2013 IEEE Student Conference on Research and Development (SCOReD), 16 -17 December 2013, Putrajaya, Malaysia

Methods of Lightning Protection for the PV Power

Plant
Pi Hua Tan Chin Kim Gan
Solar Department Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Sharp-Roxy Sales & Service Company (M) Sdn Bhd Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
Shah Alam, Malaysia Durian Tunggal, Malaysia
tanph@my.sharp-world.com ckgan@utem.edu.my
Abstract— This paper presents the comparison between air
terminal lightning Pole and Early Streamer Emitter lightning Several countries have begun taking a proactive measure by
Pole in a Photovoltaic (PV) Power Plants. The installation of an making it into a PV system installation standard. Installation
external lightning protection system is crucial for power plants to of an external lightning protection system will decrease the
minimize PV system damages. Two different lightning systems PV power plant system performance. More importantly,
were installed to two different PV technology Power Plant different types of external lightning protection devices will
systems. The respective system performances were compared in affect the PV system shading losses. The international
terms of total energy generated and energy yield. The key
guideline recommends that the lightning pole should be as thin
findings suggest that the air termination lightning pole is suitable
for a solar power plant particularly a Thin Film or Crystalline as possible to avoid casting a shadow to the PV modules.
PV power plant system that will result in lower losses compared The lightning pole installation cost increases if the lightning
to the Early Streamer Emitter lightning pole for the PV Power pole height decreases. The size of the coverage area directly
Plant system. This is caused by the shadow of lightning poles that influences the number of lightning poles required. The
drops on the PV modules to increase solar cell temperature and installation of too many lightning poles will increase the
reduce power generation. Malaysia has one of highest number of shadows on top of the PV modules and increase the
occurrences of lightning activities in the world. Thus, it is losses direct effect to energy generation (kWh) became less. In
essential for PV power plants to have adequate protection from addition, the actual field performance of various PV systems
damage and power generation losses. with various types of external lightning protection systems in a
tropical climate that has high lightning activities like Malaysia
is scarcely reported in the literature. This project aims to
Index Terms—Lightning PV cable mounting structure evaluate the shadow losses effect of two lightning system
Crystalline Thin Film energy comparison protection technologies namely the air termination and early streamer
emitter lightning pole protection in terms of overall technical
I. INTRODUCTION performance and associated cost tradeoff. In addition, the
wiring and mounting structure arrangement that would reduce
Malaysia has one of the highest occurrences of lightning the lightning risk to the PV array will also be evaluated in this
[1] activities in the world. Therefore, lightning protection is paper.
important for PV power plants. A Class 1 lightning protection
system should be considered. The Surge Protection Devices
(SPD) is highly recommended for installation according to
the IEC 61173 standards [2], but the external lightning
protection has to be considered according to the IEC 62305 [3]
series to fulfill the IEC 61727-2003 [4] requirement.
Researches related to PV systems in Malaysia were mainly
focus on the external lightning protection method and PV
array output generation with minimum defect from lightning
pole shadow. Many MW-scale power plant holders are unable
to identify a suitable lightning protection system that
minimizes damage losses to the PV system circuit of their
PV systems. Furthermore, the external lightning protection
system is not fully documented in the Feed in Approval Fig. 1. Global lightning event map [1].
Holder requirement and Malaysia PV System Installation
Standard MS 1837:2010 [5]. In addition, the PV lightning
system in the PV power plant has not been widely discussed in
the literature. Current literature mainly focuses on risk
analysis and not on the correct method of wiring for external
lightning protection system of PV power plant systems [6].

978-1-4799-2656-5/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 221

 External
Lightning
Protection

Air Terminal Early Streamer

lightning Pole Emitter lightning
Fig. 2. PV module damage caused by a lightning strike in Johor, Malaysia Pole
in June 2013.
Crystalline
Crystalline
PV system
II. METHODOLOGY PV system

The PV power plant shadow analysis and power Thin Film

generation data were obtained from SolarPro 4.0 [7].The Thin Film
PV system
PV system
lightning protection coverage area using the air terminal and
early streamer emitter formula are shown as below:
Fig. 4. Lightning Pole system study for various PV Power Plants.

