SERBIAN JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 18, No. 2, June 2021, 225-236

UDC: 621.315:621.316.9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/SJEE2102225A

Modeling of Different Tower Grounding

Systems Using Hybrid Continuous
Circuit-Trapezoidal Integration Method
Mohammadbagher Asadpourahmadchali1,
Mohsen Niasati1, Yousef Alinejad-Beromi1
Abstract: In order to protect the transmission lines against lightning strikes, it is
important to investigate the tower grounding system. In this paper, a recent method
called hybrid continuous circuit-trapezoidal integration method is used to calculate
the impulse impedance of the grounding system. Moreover, conventional
structures of the grounding systems have been simulated and the results show that,
with the same wire length, the square with additional wire system has the least
impulse impedance as compared to counterpoise, square and crow’s foot.
Moreover, the effects of soil resistivity and lightning current rise-time on the
impulse impedance of these grounding systems are investigated. It is concluded
that the design of the grounding system depends on the geographic location of the
site in terms of soil resistivity and isotropic characteristics of the area in terms of
lightning current rise-time.

Keywords: Lightning, Grounding system modeling, Hybrid continuous circuit-

trapezoidal integration method, Soil resistivity

1 Introduction
The impulse impedance of grounding systems in transmission line towers is
an important parameter in lightning withstand levels of transmission lines. A
determining factor in transferring lightning current, when striking to the towers
or protective wires, is tower grounding systems [1]. The overvoltage produced in
such situations can cause back flashover and may flow through the transmission
line. The geometrical shape of the conductor and the soil resistivity are amongst
the most critical factors in electrical operation of a grounding system. Exact
characteristics and optimal structure of the grounding system in power frequency
(50 and 60 Hz) are discussed in [2, 3], where the tower grounding system is
modeled as lumped resistance. On the other hand, in transient conditions such as
lightning faults, the inductive and capacitive properties of conductors play a key

1Departmentof Computer and Electrical Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran;

E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

225
M. Asadpourahmadchali, M. Niasati, Y. Alinejad-Beromi

role. The modeling in these conditions is more sophisticated than that of a power
frequency modeling. Also, the lightning current shape and soil frequency
dependency are affective [4  6]. Impulse impedance is the most notable feature
of the grounding system in such circumstances. It is defined as the ratio of peak
voltage to peak current. Numerous methods have been proposed for transient
modeling of grounding systems so far. A summary of the methods is represented
as follows.
Transmission Line Method (TLM) models the grounding system similar to
wave propagation in the transmission line. This method can be solved in time and
frequency domains and can be implemented in numerical analysis software such
as EMTP [7  10]. Moreover, electrical parameters in this method can be
conducted by auxiliary software such as the finite element method. The coupling
between the conductor segments is taken into account and the accuracy of the
method is observed by comparing with experimental results. Another method is
Nodal Frequency Analysis Method which examines various structures of the
grounding systems in the frequency domain. However, this method is prone to
errors in the Fourier Transform. Thus, the high-frequency harmonics that can
miscalculate the impulse impedance is observed [11  14]. FDM and FEM solve
Maxwell equations around the grounding conductors by establishing meshes in
this volume to calculate voltage and electric field strength. Minimal
simplification and good accuracy are among the benefits of this method. On the
other hand, these methods are not suitable for practical applications as they are
complicated and time-demanding [15  17]. HCCTIM is the most recent method
in analyzing the grounding system, which adopts the continues circuit method
and the trapezoidal integration method [18, 19]. Electrical parameters are
calculated by integration rules. The accuracy of this method is verified with other
experimental results and modeling methods. Due to satisfactory required time and
the obtained results, the grounding system modeling in this paper employs the
HCCTIM.
This paper aims at comparing four common tower grounding structures:
counterpoise, crow’s foot, square and square with additional wires, modeled
using the HCCTIM method proposed in [18]. The validation of this method to
model the mentioned structures is verified by the CDEGS software. Moreover, to
compare these structures, the total length of the conductors is fixed and the
impulse impedance is calculated. Also, the effects of lightning current shape
properties, waveform rise time, and soil resistivity are evaluated. Based on these
results, the best structure is distinguished. The combined analyses of soil
resistivity and waveform rise time are also carried out.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the modeling procedure of
the HCCTIM is explained. In Section 3, the validity of the HCCTIM to model the
four common tower grounding structures is conducted with the CDEGS software.

