Analysis on design method of signal system surge protection devices

Abstract

Lightning overvoltage may affect the signal transmission and damage terminal equipment. In order to solve this problem, the signal system Surge Protection Devices (SPDs) is designed by analyzing the signal transmission characteristic and the design theory of SPDs. The impulse tests are performed on the SPDs using a combined wave generator. Residual voltages and sharing currents are measured and discussed by considering impulse voltages, DC breakdown voltages of downstream SPDs and decoupling resistances. The blind zone of the signal system SPDs is also discussed in detail. In addition, the SPDs are equivalent to a two-port network, and the influence of distributed capacitance of the SPDs on signal transmission is analyzed for the first time through experiments. Cut-off frequency is measured and discussed by considering DC breakdown voltages of downstream SPDs and decoupling resistances. From the two experiments, the results indicate that increasing the decoupling resistance can decrease residual voltage and sharing current, but will reduce the cut-off frequency. Decreasing the DC voltage of downstream SPDs will have a similar effect. So the decoupling resistance and the DC breakdown voltage of downstream SPDs resistance need to be considered carefully in designing signal system SPDs. The sufficient research of signal system SPDs in this paper has a certain reference value in lightning protection.

Keywords

Signal system SPDs blind zone sharing current residual voltage transmission characteristic lightning protection

1. Introduction

With the development of the electronic technology, electric signal and electronic signal devices based on microprocessors are widely used [1, 2]. These advanced electronic signal devices and systems have weak surge withstand capability [3, 4]. The surges emerging in the power supply network bring faults to or destroy the equipment [5, 6]. Therefore, signal system SPDs should be widely used in signal system to ensure normal transmission of signal and normal work of signal equipment.

Recently, SPDs for low-voltage power supply were designed and analyzed in detail [7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. Coordination of these two cascaded SPDs was also discussed by considering various influential factors [7, 8]. These phenomena depend on the characteristics of the SPDs, with various loads, cable lengths, enclosures and surge waveform through experiments in the laboratory [9]. Effective protection distances of SPDs were analyzed and discussed [10, 11]. However, blind zone and the influences of distributed capacitance of signal system SPDs on signal transmission have been little addressed through experiments in previous paper.

Signal can be classified into unbalanced and balanced signals according to the characteristic of signal and standard interface protocols in signal transmission system [12]. Therefore the signal system SPDs consist of unbalanced and balanced signal SPDs. Based on the design principle of SPDs and the characteristics of signal transmission characteristic parameters, in this paper, designed with multi-level protection method, these signal system SPDs are tested on the impact tests [13]. Impact tests are performed with different impulse voltages, decoupling resistances and DC breakdown voltages of downstream SPDs. residual voltages and sharing currents are measured and discussed in detail. In addition, the SPDs are equivalent to a two-port network, and the influence of distributed capacitance of the SPDs on signal transmission is analyzed through experiments. Cut-off frequency is measured and discussed with different decoupling resistances and different DC breakdown voltages of downstream SPDs. The sufficient research of signal system SPDs in this paper has a certain reference value in lightning protection.

2. Theoretical analysis

2.1 The theoretical analysis of signal system SPDs

Signal transmission mode can be classified into unbalanced and balanced signal transmission modes according to the characteristic of signals and standard interface protocols. The unbalanced signal ports include BNC port and RS-232 port. And the balanced signal ports include RJ-45 port and RS-485 port. The signal system SPDs are designed according to the characteristic of signal transmission parameters, the design theory of SPD and the multi-level protection method. The signal system SPDs can release the energy of lightning impulse wave and suppress the over-voltage efficiently, preventing electrical equipment from lighting impulse wave and premising the normal signal transmission.

Schematic diagram of signal system SPDs is shown in Fig. 1, where (a) and (b) represent unbalanced and balanced signal system SPDs schematic diagram respectively. The signal SPDs consist of the first level of protective circuit abbreviated as upstream SPD, decoupling circuit and the second level of protective circuit abbreviated as downstream SPD. According to IEC 61643-1, gas discharge tube (GDT) is commonly defined as upstream SPD; the decoupling resistance, commonly used for energy coordination between SPDs, decoupling resistance is defined as decoupling circuit and transient voltage suppressor (TVS) is defined as downstream SPD [14]. Firstly, upstream SPD absorbs and releases the energy of lightning impulse wave quickly, also suppresses the lightning over-voltage when the lightning impulse wave enters the signal SPD. The decoupling resistance plays an important role in energy coordination between SPDs. Then Downstream SPD absorbs and releases residual energy, also suppress the voltage between lines to the scope which electrical equipment can withstand.

