1118 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 46, NO.

3, MAY/JUNE 2010

Effects of High Fault Currents on

Ground Grid Design
Massimo Mitolo, Senior Member, IEEE, Peter E. Sutherland, Fellow, IEEE, and
Ramasamy Natarajan, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—Due to increased load demands and reduced incen-

tives to build new transmission lines, energy companies are in-
creasing power flows on the existing transmission assets, which will
increase the fault current levels (for both three-phase and phase-
to-ground faults) throughout the power system. New generation
sources to be added at the transmission and distribution network
will increase fault current intensities. It is crucial for the users of
industrial facilities to be aware of increased ground-fault current
magnitude at the service entrance and of the actual condition of
the grid. The protection that ground grids provide against step
and touch potentials is only good up to the expected level and
duration of ground-fault currents, as originally communicated by
the electric utility in the design phase. In addition, thermal and
mechanical stresses to the customer’s ground grid and ground grid
connections can increase the grid’s resistance to ground and, at Fig. 1. Ground fault on the primary side energizes the ECPs connected to the
the same time, fault potentials. In order to prevent these problems grounding grid.
from occurring, a ground grid assessment, utilizing field and
utility updated data, should be carried out on a regular basis. This category includes both the transformers and the low-voltage
paper will illustrate a European Committee for Electrotechnical system’s conductive enclosures.
Standardization (CENELEC) approach to ground grid design, The ground-fault current will flow toward the source winding
aimed to maximize the electrical safety under ground fault. In
addition, case studies will be included, showing how high fault cur-
of the upstream supply station transformer in accordance with
rents have damaged ground grids and what repairs are possible. its neutral grounding configuration.
Because of the circulation of the single-line-to-ground-fault
Index Terms—Earth, exposed conductive part (ECP), extra-
neous conductive part, ground, ground-fault circuit interrupter
(SLGF) current through the actual Earth, persons are subject to
(GFCI), neutral, single-phase line-to-ground fault, voltage rise. step voltages.
Both the touch and step voltage magnitudes depend on the
I. I NTRODUCTION distributor’s transmission network. The distribution network
system operators must communicate to the facility designer the

I N CASE of a ground fault on the high side of a substation,

at the service entrance of the facility, the fault current will
circulate through the customer’s ground grid, whose resistance
to ground is not zero. This energizes all the exposed conductive
parts (ECPs) grounded for safety reasons (Fig. 1), exposing
persons to touch potentials. We define ECPs as those metal
objects, forming part of electrical system, that could be touched
(even if out of reach) and are not live (non-current-carrying
material) but may become live when basic insulation fails. This
Paper ICPSD-06-38, presented at the 2006 Industry Applications Society
Annual Meeting, Tampa, FL, October 8–12, and approved for publication
in the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS by the Power
System Protection Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society.
Manuscript submitted for review October 31, 2006 and released for publication
October 22, 2009. First published March 25, 2010; current version published
May 19, 2010.
M. Mitolo is with Chu & Gassman, Middlesex, NJ 08846 USA (e-mail:
mmitolo@chugassman.com).
P. E. Sutherland is with GE Energy Services, Schenectady, NY 12306 USA
(e-mail: peter.sutherland@ieee.org).
R. Natarajan is with Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO 64114 USA
(e-mail: rnatarajan@burnsmcd.com).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIA.2010.2046297
0093-9994/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE
prospective SLGF current magnitude and angle, and the time
required to clear the ground-fault itself. The user cannot rely
upon the primary protective device, as the SLGF may occur
immediately upstream of this device.
Designers must know these initial data in order to properly
design the ground-grid and minimize touch and step potentials.
In this respect, the minimization of the voltage exposures must
comply with the permissible limits as per the model of the
“electrical standard” person [1].
Once the facility has been designed and built, the critical pro-
tection that ground grids provide against hazardous potentials
can be compromised by increased level of ground-fault current
and/or longer ground-fault duration, with respect to the original
data communicated by the distributor in the design phase.
