Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

A

simplified model of the lightning performance of a driven rod earth electrode in multi-layer soil that includes the effect of soil ionisation
School of Electrical & Information Engineering University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2050, South Africa Email: k.nixon@ ee.wits.ac.za, ijandrell @ee.wits.ac.za

Kenneth J. Nixon, Ian R. Jandrell

Electric Power Research Institute P.O. Box 217097, Charlotte North Carolina 28221, USA Email: aphillip @epri.com

Andrew J. Phillips

Abstract- It is proposed that a single apparent resistivity value calculated from the steady state resistance equation and the measured steady state resistance can be used as a simplification for lightning current transient performance modelling of a driven rod earth electrode in multi-layer soil. The proposal is verified against results obtained using transient analysis of an equivalent circuit that includes the effect of soil ionisation and full-scale experimental results of current impulse tests on a single vertical earth rod in three-layer soil.

2w7r0o
I

(1) ' '

For a current I injected into the electrode, the current density J in the soil at a radius r from the electrode is:

I. INTRODUCTION The steady state performance of a practical earth electrode is well understood and detailed in a substantial body of literature [1]-[3]. Typically, an earth electrode can take a variety of shapes and forms and is installed in ground with wide ranging characteristics. A common scenario is an electrode installed in soil consisting of various layers due to geological stratification. This scenario is well documented from both practical and theoretical perspectives for DC and power frequency conditions [4]-[6]. However, to simplify modelling, homogeneous soil conditions are assumed in models used to describe the nonlinear and time-varying effect of ionisation that occurs in the soil surrounding an electrode under lightning current transient conditions [7], [8]. This paper proposes a simplified approach to modelling the lightning transient performance of a driven rod earth electrode buried in multi-layer soil. The theory and principle behind the simplification are discussed, which is then verified against simulations and large-scale experimental results. Simulation results are obtained using transient analysis of an equivalent circuit that includes the non-linear effect of soil ionisation based on the Liew-Darveniza model [7], [9]. The experimental results used in the study are from a series of outdoor tests where high current impulses were applied to a single driven rod earth electrode [10]. II. THEORY A. Hemispherical earth electrode Consider a basic hemispherical electrode of radius ro buried in homogeneous soil with resistivity p as shown in Fig. 1. The steady state resistance of this electrode is given by [11]:

Jonisation is said to occur where the current density exceeds a particular value J, or the resulting electric field in the soil exceeds a critical breakdown gradient Eo. Using:
p (3) p it can be shown that the radius ri of the so-called soil ionisation zone is given by:
=

27r2

(2)

ri

p1

(4 (4)

p
Fig. 1. A perfect conducting hemispherical earth electrode of radius ro buried in homogeneous soil with resistivity p injected with a current I. The radius of ionisation zone ri is governed by Eo, J, and pi represents the resistivity of this zone.

The above implicitly assumes ionisation occurs within a uniform zone around the earth electrode. Bellaschi [12] and Petropolous [13] proposed that the resistivity of this zone pi instantaneously assumed the same value as that of the earth electrode. In other words, soil ionisation is modelled by an increase in the effective radius of the electrode. Given its simplicity, this model is frequently used in larger studies, despite its lack of accuracy.

821 1-4244-0365-0/06/$20.00 (c) 2006 IEEE

B.

Improved models

IV. SCENARIO CONSIDERED To verify the proposed simplification, a driven rod earth electrode configuration was investigated as shown in Fig. 3. The soil consists of three distinct layers: an upper layer of sandy loam, a middle portion of clay and a lower layer below the water table. The scenario was implemented at the site of the outdoor experiments and the measured steady state electrode resistance was 48 Q.

Liew and Darveniza improved on the basic model described above by introducing a dynamic model that introduced a resistivity profile as shown in Fig. 2 [7]. This model accounted for the time constants that are clearly involved in the process. Additional improved or alternative models have also been proposed [14]-[16].
ion-isation i-i~~~~~~o
I

1000

1000S) -

Icurrent impulse
\ \\ionisation

8006004002000 100 200 current density, J 300

copper-clad 5 steel rod 115.9mm

E
00

deionisation \

sand~~~~~~~~~
moisture: 11,4%

400

(A/m2 )
misture: 22.6%

Fig. 2. Illustrative profile of dynamic resistivity model as proposed by LiewDarveniza [7].