Figure 1.

Schematic diagram of signal system SPDs. (a) Unbalanced signal system SPDs; (b) Balanced signal system SPDs.

2.2 The theoretical analysis of signal transmission

The equivalent circuit of the SPDs is shown in Fig. 2 when there is no overvoltage. The characteristic of signal transmission parameters are analyzed based on the method of two ports network [15].

Figure 2.

Equivalent circuit of the signal system SPDs. (a) Unbalanced signal system SPDs; (b) Balanced signal system SPDs.

The two ports network is shown in Fig. 3. The voltage and current at the input represent input signal to network, and the voltage and the current at the output represent receive signal. So the voltage and current at the input and output reflect network signal transmission effect. The relationship between the voltage and current at the input and output is described as the fundamental formulation of two-port network.

Figure 3.

Two ports work.

The general formulation of fundamental formulation of two-port network can be described mathematically:

$\displaystyle U_{1}=AU_{2}+BI_{2}$ (1) $\displaystyle I_{1}=CU_{2}+DI_{2}$ $\displaystyle U_{2}=DU_{1}-BI_{1}$ (2) $\displaystyle I_{2}=-CU_{1}+AI_{1}$

Equations (1) and (2) are the voltage and current at the input and output of two-port network in forward transmission, where $U_{1}$ and $I_{1}$ are for the voltage and current at the input respectively, $U_{2}$ and $I_{2}$ are for the voltage and current at the output respectively. Coefficients A, B, C and D are the T parameter of the two-port network whose relationship is described as AD $-$ BC $=$ 1.

O/c voltage and s/e current method is used to solve The T parameter of the two-port network. The solution of unbalanced signal is shown as below.

$\displaystyle A=\frac{Z+Z_{2}}{Z_{2}}$ $\displaystyle B=Z$ (3) $\displaystyle C=\frac{Z+Z_{1}+Z_{2}}{Z_{1}Z_{2}}$ $\displaystyle D=\frac{Z+Z_{1}}{Z_{1}}$

The solution of balanced signal is shown as below.

$\displaystyle A=1+\frac{2Z}{Z_{2}}$ $\displaystyle B=2Z$ (4) $\displaystyle C=\frac{Z_{1}+Z_{2}+2Z}{Z_{1}Z_{2}}$ $\displaystyle D=1+\frac{2Z}{Z_{1}}$

Where

$Z_{1}=\frac{1}{2\pi fC_{1}},Z_{2}=\frac{1}{2\pi fC_{2}}.$

Insertion loss (IL) is defined as the loss of load power for components or device insert installed in transmission system, noted as

$\displaystyle IL=10\log\left(\frac{P_{2}}{P_{1}}\right)$ (5)

Where $P_{1}$ is input power, and $P_{2}$ is output power.

The power ratio of Eq. (5) is converted to the voltage ratio, noted as

$\displaystyle IL=20\log\left(\frac{\left|{U_{2}}\right|}{\left|{U_{1}}\right|}\right)$ (6)

3. Test and analysis

According to IEC61643-21:2012 (Low voltage surge protective devices – Part 21: Performance requirements and testing methods of telecommunications and signal networks SPD) [16], the impulse test is performed on SPD using a combined wave generator. The model of impact experiment is shown in Fig. 4. On the left of the broken line is Schematic Diagram of the combined wave generator. The parameters are listed as follows: U: High Voltage Supply, Rc: Charging resistance, Rs: Pulse continues to form resistance, Rm: Matching resistance, C: Energy storage capacitor, Ir: Rise time to form inductance. The output is 1.2/50 $\mu$ s open circuit voltage wave when the load of the combined wave generator is open circuit. The output is 8/20 $\mu$ s short circuit current wave when the load is short circuit.

Figure 4.

The model of impact experiment.

