IEEE Transactionson

Power ApparatusandSystems,

vol. PAS-94, no. 2, MarchIApril 1975

OPTIMUM DESIGN OF SUBSTATION GROUNDING IN A TWO LAYER EARTH STRUCTURE

PART 111 STUDY OF GROUNDING GRIDS PERFORMANCE AND N E W ELECTRODES CONFIGURATION

Farid Dawalibi Member IEEE m e Shawinigan Engineering Co. Ltd. Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Dinkar Mukhedkar Senior Member IEEE Ecole Polytechnique Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Abstract - In a previous paper[ 11 the authors have presented the theoretical basis of their computerprogram which determines grounding electrodesperformance. In this last paper of the series presented,a detailed study of the influence of electrodes and earth parameters on grounding performance is analysed for different types practical of electrodes. A brief analysis and discussion of new electrodes configuration is also included. INTRODUCTION Perhaps some engineers will feel sceptical about any sophisticated method for calculating groundingperformance.They willargue that since earth resistivity is not usually known with accuracy or, even if accurate values are obtainedfromthe field measurements, since the resistivity is a function of the climatic conditions, then any attempt of exact calculation is useless and results in money-waste. This is a wrong judgment, and the arguments outlined hereafter explain why. a -Due to the lack of confidence in the field resistivity values, some engineers trend is to take a pessimistic figure for their calculation. This is a wise decision and the result, is an increase of the copper and work to be accomplished. However, the actual theoretical tools of the engineers for grounding calculations are often empirical (which means additional safety margins) and practically always based on a uniform earth theoretical works which deal with assumption. There is few good practicalelectrodes in nonuniform earth[6,7]. Therefore,additional safetyfactors are introduced whichraises thecost by thousands of dollars. An accurateanalyticalstudy based on the pessimisticvaluewill cutaff this new additional safety margins at a minimum cost (say less than one thousand dollars) besides providing the engineer with a better understandingof his groundingsystemduringabnormalconditions. b - The resistivity variation with climatic condition is limited usualsurface of earth, leaving thus thelower part ly to the first few feet at the practically at a constant value. In such a condition two cases should be run, simulating respectively the highest and lowest limits of the variahigh is not tion, in order to establish theworst case (a resistivity necessarily theworstcondition, since earth resistance increases, decreasing therefore the fault current). It should be noted also that in a non-uniform earth any percentage of error on the resistivities values'results often in a substantial lower error percentage on grounding performance (this is illustrated by this paper and our previous papers results). The use of a two layer structure to simulate earth is often the most adequate approach specially in Northern regions of America such as the Northern provincesofU.S.A. and Canada where earth freezes during winter down to several feet. Another regionof interest is the North Slope where recent developments have raised the challenge of accomoP a p e r T 74 403-2 recommended and approved by the IEEE Substations Committee of the IEEEPowerEngineering Society for presentation at theIEEE PES SummerMeeting & Energy Resources Conf., Anaheim, Cal., July 14-19,1974. Manuscript submitted January 30,1974;made available for printing April 29, 1974.

dating the usual design practice to rigorous climatic conditions. In such

places there is a lower layer of permafrost extending several thousands to feet with an upper layer of tundra (two or three feet) which freezes in winter and thaws in summer. A two layer earth approach is therefore mandatory[2,41. Finally the authors would like to point out that the theoretical method used in this series of papers can be easily extended to a multilayer earth structure. However, the computing time will increase considerably with the increased number of layers. For example, in order to study grounding performances in a three layer earth, itwill be necessary to allow15 to 20 timesmorecomputertimethanfortheidentical study performed on a two layer earth.
1. Detailed Study of Grounding Grid Performance

Five square grids 16m. x 16m. with increased meshes number were selected for this study. They are made of linear conductors with O.lm. diameter and buried at 0.6m. below earth surface. First layer resistivity was 200 ohm-meters and it was assumed that the electrodes are injecting 100 A. into earth. Table 1 describes these electrodes and gives their meshes number with their respective identification number.

Zlectrcde number
I

Geometrical configuration
I

Number of meshes

Il6m x 16m square grid

]
4
16

VI

16m x 16m square grid

conductors equally spaced

VI1

16m x 16m square grid

vIII

conductors equally spaced 16m x 16m square grid conductors equally spaced 16m x 16m square grid conductors equally spaced
Table 1

The theoretical calculations were carried out using assumption C (refer to part 11).

