Abbreviations

AS/NZS Australia/New Zealand Standards (Standards Australia)

ANSI American National Standard

CT Current Transformer

GPR (/EPR) Ground (/Earth) Potential Rise

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

1 L-G One Line/phase to Ground

L-L Line/ phase to line /phase

L-L-G Line to Line to Ground

MOT Motor

NS Network Standard (Energy Australia

PS Power Station

OHGW Overhead Ground Wire

Table of Contents
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 1

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6

1.2 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 7

2. Background ............................................................................................................................ 8

2.1 - Introduction of terms ..................................................................................................... 8

2.2 - Need for Earthing .......................................................................................................... 9

2.3 - Distribution Systems.................................................................................................... 11

3. The Earthing System ............................................................................................................ 13

3.1 - Earth Electrodes and Earth Grids ................................................................................ 13

3.2 - Earth Resistance .......................................................................................................... 17

3.2.1 - Derivation of Earth Resistance (Cylindrical Electrode shape) ............................. 19

3.3 - Soil Structure (Earth Resistivity) ................................................................................. 23

3.4 - Earth Measurements .................................................................................................... 26

3.4.1 - Two Point ............................................................................................................. 27

3.4.2 - Fall-of-Potential Method. ..................................................................................... 27

3.4.3 - 4-Pole .................................................................................................................... 29

3.4.4 - Soil box method for measuring earth resistivity................................................... 31

3.4.5 - Geological information / Soil samples. ................................................................ 31

3.4.6 – Selective / Stakeless. ............................................................................................ 31

3.5 – GPR & Step/Touch Potentials .................................................................................... 32

3.6 - Earthing methods at distribution points ....................................................................... 35

3.6.1. Ungrounded system / Open Grounding ................................................................. 35

3.6.2. Solid Grounding System ........................................................................................ 36

3.6.3. Reactance Grounding System ................................................................................ 37

 3.6.4. Resistance Grounding System ............................................................................... 38

3.6.4.1. Low Resistance Grounding ................................................................................. 39

3.6.4.2. High Resistance Grounding ................................................................................ 39

3.7. - Earth Conductor Sizing .............................................................................................. 41

3.7.1.Basic Requirements ................................................................................................ 41

3.7.2. Symmetrical currents ............................................................................................. 41

3.7.3. Asymmetrical current............................................................................................. 43

4 - Fault Calculations ............................................................................................................... 44

4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 44

4.2. The nature of short circuit currents ............................................................................... 45

4.3. Worst fault type and location ........................................................................................ 47

4.4. Source of fault currents (ref 35, Elec 9226 lecture note) .............................................. 47

4.5 Type of short-circuits ..................................................................................................... 48

4.5.1. Three phase fault .................................................................................................... 49

4.5.2. Single phase to earth fault ...................................................................................... 49

4.5.3. Phase to phase fault ................................................................................................ 50

4.5.4. Phase to phase to earth fault................................................................................... 51

4.6. Sequence Impedance representation of electrical apparatus ......................................... 52

4.6.1. Generator................................................................................................................ 52

4.6.2. Motors .................................................................................................................... 52

4.6.3. Transmission line ................................................................................................... 53

4.6.4. Cables, busway and bus duct ................................................................................. 55

4.6.5. Transformer............................................................................................................ 57

4.6.6. Neutral grounding devices ..................................................................................... 58

5. Previous Work - Earth Resistivity and Earth Resistance Investigation ............................... 59

5.1 - Matlab Simulations ...................................................................................................... 59

5.2 - Earth Electrode study featuring CYME – CYMGrd ................................................... 64

6. Distribution Earthing Simulation ......................................................................................... 68

6.1 - Experiment 1 – Network Fault Simulation and Analysis ............................................ 68

6.1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 68

6.1.2. ETAP...................................................................................................................... 68

6.1.3. Experiment Method ............................................................................................... 68

6.1.3.1. Experiment part 1: Method of earthing and fault type ........................................ 68

6.1.3.1.1. Case 1: Solid Grounding Test .......................................................................... 69

6.1.3.1.2. Case 2: Ungrounding Test ............................................................................... 69

6.1.3.1.3. Case 3: High Resistance Grounding Test ........................................................ 69

6.1.3.1.4. Case 4: Low Resistance Grounding Test ......................................................... 69

6.1.3.1.5. Case 5: Reactance Grounding Test .................................................................. 69

6.1.3.2. Experiment part 2: Minimum conductor for fault current ................................. 69

6.1.3.3. Experiment part 3: Winding connection changes ............................................... 70

6.1.4 Data for the experiment .......................................................................................... 70

6.1.5. Result and Analysis................................................................................................ 71

6.1.5.1. Experiment part 1: Method, Fault and Location ................................................. 71

6.1.5.1.1. Case 1: Solid Grounding Test .......................................................................... 71

6.1.5.1.2. Case 2: Ungrounding Test ............................................................................... 72

6.1.5.1.3. Case 3: High Resistance Grounding test ......................................................... 72

6.1.5.1.4. Case 4: Low Resistance Grounding test ......................................................... 73

6.1.5.1.5. Case 5: Reactance Grounding Test .................................................................. 74

6.1.5.2. Experiment part 2: Minimum Earth Conductor Size ......................................... 76

6.1.5.3. Experiment part 3: Winding Connection changes .............................................. 77

6.2 - Experiment 2 - Soil, Earth Electrode and Earth Grid System ..................................... 80

6.2 Overview .................................................................................................................... 80

6.2.1 Network Fault Simulation and Analysis Result Integration ................................... 80

6.2.2 CYMGrd – CYME International T & D and Limitations of Simulation ................ 80

 6.2.3 System label assignments, CYMGrd variables and experiment breakdown .......... 82

6.2.4 Earth Grid Method Of Simulation .......................................................................... 85

6.2.5 Earth Grid Simulation Results ................................................................................ 86

6.2.6 Soil Behavior Under Fault Conditions (Exp. Method 2) ........................................ 87

6.2.7 Conductor and Electrode Currents (Exp. Method 3 & 4) ....................................... 87

6.2.8 Profile plot (Exp. Method 3 & 4) ............................................................................ 87

6.2.9 Analysis of Results. ................................................................................................ 88

7.Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 90

7.1. Future Work .................................................................................................................. 90

7.1.1 Fault Current Simulations ....................................................................................... 91

7.1.2 Substation Earthing ................................................................................................. 91

8. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 93

9. Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 96

10. Appendix - Index ............................................................................................................... 97

Appendix – 1 – IEEE Extracts Index ....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix – 2 – Matlab Figures and Codes Index.................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix – 3 – CYME Variables, Data and Graphs – Index .. Error! Bookmark not defined.
1. Introduction
During a fault current event personnel and distribution equipment safety is compromised. An
understanding of the behavior of current during a fault and how existing systems mitigate this
risk is important to better understanding these emergency situations. By giving the engineer a
better calculative and pictorial picture of the fault current and the spread of current in the
ground will help in better future design and hence pave the way reducing the risk in safety
and distribution equipment damage.

This thesis aims to investigate the behavior, source and magnitude of a fault current event,
the affect of different system earthing method stratergies and simulate the consequences of
personnel safety in the vicinity of a distribution system.

The topic will be introduced via the background in chapter 2 of what a distribution system is,
the functionality and purpose of an earthing system and how the two relate. Chapter 3 and 4
will explore supporting theories, previous studies, mechanisms and considerations for both
fault currents and earthing while chapter 4 and 5 will outline how the investigation was
addressed and conducted. Chapter 6 will outline how the investigation and experiment
method was addressed and conducted but also explain the result and analysis for
experimentation.
1.2 Problem Statement
Earth/Ground potential rise is a known factor when a line to ground fault affects a
distribution system site. Existing information available to the engineer through standards and
guidelines provides formulae and equations to quantify the consequence of personnel safety
during these emergency events such as EPR/GPR step and touch potentials in a
switchyard/substation of a distribution system.

The need comes in the exact nature of how the earthing system can protect the personnel and
how these pre-existing electrode/conductor systems functioned to effectively deem the whole
perimeter safe. Measurability from a more qualitative approach is required for the engineer
designing a new earthing system for a distribution system or verify an existing system. There
is also a need in understanding the exact nature of faults to help quantify how much and why
a certain amount/volume of current is flowing to the ground and how this relates to the
earthing system underground helping to support this flow.

1.3 Objectives
 Investigate fault current types and occurrences

 Investigate the wider picture of an earthing system in distribution systems

 Develop a simulation for fault occurrences in distribution systems

 Develop a simulation of how the earthing system in distribution systems experiences

fault current occurrences.
2. Background

2.1 - Introduction of terms

To begin let us define commonly used terms that shall be used in this report:

1. Bonding is termed as the interconnection of two or more objects via a conductor (ref. 1
AS/NZS1020:1995 – 1.4.2)
2. Earthing(Grounding) A conducting connection, whether intentional or accidental by
which electric circuit or equipment is connected to. In other words, the use of conductor(s) to
bond one or more conducting objects to earth(the ground) (ref. 1 AS/NZS1020:1995 – 1.4.3)
3. A (M.E.N.)Multiple Earthed Neutral system is a strategy of using many connections of
the neutral line to earth. This is common in power distribution, power lines and in earthing
systems within distribution systems. (ref. 2 AS/NZS3000:2007 – 5.3)
4. Earth Resistance (at the earthing electrode) is the measurement of ohmic resistance
between an earth electrode and an arbitrarily far away electrode.
5. Earth (/Soil) Resistivity is the ease or difficulty that the earth will allow movement of
electrical charge. Theoretically this entails the same definition of Resistivity itself except that
here it is directed towards that which the earth (soil, sand, gravel …etc from the ground) is
the material for resistivity.

5. DC offset: Difference between the symmetrical current wave and the actual current wave
during a power system transient condition. The actual fault current can be broken into two
parts, a symmetrical alternating components and unidirectional (dc) component which will
decrease at some predetermined rate (ref 15, IEEE Std 80-2000 - 3.3)

6. Fault current division factor: factor representing the inverse of a ratio of the symmetrical
fault current to that portion of the current flows between earth grid and surrounding earth (ref
15, IEEE Std 80-2000 - 3.7)

Where

Sf is the fault current division factor

Ig is the rms symmetrical grid current in A

I0 is the zero sequence fault current in A < If

7. Effective asymmetrical fault current: the rms value of asymmetrical current wave,
integrated over interval fault duration. (ref 15,IEEE Std 80-2000 - 3.5)

Where

IF is the effective asymmetrical fault current in A

If is the rms symmetrical ground fault current in A

Df is the decrement factor

8. Decrement factor: An adjustment factor used in symmetrical ground fault current

calculation. It determines the rms equivalent of asymmetrical current wave for a given fault
duration tf (ref 15,IEEE Std 80-2000 - 3.4)

9. Symmetrical ground fault current: The maximum rms value of symmetrical fault current
after the instant of ground fault initiation. This symmetrical fault current is represented with
notation If (ref 15, IEEE Std 80-2000 - 3.28)

10. X/R ratio: Ratio of the system inductive reactance to resistance. The reason the system
X/R ratio needs to be considered is that the actual fault current is not symmetrical. It is to
indicate the rate of decay of any dc offset. A large X/R ratio corresponds to a large time
constant and a slow rate of decay (ref 15, IEEE Std 80-2000 - 3.34).

11. Subtransient reactance: the reactance of the motor during the first cycle of the short
circuit. Subtransient reactance for synchronous machine can be considered as X1

12. Transient reactance: reactance of the motor during the remainder of the short-circuit
current reaching a steady state.

13. Prospective short circuit current: current which would flow as a result of bolted three
phases fault (ref 35, Elec 9226 – Lecture note)

2.2 - Need for Earthing

To explain the need for earthing, we shall first explain the fundamentals of charged bodies
then build up a wider explanation. Let us picture two conductive bodies of differing charges
which hold a potential difference. Certain situations such as body separation or one body
increasing its charge volume would create enough energy for electrostatic discharge which
could be undesired and dangerous. The bonding of these two bodies via a conductor means
these two bodies are equipotential and hence eliminates the potential difference. Drawing out
one body to be the earth in this exemplification means even if the other body increased its
volume of charge (maybe by a lightning strike or an overcurrent event), it would still be
deemed less dangerous as it is bonded to the earth. Therefore, the purposes of having earthing
systems are:

1. To provide protection of personnel against electric shock and possible burns when in
contact with bare conductive metal at the time that an electrical fault occurs (ref 12, Elec
9226- Lecture note, pg 1-2)

2. To maintain the good working order of the power system and associated equipment (In
particular, to prevent overheating and possible fire in the event of electrical fault). (ref 12,
Elec 9226- Lecture note, pg 1-2)

In order to achieve these purposes, the system must satisfy a number of requirements

1. It must have a low impedance path to the main earth conductor of the local supply system
and thence to the earth of the supply at the main substation source. (ref 12, Elec 9226-
Lecture note, pg 2-3)

2. All equipment items which have or need earthing facilities must be connected to the main
earth by conductor (ref 12, Elec 9226- Lecture note, pg 2-3).

3. The earth potential rise (EPR) associated with any fault current must be limited to safe
levels (ref 12, Elec 9226- Lecture note, pg 2-3).

4. The earth conductors must be capable of handling the maximum level of fault current that
may occur in the system without any damage (ref 12, Elec 9226- Lecture note, pg 2-3).

Hence earthing in a distribution system is the bonding of exposed conductive parts of a

distribution system to the earth. This is for personnel and equipment protection and effective
circuit relaying. Now consider two examples within a distribution system:

1. Earthing aids in the reduction of damage in the case of lightning striking a distribution
system. The earthing system presents an easier path for the high voltage, high current strike
instead of propagating through the transmission line and distribution system.
2. The presence of earth gives a reference to devices within a distribution system.
Transmission lines and communication equipment in particular use earth to reduce noise at
transmitter and repeater stations of communication systems.

The earlier example is labeled as a protective earth system while the latter is labeled as a
functional earth system.

2.3 - Distribution Systems

The definition of distribution system is the way to deliver electrical energy between bulk
sources to customer switches. Distribution systems can in general, be divided into six parts,
namely, sub transmission circuits, distribution substation, distribution or primary feeders,
distribution transformers, secondary circuit and consumer service connection and meters (ref
31, Westinghouse reference book). In power engineering, the way to represent three phase
power distribution systems is in the form of one line diagram. Figure 2.3.1 show the typical
of one line distribution diagram

Figure 2.3.1 Distribution system one line diagram (ref 31)

The subtransmission circuit extend from the bulk power source to the various distribution
substation located in the load area. It consists of underground cable. aerial cable or overhead
open wire conductors. In the distribution substation the subtransmission voltage is reduce for
general distribution throughout area. The substation consists of one or more transformer bank
together with voltage regulating equipment, buses and switchgear (ref 31, Westinghouse
reference book).
The area served by distribution substation is also subdivided and each subdivision is supplied
by a primary feeder which can be either cable or open wire circuit. Distribution transformers
are connected to primary feeder and its sub feeder. The transformer used to step down from
distribution voltage to the utilization voltage. Each transformer supplies consumers through
secondary circuit. Lastly, each consumer is connected to the secondary circuit through his
service leads and meter (ref 31, Westinghouse reference book).

In this thesis report a substation differs from a switchyard by the presence of a power
transformer. Substations include power transformers that step up or step down voltages where
one busbars operating transmission line voltage differs from another busbar’s operating line
voltage. A switchyard essentially encompasses a similar footprint to a substation but with the
absence of a power transformer. Both substations and switchyards perform a similar
functional job of accommodating a central point where power stations feed power into one
busbar, regulation, metering and protection equipment are present between another busbar
which outputs power into transmission lines up to the end consumer.
3. The Earthing System
Adequate implementation and design of an earthing system will provide its effectiveness in
both functional and protective earthing. A sufficient and operational earthing system requires
a low impedance path to the earth, can withstand corrosion to soil during the life of the
equipment being protected and susceptibility to repeating fault and surge currents with
mechanical sustainability for minimal damage during fault or surge currents. (ref. 10, Pabla
1981)

3.1 - Earth Electrodes and Earth Grids

Earth electrodes allow an adequate interface between the distribution systems earth conductor
and the effective earth soil it is trying to tap into.

