IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-99,No.

2 March/April 1980 471

TRANSMISSION LINE TOWER GROUNDING

PERFORMANCE IN NON-UNIFORM SOIL
F. Dawalibi W. G. Finney
Montel, Inc. Stanley Consultants, Inc.
Montreal, Quebec, Canada Muscatine, Iowa, United States

ABSTRACT

Detailed computer analyses of a 765 kV typical transmission tower This paper deals with the earth directly under the base of the tower.
footing grounding performance during phase-to-ground fault condition are Specifically, it considers the effect of two layers of soil/rock, with their dif-
described and discussed. It is assumed the tower is erected on a two-layer ferent resistivity, on the step and touch potential around the base of the
earth structure. The tower resistance, worst touch and step potentials, are tower.
calculated for various soil conditions described by the top layer height and
both layer resistivities. Universal charts are presented to help the engineer
in predicting and designing transmission tower ground performance. Electrical Representation
The most frequent transmission fault is phase-to-ground, and it is
INTRODUCTION usually caused by lightning. See Figure 1. It is quite common for present-
day EHV systems to require a tower footing resistance which will result in
General less than one outage per hundred miles per year (outage rate). In order to
calculate this outage rate, the system impedance or resistance must be
In order to design and operate a transmission system with a low-outage determined. See Figure 2.
rate and safety to the maintenance personnel as well as the public, it is
necessary to study the grounding system. The grounding system is made up
of: PHASE CONDUCTOR
cOverhead ground wires (static wires).
If GROUND WIRE
* Tower body. SECTION IMPEDANCE Z i-1
* Foundation.
In to
order design and operate atransmission system withalow-outage
* Ground wires buried or driven at the base of the tower (including
counterpoise).
* Earth directly under the base of the tower. R i- -Ri Rjlj
* Earth between the point of fault and the source of fault current.
- I _SUBSTATION
TOWER.
lft:bl:b IANUti
GROUNDING

FIGURE .2
Electrical Representation

In this paper, we are not necessarily interested in the lightning flashover,

only in the resulting backflash which results in a 60-cycle follow current.
PHASE We assume we cannot affect the damage of the lightning current, which
CONDUCTORS may be as great as 200,000 amperes, for a period as long as 6 microseconds.
But, the ground electrode system at the base of the tower and the earth
resistivity are major variables in the calculation of the ground potential at
the tower base.
The ground fault current distribution between the tower and ground
wires is a major factor, and it should be determined with a computer
program. This is a problem which requires stage fault test in order to get
the best possible answers. A common rule of thumb is to assume 60 percent
of the fault current flows to ground at the point of this backflash and 40
FIGURE 1 percent flows through the overhead ground wires, unless your system does
Tower Performance Under Fault Conditions not use overhead ground wires. Another variable which affects the division
of fault current is the distance from the substation to the point of fault. If
you are within one mile of the substation more fault current will flow
in the overhead ground wires.

Earth Surface Potential Profiles

The step and touch profiles will be a function of the earth surface poten-
F 79 244-5 A paper recommended and approved by the IEEE tial. Figure 3 is an example of this surface potential, using the sample
Transmission and Distribution Committee of the IEEE Power problem in Appendix I. Note the potential is at a maximum at the
Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE PES Winter Meeting, parameter of the tower base and decreases rapidly going away from the
New York, NY, February 4-9, 1979. tower.
Manuscript submitted September 11, 1978; made available for printing
December 14, 1978. Figure 4 shows illustrations of the touch and step potential.
0018-9510/80/0300-0471$00.75( 1980 IEEE
472

5000

4000

0
3000
z
0
(U
0
I

Er
ai)

