IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 22, NO.
1, JANUARY 2007
A Comprehensive Approach to the Grounding
Response to Lightning Currents
Silvério Visacro, Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper is intended to present a comprehensive
and objective approach to the behavior of grounding electrodes
when subjected to lightning currents.
Index Terms—Grounding, lightning currents, transient
grounding behavior.
I. INTRODUCTION
W HEN subjected to lightning currents, grounding elec-
trodes present a very particular behavior. Teaching this
topic in graduate courses, the author has perceived that very fre-
quently engineers have a lack of basic concepts regarding the
grounding behavior. These concepts are fundamental for under-
standing most problems involved in lightning protection and to
provide solutions for them.
In this paper, the author would like to share his experience in
this field by presenting a comprehensive and objective approach
to the grounding behavior to lightning currents, as a contribution
to change the mentioned picture. The approach is focused on
physical aspects, avoiding mathematical developments.
II. BASIC CONSIDERATIONS ON GROUNDING BEHAVIOR
Basically, a grounding system is composed of three compo-
nents: 1) the metallic conductors that connect the system to the
electrodes; 2) the electrodes; and 3) the earth surrounding the
electrodes. In order to enable a better understanding of the con-
cepts developed in the following sections, a brief simplified de-
scription of grounding behavior is presented as follows, in a cir-
cuital perspective [1]–[4].
A first aspect to consider is that any termination to earth
presents resistive, capacitive, and inductive effects. Fig. 1 shows
an equivalent circuit that represents such effects for a single
“piece” of a grounding system, considering a short electrode
length and the portion of earth around it. The current in this el-
ement has two components: the leakage transversal current
spread into soil and the longitudinal current transferred to the
remaining electrode length.
The longitudinal current generates internal losses in the con-
ductor and establishes a magnetic field inside the electrode and
around it. In the circuit of Fig. 1, a series resistance (R) induc-
tance (L) (RL) branch is responsible for these effects. Both pa-
Manuscript received May 11, 2005; revised November 8, 2005. Paper no.
TPWRD-00281-2005.
The author is with the Electrical Engineering Department, Federal University
of Minas Gerais (UFMG) and also with the Lightning Research Center (LRC),
UFMG, Belo Horizonte 31.270-901 MG, Brazil (e-mail: Lrc@cpdee.ufmg.br).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2006.876707
0885-8977/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE
381
Fig. 1. Current components in the electrode and soil.
rameters generate a voltage drop along the electrode during the
current flow.
On the other hand, the leakage current establishes an elec-
tric field in the soil (a medium with resistivity and permit-
tivity ). This determines the flow of conductive and capaci-
tive currents through this medium. The ratio between conduc-
tive and capacitive currents in the soil does not depend on the
electrode geometry, but only on the relation “ ”(
and are the angular frequencies). The branch with the
parallel conductance and capacitance (G, C) in the equivalent
circuit of Fig. 1 is able to promote the effects associated with
the leakage current.
This description applies only to the single “piece of
grounding” represented by the simplified circuit. In order
to consider the whole grounding configuration, the electro-
magnetic coupling between all existent elements has to be
computed (capacitive, inductive, and resistive coupling). Thus,
the knowledge of the entire grounding behavior requires the
solution of a series of circuits similar to the presented one,
connected according to the electrode configuration topology
and taking into account mutual effects. The solution of this
complex circuit gives the impedance seen from the current in-
jection point that corresponds to the ratio between the potential
developed at the electrode (in relation to a remote point) and
the applied current.
In an electromagnetic perspective, the grounding behavior
may be expressed by means of such grounding impedance.
However, it is very common to refer to a grounding resistance
instead of grounding impedance. This should be attributed to
the fact that reactive effects are negligible for such applications
that usually involve low-frequency phenomena (e.g., short
circuits in power systems). In this case, a constant potential
approach is valid for the electrodes and the equivalent circuit is
reduced to a set of coupled conductances (or equivalent resis-
tances in parallel). The ratio between the developed potential
and the injected current results in a real number, the grounding
resistance that is defined for a low-current density condition
(1)
382
Fig. 2. Frequency diagram for the complex grounding impedance
Z(! )(continuous line: impedance value–dotted line: impedance angle).