Air termination radius protection coverage area is given by: The technical characteristics of the module are shown in
TABLE I. These characteristics indicate that Thin Film has a
Rp = ¥ (h (2D-h) (1) lower temperature coefficient compared with the Crystalline
type of module. An increase in PV module temperature caused
Early Streamer Emitter coverage area is given by by the shadow of the lightning pole may affect the PV module
power output performance.
Rp = ¥ (h (2D-h) + ǻL(2D+ ǻL) (2)
TABLE I. PV MODULE CHARACTERISTIC
ǻL = V (m/μs) x ǻT (μs) (3)
Characteristic C-Si TF Unit
Where, Maximum power (Pmax) 240 135 W
V = assumed to be 1m/μs.
Open-circuit voltage (Voc) 37.2 61.3 V
D = protection level, where D = 20, 30, 45, or 60 m
H = height (m) Short-circuit current (Isc) 8.57 3.41 A
ǻT = gain in sparkover time (ȝs) of the upward leader Maximum power voltage (Vmpp) 30.4 47.0 V
Maximum power current (Impp) 7.9 2.88 A
Figure 3 shows the external lightning protection methods to
prevent lightning strike damages to the either PV module or PV Temperature coefficient of Pmax -0.44 -0.24 %/0C
system. Temperature coefficient of Voc -0.329 -0.30 %/0C
Temperature coefficient of Isc 0.038 0.07 %/0C
External
Lightning
Protection
Methods
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section discusses several external lightning protection
systems and the effect the shadows have on energy output
Lightning Cable Mounting generation for both the Crystalline and Thin Film PV systems.
Pole Management Structure
Protection Management
A. Types of Lightning Poles and Coverage Areas
Fig. 3. PV system’s external lightning protection methods. TABLE II shows the general characteristics of the
Crystalline and Thin Film PV power plants in terms of system
capacity and land size area. TABLE II shows the difference in
III. LIGHTNING POLE SYSTEM PROTECTION DESCRIPTION coverage areas for both the PV and Crystalline power plants
As shown in Figure 4, two different lightning technologies, for each type of lightning technology. It indicates that a Thin
namely Air Terminal and Earlier Streamer Emitter lightning Film PV power plant requires more lightning poles.
Pole, with two different PV Technology Power Plants, namely
Crystalline and Thin Film have been considered in this study.

222
 TABLE II. LIGHTNING SYSTEM CHARACTERISTIC

Thin Film (TF) Crystalline (C-Si)

Early Early
Streamer Streamer
Air Emitter Air Emitter
Lightning Rod Terminal Terminals Terminal Terminals
Protection Type (AT) (ESE) (AT) (ESE)
Land Size
(acres) 30 30 21 21
Power Capacity
at STC 5MWp
PV Module Tilt
Angle 10 degree
Protection Class
Level I
Lightning Pole
Height 6.5m with foundation
Coverage Area Fig. 7. Early Streamer Emitter (ESE) lightning pole protection for a Thin
per Pole (m2) 549.78 2827.43 549.78 2827.43 Film PV power plant.
Quantity
Lightning Pole
(units) 221 41 181 26

Total Cost 7.49% (AT<ESE) 3.09% (AT > ESE)

6.5-meter lightning poles were installed covering the PV

plant area and this is illustrated in Figures 5, 6, 7 and 8. The
diameter of the Early Streamer Emitter lightning pole is bigger
than the diameter of the Air Terminal pole by about 2 to 4
inches. The Early Streamer Emitter lightning pole must be
stronger and able to handle heavier of the terminal than the
Air Terminal lightning pole.
Fig. 8. Early Streamer Emitter (ESE) lightning pole protection for a
Crystalline PV power plant.