In the experience, the impulse voltage is applied on the SPDs and the impulse voltage gradually increases. The range of impulse voltage is 0.2–5.0 kV, and the step is 0.2 kV. The TDS 2022B oscilloscope is used to record the voltage and current waveform of SPDs. From previous study on the decoupling resistance and characteristics of signal transmission [17, 18], the parameters in tests are listed as follows: (1) the spark-over voltage of upstream SPD is 230 V, (2) the decoupling resistances are adopted in the analysis that is 2 $\Omega$ , 5 $\Omega$ and 10 $\Omega$ , (3) the DC breakdown voltages of downstream SPD are adopted in the analysis that is 6.8 V, 12 V, 24 V and 51 V.

The model of amplitude-frequency experiment is shown in Fig. 5. Agilent E4422B source input frequency range from 250 kHz to 4.0 GHz. The source is sine wave. Power is 10 dBm. Before the experiment, the distribution capacitance of signal system SPDs is measured by LCR-816. The distributed capacitance of GDT is relatively small, only 1 pF $\sim$ 5 pF, three orders of magnitude less than TVS. Therefore the distributed capacitance of the SPDs mainly considers the distributed capacitance of TVS. And in the experiment, keeping the amplitude of the input signal and changing the frequency, input voltage U1 and output voltage U2 are recorded by Agilent 54832D Oscilloscope.

Figure 5.

The model of amplitude-frequency experiment.

3.1 Test results and discussion of Upstream signal SPD

The electric circuit structure of upstream SPD is the same for unbalanced and balanced signal system SPDs. So the paper chose a group test to analyze. In order to better understand the paper, some professional terms are defined as follows: Residual voltage refers to the peak voltage of SPD when lightning current flows. Sharing current refers to the peak current of SPD when lightning current flows. Both of they reflect SPDs’ protection abilities. In this paper, the residual voltage of downstream SPD is regarded as the residual voltage of signal system SPDs. The sharing current of downstream SPD is regarded as the sharing current of signal system SPDs.

During the experiment, the spark-over voltage of upstream SPD is 0.6 kV, and the waveform is 1.2/50 $\mu$ s open circuit voltage waveform when the impulse voltage is less than 0.6 kV. Voltage and current waveforms are shown in Fig. 6, where impulse voltages in Fig. 6a and b are 0.6 kV and 2.2 kV respectively. Residual voltage is around 100 V and sharing current is around 300 A in Fig. 6a. Residual voltage is around 130 V and sharing current is around 450 A in Fig. 6b. In addition, when the spark-over happens on upstream SPD, the delay time is 4 $\mu$ s in Fig. 6a, and it’s less than 1 $\mu$ s in Fig. 6b. Both of them indicate that the delay time is declining with increase of the impulse voltage. From 0.6 kV to 5.0 kV, the maximum voltage in the experiment, the delay time has always existed.

Figure 6.

Testing waveform of upstream SPD. (a) 0.6 kV impulse voltage; (b) 2.2 kV impulse voltage.

Figure 7.

Residual voltage and sharing current curves of upstream SPD.

The residual voltage of upstream SPD and sharing current of upstream SPD are measured and recorded in Fig. 7. The result show that the residual voltage and sharing current increase with increase of the impulse voltage, where the residual voltage is about 100 V–200 V and sharing current is about 290 A–540 A.

3.2 Test results and discussion of downstream SPD

3.2.1 Discussion of testing waveform

The state change of signal system SPDs is identical in each group of impact tests. At the lower impulse voltage, the breakdown only happens on the downstream SPD. At the higher impulse voltage, the breakdown of the downstream SPD and the spark-over of the upstream SPD both happen. Therefore, the paper chose testing waveform of signal system SPDs consisting of 230 V upstream SPD, 10 $\Omega$ decoupling resistance and 24 V downstream SPD to analyze.

Figure 8.

Testing waveform of unbalanced signal system SPDs. (a) 0.6 kV impulse voltage; (b) 0.8 kV impulse voltage.

Figure 9.

Testing waveform of balanced signal system SPDs. (a) 0.6 kV impulse voltage; (b) 0.8 kV impulse voltage.