II
2000 FIGURE 4
Illustration of Step & Touch Potential
necessary if high accuracy is not required[3], [4], [5]. A simplified
representation, Figure 6 as opposed to Figure 5a, is adequate and
gives acceptable accuracy. Table I shows a comparison of exact
versus simplified electrode representation.
1000 Earth Surface Potential In this study, the simplified representation shown in Figure 6 was
735 kV Steel Tower used to analyze the tower's grounding performance.
Y Yvitnu (rs.
With ine Af:_Fnt
v-ru00t onnno
Ground Rod Per L eg
IJ Y AXIS
-El- 4 - PROFILE
TOP VIEW 11.2m

I II I I
10 11 12
DISTANCE ALONG DIRECTION (METERS)
FIGURE 3
Earth Surface Potential
Ground Resistivity
A uniform earth approach is often inadequate because soil/rock is nor-
mally heterogeneous. We propose a methodology which simulates an 36-
equivalent two-layer soil. Mrs. M. Bouchard substantiates this
methodology in her recently published master's thesis[1].
Ground Electrode
Single-point forms of electrodes are not accurate nor acceptable to deter- LEGEND
mine the ground potential profiles. Accurate analytical methods are
capable of analyzing any electrode configuration embedded in a two-layer () 3 0A
soill31, 141, 151.
Figures 5a and 5b show the arrangement of a typical grillage foundation
for a 765 kV tower.
L 0c' 0A EQUIVALENT DIAMETER OF A
CYCLINDRICAL CONDUCTOR HAVING
The foundation structures are embedded in concrete. Recent studies THE SAME SURFACE AS THE
have indicated that concrete-encapsulated electrodes will have a resistance TYPICAL GROUND ROD U-, I-, OR L-SHAPED STRUCTURES
lower or equal to the value which will be obtained without use of con-
crete[61, [7], [8], [9], [10]. This is due to the fact that concrete, when TOWER LEG c SOIL SURFACE
wet due to moisture content of surrounding soil, has a low resistivity
-

value approximately 100 ohm-meters. In addition, compactness of con-

-

crete around structures improves contact resistance. Therefore, in the (3.05m) 11

study, the presence of the concrete was ignored; this will give pessimistic
values of resistance.
The results shown in the following section are based on the assumptions NO GD RODS
as stated in the following three items. GROUND RODS (IF ANY)< 1 GD ROD 6'
2 GD RODS 6+6= 12'
I-, U-, and L-shaped conductors were transformed into equivalent
cylindrical conductors. See Figure 5a.
* Studies conducted (1) on "MALT" computer program show that a FIGURE 5a
detailed representation of all conductors in the foundation is not Typical Grillage Foundation for 765 kV Steel Tower
 473

A = EQUIVALENT CYLINDRICAL CONDUCTOR

TABLE I (SIDE - HORIZONTAL)
From Reference[1] C - EQUIVALENT CYLINDRICAL CONDUCTOR
(LEG - VERTICAL)
Tower's Resistance B = GROUND ROD (IF ANY) 6' LONG
as Calculated by
Program MALT NOTE:
Y AXIS
NUMBER 1 TO 24
INDICATES \ 21
765 kV Grounding Rsimpl. - Rexact CONDUCTOR NO.
Tower Rods Exact Simplified R AS USED BY l E
No. Per Leg Represent. Represent. exact MALT PROGRAM
44
\~,2.8' 38.8( 2.2m)
277 2 at 6 feet 34.6 34.8 .6% \ 16
(O.9m) 368 (118m)
282 none 44.3 46.0 3.8%
284 none 44.8 46.6 4.0% 24

294 1 at 6 feet 40.0 43.3 8.3% XAXIS

\ -GROUND ROD
7 |\(IF ANY)
COMPUTER STUDY CYLINDRICAL
CONDUCTOR I

Studies Conducted on Computer

Assuming the tower's foundation shown in Figure 6, the following cases 23
TOP VIEW
were run:
A - Tower. See Figure 6.
1 - Without additional ground rods. SOIL TOWER
SURFACE J LEG VERTICAL
2 - With additional 6-foot long ground rods, one per leg. COND.
B - Soil. See Figure 7. 10.3 (3.04m
.3' (3.14m
For each case, A-1 or A-2, a two-layer soil was assumed. (4.! 37m)
1 - The top layer height, "h," was varied from 0 feet to 00 . EXCAVATION

