ELECTRICAL CHEAT SHEET

Lightning Design

Reference: EIT - Lightning, Surge Protection and Earthing of Electrical & Electronic
Systems in Industrial Networks
Software: https://new.abb.com/low-voltage/products/earthing-lightning-protection/
opr/opr-designer-software
https://www.dehn-international.com/en/dehn

Lightning Protection of Structures

In this chapter we will learn about the general principles governing the protection of
structures and buildings, and their occupants and contents, from the effects of
lightning strikes.

Learning objectives
Basics of lightning protection of structures and different protection levels
Design approach to lightning protection systems and verifying adequacy of design
Cone of protection and Rolling Sphere method of analysis
Protection system components
Influence of structure type on protection design
Side flashes, causes and prevention
Alternative hypothesis - Collection volume method
Non-conventional protection systems - Early streamer and charge transfer methods
4.1 Basics of lightning protection of structures
We learnt in the previous chapter that the incidence of lightning related fatalities
involving people staying indoors has fallen drastically in the last 100 years. This is
mainly due to the presence of many metallic connections that lead lightning strike
currents away from the building and conduct them safely to ground. The awareness
and understanding of the need for protection of buildings from lightning and the
protection measures incorporated in all modern buildings is another reason for
reduced number of fatalities. Also, such buildings are either constructed out of a
frame of conducting materials such as steel, or at least contain an appreciable
amount of embedded conducting materials (as in the case of reinforced cement
concrete). By adopting appropriate methods to ensure continuity of the conducting
frame or the embedded conducting material right up to the soil, such structures can
be made to offer an excellent degree of lightning protection.

Figure 4.1 illustrates the former hypothesis. In this figure, the various modes of entry
of a lightning current into a building, as well as those leading the current away from
the building are shown. Entry points for a direct strike can be features such as air
terminals (part of lightning protection system), communication antennae, etc. Indirect
entry by strikes on other objects could be effected through the power line or
communication line coming into the building, water piping from an overhead tank
which bears a strike and so on. Metallic piping such as water mains, gas piping, etc.,
or metallic sheaths of buried power cable or communication cable or ground
electrodes placed specifically for conducting lightning currents into ground are the
exit points for lightning. With the availability of so many exit paths, any danger to
occupants arising out of a lightning strike is greatly minimized.
 Figure 4.1
Entry and exit points for lightning currents (Source: Australian Standard AS/NZ 1768)
The danger to occupants is more as a result of indirect entry of discharge currents
through power lines, telephone lines, plumbing, etc., through which a person may
inadvertently be subjected to high potentials caused by a lightning strike.
From the above discussion, the following points are evident:
Lightning protection of a building needs a device which can attract a lightning
downward leader onto itself (refer to chapter 2) and provide an attachment point for a
lightning strike, in preference to other vulnerable parts of a structure.
There should be some means of conducting the lightning strike energy to the ground
without causing damage to the structure. Multiple conducting paths are better and
result in lower impedance, thus limiting the potential difference along the current
path. A lightning protection system offers such conducting paths. By doing so, a
protection system prevents the lightning discharge from taking alternative
unprotected paths.
The grounding system design must be such that no differential potential exists
between different parts of the building or within equipment located in the building.
One of the methods of ensuring this is to bond different metallic services as well as
different grounding systems within the building. We will see more about this aspect in
a later section.

4.2 Lightning protection levels

Protection level (PL) represents the effectiveness or efficiency of a lightning protection
system, with Level I being the most effective to Level IV being the least effective. This
overall efficiency comprises two individual components, the interception
efficiency and the sizing efficiency. The interception efficiency is characterized by the
peak lightning current value which the protection system can successfully intercept
through its air terminals. The lower the value, the higher the interception efficiency.
The sizing efficiency is the measure of the lightning charge Q and the steepness of the
lightning stroke current wave (di/dt) that can be safely withstood by
the downconductors of the protection system to ground. The higher these values, the
higher the sizing efficiency. (We will discuss air terminals and downconductors in
greater detail in the sections that follow).
As per IEC 61024-1 the efficiency of protection for protection levels I to IV are:
Level I 98%
Level II 95%
Level III 90%
Level IV 80%
4.3 Lightning protection system design approach
The first step in the design of a lightning protection system is to use one of the
accepted risk assessment procedures to determine whether the facility in question
carries a risk of lightning damage that warrants a protective system installation. We
have discussed this aspect in an earlier chapter.
The design of a protection system (if found necessary as a result of the above
assessment) has to take into account the geometry of the facility and apply the
principle of zone of protection to ensure its effectiveness. This principle can be
illustrated as follows. Protection against lightning is primarily by means of one or more
air terminals either in horizontal or vertical configuration (or any combination thereof).
Each terminal protects a given portion of space surrounding it. This space, which is
within the protective coverage of a terminal, is called the zone of protection of this
terminal. The number and disposition of terminal should be such that their
overlapping protection zones (considered together) will envelop the whole of the
protected facility. Any lightning strike on the facility will attach itself to one of the air
terminals and will be conducted to ground by means of a network of downconductors
and ground electrodes, thus avoiding the flow of discharge currents through the
vulnerable components of the protected building.
Any protection system thus comprises air terminals, downconductors and ground
electrodes (or a ground network). These, combined with other minor components such
as fasteners, joints and test links, make up the complete protection system.
Appropriate choice of materials and selection of conductor parameters is the next part
of the design. This includes the material and size of conductors and the design of
ground electrode network.
The final part of the design is to review the presence of other metallic components of
the building exposed to lightning, the external and internal metal parts and buried
services entering or leaving the building. All these will have to be brought
approximately to the same voltage with reference to the ground mass so that any
possibility of side flashes or other problems due to large inadvertent potential
differences do not occur. This is called bonding.
The subject of indirect lightning damages due to surge voltages communicated
through power or communication lines and protection thereof will be discussed
separately in a later chapter.
There are different approaches for evaluating the zone of protection of individual air
terminals and thereby that of the entire lightning protection system. The cone of
protection method is the classic method, which has been in use since the early days
of protection. Practical experience with protections based on this approach has
caused this approach to be reviewed and another approach called the Rolling Sphere
method has come into wide use. Most of the modern day standards are based on this
approach.
Other approaches of evaluating protection efficacy have also been proposed. An
example of such an approach is the Collection Volume method suggested by Dr A. J.
Eriksson. This method is based on the concept of competing features of the structure
being protected for evaluation of protection efficacy. We will discuss this concept in
some detail later in this chapter. It must, however, be noted that the existing
standards (IEC and other national standards) on lightning protection have not taken
cognizance of these alternative approaches as their effectiveness is not certain and is
not well-supported by field studies. On the other hand, the rolling sphere method
provides the best protection option even though it may err on the conservative side.
4.3.1 Cone of protection approach using a Franklin Rod
This method involves placing a simple metallic rod at or near the highest point in a
structure so that its tip is higher than any part of the structure. In the case of
structures with small heights, it can take the form of an independent mast. The rod (or
mast) is electrically connected to a grounding system through an electrically
conducting material. Refer to Figure 4.2 below.
 Figure 4.2
Example of the cone of protection principle
This method is meant to provide protection to any object falling within a cone whose
side subtends a specified angle to the vertical. Hence this is named the Protection
Angle method or the Cone of Protection method. In Figure 4.2, a lightning mast
independent of the protected structure but near enough to divert any lightning
occurring in the vicinity a mast is shown protecting a building falling within its cone of
protection. Normally an angle of 45 degrees is taken as the protective angle. The
angle can vary between 30 degrees and 60 degrees depending on the degree of
lightning protection desired for the structure (lower values for higher degree of
protection). This is also called the geometric protection method.
This method is outdated and lacks any scientific basis and therefore cannot be taken
as a reliable means of protecting a structure. It is, therefore, not normally used for
protection of present day buildings. It can result in failure of protection, especially
when applied to very tall structures.
An improved cone of protection method has been suggested to overcome this
problem with varying protection angles (depending on the height of the lightning
mast) as shown in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3
Improved cone of protection principle applied to Tall Structures
4.3.2 The Faraday Cage
The method which is often used to protect buildings, is called the Faraday Cage
method or the Mesh method of lightning protection. See Figure 4.4 below.
 Figure 4.4
The Faraday Cage principle
The figure shows a hollow metal box connected on one side to the ground. It is clear
that if there is a lightning strike on this box, the entire conducting surface of the box
will come into play to conduct the lightning discharge current to the ground. This
means that any building or structure placed within the box will not be affected by the
lightning strike. Obviously, it is not very practical to surround a building with such a
box. Therefore, we do the next best thing by enclosing a building within a mesh of
conductors. The spacing of the mesh will depend on how well the building is to be
protected. A closer spacing means better protection.
So, we now have a mesh around the building, as shown in Figure 4.5, instead of a
metal box.

Figure 4.5
The Protective mesh
A practical example of a building protected by such a mesh is shown in Figure 4.6
below.
 Figure 4.6
The practical example of a protective mesh around a building
This figure shows a building with an elevated part in the top (may be a lift house, or a
water storage tank) with a TV Antenna placed on top of it. Note how roof conductors
(also known as horizontal air terminals) are placed both on the elevated portion as
well as the roof slab itself and are interconnected closely. Note how the antenna itself
is also bonded with the roof conductors. The down conductors lead the lightning
discharge current to the ground rods, which are interconnected at ground level to
form a ring. It is also usual to interpose a test link in the down conductor, to isolate
the ground electrodes for enabling periodic testing of electrode resistance. Edges and
corners of a building are vulnerable and will have to be provided with air terminals, as
we will discuss later in this chapter.
Note:
In these examples, we are primarily considering buildings of non-metallic
roofing/frame construction with no exposed metal parts. A building with metallic
roofing does not require separate air terminals and needs only down conductors to
carry the lightning discharge currents. We will discuss these aspects in detail later.
The protection provided to the building will depend largely upon the number and
spacing between air terminals on the roof. Air terminals can both be horizontal
conductors or vertical rods. The distribution of air terminals can be arrived at by using
the Rolling Sphere Method as described in the section below.
4.3.3 The Rolling Sphere Method (RSM) for analysis of protection
adequacy
The basis for ascertaining the adequacy of mesh type protection is the Rolling Sphere
method. In this method, an imaginary sphere is rolled over the protecting structure
and the shaded areas, which the sphere cannot touch, are within the protection zone.
The radius of the sphere can vary between 20 m to 60 m depending on the degree of
protection required. The standard protection will consider a radius of 45 m and
increased degree of protection can be obtained by reduction of the radius. This
method is also referred to as the Electro-Geometric method in some literature; since
the protection efficiency is determined using an empirically calculated protective
sphere radius which is also related to the peak lightning current. (Refer to Figure 4.7
and Table 4.1 below).
 Figure 4.7
Rolling Sphere method of assessing the protection (Source: Australian Standard AS/NZ
1768)
Table 4.1
Radius of Rolling Sphere for different
Protection Levels (classical values)
Protection Interception current kA
Radius of Sphere m
Level peak
I 20 2.9
II 30 5.4
III 45 10.1
IV 60 15.7
The table also indicates the minimum values of lightning stroke current (peak) which
will be intercepted by the protection system. Note that higher the level of protection,
smaller is the lightning current value that can be intercepted.
It can also be seen that better the protection, smaller is the sphere radius considered
in the protection system design and lower is the minimum peak current of a lightning
flash, which the system can protect against. As we saw in the earlier chapter on
Lightning physics, about 80% of the ground flashes tend to exceed a peak current
value of 20 kA while 99% of the flashes will exceed 3 kA. We can see from the above
table that a system design based on a sphere of radius 60 m can only protect against
lightning flashes above 15.7 kA (peak current). About 15% of the flashes can be of
magnitudes lower than this value and can thus bypass the protection. Compare this
with a design based on a sphere of 20 m radius which can offer protection against all
flashes exceeding a peak current value of 2.9kA. Such a system can protect a
structure from more than 99% of the flashes leaving it unprotected only against 1% of
the flashes, which in any case cannot inflict much damage because of their lower
energy levels.
Most of the current lightning protection standards such as NFPA-780, BS-6651, IEC-
62305 and AS-1768 are based on this principle.
When applying the Rolling Sphere method to flat surfaces, it is obvious that a
horizontal conductor placed just on the roof (in contact with it) cannot offer protection
to the rest of the roof, because the sphere can be rolled all over the horizontal plane
of the roof. In the earlier IEC standard 61024, the roof was deemed to be protected by
such horizontal air terminals provided that the spacing of these conductors is not
greater than 5m, 10m, 15m or 20m for protection levels I, II, III and IV respectively.
The corner points and edges however need to be protected with conductors laid along
these edges. This is the classical mesh type of protection. However, in some of the
other standards (such as AS/NZ 1768), such an approach is not recommended. The
protection efficacy in these standards is considered strictly as per the RSM principle,
thus making it mandatory to provide air terminals which are at a minimum height of
0.5m above the protected surface. This is applicable both for vertical and horizontal
conductors of the lightning protection system acting as air terminals.
The protection range offered by an air terminal can be calculated from the formula:

Formula 4.1

where
r is the horizontal distance in meters from the air terminal which will be protected by
the terminal
h is the height of the terminal in meters
a is the radius of sphere in meters for the protection level chosen as given in table 4.2
For a vertical air terminal, r is the radius of the circle with center at the air terminal
location and any point on the structure lying within the circle is protected.
For a horizontal terminal, r represents the distance on either side up to which the
structure is protected from direct strikes.
Also note that the value of h cannot be zero. This means that the air terminals
(vertical or horizontal) should be placed at a height from the protected plane.
The complete protection of a large structure, thus means an array of air terminals.
These terminals are normally arranged in the form of a grid in the case of vertical
terminals and parallel conductors in the case of horizontal terminals. The spacing of
the grid/parallel conductors is given by the following equations.
For vertical air terminals, the grid spacing should at least be:

Formula 4.2

For horizontal conductors the distance between parallel conductors should not be less
than:

Formula 4.3

The Rolling Sphere Method as described above has certain shortcomings. In any
building there are certain vulnerable points, which are prone to lightning attachment.
This is because of field intensification that occurs around pointed features of a
structure as well as corners and edges. This needs to be considered and air terminals
must be provided to take care of protection of such vulnerable points. Detailed studies
made in Malaysia and Singapore (both with very high incidence of thunderstorms
compared to locations in temperate climates) by Hartono and Robiah and presented in
the International Conference on Electromagnetic Compatibility ICEMC 95, amply
illustrate failures due to incorrect placement of air terminals and down conductors. In
this paper they have also described a model to arrive at the relative probability of
lightning strike attachment on specific unprotected edges and surfaces in the building
geometry. Using this model, it will be possible to place horizontal air terminals and
down conductors precisely at locations perceived as having a high probability of strike
attachment.
The vulnerable points in decreasing order are as follows:
 Pointed apex roofs, spires and protrusions
 Gable roof ridge ends
 Outer roof corners
Exposed edges of horizontal roofs, and the slanting and horizontal edge of gable roofs
Lower horizontal edges and vertical edges on outer sides just below corners
Flat surfaces near points and corners
Intruding surfaces and other surfaces, particularly flat surfaces
While planning protection, the most vulnerable features (points and corners) should
be first provided with air terminals and rolling sphere method should be used to check
coverage of edges. If these are not covered, then more terminals will have to be
added. In other words, the sphere should rest on the air terminals without coming into
contact with the rest of the structure. Check whether the least vulnerable areas such
as flat surfaces are covered with the air terminals. If not, provide additional terminals
to ensure complete coverage of protection. A mix of horizontal air terminals
(conductors placed at a slight elevation above the adjacent surfaces) and vertical air
terminals can protect a structure completely.
The other problem with the classical values of protection radius is that the design
becomes too conservative, particularly when applied to large flat surfaces such as a
building roof. More realistic designs without excessive material usage for such
surfaces (but without compromising the protection efficiency) are possible with the
use of dual sphere radii shown in Table 4.2 below, the purpose of which will be
explained in this section.
Table 4.2
Radius of Rolling Sphere for different Protection Levels (dual values)
Protection Level Radius of Sphere m
I 20 (60)
II 30 (60)
III 45 (90)
IV 60 (120)
The radius of sphere values shown in brackets are applicable for evaluating protection
of flat surfaces and are higher than the sphere radius value applicable for features
which are more vulnerable to lightning attachment (listed earlier).
For large flat surfaces, the value of r (in Formula 4.1) is calculated using the larger
value shown within brackets. For example, for protection level III, a will have a value
of 90m when planning air terminals for a large flat roof. However, for verifying
protection of more vulnerable features such as edges, the smaller value should be
considered. For protection level III, this value will be 45m.
Naturally for flat surfaces the r value to be used will be the one calculated using the
larger sphere radius as explained above.
We will illustrate these principles with an example. We have a building of 70m length,
50m width and 20m height for which we will provide a lightning protection system of
level III protection. The first step will be to protect the top edges and corners by 1m
high vertical conductors. The protection range offered can be calculated by
substituting values in the formula 4.1 as:

The value of r works out to 9.4m. Note that we are substituting the lower value of a in
this case because, we are protecting the edge of the roof, which is more susceptible
to a strike.
The minimum spacing of conductors required along the edge is 2* 9.4 which is 18.8m.
Providing 5 equally spaced terminals along the 70m side (spacing 17.5m) and an
additional 2 terminals along the width of 50m (spacing 16.7m) will adequately protect
the edges. Fig. 4.8 below illustrates the protection along the 70m edges of the roof.
Note that the vertical flat surfaces of the structure are also protected as the sphere of
45m radius cannot come into contact with the vertical surfaces.
 Figure 4.8
Sectional view of protection of a flat roof edge by vertical terminals (Source:
Australian Standard AS/NZ 1768)
These terminals can however not provide protection for the entire roof because of the
large area involved. Further protection is needed by an array of vertical terminals of
height say 1.25m.
The range of protection offered by vertical terminals placed on a flat roof can be
calculated by substitution of values in formula 4.1 as:

which gives a value of 14.94m (say 15m). The terminals thus have a protection radius
of 15m. Note the use of the value 120 being the higher of the two values of a, since it
is the flat roof we are protecting. Four such terminals arranged in the middle of the
roof (in combination with the vertical rods already placed along the edges) can give
adequate protection. Figure 4.9 illustrates this.

Figure 4.9
Plan view of protection of a flat roof edge by vertical terminals (Source: Australian
Standard AS/NZ 1768)
An alternative scheme of protection can also be worked out using the following:
Horizontal conductors along the roof edges placed 1m above the edge, and
2 additional horizontal conductors also 1m from the surface OR
2 additional 1.5m high vertical rods placed symmetrically along the 70m axis
Figure 4.10 illustrates this arrangement.
 Figure 4.10
Plan view of protection of a flat roof edge by a combination of terminals (Source:
Australian Standard AS/NZ 1768)
For tall buildings with large vertical surfaces, the protection of these surfaces can be
assessed using the larger of the two radii values shown in Table 4.2. Figure 4.11
illustrates an example of a level III protection scheme. Note the use of sphere of
radius 90m for the larger vertical side and 4m radius value for the smaller surfaces.

Figure 4.11
Assessment of protection of a large vertical side of a building (Source: Australian
Standard AS/NZ 1768)
In this section, we have mainly discussed the placement of air terminals for
satisfactory protection of the structure. In the next section we will discuss about the
details of the entire lightning protection system including the air terminals, down
conductors and ground electrodes and their minimum requirements.
4.4 Main components of a lightning protection system
As we have seen earlier in this chapter, the following are the essential protection
system components.
 Air terminal
 Down conductor
 Grounding system
The requirements for these components are specified in detail in various national
standards and we will briefly discuss them here in general terms. System designers
must consider the applicable standards while planning a system ensuring compliance
of local codes and regulations.
4.4.1 Air terminal
The air terminal of a structure consists of horizontal or vertical conductors or a
combination of both depending on the structure to be protected. Examples are:
A spire will be protected by an air terminal in the form of a single vertical rod.
A small building with a sloping roof can have a single horizontal terminal on the roof
ridge.
A large flat roofed building will need a system of horizontal air terminals in
combination with properly spaced vertical terminals (as we saw in an earlier section).
In special cases, one or more horizontal wires suspended over the structure to be
protected, strung between independent support structures may act as air terminators.
(This method is commonly used for protection of outdoor electrical switchyards as well
as storage sheds containing explosive substances).
A horizontal terminal at the edge of a short parapet wall can be taken as having the
same effect as a vertical terminal of a height equal to that of the parapet. In many
cases, a metallic railing along the parapet wall provided as an architectural feature
may serve as horizontal air terminal. Refer to Figure 4.12, which shows such an
arrangement. The railing is bonded to the reinforcement steel of the building columns
to ensure a low impedance path to ground.

Figure 4.12
Metallic railing used as air terminal (Source: Australian Standard AS/NZ 1768)
It should be ensured that the connections between the air terminal system on the roof
and the ground network (or electrode) are without any sharp loops, as the high
voltage drop in the loop can result in a flash to jump across the thin parapet wall
causing damage. Figure 4.13 illustrates this requirement.

