IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-102, No.

2, February 1983
TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF GROUNDING SYSTEMS
A. P. Meliopoulos IEEE, Member

389

M. G. Moharam IEEE, Member

School of Electrical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of computing the potential rise of grounding systems during Finite element analysis is employed to transients. model the constituent parts of a grounding system. Short lengths of earth embedded electrodes are characterized as transmission lines with distributed inductance, capacitance and leakage resistance to earth. Leakage resistance to earth is accurately computed with
ground

grounding systems. Verma and Mukhedkar [51 showed that distributed resistance and inductance models of buried ground wires predict transient response of such systems in agreement with the experiments of Bewley. However, they do not provide any models for practical substation

the method of moments. The other parameters of the finite element, namely inductance and capacitance, are computed from the resistance utilizing Maxwell's equations. This modeling enables the computation of the transient response of substation grounding systems to fast or slow waves striking the substation. The result is obtained in terms of a convolution of the step response of the system and the striking wave. In this way the impedance of substation systems to 60 cycles is accurately computed. Results demonstrate the dependence of the 60 cycle impedance on system parameters. The methodology allows to interface this model of a substation ground mat with the Electromagnetic Transient Analysis Program thus, allowing explicit representation of earth effects in electromagmatic transients

grounding systems. Kostaluk, Loboda and Mukhedkar [15] provide experimental data for transient ground impedances. Similarly, Rogers [6] reports on actual system transient response of a large tower footing. Bellashi et al. [8], [91, [10], have given a complete treatment of driven rods characteristics. Gupta and Thapar [7] provide empirical formulae for the impulse impedance of substation ground grids, defined as the ratio of the peak value of the voltage developed at the feeding point to the peak value of the current. This definition of impulse impedance leads to uncertainty because the peak values of voltage and current do not necessarily occur at the same time. The so defined impulse impedance strongly depends on the rise time of the wave considered, the mesh size of the grid, soil resistivity and permittivity, the feeding point, etc. This paper presents data which further illustrate the point. Thus, the definition of impulse impedance of reference [71 is at best ambiguous.
The work reported in this paper addresses the problem of transient analysis of practical grounding systems consisting of ground mats, ground rods, etc. The developed models are in good agreement with experimental results.

computations.

1.

INTRODUCTION

The transient response characteristics of grounding systems play an important role in the protection of For example, the voltage electrical installations. drop along a ground rod connecting a surge arrester and the transformer it is protecting can obtain a value which is a substantial percentage of the basic impulse level of the transformer insulation. Depending on the configuration, the surge arrester experiences an overvoltage which is less than the one reaching the transformer. Thus system protection is reduced. The introduction of solid state arresters and the every shrinking safety margins demand more accurate analysis proceIn this dures for substation design and protection. context, analysis procedures predicting the transient response of substation grounding systems are very important.

First, the The paper is organized as follows. simple case of an earth embedded conductor is treated. This case is extended to the case of a substation These two cases clearly illustrate the ground mat. methodology. Sample test cases are presented and compared to known experimental data. The comparison is favorable. Finally, a methodology is outlined for the interface of the grounding system models of this paper with the EMTP computer program which enables the study of the impact of grounding systems on electromagnetic transients.
2.
TRANSIENT RESPONSE OF AN EARTH EMBEDDED CONDUCTOR

The transient response of grounding structures has been studied many years ago by Rudenberg [1], Bewley [2], Sunde [3] and others. The classical experiments performed by Bewley [21 on counterpoises provide much information about the transient characteristic of

2.1

Problem Formulation

A paper recommended and approved by the 82 SM 369-7 IEEE Substations Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE PES 1982 Summer Meeting, San Francisco, California, July 18-23, 1982. Manuscript submitted February 4, 1982; made available for prinfting April 19, 1982.

Development of models of grounding structures suitable for the computation of their transient response can be demonstrated with the simple system of a single buried conductor. Such a system is illustrated A small segment of length Q of the in Figure 1. conductor of Figure 1, is characterized with a series resistance Ar, a series inductance AL, conductance Ag to remote earth and capacitance AC. This representation is illustrated in Figure 2. These parameters are distributed along the length Q of the segment. The thick solid line signifies the tact.
The numerical values of the quantities Ag, AL, AC can be directly computed from two quantities, namely the conductance Ag and the speed of electromagnetic waves in the soil V , as follows. The speed V is

0018-9510/83/0002-0389$01.00 ( 1983 IEEE

390

/t/ / ts

dS ~
dS

Figure 1. Single Conductor Buried in Uniform Soil. A Short Segment of Length R. is Indicated.

Figure 2. Representation of Finite Element with Circuit Elements.

a

-~ ~
/ / I
I

AC

= a

Ag
S

(3)

AIR

eQs

J J -1 (x,y,z)

/ /

AL =

(4)

hIs.Tej

) (conductivity a)
..-.

EARTH

-1

dl

E/cEr permittivity for free space. It is obvious that knowledge of Ag and soil properties suffice to determine the parameters of the finite element. Computation of Ag is outlined in Section 2.2.
Applying Kirchoff's laws to obtains the usual equation of eter line:
one
321

E0=

00

a a

small section Ax, distributed param+

tr

321

+ (Ar-AC +
of

AL-Ag)31i
solving

Ar.Ag

(5)

There

are

two

approaches

this

equation:

(a) (b)

Ar

AL

By direct solution (i.e. FFT) which leads to computationally infeasible procedure for this problem; and Using approximate analysis techniques.

