Copyright Undertaking

This thesis is protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

By reading and using the thesis, the reader understands and agrees to the following terms:

1. The reader will abide by the rules and legal ordinances governing copyright regarding the
use of the thesis.

2. The reader will use the thesis for the purpose of research or private study only and not for
distribution or further reproduction or any other purpose.

3. The reader agrees to indemnify and hold the University harmless from and against any loss,
damage, cost, liability or expenses arising from copyright infringement or unauthorized
usage.

IMPORTANT
If you have reasons to believe that any materials in this thesis are deemed not suitable to be
distributed in this form, or a copyright owner having difficulty with the material being included in
our database, please contact lbsys@polyu.edu.hk providing details. The Library will look into
your claim and consider taking remedial action upon receipt of the written requests.

Pao Yue-kong Library, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

http://www.lib.polyu.edu.hk
LIGHTNING PROTECTION
FOR LARGE-SCALE
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS

ZHANG YANG

PhD

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

2020
 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Department of Building Services Engineering

Lightning Protection for large-scale Photovoltaic Systems

Zhang Yang

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

degree of Doctor of Philosophy

November, 2020

i
 Certificate of Originality

I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and

belief, it reproduces no material previously published or written, nor material that has been

accepted for the award of any other degree of diploma, except where due acknowledgement has

been made in the text.

Signed:

Name of Student: ZHANG YANG

2
 Abstract
Abstract of thesis entitled: Lightning Protection for large-scale Photovoltaic Systems

Submitted by : Zhang Yang

For the degree of : Doctor of Philosophy

As clean and renewable energy, the photovoltaic (PV) technique has been developing

vigorously in recent decades and is utilized by countries all over the world. With the increasing

installed capacity of the PV system, the safety issues of PV systems draw a lot of attention from

both the academy and industry. Since the PV equipment is exposed in open areas, lightning

becomes the main cause of PV failure. It is necessary to investigate the damage mechanism of

lightning hazards in PV systems and provide guidance for the lightning protection of the system.

Studies related to PV system lightning protection is insufficient. From the view of modelling,

the lightning transient model for PV cells is not fully developed. Various PV models have been

adopted to study the lightning transient in the PV systems. However, all these models adopt a

certain level of simplification in the simulation due to the hardness of modelling complex

wiring in PV systems. They cannot provide a complete and systematic evaluation of the

lightning transient in PV systems. Therefore, an efficient modelling method for the PV systems

is necessary for effective lightning protection design.

From the view of investigation and engineering applications, the lightning protection

research of PV systems mainly focuses on surge protection devices (SPDs) selection and PV

ground grid design. However, the work concerning SPDs selection has limited reference

value due to using over-simplified models for evaluation. Most of the researches on PV
3
ground grid design just focus on a ground grid system that buried under the ground, without

fully considering the connection of other PV system structure that installed in the air.

Moreover, there is no work to evaluate the waveform and amplitude of the overvoltage that

the PV panels and bypass diodes will suffer in the PV system during lightning strikes.

Another drawback of previous studies is that they only focus on discussion on the lightning

transient behaviour in the system or presenting the experimental phenomenon. However, no

solutions or improvements for the lightning protection design are proposed. Thus, their

contribution to practical engineering is limited.

From the view of standards and practical codes, the current standard did not consider the

specific configuration of the PV system. Most of the standards for PV lightning protection

adopt general lightning protection regulations based on that developed for buildings or

substations. Consequently, their reliability on the protection of PV systems is not fully

validated.

To solve these problems, this work presents a comprehensive study on lightning protection

of PV systems from modelling to practical scenario analysis and design guidelines. The main

contribution of the thesis is summarized as follows:

(1) Systematic modelling of PV systems is proposed.

The modelling of major components in the PV systems including the C-profile

supporting structure, PV cable, wiring in the PV panel is presented in detail. The

frequency-dependent effects and ferromagnetic properties of structural steel are taken

into account. The PV cell model which exhibits non-linear characteristics under lightning

current is also developed.

4
(2) Failure modes of the PV system are discussed elaborately in the work. Factors that need

to be considered while evaluating the lightning transient behaviour under each failure

mode are demonstrated through theoretical analysis and simulation work.

(3) Three types of lightning incidents, namely failure of PV inverters, breakdown of bypass

diodes, and arcing between metallic parts are investigated. Both bypass diode breakdown

and arcing-related incidents in the PV systems have not been analysed systemically in

the literature. To go a step further, several protection measures against lightning to the

PV systems are proposed to achieve more effective protection performance.

(4) A comprehensive study is conducted to analyse the structure design of the PV system

that will influence the induced voltage in the PV inverter. The influences of the mounting

systems, lightning protection systems, PV frames, and DC cable arrangements are

thoroughly investigated. The induced voltage between the positive and negative cable

can be largely shielded by a select proper PV structure without using any additional SPDs.

The results can guide PV system installations for maximizing lightning protection

performance.

(5) The grounding grid configurations of the PV system are investigated, and the transferred

voltages between the DC cables and supporting structures at different points in the PV

system are evaluated. A novel grounding grid arrangement that is simple to implement

and cost-effective is proposed. Moreover, with the proposed arrangement, the soil with

higher resistivity does not worsen the performance of lightning protection. On the

contrary, the PV system will experience less residual voltage when the soil resistivity is

high. This means the site selection of a PV plant will not be limited by the soil resistivity
5
 when lightning protection is an issue of concern.

This work presents my efforts in both PV system modelling and scenario analysis. This

work will benefit the PV modelling theory, provide solutions for the lightning protection

design of PV systems, and also help the industry to develop the standard for PV system

lightning.

Equation Chapter (Next) Section 1

6
 Publications
I. Published and Accepted Journal Papers

 Y. Zhang, H. C. Chen, and Y. P. Du, "Lightning protection design of solar photovoltaic

systems: Methodology and guidelines," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 174, Sep

2019, doi: 10.1016/j.epsr.2019.105877.

 Y. Zhang, H. C. Chen, Y. P. Du, Z. Li, and Y. Wu, "Lightning Transient Analysis of

Main and Submain Circuits in Commercial Buildings Using PEEC Method," IEEE

Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 106-116, Jan-Feb 2020, doi:

10.1109/Tia.2019.2950641.

 Y. Zhang, H. C. Chen, and Y. P. Du, "Considerations of Photovoltaic System Structure

Design for Effective Lightning Protection," IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic

Compatibility, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1333-1341, Aug 2020, doi:

10.1109/Temc.2020.2990930.

 Y. Zhang, H. C. Chen, Y. P. Du, M. Chen, L. Jie, J. Li, X. Fan, and X. Yao "Dissolved

Gas Analysis Using Self-Paced Ensemble Dealing with Imbalance and Dataset Fusion

Issues," High Voltage, 2020.

 Y. Zhang, B. H. Li, Y. P. Du, J. X. Cao, and J. H. Lv, " Effective Grounding of the

Photovoltaic Power Plant Protected by Lightning Rods," IEEE Transactions on

Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2021.

7
 H. Chen, Y. Zhang, Y. P. Du, and Q. S. Cheng, "Lightning Transient Analysis of

Telecommunication System with a Tubular Tower," IEEE Access, vol. 6, no. 1, pp.

60088-60099, 2018, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2875723.

 H. Chen, Y. Zhang, Y. P. Du, and Q. S. Cheng, "Lightning Propagation Analysis on

Telecommunication Towers Above the Perfect Ground Using Full-Wave Time Domain

PEEC Method," IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 61, no. 3,

pp. 697-704, 2019, doi: 10.1109/temc.2019.2898036.

 H. Chen, Y. Zhang, Y. P. Du, and Q. S. Cheng, "Fast Design of Multilayered Shields

Using Surrogate Model and Space Mapping," IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic

Compatibility, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 698-706, 2020, doi: 10.1109/temc.2019.2920993.

 H. C. Chen1, Y. Zhang1, Y. P. Du, and Q. S. Cheng, "Comprehensive transient analysis

for low-voltage system in a wind turbine under direct lightning," International Journal

of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 121, Oct 2020, doi:

10.1016/j.ijepes.2020.106131.

II. Submitted Journal Papers

 Y. Zhang, H. C. Chen, and Y. P. Du, "Transients in Solar Photovoltaic Systems during

a Lightning Strike to the Transmission Line Nearby," International Journal of Electrical

Power & Energy Systems, 2020.

8
 Y. Zhang, H. C. Chen, Y. P. Du, M. Chen, L. Jie, J. Li, X. Fan, Q. S. Cheng and X.

Yao, "Early Warning for DGA Diagnosis Based on Feature Ranking and Genetic

Programming," International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 2020.

 Y. Zhang, H. C. Chen, Y. P. Du, M. Chen, L. Jie, J. Li, X. Fan, Q. S. Cheng and X.

Yao, "Validity Evaluation and Calibration of Online DGA Sensors Using Data Driven

Techniques," IEEE Transactions on Power Delviery, 2020.

III. Papers in Conferences

 Y. Zhang, H. Chen, and Y. Du, "The Influence of Bonding Conditions on Lightning

Current Distribution in Radio Base Stations," presented at the 2019 11th Asia-Pacific

International Conference on Lightning (APL), Hong Kong, China, 2019.

 H. Chen, Y. Zhang, and Y. Du, "A Study on the Cable Grounding Condition in Wind

Turbines Under Direct Lightning," presented at the 2019 11th Asia-Pacific International

Conference on Lightning (APL), Hong Kong, China, 2019.

 Z. Li, H. Chen, Y. Wu, Y. Du, and Y. Zhang, "Analysis of Lightning Transients in a

Commercial Building Using the PEEC Method," presented at the 2019 IEEE/IAS 55th

Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference (I&CPS), 2019.

9
 Acknowledgment
First and foremost, I would like to express my great thanks to my supervisor, Prof. Du Ya-

ping, from the Department of Buildings Services Engineering, the Hong Kong Polytechnic

University, for his valuable guidance, in-depth technical advice, and financial support.

Especially grateful to him for kindly opening the door to a new world for me and the freedom

he gave, 7 years after I graduated from university.

Then, I would like to thanks Prof. Chen Mingli, for his encouragement and for sharing his

knowledge during this journey.

My sincere gratitude goes to Dr. Chen Hongcai for his support and advice on my research

work. I always remember those moments when we discuss deeply into the night. Your patience,

diligence, and perseverance set a good model for me to follow. I would like to sincerely thank

Dr. Li Binghao for introducing me to the group and helping with the FDTD simulation. I always

admire your self-discipline and peaceful mind. I also want to thank Dr. Qi Ruihan, the only girl

in the group. For the different joy you brought to us. Assistance provided by Dr. Ding Yuxuan is

greatly appreciated. Your solid theoretical knowledge impresses me a lot. I would also like to

thank the new group member, they are Mr. Lv Jiahua and Mr. Cao Jingxin. I really enjoy the

time that we spend on the basketball court.

Special thanks to my trusted friends in room 625, they are Li Zhe, Wu Tianming, and Liu

Kai. Thank you for your accompany through those happy times, hard times, and confusing

times. Thanks for waiting patiently for Spectre returning to the battlefield with Radiance.

I would like to extend my gratitude to you for understanding my past, supporting my present,

encouraging my future, and love me just the way I am.

10
 My thanks goes to my roommate in Hong Kong, they are Mr. Pang Kaicheng and Miss Zhang

Linli. Thank you for bring me to those mountains and crossing those oceans. Too much wine

and too much song, that make this journey away from bitterness.

I also acknowledge my indebtedness to those, whom I could not mention here, but provided

their valuable support to the completion of this work directly or indirectly.

To all my critics, all the adversities in life, I also appreciate them for waking me up and

making me tougher.

To my beloved, thanks for your love these years, all through my wild days, my mad existence.

The aurora in Iceland is beautiful, I wish that we could both be there.

Finally, I would express my deepest appreciation to my family, for all the selfless love,

endless tolerance, and intelligent indulgence. The love you give to me is warm like a fire that

burns against the cold in the dark night. Though I am far away from home but never fear cold.

11
 Content
Certificate of Originality ................................................................................................................ 2

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 17

1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 17

1.2 A worrisome prospect..................................................................................................... 19

1.2.1 High lightning flash density vs. Rich solar energy resource ...................... 19

1.2.2 High lightning flash density vs. Energy for offshore islands ..................... 20

1.2.3 High lightning stroke possibility vs. building-integrated PV system ............ 21

1.3 Lightning protection for PV systems: current situations .................................. 22

1.4 Lightning protection for PV systems: recent development ......................................... 25

1.4.1 External Lightning protection system ............................................................... 25

1.4.2 Internal lightning protection system .................................................................. 28

1.4.3 SPDs selection (surge distribution) .................................................................... 30

1.4.4 Diodes failure ....................................................................................................... 31

1.4.5 Degradation.......................................................................................................... 32

1.4.6 Risk assessment.................................................................................................... 34

1.4.7 Impact of a lightning channel ............................................................................. 35

1.4.8 Impact of soil resistivity and ionization ............................................................. 36

1.5 Objective .......................................................................................................................... 36

1.5.1 Developing accurate transient models for large-scale PV Systems ................. 37

1.5.2 Developing protection methods for components in large-scale PV Systems .. 38

12
 1.5.3 Consideration of PV system structure design for effective lightning protection

........................................................................................................................................ 39

1.5.4 Effective and economic grounding grid design for large-scale PV System .... 40

1.6 Thesis Outline.................................................................................................................. 41

2 Lightning transient analysis techniques for PV systems ........................................................ 44

2.1 Studies by field observation ........................................................................................... 44

2.2 Triggered Lightning ....................................................................................................... 45

2.3 Impulse testing ................................................................................................................ 46

2.4 Numerical Calculation.................................................................................................... 47

2.4.1 Analytical method................................................................................................ 47

2.4.2 Numerical method ............................................................................................... 47

2.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 56

3 PEEC Modelling for Components in a PV system .................................................................. 57

3.1 PEEC model of PV components .................................................................................... 58

3.1.1 C Profile Steel ...................................................................................................... 61

3.1.2 Wiring of a PV Panel........................................................................................... 64

3.1.3 Modelling of the PV panel .................................................................................. 66

3.1.4 Modelling consideration of bypass diodes ......................................................... 67

3.1.5 Lightning waveform for PV transient analysis ................................................. 69

3.2 Verification of the PEEC model .................................................................................... 70

4 Typical Lightning Damages in PV Systems and Solutions ..................................................... 75

4.1 Typical Lightning Damages in PV systems .................................................................. 75

13
 4.2 Surge simulation in a PV system ................................................................................... 78

4.2.1 Configuration of the PV System ......................................................................... 78

4.2.2 Lightning Transient Voltages in the PV system ............................................... 79

4.2.3 Protection for the PV inverters .......................................................................... 81

4.2.4 Protection for the bypass diodes ........................................................................ 82

4.2.5 Prevention of arcing between the PV frame and wire at the remote side ...... 85

4.3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 88

5. Considerations of PV Structure System Design for Effective Lightning Protection ........... 90

5.1 System components for the consideration of effective lightning protection .............. 91

5.1.1 Mounting system.................................................................................................. 91

5.1.2 External LPS ........................................................................................................ 93

5.1.3 PV frame .............................................................................................................. 94

5.1.4 DC cables arrangement....................................................................................... 94

5.2 Model of PV structure systems ...................................................................................... 95

5.3 Simulation Results and Analysis ................................................................................... 97

5.3.1 Influence of the mounting system ...................................................................... 97

5.3.2 The influence of the external LPS ...................................................................... 99

5.3.3 The influence of the PV frame.......................................................................... 101

5.3.4 The influence of the DC cable........................................................................... 102

5.4 Discussion on External Factors ................................................................................... 104

5.4.1 The influence of the lightning waveforms ....................................................... 104

5.4.2 The influence of the ground resistance ............................................................ 106

14
 5.5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 106

6. Effective Grounding Grid design of the PV Power Plant .................................................... 108

6.1 Grounding grid designs in PV systems-an imperious demand ................................. 109

6.2 Description of the PV system under Investigation ..................................................... 111

6.3 Simulation Model and Method .................................................................................... 113

6.4 PV System without a dedicated grounding grid......................................................... 115

6.4.1 Low soil resistivity: ρ=100 Ωm ......................................................................... 116

6.4.2 High soil resistivity: ρ=2000 Ωm ...................................................................... 117

6.5 Grid PV system with a dedicated grounding grid...................................................... 118

6.5.1 Horizontal grounding conductor...................................................................... 118

6.5.2 Grounding with a meshed grid......................................................................... 120

6.6 The system with equipotential bonding in the air ...................................................... 121

6.6.1 Influence of soil resistivity ................................................................................ 122

6.6.2 Influence of soil stratified ................................................................................. 123

6.6.3 Influence of other configurations ..................................................................... 127

6.7 Influence of using a simplified model for overvoltage calculation ........................... 131

6.7.1 Influence of simplified the wiring structure in the PV panel......................... 131

6.7.2 Influence of ignoring the EM couplings between the adjacent strings ......... 132

6.8 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 134

7. Transients in Solar PV Systems During Lightning Strikes to Transmission Lines........... 136

7.1 Typical Lightning related Damages in PV systems ................................................... 136

7.2 Model configurations .................................................................................................... 138

15
 7.2.1 PV system model................................................................................................ 140

7.2.2 Overhead ground conductor and tower model ............................................... 141

7.2.3 SPD model .......................................................................................................... 142

7.3 Numerical Investigation ............................................................................................... 143

7.3.1 Scenario 1: A lightning strike to the overhead ground conductor ................ 144

7.3.2 Scenario 2: A lightning strike to the transmission tower ............................... 146

7.4 Sensitivity analysis ........................................................................................................ 149

7.4.1 Influence of lightning waveform ...................................................................... 149

7.4.2 Influence of soil resistivity ................................................................................ 152

7.4.3 Influence of tower grounding system ............................................................... 153

7.4.4 Influence of tower height .................................................................................. 155

7.5 Protection Schemes for the PV System ....................................................................... 156

7.5.1 Installation of SPDs for the inverters .............................................................. 156

7.5.2 Prevention of arcing between the PV frame and wire.................................... 159

7.6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 161

8. Conclusion and Future Work ............................................................................................ 163

8.1 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 163

8.2 Future work................................................................................................................... 166

16
 1. Introduction

1.1 Background

With the rising demand for energy and environmental concerns, renewable energy generation

has increased rapidly. According to the world energy balances 2019 [1], renewable energy

generation accounts for 13.8% of the total energy production in 2017. This ratio will increase to 67%

by the year of 2040 [2]. Among different types of renewable energy, solar energy is the most popular

and its application increases rapidly in recent years. Solar energy is friendly to the environment and

the energy resource is huge. The received solar energy on the earth in every second is equivalent to

the energy of burning 5 million tons of coal. The per-year energy consumption of human beings is

equivalent to just 40-minute sunlight to the earth. This indicates that solar energy is an ideal

renewable energy source. Solar energy is commonly converted to electricity by a PV system for

utilization. The PV system is easy to design and is flexible to install. It offers long service times

with minimum maintenance costs. Since PV panels can directly convert sunlight to electricity

without using any moving devices, it is suitable to be installed in any open space. Due to these

benefits, the installation capacity of the PV system grows significantly in recent years. In 2017 [3],

more than 7% of the total renewable energy was produced by PV. Benefiting from policy incentives,

the installed capacity of the PV system will occupy the largest share of global renewable energy by

the year 2040.

17
 GW
3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040

Figure 1.1 Installed power generation capacity forecast [4].

With the rapid development of PV systems, the safe and economic operation of PV systems

has attracted more and more attention. Various natural and human factors have brought serious

threats to PV systems. According to statistics data, lightning is the main threat to the PV system

among these factors. Along with the growing installation of the PV system, numerous large PV

plants are constructed, which cover very large areas. A large PV system contains many arrays with

a length and width of several hundred meters or even more than a kilometer. On the other hand, in

order to obtain sufficient solar radiation, the PV systems are generally located in open areas such as

hillsides, deserts, and water surfaces, so they are more prone to lightning strikes. Lightning can

damage the PV system through various means including direct lightning strikes, indirect lightning

strikes, ground potential rise, and lightning wave intrusion. The lightning-related damage brings

immeasurable consequences, such as extra maintenance costs, labor costs, material losses, etc. It

will also interrupt the operation of the entire power supply system, and even cause an electrical fire.

18
1.2 A worrisome prospect

Lightning is a natural phenomenon and lightning-related damages in PV systems are reported

worldwide. In Germany, 26% of damages to PV systems are caused by lightning strikes. This

percentage might be higher in other PV installation areas because the areas with larger solar

resources commonly have a high lightning flash density.

1.2.1 High lightning flash density vs. Rich solar energy resource

Figure 1.2 The distribution map of lightning flash density [5].

As shown in Fig. 1.2, the distribution map of lightning flash density shows a strong

regional divergence worldwide. The lightning flash density in the tropical region is the highest, and

decreases with the increase of the latitude. The lightning activity in the north-south latitude 35°W

accounts for 86% of the global lightning activities. In the tropical region, the lightning flash density

is particularly high, such as in Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia. The lightning-related

damages of PV systems in Germany can reach up to 26% though Germany is located in a region of

low lightning flash density, not to mention those regions with high lightning flash density.
19
 On the other hand, solar energy resource also has strong regional divergence. The distribution

of solar energy nearly matches that of the lightning flash density except for oceanic regions. The

regions with the rich solar resources include North Africa, South Africa, the Middle East, the East

and West coasts of South America, the southwest of the United States, Mexico, southern Europe,

and Australia. Among them, North Africa has the richest solar radiation in the world. In North Africa,

countries such as Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya have great potential for solar energy.

The total annual solar radiation in Algeria is 9720MJ/m2. The total annual solar radiation in

Morocco is 9360MJ/m2. The total annual solar radiation in Egypt is 10080MJ/m2. The total annual

solar radiation in Tunisia and Libya is greater than 8280MJ/ m2.

Therefore, the richest solar resources are found in the equatorial regions where the lightning

flashes density is the highest [6]. To date, the negative impact caused by lightning on PV systems

in these areas is not widely reported since less popularity of the PV systems in these areas (taking

Africa as an example, a continent with the richest solar resources in the world has installed only

around 5 gigawatts (GW) of solar PV, less than 1% of the global total). Making things worse, most

of these regions belong to developing countries that urgently require cheap and renewable energy.

Lightning-related damages will be growing as more PV systems will be installed in these regions in

the future.

1.2.2 High lightning flash density vs. Energy for offshore islands

Solar energy provides an ideal solution for offshore islands, while, lightning is also active in

these islands. In Malaysia, The Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA) has taken on

many strategies to increase the use of solar energy and plan to make it one of the main sources of

20
energy supply by 2050 [7]. However, lightning damage is a big barrier to the large-scale expansion

of the PV systems. Because of the high lightning flash density, lightning causes over 70% of power

failures in Malaysia, and complaints about lightning related damages in PV systems are frequently

received [8]. In Indonesia where millions of people live on offshore islands, the electricity supply

is insufficient [9]. Solar energy is the cheapest source of electricity for people living in these regions.

However, lightning threats bring a big challenge to stable power operations and economic returns.

1.2.3 High lightning stroke possibility vs. building-integrated PV system

Building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) technology makes it possible to install PV systems on

the part of building envelopes, such as the rooftops or walls. BIPV becomes popular in recent years

because it is a good option for green buildings. Firstly, it does not need extra space for installation

which makes it suitable for use in an urban area. Additionally, it can provide thermal insulation,

noise reduction and electromagnetic shielding for a building. Compared to a traditional PV system,

the BIPV is less likely to be stolen or suffer from artificial destruction. On the other hand, BIPV

also has some disadvantages that need to be considered. For instance, high installation and

maintenance cost, visual impact, ventilation, and low energy efficiency, etc. Meanwhile, BIPV

system also suffers from lightning damages. This is probably because the BIPV hasn't been

commercially used on a large scale yet. But with advanced BIPV technologies and an urgent need

to reduce emissions, BIPV products will undergo first a gradual and then a massive increase. By

that time, the problems caused by lightning in the BIPV systems will emerge. The surge induced by

lightning can lead to the failure of BIPV systems which will increase the maintenance causes. Since

the PV panels are integrated into the building façade, the cost for maintenance is much higher than

21
that in a conventional PV plant. What’s worse, the arcing due to lightning transients might increase

the possibility of fire hazards, thus, the risk is unpredictable.

1.3 Lightning protection for PV systems: current situations

Figure 1.3 The configuration of the typical PV system

A typical PV system usually consists of PV arrays, inverters, batteries, power distribution cabinets,

sun-tracking systems, sensors, etc. The key component of the PV system is the PV array, which is

composed of several PV modules arranged in a certain sequence. These PV modules convert

sunlight into electrical energy and output DC power at a certain voltage level. The generated electric

energy can be stored in the energy storage battery. To extend the service life of the battery, the

battery is usually equipped with a battery controller, which can prevent the battery from

overcharging and over-discharging. Since the PV array outputs DC power, inverters are used to

convert the DC power into AC power, and then to the grid. According to the operation mode, the

inverter can be divided into two types, namely off-grid inverter and grid-connected inverter. For

grid-connected PV systems, power transformers are usually used to boost the output voltage of the

inverters, then deliver the power into the power grid.

Since the angle of the sun's illumination changes all the time, the solar tracking system is usually

installed in a large PV plant to obtain the maximum power generation efficiency. In addition to the

22
components mentioned above, communication systems, sensors, and other equipment might also be

installed for the PV system. All the components or equipment in the PV system could be damaged

during lightning strikes if the LPS of the system is not properly designed.

PV lightning protection has not been received much attention in the industry for a long period.

However, the research on PV lightning protection is not sufficient and there is no consolidated

standard to guide the lightning protection design of PV systems.

Figure 1.4 The LPS of PV

Research on the lightning protection of PV systems grows rapidly in recent years. It is generally

believed that the Lightning protection system (LPS) of PV can be classified into external LPS and

internal LPS as shown in Fig. 1.4. The external LPS consists of an air termination system, a down

conductor system, and a grounding grid. It intercepts lightning and delivers the lightning current

into the soil. The measures of internal lightning protection include equipotential bonding and

separation distance. According to the installed method of the air termination rod and the down

conductor, the external LPS can be further divided into the isolated or non-isolated system. In a non-

isolated system, the PV brackets made of conductive materials are used as part of an LPS. While

the lightning rod stands away from the PV bracket in an isolated system. The height of the

23
termination rod is determined by the rolling sphere method or the protection angle method. However,

the specific definitions and requirements of PV lightning protection are still too ambiguous in

current regulations and standards [10-14]. In these regulations and standards, the characteristics of

the PV system is not fully verified. Some requirements for PV LPS installation are even inconsistent

in different standards.

In 2016, China issued the "Technical requirements for the protection of PV power station

against lightning" (GB/T32512-2016) [13]. However, the requirements in this standard are mostly

based on the "Design code for protection of structures against lightning" (GB50057) [14] and

lightning protection design specifications for other electrical installations. The latest standard [12]

is "NFPA780-Standard for the installation of lightning protection systems", which was published in

the United States in 2020. Besides some general lightning protection requirements, it also specified

some unique design requirements for PV systems. In the NFPA780, isolated and non-isolated LPS

for PV systems are introduced, and corresponding installation requirements are specified. Moreover,

the requirements for the grounding grid of a PV system are mentioned. PV systems that include a

metallic structure shall be grounded, utilizing a ground ring electrode encompassing the perimeter

of each array. However, the design of the PV grounding grid is not uniform in the Standards. For

instance, in IEC 62305 Part 3, a meshed earth termination grid ranging from 20𝑚 × 20𝑚 to

40𝑚 × 40𝑚 in size is specified, this type of earthing systems has proven its effectiveness in

reducing overvoltage in practice and recommended to be used in PV plants.