C. Dynamic Impedance Note that for steady state conditions, an earth electrode is described in terms of its resistance to earth, however, under transient conditions it is important to consider its dynamic impedance. The dynamic impedance of an earth electrode is the ratio of the instantaneous value of earth electrode voltage to the instantaneous value of injected current:

water table

~~~~~notto scale!

Fig. 3. Earth electrode and soil configuration considered. Primary characteristics and parameters are summarised.

Z(t)

V(t)
1(t)

A. Impulse current waveshapes

(5)

consists of multiple layers with different resistivities.

The challenge is to describe this dynamic impedance for an electrode that is installed in non-homogeneous soil that

III. PROPOSED SIMPLIFICATION Since the current density in the soil surrounding the electrode is related to the inverse-square of the distance (2), it can be concluded that when ionisation occurs, the resistance of the electrode (1) will be dominated by the resistivity of the ionisation zone. In other words the effect of layers in the soil will be significantly reduced. Provided that the model used adequately describes the steady state value of the electrode, complex models of the soil resistivity are therefore not necessary under transient conditions. It is proposed that a single apparent bulk value of resistivity be calculated using the measured low current resistance and the resistance equation for a hemisphere (1), for a driven rod:
R

The dynamic impedance of the earth electrode for four different current impulses is considered in this paper. These impulses were selected to represent relatively low and relatively high peak magnitudes with different waveshapes as summarised in Table I. The exact impulses used were determined by the capabilities of the impulse generator used for the large-scale testing and are shown in Fig. 4.
TABLE I
CURRENT IMPULSE WAVESHAPES CONSIDERED (DEFINED AS PER IEC

60060-1:1989 [17]).

Peak, kA 5.2 28.6 6.7 28.6

Waveshape, ,us 3.5 I 9.3


3.9 I 9.7 5.5 /14.1 5.7 / 13.8

271

r+ r0

(6)

For the purposes of this study only the part of the current impulse before the zero crossing was considered. Therefore, only measurements up to 10 ,us are considered for I1A and I1B, and up to 15 ,us for 12A and 12B.

1822

Current

(kA)

VI. EXPERIMENT

10 Time (,ts)

15

20

The experimental results used are from a series of outdoor tests where high current impulses were applied to a single driven rod earth electrode. A brief summary of the experimental setup is provided in this section - full details can be found elsewhere [10], [19]. The electrode was installed in soil to meet the scenario shown in Fig. 3 more than a month before testing commenced and its resistance was monitored during this period to ensure that it remained stable. Precipitation and the depth of the water table were monitored throughout testing. The resistance of the electrode during testing was measured to be 48 Q. This value was confirmed before and after the application of every current impulse.
A. Overall test site A scale plan view of the overall test site is shown in Fig. 5. The impulse generator was used to inject a current impulse, I(t), into the driven rod. The injected current was measured using a wide bandwidth current transformer and the voltage at the electrode, V(t), was simultaneously measured using an outdoor high voltage impulse divider. Both measurement devices were connected to a digital storage oscilloscope via a fibre optic link system. Attention was paid to minimising the overall inductance of the test configuration as well as to limiting unwanted noise from coupling into the overall measurement system. Special precautions were taken to minimise the voltage induced in the one turn loop formed by the voltage divider, ground and connections to the voltage divider.
mO
5

Fig. 4. Impulse currents considered in simulation and large-scale experiment.

V. SIMULATION An overview of the simulations performed is provided in this section - complete details on the models can be found elsewhere [9].

A. Circuit model

The electromagnetic transient analysis program, ATP-EMTP [18], was used to implement and study the circuit model in the time-domain. The change in electrode resistance due to soil ionisation was modelled using the Liew-Darveniza model [7]. Table II summarises the key parameter values used.
TABLE II