This may happen during the “natural” evolution of the
customer energy demand, which forces energy companies to
increase power flows on their existing transmission assets. The
result is an escalation of the fault current levels (for both three-
phase and phase-to-ground faults) throughout the whole power
system. In addition, new generation sources, connected to the
transmission and distribution network to sustain the power flow
will increase fault current intensities.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Massimo A G Mitolo. Downloaded on May 22,2010 at 00:55:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
MITOLO et al.: EFFECTS OF HIGH FAULT CURRENTS ON GROUND GRID DESIGN
Fig. 2. Ground-fault current on the secondary side recloses to the center star
of the substation.
II. NATURE OF THE FAULT C URRENTS TO G ROUND AND
S TATE OF THE N EUTRAL
For a ground fault occurring on the low side of the substation,
the current will return directly to the center star (neutral) of the
transformer, thanks to the equipment grounding conductors and
will therefore not flow through the actual Earth (Fig. 2). The
ground grid is not involved in the fault loop, and for that reason,
the low-voltage ground current is not a sizing parameter.
A ground fault on the high side, on the other hand, impresses
a current through the grid and the actual Earth. The nature and
the magnitude of this current depend on the system neutral
grounding that utility has adopted for its distribution network,
upstream of the customer substation.
A common case is the utility network operated with no
intentional ground connection to the phase conductors. Even
if “ungrounded,” such a system is still “coupled” to ground
through the capacitance existing between the high-side distribu-
tion lines and the actual Earth. This is the reason of single-phase
line-to-ground capacitive current circulation at the occurrence
of a ground fault. Such fault current IG can be approximated
(in amperes) by
IG = (0.003L1 + 0.2L2 ) · V
where L1 is the length of the overhead line in kilometers, L2 is
the length of the underground line in kilometers, and V is the
line-to-line system voltage in kilovolts. This capacitive current
can reach several hundreds of amperes for a line at 20 kV.
It is apparent how the capacitive current increases with the
extension and the nominal voltage of the distribution system
upstream of the substation. Underground medium-voltage ca-
bles offer a larger capacitance to ground than overhead lines,
as in the latter case, the distance between the “armatures” (con-
ductors and Earth) is greater than the one in cables (conductors
and metal shield).
It is also evident how this calculation cannot be performed in
the absence of data from the distributor, which is the only one
to precisely know the lengths L1 and L2 .
The ground-fault current does not exclusively return to the
winding source through the Earth. Part of it (i.e., I F − I G in
Fig. 1) is drained off by the metal sheath of the medium voltage
supply cables or the overhead lightning protection catenaries,
both connected to the customer’s and the utility’s primary
station’s ground grid. The current I G , which is responsible for
Authorized licensed use limited to: Massimo A G Mitolo. Downloaded on May 22,2010 at 00:55:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1119
Fig. 3. Equivalent circuit for a ground fault on the high side of the user’s
substation.
the ground potential rise (GPR), is thus just a portion of the
ground-fault current I F . This quota is described by a reduction
factor r, i.e.,
IG
r= (2)
3 · I0
where I0 is the zero-sequence current circulating due to a fault.
r is estimated to be between 20% and 60% of the full ground-
fault current.
III. T OUCH VOLTAGE
The touch voltage V t is defined as the voltage differential
that standard persons may be subject to, between one hand and
both feet. This is the potential appearing between a grounded
metallic structure and a point on the Earth’s surface separated
by a distance equal to a man’s normal maximum horizontal
reach (conventionally 1 m).
Reference [1] assumes as a “standard” human body resis-
tance values (hand-to-feet) not exceeded by 50% of the popula-
(1) tion. Unlike [2], [3], and [6], [1] admits, in industrial facilities,
the presence of standard footwear of 1000 Ω in series with the
human body in establishing the permissible limits for touch and
step voltages. It is assumed that the presence of electric workers
with no work shoes at job sites is unrealistic.
In addition, in series with the human body, there is also
the person’s resistance to ground RBG . Such resistance, in the
absence of a floor (e.g., outdoor substation), is assumed by [1]
to be equal to 1.5ρ, where ρ is the superficial soil resistivity.
The presence of such resistances limits the fault current’s
circulation, benefiting the person’s safety (Fig. 3).