Fig. 3. Effect of current front time on the impulsive grounding impedance.
Nevertheless, in general, grounding should be represented as
an impedance. In the frequency domain, for each specific fre-
quency, a complex grounding impedance may be accurately de-
termined, as the solution of the grounding equivalent circuit
. Fig. 2 illustrates such an aspect for a
50-m-long electrode buried in 2500- m soil. Details of this
figure are commented on later, in Section III-B.
In time domain, for impulsive waves such as lightning-re-
lated currents, it is very usual to employ the impulsive grounding
impedance to represent the grounding behavior. This param-
eter is the ratio between the voltage and current peaks developed
at the current injection point
(2)
Despite the usual nonsimultaneous occurrence of such peaks,
this representation has a very attractive aspect: the maximum
developed voltage may be obtained by simply multiplying the
current peak value by . This is very appropriate for sensitivity
analyses.
The impulsive grounding impedance is dependent on the cur-
rent waveform and on front-time parameters. This aspect is il-
lustrated by Fig. 3 that shows the grounding response of a given
electrode configuration to two different current waves.
The ratio of voltage and current peaks is larger for the fast
wave (1.57 ) compared to the slow wave (1.43 ). Despite the
variance of the impulsive impedance as a function of the front
time, the instantaneous ratio between the voltage and current
values is practically constant along the wave tail for
both waves. In this time range, such a ratio approaches the low-
frequency grounding resistance. This impedance variation is il-
lustrative and valid only for a specific grounding configuration.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 22, NO. 1, JANUARY 2007
Fig. 4. Voltage–current characteristic for a soil sample.
III. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS: EXPLAINING GROUNDING
BEHAVIOR FOR LIGHTNING CURRENTS
A. Introduction
In order to describe the grounding behavior, two main as-
pects should be taken into account, namely: 1) the soil behavior
in the conditions determined by the imposing electromagnetic
phenomenon and 2) the electromagnetic coupling between the
whole grounding components, including propagation effects.
The first aspect depends only on soil properties, but the
second one is very influenced by the geometric configuration
of electrodes. The computation of both aspects is a very com-
plex task. In the following sections, the fundamental concepts
regarding both aspects are discussed.
B. Current Composition and Frequency Dependence of Soil
Parameters
Most works assume the soil as a predominantly conductive
medium. As a consequence, displacement currents (capacitive)
are disregarded. This assumption is reasonable only for slow oc-
currences (e.g., short circuits). For fast phenomena, capacitive
currents may reach the same magnitude of resistive currents,
mainly in high resistivity soils. Experimental data show that
the ratio between conductive and capacitive currents in the soil
varies widely in the frequency range that is representative for
lightning currents [5], [6]. Fig. 4 shows
the voltage–current characteristic measured for a soil sample
subjected to an impulsive current (1.2/50- s double exponen-
tial). The voltage wave was applied over two coaxial cylin-
ders spaced by a compact soil sample, determining the flow of
low-amplitude current between them.
The curve was built from registered current and voltage waves
such as those of Fig. 3. For each instant of time , the si-
multaneous values of voltage and current were taken from those
waves and were placed together in the curve. The resulting
curve is similar to the response of a parallel RC circuit to an
impulsive current. The derivative (in the curve) allows
a rough approximation of the soil impedance, as it is obtained
from a voltage-to-current ratio . A double exponen-
tial current presents its maximum derivative near , and
this derivative decreases to zero when the curve reaches its crest.
Thus, at the first instants, as the rising current has its maximum
derivative, the capacitive branch is responsible for decreasing
the total impedance of the equivalent circuit. This explains the
minimum derivative of the curve in this region. While the
VISACRO: COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO THE GROUNDING RESPONSE
total current rises, the impedance of the capacitive branch is in-
creased, leading also to an increase of the curve derivative.