PARAMETER VALUES USED IN CIRCUIT MODEL.

loim

generator

impulse

Soil parameters: resistivity, Qm p breakdown gradient, kV/m Eo Ti ionisation time constant, ,us de-ionisation time constant, ,us T2 Electrode parameters: ro radius of rod, mm I length of rod, mm

flmeasurement
& control
&

139 300 2.0 4.5

driven rod

transformer

current

shed

N
divider fibre optic links

7.95 2667

Fig. 5. Plan view of the test site showing key components of the experiment.

The critical soil ionisation gradient of 300 kV/m suggested by Liew [7] and Mousa [8] was used. Note that this is contrary to the value of 400 kV/m suggested by CIGRE [11]. In the absence of known values, the ionisation and de-ionisation time constants suggested by Liew and Darveniza were used. For the scenario considered, p was calculated using (6) and the measured value of R of 48.2 Q. Note that the actual measured current obtained from the relevant experiment was applied to the circuit simulation and the predicted voltage and dynamic impedance values were determined.

B. Measurement post-processing In order to calculate the dynamic impedance, Z(t), using the voltage and current measurements and (5), V(t) and I(t) need to be relatively noise-free. It was therefore necessary to filter the measurements. Care was exercised not to violate the integrity of the original signal when applying the filters. Postprocessing was also necessary to synchronise the Ve (t) and 1(t) measurements, since the voltage divider introduced a 240 ns delay relative to the current measurement. This delay was

1823

due to the long length of cable integral to the functioning of the divider. At the beginning of the current impulse, where the current and voltages are low, there is typically too much noise to reasonably calculate the dynamic impedance. Hence, graphs involving calculated curves only start after 1 ,us.
VII. RESULTS

VIII. DISCUSSION

The simulated and experimental results are summarised in Fig. 6 and 7. The curves are labelled consistent with the referencing system shown in Table I.
Z(t) ZIA, ZIB (Q)
50 _

Voltage: VIA, V1B (kV)

2540

2015;

300
200

There is strong agreement between the simulated and experimental values is as can be seen in Fig. 6 and 7. The only minor discrepancy occurs towards the end of the large magnitude current impulses where the simulated impedance turns up more than the experimental impedance. However, this phenomenon can also be observed in Liew and Darveniza's paper and has been further addressed in recent work [16]. The sag before the current peak for measured values for V2B can be attributed to a partial failure in the firing mechanism of the impulse generator caused by the high current magnitude. Fig. 8 shows the simulated Liew-Darveniza resistivity profile at a radius of 200 mm from the centre of the rod when current I1B is applied to the driven rod. The times of key points are indicated on the curve. It is clear that the resistivity of the soil in the immediate vicinity of the rod rapidly reaches very low values in the dynamic model. Consequently, the effect of any local differences in resistivity due to soil layers is minimised.

20 10-

100
4 Time (,ts) 10

Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental and simulated dynamic resistance values for current waveshape 1 (approximately 3.7/9.5 ,us). Note that multiple axes are used to plot current, voltage and impedance.
0 0
2 current 4

Z(t) Z2A, Z2B (Q)


50

Voltage: V2A, V2B (kV)


500

density, J (kA/in2)

Fig. 8. Resistivity profile at a radius of 200 mm from the centre of the driven rod generated by the dynamic impedance model for current impulse IlB. The time value at specific points of the profile are shown.

400

200
100

The simplification proposed in this paper was applied by Sekioka et. al. (without explanation) to a new model that improves that of Liew and Darveniza [16]. The structure of the soil was not described, however the experimental and simulated results presented were also in agreement.
IX. CONCLUSION

Time (,ts)

Fig. 7. Comparison of experimental and simulated dynamic resistance values for current waveshape 2 (approximately 5.6/14.0 ,us). Note that multiple axes are used to plot current, voltage and impedance, and that the timescale is different to Fig. 6.