267

1.1 Influence of first lclyer height Electrodes VI1 was studied for different first layer heights starting from h = lm. to h 1OOOm. the potential was measured the center of at the corner mesh. The required potential probe position determined was foragroundcurrentreturn placed at 60m.fromthecenter of the electrode.

----..
J2

\
Potential m e a s u r c d n t t h i s point

Figure 1 shows the mesh potential and the grid potential rise for different values of h. The curve showing the grid potential rise gives also the electrodes earth resistance for different first layer heights (divide the potential in volts by 100 amperes). Thelowest curve represents the difference between the absolute value (with respect to remote ground) ie of the potential rs and the potential measured at surface of earth and will be the voltage experienced by a man standing at the center of the corner mesh and touching a grounded metallic equipment. This will be called hereafter the mesh voltage. Figure 2 gives the required potential probe position when measuring the grid earth resistance by the classical fall of potential method[ 31 It shows also the theoretical curve calculated in a previous paper[4] for a point source electrode.

Discussions
These two figures permit us to draw the following conclusions: -Electrodes resistance decreases lineally withfirstlayer height when h ranges between 1.0 and lOm., then it decreases slowly down to the value which corresponds to a uniform structure earth with p1 = 200 ohmmeters (1Om. represents practically the equivalent radius of the grounding grid). Thus in a two layer earth structure with = 0.5 k the second layer may be ignored if h is larger than the equivalentradius of the electrode. The mesh voltage, however, decreases much slowlier for hvarying from lm. to h = 10m. This c o n f m s that mesh voltages depend mainly is on first layer resistivity value. Therefore when an electrode embedded in the first layer, the second layer can be ignored for the calculation of the mesh voltages if an approximated value is desired. -The requiredpotentialprobeposition will differ considerably from the 61.8% value calculated for a uniform earth conditionif h/d is close to 0.4. Electrodes dimension influence on the required position, increases this value by less than 3% with respect to the one calculated for a point source electrode. 1.2 Influence of the bottom layer The same electrode VI1 was a s used to determine the influence lo of the second layer resistivity on the grid performance. The first layer resistivity and height were kept constant, respectively 200 ohm-meters and 10m. The reflexion factor kwas varying from -1 .O (metallic second layer) up to 1.O (insulating second layer). Figure 3 shows the mesh potential and the grid potential rise (or resistance) as a function ofk.The upper curve represents the mesh voltage and is obtained by substracting the mesh potential from the electrodes potentialrise. Figure 4 gives the required potential probe position when measuring the ground earth resistance with the classical fall of potential method. The theoretical curve calculated for a point source electrodeis also shown on the samefigure. Discussions The following conclusions may be outlined: -Electrodes resistance decreases very quickly when k decreases from 1 .O to 0.5, then it decreases gradually at a lower rate. The main conclusion is that the grid resistance is muchmoreinfluencedby a positive reflexion factor than in the alternative. When h = 10m. (value approximatively equalto the grids equivalent radius) the mesh potential increases veryslowly with decreased values of k. This c o n f m s again the hypothesis that the mesh potential depends mainly on the m t layer resistivity. f -The r e q k d potential probe position varies from 5 5 % to 87% with increased values of k. Again the required positions with a point source electrodeare veryclose to the values calculatedfora grid.

First layer height ( m e t e r s )

p o t e n t i a l rise above remote C e n t e r m e s h potential rise above r e m o t e ground. L o w e s t c u r v e : M e s h voltage.

-Electrodes ground.
.-.--.**

Influence of first layer height on potential and resistances

Fig. 1

M d .rl w

. i

30
t
d

.z

.A

% c 0

F i r st layer height : loglO(1O

.x
d

-R e q u i r e d probe position of the g r i d .

.---.*. source electrode, Point
required potential probe position.

Influence of f i r s t layer height on r e q u i r e d probe position

Fig. 2

268

(VOLTS) .-

b - Uniform earth structure ( = 0.0) k p = 200 ohm-meters Figure 5 gives respectively the grid earth resistances and mesh potentials (corner meshes) for the two cases mentioned previously, as a function of meshes number. Figure 6 shows the mesh voltage variation as a function of meshes number.