The straight line in Fig. 4 expresses the resistive behavior of soil
in the low-frequency range. Its slope corresponds to the low-fre-
quency resistance between the coaxial conductors.
Fig. 4 denotes very clearly the relevance of capacitive cur-
rents in the soil. The advance of the current peak in relation to
the voltage peak reveals this capacitive effect and justifies the
shape of the curve. Also, the diagram of the grounding
impedance in Fig. 2 shows this aspect. As frequency in-
creases, the impedance value diverges from the low-frequency
resistance value, becoming lower due to capacitive effects. Fol-
lowing this, the impedance continues decreasing once the in-
ductive effect begins to influence. It reaches a minimum value
around a frequency where capacitive and inductive effects com-
pensate each other . After that, the inductive effect
prevails and the impedance increases.
In most cases, the magnetic permeability of soil has a value
similar to the permeability of air . However, the soil elec-
trical conductivity and permittivity (responsible for conductive
and capacitive currents, respectively) are strongly frequency de-
pendent [5], [7]. Experimental data obtained for specific soil
categories show the soil resistivity to decrease to around its
half value when the frequency rises from to . The
order of the relative permittivity is observed to decrease from
to in the same range [5]. As no accurate general for-
mulation is provided in the literature for expressing the fre-
quency dependence of soil parameters, the effect is usually ne-
glected. In a conservative approach, the soil resistivity is as-
sumed as the value measured by conventional measuring instru-
ments, which employ low-frequency signals. In the same ap-
proach, the soil relative permittivity is assumed to vary from 4
to 81, according to the soil humidity. The computation of re-
alistic values for the conductivity and permittivity, including
their frequency dependence, leads to a reduction in the impul-
sive grounding impedance (around 10% to 30%). The reduction
is larger for high resistivity soils.
C. Field Distribution and Propagation Effects in the Soil
When current or voltage waves are applied to a long buried
electrode, the corresponding electromagnetic wave propagates
along the electrode. This system works as a transmission line
embedded in a lossy medium. While the wave is propagating,
energy losses promote the attenuation of its amplitude. On the
other hand, its frequency components present different propa-
gation velocities and are subjected to different levels of attenu-
ation. Such attenuation increases with frequency and with soil
conductivity, as energy losses do. In summary, the current and
voltage waves that propagate along the electrode have their am-
plitude attenuated and are also distorted, with a reduction of the
front-wave slope along the propagation direction. These aspects
are illustrated in Fig. 5.
As the electrode length is limited, such behavior should be
superimposed to another behavior, which is related to the diver-
gent field associated with the current flowing from the electrode
to remote earth. Fig. 6 illustrates this aspect by means of curves
that show the distribution of electric scalar potential in the soil.
383
Fig. 5. Attenuation of current and voltage wave along the electrode.
Fig. 6. Divergent behavior of field.
For concentrated electrodes (short compared to typical wave-
length of imposing signal), this divergent behavior prevails.
As a consequence of attenuation, the current that is dispersed
to ground along the electrode presents a nonuniform distribu-
tion. The linear current density (A/m) decreases along the elec-
trode. The concept of effective length of electrode (or effec-
tive radius for grids), which was very clearly introduced by
Gupta [8], is just derived from such considerations. It corre-
sponds to a limiting electrode length. Longer lengths are not
able to reduce the grounding impedance value. This behavior
is explained by the fact that from this limiting length on, the
high-frequency components of current present negligible am-
plitude. Thus, despite conductor length availability, practically
no high-frequency current component is further dispersed to
soil. The effective length decreases with soil conductivity
and frequency rise. This is explained as both parameters are re-
sponsible for increasing ground losses, leading to an increase
in the attenuation of the current and voltage waves that propa-
gate along the electrodes. This becomes evident if a transmis-
sion-line approach is adopted for the electrode embedded in the
soil. The attenuation constant corresponds to the real compo-
nent of propagation constant . It increases with frequency
and conductance . The
conductance is proportional to soil conductivity.