226
 Modeling of Different Tower Grounding Systems Using Hybrid Continuous Circuit…

In Section 4, the parameters effective on the impulse impedance of the structures

are investigated. Finally, the concluding remarks are given in Section 5.

2 Modeling Details
The procedure for grounding system is based on the Continues Circuit solved
with Trapezoidal Integration method as introduced below in summary.
2.1. Grounding system modeling
In the Continues Circuit method, grounding conductors are divided into
small segments called dl. Fig. 1 shows the electrical parameters between two
segments of a grounding system [18].

Fig. 1  The circuit model of the grounding system.

Electrical equations, excluded from the grounding system and based on

Fig. 1, are solved using the Trapezoidal Integration method [18]. Finally, the
equations extracted for the voltage at node n, Vn(t), the current passing throw the
conductor segment i, Iei, and the current passing from a conductor segment to the
earth, Igi, are represented as follows.
I1  I 2  I 3  I 4  I j (t )
Vn (t )  , (1)
0.25 A (2Y1  Y2 ) AT
where:

227
M. Asadpourahmadchali, M. Niasati, Y. Alinejad-Beromi

1
 t  2C
Y1  t  Re  Le  , Y2  Ge  e ,
 2  t
1
 t  N 1
I1  A  Re  Le  Re (t ) I e (t  nt ) ,
 2  n 1

1
 t  N 1
I 2   A  Re  Le  AT (t )Vn (t  nt ) ,
 2  n 1
N 1
I 3  0.25 A Ge A V (t  nt ) ,
T
n
n 1
N 1
I 4  0.5 A  I g (t  nt )  I j (t ) .
n 1

Vn (t ) is the node voltage at time t, I e (t  nt ) denotes the electrode current

at time t  nt , Vn (t  nt ) represents the node voltage at time t  nt and
I g (t  nt ) is the ground leaking current at time t  nt . The unknown
parameters I e and I g at time t are calculated in (2) and (3), respectively.
Y1
I e (t )  ( V1  V2  AT Vn (t )) , (2)
t
where
N 1 N 1
V1  AT (t )Vn (t  nt ) and V2   Re (t ) I e (t  nt ) .
n 1 n 1
N 1
I g (t )  I1  I 2  2 I g (t  nt ) , (3)
n 1

where
N 1
 2C 
I1  2Ge Vn (t  nt ) and I 2  Ge  e  Vn (t ) .
n 1  t 
2.2 Lightning current waveform modeling
The lightning current waveform is represented by the Heidler function as
follows [11],
I 0  t 1 
2

i (t )  e  t 2 , (4)
 1   t 1  2

where, I 0 is the amplitude of the impulse current, 1 is the waveform rise-time,

 2 is the 50% decay time waveform, and η is the amplitude corrector,

228
 Modeling of Different Tower Grounding Systems Using Hybrid Continuous Circuit…


  exp   1 2  2  2 1  .
The parameters to make different lightning current waveforms are presented
in Table 1.
Table 1
Different lightning current waveform parameters (10 kA amplitude).
Waveform type [μs] I 0 [A] 1 [μs]  2 [μs]
0.25/100 9930 0.0075 140
1/100 9820 0.07 170
2.6/100 9700 0.238 140
5/100 9600 0.69 135
10/100 9430 2 125

3 Validation of HCCTIM
To validate the proposed model, CDEGS software is used to simulate a
counterpoise grounding system presented in Fig. 2. The CDEGS software can
simulate the impulse characteristics of grounding systems in the frequency
domain [20, 21]. The length, radius, and burial depth of the grounding wire are
20, 0.01 and 0.8 m, respectively. The resistivity of the soil is 150 Ωm and the
length of each element of the wire, (dl), is 4 m.