Figure 4.13
Connections between horizontal terminals and downconductors (Source: Australian
Standard AS/NZ 1768)
As can be seen, if the total length of the conductor loop is less than 8 times the width
‘d’ of the parapet wall, it is acceptable to make a connection as shown on the left
hand side figure. In other cases, where this condition cannot be satisfied, connection
as shown on the right hand side figure should be adopted.
The air terminations must be sized adequately for carrying the maximum peak value
of lightning surge current. They should withstand the localized heating during the
attachment of a lightning flash without being melted or otherwise damaged and
should maintain their integrity. The minimum recommended sizes are:
25mm x
Strip conductors
3mm
10mm
Rods
dia.
Stranded 35
conductors sq.mm
Any protruding metal parts such as communication antennae must be bonded to the
air terminal. If there is a specific need to insulate such equipment, the connection
may be done using a spark gap or a surge-arresting device, which will break down
when subjected to a surge and establish a connection till the surge currents continue
to flow. Bonding conductors should have a minimum section of 35mm x 3mm for
strips and 35 sq. mm for stranded cable/conductors.
For tall buildings, application of the rolling sphere method will indicate that protection
should be provided for the sides of the building above the height of the sphere radius.
(Refer to the example shown in Figure 4.11). However, large flat surfaces which are
vertical or almost vertical are less likely to form attachment points for lightning
discharges than are external corners or other projections which provide electric field
enhancement. As such, these can be considered adequately protected by the down
conductors as described in the next section.
4.4.2 Downconductor
A downconductor performs two functions:
As a means of carrying the lightning discharge current of a flash attracted by the air
terminal to the ground electrode. (Example: Conductor between the air terminal of a
tall mast and ground)
As air terminals protecting the vertical side surfaces of a building.
Downconductors must be provided on each external corner of the building. In
addition, downconductors must also be provided along the perimeter of a large
building at intervals not exceeding 20 meters. Reinforcement of RCC columns as well
as building structural columns may also be used as downconductors.
Downconductors, which are not called upon to function as air terminal may be
insulated to avoid side flashes (discussed in a later section) to other exposed metal
work or to equipment located close to these conductors inside the building.
Alternatively, they can be bonded to such metal work and other metal surfaces.
Sharp bends in a downconductor, such as around the edge of a roof, do not
significantly impede the discharge of a lightning current, nor are the mechanical
forces produced by a lightning current likely to endanger the conductor or its fixings.
However, re-entrant loops in a conductor can produce high inductive voltage drops so
that the lightning discharge may jump across the open side of the loop. Take the
example of a building cantilevered out from the first storey upwards. The
downconductors in this case should be taken straight down to the ground since, by
following the contour of the building, a hazard could be created to persons standing
under the overhang formed by the cantilever. In such a case, the use of internal ducts
for downconductors is recommended. Refer to Figure 4.14.
 Figure 4.14
Recommended practice for down conductors (Source: Australian Standard AS/NZ
1768)
The use of reinforcement bars in concrete construction as downconductors needs a
special mention. Reinforcing bars, which are normally laid overlapped and tied by
binding wires, can be used as downconductors. Though electrical continuity of such
construction is normally not satisfactory for power frequency applications (such as
providing ground continuity) it does not matter when using them for conducting
lightning discharges. During the first few microseconds of the first stroke, a large
inductive voltage drop occurs from the top to the bottom of the building. Even if there
are thin films of iron oxides and cement between the bars, the voltage required to
cause breakdown of these films would be less than 1000 V. The initial voltage
difference along the height of the building would be larger than the voltage required
to break down the oxide and cement films between bars. Once breakdown has
occurred, there would be localized arcing between the steel bars, with a voltage drop
of a few tens of volts.
Thus there are good reasons for relying on the reinforcing bars to act as down-
conductors, even when no special precautions have been taken (such as welding the
bars together) to ensure electrical continuity. The localized arcing (referred to above)
would produce relatively small amounts of energy in relation to the thermal capacity
of typical reinforcing bars. The heating effects will, therefore, be negligible.
Where the steel reinforcement of the building is used as the downconductor system, it
should be ensured that an effective electrical connection exists between the air
terminal system and the steel reinforcement. Such connections should be made as
close as possible to the top of the building and preferably at a number of points
around the building perimeter. In this case, it is essential to establish proper
continuity using approved type of coupling devices/welding. Also when welding air
terminals to reinforcement bars, it is advisable to connect multiple bars to ensure as
many parallel paths as possible.
In the case of tall structures, it may be shown using the rolling sphere method that
the vertical surfaces above a height equal to the radius of the sphere are unprotected.
In such cases, the downconductors also perform the function of air terminals. The
interval of 20 m is applicable in this case also. It should also be ensured that all
vertical corners are provided with a downconductor as these are probable lightning
attachment points. Where the number of downconductors required exceeds the
number of vertical corners, the remaining downconductors should be placed uniformly
between the ones at the corners.
Downconductors must be sized adequately for carrying the maximum peak value of
lightning surge current. They should withstand the localized heating in the event of
the attachment of a lightning flash without melting or otherwise being damaged and
should maintain their integrity. The minimum recommended sizes are:
25mm x
Strip conductors
3mm
10mm
Rods
dia.
Stranded 35
conductors Sq.mm
Galvanised 35
materials Sq.mm
Where the steel reinforcement or the structural steel material of the building columns
is used as downconductors and are covered by masonry work, a lightning strike on the
vertical sides may cause dislodging of masonry. To prevent this from happening,
metallic downconductors must run exposed on the surface of the building.
In cases where any part of a lightning protection system is exposed to mechanical
damage, it should be protected by covering it with moulding or tubing preferably of
non-conductive material. If metal is used, the conductor should be electrically
connected to both ends of the protective covering.
It is preferable to connect down conductors directly to ground electrodes situated
such that the discharge currents flow away from the protected structure. Use of a test
link between the down conductor and the ground electrode is preferred in order to
measure the resistance of the individual electrodes. In addition, test links should also
be provided at appropriate points to enable verification of the continuity of each
parallel path of the lightning protection system.
4.4.3 Grounding
For dissipating the lightning discharge safely into the soil, without any undue touch
and step potential differences being developed, it is necessary that a low impedance
grounding system be available to which the downconductor can be connected.
Normally, each down conductor should be directly terminated to a ground electrode.
Unlike power applications where the resistance of the grounding system plays a major
role, in the case of lightning protection grounding, it is the impedance which is of
importance. However, the measurement of ground system impedance requires high
frequency or impulse type instruments. Since such specialized instruments are usually
not readily available, a ground resistance of lower than 10 ohms can be considered
acceptable for a lightning protection system. This limiting value must be
obtained before interconnecting the lightning protection system to any other
unrelated building services.
A reduction of ground resistance can be achieved by extending or adding to the
electrodes or by interconnecting the individual ground electrodes.
Materials used as grounding electrodes as well as buried conductors interconnecting
electrodes with downconductors must be sized adequately for conducting the
maximum peak value of lightning surge currents. Recommended minimum sizes are:

12 mm
Ground rods
dia.
Galvanised pipe25 mm
electrode dia
50 x 3
Strips (galvanized steel)
mm
75
Stranded conductor
sq.mm
We will devote a complete chapter later in this course to the study of ground
electrodes and the calculation/measurement of ground electrode resistance.

4.5 Materials used in lightning protection systems

Any material used in lightning protection systems must have adequate conductivity as
well as mechanical strength; should be durable, corrosion resistant and should not
result in corrosion of other building components with which it will be in contact. It
should be remembered that the protection system may not be easily accessible for
maintenance and hence should be able to perform with minimum attention for
extended periods.
Copper is quite suitable for use as lightning protection air terminals and down
conductors. However, it may cause corrosion of steel materials in the building
structure and other underground piping due to cathodic action (when used as ground
electrodes) and due care must, therefore, be exercised. Other preferred materials are
galvanized steel and aluminium. Any conductive coatings applied on lightning
conductors should be durable and non-inflammable.
Lightning air terminals used for protection of chimneys are directly exposed to
exhaust gases must be appropriately coated with tin or lead in order to withstand
corrosive action of fumes.
In addition to the above considerations, conductors must be designed to carry the full
discharge current of the lightning flash without overheating (which can ignite
substances that are in contact) or other deterioration.
Since lightning discharges are similar to high frequency currents (having a very steep
wave front and short rise time), materials carrying lightning currents exhibit skin
effect whereby most of the current tends to flow in the outer part of the conductor. In
view of this, tape or strip type conductors are preferred over circular sections, except
in cases where thin strips cannot be used due to mechanical considerations.
The lightning protection system should have as few joints as possible. Joints and
bonds should be adequate from mechanical and electrical considerations e.g.
clamped, screwed, bolted, crimped, riveted or welded. Where overlapping joints are
used, the length of the overlap should not be less than 20 mm for all types of
conductors. Contact surfaces should first be cleaned then inhibited from oxidation
with a suitable corrosion-inhibiting compound. Unless this is ensured, there is a risk of
localized overheating of joints while carrying a discharge, resulting in progressive
deterioration and failure.

4.6 Dependence of protection requirements on type of structure

The components of a lightning protection system as described above are not
applicable uniformly to all types of buildings. As may be evident from the foregoing
discussion, the objective of a protection system is to capture a lightning flash and
conduct its energy safely to the ground away from vulnerable parts of the structure it
is protecting. In the case of a structure made completely of a conducting material
such as steel, there will be no need to provide air terminals on the roof as well as
down conductors. The metal frame of the building itself can perform the functions of
these components. All that needs to be ensured is that the metal members of the
roof, which will receive the lightning strike, are bonded properly to the vertical
supporting columns. Also the vertical members are connected to ground electrodes or
the ground networks so that electrical continuity from roof metal right up to the soil is
established.
In the case of an RCC structure with a metal roof, downconductors which are bonded
to the roof material may provide the required continuity and the down conductors will
be connected to ground through ground electrodes.
Conversely, a building with non-conducting roof and steel supporting columns will be
provided with air terminals on the roof which will be bonded to the support structural
members. These members will in turn be connected to the grounding system.
As discussed earlier, the reinforcement bars of RCC support columns may themselves
be used as down conductors as they provide the required continuity. Also, the RCC
footings at the base of columns can be considered earth electrodes, provided that the
required minimum earth resistance values are achieved.
The design of lightning protection systems has to be, therefore, done with due
consideration to the type of structure being protected.

4.7 Side flash

When a lightning protection system of a building carries the discharge current of a
lightning strike of several kA (peak value), a potential difference develops along the
path of the discharge current. This is mainly due to the interaction between the steep-
fronted current surge and the self-inductance of the downconductor. Thus, the
downconductors and other exposed parts as well as the grounding electrode itself
may attain potentials of a very high magnitude with reference to the general earth
mass. Such high potential differences between the lightning protection system
conductors and other earthed metallic objects located close to them may cause
electrical breakdown of the intervening air-gap and thus result in a flash. This
phenomenon is called side flash. Refer to Figure 4.15 illustrating such a case. In fact,
side flashes may even be caused between two adjacent structures, one of which is
subjected to a lightning strike, if the potential rise is large enough.

Figure 4.15
Example of side flash between two structures (Source: Australian Standard AS/NZ
1768)
Even if there is no arcing, such a potential difference may cause electrocution of
personnel inside the protected premises, as they can inadvertently be in contact with
two metal surfaces with a large potential difference between them. In fact, most of
the lightning-related fatalities inside buildings happen as a result of this phenomenon.
The occurrence of a side flash may be inhibited in two ways - by isolation or by
bonding. We will discuss these methods in detail below.