2 - The deep layer soil, P2, was varied from 0 feet to 00 ohm-
meters. This translates when using the reflection factor, K, Z AXIS
'
GROUND
defined as ----, as K varying from -1 to +1. ROD
Si;IDE VIEW
3 - Top layer resistivity, ID, was assumed constant = to 100
ohm-meters. FIGURE 6
C - Fault Current. Simplified Representation of Tower Foundations
Carried by tower's grounding was assumed 1000 amperes (1 KA).
Results Obtained
I Tower's footing ground resistance.
R. See Figures 8a and 8b.
II Touch Potentials.
VT. See Figures 9a, 9b, and 11.
w
cc
w III Step Potentials.
z Vs. See Figures 10a, 10b, and 11.
0
z
w

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
CO,

Lb.
0
w
Grounding Resistance of Tower
a.
Figure 8a presents universal charts for grounding resistance of steel
z tower when an extra 6-foot long ground rod is buried next to each leg ex-
0
CO
cavation. Figure 8b corresponds to the case where no additional rods or
a
z electrodes are installed, except the normal steel of the foundations.
w
a.
w
0) * When soil is uniform or when the first layer height is large, about
100 feet or more, we have a flat curve identified by 00'.
TOP VIEW * In an interval around the zero reflection factor, K = 0.0, about
K -.5 to K +.5, the resistance when plotted on a log paper
= =

varies linearly.
* Beyond K .5, the behavior of the curves depends on the sign of K.
=

a When K 0, a good conductivity layer over a high resistive

XCAVATION
layer, the resistance rises quickly as K approaches 1.0, infinite
\ resistivity of the deep layer, the rate of rise is inversely
proportional to the first layer height, "h." When "h" ap-
proaches zero, the corresponding curve is asymptotic to Line
K = + 1. This behavior is observed for both cases. See Figures
8a and 8b.
SIDE VIEW b When K < 0, a high resistive first layer over a good conducting
layer, the behavior of the resistance depends on the first layer
FIGURE 5b height. When the height, "h," is larger than the bottom of the
Detail Grillage for Tower Leg foundation for Figure 8b, 10.4 feet, or the extremity of the
474

ground rod, Figure 8a, 16.3 feet, the corresponding curves are
linear and close to the horizontal uniform soil curve.

Om
'//Sd/E#/ -,)_
h /= 100 OHM-METERS 7 '+

s/I/a/- t?/

2 0.61 m

5 1.52m
FIGURE 7
Soil Depth
X L t- s15 4.57m
When "h" is smaller than the above, the curves behave
asymptotically when approaching K = -1.0, zero resistivity w 1
deep layer, and all drop to almost zero. This is logical since z
when K = -1.0, the deep soil exhibits an infinite conductivity,
and since a portion of the grounding conductors of the tower is
in contact with this infinite conductivity layer, then the
Cso
CO,
w
__= 00 c ' 00m

resistance must drop to zero. ae:,

Appendix I gives the formulas to convert this base case to any

two-layer soil configuration. Also, 500, 345, or 120 kV towers, LINEAR REGION

Grounding Resistance
735 kV Steel Tower
0.1 - No Ground Rod

0.01

-1, *.8 .6 4-.4 2 0.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0

REFLECTION FACTOR K (p.u.)

FIGURE 8b
Tower Footing Ground Resistance
provided they are approximately geometrically similar to the
735 kV presented here, can be studied as explained in Appendix
I.

Touch Potentials
The maximum touch potential a man can experience when a fault occurs
at a tower is when he is standing approximately one meter away from one
leg of a tower while simultaneously touching this leg. See Figure 4.

