nVent ERICO

Electric Utility Lightning Protection

& Grounding
Lightning Protection and IEEE 998

Ray Stripling
2025

1 © 2020 nVent
Training Outline

▪ Purpose of Proper LP
▪ Relevant Utility Standards
▪ Lightning Fundamentals
▪ Traditional LP and IEEE 998
▪ Decreasing the threats

2 © 2020 nVent
Learning Objectives

▪ At the end of this presentation, you will be able to understand:

- The fundamental considerations of lightning science for the design of effective lightning protection systems
for substations
- The relevant standards that apply to lightning protection and key criteria for design
- How to improve challenging site conditions
- Key LP and grounding solutions for these applications

3 © 2020 nVent
Utility

▪ nVent ERICO has been safely protecting electric utility infrastructure and people for over 60 years
▪ Electric Power – the origin of grounding science
- Generation
- Substation
- Transmission
- Distribution

4 © 2020 nVent
Holistic Protection for Utilities

▪ Grounding / Earthing
▪ Bonding
▪ Lightning Protection
▪ Surge Protection
▪ Must consider all aspects to avoid vulnerabilities

5 © 2020 nVent
Solutions from top to bottom

Material used to protect the station

6 © 2020 nVent
The Grid is Subjected to Dangerous and Disruptive Incidents

7 © 2020 nVent
IEEE Relevant Utility Standards

▪ IEEE Std 80: Guide for Safety in Substation Grounding

▪ IEEE Std 837: Standard for Qualifying Permanent Connections Used in Substation Grounding
▪ IEEE Std 81: Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground Impedance, and Earth Surface Potentials of a
Grounding System
▪ IEEE Std 998: Guide for Direct Lightning Stroke Shielding of Substations
▪ IEEE C2 - NESC: The National Electrical Safety Code
▪ IEEE 2778: Solar Plant Grounding Design
▪ IEEE 2760: Wind Plant Grounding Design

8 © 2020 nVent
Electric Utility
Lightning Protection Basics

9 9 © 2020 nVent
Storm Cloud Electric Fields
Downleader approaches, E
Field increases to point of
initiation of upward streamers

E Fields 5-15kV/m
Cloud electrification – Upward leader propagates
charge particle separation, toward downleader to
quasi static E Field est. complete ionised path
between cloud & ground E Fields >200kV/m between cloud & ground

10
10 © 2020 nVent
Lightning Strikes
Instantaneous Power Over one Megawatt

Total Energy Over 250 Kilojoules

Sound Pressure 90 Atmospheres at 500m away

Temperature 30,000°K+ (5 times Sun Surface)

Rise Time 0.1 to 5 Microseconds

Average Current 30 kA

Duration 300 Microseconds + Repeats

Channel Length 5 km

11
11 © 2020 nVent
 12
12 © 2020 nVent
Lightning Capture:

Two main aspects:

▪ Physical hardware (lightning rods, air terminals) to capture the strike.
▪ Method by which the hardware is positioned on structures to achieve the desired interception efficiency or
“protection level”.
By: Standards, physical models, statistics, research, testing, modeling, validation.

13 © 2020 nVent
Electric Utility
IEEE 998
Direct Strike Protection of
Substations

14 14 © 2020 nVent
Mathematic models

Existing methods:
➢ Geometric: Cone of Protection or “Protection Angel Method”
(PAM) - 1850’s

➢ Faraday Cage: “Mesh Method” (MM) - 1900’s

➢ Electrogeometric: “Rolling Sphere Method” (RSM) - 1940’s

➢ Early Streamer Emission (ESE): (ESE) French Standard

NFC17-102 - 1970’s

➢ Improved Electrogeometric: “Collection Volume Method”

(CVM) - 1990’s

15
15 © 2020 nVent
IEEE 998 – Utility Lightning Protection
➢ Work on the original guide began in 1973.
• Originally published in April 1996

➢ Examples in the guide were originally

established for a comparative evaluation

➢ Provides information about

• Various shielding methodologies
• Calculation details
• Generally accepted practices

➢ Beneficial for engineers in evaluating

direct lightning stroke shielding design.

➢ The latest revision was published 2012.

