LIGHTNING AND SYSTEM EARTHS :

SEPARATE OR COMMON ? Part 2

Educational / April 23, 2019 / 140 Comments
Courtesy of :
Prof. Liew Ah Choy, MIES
Dept of Electrical Engineering 
National University of Singapore

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses the effects and consequences of adopting separate and common
lightning and system earths. Recommendations of the various codes of practice on the
subject are highlighted, The advantages of bonding lightning and system earths to form
a common earth far outweigh the present requirement of the Singapore Code on
Lightning Protection of separate earths. It is recommended that such bonding be
permitted to improve overall performance.

INTRODUCTION

The question which is always asked is should lightning earths and system earths   be
separate or common. Invariably, different answers and opinions are given to the same
question arguing both for and against either of the cases. Every electrical engineer needs
a good earth for the correct and efficient operation of his system; the lightning
protection engineer to carry the stroke current safely to earth, the power utility engineer
to carry fault current and ensure that unsafe voltages do not occur, and the
telecommunications and computer engineer as a reference potential and to carry
unwanted components of signals, such as noise away.

Should these earths be the same? If so, they interfere with each other’s performance?
Which party will then be responsible for the continued integrity of the earth? If not, can
the earths be really isolated and independent for one another? Will there be potential
difference problems between these separate earths?

Can all the earth resistance be kept low reasonably economically? There now seems to
be more questions than answers to the problem.

WHAT DO THE RELEVANT CODES SAY?

The Singapore Code of Practice for Lightning Protection CP33: 1985[1] emphatically
and unequivocally states in Clause 2.8.3  that “ Common earthing for lightning
protection and electrical services shall not be permitted”

However, over the time CP33: 1996 revised under Clause 3.12.3 “Common Earthing
Electrode And Potential Equalization”
The British Standard Code of Practice for Protection of Structures Against Lightning
BS 6651: 1985[2] and later 1999 on the other hand recommends a common earth
termination network for the lightning protection system and all other services
(clauses16.3).
Later the British Standard Code for Protection Against Lightning A UK guide to the
practical application BS EN 62305:2006[6] superseded BS 6651:1999. The resistance to
earth to earth should in this case be the lowest value required for any of the individual
services. However, it does also state that in the case of structures supporting an
overhead electric supply, telephone and other lines should not be bonded to the lightning
protection system without the permission of the appropriate authority.

The relevant clause (Clause 3.11.3) of the Australian Standard on Lightning Protection
AS 1768: 1983[3] on common earthing states, “Where conditions permit potential
equalization techniques to be used, a common earthing electrode may be installed for the
lightning protection systems for other services. It should be in accordance with the
recommendations in this standard and comply with any regulations, which may govern
the appropriate services. The resistance to earth should be the lowest required by any of
the regulations for such services. As a foot note it further qualifies that “AS 3000 [4]
does not permit the commoning of the power system earth wit the lightning system
earth. However, bonding is permitted.” 

The United State National Fire Protection Association Inc. Lightning Protection Code
NFPA 78: 1980[5] recommends a truly common earth and clause 3.22 on common
grounds state that “All grounding mediums shall be bonded together. This shall include
electric, telephone and antenna system grounds and other underground metallic piping
systems which enter the structure”. It proceeds to include piping systems such as water
services well casing within 7.8m (25ft) of the protected structure, gas piping systems, etc.
On common ground bondings, it also states that if electric service and telephone service
are grounded through the water pipe system, interconnection with the water pipe is all
that is required, provided the water pipe system is electrically continuous between all
systems. If plastic water pipe sections present, they can be bridged with main size
conductors. However, the Code qualifies that lightning arrestors, protectors or antenna
discharge units shall be installed on the electric and telephone service entrances and on
radio and television antenna lead in.

It is clear that there is no consensus among the major codes on the subject of separate or
common earths. However, one point is clear. None of the codes support a simple or
indiscriminate or unqualified tying together of lightning and system earths.
Effects of Separate and Common Lightning and System Earth

If the major of problems can be eliminated with a common earth, then why should there
be any hesitation to bond, connect or to have a truly common earth termination with the
lightning protection system and power system? The effects of separate and common
lightning and system earths can be illustrated as follows.
Fig 1 Example used for illustrating Voltage Magnitudes with Separate and Common
Earths.
Consider a block of flats 15m high with dimensions 40m x 20m protected by lightning
protection system with 6 down-conductors of size 25mm x 3mm as shown in Fig.1. The
overall earthing resistance of the 6 earths points is 10 Ohms.

This example is given in BS 6651: 1985[2], for the estimation of clearances to prevent
side flashing. The voltage differences between a 12m high earthed pipe and a corner
lightning down conductor for a 200kA lightning stroke with maximum  (di/dt) of
200kA/us is calculated for 2 cases:

Case (i): Metal pipe bonded to earth termination at base.

For this case, the voltage (V1) between the lightning protection system corner down
conductor and the earthed down pipe at the height of 12m consists of the inductive
component VL only. This is calculated at V1 = VL = 570kV which gives a flash over
distance [2] of 1.1m

Case (ii): Metal pipe contacting with ground but no bond between the pipe and earth
termination.

For this case, the voltage (V1) now comprises both the inductive (VL = 570kV) and
resistive (VR = 2MV) components. For the same 200kA stroke V1 is calculated at
2.57MV giving a flash over distance of 6m.

This example illustrates the voltage differences that can develop between the lightning
protection system and a nearby metallic object, which may be a pipe or the frame of a
piece of electrical equipment, which is connected to the system earth.
The above example also illustrates that following the 200kA stroke to the lightning
protection system, the voltage rise of the lightning earth above remote earth 2MV.