The latter approach will be described. Consider again a finite element of the conductor. Since the element is very short the circuit of Figure 2 can be approximated with the circuit of Figure 3. The middle part can be recognized as a lossless transmission line. The equivalent circuit of Figure 3 is the basis for the development of the methodology. To this purpose Dommel's method [14], can be directly employed to yield the resistive equivalent circuit of Figure 4. The past history current sources of Figure 4 are defined as follows:
O

readily computed from the soil properties with the aid of Equation (1). I~~~~ C
V
s
=

0o

where C0 E
r

rr

(1)

is the speed of light in free space, and is the relative permittivity of the soil.

I
+

(t-T)
)

2g

(t-T)

+2Z

ik(tT) (6b)

The computation of the conductances Ag has been reported in an earlier publication [13] and it is summarized in Section 2.2 of this paper. Maxwell's equations dictate that

i k(t-T)

where
C
: :

Aga
soil permittivity soil conductivity

AC

(2)
Lossless Transmission Line

Ar/2
g

AL

Ar/2
I

Also, considering the segment Q as a transmission line with distributed inductance ASL and capacitance AC yields:
Q__
/
s

TAg/2

x AL *AC r where Q length of the finite element under consid

er-

Figure 3. Approximate Equivalent Circuit of a Short Length of an Earth Embedded Conductor.

ation

Above relationships yield the inductance and capacitance of the finite element:

391
TABLE 1.
(i)
+
Bk(t)

Algorithm for the Computation of the Transient Response of Grounding Systems.

'k"t;
ikm(t)
Ag/2

'X m(t)
,zo

Step 1:
Step 2: Step 3:

imk(t)
> Z0< '
Ik(tT)
Ag/2 em(t)

Partition the grounding system into finite elements.

Compute the parameters of each finite element. Compute the equivalent resistive parameters for each element. Compute the admittance matrix Y. trix Y using sparcity techniques.

network

Figure 4. Resistive Equivalent Circuit of a Short Length of an Earth Embedded Conductor.

Step 4:

Invert maLet k=O.

Derivation of above formulae is given in the appendix.

The equivalent circuit of Figure 4, which will be referred to as the equivalent resistive network, is the basis of the method. Consider an earth embedded conductor of length Q. Assume a partition of this conductor into n segments. n is selected according to the desired degree of accuracy in the computations. Each one of the segments can be represented with the equivalent circuit of Figure 4, and associated equations. The resulting equivalent circuit is resistive. Thus, nodal analysis is most suitably applied to yield:
Y e(t) = i(t) + b(t-h)

Step 5:

Let k=k+l. Compute the past history current sources of the equivalent circuits at time t=(k-l)h.

Step 6:
Step 7:

Compute the external current sources at time t=kh. Compute the vector i(kh) + b((k-l)h). Solve for the voltages e(kh) b((k-l)h)).
=

1(i(kh)

Step 8:

If kh >

tmax

terminate.

Otherwise go to Step

(7)

2.2

Computation of the-Ground Resistance

where
y

e(t)

i(t)
b(t-h)

is the admittance matrix of the circuit is the vector of voltages at the nodes of the circuit (terminals of the segments) is the vector of currents injected at the nodes of the circuit is the vector of past history.

This section describes the procedure for the computation of the conductance Ag of a finite element of a grounding system. It is based on the rigorous solution of Laplace's equation in the seminfinite conducting medium of the earth. The description of the method is rather sketchy. More details can be found in [13].
The computation of the ground resistance includes the following steps. Consider an earth embedded conductor. Further consider an infinitesimal surface dS of the conductor emanating total current dI. The flow of current dl generates a voltage field in earth which is governed by Laplace's equation

In this particular application, the admittance matrix has a special structure. All entries are zero except the diagonal and those which are located one position over or under the diagonal

Y.1 1 #0 .
Y

V2V(x,y,z)
to current dI has the

(8)

#0

for every i

The solution for the voltage at point (x,y,z) due following general form:

YYi+l,i #0

dV(x,y,z) = dI

f(x,y,z,ds)

(9)

all others zero.

This special structure of the matrix Y admits the efficient use of sparcity techniques for the solution of Equation (7). The vector of past history is constructed from the current sources I (t-h). It is expedient to select h=T, where - is thme wave travel time along any one of the finite elements.
The nodal equations enable the solution of the voltages e(t) at the various nodes of the system if the current injections i(t) are known. Table 1 illustrates the algorithm for the computation of the transient response for a period of tmax seconds with time step h. The same analysis methodology can be applied to a set of interconnected earth embedded conductors forming a ground mat. This analysis is presented in Section 3.

where f is a function of point (x,y,z), the infinitesimal surface dS and the soil properties.
Now consider a finite length of the earth embedded conductor of length i . Under the assumption of uniform current distribution on the surface of this segment the voltage at (x,y,z) due to the current emanating from the outside surface of the finite segment is

V1 (x,y,z) = f whchiscopuedt b
which is computed to be l13]

dV(x,y,z)

(10)

Vsl(x,y,z) = Ri(x,y,z,j)I.

(11)

Consider now that the conductor is partitioned into n segments of lengths k1, i ... Q , respectively. v Further assume that the current is uni%ormly emanating from the surface of each segment and has a total value

In- The voltage at point (x,y,z) shall be 11 I29" computed from the superposition of all contributions,
i.e.