In the frequency domain, the value of is defined for each
frequency. It is different for impulsive currents, as they involve
a large spectrum of frequency components. In this case, is
usually assumed as that electrode length corresponding to the
minimum impulsive impedance. Longer electrodes are not able
to reduce this impedance. The effective length may be obtained
from the beginning of a flat region in curves expressing impul-
sive impedance as function of electrode length. In Fig. 7, this
type of curve is shown for a long horizontal electrode buried in
different soils [9]. The curves were built determining from
the resulting voltage waves for an applied 1.2/50- s impulsive
current, considering different values for the electrode length.
D. Effect of Current Density
In practical conditions, for a wide range of current intensities,
the soil presents a linear behavior. This means that the ratio
384
Fig. 7. Definition of the effective length from impulsive impedance curves.
Fig. 8. Aspects of ionization process in the soil.
between the amplitudes of the resultant voltage and the applied
current waves is constant. However, for concentrated electrodes
and very intense currents, the current density near the electrode
surface can reach very pronounced values. The corresponding
electric field in this region may exceed a critical limit. Above it, an
ionization process takes place in the soil and electrical discharges
are established in this medium [Fig. 8(a)]. The so-called critical
electric field ranges from 0.2 to 1.7 MV/m, depending on
soil resistivity and humidity [10]. The phenomenon is similar
to the corona effect, though it is much more nonuniform
due to the soil characteristics. For impulsive currents, the
resulting effect is the reduction of the ratio between voltage
and current peaks for large current densities, as shown in
Fig. 8(b) [6], [11]. This behavior is explained by an increase
in the electrode dissipation area. As the ionized discharge
channels present high conductivity in comparison to soil, they
contribute to dissipating current to soil, enlarging the dissipation
area. Fig. 8(c) shows how this effect is able to affect the
curve of Fig. 4.
The computation of the nonlinear soil ionization effect
presents two main complexities. The first one concerns the
definition of the critical electric-field value, corresponding to
the onset of the ionization process. Second, the distribution of
the effect along the electrode is nonlinear, as the voltage (and
corresponding electric field) is attenuated along the electrode
surface, due to propagation effects.
Nevertheless, the dynamics of such phenomenon have al-
ready been explained by different approaches [11], [12]. In
cases where the electric-field configuration is not substantially
disturbed by the ionization process, experimental evaluations
have shown the possibility to compute the effect by an equiv-
alent increase of the electrode transversal section, allowing
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 22, NO. 1, JANUARY 2007
this increase of section to vary along the electrode length [12].
However, for very concentrated electrodes, the effect computa-
tion is more difficult, as the ionized channels may entirely alter
the field configuration near the electrode.
E. Simultaneous Computation of All Influential Factors
For lightning currents, one aspect makes the understanding of
grounding behavior more complex: usually, all previously con-
sidered effects occur simultaneously. Each of them influences
the grounding behavior. However, depending on the character-
istics of the stressing current, one effect may prevail over the
others. In several cases, it is very difficult to correctly iden-
tify the main source of a determined behavior. This partially
explains the usual misunderstandings concerning the interpre-
tation of the grounding behavior. In this respect, it is remark-
able that the usual overestimation of the ionization process is
a source of grounding impedance reduction for impulsive cur-
rents. As seen, even in the absence of this effect, the impulsive
impedance value can be lower than the low-frequency resistance
value.
The analytical approach, employed in the past for describing
the transient grounding behavior, was very limited for computing
all of these effects. Fortunately, the huge computational advance,
regarding memory capability and processing speed, allowed
the development of very efficient numerical approaches based
on field equations to substitute the analytical approach. In
the beginning of the 1990s, several consistent computational
models formulated from such approaches were presented in
literature to determine the transient grounding behavior [6],
[13], [14]. These models have been improved and, these days,
they allow computing all of the referred effects [15], [16]
to calculate the quantities of interest to grounding design.
IV. PRACTICAL REMARKS
These previous simple considerations are sufficient for re-
marking on some important practical aspects and to emphasize
the significance of certain concepts of interest for this text.
