WORKSHOP

ON
DESIGN OF EARTHING SYSTEMS

at
PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE
CHANDIGARH

25-28 April 1994

Proceedings

Organised by
CENTRAL BOARD OF IRRIGATION & POWER
Malcha Marg, Chanakyapuri
New Delhi - 110 021
 Foreword

EaI1hing is essential wherever electricity is generated, transfonned or used to ensure safety and proper
operation of the electrical system. As is well-known the earthing systems are intended to protect
equipment and personnel in and around the sub-stations from the dangerous over-voltages. With the
power systems becoming more and more complex the fault levels in the system have also gone up.
This has resulted in bestowing greater attention to the design of earthing systems. Added to this, the
technology development from time to time and better understanding of the various parameters involved
in the design of the earthing systems have lent greater importance to revise earlier considerations and
concepts.

An effective earthing system depends on various factors like resistivity of surface layer of soil,
duration and magnitude of fault current, maximum safe current that a human body can tolerate and
the permissible earth potential rise that may take place due to the fault current

Keeping this in view the workshop on 'Design of Earthing System' was organised at Punjab Engineering
College Campus, Chandigarh from 25-28 April, 1994 to acquaint participants with :
The current practices and standards of earthing system design.
Use of computer software for .soil resistivity data interpretation and analysis of earthing system
perfonnance.
The measurement techniques for earthing system.

Punjab Engineering College Chandigarh has been chosen the venue of this Workshop because faculty
of Electrical Engineering Department of Punjab Engineering College has done commendable work
on various aspects of Earthing Systems under CBIP sponsored Research Progriunme RSOP.

Central Board of Irrigation and Power expresses its grateful thanks to Punjab Engineering College
and Prof. 1. K. Arora, Co-ordinator, Electrical Engineering Department, PEC for taking keen initiative
in organising this workshop at Chandigarh.

C.V.J. VARMA
Member Secretary
Central Board of Irrigation & Power
 Preface

The proposal for holding a workshop on Design of Eanhing Systems was made by Central Board of
Irrigation and Power, in June 1993. It was also proposed that the undersigned act as a coordinator
of the workshop. The Central Board of Irrigation and Power, New Delhi was to be the organiser of
the workshop with Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, as co-organiser. Later, Punjab State
Electricity Board, Patiala, joined as a sponsor of the workshop by giving a sponsorship fee of
Rs. 10,000.
Earlier, a workshop on Earthing Practices had been held at Punjab Engineering College in March
1978. A major change since then has been the tremendous progress in the availability and use of
digital computer. Its computing power has made it practical to determine soil model from earth
resistivity measurement data and to- simulate earthing systems on the computer. This makes it possible
to analyse earthing systems buried in soil which has a regular structure. The.next step in this direction
is development of softwares for analysing earthing systems in soils which have no regular structure.
Also expert systems for design of earthing systems need to be developed.
The importance of empirical fonnulae cannot be denied. Much work has been done to revise or devise
new formulae for determining ground resistance of electrodes, step voltage, mesh voltage, foot resistance
etc. The available formulae are not applicable to all practical situations. The large increase in ground
fault currents has compounded the difficulty of containing the dangerous voltages within pennissible
limits. At the gas insulated substations, the earthing electrode has to meet its special requirements.
More than one ground grid may have to be tied together sometimes. Other precautionary steps must
be taken to make the design of ground grids safe. Also manuals which may be used by engineers to
design safe earthing systems as per requirements of the standards are needed. Another area of current
interest is that of measuring the eanhing system perfonnance. It should be measured from time to
time to check healthiness of the system buried in the earth. For this purpose the instruments should
be available and procedures must be established.
At this workshop the topics presented and discussed include design procedures, soil resistivity
measurements and evaluation, actual design experiences, compute~ and analog modelling of earthing
electrodes, corrosion, measurement of surface potentials and review of standards. Delegates from
several organisations raised interesting and pertinent questions which were answered by the faculty
of the workshop. Some of the questions and answers have been compiled alongwith the
recommendations of the workshop.

Sd/-
J. K. ARORA
Co-ordinator
Professor of Electrical Engineering.
Punjab Engineering College
Chandigarh

ii
 Contents
Foreword
Preface
Introductory Speech Co-ordinater (Prof. J. K. Arora) iv
PEC, Chandigarh
Presidential Address - (prof. Rajnish Prakash) v
PEC, Chandigarh.
Inaugural Address - Shri o. P. Jain vi
P.S.E.B

LECTURES
1. Grounding Fundamentals-An overview - (prof. J. K. Arora) PEC, Chandigarh 1
2. Earthing Standards - (prof. J. K. Arora) PEC, Chandigarh 11
3. Earth Resistivity Measurements - (Dr. Hans R. Seedhar) 18
and Evaluation PEC, Chandigarh
4. Current for Design of Grounding Systems - (Dr. Hans R. Seedhar) 26
PEC, Chandigarh
5. Earthing Design in Uniform Soil - (prof. J. K. Arora) 35
PEC, Chandigarh
6. Design of Ground Grid in Limited Area - (Sh. S. K. Gupta) 42
and High Resistivity soil PSEB.
7. Computer Methods for analysis and - (Dr. Hans R. Seedhar) 56
Design of Grounding Systems PEC, Chandigarh.
8. Substation Grounding Grid Design with
Reference to 15 Dehar Power Plant and - (Sh. R. B. Saxena) 61
Switchyard. B.B.M.B. Chandigarh.
9. Impulse Characteristics of Grounding - (Sh. B. R. Gupta) 72
Systems PEC, Chandigarh.
10. Corrosion in Earthing systems - (prof. P. Thareja) 76
PEC, Chandigarh
11. Measurement of Performance of Ground - (Sh. Vinod Bisht) 88
Electrode at an Energised Sub-Saction NJPCLTD.
Measurement of Ground Electrode - (Sh. Vinod Bisht) 91
Performance in the Electrolytic Tank NJPCLTD.
12. Questions and Answers 95
13. Recommendations 98

iii
 Introductory Speech by the Coordinator
Prof. J. K. Arora at the Inaugural Function

A workshop on Earthing Practices was held earlier at Punjab Engineering College in March 1978.
While the idea of holding another workshop was being considered in the Electrical Engineering
Department The actual proposal wa~ mooted by Shri P. K. Lal, Adv.isor C. B. I. & P., in June 1993.
That the workshop may be held in April 1994 was agreed upon in December 1993.

Prof. B. Thapar, fonner Head of the Electrical Engineering Department started the research work on
Substation Grounding in the college in early sixties. He had done his Ph. D. work in USA on the
detennination of ground resistance of Grids in non-unifonn soil. At that time digital computer was
in use by researchers in the unversities and its use had facilitated the work. of generating a mass of
computational data on ground resistance of grids in non-unifonn soil. This data was presented in the
fonn of graphs in his PH. D. work. Since then, work on various aspects of grounding has been carned
out at Punjab Engineering College. The range of subjects includes - detennination of step and mesh
voltages for grids in two layer soil as well as in unifonn soil, behaviour of ground electrodes towards
impulse signals, economic design of ground grids. optimisation of conductor spacing, grounding of
fence, current for design of ground electrodes, model testing, measurement of ground surface potentials,
simplified expressions for use with electrodes in two layer soil, software for analysis of ground
electrodes, application of finite element method for analysis of simple ground electrodes etc.

Objectives of the present workshop are to acquaint the delegates with the following aspects:
(i) The current practices and standards of earthing system design,
(ii) Use of computer software for interpreting soil resistivity data and for analysis of earthing
system perfonnance, -
(iii) The measurement techniques to evaluate earthing system performance and also
(iv) To discuss topics like techniques for ground electrodes in high resistivity soils and limited
area stations and perfonnance of electrodes to impulse signals.

Lectures at the wo!"kshop will be delivered by a faculty drawn from Punjab Engineering College,
Bhakra Beas Management Board, Punjab State Electricity Board, Nathpa Jakhri Power Corporation,
and C. P. W. D., Chandigarh. The lectures will be supplemented by laboratory sessions and
demonstration of the use of equipment for measuring surface potential gradients which can be used
even at energized stations. Case study and computer use sessions are also planned.

The delegates who have come from far and near shall have their own experiences in earthing electrode
design practices followed in their organizations. I hope the discussions during the workshop, in the
light of their experiences, will add to the usefulness of the workshop.

iv
 Summary of Presidential address by
Prof. Rajnish Prakash Principal, PEC, Chandigarh
at the Inaugural Function

In his address Principal Rajnish Prakash stated that the safety aspect of earthing was the one which
was not only important for reliable operation of the system but it touched the lives of all human
beings. Often proper attention was not paid to earthing of equipment resulting in shock situations.
Punjab Engineering College was an appropriate choice for the workshop. All speakers at the workshop
were connected with the college in that they had either been students of the college in the past or were
on the faculty at present. The college had produced two Ph.D. 's in the area of earthing. He mentioned
that not only was the proper design important, the quality of conformance to the design was equally
important. At a workshop like this the experts were brought face to face with the field and design
engineers. He hoped that the discussions at the workshop would help in finding meaningful solution
to practical problems and would generate new ideas.

v
 Inaugural A.ddress

Er. O. P. JAIN
Member (Hydel & Transmission) Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala

Hon'ble Advisor CBI&P Shri P. K. Lal, worthy principal, Faculty members of Punjab Engineering
College, delegates from Electricity Utilities, Other organisations and guests, I am happy to be with
all of you on the auspicious occasion of the inauguration of workshop on Design of Earthing System
which has been organised by Central Board of Irrigation and Power.

The Power Sector in India has had a long and checkered history and to understand this in the proper
perspective we could use 1947 as a benchmark. When India got its independence, the installed power
generation was approximately 1500 MWs. By the year 1990-91 the installed capacity was 70,000
MWs. Although, this is a quantum jump, one must look at it in the light of the fact that the basic
average Plant Load Factor in India as on date is 52 percent that means that the average availability
of energy is almost half of the installed capacity. The requirement of energy in India from the year
1990 and into the early 21st century can be visualised, keeping in mind the factors i.e. the effect of
the basic increase of the needs of a growing population the geometrical increase in demand from the
existing consumers and finally, the demand for more energy by industrial consumers.

Power is the prime input in the economic development of a modern society. Electricity is an important
factor in creating the requisite infrastructure for the rapid development of both industries and agriculture.
In fact, the per capita power consumption is now regarded as a yard-stick to measure a country's
production Incidentally the per capita consumption in Punjab even though being among the highest
in the country is not even 3% of the per capita power consumption of the advanced countries like
USA, UK and Canada etc. Despite many strides made by India in the field of power Generation, the
demand continues to outstrip the supply.

Electricity is one of the most important tools to fight against poverty and to improve the living
standards of people with the increased production in existing factories, expansion of heavy cottage
and agro-based rural industries and increased production at agricultural farms, the power syst~m is
expanding and problems of protection of personnel and also equipment start increasing. For proper
protection, proper earthing system is essential.

Earthing is essential whenever electricity is generated, transformed and used. The objective of designing
safe grounding system is to provide easy and shortest path to the flow of fault current without
exceeding the operation and equipment limits and adversely affecting the continuity of service. It is
also to ensure that a person present in the station yard is not exposed to danger of electric shock.

vi
The subject of earthing though appears to be simple, has its own intricacies. Correct measurement of
soil resistivity, design of earthing system in homogeneous/non homogeneous soils keeping step, touch
and transferred voltages within safe limits without sacrificing the economics is essential. With the
passage of time, the space available for earth mat is decreasing and fault level is increasing due to
expansion/interlinking of power stations and coming of EHV system. The problem is becoming more
complex in G.I.S. locations. Corrosion of earthing conductor is also one of the important factors to
be taken into account. In Electricity undertakings, the earthing system once embedded is not checked
whether it is corroded or intact. With the dawn of computer era, it has been possble to frame and
solve complex mathematical equations.

Generally in State Electricity Boards the persons engaged in design of earthing system are transferred
and the new incumbants to follow stereotyped design resulting in danger to personnel working in
power stations/substations and at other places the conservative practices followed by them result in
extra expenditure which can be avoided. This calls for development of expert system for safe and
economic design whereby the new incumbant can design proper earthing system without unduly
taxing his mind and sacrificing the safety.

The laying/testing of ground mat has also its own intricacies like making welded joints, proper
connection between mat and vertical electrodes and making electrodes soil contact. In some cases,
where extension of ground mat in larger area is required, special care has to be taken to inter-connect
old ground mat with the newly designed one. Ground mat is always laid as per the design made
available to the construction staff but it has been found that at some places the mat has been corroded
in a period of 5 years, so this calls for meaningful inter-action between designers and field engineers
engaged in construction and maintenance works.

Faculty members of Electrical Engineering Department of Punjab Engineering College have carried
out valuable work in grounding and developed some ip..struments for measurement of grid resistance
without taking shut down. Research Directorate of PSEB has also carried out valuable work on
different aspects of grounding viz solving grounding problems in non homogeneous soils, design of
ground mat for high resistivity soils where area available is at premium and estimating the rate of
corrosion of embedded steel structures etc. It is thus proper that CBI&P has selected Punjab Engineering
College as a venue for holding this workshop on design of earthing system.

It is good for experts in a field of specialisation to come together; better still, if that would result in
exchange of knowledge and experience. It is good to have exchange of experiences better still if it
brings about an enduring collaboration between individuals. Individual collaboration is welcome;
more welcome is institutional collaboration.

Hoping that this workshop will result in enduring partners hoping that your deliberation will be
fruitful and hoping th:n you will carry pleasant memories of your stay here, I have great pleasure in
inaugurating the workshop.

vii
 CHAPTER 1

Grounding Fundamentals -
An Overview

J. K. ARORA
Professor of Electrical Engineering, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh

INTRODUCTION
In India the electrical power system has the neutral grounded. Whether the neutral is solidly grounded
or otherwise is a matter for the system design engineer. From the safety considerations, it is required
that the nonelectrical conductive material of equipment, which either encloses energized conductors
or is adjacent thereto, including structures, is interconnected and grounded. The basic objectives of
safe grounding are:

(i) To provide means to carry current under nonnal and fault conditions to earth. Capability of the
path irrespective of current magnitude and duration should be as per the over current protection
system without any fire or explosive hazards and without adversely affecting continuity of
service.
(ii) To ensure that persons in the vicinity of grounded facilities are not exposed to the danger of
critical electric shock.

EARTH ELECTRODE
An earth electrode for use with power frequency equipment consists of metallic ..:onductors buried at
some depth below the earth surface. The parts of an equ~pment which can bec()me accidentally
energized are connected to such an electrode; in case of a short circuit this part is energized to the
same voltage level as exists at the energized conductor. This results in flow of currents through earth
from or to its current source. 'P.ie potential gradients established at the earth surface should be limited
to values such tllat the safety of people or equipment under nonnal or fault conditions as well as
continuity of service is assured.

At most substations the earth electrode consists of a grid of horizontally buried conductors supplemented
by a number of vertical ground rods. As per the Indian Electricity Rules "Two separate and distinct
connections with earth" are to be provided from each apparatus. However, at a substation, a single rod
electrode is usually inadequate as a safe earthing system. If severa~ ground rods are provided and are
than interconnected to each other and to all equipment neutrals, frames and structures that are to be
grounded, the result is, essentially, a grid arrangement of electrodes. Thus a well designed grid with

1
or without vertical rods is a commonly used earth electrode. The horizontal grid is usually installed
at a depth of 0.3-0.5 m below earth surface. This upper layer of earth is subject to drying (or freezing)
and resistivity of upper soillaycr varies with seasons while that of lower layer, where there is more
of moisture or subsoil water, it is more constant. Thus ground rods are useful to stabilize the earth
resistance of the earthing system (ground or earth are used interchangeably even though ground refers
to any equipotential body and earth refers specifically to equipotential body in earth). Also, when the
soil is two or multilayer with bottom layers less resistive, ground rods are necessary for effective
earthing. In those stations where the area of the electrode is limited, very deep ground rods or deep
wells are required for proper earthing. If the rods are installed along the periphery of a grid, they
make more of the current to flow at a depth than near the surface. thus decreasing surface potential
gradients.

DANGEROUS CONDITIONS
During an earth fault condition. the flow of current to earth produces potential gradients around the
earth electrode. Figure 1. shows the effect for a station with a simple rectangular grounding grid in
homogeneous soil (I).

I
;
I

,/

FIGURE 1: Equipotential Contours of a Typical Grounding Grid

The circumstances which make an electric shock accident possible are :

(i) Relatively high fault current in relation to the area of ground and its Icsistance to remote earth.
(ii) Soil resistivity and distribution of earth currents such that high potential gradients may occur
at points at the earth surface.
(iii) Presence of an individual at such a point. time and position that the body is bridging two points
of high potential difference.
(iv) Absence of sufficient contact resistance or other series resistance to limit current through the
body to a safe value under the ,\bove circumstances.
(v) Duration of fault and body conta~t and hence the flow or current through a human body for a
sufficient time to cause hann at Ule given current density.

2
GROUND RESISTANCE
The ground resistance of an earth electrode is the voltage between the electrode and remote earth,
assumed to be at zero voltage. Ideally it should be zero. Since the voltage rise of the earth electrode at
a station site is proportional to the earth current, the larger the current, the lower should be the value of
ground resistance. When calculating the maximum current which flows between eanh electrode and
surrounding earth, the ground resistance is often neglected; however, in cases when station ground
resistance is large compared to system reactance, the ground resistance must be taken into account

The potential on a point P due to a point source dissipating current I into homogeneous earth of
resistivity p ohm-m given by [21

V = .E!..
41t
(!. + 1-I
"( y' )

Where 1 is distance of p from the source of current and l' is distance of p from image of source of
current in the earth surface. Voltage at point p due to a line. source of length L meters having a
constant current leakage density along its length is obtained by integrating along the length L as

V = 4~ [J (~"( + i)]
Average voltage produced in a line segment of length Ll by a line source of length L J is found by
further integrating over the length Ll and is given by
V= Ip .JJdjUs= Ip .M
4n Ll L2 "( 4I1 Ll L2
For a linear conductor of length L and radius "( which is buried at a depth D below earth surface, the
ground resistance of the conductor itself found by integrating the potential over its length due to the
current dissipated by itself is

and the mutual resistance between the conductor and its image is given by

Thus the total ground resistance RJ of the bar conductor is

Rj= r j q =~[fu[J~~ -1)]

Formulae are available for calculating mutual resistance between conductors parallel
or perpendicular or inclined at an angle to each other. In such calculations for large earth electrodes,
all components of the electrode are assumed to be equipotential and ground resistance of an earth
electrode consisting of many linear conductors can be computed. Several authors have applied such
principles to derive expressions for calculating ground resistance of earth electrodes. Many of the
expressions are empirical.

3
It has been found that ground resistance depends on the extent of the area enclosed by the electrode
and the soil resistivity. Further, the size and type of arrangement of individual conductors comprising
the electrode consisting of criss-crossing wires and rods also affect the resistance. An approximate
expression used for calculation of ground resistance of a grid electrode buried just below earth surface
in earth of uniform soil resistivity is

R
G
= .E..J
4 A
n + p
L

Where L is total length of buried conductors (n) and A is area occupied by the ground grid in m2 •
Formulas which can be used for computing ground resistance of different types of earth electrodes
are available.

SOIL RESISTIVITY
Soil resistivity in an area can never be uniform. Yet a uniform resistivity soil model has been used
extensively in earth electrode performance calculation. Such an assumption is valid if the resistivity
varies between relatively narrow limits over a distance of 3-5 times the longest dimension of the grid.
Two layer soil model has also been assumed to represent variations of soil resistivity along the depth
below earth surface, such variation is possible because of stratification of earth structure.

Res·istivity of earth depends on type of soil and rocks and can vary within extremely wide limits of
1 and 1,00,000 ohm-m. Table I gives an idea of variation in resistivities (3)

TABLE I.
Resistivity of Various Media
Mediam Average value Usual range
ohm-m Ohm-m
Clay 40 10 - 70 (at O·C)
Clay 2000 - 3000 (at - 10·C)
Sand clay mixture 100 40 - 300
Mud, Turf, dusty earth 150 50 - 250
Sand 2000 1000 - 3000
Moraine gravel 3000 1000 - 10000 (moist)
Boulder gravel 15000 3000 - 30000
Primary rock 25000 10000 - 50000
(granite, gneiss etc)
Concrete new or buried 100 50 - 500
in earth
Concrete dry 10000 2000 - 100000
Lake and river water 250 100 - 400
Sea water 2.5 1 -5

Conduction in soil being electrolytic in nature, resistivity depends on salt and moisture content. Other
factors are grain size, compactness etc. If moisture content is less than 15% resistivity rises sharply;
for content greater than 22% the effect is very little. For salt content variation between 2% and 10%,
typically, resistivity of moist clay soil can vary between 50 and 20 ohm-m (4).

Soil resistivity is affected by voltage gradient if it is of the order of several kilovolts per centimeter.
However, in the normal design of earth electrodes, this critical limit is not reached. The current

4
density around the earth electrode can affect the moisture content due to drying up of soil depending
on magnitude and duration of current. A conservative value of current leakage density is 200 Nm2
for 1 second duration.

LETHAL CURRENT
Effect of electric current passing through a human body depends on the duration, magnitude and
frequency of the current In the order of increasing magnitude the effects are perception, muscular
contraction, unconsciousness, fibrillation of heart, respiratory nerve blockage and burning. It has been
found that humans are the most vulnerable to currents of 50 - 60 Hz and tolerance for currents of
higher or lower frequencies is somewhat better.

Let-go current is that which is unpleasant to sustain and generally does not impair the ability of a
person holding an energized object to control his/her muscles and release it. Dalziel found from his
experiments on live, healthy adults that the threshold value (0.5 percentile) is 9 rnA for men and 6
rnA for women; for children the value is assumed to be 4.5 rnA. U. S. Underwriters laboratories use
a value of 5 rnA as the maximum safe continuous current value. In current range of 9-25 rnA, a
person may not be able to release the energized object. As current increases, muscular contraction
makes breathing difficult. Such effects disappear on interruption of current. In the range 60 - 100 rnA,
ventricular fibrillation, stoppage of heart and respiratory inhibition might occur and cause injury or
death. Fatal accidents have occurred with circuits of 60 - 65 V and for as low as 46 V. If a fault
occurs for a long duration, a shock of even low magnitude is dangerous.

If a fault is very rapidly cleared, exposure time in the range 0.06 - 0.3 s, chance of severe injury or
death is reduced. The aim of safe designs is that the magnitude and duration of current through human
body shall be less than that causes ventricular fibrillation. In case of ventricular fibrillation, heart
muscle fibres forming walls of heart chambers are twitched in an unco-ordinated manner and blood
circulation cannot be properly maintained. Its effects can only be suppress by application of defibritlating
electric shock [1]. The IEEE recommendan is based on the premise that hazard from short duration
shock, 0.03 - 3.0 s, depends on energy absorbed by the body. It is assumed that 99.5% of all persons
can withstand without ventricular fibrillation current IB given by the relation
Is = k/.[;

where k is a constant related to the electric shock energy tolerated by 99.5%. 0.5 percentile, of
persons, and t is duration of current exposure in seconds. It depends on body weight; for persons of
average body weight of 50 kg the maximum non-fibrillating current has been assumed to be
IB = 116/.[;

in milliamperes

DANGEROUS VOLTAGES
The basic situations in which a potential difference can be experienced by a human being during a
fault are shown in Figure 2. These are because of the potential gradients which occur on the surface
of earth due to the current flowing from the earth electrode buried below the earth surface.

5
 ~.¥
---~

--- ~
. . . - r - -..
, --5"'-;:<-'::: ---raj
••
:::
. •. ,
IE,, .....
:::, I
, _
::: POTENTIAL
: : : : / PROF'LE

:.j\'.·,i:!·!i.·.•• •• ·.·,.•·• •
t i • •
J.~'·:,.·.·,'·,• •.lt.·,.·:i,··j,l·:~~ j"
• • • • • I

Ground Potential Rise (GPR) : It is the maximum voltage that a station grounding electrode may
attain relative to a distant grounding point assumed to at the potential of remote earth or true earth.

Step voltage (E) : It is the difference in surface potential experienced by a person bridging a distance
of 1 m with his feet

Touch voltage (E) : It is the potential difference between the GPR and the earth surface potential at
the point where a person is standing, while his hands are in contact with a grounded structure,
Mesh voltage (Em) :It is the maximum touch voltage to be found within a mesh of ground grid.

Trans/erred Voltage (E lnd ) : It is the touch voltage where a voltage is transferred into or out of a

substation. This situation occurs when a person standing within the station area touches a conductor
grounded at a remote point or a person standing at a remote point touches a conductor connected to
the station grounding electrode.

When a person bridges a voltage with his/her hand and feet or with the feet, a current can flow
through the body of the person. The circuit of flow of current through the body is shown in Figure 3
RB is resistance of the body. Though there is variation between the hand-to-hand contact and hand-
to-feet contact, an average value of 1000 ohm has been adopted in IEEE Std-80.

