)] and four-leg [see Fig. 2(b)] mounting structures,
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on July 22,2021 at 11:56:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 14. Configurations of dc cable layouts. (a) Single loop layout. (b) Double
loop layout.
respectively. In the simulation, the system is protected by a non-
isolated LPS. The induced voltages in the system with one-leg
mounting structure are 27.2 kV for modules with the metal frame
and increases to 64.9 kV without metal frames. Similar to the
trend of the one-leg system, the induced voltage in the four-leg
mounting structure is 28.7 kV with the metal frame and as high as
68.6 kV when no metal frame is involved. It can be seen that the
metal frame can largely reduce the induced voltage in the system.
This is because the surge current will generate magnetic flux
in the frame wire loop when a surge current flows near the PV
module. Meanwhile, the induced current in the frame wire loop
will produce additional magnetic flux in the opposite direction
of the former one because of the Faraday’s law. Therefore, the
total magnetic flux in the wire loop is reduced, thus the induced
voltage is smaller compared with the frameless module.
G. Influence of the DC Cable
It is known that the induced voltage in the dc cables is affected
by two factors, i.e., 1) the loop of dc cables and 2) the wiring
structure in the PV module. In order to reduce the induced
voltage between the ±dc cables, a large-size dc loop should
be avoided. Simulation is performed to investigate how the dc
cable loop affects the induced voltage between two dc cables.
For simplicity, the system with the one-leg mounting structure
[see Fig. 2(a)] protected by a nonisolated LPS was selected for
simulation.
Two types of dc cable layouts, namely single loop and double
loop layouts are simulated as shown in Fig. 14. A PV string
has a total of 24 PV modules installed on three PV mounting
structures. These modules are all connected in series by the dc
cables to reach a voltage of around 700 VDC . A string inverter is
provided at the end of the dc cable for converting dc power to ac
power. A single dc loop is then formed as shown in Fig. 14(a).
In order to reduce the size of the dc loop, the +dc terminal is
not directly connected to the positive terminal of the last PV
module. Instead, an additional +dc cable is provided, and is
routed together with the –dc cable to the last PV module. In
this regard, both +dc and –dc cables have the same length, and
run in parallel together with minimum spacing, as the double
ZHANG et al.: CONSIDERATIONS OF PV SYSTEM STRUCTURE DESIGN FOR EFFECTIVE LIGHTNING PROTECTION 1339

Fig. 15. Voltage difference between ±dc cables with different cable
arrangements.

TABLE IV
COMPARISON OF CURRENT PEAKS IN WITH-FRAME AND FRAMELESS
STRUCTURE UNDER DIFFERENT WAVEFORMS

loop layout shown in Fig. 14(b). In this case, the loop size is
Fig. 16. Voltages between ±dc cables in four-leg mounting systems with a
significantly reduced. nonisolated LPS under different lightning current waveforms. (a) With metal
In the simulation, the separation distance of ±dc cables is frame. (b) Without metal frame.
assumed to be 70 cm for the case shown in Fig. 14(a), and 1 cm in
Fig. 14(b). Fig. 15 shows the induced voltages in the dc cables in
these two cases. As seen in Fig. 15, the induced voltage between
the dc cables reduces from 49.3 to 27.5 kV with the proposed dc
cable arrangement. Though the loop width is largely reduced,
a voltage of 27.5 kV is still induced. This is because the loop
area contributed by each panel is not canceled and this loop area
contributes to the induced voltage between the +dc and –dc
cable.
IV. DISCUSSION ON EXTERNAL FACTORS
In this section, external factors including lightning current
waveform and soil resistivity, which are not an inherent part of
the structure configuration, are discussed. Fig. 17. Voltages between ±dc cables in four legs mounting systems with a
nonisolated LPS.
A. Influence of the Lightning Waveforms
The induced voltage between ±dc cables is affected by the In other words, the conclusions regarding the PV structure design
lightning current waveform. For comparison, three different are valid under other lightning current waveforms.
lightning waveforms, 1/200, 2.6/50, and 10/350 μs with 100 kA
in peak, were selected in the simulation. Fig. 16 shows calcu- B. Influence of the Ground Resistance
lated induced voltages between the ±dc cables under different It is also noted that ground resistance is not a crucial factor
lightning waveforms, in the four-leg mounting system with a to the transient voltage between ±dc cables during a lightning
nonisolated LPS. The amplitudes of the calculated voltages are strike [36]. To further confirm the influence of the ground
listed in Table IV. It can be seen that the amplitude of the induced resistance, simulations with 3 Ω, 100 Ω, and a 1 m grounding
voltage increases linearly with the steepness of the lightning rod are performed, and the results are shown in Fig. 17. The
current in general. difference is minor when the resistance is changed from 3 Ω to
By comparing the voltages between two configurations 100 Ω. The same induced voltage can be also observed when
(with/without metal frame), it can be revealed that the lightning we use the grounding rod model (each leg is grounded through
waveform shows the same impact under different configurations. a grounding rod buried one meter in the soil).