First, in principle, the grounding behavior has the nature of
an impedance. Only for very particular imposing phenomenon
(low frequency), it can be properly represented by a resistance.
The very usual reference to a “dynamic resistance” to describe
the transient grounding behavior should be avoided, as it actu-
ally hides the real nature of the grounding behavior.
For lightning currents, the grounding behavior is quite dif-
ferent from that of a resistance, even when nonlinearities are
disregarded. This fact leads directly to a question: “Why the
term grounding resistance is the usual reference for problems in-
volving lightning protection instead of grounding impedance?”.
This seems to be a reasonable practice that is derived from the
practical restrictions to measure grounding impedances in field
conditions. For ordinary engineering personnel, this is a quite
complex task. On the other hand, the measurement of grounding
resistance is a feasible task for such personnel and the knowl-
edge about this parameter and about the electrode configuration
may allow developing estimates for the grounding impedance
value.
VISACRO: COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO THE GROUNDING RESPONSE
As a second aspect, the usual assumption of potential equal-
ization along the electrode length is only a reasonable approach
for slow occurrences (low frequency) or for very short electrode
length. For transients and high-frequency phenomena, propa-
gation effects and a voltage drop due to inductive and internal
resistive effects establish significant potential differences along
electrodes. Therefore, for lightning currents, the potential varies
along grounding electrodes and the metallic connection of buried
conductors does not ensure the potential to be equalized. As a
consequence, it is prudent to avoid connecting electrically linked
equipment (connected by aerial loops, such as cable shielding)
to electrodes at different points of the grounding grid. This may
generate destructive current loops.
In grounding design, the response of electrodes to light-
ning currents is evaluated in terms of three parameters: the
grounding potential rise (GPR) (always verified at the current
injection point), the voltage profile along electrodes and the
voltage distribution over soil surface at electrode vicinities. In
most situations, the practical interest concerns the knowledge
about critical conditions, which are usually given by the peak
value of developed voltages. In these cases, very commonly,
the grounding impedance is approximated by the impulsive
grounding impedance . As an attractive aspect, this repre-
sentation allows determining the maximum GPR simply from
the product of times the current peak value. This possibility
is very appropriate in evaluations regarding lightning protec-
tion. In general, this impulsive impedance is quite different
from the low-frequency resistance, due to reactive effects (ca-
pacitive and inductive currents), to the frequency dependence
of soil parameters and attenuation effects. In some cases, it
is possible to estimate the impedance from this resistance,
which is usually the measured parameter. As an example,
for long horizontal electrodes, certain references suggest the
impedance to be a little lower than the low-frequency resistance
, if the effective length is not exceeded and
the ionization process is not relevant [9].
Another aspect that deserves attention concerns the concept
of the effective length of electrode. As explained before, the
minimum grounding impedance value is obtained for the effec-
tive length, even if the electrode is longer. This concept is very
important when the attenuation of current waves along the elec-
trode is significant. This is the usual case for long electrodes
(or for short ones when they are buried in low-resistivity soils).
The effective length is not a constant parameter for a given elec-
trode configuration buried into a determined soil. Naturally, cur-
rent waves with different front time lead to different effective
lengths. Fast waves, whose frequency components are typically
high, have a shorter effective length, as they are associated with
more pronounced attenuation effects in the soil. Only as a rough
reference, for soils whose resistivity has values of 100, 500,
1000, 2000, and 5000 m, the effective length has, respectively,
the order of 10, 23, 34, 50, and 85 m, considering a fast current
wave (1.2/50 s) [9]. For slower waves (for example, 3/70 s),
the values are a little larger. However, in lightning protection,
it seems reasonable to adopt the cited values, even for slower
current waves. The linear density of current dissipated to soil is
very reduced, close to the effective length and, therefore, it is
not an efficient practice to reach such a length.
385
Fig. 9. Influence of earth termination position on grounding impedance.