As is shown in Fig. 8, they’re the testing waveforms of unbalanced signal system SPDs. The testing waveform of balanced signal system SPDs is shown in Fig. 9. Residual voltages are around 30.6 V and 37.4 V, and sharing currents are around 80.5 A and 30.7 A, respectively in Figs 8a and 9a. In the two pictures, the breakdown only happens on the downstream SPD, and the residual voltage is suppressed to the value which the equipment can withstand but the sharing current is relatively low. With increase of impulse voltage, breakdown of the upstream SPD starts at 0.8 kV. The residual voltages are around 31.2 V and 35.6 V, and sharing currents are around 35.3 A and 6.5 A, respectively in Figs 8b and 9b. Comparing above testing waveforms, it can be found that in the spark-over process of the upstream SPD, the sharing current of downstream SPD decreases rapidly.

3.2.2 Blind zone analysis

Blind zone refers to the impulse voltage range when there is only one breakdown in the multi-stage SPDs protection. At the beginning of tests, the signal system SPDs exist blind zones .When the impulse voltage is large enough, the spark-over of the upstream SPD starts, the blind zone disappears.

The change of the blind zone is identical in both unbalanced and balanced signal system SPDs. Therefore, the paper chose one group data to analyze. Blind zones of signal system SPDs are illustrated in Table 1. The results indicate that increasing decoupling resistance can make the blind zone narrow.

Table 1
Blind zone of signal system SPDs

TVS model	U ${}_{2\Omega}^{\ast}$ (kV)	U ${}_{5\Omega}^{\ast}$ (kV)	U ${}_{10\Omega}^{\ast}$ (kV)
1.5KE6.8A	0.009–1.200	0.009–1.000	0.009–0.800
1.5KE12A	0.015–1.200	0.015–1.000	0.015–0.800
1.5KE24A	0.03–1.200	0.03–1.000	0.03–0.800
1.5KE51A	0.06–1.200	0.06–1.000	0.06–0.800

${}^{*}$ The subscript means Decoupling resistance.

Table 2

Minimum and maximum residual voltage of the unbalanced signal system SPDs

Decoupling resistance	Residual voltage	U ${}_{\text{6.8V}}^{\ast}$ (V)	U ${}_{\text{12V}}^{\ast}$ (V)	U ${}_{\text{24V}}^{\ast}$ (V)	U ${}_{\text{51V}}^{\ast}$ (V)
2 $\Omega$	U ${}_{\text{min}}$	11.6	15.5	30.2	60.4
	U ${}_{\text{max}}$	32.2	38.5	53.0	90.0
5 $\Omega$	U ${}_{\text{min}}$	10.9	14.5	29.0	59.0
	U ${}_{\text{max}}$	31.3	37.0	50.0	80.5
10 $\Omega$	U ${}_{\text{min}}$	7.8	13.0	27.0	58.0
	U ${}_{\text{max}}$	29.0	36.5	49.0	77.2

${}^{*}$ The subscript means the DC breakdown voltage of downstream SPD.

Figure 10.

Residual voltages with 2 $\Omega$ decoupling resistance. (a) Unbalanced signal system SPDs; (b) Balanced signal system SPDs.

3.2.3 Residual voltage of downstream SPD analysis

The residual voltage is shown in Fig. 10, where the decoupling resistance is 2 $\Omega$ . Firstly, the higher is the breakdown voltage of a downstream SPD, the higher is its residual voltage. Secondly, the residual voltage of unbalanced signal system SPDs is proportional to the impulse voltage. Thirdly, with increase of the impulse voltage, the residual voltage of balanced signal SPDs first increase, and then decrease, at last it increase slowly. The reason is the start of the spark-over on the upstream SPD. The upstream SPD absorbs and releases the energy of lightning impulse wave quickly. Above results also can be found when decoupling resistances are 5 $\Omega$ and 10 $\Omega$ respectively. In addition, minimum and maximum residual voltages of unbalanced and balanced signal system SPDs are illustrated in Tables 2 and 3 respectively.