24
1.4 Lightning protection for PV systems: recent development

1.4.1 External Lightning protection system

1.4.1.1 Air termination rod and down conductor

The air termination rod and down conductor constitute the disputation path for lightning

current caused by direct lightning strikes. The protection system can be divided into isolated and

non-isolated LPS types based on the connection of these conductors. The performances of two types

of protection were first carried out using an impulse test [15]. The over voltages at the DC terminal

under isolated and non-isolated LPS systems were recorded. The experiment reveals an unexpected

result that the voltage in a non-isolated system was much smaller than the other type, which is

inconsistent with the suggestion provided in IEC 62305.

In [16], the difference between isolated and non-isolated LPS was further investigated by

simulation. According to the simulation results, the induced voltage is influenced not only by the

type of the external LPS (isolated or non-isolated), but also by the installation location of the

lightning rod. In [17], the influence of the type of external LPS was investigated on a large PV

system, it was found the type of external LPS affected the current distribution in the grounding grid.

In an isolated LPS, the lightning current is discharged via the isolated rod to the earthing system. In

this case, it may be that some current will return to the structural bases through the common earthing

system.

25
1.4.1.2 Grounding system

Grounding system design is a key issue for lighting protection of various systems as well as

PV systems. A suitable grounding system can lower the ground potential rise thus provide a safe

environment for human beings and equipment from dangerous potential rises. The grounding

strategy in a PV system is a puzzling problem for the PV industry since no consolidated standard is

developed. The grounding methods vary from site to site. Some use the metal PV bracket as a natural

component of the LPS. The foundations of these brackets are normally buried in the soil, creating

an electrical path between the frames of the modules and the soil. Thus there is no specific grounding

system provided. Some systems use an earth rod driven into the soil as the grounding system. Some

use ring conductors and some adopt a grounding grid as the grounding system.

In [18], the grounding system of the PV system with several panels is evaluated. The system is

grounded by a single grounding rod. In the paper, the voltage distribution with different grounding

points was calculated for comparison. The results show that side grounding (as shown in Fig.1.5 (b))

may be the best grounding strategy to be adopted for a single assembly. However, for a group

assembly system as shown in Fig. 1.6. Based on the simulation results [19], it is found that solar PV

panels consisting of group assemblies having ‘middle ground’ show relatively lower voltage drops

compare to ‘end ground’.

26
 Grounding
point Grounding
point

(a) (b)

Figure 1.5 Grounding of a single assembly PV system. (a) middle grounding. (b) side grounding.

(a) (b)

Figure 1.6 Grounding of group assembly PV system. (a) side grounding. (b) side grounding.

In [20], a large-scale PV system with ring conductors is investigated. The PV brackets at the

two ends of each row are directly connected to the ring conductor, the brackets placed in the row

are bounded to one another with appropriate jumpers as shown in Fig. 1.7. The studied grounding

system meets the safety requirements dictated by standard EN 50552 and IEC 62305 for lightning

protection. However, the results show that induced over voltages can still cause failures of electric

systems such as string-boxes, especially when equipped with monitoring systems that incorporate

sensitive electronic components.

27
 Figure 1.7 A large-scale PV system with ring grounding conductors.

Apart from the single grounding rod and ring conductor, the PV system with a mesh grounding

grid was also investigated. In [21, 22], the influence of the length of square grid-side was

investigated. For a large-scale PV system, the maximum energy dissipated on the electrodes of a

grounding grid can be significantly reduced by properly adding additional horizontal earth

electrodes [17]. Also, the overvoltage in the PV plant can be largely reduced by connecting multiple

vertical rods to the grounding grid [23].

1.4.2 Internal lightning protection system

1.4.2.1 Bonding in the PV system

Bonding is an intentional connection of two metal parts to form a continuous electrical path.

The significance of equipotential bonding in buildings has been recognized for a long time and a lot

of literature can be found. Compared to the bonding in residential buildings, the bonding for PV

systems is often ignored during installation. Recently, some institutions suggest that all metal

28
brackets in the PV system must be interconnected. However, this cannot fully protect the PV systems

against lightning. According to the field investigation [24], arcing can still occur between the PV

panel frame and the bracket even though bonding is made at some points. This arcing caused by

impedance difference between the materials of the panel frames and the brackets can lead to

interference and loss of efficiency of the panels. This phenomenon can not only happen in large

scale conductors (over 10 meters) [22], but also happen on a micro-scale conductor (over distances

< 5 m) during a lightning stroke. To suppress this overvoltage (arcing between panel frames and

structures), the panel frame should be bonded to the PV bracket. Another onsite impulse test [25]

shows that the common-mode voltage at the DC side can be reduced if the PV bracket, ground

electrode as well as distribution board are bonded together. However, the difference mode voltage

will not decrease significantly.

1.4.2.2 Separation distance

The separation distance between the air-termination or the down-conductor and the structural

metal parts should be kept to avoid flashover. The IEC 62305-3 [26] gives the general equation for

the calculation of separation distance:

ki
S=  kc  l (1.1)
km

Where ki depends on the selected class of LPS, km depends on the electrical insulation material, kc

depends on the lightning current flowing on the air-termination and down conductor, l is the length

in meters.

However, several factors are not considered in this formula. The standard does not specify the

separation distance for other cases such as PV systems on the rooftop. A more advanced calculating
29
method for the separation distance is proposed in [27] where the influence of lightning waveform,

earth resistance and gap arrangement are considered.

1.4.3 SPDs selection (surge distribution)

SPDs can protect an electrical system against electrical surges and spikes, including those

caused by lightning. The rating and installed locations of the SPDs should be considered in order to

make the protection effective. In [28], the surge current passing through the SPDs were evaluated

by the finite difference time domain (FDTD) method. An open field PV system with a concrete

foundation was selected for evaluation and the transient distribution in the DC side is presented.

The PV modules were simplified in the simulation with only the DC cable was considered. The

results show that the class Ⅱ-typed SPDs (nominal discharge current of 20 kA) are sufficient for

protection when the lightning strike is far away. However, the SPDs with a high protection level is

required if the SPD box is near the strike point. In [29], the overvoltage at the DC side of a rooftop

PV system was analyzed using the mesh current method. The wiring structure in each panel was

considered in the simulation. A more detailed PV model [30] was proposed for evaluating the

overvoltage at DC sides for SPDs selection. In the model, the frequency-dependent parameter and

the configuration of components in the PV system were considered during the simulation. In [31],

the overvoltage in a hybrid renewable energy source system was evaluated using the

PSCAD/EMTDC software. In [32-34], system-level simulation with PV arrays, inverters, filters,

transformers and the power grid were considered using PSCAD/EMTDC software. Transient over

voltages at different points of the system were evaluated for SPDs selection. Different lightning

strike points (at DC side or AC sides), impulse current wave shapes, amplitudes and cable lengths

30
were considered. However, most of these studies adopt different levels of simplification in

modelling. Therefore, their results maybe not proper for the practical SPD selection.

1.4.4 Diodes failure

According to different functions, the diodes in a PV system can be divided into two types,

namely bypass diodes and blocking diodes. The failure of bypass diodes and blocking diodes can

lead to a decrease in efficiency or even a fire in the PV system. The failure of diodes has drawn lots

of attention due to the severity of diode damage in the PV system. Many studies on lightning-related

diode damage have been reported. According to the results of the experiments [35, 36], the

lightning-induced voltages in a PV module may reach up to several thousand volts even the striking

point is not near. Such high voltages could easily destroy bypass diodes which have only low reverse

voltage ratings from 40 V to 100 V. Once the diodes are damaged, their impedance becomes

significantly small and PV panels are shorted. In practical operation, such damages are frequently

observed.

Based on the accident investigation of the practical PV plant, paper [37] discusses the key

factors that influence the lightning protection performance of the bypass diodes. According to the

study, poor inter-module wiring in the PV installation, instead of the internal layout of the PV

modules, will lead to a large induced current.

In [38], an accident due to the failure of blocking diodes was reported. Several diodes were

destroyed due to a nearby lightning strike in a storm. When PV panels return to work, the string

with damaged blocking diodes burned out immediately due to the opposite current from adjacent

panels.

31
 To prevent the diode failure in the PV plant, MOV connected in parallel with the diodes was

recommended in [39]. According to 2,000 impulses tests, the diodes can be effectively protected by

suitable MOVs. The cost of MOVs is negligibly compared to loss due to the failure of the diodes.

Thus, MOVs were found to be a cost-effective manner of protecting the diodes in the PV module.

Most of these studies try to evaluate the critical voltage that the bypass diodes can withstand.

However, there is no work to investigate how much voltage the bypass diodes in the PV system will

suffer during lightning strikes.

1.4.5 Degradation

A lightning stroke can pose electrical stress to the PV panel, thus leads to degradation or

damage of the panel. This phenomenon was first reported in [40] and a model was developed to

predict the threshold value of the lightning transient current that the PV panel can withstand.

In [41], the lightning-caused damages are reported. According to the investigation, the panel

can be destroyed during a direct lightning stroke. Under an indirect strike, the panel might suffer

from degradation in efficiency though the panel can continue working. In [42] the performance of

single-crystalline silicon PV modules was evaluated after they were subjected to impulse tests (with

a waveform of 1.2/50 us). According to the test results, the panel will not be degraded apparently if

the amplitude of the voltage is below 12 kV. When the voltage is increased to 30 kV, insulation

breakdown occurs. However, the insulation recovers within 0.5 s and it does not lead to permanent

damage. When the peak voltage is further increased to 144 kV, the module is destructed both

electrically, thermally, and mechanically. The performance of the PV panel also varies among

different manufacturers. In another test [43], the electrical performances of two different PV

32
modules (A, B) are investigated. Module A seems to be significantly influenced when it is subject

to impulse voltage stress, even in the case of a 6 kV voltage stress level. The downgrade of the

nominal characteristics of module A is permanent. Module B withstands an impulse voltage stress

higher than a 30 kV without any evident visual damage. In [44], a 50 W polycrystalline panel with

dimensions of 670  550  30 mm was tested using a lightning impulse generator with an output

voltage of 100 kV to 300 kV. The results show the degradation (after the impulse test) is more severe

when the panel is put under high-temperature stress.

Apart from the voltage amplitude, the degradation of PV panels also depends on the striking

point. Different striking points are selected for comparison in the impulse test of [45] (with a current

waveform of 7.4/15 μs and an amplitude of 13 kA). According to the test results, if the current

impulse is applied in the frame of the modules, no significant marks will be observed. However,

when the impulse current is applied in the center of the module, the glass cover will break. The

modules with a broken glass cover can still generate power, but electrical insulation and efficiency

will decrease.

In addition to high-voltage impulses, repeated low-voltage impulses can also cause the

degradation of PV modules. In an experiment test [46, 47], standard lightning impulse voltages

(1.2/50 µs) of positive polarity with peak voltages of 15 V, 30 V, and 90 V are applied on a

polycrystalline silicon PV module. Studies show that the repeated impulse stress causes a drop in

the modules' power output when the stress voltage is 30 V or 90 V. The power output degrades

exponentially.

If the solar cell is damaged thermally, the influence of impulse voltage will be more serious. In

[48], the PV cell was firstly subjected to heat treatment to create a potential faulty condition. After
33
that, the PV cell was taken under lightning impulse tests. The electrical conducting stripes of the

module are broken after only 12 lightning impulses. The test results show that the thermal test does

not cause malfunction of the PV module. However, after the impulses test, the PV cell completely

fails without power output.

1.4.6 Risk assessment

As the PV plant usually occupies a large area, it has a relatively high probability to be struck

by lightning. Although LPS is required to install according to the technical guidelines for PV

installations, the protection measures have not been fully implemented in many PV plants.

According to the IEC 62305-2, the risk assessment should be carried out to determine whether LPS

is installed or not. This requirement was specified in the first edition of IEC 62305-2 in 2006 and

was revised in the second edition in 2010. The new edition includes several significant changes. The

influence of these changes on the lightning risk assessment in the PV system is discussed in [49].

A computer program has been developed for conducting risk assessment in either open field

PV systems [50] or rooftop PV systems [51].

IEC 62305-2 standard [52] describes a generic risk assessment method for lightning protection

of buildings. However, renewable energy plants have specific characteristics and specific standards

should be developed for different types of structures. Standards related to the risk assessment for

wind turbines/farms have been already developed [53]. However, no specific standardized methods

are designated for managing the lightning-related risks in large-scale PV systems at present. In [54],

a risk assessment method was proposed for a large-scale PV System. In addition to the evaluation

requirements described in IEC 62305-2, the loss of revenue is included and recommended in the

34
risk assessment. Compared to individual PV systems, the risk assessment for hybrid systems is more

complicated and no standard has been established. In [55], risk analysis is proposed for a hybrid

system that consists of PVs, wind turbines, biogas generators and diesel generators. However, the

risk evaluation was conducted for every system individually thus the interaction between each

system during a lightning stroke is ignored.

On the rooftop of a building, the installation of a PV system does not increase the risk of a

lightning strike. However, there may be an increased danger for the electric facilities of the building

in the event of a lightning strike. This is based on the fact that the wiring of the PV system shares

the same risers and cable runs with other cables in the building. Lightning-induced conducted

transients and radiated interferences in the wires of the PV system may interfere with other cables

[56]. Therefore, the risk assessment for the rooftop PV should consider both the PV array and related

wires in the building [51]. According to another study [57], the risk assessment formulation of the

rooftop PV system should also be reconsidered if the capacity of the PV system increases. This is

because a larger rooftop PV system contributes a larger proportion to the overall risk of lightning

damage to the structure.

1.4.7 Impact of a lightning channel

The lightning channel is often simplified as a lump current source or a vertical conductor when

calculating the transient voltage in a PV system. The parameters of the lightning channel have a

significant influence on the transient overvoltage. As the lightning current waveform varies with the

struck objects [58], the installation places will also influence the induced over voltages in the PV

system. These effects should be considered in order to obtain more precise results. In [59] a three-

35
dimensional (3D) semi-analytical numerical method is adopted to analyze the influence of a

lightning channel on surges in the PV system. The lightning channel is modeled by a sequence of

randomly generated segments, with random variations of direction between adjacent segments.

According to their results, ignoring the lightning channel may lead to significant underestimation

of the induced voltage, especially for far striking points. They also show that the induced voltages

are largely affected by the channel geometry.

1.4.8 Impact of soil resistivity and ionization

Soil resistivity is regarded as a very important factor in the LPS design. The influence of the

soil resistivity on the lightning protection performance of PV systems has been widely studied [19,

21-23, 29, 30, 45, 60-64]. Most of these studies endeavor to obtain a low soil resistivity in the design

because it brings an easy path to dissipate the energy of a lightning current and results in low ground

potential. However, the soil resistivity has little influence on the differential mode voltage in PV

systems [29, 30]. The common-mode voltage depends on the soil resistivity, while it can be reduced

with proper equipotential bonding measures. The soil ionization effect should also be considered

when evaluating the grounding grid of PV systems [21, 23, 60]. The ground potential will greatly

decrease when ionization occurs. The reduction in ground potential is more significant in the case

of higher soil resistivity [23].

1.5 Objective

According to the literature survey, research on the lightning protection of the PV system is still
36
very limited. From the view of the modelling, there lacks system-level modelling to accurately

simulate a large-scale PV plant with all components in detail. The PV system consists of general

conductors (supporting steels, cables), PV modules, electrical equipment (inverters), nonlinear

electric devices (diodes), etc. These components behave quite differently so that both frequency-

dependent and time-dependent nonlinear characteristics should be considered in one simulator.

From the view of lightning protection design, current design tools and guidelines are not fully

validated. It partly due to the lacking of an accurate simulation tool as described previously. To

improve the return of investment, the optimization of the LPS design and SPD selection should be

thoroughly evaluated. Meanwhile, proper standards are urgently required that can guide the PV LPS

instillations. To solve these issues, the specific objectives of this thesis are as followed:

1.5.1 Developing accurate transient models for large-scale PV Systems

Though many models have been developed, the transient model for PV cells is not fully

constructed, especially for a lightning transient study. In previous studies, researchers mainly used

oversimplified PV models to integrate with numerical electromagnetic methods such as FDTD,

finite element method (FEM), method of moment (MoM), and circuit simulation. This results in a

large bias while evaluating the lightning voltage and current in PV systems because some factors in

PV system modelling are underestimated for lightning transient analysis. Firstly, the conductors,

such as structural steels, DC cables, etc. are generally modeled as perfect conductors. The

frequency-dependent effects of these conductors are ignored. These conductors are highly frequency

dependent under lightning transients. Particularly, the steels are made of ferromagnetic materials so

that they exhibit a strong frequency dependent effect. Secondly, the nonlinear characteristic of PV

37
cells is not considered in some studies. Moreover, the wiring structure in PV modules is always

omitted because of computational complexity. Consequently, the transient voltages resulting from

the presence of the wiring system in PV modules cannot be considered. They cannot provide a

complete and systematic evaluation of the lightning protection design of PV systems. Another

drawback of ignoring the loop in the solar panel is that the damage to the diodes cannot be evaluated.

The error of these models could lead to inaccurate evaluation results of lightning voltages and

currents in the system. Thus, a more advanced simulation tool should be developed. In this thesis,

an efficient modelling method for the PV systems will be proposed, which effectively and accurately

evaluate the lightning transient in the PV system.

1.5.2 Developing protection methods for components in large-scale PV Systems

Previous works related to the lightning protection of the PV system mainly focus on transient

behaviors in the system and seldom provide guidelines for settling down the problems. The

protection of the diodes in PV systems has not received much attention. One reason for that is the

diodes are cheap. Moreover, after a diode is damaged, some PV systems can still operate normally.

The failure of diodes is noticed till the reduced efficiency in the PV systems is detected or disasters

such as fires happened. Though, the diodes are cheap, the losses due to diode failure might be huge.

The decrease of efficiency and the cost due to inspection and replacement of damaged diodes will

largely affect the return of investments. Once a fire occurs, the damage is uncountable. In the

literature, there are two approaches proposed. The first one is to provide an electromagnetic

shielding with a metal frame for the wiring structure in the panel, this can reduce the induced voltage

across the diode. The other approach is to use the MOVs for diodes protection. However, these are

38
not addressed in any standard. In fact, diodes are seldom mentioned in LPS standards or regulations,

most of the lightning protection standards or regulations are developed from IEC 62305. The diodes

which are heavily used in PV systems are not widely used in other electrical systems. Thus the issues

are not exposed before.

The arc between the wiring and the metal part of the structure in the system is another issue,

which can cause degradation or permanent damage to the PV module. However, the research related

to arc prevention in the plant is missing.

In this thesis, field investigation and comprehensive analysis of PV system failures caused by

lightning strikes will be carried on. To move one step further, solutions will be provided to these

issues based on the simulation and experiment work.

1.5.3 Consideration of PV system structure design for effective lightning

protection

PV inverters are frequently damaged by lightning strokes in previous years. With the aid of SPD

installation, they are seldom damaged especially when SPDs are installed on both AC and DC sides.

The rating of the SPDs should be carefully evaluated to make the protection effective. Excessive

protection can certainly ensure the safe operation of the inverter. However, excessive protection will

largely affect the return of investment. Moreover, with the popularization of micro inverters, the

number of inverters in a PV plant greatly increases compared with the traditional installation using

centralized inverters or string inverters. To protect micro inverters, PCB-mounted SPDs [65] have

been invented to meet the requirements for miniaturization, modularization. As the size of SPDs

decreases, the tolerance ability of SPDs to lightning surges will also decrease. When the SPDs fail,

39
the DC cable is directly grounded through the damaged SPDs thus an electrical fire could start. To

prevent the failure of SPDs, SPDs backup devices such as specified FDS fuses [66] are also

recommended.

Therefore, precisely selecting the rating of SPDs and reducing the expected lightning withstand

voltage of SPDs have significant benefits. The PV system can be improved in several aspects, such

as the system structure, physical parameters, etc. Proper structure design can minimize the impact

of lightning on the system if these factors are addressed appropriately at the design stage. We can

utilize the proper system structure design for lightning protection performance. Based on the model

we developed, we can investigate the structure design factors such as the PV module type, PV

mounting system, DC cable arrangement, and external lightning protection on the lightning transient

behavior in the PV system. Thus, the expected lightning withstand voltage in the system can be

reduced and accurately estimated.

1.5.4 Effective and economic grounding grid design for large-scale PV System

In the past decades, grounding design in traditional electrical systems has been investigated

elaborately and lots of issues have been resolved. With the increasing installation of PV power plants,

the grounding of PV systems brings new issues and has been increasingly concerned in the industry.

The PV systems are different from those traditional electrical systems, and these differences are not

fully considered in current standards.

Studies concerning the grounding design in the PV plant mainly focus on reducing the ground

potential rise during lightning. However, the arc between different metal parts can still happen even

though the grounding resistance fulfill a certain requirement. Moreover, due to a lack of

40
consolidated standards, the grounding grid in a PV pant varies. A comprehensive evaluation should

be carried on to build an effective grounding grid in the PV plant, especially for large PV plants

where the cost for installing the grounding grid is high.

In this thesis, I will look into the grounding grid design of a PV system and propose an economic

and effective grounding grid system for large PV plants.

Figure 1.8 Grounding grids arrangement in the PV system.

1.6 Thesis Outline

This thesis presents comprehensive lightning transient research for PV systems. The body of

the thesis is organized as follows:

In Chapter 2, several methods used for PV lightning transient analysis are briefly introduced.

The advantage and disadvantages of the triggered lightning experiment, field observation, impulse

testing, and several calculation methods are outlined.

In Chapter 3, the partial element equivalent circuit method (PEEC) model for the PV systems

is presented. The frequency-dependent effects and ferromagnetic properties of structural steel are

taken into account. Models of major components in the PV systems including PV cells, cables, DC

wiring in the panel, and non-linear elements are provided. An experiment on a small PV system is

presented for the validation of the proposed method.

41
 In Chapter 4, three typical types of lightning-related failures in the PV system are introduced.

Based on the PV PEEC model, a case study is given. The voltage between the +DC and -DC cables

which will influence the rating of the SPDs has been discussed. The failure of bypass diodes, the

insulation breakdown between the grounded structure and the DC cable during the lightning strike

are addressed through a case study. Designs solutions are presented in this chapter.

In Chapter 5, the induced voltage between the +DC and -DC cables in the PV system is further

discussed. A comprehensive study is presented to address the installation issues that will influence

this voltage in the PV system. By using the model proposed in Chapter 3, the influence of the

mounting systems, LPS, PV frames, and DC cable arrangements is thoroughly investigated. The

simulation results and discussions guide PV structure design for maximizing lightning protection

performance without adding additional protective devices.

In Chapter 6, the lightning protection performance of the PV system protected by independent

lightning rods is investigated. Several grounding grid configurations are investigated, and the

transferred voltages between the DC cables and supporting structures at different locations are

evaluated using the FDTD method. The accuracy of using the simplified PV model to evaluate the

differential mode voltage in the PV system is verified by calculation. Various influential factors are

discussed in this chapter. Afterward, a cost-effective grounding network with better lightning

protection performance is proposed.

In Chapter 7, the transient behaviors of a practical PV plant are investigated. The failure of PV

inverters, breakdown of bypass diodes, arcing between metallic parts are discussed elaborately.

Protection measures against these failures proposed in chapter 4 are adopted in the investigated PV

plant. According to the numerical results, the proposed measures are also effective for indirect
42
lightning stroke protection.

In Chapter 8, the conclusions and future work of this thesis are provided.

43
 2 Lightning transient analysis techniques for PV systems

Both experimental techniques and numerical methods have been developed and applied to

analyze the lightning transients in PV systems. This chapter presents a brief review of these existing

methods.

2.1 Studies by field observation

Field observation is a direct approach to investigate the impact of lightning strikes on a ground

system. By using an online monitoring system, overvoltage and overcurrent in a victim system can

be recorded during a direct or an indirect lightning stroke. This approach has been used since the

last century to investigate various system components such as towers [67, 68], wind turbines [69],

switching stations [70], residential buildings [71] and transmission lines. Field observation is the

most reliable approach to study the influence of lightning on electrical systems. This approach is

naturally adopted to analyze lightning transients in PV systems.

Vanqala et al. [72] recorded the induced voltage of a series PV string at DC side during several

thunderstorms. In this case, the lightning strike point is far away from the system of concern, and

the amplitude of the recorded voltage is accordingly low. The induced voltage exhibits a ring wave

waveform as shown in Fig. 2.1. In another field observation study [73], the voltage and current

induced by a near lightning stroke in a PV system were recorded. An induced voltage with an

amplitude of 700V was recorded in a single PV-panel. Shahsavari et al. In [74], Micro-PMU Data

was used to analyze the response of a 7.5 MW PV farm during lightning strokes. It reveals an

interesting phenomenon that there can be a reverse power flow from the PV site to the substation

during a lightning strike due to a transient short-circuit caused by the surge arresters' operation. This

44
phenomenon was not recognized before because most distribution networks have been designed to

operate on a unidirectional power flow, and the feeder protection systems have been designed and

triggered based on unidirectional power flow.

Field observation can directly reveal the consequence of lightning strokes on the PV system

and help researchers to understand the influence of lightning on the PV system. However, the

disadvantages of this approach are obvious. (1) In order to obtain a general conclusion, various

configurations are required to evaluate. It leads to a long time for the experiment. (2) Since a PV

system occupies a large area, it is impossible to accurately capture the lightning striking point in a

direct strike accident. It is also unrealistic to install a large number of monitoring sensors when the

striking point is unknown. (3) To analyze the influence of an indirect strike on a PV system, a

lightning location system is needed to determine the position of the striking point and lightning

current waveform. As the wiring of the PV system is thin and complex, the error caused by the

lightning locating system can greatly influence the analysis results.

Figure 2.1 Induced voltage exhibiting ringing phenomena.

2.2 Triggered Lightning

To trigger the lightning and control the lightning striking point, artificially triggered lightning

45
techniques have been developed. Researchers can produce a lightning discharge at a certain terminal

and the current amplitude and waveform can be measured accurately. Taking advantage of triggered

lightning, the influence of direct and indirect strikes on the PV system can be studied. The triggered

lightning experiment was first demonstrated by Newman et al. [75]. Then, this technique was spread

to several countries such as America, Japan, France and China [76-79]. There are some requirements

for the site selection and the waveforms of the triggered lightning, which are relevant to

geographical factors.

The triggered lightning method has been widely used to study the parameter of lightning return

stroke current, to test the capability of a lightning-protection system and investigate transient

behaviors of the PV system. However, there is no relevant reference that can be found concerning

triggered lightning for the PV system. This might due to the reason that the problems brought by

lightning to the PV industry have only been highlighted in recent years. Triggered lightning

experiments in most countries are stopped due to the high investment. The triggered lightning

experiment carried out mainly focuses on the power transmission/distribution system.

2.3 Impulse testing

Impulse testing is designed to simulate lightning strikes by injecting impulse voltages or

currents into the tested system. This method is flexible and relatively cheap especially when the test

is performed in the lab or the test voltage is low. Because of its flexibility, impulse testing is widely

used to study the influence of lightning transients in PV systems from all aspects: degradation

phenomenon of PV, breakdown of diodes, lightning surge distribution, model validation, etc.

However, the systems in the field are more complex than those tested in the lab. Both structural

46
factors and environmental factors might influence the transient behaviors. Therefore, some impulse

tests have been conducted in the field. The field testing requires carrying an impulse generator of a

large capacity to the PV field, which is not flexible. Meanwhile, impulse testing cannot fully

consider the influence of lightning strikes. For example, the influence of a lightning channel and an

irregular lightning waveform on the system is hard to be considered by using the impulse testing

method.

2.4 Numerical Calculation

Compared to the experimental approach, the numerical calculation is more flexible. An

accurate calculation can reveal the detailed transient currents and voltages in any component of a

PV system. Therefore, it is preferred in practical design and research. However, the accuracy of the

calculation is not guaranteed because of the complex structures in the PV system. This section

introduces the popular calculation methods for PV transient analysis.