392

V(x,y,z) = z V (x,y,z) =
i

R (x,y,z,i)I.
1

(12)

Y e(t) = i(t) + b(t-h)

(16)

as:

Specifically, the voltage of segment k can be computed

Vk =

Vi(kxky,kz

i) =zRkiIi

(13)

where the admittance matrix Y is highly sparse (maximum of three non-zero elements per row), i(t) is the externally injected currents. Solution of above equation for times t=0, h, 2h, 3h, ... yields the voltages e(t) everywhere in the substation ground system, as it is outlined in Table 1.
In Equation (16) depending on the excitation of the grounding system, the known quantities will be:

Writing one such equation for every segment we obtain [VI = [R][I]
where

(14)

[
V

1
I n

(a) The externally injected current vector i(t) (for example, a lightning current wave impending at a certain location); (b) Some of the entries of vector e(t) (for exam(c)
ple, a voltage wave impeding the grounding system); and Combination of above.

= i]
LIni

V. 1

is the voltage of the outside surface of segment i;

Ii

[RI

is the current emanating from the surfac-e of segment i; and is an nxn matrix which is symmetric.

In general, every type of surge injected in the grounding system can be accommodated with Equation (16). In Section 6, the procedure will be generalized to the extent of interfacing this model of the ground mat with the Electromagnetic Transient Analysis Program [141.

4.

60-CYCLE IMPEDANCE OF GROUNDING SYSTEMS

Above matrix equation can be inverted to yiel d

[I wherE
=

[Y[V]

(15)

[Y[ = [RI1

The developed models are suitable for the computation of the power frequency impedance of grounding systems. The 60-cycle impedance of a grounding system (or the impedance at any given frequency) can be computed in two ways:

Matrix Y represents an admittance matrix w hich corresponds to an equivalent circuit for the e arth [131, as follows:

(a) Inject a sinusoidal current wave (peak value I m ) to the grounding system and compute its

voltage elevation. This voltage will also

(a) Entry y.. of [Y] equals the negative

(b)

tance oiJa element connected between segtment i and j; and

y

conLduc-

equals the conductance of an equiva lent segme nti and remote earth.

dirEAit element connected between

Yi.

(b)

The equivalent conductance -y.. between remote elemLents i and j is in general very sirJall and can be omit:ted. Thus, for every segment an equivalent conductanc e to This conductance provrides remote earth is computed. the basis for the computation of the other parame ters of the f inite element as it has been shown in Sec:tion 2.1.

peak value of the voltage wave, V , and the m phase difference, C, between voltage and current: V (17) z I Compute the current response, s(t), of the grounding system to a unit step voltage (see Figure 11). The impedance of the grounding system at frequency f is then s f
Z
=

sinusoidal at steady state. The impedance of the grounding system is computed from the

be

j27rft s' (t)dt 1.0/| ej

(18)

3.
can

TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF GROUND MATS

where s'(t) is the time derivative of the step response s(t).

The transient response of substation ground mats be similarly computed with the finite element analysis procedure described. To this purpose the conductors of the substation ground mat, ground rods, fences, etc., are segmented into a number of finite elements. The equivalent circuit representation of the earth associated with above segmentation of the substation ground mat is then computed with the procedure outlined in Section 2.2. Then using Equations (3) and (4), each finite element is represented with a lossless transmission line, series resistance and shunt conductance as it is shown in Section 2.1. Next each finite element is represented with the equivalent circuit of Figure 4. Nodal analysis for the resulting equivalent circuit

Computationally, the second way is more efficient because the first method requires the simulation of the grounding system response for a long time until sinusoidal steady state is achieved. Computation of the integral of Equation (18) is straightforward and computationally efficient. A computer program has been developed for the computation of the Equation (18).
5.
TEST RESULTS

yields

The methodology described in this paper has been implemented and a number of grounding systems have been studied. These are:

(1) A 60

conductor (burial depth

meter

long

earth embedded
=

0.6 meters).

4/0 copper

393

(2)

(3)

(4)

A 6 x 6 mesh ground mat with 10 meter square meshes buried at 0.6 meters under the earth surface. This system will be referred to as MAT A. A 10 x 10 mesh ground mat with 6 meter square meshes buried at 0.6 meters under the earth surface. This system will be referred to as MAT B. A 10 x 10 mesh ground mat with 12 meter square mesh buried at 0.6 meters under the earth surface. This system will be referred to as MAT C.

The scribed in this paper indicate the following. level of overvoltages resulting from direct strokes on substation depend strongly on: (a) conductor spacing, (b) rise time of stroke, (c) soil resistivity and permittivity, and (d) others. These characteristics of ground mats are very important in the design of overvoltage protection. Closer spacing of ground mat conductors yields lesser overvoltages and thus reduces the possibility of backstroke in the case of direct lightning stroke on a substation grounded structure.

Mats A, B, and C are assumed to be constructed from 2/0 copper conductor.

Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the response of a 60 meter long 4/0 copper conductor embedded in 125 Qm soil at depth of 0.6 meters, to a step and a 1/20 us current l 0 wave respectively: t < 0
i (t)
a
=

1 kA
=

t > 0
- e

ib (t)

1.1152 (e -0.4t

-1.8t

In both cases the current is injected at one end of the conductor. The voltage at both ends of the conductor and the middle is plotted versus time.