A voltage divider takes place, and the touch voltage V T is
less than the source touch voltage V ST . Both are smaller than
the full GPR V G = RG IG , which is the potential difference
between the faulted ECP and the remote Earth.
IV. P ERMISSIBLE L IMITS FOR T OUCH AND
S TEP VOLTAGES
Reference [1] dictates the permissible touch voltage values
Vtp as a function of the utility protective device ground-fault
clearing time tf (Table I).
1120
TABLE I
P ERMISSIBLE T OUCH VOLTAGE VALUES
Permissible values for step voltage VSP are obtained, in
correspondence of the same clearing time, multiplying VTP by
a factor of three. VSP is, in fact, considered by [1] to be less
dangerous than the touch voltage, since the current path does
not involve the cardiac region. To account for this circumstance,
a “path” factor of three is used. The path factor allows one
to calculate the amount of current, flowing through the human
body through any “route” (i.e., foot to foot in our case), which
has the same probability to cause ventricular fibrillation as
the one circulating through the hands-to-foot path, assumed as
reference.
V. G ROUNDING G RID D ESIGN C RITERIA
Assuming that the grounding grid to be designed is the sole
grounding system for the high- and the low-voltage equipment,
its design can be based on the following criteria [1].
A. Common Grounding System Criterion
As previously illustrated in Section II, ground-fault currents
can be drained off by alternative parallel paths to the user’s
grid. These alternative “lanes” may be constituted by several
grounding grids adjacent to each other, interconnected together.
To exemplify this concept, consider three ground grids, as
shown in Fig. 4.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Massimo A G Mitolo. Downloaded on May 22,2010 at 00:55:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 46, NO. 3, MAY/JUNE 2010
Fig. 4. Interconnection of the three grounding grids.
TABLE II
D IMENSIONS AND L ENGTH OF THE C ONDUCTORS OF
I NTERCONNECTED G RIDS
The dimensions and the length of the conductors for inter-
connection are listed in Table II.
In this example, the soil resistivity at a depth of 1 m is
30.1 Ωm. The resistivity of crushed stones used on the sur-
face of the substation is 2.5 kΩm. The substations will be
installed with 15 cm of crushed rock on the surface. The three
ground grids can be interconnected using two conductors, as
shown in Fig. 4. The calculated effective resistance of the
combined ground grid to the remote Earth is 0.2112 Ω. Thanks
to this interconnection, the ground resistance has thus been
lowered to 59% of the original value, with equal reduction of
the GPR.
This arrangement becomes a common grounding system
when the number of stations’ grids in parallel to the user one
is sufficiently high to reduce the touch and step voltages to
harmless values. In this fortunate case, the user’s substation
becomes a quasi-equal potential area. In these and only these
conditions, the user’s grid design may not be based on Table I,
and the industrial facility is inherently safe.
B. GPR Criterion
This criterion calls for the limitation of the full GPR VG .
Reference [1] considers the ground grid resistance RG adequate
when one of the following conditions are met in the two
subsequent cases.
1) The ground grid covers the whole facility area:
a) VG ≤ 1.5VTP (VTP as per Table I);
b) VG ≤ 4VTP + Special Measures; or
c) VT ≤ VTP (VT as per actual measurement and VTP
as per Table I), and VS ≤ 3VTP (VS as per actual
measurement and VTP as per Table I).
MITOLO et al.: EFFECTS OF HIGH FAULT CURRENTS ON GROUND GRID DESIGN 1121

By Special Measures, [1] lists, among others, the following TABLE III
F USING C URRENTS AND T EST C URRENTS FOR A NNEALED
items: S OFT-D RAWN 100% C ONDUCTIVITY C OPPER C ONDUCTORS [7]
a) isolation, with respect to ground, of the substation’s
premises, through insulating mats, asphalt, a surface
layer of crushed stones or gravel, insulating walls, etc.;
b) creation of equal potential area through supplemental
electrodes connected to the ECPs likely to be touched,
equipotential bonding, etc.;
c) insulated fences around the substations.