2.4.1 Analytical method

An analytical method is the simplest to deal with a lightning transient problem. It approximates

the PV system using just several formulas, and it provides qualitative analysis rather than

quantitative analysis. In the early studies, some researchers used analytical methods to investigate

lightning protection in PV systems. In [80], the induced voltage in a single PV panel was evaluated

when the current-carrying conductor was parallel to the board. However, the results of the analytical

solutions are not reliable and it is hard to analyze a general case or a system-scale PV system.

2.4.2 Numerical method

Numerical methods are widely used to analyze transient behaviors in various systems.
47
Numerical analysis of a large system becomes possible with the availability of high-performance

computers. Numerical methods are derived from Maxwell’s equations either differentially or

integrally. By using a numerical calculation method, the continuous mathematical model is

transformed into an equivalent discrete mathematical model. The discrete equations are solved by

using effective algebraic equations. Classified by the mathematical modelling methods, Maxwell

equations can be transformed into differential equation form (2.1) and integral equation form (2.2)

as follows:

→
D
→ →
 H = J +
t
→
B →
 E= − (2.1)
t
→
  D = v
→
  B =0
→
→ → D →→

L H  d l = S
（ J +
t
） d S

→
→ → B →
L E  d l = − S t  d S (2.2)
→ →

 S
D  d S =   v dv
S
→ →

 S
B  d S =0

where H is magnetic field intensity (A/m), D is electric flux density (C/m2), E is electric field

intensity (V/m), B is Magnetic flux density (A/m2), J is Electric current density (A/m2), ρ v is

Volume charge density (C/m3).

The constitutive relations of parameters in Maxwell’s equations are as follows:

D = E
B = H (2.3)
J = E

Where ε is the permittivity of the medium (F/m), µ is the permeability of the medium [H/m].
48
2.4.2.1 The FDTD method

The FDTD was first proposed by K.S.Yee in 1966 [81] and has become popular all these years.

This method differentiates Maxwell's equations in time and space. In order to obtain the numerical

solution, the electric field and magnetic field in the problem space are calculated alternately. In the

rectangular coordinate system, the differential Maxwell equations (2.1) can be written by the FDTD

rule as

H z H y E
− =  x +  Ex
y z t
H x H z E y
− = +  Ey (2.4)
z x t
H y H x E
− =  z +  Ez
x y t

Ez E y H x
− = − −mHx
y z t
Ex Ez H y
− = − −mH y (2.5)
z x t
E y Ex H z
− = − −mHz
x y t

Discrete the above formula in time and space domain, the electric field updating equation in

FDTD can be obtained as

1 1
 (i + , j , k )  (i + , j , k )
2 − 2
n +1 1
Ex (i + , j , k ) =  t 2 1
 Exn (i + , j , k ) +
2 1 1 2
 (i + , j , k )  (i + , j, k )
2 + 2
t 2
 n + 12 1 1 n+
1
1 1
 zH (i + , j + , k ) − H 2
(i + , j − , k )
1 2 2
z
2 2
 (2.6)
1 1
 (i + , j , k )  (i + , j, k )   y
2 2 
+
t 2
1 
1 1
n+ 1 1 n+ 1
H y 2 (i + , j , k + ) − H y 2 (i + , j , k − ) 
− 2 2 2 2 
z 


49
 1 1
 (i, j + , k )  (i, j + , k )
2 − 2
1
E yn +1 (i, j + , k ) = t 2 1
 E yn (i, j + , k ) +
2 1 1 2
 (i, j + , k )  (i, j + , k )
2 + 2
t 2
 n + 12 1 1 n+
1
1 1
 H x (i, j + , k + ) − H x 2 (i, j + , k − )
1 2 2 2 2
 (2.7)
1 1
 (i, j + , k )  (i, j + , k )  z
2 2 
+
t 2
n+
1
1 1 n+
1
1 1 
H z 2 (i + , j + , k ) − H z 2 (i − , j + , k ) 
− 2 2 2 2 
x 


1 1
 (i, j , k + )  (i, j , k + )
2 − 2
1
Ezn +1 (i, j , k + ) = t 2 1
 Ezn (i, j , k + ) +
2 1 1 2
 (i, j , k + )  (i, j , k + )
2 + 2
t 2
 n + 12 1 1 n+
1
1 1
 H y (i + , j , k + ) − H y 2 (i − , j , k + )
1 2 2 2 2
 (2.8)
1 1 
 (i, j , k + )  (i, j , k + ) x
2 + 2 
t 2
1 
1 1
n+ 1 1 n+ 1
H x 2 (i, j + , k + ) − H x 2 (i, j − , k + ) 
− 2 2 2 2 
y 


and magnetic field updating equation can be obtained as

1 1 1 1
 (i, j + , k + )  m (i, j + , k + )
1
2 2 − 2 2 1
n+ 1 1
H x 2 (i, j + , k + ) = t 2 n− 1
 H x 2 (i, j + , k + ) −
1
2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2
 (i, j + , k + )  m (i, j + , k + )
2 2 + 2 2
t 2
 n 1 1
 Ez (i, j + 1, k + 2 ) − Ez (i, j , k + 2 )
n
1 (2.9)

1 1 1 1  y
 (i, j + , k + )  m (i, j + , k + ) 
2 2 + 2 2 
t 2
1 1 
E yn (i, j + , k + 1) − E yn (i, j + , k ) 
− 2 2

z 


50
 1 1 1 1
 (i + , j , k + )  m (i + , j , k + )
1
2 2 − 2 2 1
Hy
n+ 1 1
(i + , j , k + ) =
2 t 2 n− 1
 H y 2 (i + , j , k + ) −
1
2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2
 (i + , j , k + )  m (i + , j , k + )
2 2 + 2 2
t 2
 n 1 1
 Ex (i + 2 , j , k + 1) − Ex (i + 2 , j , k )
n
1 （2.10）

1 1 1 1   z
 (i + , j , k + )  m (i + , j , k + )
2 2 + 2 2 
t 2
1 1 
Ezn (i + 1, j , k + ) − E zn (i, j , k + ) 
− 2 2

x 

1 1 1 1
 (i + , j + , k )  m (i + , j + , k )
1
2 2 − 2 2 1
n+ 1 1
H z (i + , j + , k ) =
2  t 2 n− 1 1
 H z 2 (i + , j + , k ) −
2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2
 (i + , j + , k )  m (i + , j + , k )
2 2 + 2 2
t 2
 n 1 1
 E y (i + 1, j + 2 , k ) − E y (i, j + 2 , k )
n
1 (2.11)

1 1 1
 (i + , j + , k )  m (i + , j + , k )
1   x
2 2 + 2 2 
t 2
1 1 
Exn (i + , j + 1, k ) − Exn (i + , j , k ) 
− 2 2

y 


Based on the above FDTD equations, the time domain solution in the problem domain can be

obtained by iteration as Fig 2.2:

Figure 2.2 Time domain solution in the problem domain by iteration.

This method can directly solve Maxwell’s equations by difference approximation in a restricted

51
computational domain. This method is straightforward, easy to code and can handle inhomogeneous

electrical parameters such as soil stratified. Besides, the simulated models can include devices with

nonlinear characteristics such as SPDs. On the other hand, the FDTD method requires a long

computation time and large computation resources. Over the years, various thin wire models and

non-uniform meshes have been developed to improve the efficiency of FDTD and make it

applicable to solve large space electrical problems.

There are some difficulties in the application of FDTD for PV transient analysis. Due to its

nature of Cartesian spatial discretization, FDTD is hard to handle arbitrary shapes such as a large

number of oblique lines in PV systems. Employing a staircase approximation for the oblique line

can introduce a significant error into the solution unless very dense grids are used, which results in

a large burden on memory and CPU time. Thus, the tilt angle of solar installation and the

configuration of the conductors used in the PV system is always ignored and treated as horizontal

or vertical thin wires [28] [64]. To further reduce the computational burden, the wiring route in each

panel is also ignored, and the wiring in a PV string is simplified to two parallel long lines[28] [64].

The disadvantages of the above approximation are obvious. When evaluating the current on the DC

line, errors are introduced. The voltages exerted on the bypass diodes are not possibly evaluated.

2.4.2.2 The FEM method

The FEM allows accurate modelling of complex structures with arbitrarily shaped regions, thus

the oblique line and the C shape structure of PV brackets can be easily handled. Due to these

advantages, this method can be used as model validation [18]. FEM can also take easily

inhomogeneous materials into account as well as the FDTD method. Thus, it can be used to solve

52
the problem such as the influence of multilayered soil in the PV system. However, the execution of

the FEM requires the solution of a matrix equation, which consequently demands inordinately high

computer memory resources. Moreover, FEM is not efficient to handle thin-wire structures. FEM

also lacks the integration capacity of nonlinear devices in the simulation, which makes it difficult

to include SPDs, inverters, diodes in the systematic simulation. All these shortages make it

inefficient for solving large electrical systems, especially for PV systems where large numbers of

thin wire and SPDs are involved.

2.4.2.3 The MoM method

The MoM, also known as the boundary element method (BEM), is based on the integral

formulation of Maxwell’s equations. In this method, the integral equation of Maxwell equations is

described by the surface currents on the conductors, then the scattering problem is solved by these

formulations. The scattered electric field can be expressed in terms of surface currents on conductors.

For a non-homogeneous equation:

L( f ) = g (2.12)

Where L is the operator equation, g is the known function, f is an unknown function. Assume that

the solution of the operator equation exists and is unique, and L is a linear operator. Firstly, a linearly

independent function fn is used to approximate the unknown function f:

N
f   an f n (2.13)
n =1

Where an is undetermined coefficient，fn is the basis function in the operator domain, N is a positive

integer.

Then, put the approximate expression off into the operator equation:
N

 a L( f
n =1
n n )g (2.14)

53
 N
 =  an L( f n )-g (2.15)
n =1

Where Ꜫ is the deviation between the approximate value and the actual value. Weight functions

wm are selected to ensure the weighted average of the residual value is zero. The moment equation

is obtained:
N

a
n =1
n wm , L( f n ) = wm , g (2.16)

MoM is capable of modelling thin wire structures with speed, accuracy, convergence and

versatility. Thus, in the research of PV lightning protection, this method is widely used to analyze

the current [17] or voltage distribution [20] in the grounding grid of a PV system. Unlike the FDTD

and FEM methods that need mesh the whole solution space, MoM only meshes the conductor. Thus,

a PV model including the complex wiring structure can be easily solved by the MoM method [82].

However, MoM works in the frequency domain so that it cannot provide the time-domain solution

without the inverse Fourier transform (IFT). As nonlinear devices are evaluated in the time domain,

MoM is difficult to integrate with them. MoM limits its analysis of the transients in conductive

components rather than a system.

2.4.2.4 The PEEC method:

The essence of the PEEC algorithm is to convert the electromagnetic effect into a lumped element

in the equivalent circuit from the electric field integral equation (EFIE):

J (r ) 
Ei (r ) = + j  G ( r , r  ) J ( r  ) dV  +  G ( r , r ) q ( r ) dS  (2.17)
 V 0 S

The electromagnetic effects of the electromagnetic structure are modeled one by one into with

lumped circuit components in an equivalent circuit model, such as inductors, resistors, capacitors,

controlled sources, and the like:

54
 li
Ri = (2.18)
 i ai
 1 1 (2.19)
Lij =
4 ai a j 
v v' R
dVi dV j

1 1 1 (2.20)
pij =
4 Si S j   Si Sj R
dSi dS j

dI j
L j i
ij
dt
n Ri Lii m

In Im

Pij
C ip P Ij i
j C pj P
Pi +1, j
Ij
ii
j  i +1 i +1,i +1

Figure 2.3 Equivalent PEEC circuit for two cells.

Circuit analysis can be then performed in both the frequency domain and the time domain, and

has a natural advantage in the electromagnetic-circuit joint simulation. The PEEC method starts

with the electromagnetic mixing equation and contains the interaction of electricity and magnetism.

The PEEC method is mostly used in electromagnetic problems, including the compact structure,

low-frequency working system, and time-domain system with a negligible delay effect. The PEEC

algorithm degenerates into a quasi-static model, which improves the efficiency of the algorithm

while maintaining the accuracy of the algorithm. The quasi-static PEEC model is used to simulate

a structure with a small electrical size or to be applied to a scene with a lower frequency, which has

an accuracy comparable to that of the full-wave PEEC method. Due to the advantages above, the

PEEC method has been successfully used in the lightning transient analysis in a variety of systems

such as transmission towers, residential buildings and telecommunications systems. However, its

application in the PV system has not been well addressed.

55
2.5 Conclusion

This chapter summarizes the transient analysis methodology used for the lightning protection

design of PV systems. Experimental methods, including field observation, triggered lightning

experiment and impulse testing are presented. Impulse testing is an effective way to study the

lightning transient if the scale of a system is small. The field observation and triggered lightning

experiment can reveal the lightning transients in a practical PV system. These methods provide valid

evidence about the lightning-related damages, however, are difficult to implement due to the cost

and the low chance of catching a lightning event. Numerical calculation is more convenient and

widely used for the transient analysis of PV systems. Different numerical methods are introduced.

Their advantages and disadvantages in studying the lightning transients of PV systems are clarified.

The circuit method is frequently used for lightning transient analysis, especially for large power

systems. However, this method takes too much simplification of the physic process and effect. Due

to large memory consumption and long computation time, FDTD and FEM are not suitable to

analyze the lightning transient of PV systems if thin wire structures in each panel are considered.

The PEEC method, which converts the electromagnetic problem into a circuit domain, is an effective

method to solve the lightning transient problem in a large system with thin wire structures. Most of

our work is evaluated using the PEEC method in this thesis.

56
 3 PEEC Modelling for Components in a PV system

An efficient simulation method is essential for analyzing time-domain lightning transients

in PV systems. Although PV modelling has been addressed in the literature, it is found that

some factors are underestimated in PV component modelling for lightning transient analysis.

Firstly, the conductors, such as structural steels, DC cables, etc. were generally modeled as

perfect conductors. The frequency-dependent effects of these conductors were ignored. These

conductors are highly frequency dependent under lightning transients. Particularly, the steels

are made of ferromagnetic materials so that they exhibit a strong frequency dependent effect.

Secondly, the wiring of PV panels and the nonlinear characteristic of PV cells were not

considered in some studies. All these can lead to inaccurate results of lightning voltages and

currents in the systems. An efficient modelling method for the PV systems would then be

necessary in order to provide effective lightning protection.

This chapter presents a comprehensive procedure of PV component modelling for

lightning transient analysis. Taking advantage of the PEEC method, models of various

conductors, cables and nonlinear components in the PV system are presented. With the vector

fitting method, the frequency-dependent characteristic of conductors is taken into account. The

proposed method is verified experimentally. The rest of this chapter is organized as follows.

Chapter 3.1 presents the modelling method of the supporting steel, DC cables and the wiring in

the PV panel. In Chapter 3.2, the laboratory experiment on a PV panel is presented for

validation of the proposed method. Finally, the conclusion is drawn in Chapter 3.3

57
3.1 PEEC model of PV components

Lightning transient problems can be generally solved using electromagnetic field methods,

such as the FDTD method [83-85], MoM, etc. The PEEC method [86-88] is considered as an

efficient method for modelling electromagnetic (EM) coupling in a wire structure, and is suitable

for modelling PV systems. The PEEC method [89-91] is derived from the mixed potential

formulation of Maxwell equations. The total electric field on a conductor in free space can be

expressed by using both magnetic vector A and electric scalar potential  as

E ( r ,  ) = j A ( r ,  ) + ( r ,  )
(3.1)

With the free-space Green’s function G, can be expressed as

J (r )
0= + j  G ( r , r  ) J ( r  ) dv 
 v
(3.2)

+  G ( r , r  )  ( r  ) ds '
 s'

Where J is the volume current density at source point,  is the conductor conductivity and  is the

surface charge density, v is the volume of the conductor, r and r are the position vectors. Divide the

conductor into a number of small segments, and assume both conductor current I and line charge q are

constant in each segment. Fig. 3.1 illustrated a typical conductor segment for modelling.

Integrating (3-2) along with segments yields a set of electrical circuit equations for Nb segments and Nn

nodes, as follows:

Nb
Vn − Vn +1 = Rii I i +  j Lij I i
j =1
Nn
(3.3)
Vn =  pnm qm
m =1

Where Rii is the resistance of segment i, and both Lij and pij are the inductance and coefficient of

potential between segments i and j, nodes n and m.

58
 Note that a lightning return stroke current contains high-frequency components. The current in a

segment at high frequency is not uniformly distributed over its cross-section due to the eddy current

effect. Both resistance and internal inductance then vary with a frequency significantly. They can be

determined by the surface impedance of the conductor. For a circular conductor with radius a, both

resistance and internal inductance in s domain are expressed with the surface impedance Zii,s [92, 93], as

follows:

j I（ R）
Z s ,ii ( s ) =  0 a
2 Ra I（
1 Ra）

Rii ( s ) = real  Z s ( s )  (3.4)

imag  Z s ( s ) 
Lint,ii ( s ) =


Where In is modified Bessel functions of the 1st kind at order n with argument Ra= (1+j)a/δ in

which δ is skin depth and μ is the relative permeability. External inductance and coefficient of

potential are generally frequency invariant, and are determined by general PEEC formulas, as

follows:

 1
Lext ,ij =
4  li lj d
ij
dli dl j
(3.5)
1 1 1
pnm =
4 ln lm ln lm dnm dln dlm

Where dij or dnm is the distance between branches i and j or nodes n and m.

As surface impedance varies significantly with frequency, the vector fitting method [94] is

adopted to represent the frequency-dependent surface impedance with frequency invariant circuit

parameters. Given by Z(s) in s domain, this impedance can be approximated with rational functions

in the form of pole-residue terms as follows:

N
s
Z s ( s) = R0 + sL0 +   Rk (3.6)
k =1 s + Rk / Lk

59
 After all the poles are identified, the impedance of the conductor can be realized with an

equivalent cascade circuit consisting of frequency-invariant resistors and inductors. Because the

surface impedance increases with frequency monotonously in the frequency range of interest, two

real-pole rational functions are sufficient to capture the rather smooth frequency behavior of the

elements. Fig. 3.1(b) shows a complete vector-fitting enhanced PEEC model for a segment of the

conductor. In this circuit model, all circuit parameters of the conductors are passive and frequency-

independent. Time-domain circuit analysis tools can be applied directly to solve for lightning

transients in a wire structure, such as that built from a PV system. In this chapter, the circuit

parameters of the wire structure are calculated with Matlab codes, and transient voltages and

currents in the structure are solved with a SPICE solver using the netlist files generated with the

Matlab codes as well [95].

Node n Branch i Node n+1

Vn Ii Vn+1

(a)

Lii,1 Lii,2 𝑑𝐼𝑗

Rii,0 Lii,0
𝐿𝑖𝑗
Vn
𝑑𝑡
𝑗 Vn+1
...
Icn Icn+1
Rii,1 Rii,2

1 𝑝𝑛𝑚 1 𝑝𝑛+1𝑚
𝐼 𝐼
𝑝𝑛𝑛 𝑝𝑛𝑛 𝑐𝑚 𝑝𝑛+1𝑛+1 𝑝𝑛+1𝑛+1 𝑐𝑚
𝑚≠𝑛 𝑚 ≠𝑛+1

(b)

Figure 3.1 PEEC model of a conductive segment with the vector-fiting method.(a) A conductor segment (b)

Equivalent circuit.

60
3.1.1 C Profile Steel

Because of its excellent mechanical performance (high strength, light in weight, easy

installation), C profile steel is commonly used as the supporting structure in PV systems. Fig. 3.2(a)

shows the typical C profile steel use for the PV systems. The steel used in this chapter has a width

of 40 mm and a thickness of 3 mm, as seen in Fig. 3.2(b).

Lm
t= 3 mm

w = 40 mm
Ls Ls

Ls

(a) (b)

Figure 3.2 Configuration of C profile steel. (a) Overview. (b) Cross-section view.

As one kind of ferromagnetic materials, C profile steel exhibits nonlinear characteristics under

the excitation of current. While the steel is deeply saturated when it carries the lightning current

directly. It can be then treated as a linear magnetic material [96]. The C profile steel can be

represented by internal impedance and external inductance. The resistance and internal inductance

of the C profile steel are calculated using the cylindrical model with an equivalent radius [97]. As

the thickness of the steel is very small, equivalent radius a of the cylindrical model is determined

by its side width as

3w
a= (3.7)
2

Note that the external inductance is associated with the magnetic flux linkage outside the

conductor. It is determined only by the geometric dimensions of the C profile steel. In order to

61
calculate the external inductance, the C profile steel is divided into three thin tapes as shown in Fig.

3.2(b). Consequently, the external inductance of the C profile steel can be calculated based on the

parallel connection of three thin tapes, and is expressed as

1
Lext = −1 (3.8)
 Ls Lm1 Lm 2 
  Lm1 Ls Lm1 
 Lm 2 Lm1 Ls 

Where Ls is the external self-inductance of individual thin tapes, and both Lm1 and Lm2 represent the

mutual inductances between two thin tapes orientated perpendicularly and parallel. These

inductances can be obtained using the simplified Hoer’s formulas [98]:

The inductance of sheets or plates with zero thickness has been discussed extensively in [96, 98].

For self-inductance of a thin sheet it is given by

0 1  2 l + l 2 + W 2 3
Ls = 3W l ln − (l 2 + W 2 ) 2
6 W 
2
W
W + l2 +W 2 
+3l 2 W ln + l3 + W 3 
l 
(3.9)

Where both W and l are the width and length of the sheet, respectively. For two parallel horizontal

planes with sheet spacing of z, mutual inductance is expressed as

0 1 x y x y
2 1 2' 2'

Lm =  f ( x − x, y − y, z )

4 W 2 x y x y
1 2 1' 1'
(3.10)

Function f (u,v,w) in (3.10) is given as

v 2 − w2 u 2 − w2
f ( u , v, w ) = u ln(u + R) + v ln(v + R)
2 2
1  uv 
− ( R 2 − 3w2 ) R − uvw tan −1  
6  wR  (3.11)
Where 𝑅 = √𝑢2 + 𝑣 2 + 𝑤 2.

For two perpendicular planes, the same expression is used except the function f (u,v,w) is replaced

by:

62
  v 2 w2   v2 u 2 
f ( u,v,w ) =  -  wln(u + R)+  -  uln(w+ R)
 2 6   2 6 
uw v3 -1  uw 
+uvwln(v + R) - R - tan  
3 6  vR 
vu 2 -1  vw  vw2 -1  vu 
- tan  - tan  
2  uR  2  wR  (3.12)

Experimental tests were undertaken to verify the proposed modelling approach. Fig. 3.3 shows

the test setup for extracting the impedance of the C profile steel. A square loop made of C profile

steel with a side length of 1 m was constructed in the laboratory. An impulse current was injected

into the loop, and both the impulse voltage across the loop and the injected current were recorded

by a digital oscilloscope. The inverse Fourier transform technique was used to convert the time-

domain voltage and current to the frequency-domain results. Thus, frequency-domain resistance and

inductance under the impulse were obtained. Fig. 3.4 shows frequency-domain resistance and

inductance obtained by both measurement and calculation with (4)-(7) using 𝜎 = 5 × 106 S/m

and 𝜇𝑟 = 75. It is found that calculated resistance and inductance using the proposed model match

well with the measured results.

Figure 3.3 Experiment configuration of a C profile steel loop.

63
 (a)

(b)

Figure 3.4 Measured and calculated circuit parameters of a C profile steel loop. (a) Resistance, (b) Inductance.

3.1.2 Wiring of a PV Panel

PV cells in a PV panel are connected in series through galvanized copper wires. There are

several types of wires generally used in industry as listed in Table 3.1. Because of their thin thickness,

the skin effect is neglected in wire modelling. Consequently, the resistance of the wire is

approximated by its DC resistance. Self-inductance is almost equaled to its DC inductance and can

be calculated using the Hoer’s formula [98]. To verify our assumption, the wire with a width of 1.6

64
mm, a thickness of 0.2 mm, and a length of 1.8 m is tested. The frequency-dependent curves of

resistance and inductance are obtained using a vector network analyzer (VNA) as shown in Fig. 3.5.

It is found that both the resistance and inductance are almost frequency-invariant and are coincident

with the DC inductance (2.29 H) and DC resistance (150.5 mΩ), respectively.

Tables 3.1. Dimensions of the wiring.

Dimensions
Conductor
Type Wide(mm) Thickness(mm)

A 1.6 0.2

Wires B 1.8 0.16

C 0.2 0.16

(a) (b)

Figure 3.5 Measured parameters of the wiring of the PV cells. (a) Resistance, (b) Inductance.

65
3.1.3 Modelling of the PV panel

The circuit models of PV cells have been studied extensively over the years. The single diode

model [99], double-diode model, and modified 3-diode equivalent circuit model [100], are the most

commonly adopted for representing the PV cell in circuit simulation under DC conditions. For

lightning transient study in this chapter an improved PV model using the single diode model is

proposed. Note that few articles have addressed the transient behavior of the PV cells.

Rs I Ls Rs I

Id Ip
Ig Rsh V Solar cell V

(a) (b)

Figure 3.6 Equivalent circuit of a PV cell. (a) Single diode model. (b) Transient model.

Fig. 3.6(a) shows the diagram of the single diode PV model. Ig is the photocurrent. Both Rs and

Rsh represent respectively the series resistance for the ohmic loss of the wiring, and the shunt

resistance for the losses caused by localized shorts at the emitter layer or perimeter shunts along cell

borders, etc. Fig. 3.6(b) shows the proposed transient PV-cell model for lightning transient analysis.

The diode in the traditional model retains, while the photocurrent is neglected due to its negligible

magnitude compared with the lightning current. Both Ls and Rs are the inductance and resistance of

the wiring, respectively. They can be determined with the impulse test as described in Chapter 2.1.

The V-I relation of the diode is given by

I
V = NVT log( + 1) (3.13)
Is

Where VT is a constant of 26 mV. Both N and Is are the determining factors of the diode D, and are
66
determined by the I-V curve measured in the laboratory with the least square method. The measurement

is similar to that described in Chapter 2.1. Fig. 3.7 shows the V-I curves measured in the experiment and

calculated with (3.13). A good agreement is observed.

Figure 3.7 Comparison of measured and simulated results.

3.1.4 Modelling consideration of bypass diodes

In the PV system, a bypass diode is connected in parallel with the PV cell at the output of each

module in the reverse direction. The bypass diode is an important element in the PV module. It can

effectively prevent the PV cell from burning out caused by the hot spot effect. For better reference,

the represented circuit of a PV cell with 8 PV modules is shown in Fig. 3.8.

67
 Loop due to wiring
structure in each module

+DC terminal
Loop due to
DC cable
-DC terminal

Solar cell
Bypass diode

Figure 3.8 Representative circuit of a PV string with 8 PV modules.

Lightning current

+DC terminal +DC terminal

Reverse
direction
-DC terminal -DC terminal

Solar cell Solar cell Solar cell Solar cell

Solar cell
Bypass diode

(a) (b)

Figure 3.9 Representative circuit of a PV string with 8 PV modules with the lightning current in the reverse

direction. (a) original circuit. (b) equivalent circuit.

Because of the polarity of the lightning return stroke current, there are two scenarios for the

induced voltage of the loop. In the first scenario, the bypass diodes are all in the reverse direction

while the solar cells are in the forward direction as shown in Fig. 3.9(a). So, the bypass diodes are

equivalent to an open circuit and the solar cells are equivalent to a short circuit as shown in Fig.

3.9(b). In this case, the electromagnetic induction in both the loop of DC cables and the loop of the

wiring structure in each module contributed to the overvoltage at the DC terminal. The overvoltage

due to electromagnetic induction in the loop of the wiring structure might lead to the breakdown of

the bypass diodes.