The ac impedance of the test grounding systems have been computed and listed in Table 2. The effective resistance, reactance, and inductance for 60 Hz as well as for a number of harmonics are tabulated. The soil is assumed to be dry or wet with the indicated parameters. From the table, it is obvious that the reactance of a grounding system depends strongly on its For medium size length and the soil permittivity. grounding systems the reactance at 60 Hz is substantial. Wet soil, which is characterized with greater permittivity values tends to decrease the inductance of grounding systems. The resistance, as it is expected is approximately proportional to the soil resistivity. These results are in agreement with results obtained through sophisticated measurements techniques of power system ground impedances [12].
TABLE 2. A.

Impedance of Test Systems

p
-

Figure 7 and Figure 8 curve A, illustrate the transient response of MAT A to a step current and a 1/20 ps current wave respectively. Figure 7 illustrates the voltage at the feeding point, corner and a middle point. The following general observations apply:

Dry Soil:

1000 ohm-m, Sr

9.0
Inductance

Frequency

(Hz)3r-

Resistance (ohms)}
33 .421 33.421 33.421 33.421 33.421 8.083 8.083 8.083 8.083 8.083
7.661 7.661 7.663 7.665 7.668
3.954

Reactance

-(ohms)

(EHenry)_
.0926 .0926 .0926 .0926

60 meter Conductor

(a)

wave.

During the rise time of the current surge the conductor demonstrates an impedance equal to its characteristic iInpedance for the step surge and a lower value for the exponential

60 120 180 240 300

60 120

.0349 .0698 .1047 .1396

.1745

.0926

Mat A

180 240 300

Mat B
60 120 180 240 300 60 120 180 240 300
B. 60 meter

.0356 .0712 .1068 .1424 .1780

.0571
.1143 .1714 .2284 .2854

.0944 .0944 .0944 .0944 .0944

.1516 .1516 .1515 .1515 .15 14 .3623 .3603 .3569 .3520 .3455

(b)

As time progresses in Figures 5 and 7, the voltage of the conductor approaches a steady value which is verif ied to be equal to RI where R is the dc resistance to remote earth of the grounding system. In these cases, the resistance is computed to be 4.1777 and 1.0104 ohms respectively.
as
a

Mat C

(c) The earth embedded conductor behaves

4.028 4.072

3.969 3.994

.1366 .2717 .4037 .5308 .6512

-

highly lossy transmission line. For example, in Figure 5 it appears that the time to travel from point A to point C is more than twice the time to travel from point A to point B. This is in conformity with experimental results carried out by Bewley and others. The phenomenon is due to the joint effects of the self-inductance and ground resistance which leads to a lower and ever decreasing wave velocity with length.

Wet Soil:

100 nm, C r

36.0

Conductor

60 120 180 240 300 60 120 180 240 300

120

3.342 3.342 3.342 3.342 3.342

.0348 .0697 .1045

.0924

.1394

.1743
.0360

.0924 .0924 .0924 .0924

Mat A

.808

.808 .808 .808 .809

.0721 .1082 .1443 .1805 .0438 .0875 .1311 .1745 .2176 .0867
.1733 .2587 .3421 .4256

.0956 .0956 .0956 .0956 .0956

Figure 8 illustrates, on a common system of coordinates, the responses of ground mats A and B to a 1/20 Pis current surge. These two ground mats cover the same area and have approximately equal DC resistance to earth (1.0104 and .9876 ohms respectively). However, their transient response is different. Specifically, the 1/20 impulse generates a much higher overvoltage on mat A than mat B. This is due to the fact that the conductors of mat B are closer spaced than the conductors of mat A. Results obtained with the models de-

Mat B

60

240 300

180

.766 .766 .767 .767 .768

.1163 .1161 .1159 .1157 .1154

.2299 .2298 .2288 .2268 .2257

Mat

60 120 180 240

.395

.397 .400 .402

300

.402

394
8 8

g
S.

A
\0

At

HeGomo_

so

8
8

918
u-

8. 8-

8
8
00

2o

4.0

6.0

16.0

12.0

14.0

0.0

20

4.0

TIME (MICRO SECONDS)

.0 8.0 TIME(MICRO SECONDS)

6

10.0

ZO

14.0

16.0

FIGURE
FIGURE S. TRANSIENT RESPONSE OF A 60 METER, 410 COPPER CONDUCTOR TO A STEP CURRENT OF i KA.

CONDUCTOR TO A 1/20 As. 1 KA CREST SURGE.

TRANSIENT RESPONSE OF A 60 METER, 4/0 COPPER

'$ i
V
8
8.
8

8 8
8.

8
40.0
50.0

60

10.0

20.0

26.0

60.o

0.0
70.0

2.0

4.0

.0

a'o

I0.

i20

TIME lMICRO SECONDS)

TIME (MICRO SECONDS) FIGURE

6.

FIGURE 7. TRANSIENT RESPONSE OF MAT A TO A STEP CURRENT OF 1 KA.

TRANSIENT RESPONSE OF GROUND MATS A AND B TO A lJ20 s; 1 KA CREST SURGE.

ra
d'

leqt-h)

.; -

l~ ~ ~

AA-

-l
YBA

zf

0:

G = YAAAB

BB

8.

leq(t-h)

bA(t-h)- AByBB bB(t-h)

0.0

20.

Figure

9.

Equivalent Representation of a Grounding System Compatible with the EMTP.