2) The ground grid does not cover the whole facility area:
a) VG ≤ VTP (VTP as per Table I); or
b) VT ≤ VTP (VT as per actual measurement and VTP
as per Table I), and VS ≤ 3VTP (VS as per actual When exposed to high fault currents ρ can increase due to
measurement). drying, LT can decrease due to conductor damage, all increas-
ing RG .
Similarly, the mesh voltage (i.e., the worst possible value of
VI. E FFECTS OF H IGH FAULT C URRENTS a touch voltage to be found within a mesh of a ground grid) is
given by
If the above criteria are complied with, the ground grid is
redeemed adequate. Many possible causes can, though, lower ρKm Ki IG
Em = (4)
the grid performance later on, together with the electrical safety LM
of the installation. The GPR can, in fact, increase in substations
where
[4] and may be aggravated by high fault currents.
Km geometrical factor;
Among the possible failure mechanisms for increased GPR,
Ki irregularity factor;
we can find:
LM effective buried length in meters.
1) drying of the soil, increasing the soil resistivity; The mesh voltage increases with IG , ρ, and decreasing LM .
2) excessive voltage drops in the conductors and connectors The step voltage [6] is given by
due to high currents;
ρKS Ki IG
3) fusing, melting, and connector failures; Vs = (5)
4) arcing, burning, and open circuits; LS
5) altered current flow paths, further increasing voltage where
drops; LS effective length of the buried conductor;
6) corroded or otherwise damaged conductors and connec- KS spacing factor for the step voltage.
tors [5]; The step voltage also increases with IG , ρ, and decreasing
7) thinning of the protective surface layer of crushed stones LS . The constant K is a geometrical factor and does not change
or gravel; with increasing fault current.
8) weeds and shrubs growing in the surface layer;
9) mixing of the protective surface layer with soil and dust,
increasing its resistivity; VII. DAMAGE OR FAILURE OF E LEMENTS OF THE
10) failure of static wire, ground, or neutral wire connections G ROUNDING S YSTEM
from transmission and distribution lines to substations. An important cause of increased GPR in substations is the
All these factors can severely increase the ground resistance failure of the elements of the grounding system.
RG and, therefore, the GPR V G . This determines an increase
in step and touch potentials and creates a higher risk of injury
A. Thermal Damage to Grounding Conductors Due to
or death for the personnel.
Excessive Short-Circuit Currents
We may show the parameters that RG depends on, using
Sverak’s equation [6], i.e., An increase in fault current will decrease the fusing time of
   the grid conductors, i.e.,
1 1 1  2
RG = ρ +√ 1+  (3) Akcmil
LT 20A 1 + h 20/A tc = (6)
IG · Df · Kf
where where
Rg resistance in ohms; tc fusing time of the conductor in seconds;
ρ Earth resistivity in ohm meters; Akcmil conductor cross-sectional area in thousand circular
LT total length of buried conductors in meters; mils (kcmil);
A total area of the grid in square meters; IG single-line phase-to-ground rms fault current in kilo-
h depth of the grid in meters. amperes, which is assumed to be equal to 3I0 ;

Authorized licensed use limited to: Massimo A G Mitolo. Downloaded on May 22,2010 at 00:55:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1122
Fig. 5. Short-circuit testing of ground grid connectors [7]. The test loop contains one to four connector assemblies.
Kf material-fusing constant (typical values are 7.00 for
soft-drawn copper, 10.45 for a 40% conductivity
copper-clad steel wire, and 15.95 for a steel con-
ductor [6]);
Df decrement factor, which is used when fault durations
are less than 1 s or the X/R ratio is greater than 5.
Examples of typical fusing current characteristics are shown
in Table III for commonly used conductors. The thermal limit of
a typical ground grid conductor thermal limit is shown in Fig. 3,
along with the thermal damage curve. If this curve is exceeded,
the conductor may be subject to fusing, melting, or other forms
of thermal and mechanical damage.
B. Connector Damage Due to Excessive Short-Circuit Stresses
The grounding grid connections should withstand short-
circuit electromagnetic forces up to the 1.0-s fusing current of
the conductor to which they are attached and heating from fault
currents for up to 90% of the fusing current for 10 s [10].