In this thesis studies of copper anneal type conductors and copper clad steel electrodes with
differing arrangements will be studied to analyze their behavior. The most commonly used
designs within Australia are either a solid cylindrical rod or a hollow cylindrical tube. This
report is more focused on standards set by AS/NZS – Standards Australia / Standards New
Zealand and N.S. – Network Standards, Energy Australia. Other conductor shapes used are
bare ground plate electrodes, buried bare copper wiring networks (also known as mesh/grid
networks) and concrete encased electrodes.

Reference 3((Energy Australia, 2005) ‘NS 116 Design Standards for Distribution Earthing’ ) recommends the use
of either a driven rod system, a bore hole/copper tube system or an alternative bore hole
system.

- The driven rod system utilizes copper clad steel rods of 15mm diameter and
1800mm in length.

- A bore hole / copper tube system is made by boring a hole into the ground then
inserting copper tube(s) of 14.3mm diameter with a 1.63mm wall. This bore hole
is then filled with a “Good Earth” or “Lo-Ohm” earthing compound.

- The last electrode system, “Alternative bore hole system” uses copper clad steel
rods and/or bare stranded copper conductors with a minimum cross sectional area
of 70 mm2 in place of copper tubes and the bore hole is then filled with a “Good
Earth” or “Lo-Ohm” earthing compound.
N.S. 116 also recommends that all these electrodes must have a minimum depth of 5 metres
and that the topmost point of the electrode to have a minimum depth below ground level of
500 mm (0.5 metres). Where an area needs greater earthing resistance, more electrodes and/or
deeper electrode depths are utilised.

Another strategy of achieving optimal earth resistance is by increasing the length of the
electrode. At places which observe high earth resistivity, it is common for bore hole depths to
be as deep as 10 metres. According to AS/NZS 3000:2007 5.3.6, vertical earth electrodes have
a minimum depth requirement of 1.2 metres (AS/NZS 3000:2007 5.3.6.3) while mesh type
electrodes (N.S. 116 Alternative bore hole system) requires a minimum depth of 0.5 metres.

The specification for NS 116 when it comes to distribution system components is by the
combination of these earth electrodes with one group containing more than two electrodes.
Additionally other distribution systems require more than one group. An example from NS
116 is the system of earthing for a pole mounted substation (ref. 3, Energy Australiap8).

Pole mounted substations of ratings less than 50 kVA are either earthed with two groups of
electrodes with each group having at least two electrodes in either a ‘combined’ or
‘segregated’ layout. In-service resistance for this substation cannot exceed 1 ohm while out-
of-service resistance must not exceed 30 ohms.

In a ‘combined’ layout the earthing system for the substation is connected to at least two
adjacent distribution centers. This is either done by continuous low voltage neutral
conductors or metallic sheathed high voltage underground cables. This interconnectivity also
uses a MEN system to improve bonding to earth.

‘Segregated’ layout simply means no connection to adjacent distribution centers. Both aim to
achieve an in-service earth resistance of 1 ohm. Segregation is only used when the 1 ohm aim
cannot be achieved from the ‘combined’ application.

The ‘combined’ layout, conforms to guidelines set by The Wiring Rules AS/NZS 3000:2000
chapter 5.1.3 in relation to how a standard distribution system and earthing systems are
configured. ‘Segregated’ layouts according to N.S. 116 fall safely under requirements
outlined in AS/NZS 3000:2007 K11.5.2 whereby separate earthing systems within ‘high
voltage systems’ and ‘low voltage systems’ of up to 50 kVA require an earth resistance of 30
ohms.
‘Low voltage systems' where the transformer rating is more than 50 kVA but less than 500
kVA require an earth resistance of 15 ohms and ‘low voltage’ systems where the transformer
rating is more than 500 kVA require an earth resistance of 10 ohms. (ref 2., pg. 436)

Standards Australia provides similar but more generalized guidelines for earth electrodes to
be used. The Wiring Rules AS/NZS 3000:2007 in Chapter5.3.6.2 Earth Electrodes outlined
below:

Table 1- ACCEPTABLE EARTH ELETROCE GUIDELINES (ref. 2 – AS/NZS 3000:2007, p. 217)

From Table 1 we can see that the guidelines in NS 116 conform to required standards in
AS/NZS.

Earth Grid

Initial investigations provide evidence earth electrodes alone in a distribution system such a
substation or switchyard cannot provide a safe enough earthing system. The addition of more
electrodes aids in maintaining a proper bond to the ground. The network of conductors that
travel from exposed metallic components of the distribution system, neutrally bonded
transmission lines and transformer neutrals travel underground to bond with the deep buried
electrodes. The concern comes from steep surface potential gradients when only electrodes
are present to bond the electrical system to ground.
Applying relatively small bare conductors running as a mesh/grid networks along the
perimeter of the substation and forming inner grids combined with earth electrodes improves
the overall earth resistance but at a smaller effect than earth electrode addition. The main
functionality of an earth grid is from the reduction in voltage gradients during ground
potential rise situations. Here the severity of electric shocks during line to ground fault
current situations is then reduced. Additionally personnel feet conductance with the ground
can be reduced by introducing a higher resistivity top surface layer in the substation. This
concept is succinctly outlined in chapter 3.5 .

This thesis will use the simplified method of calculating total earth resistance (compared to a
remote earth) of a substation earth grid outlined in IEEE Std. 80-2000 chapter 14.2 (ref. 15. p
64-67).

Assuming uniform soil, the earth grid can initially be estimated to have the equivalence of a
circular metal plate. In this case the upper limit grid resistance is expressed as :

Table 2- Grid Resistance Rg estimated as a circular metal plate of zero depth (Equation 52 of IEEE Std. 80-2000 ref.
15. p. 65)

The expression above recognizes that:

- The actual grid resistance of a substation with numerous conductors buried in soil
represents a higher resistance than a solid metallic plate.

- Difference of resistance between a solid metallic plate estimation against actual

buried earth grid conductors will decrease with increasing buried earth grid
conductor length.

- Takes earth grid depth into account

In addition, earth grid resistance can also be estimated from a set of equations Schwarz (with
the use of Sunde and Rudenberg’s equations) developed to provide a closer calculation by
including both earth conductors and earth electrodes into the equations he developed.
3.2 - Earth Resistance
The earthing system connected to the physical ground has complex impedances with
inductive, capacitive and resistive factors that affect the current flowing capabilities of the
earth electrode and the grid underground. The inductive and capacitive components relate to
higher frequencies such as lightning strikes and radio communications. The reactive
components are considered below 0.5 earth impedance values but for this investigation
where levels are 1, the reactance can be taken as negligible (and become more insignificant
in the 1 -10range). The emphasis on earth resistance is due to the consequential affect of
it’s resistive factor on power frequency related levels.

The relation of resistance and resistivity fundamentally lies in the resistance formula. Hence
this is a good starting point.

Table 3- Fundamental Resistance Equation (ref. 8)

From Table 3 we see that resistance is proportionally equal to resistivity and certain
dimensions(length over area) of the medium where current will flow. In a two port circuit
model, resistance can be measured point to point but with earth resistance, only one terminal
is present and measurable. Earth resistance is the resistance between a visible point (i.e. an
earth electrode) and another point in the earth imaginatively buried very far away. This is
illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Illustration of Earth Resistance Measurement (ref. 23 )

This representation is then explored using the resistance geometry adjacent to a buried
electrode. All the earth next to this electrode is equipotent to the rest of the earth when
current passes out from the electrode. Any point of this earth fairly far away can be
considered the second electrode of the earth resistance. The current exits the electrode in all
directions hence a hemispherical model is employed using a diagram from reference 5
(Figure 2 and 3).
 Figure 2 Illustration of Hemispherical View of Earth Resistance (ref. 23 )

The hemispherical view of earth resistance as shells adjacent to the hemispherical electrode
placed flush to the grounds surface is such that current leaving the electrode must pass
through these layers of soil. The resistance offered by these layers is proportionally related to
the resistivity and dimensions of these ‘shells’ of soil. As the current moves further away
from the electrode radially outwards it will then pass through a different shell that has a larger
surface area hence contributions to the total earth resistance gradually become less until being
insignificant at a far away distance from the electrode.

And so figures from reference twenty-three indicate that for a hypothetical hemispherical
electrode, an adjacent region up to ten times the radius of the electrode is where 90% of the
resistance is concentrated. This can also be mathematically proven.

Figure 3 Illustration of Hemispherical view of Earth Resistance (ref. 12 )

Using the fundamental formula for resistance in Table 3 the length (L Table 3) that the
current will travel shall be r0 the radius of the hemisphere in Figure 3. The cross sectional
area (A from Table 3) that is perpendicular to current flow is the curved surface of the
hemisphere (i.e. 2r 2).The hemispherical ‘shells’ mentioned previously can be thought of as
incremental resistance ‘dR’ with a distance from the centre of the hemispheric conductor ‘r’
and shell thickness ‘dr’. Combining this with the fundamental formula for resistance in Table
3 provides a ‘special’ formula for determining the earth resistance of this specific case.
Table 4- Fundamental Resistance in context to Earth Resistance (ref. 12)

The developed formula in Table 4 can now be evaluated by summing an infinite number of
these ‘thin’ shells starting from the earth electrode to a shell that is arbitrarily far away which
has a radius ‘r1’.Table 5 is the result from recognizing that the radius ‘r1’ is significantly far
away so that it can be thought of as tending to infinity and hence the result of evaluating this
integral is then outputted.

Table 5- Derivation for Hemispherical Earth Resistance(ref. 12)

3.2.1 - Derivation of Earth Resistance (Cylindrical Electrode shape)

A majority of existing earth resistance formulas for earth electrodes and conductors used
today were based on a publication by H. B. Dwight (Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge) which was rightly titled ‘Calculation of Resistances to Ground’(ref. 17 – AIEE
Transactions).

The derivation of earth resistance that shall be covered in this thesis is one of a solid vertical
cylindrical type electrode. The formula(s) used to calculate earth resistance uses the scenario
of electricity flowing through a solid cylindrical rod and out to the surrounding earth. An
assumption of this derivation shall be that the earth is uniform and the vertical rod is isolated.
Dwight (ref. 17 – AIEE Transactions) firstly recognizes that the derivation of this formula
uses the same expression as the “flow of dielectric flux from an isolated charged cylinder”
(ref. 17 – AIEE Transactions, p1319). Here Dwight highlights the resistance to earth of an
earth electrode to be the same as the capacitance of an isolated cylinder where the length is
much greater than its radius. The formula for the capacitance of an isolated cylinder
mentioned in the following derivation is sourced from E. Hallen’s works and publications
(ref. 18):

Table 6- EXPRESSION FOR CAPACITANCE OF AN ISOLATED CYLINDER (ref. 18 – Arkic for Matemalik, v
21A, No. 22)

The relationship for the capacitance of a cylinder indicated on Table 6 was then rearranged
by Dwight for the purposes of earth resistance calculations and because of its rapidly
convergent nature. The final equational rearrangement is indicated in Table 7.

Table 7- EQUATION 1 OF ‘CALCULATION OF RESISTANCES TO GROUND’ (ref. 17 – AIEE Transactions,

p1319)

Dwight reiterates that the equation above conforms with approximation methods that have
been developed by Dr. F. W. Grover called the ‘successive approximation method using
mechanical integration’ (ref. 19) and the ‘average potential method’ developed in by Dr. G.
W. Howe (ref. 20). The average potential method is self titled in that uniform charge density
is assumed over the surface of the body, hence average potential can be calculated. It follows
that capacitance can be outputted by dividing the total charge by the average potential.

Figure 4 – “Figure 1 of CALCULATION OF RESISTANCES TO GROUND’ (ref. 17 – AIEE Transactions, p1320)

Using this method and Fourier’s series for cylindrical harmonics (ref. 21), the potential at
point P of Figure 4 due to the ring dy can be related by the formula below (Table 4 of ref. 21
– Fourier’s Series and Spherical, Cylindrical and Ellipsoidal Harmonics, equation 6, p. 153).
Table 8- EQUATION 6 OF ‘FOURIER’S SERIES AND SPHERICAL, CYLINDRICAL AND ELLIPSOIDAL
HARMONICS’ (ref. 21, p153)

The average potential of the cylinder due to a uniform charged density on the curved surface
can be obtained by:

The potential at ‘P’ due to the right and left of ‘P’ (from Figure 4)

1. Integrate from y = 0 to L – x

2. Integrate from y = 0 to L + x

Obtaining the average potential of the cylinder due to uniform charge density on the
curved surface

3. Multiply by dx/L

4. Integrate from x=0 to L

Table 9- (Table 9a – Top, Table 9b - Bottom) )EQUATION 3 & 4 OF ‘CALCULATION OF RESISTANCES TO

GROUND’ (ref. 17 – AIEE Transactions, p1319)

Table 9 provides the result of the described integration process described in the previous
paragraph. Cleaning up a long and comprehensive expressions with continuously recurring
terms, Dwight suggested two things about his derivation so far :

- The cylinders in question would eventually be for conductors or vertical earth

electrodes. These are relatively long in length.

- Hence terms that relate to the powers or a/L in Table 9 has a small effect.

It then follows that the elimination of a/L powers results in a more simple resulting equation
indicated in Table 10.
Table 10- EQUATION ‘6’ OF’ CALCULATION OF RESISTANCES TO GROUND’ (ref. 17 – AIEE Transactions,
p1319)

Dwight claims that the formula simplification and adjustment in Table 10 only gives less than
‘one percent error in practical cases of resistance to ground’ (ref. 17 – AIEE Transactions,
p1320) results. The cause of this error is from an embedded approximation in using the
average potential method.

To relate this in-between result of capacitance to a desired equation for resistance to earth,
Dwight uses a simple case of two parallel plates where their separation is small hence effects
from the edges of the plates are neglected. Dwight also made the following assumptions

- The two plates have an equal area ‘B’ square centimeters.

- One plate has an equal and opposite charge density. I.e. one with ‘q’ per square
centimeter, the other with ‘–q’ per square centimeter.

- Hence terms that relate to the powers of a/L in Table 9 has a small effect.

- The lines of dielectric flux from one plate to the other is quantified by ‘4 π qB’.

Dwight then related Capacitance (result from Table 10) to resistance by deducing that the
density of these lines of dielectric flux in volts per centimeter is the space between the plates
and is equal to ‘4 π q’ while the potential difference ‘V’ is ‘4 π qs’ between the plates where
‘s’ is the separation of the plates in centimeters (ref. 17 – AIEE Transactions, p1320). The
resulting formula is outlined in Table 11.

Table 11- EQUATION ‘ 9’ OF ‘CALCULATION OF RESISTANCES TO GROUND’ (ref. 17 – AIEE Transactions,

p1320)

A relationship of the flow of electricity between the plates when embedded in earth of
resistivity ρ (abohms – electromagnetic unit of resistance centimeter-gram-second) and the
resistance between these plates is:.

Table 12- EQUATION ‘10’ OF ‘CALCULATION OF RESISTANCES TO GROUND’ (ref. 17 – AIEE Transactions,
p1320)
Relating the formula in Table 12 and the deduction in Table 11, the desired relationship of
resistance and capacitance then becomes:

Table 13- EQUATION 11 OF ‘CALCULATION OF RESISTANCES TO GROUND’ (ref. 17 – AIEE Transactions,

p1320)

ρ is in ohms per centimeters cube R is in ohms.

But the relationship between resistance and capacitance does not account for the resistance to
earth of a cylinder. This is because Table 13 only shows the relationship between the units of
resistance against the units of capacitance. But the geometric ‘flow of dielectric flux’ and
current is represented by the relationship in Table 10. Hence substituting the equation in
Table 10 into the formula in Table 13 gives the final formula for the resistance to earth of a
cylindrically shaped electrode below.