Fig. 2  The counterpoise grounding system segmentation.

The current wave applied to node 1 has the characteristics of 10 KA and

2.6/100 μs as in Table 1. The maximum frequency of the applied current is
5.12MHz, and the minimum wavelength will be 17.1 m according to (13) [22].
  3160  f m . (5)
In the above equation, ρ is the soil resistivity in Ωm, fm is the maximum
frequency of the applied current in Hz and λ is minimum wavelength in m.
Equation (13) indicates the proper size of dl, 4 m, as compared to the minimum
wavelength, 17.1 m. The GPR of the counterpoise grounding system calculated
using the proposed method and CDEGS software is shown in Fig. 3.

229
M. Asadpourahmadchali, M. Niasati, Y. Alinejad-Beromi

In Fig. 3, the GPR calculated by CDEGS software and the proposed method
is 193.5 kV and 203.6 kV, respectively. Moreover, the impulse impedance (ratio
of peak voltage to peak current) calculated by CDEGS software and the proposed
method is 19.4 and 20.4 Ω, respectively. The error rate for the proposed method
compared to CDEGS software is 5.2%, which is calculated by (6):
Z c  Z c
 . (6)
Zc
15
CDEGS Result
200
Proposed Method

Current (KA)
GPR (KV)

150 10

100
5
50

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (sec)

Fig. 3  GPR of the counterpoise grounding system calculated

by the proposed method and CDEGS software.

In the above equation, Z c and Z c are the impulse impedance calculated by

the proposed method and the CDEGS, respectively. Moreover, the resistance of
the horizontal grounding system calculated by Sunde is 4.4 Ω [5]. Due to the
neglecting the mutual coupling between the elements and the type of waveform,
the Sunde cannot calculate the impulse impedance correctly. The final value of
the impedance of the grounding system (impedance after wave tail time)
calculated by the proposed method and CDEGS software is 4.8 Ω and 4.7 Ω,
respectively. Therefore, the value of the impedance calculated by Sunde is the
final impedance of the grounding system. On the other hand, the impulse
impedance has the prominent factor to calculate the GPR of the grounding system
when lightning current is applied.

4 Effect of Various Parameters on the Impulse Impedance

4.1 Effect of the Grounding System Structure
The flow of lightning current through the transmission line tower and its
grounding system leads to the appearance of overvoltage on the insulator strings.
To reduce this overvoltage, various structures have been proposed to decrease the
impulse impedance of grounding system. Some common structures are

230
 Modeling of Different Tower Grounding Systems Using Hybrid Continuous Circuit…

counterpoise, crow’s foot, square and square with additional wires. Fig. 4 shows
these types of structures.
The impulse impedances of these structures differ in a definite condition. The
first stroke lightning with a current of 10 KA and 10/100 μs is applied to each of
these structures. To better compare the impulse impedance of these four
structures, the total length of the conductor in each structure is set 64 m. This
means that the length of the counterpoise wire is 64 m, the length of each branch
of the crow’s foot structure is 21.3 m, the length of each side of the square
structure is 16 m and the length of each side and the additional wire of the square
structure with additional wires are 8 m. The soil resistivity is assumed 150 Ωm
and other parameters are the same as Fig. 2. The GPR of these structures is shown
in Fig. 5.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 4  Different types of the grounding system structure: (a) Square with additional
wires; (b) Square; (c) Crow’s foot and (d) Counterpoise.

100
Counterpoise
Crow Foot
80 Square
Square with Additional Wire
GPR (KV)

60

40

20

0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Time (sec)
Fig. 5  The GPR of the four mentioned structures.