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on July 22,2021 at 11:56:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1340 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 62, NO. 4, AUGUST 2020
V. CONCLUSION
This article investigated the influence of PV structure design
on the lightning protection performance of the system during
a lightning strike. Various PV structures adopted in practical
installations have been identified, and PEEC models for the
components as well as the whole system have been provided. The
induced voltage between the –dc and +dc cables, which might
cause the failure of the inverter was addressed. This voltage can
be reduced by simply adopting proper structure configurations.
The following conclusions have been made.
1) The location of the grounding leg of a PV mounting system
has a great influence on the current distribution under
a nonisolated LPS. Adding more grounding points does
not improve the efficiency of lightning protection. The
grounding leg should be as close to the lightning rod as
possible.
2) The structure of a mounting system does not have a
significant impact on induced voltage under an isolated
LPS.
3) A PV system with an isolated LPS will have a lower
induced voltage compared with a nonisolated LPS. dc
cables or other wires in the PV module are generally
perpendicular to the lightning rod.
4) The frameless PV module has a much higher induced
voltage compared to the module with a metal frame. The
shielding effect of the metal frame reduces the induced
voltage significantly. Adopting frameless PV modules
certainly increases the risk of damage to the PV inverter
as well as the bypass diodes. Attention should be paid in
choosing suitable SPDs when the frameless PV module is
selected.
5) The induced voltage at the inverter can be reduced signifi-
cantly by reducing the dc cable loop size with appropriate
cable arrangement.
REFERENCE
[1] B. Kumar Sahu, “A study on global solar PV energy developments
and policies with special focus on the top ten solar PV power pro-
ducing countries,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 43, pp. 621–634,
2015.
[2] S. Chatterjee, P. Kumar, and S. Chatterjee, “A techno-commercial review
on grid connected photovoltaic system,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.,
vol. 81, pp. 2371–2397, 2018.
[3] “Renewable capacity statistics 2018,” International Renewable Energy
Agency (IRENA), Abu Dhabi 2018.
[4] N. I. Ahmad et al., “Lightning protection on photovoltaic systems: A
review on current and recommended practices,” Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev., vol. 82, pp. 1611–1619, 2018.
[5] J. C. Hernandez, P. G. Vidal, and F. Jurado, “Lightning and surge protection
in photovoltaic installations,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 23, no. 4,
pp. 1961–1971, Nov. 2008.
[6] P. Vangala, M. Ropp, K. Haggerty, K. Lynn, and W. Wilson, “Field mea-
surements of lightning-induced voltage transients in PV arrays,” presented
at the 2008 33rd IEEE Photovolatic Specialists Conference, San Diego,
CA, USA, 2008.
[7] M. Belik, “PV panels under lightning conditions,” in Proc. 15th Int. Sci.
Conf. Electric Power Eng., 2014, pp. 367–370.
[8] N. Kokkinos, N. Christofides, and C. Charalambous, “Lightning protection
practice for large-extended photovoltaic installations,” presented at the
2012 International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), Vienna,
Austria, 2012.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on July 22,2021 at 11:56:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[9] K. Sakai and K. Yamamoto, “Lightning protection of photovoltaic power
generation system: Influence of grounding systems on overvoltages ap-
pearing on DC wirings,” in Proc. Int. Symp. Lightning Protection, 2013,
pp. 335–339.
[10] C. A. Charalambous, N. Kokkinos, N. Christofides, M. Z. A. Ab Kadir, and
C. Gomes, “A simulation tool to assess the lightning induced over-voltages
on dc cables of photovoltaic installations,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Lightning
Protection, 2014, pp. 1571–1576.
[11] H. J. Stern and H. C. Karner, “Lightning induced EMC phenomena in
photovoltaic modules,” presented at the 1993 International Symposium
on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Dallas, TX, USA, 1993.