6
 -
f ..

dJ : 1 m
RA • RS·
IA - U/RA
m,- 2RHf

RII - 1000 0
whf"t'

IA - tht' currenl Oll'lcc.tjf'nllli clfclllI

RA ~ Iht> 101111 resil';IlInCf! Of IIcc'd"nllll CirCllit
Figure 3. step voltage and mesh voltage circuits
Permissible Voltages:

The value of E. and Em should be such that the possible body current IA is less than the maximum
pennissible current lB. Resistance of the path through the body is the sum of resistance of the body
and resistance of ground between the contact points. The resistance of ground between the two feet
in series, ~ is given by
R2fS = 2(Rfoot - RMfoot)
Where Rroac = p/4.b, b being equivalent radius of foot in m treated like a circular plate; and
~ = p (2 dfoot ) DrOOl being separation distance of the feet in m. The value of b for foot is taken
as 0.08 m, the value of ~ is approximately 6p. The ground resistance of a foot may be taken as
3p. Similarly the resistance of two feet in parallel, ~FP is given by
R2 FP == 0.5 (R/OOI +R.I(f""') = 1.5 P

with these values the pennissible values of step and touch voltages are
Estep = (1000 + 6 ~ Q116/[;.
Emesh = (1000 + 1.5~ Q116/ft
Use of Crushed Stone Surface Layer

Crushed rock is used as surface layer in substations. Its functions are:

(i) to provide high resistivity surface layer
(it) to keep reptiles away as they find it difficult to crawl on it and reach equipment
(iii) to avoid fonnation of pools of oil in case of oil leakage from transformer, circuit breaker etc.

A layer of crushed rock or stone of size 3 to 5 cm is provided to a distance of about 2 m around all
earthed metallic structures or equipment in the switchyard. Its thickness should be about 0.08 - 0.15

7
m. An average value of resistivity of rock which is used for this purpose is 3000 ohm-m. Because
of the finite thickness of this layer, ground resistance of a foot cannot be 3P. Formulae or graphs are
available for computing the resistance of foot which is a function of depth of surface layer h,
resistivity of surface layer p. and ratio of resistivities of surface layer and that of earth beneath. An
alternative is to cover the soil surface with a polythene or plastic sheet on which a layer of stones
may be placed; this may reduce growth of vegetation or weeds which can defeat the purpose of
providing the rock or gravel layer.

DURATION OF FAULT TIME

Fault current flows through the earth during a line to earth fault of a two line to earth fault causing
heating of earthing conductors and creating potential gradients in the soil. The single line to earth
fault current is usually larger and is adopted in the calculations.

For determining pennissible values of step and mesh voltage, it is quite safe to adopt fault duration
corresponding to fault clearing time of back up protection relays. In modem stations, primary protection
clears faults in less than 0.2 s and secondary protection in 0.5 s or less. The value of 0.5 s or lesser
value, corresponding to actual time of clearance of fault by back up protection, can be used in the
calculations. The probability of a fault remaining on the system for a longer duration along with other
parameters, causing danger to personnel is negligible and can be ignored.

Earthing conductor once placed cannot be inspected. It is prudent that the conductor cross section is
designed so that it can safely carry the maximum current for the maximum possible time for which
it may flow in the system. Fault duration time of 1 s may be adopted for conductor design. No modem
EHV or UHV system can afford to have a line to earth fault with maximum earth fault current for
more than 1 s. For small substations, a time of 3 s may be used.

CONDUCTOR SIZE
The ground electrode system at a station consists of the grid conductors, joints, connecting leads, and
rods. These should be designed such that for the expected life these will
(i) have sufficient conductivity so that they do not substantially add to ground resistance,
(ii) resist fusing and mechanical deterioration under the severest possible fault current magnitude
and duration,
(iii) be mechanically reliable and rugged on locations exposed to corrosion or physical abuse.

The current magnitude used in calculation should have a provision of about 50% to allow for future
growth. Conductor used in India is universally steel except where soil conditions may result in
excessive corrosion. Aluminium is not much in use. It corrodes in certain types of soils and corroded
aluminium is almost nonconductive. Even alternating current corrodes aluminium under certain
conditions. Steel does not fonn a galvanic cell with other steel bodies which is beneficial.

Size of conductor can be detcnnincd on the basis of short time temperature rise with the fonnula [5,6]

l
A I[ s:

u
0. 002395
sIn --"---
t
8
where
A= conductor cross-section in mm2
1= nns current in kA
p= resistivity of ground conductor in mW -cm; 15.0 for steel
<X= resistance temperature coeffiicient ; 0.00423 / °C for steel
t= time of current flow in s
0= density of material in gm/cm3; 7.86 for steel
s= specific heat of material in cal/gm °C; 0.114 for steel
=
em maximum allowable temperature in °C; 620 °C for welded
joints and 310 °C for bolted joints for steel
eo = ambient temperature in °C; may be taken as 40 °C
The fonnula simplifies to
A=KIl"t
where value of K is given in Table II.

TABLE ll.
Constant K for Determining Conductor Cross-section
K
Material Welded joint Bolted joint
Steel 12.2 15.0
Copper 4.7 5.8
Aluminium 8.4 12.0

MAXIMUM EARTH POTENTIAL

When a short circuit to earth occurs in a power system, potential of the earthing system can rise to
the level of GPR above the remote earth. This potential can be conveyed to remote areas by any
conductor which is in contact with the earthing system. Also, if a conductor earthed at a remote point
enters the station, potential between this conductor and any conductor connected to the earthing
system can equal GPR. Transfer of station earth potential to a remote point or of that of remote ",uIth,
true earth, to the station can be through conductors of a communication line, earthed neutral of a low
voltage system, metal sheath of a telecommunication or power cable, overhead earth wire of H. T.
or L. T. lines, railway line, metal pipes entering station etc. Potential can also spread through the earth
itself and cause potential rise of structures in the vicinity of the station, a power line tower or even
near a high voltage conductor falling on earth. This type of potential difference is called transferred
potential or voltage; danger from this potential is of touch type.

The factors which must be considered while fixing the maximum value of transferred voltage are:
(i) Insulation coordination for communication circuits and tenninal equipment
(ii) Minimization of the risk of accidents involving personnel and general public
(iii) Safety against voltage transferred on L. T. circuits leaving the station

9
REFERENCES
1. ANSl/IEEE Standard 80-1986, IEEE Guide for Safety in A C Substations Grounding, IEEE,
New York, 1986.
2. R. J. Heppe, "Computation of Potential at Surface Above an Energized Grid or other Electrode,
Allowing for Non-uniform Current Distribution, " IEEE Trans. on P A & S, Vol. PAS-98, no 6,
pp. 1978-1989, Nov.lDec. 1979.
3. E. D. Sunde, Earth Conduction Effects in Transmission Systems, D. Van Nostrand Company,
New York, 1949.
4. ANSl/IEEE Std. 142 - 1972, IEEE Recommended Practice for Grounding of Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems, IEEE, New York, 1976.
5. V. N. Manohar and R. P. Nagar, "Design of Steel Earthing Grids in India," IEEE Trans. on
P A & S, Vol. PAS - 98, no. 6, pp. 2126 - 2134, Nov.lDec. 1979.
6. Technical Report No.5, Steel Grounding Systems Where Grounding Mat is Not Needed,
C. B. I. & P., New Delhi, 1976.

10
 CHAPTER 2

Earthing Standards

J. K. ARORA
Professor of Electrical Engineering. Punjab Engineering College. Chandigarh

The Indian Electricity Rules, together with the Supplementary regulations of the State Electricity
Departments and Electricity Undertakings, govern the electrical installation work in generating stations,
substations, industrial locations, buildings etc. The Indian Standard "Code of Practice for Earthing", IS
: 3043 - 1987 [1] is the first revision of the standard. The code covers briefly various aspects of earthing,
starting with definitions to earthing of substations, industrial and consumers' premises, medical
establishments, data processing installations etc. on to I1cotection against lightning. Considering that
codes cannot be revised very frequently, some ofthe aspects are already dated and some other are dealt
with unevenly. Other standards which are available include IEEE Std 80 - 1986 [2]. This standard deals
fairly exhaustively with safe grounding practices in A C substations; another is IEEE Std 142 - 1972 P],
the "Recommended Practice for Grounding ofIndustrial and Commercial Power Systems", which covers
the topics of system and equipment grounding, protection against lightning and connections to earth.
Other standards include British Standard, a revision of CP 10 13 : 1965, VDE 0141/2.64, German standard
on "Regulations for Earthing in A C Installations with Rated Voltage above 1 KV" and VDE 100,0107,
0108,0800 etc., for different types of installations. There are standards or recommendation or reports from
CIGRE and other countries also.

SOME DEFINITIONS
Figure 1 illustrates various parts of an earthing system. Some of the definitions k _S : 304,' are:
(a) Earth Electrode - A conductor or group of conductors in intimate contact with and providing an
electrical connection to earth.
(b) Equipotential Bonding - Electrical connections putting various exposed conductive parts at a
substantially equal potential .
(c) Bonding Conductor - A conductor providing equipotential bonding.
(d) Protective Conductor - A conductor used as a measure of protection against electric shock and
intended for connecting any of the following parts:
1. Exposed conductive parts which are not normally live but become so during fault.
2. Extraneous conductive parts which can transmit a potential but are not normally part of electric
installation.
3. Main earthing terminal provided for connection of protective conductor to the means of
earthing.

11
 d

r-- r---- -------------,I

I

rn :
I I
I
I
I
I
~
I
L... _______ ..JI
I I
I ee,
L __ - - - - - - ________ J

FIGURE 1 : Definitions of parts of an earthing system.

4. Earthed point of source or artificial neutral.

(e) Earthing Conductor - A protective conductor connecting the main earthing terminal (or the
equipotential bonding conductor when there is no earth bus) to an earth electrode.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF EARTHING

(i) Earthing shall generally be carried out in accordance with the requirements of Indian Electricity
Rules 1956, as amended from time to time and relevant regulations of the Electricity Supply
Authority concerned.
(ii) All medium voltage equipment shall be earthed by two separate and distinct connections
with earth. In the case of high and extra high voltages, the neutral points shall be earthed by
not less than two separate and distinct connections with earth, each having its own electrode
at the generating station or substation and may be earthed at any other point provided no interference
is caused by such earthing. If necessary, the neutral may be earthed through a suitable
impedance.
(iii) In cases where direct earthing may prove harmful rather than provide safety (for example, high
frequency and main frequency careless induction furnaces), relaxation may be obtained from the
competent authority.
(iv) Earth electrode shall be provided at generating stations, substations, and consumer premises in
accordance with the requirements of the code.
(v) As far as possible, all earth connections shall be visible for inspection.
(vi) All connections shall be carefully made; if they are poorly made or inadequate for the purpose for
which they are intended, loss oflife or serious personal injury may result.
(vii) Each earth system shall be so devised that the testing of individual earth electrode is possible. It is
recommended that the value of any earth system resistance be such as to conform with the degree
of shock protection desired.

12
(viii) It is recommended that a drawing showing the main earth connections and earth electrode be
prepared for each installation.
(ix) No addition to the current-carrying system, either temporary or penn anent, shall be made which will
increase the maximum available earth fault current or its duration until it has been ascertained that
the existing arrangement of earth electrodes, earth bus-bar; etc., are capable of carrying the new value
of earth fault current which may be obtained by this addition.
(x) No cut-out, link or switch other than linked switch arranged to operate simultaneously on the earthed
or earthed neutral and the live conductors, shall be inserted on any supply system. This, however,
does not include the case of a switch for use in controlling a generator or a transfonner or a link for
test purposes.
(xi) All materials, fittings, etc., used in earthing shall confonn to Indian Standard specifications,
wherever they exist.

TYPES OF SYSTEM EARTIDNG

INDIAN TN-S System (for 415 V three phase/domestic and commercial supply) : It is illustrated
in Figure 2. An independent earth electrode within consumer's premises is necessary. The
protective conductor may be metallic covering of the cable or another conductor. All exposed
conductive pans of an installation must be connected to the protective conductor via main earthing
tenninal.

11

L2
L3

N
d
PE
e
r---- --- f---- - -- -- -- ---- -- -,
a -==-
- I
I
I
I
I
I
I e ~C
) > >
J ril ~1 I
I
I
C
I
I ~ I
I
I
~ - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
-
- - - -- - - - ' I

3 Ph. & 1 Ph. Loads

FIGURE 2: Indian TN-S system of earthing.

Indian TN-C system: The neutral and protective functions are combined in a single conductor throughOUt.
For 3 -'phase consumer local earth must be provided. Figure 3. illustrates this system.

SIMPLE ELECTRODES
IS : 3043 has listed that electrodes may be plates, pipes or rods, or strips or conductor. It says this water
pipes shall not be used as consumer's earth electrodes. As per IEEE Std 142, NEe rules allow for use of

13
 L,
~--~-------r--~----------------------l2

~--Y--------r--!-~------------~------l3

r-------t---1'----+--------+--....--4'---C ombined
r-- --- ..,, --, PE& N
I I
I I I
I I
I I

=, I
--------'I
---------- __ ..J
3 ph. Consumar
Exposed conductlvcz parts

FIGURE 3: Indian TN-C system ofearthlng.

underground metallic water pipes or gas pipes as safety grounds for small distribution systems where
ground cUrrents are relatively small; but reliance can be placed on them only after their ground resistance
has been measured and after ensuring that all parts are effectively bonded together.

Plate size should be minimum 0.6 m x 0.6 m as per IS : 3043 and thickness not less than 6.3 mm for steel
and 3.15 for copper. A minimum cover of 600 mm is necessary except when underlying strata is solid
A minimum distance of 2 m between plates. when there is more than one plate. is recommended, VDE
0100 does not specify any size though 1 m x 0.5 m plate of minimum thickness 3 mm are in general use.
It specifies the top edge to be 1 m below ground surface and minimum distance between plates
should not be less than 3 m. Std 142 specifies plates. if used. to be of 0.9 to 1.9 mZ area with burial depth
of 1.5 m to 2.4 m, buried on edge. Both VDE 0100 and Std 142 mention infrequent use of plates because
more material is used in this electrode as compared to rod or strip electrodes for the same ground
resistance.

Approximate ground resistance of a plate electrode of equivalent radius r m with its center at a depth h
m from earth surface is p [1+{r/(2.5 h + r)}]/ 8r.

Use of pipes oreods is advantageous as they can reach comparatively moist subsoil strata of earth. 1bese
are useful when bedrock is more than 3 m or more below the surface. IS : 3043 prefers copper, steel cored
copper or galv~ steel rods of 13, 16 or 19l1111i diameter and of 1.22 to 2.44 m length; pipes may be
mild steel water pipes of 38 to 50 mm diameter. Separation between such electrodes may be twice the
driven depth. VDE recommends use of galvanized steel 25 mm diameter pipe or angle steel ofL (65 x 65
x 7), U (6.5) or other section of equivalent size; copper coated steel rods of 15 mm diameter with 25 mm
copper coating and copper pipes of size 30 x 3 are also recommended. IEEE S18 142 specifies minimum
diameter 12.7 mm for copper clad steel or 15.88 mm for steel rods. other preferred size being 19.05 mm;
the rod lengths are 2.5 m to 5 m with 3 m length rod being rarely common giving a minimum depth of 2.4
m below ground surface.

Resistance of ground rod can be obtained from the expressionRa = p [in (4L/r) -lhl/21tL.L(m) being buried
length and r(m) the radius of rod. Figure 4 shows effect of variation ofrod diameter and its length on its groWld
resistance, while Figure 5 shows the effect of separation distance between adjacent rods when 2, 3, or 4 rods
are used. It is seen that for 3 m rods separation of 2 - 3 m is enough. Rod cross-section may be chosen

14
 r = 0-04 m
r= 0-01m

r = 0.02 m

It''91h of rod em)

FIGURE 4: Ground Resistance of Rods .

....----2 Rods(3m)

-0
~cD
E
~
u
C
tr
L
L 0
t( ("

'0
o
L.

....0 0
til
as
U

-
C
10
\ II
·in 0
til -
a:~

t
, ______ ____-L__ __ _ _ _ ________ ___________
O
~
~
-
L
~
~
~
~
~
2 3 4 5 10 20
Splicing oi r')ds (m)

- - Rods in straight linll.

---- Rods in triangular configura'tion
----.-. Rods in squarll conil9uratlon_

FIGURE 5: Ground resistance of multiple rods in uniform soil. (p =100.0 ron, r =0.01 m, 9 =0.05 m)

15
for mechanical rigidity required for driving. A 20 mm diameter rod can safely carry 500 A for a
short duration.

Joints may be welded, bolted or clamped. When flexible cables are used, crimped connectors with bolted
or riveted joints are to be used. Bolted joints including bolts must be protected against corrosion by
applying bitumen paint or plastic tape.

When horizontal strip conductoris used. IS: 3043 recommends minimum size of 16 mm2 when corrosion
protection is provided and 25 mm2 and 50 mm2 for iron when there is no such protection. VDE 0100
specifies 50 mm 2 for copper plated steel, or copper and 100 mm2 for galvanized steel with minimum
thickness of 3 mm; in case of stranded conductor the values are 35 mm 2 and 95 mm 2 respectively, and
burial depth of 0.5 to 1.0 m. Minimum thickness in corrosive soils [6] should be 6 mm for strip conductor
and minimum diameter of round conductor should be 16 mm. If there are multiple horizontal conductors
in star configuration, angle between them should not be less than 60°. Std. 142 gives formulae for
calculating ground resistance of some arrangements of multiple horizontal strip conductors.

For continuous flow, current density at the surface of the earth electrode conductors is given as 40 Nm2

in IS : 3043. For short duration currents, it is obtained from I = 7.56{ hr.).

kA/m2 , where t is fault duration in sand p is soil resistivity. For p = 100 ohm-m and t = 3s, 1= l380 N
m 2. This works out to 260 A for a 20- mm diameter and 3 m long rod.

Other possible components of an earthing electrode are lead sheath and armour of cables. The steel
reinforcement in concrete foundations is also a ready made grounding electrode. Conductors in such
footings have often ground resistance which is less than that of made electrodes F]. Since concrete is
somewhat hygroscopic and moist concrete has resistivity ofless than 100 ohm-m it is better than chemical
treatment of soil. Such concrete encased electrodes ca... be very useful in rocky or sandy soils. Some
primary ground electrode must be provided to conduct away the fault current.

PROTECTIVE CONDUCTOR
IS: 3043 gives a formula to compute the area of conductor as A (mm2) = 1M
where k is a constant. Values of k are given in Tables 6A to 6D of the standard. Area of protective
conductor is not to be less than 2.5 mm 2 if mechanically protected otherwise it is 4 mm 2. Also if phase
conductor size is upto 16 mm2, the protective conductor has to be of the same size as the phase conductor.

PROTECTION OF CONSUMER'S BELOW 1000 V

It is required that supply is automatically disconnected in case of earth fault. IS: 3043 specifies that touch
voltage of 65 V shall be cleared within lOs. Actual touch voltage is dependent on fault current. For higher
touch voltage the clearing time should be less. The protective disconnecting device can operate (i) on over
current if the resistance of earth fault loop is low enough such that the fault current makes it operate in
a sufficiently short time or (ii) a residual current (preferred) or voltage operated earth leakage circuit
breaker in the fault loop impedance cannot be low enough. VDE 0100 mentions that earth electrode
resistance must not be higher than 2 ohm. Also during a fault earth electrode voltage with respect to a
remote point must not exceed 125 V and fora person touch voltage must not exceed 65 V. Std 142mentions
ground resistance less than 5 ohm for smaller substations and industrial plants. It should be 1 ohm or less
at substations and generating stations. The maximum resistance must not exceed 25 ohm. As per IS: 3043
the residual current device should operate at current not exceeding 30 rnA.

SUBSTATIONS
Requirements at substations and generating stations have been discu~sed elsewhere in the light of IEEE

16
SUBSTATIONS
Requirements at substations and generating stations have been discussed elsewhere in the light of IEEE
Std. 80. IS: 3043 generally makes recommendations on similar lines. The earthing of a pole mounted
transformer of an overhead line may be mentioned. When the pole also carries isolating switchgear with
the low level operating handle, three separately earthed electrode systems may be required. One is for low
voltage neutral which may be usually provided not nearer than one pole span away on low voltage line.
For the metalware of HT transformer etc. electrode at the pole is required. Further gradient control
conductors around the pole should be provided and switch handle should be connected to it.

REFERENCES
1. Indian Standard IS: 3043 - 1987, Code of Practice for Earthing (First Revision).
2. ANSI/IEEE Std. 80 - 1986, IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding.
3. ANSI/IEEE Std. 142-1982, IEEE Recommended Practice for Grounding of Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems.
4. Siemens Electric Installation Handbook, Ed: Gunter G. Seip, Haydon & Son Ltd. London, 1979.
5. Pierre Laurent, "General Fundamentals of Electrical Grounding Techniques, "Appendix I, IEEE
Std. 80 - 1986.
6. Technical Report No. 5, Steel Grounding Systems where Grounding Grid is not Needed, C. B. I. &
P.,1976.
7. Technical Report No. 78, Evaluation of Concrete Encased Earthing Electrodes and Use of Structural
Steel for Earthing, C. B. I. & P., 1991, New Delhi.
8. Technical Report No. 49, Earthing System Parameters. for HV, EHV and UHV Substations,
C. B. I. & P., 1985, New Delhi.

17
 CHAPTER 3

Earth Resistivity Measurement and

Evaluation

HANS R. SEEDHER
Asstt. Professor of Electrical Engineering, PunjabEngineering College, Chandigarh

1.0 INTRODUCTION
At the site of a grounding system the earth resistivity may vary both laterally and vertically. The lateral
variation is usually more gradual as compared to that along the depth below earth surface; therefore, that
latter has a more pronounced effect on the potential distribution around an earth electrode. Though the
ground current during fault spreads out in the enter earth, the soil nearer to the electrode is more effective
in detennining the characteristics of the grounding system.

For computing perfonnance of a ground electrode, the electrical characteristics of the earth, as are
effective as the site of grounding system, are represented by a suitable mathematical model. Because of
the non-unifonn character of the earth, it is practically not possible to have an exact representation of the
earth. As for as grounding system design is concerned, two types of soil models are commonly used-
the unifonn soil model and the two-layer soil model.

The unifonn soil model is characterized by a single parameter-its resistivity p. This is a crude model
as soil is rarely unifonn. Nevertheless, this approximation has been in use for long time due to ease of
computation.

Also at times soil nOTl-unifonnity may be small and its representation by a single average resistivity may
be adequate. The two-layer soil model is shown in Figure 1. This is the most common representation of
non-homogeneous soil for the purpose of power system grounding design [1,2]. It consist of an upper layer
of depth h and resistivity PI' overlaying a lower layer of infinite depth and resistivity p,. Both the layers
are of very large extent in the transverse direction.

2.0 MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES AND GOVERNING EQUATIONS

The appropriate soil model is obtained from the soil resistivity measurements at the proposed site of the
grounding system. The measurements are made either by the four pin method or by the driven rod method
(three pin method) [3]. The fonner is more commonly employed [1.4] because it is simpler to perform, less
time consuming and measurements are iridependent of electrode-soil contact resistance. A brief descrip-
tion of this method and its governing equations are given next.

18
 EARTH SURFACE

UPPER LAVER OF
RES'STlV' TV \',

LOWER LAYER OF
RESISTIVITY fz

FIGURE 1. Two Layer Soil Model

2.1 FOUR PIN METHOD

Four electrodes are driven into the surface of earth in a straight line. The arrangement is shown in
Figure 2. Current I is circulated between the outer pair of electrodes and voltage V is measured across the

FIGURE 2. Four Pin Method (a) b =a Wenner Arrangement (b) *- a Schlumberger - Palmer Arrangement

inner pair of electrodes. The ratio R obtained by dividing V by I is determined. Spacing between the
electrodes is more commonly kept equal and the arrangement is then called Wenner method. For large
probe spacings the inner set of electrodes is sometimes placed closer to the outer electrodes to increase
voltage V across inner electrodes for convenience of measurement. This arrangement is known as
Schlumbcrger-Palmer method. Only Wenner method which is more commonly used, is discussed in this
section.

The depth of burial of electrodes is generally kept small as compared to the spacing between them, a ratio
of at least 1: 10. These can then be regarded as point electrodes at the surface of earth as shown in
Figure 3. Wenner apparent resistivity for electrode spacing a is defined as

(I)

19
 FIG URE 3: Wenner Four Probe Method with Point Electrode Approximation

For unifonn earth, apparent resistivity is same as soil resistivity p

In many practical situations, it may not be possible to arrange large separation between electrodes for them
to be regarded as point electrodes. In that case they have to be regarded as cylindrical rods. The apparent
resistivity in that case can be shown IS] to be

P I 21t L )R (2)

a = l21ln[(2+E)/ (l+F)] + 2F - E-a/L

2]112
E = [4 + (aty
Where (3)
(aty
2]1/2
F= [1+
and L is the buried length of each electrode. It is shown in [5] that for short electrode spacing, point
electrode approximation and use of (I) may result in large error.

For a two-layer soil model when electrodes can be regarded as points, apparent resistivity is obtained
as [6]

pa = PI {I + 4 n~l K r
n
Jl + 1
(2nh t a)
2
(4)

K =reflection factor =(P2-P) / ( P2+P)

For short spaced electrodes in two-layer soil, expression for resistivity can be obtained by extension
of (2) taking all image sources [7,8] into account.

Measurements by Wenner method are carried out for different values of electrode spacing a in steps,
starting from small values to large practical spacings. This is done along several radials.