80

.A

(d

c c
0

8
a

- iP6-.4 .i

0 6

1 .

Number of meshes Mesh potential (k = 0.5) Mesh potential (k = 0 . 0 )

G r i d potential rise or

.6,

Reflexion factor

Potential rise at center of corner mesh. Electrodes potential riseor electrodes resistance (divide by one hundred). Upper curve :Mesh voltage

-.........

grid resistance (k

0.5)

Grid potential r i s e or grid resistance (k = 0.0) Influence of meshes number on potentials and resistances
Fig. 5

Influence of reflexion factor k on potential and resistance

Fig. 3

s
aJ

l. L l.2 6
.---.*-..

.2

.6

1 !.

Number of meshes Mesh voltage with respect to grid potential (k = 0.5) Mesh voltage with respect to grid potential (k = 0.0) lnfluence of me shes number on mesh voltages
Fig. 6
Discussions

p:

Reflexion factor k Required probe position for a grid. Required probe position for a point source electrode.

Influence of reflexion factor on required probe position

Fig. 4 1.3 Influence of meshes number Electrodes V to IX were considered conditions: a Two layer earth structure: p 1 = 200 ohm-meters p2 = 600 ohm-meters; k = 0.5 h = 10m. in two different earth

- Electrodes resistance decreases very slowlywith increased number of meshes. The resistance seems to reach a minimum value which obviously corresponds to the matelectrodes resistance. -Mesh potential increases also slowly, with increased meshes number, to a maximum value which differs from the potential rise of the grid. This is logical since there is always a voltage drop between the

269

electrodes buried metallic material and earth surface, even for a grounding mat. - The mesh voltage value is practically independant of the lower layer resistivity as shown clearly by figure 6 . This is one more argument c o n f i g that mesh voltage depend primarily on fmt layer resistivity. to be, for all -The required potential probe position was found practical purposes, constant and thus independant of meshes number.

However, maximum mesh voltages at the surface of earth differ substantially from one arrangement the other,as indicated in table 2. to Discussions Table 2 shows clearly that electrode B gives the best performance withrespedto mesh voltages. Electrodes A and E arepractically equivalent. The main conclusion suggested by the above table is that rods have an adverse influence on mesh voltages. This is a logical result since there is a larger voltage drop, between the deeper part of the ground rods and earth surface, than the one experienced by the same horizontal buried rod.
3. EXTENSIVE GROUNDING NETWORK

2 . COMPARISON OF GROUNDING GRIDS WITH OTHER TYPE O F ELECTRODES

The electrodes which have been compared are shown in table 2. They have approximatively the same length of buried conductors. The electrodes are made up of linear conductors of O.lm. diameter buried in a two layer earth a depth of 0.6m. Earth characteristics arek = 0.5, p 1 at = 200 ohm-meters and h - 10m. Although a more detailed comparison in various earth structures would be extremely interesting, our basic purpose is to show that for each condition, there is an optimum grounding configuration. Briefly, the major results obtained for thecase mentioned above are as follows: Calculation shows that the earth resistane and required potential probe position for each configuration of the electrodes do not differ respectively by more than 5 %.

Electrodes form

Max. mesh Total R o d s No. voltage .ength (% of of length of )uried (m.) rod potential rise) :opper L (m3

Finally, the authors wouldlike to point out that their method permits the calculation of an extensive interconnected grounding network as encountered usually in the electric utilities powersystems. The grounding network includes a number of groundinggrids or equivalent, connected to ground wiresregularly grounded at eachthree or four poles In those cases the current distribution using assumption C should be calculated on the basis of the overall grounding network area, the perimeter grids carryingthemaximumcurrentdensity. This can be accomplished in two steps: -Calculation of a linear current density Sa on the overall grounding area basis. -Calculationof a linearcurrentdensity 6, on each individual electrode basis.

%-L

Load

160

18.9 Transmissioq line

:I

iI
:I

174

12.7 Conductor j
I

&
Ground wire Grid A electrical center

', grounding areaelectrical center

175

25

32.4

176

16

23.2

Extensive groundinp network Fig. 7

Then each subdivided conductor will c r y &,Sa linearcurrent ar density. Figure 7 gives an example of an extensive grounding network, is thesequence to follow forthecalculationofthecurrentdensity indicated schematically hereafter:

E
176

17.6

Step 1: Calculation of Sa:

grid A camed S,(A) x I Table 2

270

...................