231
M. Asadpourahmadchali, M. Niasati, Y. Alinejad-Beromi

According to Fig. 5, the value of the impulse impedance of the counterpoise,

crow’s foot, square and square with additional wires is 9.1, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.2 Ω,
respectively. As a result, the square with additional wires structure has the lowest
GPR compared to the other structures with the same wire length. It can be
deduced that, in this condition, except counterpoise structure, the other grounding
systems have the same impulse impedance approximately.
4.2 Effect of Different Types of Lightning Current Waveform
According to IEC 62305, two types of lightning current are provided: first
short stroke and subsequent short stroke [23]. The first and subsequent short
strokes have a rise-time of 10 and 0.25 μs and a tail time of 350 and 100 μs,
respectively. Since the rise-time has a greater impact on the impulse impedance
than the tail time [24], current waveforms of 0.25, 1, 5, and 10 μs rise-time and a
fixed tail time of 100 μs and a fixed amplitude of 10 KA are applied to the
grounding systems. The soil resistivity is 150 Ωm and other characteristics are
the same as previous section. The impulse impedances of the grounding systems
are presented in Table 2.
The results of Table 2 show that the impulse impedance increases with
decreasing the rise-time of lightning waveform. This is duo to an increase in
d i d t which increments the inductive voltage of grounding systems. It is worth
noting that, according to Table 2, the square with additional wire has the best
performance compared to other structures for all rise times.
Table 2
The impulse impedance of the grounding systems
with different lightning current rise-times.

Rise-time [μs] 0.25 1 2.6 5 10

Counterpoise impulse
70.78 32.64 20.34 13.49 9.08
impedance []
Crow’s foot impulse
37.81 17.00 10.61 6.86 5.30
impedance []
Square impulse
42.94 19.04 11.74 7.75 5.35
impedance []
Square with additional wire
32.58 15.01 9.25 6.20 5.17
impulse impedance []

4.3 Effect of soil resistivity

As transmission lines pass through different locations, the soil resistivity of
the tower grounding system is not the same. Therefore, the influence of different
soil resistivities on the impulse impedance at different lightning current rise-times
is shown in Figs. 6 and 7.
232
 Modeling of Different Tower Grounding Systems Using Hybrid Continuous Circuit…
Impulse Impedance ( )

Impulse Impedance ( )
Counterpoise Counterpoise
Crow Foot
Square
125 Crow Foot
Square
150 Square with Additional Wire
100 Square with Additional Wire
125
100 75
75 50
50
25 25
200 400 600 800 1000 200 400 600 800 1000
Soil Resistivity ( .m) Soil Resistivity ( .m)
(a) T = 0.25 μs (b) T = 1 μs
Impulse Impedance ( )

Counterpoise
Crow Foot
70 Square
Square with Additional Wire
60
50
40
30
20
10
200 400 600 800 1000
Soil Resistivity ( .m)
(c) T=2.6 μs
Fig. 6  Impulse impedance of grounding systems at soil resistivity of 50 m to 100 m
and lightning current rise-time of: (a) 0.25 μs; (b) 1 μs; (c) 2.6 μs.
Impulse Impedance ( )

Impulse Impedance ( )

Counterpoise Counterpoise
Crow Foot Crow Foot
50 Square 40 Square
Square with Additional Wire Square with Additional Wire
40 30
30
20
20
10 10

200 400 600 800 1000 200 400 600 800 1000
Soil Resistivity ( .m) Soil Resistivity ( .m)
(a) T = 5 μs (b) T = 10 μs

Fig. 7  Impulse impedance of grounding systems at soil resistivity of

50 m to 100 m and lightning current rise-time of: (a) 5 μs; (b) 10 μs.