Table 14- EQUATION 12 OF ‘CALCULATION OF RESISTANCES TO GROUND’ (ref. 17 – AIEE Transactions,

p1320)

Where: p – soil resistivity in ohm-centimetres

L - Rod length in centimetres a – rod radius in centimetres

Dwight’s work carried large significance as it is still used and referenced in most electrical
engineering report and/or standard for calculating resistance to earth of varying earth
electrode shapes. A good example of this is IEEE standards. Where an expression for
resistance to earth of an electrode (for common practical shapes in use) is required, Dwight’s
derivations are referenced. Please see Appendix 1.1 for an example of similar expressions
and other electrode shape formulas that were derived in previous sections. Another
interesting point is that IEEE within their standards has recognized that only the use of the
first few terms is adequate to gain a sufficient degree of accuracy when determining the
resistance to earth of a certain electrode shape (as first recognized by Dwight in his research
paper ref.17 p1319).

3.3 - Soil Structure (Earth Resistivity)

The dependencies of earth resistance lie in the composition of soil at the interface of the earth
electrode / earth grid and the immediate vicinity around this area. Earthing compound of
“Good Earth” or “Lo-Ohm” is placed in the same bore hole where earth electrodes are
installed based on Energy Australia Design standards (ref 3 – N.S. 116). Other minerals and
compositions used are bentonite, casting plaster and gypsum. Table 15 exemplifies a 60%-
80% improvement in earth resistance with the application of bentonite. The functionality of
this addition is to stabilize resistivity at areas immediately in contact with earth grids and
earth electrodes. This provides control of earth resistance which otherwise would be spurious
depending due to soil moisture, chemical composition, temperature ambience, soil
compactness and soil non-uniformity. In most cases, soil structure is never uniform and also
differs in layers. This has a detrimental affect to earth grid design as an earth grid may be
buried at a different depth than an earth electrode might be placed.

Table 15- Table ‘10.1’ of ‘Electric Power Distribution’ (ref. 10 – Pabla, p446)

According to IEEE Std 81-1983 (ref. 4), the natural affect of changing resistivity on earth
resistance appears to have a larger consequence on smaller earth grids whereas larger grids,
longer and/or deeper earth electrodes aid in earth resistance stability where little change is
seen even with changes to earth resistivity. This report will focus on uniform layer earth soil
compositions along with generalized earth resistivity values based on an example of a
geotechnical study and general resistivity values from on Energy Australia Design standards
(ref 3 – N.S. 116).

A good epitome for an electrically equivalent model of soil is illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Soil Equivalent Soil Circuit (ref.. 15 p. 49)

The soil representation above shows the behavior of an earth electrode on buried soil “as a
conductor of resistance, r, and as a dielectric. Except for high frequency and steep-front
waves penetrating a very resistive soil material, the charging current is negligible in
comparison to the leakage current, and the earth can be represented by a pure
resistance”.(ref. 15 p49). Furthermore to this, a study done in IEEE Std 81-1983 (ref. 4)
represents how resistivity differs with salt content, temperature and moisture.

Figure 6 Soil Equivalent Soil Circuit (ref. 15 p. 50)

A clear observation from figure 6 is that the desired soil condition is one of relatively
medium salt content (i.e. more than 10%), high moisture solubility (i.e. more than 50%
moisture) and ‘room’ temperature conditions (20-30 0C). From this generalization more
considerations can be drawn such as the way seasons affect resistivity and why certain
ground compositions like organic soil versus granite differ logarithmically when it comes to
resistivity. The conditions and factors mentioned are also determined by the medium they are
contained in, that is the bare earth, soil or rock and it’s depth. This is better illustrated in
Table 16 whereby geological formation and period are compared against the expected earth
resistivity of each geological composition.

Interesting factors highlighted in IEEE Std 81-1983 from Table 16 is that

- Resistivity varies from 0.01 to 1 .m for sea lever water all the way up to 109 .m
for sandstone.

- “The resistivity of the earth increases slowly with decreasing temperature from 25
0
C to 0 0C. Below 0 0C the resistivity increases rapidly. In frozen soil, as in the
surface layer in winter the resistivity may be exceptionally high”. (ref. 4 IEEE Std.
81-1983 p. 8)
Table 16- Earth resistivity comparison based on Geological Period and Formation (ref. 4 – IEEE Std 81-1983, p. 10)

The issue of varying resistivity of rocks and soils is brought about because of the presence of
more than one layer in the earth with differing resistivities. There are a few widely accepted
models expressed in IEEE standards. One approach is to take the complete encompassing
area as one uniform area whilst the second approach is to model the body around the earth
grid/earth electrode system in two layers. For a large part of this investigation, the body of
earth shall be taken as uniform unless otherwise expressed differently.

3.4 - Earth Measurements

A problem faced for existing earthing infrastructure is that although there is an assumption
that these systems are at ground potential, this assumption only holds true when the system is
in good condition. If the earthing system is defective, it may represent a live potential instead
of the initially assumed zero or earth potential. Earth testing involves both methodical and
instrumental components to determine if an earthing system is at earth potential. This can be
broken up into two measurements, for design (initial estimation of an earthing system to be
built) and for in service testing (maintenance).

Earth measurements consist of two main values, Earth resistance and Soil resistivity.
3.4.1 - Two Point
The simplest method for measurement is by inserting a test electrode. In the case of the figure
below, electrode ‘E’ is the earth system electrode in question whilst electrode ‘H’ is the test
electrode.

Figure 7 Two Point Measurement (ref. 23)

When voltage is applied to electrode ‘E’, current circulates around the buried part of this
electrode and into the ground. Test electrode ‘H’ that is some distance away now has a
developed potential which was accompanied from the previously mentioned current
circulation within the resistance area of the ground coming from electrode ‘E’. The electrode
size of ‘E’ and ‘H’ differ hence it is exaggerated in the figure above. Voltage measurement
between these two electrodes and hence current and resistance determination will yield the
earth resistance with electrode ‘E’ and ‘H’ inclusive. This method is not used as often but is
explained to provide context to the following method.

3.4.2 - Fall-of-Potential Method.

This method of measurement is mostly applicable on small to medium earthing systems.

Figure 8 Fall of Potential Measurement 8a –Top , 8b – Bottom (ref. 23)

By placing an additional test electrode ‘S’ whereby both electrodes ‘S’ and ‘H’ are outside
each others influence zones, voltage can be measured between point ‘E’ and ‘S’ while
measuring the circulating current between ‘H’ and ‘E’. This method effectively eliminates the
resistance addition faced by only placing one test electrode. As the title of this method
suggests, the fall of potential can be measured based on a test current injected from the
earthing system electrode ‘E’ without affect or influence by test electrode ‘H’.
Based on work by Tagg on derivations from mathematical developments of hemispherical
electrodes (ref. 23), proper distancing for more precise measurements is obtained by a ratio
such that the distance between ‘E’ and ‘S’ must be 61.8% of the distance between ‘E’ and ‘H’
(see Figure 8b).The variation to the 61.8% rule is the 1.11 rule (ref.25). This approximation
allows for a more practical application since test probes cannot be placed at the right
distances all the time out in the field due to cemented or rugged surfaces.

With the third electrode being placed along line A in Figure 9, the measured earth resistance
obtained will be within 85% to 95% of the precisely measured earth resistance that would
have been used in Figure 11. Taking this value and multiplying by 1.11 shall then yield a
‘proper’ earth resistance value with an error level less than ±5%. This degree of accuracy is
efficient enough as earth resistance values can change with climate, temperature and soil
structure.

Figure 9 Fall of Potential Test Electrode Placement 9a –Top, 9b – Bottom (ref. 23)

Figure 9 (ref. 23):

 D in figure 9.b represents the largest diameter of the grounding system to be measured. The distance of electrode H should be
five times this distance ‘D’ (According to reference 23, any distance grater than four times the distance of D).
 The perpendicular line is determined by the midpoint between distance measure from the rough centre of E and H.
 Electrode S according to ref 23 “far away” from the midpoint of E-H.
 This method is tolerant of the potential of rod positions so mid points and positions along with the imaginary line A is just taken
as a guide hence can be applied to real world situations more practically.
 Limitations for earth resistance measurements are for an upper bound maximum value determined by the tester which is also true
for current being passed due to the in built generator of the tester being used.
 High resistance of test electrodes also limits the injection current the equipment can output which also decreases the sensitivity.
 Voltage measurements are limited by the impedance being inputted to the voltmeter circuit of the test equipment which is ideally
much larger than the earth resistance of the electrode being tested E.
3.4.3 - 4-Pole
Soil resistivity is measured in Ohm-meters where a 4-pole test earth tester determines
resistivity. The spacing of probes from one another must be of equal length and this length
also relates to the soil resistivity being measured. This equal length layout is also called the
Wenner Arrangement.

This relationship is well exemplified via Table 17.

Table 17- Earth resistivity distance and depth relationship of probes (ref . 28)

‘A’ is the distance between electrode probes while ‘B’ is the depth of the probes. The formula
in Table 17 reduces to a relationship in Table 18 below if the distance between the probes is
more than twenty times the depth. (i.e. A > 20*B)

Table 18- Soil Resistivity simplification(ref . 22)

The spacing of these rods represents proportionality to depth. For example, the spacing of
rods should be three to four times the depth it is buried. (ref 26). Soil resistivity can then be
measured by passing and measuring current through the two outermost rods while the two
inner rods measures voltage. Ohms law is then based on the two measurements made from
the four conductors. A flaw of the Wenner Arrangement is the issue of large differences in
potential drop of the two inner test electrodes when it comes to relatively larger electrode
spacings.
 Figure 10 Illustration of Current and Voltage measurements using the 4-Pole method (ref. 27)

An alternative four point measurement technique is the Unequal-spaced or Schlumberger-

Palmer Arrangement. The difference with this arrangement is that the two inner electrodes
that measure potential drop are arranged such that they are closer to the outer test electrodes
which measure current. This increases the potential value being measured and solves the
problems that might arise from larger spacing highlighted in the Equally spaced / Wenner
method. A condition of unequal-spaced method (in figure 11 below bottom) is that the depth
of buried electrodes ‘b’ is less than separation ‘d’ and ‘c’(ref. 4, p12). It then follows, that the
resistivity can be calculated.

Table 19- Schlumberger-Palmer Resistivity formula(ref 4, p12)

A pictorial comparison of the equally-spaced and unequally-spaced methods is outlined

below.

Figure 11 Four-Point Method 11a –Top(Equally spaced), 11b – Bottom(Unequally spaced) (ref. 4, p13)
3.4.4 - Soil box method for measuring earth resistivity
The basis for this method holds the same principals as the 4-pole test outlined above. The box
has four points of metallic contact to the soil where current is passed through the two outmost
points and voltage drop is measured within the two inner points indicated in figure 12. The
two outer points that measure current are metal end plates of the box while voltage
measurements are just brass or copper pins. Resistivity is calculated in the usual method
outlined above with the added box dimensions width (W), depth (D), length (L).

Figure 12 Soil box method with outer plates (zinc) measuring current and inside plates (brass/copper) measuring
voltage drop(ref. 27)

3.4.5 - Geological information / Soil samples.

This method of accounting for Earth Resistance and Earth Resistivity is in the design phase
of developing a new earthing system to be installed. Here a combination of comprehensive
civil(geotechnical) engineering studies is carried out. Work carried out usually involves a
geotechnical study of a site and for more specific earthing projects, a global earthing study is
done. This involves soil sample analysis, geotechnical reports and electrical engineering
techniques such as the three-point and/or four-point method to take collaborative data and
combine it in context.

The difficulty with relying on soil samples alone for obtaining earth resistance and earth
resistivity values is that often soil at a site is not uniform. Depending on the area, the soil
structure might consist of two or more layers of soil and the exact arrangement and profile
would not be known. Hence the values obtained from geotechnical studies and soil studies
might only produce a small quantitative value whereby all profiles of the soil are not
accounted for.

3.4.6 – Selective / Stakeless.

It is worth mentioning that the above methods either assume a design phase when
measurements are being conducted or the system being measured is not energized during
current injection. In service methods for measuring earth resistance or soil resistivity can be
conducted via a stakeless or selective approach. The selective method follows the same
calculative procedures for determining earth resistance and resistivity as the fall of potential
method except that the current flowing through the main system electrode is detected via
special clamps. The figure below illustrates the substitution of a test electrode to a clamp
whilst the adjacent figure illustrates an alternative method whereby two clamps connect onto
the conductor that the earth electrode attaches to.

Figure 13 Stakeless and Selective method using clamps. (Ref. 9 p. 9)

Earth loop resistance is measured from the two clams when a known voltage is induced in
one clamp and current is measured via the second clamp. This type of stakeless method
measures individual earth electrode resistances in parallel to the ground in earthing systems.

The stakeless method removes the need to bury test prove electrodes along with current
injections of the actual earthing system electrode.

The selective method follows a similar part to techniques mentioned in chapter 3.4.1-3.4.3
except that at a situation when the system is energized, a current transformer (CT) is placed
in the vicinity of the earth conductor in question and this CT measures the test current
propagating to the ground. This method still requires buried test electrodes for measuring and
detecting voltage/current but extended safety requirements and procedures must be observed.

3.5 – GPR & Step/Touch Potentials

A main aim of studying such an earthing system and checking conformity of such system is
to ensure proper personnel protection from electrocution occurrences during fault current
events. Unacceptable levels must be adhered to such that injuries will be prevented when
current levels are at a stage where they will flow through the body. The definition of
ground/earth potential rise (EPR/GPR) is defined as being the peak potential rise of a
substation grid relative to a remote earth. The Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding
(ref. 14 p23 )outlines that the GPR must then equate to the product of the maximum grid
current and grid resistance.

The first step is to understand the effects of current with respect to the human body including
how the human body is equated to when it comes to a circuit equivalent resistance. The
effects to the human body occur from a range of actions such as walking and personnel
contact with exposed conductive parts of substation/stwitchyard. Step potential is regarded as
the potential difference exhibited between one’s feet whilst touch potential is the potential
difference exhibited when one makes contact with equipment and is the potential from ones
arm to ones feet.

It is worth noting that IEC touch voltage guidelines are based on endorsed IEC guidelines for
typical curves of potential of the human bdy. One particular example is the adoption of IEC
479-1 to ESAA (Energy Supply Association of Australia)

Figure 14 Recommended Step and Touch voltages in Australia. (Ref. 12 p. 17)

This report will concentrate its attention to the IEEE approach.

Data and experiments conducted by Dalziel (Ref 12., p53 item 2) have contributed to this
strategy and of greater importance is its methodical prescription outlined in IEEE Std. 80 –
2000. The IEEE approach provides differentiation between hand and foot resistances (and
calculations associated) with respect to determining touch and step potentials.

The main equation used in this approach prescribes potential electrocution.

Table 20- Potential Electrocution (ref 14, p18)

Whereby IB is the potential fibrillating electrocution current

ts is the duration of current flow

The above expression represents a body weight of 70 kg. The experiment carried out in this
thesis report was limited to a calculation of a 50kg body weight. The difference in expression
is that the numerator in the above equation equals 0.116.

Thin Surface Layers

Ideally having uniform soil is impractical for read world situations. The thin surface layers
exhibit higher resistivities relative to resistivities where the earth grid and earth electrodes are
buried. Example of thin layer surfaces are civil purpose built ground surfaces such as gravel
and cement which are abundant in substations and switchyards. In this situation a de-rating
factor occurs as a propagating traveling vertically upwards to the surface will be reduced by
the higher resistivity of the surface layer. The concern is for the opposite where the resistivity
of where the grid lies is higher than the surface layer and hence an upward grid current will
have a larger effect during step and touch potential electric shock occurrences. A precise
equation for determining earth resistance of the foot on the surface material is outlined in
IEEE Std 80-2000 p21 ref. 15 Equation(19-21) but an approximation of surface layer
derating factor is included below. This is because complex calculations are often left to
systematic computer calculations/simulations.

Table 21- Surface layer derating factor (ref 15, p22-23)

Taking surface later derating factor into consideration, touch and step potential equations can
now be expanded and limits also calculated. The expanded step and touch potentials can be
found in Appendix 1.2. In the main results de-rating factor above will be labeled as
‘reduction factor’.