2.2 DRIVEN ROD METHOD

This method essentially consists in measuring the resistance of a single ground rod, driven to different
depths, by fall of potential method. It is also known as three pin method and is illustrated n Figure 4. The
ground rod is shown with buried depth L. P and C are two auxiliary electrodes. A known current 1 is
circulated between the ground rod and C and potential difference between the ground rod and p is
measured.

20
 J
r-------~y~----------

p c

b ~I

nGURE 4. DriveD Rod Metbod

For homogeneous soil condition it is easily shown [9] that true resistance R of the ground rod is obtained
as VII when b in Figure 4 is 62% of distance a. Analytical expression for resistance of the rod is [6].
R = _P- [In 8L -1]
2-L d

Where d is the diameter of the rod. From resistance R measured for a given length L of the electrode, soil
resistivity p can thus-be obtained using (').

For the case of a non uniform soil, it is not possible to specify a simple rule for location of the potential
electrode so that the true resistance of the rod is obtained. The location for each measurement has to be
detemlined by moving electrode P along the line joining the driven rod and C, as in fall of potential
method, to the region of flat potential profile. In that case the ratio of V and I will be true ground rod
resistance. Analytically the expressions for the ground rod resistance for a two layer soil can be shown
tober:!

R= 2 ~ II~(in
L 8L -1)+
d
~~
n=} 2
in nh+L]
nh-L
(6)

forL> h.

R=..£L l+k .1L kn

2JtL (l-k)+2kh/L [fn- + l: - in 2nh+L (7)
d n=! 2 (2n- 2)h+ L ]
for L> h.

3.0 ESTIMATIOl'l OF SOIL PARAMETERS

Measured soil resistivity data can be analysed to find a suitable soil model. Nature and extent of variation
of soil resistivities measured for various spacings in four pin method and various depths of burial in the
case of three pin method determines the choice of the model Po]. If the variation about the mean value
is small, a uniform soil model suffices.

Graphical methods [4.6.9] have been in use for a long time for obtaining a two layer soil model from the
measured soil resistivity test data. Recently a number of computer methods have been proposed [4.11.12]
for obthlning an optimal two layer soil model from the measured soil resistivity data. A commonly used
graphical method and computer method are explained here for the case of Wenner four electrodes method.

21
3.1 GRAPHICAL MEmOD
The method consists of comparing the plot of the measured data with the theoretical curves obtained for
different combinations of two layer parameters. A set of theoretical master curves of pip. versus alb as per
lytical expression ["] for P. are available in literature [4.6.9]. The measured apparent resistivity as obtained by
[1] is also plotted as a function of electrode spacing a en a transparent paper to same logarithmic scale as the
master cwves. This measured apparent resistivity cwve is now superposed on the set of master WIVes. It is
positioned with its axes parallel to the axes of the theoretical curves such that the measured curve matches one
of tile theoretical cwves. In this position resistivity value on the Y-axis ofthe measured WIVe correspmding
to pip. = 1.0enthe Y-axis ofthemastercwve gives PI. Thevalueofthesp~cing aon theX-axisofthemeasured
curve corresponding to alb =1.0 on the x-axis of the master curves gives the value ofb. The ratio pip. of the
desired model equals the corresponding value for the master curve. Since perfect match between the measured

1000
Y-z/f,
to 00
500
_-100
------ ,
---SO
10 _----10·
0..:.----- 5 I
I
I
1·0 • 0-5 1
~ -.------- I
I
f, (H ------0-'1
-----0-06

()-01

00()01
0·' 1 10 100

Yh
FlGURE 5: Graphical Procedure for Obtaining Two Layer Model from Wenner Test Data

cUlVe and one of the master cwves is unlikely. interpolation is usually necessary to obtain the desired value
of pip •. The procedure is illusttated in Figure 5 [4].

3.2 COMPUTER METHOD

In the computer method. the values of two layer soil parameters pip I and h are obtained by an iterating
search. The values are determined so as to best fit equation [4] into the measured data by the least squares
criterion. The objective function to be minimized in the process is fonnulated as :

f(Pl. P2. h) = . ~ [ P'l- P ~2 I' P2 b)]2 (8)

J=l PI

where

22
 I

n = number of electrode spacings for which apparent resistivity measurements are made
P' = J
measured apparent resistivity for jth electrode spacing

PJ = apparent resistivity at the j th electrode spacing computed by using [4]

It is an unconstrained nonlinear minimization problem. A large number of approaches are available for
solving this problem [13.14]. An algorithm based on estimation theory is discussed here. The details of the
mathematical basis for the algorithm are available in the tests on estimation theory [14]. Only a simple
functional description, necessary for the implementation of the algorithm, is outlined here. It has been
observed in [11] that rate of convergence increases substantially if measured and computed quantities in
(b) are replaced by their logarithms. It is further observed that to assure convergence, the parameter values
should not change by more than 50% in each iteration. These two observations have been incorporated
here. To simplify the notation in the equations which follow, let the natural logarithm of the measured and
computed apparent resistivities for j th electrode spacing be denoted by m.J and cJ.. Thus

mj = In(pj) (9)

Cj = In [Pj(Pl, P2. h)] (to)

and the objective function to be minimized is

F = n
I:
j=l
[mj - Cj
mj
l (11)

The sequence of operations in the iterating search for such values of PI' P2 and h as will minimize [11]
is as follows :

1. Initial values p~, P~ and hO are selected.

2. Iteration count k is set equal to O.

3. For the current values ofsoi! parameters P~' P~ and the hk, elements of the following matrices are
computed:

aq aq aq
ml - Cl
dPl dP2 dh
m2 - C2
D = B= ... (12)

aCn aen den

mn - en
apl aP2 ah

4. The updated soil parameters vector x = [PI P2 hF is obtained as

(13)

where A is a scalar which is so chosen that parameter values do not change by more than 50% in
each itera60n. and w is an n x n diagonal matrix with term in the j th row as 11m 2
J.

23
5. The per unit differences (p~+1 - P~)/P~, (p~+1 - P~)/P~ and (hk+l - hk)/hk are computed. If
each of these is less than the specified convergence index (typically 0.01), no further iterations are
required. Otherwise k is set equal to k+ 1 and steps 3-5 are repeated.

3.3 COMPUTER PROGRAM SPEI

Based on the algorithm described in the previous section, computer program SPEI (Soil Parameter
Estimation Using In flnite Series Expressions) has been developed. The data for the program consists of
probe spacings, resistivities measured by Wenner method , initial values of parameters , convergence index
and maximum iteration limit. In the absence of any better initial guesses, the measured resistivities
corresponding to minimum and maximum electrode spacings may be furnished as pi 0 and p20, and hO
may be arbitrarily set equal to 1.0 m. Convergence index and maximum iteration limit may typically be
0.01 and 10. The output of the program consists of thee soil parameters and value of objective function
at the end of each iteration. However, intermediate results can be suppressed and only the final model can
be output. Also a comparison of measured apparent resistivities and apparent resistivities obtained by the
generated soil model are printed.

4. SUMMARY
The appropriate model for representing the earth characteristics at the site of a grounding system is
obtained from earth resistivity measurements. The measurement are most commonly done by Wenner
four probe method. The variation of apparent soil resistivities measured for various electrode spacings
determines the choice the soil model. If the variation about the mean value is comparatively small, a
uniform soil model suffices. Non-homogeneous soil is most commonly represented by a two layer soil
model. The two layer soil model can be obtained from the measured data by th econventional graphical
methods or by relatively newer computer methods. The graphical method require interpolation and
judgement, while the computer methods gve the best flt equivalent soil model from the measured data.
A common graphical method and a convenient computer algorithm have been presented for obtaining the
appropriate two layer soil model.

5. REFERENCES
1. ANSIlIEEE Standard 80-1986, IEEE Guide/or Safety in AC Substation Grounding, IEEE, New
York,1986.

2. F. Dawalibi and D. Mukhedkar, "Influence of Ground Rods on Grounding Grids," IEEE Trans-
actions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-98, pp. 22089-2097, November/December
1979.

3. ANSI/lEEE Standard 81-1983, IEEE Guide/or Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground Impedance
andEarthSurfacePotentialso/aGroundSystem-PartI:NormaIMeasurem ents,IEEE,NewYork,
1983.

4. F. Dawalibi and C.J. Blattner, "Earth Resistivity Measurement Interpretation Techniques," IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-I03, pp. 374-382.

5. R.S. Baishiki, C.K. Osterberg, and F. Dawalibi, "Earth Resistivity Measurements Using Cylindrical
Electrodes at Short Spacings," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. PWRD-2, pp. 64-71,
January 1987.

6. E.D. Sunde, Earth Conduction Effects in Transmission Systems, D. Van Nostrand Company, New
York,1949.

24
7. RP. Nagar, R Velazquez, M. Loeloeian, D. Mukhedkar and V. Gervais, "Review of Analytical
Methods for calculating the perfonnance of Large Grounding Electrodes, Part I : Theoretical
Considerations," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-I04, pp. 3134-
3141, November 1985.

8. Hans Raj, "Analyss and Design of Grounding Systems in Non-Homogeneous Soils," PhD.
Electrical Engineering Thesis, Punjab University, Chandigarh, 1990.

9. G.P. Tagg, Earth Resistances, George Newnes Limited, London, 1964.

to. Hans R Seedher, J.K. Arora, "EvaluatiOn, of Soil Parameters from Resistivity Measurements,"
Proc. of All India Seminar on Electrical Groll.nding System, Patna, May 1987, pp. 1-11.

11. A.P. Meliopoulos and A.D. Papalexopoulos "Interpretation of Soil Resistivity Measurements :
Experience with the Model SOMIP," IeEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. PWRD-l,
pp. 142-151, October 1986.

12. Hans R Seedher, lK. Arora, "Estimation of Two Layer Soil Parameters Using Finite Resistivity
Expressions," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 7, No.3, pp. 1213-1217. July, 1992.

13. D.A. Pierre and MJ. Lowe, Mathematical Programming Via Augmented Lagrangians, Addison-
Wesley Publising Company, Massachusetts, 1975.

14. P.B. Liebelt, An Introduction to Optimal Estimation, Addisson - Wesley Publishing Company,
Massachusets, 1967.

25
 CHAPTER 4

Current for Design of Grounding System

DR. HANS R. SEEDHER

Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh

1. INTRODUCTION
Maximum current that can flow between a grounding system and the surrounding earth determines the
step, touch and transferred potentials. This current, known as grid current (I G ), may vary between a few
percent to almost 100% of maximum ground fault current depending on the location of fault, configuration
of earth wires connected to the station ground, and the ground resistance. The size of the grounding
conductor, however, depends on the maximum ground fault current.

2. MAXIMUM GRID CURRENT

The maximum grid current IG used for determining maximum step, touch and transferred potentials can
be written as [1]

IG= If· Df · Cpo Sf (1)

where
If = Symmetrical value (without taking dc offset into account) of ground fault current for a fault in the
station area or on a line.
D f = Decrement factor to take into account dc offset
Cp = Corrective projection factor, accounting for future increase in fault current during the sub-station life
span
Sf = Current division factor, the fraction of total ground fault current that flows between the grounding
system and the surrounding earth.

The symmetrical ground fault current is dctermined by the usual short circuit studies. The maximum value
of the short circuit current though useful for selecting size of the conductor, may not result in largest value
of grid current. The maximum grid currcnt IG is the maximum of the product of all the four factors in (I).
Il can be easily shown that
DF -- (2)

where

26
 = Fault duration in s

Ta = Equivalent system subtransient time constant in s.

The decrement factor depends on the fault duration and the system X/R ratio at the fault location. For fault
duration of 0.5s or more, it is generally acceptable [1] to assume Df equal to a unity.

The corrective projection factor Cp is to adequately take into account future changes in the system. This
factor is most difficult on to determine with any degree of accuracy. It can be estimated from the value
of ground fault current for the present and the forecasted conditions.

Determination of current division factor Sf is discussed in detail in the following section.

3. CURRENT DIVISION FACTOR

The current division factor Sf depends mainly on two factors
(i) Location of fault, which determines remote versus local contribution to the fault current
(ii) Overhead ground wires connected to the station ground.

The fault location that results into maximum value of IG may be on high voltage side or low voltage side.
In either case, it may be inside the station or outside the station on a transmission line. For a fault inside
the station, the current supplied to the fault by the local transformer circulates in the station itself and does
not form part ofI G. The current supplied to the fault through the transmission line has two alternate paths.
It may return through the grounding system and the ground, or through the ground wires on transmission
line. When a fault is outside the station, the current supplied to the fault through the transmission line has
negligible contribution to the grid current. The component of the fault current supplied by the local
transformer now returns to the system through the following paths: (i) overhead ground wires, and (ii)
tower footing resistance and the grounding system of the station. The current flowing via. path (ii)
constitutes IG. Ifthe fault is near a station, majorpartofthe current supplied by the local transformerreturns
through the earth wires. When the fault is far away froI!l the station, the magnitude of the fault current is
smaller because of the line impedance. In most of the cases, therefore maximum value of IG is obta;ned
for fault inside the station [1.2].

A number of computer programs [3-4] are available for computing division of ground fault current among
available paths to obtain the current division factor Sf" Several approximate methods have also been reponed
[2.5]. The graphical method of Garret et al. [5] is summarized below.

4. GRAPHICAL METHOD FOR OBTAINING Sf

By extensive use of a standard computer program [3] for various cases a number of useful graphs have been
prepared. These graphs are reproduced here from [5]. The graphs can be divided into three categories: (1)
100% remote - 0% local fault current contribution, representing typical distribution su bstation with delta-
wye grounded transformers, X transmission lines and Y feeders (Figures 1-8); (2) 50% remote - 50 local
fault current contribution (Figures 9 & 10); (3) 25 % remote - 75 % local fault current contribution (Figures
11 & 12). Categories (2) and (3) represent typical transmission substations or generating plants with X
transmission lines (feeders are considered transmission lines in these graphs), and with local sources of
zero sequence current, such as autotransformers, threy-winding transformers, generators etc. For each
category, two sub-categories are presented: (a) transmission line tower footing resistance (RTFR) of 15
ohms and feeder neutral pole grounds of 25 ohms (if applicable) and (b) transmission line tower footing
resistances of 100 ohms and feeder neutral pol~ grounds of200 ohms. On each graph, a family of curves

27
 100.0

~
2- 50.0
.....c: Il!IILI
llIIWl
......
QJ

::::I
'-' ....
.....
"5
tV

c:
11lIIl1I1....
","
0
~
.....tVVI
.0
10.0 .'- " ~

I
::::I lillilllU
VI
IUlllllWl " "
"'" "
tV
"-"
..... 111111111111 112
.... 0 5.0 .JllllIUIlL 2/2
".....c: 100 % Remote contribution ~ ~
1'1" 114
......
QJ 0% Local contribution
lower footiny fuistanr.e:
1'\
2/4
::::I
.... transmission-15 J\... " I" 2/6
-0 Feeder - 2S.A- I"
.~

l=:J
AlB A-1 Transmission tines 2/8
I
B-1 Feeder lines
'"'-
Vl
1.0
0.1 O.S 1.0 S.O 10.0
Rg- Grid r esis tance (.1\.)

FIGURE 1: Split factor curves - Sf vs Rg.

~
2-
.....C"
...
L.

::l
'-'
100.0

~O.O
I::'--
.......
.....
-
......

-
"5
tV

c:
.......~
r~
:1ImJ'
r-... r--~r-...
r-... r"-. I"-~ ....
112
212
.....tVVI r-... r--I"- " , ' .... " 114
.0
r-.... 214
::::I
VI
10.0 ~
" 2/6
....
tV
2/8
.....0
"....c:
QJ
S.O
100'% Remo t e ~~ntrihution
L.
L. 0"/. Lotal contribution
....
::l
Tower footi n9 resistance:
"0 transmission -100.l\.
.~

l=:J
Feeder - 20 OJ\.
A/5 A-1 Tr ansmission lines
Vl
....
I
B- 1 Fe eder lines
III
1.0
11111111111111 IllllftHttHHtt--j IlWll WlllIl

0.1 n.s 1.0 S.O 10.0

Rg- Grid resistance (.1\.)

FIGURE 2: Spilt factor curves - Sf vs Rg.

28
~
~
"-
c::
100.0

-
........
.....
.......
.......
....
.......
,

OJ 50.0 ......
....
L.. -.......:
~ .... 'J """i

"-
u
~ ....
," .....
.... ....

"
"5
....'"
c:: t" ~~~ " ~

"''"
0

~"'r-.,
:.::
"-'"
VI
..c 10.0
"" .......
~
VI
.....
"- ......
....... I"

"'" "'
!',
'"
"-
0
"- 5.0 ""'......" ,,~,
4/0

'"....
"-
c::
QJ

....
-
100% Remote contribution
0% Local contribution ''."" ~""'"
'"
412

,"
~
U
Tower footing resistance: 4/4

""
"0
';: Transmission -15 .n. 4/5
~

....
Feeder-25A
AlB A-1 Transmission lines
~ 4/8
VI B-1 Feeder lines 4/10
1.0 I ,1"",1
0.1 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
Rg- Grid Resistance (00}

FIGURE 3: Spilt factor curves - Sf vs Rg.

"-
~
....
L..

~
u
100.0

50.0
-- !Wi ....
~ ~ -
r--.
-...:
......

....::
.........
==
~ ! , ........ ......... i
....'" I"-

4/0
"- "-
10.0 412
.............. 4/4
,
....... "
"
4/6
4/8
5.0 ,
4/10
100% Remote conl,iuul '" II
I
0% Local contribution I'
I I : IT

Tower footing resistanc , T

,
Transmission-l00 tl I ,
..... Feeder- 200.tl. I
VI AlB A-1TranslI1ission lin .. I: ii
B-1 ,eder.lInes
i
nn
1.0 1II1

Rg- Grid Resistance (.ill

FIGURE 4: SpIlt factor curves - Sf vs Rg.

29
 100.0
~
~ .....
.....c:. ~
Q/
50.0
~
L.
L.
::J l"--
u
..... ",.............. '"
-
:5

:.::
I1J

c:
0
'"
,,1'
1"-
f"..,
f".., I' f'..

.....
I1J
1/1
.0
::J
1/1 10.0 ......
ni
.....
.....0 "
,," C'- ~

....
"-
c:
Q/
L.
L.
,
L
"" ~ 6/0

~" "'J"..." ~
::J
u laO % Remo t e contribution
5.0 0% Local cotribution 612
"C ~
.c:: Tower footing resistance'.
6/4
~ ~~
L!J
Tr ansmission- 15 ..I'\.
VI -I
Feeder - 25 ..A-
AlB A= 1 1ransmission lines
6/6
6/8
8 =1 Feeder lines 6/10
to 1111
0.1 0.5 1.0 5.C IIl.e
R~- Grid rp~ist3nce {.II.1

FIGURE 5: SpUt factor curves· Sf vs Rg.

~
~
.....c:
100.0
.. ~ F=
r-.:~

50.0

..
OJ
L.
L.
::J
u
m
==::J
I1J ~
c:
.......e
.....I1J
1/1
.0
::J
VI 10.0 6/('
IIWW ~~

....
ni 11111111 L" 6/~

I
~
....
0
6/~
"-
.....
c:
OJ
L.
5.0 lliJ
lliJ
" 6/~
6/~
6/1r
L.
::J 100 % Remote contribution
0% Local catribution
-c To wer footing resistance:
L.
L!J Tra nsmission-l00 ..... E
VI -I Fe eder - 200 ~
AI B A-I Transmission lines
B- 1 Fee~er lines
1.0 ..lI1II
-
oI 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.C
Rg - Grid resistance (J\.)

FIGURE 6 : SpUt factor curves - Sf vs Rg.

30
 100.0

......
c:
QI
'-
'-
::J
LJ

c:
.~
......
ru
......
VI
..0
::J
VI

'"o
...... 5.0 H-f-t-L.w..L..L.I..I.U1lJ.J....U--'-_-L.J,....L--L.!-L...L.L.1..!.JL....I.llf1,~"''''~~''''~~~.+---+-+-I
l\.."' '" t\ "'
......
........
......
c:
100% Remote contribution
0% Local contribution '" 6/0
QI
'-
'-
::J
r Tower footing resistance:
Transmission - 1S J\..-
I' ,,~ "' i' ~
r-..~

" ~'" 612

LJ
~ Feeder - 25 JL. ~
"'C
6/4
\;J
'- AlB A-1Transmission lines ,t'-.
I B-1 Feeder lines 6/6
...... 6/8
tJ93~I~IUI'~'~U-~~IUU-L~I~I~ILUI_~IIIJf~~El~~~~~
VI

1.0 6/10
0.1 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
Rg-Grid Resistance (n.)

FIGURE 7: Split factor curves - Sf vs Rg.

100.0

......
c:
QJ
'-
'-
::J
LJ
......
::J

'"
c:

-
.S!
ru
......
VI
..0
::J
VI

ni
......
o
......
5.0 100% Remote contribution
........ 0·1. Local contribution
......
c:
QI
Tower footing resistance·.
'-
r....
1 ransmission - 100..1\..
::J
LJ
Feeder - 200-"'-
"'C
'-
\;J
AlB A-1Transmission lines
I
...... B-1 Feeder lines
VI

1.0 1l1I1I11il"
~u..J.~L.l..U.L.U..._ _ _ I I II I I 1111111111
..I........l....u....L.JLLl.J..Lu....u.ll.L.l--L....L..I....J....Lu.J-1._""'/
0.1 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
Rg-Grid Resistance (.0.)

FIGURE 8: Split factor curves - Sf vs Rg.

31
 100.0

~
~
.....c. 50. 0
<II
-..;;::: "-
c....
c....
::J "-
u
..... :---.... .........
~~ ............
::J i"o.
ro
~ :-....
"- ......
e:
....
.2 "
....ro
VI
..c
::J
10.0
ni
VI
"" ""
"- "- 211
.....
.....
0

........
5.0
" "- "- :--
:--

~~
.....e: 50% Remote contribution 4/1
<II 50% Local contribution "t\
'-
'-
::J
LI , Tower footing resistance:
"
I'. ~t\
6/1

~
~
c....
i .Transmission-1S .A..
AlB A-1 Transmission lines
' I
~ ~t\
f"-t\ 8/1
10/1
Vl
......
I

1.0
6-1 Feeder lines
" r\t\
!'\
1211
14/1
16/1
0.1 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
Rg- Grid Resistance (.0)

FIGURE 9: Split factor curves - Sf vs Rg.

100.0

~
~
.....e: 50.0
~.
<II
'- :-- .. r--~
:-.... .....
'-
::J
u r-s
..... I'~ ~:-.... . r- ...............
"5
.....rv
e: 2/0
0
:.::
ro
.....VI
..c 10.0 "" ......
::J
VI
""
"-"-
, 4/0
6/0
ni
..... "-
.....0 5.0 8/0
....... 50% Remote contribution 10/0
.....e: 50% Local contribution
<II 12/0
'-
'- Tower footinq resistance: Hi
14/0
::J
u Tr'lOsmission-100 .I\.. i 16/0
-c
.;: AlB A-I Transmission lines
B-1 Feeder lines
-
\.:J

Vl
I

to II III I I I I I I I I 111111
0.1 0.5 to s.o 10.0
Rg- Grid Resistance (n)

FIGURE 10: SpUt factor curves - Sf vs Rg.

32
 50.0
!
I r- I"- W:j I
~
0
I-
J
-!-.- - .......
__
r--.. r--....
I"-t--
q
, I

, ,
"

.....c: :
QJ
1=:::::::- t--~ 1'0...
....
....
~
CJ
I" :§§
r- ~ N . . . . . ~ I :!'-..
.......
~
~ ~ ~.....
..... ........... r--,
"5 i'.
IV

c:
10.0
,"" ~
,
,, , .......
210
0
:.::
r ......
.....III
IV " ~ j\
I't -"' I
..c 5.0 ,~
~
r-...
"' I

~
III
,
I

l1' "' '" 'I r-..;.i

"""'I"
'""j., 4/~

-::::
IV
0
25 % Remote contributio
75% local contriblltion
l1-
! ,

" f'... f'..i

.- Tower footing resistance:
il ",,-
-- Transmission- 15 .A.
"'
I
c ~. 6/0
Ii ~ ~ N',Ij. N:
QJ AlB 14-1 Transmission line
....
'-
:J ,- 6-1 Feeder lines ,I
~
'-'
i I, C'\ ~I "1' 8/0
.t: 1"\.J~ I'~ 10/0
I.!J 1.0 f"iO
12/0
V1 - I

I
I
I
i
14/0
16/0
O.S
0.1 O.S 1.0 5.0 10.0
Rg - Grid resistance !Al

FIGURE 11. Spl~t factor curves· Sf vs Rg.

100.0
, , I

~ r- ,-. c-.
~ I I
-.
.....c: ,
QJ
SO.O
'-
'-
:::J
u I
..... , I
"5
IV
'"-
@ilr
1-1- ~
l
i I tt ........ - .T- ;-,
U
.
c:
~I=: ~S; ~
·z
0
t- ,.- -+- .-- :-.....;;;: i"- t'-...
i""r--.
~
.....
IV I, Ii-
i
~~ '"
III
..c I 2/0
:::J
VI
10.0 i
"t --+
I' I .....
.....IV
.E - -
I :
~
, ......