[12] C. Zhang, Y. Tu, J. Hu, W. Sun, H. J. Li, and S. Wang, “Study of induced
overvoltage on solar arrays,” in Proc. Asia-Pacific Int. Conf. Lightning,
2011, pp. 852–857.
[13] 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 Syst. Res., vol. 94, pp. 10–15, 2013.
[14] K. Yonezawa, S. Mochizuki, Y. Takahashi, T. Idogawa, and N. Morii,
“Evaluation of SPDs for a PV system using the FDTD method taking con-
crete foundations into consideration,” presented at the 2014 International
Conference on Lightning Protection, Shanghai, China, 2014.
[15] K. Yamamoto, J. Takami, and N. Okabe, “Overvoltages on DC side of
power conditioning system caused by lightning stroke to structure anchor-
ing photovoltaic panels,” Electr. Eng. Jpn., vol. 187, no. 4, pp. 29–41,
2014.
[16] N. Zaini et al., “On the effect of lightning on a solar photovoltaic system,”
in Proc. 33rd Int. Conf. Lightning Protection, 2016, pp. 1–4.
[17] N. H. Zaini et al., “Lightning surge analysis on a large scale grid-connected
solar photovoltaic system,” Energies, vol. 10, no. 12, 2017, Art. no. 2149.
[18] C. A. Charalambous, N. D. Kokkinos, and N. Christofides, “External light-
ning protection and grounding in large-scale photovoltaic applications,”
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 427–434, Apr. 2014.
[19] N. Ahmadi, V. Mashayekhi, S. Sadeghi, and A. Nasiri, “Frequency-
dependent modeling of grounding system in EMTP for lightning transient
studies of grid-connected PV systems,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Ren. Energy
Res. Appl., 2015, pp. 989–993.
[20] I. Naxakis, P. Nikolaidis, and E. Pyrgioti, “Performance of an installed
lightning protection system in a photovoltaic park,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. High Voltage Eng. Appl., 2016, pp. 1–4.
[21] A. Kern and F. Krichel, “Considerations about the lightning protection
system of mains independent renewable energy hybrid-systems—practical
experiences,” J. Electrostat., vol. 60, no. 2–4, pp. 257–263, 2004.
[22] R. Pomponi and R. Tommasini, “Risk assessment and lightning protection
for PV systems and solar power plants,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Renew. Energies
Power Qual., Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 2012, pp. 1186–1189.
[23] S. Ittarat, S. Hiranvarodom, and B. Plangklang, “A computer program for
evaluating the risk of lightning impact and for designing the installation
of lightning rod protection for photovoltaic system,” Energy Procedia,
vol. 34, pp. 318–325, 2013.
[24] A. Dimitriou, C. A. Charalambous, and N. Kokkinos, “Integrating the
loss of economic value in lightning-related risk assessments of large scale
photovoltaic systems participating in regulated and competitive energy
markets,” in Proc. 33rd Int. Conf. Lightning Protection, 2016, pp. 1–6.
[25] T. Jiang and S. Grzybowski, “Impact of lightning impulse voltage on
polycrystalline silicon photovoltaic modules,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Lightning
Protection, 2013, pp. 287–290.
[26] T. Jiang and S. Grzybowski, “Electrical degradation of Photovoltaic mod-
ules caused by lightning induced voltage,” in Proc. Electr. Insul. Conf.,
2014, pp. 107–110.
[27] N. Ahmad et al., “On the performance of a polycrystalline PV panel under
different impulse voltages and temperatures,” in Proc. 33rd Int. Conf.
Lightning Protection., 2016, pp. 1–6.
[28] I. Naxakis, C. Christodoulou, V. Perraki, and E. Pyrgioti, “Degradation
effects on single crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules subjected to high
impulse-voltages,” IET Sci., Meas. Technol., vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 563–570,
2017.
[29] I. Naxakis, E. Pyrgioti, V. Perraki, and E. Tselepis, “Studying the effect
of the impulse voltage application on SC-Si PV modules,” Sol. Energy,
vol. 144, pp. 721–728, 2017.
[30] M. A. B. Sidik et al., “Lightning monitoring system for sustainable energy
supply: A review,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 48, pp. 710–725,
2015.
[31] P. Chowdhuri et al., “Parameters of lightning strokes: A review,” IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 346–358, 2005.
ZHANG et al.: CONSIDERATIONS OF PV SYSTEM STRUCTURE DESIGN FOR EFFECTIVE LIGHTNING PROTECTION 1341