The test specifications in [7] call for the construction of a
control conductor, as shown in Fig. 5, of length LCC1 and
resistance RCC1 . A test loop, containing up to four connector
assemblies under test, is assembled. Each connector assembly
contains two conductor samples. If the conductors are stranded,
then equalizers must be used at each end where a connector is
not in place. The purpose of the equalizers is to establish an
equipotential plane across the ends of the conductor strands.
The electromagnetic force test applies an asymmetrical
waveform with the specifications listed in Table IV. The sample
resistance RTotal is not to exceed 110% of RCC1 after the first
test and 150% after three tests.
The fusing test applies a symmetrical fault current, as listed
in Table III, and is repeated three times. The evaluation of the
Authorized licensed use limited to: Massimo A G Mitolo. Downloaded on May 22,2010 at 00:55:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 46, NO. 3, MAY/JUNE 2010
TABLE IV
FAULT C URRENT T ESTS FOR C ONNECTORS [7]
test consists of disassembly and dissection of the connection
and inspection for signs of melting or other damage.
As long as the fault magnitude and duration fall under the two
points defined by these tests, as listed in Table IV, there should
be no failures of connectors due to excessive fault currents. It
is recommended that the connector thermal damage limit be
plotted as a point on a time–current curve, as shown in Fig. 6.
C. Drying of the Soil Resulting in Increased Soil Resistivity
Usually, a current density of less than 200 A/m2 for 1 s is
recommended for normal soil condition [6]. Heating of the soil
whose temperature is above the freezing point has negligible
effect on its resistivity.
The effect of moisture content on soil resistivity is given in
[8] for several soil types. Resistivity is quite constant above
22% moisture content but dramatically increases below that.
Fig. 7 shows this effect for three different types of soil.
Experimental test results from Georgia Power show signif-
icant variation in ground grid resistance with the seasons but
little change when the integrated ground resistance including
the transmission line shield wires was considered [22].
Without performing 3-D electromagnetic simulations, there
is no easy way to calculate the drying of soil by the passage
of electrical current and the consequent increase in resistivity.
MITOLO et al.: EFFECTS OF HIGH FAULT CURRENTS ON GROUND GRID DESIGN
Fig. 6. Typical time–current curves showing thermal and mechanical with-
stand for ground grid conductors (assuming 0.5-s fault clearing time) and
connectors.
Fig. 7. Effect of moisture content on soil resistivity [8].
Similar calculations have been performed for high-voltage
direct-current terminals [9], [10].
VIII. C ONCLUSION
In order to effectively prevent hazardous situations in sub-
stations upon ground faults, a safety-based design of the grid
should be implemented. To this end, the European Committee
for Electrotechnical Standardisation (CENELEC) criteria offer
standardized permissible limits of touch potentials as a function
of the fault clearing time, which constitute the starting point to
grounding grid design.
In addition, it is of paramount importance to be aware, via
communication with the distributor, of the present ground-fault
current levels at the customer’s, as they should not exceed, due
to increased power flows on the existing utility transmission
assets, the ones originally communicated.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Massimo A G Mitolo. Downloaded on May 22,2010 at 00:55:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1123
Regular recalculation of ground grid parameters together
with normal ground grid maintenance should be also per-
formed.
Basically, these authors suggest periodically carrying out
ground resistance measurements [11] [13], short-circuit cal-
culations [14], and recalculation of step and touch potentials
[20], [21].
Should the permissible voltage limits be exceeded, various
measures can be taken to reinforce a ground grid. These
include [6]:
1) adding ground grid conductors, decreasing the spacing of
conductors;
2) increasing the area of the grid;
3) adding parallel conductors around the perimeter of the
ground grid;
4) adding ground rods, with closer spacing at the perimeter;
5) diverting fault currents to other paths [15];
6) limiting the total fault current;
7) barring access to hazardous areas with insulated means;
8) connecting the overhead ground wires/metal sheath from
transmission lines:
a) decreasing tower-footing resistances;
b) reinforcing or replacing connectors between the
aboveground components and the ground grid [6],
[16], increasing the thickness of the upper layer of
crushed stones [6], [17];
9) the use of soil treatment to lower resistivity [6];
10) using deep ground wells, which may be useful when
ground rods are not effective [18].