::::c: S.O
"

4/0
...
Q/ I ..... , r.... '" 6/0
""" .'-.'" 'I'
'- '1 /,

:::J "J.
u
25% Remote contribution 8/0
~['..
-.;,
.<:
l=:I
75% Local contribution
l - Tower footing resistance'. Ii '" '~ ,i 10/0 \

2/0
Vl -I Transmission-100 J'\-
I- A/8 A-1 Transmission lines
- 8-1 Feeder lines
I
I

i
I
i II/
i\. ~~
,
14/0
6/0
1.0 I II dl
0.1 0.5 1.0 O.S 10.0
Rg- Grid resistance (.("\.:

FIGURE 12. Split factOl curVeS • Sf vs Rg.

33
is plotted, with each curve representing a different number of transmission lines and/or feeders. The
abcissa is a range of grounding system resistances from 0.1 to 10.0 ohms. The ordinate is the percent of
the total zero sequence substation bus fault which flows between the grounding system and surrounding
earth.

To illustrate the use of the graphical analysis, consider the example shown in Figure 13. Suppose the
conventional symmetrical component fault analysis resulted in a 132 kV bus fault of 10000 amperes, and
an 11 kV bus fault of 12000 amperes. Although the 11 kV fault exceeds the 132 kV fault, the former is
rejected because that fault location does not contribute to the GPR of the substation. The system in
question has two transmission lines with RTFR = 15 ohms and three feeders with ~ = 25 ohms. The
substation grounding system resistance is 1.0 ohms. Figure 1 shows curves for two lines/two feeders and
two lines/four feeders. Thus, interpolation is necessary for this example. From Figure 1. we see that the
approximate percent 10 is (25+35) /2 or 30%. The maximum grid current is then, 0.3 x 10000 = 3000
amperes. The current for design of grounding conductor, however. is 12000 amperes.

e-t--v.--+e 132 kV
6
~IV.
-...---+----- 11 k V

FIGURE 13: Example System

S.SUMMARY
The current for computing maximum step touch and transferred potentials may be substantially lesser than
the total ground fault current. Current division factor depends mainly on location of fault and overhead
earthwire network. It can be computed by the available computer programs or by the approximate
methods. A convenient graphical method has been described.

6. REFERENCES
1. ANSI/IEEE Standard 80 - 1986, IEEE Guidefor Safety in AC Substation Grounding·, IEEE, New
York,1986.
2. B. Thaparand S. K. Madan "Current for Design of Grounding Systems" IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, V<;>l. PAS - 103, pp. 2633 - 2637, September 1984.
3. Analysis Techniquesfor Power Substation Grounding Systems,EPRI FinalReportEL -2682, Vols.
1 and 2, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, U. S. A., October 1982.
4. Transmission Line Grounding, EPRI Final Report EL -2699, Volumes 1 and 2, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, U. S. A., October 1982.
5. Practical Applications ofANSI!IEEE Standard 80 -1986 Guidefor Safety in Substation Grounding,
Publication No. 86, EH 0253.5-PWR, IEEE, New York, 1986, pp. 79-84.

34
 CHAPTER 5

•
Earthing Design In Uniform Soil

J. K. ARORA
Professor oj-Electrical Engineering, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh

DESIGN PROCEDURES
The steps which should be followed for the design of an eanhing system for a high voltage substation,
where the soil at the site can be considered to be uniform, are given here. The data which ought to be
determined before starting the design are:
(i) Area covered by the substation.
(ii) Resistivity of the soil at the substation site.
(iii) Maximum ground fault current.
(iv) Fault clearing time.

Design of the grounding electrode involves the following steps:

(i) Preliminary arrangement of the grounding conductors.
(ii) Selection of the grounding conductor material.
(iii) Determination of the size of grounding conductor.
(iv) Conductor length required for gradient control.
(v) Calculation of grounding resistance of the earthing system and the maximum grid potential.

The last phase of design consists of

(i) Checking of sustained ground fault current.
(ii) Calculation of step potential at the periphery of the substation.
(iii) Investigation oftransferred potential.

AREA COVERED BY THE SUBSTATION

The area over which the grounding electrode is to be placed depcnds on the substation plan. The plan itself
is prepared taking into consideration the number and type of equipments in the station and their layout.

RESISTIVITY OF THE SOIL AT THE STATION

The average resistivity is determined by the four electrode method. The resistivity value should be
obtained by making measurements over a period of at least one year; if time is ~hort, measurements may

35
be made during dry cold season. The interelectrode distance, if measurements are made by the Winner
four probe method, should be varied from about 2 m to a large distance so that the radials are run to cover
the whole of the site. If certain areas of the station require filling, than it is advantageous to use low
resistivity filling soil.

THE MAXIMUM GROUND FAULT CURRENT

To determine the maximum fault current, the subtransient reactance is used. The symmetrical value of
ground fault current in case ofline to ground fault is [1]

Ie = 3 E / (Xl + X2 + Xo + 3 RG)
to a first approximation; E is phase to neutral voltage, Xl' X2 and Xo are per phase positive sequence
equivalent system reactance (subtransient), negative sequence equivalent system reactance and zero
sequence equivalent system reactance, respectively. The reactance of the fault and station ground
resistance may be neglected to start with or the latter may be approximated by using
Ro 0:; p /(4; TC / A}
From the value of If the symmetrical grid current Ig is obtained as
Ig=Sf If
where Sf is current division factor relating the magnitude of fault current to that of its portion flowing
between the grounding grid and surrounding earth. This factor takes care of the division of current between
alternate return paths and the ground grid. Further the maximum grid current 10 is given by
10= Cp Dr Ig
in which Dfis decrement factor. This allows forthe effect of d-c offset which decays exponentially. Table
I gives the values of decrement factor Dc

Table I : Typical values or decrement factor Dr

Fault duration t (s) Decrement factor Df

0.08 1.65
0.01 1.25
0.25 1.10
0.5 1.00

The decrement factor is taken corresponding to the shortest duration of the fault. Also, the subtransient
reactance time constant is 0.02-0.04 s, and the transient reactance time constant is 0.2-0.5 s; but the initial
subtransient reactance value is used to determine the current used in all calculations. The factor Cp in the
above equation is to allow for increase of current due to system growth. A value of 1.2 to 1.5 may be used.

FAULT CLEARING TIME

As has been discussed earlier, for high voltage substations, a fault clearing time of 0.5 s may be used to
determine the permissible values of E step and E mesh' However, to calculate the conductor cross-section,
the time should be the maximum possible clearing time including backup; this can be upto 1 s. In case of
small substations 3 second time can be used. A design engineer should choose the value applicable in the
system for which design is made [2].

PRELIMINARY ARRANGEMENT
The main grounding system is formed of a grid of conductors buried horizontally, usually at a depth of

36
0.5 m below the surface of earth. In the preliminary layout, a continuous grounding conductor should be
laid along the station perimeter to enclose as much of the station area as possible. Inside this peripheral
conductor, grounding conductors should be laid parallel to the rows of equipments or structures. These
may be at a reasonably uniform spacing. Cross connections should be provided so as to form meshes; the
mesh junctions should be provided at such points where multiple paths are useful such as neutral
connection, lightning arrestor connection etc. The minimum spacing of conductor is limited by the
distance at which trenches can be dug. Typical spacing is 3 - 5 in; however in non-critical areas spacing
upto 15 m can be used.

In areas where resistivity of soil is likely to vary with change of seasons, driven ground rods of3- 5 m length
with their upper ends connected to mesh junctions are suitably provided. Enough number of rods are
provided to carry current to soil without overheating and drying of the soil. Approximate number of rods
is the maximum fault current divided by 500. They should be distributed over the entire area of the grid.

SELECTION OF GROUNDING MATERIAL

The material of ground electrode should have high conductivity and low underground corrosion. Now-
a-days steel is used in India as its use avoids galvanic action between ground electrode and other
underground utilities which are mostly of steel. Galvanized steel retards the rate of corrosion in initial
stages; if the zinc coating is eroded at some locations, the rate of corrosion increases. Depending on the
corrosivity of soil zinc coating may be destroyed in two to twenty years. When designing the ground
electrode for fifty years it is preferable to increase the size to make to provision of corrosion during its
life [3].

DETERMINATION OF SIZE OF GROUNDING CONDUCTOR

Proper size of the grounding conductor should be such that it has (i) thermal stability to flow of ground
fault current, (ii) it lasts for at least 50 years without causing break in the grounding circuit due to corrosion
and (iii) it is mechanically strong.

Conductor size is determined by using the formula A = KI it;

values of K are given elsewhere. The
minimum size of ground conductors in soils where corrosion can be neglected is 100 mm2 with the
minimum thickness of 3mm [5]. If soil is C0rrosive the mnimum thickness shall be 6 mm. Cross-section
area should be 200 mm 2 whether strip steel or circular steel is used. The minimum size of conductor for
connection to equipment above the ground should be 50 mm2 • All joint should be overlap welded and
length of weld should be equal to atleast double the width of the strip.

CONDUCTOR LENGTH REQUIRED FOR GRADIENT CONTROL

The spacing between conductors of the grid should be such that the touch voltage is within its safe
permissible value. Safe values of step and mesh voltages are

E step= (116 + 0.696 c(h, K) Ps)/.[;

E m...h = (116 + 0.174 c (h, K) p/.[;
Value of C is dependent on h, depth of surface layer of crushed rock or stone [4], K=(p -p ,)/(p - p ,), Ps being
resistivity of stone layer and p of the soil. Value of C can be determined from the graph of Figure 1. The
value of C can also be obtained from the relation

The expressions for mesh voltage and step voltage can be calculated from [5 J

37
EID =p Km K.... Ic1""'t
Ir

.-- --~I

--- -=-=-
I'

1,
I

(. ' .
\ 111/ .
~
0)- ///a-c , '. ,-
!

till - I
O.2r,
II
I
-.' 1
C 1-' ~
I I,
1
~O~--~~C~~----0~1~--~O~!'----~(-2--------~
C ~. ( ~

"'f ~
rigure 5 - C nUI!3 b. (Analytical Me~hod)
~
- -0.1 to -0.9; b. 0 to 0.3 •.
FIGURE 1 : C versus h. (Analytical Method K=-O.l to -0.9; h = 0 to 0.3 m.

Figure 1. C versus h for K =-0.1 to -0.9; h =0 to 0.3 m The factors K and K are given by
Km = _1 [In ( 02 + (0+ 2h)2 _ J!..) Kii
+ - In 8 ]
2x 16hd 8 Dd 4d Kh x (2n -1)
Ks = .1 [...L + _1_ + ...!. (l _0. Sn -2)]
x 2h D + h D
where
D= spacing between parallel conductor, m
h = depth of ground grid conductors, m
d = diameter of grid conductor (for strip conductor d=width/l), m
K jj = l/(2n)'JIa
~= (l+h)o.s
n = a b. c. d
where
a = 2L/Lp

b = lLp I (4 /A)o.S
d = D 1 + L2 )0.5
ml (1.;" y
Lp = periphera11ength of grid, m
L = maximum length of grid in x direction, m
"
L"I = maximum length of grid in Ydirection, m
Dm = maximum distance between any two points on the grid, m
A = Area of the grid, m 1

38
for mesh voltage
Kl1li = 0.60803 + 0.14195 n
C =(L" Ly fA)Q.92648N (L" Ly)
For step voltage
K II = 0.98953 + 0.14845 n
C= [L" Ly fA] 0.29644A (L" L)
In case of grid with ground rods Lt is determined from
L 1 = Lc + 1.15 Lr
where i = total length of grid conductor and Lr is the total length of ground rods.
To start with the electrode may be assumed to consist of only horizontal conductors and the total length
required for gradient control may be calculated from the relaxation

L>
Km Kim pIG Ii.
(116 + 0/.174 c(h/k) Ps)
If the length so obtained is less that than obtained from the preliminary layout, no change in the layout
of conductors is necessary; otherwise closer meshes especially in the areas which are frequently visited
by operating personnel are to be adopted.

CALCULATION OF RESISTANCE OF GROUNDING SYSTEM AND THE MAXIMUM

POTENTIAL
A formula which can be used for calculating the ground resistance of grids, buried in uniform soil, of any
shape is [6.'1
1 1 1
RG = P [ - + 0. + )] *
Lt 5.01h 1+27.1h/ lA'
l.615 [2136ln (1.462Lp _ 1] (IA )
lA Lp
The maximum rise in potential of the grid above remote earth, 10 Ro' needs investigation if a case of
transferred potential occurs. If necessary resistance of the electrode may be decreased by modifying the
design and using more conductor length and if possible by increasing area of the grid; the latter is more
effective for decreasing Ro than the former. Also the above formula has been derived for grid of horizontal
conductors. When rods are present, the total conductor length may be taken as for calculating dangerous
potentials; however computer simulatioo is advisable for accurate detennination ofRu, E and Em.
I
,

Current below the setting ofprOlective relays may flow for extended periods and should be checked so
that it does not cause a current greater than the let-go current pass through a person. If the let-go current
is assumed 9 rnA, the maximum sustained ground fault current can be
I _ (9 + 00135 C (h,k) Ps)Lp
p- Km Kim P
If it is not convenient to set the minimum pick up current for ground relays corresponding to the value I
additional conductor length may be required to be buried. P

The step potential which can be withstood safely is given by

Es= 116 + 0.696 C(h,k) Ps )/.[;.
This expression is applicable if crushed rock or stone extends to outside the station. Also wherever there

39
are pathways, they may be laid with 10 cm thick stone slab or have a 10 cm thick layer of bitumen aggreg~
on top. If stone or gravel layer does not extend outside of the perimeter conductor E. =(1000 + 0.696p) J t .
If the value of E. comes out to be larger than the permissible value, than the layout may be modified by
(i) providing closer meshes and thus decreasing current leakage per meter, (ii) by using ground rods more
closely near the periphery thus diverting current to deeper strata of the earth. (ii) by burying conductors
outside and parallel to perimeter at greater depth than the grid conductors as distance from the increases.
Other steps which may be taken to decrease the surface gradients are:

(i) Diverting apart of the fault current to other parts by overhead ground wires which divert current
to tower footing resistance.
(ii) Diverting a part of fault current to another ground electrode at a distance from the station.
(iii) Limiting short cjrcuit current if possible
(iv) Barring access to limited areas like having a narrow and deep ditch outside the fence.
(v) For limiting the touch voltage inside the grid, unequal spacing of mesh conductors can be used
to modify the potential gradients and thus reduce the mesh voltage [8].

INVESTIGATIONS OF TRANSFERRED POTENTIAL

When it is possible for the transfer of potential between the grounding grid areas and outside points by
conductors such as communication, signal and control circuits, low voltage neutral wires, conduit, pipes,
rails, metallic fences etc. transferred potential should be checked as a serious hazard [9]. Ground resistance
of the earthing system should be kept as low as possible to reduce magnitude of this voltage.
In case of communication circuits, protective devices and insulating and neutralizing transformers are
used. Use offibre optics can eliminate this hazard. Insulation level of control circuit wires should of proper
voltage class. The rails entering a substation can become connected to grid intentionally or otherwise. The
hazard due to them can be removed by using several insulating joints at two places such that a metal car
or the soil itself cannot short circuit the insulating joints. If low voltage feeders starting inside the station
feed an outside area, the neutral connected to the station grid and possibly earthed at a far point also creates
a hazard. In such a case either the neutral should be treated as a phase wire with appropriate level of
insulation, or preferably no low voltage supply be taken outside the station area. Piping, cable sheaths etc.
if any should be tied to the station grounding system at several points in the station area. These can in fact
greatly reduce the ground resistance. The' distance to and the manner in which voltage is transferred to
outside area depends on the propagation constant. If soil resistivity is 100 ohm-m in the area and voltage
of the grid becomes V G volts, the cottage gradient along a pipe or sheath will be approximately V G volt!
kIn that is if the pipe is at least 1 kIn long; the propagation constant is approximately half a kilometer and
gradient is assumed to be linear. Insulating pipe sections capable of withstanding the potential difference
equal to V G can be inserted in the pipe. If there are buildings at the station site and they are linked to station
by L. T. supply, water pipe ortelephone lines, they should be treated as part of the station area. If they are
to be kept as separate units they should be provided with their own earthing, outside L. T. supply from
the local area and adequately protected against potentials transferred from the station.

REFERENCES
1. ANSI/IEEE Standard 80 - 1986 IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substations Grounding, IEEE, New
York,1986.
2. Technical Report No. 49, Earthing System Parameters for HV, EHV and UHV Substations, C. B.
I. & P., 1985, New Delhi.
3. Review No.1, Review on Corrosion in Earthing Equipment, C. B. I. & P., New Delhi, 1973.
4. B. Thapar, V. Gerez and K. Kejriwal, "Reduction Factor for the Ground Resistance of the Foot in

40
 Substations Yards," IEEE.
S. Siemens Electric Installations Handbook, Ed. GunterG. Seip, Haydon & Sons Ltd., London, 1979.
6. B. Thapar, V. Gerez, A. Balakrishnan and D. A. Blank, "Simplified Equations for Mesh and Step
Voltages in A C Substations," IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 6, No.2, pp. 601 - 607,1990.
7. B. Thapar et .al., "Evaluation of Ground Resistance of Grounding Grid of any Shape," ibid., pp. 640
- 647.
8. B. Thapar and P. P. Garg, "Control of Ground Potential Gradients at Modem High Voltage
Substations," Proc. 46th R&D Session ofC. B. I. & P., Trivandrum, Nov. 1977.
9. B. Thapar, "Dangerous Potentials due to Total IR of an Earthing Network," Pmc. 47th R&D
Session of C. B. I. & P., Vol. V, pp. 89 - 94, March 1980.

41
 CHAPTER 6

Design of Ground Grid in Limited Area

and High Resistivity Soil

s. K. GUPTA
Director (Research), Punjab State Electricity Board, Punjab Engineering College Campus, Chandigarh

The objective of designing safe grounding system is to provide easy and shortest path to the flow offault
current into the earth under fault conditions, without exceeding the operation and equipment limits and
adversely affecting the continuity of service. Also it is to ensure that a person present in the station yard
is not exposed to danger of electric shock.

The design procedure for a safe and adequate grounding system at a station with low resistivity soil is
straight forward but at stations where soil resistivity is high and area available for grounding electrode is
limited, it is difficult to limit the grid potential rise to a reasonable value. The value of grid resistance is
required to be of the order of 1.0 n or le~. To obtain such a low resistance for an earthing system, located
in a limited area station like G. 1. S, may indeed be impossible. In a soil of resistivity 1000 ohm meter,
even by using a very closely spaced mesh, which may be considered equivalent to a plate, the earthing
system would have to cover an area of 1964 sq.m. Such a large area is generally not available at the site
of a G.I.S. In such situation, some possible solutions are given as under:

(1) Providing horizontal grid together with a number oflong vertical electrodes penetrating the
lower soil.
(2) Increasing the number of vertical ground electrodes where deep drilling is not feasible.
(3) Use of remote ground electrodes in a group and drilled ground wells.
(4) Taking into account the effect of current dissipation into earth through the tower footings.
(5) Chemical treatment of soil or use of bentonite clays for back filling.
(6) Use of counterpoise wire grids.
(7) use of concrete encased electrodes of the buildings and oilier structures.
(8) Barring access to limited area where it is not practicable to eliminate possibility of excessive
potential difference during fault.

As a first approximation, a minimum value of the substation grounding resistance can be estimated by the
formula of a circular metal plate at zero depth, once the soil resistivity has been determined.

42
 Rg = f1 l*: . .
+ (1)

Where p is average resistivity of soil in ohm-metre R. is station ground resistance in ohms

A is area occupied by the grid in m 2
Upper limit of the substation resistance can be obtained by adding a second tenn as proposed by Laurent
and Niemann.

Rg = -£ J1 f ...
+ (2)
Where L is total buried length of conductor. In case of grid and rod combination in unifonn soil, a
combined length of horizontal conductors and ground rods will give a slightly conservative estimate of
L since ground rods are usually more effective on perunit length basis. Where area available for horizontal
conductors is limited, length L can be increased by increasing the number of vertical rods. Further we can
make use of the 10'¥t.f resistivity which is available at lower level where rods are embedded. Equations
(1) & (2) give grid resistance for grid depth less than 0.25 m. For grid depth between 0.25 m and 2.50 m
correction for grid depth is required.
I 1
Rg = P [L + I (1 + J1 )] ...
(3)
y20A l+h 2O/A
Obviously for reducing R., A or h or L is to be increased. When the space available A is limited we have
to increase L or h. In hard soil, where resistivity is high there is limit to which h can be increased & only
alternative is to increase L. L can be increased by increasing the length of horizontal grid and vertical
electrodes. As per prevalent practice, some vertical rods are provided at random at the intersection of
horizontal grids but their effect is not taken into account and kept as safety margin. In case of limited area
and high resistivity sojl. We should provide large number of vertical electrodes and take into account their
effect.

Generally the grid is laid at a depth of 0.5 metre and resistivity in lower strata is lower than in the upper
strata of soil. To avail of the advantage of lower resistivity, we should provide long vertical electrodes
alongwith the horizontal grid. In case lower state is hard and deep drilling is not economical or feasible,
we should increase the number of vertical electrodes.

Total resistance ofa system consisting of a combinaticn of horizontal (grid) am vertical (rods) electrodes,
is lower than the resistance of either component alone, but still higher than that of their parallel
combination.
Rl -R2 -Rl,2
Total resistance Rg = 2 - - - - - - - - - -(4)
R 1 + R2 - 2R 1,2
= Resistance grid conductors.
= Resistance of all ground rods (rod bed)
= Mutual resistance between the group of grid conductors & group of ground rods.

The fonnulae for R 1, Rz, & Rl2 in tenns of basic design parameters, assuming unifonn soil have been given
in SCHWARZ'S. Analytical expression forresistance of grounding systems (Ref. IEEE Transacticn Vol.
73, part 111-B, 1954, pp. 10 11-10 16). However in case of deep rods driven to reach more conductive soils,
the equations have been modified (Ref. IEEE Guide for safety in AC substation grounding 1985). The
perfonnance of any ground grid can be assessed either by mathematical model or physical model and in
practice it has been observed that both these approaches have their limitations. Research station ofPSEB
had taken up the· study of the problem •Design of Ground Mat in Limited Area and High Resistivity soil'

43
and both the methods have been adopted & in general results achieved are mostly in agreement with each
other.

A high resistivity area model was developed at Punjab Engineering College Campus. The effect of
increasing the length of vertical ground electrode, use of counter-poise mesh, artificial treatment of soil,
use of Bentonite, interconnection of ground mats of two adjacent grids have been obselVedexperimentally
with the use of this model.

DEVELOPMENT OF IDGH RESISTIVITY AREA MODEL

Nonnally the resistivity in most parts of Punjab, which is a plain, is of the order of 100-200 ohm metre.
This directorate is assigned the job of measurement of resistivity where PSEB is to set up new grid
substation or any extension or upgmdation is required. During one such measurement, near Ferozepur,
it was found the soil resistivity in some area (M. E. S. Ferozepur) is more than 2500 ohm metre. On further
check it was found that resistivity at other places in the vicinity (1/2 km away) was 100-200 ohm metre.
On further investigation it was found that some old wall or brick kiln existed at the site due to which high
resistivity was observed. This gave us an idea to develop high resistivity model in our campus where we
could carry out studies by varying the resistivity.

The high resistivity area model is shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1 : Model of high resistivity and lImited area

The construction details of this are given as under:

Area of land covered 12ft x 12ft

(3.6 m x 3.6 m) approximately.
Depth 5ft (1.52 metres) approximately
Main constituents of material Stone Dust & brick Boulders in the ratio of 2: 1
Moisture conditions Dry conditions.
Prevention from the effects The entire volume of high
of stray current. resistivity material was isolated from the mass earth
with the help of two thicknesses of polythene sheets
of 0.23 mm thickness.

The resistivity of this area was tested with the help of four probe method (Wenner configuration). The
results obtained along four different radials are given as under:

44
 TABLE 1 : Resistivity Test in Limited Area Model
Location Input Resistivity Average
current (ohm-m) with resistivity
MA Probe spacing (ohm-m)
0.25 0.05
A 10 2906.30 2995.20 2950.75
15 2590.50 2604.40 2597.45
B 10 2592.10 2542.60 2567.35
15 2360.50 2367.70 2364.10
C 10 2683.00 2954.40 2818.70
15 2780.60 2776.30 2778.45
D 10 3063.45 3001.50 3032.47
15 3010.25 3027.70 3018.97
Average 2748.30 2783.70 2776.00

VALIDITY TEST OF HIGH RESISTIVITY LIMITED AREA MODEL

Ground resistance of two standard electrodes was measured and compared with the calculated results.

TEST OF HEMISPHERICAL ELECTRODE

A hemispherical mild steel electrode of77 .26 mm dia was fabricated and tested for ground resistance. The
circuit diagram is shown in Figure 2.

.. Q ... •••
iE2iCS:is __ 2

• -" "I "I!f "'-"

. 'I .. '/'1/ I . 'IJi· ,'0
' .' :J.' .
. / ....... -"
• - f' ... ,
\,.1"
:-"
. I , to' .....

".~,,~-;'d~t
_... ...
+'8"'lc~·
._............... \
'd~ys""
... 1., .'

FIGURE 2 : Circuit Diagram of High Resistivity Model Area

, The results are given in Table II.

