IX International Symposium on Lightning Protection

26th-30th November 2007 Foz do Iguau, Brazil

RESPONSES OF AIRPORT RUNWAY LIGHTING SYSTEM TO DIRECT LIGHTNING STRIKES: A MODELLING ATTEPMT
Nelson Theethayi
Uppsala University, Sweden

Vladimir Rakov

Rajeev Thottappillil

University of Florida, Gainesville, Uppsala University, Sweden USA Nelson.Theethayi@angstrom.uu.se Rakov@ece.ufl.edu Rajeev.Thottappillil@angstrom.uu.se Division for Electricity, Department of Engineering Sciences, Uppsala University, Box 534, S-75121, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract - A test airport runway lighting system was subjected to direct lightning strikes, and currents measured in different parts of the system were reported by Bejleri et al. [1]. In this paper, we attempt to develop a model based on the transmission line theory for simulating the experimental results.

model predictions with the experimental data will be presented. 2 SYSTEM UNDER STUDY A schematic of runway lighting system tested by Bejleri et al. [1] is shown in Fig.1. The pavement is about 92 m x 23 m. The lighting system includes a generator, current regulator, both placed in the electrical vault, and a buried series lighting cable feeding, via insulating transformers, five equally spaced stake mounted lights (cable directly buried in the soil) and five equally spaced can mounted lights (cable in the buried PVC pipe) on either side of the runway, and two signs at the corners (NE and SW) of the runway. The insulated single-conductor unshielded series cable is buried at a depth of 0.4 m and 3 m away from the pavement edge. A counterpoise, a bare copper wire of diameter 4.11 mm, is placed about 10 cm directly above the cable. The counterpoise is connected to three vertical ground rods as shown in Fig. 1, which have a length of 2.4 m and 1.56 cm diameter.

1 INTRODUCTION Bejleri et al. [1] conducted an extensive experimental study of the interaction of triggered lightning facility with a test airport runway system at the International Centre for Lightning Research and Testting (ICLRT) at Camp Blanding, Florida. In this paper we attempt to develop a model based on the TL theory [2-3] and compare model presdictions with experimental data [1]. Note that model validation with experiments is difficult and could be incomplete as the experiments with lightning always involve several uncontrolled elements and uncertainties. For direct strikes to buried conductor system (involving cable and bare grounding wire) one cannot rule out the occurrence of nonlinear phenomena, like insulation breakdown or soil ionisation along the condcutors in the system. Climatic conditions and stratification in the ground (soil) brings additional uncertainties with regard to ground conductivity and ground permittivity. It is not certain if bare and insulated codncutros of the system have same horizontal/vertical separation between them. There are a number of lumped devices along the cable like current regulator, transformers, etc., whose high frequency characteristics (required for lightning interaction modelling) are unknown. There could be uncertainties associated with the measurements too. All those uncertainties are dsiregarded in this paper. The paper is organised as follows. We first briefly describe the experiment of Bejleri et al. [1], with particular reference to FLASH U9841. Secondly, we develop a coupled model multiconductor transmission line (MTL) model for studying the current pulse propagation in the buried cable and counterpoise of the runway lighting system. Finally, some comparisons of

Fig. 1 - Measurement points along the cable and counterpoise for configuration 4 (adapted from [1]).

Currents in the cable, counterpoise, and ground rods were measured at the points shown in Fig. 2 for one of the configurations (configuration 4) tested by Bejleri et al. [1]. Voltages have been also measured at some points as