4.7.1 Isolation
Isolation involves keeping the lightning protection conductors separate from the rest
of the building components by proper electrical clearances and by using appropriate
levels of external insulation of the conductors.
Though this sounds simple, it is difficult to achieve in practice, particularly in large
multi-level structures because of the very high values of potential difference. It is very
difficult to maintain the required air clearances for preventing break down at such
potentials. Also, the installation of other services at a later date violating the required
clearances cannot altogether be ruled out. Moreover, when the lightning conductors
are mounted on earthed building structures, the required degree of high impulse
strength insulation may be difficult to achieve. Another possibility is that even the
other metal surfaces in a structure (apart from the lightning conductor) may assume
high potentials. This can happen due to proximity of the buried portion of these
services and the grounding path of the lightning protection systems. For these
reasons, isolation is not considered useful for any except very small structures.
4.7.2 Bonding
Bonding involves connecting together all metal surfaces such as window frames, hand
rails of balcony/other platforms, external metal staircases, etc., at various levels with
the lightning protection system so that are all effectively brought to the same
potential, thus preventing side flashing. (Hence, this method is also called
equipotential bonding). Bonding will, in addition, eliminate dangerous potential
differences between simultaneously accessible metal surfaces, resulting in improved
personnel safety.
The general requirements for bonding (stipulations extracted from standard AS:1768)
are as follows:
Where practicable, all structural steel and metallic reinforcement in a structure not
forming a part of the lightning protection system should be bonded to that system.
Metal that is attached to the outer surface of a structure should preferably be bonded
as directly as possible to the lightning protection system. Where bonding is difficult
and where the consequences of side flashing to isolated metalwork is not considered
serious, bonding may be omitted.
Where such metal has considerable length, e.g. cables, pipes, gutters, stairways, and
runs approximately parallel to a downconductor or column, it should be bonded to the
lightning protection system at each end and at intervals of not more than 10 m.
Where there is insufficient clearance from the lightning protection system, metal
entering or leaving a structure in the form of cable sheathing/armoring or piping for
electric, gas, water, telephone, steam, compressed air or other services, should be
bonded as directly as possible to the grounding system at the point of entry or exit
outside the structure on the supply side of the service.
In the bonding of adjacent metalwork to the lightning protection system, careful
consideration should be given to the possible effects such bonding would have upon
metalwork, which may be cathodic-protected.
In the ground, bonding between the grounding network of any structure and buried
metal service pipes is essential, unless the service can be effectively isolated. If this is
not done, an electrical breakdown can occur through the soil between these systems
and the resulting arc can cause structural damage or may even puncture a service
pipe. Surge protective devices may usually be fitted where such direct connection is
unacceptable so that the connection is established only while conducting a lightning
surge.
4.8 Alternative hypothesis for protection adequacy
We discussed the traditional approaches to lightning protection design in the previous
section. Designers no longer favor the cone of protection method, which was used to
assess the effectiveness of the Franklin Rod method of protection, as it results in
inadequate protection of tall structures. The Rolling Sphere Method (RSM) provides a
better assessment of protection but results in a conservative design. Moreover, the
classical RSM by itself does not consider the effects of field intensification created by
the structure (or other nearby features) as a basis for upward leader inception.
Correct placement of lightning conductors on a building based on the susceptibility to
lightning attachment is a very important consideration in achieving a good degree of
protection (as discussed earlier).
Some of the other drawbacks of this method are:
Main lightning-related parameters, such as leader charge distribution, leader
propagation, etc., are not adequately represented
Effects of altitude on air breakdown parameters not considered
Applicability for the wide range of structure shapes and dimensions encountered in
practice is doubtful.
Variation in the lightning attachment probability of different competing features on
structures is difficult to predict.
Collection Volume Model
In 1979, Dr. A.J. Eriksson presented an improved model, which allows for the
intensification of ambient electric field created by a grounded structure. Eriksson’s
work was a fundamental step forward in lightning protection design, since it
supported the field observations that the majority of lightning flashes terminate on
the corners and nearby edges and other sharp features of unprotected structures, i.e.
the points of highest electric field intensification. The electric field is the most
important parameter in lightning protection. The ‘field intensification factor’ at a point
of interest is the ratio of electric field at that point to the ‘ambient’ value of the field
due to the thundercloud and downward leader.
Further extensions have been made to Eriksson’s model for application to practical
structures. These techniques use computer modeling of electric fields around a wide
range of 3D structures and apply the concept of ‘competing features’ to determine
how well a structure is protected. The method used by these models is known as the
Collection Volume Method (CVM). The CVM takes the physical criteria for air
breakdown, together with a knowledge of the electric field intensification created by
different points on a structure and uses this information to provide the optimum
lightning protection system for a structure, i.e. the most efficient protection design for
the required protection level.
In other words, CVM is simply an improved version of the Electro-geometric Model
with an enhanced striking distance relationship. In this method, the striking distance
is taken as a function of both the peak current and the field intensification factor for a
given prospective strike point on the building. Refer to Figure 4.16 illustrating the CVM
principle.

Figure 4.16
The collection volume method
The striking distance surface shown in the above figure is hemispherical in shape with
a radius whose value is smaller for weaker ground flashes. That is, weaker lightning
flashes have to travel nearer to the grounding electrode to generate an upward
leader. The striking hemisphere will thus be arrived at based on the level of protection
desired; higher the protection levels smaller the sphere. The striking distance
relationship is shown in table 4.3 given below.
Table 4.3
Striking distance relationship with peak lightning current
Peak First Stroke Current (kA) Striking Distance (m)
6.5 34
8 39
10 45
16 61
However, not every downward leader that enters the hemisphere will be automatically
intercepted by the lightning electrode. Other upward leaders from adjacent objects or
even the ground may intercept the leaders that enter the hemisphere at a very low
height and at low velocities. The parabolic curve shown in the figure thus represents
the Equal Probability locus (or velocity-derived Locus). The space bounded by the
hemisphere and parabola is called the Collection Volume.
The effectiveness of protection electrode depends on the relative collection volumes
of the electrode vis-à-vis the other competing points on the building surface where a
high concentration of electric field intensity can occur. This will include sharp corners,
edges, masts and other projections. The larger the collection volume of air terminals
the higher the probability of sending out an upward streamer which can meet the
downward leader before any other streamer originating from other competing points.
Figure 4.17 illustrates this action.

Figure 4.17
Protection evaluation using the Collection Volume Method
For example, Strike 1 with a higher flash intensity is likely to be attracted by the air
terminal ‘A’. But another flash (Strike 2) of lower intensity which meets the striking
distance surface at a point below the velocity locus will possibly attach itself to the
streamer from edge ‘B’ of the building. This means that air terminal ‘A’ cannot reliably
protect the entire building against low intensity flashes. More number of rods may be
required to provide a satisfactory degree of protection.
The CVM approach to lightning protection thus overcomes some of the deficiencies of
the electro-geometric approach, particularly in its ability to assess the strike
probability taking other competing points on the building geometry into consideration.
It also permits the other lightning-related parameters, such as leader charge
distribution, leader propagation, etc., as well as the effects of altitude on air
breakdown to be integrated into the assessment.
However, it must be stressed that none of the International or National standard has
based its recommendations based on this theory.

4.9 Non-conventional lightning protection systems

In all our discussions about lightning protection, it must be kept in mind that lightning
being a natural phenomenon, it is impossible to predict with 100% accuracy the
behavior of a lightning flash. So irrespective of the theoretical basis adopted, any
protection method may not be completely successful in preventing lightning
attachment on unprotected points of a structure. The second difficulty is the
impossibility of duplicating a lightning flash in a laboratory. While a system may
perform very well under laboratory conditions, its success under field conditions
cannot be guaranteed. Several non-conventional protection systems have emerged in
the market based mainly on laboratory experiments, each claiming to offer enhanced
protection at lower costs. The underlying methods used in many of these devices do
not appear to have adequate scientific basis and even their claims of enhanced
protection are disputed in several publications. We will however discuss the non-
conventional lightning protection systems briefly so that readers are acquainted with
the existence of such alternative methods.
Non-conventional protection systems can be classified under the following two
categories. The first is the Early Streamer emission system. The other is the
Charge Transfer System (also sometimes called Static Dissipation Array). We will
now discuss each of these approaches to lightning protection.

4.9.1 Early streamer emission system

These systems deploy vertical air terminals where an intense electric field is induced
whenever a downward leader is detected, resulting in an upward streamer from the
tip of the electrode much earlier than those from the ordinary Franklin rod type of
(passive) electrodes (hence the name early streamer emission).
The active air terminals provided in these systems (which are vertical rods with an
active component at their tip) generate a high electrical field as soon as a downward
leader from a cloud starts towards the ground and immediately cause an upward
leader to emanate from the air terminal. Though a normal air terminal also behaves in
roughly the same fashion, the active protection systems claim faster reaction time. As
a result, the upward leader from the active air terminal reaches out much higher
resulting in the lightning stroke to be invariably directed to the ground through the
protection system. The longer striking distances and larger collection volumes of the
active air terminals normally means that fewer such terminals are required on a
structure. They should be positioned such that their collection volumes overlap the
natural small collection volumes of the structural projections. Computer applications
are available to predict the effectiveness of such active air terminals and allow the
designer to interactively select the number and height of the air terminals and also
experiment with various placement locations of these terminals on a specific building
model.
There are several types of early streamer emission systems. All of them employ
specially designed air terminals that are claimed to create enhanced ionization near
the air terminal. They do this in the following ways.
By employing radioactive sources.
By a special arrangement of passive electronics and electrodes that facilitate the
electrical breakdown of small spark gaps in a high electric field of the approaching
stepped leader.
By the application of an external voltage to the air terminal from a man-made source.
The key to the success of the Early Streamer Emission Systems is their claimed ability
to propagate a streamer at a velocity of about 106 m per second upwards. This does
not appear to have been satisfactorily achieved under actual field conditions, thus
raising doubt about the effectiveness of these systems. The paper by Hartono and
Robiah, mentioned earlier, has also documented cases where buildings protected by
such devices have been struck and sustained damage.
4.9.2 Charge transfer system
The principle of the charge transfer system is based on the fact that the field
intensification observed near sharp points during thunderstorm activity can cause a
stream of charge flow from the ground towards the ionized cloud system, thus
nullifying the charge and preventing a ground flash from happening. For this reason,
they are also referred to as ‘Lightning Elimination systems’. Since they achieve this
using a multiple array of sharp pointed electrodes, they are also called ‘Static
Dissipation Arrays’.
Lightning elimination systems include one or more elevated arrays of sharp points,
often similar to barbed wire, that are installed on or near the structure to be
protected. These arrays are connected to grounding electrodes via down conductors
as in the case of conventional lightning protection systems. The principle of operation
of lightning elimination systems is that the charge released via corona discharge at
the sharp points will either:
Discharge the overhead thundercloud, thereby eliminating any possibility of lightning
(this is why such arrays are sometimes referred to as ‘dissipation arrays’) or;
Discourage a downward-moving leader from attaching to the array and to the
structure to be protected by reducing the electric field near the array and, hence,
suppress the initiation of an upward-connecting leader.
Either way, the protected structure is not subjected to the effects of the flash. The
following argument is advanced in favor of this type of protection. While the attraction
methods described earlier can encourage the lightning flash to attach itself to the
protective air terminal (thus bypassing the discharge current from flowing through the
protected structure), they cannot prevent damage to sensitive systems within the
structure by indirect, induced surges. So a system which can suppress a lightning
strike is better from the point of view of avoiding indirect surge damage. The users of
such systems are air traffic control towers and utility substations, both of which
usually house sensitive monitoring and communication equipment. However, some of
the experimental installations have reported that the desired results were not
achieved, as is evident from the following.
Beginning in 1988, the US Federal Aviation Administration carried out a test of ‘multi-
point discharge lightning protection systems’ in Florida. At the conclusion of this study
in 1990, the FAA submitted as follows.
‘The study shows that the LDS (Lightning Dissipation System) did not out-perform the
standard FAA lightning protection system during periods of storm activity. We have
also proven, to our satisfaction, that we can prevent damage to FAA facilities with a
properly designed overall protection scheme using standard Franklin air terminals at a
much lower cost. For these reasons, we will continue to protect FAA facilities with the
standard lightning protection system. The lightning dissipation systems at the Tampa
airport and the lightning deterrent systems at the Orlando airport were removed and
replaced with the standard Franklin air terminal systems.’
The FAA final report itself on FAATC T16 Power Systems Program, ACN-210 was more
specific:
‘It can be concluded from the video tapes and the magnetic tapes that there were
lightning strikes to both the Sarasota and Tampa Air Traffic Control Towers.
(Conventional lightning protection was installed on the Sarasota tower which suffered
no damage from the strike. A lightning dissipation array was installed on the tower at
Tampa; ‘several systems suffered outages at Tampa as a result of this incident.’) It
can also be concluded that loss of equipment from lightning strikes to a facility can be
attributed to improper protection practices.’
4.9.3 To use or not to use
Quite a lot of literature in the form of user testimonies is available to support the
claims of manufacturers of non-conventional protection systems. Equally impressive
counterclaims from eminent researchers are also documented, disputing their
effectiveness. Whether these systems can prevent damage under all situations in
spite of their often-impeccable performance under laboratory conditions, is still under
a cloud of doubt.
The conventional methods, particularly the lightning protection system using a
combination of horizontal and vertical terminals with properly selected placement of
air terminals in vulnerable points, downconductors and ground electrodes seems to be
the safer choice, though such systems are more conservative and expensive. Users
will be well advised to keep an open mind and carefully analyze the claims of various
kinds of systems available in the market. Satisfactory field performance can alone be
the final proof of the effectiveness of any system and this must be insisted upon while
selecting any protection system for use in critical installations.
4.10 Summary
Modern buildings are either constructed out of a frame of conducting materials such
as steel or have a considerable amount of embedded steel materials as in the case of
reinforced cement concrete construction. By using appropriate methods to ensure
continuity of the conducting frame all the way to the soil, such structures can be
made to offer an excellent degree of lightning protection.
The first task in design of a protection system is to ascertain the need for protection
by a risk assessment procedure. Mesh type of protection with a combination of
vertical and horizontal air terminals, down conductors and earth electrodes is the
most common type of protection adopted. Once a protection system is decided upon,
it is verified whether the building in question is fully covered by the protection system,
using the zone of protection principle. Cone of protection, Rolling Sphere and
collection volume are different methods available to verify coverage. Current
standards follow the Rolling Sphere method, but the collection volume method, which
takes into account the field intensification factor of the competing features of a
building has a better mathematical basis.
Non conventional protection systems are also available and are based on either the
‘early streamer emission’ approach or the ‘lightning elimination’ by a dissipation
array. Users should exercise utmost caution if they wish to opt for these systems, as
their effectiveness is not established beyond question.
Building elements made of conducting material or having embedded conducting
material such as reinforcement bars may be used as part of the lightning protection
system by ensuring proper electrical continuity between different elements. Where
external conductors are to be provided in lightning protection systems, copper and
galvanised steel strips are the most commonly recommended materials.
The very high potential differences that can arise due to the flow of lighting discharge
currents through a protection system can cause side flashes. Proper bonding of all
exposed metal parts ensures that such flashes do not occur, besides improving
personnel safety by eliminating high potential differences between simultaneously
accessible metal surfaces. Bonding of buried metal pipes and metal components of
other services with the lightning protection system is equally essential to avoid arcing
in the soil and consequent damage.
6.1 Objectives of grounding
Grounding is a term that is used to represent the connection of a metallic object
(which may include an electrical conductor) to ground. Grounding can be grouped
under the following major categories.
Electrical system grounding, which can be classified further as:
 Neutral grounding of electrical supply source (which can be considered to include
grounding at the service entrance cabinet in user premises).
 Grounding of metallic enclosures of electrical equipment
 Grounding of lightning protection system
 Signal reference grounding
Each of these categories of grounding has certain definite objectives.
The main objective of electrical grounding is the safety of personnel. Electrical system
grounding has the following functions:
It provides a reference for the entire power system to the ground mass and
establishes a path for flow of currents to ground whenever there is a failure of
insulation so that the fault can be detected by circuit protective devices and isolated.
It ensures that in the event of an accidental connection of live parts to a conducting
metallic enclosure, any person coming in contact with the enclosure does not
experience dangerously high voltages. This is done by bonding the enclosure to the
ground so that the potential of the enclosure is firmly ‘clamped’ to that of the ground.
As we have seen in the earlier chapters, grounding of lightning protection system
provides a low impedance conductive path for the energy of a lightning discharge
(attracted by the lightning air terminations) into ground. The ground (soil) thus acts as
an infinite sink for the discharge and prevents excessive voltages from appearing
along the conducting path. Such voltages may be impressed upon the occupants of a
facility as touch, step or transferred voltages.
Signal reference grounding has the principal objective of controlling noise in signal
circuits, which in turn is due to interference from high frequency external signals
including those due to lightning.
In this chapter we will discuss the relation between grounding and safety. We will
examine the facts about electric shock hazards and the touch/step potential dangers.