Table 3
Minimum and maximum residual voltage of the balanced signal system SPDs

Decoupling resistance	Residual voltage	U ${}_{\text{6.8V}}^{\ast}$ (V)	U ${}_{\text{12V}}^{\ast}$ (V)	U ${}_{\text{24V}}^{\ast}$ (V)	U ${}_{\text{51V}}^{\ast}$ (V)
2 $\Omega$	U ${}_{\text{min}}$	11.2	16.2	35.5	58.9
	U ${}_{\text{max}}$	30.6	35.2	51.8	90.2
5 $\Omega$	U ${}_{\text{min}}$	10.0	15.3	28.4	58.0
	U ${}_{\text{max}}$	22.0	29.0	41.7	85.0
10 $\Omega$	U ${}_{\text{min}}$	9.0	14.0	27.8	56.3
	U ${}_{\text{max}}$	19.0	24.0	37.4	74.0

${}^{*}$ The subscript means the DC breakdown voltage of downstream SPD.

The comparisons of the residual voltages signal system SPDs with different decoupling resistances are illustrated in Fig. 11, where the DC breakdown voltage of downstream SPD is 6.8 V.The higher is the decoupling resistance, the lower is its residual voltage. It can be found that increasing the decoupling resistance can decrease the residual voltage. Above results also can be found when the DC breakdown voltages of downstream SPD are 12 V, 24 V and 51 V respectively.

Figure 11.

Residual voltages with 6.8V TVS. (a) Unbalanced signal system SPDs; (b) Balanced signal system SPDs.

3.2.4 Sharing current of downstream SPD analysis

Comparison of sharing currents with different DC breakdown voltages of downstream SPD is illustrated in Fig. 12, where the decoupling resistance is 2 $\Omega$ . When the breakdown happens on the downstream SPD, the sharing current is inversely proportional to the DC breakdown voltage of downstream SPD. With the increase of the impulse voltage, when breakdown of the upstream SPD starts, the sharing current of downstream SPD decreases rapidly. After that, the sharing currents are approximately similar for different DC breakdown voltages of downstream SPD. The reason is that main energy is released quickly by upstream SPD, and secondary energy is released by downstream SPD, when spark-over of the upstream SPD starts. The results indicate that primary energy release quickly and upstream SPD has a high energy absorption capability. In addition, above results also can be found when decoupling resistances are 5 $\Omega$ and 10 $\Omega$ respectively.

Figure 12.

Sharing currents with 2 $\Omega$ decoupling resistance. (a) Unbalanced signal system SPDs; (b) Balanced signal system SPDs.

The sharing currents with different decoupling resistances are shown in Fig. 13, where the DC breakdown voltage of downstream SPD is 6.8 V. The larger is the decoupling resistance, the smaller is the sharing current. The reason is that circuit resistance also increases with increase of decoupling resistance. Above results also can be found when the DC breakdown voltages of downstream SPD are 12 V, 24 V and 51 V respectively.

Figure 13.

Sharing currents with 6.8V downstream SPD. (a) Unbalanced signal system SPDs; (b) Balanced signal system SPDs.

3.2.5 Insertion loss analysis

Table 4
Cut-off frequency of the unbalanced signal system SPDs

TVS model	Capacitance (PF)	f ${}_{2\Omega}^{\ast}$ (MHz)	f ${}_{5\Omega}^{\ast}$ (MHz)	f ${}_{10\Omega}^{\ast}$ (MHz)
1.5KE6.8A	5715	7.8	7.3	5.5
1.5KE12A	2947	8.6	7.7	7.0
1.5KE24A	1755	10.6	9.6	8.9
1.5KE51A	1055	13.0	11.5	10.0

${}^{*}$ The subscript means Decoupling resistance.

Table 5

Cut-off frequency of the balanced signal system SPDs

TVS model	Capacitance (PF)	f ${}_{2\Omega}^{\ast}$ (MHz)	f ${}_{5\Omega}^{\ast}$ (MHz)	f ${}_{10\Omega}^{\ast}$ (MHz)
1.5KE6.8A	5715	8.5	7.6	6.2
1.5KE12A	2947	10.6	8.7	8.0
1.5KE24A	1755	14.6	11.6	9.5
1.5KE51A	1055	18.0	14.5	11.0

${}^{*}$ The subscript means Decoupling resistance.

Figure 14.

Amplitude-frequency characteristic curve.