68
 Lightning current

Solar
cell

+DC terminal +DC terminal

Forward
direction
-DC terminal -DC terminal

Solar cell
Bypass diode

(a) (b)

Figure 3.10 Representative circuit of a PV string with 8 PV modules with the lightning current in the forward

direction. (a) original circuit. (b) equivalent circuit.

In the second scenario, the bypass diodes are all in the forward direction while the PV cells are

all in the reverse direction as shown in Fig. 3.10(a). So, the bypass diodes are equivalent to the short

circuit and the PV cells are equivalent to the open circuit. Under this condition, the wiring structure

of the PV cell in each PV module is shorted by the bypass diode as shown in Fig. 3.10(b). The loop

of the circuit is only contributed by the DC cable. Thus, the induced voltage applied at the DC

terminal is smaller than the former one. In this scenario, the bypass diodes will not suffer from

breakdown. For worse case analysis, only the first scenario is considered in the following analysis.

3.1.5 Lightning waveform for PV transient analysis

Based on the polarity of its electric charge transferred and the travel direction of its initial

leader, lightning can be categorized into four types: downward (positive and negative) and upward

(positive and negative) lightning. According to the observation [101], 90% of lightning is downward

negatively charged. Upward lightning is barely initiated except for tall objects over 100 m. In the

thesis, the first negative lightning stroke is considered if there is no special concern. It is defined

using the Heidler’s equation according to IEC 62305 [102], as follows:

69
 (t T )
n
imax
i (t ) = exp ( − t  ) 3.10
 1 + ( t T )n

Where current peak imax = 100 kA, its correction coefficient  = 0.986. Front-time coefficient T

and stroke duration time  are respectively equal to 1.82 s and 285 s. Current steepness factor n

= 10.

3.2 Verification of the PEEC model

To verify the proposed modelling procedure, a simplified PV system was tested in the

laboratory as shown in Fig. 3.11. The system is a PV unit made of a PV panel and its supporting

frame made of the C profile steel. The dimensions of the PV supporting frame are shown in Fig.

3.11(b) and listed in Table 3.2. The configuration of the PV panel is shown in Fig. 3.11(c). During

the test, four leg ends of the PV frame were connected with copper strips as shown in Fig. 3.11(b).

An impulse current was injected into the top corner of the frame through a shielded power cable.

The impulse current flows back to the impulse generator through the legs of the frame. The current

distributed at each leg and induced open voltage in the DC cable were recorded with a digital

oscilloscope.

Transient simulation of the tested system was performed using the proposed method. A system-

level model was developed, which included the C profile steel, DC cables and the PV cell.

70
 (a)

PT
+
-
1m
OSC
Impulse
1m

0.6 m

0.25 m

CT

copper strips

(b)

112.5 cm

6 cm
+DC
12.5 cm
54 cm

-DC

120 cm

(c)

Figure 3.11 Simplified PV system for testing. (a) overview of the the laboratory setup. (b) configuration of the test

arrangement. (c) configuration of the PV panel.

71
 Table 3.2. Dimensions of C-profile steels in the PV frame.

Parameters
Items
Quantity Length(mm) Cross-section(mm)

Side Length: 40
Front legs 2 250
Thickness: 3

Side Length: 40
Rear legs 2 600
Thickness: 3

Side Length: 40
Cross girder 2 1000
Thickness:3

Side Length: 40
Oblique girder 2 1000
Thickness: 3

Fig. 3.12 shows the results of currents in four legs obtained with the measurement and

simulation under an 8/20 μs impulse current of 632 A in peak. It is observed that both simulated and

measured currents match well in both magnitude and waveform. Table 3.3 shows the measured and

calculated peak currents in each leg. Good agreements are observed and the errors are less than

4.2 %. Fig. 3.13 shows the measured and simulated induced open voltages in the DC cable. The

calculated and measured voltages also match well in the waveform. Therefore, the proposed model

is adequate for the analysis of lightning transients in PV systems.

72
 Figure 3.12 Comparison of current distribution at four legs of the PV panel.

Table 3.3. Comparison of impulse current peaks in four legs of the PV system.

Value (A)
Position
Meas. Cal. Err.

Leg 1 296 296 0%

Leg 2 82 79.61 2.9%

Leg 3 71 74 4.2%

Leg 4 180 182.7 1.5%

Figure 3.13 Comparison of te induced open voltage between two DC lines.

73
3.3 Conclusion

This chapter presented a comprehensive modelling procedure for transient analysis in the PV

systems. Models of the C profile steel, the DC cables, the wiring of PV panels were provided. Both

the frequency-dependent effect and ferromagnetic properties of structural steel were taken into

account. Transient voltages and currents in the PV system were simulated using the enhanced PEEC

method. The modelling procedure has been verified experimentally in the laboratory.

74
 4 Typical Lightning Damages in PV Systems and Solutions

Three typical lightning-related damages in the PV system are addressed in this chapter, that is,

failure of PV inverter, breakdown of bypass diodes and arcing and insulation breakdown due to

ground potential rise. The configuration of a typical PV system is then presented. The PV system

represented by the PEEC model is introduced in the last Chapter. In order to analyse typical

lightning-related damages, the lightning transient behaviour in the PV system during a direct strike

is analysed with a case study. To go a step further, design solutions to these damages are proposed

based on the simulation and experiment.

4.1 Typical Lightning Damages in PV systems

A practical PV plant has a large number of PV arrays working independently. Each array is

composed of several PV strings connected in parallel to a PV inverter. The outputs of several PV

inverters are connected to a boosting transformer before supplying the power to the grid. The PV

string consists of several PV modules connected in serials to output a DC voltage of several hundred

voltages. System failures in the PV plant during a lightning strike may be caused by the failure of

PV inverters, breakdown of bypass diodes, arcing and insulation breakdown due to ground potential

rise, and others.

4.1.1 PV Inverters

A power inverter plays a vital role in energy conversion in the PV system. It transforms the DC

power generated by the PV modules into three-phase AC power. The inverter used in the PV system

can be classified into four categories: centralized inverter, string inverter, multi-string inverter and

75
micro inverter. Both the string inverter and multi-string inverter become more and more popular in

the PV system due to their higher energy conversion rate, more extensibility, and lower installation

cost. However, they are susceptible to lightning transients and have a low overvoltage withstanding

capacity. A direct or indirect lightning strike could induce over voltages in the DC cables as shown

in Fig. 4.1 (black wires), causing damage to the PV inverters connected to them. This issue has

drawn a lot of attention [29].

Figure 4.1 A DC cable loop in a PV string (black wires).

4.1.2 Bypass diodes

A bypass diode is connected in parallel to the PV module in reverse polarity. It works in the

reverse state in normal conditions. While, it turns to the forward mode and acts as a by-pass, when

the module is shadowed or fails to generate power. Thus, other modules connecting in series can

continue to generate power. The bypass diode has a low reverse withstand voltage [36]. In this study,

the type of the bypass diodes is 15A10 with a 1 kV reverse withstand voltage. The electrical

breakdown of bypass diodes is frequently observed in the plant. It is mainly due to the following

reasons:

• Withstanding voltage of the bypass diodes is low.

76
• The loop formed by the DC cables in the PV module can generate an induced voltage which is

high enough to damage the bypass diode during lightning strikes.

• The bypass diodes do not have any specific protection measures against lightning.

4.1.3 Arcing and insulation breakdown in the PV system due

to ground potential rise

When lightning strikes a PV system or a structure nearby, the ground potential will rise to a

high level. The voltage between the positive/negative lines of the DC cable and the grounding

structure may cause insulation breakdown on the cable. The potential of the PV frame will also rise

to a considerable high level because it is connected to the grounding grid. The potential difference

between the PV frame and the wire in the module might cause a flashover. The resultant arcing will

also lead to degradation of the PV module, broken-in glasses, or even destruction of the module

[42, 43]. Fig. 4.2 shows the damage caused by the arcing during an indirect lightning event.

Figure 4.2 Observed arcing on the panel surface.

77
4.2 Surge simulation in a PV system

4.2.1 Configuration of the PV System

String inverters are commonly used in PV systems due to their high power generation

efficiency, installation flexibility and low maintenance cost. To generate a sufficient DC voltage,

several PV panels are connected in series as a PV string. The PV string is then connected to a string

inverter to convert the DC power to three-phase AC power. For the system discussed in this chapter,

8 PV panels are installed on a PV supporting frame, and 24 PV panels on 3 supporting frames are

connected in series as a PV string to output a voltage around 700VDC. At the end of the PV string,

the DC cable is connected to an inverter. Fig. 4.3 shows the configuration of the system under

investigation.

Air terminal rod

120 cm

220 cm

60 cm
185 cm

60 cm 310 cm

(a)

1.2 m Diode 1 Diode 2

+ DC
2.6 m
- DC
Inverter

Point 3 Lightning strike Point 2 Point 1

1. 2 m
point

3.4 m 1m 1.8 m

Horizontal conductor
Grounding grid

(b)

Figure 4.3 The PV system under investigation. (a) Configuration of the PV panels on a frame. (b) Top view of the

PV system with the grounding grid.

78
 The PV string in Fig. 4.3 is protected with a non-isolated LPS. The air terminal rod of 1.2 m is

mounted on the PV frame which is part of the LPS. Fig. 4.3(a) shows one PV supporting frame

considered in the simulation. Fig. 4.3(b) shows the top view of the system. The grounding grid is

represented with the dash lines. The grid is buried in the ground with a depth of 0.5 m and the size

of 5 m × 15 m. The legs of the PV frame are connected to the grounding grid via horizontal bonding

conductors in the ground. The length of the bonding conductors is 1.2 m and they are buried at depth

of 0.5 m as well. Both the grounding grid and bonding conductors are made with 40 × 4 mm2 flat

steel.

4.2.2 Lightning Transient Voltages in the PV system

The first negative stroke of 1/200 μs and 100 kA in peak is employed in the simulation. The

open-circuit voltage between the positive and negative lines of the DC cable is simulated. To

investigate the issue of insulation breakdown, the voltages between the positive/negative lines and

the ground are also simulated. The soil resistivity is taken to be 500 Ω∙m, and a high soil resistivity

value of 2000 Ω∙m is selected for comparison. The relative permittivity of soil is assumed to be 10.

Figure 4.4 Induced voltage between negative and positive DC cables.

Fig. 4.4 shows the induced voltage between the positive and negative lines. The induced
79
voltage is 64.33 kV when the soil resistivity is 500 Ω∙m, which exceeds the PV inverter’s capacity

as indicated in [103]. While the induced voltage between DC lines varies slightly to 65.27 kV when

the soil resistivity is changed to 2000 Ω∙m. It can be concluded that the soil resistivity has little

influence on the voltage between the positive and negative lines of the DC cable.

In order to investigate the influence of the current wave front on the induced voltage between

the DC cables, three different lightning waveforms, 1/200 μs, 2.6/50 μs, and 10/350 μs with a

magnitude of 100 kA in peak, are conducted in the simulations. Fig. 4.5 shows obtained induced

voltages between the positive and negative cables under different lightning waveforms. The

corresponding peak voltages are listed in Table 4.1. It is found that the induced voltage decreases

with increasing front time. This is because the induced voltage between the DC cables is mainly

generated by the magnetic coupling between the conductors in the LPS and the DC cable. It is

determined by the loop area, the magnitude and steepness of the lightning current.

Figure 4.5 Induced voltage between negative and positive DC cables under different lightning waveforms.

80
 Table 4.1. Comparison of impulse current peaks in the PV system

Lightning Waveform (s) Peak induced voltage (kV)

1/200 65.27

2.6/50 25.35

10/350 6.22

4.2.3 Protection for the PV inverters

In order to protect electrical equipment, SPDs are provided in the PV system. Fig. 4.6 shows a

typical configuration of SPD installation for the DC cable. The simulation was performed again to

investigate transient voltages of the DC cable.

+DC

I
-DC

SPD2 SPD1

PE

Figure 4.6 The configuration of surge protection at DC circuits.

Figure 4.7 Induced voltage between negative and positive DC cables

81
 Figure 4.8 Induced current in negative and positive DC cables

The voltage between the negative and positive lines of the DC cable are 4.92 kV as shown in

Fig. 4.7. This voltage is twice as large as the clamping voltage of the SPDs and might still exceeds

the lightning transient withstand voltage of the PV inverter [103]. Fig.4.8 shows the current flowing

through each SPD. The current direction is indicated in Fig. 4.6. Since the DC cables will not be

struck directly by lightning, these SPDs are not subject to the large lightning current (less than 500

A in this case).

In order to further constrain the voltage between the negative and positive lines of the DC cable,

another SPD is installed between the negative and positive lines as shown in Fig. 4.9.

+DC

-DC

PE

Figure 4.9 The configuration of protection device for the DC side with an extra SPDs installed between DC
terminal

4.2.4 Protection for the bypass diodes

82
 Figure 4.10 The induced voltage of bypass diodes.

The bypass diodes are connected in parallel to the outputs of PV panels. However, these bypass

diodes are often damaged by lightning due to their low withstand voltage. The bypass diodes used

in the system have a repetitive peak reverse voltage of 1 kV and they will suffer permanent

breakdown when the impulse voltage exceeds 2 kV. In order to analyze the defection of the bypass

diodes, the voltages induced in the wiring of PV panels are calculated. Fig. 4.10 shows the induced

voltages in two diodes close to the lightning striking point as shown in Fig. 4.3. Induced voltages

without and with SPD installation are evaluated for comparison. Soil resistivity is chosen as 2000

Ω∙m to represent the worst case. For the system without SPD being installed, the voltages on two

diodes are 8.75 kV and 6.75 kV, respectively. For system with SPDs being installed, the voltages

are reduced to 7.05 kV and 5.13 kV, respectively. SPDs in the DC circuit can reduce the induced

voltage on the bypass diodes. However, the voltages under these situations still exceed the transient

withstand voltage of the bypass diodes.

To avoid lightning damages to the bypass diodes, one particular measure proposed is to raise

the withstand voltage of the diode box. This measure can be realized by connecting several bypass

diodes in series using diode box as shown in Fig. 4.11 (a).

83
 This measure has been validated experimentally in the laboratory as shown in Fig. 4.11 (b). In

the experiment, an impulse from a combination wave generator is firstly injected into a single bypass

diode in reverse polarity. Both the current through the diode and the voltage on the diode are recorded

by a digital oscilloscope. The test is repeated several times. It is found that the diode does not conduct

current if the voltage is below 1.9 kV. The diode current, however, appears with a high-frequency

oscillation when the voltage reaches 1.9 kV. The bypass diode could recovery itself if the subsequent

impulse voltage is less than 1.9 kV. Fig. 4.12 shows both the voltage and current in the diode when

the magnitude of the diode voltage reaches 1.9kV. When the applied voltage exceeds 2 kV, the bypass

diode suffers from an irreversible breakdown. This indicates that a single bypass diode can withstand

an impulse with a magnitude of less than 1.9 kV.

(a)

V+
OSC

or
...

CT V-

(b)

Figure 4.11 (a) Series connection of the bypass diodes in a diode box. (b) The diagram of the experiment on the
bypass diode.

84
Figure 4.12 Critical breakdown state of a bypass diode (Channel 1: current probe with the ratio of 100:1, Channel
2: voltage probe with the ratio of 100:1).

TABLE 4.2 BREAKDOWN VOLTAGE OF THE BYPASS DIODES.

Number in series Number of samples Minimum breakdown voltage (kV)

1 10 1.98
2 5 4.0

3 5 5.85

In the second step, several bypass diodes are connected in series. The impulse test is repeated

to examine the reverse breakdown voltage of the circuit. The test results are shown in Table 4.2.

The diode box suffers from irreversible breakdown when the voltage increases to 4 kV for 2 series-

connected bypass diodes. The breakdown voltage increases to about 6 kV for 3 series-connected

bypass diodes. Therefore, it can be concluded that by connecting a few of bypass diodes in series,

the total withstands voltage of the circuit can be improved. The withstand voltage is generally

linearly proportional to the number of bypass diodes connected in series.

4.2.5 Prevention of arcing between the PV frame and wire at the remote side

85
 Figure 4.13 Over voltage between negative/positive cables and the ground terminal.

Fig. 4.13 shows the voltage between the negative/positive lines and the ground terminal at the

inverter with different values of soil resistivity. It is shown that the voltages have a much longer tail

and higher amplitude than the voltage between negative and positive lines. Such voltages are mainly

caused by the rise of ground potential. In addition, the soil resistivity has a significant influence on

the voltages. The peak voltage is increased from 292.4 kV to 1225 kV when the soil resistivity is

changed from 500 Ω∙m to 2000 Ω∙m. Such a high voltage can cause insulation breakdown of the LV

cables.

To investigated the influence of SPDs installation on the overvoltage between the grounded

structure and the DC cable. The voltage between the cables and the ground terminal are calculated

after the SPDs are installed. The soil resistivity is chosen as 2000 Ω∙m to represent the worst case.

After the SPDs are installed at the entrance of the inverter, the voltage between the DC lines and

the ground terminal at the entrance of the inverter (point 1 in Figure 4.3) is suppressed as shown in

Figure 4.14. However, as the distance from the SPD installation point increases, the voltages will

also increase. At the middle of the string (point 2 in Figure 4.3) the voltage reaches 100.1 kV. At

the remote side, the voltage can further increase to 168.3 kV. These over voltages might lead to

86
insulation breakdown of the cable, arcing between the PV wiring and the metal frame of the module.

Figure 4.14 Induced voltage between cables and the grounded structure when SPDs are installed at the entrance of

inverter.

To limit the overvoltage at the remote side, SPDs are installed at both the entrance of the

inverter and the remote side of the PV string as shown in Fig. 4.15. After the SPDs are installed at

the both sides, the voltages are largely reduced as shown in Fig. 4.16. The voltages at point 1 and

point 3 are constrained within the clamping voltage of the SPDs. The voltage at the middle point of

the string (point 2) exceeds the clamping voltage of the SPDs at the wave front (8.6 kV in peak),

however this voltage is largely reduced compared to the case when SPDs is only installed at the

entrance of the inverter.

87
 Another SPDs at
1.2 m remote side

2.6 m

Lightning strike
1. 2 m
point

3.4 m 1m 1.8 m

Horizontal conductor
Grounding grid

Figure 4.15 Installting SPDs at both side of the PV string.

Figure 4.16 Induced voltage between cables and the grounded structure when SPDs are installed at both sides of

the PV string.

4.3 Conclusion

The lightning transient analysis of a PV system with a string inverter was investigated using

the method proposed in chapter 3. Systems with and without SPD installation were performed in

the simulation. The results are summarized as followed:

⚫ The induced voltage between negative and positive of the DC cables has a short wave form,

88
 and is not sensitive to the soil resistivity.

⚫ On the contrary, the voltage between the DC cable and ground has a long wave form, and

is greatly affected by the soil resistivity.

⚫ With SPDs being present between the DC lines and the ground, the voltage between the

positive and negative lines can reach 4.92 kV, which may lead to breakdown in the PV

inverter. It is recommended installing another SPD between two lines of the DC cable.

⚫ Overvoltage is observed on the bypass diodes of PV panels, and could cause failure of the

bypass diodes although SPDs at the inverter can reduce the overvoltage. Connecting several

bypass diodes in series would be necessary.

⚫ SPDs installed at each side of the PV system is recommended to limit the overvoltage

between the cable and the ground.

89
 5. Considerations of PV Structure System Design for
Effective Lightning Protection

In a PV system, the most venerable component is the power inverter [104]. Lightning strikes

may cause temporary interruptions or permanent damage to electronic devices, mainly power

inverters. As indicated in last chapter, installing SPDs with proper rating can effectively protect the

inverters from a lightning strike. However, SPDs with a higher rating cost more money and need

more space. As the PV system contains lots of inverters, installing SPDs with high rating will greatly

increase the cost of investment. Moreover, with the popularity of the usage of micro inverters in PV

systems, the SPDs are usually integrated into the circuit board of the inverters. Thus the volume of

the SPDs should be as miniaturized as possible. To meet this demand, improving the anti-lightning

performance of a PV system is necessary. Proper structure design can minimize the impact of

lightning on the system if the system structure and its physical parameters are addressed

appropriately at the design stage.

This chapter addresses some issues regarding the system structure design for maximizing

lightning protection performance. Structure design factors including the PV module type, PV

mounting system, DC cable arrangement, and external lightning protection are considered in this

chapter. The aims of this chapter is to reduce the overvoltage between the +DC cable and -DC cable,

thus the rating and the volume of the SPDs can be reduced.

The rest of the chapter is organized as follows. Section 5.1 briefly describes system components

that may affect the performance of PV systems. Section 5.2 addresses the model used for the

transient analysis. Section 5.3 investigates the influences of various design options for the system

90
on lightning protection. In Section 5.4, the influences of external factors are discussed. The

conclusion and design guidelines for effective lightning protection are summarized finally.

5.1 System components for the consideration of effective lightning

protection

A typical PV system consists of PV modules, DC cables, and their electrical accessories,

mounting systems as well as LPS. As these components carry lightning currents during a lightning

strike, their arrangement will affect the protection performance of the system. In this chapter, the

configurations of these components are addressed.

5.1.1 Mounting system

A mounting system for PV modules is generally made of aluminum alloy, low-carbon steel or

stainless steel. The legs of the mounting system are usually connected to the grounding grid to

achieve equipotential bonding. Thus, the configuration of the mounting system has a great influence

on the lightning protection performance of the PV system. Two types of mounting systems are

commonly used, as shown in Fig. 5.2. They are classified according to the number of mounting legs,

namely, one-leg structures and four-leg structures.

91
 +DC +DC

-DC -DC

310 cm
Leg 4 Leg 1

Leg 3 Leg 2

(a) (b)

+DC
+DC

-DC -DC

(c) (d)

Figure 5.1 Configurations of the PV installation. (a) One-leg mounting structure with a non-isolated LPS. (b)

Four-leg mounting structure with a non-isolated LPS. (c) One-leg mounting structure with an isolated LPS. (d)

Four-leg mounting structure with an isolated LPS.

(a) (b)

Figure 5.2 Configuration of the PV mounting systems. (a) One-leg mounting structure. (b) Four-leg mounting

structure.

92
5.1.2 External LPS

An external LPS used in a PV plant includes air-termination rods down conductors and earth

electrodes. The external LPS is essential for the protection of PV systems due to it is the main

channel for discharging lightning currents. Two types of external LPS are commonly applied,

namely isolated and non-isolated LPS, as shown in Fig. 5.3.

air terminal air terminal

PV system PV system

(a) (b)

Figure 5.3 Configuration of external LPS for the PV system. (a) Isolated external LPS. (b) Non-isolated external

LPS.

The isolated LPS is commonly used when there is a high risk of damage caused by the direct

lightning current. An isolated LPS consists of a free-standing mast including the air terminal and

the down conductor as shown in Fig. 5.3 (a). The mast is separated from the PV mounting structure

at a distance.

In a non-isolated LPS, the air terminal is directly installed on the PV mounting structure as

shown in Fig. 5.3 (b). The metallic mounting structure can be utilized as the down conductor of the

LPS. The lightning current will be discharged to the earth through the mounting structure in a direct

strike to the air terminal.

93
5.1.3 PV frame

Traditional PV modules are commonly embedded in a metal frame. The frame can help to fix

and seal the PV module and protect the module from damages during transportation and installation.

Frameless PV modules are attracting more and more attention in recent years due to their artistic

view. Leaking currents are greatly reduced in the frameless PV modules. Thus, the efficiency of the

PV system is improved. The frameless PV module can also reduce potential-induced degradation,

which will prolong the life span of the module. Meanwhile, the frameless module certainly reduces

the possibility of electric shock.

(a) (b)

Figure 5.4 Two types of PV frames. (a) Frameless PV module. (b) PV module with the metal frame.

5.1.4 DC cables arrangement

As DC cables are usually installed in free air, they are designed with double-layer

insulation and are superior corrosion resistant. DC cables connect PV modules, inverters and

other electrical components in the system. The layout of DC cables has a great influence on the

induced voltage caused by lightning. An optimal layout of DC cables can greatly reduce the

damage to the PV system caused by lightning. This is generally achieved by reducing the loop

formed by the DC cables. In this regard, the magnetic flux passing throws the loop is reduced,

then the induced voltage is reduced.

94
 Figure 5.5 A typical configuration of the DC loop.

5.2 Model of PV structure systems

+DC
-DC

(a)

C13

C12 C 23

1 2 L12

R1 L1 R2 L2
C1 C2 C3

(b)

Figure 5.6 The representative equivalent circuit for conductors in the PV unit. (a) The configuration of a PV unit.

(b) Diagram of equivalent circuit for two segments

The configuration of a PV system and its equivalent PEEC circuit model are obtained as shown
95
in Fig. 5.6. Fig. 5.6(b) shows an equivalent circuit for any two conductors in the PV unit includes

resistance, inductance and ground capacitance, as well as mutual capacitance and mutual inductance.

To help visualize other PV units, equivalent circuit for four configurations mentioned in Fig. 5.1 are

shown in Fig. 5.7. For the sake of simplicity, only a part of the coupling effect is illustrated in the

figure (simplified circuits without showing mutual coupling elements).

Lightning current

(a)
Lightning current

L1 R1 L2 R2

(b)

+DC L1 R1 L2 R2

+DC

inductive coupling

inductive coupling

(a) (b)

Lightning current

Lightning current
(c)

L1 R1 L2 R2
(d)

L1 R1 L2 R2
+DC inductive
coupling

+DC inductive
coupling

inductive coupling
inductive coupling

(c) (d)

Figure 5.7 Representative equivalent circuit for the PV unit. (for simplicity, mutual coupling between two

elements is not present in the figure) (a) One-leg mounting structure with a non-isolated LPS. (b) Four-leg

mounting structure with a non-isolated LPS. (c) One-leg mounting structure with an isolated LPS. (d) Four-leg

mounting structure with an isolated LPS.

96
5.3 Simulation Results and Analysis

Several designs and installation issues of PV systems are investigated by comparing the

transient performance under different configurations of the PV systems.

The induced voltage between the DC cables is one of the most prominent problems reported

in the industry as well as literature. It often leads to the interruption of the PV system because the

DC cables are connected to vulnerable electronic devices, such as inverters. The purpose of this

chapter is to help PV system designers reduce the induced voltage at PV inverters by simply

changing the system structure without adding additional protective devices.

The simulation is performed under different system configurations in order to investigate the

influence of the arrangement of key components, including mounting systems, external LPS,

module frames, and DC cables. The striking point is at the top of the air terminal. Since the most

affected system is hit directly by lightning, the induced voltage at the neighbor system will not be

evaluated. In the simulations, we use a ground resistance with a value of 3 Ω which is in the range

suggested by international standards, such as IEC62305-3 [26].

5.3.1 Influence of the mounting system

As a part of the current leaking path, the structure of a mounting system, as well as the location

of its grounding legs, greatly affects the distribution of lightning current.

In order to investigate the influence of mounting systems, the structures with one-leg (Fig.

5.1(a)) and four-leg (Fig. 5.1(b)) with a non-isolated LPS are selected for simulation. Fig. 5.8 shows

the induced voltage between the DC cables. The induced voltage is mainly caused by inductive

and capacitive couplings between the LPS/mounting structure and the DC cables. It is found that

97
the performance of two structures is almost the same (with peak voltages of 27.2 kV and 28.7 kV),

although the four-leg structure has more grounding points.

For a four-leg mounting structure, the selection of the grounding leg also influences the

lightning protection performance of the system. No standard recommends which leg should be

connected to the grounding grid in the field. To investigate the influence of individual grounding

legs, induced voltages in the four-leg mounting structure (Fig. 5.1(b)) with different grounding legs

are simulated and presented in Fig. 5.9. The induced voltages increase to 47.3 kV and 35 kV

respectively when only Leg 2 or Leg 4 is grounded. This figure reduces to 21.5 kV when only Leg

3 is grounded. While, the induced voltage reduces to as low as 14.4 kV when only Leg 1 is grounded.