6.0 60.0 40.0 TIME (MICRO SECONDS)

100.0

120.0

FIGURE 10. TRANSIENT CURRENT RESPONS B TO A STEP VOLTAGE OF kI.

395

6.

INTERFACE WITH THE EMTP

The methodology described in this paper for the computation of the transient response of grounding systems is compatible with the methodology of the Electromagnetic Transient Analysis Program (EMTP), developed by BPA. Thus, it can be interfaced with this computer In this case, the effects of substation program. grounding systems on overvoltages, surge arrester performance and, in general, transient performance of subThe introduction of new station can be evaluated. technologies in substation design, such as gapless surge arresters and computers and the ever shrinking safety margins demand more accurate transient analysis procedures for susbtation design and protection. Thus, the specific modeling of substation grounding systems in the EMTP is important. This section briefly outlines the process by which the substation ground model described in this paper can be interfaced with the
EMTP.

assumed that there is only one connection of the grounding system to the system. Generalization is trivial. The step response of the grounding system is computed with the methodology of this paper. Figure 10 illustrates the response s(t) to a unit step voltage in the middle of a 10 x 10 mesh ground mat. If a time dependent voltage V(t) is applied to the mat, the electric current response will be [11].

i(t)

V(t)

s(0)

+f
0o

v(t-T)

ds(T) dT

(20)

model with the EMTP:

There are at least two ways to interface this

For numerical calculations, above expression can be written as: N v(t - kAT) d(kA) i(t) = v(t) s(0) + (21) dT k=0 where N = t

NT

(a) The direct method; and (b) With linear convolution.

While the direct method is straightforward, the method based on time-domain linear convolutions is numerically more efficient. Both methods will be' described.
6.1.
The Direct Method

or

i(t) =v(t) [s(0)+ ds ()

Let
I (t-h) = N

dt

]+ E v (t-kAT)

k=l

ls(kA O

AT (22)

E v(t - kA,) k=l

ds(kAT) d

AT

(23)

Consider Equation (7) which is repeated here for convenience

Y e(t) = i(t) + b(t-h)

Assume there are m connections of the grounding system to the rest of the system. Let the vector eA(t) represent the voltages at the interconnections. Equation (7) can be rearranged in the following form:

Th BA BB eB(t)j J

FYAA yAB1 eA(t)l

bA(t-h)l

The form of the vector i(t) should be obvious since current injections will occur only at the connections.

A(t bB(t-h) BL 0
i

and observe that it depends on past time values of the voltage and the known function s(t). Now above expression represents the equivalent circuit of Figure 11. Obviously, this circuit can be interfaced with the EMTP. In this approach, at every time step the quantity Ic(t-h) need to be computed with a numerical convolution. The computation of this convolution can be performed much more efficiently than the computation of Ie (t-h) in the previous approach. Explicit expressi ns of the linear convolutions are developed next.

(18)
I ~~~~~~~~~~~.- _.to system

From the last equations, the vector e (t) can be B eliminated to yield:

(YAA YABYBBYBA)eA(t)
Y ABYBB
A

-1

bA(t-h)
i A (t)

I(t-h)

',GC

b B (t-h)

(19)
G gms(O) + dS(O AT di

Above equation can be directly interfaced with the EMTP. If for simplicity it is assumed that the mat is connected with only one connector to the overhead sky wire, above equation is a scalar equation. In this case it represents the equivalent circuit of Figure 9. Note that in above representation, the equivalent current source I eq(t-h) needs to be computed at each iteration.
6.2.

IC(t-h)

z:

I v(t-kat) 1 k=1

-sdskr) ArT

Linear-Convolutions

Figure 11. Equivalent Circuit Representation of a Grounding System Compatible with EMTP (Convolution Approach).

This method requires the knowledge of the step or impulse response of the grounding system. The method has' been successfully applied to model lossy transmission lines in the EMTP program [111. The method will be demonstrated assuming knowledge of the step response of the grounding system. For simplicity, it will also be

396
Let the step response, s(t), of the system be approximated with a piecewise linear function as in Figure 10. The function is defined with a number, m, of points: (t.,s(t.)), i=1,2,...,m . For usual grounding systems he step response can be accurately approximated with a maximum of 20 linear segments (m=20). In this case, the derivative ds(kATr) of Equation (23) will be constant for an4_RWte val of time t. < t <
Let d'-aT 1 for t. Then Equation (23) becomes:
<

3.

E. D. Sunde, "Surge Characteristics of a Buried Bare Wire," AIEE Transactions, Vol. 59, pp. 98799 1, 1940.

4.

R. Verma, D. Mukhedkar, "Fundamental Considerations and Impulse Impedance of Grounding Grids," IEEE -Transactions on-Power-Apparatus-and- Systems, Vol. PAS-100, No. 3, pp. 1023-1030, March 1981.
R. Verma, D. Mukhedkar, "Impulse Impedance of Buried Ground Wire," IEEE-Transactions- on- Power -Ap5, pp. paratus -and- Systems, Vol. PAS-99, No. 2003-2007, September/October 1980. E. J. Rogers, "Impedance Characteristics of Large Tower Footings to a 100 s Wide Square Wave of Current," IEEE -Transactions -on -Power Apparatus- and Systems, Vol. PAS-100, No. 1, p. 66-71, January

t.11 i=1,29 . .. ,m-1.

t1.

t <

5.

m-1
here Iite
where
I.