According to the measured data in the experiment, U1 and U2, the paper uses Eq. (5) to calculate the insertion loss and draw the amplitude-frequency characteristic curve. Because the states change of amplitude-frequency characteristic curve are identical. The paper take the amplitude-frequency characteristic curve of the unbalanced signal system SPDs consist of 5 $\Omega$ decoupling resistance and 12 V downstream SPD as an example, which is shown in Fig. 14. The frequency range: 20 Hz $\sim$ 10 MHz. As is shown in Fig. 14, the result is that when frequency is less than 6.5 MHz, the signal attenuation is weak. And when frequency is more than 6.5 MHz, the attenuation becomes quite large. There exists a critical frequency, which is called the cut-off frequency. At the cut-off frequency, the signal has been attenuated for 3 dB and can’t be transmitted normally. It’s a special parameter used to describe the characteristics of signal transmission. The cut-off frequency in Fig. 14 is 7.7 MHz.

Cut-off frequencies of unbalanced and balanced signal system SPDs are illustrated in Tables 4 and 5 respectively. Cut-off frequencies of signal system SPDs is basically larger than 6 MHz. Therefore, the signal system SPD designed meet transmission characteristic requirements.

Distributed capacitance has a great effect on the cut-off frequency. It refers to the distribution parameter formed by the non-capacitive. As show in Tables 4 and 5, the larger the DC breakdown voltage of downstream SPD, the smaller distributed capacitance is. And the cut-off frequency decreases with increase of the distributed capacitance. In other words, it is proportional to the DC breakdown voltage of downstream SPD. In addition, the higher is the decoupling resistance; the lower is the cut-off frequency.

4. Conclusion

By designing and testing the signal system SPDs, the following conclusions are reached:

At the beginning of impact tests, the signal system SPDs exist blind zone, when the impulse voltage is large enough, the spark-over of the upstream SPD starts, the blind zone disappears. The larger is the decoupling resistance, the narrower is the blind zone.

The variation of the residual voltage with increase of the impulse voltage is different between unbalanced and balanced signal system SPDs. The residual voltage of unbalanced signal system SPDs is proportional to the impulse voltage. However, with increase of the impulse voltage, the residual voltage of balanced signal SPDs first increase, and then decrease, at last it increase slowly. In addition, the higher is the DC breakdown voltage of downstream SPD, the higher is the residual voltage. Meanwhile it decreases with increase of the decoupling resistance.

At the beginning of impact tests, when the breakdown only happens on the downstream SPD, The sharing current of signal system SPDs is proportional to the impulse voltage. And it is inversely proportional to the decoupling resistance and the DC breakdown voltage of downstream SPD. With increase of the impulse voltage, the spark-over of upstream SPD starts, and the sharing current decreases rapidly from dozens to several. After that, the sharing current has been less affected by the DC breakdown voltage of downstream SPD and the decoupling resistance.

Cut-off frequencies of signal system SPDs are basically larger than 6 MHz. Therefore, the signal system SPDs designed meet transmission characteristic requirements. Meanwhile the cut-off frequency is proportional to the DC breakdown voltage of downstream SPD. And the higher is the decoupling resistance; the lower is the cut-off frequency.

From the two experiments, the results indicate that increase of the decoupling resistance can decrease residual voltage and sharing current, but will reduce the cut-off frequency which may affect the signal transmission. Decreasing the DC breakdown voltage of downstream SPDs will have a similar effect. So the decoupling resistance and the DC breakdown voltage of downstream SPD need to be considered carefully in designing signal SPDs. the idea that increasing decoupling resistance and decreasing the DC breakdown voltage of downstream SPDs, leading to lower residual voltage and sharing current, can be used when it meets the requirement of cut-off frequency, which can help to better protection the equipment. Therefore, the signal system SPDs should be designed to satisfy not only better voltage protection levels, but also less influences on signal transmission.

References

X.C.

Zhou

Chen

et al., Propagation and suppression method of lightning wave in coaxial line [J], International Journal of Applied Electromagnetic and Mechanics 49(3) (2015), 315–325. DOI: 10.3233/JAE-140130.

Yuan

et al., Evaluation of the effective protection distance of low-voltage SPD to equipment [J], IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery 20(1) (2005), 123–130. DOI: 10.1109/TPWRD.2004.835254.