3.6 - Earthing methods at distribution points

In every electrical system, it employs some method of earthing system at one or more point.
It can be divided into ungrounded system, solid grounding and impedance earthing.
Impedance earthing may be further divided into several subcategories: reactance, low
resistance and high resistance grounding (ref 7, IEEE Std 242-2001).

3.6.1. Ungrounded system / Open Grounding

In this method, there is no intentional connection between the system conductor and earth.
However, there always exists a capacitive coupling between one system conductor and
another (ref5, IEEE Std 142-1991). Since the capacitance has little effect on the earthing
characteristics of the system, it will be disregarded. For simplicity, the capacitance reactance
to earth is assumed to be balanced.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.6.1 Ungrounded systems: (a) circuit configuration (ref 5)

, (b) vector diagram (ref 3) in faulted condition

In an unfaulted condition, the balanced three-phase voltages applied to the lines, the
capacitive charging current in phase will be equal and displaced 120° from one another.

The system no longer used widely as it has many disadvantages compare to its advantages. If
one of the system conductors, phases C for example, faults to ground, current flow through
that capacitance to ground will cease, since no potential difference across it now exists. The
voltage across the remaining two distributed capacitors to ground will, however, increase
from line to neutral to line to line. Thus, it creates over voltages which enable creating more
faults in the system. The main advantage of the system is that it allows system operation to be
maintained even in the event of an earth fault. If there is protection device in the system, the
fault current will not cause it to trip (ref 5, IEEE Std 142-1991).

3.6.2. Solid Grounding System

Solid grounding describes the connection of the system neutral point directly to the
installation earth without any intentional intervening impedance. These results in high earth
fault levels which a single phase to earth fault current may exceed 100% (ref 5, IEEE Std
142-1991).

In assessing the benefits of this method of earthing, it is necessary to determine the degree of
grounding provided in the system. In answering this question is the magnitude of earth fault
current is compared to the system three phase fault current. The higher the earth fault current
in relation to the three phase fault current, the greater the degree of grounding in the system
(ref 5, IEEE Std 142-1991).

Effectively grounded system will have phase to earth short circuit current of at least 60% of
the three phase short circuit value. In terms of resistance and reactance, effective grounding
of a system is accomplished only when R0 <= X1 and X0 <= 3X1. The X1 component used in
the above relation is the Thevenin equivalent positive-sequence reactance of the complete
system including the subtransient reactance of all rotating machines (ref 5, IEEE Std 142-
1991). The R0 component is primarily three times the resistance of the connection to earth.
 Figure 3.6.2 Solidly earthed system circuit configuration (ref 7)

The advantages of the systems are high fault current and fast protection operation, better
personnel protection and equipment safety. It also allows the earth fault current to be detected
easily. The disadvantage are line to earth fault causes loss of supply and phase to earth fault
current may be high enough to cause damage. Furthermore, because the reactance of a solid
earthed generator or transformer is in series with the neutral circuit, a solid connection does
not provide a zero impedance circuit. If the reactance of the system zero-sequence circuit is
too great with respect to the system positive-sequence reactance, the objectives sought in
earthing, which is freedom from transient over voltages, may not be achieved

Solid earthing is generally recommended for the following (ref 5, IEEE Std 142-1991):

a. Low voltage systems (600 V and below) where automatic isolation of a faulted circuit can
be tolerated

b. Medium or high-voltage systems (above 15 kV) in order to permit the use of equipment
with insulation levels to ground rated for less than line to line voltage.

c. Medium- or high-voltage applications where the desire for a higher magnitude of earth
fault current in order to be able to provide selective ground-fault detection on lengthy
distribution feeders outweighs concerns about arc flash and potential gradients as personnel
hazards in a workplace setting.

3.6.3. Reactance Grounding System

In this system, the reactor is placed between neutral point and earth. In a reactance grounded
system, the available earth fault current should be at least 25 % (X0=10X1) and preferably
60% (X0=3X1) (ref 31, Westinghouse reference book) of the three phase fault current to
prevent serious transient over voltage in the healthy phase. The term X0 as used, is the sum
of the source zero sequence reactance, X0 plus three times of the grounding reactance, 3Xn,
(X0=X0source + 3Xn). This is considerably higher than the level of fault current desirable in
a resistance earthing system, and therefore reactance grounding is usually not considered an
alternative to low-resistance grounding.

Reactance grounding is typically reserved for applications where there is a desire to limit the
ground-fault duty to a magnitude that is relatively close to the magnitude of a three phase
fault. Use of neutral grounding reactors to provide this fault limitation will often be found to
be a less expensive application than use of grounding resistors if the desired current
magnitude is several thousand amperes (ref 5, IEEE Std 142-1991). The example case of
using this method is where a large substation feeds a medium voltage distribution system and
the total zero sequence impedance of the transformer used cause the single line to earth fault
greatly exceed the three phase fault.

V
I  L N
G R

Figure 3.6.3 Reactance earthed system circuit configuration (ref 5)

Another case is when there is desire to connect the neutral to the generator in which allowing
the generator to carry the unbalance single phase load when there is fault. Using high
resistance earthing in the neutral point of generator will limit the flow of this unbalance
current (ref 5, IEEE Std 142-1991).

3.6.4. Resistance Grounding System

Resistance grounding is achieved by connecting a resistance between the main supply neutral
point and the earth stake of the grid at the substation. Generally, the resistance has higher
ohmic magnitude than the system reactance at the resistor location. Consequently, the line to
ground fault current is limited by the resistor itself. There are 2 resistance grounding classes,
low resistance and high resistance distinguished by the magnitude of earth fault current
permitted to flow (ref 7, IEEE Std 242-2001).
 Figure 3.6.4. Resistance earthed system circuit configuration (ref 7)

3.6.4.1. Low Resistance Grounding

Low resistance grounding is designed to limit the earth fault current to a range between 100A
and 1000A. Normally, 200- 500 A is preferable and it is also rated for approximately 10sec or
30sec (ref 7, IEEE Std 242-2001). In calculating the earth resistance value, it is permissible to
ignore the combine effect of charging current and system source impedance (such as
generator, motor impedance) because those only affect the earth fault current value less than
0.5% (ref 5, IEEE Std 142-1991, pg 13). Low resistance grounding is designed to limit
transient over voltages to safer limits (250% of normal).

This method of earthing has the advantage of facilitating the immediate and clearing of an
earthing fault. Hence, it is necessary to install protection device that able to trip out once the
fault detected. In case when fault happened, the neutral potential is raised to approximately
line to neural voltage, result the current to flow through the resistor (ref 5, IEEE Std 142-
1991, pg 13).

3.6.4.2. High Resistance Grounding

High resistance grounding employs a neutral resistor of a high ohmic value. The value of
resistor is selected to limit the current to 10 A or less in MV system. In the system that has
15kV and above might require higher earth fault levels.
High resistance grounding usually does not require immediate clearing of an earth fault since
the fault current is limited to a very low level provided the cable carrying the fault is rated
173% of the voltage level (ref 7, IEEE Std 242-2001). The level protective scheme associated
with high resistance grounding is usually detection and alarm rather that immediate trip out.

In case of fault, the neutral point is raised to approximately line to neutral voltage.
Furthermore, if one phase gets fault, the system will still operate without the faulted feeder
being tripped. In this method, it is possible to have earth fault that persist for an indefinite
length of time.

High-resistance grounding has the following advantages (ref 7, IEEE Std 142-1991).:

a. Service continuity is maintained. The first ground fault does not require process equipment
to be shut down.

b. Transient overvoltage due to restriking ground faults is reduced (to 250% of normal).

c. A signal tracing or pulse system will facilitate locating a ground fault.

d. It eliminates flash hazards to personnel associated with high ground-fault currents.

e. The need for and expense of coordinated ground-fault relaying is eliminated.

High-resistance earthing is generally employed in the following:

1. Low voltage (where permitted), i.e., commercial and industrial locations where there are
no line-to-neutral loads.

2. Medium voltage system where service continuity is desired and capacitive charging current
is not excessive.

3. Retrofits of previously ungrounded systems where it is desired to reduce transient over

voltages potentially caused by restriking ground faults.
3.7. - Earth Conductor Sizing

3.7.1.Basic Requirements
Each element of the grounding system, including grid conductors, connection, connecting
leads and all primary electrodes should be so designed that the element will (ref 15, IEEE Std
80-2000)

a. Have a sufficient conductivity

b. Resist fusing and mechanical deterioration under the most adverse of fault magnitude
and duration

c. Be mechanically reliable and rugged to a high degree

d. Be able to maintain its function even when exposed to corrosion

In determining the size of conductor, some factor must be considered. Those are:

3.7.2. Symmetrical currents

The short time temperature rise in a earth conductor or the required conductor size as a
function of conductor current can be obtained from the equation below (ref 15, IEEE Std 80-
2000)

Where

kcmils
If the conductor size is given in kcmils, then the mm2 size is =
1.974

The formula can be simplified in English units as following

Where

Table 3.7.2.1 Material constant (ref 15)

The conductor size is selected usually larger than Akcmil from calculation because of factors
such as (ref 15, IEEE Std 80-2000)

a. The conductor should have the strength to withstand any mechanical and corrosive
during the design life of earthing installation
 b. The conductor should have a high enough conductance to prevent any possible
dangerous voltage drop during a fault
c. The need to limit the conductor temperature
d. A safety factor should be applied to the earthing systems as with other electrical
components

3.7.3. Asymmetrical current

In case of asymmetrical fault current exist, the dc offset component in the fault current is
calculated as an equivalent value of symmetrical current IF, representing the effective value
of an asymmetrical current integrated can be determined by using the decrement factor Df (ref
15, IEEE Std 80-2000)

It has to be considered because the dc offset in the fault current will cause the conductor to
reach a higher temperature for the same fault conditions. However, the effect of dc offsets
can be neglected if the duration of the current is greater that or equal to 1s or the X/R ratio at
the fault location is less than 5 (ref 15, IEEE Std 80-2000).
4 - Fault Calculations

4.1. Introduction
Short circuit current can create massive destruction in power system. Typically, short circuit
current have magnitudes many times greater than load currents. The most fundamental
principle involved in determining the magnitude of short-circuit current is Ohm’s Law

V
I 
Z
The general procedure for applying this principle entails the three steps involved in
Thevenin’s theorem of circuits (ref 32, Glover, J., Sarma, Mulukutla – Power System
Analysis and Design)

Develop a graphical representation of the system, called single line diagram with symbolic
voltage source and circuit impedances.

a. Calculate the total impedance from the source of current to the point at which short
circuit current is to be calculated.
b. Knowing the open circuit prefault voltage and use Ohm’s law to calculate the short
circuit current magnitude.

The faulted current in the system can be balanced (symmetrical) or unbalanced

(asymmetrical). In analyzing the unbalanced system, another method must be used. The
method is called “symmetrical component”.

Also, it is important to distinguish between shunt and series unbalance faults. Shunt fault is
an unbalance between phase or between phase and neutral while series fault is an unbalance
in the line impedance and does not involve the neutral or ground, nor does it involve any
interconnection between phase, which means that it is not involved any connection between
phases or between phases and neutral at fault point. The series fault is not covered in the
thesis as it has no relation with the earth.
In this thesis, symmetrical component is not explained, hence the reader is assumed to
understand the concept symmetrical component beforehand. In addition, the knowledge of
per-unit representation of system is also needed to understand short-circuit calculation.

4.2. The nature of short circuit currents

A short circuit may be though of as a conductor that shorts some of the impedances in the
network (ref 7, IEEE 242-1001). Observation from currents condition conclude that

a. The short circuit current is greater than load current

b. The current will bring substantial effect such as thermal heating and high
electromechanical forces
Because of the change in state from load current to short circuit current occurs rapidly.
While, current in an inductor can not change instantaneously, the short circuit current is
consist of two components: AC and DC transient which magnitude is equal to the initial
value of the AC current but decays rapidly ( ref 36, Elec 4205 –Lecture note)

Where:

i (t ) is the asymmetrical fault current in A, at any instant t, t is in s

V is the pre fault rms voltage, line to neutral V

 is the system frequency in rad/s

 is the voltage angel at current initiation in radians

 is the circuit phase angle in radians

Z is the equivalent or total fault impedance

T is offset time decay constant

 
Maximum asymmetric peak current occurs when     
2

The result of typical current waveform is

Figure 4.1 Typical offset current waveform (ref 36)

(a)
 (b)

Figure 4.2 Relationship between actual values of fault current and values of IF, If and Df for
fault duration tf (ref 15)

4.3. Worst fault type and location

The worst fault type for a given earthing system is the one that results in highest value of the
maximum grid current IG. However, this maximum grid current is proportional to the zero
sequence or earth fault current and the current division factor. Because of the current division
is almost independent of fault type, the worst fault type can be defined as the one resulting in
highest zero sequence or earth fault current flow into the earth

At the fault location, the single phase to earth fault will be the worst fault type if Z1 Z0 > Z22
and a phase to phase to earth will be worst type if Z1 Z0 <Z22 .In case where Z2 is assumed
to be same with Z1, the comparison reduce to Z0>Z1 and Z0>Z2 respectively (ref 15, IEEE
Std 80-2000) Single phase to earth fault condition is only true when fault occurs at far from
the source. If the fault is close to the source, single phase to earth fault will be the worst if
Z0<Z1 (appendix 8).

4.4. Source of fault currents (ref 35, Elec 9226 lecture note)
1. The electrical utility supply grid system
2. Any-in-house generation systems operating at the time of fault

3. Any motors operating within the system at the time of fault

4. Any electrical storage elements in the system (eg: capacitors)

4.5 Type of short-circuits

There are four types of short circuit. In analyzing the fault current, normally, the engineer is
going to set the worst case calculation as the objective. The fault point will have low
impedance which will cause a very high level fault current.

In the three phases Y connected systems, the neutral current In is the sum of the line currents

In  Ia  Ib  Ic

Figure 4.3 Neutral current in Y connection (ref 7)

In a balance Y connected systems, line currents have no zero sequence component, since the
neutral current is zero. Also, in the three phases system with no neutral path such as delta
connected system or with a three wire Y system with ungrounded neutral, line current has no
zero-sequence component (ref 32, Power System Analysis and Design). In the balance
condition the neutral current is zero as each of the current is displace by 120۫

Figure 4.4 Voltage and current in the unfault condition (ref 31)
The angle between current and voltage is 90 degrees. Most of the neutral current value is
equal to the highest fault current.

4.5.1. Three phase fault

Figure show the interconnection for the balanced load three phase conditions. Because the
system condition of interest is balanced, the negative and zero sequence networks of the
system might be ignored (ref 31, Westinghouse reference handbook).

Fault condition in phase domain:

Ia  Ib  Ic

(a)

Fault condition in sequence domain:

Vf
I1 
I0  I2  0 Z1

(b)

Figure 4.5 Phase (a) and sequence (b) domain circuit network in three phase fault (ref 32)

The impedance indicated Zf is the fault impedance. In a true bolted fault situation, this
impedance is negligibly small hence it can be ignored. In other cases, this impedance may be
impedance of a load or impedance or arcing.

4.5.2. Single phase to earth fault

To represent a single line to earth condition, the three sequence network are connected in
series at the point of the fault
Fault condition in phase domain Fault condition in sequence domain

:
Va  Zf  Ia
Ib  Ic  0 (a)

I 0  I1  I 2
(V 0  V 1  V 2)  3Zf  I1

(a) (b)

Figure 4.6 Phase (a) and sequence (b) domain circuit network in a phase to earth fault

(ref 32)

In the practice, the positive and negative sequence impedance are equal for almost every
device. In a system where the neutral is earthed through a resistor designed to limit the fault
currents to a low value, the magnitude of the resistance in terms of zero sequence is so large
that others impedance in the network are insignificant. (ref 5, IEEE std 142-1991)

4.5.3. Phase to phase fault

In this type of fault, the zero sequence network is not involved and may be ignored

Fault condition in phase domain

Ia  0
Ic   Ib
(Vb  Vc )  Zf  Ib

(a)

Fault condition in sequence domain

 I0  0
I 2   I1
(V 1  V 2)  Zf  I1

(b)

Figure 4.7 Phase (a) and sequence (b) domain circuit network in phase to phase fault

(ref 32)

As in three phase condition, Zf would normally be the fault impedances but it could also be
phase to phase load impedances or arcing impedance.