Ic(t-h)
the

eoi=l
of

I ai

I v(t-k AT) AT kEI v

k

(24)

6.

is

set

index

values

such

that

De f ine

ti

<
=

kAT

<

ti+l
7.
(25)

1981.

Ei(t)
Then

kl. I
m-i
=
i=1

v(t-kAT)

B. R.

Gupta, B. Thapar, "Impulse Impedance of Grounding Grids," IEEE Transactions- on -Power -Apparatus -and Systems, Vol. PAS-99, No. 6, pp. 2357-2362, November/December 1980.

IC(t-h)
At
every

a.

E.(t)
Ei(t)

AT

(26)

8.

P. L. Bellaschi,

"Impulse and 60-Cycle Characteristics of Driven Grounds, Part I," AIEE- Transactions, Vol. 60, pp. 123-128, March 1941.

iteration the quality

=

is updated with

Ei(t+h)

Ei(t)

v(t

t.)

v(t

t i+)

9.

and the equivalent current source I C(t-h) is computed with Equation (26). Equation (26) requires only m-1 multiplications and thus is very efficient.

L. Bellaschi, R. E. Armington, and A. E. Snowden, "Impulse and 6o-Cycle Characteristics of Driven Rods, Part II," AIEE- Transac-tions, Vol. 61, pp. 349-363, 1942.
P. P. L. Bellaschi, R. E. Armington, "Impulse and 60Cycle Characteristics of Driven Grounds, Part III," AIEE-Transactions, Vol. 62, pp. 334-345,

10.

7.

CONCLUSIONS

1943.

This paper presents an efficient finite element analysis methodology for the computation of the transient response of grounding systems. The parameters of the finite elements are rigorously computed from the solution of Laplace's equation. Predicted characteristics of grounding systems with the developed model are in agreement with experimental data.

11.

A.

Ametani, "A Highly Efficient Method for Calculating Transmission Line Transients," IEEE -Transactions on Power Apparatus -and-Syst-ems, Vo1. PAS95, no. 5, pp. 1545-1551, September/October 1976.

12.

Major conclusions reached are summarized as follows: (a) The 60 Hz reactance of medium size substation grounding systems is substantial. In larger systems the reactance may be the largest component of the impedance. (b) Overvoltages resulting from direct strokes on substations depend strongly on ground mat conductor separation, stroke rise time, soil resistiviFurther studies are ty and permittivity and others. under way to investigate the dependence of 60 cycle impedance and surge overvoltages on grounding systems
parameters.

I. D. Lu, R. M.Shier, "Application of a Digital Signal Analyzer to the Measurement of Power System Ground Impedances," IEEE Transactions -on Power Apparatus and- - Systems, Vol. PAS-100 , No. 4 , pp.

1918-1922, April 1981.

13.

A. P. Meliopoulos, R. P. Webb, and E. B. Joy, "Analysis of Grounding Systems," IEEE Transactions on Power -Apraratus- -and -Systems, Vol. PAS100, no. 3, pp. 1039-1048, March 1981.

14.

The developed models and computer program is compatible with the EMTP program of BPA. Two schemes are described for interfacing these models with the EMTP.
8. 1.
REFERENCES

"Digital Computer Solution of Electromagnetic Transients in Single and Multiphase Networks, " IEEE- Trans-act-ions- on - Power- -Apparatus 388-399, and Systems, Vol. PAS-88, No. 4, pp.
H. W. Dommel,

April 1969.

15.

Meeting, Portland, Oregon, 1981.

APPENDIX

R. Kosztaluk, M. Loboda, D. Mukhedkar, "Experimental Study of Transient Ground Impedances," Paper 81 SM 399-5, presented at the 1981 IEEE-PES Summer

R. Rudenberg, "Grounding Principles and Practice, Part I - Fundamental Considerations on Ground Circuits," Electrical-Engineering, Vol. 64, No. 1,
pp.

1-13, January 1945.

2.

L. V. Bewley, "Theory and Tests of the Counterpoise," Electrical-Engineering, Vol. 53, pp. 11631172, August 1934.

T4e past history equivalent current sources I k(t-T) and I (t-T) result from Bergeron's method [14]:

The Equations (6a) and (6b) of the past history equivalent currents are derived in this appendix. Consider the resistive equivalent circuit of iFigure 4.

II(t-)

k1
Z
0

( tU)

kmi(
- i

397
t

')
mkl

=1
Z
(A+ (

I (t-T) = - Z

ek(t-T)
m

mk

(t-T)

1 + +A2 -

(Ar )2
0

The circuit of Figure 4 also satisfies the following relationships: k ek ( t-T) (-T
I

mfk2

(2

Ar(Ag)2 8

2Z2
0

Ar

=ek ( t- [) ekt)