[32] Protection of Structures Against Lightning: Part I General principles,
vol. IEC 62305-1, 2010.
[33] G. Antonini, S. Cristina, and A. Orlandi, “PEEC modeling of lightning
protection systems and coupling to coaxial cables,” IEEE Trans. Electro-
magn. Compat., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 481–491, Nov. 1998.
[34] H. Chen, Y. Du, and M. Chen, “Lightning transient analysis of radio
base stations,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 2187–2197,
Oct. 2018.
[35] 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.
[36] Y. Zhang, H. Chen, and Y. Du, “Lightning protection design of solar
photovoltaic systems: Methodology and guidelines,” Electric Power Syst.
Res., vol. 174, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.epsr.2019.105877.
[37] H. Chen and Y. Du, “Model of ferromagnetic steels for lightning transient
analysis,” IET Sci., Meas. Technol., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 301–307, 2018.
[38] L. Xu, Y. Du, and Q. B. Zhou, “The magnetic field and induced current
arising from a cylindrical shell loop with an unbalanced current,” Electric
Power Syst. Res., vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 21–26, 2004.
[39] H. Chen and Y. Du, “Proximity effect in transient analysis of radio base
stations,” Int. J. Numer. Modell. Electron. Networks Devices Fields, vol. 31,
no. 6, 2018, Art. no. e2335.
[40] H. Chen and Y. Du, “Proximity effect modelling for cables of finite
length using the hybrid partial element equivalent circuit and artificial
neural network method,” IET Gener., Transmiss. Distrib., vol. 12, no. 16,
pp. 3876–3882, 2018.
[41] B. Gustavsen and A. Semlyen, “Rational approximation of frequency
domain responses by vector fitting,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 14,
no. 3, pp. 1052–1061, Jul. 1999.
[42] 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, Shenzhen, China, 2016.
[43] Protection against lightning – Part 3: Physical damage to structures and
life hazard, IEC 62305-3: 2010.
Hongcai Chen (Member, IEEE) received the B.S.
degree in electronic science from Hefei University
of Technology, Hefei, China, in 2012, and the Ph.D.
degree in electrical engineering from the Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, in 2018.
From February 2017 to August 2017, he was a
Visiting Scholar with the Duke University, Durham,
NC, USA. He is currently a Research Assistant Pro-
fessor with Academy for Advanced Interdisciplinary
Studies, Southern University of Science and Tech-
nology, Shenzhen, China. His research interests are
electromagnetic compatibility, computational electromagnetics, and optimiza-
tion design.
Yaping Du received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in
electrical engineering from Shanghai Jiao Tong Uni-
versity, Shanghai, China, in 1984 and 1987, respec-
tively, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineer-
ing from the University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, CA, USA, in 1994.
He is currently a Professor with the Department of
Building Services Engineering, the Hong Kong Poly-
technic University. His research interests are elec-
tromagnetic environments, lightning protection, and
power quality in electric power systems, electrified
railway systems and buildings.
Dr. Du is a member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and a Chartered
Engineer of UK.

Yang Zhang received the B.S. degree in electrical

engineering from Huazhong University of Science
and Technology, Wuhan, China, in 2011. M.S. de-
gree in electrical engineering from The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, in 2017. He is
currently working toward the Ph.D. degree in elec-
trical engineering at The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hong Kong.
He was an Engineer with the State Grid Hu-
nan Electric Power Company, Changsha, China. His
research interests are lightning protection, pattern
recognition, power system and electrical safety, etc.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on July 22,2021 at 11:56:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.