Rather than having to consider the individual resistivities of all soil layers, satisfactory results can be obtained by using only the apparent bulk resistivity value calculated from the steady state resistance equation and the measured steady state current resistance. This represents a significant and useful simplification to modelling the transient behaviour of an electrode in commonly occurring soil conditions. The proposal has been verified using simulation and large-scale experimental results.

1824

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to thank Eskom for support received through TESP funding; the NRF for support of the High Voltage research programme; and the DTI for THRIP funding. Thanks are also extended to the Electric Power Research Institute for providing the resources and for funding the largescale testing at the EPRI Lenox site; in particular, special thanks are extended to the late Ken Wormwood for his help in the construction of the test setup.
REFERENCES
[1] E. D. Sunde, Earth Conduction Effects in Transmission Systems. New York: D. van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1949. [2] IEEE Std 80-2000, "Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding," 2000, ISBN 0-7381-1926-1. [3] W. Chisholm and J. Anderson, "Guide for transmission line grounding: a roadmap for design, testing and remediation," EPRI, Palo Alto, California, Tech. Rep. 1002021, 2004. [4] J. M. Nahman and D. D. Salamon, "A practical method for the interpretation of earth resistivity data obtained from driven rod tests," IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1375-1379, Oct. 1988. [5] T. Takahashi and T. Kawase, "Analysis of apparent resistivity in a multilayer earth structure," IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 604-612, Apr. 1990. [6] Y. I. Chow, J. J. Yang, and K. D. Srivastava, "Grounding resistance of buried electrodes in multi-layer earth predicted by simple voltage measurements along earth surface - a theoretical discussion," IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 707-715, Apr. 1995. [7] A. C. Liew and M. Darveniza, "Dynamic model of impulse characteristics of concentrated earths," Proc. of the IEE, vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 123-135, Feb. 1974.

[8] A. M. Mousa, "The soil ionization gradient associated with discharge of high currents into concentrated electrodes," IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1669-1677, July 1994. [9] K. J. Nixon and I. R. Jandrell, "Quantifying the lightning transient performance of an earth electrode," Trans. of the SAIEE, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 18-23, Mar. 2004. [10] J. Anderson, "High current impulse testing of full-scale ground electrodes," EPRI, Palo Alto, California, Tech. Rep. 1006866, 2002. [11] CIGRE WG 33:01, "Guide to procedures for estimating the lightning performance of transmission lines," WG 01 (Lightning) of Study Committee 33 (Overvoltages and Insulation Co-ordination), Oct. 1991. [12] P. L. Bellaschi, R. E. Armington, and A. E. Snowden, "Impulse and 60cycle characteristics of driven grounds - part II," AIEE Transactions, vol. 61, pp. 349-363, 1942. [13] G. M. Petropoulos, "The high-voltage characteristics of earth resistances," IEE Journal, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 59-70, 1948. [14] A. Geri, G. M. Veca, E. Garbagnati, and G. Sartorio, "Non-linear behaviour of ground electrodes under lightning surge currents: Computer modelling and comparison with experimental results," IEEE Trans. on Magnetics, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 1442-1445, Mar. 1992. [15] A. C. L. Junping Wang and M. Darveniza, "Extension of dynamic model of impulse behaviour of concentrated earths at high currents," IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 2160-2165, July 2005. [16] S. Sekioka, M. I. Lorentzou, M. P. Philippakou, and J. M. Prousalidis, "Current-dependent grounding resistance model based on energy balance of soil ionisation," IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 194201, Jan. 2006. [17] IEC 60060-1, "High-voltage test techniques. Part 1: General definitions and test requirements," IEC, Geneva, 1989. [18] W. Meyer and T. Liu, Electromagnetic Transients Program Rule Book. Bonneville Power Administration, 1982. [19] K. J. Nixon, I. R. Jandrell, and A. J. Phillips, "Measuring the absolute transient voltage of a real earth electrode," in j4th International Symposium on High Voltage Engineering, Beijing, China, Aug. 2005.

1825

Вам также может понравиться