6.2 Electric shock

Electric shock is the result of flow of electric current through the human body. The
human body presents a certain amount of resistance to the flow of electric current.
This, however, is not a constant value. It depends on factors such as body weight, the
manner in which contact occurs and the parts of the body that are in contact with the
earth. A human body may bridge a live part and ground. The potential difference thus
impressed on the body causes a flow of current through the resistance presented by
the body and results in electric shock. Figure 6.1 illustrates the electrical equivalent of
a human body.

Figure 6.1
Electrical equivalent circuit of a human body
A flow of electric current through the body affects the functioning of muscles which
are themselves controlled by minute electrical signals from the nervous system. If the
flow of current through the human body involves the heart muscles, it can produce a
condition known as fibrillation of the heart denoting cardiac malfunction. If allowed to
continue, this can cause death. The threshold of time for which a human body can
withstand flow of current depends on the body weight and the current flowing through
the body. An empirical relation has been developed to arrive at this value:

Where
tS = Duration of exposure in seconds (limits of 0.3 and 3 sec)
IB = RMS Magnitude of current through the body
SB = Empirical constant
Using this relation and assuming a normal body weight of 70 kg, it can be calculated
that:

Where
IB = RMS Magnitude of current through the body (Amps)
tS = Duration of exposure in seconds
(Decided by the operation of protective devices)
This value, however, has to be used with care. For example, a considerable portion of
the body resistance is due to the outer skin. Any loss of skin due to burning in contact
with electrical conductors can lower the resistance and increase the current flow to
dangerous values.
In general, two modes of electrical potential application can happen. One is a person
standing on the ground and touching an electrically live part. The other is the case of
a potential difference between two points on the ground being applied across the two
feet with the distance being about 1 meter. Refer to Figure 6.2, which illustrates these
conditions.

Figure 6.2
Modes of application of electric potential
Since the human body presents different values of resistance to the flow of electricity
in these two modes, the voltage limits for tolerance of human body are calculated
individually for both cases as follows.
Case-1 Contact with live part by hand:
Where
RA is the touch voltage circuit resistance (ohm)
RB is the body resistance (taken as 1000 ohms)
RF is the self resistance of each foot to remote earth in ohms
RMF is the mutual resistance between the feet in ohms

Case-2 Contact with feet:

Where
RA is the Step Voltage Circuit resistance in Ohms
RB is the Body Resistance Taken as 1000 Ohm
RF is the self resistance of each foot to remote earth in ohms
RMF is the Mutual resistance between feet in Ohms

The type of contact that normally happens in electrical equipment and installations is
mostly of the first mode. The voltage in this mode of contact is called Touch Potential.
Electric shock because the touch potential in the electrical equipment develops due to
direct contact with a live part or indirect contact with a part, which is not normally live
but assumes dangerous potentials under certain circumstances such as insulation
failure. Indirect contact invariably involves the metallic enclosure of electrical
equipment.
The occurrence of the second mode of contact is specific to outdoor electrical
substations with structure-mounted equipment. This voltage is known as Step
Potential. Step potential is a result of potential difference between two points of the
soil when there is a ground fault involving flow of electric current through soil layers.
In the case of lightning, both touch and step potentials can occur depending on the
way the human body bridges the points of potential difference. Inside the buildings, it
is invariably the touch mode. In outdoor locations, it is the step mode, which is likely
to come into play. We had already illustrated these concepts in chapter 2 in Figure
2.12. These are very similar to the concepts discussed above for electric power
frequency currents, except that the impedances too play a major role in the case of
lightning discharges unlike the case of power frequency currents where resistance
value is the most important consideration.
A particularly dangerous variation of the touch potential is the transferred potential,
which was also illustrated in the figure cited. Unlike shock situations involving
electrical equipment, electric shock due to lightning need not involve any electrical
equipment. The path of lightning current is where voltage differences arise. Thus, a
person who is in contact with the lightning down-conductor may be in danger because
of the potential difference that appears on this surface when it conducts lightning
discharge. Then there are other possibilities too. Dangerous potential differences can
be ‘fed back’ into the building by metallic services such as water piping which are in
contact with the soil. When the piping of these services runs through the building, it
conveys the potential of the soil with which it is in contact into the building premises.
This can be very different from the local voltage of the other surfaces because of the
passage of lightning current through the building structure. Such dangerous potentials
can be avoided either by maintaining complete isolation (by suitable insulation, which
can be quite difficult) or by electrically connecting various conducting surfaces with
which a person can simultaneously come into contact (bonding) so that there is no
relative potential difference between them. These were discussed in the previous
chapter under the section on side flashes with regard to lightning protection. In
general, bonding is a desirable course of action for ensuring safety against electric
shock; not only for lightning protection system but also for all the other conducting
parts including electrical grounding. We will discuss the basics of bonding and the
requirements of a typical standard (BS 7671) for ‘equipotential’ bonding. Note that
‘equipotential’ and ‘supplementary’ bonding requirements are discussed in the
context of electrical power distribution safety but the principles apply for all situations
of electric shock as well, including lightning safety.
6.3 Objectives of bonding
In the foregoing section, we covered the basic principles of electric shock hazards. We
have also covered in earlier chapters the physics of lightning and how surges due to
lightning strokes are safely conducted to ground using a lightning protection system
consisting of air terminations, down conductors and grounding electrodes. Both these
grounding systems are inherently noise prone, since the conduction of surges and
fault currents into ground is accompanied by a rise of voltage of the conducting parts
connected to these systems with reference to the local earth mass. When sensitive
electronic equipment first started appearing in the work place, it was usual for the
manufacturers of these equipment to demand (and get) a separate isolated ground
reference electrode since it was claimed that connecting these systems with the
building ground would affect their operation due to the ground noise. Thus, the
concept of ‘clean’ ground was born as opposed to the other ‘dirty’ ground.
While this did give a solution of sorts to the problem of noise, it violated the
fundamental requirement of personnel safety. Figure 6.3 below shows isolated
groundings.

Figure 6.3
Isolated grounding systems
Here, we see three different types of ground each isolated from the others; the power
system ground, the lightning protection ground and the ‘clean’ electronic ground.
While this is perfectly trouble-free most of the time (when no lightning discharge or
power system faults occur), the situation becomes positively dangerous when there is
a surge due to lightning or faults. As we saw earlier, when lightning strikes a building,
it produces a momentary high voltage in the grounding conductors due to the
inherently fast rise time of the discharge and the impedance of the grounding
leads/electrodes. Similarly, when there is an insulation failure, the flow of substantial
earth fault current causes a perceptible rise of voltage in the metal parts exposed to
these faults and the associated grounding conductors (limited to safe touch potential
values, but a rise all the same).
So while the clean ground which does not develop these high potentials remains at
true ground potential, other metal parts or building structures or flooring in its vicinity
can all assume a high potential, albeit briefly, during surges and faults. It means that
a high potential can and does develop between the electronic ground and the
equipment connected to it and the building ground or the lightning protection ground,
which gives rise to inherently unsafe situations both for personnel and for the
equipment connected to the ‘clean ground.’
Another problem with an isolated ground is that the ground resistance of a system,
which uses one or two electrodes, is much higher than the common ground. The touch
potential of the electronic equipment enclosures in the event of an earth fault within
the equipment may therefore exceed safe limits. The answer to these problems
therefore lies in connecting all these different grounding systems together (refer to
Figure 6.4)

Figure 6.4
Grounding systems brought to a common electrode
The figure above shows all three grounding systems tied at a single point to the
ground. Theoretically, this arrangement will prevent differential potentials between
different grounds. But in practice, such a common ground electrode will have a high
value of impedance, which cannot properly disperse lightning surges and will cause an
undue potential rise in the grounding system with respect to the earth mass. The
arrangement is therefore not of much practical value.
Figure 6.5 shows a system with multiple grounding points with different types of
electrodes bonded together to form a low impedance ground path which ties together
all forms of grounding within the building. It prevents the grounding system from
attaining dangerous potential rise with reference to the general earth mass and also
avoids differential voltages between the building’s exposed metallic surfaces and
equipment enclosures.
It is this type of system that is installed in any modern facility to ensure that no
unsafe conditions develop during lighting strikes or ground faults. The grounding
system safely conducts away the surge currents through lightning downconductors as
well as currents conducted by different surge protection devices connected to the
electrical system into the ground path without causing undue potential differences
anywhere within the system.
Bonding of the different grounding systems is thus the first step towards protection of
sensitive equipment against surges. In fact, it is not only the electrical reference
points which need to be bonded, but also all kinds of metallic surfaces which can give
rise to a differential potential. We will discuss this aspect in the next section on
equipotential bonding.
In some cases, the bonding of communication reference points with the rest of the
grounded systems may not be desirable. At the same time, keeping them totally
isolated will cause unsafe conditions when there is a lightning strike (or a ground fault
in the electrical system). In these cases, connection is done through a surge
protection device (sometimes called a differential ground clamp). This device keeps
the systems isolated under normal conditions, but if there is a substantial potential
difference, then the device breaks down and equalizes the potential, thus making the
system safe.