The effects and consequences of having separate or common lightning and system earths
can now be illustrated as follows.

(a) Separate lightning and system earths

Following a direct lightning stroke to the lightning protection system, the events which
are likely to occur, are the voltage of the lightning protection system and earth rises to a
high value.

Fig.2 shows electricity supply to a load within premises, which is protected by a

lightning protection system. The supply is obtained from a remote substation and
present practice of utilities is to earth the neutral of the supply transformer at the
substation. The neutral is not earthed at the customers’ premises but a local system
earth is provided.

The illustrative example shows values as high as 2.5MV. With the lightning and system
earths separate, this full voltage will appear across the lightning protection system and
nearby objects earthed to the system earth. This is likely to result in a side flash-over as
indicated by (1) when this occurs, the voltage of the system earth will be the same as that
of the lightning earth (2MV in example) and may in turn cause a flash-over ƒ (3) to the
neutral of the supply causing surge to travel along it back to the supply transformer
where it is earthed.

Even in the case of no flash-over from the lightning protection system to equipment or
system earth, the system earth voltage will rise due to the close proximity of lightning
and system earth (2), but perhaps to a smaller value as compared to the cases where
there was a flash-over (1) or when lightning and system earths are common. This can
still cause a flash-over to the neutral or line conductors of the supply system through its
probability of such flash-over is somewhat reduced due to the smaller voltage rise. The
extent of voltage reduction and hence flashover probability is dependent on the
proximity of the earths. It is generally this slight advantage the fear of flash-overs
occurring to the supply system that encourage utility owners to opt for separate earths.
However, it is seen that, the probability of flashovers to line and neutral is not
eliminated by separate earths

 (b) Common lightning and system earths.

With common earth system as illustrated in Fig.3 a lightning stroke to the lightning
protection system will now cause both the lightning and system earths to rise
simultaneously but the voltage difference between locally earthed metal objects and the
lightning protection system will generally be small (570kV in example). This virtually
eliminates side flash-over between lightning protection system and nearby equipment
earths, but the likelihood of flash-over from system earth to the line and neutral
conductors of the supply system  increases slightly as compared to the un-bonded or
separate earths case.

As stated previously, it is this slight increase in flash-over probability to the supply

system which utility owners fear. This has to be weighed against the advantage that a
much lower overall earth resistance can be achieved with a common earth so that the
voltage rise will be smaller in practice, this may offset the theoretical increase in
flashover probability. The other major advantage is, of course that with the common
earth system there is very little likelihood of side flashes to earthed objects / appliances
with the premises.

BEST COURSE OF ACTION

Technically, it is seen that the advantages of a common earth far outweigh that of
separate earths. This is not limited only to lightning and system earths but to
telecommunications earths as well, as recommended by the International Telegraph and
Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT in French) [7]. In practice, however, one
problem can arise, i.e. who shall be responsible for the continued integrity of the
common earth, the lightning protection engineer, power utility or telecommunications
authority? If problems arise, say, due to lightning, can the power utility whom first
installed the earth termination for its system earth to which the lightning protection
system was subsequently connected to it be liable?

The first question can be indirectly answered as the earth resistance must be the lowest
value required for any of the individual services.

The second question will not arise if this lowest value of resistance is achieved in any
case, the premises belong to the owner or customer who must be responsible for its
upkeep. Notwithstanding the previous statement, the power utility would prefer to be
free of the extra burden of any possibility of liability and any additional problems.

Remembering that if lightning earths were installed and system earths were present, the
action of bonding these two earths would achieve the best of both worlds’ with a
reduction in overall resistance and the effect of a common earth. Clearly this would be
the best course of action and both the lightning protection and utility engineers must still
provide and maintain their individual earths. The act of bonding lightning and system
earths should not be disallowed as in the Singapore Code CP33: 1985[1] but, on the
contrary, be encouraged instead. Any fears of additional lightning caused surges being
propagated towards the utility transformer can be overcome by the provision of a set of
lightning arrestors between each phase and neutral to earth at the transformer
terminals. Such is good practice anyway. This recommendation is basically what cited in
NFPA 78:1980[5].

CONCLUSION

The advantages of bonding lightning and system earths to form a common earth far
outweigh the present requirement of separate earths, which can hardly be achieved in
practice.  It is  recommended that this restriction be removed  from the present
Singapore Code of Practice CP 33:1985 on Lightning Protection.Additional note :1996
the Singapore Code of Practice CP33 been revised under the Clause 3.12.3 “Common
Earthing Electrode And Potential Equalization”
REFERENCES

1. CP33: 1985, “Code of Practice for Lightning Protection”, Singapore

Standard, Singapore Institute of Standards and Industrial Research, 1985
2. Revision CP33: 1996. “Code of Practice for Lightning Protection”,
Singapore Standard, Singapore Institute of Standards and Industrial
Research, 1996
3. BS 6651: 1985, “British Standard Code of Practice for Protection od
Structures Against Lightning”. British Standards Institution, 1985.
4. AS 1768: 1983, “Lightning Protection”, Standards Association of
Australia, 1983
5. AS 3000. “SAA Wiring Rules”, Standards Association of Australia.
6. NFPA 78: 1980, “Lightning Protection Code”, National Fire Protection
Association, Inc. USA, 1980
7. IEEE Std 80:1976. “IEEE Guide for Safety in Substation Grounding”,
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. USA 1976
8. CITT Manual on “Earthing of Telecommunications Installations”,
International Telegraphic and Telephone Consultative Committee. 1978.