This indicates that the location and number of the grounding points are crucial to the performance

of lightning protection. For better comparison, the amplitudes of the induced voltages with different

grounding legs are presented in Table 5.1.

Figure. 5.8 The voltage difference between DC cables in one leg and four legs mounting systems with a

non-isolated LPS.

98
 Figure. 5.9 The voltage difference between DC cables in four legs mounting system with different grounding

methods

TABLE 5.1 INDUCED VOLTAGE AMPLITUDE IN FOUR LEGS MOUNTING SYSTEM WITH DIFFERENT GROUNDING METHODS

Grounded leg Leg1 Leg2 Leg3 Leg4 All legs

Voltage amplitude 14.4 kV 47.3 kV 21.5 kV 35 kV 28.7 kV

This phenomenon can be explained by the current distribution in the structure with

different grounding configurations. Based on the PEEC theory, mutual coupling between

perpendicular conductors equals to zero. Thus, the primary contribution to the induced voltage

comes from the parallel conductors. For the system with Leg 1 grounded, the lightning current

is discharged to earth through that leg directly. A small current is found in the PV frame.

Consequently, this configuration has the lowest induced voltage. However, the lightning current

goes through all frame conductors in the structure with Leg 2 grounded, which leads to a

relatively high voltage. It is concluded that a four-leg mounting structure performs better if only

the leg near the lightning rod is grounded.

5.3.2 The influence of the external LPS

99
 The grounding method of the lightning rod has a great influence on the induced voltage in

DC cables. In the simulation, the induced voltage is evaluated under two types of LPS, i.e.,

isolated and non-isolated LPS. The mounting structures with one leg and four legs are also

considered for comparison. As a result, there are four different configurations for simulation,

as shown in Fig. 5.1. Each leg of the mounting system is grounded through a 3 Ω resistance.

(a) (b)

Figure 5.10 The voltage difference between DC cables protected by non-isolated LPS and isolated LPS with (a)

One-leg mounting structure. (b) Four-leg mounting structure.

TABLE 5.2 COMPARISON OF VOLTAGE AMPLITUDE

Type of mounting system Isolated LPS Non-isolated LPS

One leg 10.1kV 27.2kV

Four legs 9.21kV 28.7kV

As shown in Fig. 5.10, the induced voltages between the DC cables in the one-leg mounting

structure are 10.1 kV and 27.2 kV for the system with the isolated and non-isolated LPS, respectively.

For the four-leg mounting structure, these voltages become 9.21 kV and 28.7 kV for the isolated

100
and non-isolated LPS. The system protected with an isolated LPS has a much lower induced voltage

than that with a non-isolated LPS, no matter what the mounting structure is adopted.

In the system protected by an isolated LPS, the lightning current does not go through the

mounting structure. The conductors carrying lightning current are generally perpendicular to the DC

cables. Thus, the induced voltages in DC cables are reduced significantly.

5.3.3 The influence of the PV frame

The impact of the PV frame on the performance of a LPS is seldom studied in previous

literature. In modern PV systems, two types of PV modules with and without metal frames are

widely installed. The influence of the metal frame during a lightning strike is investigated using the

simulation.

(a) (b)

Figure 5.11 The voltage difference between DC cables protected by a non-isolated LPS with (a) one-leg

mounting structure, (b) four-leg mounting structure.

101
 TABLE 5.3 COMPARISON OF PEAK VOLTAGES

Type of mounting system Metal frame Frameless module

One leg 27.2kV 64.9kV

Four legs 28.7kV 68.6kV

Fig. 5.11 shows the voltages between the cables in the system with one-leg (Fig. 5.1(a)) and

four-leg (Fig. 5.1(b)) mounting structures, respectively. In the simulation, the system is protected

by a non-isolated LPS. The induced voltages in the system with one-leg mounting structure are 27.2

kV for modules with the metal frame and increases to 64.9 kV without metal frames. Similar to the

trend of the one-leg system, the induced voltage in the four-leg mounting structure is 28.7 kV with

the metal frame and as high as 68.6 kV when no metal frame is involved. It can be seen that the

metal frame can largely reduce the induced voltage in the system.

This is because the surge current will generate magnetic flux in the frame wire loop when a

surge current flows near the PV module. Meanwhile, the induced current in the frame wire loop will

produce additional magnetic flux in the opposite direction of the former one because of Faraday’s

law. Therefore, the total magnetic flux in the wire loop is reduced, thus the induced voltage is smaller

compared with the frameless module.

5.3.4 The influence of the DC cable

It is known that the induced voltage in the DC cables is affected by two factors, i.e., (a) the

loop of DC cables and (b) the wiring structure in the PV module. In order to reduce the induced

voltage between the DC cables, a large-size DC loop should be avoided. Simulation is performed

102
to investigate how the DC cable loop affects the induced voltage between two DC cables. For

simplicity, the system with the one-leg mounting structure (Fig. 5.1(a)) protected by a non-isolated

LPS was selected for simulation.

Two types of DC cable layouts, namely single loop and double loop layouts, are simulated as

shown in Fig. 5.12. A PV string has a total of 24 PV modules installed on three PV mounting

structures. These modules are all connected in series by the DC cables to reach a voltage of around

700 VDC. A string inverter is provided at the end of the DC cable for converting DC power to AC

power. A single DC loop is then formed as shown in Fig. 5.12(a). In order to reduce the size of the

DC loop, the +DC terminal is not directly connected to the positive terminal of the last PV module.

Instead, an additional +DC cable is provided, and is routed together with the –DC cable to the last

PV module. In this regard, both +DC and –DC cables have the same length, and run in parallel

together with minimum spacing, as the double loop layout is shown in Fig. 5.12(b). In this case, the

loop size is significantly reduced.

Lightning
strike point

-DC
2.6 m
+DC
Inverter

3.4 m 1m

(a)

Lightning Double DC cable

strike point in different
directions

-DC
2.6 m
+DC
Inverter

3.4 m 1m

(b)

Figure 5.12 Configurations of DC cable layouts. (a) Single loop layout. (b) Double loop layout.
103
 Figure 5.13 The voltage difference between DC cables with different cable arrangements

In the simulation, the separation distance of DC cables is assumed to be 70 cm for the case

shown in Fig. 5.12(a), and 1 cm in Fig. 5.12(b). Fig. 5.13 shows the induced voltages in the DC

cables in these two cases. As seen in Fig. 5.13, the induced voltage between the DC cables reduces

from 49.3 kV to 27.5 kV with the proposed DC cable arrangement. Though the loop width is largely

reduced, a voltage of 27.5 kV is still induced. This is because the loop area contributed by each

panel is not canceled and this loop area contributes to the induced voltage between the +DC and -

DC cable.

5.4 Discussion on External Factors

External factors including lightning current waveform and soil resistivity, which are not an

inherent part of the structure configuration, are discussed.

5.4.1 The influence of the lightning waveforms

The induced voltage between DC cables is affected by the lightning current waveform. For

comparison, three different lightning waveforms, 1/200 μs, 2.6/50 μs and 10/350 μs with 100 kA in

peak, were selected in the simulation. Fig. 5.14 shows calculated induced voltages between the DC

cables under different lightning waveforms, in the four-leg mounting system with a non-isolated
104
LPS. The amplitudes of the calculated voltages are listed in Table 5.4. It can be seen that the

amplitude of the induced voltage increases linearly with the steepness of the lightning current in

general.

TABLE 5.4 COMPARISON OF CURRENT PEAKS IN WITH-FRAME AND FRAMELESS STRUCTURE UNDER DIFFERENT

WAVEFORMS.

Peak induced voltage (kV)

Lightning Waveform
metal frame frameless

1/200 28.7 68.6

1.2/50 23.5 56.7

10/350 2.8 6.7

(a) (b)

Figure 5.14 The voltages between DC cables in four-leg mounting systems with a non-isolated LPS under

different lightning current waveforms. (a) With metal frame. (b) Without metal frame.

By comparing the voltages between two configurations (with/without metal frame), it can be

revealed that the lightning waveform shows the same impact under different configurations. In other

105
words, the conclusions regarding the PV structure design are valid under other lightning current

waveforms.

5.4.2 The influence of the ground resistance

It is also noted that the ground resistance is not a crucial factor to the transient voltage between

DC cables during a lightning strike [105]. To further confirm the influence of the ground resistance,

simulations with 3 Ω, 100 Ω, and a 1 m grounding rod are performed, and the results are shown in

Fig. 5.15. The difference is minor when the resistance is changed from 3 Ω to 100 Ω. The same

induced voltage can be also observed when we use the grounding rod model (each leg is grounded

through a grounding rod buried one meter in the soil).

Figure 5.15 The voltages between DC cables in four legs mounting systems with a non-isolated LPS.

5.5 Conclusion

This chapter investigated the influence of a PV structure system on the lightning protection

performance of the system during a lightning strike. Various PV structures adopted in practical

installations have been identified, and PEEC models for the components as well as the whole system

have been provided. The induced voltage between the -DC and + DC cables which might cause the

failure of the inverter was addressed. This voltage can be reduced by simply adopting proper
106
structure configurations. The following conclusions have been made.

⚫ The location of the grounding leg of a PV mounting system has a great influence on the current

distribution under a non-isolated LPS. Adding more grounding points does not improve the

efficiency of lightning protection. The grounding leg should be as close to the lightning rod as

possible.

⚫ The structure of a mounting system does not have a significant impact on induced voltage

under an isolated LPS.

⚫ A PV system with an isolated LPS will have a lower induced voltage compared with a non-

isolated LPS. DC cables or other wires in the PV module are generally perpendicular to the

lightning rod.

⚫ The frameless PV module has a much higher induced voltage compared to the module with a

metal frame. The shielding effect of the metal frame reduces the induced voltage significantly.

Adopting frameless PV modules certainly increases the risk of damage to the PV inverter as

well as the bypass diodes. Attention should be paid to choosing suitable surge protective

devices when the frameless PV module is selected.

⚫ The induced voltage at the inverter can be reduced significantly by reducing the DC cable loop

size with appropriate cable arrangement.

107
6. Effective Grounding Grid design of the PV Power Plant

This Chapter discusses the lightning protection performance of grounding grids for PV systems.

The transferred voltages between the DC cables and supporting structures at different points in the

PV system are evaluated.

Unlike the previous Chapter using the PEEC method as the research method, this chapter

adopts the FDTD method for transient simulations. This is because the FDTD method is more

advantageous in modelling complex media such as inhomogeneous layered ground, calculating the

transfer voltage. Thus, it is more suitable for grounding grid analysis. Note that the PV system

contains a component with a subtle structure. If all the components are modeled by the FDTD

method, a fine mesh will be required, as well as extra huge computational resources. Since the

grounding grid design is the concern in this chapter, the voltage between the +DC cable and -DC

cable, the voltage in the bypass diode will not be considered in the calculation. The wiring structure

in the PV system then is simplified in the modelling process to make computer simulations feasible.

In this chapter, the performance of the grounding system is discussed in detail under different

environmental factors. With the simulation results, an encouraging solution is provided for

improving the lightning protection performance and saving the installation cost. The Chapter is

structured as follows: Section 6.1 gives a brief introduction of the current status of the PV plant

ground grid installation, the urgency of effective grounding grids design in the PV plant is

emphasized. Section 6.2 describes the system configuration and the common grounding

configuration used in PV plants. In Section 6.3, the simulation methods and the system model are

described. The simulation results for the system without a dedicated grounding grid are presented

108
in Section 6.4. The overvoltage in the PV plants with two common types of grounding grids is

analyzed in Section 6.5. Then the proposed arrangement is provided in Section 6.6. In Section 6.7,

the rationale of using the simplified model to calculate the voltage between the DC cable and the

PV bracket is verified. Finally, the conclusions are drawn in Section 6.8.

6.1 Grounding grid designs in PV systems-an imperious demand

Grounding is an important element in lightning protection for electric power systems.

Numerous studies have been carried out to disclose the characteristics of grounding systems during

lightning strikes. It is found that soil stratification, soil resistivity as well as soil ionization can

influence the characteristics of a grounding system under lightning. They should be considered in

the design of the grounding system. Besides, the grid arrangement of a grounding system has also

an influence on the grounding performance. Note that specified grounding techniques have been

developed for different parts of the power systems, such as substations, towers, overhead lines,

underground cables, etc. The grounding system then varies from one to another.

Substation grounding has been studied for decades, aiming to reduce the uneven distribution

of the ground potential, thus to guarantee the safety of equipment and personnel in the substation

under lightning. A large-scale grounding grid then is adopted. Influential factors, such as the

effective grounding area and the density of a grounding mesh, have been discussed elaborately.

Grounding of a transmission line tower is another issue of concern. Because of its much smaller

covered area, the grounding system with a more complicated structure is adopted to reduce the surge

impedance of the tower [106, 107]. To protect the long transmission corridors from lightning,

overhead ground wires (OHGWs) have been used. The protection efficiency can be further
109
improved by changing the spatial position of the OHGWs [108, 109], installing external ground

wires on both sides of the overhead lines [110] or underbuilt wires under the phase conductors [111],

grounding the phase conductors through the lightning arresters at selected locations [112], etc. For

the protection of underground cables, shield wires buried above the cables have been proved to be

effective during either direct or indirect lightning strikes [113-115]. A similar idea has also been

applied to the lightning protection of gas pipelines [115]. The grounding design of wind turbines

becomes a noticeable problem when the height of wind turbines keeps on increasing. To reduce the

grounding resistance, the grounding electrodes of wind turbines are interconnected via horizontal

grounding conductors and their effects have been discussed [116, 117]. As many signal and power

cables run within the tower, specific grounding strategies of these cables have been designed and

implemented to limit the lightning overvoltage [118]. Though the grounding requirement for wind

turbines was ambiguous at the first stage, the grounding design has been continuously improved

with ongoing research and the establishment of technical standards [119].

Although considerable efforts have been devoted and lots of achievements have been made in

designing proper grounding systems for traditional power systems, research related to the grounding

of PV systems has not achieved much significant progress. Different grounding practices have been

found in practical installations due to a lack of a consolidated standard. Solutions to the grounding

design are most often debated over the compromise between cost and efficiency. In most of the

installation guidelines, the grounding system of a PV plant is similar to that of substations. For

instance, in Annex D of Supplement 5 in IEC 62305 Part 3 [10], a meshed earth termination grid

ranging from 20𝑚 × 20𝑚 to 40𝑚 × 40𝑚 in size is specified. This type of grounding grids has

110
proven its effectiveness of reducing overvoltage in practice, and has been recommended to be used

in PV plants. Reviewing the literature reveals that research on the PV plant grounding mainly

focuses on the influence of the mesh size [21, 22], current sharing in the electrodes of the grounding

grid [17], and potential distribution in the plant [23]. However, due to the large occupied area of the

PV plant (a large PV plant can cover tens of thousands of Mu which is much larger than that of the

substation), installing such a grounding grid is costly, especially when a PV plant is constructed in

the hilly area or area where the labor costs are expensive. To increase the return of investment, a

single grounding electrode at the PV inverter, instead of a large-size grounding grid, is often adopted

in many PV plants. Note that the PV supporting structure (e.g., metal brackets) is erected on the

ground with one part buried into the soil. It may be regarded as some sort of grounding for the PV

system. With the current situation of PV grounding practices, it would be necessary to have a further

study on the grounding methods for the PV plants.

6.2 Description of the PV system under Investigation

Fig. 6.1 shows a typical arrangement of a PV system. The system consists of several arrays

(rectangular boxes). One array contains 8 PV strings connected in parallel (3 sets of panels in each

string). The panels in each string are connected in series. The outputs of the strings are parallel

connected to an inverter and grounded through surge protective devices (SPDs). The inverters then

are connected in parallel at the AC side and their outputs are delivered to the medium voltage (MV)

distribution network through a distribution transformer.

111
 : Inverter : Lightning rod : PV panel : PV string

Figure 6.1 Schematic representation of a typical PV system.

To protect the PV system from a direct lightning strike, lightning rods are installed in the plant.

The dots in the figure represent the location of these lightning rods. The protection area of each

lightning rod is determined by the protection angle method according to an IEC standard [120], and

is indicated by the circles. The height, installation places, and quantity of air termination rods are

determined in such a way that all the components in the PV system are protected as shown in the

figure.

Though the PV system is exempted from a direct lightning strike due to the presence of the

lightning rods, the PV system may experience transferred potential as shown in Fig. 6.2. Note that

the DC cables are grounded through the SPD at the inverter. The potential difference between the

DC cable and the PV brackets at the supporting structures could result in degradation of or

permanent damage to the PV modules. This damage mechanism, to the best of our knowledge, has

rarely been discussed in the literature.

To understand how the grounding arrangement affects this transferred voltage is very

112
important. This is because understanding the mechanism can help the engineers to decide which

grounding arrangement is appropriate for a PV plant. Within this context, a PV string, which is a

basic unit for power generation, is analyzed elaborately in the following sections.

t=3mm
Grounding conductor
w=40mm DC cable d=4 mm d=6 mm

C profile steel
P1 P2 P3
Transfer
voltage
AC
DC

Figure 6.2 The system configuration of investigated PV string and components

6.3 Simulation Model and Method

For simplicity, one lightning rod and one PV string are modeled for simulation. Fig. 6.2

illustrates the configuration of the PV system under investigation. The PV string consists of several

PV panels, which are installed on 3 supporting structures. The supporting structures made of C

profile steel are 4 meters long and 3 meters wide and have a separation distance of 3 m to the

adjacent one. The height of the supporting structures is 3 meters: 2 meters above the ground and 1

meter under the ground. The DC cables of the PV string with a diameter of 4 mm are mounted on

the supporting structures. These DC cables are connected to an inverter at one end and grounded

there through SPDs. The nearest distance between the lightning rod and the PV string is 7.6 m. The

lightning rod is a 10 m-tall conductor above the ground and is connected to a vertical grounding rod

with a length of 3 m.

The 3D-FDTD method, which has been extensively used in lightning electromagnetic pulse

and surge simulations [121-125], is applied to investigate the problems stated above. The FDTD

method solves Maxwell’s equations by using the discrete second-order approximation. The
113
discretized electric and magnetic field components are sampled with a half-step discrepancy in the

time and space domain, and are updated in an iteratively staggered manner.

Various wire components are observed in the PV systems, as seen in Fig. 6.2, including PV

supporting structures, wiring in PV panels, DC cables, lightning rods, and others. In this chapter,

the DC cables and the grounding conductors with circular cross section are modeled using an

extended thin-wire model [126-131], while the PV supporting structures made of C profile steel is

modeled using the non-circular thin-wire model [130]. The wiring in the PV panel is ignored due to

its limited impact on the common mode-voltage [64]. The lightning rod as well as its earth rod is

represented by a cylindrical conductor, and is modeled using the extended thin-wire model. The

lightning channel is represented using the model introduced in [132]. The channel-base return stroke

current has a waveform of 0.25/100 μs and a magnitude of 50 kA, recommended by IEC 62305

[102].

In the simulation, the working space is divided into 150 × 210 × 150 nonuniform cells with

dimensions of 546 𝑚 × 130 𝑚 × 545 𝑚. The minimum cell size near the investigated PV system

is 0.2𝑚 × 0.2𝑚 × 0.2𝑚. It increases gradually to 8 m in the x and z directions, and to 2 m in the y

direction. The perfectly matched layers (PML) absorbing boundary condition with 7 layers are used

to absorb the unwanted reflections at the boundaries. The time step is determined by the Courant-

Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) limit. The side view of the computational domain in the FDTD is shown in

Fig. 6.3.

114
 Lightning channel

Lightning rod

7.6m 3m
2m
1m
3m

Figure 6.3 Sideview of the computational domain for PV string modelling in FDTD.

6.4 PV System without a dedicated grounding grid

In many PV plants, PV systems are grounded at the PV inverters using vertical grounding rods.

There is no dedicated grounding grid for the PV supporting structures. As the part of the supporting

structures are buried in the soil, they are regarded as some sort of “grounding electrode” for the

system. This design is mainly based on the following considerations. Firstly, due to the large

covered area as well as the remote location, the capital cost of installing a large-scale grounding

grid is high. Secondly, there is no consolidated standard for the PV grounding system. Moreover,

due to the presence of independent lightning rods, lightning is no longer regarded as a severe hazard

that causes significant damages to the PV systems. In this part, we investigated the lightning

overvoltage at different points of the PV system in the presence of an independent lightning rod.

Three PV supporting structures are grounded via brackets separately, and no dedicated or additional

grounding grid is installed. The DC cables are grounded at the input port of an inverter via SPDs,

as shown in Fig. 6.4.

115
 Supporti ng structure
DC c able
Groundi ng conductor

P1 P2 P3
Transfer
voltage AC
DC

Figure 6.4 The system without a dedicated grounding grid

The transferred voltage between the supporting structures and the DC cables at different

positions (P1, P2, and P3 in Fig. 6.5 and Fig. 6.6) are calculated using the model introduced in the

previous section. Two soil resistivity values of 100 Ωm and 2000 Ωm are selected for comparison.

The relative permittivity and the relative permeability are assumed to be εr =10 and μr =1

respectively.

6.4.1 Low soil resistivity: ρ=100 Ωm

The soil resistivity ρ is considered to be 100 Ωm which represents a site with low soil resistivity.

Fig. 6.5 shows the voltages between the PV cables and the PV brackets at three different points. The

voltage at point 1 can reach 1267 kV in peak, then oscillates and decays to 120 kV within a

microsecond. The residual voltage decreases very slowly and lasts for a long time. This indicates

that there is a high voltage applied between the PV cable and the PV bracket for a long time. At

point 2, the peak voltages and the residual voltages are 842.9 kV and 53.5 kV respectively. At point

3, the peak voltage and residual voltage further reduces to 489.9 kV and 12 kV. This means that

both the peak voltage and the residual voltage reduce when the observation point moves to the

grounding rod of the PV system decreases.

116
 Figure 6.5 Overvoltages in the PV system without a dedicated grounding grid (low soil resistivity).

6.4.2 High soil resistivity: ρ=2000 Ωm

The overvoltage between the DC cable and the PV bracket also is evaluated when the system

is installed in a place with high soil resistivity. The soil resistivity ρ now is increased to 2000 Ωm.

Fig. 6.6 shows the voltages at three different points. It is noted that the voltage waveform with the

soil resistivity of 2000 Ωm is different from that with the soil resistivity of 100 Ωm. In this case, the

voltage rises to the maximum value after a short period of oscillation at the very beginning and then

decreases slowly. The time to the peak is much longer than that with the soil resistivity of 100 Ωm

and increases with decreasing distance to the system grounding rod (4.5 µs at point 1, 5.38 µs for

point 2, and 6.5 µs for point 3). The peak voltage is much larger than the former one as well and

reaches 2248 kV at point 1, 1002 kV at point 2, and 225.9 at point 3. That means, when the PV

system is installed at a place with high soil resistivity, the voltage with a larger amplitude and longer-

lasting time will appear in the system. Thus, the lightning overvoltage problem in the system will

be more serious, compared with the system installed at places with low soil resistivity.

It is noted that the oscillation of the voltage within the first millisecond is mainly caused by

the inductive coupling from the current in the lightning rod. The slow increase of the voltage, as
117
shown in the figure, is the result of the ground potential rise at different ground points. This voltage

is highly relevant to the soil resistivity. When the soil resistivity is small, the voltage due to the

grounding potential rise at different points is small. The oscillation peak of the voltage then is

primarily determined by the inductive coupling effect. However, when the soil resistivity is

increased to 2000 Ωm, the voltage due to the ground potential rise becomes significant.

Figure 6.6 Transferred voltages in the PV system without a dedicated grounding grid (High soil resistivity).

6.5 Grid PV system with a dedicated grounding grid

To ensure the safety of the PV system during a lightning strike, grounding grids for the

supporting structures are installed in some PV plants. Grounding grids of various configurations can

be found in the literature. In this part, the transferred voltage between the PV cable and the PV

bracket is calculated with several grounding grid layouts. The influence of soil resistivity also is

discussed.

6.5.1 Horizontal grounding conductor

Firstly, a simple grounding grid with several horizontal conductors buried at a depth of 1 m in

the soil is adopted. These conductors are used to connect the PV brackets and the PV inverter under

the ground, as shown in Fig. 6.7.

118
 Supporti ng structure
DC c able
Groundi ng conductor

P1 P2 P3
Transfer
voltage AC
DC

Figure 6.7 The system with horizontal grounding conductors buried underground

6.5.1.1 Low soil resistivity: ρ=100 Ωm

Fig. 6.8 shows the waveforms of the voltages at three points as mentioned previously. The peak

voltage at point 1 is 1250 kV and is decreased to 873.6 kV at point 2. At point 3, the peak voltage

is further decreased to 527.3 kV. These peaks of the voltage do not change much, compared with

those in the system without such a grounding grid. However, the voltage decays more rapidly, and

almost becomes zero after 5 us. The system will not then suffer from long-lasting overvoltage. This

is because the buried conductors provide a low resistance path from the PV brackets to the grounding

rod at the inverter. Thus, at the tail time of the lightning current, the potential difference between

the PV cable and the PV brackets is trivial.

Figure 6.8 Transferred voltage in the PV system with horizontal grounding conductors buried underground (low

soil resistivity).

119
6.5.1.2 High soil resistivity: ρ=2000 Ωm

The simulation also was performed when the soil resistivity is increased to 2000 Ωm. Fig. 6.9

shows the waveforms of the voltages between the DC cable and the PV bracket at three points. It is

found that the situation is not so bad, compared with the case with low soil resistivity. The peaks of

the voltage are 1229 kV at point 1, 907 kV at point 2, and 516 kV at point 3, which is almost the

same as that when soil resistivity is 100 Ωm. Note that the voltage decays quickly, and almost

drops to zero within 2 µs. This is different from the voltage without the buried horizontal conducted.

So the PV system is less affected by the overvoltage.

Figure 6.9 Transfer voltage in the PV system with horizontal grounding conductors buried underground. (a) Point
1 (b) Point 2 (c) Point 3.

6.5.2 Grounding with a meshed grid

To investigate the influence of the grounding grid configuration on the overvoltage in the PV

system, a more complicated grounding grid is selected for comparison, as shown in Fig. 6.10. In

this case, a buried conductor mesh is provided. The voltage waveforms are shown in Fig. 6.11.

Surprisingly, the grounding mesh which is proved to be useful in reducing the potential differences

within the grounding system does not reduce the overvoltage between the PV cable and the PV

120
bracket. Actually, the voltage increases slightly when the grounding mesh is adopted, compared

with the buried conductors. The peak voltages at point 1 increases from 1250 kV to 1271 kV, at

point 2, the voltage increases from 873.6 kV to 901.2 kV and from 527.3 kV to 568 kV at point 3.

Supporti ng structure
DC c able
Groundi ng conductor

P1 P2 P3
Transfer
voltage AC
DC

Figure 6.10 The system with a meshed grounding grid

Figure 6.11 Transferred voltage in the PV system with a meshed grounding grid.

6.6 The system with equipotential bonding in the air

It is noted that a grounding grid using buried conductors can reduce the lightning overvoltage

in a PV array significantly. However, this method sometimes is difficult to implement, especially in

the rugged landforms, mountains, and places with stiff soil. On the other hand, as the prices of PV

panels and inverters continue to decline, the installation and construction cost becomes one of the

major concerns to the investors of PV power plants. Reducing the installation and construction cost

can greatly improve the investment return ratio of the PV power plants. Installing the grounding

121
grid, no matter in the form of buried horizontal conductors or a meshed grid will undoubtedly

increase the total investment cost. So in this part, a more economical approach is proposed, that is,

adopting a bonding network in the air instead of the buried conductors. The system performance of

this proposed approach during a lightning striker is analyzed in this section.

Fig. 6.12 illustrates the configuration of this third arrangement. Three supporting structures

and the inverter are connected via the horizontal bonding conductors at the upper level in the air.

These conductors run in parallel with the DC cables at a close distance.