21 2

(1 +

i km Ct--u)

g)2_ Ar
0

)2

(t-T) = i (t--)
km

~~~~~~ Ol~ _Oc i (t--u) kml mk2

-

km

2 mk

km2

mkl

k(t r)
mk

km

= (1+ (1

km

A Ct--) A+-) i k(-l ~~r

+

24 km

Ag)

-gA g
2

Age
m

(t-T) k-

t0

'mk3 = (1+ AA +
Ar1 2Z (1+

(
(r )2

Ar

~~4

mk

I e'(t) ik Ct ) =- Z --+ I(Ct--u) mk m 0

ArAg)2 4

2Zw) 0

i km(t

el jt)
0

+ Ik(t)

km3

mk4

Upon elimination of the variables ik (t), ek(t), and em(t):

+ (1
o

imk(t),

0km4

O'mk3

____ )imk(t) +~~Ar k (t) =

0o

k(t)A g +

e (t) + I

(t-u)

Above relationships are realized with the equivalent resistive companion network of Figure A.1. The elements of this network are:

Rkm
=

-l/%k2

o 0~~~

Rk l(/Cmkl +amk2
R = Rk mk

where
m( m

Ct-i=) -.1 eC(t-i) Z

0

2 e 2 k

t-l)

ICmm(t--u)

= amk3
=

mC(t-u[)

amk4Ik (

T)

i2
2Z
0

"

(t--)

Ikk(t- T)

km3Im(t- I) + amk4Ik( t-I)

-(1 +L4) im Ct--u) +km

IkCt-1) =-.1 k ~z
+
-

(t-T)

g e

(t-T)

2Z 0

r iCt-l) km
4

L (1+

) i+

Ct-u)
Ikk(t--T)

1,<ORkm
Rk

Rmn

mmf) (t-

Solution of above equations in terms of yields

ik(t), ;km(t)
Figure A.1 Equivalent Resistance Companion Network for a Finite Element of Earth Embedded Conductor.

imk ( t)

mkl em( t)

+ a mk2 ek (t

mk3 mk

mk4k

km(t) =akmlem() akm2ek (t)

+ a

km3Im(t1) ctkm4Ik(tr-)
+

where:

398

Discussion Eldon J. Rogers (Bonneville Power Administration, Vancouver, WA): The authors are to be congratulated for developing techniques to calculate the grounding-complex impedance characteristics during impulse, transient and fault current flow. Has the author's had confirmation of their method from staged fault tests on a large EHV grounding grid? It is interesting to note that the 60Hz impedance calculated for grounding grid C is only 1.024 times its d.c. resistance with a phase angle of 12.40. This increace in impedance is negligible. During a recently staged in-station single line to ground fault test of a large 230/500kV grounding grid (area 69,450m2) phase angle between grid voltage and earth current was estimated to be 100 lagging. Thus, the reactive component of grid impedance (0.14 ohms) was not significant. However, the high frequency impedance of grid conductors was significant. At fault initiation, near voltage peak, the transient potential rise of the current insertion point on the grid was 9kV. Yet, potential differences to phone company cables terminating 150m away were very small. This corresponds to the work of Gupta and Thaper [7] (and my experience) that high frequency grid impedance is confined to a small area on the grid located around the point of current insertion. Would the author's comment on the difference between their theoretical calculation of the transient response of a buried horizontal conductor (Fig 5), the theoretical work of Sunde [3] and the discussion of references [2] and [3] by Hagenguth? For a 9.2ns rise time step function of current the measured impedance of a buried wire starts at zero, increases in 29ns to its maximum 57 ohms than decreases to below the low frequency impedance, finally rising to its low frequency impedance (Refer to discussion of [5] by E. Rogers). This characteristic would follow even for a current step with zero rise time. The authors in determining grid impedance characteristics have inserted the current at grid center. Field measurements on actual grids are made by current insertion either at a grid corner or at the center of one side. Assuming a very remote current probe, what effect on measured grid impedance (resistance and reactance) will these locations have?
Manuscript received August 10, 1982.

methods? "Lumped element" is suggested. 4. Could the program calculate the maximum electric field in the soil so that non-linear ionization effects may be anticipated?
Manuscript received August 11, 1982.

who have shown that: (a) For a conductor half buried at the surface of the earth

individually. With all due respect we disagree with Mr. Dick's first comment that equation (1) of the paper implies that the soil is nonconductive. Equation (1) is in agreement with the early work of Bewley [4] and Sunde [3]

A. P. Meliopoulos and M. G. Moharam: The authors are appreciative of the comments and questions raised by the discussors. Before attempting to answer specific questions, we would like to make the following general comment. In the development of the model for the prediction of the transient response of grounding systems, emphasis was placed on simplicity and practicality. Thus many questions raised by the discussors are legitimate and in our opinion their discussion is a valuable compliment of the paper. However, discussion of all points in deserving detail will make this closue unacceptably long. For this reason only a brief discussion is offered. Mr. Dick raises five interesting points. We will respond to each one

cI V-0
r r

(b) For a conductor deeply buried in earch

C0
r r

E. P. Dick, (Ontario Hydro, Toronto, Ontario, Canada: The authors have achieved the* development of a relatively simple model for the rather involved electromagnetic behavior of grounding systems. However, to confirm the validation of the model, more commentary should have been included regarding many of the assumptions made in the paper: 1. Vs in equation (1) appears to assume the soil is non-conductive. This may be reasonable for frequencies such that wc >> 5, say above 10 MHz. 2. AL in (4) must assume either zero soil conductivity or dc conditions since skin effect is neglected. In typical soil, L would be fairly frequency dependent, decreasing by 50% between 60 Hz and 1 MHz. 3. Ar in Figure 2 seems not to include earth return resistance, which typically dominates conductor resistance above 200 Hz and is almost linearly frequency dependent . 4. Equation (2) appears to assume that e is zero in air. The resulting error may in fact be minor for large EQ. 5. The model assumes no mutual impedance between elements. Inductive or earth return resistive coupling would seem to be significant for frequencies such that the skin depth is greater than the spacing of grid conductors, say below 600 KHz. Capacitive or conductive coupling might be significant at higher frequencies. Can the authors estimate the relative error resulting from each of these assumptions? Due to the uncretainty of these assumptions, and their significance, the model should be verified experimentally. The model "tests" of section 5 could have included more confirmation with the data of references [3-10]. Although agreement with [121 is claimed, a maximum phase angle of 450 was measured (which may be related to the surge impedance of a buried line, with phase angles for series Z of 900 and shunt Y of 00). However, in Table 2B, Mat C, the reactance has passed resistance at 300 Hz with no indication the X/R is levelling off. Do the authors intend to do further testing of this model? Finally, comments by the authors would be appreciated on the following: 1. Why would Mat B with more parallel conductors have a higher inductance than Mat A? 2. Are the exponents correct in the Section 5 equation for ib(t)? 3. Shouldn't- the term "finite element" be reserved for variational