Figure 6.5
An integrated grounding system
6.4 Equipotential bonding
Equipotential bonding is essentially an electrical connection maintaining various
exposed conductive parts and extraneous conductive parts at substantially the same
potential. BS 7671 defines these terms as follows.
Definition: EXPOSED CONDUCTIVE PART
A conductive part of equipment which can be touched and which is not a live part but
which may become live under fault conditions.
Definition: EXTRANEOUS CONDUCTIVE PART
A conductive part liable to introduce a potential, generally earth potential, and not
forming part of the electrical installation.
An earthed equipotential zone is one within which exposed conductive parts and
extraneous conductive parts are maintained at substantially the same potential by
bonding, so that, under fault conditions, the difference in potential between
simultaneously accessible exposed and extraneous conductive parts will not cause
electric shock. In the case of an equipment which handles both power and signal
circuits, the relative potential that can occur during such conditions is minimized, thus
avoiding failure of sensitive components.
Bonding is the practice of connecting all accessible metalwork – whether associated
with the electrical installation (known as exposed-metalwork) or not (extraneous-
metalwork) – to the system earth. In a building, there are typically a number of
services other than electrical supply that employ metallic connections in their design.
These include water piping, gas piping, HVAC ducting, signal circuits, communication
circuits, lightning protection conductors and so on. A building may also contain steel
structures in its construction.
There is thus a possibility that a dangerous potential may develop between the
conducting parts of non-electrical systems including building structures and the
external conducting parts of electrical installations as well as the surrounding earth.
This may give rise to undesirable current flow through paths that are not normally
designed to carry current (such as joints in building structures) and also cause
hazardous situations of indirect shock. It is, therefore, necessary that all such parts
are bonded to the electrical service earth point of the building to ensure safety of
occupants. This is called equipotential bonding. Such bonding, particularly when
involving lightning conductors must be carried out carefully. In the case of a structure
with several floors, the voltage drop along the lightning downconductors can be quite
high due to the steep wave front of the lightning surge and can introduce dangerous
voltages. Therefore equipotential bonding must be done at each level of the building
covering all the accessible metallic surfaces. Such multiple bonding may also be
necessary in other cases, as we will discuss below.
There are two aspects to the equipotential bonding; the main bonding where services
enter the building and supplementary bonding within rooms, particularly kitchens and
bathrooms. Main bonding should interconnect the incoming gas, water and electricity
service where these are metallic but can be omitted where the services are run in
plastic, as is frequently the case nowadays. Internally, bonding should link any items,
which are likely to either be at earth potential or which may become live in the event
of a fault and which are sufficiently large that they can contact a significant part of
the body or can be gripped. Small parts, other than those likely to be gripped, are
ignored because the instinctive reaction to a shock is muscular contraction, which will
break the circuit.
In each electrical installation, main equipotential bonding conductors (grounding
wires) are required to connect to the main grounding terminal for the installation of
the following:
 Metal water service pipes
 Metal gas installation pipes
 Other metal service pipes and ducting
 Metal central heating and air conditioning systems
 Exposed metal structural parts of the building
 Lightning protection systems
 Communication and signal cable sheaths
It is important to note that the reference above is always to metal pipes components.
If the pipes/components are made of plastic, they need not be bonded.
If the incoming pipes are made of plastic but the pipes within the electrical installation
are made of metal, then main bonding must be carried out; the bonding being applied
on the customer side of any meter, main stopcock or insulating insert and of course to
the metal pipes of the installation.
Such bonding is also necessary between the earth conductors of electrical systems
and those of separately derived computer power supply systems, communication,
signal and data systems and lightning protection earthing of a building. Many
equipment failures in sensitive computing and communication equipment are
attributable to the insistence of the vendors to keep them separated from the
electrical service earth. Besides equipment failures, such a practice also poses safety
hazards particularly when lightning discharges take place in the vicinity. In such
cases, large potential difference can arise for very short periods between metal parts
of different services unless they are properly bonded. Some of the case studies in a
later chapter deal with this issue.
If the incoming services are made of plastic and the piping within the building is of
plastic, then no main bonding is required. If some of the services are of metal and
some are plastic, then those that are of metal must be main bonded.
Supplementary or additional equipotential bonding (earthing) is required in locations
of increased shock risk. In domestic premises, the locations identified as having this
increased shock risk are rooms containing a bath or shower (bathrooms) and in the
areas surrounding swimming pools.
There is no specific requirement to carry out supplementary bonding in domestic
kitchens, washrooms and lavatories that do not have a bath or shower. That is not to
say that supplementary bonding in a kitchen or washroom is wrong but it is not
necessary.
For plastic pipe installation within a bathroom, the plastic pipes do not require
supplementary bonding and metal fittings attached to these plastic pipes also would
not require supplementary bonding. However, electrical equipment still does need to
be bonded and if an electric shower, or radiant heater is fitted, they will need to be
supplementary-bonded as well.
Supplementary bonding is carried out to the earth terminal of equipment within the
bathroom with exposed-conductive part. A supplementary bond is not run back to the
main earth. Metal baths supplied by metal pipes do not require supplementary
bonding if all the pipes are bonded and there is no other connection of the bath to
earth. All bonding connections must be accessible and labeled: “SAFETY OF
ELECTRICAL CONNECTION - DO NOT REMOVE”.
6.5 Routing of grounding conductors
The routing of grounding conductors in general and lightning protection system
conductors in particular, needs to be done with care. We have seen in the earlier
chapter the need for avoiding sharp bends in the lightning downconductors. Two
aspects need mention in this context.
Routing of any conductor that carries surge currents should be kept as short as
possible. This reduces the conductor impedance and, therefore, the voltage drop
across the conductor. This is also applicable to the grounding conductors connected to
surge protection devices. When the surge suppressors act to conduct line surges to
ground, a steep fronted current wave passes through the device to ground. The
voltage of the grounding terminal will depend on the inductance of the grounding
conductor, which in turn depends on its length. For a typical lightning surge with a
rate of rise of typically 10 kA/micro-second, the voltage drop in the length of the
grounding conductor is substantial. The voltage on the terminals of the equipment,
which is to be protected, is the sum of the lightning surge suppressor’s breakdown
voltage and the voltage drop in the grounding wire. Figure 6.6 illustrates this
principle.

Figure 6.6
Ground connection of surge suppressor of a transformer
The other aspect is that of enclosing the grounding conductors in metallic protective
conduits for mechanical protection. This can cause the following problem. In the case
of a lightning discharge, the current flow is only in one direction since it flows to
equalize the charges already present. Providing a steel protective sleeve of a
magnetic material such as steel around this conductor has the effect of increasing the
reactance of the conductor by a factor of about 40.
Take for example, a coil wound on a transformer without core connected to an AC
supply. Now put a magnetic core within the former. You will notice that the current
drops sharply because of the increased inductance. The pipe sleeve behaves in a
similar fashion as the core. Refer to Figure 6.7.
To avoid this problem, it is necessary to bond the grounding conductor at both
entrance and exit points with each integral section of the metallic enclosure. This
results in reduction of inductance and, therefore, the voltage drop. Simultaneously,
the metal sleeve also acts as a parallel grounding conductor and causes the voltage
drop to reduce further (refer to Figure 6.8). This discussion is also equally applicable
to grounding conductors, which carry surge currents or lightning discharge currents
from surge protective devices described earlier in this section.

Figure 6.7
Coil with and without a core

Figure 6.8
Bonding of earth conductor within a pipe sleeve
We will learn about the design of grounding system and the materials used for this
purpose. The practices adopted in different countries follow the national
standards/codes that are specified by the appropriate authority and can be
significantly different. We will limit our discussion to the general principles involved in
the design of earth electrode system.
6.6 Ground electrodes
The final link in the grounding system is the ground electrode. Any type of grounding
system be it the power system ground, lightning protection ground or the
communication reference ground, it must terminate to a ground electrode (or
electrodes) which is in direct contact with the soil mass. In the case of lightning
protection system, it directs the lightning energy captured by air terminals and
conducted by the downconductors to the ground mass. The design and installation
practices adopted for ground electrodes in different countries follow the national
standards/codes that are specified by the appropriate authority and can be
significantly different. We will, therefore, limit our discussion to the general principles
involved in the design of earth electrode system.
The construction of grounding electrodes depends on local codes applicable. The
purpose, however, is common. It is to establish a low resistance (and preferably low
impedance) path to the soil mass. It can be done using conductors that are
exclusively meant for this function or by structures/conductors used for other
functions but which are essentially in contact with soil. However, while using the latter
category, it must be ensured that the ground connection is not inadvertently lost
during repair works or for any other reason.
Factors contributing to ground electrode resistance
 The resistance of a ground electrode is made up of the following components:
 The resistance of electrode material
 Contact resistance of the electrode with soil
 Resistance of the soil itself.
The values of the first two are quite low compared to the last and can be neglected.
We will discuss the third, viz. resistance of the soil, in further detail.
6.7 Soil resistance
Though the ground itself, being a very large body that can act as an infinite sink for
currents flowing into it, can be considered to have very low resistance to current flow,
the resistance of soil layers immediately adjacent to the electrode is considerable.
Soil has a definite resistance determined by its resistivity that varies depending upon
the type of soil, presence of moisture, conductive salts in the soil and the soil
temperature. The soil resistance component of ground electrode resistance is thus
decided by the soil resistivity and the electrode geometry. Soil resistivity can be
defined as the resistance of a cube of soil of 1 m size measured between any two
opposite faces. The unit in which it is usually expressed is ohm meters.