Supporti ng structure
DC c able
Groundi ng conductor

P1 P2 P3
Transfer
voltage AC
DC

Figure 6.12 The system with a horizontal bonding network in the air.

6.6.1 Influence of soil resistivity

6.6.1.1 Low soil resistivity: ρ=100 Ωm

The simulation was performed for the case with a bonding network. The results turned out to

be a little unexpected as presented in Fig. 6.13, particularly from a practical perspective. Though

there is no dedicated grounding grid, the voltages at all these points are significantly reduced,

compared with the results in the other two grounding arrangements. The peak voltages at point 1

and point 2 are 1025 kV and 759.7 kV respectively. The peak voltage at point 3 is about 277.7 kV.

122
 Figure 6.13 Transferred voltage in the PV system with a horizontal bonding network in the air (low soil
resistivity).

6.6.1.2 High soil resistivity: ρ=2000 Ωm

This approach also shows a good improvement when the PV system is installed at the site

where the soil resistivity is high. As can be seen in Fig. 6.14, the peak voltages at both points 1 and

3 are further reduced to 964.1 kV and 222 kV respectively, compared with the case of the low soil

resistivity. However, the peak voltage at point 2 is increased to 812.1 kV. These voltages decay

more rapidly when the soil resistivity is high.

Figure 6.14 Transferred voltage in the PV system with a horizontal bonding network in the air (high soil
resistivity).

6.6.2 Influence of soil stratified

123
 In this part, we evaluate the influence of the stratified soil on the protection effect under

different grounding arrangements. Two-layer stratified soil is considered. The depths of the upper

and second soil layers are assumed to be 1 meter and 9 meters respectively. The soil resistivity of

the upper and lower soil layers is assumed to be 100 Ωm and 500 Ωm respectively. The over voltages

at different points of the system under different grounding arrangements are shown in Figure 6.15.

to Figure 6.17. The peak voltages are presented in Table 6.1. For better reference, the voltages under

the uniform soil (100 Ωm) is also presented. Compared with the results in the other two grounding

arrangements. The system with equipotential bonding in the air has a better performance whether

the soil is stratified or not, and is less affected by the soil stratified. So the soil stratified will not

affect the superiority of the proposed method.

Figure 6.15 Transferred voltage in the PV system without a dedicated grounding grid (ρh1=100, h1=1 ρh2=500,

h2=9).

124
 TABLE 6.1 THE VOLTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PV CABLES AND PV BRACKETS

Position Point 1 Point 2 Point 3

without a dedicated grounding grid
ρh1=100, h1=1 1257 kV 806.9 kV 457.3kV
ρh2=500, h2=9
residual voltage 409.6 183 35.82
without a dedicated grounding grid
Uniform soil 1267 842.9 489.9
ρ=100
residual voltage 120 53.5 12
horizontal grounding conductors
ρh1=100, h1=1 1242 kV 833.4 kV 490 kV
ρh2=500, h2=9
horizontal grounding conductors
Uniform soil 1250 kV 873.6 kV 527.3kV
ρ=100
Proposed configuration
ρh1=100, h1=1 1023 kV 738.6 kV 275 kV
ρh2=500, h2=9
Proposed configuration
Uniform soil 1025 759.7 277.7
ρ=100

Figure 6.16 Transferred voltage in the PV system with horizontal grounding conductors buried underground

(ρh1=100, h1=1 ρh2=500, h2=9).

125
 Figure 6.17 Transferred voltage in the PV system with a horizontal bonding network in the air. (ρh1=100, h1=1

ρh2=500, h2=9).

To further investigate the influence of the soil structure on the proposed approach. Different

soil structure and soil resistivity are considered. The depths of the upper and under soil layers are

represented by h1 and h2 respectively. The soil resistivity of the upper and under soil layers are

represented by ρh1 and ρh2 respectively. The results are presented in Table. 6.2.

From the Table we can see, the over voltages between the PV supporting structure and the DC

cable are mainly affected by the upper soil layer. The soil resistivity of the lower soil layer only has

a weak influence on the overvoltage. If the depth of the upper soil layer is deep enough, the soil

resistivity in the lower soil layer will not influence the overvoltage if the proposed approach is

adopted.

126
 TABLE 6.2 THE VOLTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PV CABLES AND PV BRACKETS

Position Point 1 Point 2 Point 3

Uniform soil 277.7
1025 kV 759.7 kV
ρ=100 kV
ρh1=100, h1=1
1023 kV 738.6 kV 275 kV
ρh2=500, h2=9
ρh1=100, h1=2 277.7
1025 kV 759.2 kV
ρh2=500, h2=8 kV
ρh1=100, h1=4 277.7
1025kV 759.2 kV
ρh2=500, h2=6 kV

6.6.3 Influence of other configurations

As shown in previous cases, the lightning overvoltage between the cable and the PV bracket

can be greatly reduced by implementing this equipotential bonding measure. The results are much

better than those in the system without a dedicated grounding grid, and are even superior to those

in the system with a grounding mesh. In this part, sensitivity analysis is conducted to see the

influence of other system configurations on the overvoltage between PV cable and the PV bracket.

6.6.3.1 The grounding grid of the lightning rod

To conduct the lightning current effectively into the soil, a 4 m x 4 m square grounding grid is

arranged for the lightning rod. It has a 2 m x 2 m mesh size, and is buried at 3 m depth in the soil.

The simulation was performed to evaluate the voltages at three points. The peaks of these voltages

are list in Table 6.3. It can be seen in the table that the voltages between the cables and the brackets

in the PV system do not change apparently after a grounding grid is adopted for the lightning rod.

This is because the overvoltage is mainly contributed by the inductive coupling between the

lightning current in the lightning rod and the conductors in the PV system.

127
 TABLE 6.3 THE VOLTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PV CABLES AND PV BRACKETS

Position Point 1 Point 2 Point 3

Lightning rod with
1025 kV 759.7 kV 277.7 kV
ground grid (ρ=100 Ωm)
Lightning rod without
1024 kV 759.7 kV 277.7 kV
ground grid(ρ=100 Ωm)
Lightning rod with
990.2 kV 817 kV 222 kV
ground grid (ρ=2000 Ωm)
Lightning rod without
964.1 kV 812.1 kV 222 kV
ground grid(ρ=2000 Ωm)

6.6.3.2 Interconnection of grounding systems for the lightning rod and PV system

The requirement for the interconnection of adjacent grounding systems is recommended in

some standards. For example, in GB50169-2016 [11], if the distance between the grounding of

independent lightning rods and the grounding grid of a building is within 3 m, they should be

interconnected. In NFPA780 [12]: all grounded conductors that can assist in providing a path for

lightning currents in or on a structure shall be interconnected to the LPS within 3.6 m to provide a

common ground potential. The above two standards are mainly for residential buildings. The

requirement for interconnection in the PV plants is not provided in most of the standards. To the

best of the authors' knowledge, only the NFPA780 mentions the requirement of the interconnection

of adjacent grounding systems in the PV system. According to the NFPA 780 [12], the ground

termination of the LPS and the grounding grid of the PV system should be interconnected if they

are within 25 ft. (7.6 m) as shown in Fig. 6.18.

128
 Bonding conductor

Figure 6.18 The requirement for interconnection of grounding grids in the PV plant.

TABLE 6.4 THE VOLTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PV CABLES AND PV BRACKETS

Position Point 1 Point 2 Point 3

interconnected
1024 kV 757.8 kV 277.2 kV
(ρ=100 Ωm)
Without interconnected
1024 kV 759.7 kV 277.7 kV
(ρ=100 Ωm)
interconnected
2476 kV 1652 kV 272 kV
(ρ=2000 Ωm)
Without interconnected
964.1 kV 812.1 kV 222 kV
(ρ=2000 Ωm)

The simulation was performed to investigate the influence of this interconnection issue. Table

6.4 shows the voltages between the PV cable and the PV bracket under four different scenarios.

When the soil resistivity is low, the interconnection has little effect on the voltage. However, when

the soil resistivity is increased to 2000 Ωm, the voltages increase significantly when the

interconnection is provided. This is because, when the soil resistivity is low, the lightning current

can dissipate through the soil homogeneously. However, when the soil resistivity is high, the

interconnection conductor provides a low resistance path for the lightning current. Thus, a large part

of the lightning current is transmitted to the PV system through the connection.

129
 To further investigate the influence of distance on the lightning overvoltage. Different values

of the distance between the independent lightning rod and the grounding grid of the PV system is

selected for comparison. As shown in Figure 6.19, the peak voltage decreases more rapidly in the

first several meters, and decreases slowly afterward. The effect of the interconnection on the

transferred voltage is the same as that stated above, no matter what the distance is.

Figure 6.19. The influence of the distance

6.6.3.3 Position of equipotential bonding

Supporti ng structure
DC c able
Groundi ng conductor

P1 P2 P3
Transfer
voltage AC
DC

Figure 6.20 The system with horizontal bonding network in the air.

Proper selection of the position for equipotential connection can further reduce the overvoltage,

as shown in Table 6.5. In this case, the equipotential bonding conductor is provided in the middle

of the two DC cable, as illustrated in Fig. 6.20. It is found that the voltages at all points are less than

those with the bonding conductors provided at one side of the DC cables, due to the reduction of

the loop area between the cables and the bonding conductor.
130
 TABLE 6.5 THE VOLTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PV CABLES AND PV BRACKETS

Position Point 1 Point 2 Point 3

middle
912 kV 682.3 kV 271.9 kV
(ρ=100 Ωm)

Without interconnected
1024 kV 759.7 kV 277.7 kV
(ρ=100 Ωm)

interconnected
837.3 kV 670.3 kV 218.3 kV
(ρ=2000 Ωm)

Without interconnected
964.1 kV 812.1 kV 222 kV
(ρ=2000 Ωm)

6.7 Influence of using a simplified model for overvoltage calculation

In this part, the influence of using a simplified PV model and ignoring the adjacent PV string

in the evaluation of the transferred voltages is discussed.

6.7.1 Influence of simplified the wiring structure in the PV panel

The PV cells in each panel are connected in series through galvanized aluminum wires. During

a lightning stroke, overvoltage will be produced in the loop formed by the galvanized aluminum

wires. This overvoltage might result in a failure of bypass diodes in the PV panel. Moreover, the

overvoltage in each panel will also influence the voltage between positive and negative DC cable.

Thus, while evaluating the voltage in the bypass diode, the wiring structure cannot be simplified.

Also, simplifying the wiring structure in the PV panel might bring bias while evaluating the voltage

between the positive and negative DC cable. However, using a simplified model in the evaluation

of the over voltages between the grounding structure (PV brackets) and the DC cables due to the

ground potential rise will not result in a large bias. In order to prove that it is reasonable to use a

simplified wire structure to evaluate overvoltage between the metal frame and the DC cable, DC

131
cable with different loop areas are simulated for comparison (the distance between the +DC cable

and -DC cable changes from 0.6 meter to 1.2 meters). The voltages between the DC cable and the

PV bracket are list in Table 6.6. As shown in the table, the voltages are not sensitive to the loop

configuration. Thus, a simplified wiring structure is reasonably accurate for evaluating the

overvoltage between the brackets and the DC cables.

TABLE 6.6 THE VOLTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PV CABLES AND PV BRACKETS

Position Point 1 Point 2 Point3

0.6m 1025 kV 759.7 kV 277.7 kV
0.8m 1028 kV 764.3 kV 273.6 kV
1m 1030 kV 768.8 kV 269.2 kV
1.2m 1031 kV 772.9 kV 263.8 kV

6.7.2 Influence of ignoring the EM couplings between the adjacent strings

In a PV plant, there are many PV strings. Since the distance between the adjacent strings is

much smaller than the wavelength(s) corresponding to the significant frequency components of

lightning, the inductive and conductive couplings between parallel PV strings might influence the

computational results. The influence of the adjacent strings is discussed in this part. The distance

between the two strings is assumed to be 3 meters in the simulation. Figure 6.21 shows the

transferred voltage in the PV system when an adjacent PV string exists. From the figure, we can see

that the appearance of the adjacent strings does not affect the conclusion drawn in previous sections:

adopting a bonding network in the air is superior to the other two arrangements.

132
 (a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 6.21 Transferred voltage in the PV system when adjacent PV string is existed. (a) Without a dedicated

grounding grid. (b) With horizontal buried conductors. (c) With a horizontal bonding network in the air.

133
 For better comparison, the amplitudes of the voltage under each grounding arrangement

with/without adjacent PV string consideration is shown in Table 6.7. As can be seen, the voltage

amplitude will reduce for each grounding arrangement when the adjacent PV string is considered.

TABLE 6.7 THE VOLTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PV CABLES AND PV BRACKETS

Position Point 1 Point 2 Point 3

Without a dedicated grounding grid 1267 kV 842.9 kV 489.9 kV
Without a dedicated grounding grid
1192 kV 833.4 kV 451.2 kV
(adjacent PV string is considered)
with horizontal buried conductors 1250 kV 873.6 kV 527.3 kV
with horizontal buried conductors
1174 kV 848.1 kV 491 kV
(adjacent PV string is considered)
With horizontal bonding network in the air 1024 kV 759.7 kV 277.7 kV
With horizontal bonding network in the air
954.3 kV 721.2 kV 270 kV
(adjacent PV string is considered)

6.8 Conclusion

The grounding arrangement of a PV system is an issue that has not been seriously considered

in international standards so far. Generally, when designing a LPS for a PV system, engineers strive

to reduce the resistance of the grounding grid and to homogenize the potential distribution by

increasing the number of buried conductors, reducing the mesh size, and adopting an appropriate

grounding grid configuration. These methods are costly and their efficiency has not been evaluated

in the PV plants protected by the independent lightning rods.

Through the results presented in this chapter, it is found that the system using a dedicated

grounding grid as recommended in most local standards and manufacturers can limit the lightning

overvoltage between the DC cable and the PV bracket. Much significant reduction of the

134
overvoltage can be achieved by providing bonding conductors running in parallel with DC cables

in the air. The overvoltage can be further reduced by placing the bonding conductors in the middle

of two DC cables in the air. This method is inexpensive, is easy to implement, and even has a better

lightning protection performance than a grounding mesh.

With the bonding network, the soil with higher resistivity does not worsen the performance

of lightning protection. On the contrary, the PV system will experience less residual voltage when

the soil resistivity is high. This means the site selection of a PV plant will not be limited by the soil

resistivity when lightning protection is an issue of concern. Moreover, the grounding configuration

of a lightning rod has a negligible effect on the voltage between the DC cable and the PV bracket.

Thus, a complex grounding grid for the lightning rod is not necessary.

The interconnection of the ground terminal of a lightning rod with the grounding grid of a PV

system is recommended in some standards. However, such interconnection may largely increase the

lightning overvoltage between the DC cable and the PV bracket when the soil resistivity is high. It

will not improve the situation even if the soil resistivity is low. The connection of two sets of

grounding systems is mainly designed for residential buildings or similar installations and its aim is

to prevent electric shock during a fault condition or a lightning strike. Such a connection does not

apply to a PV plant if the distance between the lightning rod and the PV system is beyond the

distance that one can touch simultaneously.

135
7. Transients in Solar PV Systems During Lightning Strikes
to Transmission Lines

In Chapter 3, we developed the PEEC model for the PV system. In Chapter 4, three types of

failure namely: failure of inverters, breakdown of bypass diodes, insulation breakdown are examined

through a case study. The protection methods for these failures were proposed through simulation

work and experiments. In this chapter, based on a field investigation, we present a comprehensive

analysis of PV system failures caused by lightning strikes to a transmission line. Lightning related

damages and design solutions introduced in Chapter 4 are investigated in detail in this Chapter. The

rest of the chapter is organized as follows. Section 7.1 introduces damages in the PV plant caused

by indirect lightning strikes. Section 7.2 presents the modelling and arrangement of the practical PV

plant used for numerical investigation. Section 7.3 analyzes the simulation results of transients in

the PV system when the transmission line is struck by lightning. In Section 7.4 the performance of

the PV system with and without SPDs being installed are investigated. The measures for improving

lightning protection performance are discussed. Guidelines are provided finally for effective and

efficient design of lightning protection for the PV plants.

7.1 Typical Lightning related Damages in PV systems

Lightning to PV systems has been widely studied in the past few years. Both direct and indirect

lightning strikes can bring severe damages to the devices equipped in PV plants or PV panels. Direct

strikes inject a significant amount of power into PV panels or conductor frames, and damage PV cells

or electronic devices connected. Thus a large number of studies have been carried out to address the

PV protection under direct strikes [17, 28, 29, 32, 64, 133]. According to the study [134], however,

136
most of the lightning-related damages were caused by indirect strikes, due to their frequent

occurrence and fast-front waveforms. There are two scenarios of indirect strikes. One is the lightning

strike to the ground. The induced overvoltage and potential rise at the site may lead to a failure of the

system. The other is the lightning strike to an object nearby, such as a tall building [135, 136] or a

transmission line [137]. The lightning current discharged through the object may damage neighboring

low-voltage networks. Recently, the incidents caused by lightning strikes to nearby objects are

frequently reported. PV plants, due to the low-height and location, seldom strike directly by lightning

but are damaged frequently by the strike to nearby objects.

Figure 7.1 The PV plant under an HV transmission line.

PV plants can be often found in the vicinity of transmission lines. Fig. 7.1 shows a practical

PV plant located in the transmission corridor. The plant is constructed on hills with an area of 247

acres and a total installed capacity of 50 MW. Recently, failures of PV equipment or devices in such

a PV plant have been reported increasingly. Most of these failures were caused by lightning strikes

to the transmission line in the vicinity. Similar problems were also found in roof-mounted PV

systems [138, 139] and PV power suppliers for monitoring equipment or telecommunication

137
equipment installed in the transmission corridor. Consequently, the lightning strike to nearby objects

becomes a great threat to the PV systems.

Any failure of PV systems caused by lightning could reduce the return of investment, interrupt

the power supply of the monitor system and base stations, or even cause electrical fires. However,

the failure mechanisms have not been addressed well in the literature. In addition, very little work

on the solution or guidelines has been presented in the literature for enhancing the lightning

protection of the PV systems.

7.2 Model configurations

There are a variety of components and devices in a PV plant involved in lightning transient

analysis. These include PV modules, grounding grids, inverters, SPDs, towers, transmission lines

and etc. Since this chapter focused on the protection at the DC side of the PV system, the equipment

in the AC side such as transformers, AC cables is not considered. Fig. 7.3 presents an overview of

a typical PV plant under a 110 kV transmission line.

Two scenarios are considered. In the first scenario, the PV array is located in the middle of the

line-span, and the PV array is located next to a tower in the other as shown in Fig. 7.3 (b) and 7.3

(c) respectively. Due to the long distance to the tower, the grounding system of the PV plant is not

connected to the grounding system of the transmission line tower in scenario 1. In scenario 2, their

grounding grids are connected together. Each conductor in the PV system is divided into small

segments and represented using the equivalent in Fig. 7.2. Key modelling issues of other system

components and devices for lightning transient simulations are described in the following

subsections.

138
 Conductor 1 Conductor 2

C13

C12 C23

L12

R1 L1 R2 L2
C1 C2 C3

Figure 7.2 Diagram example of an equivalent circuit for two conductors.

2
c
2
m
0

(a)

165m 155m

PV array

(b)

165m 155m

PV
array

(c)
Figure 7.3 Configuration of a PV array under a transmission line. (a) Overview of the system. (b) Sideview of
scenario 1. (c) Sideview of scenario 2.

139
7.2.1 PV system model

The configurations and the length of each segment of the PV mounting system and the installed

PV module are presented in Fig. 7.4 (a) and Fig. 7.4 (b), respectively. The parameters of these

conductors are listed in Table 7.1. They are modeled using the method introduced in Chapter 3 and

the schematic diagram of its equivalent circuit obtained by PEEC is also shown in Fig. 7.4. In our

model, the PV cell is modeled by thin wires in it without considering the material and their

dimensions are introduced in detail in Fig. 7(b). The distance between the top metallic conductors

of the mounting structure and the thin wires of the PV cell is considered to be 35 mm.

The grounding grid for the PV system is made from 40 × 4 mm2 flat steel and is buried in the

ground with a depth of 1 m. The mesh size of the grid is 5 m × 15 m, as shown in Fig. 7.4 (c). The

foot of each PV mounting system is connected to the grid through the flat steel. Since the structure

steel shows weak ferromagnetism when it carries lightning current, it is treated as a linear magnetic

material in the simulation [96]. To consider the influence of the soil, a circuit model [88]

incorporating both conductor impedance and ground admittance is developed. In this model, both

skin effect and ionization effects are included which is also verified through experiments as in [88].

Fig. 7.4(c) shows the configuration of the grounding grid and a PV string installed above it and the

equivalent circuit for a section of the grounding grid.

140
 L1 R1 L2 R2
310 cm

220 cm
70 cm

inductive coupling

(a)
112.5 cm
35 mm
6 cm
2
c 7c
2 +DC
12.5 cm m 0m
0 54
cm
-DC

120 cm

(b)

1.2 m

Lvi1 Lvi2
2.6 m - Ri Li

+ Rvi2 Rvi2

Gvi1 Gvi2 Cj Gvi1 Gvi1

1.2 m Rgi Ci Rgj

Cvi1 Cvi2 Cvi2 Cvi2

15 m Grounding grid

(c)
Figure 7.4 The system configuration of a PV string and its accessories. (a) the mounting structure. (b) the PV
module. (c) the PV string with the grounding grid (top view).

TABLE 7.1 PARAMETERS OF CONDUCTORS USED IN THE PV SYSTEM

Thickness Wide Cross-section

Items Shapes
(mm) (mm) (mm2)
Figure 1. Wires Figure 2. Laminar 0.2 1.6 0.32
Figure 3. DC cables Figure 4. Round / / 6
Figure 5. C profile steel Figure 6. U shape 3 40 120×3

7.2.2 Overhead ground conductor and tower model

In the simulation, the overhead ground conductor of the transmission line is struck by lightning

either in the middle of the span or at the end of the span (tower). The ground conductor is made of

141
JLB40-100 with a DC resistance of 0.432 /km. It is divided into a number of segments with a

length of 10 m in the simulation. The 110 kV transmission tower is modeled by a simplified lattice

model as shown in Fig. 7.5. The tower is 27 m tall. It is made of steel Q345 with the size of L220×

16, represented by a linear magnetic material with a relative permeability of 40 under a lightning

strike [96]. The grounding grid of the tower is buried in 1 m depth and the vertical grounding rod is

3 m long.

1.4 m
Grounding
wire

Horizontal grounding grid

12 m
Vertical grounding rod

Grounding grid
4m

15 m

Figure 7.5 Simplified model for the transmission tower and its grounding grid.

7.2.3 SPD model

SPDs are effective devices for suppressing transient over voltages in a circuit. SPDs have a

strong nonlinear characteristic. They exhibit high impedance when they operate at or below the

nominal voltage. While the impedance of SPDs drops significantly when the voltage exceeds the

threshold. Thus, the voltage at the port can be maintained within the clamping voltage. Various

models of SPDs have been developed [140-142]. A compact SPD model (Fig. 7.6) is used in the

simulation, which consists of a nonlinear resistance, a capacitance and an inductance [142]. The

142
inductance is 10 nH which is approximated by the lead length of SPD and capacitance is 450 pF

according to the dataset.

Cp

Ls

V=f(i)

(a) (b)
Figure 7.6 (a) The equivalent circuit model of an SPD, and (b) the characteristic of the nonlinear resistance in the
model.

7.3 Numerical Investigation

The transient behavior of a PV system under a lightning strike is investigated. In this chapter

lightning transients without any specific protection measure are simulated first to reveal potential

problems caused by lightning. Three types of lightning-generated incidents, namely, breakdown of

bypass diodes, arching between conductors, and damage of the inverters are analyzed. These

incidents have been reported in the literature and have attracted lots of attention [143].

It is noted that a PV array of concern includes 6 PV strings, each of which consists of 144 PV

modules, as shown in Fig. 7.3(a). The size of the array is 30 m  15 m. The overhead ground

conductor runs over the array at the height of 27 m above the ground. The third PV string is just

under the transmission line. Two situations are investigated in this work. In the first case, lightning

strikes the ground conductor in the middle of the line-span, and the PV array is located under the

striking point as shown in Fig. 7.3(b). In the second case, one of the towers is struck by lightning,
143
and the PV array is just located next to the tower struck by lightning, as shown in Fig. 7.3(c). The

distance between the two adjacent towers is 320 m. In the simulation, the soil resistivity is taken to

be 100 Ω∙m, and the relative permittivity of soil is assumed to be 10. Note that the electrical

parameters of soil are frequency-dependent in the frequency range of lightning currents and may

influence the grounding impulse performance [144]. In this paper we assume constant soil

parameters to simplify the discussion. The line terminations were left open to find the maximum

voltage as the worst-case consideration.

7.3.1 Scenario 1: A lightning strike to the overhead ground conductor

Fig. 7.7(a) shows the induced transient voltage between +DC/-DC cables at the inverter when

the overhead ground conductor is struck by lightning. It is found that the magnitude of the induced

voltage reaches up to 16.6 kV, and exceeds the withstanding voltage of an inverter (4 kV) as

indicated in [103]. The oscillation in these waveforms is primarily caused by the reflections of the

lightning surge between two adjacent towers. When the return stroke current decays slowly at its

tail, the reflection phenomenon is not strong. Accordingly, the induced voltage in the DC circuit

decreases quickly.

Fig. 7.7(b) shows the field measurement result recorded in a PV system in Florida [145]. The

measured PV system had a similar configuration, which consisted of a series string of PV panels.

The voltage in the figure was induced by a negative stroke approximately 7.7 km from the array. It

can be seen that our calculation result and their measurement result are similar as these two

waveforms are similar in shape and frequency. This indicates that the calculation result and model

are reasonable to a certain extent.

144
 (a) (b)

Figure 7.7 Indcued transient voltages between +DC/-DC cables. (a) calculated result. (b) measured result [145].

Figure 7.8 Induced voltages on bypass diodes.

Fig. 7.8 shows the induced voltages on the bypass diodes at panels A, B and C, as shown in

Fig. 7.3(a). The magnitude of the induced voltages is 10.4 kV at panel A, 12.3 kV at panel B and

12.4 kV at panel C. These voltages exceed well the breakdown voltage and will cause irreversible

damage to the bypass diodes.

Fig. 7.9 shows the induced voltages between the metal frame and the wire on the PV modules.

The detail of the measured position is illustrated in Fig. 7.3(a). The voltage at panel C has the highest

magnitude of 75.31 kV. The voltage at panel A is lower than any other panels, with a magnitude of

145
63.61 kV. The voltage at panel B has an intermediate value of 65.63 kV. The magnitude of the

induced voltages decreases with increasing distance to the striking point.

Figure 7.9 Induced voltages between the PV metal frame and the PV wire.

7.3.2 Scenario 2: A lightning strike to the transmission tower

In this case, the transmission tower is struck by lightning, and transient voltages on the PV

panels close to the tower are investigated. Since the PV plant is just near the transmission tower, the

grounding system of the transmission line is directly connected to the grounding system of the PV

plant as recommended in NFPA780 [146]. It is found that the induced voltage between +DC/-DC

cables at the inverter reaches 72.98 kV as shown in Fig. 7.10. It could cause damage to the

equipment connected to the DC cables, such as the PV inverter. It is noted that this voltage is much

higher than that in scenario 1, because the distances between the PV plant and the tower are different

in the two scenarios. The induced voltage in the PV system is contributed by two parts. The first is

the current in the overhead ground conductor, and the second is the lightning current discharged

through the transmission tower. Since the nearest tower in scenario 1 is 155 m to the PV plant, the

induced voltage is limited. However, the tower is near the PV system in scenario 2. Therefore, the

146
induced voltages between +DC/-DC cables in scenario 2 are much larger than those in scenario 1.