R EFERENCES
[1] Power Installations Exceeding 1 kV A.C., CENELEC HD 637 S1,
Dec. 1998.
[2] Electrical Installations of Buildings, IEC 60364-1, 2nd ed., Jun. 2002.
[3] Effects of Current on Human Beings and Livestock—Part 1: General
Aspects, IEC 60479-1, 3rd ed., Sep. 1994.
[4] Task Force F0A of the IEEE/PES Substations West Coast Sub-
committee, “Current North American assessment and refurbishment prac-
tices of substation grounding systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 20,
no. 3, pp. 1886–1889, Jul. 2005.
[5] V. R. Lawson, “Problems and detection of line anchor and substation
ground grid corrosion,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 25–32,
Jan./Feb. 1988.
[6] IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, IEEE Standard
80-2000.
[7] IEEE Standard for Qualifying Permanent Connections Used in Substation
Grounding, Standard 837-2002.
[8] IEEE Recommended Practice for Grounding of Industrial and Commer-
cial Power Systems, IEEE Standard 142-1991, (IEEE Green Book).
[9] J. E. T. Villas and C. M. Portela, “Calculation of electric field and po-
tential distributions into soil and air media for a ground electrode of a
HVDC system,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 867–873,
Jul. 2003.
[10] J. E. T. Villas and C. M. Portela, “Soil heating around the ground electrode
of an HVDC system by interaction of electrical, thermal and electroos-
motic phenomena,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 874–881,
Jul. 2003.
[11] IEEE Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground Impedance, and
Earth Surface Potentials of a Ground System, ANSI/IEEE Standard
81-1983.
[12] IEEE Guide for Measurement of Impedance and Safety Characteristics
of Large, Extended or Interconnected Grounding Systems, IEEE Standard
81.2-1991.
[13] EPRI, Smart Ground Multimeter: Enhancements, Validation, Testing and
Training. Rep. 1008683. EPRI: Palo Alto, CA, 2004.
1124 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 46, NO. 3, MAY/JUNE 2010
[14] IEEE Recommended Practice for Determining the Electric Power Station
Ground Potential Rise and Induced Voltage From a Power Fault, IEEE
Standard 367-1996..
[15] L. M. Popovic, “Efficient reduction of fault current through the ground-
ing grid of substation supplied by cable line,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 556–561, Apr. 2000.
[16] P. A. Zotos, “Ground grid design in large industrial plants,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 521–525, May/Jun. 1988.
[17] C.-H. Lee, “Safety assessment of bulk and traction supply substations
in Taipei rail transit systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 19, no. 3,
pp. 1078–1084, Jul. 2004.
[18] J. He, G. Yu, J. Yuan, R. Zeng, B. Zhang, J. Zou, and Z. Guan, “Decreasing
grounding resistance of substation by deep-ground-well method,” IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 738–744, Apr. 2005.
[19] A. P. S. Meliopoulos, Power System Grounding and Transients. New
York: Marcel Dekker, 1988.
[20] R. Natarajan, A. F. Imece, J. Popoff, K. Agarwal, and P. S. Meliopoulos,
“Analysis of grounding systems for electric traction,” IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 389–393, Jul. 2001.
[21] EPRI, “Substation grounding programs,” Palo Alto, CA, Rep. TR-100622,
1992, vol. 1–5.
[22] EPRI, “Seasonal variations of grounding parameters by field tests,” Palo
Alto, CA, Rep. TR-100863, 1992.
[23] EPRI, “Guide for transmission line grounding: A roadmap for design,
testing and remediation,” Palo Alto, CA, Rep. 1002021, 2004.
[24] G. J. Georgantzis, N. G. Gagaoudakis, and T. Connor, “Design practice
for the earthing system of the 400 kV gas insulated switching station
at Lavrion,” in Proc. 8th ICHQP, Athens, Greece, Oct. 14–16, 1998,
pp. 354–358.
