TECH TIPS

S o m e A d d i t i o n a l M e t h o d s f o r

Resistivity Testing
Soil resistivity is the property that defines the ability of soil to conduct current and hence whether a given soil type can be expected to provide a good or a poor ground (high or low resistance). By contrast, earth resistance defines the relationship of a grounding electrode to its immediate environment. They are two different measurements, performed in two different ways, and expressed in two different units. Resistivity measurements are useful data for the design and installation of the electrode. The principal method for measuring resistivity is known as the Wenner Method and has been previously described in this series. Other methods are also practiced in situations where Wenner is not the most suitable, and some of these will be described next.
B y Jef f Jo w e t t
Megger Some studies have indicated that earth potential gradients inside or near an electrode (currents returning to the source) are primarily a function of the resistivity of the surface layer, except in extremely high resistivity soils, while electrode resistance is more a function of deep soil. Transmission-line impedances are sensitive to layers of different resistivities at power frequency, while high frequencies, including surge frequencies, establish impedance only in the top few meters. Therefore, both surface and layered resistivities to considerable depths are of concern to grounding and ground resistance measurement. A common practice is the testing of soils in sample boxes in laboratories. This can be done by connecting an earth tester to a specially made box containing a soil sample. A volumetric measurement can thus be obtained. However, this technique is more applicable to abstract research than practical field work such as grounding design. It is difficult to obtain a useful approximation of resistivity by this method for several reasons. Obtaining a truly representative sample of site conditions in a small volume commensurate with the dimensions of a test box is a challenge. In addition, it is difficult to accurately replicate moisture content and in particular compaction in a laboratory sample. Another highly limited but sometimes useful method is an adaptation of the resistance method (3-point test) to resistivity testing. This method is adapted to small areas where space limitations preclude the larger distances across the test probes that the standard Wenner Method requires, and can be called a variation of depth method. Repeated resistance measurements are made of a test rod driven to increasing depths, using familiar methods derived from fall of potential. Resistance would be expected to diminish with increased depth, so interpretation of results is difficult and makes good use of experience. But an uncharacteristic or unexpected change can indicate a change in resistivity, as with another layer of different soil type. Such data isnt detailed enough for practical use in software design programs, but can provide a useful indication of on-site conditions with

102

SUMMER 2011

Some additional methods for resistivity testing

TECH TIPS
respect to soil layering. The vicinity of the test rod affected by this method is about five to ten times rod length. Larger sites can also be tested for lateral changes in resistivity by relocating the rod to a number of points, but where sufficient space is available, this application is better served by the traditional Wenner Method. Variation of Depth method can be enhanced by the use of some mathematical formulae. The basic resistance formulae involved are: R = [/2l]ln[2l/r] and R = [/2l][ln(4l/r) 1] These rearrange to: a = [R2l] / [ln(4l/r) 1] Where R = measured resistance at various depths a = resistivity calculated l = test rod depth r = test rod radius Accordingly, a series of resistivities can be calculated from resistance readings at various depths and plotted against those depths. If the graph resembled Fig. 1A, it could reasonably be concluded that the tested soil consists of two layers, one at a shallow depth of relatively high resistivity and one at greater depth that is much more conductive. It might reasonably be concluded, then, that the additional investment in a deeper-driven permanent rod would be justified. In Fig. 1B, however, the shallow resistivity can be determined to be relatively conductive, but the deeper layer cannot be clearly determined. The traditional Wenner Method uses four equally-spaced probes, which thereby measure to a depth equivalent to the spacing between any pair. The current probes are positioned on the outside. This is so that the current will have escaped the localizing effects of the probesoil interface and established a uniform field across the inner probes which sense potential. This arrangement is conducive to maximum accuracy. An alternative method, called the Schlumberger Palmer Method, utilizes unequal spacing. This method is designed to address a problem that can arise with Wenner (equal probe spacing) where spacing has increased to considerably large distances: the drop in magnitude of potential between the voltage (inner) probes to a degree that the instrument cannot adequately measure. To counteract this problem, Schlumberger-Palmer brings the potential probes closer to the current probes (Fig. 2). The formula describing the resistivity measurement in this configuration is: = c(c + d)R/d where c = spacing between current and potential probe d = spacing between potential probes R = resistance reading from tester
Figure 1b

Figure 1a

Some additional methods for resistivity testing

NETAWORLD

103

TECH TIPS
The depth of penetration of the test probes is assumed to be small; Wenner calls for a 1/20 ratio between depth and spacing. Buried conductive sources like power lines and pipes could be causing interference with the measurement, or lateral changes in resistivity could render a specific location nonrepresentative of the general area. Therefore, it is recommended to take additional measurements at different locations on the same site, or at least to make the same measurement 90 relative to the first. Always remain aware that anomalies in test results can occur from sources of interference. These interference sources can be both passive conducting bodies and active electrical elements. Passive sources can be metallic fences, buried conductive objects such as water pipes, building foundations, and pole grounds, as well as others that may be completely unexpected. Parallel transmission and distribution lines and communication services can act as live sources of interference. Passive conductive objects can provide a short circuit that distorts the earth potentials that are being measured as part of the testing process. Similarly, active sources can provide current that is added to, or subtracted from, the test current. Remember that an earth tester employs two test circuits, current and potential, in order to make the measurement. Both of these can, therefore, be subject to distortion by interfering sources. Finally, the test leads, which can be stretched out to considerable lengths, can develop a serious shock potential by inductive coupling with parallel currentcarrying lines. So many different methods, often with conflicting interpretations, can be a source of confusion. However, their presence indicates the wide degree to which variables affect ground measurements, including the enormous span of the resistivity scale, the problems associated with spatial variations, the difficulty in recognizing distinct soil layers, and the possible influence of complicating factors like interference. Looked at another way, the numerous methods give the operator a chance to examine a situation from several perspectives and look for the most pertinent consistencies. Soil layering and modeling will be explored in a future edition.

Figure 2

Four-point methods can provide data to be plotted similarly to the three-point methods described above. Measured resistivities are plotted against depth, as has been shown. Clarity of interpretation as to the depth of various layers and the attendant soil structure, however, is often not so well defined as in Fig. 1A. Various authors have offered rules for determining the depth of individual layers. One guideline is that any break in the curvature of the graph indicates a separation of layers at the depth corresponding to that probe spacing. Another prefers 2/3 the probe spacing at which a point of inflexion occurs as representing the separation between layers. Similarly, it has been suggested that change in apparent, or calculated, resistivity always occurs at probe spacings larger than the depth of the actual change; hence, the graph of apparent resistivity is always to the right of the actual. This interpretation further suggests that such graphs do not correspond to the actual depths or magnitudes of change in soil layers. However, they can be used as models of relative differences and so provide a guideline for more exhaustive testing and calculation that will be described in a later edition.

104

SUMMER 2011

Some additional methods for resistivity testing