Figure 6.9
Soil resistivity
Resistance of the sample of soil shown in Figure 6.9 can be arrived at by the formula:

Where
R is the resistance between the faces P and Q in Ohms
A is the Area of faces P and Q in m2
L is the length of the sample in meters and
ρ is the soil resistivity in Ohm meters
Soil resistivity for a given type of soil may vary widely depending on:
The presence of conducting salts
Moisture content
Temperature
Level of compaction
Conducting salts may be present naturally in the soil or added externally for lowering
the resistivity. Chlorides, nitrates and sulphates of sodium, potassium, magnesium or
calcium are generally used as soil additives. However, the addition of such salts can
be corrosive and in some cases undesirable from the environmental point of view.
Especially, the presence of calcium sulphate in the soil is detrimental to concrete
foundations and in case it is to be used for electrode quality enhancements, it should
be limited to electrodes situated well away from such foundations. Also, over a period
of time, they tend to leach away from the vicinity of the electrode. Moreover, these
additive salts have to get dissolved first in the moisture present in the soil in order to
lower the resistivity and provision should be made for addition of water to the soil
surrounding the electrode to accelerate this process particularly in dry locations.
Moisture is an essential requirement for good soil conductivity. Moisture content of
the soil can vary with the season and it is advisable for this reason to locate the
electrodes at a depth at which moisture would be present throughout the year so that
soil resistivity does not vary too much during the annual weather cycle. There is also
the possibility of evaporation of moisture during ground faults of high magnitude (in
the long run). The electrode design must take care of this aspect. We will cover this in
more detail later in this chapter.
Temperature also has an effect on soil resistivity but its effect is predominant at or
near 0º Celsius when the resistivity sharply goes up. Similarly, compaction condition
of the soil affects resistivity. Loose soil is more resistive in comparison to compacted
soil. Rocky soil is highly resistive and where rock is encountered, special care has to
be taken. One of the methods of increasing soil conductivity is by surrounding the
electrode with bentonite clay, which has the ability to retain water and it also provides
a layer of high conductivity. Unlike salts mentioned earlier, bentonite is a natural clay,
which contains the mineral monmorillionite formed due to volcanic action. It is non-
corrosive and does not leach away as the electrolyte is a part of the clay itself. It is
also very stable. The low resistivity of bentonite is mainly a result of an electrolytic
process between water and oxides of sodium, potassium and calcium present in this
material. When water is added to bentonite, it swells up to 13 times of its initial
volume and adheres to any surface it is in contact with. Also, when exposed to
sunlight, it seals itself off and prevents drying of lower layers.
Any such enhancement measures must be periodically repeated to keep up the
grounding electrode quality. A section later in this chapter describes about electrodes,
which use these principles to dramatically lower the resistance of individual
electrodes under extreme soil conditions. Such electrodes are commonly known as
‘Chemical Electrodes.’
IEEE 142 gives several useful tables, which enable us to determine the soil resistivity
for commonly encountered soils under various conditions; these can serve as a
guideline for designers of grounding systems. The tables are reproduced below:
Table 6.1
Effect of moisture content on soil resistivity
Resistivity in Ohm M
Moisture content
Red
% Top soil Sandy loam
Clay
2 *** 1850 ***
4 *** 600 ***
6 1350 380 ***
8 900 280 ***
10 600 220 ***
12 360 170 1800
 14 250 140 550
16 200 120 200
18 150 100 140
20 120 90 100
22 100 80 90
24 100 70 80

Table 6.2
Effect of temperature on soil resistivity
Temperature Deg. C Resistivity Ohm M
-5 700
0 300
0 100
10 80
20 70
30 60
40 50
50 40
6.8 Measurement of soil resistivity
Soil resistivity can be measured using a ground resistance tester or other similar
instruments using Wenner’s 4-pin method. The two outer pins are used to inject
current into the ground (called current electrodes) and the potential developed as a
result of this current flow is measured by two inner pins (potential electrodes). Refer
Figure 6.10.

Figure 6.10
Soil resistivity measurement
The general requirements for ground resistance testing instruments are as follows:
The instrument should be suitable for Wenner’s 4-pin method. It should give a direct
readout in ohms after processing the measured values of current injected into the soil
and the voltage across the potential electrodes.
The instrument should have its own power source with a hand driven generator or
voltage generated using batteries. The instrument will use an alternating current for
measurement.
Direct reading LCD type of display is preferable. Resistance range should be between
0.01 and 1999 ohms with range selection facility for 20, 200 and 2000 ohms for better
accuracy.
Indications should preferably be available for warning against high current through
probes, high resistance of potential probes, low source voltage and excessive noise in
the soil.
A minimum of four (4) steel test probes of length 0.5 m and sectional area of 140 sq.
mm. along with the necessary insulated leads (a pair of 30 m and another pair of 50
m) should be supplied with the instrument
All the pins should be located in a straight line with equal separating distance
between them and the pins driven to a depth of not more than 10% of this distance.
Care should be taken to ensure that the connections between the pins and the
instrument are done with insulated wires and that there is no damage in the
insulation.
The resistance of the soil between potential electrodes is determined by Ohm’s law
(R=V/I) and is computed and displayed by the instrument directly. The resistivity of
the soil is given by the formula:
ρ = 2π S R
Where
ρ is the soil resistivity in Ohm meters
S is the distance between the pins in meters as shown in fig. 6.4 and
R is the resistance measured in Ohms
Since the soil is usually not very homogeneous especially near the surface, the depth
to which the pins are driven and the separation between the pins cause resistivity
figures to vary and it can indicate the type of soil at different depths. The calculated
value of resistivity can be taken to represent the value at the depth of 0.8S where S is
the electrode spacing. The test is repeated at different values of S, viz. 1, 2, 3, 5 10
and 15 meters and tabulated. They can also be plotted in the form of a graph. A study
of the values will give some indication of the type of soil involved. A rapid increase of
resistivity at increasing D values shows layers of soil with higher resistivity. A very
rapid increase may indicate the presence of rock and will possibly prevent use of
vertical electrode. On the other hand, decrease of soil resistivity as D increases will
indicate lower resistivity soils in deeper layers where vertical electrodes can be
installed with advantage.
In the case of any abnormality in the values, the test can be repeated after driving the
pins along a different direction.
Errors can be caused by various factors in this measurement. These are listed below.
6.8.1 Errors due to stray currents
Stray currents in the soil may be the result of one or more of the following reasons:
 Differential salinity
 Differential aeration of the soil
 Bacteriological action
 Galvanic action (more on this later in the chapter)
 Ground return currents due to electric traction systems nearby
 Currents from multiple grounding of distribution system neutrals
These stray currents appear as potential drop across the voltage electrodes without a
corresponding current from the instrument’s current source. Thus, they result in
exaggerated resistivity measurements. This can be avoided by selecting an
instrument source frequency, which is different from the stray currents, and providing
filters that reject other frequencies.
6.8.2 Coupling between test leads
Improper insulation may give rise to leakage currents between the leads, which will
result in errors. Ensuring good insulation and running the current and potential leads
with a gap of at least 100 mm will prevent errors due to leakage.
6.8.3 Buried metallic objects
Buried metallic objects such as pipelines, fences, etc., may cause problems with
readings. It is advisable to orient the leads perpendicular to the buried object if
presence of such objects is known.
6.9 Resistance of a single rod electrode
The resistance of a ground electrode can be calculated once the soil resistivity is
known. For a rod driven vertically into ground, the electrode resistance is given by the
following formula:

Where
R is the resistance of the Electrode in Ohms
ρ?is the soil resistivity in Ohm meters
L is the length of the buried part of the electrode in meters and
D is the outer diameter of the rod in meters
A simplified formula for an electrode of 5/8” (16 mm) diameter driven 10’ (3m) into
the ground is:

Where
R is the resistance of the Electrode in Ohms and
ρ is the soil resistivity in Ohm meters
Knowledge of the soil resistivity alone is thus adequate to assess the electrode
resistance to a reasonable degree of accuracy. IEEE 142 gives the following table for
ready reference and it can be used to arrive at the resistance value of the standard
ground rod for different types of soil.
Table 6.3
Soil
resistivity
for
different
soil types
Average
Resistance of rod dia. 5/8” length 10’ in
Soil type resistivity
Ohms
Ohm M
600 to
Well graded gravel 180 to 300
1000
1000 to
Poorly graded gravel 300 to 750
2500
Clayey gravel 200 to 400 60 to 120
Silty sand 100 to 800 30 to 150
Clayey sands 50 to 200 15 to 60
Silty or clayey sand with slight
30 to 80 9 to 24
plasticity
Fine sandy soil 80 to 300 24 to 90
Gravelly clays 20 to 60 17 to 18
Inorganic clays of high plasticity 10 to 55 3 to 16
6.9.1 Resistance distribution in soil surrounding a single
electrode
The resistance of the soil layers immediately in the vicinity of the soil is significant in
deciding the electrode resistance. To illustrate this let us see Figure 6.11 below.
 Figure 6.11
Soil resistance distribution around a vertically driven electrode
A current that flows into the ground from a buried electrode flows radially outwards
from the electrode. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume for the purpose of
calculating the soil resistance that the soil is arranged as concentric shells of identical
thickness with the electrode at the center. The total resistance can thus be taken as
the sum of the resistance of each shell taken in tandem.
The resistance of each shell is given by the formula:

Where
R is the Resistance of the shell in Ohms
L is the thickness of the shell in meters
A is the inner surface area of the shell in sq. meters
And ρ is the soil resistivity in ohm meters
The area of the shells keeps increasing as we move away from the electrode. Thus,
the resistance of the shells keeps reducing in value. IEEE 142 has tabulated this
variation as shown in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4
Radial variation of soil resistance around a rod electrode
Distance from Electrode in
App. % of total Resistance
Feet
0.1 25
0.2 38
0.3 46
0.5 52
1.0 68
5.0 86
10.0 94
15.0 97
20.0 99
25.0 100
100.0 104
10000.0 117
It can be seen from the above table that the first 0.1’ accounts for 25% of the
resistance value and the first 1’ for 68%. At 10’ (equal to the rod length) 94% of the
resistance value has been achieved. For this reason, lowering of soil resistivity in the
immediate vicinity of the electrode is the key to lowering the electrode resistance.
Also, placing more ground electrodes in the vicinity will only interfere with the
conduction of current since the current from one electrode will increase the ground
potential, which will have the effect of decreasing the current flow from the other
nearby electrode (and vice versa).
6.10 Current carrying capacity of an electrode
When the current flow through an (ground) electrode into ground is low, the heat
generated in the ground layers gets dissipated fairly fast and does not lead to any
appreciable temperature rise. On the other hand, a high current flow, as happens
during faults in solidly grounded systems, the effect would be quite different. As we
saw earlier, the bulk of the resistance is concentrated in the immediate vicinity of the
electrode. Without adequate time for the heat generated to be conducted away, the
temperature of the ground layers surrounding the ground electrode rises sharply and
causes evaporation of soil moisture around the electrode. If this persists, the soil
around can become dry losing all the moisture present in it resulting in arcing in the
ground around the electrode. Thus, a smoking or steaming electrode results, an
electrode that is ineffective. To prevent this from happening, it is essential to limit the
flow of current flowing into the ground through an electrode as indicated by the
following formula:

Where
I is the maximum permissible current in Amperes
d is the outer diameter of the rod in meters
L is the length of the buried part of the electrode in meters and
ρ is the soil resistivity in Ohm meters and
t is the time of the fault current flow in seconds
6.11 Use of multiple ground rods in parallel
When it is not possible to obtain the minimum resistance stipulations or the ground
fault current cannot be dissipated to the soil with a single electrode, use of multiple
ground rods in parallel configuration can be resorted to. The rods are generally
arranged in a straight line or in the form of a hollow rectangle or circle with the
separation between the rods not lower than the length of one rod. As we have seen
earlier in this chapter, the soil layers immediately surrounding the electrode
contribute substantially to the electrode resistance. More than 98% of the resistance
is due to a soil cylinder-hemisphere of 1.1 times the electrode length. This is called
the ‘critical cylinder’. Placing electrodes close to each other thus interferes with the
conduction of current from each electrode and lowers the effectiveness.
It is also of interest to note that the combined ground resistance of multiple rods does
not bear a direct relationship to the number of rods. Instead, it is determined by the
formula:

Where
RN is the combined ground electrode system resistance for N no. of electrodes
R is the earth resistance of a single electrode and
F is the factor shown in table below for N no. of electrodes
Table 6.5
Factor F for multiple ground
rods
 No. of Rods F
2 1.16
3 1.29
4 1.36
8 1.68
12 1.80
16 1.92
20 2.00
24 2.16
6.12 Measurement of ground resistance of an electrode
The resistance of a single ground electrode (as well as small grounding systems using
multiple rods) can be measured using the 3-point (or 3 pin) method. The apparatus for
this purpose is the same that is used for soil resistivity, viz. the ground resistance
tester. (See Figure 6.12 below.) This method however may not yield correct results
when applied to large grounding systems of very low resistance.
The measurement of electrode resistance is done in order to:
Check on correctness of calculations and assumptions made
Verify the adequacy after installation
Detect changes in an existing installation and
Fulfill mandatory requirements

Figure 6.12
Measurement of electrode resistance by 3-point method
In this case, the ground electrode itself serves both as a current and potential
electrode. The (other) electrode farther from this electrode is the other current
electrode and the nearer one is the second potential electrode. The resistance can
directly be read off the instrument. To get correct results, the current electrode must
be placed at a distance of at least 10 times the length of the electrode being
measured and the potential electrode at approximately half the distance. These
methods attempt to obtain a precise value of the resistance by taking measurements
with the central (potential) electrode positioned at various points and computing the
resistance based on these measurements.
A very similar procedure can be adopted for the measurement of ground grids, which
are used commonly in HV substations (usually outdoor switchyards). Refer to Figure
6.13 below.
 Figure 6.13
Measurement of resistance of a Ground grid
The problems mentioned in the section on measurement of soil resistivity are
applicable in this case too and appropriate precautions must be taken to ensure
accuracy. A more detailed approach given in the South African standard SCSASAAL9 is
described in Appendix-C, which can be used for better results.
6.13 Concrete encased electrodes
Concrete foundations below ground level provide an excellent means of obtaining a
low resistance electrode system. Since concrete has a resistivity of about 30 ohm m.
at 20 Deg. C, a rod embedded within a concrete encasement gives a very low
electrode resistance compared to most rods buried in ground directly. Since buildings
are usually constructed using steel reinforced concrete, it is possible to use the
reinforcement rod as the conductor of the electrode by ensuring that an electrical
connection can be established with the main rebar of each foundation. The size of the
rebar as well as the bonding between the bars of different concrete members must be
done so as to ensure that ground fault currents can be handled without excessive
heating. Such heating may cause weakening and eventual failure of the concrete
member itself. Alternatively, copper rods embedded within concrete can also be used.
Concrete electrodes are often referred to as ‘Ufer’ electrodes in honor of Mr. Ufer, who
has done extensive research on concrete encased electrodes. The rebars used are
required to be either bare or zinc coated. Normally, the following applies to a rebar
used as an earthing electrode:
Minimum length of 6 meters
Minimum diameter of 13 mm
And installed:
In a minimum of 50 mm of concrete
Concrete that is in direct contact with earth
Located within and near the bottom of a concrete foundation or footing
Permitted to be bonded together by the use of steel tie wire
With respect to the last point, steel tie wire is not the best means to ensure that the
rebars make good continuity. Excellent joining products are available in the market,
which are especially designed for joining construction rebars throughout the
construction. By proper joining of the rebars in multi-level buildings, exceptionally
good performance can be achieved. An extremely low resistance path to earth for
lightning and earth fault currents is ensured as the mass of the building keeps the
foundation in good contact with the soil. Some examples of splicing products available
in the market for jointing of rebars are shown in Figure 6.14 to 6.16 below.
Figure 6
.14

Threaded Splice joint using a coupler

Figure 6.15
A comparison between lap splice using tie wire and threaded (mechanical) splice
 Figure 6.16
A welded splice joint with sleeve
A recent advancement for solving difficult earthing problems is the use of conductive
concrete to form a good earth (ground). Normally, this form of concrete is a special
blend of carbon and cement that is spread around electrodes of copper.
These are normally installed in a horizontal configuration by digging a trench of
approximately half a meter wide by 600 mm deep. The flats (copper) or rods are then
installed in the center of the trench. The conductive concrete is then applied dry to
the copper and spread to approximately 4 cm thick over the copper to the edges of
the trench. The trench is then back-filled and the conductive concrete then absorbs
moisture from the soil and sets to about 15 Mpa.
It is also possible to install these electrodes vertically. However, in this case, the
conductive concrete has to be made up as a slurry and pumped to the bottom of the
hole to displace water or mud.
6.14 Chemical electrodes
We have seen earlier in this chapter that the resistance of the ground electrode is
influenced by the soil immediately surrounding the electrode. It is also influenced by
the ambient conditions of the soil such as moisture and temperature. Thus, it is
difficult to obtain acceptable values of grounding resistance in areas where:
Natural Soil is of very high resistivity such as rocky material, sand without vegetation,
etc.
During part of the year, the resistance may become excessive because of the absence
of moisture.
Soil temperature remains extremely low as in the case of Polar Regions or those close
to the polar circle (called Permafrost condition, where the ground is below freezing
temperature).
It thus follows that the performance of an electrode can be improved by using
chemically treated soil to lower the soil resistivity and to control the ambient factors.
While the soil temperature cannot be controlled, it is possible to ensure presence of
moisture around the electrode. Soil treatments by addition of hygroscopic materials
and by mechanisms to add water to the soil around the electrode are common
methods of achieving this objective. Also, the resistivity behavior in permafrost
conditions can be improved by soil conditioning, thus improving the electrode
resistance dramatically.
Tests performed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers in Alaska have proved that the
resistance of a simple conventional electrode can be lowered by a factor of over
twenty (i.e. 1/20). The treatment involved simply replaces some of the soil in close
proximity with the electrode by conditioned backfill material. Refer to Figure 6.17
below for the result of tests conducted at Point Barrow, Alaska, which illustrates that
the electrode resistance has dropped from a high of 20000 Ohms to a maximum of
1000 Ohms by soil treatment.

Figure 6.17
Result of soil treatment on electrode resistance
The principle of improving the soil conductivity has been applied for a long time in
ground electrode construction. An example is the use of a buried vertical pipe
electrode surrounded by charcoal and common salt with a provision for adding water.
In this example, the hollow earthing tube contains sodium chloride, which absorbs
moisture from surrounding air, and leaches out to the soil to lower its resistivity. The
backfill is soil mixed with charcoal and also sodium chloride. Since moisture in air is
essential for this construction, means are provided to externally add water during dry
weather.
Several vendors who manufacture electrodes for applications involving problem areas
use these basic principles. In these cases, both the electrode fill material and the
augmented backfill are decided based on the soil properties so that moisture can be
absorbed from surrounding soil itself and preserved in the portion that is immediately
surrounding the electrode. In some systems, automated moisture addition devices are
provided to augment this effect. A typical system by a vendor incorporating a solar
powered moisture control mechanism is shown in Figure 6.18 and 6.19.

Figure 6.18
Arrangement of chemical electrode with moisturizing mechanism

Figure 6.19
Control system for moisture addition
6.15 Corrosion problems in electrical grounding systems
Buried electrode systems bonded to other facilities embedded in ground such as
piping/conduits can form galvanic cells when they involve dissimilar metals having
differing galvanic potential. These cells, which are formed from dissimilar metals as
electrodes and the ground as the electrolyte, set up a galvanic current through the
bonding connections (refer to Figure 6.20).

Figure 6.18
Galvanic action of a ground electrode system
For example, copper electrodes and steel pipes used as a part of the grounding
system can cause cells of 0.38 V potential difference with copper as the positive
electrode. This circulates a current as shown, which causes corrosion of the metal in
the electrode from which current flows into the ground. A galvanic current of 1 amp
DC flowing for a period of one-year can corrode away about 10 kg of steel.
This can be avoided by the use of materials with the same galvanic potential in the
construction of ground electrode systems. Other methods such as use of sacrificial
materials as anodes and injection of DC currents help to control this type of corrosion.
6.16 Maintenance of grounding system
A properly scheduled and executed maintenance plan is necessary to maintain a
grounding system in proper order. This is essential because the efficacy of the system
can be affected over a period of time due to corrosion of metallic electrodes and
connections. Periodic measurement of the ground electrode resistance and recording
them for comparison and analysis later on is a must. In the case of any problems
repairs or soil treatment must be taken up to bring the ground electrode system
resistance back to permissible values.
6.17 Summary
Grounding is a term that is used to represent a connection of a metallic object, (which
may include an electrical conductor) to ground. Grounding can be grouped under the
following major categories.
Electrical system grounding, which includes system neutral grounding and protective
grounding
Grounding of lightning protection system
Signal reference grounding
The main objective of electrical grounding is the safety of personnel. Grounding of
lightning protection system has the objective of providing a low impedance
conductive path for a lightning discharge (attracted by the lightning air terminations)
into ground. Signal reference grounding has the principal objective of controlling noise
in signal circuits, which in turn is due to interference from high frequency external
signals including those due to lightning.
Touch voltages and step voltages, which occur when an electrical system develops a
ground fault, generally involving the metallic enclosures of equipment, can be
dangerous. Connecting these enclosures to ground improves safety. This is also true
of
Bonding of different ground systems is essential for equipment safety since it limits
the differential potential between different parts of equipment. Similarly, equipotential
bonding connecting various exposed conductive parts and extraneous conductive
parts helps to maintain them at substantially the same potential and thus provides
safety to personnel who may come into simultaneous contact with these parts.
Grounding conductors need to be routed with care. When routed through metallic
conduits, they should be bonded to the conduit at both ends. Grounding leads of
surge protection devices needs proper care and should be done using shortest
possible lead lengths.
The final link in the grounding system is the ground electrode. Any type of grounding
system be it the power system ground, lightning protection ground or the
communication reference ground, it must terminate to a ground electrode (or
electrodes) which is in direct contact with the soil mass. The effectiveness of
grounding depends on obtaining as low a resistance as possible between the ground
electrode system and the ground mass. Ground electrode resistance is largely a
function of the electrical resistance of the soil around the electrode, which in turn, is
decided by the resistivity of the soil. Soil resistivity for a given type of soil depends on
the presence of conducting salts, moisture content, temperature and level of
compaction. IEEE 142 gives several useful tables which enable us to determine the
soil resistivity for commonly encountered soils under various conditions which can
serve as a guideline for designers of grounding systems. Soil resistivity can be
measured using a ground resistance tester or other similar instruments. There are
different configurations possible for the measurement such as Wenner’s 4-pin
method, Schlumberger array and driven rod method. With these tests, it is possible to
obtain soil resistivity at different depths, thus building up a multi-layer model of the
soil.
The resistance of the soil layers immediately in the vicinity of the soil is significant in
deciding the electrode resistance. Where multiple electrodes are used for lowering the
grounding resistance, adjacent ground electrodes should be separated by at least one
electrode length for effective reduction of resistance. The resistance of a single
ground electrode can be measured using the 3-point (or 3 pin) method. The apparatus
for this purpose is the same that is used for soil resistivity, viz. the ground resistance
tester.
Performance of a ground electrode can be improved by using chemically treated soil
to lower the soil resistivity and to control the ambient factors. A number of chemical
electrodes are available from different vendors with proprietary design and backfill
materials, some of them with automated soil moisturizing provision. Concrete
foundations below ground level provide an excellent means of obtaining a low
resistance electrode system. By proper joining of the rebars in multi-level buildings,
exceptionally good performance can be achieved. An extremely low resistance path to
earth for lightning and earth fault currents is ensured as the mass of the building
keeps the foundation in good contact with the soil.
Galvanic corrosion of buried grounding electrodes and conductors can be avoided by
the use of materials with the same galvanic potential in the construction of buried
services and ground electrode systems. Other methods such as use of sacrificial
materials as anodes and injection of DC currents can also help to control this type of
corrosion.