The average ground resistance measured = 11.47 k. ohms. The calculated value of grounding resistance
= 11.39 k. ohms.
TABLE II : Resistance Measurement of Hemispherical Electrode

* 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
** 0 55 102 162 172 172 173 175 176 178 180
* 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
** 182 185 189 195 202 210 230
* Distance from the electrode (cm)
** Voltage measured on surface (volts).
45
TEST ON VERTICAL ELECTRODE
Vertical electrodes of varying lengths were tested in this model. This values of grounding resistance
obtained for different electrodes by measurement and also by calculations are given in Table III.
Experimental & calculated results are in close agreement.
Table III Electrode resistance measured & calculated.
Average soil resistivity 1873.14 ohm metres.
Experimental Results

Electrode length Input Current Voltage Resistance Calculated

(m) rnA V (ohms) resistance
measured (ohms)
1. 0.2 30 141.5 471.67 4767.99
2. 0.3 30 108.5 3616.67 3575.99
3. 0.4 30 87.5 2916.67 2898.00
4. 0.5 30 74.0 2466.67 2455.51
5. 0.6 30 64.5 2150.00 2135.66

INCREASE OF GROUND CONDUCTANCE WITH LENGTH OF ELECTRODE

Table IV gives the % decrease in grounding resistance with percent increase of electrode length as
calculated & verified experimentally.
de (5)
dR

TABLE IV

S1. No. Percent increase Percent decrease Percent decrease in

in electrode length in resistance grounding resistance
calculated experimentall y
observation
\
1. 50 25.00 23.32
2. 100 39.22 38.16
3. 150 48.50 47.70
4. 200 55.4 54.42

EFFECT OF ROD BEDS

In orderto obtain low grouna .esistance in high resistivity soils, it is often necessary to use a large number
of driven rods over an extended area as shown in Fgiure 3.

FIGURE 3 : Combination of Ground Electrode & Ground grid

46
The inner rods carry lower currents than the outer rods due to the mutual influence of the surrounding rods.

EXPERIMENT ON SCALE MODEL TO EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF ELECTRODE

LENGTH IN COMBINATION WITH GROUND GRID
A scale model study was carried out on a grounding grid as shown in Figure 4.

FIGURE 4: Grid models

A model grid was fabricated with 0.15 mm dia. copper wire. Plain tap water of 67.584 ohm m resistivity
was used as electrolytic medium. Grid resistance and surface potential measurements were made with
following conditions:
(i) A Grid without any rod electrode.
(ii) A grid with 9 No. of electrodes each of 1 cm length of copper wire of the same size as that of
the grid.
(iii) A grid with 9 electrodes each of 2.4 cm. length of same size as shown in (ii)

MEASUREMENT OF GRID RESISTANCE

Grid resistance, as given in Table V was measured by immersing the grid models at a depth of 5.16 cm,
using fall of potential method. The test current of 20 m amp. was injected between each of the grids A,
B, C and collecting electrode.

TABLE V
Measured Values of Ground Resistance of Grid Models

Model Grid type & Input Voltage Measured

Grid dimentions current measured resistance
Code (m. Amp) Volts) ohm)

A Modelof4x4 20 8.69 448.0

square mesh
without elect-
trades.

B Same model grid 20 9.12 406.0

with 9 electrodes
each 1 cm long.
C Same model grid 20 5.5 275.0
with 9 electrodes
each 2.4 cm long.

From the above tests, it is observed that on adding 9 Nos. electrodes each (1 cm long) the decrease in
grounding resistance was 9.3%. On increasing the electrode length 2.4 times, the decrease in grounding
resistance reaches 36%.

47
It is. therefore. found that at the locations where soil resistivity is high and area available is limited. the
grounding resistance can be reduced by using deep vertical ground electrodes in combinations with the
ground grid.

PERCENT SURFACE POTENTIAL

From the absolute values of surface potential measured in respect of grids A, Band C, the percent potential
w.r.t. the input potential was calculated. The percent potential plotted against the distance from the comer
of the grid along the diagonal is shown in Figure 5.

u0 -s;;------- -i"'t(;'--:.,
DI~T/>.I-.jC;;'. llL()NG DI.v:;:C'~JAL(~,>~

FIGURE 5: Howing Percent Surface Potential

USE OF BENTONITE CLAY AS BACK FILL

Bentonite clay consists of mineral montomorillonite (a hydrous aluminium sijicate). It acts as an excellent
backfill if sufficient amount of water is added to it. Bentonite can absorb water upto 5 times its weight
and swells upto 13 times its dry volume. At six times its dry volume it remains dense and pasty and adheres
well to any surface it touches. These two characteristics solve the compaction and soil-rod contact
problem.

LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Chemical and Electrical Properties
The indigenous bentonite clay was got tested in the laboratory for its chemical composition and electrical
properties. The test results revealed that the electrical resistivity of bentonite is 8.7 ohm m at 20°C with
water-bentonite ratio of 4: 1. The field tests were carried out in sub-montanceous area with average soil
resistivity of the order of 2500 ohm m. The ground rods of 16 mm dia and 1500 mm length were tested
for their resistance w .r. t. remote ground electrode. One electrode was dri ven in earth by hammering. while
the other was placed in the center of bentonite slurry of 4: 1 water bentonite ratio fIlled in a 250 mm dia
hole made in the earth. The periodical measurements of electrodes resistance was made and the results
are plotted in Figure 6.

From the curves, it is obvious that an appreciable decrease in electrode resistance is obtained by placing
it bentonite slurry which may be due to better rod soil contact through bentonite. Also bentonite increases
effective diameter of the electrode.

In another experiment a bentonite treated rod was placed in the center of one mesh grid as shown in
Figure 7 (a)

48
 -- ... ~

P=2501>..J'l.M.

0'----
,"""y SiN. JAil rl8 MA'
PFRIOD OF I'1£I.sUR£'t4ElVr-
FIGURE 6 : Resistance Comparison Curve

-r- ·----'------r

C;,qoVND MAr
~.~~-~----~
a) BENrONITE TREATED JOD :

FIGURE 7(a) : Single Mesh Ground Mat

SURFACE POTENTIAL PROFlLE ALONG HORIZONTAL PLAN

Surface plan was measured in the center of the mesh (i) without any rod at the center (ii) with an ordinary
19 mm rod at the center and (iii) with bentonite treated rod placed as shown in Figure 7 (b).

~
~ . ,.., -- - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - -
CRID I'OT.£#TIAL RIS£

~L1'
lj~
'=4'1'
"l'J
Q.r.. I ,
Y-P-ER-'~'I.I-T~S~/D-s:.- ---~r.--~'~~--~--~I'~7.
L£l-J(iif,..7'o~ aN I D - -

FIGURE 7(b): Surface Potential Profile Along Horizontal Plan

A change of percent of surface potential was observed at the center of the mesh with bentonite treated rod.
Itis, therefore, experimentally found out thaiin addition to providing vertical electrodes at the appropriate
locations in the ground grid, if additional rod treated with bentonite is placed near to the center of critical

49
meshes, it would improve the potential gradient on the earth surface besides reducing the ground
resistance.

EFFECT OF MOISTURE

Laboratory Tests in Moisture Content

A mini model was prepared and used for carrying out laboratory tests in high resistivity area. In this mioi-
model, stone powderof26oo ohm m resistivity was used as a soil medium. In a known quality of dry stone
powder, water was added from 1% to 100% and the resistivity measured with different percent moisture
content. The measured values are plotted in Figure 8.

,..\
t .
T>~. \

Q,
).. ;)000
to S,oNE DUST
I~STe:.D
>
,... IN MoDEL H,"'f-I
~H. s., STI 'J IT Y ~ II (PI
III ,500
...
oJ
(l'

~ ,0< \

beO

I l _____________
-;O'~~ 40 ~o 60 lo---eo-i7I~
MOISTUR,(. CON"E..Ni CPLRCENT)

FIGURE 8 : Variation in Soil Resistivity with Moisture Content of Medium

From figure, it is seen that the rate of decrease in resistivity is very high between I % to 10% of moisture.
On further increasing the water content, the rate of decrease in resistivity is only nominal. It is thus seen
that if moisture content can be maintained at about 10 percent, a low value of resistivity is obtained, even
in high resistivity soils.

The moisture in soil increases the solubility of naturally occurring salts in the soil which results in better
earth condition and improves me soil conductivity.

ARTIFICIAL TREATMENT OF SOIL

In close texture soils, artificial treatment such as Sodium-Chloride, Magnesium Sulphate etc. may be
effective over a period of many years. However, it is recommended that annual or biannual measurements
of earth resistivity should be made to find out if additional treatment is needed because the salts are
gradually cared away be natural drainage towards the adjacent untreated soil.

In using artificial treatment the possible corrosive effect of salt on the ground electrodes and connections
and possible contamination of environment should be considered.

50
LABORATORY TEST WITH SALT CONTENT
To determine the effect of Salt content in plain water as well as in different kinds of soils,laboratory tests
were carried out In minimum model tank of 1m x 1m x 0.5m size, the medium to be tested for its resistivity
was filled. The quantity of medium by volume was 0.4 cu m and the concentrated saline water (Na Cl
+ water) in percent of the volume of the medium was added and the ratio of decrease in resistivity
measured.

Another test was carried out on plain tap water having resistivity of58.5ohrn m. The variation in resistivity
is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Variation of Resistivity of Plain Water with Salt Content

Further, in place oftap water, the difference soils were tested. One medium was stone dust of resistivity
of 590 ohm m and other was loamy clay of resistivity 165 ohm m. The moisture content of both the
materials was 5 % before testing concentrated saline water was added to the mediums by pouring it through
a number of vertical holes drilled in it. The variation in resistivity w .r.t. the percent of salt content is shown
by curves plotted 'in Figure 10.

,..

o ;l. If II.. I:L t4

~ PERC£NT' OF'" 81\\."'""
r(r>l.. c.tJ+""IlT£lI.l
Figure 10 : Effect of Saline Water on Soil Resistivity

EFFECT OF COUNTER-POISE MAT (EXPERIMENTAL STUDY)

In the high resistant areas, it is difficult to keep step and touch voltage within the tolerable limits. To
equalise the surface potential it is suggested that counterpoise mat may be helpful. In the high resistivity
model, one square mesh of M. S. Flat 25 mm x 3 mm of 1500 mm side was buried at depth of 500 mm.
A current of 180 m amps was injected into the grid. The grid potential rise W.r.t. collecting electrode was
85 volts. The surface potential was measured in the soil within the grid. The second part of the experiment
was carried out by inserting a 6 x 6 mesh of 8 S. W, G. G. I. Wire grid at a depth of 150 mm exactly over
the main grid already buried without any interconnection between the two. A current of 180 m Amps was
injected into main grid and surface potential measured. The results are given in Table VI.

51
 TABLE VI
Effect of Counterpoise Mat on Touch Voltage & Step Voltage within the Grid
1. Maximum Touch voltage (without counterpoise mat) 8%
in % ofGPR.
2. Maximum Touch voltage (without counterpoise mat) 5.35%
in % GPR.
3. Maximum Step voltage (without counterpoise mat) 6.6%
in % ofGPR.
4. Maximum Step voltage (with counterpoise) 1.33%
in % ofGPR.

It is thus obseIVed that with counter poise met the potential gradient on the earth's surface is greatly
reduced and as such step & touch voltages can be brought to safer limits.

FIELD STUDY ON INTERCONNECTION OF GROUNDING GRIDS

The two grids on which experimental study was carried out were buried in rocky soil on a hillock at a depth
of 0.5 m configuration of grids is as shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11 : Test on counterpoise mat in limited area model

The average soil resistivity measured was 2465 ohm metre. In one study the tie wire for interconnecting
the two grids was laid underground and in the second case it was overhead. The tie wire was run along
the shortest path & measured 154 metres. The depth of burial of inter tie was varied as O. 1m, 0.25m and
O.5m. The ground resistance of individual grids, tie wire and complete interconnected system were
measured with overhead & underground inter-connection. Ground resistance & surface potentials for the
configuration of Figure 12 were calculated on digital computer with the help of computer programme
developed at Punjab Engineering College.

Figure 12 : Plan showing interconnected grid system

52
DIGITAL SIMULATION
The calculations were carried out for (i) grid alone (ii) tie wire alone (iii) grids with underground
interconnected tie wire (iv) grids with overhead tie wire. The depth of burial was varied as in experimental
study.

TABLE VII
Measured & Computed Valves of Ground Resistance of Inter Tied Ground Grids
Description Ground Resistance ohms
Measured Calculated
1. Grid A alone 840.00 856.7
2. Grid B alone 845.00 856.7
3. Underground tie wire along buried at depth
(i) 0.1 m 42.00 45.91
(ii) 0.25m 43.6
(iii) 0.50m 41.8
(iv) Grids joined by over head tie wire 420.0 429.6
Grids joined by tie
wire at depth.
(i) 0.1 m 38.0 43.4
(ii) 0.25 m 41.4
(iii) 0.50m 39.0

The ground resistance of the two grids joined by the overnead tie wire is about half of that of one grid.
The computed value is slightly lower than one half because of the mutual effect between the grid. The
effect of underground tie in reducing ground resistance is quite substantial in the present case because the
grid is relatively small, the effect is quite pronounced.

Ground surface potentials over the grids and the tie wire are given in Table VIII. The origin of X-Yaxis
is located at the lower left hand corner of grid •A' as shown in Figure 1. Percent ground surface potential
for the two cases of overhead tie wire and no tie wire are equal. However, the potential in volts for the case
when overhead ground wire is present is half of the values when there is no tie wire. This is because the
ground resistance and hence GPR is nearly halved when overhead tie is used. When the tie wire is
underground, the surface potentials are to be obtained not only in the grid area but along the tie line too.
The potential in volts are reduced compared to the case of no tie wire. The surface potential distribution
is more uniform. Further the wire becomes more effective as its depth is increased.

STEP AND TOUCH VOLTAGES

From Table VIII the maximum step and touch voltages in percent ofGPR have been determined and there
are presented in Table IX.

, 53
 TABLE VIII
Earth Surface Potentials as Percent of GPR
Co-ordinates Surface potentials % of GPR
of potential with underground Overhead
point (m) tie wire at depth tie wire!
without
tie wire.
X y O.1m 0.25m 0.5m

0.5 0.5 73.7 74.1 74.0 60.4

0.0 1.0 64.0 64.7 65.1 51.6
1.0 1.0 70.9 71.4 70.8 51.6
1.75 1.75 51.4 52.7 53.5 25.7
1.0 0.5 83.2 79.2 75.8 56.5
1.25 0.5 87.7 79.8 74.3 49.3
1.50 0.5 86.2 78.0 71.8 41.7
1.75 0.5 84.0 76.0 67.5 34.9
2.0 0.5 82.2 74.3 61.9 20.8
5.0 0.5 76.9 69.7 63.7 10.4
10.0 0.5 77.6 70.7 65.0 5.1
15.0 0.5 78.6 72.0 66.3 3.5
20.0 0.5 79.4 72.7 67.2 2.7
30.0 0.5 78.6 72.3 67.0 1.0
40.0 0.5 79.3 73.0 67.7 1.6
50.0 0.5 79.1 72.9 67.7 1.4
60.0 0.5 79.4 73.2 68.0 1.2
78.0 0.5 79.4 73.2 68.0 1.2
1.0 0.25 76.9 76.5 74.5 55.4
1.25 0.25 76.8 75.7 72.7 48.5
1.50 0.25 74.4 73.7 70.1 40.8
1.75 0.25 72.6 7l.6 67.9 34.4
2.0 0.25 70.8 70.0 66.3 29.4
10.0 0.25 66.3 66.6 63.6 5.1
30.0 0.25 67.9 68.3 65.7 1.9
50.0 0.25 68.5 69.0 66.4 1.4
78.0 0.25 68.6 69.3 68.8 1.2
78.0 0.00 62.0 64.2 64.0 1.2
78.0(-) 0.5 54.8 57.3 58.1 1.2

In case of grid alone, the maximum mesh voltage is at point (0,1.0). The maximum step voltage occurs
at the point (1.0,1.0) along the diagonal from the comer of grid.

In the case when underground tie wire is used, the maximum touch voltage over the grid is at the point
- (0,1.0) and the maximum step voltage occurs at the point (1.0, 1.0). Also it is found that the maximum
step voltage along the tie wire occurs at the middle of the tie which is between the points (78, 0.5). It is
seen that for the two grids with underground tie wire the maximum step voltage is at the middle of tie wire
when the tie wire is buried at O.lm. When the tie wire is at 0.25 m and 0.5 m, the maximum is at the comer
of the grid. Similar reduction is obtained in touch voltages.

54
 TABLE IX
The Maximum Step and Touch Voltage for the Grids with and without Tie Wire (% of GPR)
Grids with Grids with
underground tie over head tie
wire at depth (m) wire/without
tie wire
0.1 0.25 0.5
Step voltage 18.1 17.4 16.2 32.6
in the grid area
Step voltage 24.6 15.9 9.4
along the tie wire
Touch voltage 36.0 35.3 34.9 48.5

The maximum step and touch voltages are reduced by using an inter tie with two grids because the GPR
is reduced. The reduction is substantial when the tie is underground. When the underground tie is used
it is necessary to check step voltage along the tie for safety of personnel and animals.
In the present study series resistance of the tie wire is small as compared to ground resistance of the
individual grids and under ground tie itself as such in the digital simulation, the whole ground electrode
has been assumed to be at uniform potential. However, if the series resistance of the tie is not small as
compared to the ground resistance of the individual grids and that of the tie wire may have to be modelled
as a distributed parameter network.

CONCLUSION
From the study of different methods as illustrated, it is obvious that where the soil resistivity is high and
area available or layout of grounding grids is limited, one has to try a combination of different techniques
for effective and safe grounding.

REFERENCES
(1) American National Standard IEEE Guide for Safety in A. C. Substation Grounding NSI/IEEE
Std. - 80 - 1986.
(2) Thapar B. et. a1. "Substation Grounding Grids Intertied with Buried Conductors" IEEE Transactions
on Power Delivery, Vol. 7, No.3, July, 1992 pp. 1207 -1212.
(3) Warren R. Jones "Rentonite Rods Assure Ground Rod Installation in Problem Soils".
(4) Completion Report on Research Problem Titled "Effectiveness of Bentonite as a Backfill" Studied
by PSEB Research Directorate.
(5) Code of Practice for Earthing Indian Standard 3043-1965.
(6) Sandha J. S. et. al "Design of Grounding Grids in Different Conditions" - High Resistivity limited
Area Proceeding 58th R&D Session of CBI&P held at Bangalore, 1993, pp. 134-139.
(7) O. P. Jain et. al. "Design of Grounding Grids in Difficult Conditions" - High Resistivity Limited Area
Proceeding 59 the R&D Session of C. B. I. & P. held at Calcutta -1994, pp. 47-50.
(8) Heppe R.J. "Computation of Potential at Surface above an Engergised Grid or other Electrode
Allowing for Non-Uniform Current Distribution "IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-98, No.6, PP 1978-1989
Nov/Dec. 1979.

5S
 CHAPTER 7

Computer Methods for Analysis and

Design of Grounding Systems

HANS. R. SEEDHER
Asstt. Professor of Electrical Engineering, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Several computer algorithms for analysis and design of grounding system reported in literature [1-9J
represent a very significant development in the area of grounding system design. These algorithms can
be used to determine accurately the performance of a grounding system of any complex configuration
placed in homogeneous as well as non-homogeneous soil. A number of limitation associated with the
design methods using empirical formulae [10-12] are thus removed.

The computer algorithms essentially compute ground resistance, and earth surface potentials due to flow
of a given current from the ground electrode to the surrounding earth. From the earth surface potentials,
the maximum touch and step voltages are determined. If the computed maximum touch and step voltages
are less than the tolerable touch and step voltages, the design is safe, otherwise the electrode configuration
is modified and analysed again. Basic analytical procedure used in the computer algorithms is outlined
in the following sections [8].

2.0 BASIC ANALYTICAL APPROACH

A grounding system basically consists of a configuration of bare metallic conductors embedded in soil.
The soil structure at the site of a grounding system is generally represented by homogeneous soil model
or a two layer soil model. Thus a grounding system can be modelled as an inter-connection of linear
conductors placed in a homogeneous or a two layer soil medium.

Because of the large conductivity of the material of the electrode as compared to that of the soil,. the former
can be regarded as a perfect conductor and thus equipotential. With the boundary condition that the
grounding system is equipotential, the current dissipation from the conductors forming the grounding
system is non-uniform. Determination of exact distribution of current, however, is not feasible. Average
potential method (APM), a technique widely used in electrostatics for analogous problems, provides a
reasonably accurate solution of the problem_

The average potential method is described first with reference to a finite linear conductor embedded in
soil and dissipating current Ig to the earth. As a first approximation, the potential along the length of the

56
conductor can be computed by assuming uniform leakage current distribution perunitlength. The average
value of this potential is the first approximation to the true value of conductor potential V . The quotient
&
of VI and I&gives the earthing resistance of the ground electrode. A more accurate solution to the problem
is obtained by dividing the conductor into a number of segments. The density of current dissipating along
each segment is considered constant, but it is assumed to very from segment of segment The segment
currents are to be computed by extending APM to this collection of segments and taking average potential
of each of the segments to be equal. The extension of APM for computing segment currents and
subsequent solution of grounding problems requires use of self and mutual resistances of the segments
described in the next section. The same procedure can be applied to any complex electrode configuration
by dividing it into a number of linear segments [13].

2.1 Self and Mutual Resistances

When an electrode system is divided into segments, the potential at any point in the earth or at the surface
of conductor is obtained by superposition the sum of the potentials due to filamentary currents of all the
segments into which the electrode is divided. IfI" 12, ••••••••• 1n , denote the currents dissipated by segments
of electrode, the potential Vj of segment j can be written as
n
Yi = :r Rjk Ik k = 1, 2, 3, ...... , n (1)
k::::l

where Rjk is the mutual resistance between segments j and k. It is defmed as the average potential of
segment j due-to unit current dissipated by segment k with all other segment currents equal to zero. For
j=k, it becomes average potential of the segment j due to unit current dissipated by the segment j itself with
each of other segment currents equal to zero. This is than call the self resistance of the segment.

To develop the method of evaluation of self and mutual resistances, at first potential Vp at any point P due
to a single segment k of length It dissipating current Ik in homogeneous soil of resistivity p is illustrated
in Figure 1. The dissipation of the current along length of the segment is assumed uniform. An elemental

I:nage of
k

:.-- J
k

FIGURE 1 : Potential at point p due to current dissipated by segment k.

57
 of the element. The segment dissipating current It is thus modelled as an array of infinite point current
sources located along its axis. By integrating the potential contribution due to the point current source and
its image over the length I., the potential at the point P is obtained as

lk It
V, = ~ (J d1k + I dl k ) (2)
p 4nlk 0 r 0 r'

When P is assumed to lie on the surface of another segment j and the expression (2) for potential at the
point P is averaged over the length lj of the segment j, the average potential Vjav) of segment j due to the
current ~ dissipated by the segment k is obtained. Thus,

Ij It It
V - pIk [I <I dlk + J dlk)dlkl (3)
J(av) - 4nlk Ij 0 0 r 0 r'

and the mutual resistance Rjk is given by

Rjk = Yj(av) (4)

Ik
For j=k, (3) gives the average potential of segment k due to the current \. dissipated by itself; and (4) gives
the self resistance ~ of segment k. The general expressions for V and Rjk obtained by carrying out
integration in (2) and (3) are described in references r,14]. p

When segment j and k lie in a two-layer soil, equations (2) and (3) are to be modified to account for the
current dissipated by infinite series of images whose configuration depends on relative locations of j and
kin the two layers as explained in r,14]. The application of such formulae requires that each segment should
lie wholly in up for lower layer, a requirement which should be observed when dividing the electrode
configuration into segments. An alternative to the method of images is the use of the finite potential
formulae given in [8,15] for finding self and mutual resistances.

2.2 Solution for Current Distribution and Potentials

Equation (1) can be written in the matrix form as
v =R. 1
(5)
where v is a column vector consisting of average potentials Y l' Y2' •• ""., Y of the n segments, i is a column
D

vector consisting of segment currents II' ~, .......... In and R is an n X n resistance matrix consisting of self
and mutual resistances. Since the voltage drop across the conductor segments is neglected, average
potential of each of the segments can be equated to the electrode potential Y I . The electrode potential Y a
is also known as the ground potential rise (GPR).

The equivalent circuit of the ground electrode split into n segments is shown in Figure 2 R11' R&2"""""
R go are the effective ground resistances of the individual segments when all the segments are considered
together. If the segments are considered isolated from each other, their ground resistances would be equal
to their self resistances. But when they are considered together, their efficacy is decreased somewhat due
to mutual effect. Thus Ra l ' R&2""""" Rgo are respectively larger than self resistances R u ' R 22,,, , "'''''' Rna'

Since the grounding system is assumed equipotential, each element ofv in (5) is equal to Y., The potential
Y is set equal to 1.0 and (5) is solved to obtain elements of current vector i corresponding to 1.0 volt
«
potential of the ground electrode. From Figure 2, it is seen that reciprocal of the sum of elements of current
o-ives the ground resistance R &. If actual ground current I& is known, the product of I& and R & gives
vector b~
actual electrode potential Ya. The actual segment currents are obtained by multiplying the elements of
current vector, evaluated for electrode potential of 1,0 v, by the actual electrode potential Y,' Potential

58
 I = V I ~
9 9 9

L-.---'------'-----"""-----~I__----- - - -
refe!"ence bus

FIGURE 2 : Equivalent circuit of a grounding system split Into n segments

current vector, evaluated for electrode potential of 1.0 v, by the actual electrode potential Vg' Potential
at any point on the ground surface can then be determined by adding contributions obtained from (2) due
to various segment currents taking appropriate image system into account.