B. Shading Losses and Output Energy Generation Simulation

Two major causes reduced the PV system DC energy
generation caused by the lightning pole shadow to the PV
module while increasing the temperatures of the solar cells.
The lesser solar irradiance captured by the solar array will
reduce power output and energy generation. Although an
external lightning protection system is an additional cost to the
PV system, it will reduce the PV panel physical damage
replacement cost in the long period of production. A
simulation using SolarPro 4.0 on a 1MW PV system per block
showed that the external air terminal lightning protection
system does not much affect the Thin Film and Crystalline
Fig. 5. Air termination lightning pole protection to Thin Film PV power compared to the early streamer emitter lightning pole. The air
Plant. terminal lightning pole shadow surface to PV array is
minimum from the total of PV array surface area of PV power
plant which uses thinner lightning poles of the same height.
The PV system output generation decreases when the
lightning pole size increases. The payback period will be
delayed by two or three months if the early streamer emitter
(ESE) lightning pole is used in comparison to the air terminal
lightning pole.

Fig. 6. Air terminal lightning pole protection for a Crystalline PV power

Plant.

223
Fig. 9. Shadow simulation of 1MW Crystalline PV system per block
power plant layout with and without external lightning protection.

Fig. 11.2. Total annual PV output energy generation accroding types of

lightning ptrotection of the PV power plant.

C. Cable Management
Figure 12(1) shows the multiple cable system
configurations. Nevertheless, these cabling methods are not
encouraged in accordance to MS 1837. The reason being the
lightning surge coupling will increase and the circuit would
function as an antenna thus attracting lightning and damaging
Fig. 10. Shadow simulation of 1MW Thin Film PV system per block power the PV modules. Figures 12(2), 12(3) and 12(4) are better
plant layout with and without external lightning protection.
methods to reduce the concentration of electromagnetic fields
to PV arrays. However, as those methods would reduce surge
The simulation results of Figure 11.1 and 11.2 show that
coupling and PV modules damages risks, figure 12(2) would
the air terminal (AT) lightning pole has better PV energy
be the best in cable cost control.
generation compared to the early streamer emitter (ESE)
lightning pole with 0.05% extra energy production. The PV TABLE III. CABLE INSTALLATION METHOD AND ITS DIRECT EFFECT TO
power plant with non-lightning (NL) would generate more THE PV ARRAYS WHEN LIGHTNING OCCURS.
energy to the grid compared to air terminal and early streamer Type of Cable Cost of Electromagnetic Lightning
emitter lightning pole solution. The Thin Film PV array has Management cabling Field Risk
better production which is caused by better temperature 1 Low Stronger High
coefficient than the Crystalline [8]. Meanwhile, the Thin film 2 Lowest Strong Low
PV array is able adsorb rich solar irradiance with blue and red 3 Higher Weak Lower
4 High Weaker Lowest
wave sunlight in a tropical climate environment [9].
The cable lay methods as shown in Figures 12(2), 12(3)
and 12(4) should be performed by a qualified person who
understands the possible damages of lightning to the
construction of a PV system. The positive and negative cables
must be nearest at the PV array to ensure that the positive ion
at the central of wiring loop is lower than the lightning pole’s
positive ion to allow the lightning’s negative ion to discharge
to the lightning pole to prevent PV module damage.

Fig. 11.1. PV output energy generation with or without non- lightning (NL)
pole for each type of PV module technologies with 1MW installation
capacity.

(1)

224
 Fig. 13. Current leakage between PV cell and module frame [10].

The mounting structure design is a challenging task to PV

array electromagnetic concentration. The grounding cable
(2)
connected to the mounting structure partially reduces the
electromagnetic field when the electromagnetic field is strong.
Figures 14(B), 14(C), and 14(D) are the better solutions in
terms of cable installation in minimizing the risk of lightning
damaging the PV module compared to figures 14(A), 14(a),
14(b), 14(c), and 14(d). Those methods would reduce the risk
of lightning damaging the PV module or array.

Low electromagnetic High electromagnetic

concentration concentration

(3)

(4)
Fig. 12. Cable lay method according to the PV array mount for different
types of mounting structures.

D. Mounting Structure Management (A) (a)

Figure 13 shows that all the mounting structures must

discharge electrons generated by the PV modules and pass
through the mounting structure which is current leakage from
solar cell to PV module frame which contact to mounting
structure [9], to become an antenna loop. In IEC6230 [4], all
mounting structure have to connect to earth to discharge the
PV arrays current while avoiding circuitry trip caused by PV
arrays current floating. This antenna loop would attract the
lightning to reach and damage the PV module. To reduce the
possibility of the mounting structure attracting lightning, all
the mounting structures should be connected and grounded to
earth.