Concerning this effect, three main practical aspects should
be observed. First, in terms of lightning protection (and only
in this respect), employing electrodes longer than the effec-
tive length is wasteful. Second, special care is recommended
for those applications where the grounding impedance value
is estimated from the measured grounding resistance. This
is typical for transmission lines, where a limiting value of
tower-footing grounding resistance is observed (very usually
20 in Brazil) with the expectation that this would limit
the grounding impedance value. Sometimes, a reduced value
of grounding resistance does not lead to a reduced value of
grounding impedance. When the electrode length is increased,
its resistance is decreased. This behavior holds even after the
effective length is exceeded. Therefore, this resistance may
reach very low values, while the grounding impedance value
is limited to that value obtained for the effective length. In this
case, a false expectation of reduced value for impedance may
be generated. As a third aspect, the definition of the position to
connect earth termination to the electrode is very relevant. Even
for the same electrode configuration, the impedance value may
largely vary according to the position of earthing connections to
the buried electrode. Fig. 9 illustrates it for two configurations
that assume electrodes longer than the effective length (for the
particular soil where they are buried).
For the horizontal electrode, an earthing connection to point
A (electrode extremity) results in a grounding impedance
value around twice that obtained for a connection to point B
(midpoint). This is explained as, in the second case, the current
“sees” two parallel impedances, whose individual values are
similar to the impedance of the first case. For the grid, the
connection to the central point results in an impedance value
around one-quarter to one-third of the value found for a con-
nection to a corner. The same behavior is expected if aerial
conductors are employed to distribute lightning current through
connections to the four corners.
It is worth noting that this effect is very pronounced only
for cases where the electrode exceeds the effective length. For
high-resistivity soils, this effect tends to decrease, since the cur-
rent wave attenuation becomes lower, leading to longer elec-
trode effective lengths.
In most applications, low values are usually recommended
for grounding impedance. However, there are a few special
cases where there may be a practical interest in increasing the
impedance of an earth termination. This practice may allow
386
controlling the distribution of large currents (and associated
overvoltages) through systems with several connections to
earth. Undesirable interferences of surge currents in the region
close to one termination may be avoided by such a practice.
One practical example of such a situation refers to the surge
transference from medium-voltage distribution networks to
consumer facilities through distribution transformers [17].
When a voltage wave (associated with a lightning-induced
overvoltage or a distant direct strike) reaches the primary of
a protected distribution transformer, surge arresters operate
and the associated current is drained to soil. This current is
also partially transferred to the low-voltage network through
the neutral and phase conductors. If the grounding impedance
value of a close service entrance is lower than that of the trans-
former, the surge current tends to be drained to the consumer
grounding [17]. Unless the service entrance is protected, it may
be subjected to dangerous voltage levels.
The main factor that influences decreased grounding
impedance is the area covered by the grounding electrodes.
However, for fast phenomena, field attenuation makes the in-
crease of the grounding dimension over a determined extension
(effective length) not effective in decreasing its impedance.
In this case, the action to reduce the grounding impedance
value should be concentrated in a limited region around the
current injection point, though mutual effects tend to reduce
the effectiveness of this action due to electrode proximity.
As cited before, the position of the earth termination may be
important. When long electrodes are involved, the number of
earthing connections may be influential and the use of aerial
cables to distribute the current through different earthing con-
nections may play an important role on reducing the grounding
impedance value. For the specific condition of a layered soil
whose second layer presents a low-resistivity value (in compar-
ison to that of the first layer), the use of rods to reach such a
layer can also have a significant influence.
The ionization process is able to reduce the grounding
impedance value, but only for very concentrated (short) elec-
trodes and very high values of lightning current. For large
electrodes, this effect is not able to affect the impedance value.