3.0 COMPUTER PROGRAMS GAIN GAF

Based essentially on the basic principles outlined in the preceding section, a number of computer
algorithms have been reported [1-9]. Two of the compute programs for analysis of grounding system
developed at Punjab Engineering College are named GAIN and G AF. The details of these programs are
available in [,6] and [8]. Both of the programs can analyse any complex grounding system configuration
placed in homogeneous or two layer soil model. The program GAIN uses the method of images for
grounding system in two layer soil. This entails use of infinite series expressions for self and mutual
resistances, and for earth surface potenti al. In GAF, recentl y developed finite expressions of potential due
to point current source in two layer soil have been used in place of method of images. The use of finite
expressions in GAF results in considerable saving in computational effort with negligible loss in accuracy
[ 15].

In both GAIN and GAF, input data consists, of the parameters of the soil model, ground current, and
geometrical data about the grounding system. The two layer soi I parameters for the input data are obtained
by soil resistivity interpretation techniques described earlier. The output of the program consists of the
ground resistance and eanh surface potentials_

4.0 SUMMARY
Computer algorithms can be used to determine accurately the performance of any complex configuration
of grounding system homogeneous as well as non-homogeneous soi\. Basic analytical procedure used
in these algorithms has been described. Two important feature which determine the usefulness of these
algorithms in the design of a reliable and cost effective grounding system are the flexibility in the choice
of electrode configuralion and capabilily to handle soil non-homogeneities.

5.0 REFERENCES
1. T. N. Giao and M. P. Sharma, "Effcct of a TWO-Layer Earth on the Electric Field Near HVDe
Electrodes," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and SysLcms, Vol. PAS-97 pp. 2356-2365,
NovemberlDccember 1972.

S9
2. F. Dawalibi and D. Mukhedkar, "Optimum Design of Sub-station Grounding in a Two Layer Eanh
Structure: Part I-Analytical Study, Part II-Comparison between Theoretical and Experimental
Results, Part III-Study of Grounding Grids Perfonnance and New Electrodes Configuration," IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems. Vol. PAS-94 pp. 252-261, 262-266, 267-272,
March/April 1975.
3. R. J. Heppe, "Computation of Potential at Surface Above an Energized Grid or other Electrode
Allowing for Non-Unifonn Current Distribution," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, Vol. PAS-98, pp. 1978-1989, November/December 1979.
4. J. Nahman, "Digital Calculation of Earthing Systems in Non-unifonn Soil," Archlv FurElektrotechnik,
Vol. 62 pp. 19-24, 1980.
5. A. P. Meliopoulos, R. P. Wab, and E. B. Joy, "Analysis of Grounding Systems," IEEE Transactions
on Power Apparatus and Systems Vol. PAS -100, pp. 1039 -1048, March 19.
6. P. Kouteynikoff, "Numerical Computation of the Grounding Resistance of Substations and
Towers," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS - 99 pp. 957-965, May/
June 1980.
7. S. Sato and W. Zaengl, "Effective Grounding Mesh Calculation Technique," IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, Vol. PWRD-3 pp. 173 -182 Jan. 1988.
8. Hans Raj, "Analysis and Design of Grounding Systems in Non-Homogeneous Soils," Ph.D.
Electrical Engineering Thesis, Punjab University, Chandigarh, 1990.
9. A. P. Melipoulos, Feng Xia, E. B. Joy and G. J. Gokkinides, "An Advanced Computer Model for
Grounding System Analysis," IEEE Tnmsactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 8, pp. 13-23, Jan 1993.
10. ANSI/IEEE Standard 80-] 986, IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, IEEE, New
York, ]986.
11. B. Thapar, V. Gerez, A. Balakrishnan and D. A. Blank, "Evaluation of Ground Resistance of
Grounding Grid of any Shape," and "Simplified Equations for Mesh and Step Voltages in AC
Substations," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 6, pp. 640-647,601-607, April 1991.
12. J. K. Arora, Hans R. Seedher and Puneet Kumari, "Optimized Expressions for Analysis of Ground
Grids," Proc. VII National Power System Conference, pp. 360-64, Feb. 1993.
13. Hans R. Seedhcr, and J. K. Arora, "Segmentation Study for Computer Analysis of Grounding
Systems," Proc. of 56th R&D Session of CBl & P, pp. 57-60, May 1991.
14. R. P. Nagar, R. Velazquez, M. Loeioeian, D. Mukhedkar and V. Gervais, "Review of Analytical
Methods for calculating the performance of Large Grounding Electrodes, part I : Theoretical
Considerations, "IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS -104, pp. 3134-
3141, November ]985.
]5. Hans R. Seedher, 1. K. Arora, and B. Thapar, "Finite Expressions for Computation of Potential in
Two Layer Soit," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. PWRD-2. pp. 1098-1102 Oct. 1987.

60
 CHAPTER 8

Substation Grounding Grid Design with

Reference to Dehar Power Plant and
Switchyard

R. B. SAKSENA
OSDISWC (Rank of Chief Engineer), Bhakra Beas Management Board, Chandigarh.

SUMMARY
Large fault currents being encountered in the expanding power systems necessitate well
designed grounding systems for Power Stations and high voltage Substations. Most commonly
used basic grounding systems are in the form of grids consisting of horizontally buried
conductors. Variousfactors requiredfor designing grounding Grids like availability ofGround
area, resistivity of soil, maximum groundfault currents, maximum permissible transfer and
touch potential, materialfor grounding conductor and special measures required to supplement
the ground grids so as to keep the hazardous voltage within safe limits have been detailed. The
various steps which are normally followedfor the design ofan earthing System are given in brief
The grounding resistance and size of grounding conductor for various ground grids and risers
are indicated. The data incorporated is with reference to Dehar Power Plant and its step-up
switchyard.

1.0 GENERAL
In modem times, to meet ever growing demand of power, addition of bigger and bigger power houses,
is inevitable. The power houses may be located far from the load centers as in case of hydro power houses
or pit heads steam power houses or may be in the midst of population as in the case of certain Steam &
Atomic Power Houses: the laying oftransmission net-work in any case is necessary. Long & extra high
voltage transmission lines are required to transmit bulk amount of power from the sources of generation
to the load centres, to interconnect power houses for increased reliability of supply, greater system
stability and lesser stand -by power and hence cheaper elcctri cal energy. In between the power houses and
ultimate consumer a number of transformation and switching stations are required to be created and are
known as Substations. Depending upon the purpose, the substations are called as step up, primary grid
secondary, distribution substation, etc. In all major substations, grounding system is required to be laid.
The details for design of grounding system with reference to Dehar Power Plant & Switchyard is dealt
in the following paragraphs :

61
2.0 FUNCTIONS OF GROUNDING SYSTEM
The main functions of grounding system are as under:
(a) To provide safety for persons in or near the station by reducing step and touch voltages
occuning under normal or fault conditions, to values which are considered safe.
(b) To limit the potential difference across communication or control lines leaving the station
during power system faults.
(c) The grounding system also provides the means of circuit relaying for clearing ground faults,
protecting the equipment from high voltage surges resulting from lightning and for positively
discharging and de-energising the feeders and equipment before proceeding with maintenance
on them.

2.1 factors Required for Designing Grounding Grid

The following factors are generally taken into consideration for designing of grounding grid:
(i) Area available under the Power Plant, tail-race and switchyard for laying the ground grid.
(ii) Resistivity of the soil of the available area.
(iii) Maximum ground fault currents.
(iv) Maximum permissible transfer and touch potential.
(v) Material available for grounding conductor.
(vi) Special measures required to supplement the ground mats in the available area so as to keep
the hazardous voltages within safe limits.

3. AREA AVAILABLE UNDER POWER PLANT, TAIL RACE AND SWITCHYARD FOR
GROUND MATS
The are to be covered under Power Plant and Switchyard is determined by the detailed design of the
equipment and its layout. Area adjoining Switchyard if available and that of unlined portion of Tail Race
should also be advantageously used for extending of grounding system to reduce overall grounding
resistance. The values of various areas are indicated in Table 1 (Annexure -1) attached.

4. RESISTIVITY OF SOIL OF AVAILABLE AREA

The earth resistivity measurements are made by the conventional four probe method, with the help of a
four terminal earth testing meggar. Suitable test locations (depending upon area) are selected at the site
to cover a wide area of the soil. The resistivity of the soil is than determined with the use of the equation:
p = 2nSR
where p is specific resistance in ohm metres, R is in ohms and S is spacing of electrodes in metres.

To have a correct assessment of the earth-resistivity value to be adopted for design of grounding system,
resistivity curve which is a plot of measured resistivity drawn against probe spacing, is drawn. At a
particular site a number of such curves are drawn for different locations and an average curve is evolved.
This average resistivity curve is then analysed. If the variation n festivity is less than 30 percent, the soil
may be assumed homogeneous having resistivity equal to the average value determined from resistivity
curve. If the variation is more than 30 percent, the soil is not treated as uniform.

Seasonal variation in the value of earth resistivity should be taken into account by extending the tests over
a period of at least one year and if the time does not permit, the resistivity measurements should be made
in dry season to get the maximum value of the soil resistivity.

62
If certain areas of the substation are to be fIlled up, it is advantageous to use low resistivity filling soil.

The substation area are usually covered with a layer of about 7 em thickness of gravel. The resistivity of
the wet gravel at the surface may be taken as 3000 ohm-metres.

In case of Dehar Power Plant, the resistivity of soil of Power Plant area was found fairly constant but
extremely high as 1600 ohm-metres. In case of Dehar Switchyard soil resistivity tests indicated a large
variation in the resistivity with increased probe spacing (100 ohm-metres to 1300 ohm-metrees)
indicating a loose over-burden over a hard bed-rock. Since soil characteristics were found non-unifonn,
the value of apparent resistivity (p.> was evaluated on the assumption of two layer stratification from the
curves given in the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario Report No. 62-81 entitled 'Soil
Resistivity Testing Guide' as per below :-

(i) Resistivity of top layer (p I) = 100 ohm metres

(ii) Resistivity of bottom layer (Pl)=1200 ohm-metres
(iii) Depth of the top layer (d) =3 metres
(iv) Equivalent radius r. of total = 212 metres
plant area including switchyard
(v) Computed apparent resistivity =500 ohm-metres
for design of ground mat.

5. MAXIMUM GROUND FAULT CURRENT

As per statistics, single-line to ground fault is most commonly encountered in system. The maximum
ground fault current will result from single phase to earth fault in the vicinity of the power plant. A two
phase to ground fault may give slightly higher values of total earth fault current, but keeping in view its
rare possibility, this is not taken into consideration for possibility, this is not taken into consideration for
design as per V.S.B.R. and V.S.S.R. practice. The maximum symmetrical r.m.s. value ofthe ground fault
current may be detennined with the help of studies like digital computer study etc. Grounding resistance
and the fault resistance are neglected in the calculation of the ground fault current.

To allow for the effect of d.c. off-set and a.c. and d.c. decrements, the symmetrical r.m.s. value offactor.
Table II gives the value of the decrement factor that may be used in the absence of any accurate data.

TABLE II
Decrement Factor

Fault duration Sec. Decrement factor

0.08 1.65
0.10 1.25
0.25 1.10
0.05 or more 1.00

A correction factor to allow for the future increase in fault currents due to expansion of the system is also
applied. This factor may be from 1.2 to l.5 depending on the state of growth of the system.

The maximum fault current used for design of grounding system for Dehar PP and Switchyard taking all
factors into consideration was 15 K.A.

63
 6.0 MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE TRANSFER TOUCH AND STEP POTENTIALS
The details regarding tolerable limits of step and touch (transferred potential, a special case of touch
potential) potentials are discussed below:

I 6.1 Transfer Potential

The maximum voltage rise of the station ground bus over the potenti al of a remote point equals the product
Ig x R where Ig is the largest current expected to flow into the ground during power system fault through
station ground resistance R. This voltage appears across communications or control lines or metal pipes
etc. leaving the station.

For Dehar grounding system, it was considered to limit the maximum potential rise of the station ground
bus to not more than 5,000 volts because of the following:

(a) With conventional grids the highest touch voltages are approx. 20-30% ofthe total potential rise.
The maximum safe touch voltage being 1000 to 1500 volts. The maximum total potential rise may
be limited to 5000 volts.
(b) Hydro-electric power commission of Ontario specifies upper limit of 5000 Volts.
(c) A number of control and communication wires are taken out of the Power Plant to various
control points on the project.
(d) U. S. B. R. also likes to hold to a maximum of 5000 volts.

6.2 Touch and Step Potential

The touch and step voltages are proportional to soil resistivity and for stratified soils the resistivity of the
top layer (PI) is used for detennining these potentials in the vicinity of a grounding grid. The surface
gradients are required to be controlled. The maximum touch potential as per A. I. E. E. Guide 80 [I] is given
by the following fonnula:
. . 165 + 0.25 P volts
Tolerable sustamed touch potential = ..Jt
Where t =Duration of sustain shock contact in seconds (0.5 seconds, as the fault is expected to be cleared
much earlier).
p =Soil resistivity of top soil layer in ohm-metres.
Maximum safe step voltage is givcn by the following:
E = 16S+p Volts
..Jt
Step

7. MATERIAL AVAILABLE FOR GROUNDING CONDUCTOR

Material for grounding conductor should have high conductivity and low underground corrosion. Copper,
steel and aluminium were considered for grounding system. In the past copper has been the most common
metal used. However, the subsequent trend has bcen towards the use of steel in place of copper as it is
economical and its use avoids galvanic action between grounding system and other under ground utilities
which are mostly of steel.
Galvanised steel retards the rate of corrosion in the initial stages, but the rate of corrosion increases as the
zinc coating is destroyed f2J. Dcpending upro the corrosivity of the soil zinc coating may be destroyed
within two to twenty years. Therefore, galvanising as means of protection against under ground corrosion

64
for extended periods of time should bot be depended upon. An allowance for corrosion should be made
while determining the conductor size.

For Dehar Grounding system, Steel strips have been used as grounding oonductors.

8. SPECIAL MEASURES CONSIDERED FOR DEHAR GROUNDING SYSTEM TO

SUPPLEMENT GROUND GRIDS
Keeping in view quite large ground currents and very high soil resistivity, it was considered that the
ground mats em bedded below the area available under the Power Plant, tail race and switch yard may not
be sufficient to restrict the rise of potential within prescribed safe limits. Following measures were
considered and provided to reduce the transfer potential.

8.1 Ground Conductor Ring in the Plant Area

A ground conductor ring along the periphery of the acquired plant area embedded deep enough for safety
against step potential was considered for lowering ground resistance.

8.2 Overhead Ground Wires of Transmission Lines

High voltage transmission lines are provided with overhead ground wires. These wires were considered
for connection to the station ground so as to divert a substantial portion of the ground current away from
the station grounding grid and thus help the grounding grid design. The ground current will divide in
inverse ratio of the input resistance of the over head wires and the station ground resistance.

8.3 Ground Conductor Loop in the River Water

A ground conductor loop was also laid in the unlined portion of tail-race, suitably anchored to the bottom
and connected to station ground bus. The estimdtion of the resistance of this loop was obtained by
assuming a two layer stratification of water and bottom rock. Resistivity of water as per actual tests carried
out in the month of October worked out to 190 ohms-metres.

9. DESIGN OF GROUNDING SYSTEM

The following steps are normally fo1Jowed for the design of an earthing system:
(1) Preliminary arrangement of grounding conductors
(ii) Conductor length required for gradient control.
(iii) Maximum grid potential and calculation of resistance of grounding system.
(iv) Determination of size of grounding conductor.

9.1 Preliminary Arrangement of Grounding Conductors

The grounding system is formed of a grid of conductors buried horizontally at a depth of about 0.6 m from
the surface of the earth. The preliminary arrangement of the grounding conductor is decided on the
following lines:

(i) When the spacing of the conductors forming the grounding grid is uniform the outer
conductors dissipate more currcnt to ground giving rise to a higher value of ICF. Mesh
potential at comer meshes is mush more than the mesh potential at meshes near the center of
the grid. Dissipation to the current of the ground can be made more uniform if the horizontal
spacing between the conductors is reduced [3] as the periphery is approached. The spacing of
the conductors shown in figure of Annexure II gives nearly same value of the mesh potential
for all the meshes of the grid and thus is considered more suitable.

65
 (ii) A continuous grounding conductor should surround the station perimeter, to enclose as ground
as practicable.
(iii) Additional grounding conductors if required should be laid in parallel lines at appropriate
spacing along rows of structures of equipment, cross-connections, resulting in meshes, so as
to provide multiple paths specially from such points as transformer neutral connections.
(iv) At situations where the resistivity ofthe ground at the depth where the grid is located is liable
to fluctuations with change of season, the grid may be supplemented with grounding rods, each
about 3 m long with their upper end connected at the junctions of the meshes. The appropriate
number of rods are selected so that the driven rod electrodes have current carrying ability
enough to prevent them from over-heating and drying out the soil. Maximum ground fault
current divided by 500 gives approximately the minimum num ber of grounding rods that may
be adopted. These grounding rods may be distributed over the entire grid. It is a good practice
to have a ground rod at the junction of the grid where the lead from the lightning arrestor is
connected.

9.2 Conductor Length Required for Gradient Control.

The meshes of the earthing grid should be sufficiently small so that the step and tlJuch potentials are kept
within safe limits. The design is based on the safe touch potential and it is then checked for the step
potential. The following equation gives the approximate length of the buried conductor to keep the touch
potential within safe limits. [4]

L = Km K j pI {t
165 + 0.25 p.
where

Km=_l in (DI 16 hd) + ~(3/4) (5/6) (718)

2n 2n
the num ber of factors in parenthesis in the second term is (n-2), n being the number of parallel conductors
in the basic grid excluding cross connections.
D= spacing between parallel conductors.
h = depth of burial=0.6 m (adopted)
d = equivalent diameter of grounding strip
(i) Forn equal to 10 or more, there is a remarkable difference in the value of the ICE mesh for equal
and unequal spacing of the conductor of grid.
For equal spacing
ICF mesh = 0.2 + 0.22 n for n ~ 10
For unequal spacing
ICF mesh=O.5 + 0.084 n for n ~ 10
(ii) Forn equal to 100r more ICF to be used for calculation of step potential is different from that
to be used for mesh potential. Its value for equal, unequal spacing is approximately same and
given by
ICF step = 1.7 + 0.065 n for ~ 10

If the length of the grounding conductor taken in the preliminary arrangement is less than that needed to
keep the adequate voltage gradient, the layout may be modified and closer meshes may be adopted to
achieve the safe potential gradients.

66
The area of the substation which are frequently visited by the operating personnel may be provided with
closure meshes to give extra safety. With the length used for Dehar mat (s) the values of Estep and E touch
were well within safe limits.

9.3 Grounding Resistance

The maximum fault currents for the design of the grounding system, as per para 5.0 has been taken as
15,000 Amps. For the maximum limit of 5000 volts for the transfer voltage the required resistance (R)
of the grounding system works out to: R = 500 = 0.333 ohms.
15000
The above resistance was achieved by various grounds as described below:

9.3.1 Power Plant and Tail Race Ground Grids

Power Plant and tail race ground grids are laid over the bed rock of Power Plant andtail race.
The resistance of the ground grids is calculated by the Laurent's following formula. [I]

Rl = .£.. + .£.
4r L
Where Rl =Total resistance of the ground grid in ohms.
p = Resistivity of soil in Ohms-metres
r = Equivalent radius of the area occupied by the grid.
L = Length of the grounding conductor in metres for the Power Plant tail-race ground grids.
p = 1600 ohms-metres, I = 1800 metres.
r = 50 meters (area = 8000 sq. metres)

R = 1600 + 1600 = 8.89 Ohms

4x50 1800
The question of hazardous touch potential gradients do not arise in the above area as whole of it is an
eqipotential area by virtue of the reinforcement steel of main building and tail race lining. However cross
connections have been provided as a safety margin.

9.3.2 Switchyard, Overhead Ground Wires 0/ Transmission Lines, Ground Conductor Loop in
River Water.
The values of individual resistance are indicated in Table l.
9.3.3 Resultant resistance o/Grounding System
Resistance of power plant grid = Rl =8.89 Ohms
Resistance of 132 kV/ = Rz= 0.673 Ohms
220 kV/ 400 kV Switchyard & ring around plant area.
Resistance of transmission lines ground wires. = R3 =0.734 Ohms
Resistance of ground conductor loop in River waters = R4 =6.3 Ohms
The resultant resistance is
1 1 1 1 1
R
= -+ -+ -+
Rl R2 R3 R4
1 1 1 1
--+ --+ --+ - 0.32 Ohms
8.89 0.673 0.743 6.3

67
9.4 Determination of Size of Grounding Conductors
The proper size of the grouncling conductor should be adopted so that:
(i) It has thennal stability to ground fault current.
(ii) It will last for at least 50 years without causing a break in the groundingcircuitdue to corrosion.
(iii) It is mechanically strong.

9.4.1 Cross-Sectional Area from Mechanical Considerations

From mechanical consideration, the minimum size of grouncling conductor used for ground mats, risers
and all main electrical equipment as per A. I. E. E. Guide and U. S. B. R. Practice is 4/0 A. W. G. i. e.
Copper having a cross sectional areas of 108 sq. cm. The equivalent cross-sectional area for steel based
on equal tensile strength works out to about 60 sq. mm.
Further minimum grouncling conductor size for steel should also take into account ample margin against
soil corrosion effects. Steel Strips of 10 mm minimum thickness are accordingly used for Dehar
Grounding System and risers etc.

9.4.2 Cross-Sectional Area from Thermal Considerations

From thennal considerations, the size will depend on the magnitude of ground fault current, fault
clearance time and maximum pennissible temperature of the grounding conductor. The conductor size
requi red for steel conductors is based upon the equation 0fI. M. Underdonk. (5] formaximum fault current
can be worked out by the following fonnula:

A = I -it 74
1_ _ __--;;-- X -3
10 sq.mm
e
loglO (1+-)
274
Where
A = Cross-sectional area is sq. mm.
I = Current carrying capacity in Amps.
T = Time of duration of fault current in seconds (3 seconds) which is equal to the short time rating
of the controlling switch gear.
e = Allowable temp. rise in degrees centigrade above ambient temp. of 40 0 C = 3600 C.

I which is equal to the sustained value of fault current (time of fault duration being 3 seconds shall vary
for various elements of the grounding system depending upon their resistance.
Table of few selcctcd standard size steel conductors and their current carrying capacity based on the
fonnula is given below:
Size of flat Area Sq. mm. Current Capacity in Amps
25 x 6 150 6,100
25 x 10 250 10,000
40x 10 400 10,300
SOx6 300 12,200
SOx 10 500 20,300
65 x 10 650 26,400
75 x 10 750 30,400
75 x 12 900 36,500
100 x 12 1200 48,100
100 x 20 2000 84,000
150 x 25 3750 150,000

68
9.4.3 Selection 0/ Risers
The main risers from the G. T. T. B. boxes to the various important equipment in Power Plants and from
Switchyard ground mat to the main equipment in the Switchyard are likely to carry full system fault
current of 15000 Amps. These risers should therefore have a minimum cross-section of 400 x 2 =800 sq.
mm (allowance of 50% for corrosion has been provided). Steel grounding strip 75 x 12 mm 2 were selected
for the same.

9.4.4 Selection o/Ground Conductor/or Various Ground Mats

9.4.4.1 Power P lam and Tail Race Ground Grids The resistance of the power plant and tail-race ground
grids is approx. 8.89 ohms assuming max. system fault current equal to 15000 Amps and the resistance
of grounding system = 0.32 ohm. the current to be dissipated by the above mats = 540 amps.

The above value of current is too small and steel grounding strip of SOx lO mm'l was selected for use for
the power plant and tail-race ground grids.

9.4.4.2 Switchyard Ground Grid: The resistance of the switchyard ground grid was found as 1.32 ohms.
The current expected to be dissipated works out to 3660 amps. Since aU the equipments are directly
connected to the ground grid. whole of the fault current will first go the ground grid and then it will be
dissipated to the other grounds. The ground grid main clements are therefore designed for 15000 amps.
After taking into consideration the effects of corrosion a minimum area of 400 x 2 =800 sq.l:1m is required
for the ground conductor in the switchyard area. Steel grounding strip 75 x 12 mm 2 was considered ad-
equate for the same as main conductor. Since 100 x 12 mm 2 flats were readily available. the same have
been used.

9.4.4.3 Ground Conductor Ring in the Plant Area: TI1e resistance of the ring conductor is 0.673 ohms.
the propotionate current to be dissipated is 7180 Amps. Taking into consideration the corrosion factor the
minimum required area was 215 x 2 = 43,0 sq mm. Steel grounding strip of 50 x 10 mm 2 has been used
for the ground ring in the plant area.