In addition, Bewley has reported (reference [4] of paper) that measurements of speed of propagation with an ingenius scheme developed by E. J. Wade have resulted in verification of equation (1). Mr. Dick's second point is correct. However, the method can accommodate the frequency dependence of the inductance AL in equation (4) at the expense of computer time. To this purpose the lossless transmission line of Figure 3 of the paper must be treated as a line with frequency dependent parameters. The pertinent equations can be obtained from the work of Sunde (reference [3] of the paper). This procedure will result in an equivalent circuit similar to that of Figure 4 of the paper

with the only difference that the "past history" current sources Ik(t-T) and Im(t-T) must be computed with a convolution operation. This approach was ruled out as computationally impractical., However, after much thought, we are presently investigating this procedure working on the highly efficient scheme for the computation of the required convolutions. With respect to point 3 that Ar in Figure 3 of the paper should include the earth return resistance we would like to point out that the earth return resistance is treated separately. In Figure 3 the earth return resistance will be the series combination of the two conductances of Ag/2. In fact the model is more complex because there are mutual conductances between any two finite segments which are not shown. Mr. Dick suspects that equation (2) of the paper implies that the air permittivity is zero. This is not true. Equation (2) results directly from Maxwell's equations and as such is as accurate as Maxwell's equation themselves. The question that may be raised with regard to equation (2) is how accurate is the computation of the conductance Ag. The only assumption employed is the computation of Ag is that the length of the finite segment is much larger than its diameter, which is met in practical grounding systems. The model as presented in the paper does not consider mutual impedance between elements. In a previous investigation, it has been found that exclusion of mutual impedance resulted in an error of 20%. In the interest of obtaining a simple model the error has been tolerated. Presently, work is underway with the full model (considering mutual impedance between elements) with the objective of decreasing the computational requirements of the model. Presently, we do not have an explanation why mat B with more parallel conductors has a higher inductance than mat A. The exponents in section 5 for the surge current ib(t) are incorrect. It should read

399

i (t)

1.1152(e-

04t

e1*8t )kA

We appreciate the observation. The method can calculate the maximum electric field in the soil so that nonlinear ionization effects may be anticipated. The answer to the question of Messrs Dick and Rogers whether tests were performed to validate the model is yes. Tests were performed on a Georgia Power Company substation [16]. However the only reliable measurement related to the model of this paper was the measurement of the phase angle of the substation impedance at 60 Hz. It was 90 versus 70 predicted by the model. The point of current injection was near the center of the ground mat. The reported measurement by Mr. Rogers is most interesting. The measured phase angle of 100 at 60 Hz depends on soil resistivity, point of current insertion and grid size. Unfortunately, Mr. Rogers does not provide all these data. On the basis of our model, our guess would be that the substation is located in soil of approximately 1000 ohm-meters and the point of current insertion at the periphery of the ground mat. In any case we would like to obtain more data and compare these measurements to our model. Regarding Mr. Roger's comment that the high frequency grid impedance is confined to a small area on the grid, we totally agree. As a matter of fact, careful examination of Figure 6 of the paper exemplifies exactly this coment. The major differences between our model and the theoretical work of Sunde [31 and the discussion of references [2] and [3] by Hagenguth are two: (a) our work does not model the behavior of the buried conductor

in the first 10 to 30 nanoseconds of an impeding wave. With reference to the example cited by Mr. Rogers, our model will assume that the impedance of a buried wire to a 9.2 its rise time step function will start at its maximum (57 ohms) then decrease to below the low freciuencv impedance and finaly will gradually rise to its low frequer ncy impedance. (b) The frequency dependence of both the earth return rpath resistance, Ag, and the conductor resistance, Ar, is not modeled (see Figure 3 of the paper). At this point we would like to offer a clarificatiion. These differences are not due to model shortcomings. They weree introduced in order to minimize the computational requirements of thle model. As it has already been mentioned (see discussion of point 2), the model can be extended to incorporate both these effects at the excpense of additional computer time. As a matter of fact, we are pre: sently working towards this end. Finally, at the present time we have not completed an i]investigation of the effects of point of current insertion on measures grrid impedance. Therefore, we cannot offer any comments at this time.

REFERENCE
16. S. G. Patel, "Field Measurements at Texas Valle)y Substation," Proceedings of the Workshop on High Voltage IPower Systems Grounding, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlainta, GA, May 12-14, 1982.

Manuscript received September 21, 1982.