Altuve

H.J.

Chacón

O.L.

Vázquez

et al., Neural-network-based fault location estimator for transmission line protection [J], Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 7(2) (1999), 159–171.

Radulovic

Mujovic

and Miljanic

, Characteristics of overvoltage protection with cascade application of surge protective devices in low-voltage AC Power Circuits [J], Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering 15(3) (2015), 153–160. DOI: 10.4316/AECE.2015.03022.

Yuan

Wang

et al., Effective protection distances of low-voltage SPD with different voltage protection levels [J]. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery 25(1) (2010), 187–195. DOI: 10.1109/TPWRD.2009.2035297.

Metwally

I.A.

and Heidler

F.H.

, Enhancement of the SPD residual voltage at apparatus terminals in low-voltage power systems [J], IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery 22(3) (2007), 2207–2213. DOI: 10.1109/TPWRD.2007.905563.

and Du

, Influence of different factors on coordination of two cascaded SPDs [J], Electric Power Systems Research 139 (2016), 139–145. DOI: 10.1016/j.epsr.2015.11.029.

Zhou

Rousseau

Zhao

et al., Experimental investigation of the coordination between SPDs and between SPD and the protected equipment [J], Electric Power Systems Research 139 (2016), 170–178. DOI: 10.1016/j.epsr.2015.11.025.

, Discussions on factors influencing the effective protection distance of SPD to loads [J], Electromagnetic Compatibility (APEMC), Asia-Pacific Symposium on. IEEE (2015), 420–423. DOI: 10.1109/APEMC.2015.7175369.

10.

Yuan

et al., Evaluation of the effective protection distance of low-voltage SPD to equipment [J], IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery 20(1) (2005), 123–130. DOI: 10.1109/TPWRD.2004.835254.

11.

et al., Effective protection distances of SPDs for household electrical appliances [J], IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 53(3) (2011), 690–699. DOI: 10.1109/TEMC.2011.2112368.

12.

Sun

Tan

Feng

et al., Research and design of surge protective device for serial communication RS422 date interface [J], Insulators and Surge Arresters (3) (2013), 36–41. DOI: 10.16188/j.isa.1003-8337.2013.03.020.

13.

Chen

Zhou

et al., Research on energy coordination between multi-level surge protective devices with the transmission line theory [J], International Journal of Applied Electromagnetics and Mechanics 48 (2015), 345–356. DOI: 10.3233/JAE-140121.

14.

Heckler

Wetter

Schimanski

et al., Lightning Current Arrester Technologies–Comparison of Spark-Gap-and MOV-Technology [C], IX[C]//International Symposium on Lightning Protection (SIPDA), Conference Proceedings. 487–493.

15.

Zhang

, Signal transmission principle [M]. Beijing: China Railway Publishing House, 1989.

16.

Low voltage surge protective devices – Part 21: Surge protective devices connected to telecommunications and signalling networks – Performance requirements and testing methods, Selection and Applications Principles [S], IEC 61643-21: 20012. IEC Std.

17.

Ren

X.-M.

Zhao

et al., Selecting Decoupling Resistance in the Design of Surge Protective Devices Connected to Telecommunications and Signaling [J], Low Voltage Apparatus (3) (2006), 13–15. DOI: 10.16628/j.cnki.2095-8188.2006.04.004.

18.

Yang

and Yang

, Analysis on Influence of Bandwidth on Impulse Limiting Voltage Measurement of SPD in Telecommunications and Signaling Networks [J], Insulators and Surge Arresters (4) (2015), 96–99. DOI: 10.16188/j.isa.1003-8337.2015.05.019.

Analysis on design method of signal system surge protection devices

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical analysis

2.1 The theoretical analysis of signal system SPDs

3.2.1 Discussion of testing waveform

Table 1 Blind zone of signal system SPDs

Table 3 Minimum and maximum residual voltage of the balanced signal system SPDs

Table 4 Cut-off frequency of the unbalanced signal system SPDs

References

Table 1
Blind zone of signal system SPDs

Table 3
Minimum and maximum residual voltage of the balanced signal system SPDs

Table 4
Cut-off frequency of the unbalanced signal system SPDs