The ground potential rise in scenario 2 is caused by the current flowing through the tower. This

potential rise leads to a continuous overvoltage between the frame and wire in the adjacent PV

system. In both scenarios, the current reflection in the ground wire leads to the oscillation of the

voltage waveform in the PV system.

Figure 7.10 Induced voltages between +DC/-DC cables.

The induced voltages on the bypass diodes at panels A, B, C are shown in Fig. 7.11. It can be

seen that the patterns of the voltages on the bypass diodes are different from that in scenario 1. It is

mainly due to the location of the tower. The closer the panel to the tower, the higher the voltage

induced in the diode is. For the panel installed at point C, the induced voltage reaches 17.62 kV.

147
 Figure 7.11 Induced voltages on the bypass diodes.

The over voltages between the metal frame and the wire on PV modules are shown in Fig. 7.12.

Because of the presence of the transmission tower, the pattern of the induced voltages in Scenario

2 is different from that in Scenario 1. In Scenario 2, the overvoltage increases when moving from

panel A to panel C. At panel A, the peak voltage is 71.49kV. However, at panel C the peak voltage

increases to 138.4kV which is almost twice as much as that at panel A. It is also noted that the

voltages do not drop to zero immediately after a number of oscillations.

Figure 7.12 Induced voltages between the PV metal frame and the PV wire.

148
7.4 Sensitivity analysis

In this part, sensitivity analysis is carried out. The influences of the lightning current waveform,

soil resistivity and height of the tower on the lightning transient overvoltage in the PV system are

discussed. Both scenarios studied above (lightning strikes to the transmission line and strikes to the

tower) are considered.

7.4.1 Influence of lightning waveform

To investigate the influence of the lightning waveform on the lightning overvoltage in the

system, the first positive stroke with the waveform of 10/350 us and the magnitude of 200 kA is

evaluated for comparison.

7.4.1.1 Scenario 1: A lightning strike to the overhead ground conductor

Fig. 7.13, 7.14, and 7.15 show the induced over voltages in the system during the first positive

stroke. It can be seen that the amplitude of overvoltage in the system under the first positive stroke

is much smaller than that under the first negative strike. The induced voltage between +DC/-DC

cables is only 392 V which is considered safe for the PV inverters. The induced voltages on the

bypass diodes are all within 400 V at point A, point B and point C. Therefore, the diode will not

suffer a breakdown if the diode with suitable reverse breakdown voltage is selected. The induced

voltages between the PV metal frame and the PV wire can reach 18 kV, however, it is much smaller

than the overvoltage under the first negative stroke. The wave shape of the overvoltage under the

first positive stroke is also quite different from that under the first negative stroke. It rises rapidly to

the peak value and then decreases to zero in tens of microseconds instead of oscillation.

149
 Figure 7.13 Induced voltages between +DC/-DC cables.

Figure 7.14 Induced voltages on the bypass diodes.

Figure 7.15 Induced voltages between the PV metal frame and the PV wire.

150
7.4.1.2 Scenario 2: A lightning strike to the transmission tower

When the lightning strikes the transmission tower, the situation is much worse compared to

scenario 1. The induced voltage between +DC/-DC cable can reach 7.379 kV and the induced

voltage on the bypass diode at point C can exceed 2 kV. These over voltages can lead to the failure

of PV inverters and bypass diodes. The wave shape of the overvoltage between the PV metal frame

and the wire in scenario 2 is quite different from that in scenario 1. The overvoltage reaches 40.6

kV in peak and then decrease gradually without oscillation.

Figure 7.16 Induced voltages between +DC/-DC cables.

Figure 7.17 Induced voltages on the bypass diodes.

151
 Figure 7.18 Induced voltages between the PV metal frame and the PV wire.

7.4.2 Influence of soil resistivity

The soil resistivity does not influence over voltages at the inverter and the bypass diode as shown

in Table 7.2 and Table 7.4. It also does not influence the voltage between the metal frame and the

wire in the PV module in scenario 1. On the contrary, in scenario 2, the soil resistivity shows a

significant influence on the voltage between the metal frame and the wire as shown in Fig. 7.19.

When the soil resistivity increases to 1000 Ω∙m, the peak voltage appears at the wave trail with a

maximum of 213 kV for points A, B and C. As the soil resistivity increases to 2000 Ω∙m, this value

further increases to 309 kV.

TABLE 7.2 PEAK VOLTAGE AT THE INVERTER FOR SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Soil Resistivity 100 Ω∙m 1000 Ω∙m 2000 Ω∙m

Scenario 1 16.6 16.6 16.6
Scenario 2 72.98 72.85 72.78

152
 Figure 7.19 Induced voltages between the PV metal frame and the PV wire.

TABLE 7.3 THE MAGNITUDE OF INDUCED VOLTAGE BETWEEN THE METAL FRAME AND THE WIRE FOR SCENARIO 1 AND 2.

(UNIT: KV)

Panel A Panel B Panel C

Soil Resistivity
Front Tail Front Tail Front Tail
100 Ω∙m 63.61 \ 65.63 \ 75.31 \
1000 Ω∙m 63.61 \ 65.63 \ 75.31 \
Scenario 1
2000 Ω∙m 63.61 \ 65.63 \ 75.31 \

100 Ω∙m 71.49 21.5 97.8 21.8 138.4 22

Scenario 2 1000 Ω∙m \ 213 \ 213 \ 213
2000 Ω∙m \ 309 \ 309 \ 309

TABLE 5.4 INDUCED VOLTAGE ON BYPASS DIODES IN SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Soil Resistivity Panel A Panel B Panel C

100 Ω∙m 10.4 12.3 12.4
1000 Ω∙m 10.4 12.3 12.4
Scenario 1
2000 Ω∙m 10.4 12.3 12.4

100 Ω∙m 8.7 11.6 17.62

Scenario 2 1000 Ω∙m 8.54 11.42 17.59
2000 Ω∙m 8.6 11.4 17.63

7.4.3 Influence of tower grounding system

To investigate the influence of the tower grounding system on the over voltages at the PV

system, three different tower grounding systems are selected for comparison. Fig. 7.20(a) shows the
153
basic ground grid for the tower used in the previous investigation. Fig. 7.20(b) extends (a) by adding

horizontal grounding grids. Fig. 7.20(c) adds two vertical grounding rods in each extended

horizontal grid of (b). The over voltages at the PV system are shown in Table 5-7. As can be seen

from these tables, the tower grounding system has a negligible impact on the over voltages in the

PV system except for the residual voltage (over voltages appear at the wave tail) between the PV

frame and the wiring under scenario 2. Because of the lower grounding resistance, a tower with the

grounding system of (c) has a minimum residual voltage.

Horizontal grounding grid

Vertical grounding rod

4m

4m

(a) (b)

4m

(c)
Figure 7.20 The investigated tower grounding systems.

TABLE 7.5 PEAK VOLTAGE AT THE INVERTER FOR SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Grounding system Type1 Type2 Type3

Scenario 1 16.6 16.6 16.6
Scenario 2 72.98 72.8 72.7

154
TABLE 7.6 THE MAGNITUDE OF INDUCED VOLTAGE BETWEEN THE METAL FRAME AND THE WIRE FOR SCENARIO 1 AND 2.
(UNIT: KV)

Panel A Panel B Panel C

Grounding system
Front Tail Front Tail Front Tail
Type1 63.61 \ 65.63 \ 75.31 \
Type2 63.61 \ 65.63 \ 75.31 \
Scenario 1
Type3 63.61 \ 65.63 \ 75.31 \

Type1 71.49 21.5 97.8 21.8 138.4 22

Scenario 2 Type2 71.51 16.9 97.8 17.3 139.1 17.5
Type3 71.51 13.8 97.9 14.1 139.3 14.3

TABLE 7.7 PEAK VOLTAGE ON BYPASS DIODES IN SCENARIO 1 & 2. (UNIT: KV)

Grounding system Panel A Panel B Panel C

Type1 10.4 12.3 12.4
Type2 10.4 12.3 12.4
Scenario 1
Type3 10.4 12.3 12.4

Type1 8.7 11.6 17.62

Scenario 2 Type2 8.6 11.6 17.62
Type3 8.7 11.4 17.6

7.4.4 Influence of tower height

Table 7.8-7.10 show the influence of tower height on the overvoltage for both scenarios. In

scenario 1, the overvoltage is sensitive to the tower height because the overvoltage is mainly induced

by the current flowing in the transmission line. Thus the distance between the transmission line and

PV plant has a great influence on the voltage. However, because the major contribution of over

voltages in scenario 2 comes from the current flowing through the tower. Therefore, the influence

of the tower height on the overvoltage is not that significant in scenario 2.

TABLE 7.8 PEAK VOLTAGE AT THE INVERTER FOR SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Tower height 20m 25m 30m

Scenario 1 20.4 16.6 8.29
Scenario 2 77.08 72.98 65.38

155
TABLE 7.9 THE MAGNITUDE OF INDUCED VOLTAGE BETWEEN THE METAL FRAME AND THE WIRE FOR SCENARIO 1 AND 2.
(UNIT: KV)

Tower height Panel A Panel B Panel C

20m 78.16 80.23 91.12
25m 63.61 65.63 75.31
Scenario 1
30m 32.97 34.2 38.66

20m 75.34 103.2 147

Scenario 2 25m 71.49 97.8 138.4
30m 64 87.6 123.9

TABLE 7.10 PEAK VOLTAGE ON BYPASS DIODES IN SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Tower height Panel A Panel B Panel C

20m 12.8 15.12 15.3
25m 10.4 12.3 12.4
Scenario 1
30m 6.2 8.3 8.7

20m 9.02 12.17 18.5

Scenario 2 25m 8.7 11.6 17.62
30m 7.82 10.67 16.3

7.5 Protection Schemes for the PV System

In the early stage of the PV industry, lightning protection of the PV system did not receive

enough attention. However, with the increasing lightning-related damages reported, the industry

began to pay attention to this issue. Since then, grounding grids and SPDs are commonly equipped

with the PV system for lightning protection. This chapter analyzes the lightning transient in the

system when SPDs are installed at the PV inverter and discusses existing issues that vulnerable to

lightning damages. Then, solutions proposed in chapter 4 are adopted in the investigated PV plant.

7.5.1 Installation of SPDs for the inverters

In order to constrain the lightning over voltages at the PV inverter, SPDs are proposed to

install in each DC circuit at the PV inverter, as shown in Fig. 7.21. Simulation is performed

156
again for both scenarios after the installation of SPDs. The clamping voltage of these SPDs is

2.5 kV. In the simulation induced voltages in the DC circuit at the inverter are evaluated. The

voltages between the metal frame and the wire in the PV modules, and the voltages on the

bypass diodes are calculated as well to investigate the influence of these SPDs on the transient

voltages on other components.

After installing the SPDs in the DC circuit at the inverter, the induced voltages between

+DC/-DC cables at the inverter are clamped to a safe level in all these cases as shown in Table

7.11. These results explain well why PV inverters can always survive from lightning strikes in

practical PV plants as long as SPDs are provided at their DC input ports.

Panel C Panel B Panel A

-DC
Inverter
+DC
+

Figure 7.21 Installation of SPDs for inverter protection.

TABLE 7.11 PEAK VOLTAGE AT THE INVERTER FOR SCENARIO 1 AND SCENARIO 2. (UNIT: KV)

+DC/-DC +DC/ground -DC/ground

Scenario 1 1.86 2.5 2.5
Scenario 2 3.2 2.5 2.5

Table 7.12 shows the magnitude of induced voltages between the metal frame and the wire of

PV modules in both scenarios of a lightning strike. As seen in the table, the voltage magnitude is

much lower in Scenario 1 when SPDs are installed. The voltages are limited to 30 kV at panel A

and panel C, and to 35kV at panel B.

157
 TABLE 7.12 PEAK VOLTAGE BETWEEN THE METAL FRAME AND THE WIRE FOR SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Panel A Panel B Panel C

Without SPDs 63.61 65.63 75.31
With SPDs 27.94 34.71 28.29
Scenario 1
Reduction 56% 47% 62%

Without SPDs 71.49 97.8 138.4

Scenario 2 With SPDs 38.53 88.21 130.9
Reduction 46% 9.8% 5.4%

TABLE 7.13 PEAK VOLTAGE ON BYPASS DIODES IN SCENARIO 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Panel A Panel B Panel C

Without SPDs 10.4 12.3 12.4
proposed 4.99 6.05 5.46
Scenario 1
Reduction 52% 50.8% 56%

Without SPDs 8.7 11.6 17.62

Scenario 2 proposed 6.98 7.56 8.5
Reduction 19.7% 34.8% 51.8%

The results look quite different in Scenario 2. The induced voltage at panel A is reduced

significantly when the SPDs are installed. However, the induced voltage increases apparently with

increasing distance from the installation position of the SPDs. At panel A, the voltage difference is

38.53 kV. The voltage at panel B is more than twice that at panel A, reaching a value of 88.21 kV.

At panel C, the voltage difference increases to 130.9 kV. These large voltage differences indicate

that there is a high possibility of a partial breakdown or even permanent failure of the module. The

calculation results are in agreement with the field observation and also agree with the experiment

results indicated in [42].

Table 7.13 shows the induced voltages on the bypass diodes at panel A, B, C. It can be seen

that the voltages on the bypass diodes are much lower compared with the results without SPDs being

provided. However, these voltages still exceed the withstanding voltage of the bypass diodes. It is

158
also noted that the diodes in Scenario 2 suffer from a much higher voltage than that in Scenario 1.

Thus, installing SPDs at the PV inverter cannot effectively protect the bypass diodes from

breakdown during a lightning strike. This is the reason why the damage of bypass diodes is

continuously observed, although SPDs are provided somewhere in the plant.

It can be stated that installing SPDs at the inverter can effectively prevent the failure of PV

inverters. However, it can neither eliminate the arcing in the PV modules nor protect the bypass

diodes under an indirect lightning strike.

7.5.2 Prevention of arcing between the PV frame and wire

In order to further restrict the voltage between the metal frame and the wire in a PV module,

additional sets of SPDs should be provided in the system as mentioned in Chapter 4. One

possible option is to install these SPDs at the remote end of a DC circuit, as shown in Fig. 7.22.

Another set of SPDs

installed at remote side
Panel C Panel B Panel A

-DC
Inverter
+ + +DC

Figure 7.22 SPD protection for the PV system.

TABLE 7.14 PEAK VOLTAGE BETWEEN THE METAL FRAME AND THE WIRE IN SCENARIOS 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Panel A Panel B Panel C

Without SPDs 63.61 65.63 75.31
Proposed 27.8 33.6 13.1
Scenario 1
Reduction 56.3% 48.8% 82.6%

Without SPDs 71.49 97.8 138.4

Scenario 2 Proposed 27.2 69.2 29.3
Reduction 61.95% 29.2% 78.8%

159
 TABLE 7.15 PEAK VOLTAGE ON BYPASS DIODES IN SCENARIOS 1 AND 2. (UNIT: KV)

Panel A Panel B Panel C

Without SPDs 10.4 12.3 12.4
Proposed 4.16 5.15 5.8
Scenario 1
Reduction 60% 58.13% 53.2%

Without SPDs 8.7 11.6 17.62

Scenario 2 Proposed 6.03 7.21 8.66
Reduction 30.6% 37.84% 50.85%

Table 7.14 shows the induced voltages between the PV metal frame and PV wire after the

installation of SPDs at the remote end of three PV panels. In Scenario 1, the magnitude of induced

voltages at panel A and panel B is not significantly changed. However, the voltage at panel C is

reduced to 13 kV after SPDs are installed at the remote side. In Scenario 2, the magnitude of induced

voltages is 27 kV at panel A, 69 kV at panel B and 29 kV at panel C. Compared with the cases in

which the SPDs are only installed at the inverter, these voltages are largely constrained after

adopting the protection scheme even if the transmission tower is very close to the PV modules. Thus,

the lightning discharge on the surface of the PV module can be constrained.

For comparison, the induced voltages on bypass diodes at panels A, B, C are also listed in

Table 7.15. It can be observed that the voltages do not significantly change, compared with the case

in which SPDs are only installed at the inverter. This is because the induced voltages on the bypass

diodes are mainly contributed by the wiring structure in the PV panels. Thus, it is difficult to limit

the induced voltage in each module by installing SPDs at two ends of the DC circuit.

7.5.3 Protection of the bypass diodes

Though the PV plant discussed in this chapter is invaded by the indirect strike, the maximum

induced voltage in the diode can reach 8 kV. To avoid lightning damages to the bypass diodes,

160
connecting 4-5 bypass diodes in series using a diode box is feasible and recommended. Since the

transmission line is parallel to the PV system, the induced voltage in the diodes considering in this

chapter is serious than most scenarios in reality. Thus this method is effective for bypass diodes

protection in a PV plant.

7.6 Conclusion

This chapter investigated the transient behaviors of a PV plant during a lightning strike to the

transmission line nearby. With the PEEC method, lightning-induced voltages in the PV system were

simulated. Significant over voltages were observed and could cause damages to the PV systems if

protection measures were not provided appropriately. Simulation results were generally consistent

with the field observation reported in the literature in some cases.

Simulations were also performed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed measures

against lightning. The recommendations on the design of effective lightning protection for the PV

systems are summarized as follows:

1) The PV plant could suffer from serious lightning damages when a nearby

transmission line is struck by lightning. The induced voltages generated in the DC circuit may

cause the failure of PV inverters and electrical breakdown of bypass diodes. The damage

becomes much severe when the PV system is close to the tower. Meanwhile, significantly

induced voltages between the PV frame and wire could cause a flashover on the PV panels which

might lead to permanent damage to the PV modules.

2) SPDs installed at a PV inverter can effectively restrict the voltage on the inverter.

The damage to the inverters is then seldom reported in practical systems as the SPDs are usually

161
provided at the inverter. These SPDs cannot, however, reduce the induced voltages in the DC

wire of each panel, which would lead to the breakdown of bypass diodes. The induced voltage

between the PV metal frame and the wire increases significantly if it is located far away from

the SPDs installed in the DC circuit.

3) In order to reduce the induced voltages between the metal frame and the wire,

installing SPDs at the remote end of the DC circuit is recommended. It is found that the induced

voltage between the PV metal frame and the wire is largely restricted after the SPDs are installed

on the remote side.

4) To protect the bypass diodes from breakdown, connecting installing series-connected

bypass diodes is recommended. This arrangement will increase the withstanding voltage of the

total circuit.

162
8. Conclusion and Future Work

8.1 Conclusion

As one of the major threats to the PV system, lightning greatly affects the reliability of the

system operation and the return on investment. However, the research on lightning protection of PV

system is still insufficient. This thesis studies the PV lightning protection from both theoretical

modelling and engineering application. The research results of this thesis improve the PV transient

modelling theory, and provide the design solution for PV lightning protection.

8.1.1 PV transient modelling of the PV system

(1) PEEC model

A PEEC-based model is presented for the PV system simulation. Various components in the

PV system including structural steels, DC cables, the wiring of PV panels, nonlinear characteristics

of PV cells are considered in our model. Frequency-dependent effects are well addressed for

conductors and cables modelling. The introduced PV model is complete and accurate that can be

used for evaluating surges in the PV inverter, bypass diodes, insulation breakdown in the system.

Experiments are conducted to validate the PEEC model for the PV system. The comparison between

the calculation and the experiment indicates the accuracy of the proposed modelling procedure.

(2) A simplified model for PV grounding grid

Apart from the PEEC model, the FDTD method is adopted for PV grounding grid design. The

FDTD model ignoring the wiring structure in the PV panel to save computation resources. The

rationality of using the FDTD simplified model for evaluating the overvoltage between the

grounding structure and the DC cable is demonstrated in the thesis.

163
8.1.2 PV lightning protection

(1) Solution for inverter, bypass diodes and arcing

Three types of lightning-related damages namely: the failure of PV inverter, breakdown of

bypass diodes, arcing due to the ground potential rise are analyzed using the PEEC model.

Breakdown of the bypass diodes and arcing caused by the ground potential rise are analyzed for the

first time. Solutions to these damages are also provided. This will benefit the practical PV design

for the industry.

(2) Optimal lighting portion design for PV inverter

Optimal lightning protection design for PV inverter is proposed in this thesis for the first time.

This concept utilizes the structure of the PV system to shield part of the lightning surge. Thus the

overvoltage in the PV inverter can be reduced without installing extra protection devices. The

optimal design in the PV system can save the cost of installing SPDs as well as save installing space.

(3) PV grounding grid design

An encouraging grounding grid for PV system is provided for improving the lightning

protection performance and saving the installation cost. This method is inexpensive, is easy to

implement, and has a good lightning protection performance. In the past, the PV system generally

uses a dedicated grounding grid as recommended by most local standards and manufacturers. This

method can limit the lightning overvoltage between the DC cable and the grounding structure.

However, it is quite expensive. By using the method proposed in this thesis, much significant

reduction of the overvoltage can be achieved.

164
8.1.3 Major finding

(1) The induced voltage between -DC and + DC cables is not sensitive to the soil resistivity

while the voltage between the DC cable and ground is greatly affected by the soil resistivity. If SPDs

are installed between the DC lines and the ground, the voltage between -DC and + DC cables can

reach twice as much as the clamping voltage of the SPDs. To avoid lightning-induced damage to

the PV inverter, the champing voltage of SPDs should be installed as well as another SPD between

-DC and + DC cables.

(2) To reduce the induced voltage between the -DC and + DC cables, the following measures

are recommended which might avoid the failure of the inverter. 1) Large DC loop should be avoided.

2) The grounding point should be as close to the lightning rod as possible if non-isolated LPS is

adopted. Adding more grounding points does not always improve the efficiency of lightning

protection. 3) Comparing to the non-isolated LPS, a PV system with an isolated LPS is

recommended.

(3) SPDs installed at a PV inverter can effectively restrict the induced voltage on the inverter.

These SPDs, however, cannot fully reduce the induced voltages in the DC wire of each panel and

could cause the failure of the bypass diodes. One appropriate lightning protection for these bypass

diodes is to connect several bypass diodes in series. This arrangement will linearly increase the

withstanding voltage of the total circuit.

(4) Though SPDs are installed at a PV inverter, overvoltage between grounded structure and

the DC cable is still observed at the remote side. Installing SPDs at the remote end of the DC circuit

is recommended. It is found that the induced voltage between the PV metal frame and the wire is

largely restricted after the SPDs are installed on the remote side.
165
 (5) The reduction of the overvoltage between the DC cable and the grounding structure can

be achieved by providing bonding conductors running in parallel with DC cables in the air. This

method even has a better lightning protection performance than a grounding mesh. Moreover, the

soil with higher resistivity does not worsen the performance of lightning protection when the method

is adopted. On the contrary, overvoltage between the DC cable and the grounding structure decays

more rapidly when the soil resistivity is high. This means the site selection of a PV plant will not be

limited by the soil resistivity.

(6) Interconnection of the ground terminal of a lightning rod with the grounding grid of a PV

system recommended in some standards cannot reduce the lightning overvoltage between the DC

cable and the PV grounding. It may largely increase the lightning overvoltage between the DC cable

and the PV grounding structure when the soil resistivity is high. Such a connection is not

recommended in a PV plant if the distance between the lightning rod and the PV system is beyond

the distance that one can touch simultaneously.

8.2 Future work

Although the thesis provides the models for the simulation of lightning transients in the PV

system and provides solutions for the lightning protection designs, there are still some unsolved

issues to be addressed further.

(1) Though many models in the PV system have been considered. There are some components

that need to be considered, such as power transformers, PV inverters, etc. Moreover, the transfer

voltage and the grounding structure with multi-layer soil cannot be properly handled by the PEEC

model. A modified PEEC method needs to be developed to solve these problems.

166
 (2) Apart from a traditional PV plant, both floating PV systems and Building Integrated PV

systems are getting popular for their merit in space-saving. However, the lightning protection

approaches for these new emerging PV systems have not been studied before. Also, standards

related to these systems has not been established yet. Therefore, lightning transients in these newly

emerging systems and approaches for improving lightning protection efficiency in these systems

should be evaluated or considered in the future.

(3) It would be necessary to consider the risk management and economic benefit in addressing

the protection and the selection of adequate protection measures. The reported method in Protection

against Lightning—Part 2: Risk Management, IEC Std. 62305-2, 2006 only gives a universal

scheme and may not consider the characteristic of the PV plant. Moreover, due to the stochastic

nature of lightning, it needs to be described in terms of statistical distributions of its basic parameters:

amplitude, duration of the current front, duration of the current wave, and polarity. To get an

accurate estimation, the estimate should be based on statistical distributions of these parameters,

arrangement, and configuration of the PV system.

(4) Another issue associated with a lightning strike is the nuisance tripping of RCDs in the PV

system. The RCDs now are widely installed in the PV system to prevent electric shock and electrical

fire. Since the RCDs are quite sensitive, transient currents or over voltages caused by both direct

and indirect strikes can exceed the impulse withstand voltage of the RCDs, with consequent causing

nuisance tripping. This phenomenon might not directly cause damage to the system, however, the

resulting interruption of power generation will largely reduce the return of investment of the PV

system. Though some work related to the tripping characteristic of RCDs under no sinusoidal has

been done. The work-related to tripping characteristics of new emerging RCDs during lightning
167
currents is insufficient. In the future, we will investigate the tripping characteristics of various types

of RCDs during different kinds of lightning currents.

(5) The analysis of lightning transients in the PV system is mainly based on simulation and

impulse testing. I will conduct more experiments in my future work. I consider conducting

experiments under triggered lightning to further investigate the lightning transients in the PV system

and to provide an effective lightning protection approach for the system.

168
References
[1] "IEA, World Energy Balances, The International Energy Agency; 2019."

[2] "IEA, World Energy Outlook 2019, The International Energy Agency, Paris."

[3] "IRENA (2019), Renewable Energy Statistics 2019, The International Renewable Energy

Agency, Abu Dhabi."

[4] "IEA, "Installed power generation capacity by source in the Stated Policies Scenario, 2000-

2040", IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/installed-power-

generation-capacity-by-source-in-the-stated-policies-scenario-2000-2040."

[5] Lightning flash density. Available: http://thunder.nsstc.nasa.gov/data/

[6] Available: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/6679/patterns-of-lightning-activity

[7] M. Hosenuzzaman, N. A. Rahim, J. Selvaraj, M. Hasanuzzaman, A. A. Malek, and A.

Nahar, "Global prospects, progress, policies, and environmental impact of solar

photovoltaic power generation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 41, pp.

284-297, 2015.

[8] M. Nasir, M. Ab-Kadir, M. Radzi, M. Izadi, N. Ahmad, and N. Zaini, "Lightning

performance analysis of a rooftop grid-connected solar photovoltaic without external

lightning protection system," PloS one, vol. 14, no. 7, 2019.

[9] D. Akinyele, R. Rayudu, and N. Nair, "Development of photovoltaic power plant for remote

residential applications: The socio-technical and economic perspectives," Applied Energy,

vol. 155, pp. 131-149, 2015.

[10] "IEC 62305-3 Protection against lightning –Part 3: Physical damage to structures and life

hazard," 2014.
169
[11] GB50169 ： Code for construction and acceptance of grounding connection electric

equipment installation engineering, 2016.

[12] N. F. P. Association, NFPA 780: Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection

Systems. National Fire Protection Association, 2020.

[13] GB/T32512-2016,Technical requirements for the protection of photovoltaic power station

against lightning, 2016.

[14] GB50057,Design code for protection of structures against lightning 2010.

[15] N. Kokkinos, N. Christofides, and C. Charalambous, "Lightning protection practice for

large-extended photovoltaic installations," in 2012 International Conference on Lightning

Protection (ICLP), 2012, pp. 1-5: IEEE.

[16] C. A. Charalambous, N. Kokkinos, N. Christofides, M. Z. A. Ab Kadir, and C. Gomes, "A

simulation tool to assess the lightning induced over-voltages on dc cables of photovoltaic

installations," in 2014 International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), 2014, pp.

1571-1576: IEEE.