[25] R. P. Keil, “Substation grounding,” in Electric Power Substations Engi-
neering, J. D. McDonald, Ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2003.
[26] C.-H. Lee and C.-N. Chang, “Comparison of 161/69-kV grounding grid
design between indoor-type and outdoor-type substations,” IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1385–1393, Apr. 2005.
[27] A. P. S. Meliopoulos, S. Patel, and G. J. Cokkinides, “A new method and
instrument for touch and step voltage measurements,” IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1850–1860, Oct. 1994.
[28] Q. Meng, J. He, F. P. Dawalibi, and J. Ma, “A new method to de-
crease ground resistances of substation grounding systems in high re-
sistivity regions,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 911–916,
Jul. 1999.
[29] J. Van Waes, M. van Riet, F. Provoost, and S. Cobben, “Measurement of
the current distribution near a substation during a single phase to ground
fault,” in Proc. CIRED, Barcelona, Spain, May 12–15, 2003.
[30] J. E. T. Villas, J. A. A. Casagrande, D. Mukhedkar, and V. S. da Costa,
“The ground grid design of the Barra do Peixe substation using a two-
layer soil model,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1636–1641,
Oct. 1988.
[31] J. E. T. Villas, D. Mukhedkar, V. R. Fernandes, and A. C. Magalhaes,
“Ground grid design of a transition station system—A typical example
of fault transfer,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 124–129,
Jan. 1990.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Massimo A G Mitolo. Downloaded on May 22,2010 at 00:55:59 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
View publication stats
Massimo Mitolo (SM’03) was educated in Italy. He
received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering
from the University of Naples “Federico II,” Naples,
Italy, in 1990, where his field of research was the
analysis and grounding of power systems.
He is currently the Assistant Electrical Depart-
ment Head of Chu & Gassman Inc., Middlesex, NJ.
He has authored numerous journal papers, as well
as the textbook Electrical Safety of Low-Voltage
Systems.
Dr. Mitolo is a Registered Professional Engineer
in Italy. He is very active in the IEEE Industry Applications Society Industrial
and Commercial Power Systems Department, where he currently fills the posi-
tions of Vice Chair of the Power Systems Engineering (PSE) Main Technical
Committee, Chair of the Papers Review Subcommittee, Chair of the Power
Systems Analysis Subcommittee, and Chair of the Power Systems Grounding
Subcommittee. He is also an Associate Editor of the PSE IEEE ScholarOne
Manuscripts. He was also the recipient of the Lucani Insigni Award in 2009 for
merits achieved in the scientific field.
Peter E. Sutherland (S’77–M’79–SM’97–F’07) re-
ceived the A.S. degree in electrical engineering tech-
nology and the B.S. degree in electrical engineering
from the University of Maine, Orono, the M.Sc.E.
degree in electrical engineering from the University
of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada, and
the Ph.D. degree in electric power engineering from
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
In 1987, he joined the General Electric Company,
Schenectady, NY, where he held a variety of posi-
tions and became a Senior Engineer in the Power
Systems Energy Consulting Department. In 2001, he joined SuperPower, Inc.,
Schenectady, where he worked on applications of superconductivity to electric
power systems. In 2003, he joined the EPRI PEAC Corporation (now EPRI
Solutions, Inc.), Schenectady, as a Consulting Engineer. He is currently with GE
Energy Services, Schenectady. He is the author of numerous technical papers
Dr. Sutherland is a Registered Professional Engineer in the States of Penn-
sylvania, Maine, and New York. He is a member of Phi Kappa Phi, Eta Kappa
Nu, and Tau Beta Pi. He is active in the IEEE Industry Applications Society
and in the IEEE Schenectady Section.
Ramasamy Natarajan (S’80–M’82–SM’90) received the Ph.D. degree in
electrical engineering from the University of Washington, Seattle, in 1986.
He was with Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), University Park,
from 1986 to 1990. Since 1991, he has been a Consulting Engineer in the power
systems area on load flow, stability, electromagnetic transients, grounding, trac-
tion power, harmonics and filtering. He is currently with Burns & McDonnell,
Kansas City, MO, working in power system consulting and planning. He has
published extensively.