4.5.4. Phase to phase to earth fault

At this type, all sequence impedance must be considered in which positive, zero and negative
sequence is parallel in the equivalent circuit. Zf is the fault impedance.

Fault condition in phase domain:

Ia  0
Vc  Vb
Vb  Zf  ( Ib  Ic)

(a)

Fault condition in sequence domain

 I 0  I1  I 2  0
V 0  V 1  (3Zf )  I 0
V1  V 2

(b)

Figure 4.8 Phase (a) and sequence (b) domain circuit network in phase to phase to earth fault
(ref 32)

4.6. Sequence Impedance representation of electrical apparatus

In order to use symmetrical components in analyzing systems, constructing system models
using symmetrical component representation is necessary. The representation of electrical
apparatus in symmetrical components terms involves determination of positive, negative and
zero sequence impedances.

4.6.1. Generator
Positive, Negative and Zero sequence impedance are usually provided as identified values on
the generator manufacturer’s data sheet. Positive sequence voltages correspond to actual
system voltage and currents, whereas negative and zero sequence voltage are physically
fictitious. Generator is a source of voltage on the power system and the only sequence to
include a voltage source is the positive sequence (ref 7, IEEE Std 242-2001).

4.6.2. Motors
Motor can be thought of as closely related to generators and the impedances used to represent
them in symmetrical component are similar to generators. Besides impedance, motor power
(HP or kW) should also be known.
For synchronous motors, negative sequence impedance values are available from
manufacturer’s data sheets or if no data are known, the value of sub transient reactance may
be used (ref 7, IEEE Std 242-2001)..

For induction motor, negative sequence is harder to obtain. Hence, an assumption is usually
made, which is that the negative-sequence reactance is equal to the locked-rotor reactance for
induction motors.

4.6.3. Transmission line

Determining impedances for transmission line is challenging, it involves making calculations
from the physical parameters of the line and its conductors. The first consideration is that the
positive and negative sequence impedance of transmission lines is equal.

Positive sequence reactance of a transmission line can be thought of as the impedance that
would relate voltage and current when three conductors or a transmission line are shorted
together at one end, while excited by a positive sequence source of voltages (ref 7, IEEE Std
242-2001).

The impedances can be calculated using the following equation

Where

GMD is the geometric mean spacing between phase conductors

GMR is the geometric mean radius of the phase conductor (m)

GMD should be calculated for the specific spacing of the array of conductor in transmission
line, while GMR is a parameter for the conductor that is available from the conductor
manufacturer. Positive sequence reactance can be read from conductor tables. In calculating
the zero sequence impedance, the concept can be viewed as that all three phases of a
transmission line are shorted together to ground at the source end, while all three other
conductor are shorted together and to both ground and the overhead ground wire at the other
end. When a single phase source of voltage is applied at the source end, current flows. The
ratio of the single-phase voltage to the resulting current flow is the zero-sequence impedance
of the line (ref 7, IEEE Std 242-2001).

Current will flow from the faulted conductor into both ground and the overhead ground wire
as depicted

Figure 4.9 Illustration of insulation flashover on open wire line showing return current
flowing through overhead ground wire of transmission line and through earth (ref 7)

From this physical picture, it is apparent that the zero sequence impedance should consist of
three branches as indicated in the picture below (ref 7, IEEE Std 242-2001). Those are the
zero sequence impedance of phase conductors, the zero sequence impedance of the static wire
return (overhead ground wire) and the zero sequence impedance of earth return.
 Figure 4.10 Zero sequence equivalent circuit for self impedance of transmission line and the
impedances of earth and overhead ground wire return paths (ref 7)

Where

Rg is the resistance of the phase conductor (ohm/km)

GMD2 is the geometric mean spacing of all conductors – phase and static wires (m)

GMR2 is the geometric mean radius of k static (OHGW) wires (m)

k is the number of static (OHGW) wires

r is the earth resistivity typically 100 (ohm m)

f is system frequency

4.6.4. Cables, busway and bus duct

Most engineers are generally satisfied to rely on the impedance data on cables, busway and
bus duct that are provided by manufacturers. However, it should be noted if more than one
cable is used in parallel. The spacing of conductors of cable will affect inductance (ref 38,
MSHA handbook). Furthermore, if multiple conductors exist per phase, the impact of the
arrangement of conductor should also be evaluated.
The reactance published by manufacturer in ohms per 1000 feet (30.48m) of cables with one
foot spacing can be found with the simplified following formula which is based on ANSI
standard (ref 38, MSHA handbook)

 1 
X L  0.02298  ln  
 GMR 

GMR is the geometric mean radius in feet. It can be calculated by multiplying the wire O.D.
in inches by .03245.

GMR  R  e 0.25  0.3894  D  0.03245  d

Where:

R = wire radius in feet

D = wire diameter in feet

d = wire diameter in inches

The reactance of aerial cable depends on the spacing between wires. Reactance at spacing
other than one foot can be calculated with the following formula.
 
 ln spacing  
X new  X old 1  
  1  
 ln  
  GMR  

Example: (ref 38, MSHA handbook)

Find the reactance, minimum and maximum resistance for the ACSR no2 AWG aerial cable
with length 360 m and 0.9m spacing.

The GMR must first be found with equation above. From manufacturer’s specifications,

the O.D. of number 2, ACSR wire is 0.316 inch.

GMR  0.03245 d  0.03245 0.316"  0.0103'

The reactance is then found with equation.
 1   1 
X L  0.02298  ln    0.02298  ln    0.105 
 GMR   0.0103 

Converting the length and spacing into feet

360 0.9
Length   1200 ft spacing   3 ft
0.3 0.3

Since this is the impedance for one-foot spacing, the reactance has to be corrected for three-
foot spacing using the equation.

   
 ln spacing   ln 3 
X new  X old 1    0.105  1    0.1304 
  1    1 
ln   ln  
  GMR     0.0103  

The reactance of 1000 feet of number 2, ACSR cable is 0.1304 Ω. The reactance for 1200
feet is 1.2 * 0.1304 = 0.1565Ω.

4.6.5. Transformer
The positive and negative sequence impedance magnitude for transformer is identical and
equal to the nameplate leakage reactance provided by the manufacturer.

In modeling transformer in symmetrical component, the phase shift in delta-connected

winding is sometimes needs to be considered. Positive sequence model for a delta-Y or Y-
delta transformer should include a 30 degrees phase shift (ref 31, Westinghouse reference
book). The same applied to negative sequence quantity, however, it shifted in the opposite
direction. Inclusion of these phase shifts is important only if rigorous calculation is needed to
determine exact phase currents and voltages on both sides of the transformer, including phase
angles (ref 7, IEEE Std 242-2001, pg 27) . Most analysts often take the shortcut of neglecting
phase shift in the short circuit calculation. For Y-Y transformers, there is no phase shift in the
positive and negative sequence equivalent circuit.

In the sequence equivalent circuits, the zero sequence impedance of delta winding is infinite
(an open circuit), whereas the zero sequence impedance of a Y connected winding is a series
of the zero sequence impedance of the transformer and impedance of any neutral grounding
devices that might be present. Thus, an ungrounded Y winding would present an infinite zero
sequence impedance because of no neutral grounding .The connection appears as an open
circuit in series with the zero sequence impedances of the transformer winding itself

Figure 4.11 Zero sequence equivalent circuit for delta-Y grounded transformer (ref 7)

4.6.6. Neutral grounding devices

Neutral grounding devices such as resistors and reactors appear only in zero sequence.
Representing the neutral device in zero sequence with a resistance or reactance is equal to
three times the actual device impedance accounts for the correct sequence voltage from
neutral to ground (ref 7, IEEE Std 242-2001).
5. Previous Work - Earth Resistivity and Earth Resistance
Investigation
The aim of this investigation was to determine which earth resistance and resistivity values
the main experiment is targeting and what would be desired.

From a design point of view, the first step to developing a new earth grid and earthing system
for a distribution system is to conduct an earthing study whereby measurement probes and
techniques outlined in chapter 3.4.1-3.4.6 were implemented to measure earth
resistivity/resistances. The key to this strategy was to measure earth resistance and resistivity
values continuously so that conditions of the soil could be accounted for throughout a larger
area. The limitation of this thesis meant that obtaining instruments for this purpose was not
feasible. Hence a collaborative and combined data set was developed as outlined below.

Energy Australia.NS 116 Design Standards for Distribution Earthing (ref 3.)

Earth Resistance

An expectation for distribution systems was that in service earthing systems had a target
requirement of not exceeding 1 ohm earth resistance. To achieve this target, alternatives such
as low voltage interconnections of earthing systems to other substations and earth electrode
group additions were implemented.

Resistivity

There was an indication that Energy Australia faced difficulty at certain suburbs where there
was a presence of high earth resistivity of 200 Ohm-metres. This value was used for pre-
experimental tests to represent upper bound expected results.

5.1 - Matlab Simulations

The first preliminary investigation explored how a buried cylindrical rod behaved when it
came to changes in variables based on the derived formula by Dwight (Table 10 – Resistance
to earth of a cylindrical rod).

The aim with the use of Matlab was to investigate:

I. The effect of varying rod length and radius with its resistance to earth
 II. The effect of varying earth resistivity

III. Correlating I & II to different rod arrangements.

Variables and their sources

Item Data / Variable Source Comment

1 Formula for Earth Table 14 – Dwight (ref. All other references that declare the
Resistance of a 17) resistance to earth of earth electrodes are
cylindrical rod based on Dwights paper.

2 Earth resistivity = 200 NS 116 Design Standards This was considered abnormally high for
ohm-metres for Distribution Earthing earth resistivity by NS 116 so a worst case
(ref 3.) value was taken for a preliminary study

3 Equations for resistance Dwight ref 3, P175-178 These equations were verified by cross
to earth of different rod Ref. 5, ref. 12 & Appendix referencing them from a range of sources.
configurations. 2.2.5

4 Matlab Ref. 29 The initial approach was to implement

Matlab for our simulation

Table 22- - Item 3 - Tables and Formulas to be applied in this investigation

22a(top)- Multiply Factor F for electrode combinations (ref 5 – , p. 178),

22b(bottom)- Resistance to earth formula (ref 5 – , p. 177)

Req = R/N*F
Whereby
Req = equivalent earth resistance
R = Resistance of one electrode
N = Number of eletrodes
F = Multiplying factor (see table 18)
I & II - Change of Length and radius. (With reference to Appendix 2.1.2, 2.1.3 & 2.1.4)

The first obvious result is that since resistivity is proportional to the earth resistance formula
(Table 14), all three graphs are identical except for scaling of the y axis – resistance to earth.
Two extreme rod radii used gave the most desirable and undesirable results. For economical
reasons, the cost of really thick earth rods far outweighs the benefits of lower earth resistance
outputted in the results.

Table 23- Earth Rod resistance to earth (Appendix 2.1.1-2.1.4)

Rod radius (cm) Output from Appendix 2.1.1 - Resistance to Earth

(Ohms). Rod Length – 200cm, Resistivity 200ohm-
metres

3.5 70.54

7 59.50

100 17.18

Looking at the graph in Appendix 2.1.4 and comparing the standard radius for a rod used in
NS116 - 3.5 centimetres, a radius double this value and an extreme case of 100 centimetres it
is observed that:

- Doubling the radius of an NS116 standard rod only improves resistance to earth by
roughly 15%.

- Having a rod radius that is almost thirty times the radius of a standard rod only
improves resistance to earth of a rod by 75%.

Meanwhile observing the affect of rod length to earth resistance:

- From a rod length of 50 centimetres, tripling this length equates to a 50%

improvement in resistance to earth.

- The rate of resistance to earth reduction is most effective between a shorter length
until 250 centimetres. After 250 centimetres the rate of resistance to earth
reduction is significantly less.

- With similar reasoning to why wider radii are not applied, the costs of boring a
deeper hole and the cost of a longer rod outweigh its benefits.
Lessons to carry on for the main investigation

- Better strategies are required for improving resistance to earth (apart from a really
long radii)

- The specified length of 180 centimetres is feasible to be carried onto the main
investigation. Having longer earth electrodes provides some added setbacks of the
uncertainty of earth layers (ie longer rods are more likey to cut across a layer of
rock which exhibits extremely high earth resistivity)..

III – Cylindrical rod arrangements.

Correlating the results obtained from part I and II, the main focus of this investigation was to
compare and contrast the advantages (and/or disadvantages) of combining more than one
earth electrode based on equivalent resistance formulas obtained from Toan Phung’s lecture
notes (see Appendix 2.2.5 - ref. 12 p45) and from the table of formulas below(from ref.4
IEEE Std. 142). With results and variables carried over from parts I & II, the first task was to
capture data from parts I & II with the baselined length of 1.8 metres and a rod diameter of 15
mm.

Table 24- Earth Rod resistance to earth. Representation of a ‘Group’ (ref. 5 p177)

Equation
Reference Table 18b
Column 1 2 3
Single Double
Rod Rod Triple
Rod Length
(metres)
1.8 63.03 36.56 27.10
2 58.41 33.88 25.11
2.2 54.47 31.60 23.42
2.4 51.09 29.63 21.97
2.6 48.14 27.92 20.70
2.8 45.54 26.42 19.58
3 43.24 25.08 18.59
3.2 41.18 23.88 17.71
3.4 39.32 22.81 16.91
3.6 37.64 21.83 16.19
3.8 36.12 20.95 15.53
4 34.72 20.14 14.93
4.2 33.44 19.39 14.38
4.4 32.25 18.71 13.87
4.6 31.16 18.07 13.40
4.8 30.14 17.48 12.96
5 29.20 16.93 12.55
The table above attempts to simulate the resistance to earth of a ‘group’ of electrodes
(mentioned earlier in NS 116 – ref. 3) containing two or three electrodes. A more dramatic
affect is the resistance to earth result of more than one group. The results in Table 24 are
arranged in a linear fashion. Alternative arrangements mentioned by T. Phung (Appendix
2.2.5) are of a triangular arrangement along with alternative equivalent resistance equations.
The trend of resistance to earth versus electrode spacing in centimetres was computed with
varying earth resistivity of 2, 20 and 200 ohm-metres (see Appendix 2.2.2 - 2.2.4).

For a pole mounted substation belonging to Energy Australia, an additional requirement of

earth electrodes is that a pole mounted substation’s earthing grid has to be connected to two
or more ‘groups’ of electrodes.

Table 25- Electrode Resistance to Earth when combined with adjacent groups (ref. 5 p177)

Pole Mounted
Substation Number of Adjacent Grids Combined
1 2 3
Total No. Groups 2 4 6 8
Total Electrodes 4 8 12 16
F. 1.36 1.68 1.8 1.92
Equivalent
Resistance to
Earth (Ohms) 21.43 13.24 9.45 7.56
Table 25 is calculated using the formula in Table 22a

Some observations from investigation I and Appendix 2.2.2 - 2.2.4 were that:

- Earth electrodes alone will not economically delivery the required resistance to
earth of 1 ohm.

- Equivalent resistances only provide indicative reductions to the total earth

resistance. The exact resistance to earth is then measured and if necessary, more
earth electrodes are buried and added to the earth grid/earth electrode system until
the 1 ohm resistance to earth requirement is met.

- The largest rate of earth resistance reduction is when rod spacing surpasses 5
centimetres but the result does not take into account the physical property of earth
electrodes in the vicinity of earth other. When one earth electrode is placed in the
near vicinity of another it will interfere with the conduction of current since the
current from one electrode will increase the ground potential hence having the
effect of decreasing current flow from the other nearby electrode. This effect was
not taken into account when simulating rod spacing.
5.2 - Earth Electrode study featuring CYME – CYMGrd
An overview of the software package CYME – CYMGrd can be found in chapter 6.2.2 .