Conclusions similar to those described in the section just preceding are

applicable here also. However, the following points should be stressed:
* While the resistance is a function of earth resistivities only, the
touch potential is also a function of the fault current flowing in the
tower's foundations. Here, a 1000 ampere fault current was
assumed. However, if the resistance of the tower is not negligible
compared to system impedance as seen from the tower, then the
fault current is a function of the tower's grounding resistance. For
example, when "K" is close to 1.0, the resistance value may reach
several hundreds of ohms, which may be enough to restrict the
maximum fault current in the tower to a few amperes. However, the
touch potential is proportional to the current. Therefore, when the
REFLECTION FACTOR K (p.u.) tower's resistance has been determined, using Figures 8a and 8b for
example, the maximum fault current in the tower can be
FIGURE 8a calculated, and then all one has to do is to apply the adequate
Tower Footing Ground Resistance (Ground Rod) proportionality factors to curves of Figures 9a and 9b.
 475

Om

/ 2 0,61m

0 _52
_1

o [;1 i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~5'
4.57 m

10'X

ReFLLINE A REGIO
R

Touch Potential
735 kV Steel Tower
tw2 .i No Ground Ro

10

r-1. -.8 -.6 -.4 a2 0.0 2 f4 6 .8

1r0
REFLECTION FACTOR K (p.u.) REFLECTION FACTOR K (p.u.)

FIGURE 9a
Touch Potentials (Ground Rod)
* In contrast with the resistance curves, when "h" is larger, to say 17
feet (11 feet for the case no ground rod), the results are similar to
- [2H, the step potentials are less of a concern. However, Figures 10a and 10b
the uniform soil case, in contrast to 100 feet for the resistance,
provided the grounding conductors are not in contact with the deep
layer when K < 0.
* It is important to note that Figures 9a and 9b do not show com-
pletely what happens when soil is a two-layer structure. It is
customary to express the touch or step potentials in percent of the
total potential rise, which is the product of the grounding
resistance, "R," by the fault current, "I" (RI)[2].
Figure 11 shows the touch potential in percent of RI when there are
6-foot long ground rods. This figure shows clearly that when soil is
uniform, either for first layer or Coo for second layer, the percent
value is close to 42 percent. However, for a given first-layer height,
which corresponds here to approximately 15 feet, the deviation
from the uniform case is spectacular.
Step Potentials
The maximum step potential a man can experience is shown in Figure 4.
Because of the nature of the problem here, the step potentials are always
smaller or equal to the touch potential, depending on the distance from the
FIGURE 9b
Touch Potentials
EXPERIENTL
tower leg. Since a man can withstand a higher step than touch potential
are presented here for reference.
Conclusions similar to those presented in the section on Touch Poten-
tials are also applicable, including the part about percent values.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Mrs. Bouchard has prepared an extensive field resistance measurement
on actual Hydro-Quebec towers, including earth resistivity measurements,
grounding measurements, and comparison with computer results. The
results of her findings are available in her thesis [1t which is in French.
However, she intends to publish a paper in which the main difficulties and
problems associated with field measurements will be described. Recom-
mendations and comments will also be detailed.
The major conclusion of her thesis is that when field measurements
could be made accurately, experimental and computer results were close,
average of 12 percent discrepancy. This coffes'ponds to the cases where soil
resistivity was low so that enough test cuffent could be driven in the soil.
When measurements were difficult, or therefore not reliable because of low
test current injected, high stray and parasitical currents, errors reached an
average of 50 percent. See Figure 12.
476
First
105T First
Layer
_ Height

0' Om
l

= ~~~~First Layer Resistivity I00 fL-m =7

5' 1.52 m

-j
0~ -i

4.57m
z
10L
10 Ioo15 oo m
z 0
w

0.
0
wU
U) 735ukV
StreeliTower10A/
w

= =~~~~~Se
10 - .5
1. -===-=....-
. -2 Potential

10-

1. =. 2~ 00 2.