233
M. Asadpourahmadchali, M. Niasati, Y. Alinejad-Beromi

According to Fig. 6, at lightning current rise-time of 0.25, 1 and, 2.6 μs and

all soil resistivities, the impulse impedance of square with additional wire
structure is lower than that of other structures. For lightning current rise-time of
5 μs, Fig. 7, the crow’s foot, square and, square with additional wire structures
have almost the same impulse impedance, which is lower than that of the
counterpoise structure. Moreover, at 10 μs lightning current rise-time, the impulse
impedance of counterpoise structure is the lowest for soil resistivities greater than
600 Ωm. It can be deduced that at high soil resistivity and high lightning current
rise-time, the grounding structure should have long shape (should be longer?) to
show the minimum impulse impedance.
4.4 Combined Effect of Soil Resistivity and Lightning Current Rise Time
Fig. 8 shows the effect of soil resistivity and lightning current rise-time
considered simultaneously. According to Fig. 8, for a  T ration of smaller than
20, the impulse of the four grounding systems are the same; for  T between 20
and 56, the impulse impedance of the crow’s foot, square and, square with
additional wire structures are approximately the same and less than that of the
counterpoise structure; for  T greater than 56, the impulse impedance of square
with additional wire provides the best performance compared to other structures.
It can be concluded that with low rise-time or high soil resistivity, the square with
additional wire structure has the lowest impulse impedance and is suggested to
be adopted in tower grounding systems.

Fig. 8  Impulse impedance of grounding systems at various soil

resistivity/lightning current rise-time.

5 Conclusion
Reducing impulse impedance of the grounding system is one of the solutions
to decrease the possibility of occurrence of back flashovers in overhead
transmission lines. Various parameters affect the impulse impedance, such as soil
resistivity, lightning current waveform rise-time and grounding system structure.
In term of the type of grounding structure, four common ones, counterpoise,
234
 Modeling of Different Tower Grounding Systems Using Hybrid Continuous Circuit…

crow’s foot, square and square with additional wires are modeled using the recent
accurate and truthful method, called HCCTIM. Also, the validity of the method
is confirmed using the CDEGS software. Soil resistivity is a significant parameter
due to its direct impact on the amount of leakage current flowing into the earth.
As a result, at high soil resistivity (1000 Ωm), the counterpoise structure provides
better performance thanks to having a longer conductor to pass the leakage
current to the earth. Nonetheless, at lower soil resistivity, the square with
additional wire structure is the best option. Moreover, decreasing the rise-time of
lightning waveform increases the impulse impedance of the grounding system as
it increases the inductance of grounding the system. In fact, in lower lightning
current rise-time, higher frequencies appear in the applied current which increase
the inductive impedance of grounding system. It is concluded that at low time
lightning current rise-time, the square with additional wire structure has the
lowest impulse impedance. However, it has been shown that the ratio of lightning
current rise time and soil resistivity should be investigated in grounding system
analysis at the same time. From this aspect, at a lower ratio, all of the mentioned
structures present the same impulse impedance. For ratios between 20 to 56, the
counterpoise structure shows a higher impulse impedance; however, other
structures show the same impulse impedance value. On the other hand, at higher
ratios, the square with additional wires has better performance or lower impulse
impedance. In conclusion, the results show that the square with additional wire
structure has the least impulse impedance compared to other conventional
structures.

6 References
[1] A.F. Otero, J. Cidras, J.L. del Alamo: Frequency-Dependent Grounding System Calculation
by Means of a Conventional Nodal Analysis Technique, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, Vol. 14, No. 3, July 1999, pp. 873  878.
[2] IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, IEEE Std 80-2000, IEEE, New York, 2000.
[3] C.- H. Lee, C.- N. Chang: Comparison of the Safety Criteria Used for Grounding Grid Design
at 161/23.9-kV Indoor-Type Substation, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy
Systems, Vol. 49, July 2013, pp. 47  56.
[4] R. Rudenberg: Grounding Principles and Practices I - Fundamental Considerations on Ground
Currents, Electrical Engineering, Vol. 64, No. 1, January 1945, pp. 1  13.
[5] E.D. Sunde: Surge Characteristics of a Buried Bare Wire, Electrical Engineering, Vol. 59,
No. 12, December 1940, pp. 987  991.
[6] B.R. Gupta, B. Thapar: Impulse Impedance of Grounding Grids, IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-99, No. 6, November 1980, pp. 2357  2362.
[7] A.P. Meliopoulos, M.G. Moharam: Transient Analysis of Grounding Systems, IEEE Transactions
on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-102, No. 2, February 1983, pp. 389  399.
[8] F.E. Mentre, L.D. Grcev: EMTP-Based Model for Grounding System Analysis, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 9, No. 4, October 1994, pp. 1838  1849.