The initial approach is to explore this program as an avenue for the engineer whom wishes to
pre-design an earth grid and use initial calculations to aid in the design of a new grid. This
will complement theoretical calculations. This investigation also adopted the same Energy
Australia NS116 Design Standards for Distribution Earthing (ref. 3) nomenclature for earth
electrode grouping. An overall outcome expected from performing this introductory work is
to simulate in a three dimensional way current travel at an earth electrode and to reconfirm
the basis theory supporting earth resistance in chapter 3.2. The results of this investigation
presented are outputted via current flow and distribution at an electrode(s) in plan view where
topographical profiles of differing earth potentials were plotted.

Table 26- Parameters used for Earth Electrode group CYMGrd Simulation

Parameters (that are kept constant)

Copper-clad steel Rod diameter 15 mm
Conductivity (%) 20 Rod Length 1.8 metres
Tm (°C) 1084 Rod Depth 5 metres
200 ohm-metres
Kf 14.6293 Soil resistivity (uniform)
Diameter (mm) 2.62327 Rod spacing 3 metres
(Linear 3m, 6m,
N.S. 112 rod spacing 3m)
IEEE Std. 80-
Safety Model 2000
Surface Layer
LG Fault Current 1000 amps Thickness 0.2 meters
Surface Layer
Shock Duration 0.5 secs Resistivity 2500 ohm-m
Ambient Temperature 40 °C Shock Duration 0.5 secs
Decrement Factor 1.03134 Body Weight 50 kg
Maximum
Maximum Permissible Touch 711.44 volts Permissible Step 2353.6 volts
Reduction Factor Cs 0.889796

The first dataset outputted from CYMGrd the GPR generated from a 1kA line to ground fault,
the earth resistance calculation, and the current flow from the electrodes when the fault
occurs.

Table 27- CYMGrd simulation results

Rod, Group and Grid performance during fault occurrence

Combined
Two to other
One Group Groups Groups
Ground Conductor Four Twelve
Arrangement One Rod Two Rods Rods Rods
Ground Potential Rise
(volts) 95232.7 51269.7 27273.3 7760.56
Calculated Ground
Resistance (ohms) 93.1995 49.9602 26.5146 7.53041
Equivalent Impedance
(ohms) 92.3388 49.7118 26.4445 7.52474

Conductor Output Current 168.9767

(amps) 165.1506
168.9767

Electrode Output Current 990.7652 497.5142 246.9372 35.7174

(amps) 497.5142 251.7405 45.6771
246.9372 35.7174
251.7405 45.6771
46.1798
36.2571
36.8201
47.42
47.42
36.8201
36.2571
46.1798

The first experiment involved simulating one earth electrode, followed by testing one group,
two groups then the scenario of six groups. The use of six groups was for the reason of a
hypothetical pole mounted substation in a ‘combined’ situation (NS116 terminology for earth
electrode configurations ref. 3).

Figure 15 Simulation of one electrode Left CYMGrd Surface potential plot. Right Touch Potential plot
One observation from figure 15 that can be drawn is that a radius three metres immediately
from the rod maintains a relatively constant surface and touch potential. But after three
metres the rate of change in potential is immediately obvious. This is also illustrated by the
sharp slope in figure 15.A similar result of surface and touch potential was seen for
simulating one group.

Figure 16 Simulation of two groups Left CYMGrd Surface potential plot. Right Touch Potential plot

The most telling outcome of this simulation came from setting up six groups for potential and
surface plots. Eventhough table 27 showed that calculated earth resistance and GPR had
improved dramatically and that there was a general trend of decreasing value with increasing
earth electrodes, potential gradients in the vicinity of these electrodes got worse.

Figure 17 Simulation of six groups Left CYMGrd Surface potential plot. Right Touch Potential plot

The figure above shows that in comparison to the potential gradient plots of one earth
electrode, the use of more electrodes in such a closer vicinity increased the risk of personnel
safety. Consider the scenario of a person walking on ground level close to, on top of and
away from these earth electrodes. This person was more likely to have the largest potential
difference between their feet when more electrodes were present during a fault current of 1kA
magnitude.

Important things to note about this experiment is that :

- CYMGrd is adequate as it conforms to IEEE Std-80 methods for calculated GPR,

step and touch potentials

- Earth resistance and GPR dramatically improve when more earth electrodes are
added to the system. This is most obvious by considering that there are more earth
electrodes for current to be distributed to during a line to ground fault.

- Step and touch potentials are not improved just be increasing earth electrodes.
This is best exemplified in figure 17 where there is a greater rate of change of
potential between earth electrodes (ie a larger potential gradient).

- Plan view for surface and touch potential show changing contours. A combination
of plan view and three dimensional views give a clear indication for determining
personnel safety for step and touch potentials.
6. Distribution Earthing Simulation

6.1 - Experiment 1 – Network Fault Simulation and Analysis

6.1.1 Overview
The experiment is performed in a form of case studies. The case example is about high –
medium voltage AC distribution consist of one turbo generator, one synchronous motor as a
load, four bus, line aerial cable and two cast-coil two winding transformers (T1 and T2). T1
has delta – winding connection while T2 winding connection is Y-delta.

Figure 6.1 Single line diagrams of case studies performed by ETAP software

There are several experiments to analyze the effect of different earthing method in the
relation with fault current. The calculation detail is provided in appendix 4. Furthermore,
software named ETAP is used to investigate different cases.

6.1.2. ETAP
ETAP is electrical power software base on ANSI/ IEEE Std. It is one of the most
comprehensive analysis platforms for design, simulation, operation, control, optimization,
and automation of generation, transmission, distribution, and industrial power systems. ETAP
offers modules to solve any electrical power systems including short circuit analysis. The
experiment uses a demo version which can be downloaded from
http://www.etap.com/demo.htm (ref 37, ETAP).

6.1.3. Experiment Method

6.1.3.1. Experiment part 1: Method of earthing and fault type

Investigation of method of earthing and worse fault type and location

This experiment is performed in 5 different cases to analyze the fault current with respect to
different earthing method (solid, open, high resistance, low resistance and reactance
grounding). Furthermore, it also observes the behavior of L-G fault current and voltage at the
phase domain.
Calculation and complete data of short circuit with respect to bus1 is provided in appendix 4.
To simplify the calculation, hand calculation in appendix 4 may ignore phase shift in
transformer. However, the ETAP simulation does include 30 degrees phase shift for delta-Y
connection. Therefore, there will be slightly difference between ETAP and hand calculation.
But as predicted, the difference is not significant.

Phase a is the faulted phase in the 1 L-G fault. For L-L fault, phase b and c is the faulted
phase. While for the L-L-G fault, phase b and c is short circuited to earth

6.1.3.1.1. Case 1: Solid Grounding Test

In this experiment, every Y connection in each component (T1, T2, motor and generator) is
solidly grounding. The short circuit test is conducted in each bus (1-4). The purpose is to
figure out the worst fault type and location. This worst fault location becomes the reference
point for other case experiment.

6.1.3.1.2. Case 2: Ungrounding Test

Each component neutral point in Y connection is unearthed subsequently. While the rest
components is solidly grounding. The short circuit test performed in the worst fault location
from case 1.

6.1.3.1.3. Case 3: High Resistance Grounding Test

For the low resistance test, the Y neutral point of components is connected to resistor
subsequently which limits the 1 L-G to 10A. The value of resistor is provided in appendix
4.3. Again, it is performed in the worst fault location from case 1.

6.1.3.1.4. Case 4: Low Resistance Grounding Test

High resistance test, the 1 L-G faults is limited to 500A. It is performed in the worst fault
location from case 1. Hand calculation is shown in the appendix 4.4.

6.1.3.1.5. Case 5: Reactance Grounding Test

The Y neutral point of each components is connecting to a reactance subsequently which the
ratio of ( X 0 / X 1) >3. Thus, ratio 3.1 is used in the simulation. It is performed in the worst
fault location from case 1. Hand calculation is shown in the appendix 4.5.

6.1.3.2. Experiment part 2: Minimum conductor for fault current

In doing the simulation, decrement factor must be considered. Df depends on time tf (fault
duration). MATLAB is used to show the effect of decrement factor against tf. The calculation
use the highest L-G rms fault current from the experiment 1 part1. The final result expected is
 wire sizes in kcmil which can be converted into mm2 by divided to 1.974. Lastly, the hand
calculation is shown in appendix 5 with fault duration set at 0.5 second.

6.1.3.3. Experiment part 3: Winding connection changes

Effect of changing the winding connection in the three phases and single phase to earth
fault

According to IEEE brown book (ref 40, IEEE Std 399-1997), three phase short circuit often
turn out to be the most severe of all. However, exception exist when 1 L-G fault produce
higher result. One of the case is fault occurred in vicinity of a solidly grounded synchronous
machine. Also, base on the analysis, the transformer winding connection can also affect the
current outcome significantly

In this, each of the components such as T1, T2, motor and generator is solid grounding. The
ETAP simulation is done with changing the winding in T1 and T2 from default connection
which is delta-Y for T1 and Y-delta for T2. The short circuit test is conducted in the worst
fault location from case 1. In the appendix 4, the conversion from sequence domain to phase
domain and the other way around involves complex number of a wit value is 1120 . Thus,
a2 is 1240

6.1.4 Data for the experiment

Synchronous
machine S(MVA) P(MW) V(kV) Pf(%) Eff(%) Poles RPM X0(pu) Xd||(pu) X2(pu) X/R

Turbo Generator
130% excitation 100 85 13.8 85 95 4 1800 5 15 15 80
From the ANSI table A(appendix 6), the X/R typical ratio for 100000 kVA is 80

Impedance(pu) X/R Winding

Transformer S(MVA) Vprimary(kV) Vsecondary(kV) X0 X1 X2 ratio connection
T1 100 13.8 138 0.1 0.1 0.1 37.5 Delta-Y
T2 100 138 13.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 37.5 Y-Delta
From the ANSI table b (appendix 6), the X/R typical ratio for 100 MVA is 37.5

Total impedance for 5 km

Transmission X0(ohm X1(ohm X2(ohm) Conductor each phase spacing(ft)
Cable 50 20 20 1 1
Synchronous
machine S(MVA) P(HP) V(kV) Pf(%) Eff(%) Poles Sf RPM X0(pu) Xd||(pu) X2(pu) X/R
Motor 100 120000 13.8 93 94 4 1 1800 10 20 20 80
From the ANSI table a (appendix 6), the X/R typical ratio for 100000 kVA synchronous motor is 80

Positive and negative sequence impedance is assumed to be same. Furthermore, the

experiments are performed in the bolt short circuit condition Zf =0. The other condition is the
generator is in the swing mode. It means that the voltage magnitude and angle of generator
terminal will remain at the specified operating values.

6.1.5. Result and Analysis

6.1.5.1. Experiment part 1: Method, Fault and Location

Investigation of earthing method, worse fault type and location

6.1.5.1.1. Case 1: Solid Grounding Test

I 3 phase fault I L-G fault I L-L I L-L-G
short circuit I Irms
location Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) rms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) (kA) Ipeak(kA)
bus1 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51
bus2 2.81 7.78 3.35 9.27 2.44 6.73 3.21 8.86
bus3 2.68 7.41 3.22 8.92 2.32 6.42 3.09 8.54
bus4 31.25 86.66 34.44 95.52 27.06 5.05 33.28 92.29

The result shows that fault current in every different type in the bus 1 has the highest value.
Thus, bus 1 is the worst location. The worst fault type is in the 1 L-G fault at bus1.

From the appendix 7, single line to ground fault is the worst fault type if the faults close to
source has system impedance of Z 0  Z1 . The appendix 4.1 shows
that 0.0590  0.115790 . Thus it is confirmed. The calculation in appendix 4.1 clearly
shows the calculation.

Figure 6.1.1
 Calculating the 1 L-G fault current into MATLAB shows figure that indicate fault current is
relatively steady after 0.5 second and the first half cycle is the most destructive. From
L
calculation Ta  , with X in L and R is the X/R ratio at point of fault time decay is 0.2437 s
R

6.1.5.1.2. Case 2: Ungrounding Test

I 3 phase fault I 1 L-G fault I L-L I L-L-G
short circuit
location at I Irms
bus1 Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) rms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) (kA) Ipeak(kA)
Generator
Ungrounded 37.37 103.7 0 0 32.37 89.81 32.37 89.81
T1
Ungrounded 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51
T2
Ungrounded 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51
Motor
Ungrounded 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51

When generator neutral point is ungrounded, the zero sequence impedance become open
circuited hence it is infinite. In reality, the only 1 L-G fault current that flows is the capacitive
charging current of systems, generally only a few amperes. The ETAP software considers it
not significant, hence it is stated zero current. Ungrounded the T1, T2 and motor gives no
difference in the fault current. This is because that fault is happened in bus1 which is side by
side with T1. Next, T1 has delta - Y connection, hence the zero sequence circuit is
disconnected

Further investigation from appendix 4.2 that the voltage in phase b and c increase from line to
ground potential to line to line potential. In order for a system able to use this grounding, the
conductors must able to withstand the stress caused by over voltages.

6.1.5.1.3. Case 3: High Resistance Grounding test

short I 3 phase fault I 1 L-G fault I L-L I L-L-G
circuit
location at Irms
bus1 Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) (kA) Ipeak(kA)
Generator
High
Resistance
Grounding 37.37 103.7 0.01 0.03 32.37 89.81 32.37 89.82
T1 High
Resistance
Grounding 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51
T2 High
Resistance
Grounding 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51
Motor High
Resistance
Grounding 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51
 Using the formula from the method of earthing in section 3.6.4, the resistor used for high
resistance needed is 796.75  in Vbase1 (13.8 kV) or 7967.5  in Vbase2 (138kV). Hence,
in total 3R is 2.4 k for Vbase1 (13.8 kV) and 24 k for Vbase2 (138kV). The grounding
change in T1, T2 and motor brings no difference in fault current at bus1. However, when
generator grounded is earthed with 796.75  (generator is 13.8kV), the 1 L-G RMS fault
current is limited to 10A.

Figure 6.1.2

The complete result given in appendix 4.3 shown the value of total impedance of Z0 is much
higher compare to Z1, it is because of the addition of 3 resistors. The figure shows that the
current looks not decaying. The decay time is insignificant (7.1383e-007 sec). This is caused
by the impedance R value which is very big comparing to X. Hence the X/R ratio is very
small. Refer to section 3.6.4.2 a system used high resistance grounding might have fault at a
long period of time with the service continuity is not compromised.

6.1.5.1.4. Case 4: Low Resistance Grounding test

I 3 phase fault I L-G fault I L-L I L-L-G
short circuit location I Irms
at bus1 Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) rms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) (kA) Ipeak(kA)
Generator Low
Resistance
Grounding 37.37 103.7 0.525 1.456 32.37 89.81 32.499 90.172
T1 Low Resistance
Grounding 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 46.07 127.83
T2 Low Resistance
Grounding 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 46.07 127.83
Motor Low
Resistance
Grounding 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 46.07 127.83
 The 1 L- G fault is limited to 500 A as this is the only permissible current to flow at fault
point. Using the formula from the method of earthing in section 3.6.4, the resistor used for
low resistance needed is 15.9  in Vbase1 (13.8 kV) or 159  in Vbase2 (138kV). Hence,
in total 3R is 48  for Vbase1 (13.8 kV) and 480  for Vbase2 (138kV).

Figure 6.1.3

The grounding change in T1, T2 and motor brings no difference in fault current at bus1.
However, when generator grounded is earthed with 48  (generator is 13.8kV), the 1 L-G
RMS fault current is limited to 500A.

The figure shows that the current looks not decaying. The decay time is insignificant
(3.5686e-005 sec). Further observation in the appendix 4.4 shows that the voltage in phase b
and c in 1 L-G fault is increasing to 1.73. Refer to section 3.6.4.1, low resistance grounding is
designed to allow the voltage transient to 250%.