1.0
REFLECTION FACTOR K (p.u.) REFLECTION FACTOR K (p.u.)

FIGURE 10a FIGURE 10b

Step Potentials (Ground Rod) Step Potentials

CONCLUSIONS [41 F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar, "Transferred Earth Potentials in Power

This paper presents universal curves which can be used to determine
ground resistance, step potential, and touch potential at the base of a
lattice-type steel tower. If the tower dimensions or resistivity are different,
conversion formulas are given in Appendix I.
The accuracy of the variable ground resistivity can be the determining
factor in obtaining acceptable results. This variable can only be obtained
by repetitive measurements and experience.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Bouchard, "Mise a la Terre des Pyl6res Rigides 735 kV," M. Sc.
Thesis Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal, 1978.
[2] "IEEE Guide for Safety in Alternating-Current Substation
Grounding," IEEE, No. 80, March, 1961, revised 1977.
1.3] F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar, "Optimum Design of Substation
Grounding in Two-Layer Earth Structure," Part I, Analytical Study,
IEEE Transactions, Vol. PAS-94, No. 2, March/April, 1975, pp. 252-
261.
Systems," IEEE Transactions, Vol. PAS-97, No. 1, January/
February, 1978.
[5] F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar, "Multi-Step Analysis of Interconnected
Grounding Electrodes," IEEE Transactions, Vol. PAS-95, No. 1,
January/February, 1976, pp. 113-119.
[61 Paul Wiener, "A Comparison of Concrete-Encased Grounding Elec-
trodes to Driven Ground Rods," IEEE Transactions, Vol. IGA-6, No.
3, May/June, 1970.
[7] E. J. Fagan, R. H. Lee, "The Use of Concrete-Enclosed Reinforcing
Rods as Grounding Electrodes," IEEE Transactions, Vol. IGA-6,
July/August, 1970, pp. 337-348.
[8l R. H. Lee, "Concrete-Encapsulated Metal Grounding Electrodes,"
Proceedings of the American Power Conference, Vol. 32, 1970, pp.896-
904.
[9] J. Preminger, "Evaluation of Concrete-Encased Electrodes," IEEE
Transactions, Vol. IA-11, No. 6, November/December, 1975.
[10] Georges B. Niles, "Using Transmission Foundation Resistance for
Grounding Purposes and in Determining an Effective Earth
Resistivity," IEEE Transactions Paper A78-126-5, presented at IEEE
PES Winter Meeting, New York, January/February, 1978.
 477

(Feet)
K0 REFLECTION FACTOR
0

I
Z r-x-x ffi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i
K-0.0 -
100-

z:1 Ground Rod per Leg /t

E7zz1i,Ps L___e- - 5' ;'

1z
W (a
> 30 1 1~~~~~1
I "I
(,) 2 ._ - I r /
z 10
O le Touch Potential
In % _316 15'
735 kV Steel Tower
With One 6-Foot Long
I
20'
Ground Rod Per Leg
cO
..I

100'
W t ), w

FIRST LAYER HEIGHT (FEET) .) 3

1,0- 11)_ ___

1--
co
FIGURE 11 CO)
Touch Potentials in Percent w
cn 3

1.- , Z5_
APPENDIX I

A. If tower's dimensions are identical to A-1 or A-2:

Resistance R
R is proportional to top-layer resistivity .1.
Rreal case
'-
Rbase X ylreal/base = 100 IL m (1)
For example, if actual soil is
,9=500 n -m
Ao2 = 50 l --m 0 RESULTS OF MEASUREMENTS _
r TOWER NUMB ER
h = 1 foot
Then K =2
/
Select on chart h = 1 & K
'
"0 = -0.82
=
-0.82 read resistance value RI
o. _ l l
-1.0 -.8 -.4 -.2
REFLECTION FACTOR K (p.u.)
0.0
<r
.2 .4 .6 .8 1.0

then use Equation (1).