shown in Fig. 2. We will compare predictions of the model proposed in this paper with the experimental results for configuration shown in Fig. 1. 3 TRANSMISSION LINE MODEL When lightning current enters the ground, the counterpoise is epxtected to intercept the current thereby protecting the cable from direct current injection. Once a direct strike takes place, the current waves propagate along the counterpoise and, depending on the ground conductivity, some current leaks into the ground. There will be also induced currents in the cable due to the electromagnetic coupling between the cable and counterpoise. We shall describe the current pulse propagation in the system based on MTL analysis. The coupled TL equations for the counterpoise and the cable are given in the frequency domian by the voltage (1) and the current (2) wave equations, for an aribtrary propagation direction x. In (1) and (2) Vcnt(x, j) and Icnt(x, j) are the voltage and current at point x along the counterpoise, respectively, and Vcab(x, j) and Icab(x, j) are the voltage and current at point x along the cable, respectively. In (1), [Z] is the per unit length series impedance matrix whose elements are self impedances of the counterpoise and cable and the mutual impedance between them. In (2), [Y] is the per unit length shunt admittance matrix whose elements are self admittances of the counterpoise and cable and the mutual admittance between them. We use the TL model suggested in [2] and [3] for buried condcutors.

Z 22 = Z 12

1 + g R2 2e 2 d 2 | g | j 0 R2 + (3b) ln + ln R 4 + R 2 2 2 Rc 2 g g 2 j 0 1 + g D 2e (d1 + d 2 )| g | (3c) + Z 21 = = ln 4 + D 2 2 2 g D g

g =

j 0 ( g + j g )

(3d)

Elements of 22 symmetric admittance matrix Y in (2) is given by,

y g12 Y11 = y g 22 +

j 2 1 R ln 2 R c Y22 = j 2 1

R y g11 + j 2 1 ln 2 Rc j 2 1 + y g11 + y g12 R2 ln R c

(4a)

( y g11 + y g12 )
(4b)

dVcnt (x , j ) I cnt ( x , j ) 0 dz dV (x , j ) + [Z ] = I cab ( x , j ) 0 cab dz dI cnt ( x , j ) Vcnt ( x , j ) 0 dx dI ( x , j ) + [Y ] = Vcab (x , j ) 0 cab dz

(1)

+ y g11 + y g12 R2 ln R c j 2 1 y g12 R2 ln R c Y12 = j 2 1 + y g11 + y g12 R2 ln R c

(4c)

(2)

The ground admittance Yg is obtained from the ground impedance Zg matrix, a matrix formed from the terms having g in (3) [4].

Z Yg11 Yg12 2 g11 Y g Z g 21 Yg 22 g 21

Z g12 Z g 22

(5a) (5b)

Let the counterpoise and the cable be buried at depths of d1 and d2, respectively. Let the counterpoise have radius of R1 and outermost radius of the cable with the insulation be R2. Let the core conductor of the cable have a radius of Rc. Let the soil have homogenous ground conductivity of g and ground permittivity of g and let the cable insulation permittivity be 2. Let D be the horizontal distance between the counterpoise and the cable (which is negligible in the present case). The elements of impedance matrix Z in (1) with internal impedances of cable and counterpoise neglected, are given by the following set of equations (3).

y g11 y g 21

y g12 Yg11 + Yg12 = y g 22 Yg12

Yg12 Yg 22 + Yg12

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS A shematic representation of the MTL system under study is shown in Fig. 3.Lightning strike to the counterpoise is represented by an ideal lumped current source (stroke current) feeding the counterpoise. For simulations presented here we shall use the measured stroke current IL1 corresponding to Flash U9841 [1]

j 0 1 + g R1 2e 2 d1| g | + Z 11 = ln R 4 + R 2 2 2 g 1 1 g

(3a)

approximated by I L1 (t ) = 16 103 e8.510 t e 2.010 t . In the following, we shall present simulations for counterpoise currents only. In the simulations, we assume that the cable is continuous (the presence of insulating
3 6

transformers is neglected) and terminated at the electric vault in the power supply source (generator and current regulator) represented by a 2 series resistor (Rs) and a series inductance of 1mH (L). The counterpoise is terminated in the ground rod at the electric vault as shown in Fig. 2. Note that the counterpoise and cable each form a closed loop.

into two equal parts (7.5 kA) on either side of the counterpoise. This division will be affected if the available TL length to the left and right of the lightning source are not the same (with reference to the line termination). From measurements, Ictp1 peak is 8.8 kA, which is larger than Ictp2 peak of 6 kA. Simulations show Ictp1 in the range of 6.5 kA 7 kA and Ictp2 in the range of 7.5 kA 8 kA (see Fig. 3 upper and lower windows).