[17] C. A. Charalambous, N. D. Kokkinos, and N. Christofides, "External lightning protection

and grounding in large-scale photovoltaic applications," IEEE transactions on

electromagnetic compatibility, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 427-434, 2013.

[18] A. Ayub, W. Siew, and F. Peer, "Grounding strategies for solar PV panels," in 2018 IEEE

International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility and 2018 IEEE Asia-Pacific

Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC/APEMC), 2018, pp. 418-422: IEEE.

[19] F. P. Mohamed, W. H. Siew, and S. Mahmud, "Effect of group grounding on the potential

rise across solar PV panels during lightning strike," in 2019 11th Asia-Pacific International
170
 Conference on Lightning (APL), 2019, pp. 1-5: IEEE.

[20] R. Araneo, M. Maccioni, S. Lauria, and S. Celozzi, "Analysis of the lightning transient

response of the earthing system of large-scale ground-mounted PV plants," in 2017 IEEE

Manchester PowerTech, 2017, pp. 1-6: IEEE.

[21] J. Birkl and E. Shulzhenko, "Investigation of Lightning Current Distribution in a Large-

Scale Earth-Termination System of Photovoltaic Power Plant," in 2018 34th International

Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), 2018, pp. 1-7: IEEE.

[22] P. H. Pretorius, "Loss of equipotential during lightning ground potential rise on large

earthing systems," in 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic

Compatibility and 2018 IEEE Asia-Pacific Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility

(EMC/APEMC), 2018, pp. 793-797: IEEE.

[23] I. Naxakis, G. Mihos, S. Pastromas, and E. Pyrgioti, "Examining the operation of the

grounding system of a PV installation," in 2018 IEEE International Conference on High

Voltage Engineering and Application (ICHVE), 2018, pp. 1-4: IEEE.

[24] P. H. Pretorius, "Dielectric Breakdown Between PV Panel Frames and StructuresБ─⌠A

Hypothesis," in 2018 IEEE 4th Global Electromagnetic Compatibility Conference

(GEMCCON), 2018, pp. 1-5: IEEE.

[25] K. Sakai and K. Yamamoto, "Lightning protection of photovoltaic power generation system:

Influence of grounding systems on overvoltages appearing on DC wirings," in 2013

International Symposium on Lightning Protection (XII SIPDA), 2013, pp. 335-339: IEEE.

[26] IEC 62305-3: Protection against lightning – Part 3: Physical damage to structures and life

hazard, 2010.
171
[27] S. N. Fallah, C. Gomes, M. Izadi, M. Ab Kadir, R. J. Ahmed, and J. bt Jasni, "Minimum

separation between lightning protection system and non-integrated metallic structures," in

2018 34th International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), 2018, pp. 1-8: IEEE.

[28] K. Yonezawa, S. Mochizuki, Y. Takahashi, T. Idogawa, and N. Morii, "Evaluation of SPDs

for a PV system using the FDTD method taking concrete foundations into consideration,"

in 2014 International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), 2014, pp. 1091-1094:

IEEE.

[29] Y. Tu, C. Zhang, J. Hu, S. Wang, W. Sun, and H. Li, "Research on lightning overvoltages

of solar arrays in a rooftop photovoltaic power system," Electric power systems research,

vol. 94, pp. 10-15, 2013.

[30] Y. Zhang, H. Chen, and Y. Du, "Lightning protection design of solar photovoltaic systems:

Methodology and guidelines," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 174, p. 105877, 2019.

[31] Z. Mohammed, H. Hizam, and C. Gomes, "Analysis of lightning transient effects on hybrid

renewable energy sources," in 2018 34th International Conference on Lightning Protection

(ICLP), 2018, pp. 1-7: IEEE.

[32] N. H. Zaini et al., "Lightning surge analysis on a large scale grid-connected solar

photovoltaic system," Energies, vol. 10, no. 12, p. 2149, 2017.

[33] N. Zaini et al., "On the effect of lightning on a solar photovoltaic system," in 2016 33rd

International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), 2016, pp. 1-4: IEEE.

[34] N. Zaini et al., "Lightning Surge on the DC and AC Side of Solar PV System," in 2019

11th Asia-Pacific International Conference on Lightning (APL), 2019, pp. 1-5: IEEE.

[35] H. Haeberlin, "Damages at bypass diodes by induced voltages and currents in PV modules
172
 caused by nearby lightning currents," in 22nd EU PV Conf., Milano, 2007.

[36] H. Haeberlin and M. Kaempfer, "Measurement of damages at bypass diodes by induced

voltages and currents in PV modules caused by nearby lightning currents with standard

waveform," in 23rd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, 2008.

[37] K. M. Coetzer, P. G. Wiid, and A. J. Rix, "PV Installation Design Influencing the Risk of

Induced Currents from Nearby Lightning Strikes," in 2019 International Conference on

Clean Electrical Power (ICCEP), 2019, pp. 204-213: IEEE.

[38] N. Ishikura, T. Okamoto, I. Nanno, T. Hamada, S. Oke, and M. Fujii, "Simulation analysis

of really occurred accident caused by short circuit failure of blocking diode and bypass

circuit in the photovoltaics system," in 2018 7th International Conference on Renewable

Energy Research and Applications (ICRERA), 2018, pp. 533-536: IEEE.

[39] K. M. Coetzer, P. G. Wiid, and A. J. Rix, "The MOV as a Possible Protection Measure for

Bypass Diodes in Solar PV Modules," in 2019 International Conference on Clean

Electrical Power (ICCEP), 2019, pp. 286-291: IEEE.

[40] R. Pease, J. Barnum, W. Vulliet, V. Van Lint, and T. Wrobel, "Silicon solar cell damage

from electrical overstress," IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1525-

1532, 1982.

[41] M. Belik, "PV panels under lightning conditions," in Proceedings of the 2014 15th

International Scientific Conference on Electric Power Engineering (EPE), 2014, pp. 367-

370: IEEE.

[42] I. Naxakis, E. Pyrgioti, V. Perraki, and E. Tselepis, "Studying the effect of the impulse

voltage application on sc-Si PV modules," Solar Energy, vol. 144, pp. 721-728, 2017.
173
[43] I. Naxakis, C. Christodoulou, V. Perraki, and E. Pyrgioti, "Degradation effects on single

crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules subjected to high impulse-voltages," IET Science,

Measurement & Technology, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 563-570, 2017.

[44] N. Ahmad et al., "On the performance of a polycrystalline PV panel under different impulse

voltages and temperatures," in 2016 33rd International Conference on Lightning

Protection (ICLP), 2016, pp. 1-6: IEEE.

[45] H. l. E. Sueta, A. Mocelin, R. Zilles, P. F. Obase, and E. Boemeisel, "Protection of

Photovoltaic Systems Against Lightning Experimental verifications and techno-economic

analysis of protection," in 2013 International Symposium on Lightning Protection (XII

SIPDA), 2013, pp. 354-359: IEEE.

[46] T. Jiang and S. Grzybowski, "Influence of lightning impulse voltages on power output

characteristics of Photovoltaic modules," in 2014 ICHVE International Conference on

High Voltage Engineering and Application, 2014, pp. 1-4: IEEE.

[47] T. Jiang and S. Grzybowski, "Impact of lightning impulse voltage on polycrystalline silicon

photovoltaic modules," in 2013 International Symposium on Lightning Protection (XII

SIPDA), 2013, pp. 287-290: IEEE.

[48] T. Jiang and S. Grzybowski, "Electrical degradation of Photovoltaic modules caused by

lightning induced voltage," in 2014 IEEE Electrical Insulation Conference (EIC), 2014, pp.

107-110: IEEE.

[49] G. L. Amicucci, F. Fiamingo, and T. Kisielewicz, "Risk assessment of photovoltaic

installations, due to lightning, according to IEC 62305," in 2012 International Conference

on Lightning Protection (ICLP), 2012, pp. 1-6: IEEE.

174
[50] S. Ittarat, S. Hiranvarodom, and B. Plangklang, "A computer program for evaluating the

risk of lightning impact and for designing the installation of lightning rod protection for

photovoltaic system," Energy Procedia, vol. 34, pp. 318-325, 2013.

[51] I. Holland, W. Doorsamy, and K. Nixon, "Computational methodology for lightning risk

assessment of small-scale rooftop photovoltaic systems," in 2018 IEEE International

Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2018 IEEE Industrial and

Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC/I&CPS Europe), 2018, pp. 1-6: IEEE.

[52] IEC 62305-2: Protection against lightning - Part 2: Risk management, 2010.

[53] IEC 61400-24: Wind turbines Part 24：Lightning protection, 2012.

[54] A. Dimitriou, C. A. Charalambous, and N. Kokkinos, "Integrating the loss of economic

value in lightning-related risk assessments of large scale photovoltaic systems participating

in regulated and competitive energy markets," in 2016 33rd International Conference on

Lightning Protection (ICLP), 2016, pp. 1-6: IEEE.

[55] A. Kern and F. Krichel, "Considerations about the lightning protection system of mains

independent renewable energy hybrid-systems ─ practical experiences," Journal of

Electrostatics, vol. 60, no. 2-4, pp. 257-263, 2004.

[56] R. Pomponi and R. Tommasini, "Risk assessment and lightning protection for PV systems

and solar power plants," in Int. Conf. on Renewable Energies and Power Quality (ICREPQ

Б─≤12), 2012.

[57] I. Holland, W. Doorsamy, and K. Nixon, "Lightning Risk Assessment of Rooftop

Photovoltaic Systems: A Case Study Approach," in 2018 IEEE PES/IAS PowerAfrica, 2018,

pp. 1-6: IEEE.

175
[58] Y. Du and M. Chen, "Influence of building structures on the lightning return stroke

current," IEEE transactions on power delivery, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 307-315, 2009.

[59] A. Formisano, C. Petrarca, J. C. Hern ц ║ ndez, and F. J. Mu ц ╠ oz-Rodr ц ╜ guez,

"Assessment of induced voltages in common and differential-mode for a PV module due

to nearby lightning strikes," IET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1369-

1378, 2019.

[60] I. Naxakis, P. Nikolaidis, and E. Pyrgioti, "Performance of an installed lightning protection

system in a photovoltaic park," in 2016 IEEE International Conference on High Voltage

Engineering and Application (ICHVE), 2016, pp. 1-4: IEEE.

[61] D. Moongilan, "Residential solar system bonding and grounding methods for lightning

protection," in 2013 IEEE Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering (ISPCE), 2013,

pp. 1-6: IEEE.

[62] C. Zhang, Y. Tu, J. Hu, W. Sun, H. J. Li, and S. Wang, "Study of induced overvoltage on

solar arrays," in 2011 7th Asia-Pacific International Conference on Lightning, 2011, pp.

852-857: IEEE.

[63] C. Christodoulou, K. Damianaki, V. Kontargyri, I. Gonos, A. Kyritsis, and N. Papanikolaou,

"Protection of 100kWp photovoltaic system against atmospheric overvoltages: a case

study," in 2016 IEEE International Conference on High Voltage Engineering and

Application (ICHVE), 2016, pp. 1-4: IEEE.

[64] K. Yamamoto, J. Takami, and N. Okabe, "Overvoltages on DC side of power conditioning

system caused by lightning stroke to structure anchoring photovoltaic panels," Electrical

Engineering in Japan, vol. 187, no. 4, pp. 29-41, 2014.

176
[65] G. Xuanhui, R. Huashan, Q. Yu, and X. Zhuqin, "Design and Application of PCB-mounted

SPDs for PV Inverters," in 2019 11th Asia-Pacific International Conference on Lightning

(APL), 2019, pp. 1-5: IEEE.

[66] A. Sato and Y. Oda, "Application of FDS fuses to DC 1000V photovoltaic systems," in

2018 34th International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), 2018, pp. 1-6: IEEE.

[67] T. Miki, M. Saito, T. Shindo, and M. Ishii, "Current Observation Results of Downward

Negative Flashes at Tokyo Skytree From 2012 to 2018," IEEE Transactions on

Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 663-673, 2019.

[68] W. Janischewskyj, A. Hussein, V. Shostak, I. Rusan, J.-X. Li, and J.-S. Chang, "Statistics

of lightning strikes to the Toronto Canadian National Tower (1978-1995)," IEEE

transactions on power delivery, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1210-1221, 1997.

[69] A. C. Garolera, K. L. Cummins, S. r. F. Madsen, J. Holboell, and J. D. Myers, "Multiple

lightning discharges in wind turbines associated with nearby cloud-to-ground lightning,"

IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 526-533, 2015.

[70] T. Sonoda, H. Morii, and S. Sekioka, "Observation of Lightning Overvoltage in a 500 kV

Switching Station," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1828-1834,

2016.

[71] T. Miyazaki, T. Ishii, and S. Okabe, "A field study of lightning surges propagating into

residences," IEEE Transactions on electromagnetic compatibility, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 921-

928, 2010.

[72] P. Vangala, M. Ropp, K. Haggerty, K. Lynn, and W. Wilson, "Field measurements of

lightning-induced voltage transients in PV arrays," in 2008 33rd IEEE Photovoltaic

177
 Specialists Conference, 2008, pp. 1-4: IEEE.

[73] T. Degner, W. Enders, A. Schцlbe, and H. Daub, "EMC and safety design for photovoltaic

systems (ESDEPS)," in Paper presented at the 16th European Solar Energy Conference

and Exhibition, 2000, vol. 1, p. 5.

[74] A. Shahsavari, M. Farajollahi, E. Stewart, C. Roberts, and H. Mohsenian-Rad, "A data-

driven analysis of lightning-initiated contingencies at a distribution grid with a PV farm

using micro-PMU data," in 2017 North American Power Symposium (NAPS), 2017, pp. 1-

6: IEEE.

[75] M. Newman, J. Stahmann, J. Robb, E. Lewis, S. Martin, and S. Zinn, "Triggered lightning

strokes at very close range," Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 72, no. 18, pp. 4761-

4764, 1967.

[76] V. A. Rakov, M. Uman, and K. Rambo, "A review of ten years of triggered-lightning

experiments at Camp Blanding, Florida," Atmospheric research, vol. 76, no. 1-4, pp. 503-

517, 2005.

[77] K. Horii, "Experiment of artificial lightning triggered with rocket," Memoirs of the Faculty

of Engineering, Nagoya Univ., Japan, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 77-112, 1982.

[78] X. Liu et al., "Experiment of artificially triggering lightning in China," Journal of

Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol. 99, no. D5, pp. 10727-10731, 1994.

[79] Y. Zhang et al., "Experiments of artificially triggered lightning and its application in

Conghua, Guangdong, China," Atmospheric research, vol. 135, pp. 330-343, 2014.

[80] H.-J. Stern and H. C. Karner, "Lightning induced EMC phenomena in photovoltaic

modules," in 1993 International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1993, pp.

178
 442-446: IEEE.

[81] K. Yee, "Numerical solution of initial boundary value problems involving maxwell's

equations in isotropic media," IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 14,

no. 3, pp. 302-307, 1966.

[82] K. M. Coetzer, P. G. Wiid, and A. J. Rix, "Investigating Lightning Induced Currents in

Photovoltaic Modules," in 2019 International Symposium on Electromagnetic

Compatibility-EMC EUROPE, 2019, pp. 261-266: IEEE.

[83] T. Noda, A. Tatematsu, and S. Yokoyama, "Improvements of an FDTD-based surge

simulation code and its application to the lightning overvoltage calculation of a

transmission tower," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 77, no. 11, pp. 1495-1500,

2007.

[84] H. Chen, Y. Du, M. Yuan, and Q. H. Liu, "Analysis of the Grounding for the Substation

Under Very Fast Transient Using Improved Lossy Thin-Wire Model for FDTD," IEEE

Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 1833 - 1841, 2018.

[85] H. Chen, Y. Du, M. Yuan, and Q. H. Liu, "Lightning-Induced Voltages on a Distribution

Line With Surge Arresters Using a Hybrid FDTD–SPICE Method," IEEE Transactions on

Power Delivery, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 2354-2363, 2017 2018.

[86] P. Yutthagowith, A. Ametani, F. Rachidi, N. Nagaoka, and Y. Baba, "Application of a

partial element equivalent circuit method to lightning surge analyses," Electric Power

Systems Research, vol. 94, pp. 30-37, 2013.

[87] H. Chen, Y. Du, and M. Chen, "Lightning Transient Analysis of Radio Base Stations,"

IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 2187-2197, 2018.
179
[88] H. Chen and Y. Du, "Lightning Grounding Grid Model Considering Both the Frequency-

Dependent Behavior and Ionization Phenomenon," IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic

Compatibility, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 157-165, 2019.

[89] A. E. Ruehli, "Inductance Calculations in a Complex Integrated-Circuit Environment,"

IBM Journal of Research and Development, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 470 - 481, 1972.

[90] A. E. Ruehli and P. A. Brennan, "Efficient Capacitance Calculations for 3-Dimensional

Multiconductor Systems," IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory And Techniques, vol.

21, no. 2, pp. 76-82, 1973.

[91] D. Gope, A. Ruehli, and V. Jandhyala, "Solving Low-Frequency EM-CKT Problems Using

the PEEC Method," IEEE Transactions on Advanced Packaging, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 313-

320, 2007.

[92] Y. Du and J. Burnett, "Current distribution in single-core cables connected in parallel," IEE

Proceedings - Generation, Transmission and Distribution, vol. 148, no. 5, pp. 406-412,

2001.

[93] A. E. Ruehli, G. Antonini, and L. J. Jiang, "Skin-Effect Loss Models for Time- and

Frequency-Domain PEEC Solver," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 451-472,

Feb 2013.

[94] B. Gustavsen and A. Semlyen, "Rational approximation of frequency domain responses by

vector fitting," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1052-1061, Jul

1999.

[95] H. Chen, Z. Qin, Y. Du, Q. Wang, and Y. Ding, "TAES: A PEEC-based tool for transient

simulation," presented at the 7th Asia-Pacific International Symposium on Electromagnetic

180
 Compatibility (APEMC), Shenzhen, China, 2016.

[96] H. Chen and Y. Du, "Model of ferromagnetic steels for lightning transient analysis," IET

Science, Measurement & Technology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 301-307, 2018.

[97] J. Brown, J. Allan, and B. Mellitt, "Calculation and measurement of rail impedances

applicable to remote short circuit fault currents," in IEE Proceedings B (Electric Power

Applications), 1992, vol. 139, no. 4, pp. 295-302: IET.

[98] C. Hoer and C. Love, "Exact inductance equations for rectangular conductors with

applications to more complicated geometries," Journal of Research of the National Bureau

of Standards, Section C: Engineering and Instrumentation, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 127-137,

1965.

[99] K. Leban and E. Ritchie, "Selecting the accurate solar panel simulation model," presented

at the Nordic Workshop on Power and Industrial Electronics (NORPIE/2008), Helsinki,

Finland, 2008. Available: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/818

[100] K. Nishioka, N. Sakitani, Y. Uraoka, and T. Fuyuki, "Analysis of multicrystalline silicon

solar cells by modified 3-diode equivalent circuit model taking leakage current through

periphery into consideration," Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, vol. 91, no. 13, pp.

1222-1227, 2007.

[101] P. Chowdhuri et al., "Parameters of lightning strokes: a review," IEEE Transactions on

Power Delivery, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 346-358, 2005.

[102] Protection of Structures Against Lightning: Part I General principles, vol. IEC 62305-1,

2010.

[103] IEC 62109-1: Safety of power converters for use in photovoltaic power systems – Part 1:
181
 General requirements, 2010.

[104] M. A. B. Sidik et al., "Lightning monitoring system for sustainable energy supply: A

review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 48, pp. 710-725, 2015.

[105] Y. Zhang, H. Chen, and Y. Du, "Lightning protection design of solar photovoltaic systems:

Methodology and guidelines," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 174, 2019.

[106] D. Kuklin, "Choosing configurations of transmission line tower grounding by back

flashover probability value," Frontiers in Energy, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 213-226, 2016.

[107] Z. Rong, "Optimal design of tower footing device with combined vertical and horizontal

grounding electrodes under lightning," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 113, no. aug.,

pp. 188-195.

[108] L. B. Wook, "Influence of Placement of Overhead Ground Wires on Steady State Induction

in AC-DC Hybrid Transmission Corridor," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 33,

no. 6, pp. 2999-3008.

[109] W. Xi, Z. Li, and J. He, "Improving the lightning protection effect of multi-circuit tower

by installing coupling ground wire," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 113, pp. 213-

219, 2014.

[110] M. S. Banjanin, M. S. Saviд┤, and Z. M. Stojkoviд┤, "Lightning protection of overhead

transmission lines using external ground wires," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 127,

pp. 206-212, 2015.

[111] S. Visacro, F. H. Silveira, and A. De Conti, "The use of underbuilt wires to improve the

lightning performance of transmission lines," IEEE transactions on power delivery, vol. 27,

no. 1, pp. 205-213, 2011.

182
[112] H. Chen, Y. Du, M. Yuan, and Q. H. Liu, "Lightning-induced voltages on a distribution

line with surge arresters using a hybrid FDTDБ─⌠SPICE method," IEEE Transactions on

Power Delivery, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 2354-2363, 2017.

[113] H. Tanaka, Y. Baba, and C. l. F. Barbosa, "Effect of shield wires on the lightning-induced

currents on buried cables," IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 58,

no. 3, pp. 738-746, 2016.

[114] J. Paknahad, K. Sheshyekani, F. Rachidi, and M. Paolone, "Lightning electromagnetic

fields and their induced currents on buried cables. Part II: The effect of a horizontally

stratified ground," IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 56, no. 5, pp.

1146-1154, 2014.

[115] H.-T. Chang, "Protection of buried cable from direct lightning strike," IEEE Transactions

on Electromagnetic Compatibility, no. 3, pp. 157-160, 1980.

[116] R. B. Rodrigues, V. Mendes, and J. P. d. S. Catalцёo, "Protection of interconnected wind

turbines against lightning effects: Overvoltages and electromagnetic transients study,"

Renewable energy, vol. 46, pp. 232-240, 2012.

[117] R. Alipio, M. T. C. de Barros, M. A. l. O. Schroeder, and K. Yamamoto, "Analysis of the

lightning impulse and low-frequency performance of wind farm grounding systems,"

Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 180, p. 106068, 2020.

[118] Q. Yang, J. Tao, Y. He, and B. Zhang, "Analysis and suppression measures of lightning

transient overvoltage in the signal cable of wind turbines," Wind Energy, vol. 21, no. 4, pp.

211-225, 2018.

[119] I. E. Commission, "IEC 61400-24 Wind Turbines-Part 24: Lightning protection," ed: IEC,
183
 2010.

[120] "IEC 62305-1 Protection against lightning –Part 1: General principles," 2010.

[121] Y. Du, B. Li, and M. Chen, "Surges induced in building electrical systems during a

lightning strike," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 139, pp. 68-74, 2016.

[122] A. Tatematsu and T. Noda, "Three-dimensional FDTD calculation of lightning-induced

voltages on a multiphase distribution line with the lightning arresters and an overhead

shielding wire," IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 56, no. 1, pp.

159-167, 2013.

[123] A. Tatematsu, S. Moriguchi, and T. Ueda, "Switching Surge Analysis of an EHV Air-

Insulated Substation Using the 3-D FDTD Method," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,

vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 2324-2334, 2018.

[124] B. U. Musa, W. H. Siew, and M. D. Judd, "Computation of transient electromagnetic fields

due to switching in high-voltage substations," IEEE transactions on power delivery, vol.

25, no. 2, pp. 1154-1161, 2010.

[125] R. Xiong, B. Chen, B.-H. Zhou, and C. Gao, "Optimized programs for shaped conductive

backfill material of grounding systems based on the FDTD simulations," IEEE transactions

on power delivery, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1744-1751, 2014.

[126] Y. Taniguchi, Y. Baba, N. Nagaoka, and A. Ametani, "An improved thin wire

representation for FDTD computations," IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation,

vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 3248-3252, 2008.

[127] Y. Baba, N. Nagaoka, and A. Ametani, "Modeling of thin wires in a lossy medium for

FDTD simulations," IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 47, no. 1,

184
 pp. 54-60, 2005.

[128] T. Noda and S. Yokoyama, "Thin wire representation in finite difference time domain surge

simulation," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 840-847, 2002.

[129] R. Holland and L. Simpson, "Finite-difference analysis of EMP coupling to thin struts and

wires," IEEE Transactions on electromagnetic compatibility, no. 2, pp. 88-97, 1981.

[130] B. Li, Y. Du, and M. Chen, "An FDTD Thin-Wire Model for Lossy Wire Structures With

Noncircular Cross Section," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 33, no. 6, pp.

3055-3064, 2018.

[131] Y. Du, B. Li, and M. Chen, "The Extended Thin-Wire Model of Lossy Round Wire

Structures for FDTD Simulations," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 32, no. 6,

pp. 2472-2480, 2016.

[132] Y. Baba, S. Miyazaki, and M. Ishii, "Reproduction of lightning electromagnetic field

waveforms by engineering model of return stroke," IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic

compatibility, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 130-133, 2004.

[133] J. C. Hernandez, P. G. Vidal, and F. Jurado, "Lightning and Surge Protection in

Photovoltaic Installations," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1961-

1971, 2008.

[134] V. A. Rakov and F. Rachidi, "Overview of Recent Progress in Lightning Research and

Lightning Protection," IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 51, no.

3, pp. 428-442, Aug 2009.

[135] Y. Baba and V. A. Rakov, "Voltages induced on an overhead wire by lightning strikes to a

nearby tall grounded object," IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol.

185
 48, no. 1, pp. 212-224, Feb 2006.

[136] S. Chen, Y. Zhang, C. Chen, X. Yan, W. Lu, and Y. Zhang, "Influence of the Ground

Potential Rise on the Residual Voltage of Low-Voltage Surge Protective Devices due to

Nearby Lightning Flashes," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 596-

604, 2016.

[137] J. M. Chen and M. X. Zhu, "Calculation of Lightning Flashover Rates of Overhead

Distribution Lines Considering Direct and Indirect Strokes," (in English), IEEE

Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 668-674, Jun 2014.

[138] K. Sakai and K. Yamamoto, "Lightning protection of photovoltaic power generation system:

Influence of grounding systems on overvoltages appearing on DC wirings," in Lightning

Protection (XII SIPDA), 2013 International Symposium on, 2013, pp. 335-339: IEEE.

[139] H. Sueta, A. Mocelin, R. Zilles, P. Obase, and E. Boemeisel, "Protection of photovoltaic

systems against lightning experimental verifications and techno-economic analysis of

protection," in Lightning Protection (XII SIPDA), 2013 International Symposium on, 2013,

pp. 354-359: IEEE.

[140] P. Pinceti and M. Giannettoni, "A simplified model for zinc oxide surge arresters.," IEEE

Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 393-398, Apr 1999.

[141] J. G. Zola, "Simple model of metal oxide varistor for Pspice simulation," IEEE

Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 23, no.

10, pp. 1491-1494, Oct 2004.

[142] H. Chen and Y. Du, "A comprehensive study on the nonlinear behavior of metal oxide

varistors," presented at the 33rd International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP),

186
 Estoril, Portugal, 2016.

[143] N. Ahmad et al., "Lightning protection on photovoltaic systems: A review on current and

recommended practices," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 82, pp. 1611-

1619, 2018.

[144] R. Alipio and S. Visacro, "Frequency Dependence of Soil Parameters: Effect on the

Lightning Response of Grounding Electrodes," IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic

Compatibility, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 132-139, 2013.

[145] P. Vangala, M. Ropp, K. Haggerty, K. Lynn, and W. Wilson, "Field measurements of

lightning-induced voltage transients in PV arrays," in Photovoltaic Specialists Conference,

2008. PVSC'08. 33rd IEEE, 2008, pp. 1-4: IEEE.

[146] National Fire Protection Association, "NFPA 780: Standard for the Installation of

Lightning Protection Systems," 2020.

187