Poles ground AB2 carries Sa(AB2) x I

..............................

Step 2: Calculation of 6,
Conductor j of grid A carries 6,(j) of grid A

total current 6,(A) x I, thus:

...............................
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS The analytical method used by the authors gives accurate results and agrees with the experimentalresultsobtained in a scaleddown model of a two layer earth structure under controlled conditions[5]. Nonuniform current density in the electrode does not represent an important parameter for the determination of earth resistances or mutual resistances, and therefore, can be ignored when using the average potential method[ 61 -Nonuniform current density, however, is an important factor andshouldbe considered forthecalculation ofmeshvoltages. The authors have shown that a linear repartition of current density in the electrode (method C) is a valid assumption which gives accurate results withoutintroducing large computingtime to solve the simultaneous equations needed the for calculation of theexactcurrent density distribution. -In a two layer earthstructure,the electrodesearth resistance varies substantially when thefirst layer his comparable to the equivalent radius of the electrode or/and when k is positive and larger than 0.3. -However, the mesh voltage is much less sensitive to the second layer resistivity value or to fmt layer height. It depends mainly on the first layer resistivity. For a grounding grid, the number ofmeshes have a very small influence on earth resistances or on required potential probe position.As already mentioned in the litteratute [7], there is a little gain in resistance drop for mesh numbers larger than 16. -The mesh voltage, however, decreases considerably with increased mesh numbers. The maximum mesh numbers where there is not any sensible diminution of mesh voltage is (for 0.6m. depth) close to 50. This limit, however,varies with the depth of burial. Schwartzformula forthe calculation ofearth resistances of grounding gridsin uniform earth gives results close to authors ones. However,Laurents formula gives pessimisticvalueswhichmay be as high as 1.5 times authors calculated values. IEEE guide No. 80 method for calculating mesh voltage in uniform earth, gives higher values than the authors one for a one mesh grid and lower values for grounding grids with more than 4meshes. -Mesh voltages in an electrode made of vertical ground rods are krger (up to more than 2 times) than the equivalent electrode (for the same length ofburied conductors) made of horizontalburied conductors.

6 = be(j)x6,(A)xI

[4] F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar, Ground electrode resistance measurement in non-uniform soils,IEEETransactions paper #T-73-361-3. [5] D. Mukhedkar, Y. Gervais, F.Dawalibi,Modelling ofpotential [5] distribution aroundgrounding a electrode, IEEE Transactions paper # T-734324. 161 T. N. Giao, M. P. h a , Effect of two layer earthonthe electric field near -~ - - electrodes. . ~ _ _ HVDC IEEE Transactions. Vol. ~.~~~~ ~.~ -, . - - PAS-91, No. 6, November 1972, pp. 2356-65. [71 E. T. B. Gross, B. V. Chitnis, L. J. Stratton, Grounding a i d s for high voltage stations. AIEE-Transactions PAS, Vol. 72; Part 111. August 1953, pp. 799-810.
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Combined Dissussion1.2

J. C. Sverak (United Engineers & Constructors, Inc., Philadelphia, Pa.): The presented papers, Part and 111, provide interesting information on I1 the experimental results of modeling the performance of various grounding grids in two layer earth. It is significant that the experimentalcomparison of calculated meshvoltages with the values obtained byusing theprocedures for comer mesh voltage calculation according to IEEE Guide No. 80, show rather lowvalues for grids with more than meshes. 4 The described deviationsareinsubstantialagreementwithour experience, as covered in our discussionof Part I, presented atthe IEEE Winter Power Meeting in 1973. The continuing trend toward operating higher and higher voltage at levels for both conventional and gas-insulated substations will further justify revisionof Guide No. 80 to includethecalculatingmethods covered in these papers.
REFERENCES design of substation grounding in a two layer earth structure. Part I, Analytical study, IEEE Transactions paper#T-74-191-3, and [21 J. G. Sverak, Discussion to the (above) paper T-74-191-3, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-94, this issue. [ 31 Draft on Guide for Grounding Alternating of Current, Gasinsulated Substations, IEEE Substation Committee Working Group 70.1, Summer Meeting 1974, Anaheim, California.
Manuscript received August 26,1974.