6.1.5.1.5. Case 5: Reactance Grounding Test

I 3 phase fault I 1 L-G fault I L-L I L-L-G
short circuit
location at I Irms
bus1 Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) rms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) (kA) Ipeak(kA)
Generator
Reactance
Grounding 37.37 103.7 22.157 61.477 32.37 89.81 33.386 92.635
T1 Reactance
Grounding 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51
T2 Reactance
Grounding 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51
 Motor
Reactance
Grounding 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51

Base on the literature review from section 3.6.3, the ratio between X0/X1 must be bigger than
3 and X1 value is fix. Hence, 3.1 is use to get the X0. The connection of reactance to neutral
point only affects zero sequence impedance. Again, changing the grounding in T1, T2 and
motor brings no change in line ground fault. It is caused by the delta-Y winding in the T1 and
Y-delta in T2. The delta makes the zero sequence impedance current can not flow. To make
illustration clear, calculation detail is provided in appendix 4.5.

Figure 6.1.4

In this system, the ground fault current should be at least 25% and preferably 60% of three
phase fault to prevent serious over voltage. The highest ground fault current which is L-L-G
is 90% of the three phase fault which is still far above minimum 25% while 1 L-G fault is
59%.The figure above showed the 1 L-G fault vs time. The Ta or decay time is 0.556 second
which is considered long. The picture shows that rise of current is not as sharp as in the solid
grounding, and the attenuation decays slowly

Result simulated by ETAP is confirmed with hand calculation in appendix 4. The complete
data of ETAP experiment and hand calculation is in the appendix.4.
6.1.5.2. Experiment part 2: Minimum Earth Conductor Size
Investigate the minimum earth conductor size needed to withstand the fault current

Comparing all L-G fault current (either 1 L-G or L-L-G) figuring out that the highest L-G
rms fault current happened in case1 (each component is solidly grounding) which magnitude
is 46.07 kA and type 1 L-G. Refer to appendix 5,

Z 0  0.0006  j 0.05 Z1  Z 2  0.0015  j 0.1157

X/R ratio at the point of fault is 78.2 and the symmetrical fault current is 46.07 kA.

In order to get earth conductors size, the dc offset and the attenuation during fault must also
be counted in the fault current. Hence, decrement factor is used to determine the effective
asymmetrical fault current (IF) for a given fault duration tf.

Figure 6.1.5

Figure 6.1.6

It can be seen in the figure 6.1.6 that the initial current is very high and decay following the
time duration tf. The current is proportional to Decrement factor.
 Figure 6.1.7

From figure 6.1.5, the Df at tf = 0.5 sec is 1.2143. Figure 6.1.7, shows that earth conductor
size is proportional to fault current that goes into it. The highest the fault current the
conductor size must be bigger. Calculation shown in appendix 5

6.1.5.3. Experiment part 3: Winding Connection changes

Effect of changing the winding connection in the three phases and single phase to earth
fault

Three phase fault current at bus1 with every Y connection solid grounding
Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA)
T1/T2 Delta-Delta Delta-Y Y-delta Y-Y
Delta-
Delta 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702
Delta-Y 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702
Y-Delta 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702
Y-Y 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702

1 L-G fault current at bus1 with every Y connection solid grounding

Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA)
T1/T2 Delta-Delta Delta-Y Y-delta Y-Y
Delta-
Delta 46.071 127.832 46.071 127.832 46.071 127.83 46.071 127.832
Delta-Y 46.071 127.832 46.071 127.832 46.071 127.832 46.071 127.832
Y-Delta 49.021 136.016 49.021 136.016 49.021 136.016 49.021 136.016
 Y-Y 46.071 127.832 46.071 127.832 46.823 129.917 46.707 129.595

L-L-G fault current at bus1 with every Y connection solid grounding

Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA)
T1/T2 Delta-Delta Delta-Y Y-delta Y-Y
Delta-
Delta 44.154 122.511 44.154 122.511 122.511 138.1824 153.8538 169.5252
Delta-Y 44.154 122.511 44.154 122.511 122.511 138.1824 153.8538 169.5252
Y-Delta 48.154 133.611 48.154 133.611 133.611 150.7024 167.7938 184.8852
Y-Y 44.154 122.511 200.868 279.225 45.057 125.017 46.707 129.595

Different color in the table values use to show different values of current. The result shows
that the statement from IEEE brown book (ref 40, IEEEStd 399-1997) about lines to ground
fault produce higher result than three phase fault in the vicinity of a solidly grounded
synchronous machine is complied. The experiment indicate that changing the winding in T1
and T2 will generally keep the line to ground fault same except in the case where T1 winding
is Y-delta or T1 Y-Y connection. The difference is caused by different connections in zero
sequence impedance networks.

The appendix 8 shows the perunit sequence network for transformer. In the positive sequence
network, the delta-Y connection has a phase shift for 30 degrees. Normally, the current value
that transfer from left to right winding in the picture is same but the phase will shift for 30 ۫
for positive sequence and -30۫ for negative sequence

It is interesting to know the fault current when the system used other earthing method and see
the effect whether three phases fault current will be higher than L-G fault current. Hence
another simulation is performed to the figure 6.1. In this simulation, all Y connection is
reactance grounding with the reactance value taken from case 4

Three phase fault current at bus1 with every Y connection reactance grounding
Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA)
T1/T2 Delta-Delta Delta-Y Y-delta Y-Y
Delta-
Delta 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702
Delta-Y 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702
Y-Delta 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702
Y-Y 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702 37.375 103.702

1 L-G fault current at bus1 with every Y connection is reactance grounding (40650 A)
 Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA)
T1/T2 Delta-Delta Delta-Y Y-delta Y-Y
Delta-
Delta 22.157 61.477 22.157 61.477 22.157 61.477 22.157 61.477
Delta-Y 22.157 61.477 22.157 61.477 22.157 61.477 22.157 61.477
Y-Delta 30.906 85.755 30.906 85.755 30.906 85.755 30.906 85.755
Y-Y 22.157 61.477 22.157 61.477 26.847 74.491 24.916 69.134

L-L-G fault current at bus1 with every Y connection is reactance grounding (40650 A)
Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA)
T1/T2 Delta-Delta Delta-Y Y-delta Y-Y
Delta-
Delta 33.386 92.635 33.386 92.635 33.386 92.635 33.386 92.635
Delta-Y 33.386 92.635 33.386 92.635 33.386 92.635 33.386 92.635
Y-Delta 35.031 97.199 35.031 97.199 35.031 97.199 35.031 97.199
Y-Y 33.386 92.635 33.386 92.635 34.102 94.622 33.77 93.7

The second simulation shows that in the reactance grounding system, the three phase fault is
higher than line ground fault. Hence, to get the worst fault current, line ground fault test is
recommended to system which have solid grounding synchronous machine.
6.2 - Experiment 2 - Soil, Earth Electrode and Earth Grid System

6.2 Overview
This section of the experiment explores the suggested investigation outcomes declared from
chapter 5.1 and 5.2 This experiment encapsulates the simulation of faults explored in
experiment 1 from where conductive parts of the distribution system connect to earth. It will
address how the propagating fault current affects the soil, the earth impedance, step and touch
potentials and ground potential rise (GPR) around the perimeter of the involved substations.

6.2.1 Network Fault Simulation and Analysis Result Integration

The reader should note that values taken from the network fault simulation section (previous
section chapter 6.1) were only indicative. In connecting the results to this experiment, the
range of fault currents were observed and the range widened. Although results from chapter
6.1 came within a range of 1-40kA current flowing to the earthing system, a choice of 1-
90kA was chosen to widen the catastrophic consequence brought about by doubling the
expected maximum fault current. This was decided to investigate the true susceptibility of the
earth grid/earth electrode model developed.

6.2.2 CYMGrd – CYME International T & D and Limitations of Simulation

CYMGrd allows for design of ground components for substations and buildings. The points
of determination for this software package is ground potential rise (GPR) and evaluating
critical areas of the grid.

CYMGrd was coded to model and mimic IEEE Std. 80-2000 (ref. 15) and can consider single
layer and two layer soil models when evaluating GPR, step and touch potentials. CYMGrd
also has stored data and soil resistivities for common situations in soil such as crushed rock.

Data entry for this program involves entering prospective short circuit current, x,y,z
coordinates of conductors and electrodes and even test probe readings (with spacing
included) for earth resistance and/or earth resistivity if desired.

Outputted data comes in the form of expected results when performing calculations under
IEEE Std. 80-2000 (ref. 15), two and three dimensional plots of ground potential rise voltage
gradients.

Limitations of CYMGrd for this Thesis Investigation

Soil: Soil resistivity was restricted to uniform soil resistivity across all grids. CYMGrd was
given the command to calculate the earth resistance from the inputted soil resistivity. For
reference, when the choice of entering measured resistivity is activated within this program,
the four point Wenner Method (see chapter 3.4.3) is applied to calculate and distribute
variables across the simulation.

Grid: Grid analysis was conducted with generally double the elements per item. Elements can
be thought of as calculation points where diffused current at that particular point is evaluated.
The most time economic method for the experiments was to generally indicate two elements
per item (ie two elements to calculate one electrode for example).

Simulation graphs are limited to the earth grid perimeter in the vicinity of the substation
closest to the power station and the substation closest to motor/load.

The X and Y axes refer to points that lie parallel to the flat ground while the Z axis represents
depth.

Plotting: Two and three dimensional plots from this program were heavily reliant on elements
assigned to items. An adequate model was developed from the choice of elements highlighted
previously.

GPR, step and touch potentials were only considered within the two substations or in some
experimental parts both substations

Surface and touch potentials of the simulation are first represented in plan view. For example,
in Appendix 3.2.2 top plot figure 1 shows a plan view of the PS substation. Contour lines
represent a potential and so the distance between contour lines show the changes in potential
when moving along the earth grid of a substation. To emphasize these contour lines, a three
dimensional plot is also outputted whereby the height(z-plane) of the x-y-z plane represents
potential while the x and y axis represent the substation grid length. For example, in
Appendix 3.2.2 plot 2-4 in the top case of surface potential and in the plot 2-4 for touch
potential in the bottom case a change in height represents a change in contour lines of
potential.

Network Model point to point distances

A hypothetical and not to scale three dimensional equivalent of the network earth grids is
illustrated in Appendix 3.1.2.4. Geographical distances of the power station, power station
substation, motor substation and motor is indicated below.

Power Station Motor Load /

Power Station 1000m 9440m 950m
Substation Substation Motor

Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix

Appendix 3.1.2.2
3.1.2.1 3.1.2.4 3.1.2.4 3.1.2.2 3.1.2.4 3.1.2.3

6.2.3 System label assignments, CYMGrd variables and experiment breakdown

A summary of all labels in Appendix 3, how the experiment was separated and how the
network bus operating voltages were split up is outlined below.The reader is reminded of the
network labeling for Experiment.2 below:

Table 28- Earth Electrode/Grid simulation labeling and assumed operating voltage.

Label Operating Voltage Component / Equipment

Gen1 11kV Network Power Source
Transmission Line between Power Source and Closest Substation
Gen1 - Bus1 11kV from Power Source(Power Station Substation).
11kV side of Power Station Substation(bus on same voltage as lower
Bus1 11kV voltage windings of transformer)
Bus1 - Bus2 132kV 11kV to 132kV Step Up Transformer(Both Windings)
132kV side of Power Station Substation(bus on same voltage as higher
Bus2 132kV voltage windings of transformer)
Transmission Line between Power Station Substation and Motor
Bus2 - Bus3 132kV Substation
132kV side of Motor Substation(bus on same voltage as higher
Bus3 132kV voltage windings of transformer)
Bus3 - Bus4 132kV 132kV to 11kV Step Down Transformer(Both Windings)
11kV side of Motor Substation(bus on same voltage as lower voltage
Bus4 11kV windings of transformer)
Transmission Line between Motor and Closest Substation from
Bus4 - Syn1 11kV Motor(Motor Substation).
Syn1 11kV Motor (Network Load)

The parameters assumed and to be determined by this simulation is also provided in the table
below:

Table 29- CYMGrd Simulation Variables

See Reference /
Appendix / Relevance to CYMGrd
Section Variable/Data Value Unit Simulation / Comment
 Earth grid dimension for
App 3.1.1.1- power station /
3.1.1.3 & App (lengthxwidthxdepth / grid
3.1.2.1 Power Station 60x60x0.5 / 3600 mxmxm / m2 area)
Earth grid dimension for
App 3.1.1.1- substation /
3.1.1.3 & App 11kV/132kV (lengthxwidthxdepth / grid
3.1.2.2 Substation 50x60x0.5 / 3000 mxmxm / m2 area)

App 3.1.1.1- Earth grid dimension for

3.1.1.3 & App Motor / (lengthxwidthxdepth
3.1.2.3 Motor 40x40x0.5 / 1600 mxmxm / m2 / grid area)

radius of conductor / Bonding

of adjacent earth grids to
Power Station to prevent a large potential
App 3.1.1.1- Substation grid difference of earth grids
3.1.1.3 conductor 7.1365 / 160 mm / mm2 (radius / cross sectional area)

radius of conductor / Bonding

of adjacent earth grids to
Substation to prevent a large potential
App 3.1.1.1- Motor grid difference of earth grids
3.1.1.3 conductor 7.1365 / 160 mm / mm2 (radius / cross sectional area)
Conductor for main grid.
Annealed Copper. Same
App 3.1.1.1- conductor used to connect
3.1.1.3 & 3.1.2.1- Earth Grid grid to electrode (radius /
3.1.2.4 Conductor 7.1365 / 160 mm / mm2 cross sectional area)
App 3.1.1.1-
3.1.1.3 & 3.1.2.1-
3.1.2.4 Grid Buried Depth 0.5 m Measurement from surface
App 3.1.1.1-
3.1.1.3 & 3.1.2.1- 7.5 / 1800 / mm / mm / Copper clad (radius / cross
3.1.2.4 Earth Electrode 176.71 mm2 sectional area)
App 3.1.1.1-
3.1.1.3 & 3.1.2.1- Electrode Buried
3.1.2.4 Depth 4-5.8 m-m
App 3.1.2.5 Soil Resistivity 100 ohm-metre Assumed uniform

App 3.1.2.5 Shock Duration 0.5 seconds Set as Default across program

App 3.1.2.5 Body Weight 50 kg Set as Default across program

App 3.1.2.5 Grid Resistance See Appendix ohm Rg

App 3.1.2.5 Safety Model IEEE Std. 80-2000 Software default

Surface Layer
App 3.1.2.5 Thickness 0.2 m Software default
Surface Layer
App 3.1.2.5 Resistivity 2500 ohm-m Software default
Reduction Factor
App 3.1.2.5 Cs 0.889796 Software default
App 3.1.2.5 LG X/R See Appendix
(2X1+X0)/(2R1+R0) calculated
with respect to experiment 1
App 3.1.2.5 LG Fault Current See Appendix amp results
 ground electrode
resistance (of
App 3.1.2.5 transmission line) 100 Rtg Software default
ground electrode
resistance (of
App 3.1.2.5 feeders) 45 Rdg Software default
App 3.1.2.5 -
3.1.2.6, App 3.2.1
- 3.8.9 GPR See Appendix volt Outputs from experiment
App 3.1.2.5 -
3.1.2.6, App 3.2.1
- 3.8.9 Step Potential See Appendix volt Outputs from experiment
App 3.1.2.5 -
3.1.2.6, App 3.2.1
- 3.8.9 Touch Potential See Appendix volt Outputs from experiment

This fault current data was then broken up into five parts and hence five experiments which
are summarized below.