This is the usual case for high-voltage transmission lines. To
have a rough idea about the intensity of this effect, a reference
is provided for the results of an experimental work [12]. From
such results, the transient behavior of a long horizontal electrode
(0.5-cm radius) buried in 800- m soil was simulated. The
effect was detected only after the linear current density reached
200 A/m. A 10% reduction in the grounding impedance value
requires the current density to exceed 600 A/m. A 20-m-long
counterpoise (4 legs-80 m) requires a 16-kA crest current
for the onset of the ionization process (for this estimate, the
attenuation effect was disregarded, once the effective length is
around 30 m). A grounding impedance reduction of about 10%
would require a 48-kA crest current to be injected into the soil.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 22, NO. 1, JANUARY 2007
V. CONCLUSION
This paper presented a contribution to a better understanding
of the grounding response to lightning currents by means of
an objective and didactic approach. The author hopes it may
be useful to lightning protection engineers and to academics
involved with numerical models for predicting the transient
grounding response, as a reference to keep a commitment with
the physical nature of grounding behavior.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Visacro, Grounding and Earthing: Basic Concepts, Measurements
and Instrumentation, Grounding Strategies (in Portuguese), 2nd ed.
São Paulo, Brazil: ArtLiber Edit., 2002, pp. 1–159.
[2] R. Rudenberg, Fundamental Considerations on Grounding Currents,
Electrical Engineering, vol. 64, no. 1, Jan. 1945.
[3] E. D. Sunde, Surge Characteristic of a Buried Bare Wire, AIEE Trans.,
vol. 59, pp. 987–991, 1940.
[4] L. V. Bewley, “Theory and test of the counterpoise,” Elect. Eng., pp.
1163–1172, Aug. 1934.
[5] S. Visacro and C. Portela, “Soil permittivity and conductivity behavior
on frequency range of transient phenomena in electric power systems,”
presented at the Symp. High Voltage Engineering, Braunschweig, Ger-
many, 1987.
[6] S. Visacro and C. Portela, “Modeling of earthing systems for light-
ning protection applications, including propagation effects,” in Proc.
Int. Conf. Lightning Protection, Berlin, Germany, 1992, pp. 129–132.
[7] C. Portela, “Measurement and modeling of soil electromagnetic be-
havior,” presented at the IEEE Int. Symp. Electromagnetic Compati-
bility, Seattle, WA, 1999.
[8] B. R. Gupta and B. Thapar, “Impulsive impedance of grounding grids,”
in IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., Nov./Dec. 1980, vol. PAS-99, no. 6,
pp. 2357–2362.
[9] A. Soares, Jr. and S. Visacro, “Lightning response of typical Brazilian
transmission line tower-footing arrangements,” in Proc. Int. Conf.
Grounding and Earthing, Brazil, 1998, pp. 98–102.
[10] A. M. Mousa, “The soil ionization gradient associated with discharge
of high currents into concentrated electrodes,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1669–1677, Jul. 1994.
[11] A. C. Liew and M. Darveniza, “Dynamic model of impulse character-
istic of concentrated earths,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 121, no. 2, pp.
123–135, Feb. 1974.
[12] S. Visacro and A. Soares, Jr., “Sensitivity analysis for the effect of light-
ning current intensity on the behavior of earthing systems,” in Proc. Int.
Conf. Lightning Protection, Hungary, 1994, pp. R3a-01(1–5).
[13] L. Grcev and F. Dawalibi, “An electromagnetic model for transients
in grounding systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 5, no. 4, pp.
1773–1781, Nov. 1990.
[14] S. Visacro and C. Portela, “Investigation of earthing systems behavior
on the incidence of atmospheric discharges at electrical systems,”
in Proc. Int. Conf. Lightning Protection, Switzerland, 1990, pp.
3.8.1–3.8.5.
[15] L. Grcev, “Computer analysis of transient voltages in large grounding
systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 815–823, Apr.
1996.
[16] S. Visacro and A. Soares, Jr., “HEM: a model for simulation of light-
ning-related engineering problems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 20,
no. 2, pp. 1026–1208, Apr. 2005.
[17] A. De Conti and S. Visacro, “Evaluation of lightning surges trans-
ferred from medium voltage to low voltage distribution lines,” Proc.
Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 152, no. 3, pp. 351–356, May 2005.
Silvério Visacro (M’00), photograph and biography not available at the time of
publication.