FIGURE 12
Rreal = Rbase x 500/100 = 5 Rbase Resistance Measurement Comparison
Touch & Step PotentialsVT or Vs Example
V is proportional to top-layer resistivity and to fault curren Assume that real tower is two times smaller than base case

Vreal case = (Vbase x / -real/100J -i) x

(Ireal/lbase = 1000)A)(2) a Lbase = 2.0
For example, if data same as before and 2000A in tower, then from
Lreal
Equation (2). Assume also that soil is
Vreal case = (Vbase x 500/100) x (2000/1000) = 500
60, -m

Vreal case =
10
Vbase f2 = 50 -m
h 1 foot
I= 2000A
k = -0.82
B. If tower has not the same dimensions as for A-1 or A-2 of the paper, 1and
if tower is geometrically similar to A-1 or A-2 (including radiuss of Then select on charts
grounding conductors), then provided that first-layer height is trains- hbase hreal x = 1 x 2 2

formed accordingly:
Rreal case
Rreal Rbase x (', real/PDase)
.1
x a
(3) hbase
k = -0.82
2
Lbas
Where a = Dimension factor = Lbase Read Rbase or Vbase
Lreal
Then according to Equation (3) or Equation (4)
and Rreal = Rbase x (500/100) x 2 = 10 Rbase
Vreal case = Vbase x ( real! base) x
(Ireal/lbase) x a (4) Vreal = Vbase x (500 x 100) x (2000/1000) x 2 = 20 Vbase
478
Discussion
G. B. Niles (Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Baltimore,
Maryland): The authors have given a valuable contribution to the in- would like to reference the following published papers:
dustry through the introduction of their universal charts for the tower
resistance, worst touch and worst step potentials. My discussion
basically centers around two aspects: one being general areas dealing
with this topic and, secondly with changes in foundations parameters.
The authors have pointed out a computer program should be used to [1].
determine the ground fault current distribution between the structure
and ground wires but they then give out the rule of thumb 607o/40%
(structure/ground wires). Using the approximate formulas of Ruden [2]. E.
burg [1] for a terminal structure with two overhead shield wires, this
discusser has found the percentage is closer to 10%/9007o (struc-
ture/ground wires). If the overhead wire is attached to the substation, [3]. P. Weiner, "A Comparison of Concrete Encased Grounding Elec-
then even more percentage would flow over the shield wires. Of course,
the number of shield wires is important along with the conductivity and
total tower resistance.
By increasing the total tower resistance less fault current travels down
the tower as mentioned in the paper. This is a solution for decreasing
the touch potentials, but at the same expense on the system by creating
more back flashovers on the transmission facilities.
The authors use the simplified representation in the foundation con-
ductors as shown in TABLE I. In all cases, the simplified approach
shows the tower's resistance to be higher by as much as 8.3%. Is this a
general trend found from Mrs. Bouchard's work? If so, the potentials
shown are not as severe as given. Would the authors comment on this
aspect?
Another point of clarification is the 1000 amps used as the fault cur-
rent in the tower. Do the authors split this evenly between the four legs
and treat the tower as four individual parameters or combine the total
effects?
The authors use a maximum value of 1 m for touch and step potential
distance factors. Could the authors give a reduction percentage if the
distance factor was say 2/3 m? Is the potential near the tower nearly
linear so distance could be treated as a linear relationship?
Regarding the grillage foundation, would similar results apply with a
concrete enclosed foundation with rebar? Could the two layer approach
be used to determine the effect of the concrete by assuming the earth is
uniform but then treating the concrete as a separate layer resistance (in
this case vertical layer)? Could the authors give to the degree the
decrease of resistance and hence reduction in touch and step potential
due to this concrete foundation?
I assume the larger the structure, then less touch and step potential
rise for the same 1000 A fault conditions would be present. In the case of
a steel pole, the potentials would increase. What effect would guy wires
on steel poles create? Would the authors comment on the effects of
other kinds of foundation? In addition, what effect would counterpoise
have on the potential rise?
The authors state experimental verification earth resistivity
measurements were done by Mrs. Bouchard. Were any verification of
the step and touch potential computations checked in the field?
References
[1]. Reinhold Rudenberg,Transient Performance of Electric Power
Systems, The M.I.T. Press, 1969.
Manuscript received February 23, 1979.
William K. Dick (ITT Blackburn Company, St. Louis, Mo.): The
authors present an interesting method for determining the performance