9.4.4.4 Overhead Ground Wires ofTransmission Lines: The equivalent fonnula for aluminium conductor
[5] works out to

A=I{tx f - -17
--- X
3
10- sq mm
log10 (1 + -q-)
288
Assu ming I = 15000 amp; t = 3 sec. e = 160 c
0

17
A = 15000 x ..f3 x X 10-3 sq mm
160
\ogl0 (1+-)
288
= 238.5 mm2
Accordingly ACSR conductor 30n/.146 having an equivalent copper of 0.3 sq. in. or 54n/.125 having
an equivalent copper of 0.4 sq in. was recommended for use. Extra margin for corrosion in ACR conductor
is not required.

9.4.4.5 Ground Conductor Loop inR iver Water: The resistance of the grid is 6.3 Ohms. The proportionate
current to be discharged by the grid =780 amps. Since \he current is small steel grounding strip of size
50 x 10 mm was recommended for use for this purpose.

69
REFERENCES
1. "Guide for Safety in Alternating Current Substations Grounding", AIEE Publication No. 80, March,
1961.
2. "Conductor for Grounding High Voltage Stations", by Thapar B., Power Engineer, Vol. 15, No.4,
Oct. 1965.
3. B. Thapar and Pritpal Garg", Control of Ground Potential Gradients at Modem High Voltage
Substations", 46th Research Session of the CBIP, Trivandrum Nov, 1977, Vol. VI.
4. B. Thapar and H. S. Bains "Substation Ground Design", CBIP Journal, Vol. 23, No.3, July 1966.
5. AlEE Committee Report on "Application Guide for Substation Grounding", AIEE Substation
Grounding", AlEE Transactions -April 1953, Volume 73.
6. Thapar, B. and Saksena, R. B. "Potential Gradient at Periphery of Grounding Grids" Proceedings
of 29th Annual Research Session, Central Board ofIrrigation & Power, Vol. IV (Power), 1969.
7. "Grounding for Safety", by B. Thapar - Power Engineer, Vol. 14, No.2, April, 1964.
8. "Code of Practice for Earthing", Indian Standard Institution.
9. Thapar, B and Arora, J. K. "Grounding Systems in Non-uniform Soil", Proceedings Institute of
Engineers, India, 1977.
Annexure -I
TABLE I
Description Power Tail Combined SlY ard Combined O.H. Loop in Total
Plant race (1+2) (3) (3) + Wires Water
(1) (2) Plant
Area

Area A 5500 2500 8000 35000 1,43,000 3070

(sq. metres)

Eq-radius 50 105 212 31.3

(Metres)

I.-epgth L 1800 3900 6,000 400

(Meters)

Resistivity 1600 1600 1600 500 500 Z 220 = 2.28 600

(ohm-metres) (one)
Z400=2.2
(Two)

R= P (~ + ~) 8.89 0.673 0.743 6.3 0.32

uc L
(ohms)

Ground fault 540 15000 15000 780

current to be dissipated
by Mat/Wires

70
 Annexure ·II

° °23,°r
2

°45 °56 °56 ~

...

°12----"
+ ~

°23
O~ ,

°45 ,

°56
~

°56 Ir

4~

°45

°~ A
,Ir
I

°23 Ir

t °12

023
= 0.5
0.75
023

034

034 0.75 045

045 056

FIGURE 1 : Grounding grid with unequal spacing

71
 CHAPTER 9

Impulse Characteristics of Grounding

Systems

B.R. GUPfA
Electrical Engineering department punjab engineering college chandigarh

1. INTRODUCTION
Grounding arrangements in the fonn of driven rods, horizontal electrodes and complex grids comprise
one of the essential elements in the art of lightning protection of high voltage systems. The impedance
offered by a grounding system to the flew of impulse currents can be very different fonn the power
frequency grounding resistance. This is due to (a) effect of electrode inductance (b) effect of soil
ionization.
The effect of electrode inductance is present when the length of electrode is pretty large. The effect of soil
ionization is present when the magnitude of impulse current is very large and length of electrode is small
(e.g. driven rods). In the fonner case the ratio of impulse impedance to power frequency grounding
resistance is known as inductance coefficient (A). In the later case this ratio is known as breakdown
coefficient (B) when both these effects are present the ratio is known as impulse coefficient.

2. EFFECT OF ELECTRODE INDUCTANCE ON IMPULSE CHARACTERISTICS OF HORI·

ZONTALLY BURIED ELECTRODES
For the purpose of analysis the electrode can be represented by distributed parameter circuit consisting
of electrode resistance, electrode inductance (L). grounding resistance (or grounding conductance G) and
capacitance. The effect of electrode resistance is always negligible. For low and medium resistivity soils
the effect of capacitance can also be neglected.
If a unit step current is applied to a distributed parameter circuit, the voltage at input point is given by:

Where e (t) =Voltage at input point

G = Leakage conductance. siemen slm
L = Electrode inductance. X - HIm

72
The response to other wave forms is obtained by principle of super position studies weve conducted for
the following range of variable.
Length of electrode from input point 5 m to soil resistivity 50, 100, 500, 1000, W -m 150 m current wave
shapes I x 40, 3 x 40, 4 x 40, 5 x 40, and 9 x 40 J.1- secs.

2.1 ELECTRODE FED AT ONE AND

For this electrode, the inductance L and conductance G are given by:

G = ..!. On _2_1_ -rl •.. (2)

p J2ad
L = U2 On 11 - I]
a
R = Yol ... (3)

WhereR = Grounding resistance

I = length of electrode, m
a = radius of electrode, m
d = depth of burial, m
p = soil resistivity,
The results indicated that as the length of electrode is increased, the impluse impedance decreases first
rapidly and than slowly. After a certain length is reached the impulse impedance becomes almost constant.
TIris length is termed as effective length and can be written as

Ie = L4 (pT)0.S ... (4) -

where e = effective length, m
P = soil resistivity, n·m
T = wave front time, J..l-seces.

S
When 1:::; 1 e, A =e O.303 O/lel (5)
1m pulse 1m pedance = A x R (6)
For 1 > I, Impulse Impedance is the same as for length 1 e

2.2 ELECTRODE FED AT CENTRE

For this electrode, G and L are given by

G = 21t Dn_4_1_ - Ifl (7)

P J2ad
L = UI Dn(l/a)-l (8)
The empirical expression for effective length is:

1 e = 1. 55 (pT)0.S (9)
The empirical expressions for impulse impedance and inductance coefficient are the same as in the case
of electrode fed at one end.

73
2.3 FOR ARM STAR ELECTRODE
The vases ofG and L are given by

G = 47t On _2_1_ + (10)

p J2ad
L = nos On -I -1) (11)
a
The empirical equation for effective length is
Ie = l.85 (pT)0.5 (12)
Equations for inductance n coefficient and impulse impedance are the same as n section 2.1.

3.0 IMPULSE IMPEDANCE OF DRIVEN RODS

A large value of impulse current dissipated by a driven rod may cause ionization of soil surrounding the
electrode and a consequent decrease in resistance.
The ionization is partly surface and partly of the body of the soil. The total current I can be broken up into
Ii and 12 the currents dissipated by surface ionization streamers and rod respectively:

I{) =K(I,P / 4EOP·5 (13)

Ro = :1{) = (PEa /41,)°·5 (14)

ai = 12P/2ITpE (15)
Ri = L In ~ -1) (16)
27tJ al
Rt = Ii Ro + 12 Rm = (17)
II + 12

Where Rr = Total impulse impedance

(resistance) or driven rod, oluns.
r0 = Radius of plate formed by surface streamers, m
R 0 = Grounding resistance of surface plate, ohms
a.I = Effective radius of rod, m
R. I = Impulse resistance of rod and plate
E0 = Surface critical breakdown gradient,
E = Internal critical breakdown gradient.

4.0. EVALUATION OF IMPULSE RESPONSE FROM LUMPED PARAMETER CIRCUIT

e use of lumped parameter circuit is very common in transmission lines. The impulse impedance of a
counterpoise can also be determined by using a lumped parameter IT circuit. The studies have indicated
that use of lumped parameter circuit gives rise to error in results.
However when the length of electrode is less than the effective lengths, the percentage error is very small.
The length of electrode in excess of effective length does no contribute to lowering of impulse impedance.
Therefore it is uneconomical to use a length larger than effective length. For practical values oflength of
counterpoise, the impulse impedance can be predicted by using the lumped parameters circuit without
much less of accuracy.

74
5.0 IMPULSE IMPEDANCE OF SQUARE GROUNDING GRIDS
Only a part of grid around the feeding point is effective in dissipating the impulse current. This area is
known as effective are. The empirical formula for effective radius is:
r. =K(<pT)0.5 •• .(18)

Where r e = radius of plate having the same area is effective area.

K = (l.45 - 0.05 S) for grids fed at centre
= (0.6 - 0.025 S) for grids f~d at one comer
S = Spacing between conductors of grid, m

6.0 IMPULSE IMPEDANCE OF RECTANGULAR GROUNDING GRIDS

For a rectangular grid. r. is given by

•.. (19)

Where X = Length to breadth ratio of grid

C = 0.029 for venture fed grids
= 0.05 for comer fed grids
K, P, T are same as in the case of square grids.
A comparison of Eqs. (18) and (19) shows that a rectangular grid has lower effective area and higher
impulse impedance than a square grid.

REFERENCES:
1. B. R. Gupta, Investigations of Impulse Characteristics of Grounding Systems Ph.D. Thesis Punjab
University, Chanidgarh, 1978.
2. B. R. Gupta, et. al., 'Impulse Impedance of Grids' IEEE, PAS - Vol. 99 No.6, page 2357.
3. B. R. Gupta, et. al. 'Impulse Impedance of Rectangular Grounding Grids' IEEE, Trans. on Power
Delivery. Jan. 1992 page 214.
4. VandanaGupta, 'Some Aspects of Impulse andH. F. Response of Counterpoise' M. E. Thesis. Punjab
University, 1988.

7S
 CHAPTER 10

Corrosion in Earthing Systems

P. THARElA
Assistant Prof in Metal, Engg., Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
If two dissimilar metals viz. Cu & Zn are in contact, they generate a contact EMF. In ionised conditions
the standard contact potential difference is 0.34 + 0.76 = 1.10 eVe Depending upon the resistances at
various contacts, a measurable CUlrent results due to the flow of electrons, available from the corroding
metal Zn, towards Cu cathode. Anodic and cathodic regions may result due to any desparation in the
earthing system viz. gravitational aberrations, concentrational differences in soil, varying hardness! stress
conditions in the grid etc. And if any anodic areas can result, the whole metal grid could convert the metal's
more primitive form i.e. Ore.
L(I's on corrosion in India totals Rs. 3000!- crore per year. This needs the replacement of the component
or corrosion, assigned by
(i) Lowered process specifications,
(ii) Component inserviceablity and
(iii) Finally total loss of metal.
In Earthing System the mode of degradation is
a) Increase of contact resistance of Because of formation of
Earthing materiel (EM) with a film of corrosion product
Ground
b) The decrease in surface area of Because of loss of metal
EM thereby size reduction.
c) The degradation of contact points. Because of less effective earthing leading to further
degradation.
Therefore, to protect the life and the life of Em itself along with its reliability, the corrostional aspects of
EM deserve better attention.

2. PROTECTION FROM CORROSION

2. 1 Conventional Aspects
The corrosion results becaus·e of mechanical, chemical or electrochemical causes, individually or in

76
combination. Removal of any of the causes obviates it. Out of Anode cathode and environment which
constitute the system, removal of anyone of them could shut off corrosion. Further the electric current
flows as a result of electrochemical reaction. Providing insolation between the anode and cathode could
curtail or lower this current responsible for continuing the degradation of EM (called resistance control).

The electrochemical system is discussed in Figure 2. Upgrading the anode to the cathode state (potential)
and vice versa are other possibilities.

Taking an example of corrosion of Taj by SOl from Mathura Refinery, either anode (Taj) or cathode
(Mathura refinery) could be moved away, or the current (SOl) could be interrupted by wall or drought to
avoid corrosion. Failing which the environment around Taj could be protected by enclosing the Taj with-
in non-penneable dome.

In the EM such enclosures viz. painting of Em surface or resistance controls are not possible nor are the
soil conditions tameable unless effected by design itself. Therefore it becomes important to identify
causes of specific corrosion situations and prescribe relevant measures suitable thereto.

2.2 Tackling Soil - The Electolute

Soil can degrade the Em, chemically, electrochemically or microbially. The conditions of corrosion are
governed by the constituents of soil which are:
(i) Moisture: dry/wet, asymptotes at 20%
(ii) Alkalinity
(iii) Acidity
iv) Penneability of water and air which depends upon compactness or texture
(v) Oxygen
(vi) Salts (asymptote at 4% concentration) and
(vii) Stray currents
(viii) Micro organisms

The moisture salts and acidity/alkalinity causing constituents influence electrical resistivity conductivity
of the soils. Apart that electrical conductivity facilitates the effectiveness of grounding grid, the corrosion
resistance is impaired as can be seen in E-I diagrams (Figure 1). In (la) the drop in respective potential
is lower owing to higher conductivity, or non existent due to open connections, therefore no corrosion
current exists. The corrosion current stands reduced by introduction of a resistance some where. It is
obvious that the resistivity of soil should be more. Their corrosiveness can be compared in Table I. The
resistivity of specific soils is given in Table II which explains why should the EM be embedded in
concrete. It is obvious how the corrosion rate of steel grid reduces five fold when embedded in concrete.
Table III gives the pH values of soils which influence the activity apart from governing the microbial life
in soils, and so does ozygcn, which sometimes acts as a part of the bacterial nutrient in soil. Varying
Oxygen concentrations make the EM cathodic, and the regions which may be starved of oxygen would
start dissolving (called differential aeration cell).

2.3 BIOLOGICAL CORROSION

Soil may have micro (bacterial) or macro (algae, barnacle) organisms. Theses can live and reproduce in
0-11 ph. 0-100° C temperatures and upto 15000 psi atmospheres. Since these ingest a reactant (or food)
and eliminate waste, they can :

77
 (i) Directly influence anode and cathode reactions,
(li) Influence protective surface films,
(iii) Create corrosive conditions and
(iv) Produce deposits

These organisms are of two kinds anaerobic, which reduce sulfate, and aerobic which oxides sulphur, or
theosulphate, or are Iron bacteria's. Other kinds are which change ammonia (from urea in fertilisers) to
Nitric acid on COz to carbonic acid.

Some even breaks asphaltic coatings.

These bacteria's can sustain in special soils bearing the constituents they feed on, and thrive in specific
pH/temp. conditions as given in Table IV outlines conditions and metal losses in adjoining area of soils.
It is worthwhile considering that sulfides can be produced from anaerobic bacteria's (in Rainy Season)
by the process.
SO~2 + 4 H2 --+ S-2 + 4 H2 0
using hydrogen decomposed from cellulosic matter etc. in earth or the Hz resulting from cathode source
(Figure 2), the same sulfide can be converted back to sulfate by Arabic bacteria's when 02 is fit to permente
into the soil
2S + 302 + 2H20 --+ 2 H2 S04
while the sulphide retards hydrogen evolution and accelerates anodic dissolution, the ~ S04 will de-
teriorate the life of Em further. It even reacts with concrete.

Further the cyclic conditions S -7 S04· 2 -7 S -7 S04· 2 -7 S spell only danger and can cause extensive
damage as in conventional fatigue corrosion.

Breakage of coatings, as in asphalted pipes by bacteria's is also very dangerous as the small anode areas
generated therein are subjected to enlarged current densities, (current/area).

The corrosion product (waste) generated along with oxygen/sulfides etc. influence anode cathode
reactions by either setting in fast equilibrium conditions around an electrode or by converting the erstwhile
corrosion product to more active forms.

For example as Cu does not react with sulfuric acid or dry oxygen, in the presence of moisture it may do
so,e.g.
2Cu + 2Hz S04 + 0z -7 2Cu S04 + 2Hz °
oxygen depolarises copper in wet condition only or

Cu + lIz Oz + Hz 0 --+ Cu z+ + 20H-

It is because the electrode potential of Cu is + 0.34 and that of Hydrogen zero (Table VII). So H+ cannot
displace Cu but the reverse is true.

To refresh this we can study again Figure 2, wherein a Cu/Cu2++ electrode (copper dipped in super-
saturated Cu S04 Solution) and Fe/Fe2++ half cell are joined externally with wire and electrolytically by
a salt bridge. This would yield a potential of 0.34- (-0.44) i.e. 0.78 ev. While the anode dissolves as
Fe-7Fe2+2e, the Fe2+ ions may even be oxidised to Felf. if ferric salt is used. Further the hydroxylions on

78
OH- may combine as in OH- + OH ~ 1/2 O2 + ~ 0 +2e and evolve O2 at anode, while 2e travel through
metallic conductor to cathode and instigate the cathodic reactions to take place such as evolution of
hydrogen as in
H++H+ + 2e~ H+ H~ H2
or reduction of metal as
Cu2++e~ Cu+
and even deposition as in
Cu++e~Cu.

O2 from the atmosphere can even be absorbed fonning hydroxyl ions

O2 + ~O+ 2e - 2. OH-
which may travel towards anode.
TIlls system should continue albeit giving non-ideal potential differences when the concentration of
electrolyte differs (concentration cells) or the O2 availability varies at cathode and anode as discussed
above to influence specific reactions. Validity of formation of a galvanic couple i.e. anode and cathode
generating potential can be ascertained from the EMF service Table VI (in standard conditions) and
galvanic series Table VII (in active and passive states and in alloys). The extent of potential generated shall
be larger if the displacement of two participating metals/alloys is more in these series and vice-versa. To
avoid corrosion divergent members should not be coupled.

2.4 Anodic and Cathodic Protection

We have seen in Evens diagram (Figure 1) that the current I.... leads to dissolution of anode. If we-change
the conditions at anode and or cathode so as to reduce I...., we term this effect anodic and/or cathodic
control (Figure 3). The purpose is to reduce the corrosion current (anode current) to zero. In cathodic
protection this current is reduced to zero by (i) applying an impressed current to counter the Icorr, (li) by
setting up a cathodic Icon' of the same magnitude. An auxiliary anode is used to in these cases either to
set up requisite counter current as in the first case, and in the second case such an anode is made to
corrode preferentially so it is termed the sacrificial anode. Such a system is schematically illustrated in
Figure 4 (a) & (b). In the case of an auxiliary anode the equivalent electrical circuits are shown in
Figure 5. If 12 is the impressed current, the net potential in the new condition is

Where RA and Rc are the anode andcathode resistance respectively

Icorr = EA -R 1;:- :c. 12
A + c
In ICOJr > 0, partial protection results and ifit equals zero, full protection can be ensured while application
of sacrificial anodes increase Icorr in magnitude, they may however serve the purpose as shown in
Figure 6 The loss of various anode materials is shown in Table VIII and current requirement in Table IX.

2.6 STRAY CURRENTS

The impressed current applied by user could stray towards another metallic structure. The point ofits enter
determines cathode area and degradation start at the place of exit.

The currents straying from other earthing, or similar situations should lead to corrosion of intervening

79
structures. This is schematically illustrated in Figure 7. Here again the small anode areas determine large
current densities. To avoid such contraventions, both the structures intended to be cathodes, can be
shortad as shown in Figure 8.

2.7 Additive Effects and Cathodic Protection

Consider Figure 6(b) again. If the anode E-I com ponent is complemented by that of auxiliary (sacrificial)
one, then the net anodic effect should be complemented and can be added. This would lower the corrosion
potential and make sacrificial anode more effective. The additive effects are illustrated in Figure 9.

3. SECONDARY CORROSION PROBLEMS

We have studied generation of H2S04 in microbial soil. Similarly hydrogen evolution at cathode (Figure
2) can produce hydrogen blistering 'in iron. 1lrls causes hydrogen embitterment. More problems are
crevice corrosion in close but imperfect contacts. Thus the safe reasons in a component are difficult to
ensure, and slight aberrations could create zones of cathodic embitterment of anodic stress corrosion
cracking. (SCC) as shown in Figure to. The atmosphere conducive to SCC are

Steel NOH, Calcium/ amonium/ Sodium! Nitrates mixed acids.

H2 S04' HN03,Acidic ~ S and Sea Water.

and for Copper Amonia vapours & solution amines Water and watervapours

Evidently cathodic protection is not trustworthy and requires high operative costs.

Cathodic protection can be effective only in weak to moderate environments.

Then there is distance limitation (because of increasing resistance). While anode protection can be more
precise, has high throwing power and the maintenance cost is low. Anodic protection can effect precise
control in inhibiting ICOJT but since it introduces high resistance on total Em, its use is not advocated without
risks of insulating grounding grid completely.

4. DESIGN ASPECTS
(i) The EM should be designed, chosen and fabricated with regard to corrosion aspects ensuring proper
galvanic coupling while resistance control should be exercised, the contact resistances should be
kept minimum. It is recommended that all contacts should be welded or soldered. This would also
restrict crevice corrosion. All crevices to be filled in.
(ii) Annealed wire strips should be used so as to avoid stress corrosion. the hardness should be
homogeneous as hard areas become anodic.
(iii) Galvanised steel affords better corrosion protection specially in cathodic control.
(iv) Extra designing is used to accomodate loss of metal due to corrosion if any.
In high resistivity soils 5-10% extra allowance in dimensions. In the soils having resistivity> 100
ohm-m corrosion rate is 0.04% per year. For mildly corrosive soils (resistivity: 20 - 100 ohm - m
15 % allowance is sufficient to account for I % loss per year of first 10 years and 1/2% later.
And for severel y corrosi ve soils (p<25 ohm -m) 30% extra material matches 2% loss for first 10 years
and 1% thereafter.
(v) During layinglhandling sharp bends should be avoided. Apart from stress these also cause
concentrated differences due to lower mobility of soil.

80
(vi) May use concrete foundation so as to ensure high resistivity (vii) Soil treatment if done, should be
homogeneous.
5.0 EPILOGUE
Copper and iron have hitherto been employed in grounding grids. Cost reliability and life are the key
factors. Copper displays a loss of 0.1 - 0.2% in various soils. Galvanised iron shows 0.3 to 0.5% loss, and
uncoated iron upto 0.9% loss (Tables X & XI). As discussed earlier copper grids can be depolarised in
specific aerated conditions causing high local damage, thus the relative cost, and high reliability of
galvanised iron displays better prospects for galvanised iron Em. The copper grids have been found to fare
badly in Chandigarh soils (Table V), which needs to be reauthenticated.
Although the galvanised iron is cathodically preprotected, yet use of Al or Mg sacrificial anodes would
defer the termination of the Zn protective film cathodically, Further in coastal areas where the humidity/
salt concentrations of are larger in shared soils, use of specific inhibitors (controlling the specific
environment) after ascertaining soil consutution can be prescribed.

TABLE 1
Soil Resistivity and Corrosivety
Range of soil resistivity Class
ohm-m
o-tO Severe corrosive
10-25 Severely corrosive
25-50 Moderately corrosive
50-100 Mildly corrosive
above 100 Very mild corrosive

TABLE IT
Resistivity of Soils 1-1000
Av. value Variation
Clay (0°C) 40 10-70
Sand+Qay 100 40-300
Mud 150 50-250
Concrete (new) 100 50-500
Concrete dry 10,000 2000-10,000

TABLEm
Extremely acidic pH value below 4.5
Very strongly acidic 4.5 to 5.0
Strongly acidic 5.1 to 5.5
Medium acidic 5.6 to 6.0
Slightly aci<:lic 6.1 to 6.5
Neutral * 6.6 to 7.3
Mildly alkaline 7.4 to 7.8
Strongly alkaline 8.5 to 9.0
Very strongly alkaline 9.1 and higher,
*Neutrality is pH 7.0 but in the field those soils between pH 6.6 to 7.3 are called neutral.