235
M. Asadpourahmadchali, M. Niasati, Y. Alinejad-Beromi

[9] A.C.S. de Lima, C. Portela: Inclusion of Frequency-Dependent Soil Parameters in

Transmission-Line Modeling, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 22, No. 1, January
2007, pp. 492  499.
[10] D.S. Gazzana, A. S. Bretas, G.A.D. Dias, M. Telló, D.W.P. Thomas, C. Christopoulos: The
Transmission Line Modeling Method to Represent the Soil Ionization Phenomenon in
Grounding Systems, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 50, No. 2, February 2014,
pp. 103  107.
[11] B. Zhang, J. He, J.- B. Lee, X. Cui, Z. Zhao, J. Zou, S.- H. Chang: Numerical Analysis of
Transient Performance of Grounding Systems Considering Soil Ionization by Coupling
Moment Method with Circuit Theory, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 41, No. 5, May
2005, pp. 1440  1443.
[12] A.F. Otero, J. Cidrás, C. Garrido: Frequency Analysis of Grounding Systems, Proceedings of
the 8th International Conference on Harmonics and Quality of Power, Athens, Greece, October
1998, pp. 348  353.
[13] J. Cidrás, A.F. Otero, C. Garrido: Nodal Frequency Analysis of Grounding Systems
Considering the Soil Ionization Effect, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 15, No. 1,
January 2000, pp. 103  107.
[14] R. Shariatinasab, P. Tadayon, A. Ametani: A Hybrid Method for Evaluating of Lightning
Performance of Overhead Lines based on Monte Carlo Procedure, Journal of Electrical
Engineering, Vol. 67, No. 4, July 2016, pp. 246  252.
[15] G. Ala, P.L. Buccheri, P. Romano, F. Viola: Finite Difference Time Domain Simulation of
Earth Electrodes Soil Ionization Under Lightning Surge Conditions, IET Science,
Measurement & Technology, Vol. 2, No. 3, May 2008, pp. 134  145.
[16] A. Habjanic, M. Trlep: The Simulation of the Soil Ionization Phenomenon Around the
Grounding System by the Finite Element Method, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 42,
No. 4, April 2006, pp. 867  870.
[17] L. Qi, X. Cui, Z. Zhao, H. Li: Grounding Performance Analysis of the Substation Grounding
Grids by Finite Element Method in Frequency Domain, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics,
Vol. 43, No. 4, April 2007, pp. 1181  1184.
[18] M. Asadpourahmadchali, M. Niasati, Y. Alinejad-Beromi: Hybrid Continuous Circuit-
Trapezoidal Integration Method Analysis of Multi-Cross Structure of Grounding System, IET
Science, Measurement & Technology,Vol. 14, No. 3, May 2020, pp. 292  302.
[19] M. Asadpourahmadchali, M. Niasati, Y. Alinejad-Beromi: Improving Tower Grounding vs.
Insulation Level to Obtain the Desired Back-Flashover Rate for HV Transmission Lines,
Electrical Power and Energy Systems, Vol. 123, December 2020, pp. 1  10.
[20] S.C. Chapra: Applied Numerical Methods with MATLAB: for Engineers and Scientists, 3rd
Edition, McGraw-Hill Education, New York, 2011.
[21] CDEGS, v. 10 Software, HIFREQ Module, Safe Engineering Services & Technologies ltd.,
Montreal, QC, Canada, 2002.
[22] K. Aniserowicz, T. Maksimowicz: Comparison of Lightning-Induced Current Simulations in
the Time and Frequency Domains Using Different Computer Codes, IEEE Transactions on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 53, No. 2, May 2011, pp. 446  461.
[23] International Standard, Protection against Lightning –Part 1: General principles (IEC 62305-
1), 1st Edition, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Geneva, 2006.
[24] N. Harid, H. Griffiths, S. Mousa, D. Clark, S. Robson, A. Haddad: On the Analysis of Impulse
Test Results on Grounding Systems, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 51,
No. 6, November 2015, pp. 5324  5334.

236