[ 1] F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar, Optimum

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to express their appreciation to the National Research Council of Canada and the Department of Energy, Mines & Resources of Government of Canada for providing the necessary fiiancia1 support of the work. The authors would like to thank the management the of Shawinigan Engineering Company Limited, Montreal, Quebec, fortheircooperation. REFERENCES
[ 1I F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar, Optimum design of substation ground-

D. A. Edwardson (Northeast Utilities Service Company, Hartford, Connecticut): The authors are to be congratulated for their excellent treatise on application of the summation and integration methods of point potential calculation for ground electrodes in a two layer earth structure. The analytical methodsused are proven accurate by resultsof the scaled model tests. I agree with all of the conclusions in Part I11 except for the following: 1. In Part II1,Page 5, Table 2, Discussions, Paragraph 2, it is stated that rods have an adverse influence on mesh voltages. The analytical or experimental results of the paper do not seem to support this statement. I believe the authors mean to say: Mesh voltages in an electrode made of vertical ground rods are larger (up to more than two times) than the equivalent electrode (for the same length of buried conductors) made of horizontal buried conductors,asstated inParagraph 10 of Part I11 General Conclusions. 2. The theoretical calculations did not consider current saturation of the ground at and around the point where two horizontal conductors cross. The result is that grid A of Table 2, Part 111 appears to utilize conductor as efficiently controlling mesh potentials asgrid E. in In Part 111, Page 1, INTRODUCTION, Paragraph 6, its stated that a two layer earthapproach is mandatoryinareas where theearth freezes down to several feet in winter. Is the two layer earth approach mandatory when ground are rods used to penetrate to the lower resistivity, unfrozen earth below the frost line?
Manuscript received August 5 , 1974.

ing in a two layer earth structure, Part 1 Analytical study. IEEE Transactionspaper #T74-191-3. [2] A. B. Sturton, R. Breton,F. Dawalibi, J. Lemay. Groundingin the polar plain CEA Transactions paper, volume 12, year 1973. [31 Recommended Guide for Measuring Ground Resistance and Potential distribution around a grounding electrode, IEEE Transactions Paper #T73-0324.

IF. Dawalibi and D.Mukhedkar, Optimum Design of Substation Grounding i a Two Layer Earth Structure, Part 11: ComparisonBetween Theoretical add n
and Experimental Results, this issue, pp. 2 6 2 2F. Dawalibi and D Mukhedkar, Optimum Design of Substation Grounding . in a Two Layer Earth Structure, Part 111: Study of Grounding Grids Performance and New Electrodes Configuration, this issue pp. 267

2!71

Farid Dawalibi and Dinkar Mukhedkar: We thank each of the discussers

for their comments and interest in the papers. We fully agree with Mr. Sverak that revision of IEEE guide no. 80 is justified by thecontinuingtrendtowardoperationat increased voltages and short circuit levels. In such cases, cost of substation grounding could be reduced substantially by u e of s new accurate methods. It is very difficult to cover in short papers all the various conditions which could be encountered in substation grounding. Therefore, the comparison made by the authors hold only for a particular condition. As stated in page 4 of part 111, paragraph 2: Our basic purpose is to show that for each condition there is an optimum grounding configuration. Therefore, Mr. Edwardson points out correctly that rods do

Manuscript received November 21,1974.

not have always adverse influence on meshvoltages. This statement made by the authors holds only for the typical s e c ~ studied. A two layer approach permafrost regions is necessary if accurate in results are to be obtained. Our argument is that even if the electrodes rods length penetrating the deep resistance is mainly determined by the low resistivity layer, step and touch voltages depend primarily on the first layer resistivity. Finally, we believe that current saturation of the ground has the same total effects on both grids A and E of tgble 11. Grid A has conductorswhich overlap butthedistancebetweentwoconductors is larger than in grid E conductors do not m s Our hypothesis can be s. justified by the following: In order to obtain a plain mat electrode we can either increase the number of meshes ingrid A (increasing therefore the numberof crossing points) or-increase the number of parallel conductors in grid E. The result will be the same mat with a unique performance.

272