of transmission tower grounding systems with regard to ground
resistance and step and touch potential.
Another consideration of the performance of this grounding system
must be the effect of current particularly with regard to possible
damage to the supporting concrete foundations which are part of the
current path. Published papers document damage to concrete as a result
of alternating current surges, alternating and direct leakage currents
and lightning currents.
The determination of these currents may be extremely complex due
to:
1. Non-homogenous matrix of concrete.
2. Non-uniform current density at the interface of the steel and the
concrete.
3. The presence of arcing between the steel and the concrete.
Therefore, until more information is documented concerning the
aforementioned effects of current on concrete, caution should be exer-
cised when using concrete foundations as both load carrying structures
and a current carrying grounding electrode.
With regard to the current-carrying ability of reinforced concrete, we
References
E. B. Rosa, Burton McCollum, 0. E. Peters, "Electrolysis in Con-
crete," Department of Commerce Technologic Papers of the
Bureau of Standards, No. 18, 137 pgs., March 19,1913.
J. Fagan, R. H. Lee, "The Use of Concrete Enclosed Rein-
forcing Rods as Grounding Electrodes," IEEE Transaction Ind.
Gen. Appl., Vol. IGA6, pgs. 337-348 July/August, 1970.
trodes to Driven Ground Rods," IEEE Transaction Ind. Gen.
App., Vol. IGA6, pgs. 282-287, May/June 1970.
[4]. R. L. Miller, W. H. Hartt, R. P. Brown, "Stray Current and
Galvanic Corrosion of Reinforced Steel in Concrete," Material
Performance, Vol. 15, No. 5, pgs, 20-27, May 1976.
[5]. W. K. Dick, H. R. Holliday, "Impulse and Alternating Current
Tests on Grounding Electrodes in Soil Environment," IEEE
Power Engineering Society-Transactions, pgs. 102-108, January/-
February, 1978.
[6]. Lightning Protection Institute, "Lightning Protection for Con-
crete and Masonry Buildings," Concrete Construction, pgs.,
217-220, June 1971.
Manuscript received February 26, 1979.
F. Dawalibi and W. G. Finney: We would like to thank the discussers
for their encouragements, their valuable discussions and pertinent ques-
tions.
Mr. Dick's concern about possible damage to concrete by surge or
simply power frequency currents is real. However, in practice the oc-
curence of such possible damages is greatly reduced (with respect to
laboratory or similar "isolated electrode" tests) because of the
overhead ground wire or counterpoise connections. Also the nature of
soil in the vicinity of a tower will have significant effects on the response
of supporting concrete foundations. In other words, we believe that in
some cases, foundations alone could provide the necessary ground for a
tower while in other cases a careful design is required in order to
decrease the stresses on the foundations.
Mr. Dick's concern about possible damage to concrete by surge or
simply power frequency currents is real. However, in practice the occur-
rence of such possible damages is greatly reduced (with respect to
laboratory or similar "isolated electrode" tests) because of the
overhead ground wire or counterpoise connections. Also the nature of
soil in the vicinity of a tower will have significant effects on the response
of supporting concrete foundations. In other words, we believe that in
some cases, foundations alone could provide the necessary ground for a
tower while in other cases a careful design is required in order to
decrease the stresses on the foundations.
Our paper describes one part of the analysis required to produce an
optimum tower grounding design. As mentioned in the paper, it is
assumed that a 1 p.u. current enters the tower (1 KA).
The following additional studies must be carried out before the final
design is complete:
1) Determine fault current distribution between tower and
overhead ground wires.
2) Determine if soil (or concrete) breakdown may occur because of
excessive gradients.
If possible, damages are foreseen, adequate measures such as
skywires, counterpoises and optimized grounding systems should be
provided.
We will try to answer all Mr. Niles' questions in the sequence they
were raised.
We have developed a fault current distribution computer program
based on the analytical work described in [1,2,3]. The main conclusions
obtained is that the distribution between overhead wires and towers
may vary between a few percent to nearly 100/o depending on fault loca-
tion, towers resistances and type of ground wire conductors used.
There is certainly a optimum choice (with respect to tower resistances
and ground wires used) which minimizes '"rate of failures" on a given
transmission line and hazards in the vicinity of towers.
The simplified representation in the foundation conductor was
adopted in order to produce the universal charts of the paper. It is