(B) (b)

225
 TABLE IV. RISKS OF MOUNTING STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT.

ĂďůĞ
DŽƵŶƚŝŶŐ DĂŐŶĞƚŝĐ WsŵŽĚƵůĞĚĂŵĂŐĞ
ůĞŶŐƚŚ
ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƚLJƉĞ &ŝĞůĚ ĨƌŽŵůŝŐŚƚŶŝŶŐ
ĂŶĚĐŽƐƚ
 ϰ Ϯ ϰ
 ϯ ϭ Ϯ
 ϭ ϯ ϭ
 ϭ ϯ ϭ
Ă ϰ Ϯ ϰ
ď ϯ ϭ ϯ
Đ Ϯ ϯ Ϯ
Ě Ϯ ϯ Ϯ
 >Žǁ   ,ŝŐŚ
(C) (c)
ZŝƐŬ>ĞǀĞů ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϰ

V. CONCLUSION
The air termination lightning pole is suitable for the
ground mounted solar PV (Thin Film) power plant system due
to the minimum solar cell temperature coefficient losses in
relation to the shadow cast by the lightning pole. The lightning
protection class level will be based on the risk analysis. The
capital expenditure of the PV power plant system is higher due
to the higher cost components. Thus, solar power plant
producers should consider a higher class lightning protection
(D) (d) level to avoid component damage and energy production loss.

Fig. 14. Mounting structure cable lay method which increases

electromagnetic concentration.
Although the proper method of mounting structure
management requires a larger installation area or roof size due
to the increase in the number of array gaps, the damages of the
PV array risk is reduced and minimized by the PV power plant
sub-block breakdown number. Meanwhile, these proper
methods would facilitate PV array cleaning maintenance and
PV module surface inspection.
In order to reduce lightning risk, a site evaluation needs to be
done for lightning risk assessment to justify the number of
lightning activities to the PV array. It will help to decide the
number of rows of the PV module to the mounting structure.
TABLE IV indicates the lightning risk to PV modules on top
of mounting structures with the corresponding solution to
minimize damages.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the
funding provided by the Ministry of Higher Education
Malaysia under the research grant no.
RAGS/2012/UTEM/TK02/0009.
REFERENCES
[1] Vaisala, “Vaisala Global Lightning DatasetGLD360TM”, Ref.
B211271EN-A, 2013.
[2] IEC 61173, “Overvoltage protection for photovoltaic (PV) power
generating systems – Guide”, Sept 1992.
[3] IEC 62305, “Protection Against Lightning”, Dec 2010.
[4] IEC 61727, “Photovoltaic (PV) Systems - Characteristics of the Utility
Interface”, Dec 2004.
[5] MS 1837, “Installation of Grid-Connected. Photovoltaic (PV) System”,
SIRIM, Malaysia, 2010.
[6] Giovanni Luca Amicucci, Fabio Fiamingo, “Lightning Risk to
Photovoltaic Power Generating Systems”, Prevention Today Vol. 5. no.
½, pp51-65, January –June 2009.
[7] Laplace System, “SolarPro 4.0”, August 2013.
[8] C.K Gan, P.H. Tan, S. Khalid “System Performance Comparison
between Crystalline and Thin-Film Technologies under Different
Installation Conditions”, 2013 IEEE Conference on Clean Energy and
Technology, Langkawi, Malaysia, 18-20 Nov 2013. (Accepted and to
be presented).
[9] T.Watanebe, “Sharp’s Technology of Glass-glass Thin-Film Silicon PV
module”, 4th Saudi Solar Energy Forum, Riyadh Saudi Arabia, 8-9 May
2012.
[10] SMA, “Module Technology”, Duennschicht-TI-UEN114630, 2013.
[11] The German Energy Society, “Planning and Installing Photovoltaic
Systems A guide for installer, architect and engineers second edition”
Earthscan, 2008.

226