81
 TABLE IV
Physiological properties of Microgranisms

Type Oxygen Soil End Product Hobitat Optimum temp

Sulphate Anaerobic Sulphur, Hydrogen Water,muds 6-7.5 25-30

Reducing Sulphates Sulphide Soils, concrete,
thiosulphates, Sewage Limit 5-9 Max 60
hypo Sulfides

Sulphur Aerobic Sulphur, ~S04 Soil composts 2-4 Optimum

Oxidising Sulphides sulphur & rock limit 5-6 28-30
Thiobacillus thiosulphates phosphates with
thioxidans incomplete oxidised 8-37 (slow-
sulphur compounds growth

Thiosulphates Aerobic Thiosulphate Thiosulphate Widel close to

Oxidising Sulphur to Sulphate distributed neutral optimum
Thiobacllus and Sulphur soil, sewage limit 7-9 30
thioparus mud

Iron Aerobic Ferrous Carbonate Stagnant & 24·C

Crenothrx ferrous bicarbonate running water Limits 5-40
and Leptothrix manganese bicarbonate combining iron
salts, organic matter

TABLE V
Corrosion Studies on Samples (Strips) of Copper Aluminium and Steel

Location of Average percent loss per Characteristic of soils

site year of two exposures
Copper Aluminium Steel Per- Soil pH Sodi Pota- Per- Per- Per-
cent- resi- Value urn sium cent- cent cent
age stivity PPM PPM age age chloride
mois- ohm- calci- phate
ture- metre umca-
cont- rbonate
tent

Chandigarh 0.150 00.90 0.035 1.585 105.00 7.4 42 39 0.06264

Ganguwal 0.057 0.115 0.195 10.500 53.37 8.4 68 40 0.50 0.02552
Hissar 0.375 N.A.* N.A. 15.310 99.60 7.6 73 69 0.40 0.35032
Jullundur 0.075 0.250 0.415 9.700 50.00 7.8 56 49 0.07 0.18096
Delhi 0.000 0.226 1.430 2.060 97.90 8.9 100 50 0.05 0.16472
Joginder Nagar 0.000 0.000 0.330 0.805 366.45 5.7 44 47 0.05 0.10440
Average 0.11 0.14 0.48
Ratio 1 1.3 4:4

N.A.· Samples not available

82
 TABLE VI
EMFsreies
-2.34 Mg/Mg2+
-1.67 AL/AL3+
-0.77 Fe/Fe3+
-0.762 Zn{Zn++
-0.44 Fe/Fe2+
0.126 Pb/Pb2+
0.00 H2/H+
0.345 CU/Cu2+
0.522 Cu/Cu+
0.800 AglAg+
0.162 Au/Au+

TABLEVllI
Galvanic Series
Corroded end (anodic or least noble)
Magnesium
Magnesium Alloys
Zinc
Aluminium 2S
Cadmium
Aluminium 17 ST
Steel or iron
Cast iron
Chromium iron (active)
Ni-Resist
18-8 Chromium-nickel-iron (active)
18-8-3 Chromium-nickel-molybdenum-iron (active)
Lead-tin-solders
Lead
Tin
Nickel (active)
Inanel (active)
Brasses
Copper
Bronzes
Copper-nickel alloys
Monel
Solver solder
Ninkel (passive)
Inconel (passive)
Chromium-iron (passive)
18-8 Chromium-nickel-iron (passive)
18-8-3 Chromium-nickel-molybdenum-iron (passive)
Silver
Graphite
Gold
Platinum
Protected end (cathodic, or most noble)

83
 TABLE YIn
Looses in impressed current anodes
Metal/alloy Medium Ibs/amp-yr
Scrap Steel Sea water + Fresh water + soil 20

Allumium do 10-20
High Si iron do 0.25-1
Si Cr
Graphite Soil + Fresh water 0.25-5

TABLE IX
Current required for cathodic Protection
Soil Resistivity
<500 -Ocm 10.mNSqft
500-1000 7mNSqft
1000-3000 5mNSqft
3000-5000 2-3 mNSqft
5000-10,000 1
> 10,000 No current regd.

TABLE X
Corrigibility of Metals
Average percentage loss in weight per year of each metal in all soils
Metal Natural Salted All
soils soils soils
Tinned Copper 0.05 0.1 0.1
Copper 0.1 0.2 0.1
Galvanized Mild Steel 0.3 0.5 0.4
Mild Steel 0.9 1.9 1.4
Cast Iron 0.9 2.2 1.5
Annco 1.1 2.2 1.6

TABLE XI
Corrosion of Copper, Steel, Lead and Zinc
(National Bureau of Standards)
Maximum penetration in mils (1 mil=O.OOl in.) for total exposure period. Average corrosion
rates in mg dm day (mdd)
No. of soils No. of
for which years
Sl. No. Metal average is of Corrosion
taken exposure mdd mils

1. Copper 29 8 0.7 6
2. Steel 44 12 4.5 61
3. Lead 21 12 0.52 32
4. Zinc 12 11 3.0 53

84
 0·0 - - - - -

-10-44
.EFe. ---

1 c.-rr Icorr
r (bJ
( 0..) (0
FIGURE 1 : Corrosion potential reduced by current and resistance control

SA t... T f.3RJDG6
CD eLl 2-4- -I- Ze ~ G..t
(J) ~e·.fo ~ f.'eo 3"" ..f- e.
depo.sit.lon RedUGtl~l'l oJ< i dot io 11
@ p.~ '3~ +e ~ Fe 2 ....
@ 0 H- -1- 0 \--1--:=0 1: 01. 1-+ I-hc
® A ~so,..pt (eW, ~-J 0;... 6](.j,en .e,~o'ut~
r~ OJ. -4-1-1;..0 -tZe.-:,). 01-1 CD F' e ~ f:-=:.. l:+ -+ :t c:-
@ [val tAt /em 01 /-I'yd'YO(Je;n dis.soXu-t,~
{..-/ -I- + H ++ 2.e ~ H -to H ~ HJ. 1

FIGURE 2 : Anode and cothod reactions.

(c.orr {. c.orr

CatlvodJe. (pniroL Anodf6 ControL

FIGURE 3 : Reduction of IcOn"

8S
 l(.()rr

2e. 4r-
2e

12-

II ..(r(~-tJ..
I(lv)'
'>L"

~ct;-.1.., -c\. I
~'}'()t; (Ld-r.

Ic.orr
FIGURE 4: I
COlT
at A reduces to zero thanks to the
sacrilical anode

I C:::otT _ i'z ;; c>

-Full p'Yoi:ecJ:-Jon
FIGURE 5 : Equivalent electrical circuit in
auxiliary anode

E.c.

1 - -_ _ '

leorr

(0.)

(IV

FIGURE 6 : New E corr & Icorr after application of sacrificial anode

86
EM

/ ' rJ J

FIGURE 7 : Corrosion from the stray currents FIGURE 8: Protection from stray currents

Z cprr,

I'
£
C".IJrr

FIGURE 9 : Addition oftotal Anode effects FIGURE 10: Corrosion in improperly protected
environments

87
 CHAPTER 11

Measurement of Performance of Ground

Electrode at an Energised Sub-Station

VINODBISHT
Assistant Executive Engineer, NathpaJhakri Power Corporation Ltd., Shimla

1.0 INTRODUCTION
A grounding system is designed for safe potential gradients. It is imperative to check its performance when
it is laid and also when it is in service. It is done by current injection method. A known amount of current
is injected between grounding system 'E' and an auxiliary electrode 'Ea". The auxiliary electrode must
be located at a distance approximately 15 times the equivalent radius of the electrode, so that the potential
developed in the vicinity of grounding system is independent of the location of auxiliary electrode. The
potential gradient so developed at the vicinity of grounding system is measured by voltmeter 'V' with
respect to grounding system as shown in Figure 1.

At an energised SUb-station there is always certain power frequency unbalance current flowing in the
earth. When a known current is injected into the system, the potential gradient developed is due to both
the injected and leakage current. Thus to ascertain the parameters of the earthing system the effect of the
leakage current present should ei Lher be ne gligi ble or preferably eliminated. One method is to inject alarge
current about 10 times the value of the leakage current present, so that the effect of the unbalance current
is restricted to about 10%. In this paper another method is discussed with which the effect of unbalance
power frequency current gets eliminated. Further there are certain precautions to be taken during
measurement these are also discussed in this paper.

2.0 PARAMETERS OF GROUNDING SYSTEM

The parameters of the grounding system are resistar.ce, mesh voltage, step voltage and maximum rise in
potential.

2.1 Resistance
A -current 'I' is injected between grounding system 'E' and auxiliary electrode 'Ea' as shown in Figure
1. The potential difference 'V' between grounding system and various points away from 'E' is measured.
A graph is plotted between the measured resistance R =(VII) and varying distance' d', as shown in Figure
2. The horizontal part of the curve represents the resistance of the grounding system.

88
2.2 Mesh Voltage
The potential difference between the center of the mesh on the surface of the earth and ground mat
conductor, multiplied by the factor ok' which is the ratio for aCbJal fault current to the current injected into
the ground grid. Mesh potential is usually worse at comer meshes.

2.3 Step Voltage

The potential difference between twO points one metre apart multiplied by 'k' as defined above gives the
step voltage. Step voltage is usually worse at the periphery of the ground electrode.

2.4 Maximum Rise in Potential

The measured resistance multiplied by the fault current gives the maximum rise in potential of the
grounding system.

3.0 METHOD ADOPTED FOR ELIMINATING THE EFFECT OF SO HZ LEAKAGE

CURRENT
A known amount of current of frequency other than 50 Hz is injected in the earthing system, and the
response is measured by a narrow band pass filter tuned to the frequency of test current, this eliminates
the effect of the 50 Hz leakage current. The frequency of the test current should be close to 50 Hz so that
the behaviour of the grounding system is not appreciably changed. For this purpose a test current of 60
Hz is selected. A soild state generator has been designed and fabricated for produsmg 60 Hz current. An
active band pass filter is designed and fabricated to measure the response of 60 Hz signal.

4.0 PROBLEMS AND COMMON ERROR IN MEASUREMENTS

4.1 Insufficient Probe Spacing:
As mentioned earlier the distance between earthing system 'E' and auxiliary electrode should be large
enough so that the zones of influence of these electrode do not overlap and horizontal or very small
gradient portion the curve is apparent Due to insufficient spacing between the probes, a of curve of shape
II shown in Figure 3 is obtained. In this curve zero slope or very small slope portion is not there. This is
because the current from station ground is not allowed to reach a sufficient distance to a very small or zero
gradient portion before it starts converging towards the anxiliary electrode 'Ea'. To locate auxiliary
electrode at a sufficient distance away, use of any spare low voltage or primary distribution or
communication circuit can be made of. If these circuits are with shield/earth wire, then this earth wire
should be isolated from station ground and upto some distance away from station ground.

4.2 Mutual Coupling Between Current and Potential Circuits

At large stations with low resistance and auxiliary electrode at a large distance, if the measurement is made
in the direction of the auxiliary electrode. The injected current induces voltage in the measuring circuit.
In such a case again the horizontal part or very small gradient part is not apparent as shown in curve III.
It can be avoided if the potential is measured in a direction other ~l1an that of the current circuit leads,
preferably be at 90 degrees (curve IV). A difficulty arises in this mel1od, a horizontal portion is obtained
even if the auxiliary electrode is insufficient distance apart It can be checked by moving auxiliary
electrode about 50-60 m away and carrying out the measurement again. With about three spacing of
auxiliary electrode the horizontal portions should overlap.

4.3 Location of Potential Probe

When one attempts to measure the earth resistance by taking only one reading, if the electrode is placed
near the earth electrode, the reading measured value RI is too low and if the electrode is placed in the zone
of influence of auxiliary electrode than the reading R2 is too high as shown in Figure 2. The correct reading

89
is taken by placing the probe in a zero voltage gradient portion. This can be avoided by taking set of
readings and plotting a graph as mentioned earlier.

4.4 Embedded MetalParts in Earth

If there is any embedded metal pipe etc. in the earth and the current collecting electrode is placed along
its run than the current instead of flowing through ground shall preferably flow through this pipe. The
resistance so measured is low. The resistance measurement should preferable be made at a right angle to
such underground objects. 'This can be ascertained by measuring the resistance in two or three different
directions.

4.5 Connection to Extraneous Grounds

The station ground grid is generally connected to other grounding systems through ground conductors of
emanating feeders from station. The resistance so measured is the total resistance of all the grounding
systems connected together. For lightrring currents, outside station grounds are too distant. The effective
resistance is only the station resistance. For this purpose the station layout should be so designed that all
such grounds can be temporarily disconnected while making measurement.

4.6 Safety Precautions

While making resistance measurements, the potential probe should always be handled with insulated
gloves. Any ground fault in the system during measurement shall result in a large potential difference
(transferred potential) across a person holding potential probe.

REFERENCES
1. The Voltage Gradients through Ground under Fault Conditions, AIEE Committee-Report AIEE
Transactions PAS Oct. 1958.
2. IEEE SID 80: IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, New York, 1986.
3. J. K. Arora, R. K. Jain and V. K. Bisht "Measurement of Ground Potentials in a Sub-Station",
Proceedings of 54th R&D Session of C. B. I. P., Vol. 7, May 1988.
4. J. K. Arora, V. K. Bisht and R. K. Jain, "Surface Potential Measurements by Current Injection
Method", Proceedings of 55th R&D Session of C. B. I. & P., (TS-2) pp 15-19, July 1989.
5. Completion Report on the Research Project 'Ground Potentials in High Voltage Substations'
Research Unit of C. B.1. & P., Deptt. of Electrical Engg., Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh.

90
 Measurement of Ground Electrode
Performance in the Electrolytic Tank
VINOD BISHT
Assistant Executive Engineer
Nathpa Jhakri Power Cotpn. Ltd., Shimla

1. INTRODUCTION
The exact simulation of the grounding system by a mathematical model has been attempted by various
authors, but the validity of the model is ascertained by simulating the scaled model in an electrolyte
tank.

The mathematical models of simple electrodes such as a hemisphere, a vertical rod, on a horizontal
rod are available in literature, but behaviour of complex electrodes is not so easy to ascertain. The
performance of such system are easily studied by a scaled model in an electrolytic tank.

IEEE design standard 80 gives the procedure for designing a grounding grid. In this method ground
conductors are considered inflnitely long with cross connection neglected. The equations are derived
for evaluating the values of Ian and Ks. The mesh and step potentials are given by

Em... = Km. P . i (1)

E""" = Ks . P . i (2)

Where p is in resistivity cf the soil and i is current dissipated by unit length of conductor. IIi this design
procedure there are certain assumptions: these are
(i) the current dissipated per unit length is considered constant
(ii) the conductors are considered infinitely long.

(iii) cross-connections are considered only for calculating the current dissipated per unit length
of the conductor. For derivation of KIn and Ks their effect is neglected.

The effect of all these assumptions are taken care of by an irregularity correction factor (lCF) Ki. The
actual mesh and step potential are given by

91
Emeob = Km . p. . ki(m) (3)

EIteP = Ks . P . i . ki(s) (4)

Where Id(m) & Id(s) are irregularity correction factors for mesh & step potentials. These irregularity
correction factors are found by scaled model tests of grounding grids of various meshes. The ratio
of maximum mesh for step potential so measured to the potential worked out by equation (1) or (2)
gives the values of these irregularity correction factors. In literature various graphs & empirical
relations are available for these correction factors. Further the effect of vertical rods can not be taken
care of by this design procedure. Their affect can be simulated in a model study of a particular grid.
Now, generalised methods are available in literature, which take care of finite size of ground conductors
and the mutual effect of these conductors between each other. It is possible to analyse such a system
only on a digital computer. n these methods also there are certain limitations, e.g. whole grid is
assumed at uniform potential, the conductors are segmented and it is assumed that the current dissipated
within the segment is uniform. The segmentation of conductors is restricted by the available memory
of the digital computer. The validity and accuracy of these assumption can be verified by a scaled
model study of the system in an electrolytic tank.

2. PATTERN OF FLOW OF CURRENT AT GROUND ELECTRODE

When the distance between place of fault and the place where this current is collected at grounded
neutral is large, the current at fault point appears to flow radially into the ground and at the grounded
neutral electrode it appears to flow radially from ground into the neutral ground electrode from a
large distance.

So the requirement of simulating a grounding system into the electrolytic tank is that when current
is injected into the model of grounding system, the flow of current is very nearly radial at the tank
wall.

3. THE ELECTROLYTIC TANK

To achieve the radial flow of current in model study of grounding system, the best choice is to make
the current collecting electorode a hemisphere with me model at the centre of the hemisphere, so the
electrolytic tank preferably is hemispherical with tank walls working as current collecting electrode.
Cubical tanks are also in use. The care has to be taken that model is small so that approximately radial
flow of current is obtained. For this the model should be restricted to 1/5 the dia or side of the tank.
The electrolyte used is tap water. This facilitate easily putting or remOving the deligate model for
testing in the electrolyte, and also making the measurements.

4. THE EXPERIMENTAL STEP UP

Figure 1 shows the experimental set up. Current is injected between model of ground electrode under
test. A variac provides variable voltage, isolating transformer enables the current to flow in local
circuit only capacitor 'C' is used to block the flow of DC component if present in the system. The
injected current is measured through ammeter A. The voltage at any point w.r. to grid is measured
by volt meter V, it should have high impedence. Through variac suitable current is injected so that
potentials at relevant points are within measurable range and it is sufficiently low to avoid damage
to the model or heating up of the electrolyte.

5. MEASUREMENT OF EARTHING PARAMETERS

(i) Resistivity

The resistivity of the electrolyte is measured by four probe method.

92
(li) Resistance

The resistance of hemispherical electrode is given by

R =p/(2 p r)
where r is radious of the electrode. Putting r equal to radious of hemispherical tank gives resistance
of hemispherical tank with respect to infinite earth.

The resistance between test model and tank walls is measured. This is the ratio of voltage between
test electrode & tank wall to injected current (Vro. To this the resistance of hemispherical tank is
added. This gives the resistance of hemispherical tank. is added. This gives the resistance of model
to infinite earth.

(iii) Mesh Potential

By putting the voltage probe at the centre of the mesh on the surface of the electrolyte gives the
potential of that mesh.

(iv) Step Potential

Step potential is measured as voltage between two points 1 metre apart at the desired place. The
voltage between these two points is directly measured by voltmeter.

6. SCALE FACTOR
The resistivity of the electrolyte. the size of model. the injected current are different from the
resistivity at site where grounding system shall exist, the actual size of grounding system and fault
current respectively. Therefore the expected actual parameters of earthing system shall be worked out
from the test model as follows:

R = Rm. KI. K3

E(mesh) = Em. Kl . K2 . K3

E(step) - Es . Kl . K2 . K3

where R is actual resistance of the system.

Rm is measured resistance of the model

Kl is ratio of resistivity of soil to resistivity of electrolyte

K2 is ratio of actual tault current to current injected in model study.

K3 is ratio of linear length of model to actual dimension of grounding grid.

Em is measured mesh potential in the model.

Es is measured step potential in the model.

*Er. Vinod Bisht s ABE with Nathpa Jhakri Electrical Design Circle, Shimla.

93
 2 '.~O V 'SOL A TlNG
TRANSFORMER

AC 50 H Y
SUPPL II
~---J -----.
VARIAC

MODEL OF GROUND
ELECTRODE UNDER
TeST

CURRENT
COLlECTlAG
ELECT-RODE.
---*1':T
- .
_ _ V'L Ge-

- -- - --

-- - - ..

FIGURE 1 : ExperImental Set up

7. REFERENCES
1. Ross Caldecott and Donald G. Kasten, "Scale Model Studies of Station Grounding GRIDS," IEEE
Transaction on PAS. Vol. PAS-102. No.3. March 1983.
2. B. Thapar and S.L. Goyal. "Scale Model Studies in Grounding Grids in Nonunifonn Soil. "IEEE
Transaction on Power Delivery. Vol. PWRD-2, Oct. 1987.
3. B. Thapar and Prit Paul Garg, "Control of Ground Potential Gradients of Modem High Voltage
Substation, "Proceedings of C.B. & P. Vol. VI, Trivandrum.
4. B. Thapar and RP. Nagar, "Irregularity Correction Factor for Grounding Grids, "Instituton of
Engineers (I) Journal, El-Vol. 58, 1977.
*Er. Vinod Bisht is AEE with Nathpa Jhakri Electrical Design Circle, Shimla.

94
 CHAPTER 12

Questions and Answers

1. Q. Er. R. S. Varma, Power Grid

A 400/220 kV substation is to be built in J&K in hilly area where even and levelled land is not available.
The area is limited and resistivity is expected to be high. The substation is to be built on terraces in 3 steps.
What procedure may be followed for designing an earthing system? Each terrace step is expected to be
about 8 m high.

A. The earthing grid shall have to be laid on all the three terraces and the three grids should be connected
together. To be able to use empirical expressions, an inclined plane may be assumed to cover the three
terraces and the earth grid conductors assumed buried parallel to the surface of this inclined plane.
Alternately, the calculations for each terrace may be done separately and the three grids assumed to be
connected in parallel. A computer model of the system is also possible.

The effect of limited area and high resistivity of soil can be studied when actual figures are available. The
possible solutions to various problems of stations in limited area, high resistivity soils have been discussed
during the workshop. Earth grid for a substation with several terraces has been designed and installed by
the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board.

2. Q. Er. B. D. Bansal
Why don't we use square cross-section bars for the earth grid vis-a-vis flats? The surface area of round
conductor is the minimum for a given cross-sectional area and it should result in less corrosion.

A. In fact the minimum perimeter for a given cross-section of a conductor would that be that of a circulate
bar. Circular cross-section conductors are recommended and used as vertical rods and even as earth grid
conductors. The use of flats is preferred because of mechanical workability, availability and ease in
welding. Where soil is highly corrosive round conductors should be used.

3. Q. Er. Ajay Bhardwaj

Soil resistivity is measured at a site in the initial stage of the project When the construction work stans,
most of the land is excavated as for pile foundations. It is then backfilled and compacted. Should the soil
resistivity be measured after the piling work?

A. Soil resistivity must be measured before foundations are in place. Once foundations with steel

9S
reinforcement are laid, resistivity of soil cannot be measured correctly. The compacted, backfilled soil
after a rainy season would behave almost as natural soil. In case of a ground grid which extends over tends
of meters, the flow of earth currents and ground resistance are dependent more on soil at a depth rather
than that near the surface of earth. The permissible values of dangerous potentials will be higher if soil
resistivity near the surface is a little higher than that at a depth.

4. Q. Er. Ajay Bhardwaj

At an existing station the ground grid is made from copper conductors. Another station is proposed
adjacent to it with grid conductors of MS flat. In order to avoid corrosion of MS conductors, due
to existing copper earth conductors, what steps should be taken?

A. Copper being cathodic with respect to steel (anodic), and since both grid are to be electrically
connected, corrosion of steel shall occur. The severity of corrosion shall depend on nature of soil and
resistance of path of dc current flow between the two grids. Corrosion can be decreased by increasing
resistance of the current path in the soil bi building an underground structure of stones between the two
grids. A sacrificial electrode can be placed around iron electrode to reduce corrosion. The cost of such
measures must be compared with that of providing the new ground grid of copper conductors.

5. Q. During augmentation of existing ground grid requirj!d for installation of new equipment, can
the work be carried out while the substation is energised? Will the personnel doing the installation
work be exposed to danger if a fault occurs?

A. Installation work can be taken up while the station is energised because dangerous potentials would
be within the permissible values. The workers should, however, use insulated shoes and gloves. A person
on a bulldozer shall be on an equipotential surface; but transferred voltage situations must be avoided.

6. Q. For how much variation in soil resistivity should the soil be treated as homogeneous?

A. If the soil resistivity varies more than thirty percent, only then a two layer soil model needs to be used.
However. empirical formulae for design of ground grids in two layer soil are not available and use of
computer is necessary.

7. Q. If earth wire of a transmission line is connected to the ground grid of a substation, what
preventive measures at the tower site are required to be taken?

A. Connection of transmission line earth wire to the substation grid diverts a portion of fault current to
the tower earth thus reducing the flow of current between grid and earth. This reduces the GPR and the
dangerous voltages. If the resulting GPR is on the high side. the earth wire may not be connected to the
station grid. If the first tower is close to the station. the potential gradients at the tower site may still be
high and step voltage must be checked. If the earth wire is connected to the station grid. the potential
gradients at the tower site can be controlled by suitably designing the tower earthing system.

8. Q. Are empirical formulae available for calculating Es and Em at a tower site?

A. The empirical formulae and the computer programs which are used for designing earthing systems of
a substation can also be used for the tower earth electrode.

9. Q. When soil at the site of a station is excavated to a large depth and the station ground grid is
located below the level of excavation, where should the sol resistivity be measured?

A. The soil resistivity should be measured after the exc,avation has been done to the level where the station
is to be actually located.
96
10. Q. Should a ground grid not be provided at a station operating at 33 kV or below?

A. A ground grid at a substation should be provided taking into consideration the earth fault current which
will flow into the earth and for the purpose of controlling dangerous potentials. At such a station if earth
rods are used they must necessarily interconnected. Also earthing conductors have to be run from the rods
to the various equipments and these by themselves form a closely spaced earth grid. If there are any
armoured cables. the armouris earthed and becomes part of earth electrode. this diverts part of the earth
fault current and also reduces the ground resistance of the earth electrode.

97
 CHAPTER 13

Recommendations

1. IS: 3043 standard does not give sufficient infonnation/guidelines in a fonn which may be used for
designing earthing systems for various types of consumer premises and for high voltage substations. A
design manual which may be referred by design engineers should be compiled for design of earthing
systems in normal situations.

To design earthing systems where site conditions or system requirements are unusual such as high
resitivity soil, GIS etc. guidelines should be available in the manual. The information available at several
scattered sources may be compiled in one publication.

2. To interpret data obtained in the field by measurements for detennination of soil resistivity, software
to identify the suitable soil model at a site should be made a .. ailablc. Also software for analysis of earthing
systems should be made available.

3. Reliable, rugged and portable instruments for accurate measurement of soil resistivity are not available
in the market and need to be developed. Also equipment for measurement of parameters of an earthing
system laid in the field is not available in the market Prototype equipment has been designed and
fabricated at Punjab Engineering College for measuring potential gradients at substations; it can be used
for determining parameters of earthing system. Such equipment needs to be made available as profes-
sional quality equipment which is portable and convenient to use. Such equipment will also be useful for
assessing healthiness of old existing grounding grids.
4. Expert software may be developed for designing of earthing systems. This shall be very useful for
engineers engaged in design of earthing systems in Electricity Boards where engineers are transferred
frequently and the expertise goes with them.
5. Such workshop may be held at more frequent intervals and engineers from various undertakings
engaged in design and construction of earthing systems may be encouraged to participate so that there is
adequate exchange of knowledge and experience.
6. various facilities like the hemispherical electrolytic tank for model testing of ground grids in
hOlJ1ogeneous soil, digital computer program for analysis of earthing systems, software for interpretation
of soil resistivity data, and equipment for measurement of earth surface potentials are available at Punjab
Engineering College. These facilities should be well maintained and should be available to members of
C.B.I.&P.
98