believed that the charts will be useful as a quick-aid design to determine
tower performance of usual non-critical cases. For critical cases the
detailed representation should be used, if the pessimistic values of the
simplified representation are to be avoided. In this case, an adequate
computer program is required.
The 1000 A is not split evenly between the four legs. "MALT" com-
puter program calculates the distribution of current along ground con-
ductors based on their subdivision into small segments. This distribu-
tion is usually non-uniform. If the four legs are not similar, the distribu-
tion will not be identical. Thus, the total combined effect of the four
legs is analysed.
At short distances from the tower leg, surface potential is not linear.
At larger distances, the linear relationship, for distances of 1 m or less,
is very acceptable. However, an adequate computer program will give
the values for any distances.
It is possible to simulate the effects of concrete, if the interface bet-
ween concrete and soil can be considered as an equipotential surface. In
practice, this means that the volume of concrete is not too large with
respect to the rebar volume. Concrete exhibits a resistivity value similar
to the neighboring soil. In low resistivity soils (generally wet soils) con-
crete resistivity is about 50 to 100 Q-m. In dry high resistivity soils, con-
crete resistivity will be 1000 to 10,000 Q-m. We believe that when the
volume of conrete is not excessive (humidity penetrates deeply into the
concrete) there will be a decrease of tower's resistance, mainly because
of:
-Presence of the rebar in the concrete area which acts as addition
al length of ground conductors.
-High compactness of concrete and good contact between conrete
and rebar.
--Similar resistivity values of concrete and surrounding soil.
479
We believe that the degree of decrease is proportional to the rebar
length in the concrete, less the saturation (or mutual effects) caused by
the proximity of ground and rebard conductors.
Concentrated ground, such as steel pole grounds, exhibit higher
touch and step potentials, based on constant tower current (compared
to four-leg steel towers). However, everything being equal, steel pole
ground resistance is also higher and fault current will be less. Adequate
analysis is required since final results depend heavily on fault location,
transmission line and grounding configurations.
Detailed analysis of all possible designs is not possible in a short
paper or in this discussion. With an adequate computer program,
however, actual designs can be evaluated and optimized.
Effects of counterpoises are described qualitatively in [2].
Finally no experimental verification of step and touch potentials was
conducted during Mrs. Bouchard's test program. We know that such
measurements have been made by others, but no comparison was made
with our analytical methods simply because earth resistivity data were
not available, or were inadequate (average values only) for meaningful
comparisons.
References
[11. F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar, "Ground Fault Current Distribution
in Power Systems-The Necessary Link," IEEE Paper A, 754-4,
Summer Meeting, Mexico, 1977.
[21 F. Dawalibi, "Ground Fault Current Distribution Between Soil
and Neutral Conductors," Paper F 79 757-6, PES Summer
Meeting, Vancouver, 1979.
[31 F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar, D. Bensted, "Soil Effects on Ground
Fault Currents," Paper submitted for presenation at the IEEE
PES Winter Meeting, New York, 1980.
Manuscript received November 14, 1979.