16
16 © 2020 nVent
CONFIDENTIAL – FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
IEEE 998 – Shield angle

17
17 © 2020 nVent
Empirical Design Methods - masts

Critical angles based on mast

height

0-15m
40º-45º
(0-49ft)

15-30m
30º
(49-82ft)

30-50m
20º
(82-164ft)

18 © 2020 nVent
The Electro-geometric Model – Rolling Sphere Method

19 © 2020 nVent
Traditional Fixed Angle /
Mast Protection

20
20 © 2020 nVent
Traditional Fixed Angle / Mast Protection
➢ Advantages
• Conventionally used for many years
• Can be effective protection if enough overhead wires and masts are installed

➢ Disadvantages
• Installations can be expensive
• Coverage area of any one mast is small
• Risk of aging overhead static wire failure falling into bus: This happens!

➢ Alternatives?
• Collection Volume Method is now included in IEEE998
• Equivalent protection levels with less overhead components and cost

21
21 © 2020 nVent
Collection Volume Method (CVM)
➢ The CVM is a physically-based, improved electrogeometric model.

➢ Key Parameters:
• Downward leader charge (Q) or peak current (Ip)
• Field intensification factor (Ki)
• Leader velocity ratio (Kv)
• Site altitude

➢ CVM accounts for the effect of height and structure geometry to

determine the most likely strike points.

➢ Larger strike capture distance which is a relationship:

ds = function (Ki, Ip)

where Ki is the field intensification factor near the prospective strike point (structure, structural
feature or air terminal)

22
22 © 2020 nVent
Collection Volume Method (CVM)
Example of E-field distribution

Ki = 2.3 at
Ki = 3.5 at Ki = 7.1 z = 0.7 m
z = 0.7 m Ki = 15.2

15.5 m rod on ground 0.5 m rod on 15m building

23 © 2020 nVent
Collection Volume Method (CVM)

Not captured by any LPL

LPL 1 will intercept

LPL 1 or 2 will intercept

LPL 1, 2, or 3 will intercept

24 24 © 2020 nVent
Collection Volume Method (CVM)

D ow nw ard
le a d e r

d s = 10 I p 0.65
B
St r i k i n g
d i s ta n c e

A R e s po n d in g
u p -l e a d e r

G round C

25
25 © 2020 nVent
Collection Volume Method (CVM)
By accounting for upward leader formation speed, the strike radius can be used
- volume” indicated by the blue line
To calculate a lightning strike “collection
.
Key parameters: Downward
leader
u downleader Q or Ipeak 2
u field intensification factor
u velocity ratio Velocity-derived
u site altitude
limiting locus

- ratio of
1 downward to
Collection upward leader
Striking distance volume B velocity
surface
- height of strike
Improved striking point (hence K i)
distance relationship:
ds = function (Ki, I p)
A
Ground C

26
26 © 2020 nVent
CLT System

➢ The Dynasphere is an air terminal that

uniquely responds to the changing
electric field conditions during lightning
conditions.

➢ Designed to enhance the electric field

above the terminal under lightning
conditions.

➢ Advantages
• vs. static wire if strike bypasses from the
side, CVM will intercept.
• Larger protection area.
• Individual approvals for use in IEEE 998
applications.

27
27 © 2020 nVent
Collection Volume Method Application

➢(a) Key parameters

• downward leader charge or peak current
• field intensification factor
• velocity ratio
• site altitude

➢(b) Example of CVM

design output

28
28 © 2020 nVent
How to evaluate CLT protection

Design Inputs
➢ Plan & elevation drawings

➢ Inputs:
• Station BIL
• Use new or existing structures
for mast attachment
• Which downconductor type is
preferred (ERICORE vs.
Conventional Cable)
• Will ground rods be bonded to
station ground grid
• If all bonded, what size is
ground grid conductor
• What separation distance is
required

29
29 © 2020 nVent
Design Outputs

➢ plan &
elevation
drawings for
coverage and
system location

➢ BOM & Quote

➢ No design fee

30
30 © 2020 nVent
31 © 2020 nVent 31
32 © 2020 nVent 32
345 kV Substation

33
33 © 2020 nVent
CONFIDENTIAL – FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
CLT - Installation

34
34 © 2020 nVent
CLT - Installation

35
35 © 2020 nVent
CLT - Installation

➢ Only a few Dynaspheres for the whole substation plus some conventional terminals

36
36 © 2020 nVent
CLT - Installation

➢ No static
wires, easy
transformer
replacement

37
37 © 2020 nVent
CLT - Installation

➢ This Utility has placed CLT sytems on distribution station standards and purchases a
defined kit for every substation
➢ Utility companies have completed hundreds of CLT systems install on transmission
stations and are designing many more.