Fig. 2 - MTL configuration showing lumped load and source boundary conditions on the transmission line and the current measurement points on the counterpoise (solid line) and the cable (dashed line) and also the voltage between the cable and counterpoise. Locations are approximate and not to scale. Dotted lines connecting the line ends represent short circuits. Line terminations are at the electric vault.

Fig. 3 Model-predicted counterpoise currents Ictp1 and Ictp2 for ground conductivities 1 mS/m and 0.25 mS/m. Also shown are the measured currents at the corresponding locations.

Ground rods are modeled as lumped shunt resistances at the respective locations along the counterpoise. The expression for the DC resistance of the ground rod is given by [4].

R grod

l ln 4 rod 1 a rod = 2 g l rod

(6)

In equation (6) lrod is the length of the rod and arod the radius of the rod. There is an uncertainty regarding ground conductivity at Camp Blanding, but it is probably between 1 mS/m (resistivity 1000 .m) and 0.25 mS/m (resistivity 4000 .m) [1]. For this reason, we will show simulation results corresponding to 1 mS/m and 0.25 mS/m. The ground relative permittivity was assumed to be 10. In each of the figures showing model-predicted waveforms corresponding measured waveforms are presented as well. Model-predicted currents in the counterpoise are shown in Fig. 3 (Ictp1 and Ictp2) and Fig. 4 (Ictp3 and Ictp4). The corresponding currents measured by Bijleri et al. [1] are also shown in each figure. In principle, if a current of 15 kA peak is injected into the counterpoise it should divide
Fig. 4 Model-predicted counterpoise currents Ictp3 and Ictp4 for ground conductivities 1 mS/m and 0.25 mS/m. Also shown are the measured currents at the corresponding locations.

From measurements Ictp3, has an unusual wave shape and the magnitude is less than those of simulated currents (see Fig. 4, upper window). The simulated Ictp4 is in reasonable agreement with measurements (see Fig. 4, lower window). Work is in progress to examine the sensitivity of solutions to various assumptions and to simulate the currents in the cables at different locations, as well as the voltages between the cable and counterpoise.

5 CONCLUSIONS In this paper, an attempt is made to model the lightning interaction with the airport runway lighting system using the TL theory. The coupled TL models (applicable to finitely conducting grounds) for buried bare wire (representative of counterpoise) and buried insulated wire (representative of the cable) are used. The currents in the counterpoise based on the proposed model for a direct strike to counterpoise are compared with the corresponding currents measured by Bijleri et al. [1]. Reasonable agreement between the model predicted currents and measured currents was found at some locations along the counterpoise. Further experimental and theoretical studies are needed in order to understand better the interaction of lightning with runway lighting systems. 6 REFERENCES
[1] M. Bejleri, V. A. Rakov, M. A. Uman, K. J. Rambo, C. T. Mata and M. I. Fernandez, Triggered lightning testing of an airport runway lighting system, IEEE Trans. On Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 96101, Feb. 2004. N. Theethayi, R. Thottappillil, M. Paolone, C.A. Nucci and F. Rachidi, External Impedance and Admittance of Buried Horizontal Wires for Transient Studies Using Transmission Line Analysis, IEEE trans. on Dielectric and Electrical Insulation, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 751-761, 2007. L. M. Wedepohl and D. J. Wilcox, Transient analysis of underground power transmission systems: system-model and wave propagation characteristics, Proceedings of IEE, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1973, pp. 253-260. E.F. Vance, Coupling to shielded cables, John Wiley and Sons, 1978.

[2]

[3]

[4]