38
38 © 2020 nVent
CLT - Installation

Dynasphere
replacing a
problematic field
construction
design

39
39 © 2020 nVent
CLT - Installation

40
40 © 2020 nVent
CLT sampling of Installations

41
41 © 2020 nVent
42 © 2020 nVent
Laboratory Testing
➢ CLT systems have gone through laboratory and field testing for many years, and
positive results have been achieved.

➢ The results have been dispersed through published papers and presenting at
International conferences.

43
43 © 2020 nVent
Field Testing
Two unprecedented, long-term studies have been conducted, namely:

➢ Hong Kong, 1988 – 1996 → verification of the attractive radius model (1)

➢ Malaysia, 1990 – 2003 → quantification of interception efficiency (2)

Central Plaza Building Hong Kong

44
44 © 2020 nVent
Field Validation Hong Kong
Aim: to assess Eriksson’s attractive radius model

Analysis of lightning strike data for a sample of 161 structures in Hong Kong over a
period of 8 years

Result: excellent agreement between the observed strike data and the predictions of
Eriksson’s attractive radius model

Full details of method and results can be found in:

Petrov, N.I. & D’Alessandro, F., 2002, “Assessment of

protection system positioning and models using
observations of lightning strikes to structures”,
Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, vol. 458, pp. 723-742.

45
45 © 2020 nVent
Field Validation Malaysia
Conclusion:

“The results show that there is a highly significant positive correlation between the
observational data and the number of strikes expected from the application of the
theoretical models. Finally, the observed and expected values for the mean interception
efficiency of the lightning protection systems in the study are shown to be in good
agreement.”

Full details of method and results can be found in:

46
46 © 2020 nVent
Lightning Protection - System Design Method Comparison

47 © 2020 nVent
CLT CVM – Summary

▪ Validated Alternative to traditional masts and overhead wires

▪ Gives greater weight to taller air terminals.

▪ Takes into account the structure dimensions, particularly height and width.
▪ Takes into account the competing features of the building or site being protected.
▪ Takes into account the physical criteria for leader inception.
▪ Optimized positioning of protective air terminals.
▪ More cost-effective LPS’s can be achieved as a result of more detailed, physically-based calculations involving
the electric field distribution.
▪ The CVM is not the same as the French ESE method for air terminal placement.

48 © 2020 nVent
No Protection

49 © 2020 nVent
Electric Utility
Don’t forget Grounding

50 50 © 2020 nVent
Utility Grounding & Bonding

▪ Establish conductive reference to earth

- Provides an electrical connection to earth plane
- Allows for protection devices to operate under certain dangerous incidents
- Keeps system and structures near the potential
of the earth (~zero)
- Reduces threats of lightning energy and ground faults
▪ Create equipotential plane
- Significantly reduces risk of step and touch potential
- Personnel Safety

51 © 2020 nVent
Ground Potential Rise (GPR)

52 © 2020 nVent
Grounding – Below Grade

Physical Earth Ground Enhancing Ground Rods or

Materials Electrodes

nVent ERICO Cadweld Conductors Connection or Reference

Point

“The Grounding Chain”

53 © 2020 nVent
Substation Grounding Grid

54 © 2020 nVent
The Complete Solution

▪ Product & application design support

- Design validation, site surveys, take-offs
- Global customer care & technical support

▪ Specification development
- Application specific product development
- In house product laboratory testing
- Application support

▪ Product & application training

- In field, on site or classroom training

▪ Product testing & certification

- Inspection, compliance review, product witness testing

▪ Industry & standard expertise

55 © 2020 nVent
Thank You

56 Confidential – For Internal Use Only