Table 30- CYMGrd simulation breakdown and network explanation

Experiment
part Fault Current Situation Distribution System Situation
1A During this fault situation there was a short In this situation the fault current to earth was
circuit at Bus1. For the scenario where the simulated at the power station substation. The
11kV to 132kV step up power transformer neutral earthing method was applied to the
neutral was earthed using the ungrounded, low lower voltage(11kV) side of the transformer.
resistance and high resistance method the low
resistance neutral earthing method resulted in
the highest comparative 'Symmetrical Ia' fault
current. Hence in selecting the low resistance
neutral grounding method the reader is
reminded that the contributions of this fault
originate from Bus1, Bus2/Bus1 and Gen1.
(short circuit situation)
1B Out of all the earthing methods tested during In this situation the fault current to earth was
the fault, the reactance neutral earthing method simulated at the power station substation. The
outputted the highest line to ground fault neutral earthing method was applied to the
current. Bus1 had the highest 'Symmetrical Ia' lower voltage(11kV) side of the transformer.
line-to-ground fault. (short circuit situation)

2 Short circuit fault at Bus1. The Power Station
Substation transformer neutral earthing method
was applied at the higher voltage side of the
windings. All earthing methods exhibited the
same 'Symmetrical Ia' fault currents across
Gen1 - Bus1, Bus1, Bus1 - Bus2.
In this situation the fault current to earth was
simulated at the power station substation. The
neutral earthing method was applied to the
higher voltage(132kV) side of the
transformer.

3 This experiment tested a short circuit fault
whereby a solidly grounded system earthing
method was used
This experiment exhibited a fault occurring at
Bus1 (ie the lower voltage side of the Power
Station Substation). The simulation was
modelled around the Power Station Substation
perimeter
 4A This experiment tested a short circuit fault
whereby a solidly grounded system earthing
method was used
This experiment exhibited a fault occurring at
Bus2 (ie the higher voltage side of the Power
Station Substation). The simulation was
modelled around the Power Station Substation
and Motor Substation perimeter

4B This experiment tested a short circuit fault
whereby a solidly grounded system earthing
method was used
5 This experiment tested a short circuit fault
whereby a solidly grounded system earthing
method was used
This experiment exhibited a fault occurring at
Bus3 (ie the higher voltage side of the Motor
Substation).The simulation was modelled
around the Power Station Substation and
Motor Substation perimeter
This experiment exhibited a fault occurring at
Bus4 (ie the lower voltage side of the Motor
Substation). The simulation was modelled
around the Motor Substation perimeter

6.2.4 Earth Grid Method Of Simulation

With the way fault currents were modeled in experiment 1, the first task was to determine the
most affected zone of the system model provide data and information about how the fault will
affect the grid. The primary purpose of this exercise was to verify the functionality of the
earth electrodes and earth grids in personnel protection. The first two fault current events
considered from experiment 1 was the effects of various earthing methods for the substation
closest to the power station. Initially this data set had all fault occurrences at Bus1 the PS
substation. The final data considered was the test of fault occurrences across Bus1, Bus2,
Bus3 and Bus4. At each time when one of the Buses was simulated, a solidly earthed neutral
was the method used for the transformer related to the fault. Experiment 2 part 3, 4A, 4B and
5 represent this test to the system earthing method.

The general iteration for performing the simulation was:

 Experimental Method Data / Output

1.Which substation is the fault occurring at (via identifying Output from Experiment 1
where the Bus label belongs) ?

2.Evaluate effect of soil via prospective short circuit current of Maximum permissible step/touch,
particular experiment reduction factor

3.Evaluate current that propagates through conductors and Decrement factor, Current of each
electrodes electrode/conductor

4.Based on data points from the previous, plot against Two/Three dimensional plot of
potential surface/touch potential of grid and
GPR

5.Evaluate potential based on distance

Summary of GRP/Step/Touch based
on distance

Experiment 2 parts 1A, 1B and 2 results were restricted to the substation closest to power
station for the purpose of where the short circuit occurred. Experiment 2 part 3 was still
restricted to the power station substation as fault contributions still remained within this zone.
Experiment 2 part 4A and 4B considered both substations as buses that contributed to the
overall fault belonged to both buses. Part 5 only had fault contributions from the Motor and
Motor substation.

6.2.5 Earth Grid Simulation Results

Appendix 3.1.1.1 – 3.1.1.3

The conductor and rod data reveals preset defaults that was used in CYMGrd.

In Earth Grid Symmetrical Conductors, Earth Grid Asymmetrical and Earth Electrodes the
placement of the conductors and rods represent one x-y plane to represent distancing
horizontal to the flat ground and the z plane as depth. A three dimensional view of this data
entry is shown in Appendices 3.1.2.1-3.1.2.4.

In Appendix 3.1.2.5 – Output Results provided a main summary of maximum permissible step
and touch potentials as well as the reduction factor in each case of the experimental parts. In
this same appendix the line to ground fault currents associated with each bus of the substation
is also declared. These buses directly relate to how Buses are distinguished and separated in
Table 28.

Appendix 3.1.2.6 summarizes the GPR achieved in each experimental case and the value of
earth resistance and equivalent impedance calculated.

The first result of each experiment (such as Appendix 3.2.1) gives a reminder of the domain
and range being simulated, how GPR and touch potential achieve their maximums and a
surface and touch potential at a chosen x and y coordinate. It should be noted that all touch
potential topographical plots appear to all have a concave up shape. This is because the earth
grid and earth electrodes in the substation aid in maintain approximately the same potential
such that if a person made contact with an exposed conductor one metre away, there would
be a s,a;; potential difference where as if that person was in the outer perimeter, a large
potential difference would be experiences when contact is made to an exposed conductive
part of the substation.

6.2.6 Soil Behavior Under Fault Conditions (Exp. Method 2)

Because of the unpredictability in earth resistivity, a fixed earth resistivity of 100ohm-metres
has been carried onto the main simulation. The main output for the soil analysis is in
Appendix 3.1.2.6.

6.2.7 Conductor and Electrode Currents (Exp. Method 3 & 4)

Once the soil is analyzed, CYMGrd divides and passes current to all electrodes and
conductors involved in the grid. Using Appendix 3.2.1 to 3.2.3 the experimental methods will
be followed along with a reference to each of the appendices. Appendix 3.2.1 produces a
value for GPR, maximum permissible touch and surface potentials at a certain coordinate.
The first data set in Appendix 3.2.1 declares the area being investigated in terms of range and
domain. A breakdown of how the potential rises with respect to GPR and Maximum
permissible touch is then tabulated as a scale of percentages that follow the current rise of the
fault current. Appendix 3.2.2 presents a topographical view along with three dimensional
angles of voltage gradients. The top graph is the behavior of surface potential whilst the
bottom graph is touch potential.

6.2.8 Profile plot (Exp. Method 3 & 4)

The table on the left of Appendix 3.2.3 summarizes preset variables that the calculated was
based on, the hypothetical path taken to traverse through the earth grid and GPR/touch/step
potentials experienced during this traversal. The middle diagram view (diagram 1 top and
bottom of Appendix 3.2.3) represents a plan view of the grid with a fine dotted line of where
the simulation is traversing through. The first trip is from one end of the substation to the
other whilst the second potential threshold travels from a far distance, across the substation
and away from the substation.

6.2.9 Analysis of Results.

Maximum permissible touch and step potentials for each experiment were always going to
remain consistently the same value due to the nature in which they are calculated. This
emphasizes the point of using a higher thing surface layer (as implemented in this simulation)
to reduce feet to ground conductivity levels. A lightning strike for example exhibits a 40kA
current while Experiment 1B models 25kA being submerged into the ground. In this case the
GPR rises to about 4.8kV but when looking at step and touch potential levels, touch
potentials hover around it’s maximum permissible level of 711 volts whilst step potentials are
consistent at around 100-250 volts around the substation. In real world terms a person in the
vicinity during this GPR event will have a better change in surviving walking around and in
the substation that outside it.

Touch potentials on the other hand indicate that personnel are generally safer within the
substation. This can also be interpreted by the plan view model of touch potential. When
looking at contour lines we see the largest spacing of contour lines is inside the substation
while dramatically changing on the outskirts. Here we can see that the conductor/electrode
system once again aid in reducing potential difference whereas the most sever consequence
of hand to feet potential would lie on the perimeter. All the surface and touch potential three
dimensional plots also support this statement.

For example in Appendix 3.4.2 bottom diagram 1, a plan view of the grid shows concentrated
contour plots with close distances near and outside the perimeter of the grid whilst a larger
gap in contour lines inside the grid (i.e. mathematically the rate of change when traversing
perpendicularly through contour lines is greater outside the earth grid than within the earth
grid.). Since these contour lines represent potential difference the potential difference
transition is less inside the substation earth grid.

When comparing the initial results from investigation 5.2, a general pattern of earth
resistance being halved was noticed in Table 27. But this experiment used thirteen (ie one
more than what was used in Table 27)earth eletrodes. In Table 27, twelve earth electrodes at
200 ohm-metre resistivity yielded an earth resistance of 7.5 ohms. Hypothetically this would
equate to 3.75 ohms since Experiment 2 used 100 ohm-metres earth resistivity. But instead
calculated earth resistance was 0.2462 ohms. One can conclude that eventhough the earth
grid had a functionality of maintaining a close to constant earth potential during a current
surge to the ground, achieving the same level of earth resistance as the developed diagram in
Experiment 2 would hypothetically equate to 20-30 earth electrodes using the logical earth
resistance reduction by doubling earth electrodes in investigate 5.2.

Another comparable figure was considering experiment 2 part 1A against investigation 5.2
results - Table 27. Table 27 will remind us that 12 earth electrodes with a 1kA fault yielded
a GPR of 7760 volts. In comparison Experiment 2 part 1a (Appendix 3.1.2.5 - 3.1.2.6 & 3.2.1
– 3.2.3 provided a calculated GPR of 220 volts. One can conclude that including an earth grid
(conductor mesh network) dramatically improved GPR. Even comparing surface and touch
potential contour plots from investigation 5.2 to Experiment 2 part 1A (Appendix 3.2.2) the
general pattern for contour plots in investigation 5.2 was an up-shift in touch and surface
potential in contour plots. The group electrode surface and touch potential contour plot in
investigation 5.2 was the closest comparable touch and surface potential plot to experiment 2
part 1.

Looking forward, a danger to personnel safety across all surface and touch potential contour
plots would have to be immediately on the boundary of a substation. Here either a solution of
extending the mesh network to accessible (for example where the perimeter fence is located)
parts of the perimeter would be desired.
7.Conclusion
Fault calculation is one of fundamental studies in the electric power system. There are several
types of fault which can be categorized as balance and unbalance fault. Balance fault can be
calculated using three phase system representation. While for unbalance fault, symmetrical
component is recognized as being very effective method to analysis unbalanced conditions on
symmetrical machine. It allows for the creation of three subsystems, the positive, the
negative, and the zero-sequence systems, properly interconnected at the fault point. The
advantage of the symmetrical components approach is that it allows modeling unbalanced
fault conditions, while still retaining the conceptual simplicity of the single-phase analysis.

In the investigation of method of earthing, it is difficult to states the best earthing method that
a system can have. Each method (solid, open, resistance and reactance grouding) has their
own advantages and disadvantage which depends on the requirement needed. In the
experiment, various earthing method is applied to the system components (generator, T1, T2
or motor) one after another. The interesting observation is that the fault current is closely
related to the system impedance at the point of fault. Any change in the system impedance
whether it is in zero, positive or negative sequence will also brings change in the fault
current. Hence, employing different earthing method basically is changing the system
impedance at point of fault which it will produce a different fault current.

Investigation of personnel safety in a distribution systems has been explored. By using a

proper model of how a fault current enters the ground, factors that risk personnel safety has
been properly modelled. The use of earth electrodes is beneficial in distributing fault currents
to the ground. But a combination of earth electrodes and an earth grid aid maintaining
constant step and touch potentials in the vicinity of a distribution system. Although equations
and formulas provide the engineer with a figure for GPR, step and touch potential, a graphic
view of how potential rises relative walking or standing inside a distribution system provides
a more informative tool in designing a safer work area at distribution systems.

7.1. Future Work

This thesis can be carried and expanded by expanding the work into:
7.1.1 Fault Current Simulations
There are a number of ways that the work of this thesis can be extended:

 In this thesis, the experiment cases only use cable as medium transmission. Hence, the
return fault current will only travels via earth. Thus, by changing the cable to
transmission line four wire systems the return current will have two different path,
neutral overhead wire and earth. Furthermore, the effect of inductance, tower footing,
current division factor and conductor spacing will bring significant difference
impedance in the transmission line. Lastly, there are many types of wire whether it is
aerial cable, underground cable or open wire with different number of conductor
inside which worthy to be examined.
 Fault calculation also very close related to protection systems. Almost every
protection system such as switchgear, fuse etc, is use based on its ability to interrupt
fault current. In the research, the method of sensing the fault current can also be
analyzed.
 Investigating the effect of fault current to electrostatic studies such as interference in
the telecommunication system. This can be expanded to include the arcing studies.
Studies of lightning effect on fault calculation also can be explored.
 Further investigation in the electrical equipment such as synchronous machine or
transformer. In this thesis, the transformer used is two windings transformer which is
relatively simpler than three windings. In the thesis simulation, synchronous machine
is not investigated rigorously. The effect of rpm, type of motor (such as salient, non
salient pole etc) is not counted. By varying the type of machine used in the
experiment, the fault current will also varied which is very interested to observe
 Investigating series fault. This experiment only performs research in shunt fault.
Series fault has a quite different properties comparing to shunt fault.

7.1.2 Substation Earthing

 Further investigation of soil behavior and design. Foundation, soil and composition
can be better explored so that a new substation site will be completely engineered so
that even the soil and earth grid below substation earth grids are more accounted for
and not as spurious as suggested by literature reviews. This would then allow an
extended protection system and hopefully provide a continuously measured output to
 a controller. Having artificial and engineered soil fit for the purpose of earth
conductors and electrodes would enable earlier planning to prevent ‘unpredictable
seasonal’ resistivity variations
 Further investigations and simulations needs to take protection and control equipment
within the substation into consideration. Such examples overlooked in this thesis were
surge arrestors, substation equipment such as disconnections, earth switches, circuit
breakers, current and voltage transformers, static var compensators and electronic
fault trip equipment systems with programmable logic control equipment in substation
control rooms.
 Protective earth systems were covered in this Thesis but functional earths such as
reference points for communication systems were not considered.
 Earth resistance and soil resistivity measuring equipment was not covered as well as
planned in this Thesis. Future work can address circuitry with this piece of
instrumentation and possible designs that integrate into the control system of the
distribution network such that the control room and access live earth resistance and
soil resistivity readings of substations and switchyards.
 This thesis was limited to simulations. Earlier plans were to create a small scale
model of a grid and simulate a scaled down current injection. Proportionalities and
scales proved difficult to relate in context to large scale real life faults. Future work
can be done in systematically modeling a distribution system with safe laboratory
voltage ranges.
8. Bibliography
[1] (Australian/New Zealand Standard, 2006), ‘AS.NZS 1020:1995 The control of
undesirable static electricity’, Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, Standards
Australia, Homebush
[2] (Australian/New Zealand Standard, 2006), ‘AS.NZS 3000:2007 Wiring Rules’, Standards
Australia/Standards New Zealand, Standards Australia, Homebush
[3] (Energy Australia, 2005), ‘NS 116 Design Standards for Distribution Earthing’, Network
Standard – Energy Australias, [online] available:
<http://energyaustralia.com.au/energy/ea.nsf/Content/Network+standards>
[4] (The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 1981), ‘ANSI/IEEE Std 81-1983
An American National Standard - IEEE Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground
Impedance, and Earth Surface Potentials of a Ground System’ IEEE, IEEE, New York
[5] (The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 1991), ‘ANSI/IEEE Std 142-1991
‘IEEE Recommended Practice for Grounding of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems’
IEEE, IEEE, New York
[6] (The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 1986) ‘IEEE Std 141-1993
Recommended Practice for Electric Power Distribution for Industrial Plants’ (IEEE Red
Book). IEEE/Wiley (1986).
[7] (The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 1986) ‘IEEE Std 242-2001
Recommended Practice for Protection and Coordination of Industrial and Commercial Power
Systems.’ (IEEE Buff Book). IEEE/Wiley (1986).
[8] (Wikipedia, 2007), ‘Earthing System’, accessed 23 December 2007, [online] available:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthing_system>
[9] (Fluke Instruments, 2006) ‘Earth Ground Resistance Fluke Instruments Principals,
methods and applications’, W.A. U.S.A, 2006
[10] (Pabla, A., 1981) ‘Electric Power Distribution Systems’, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing,
New Delhi (1981)
[11] (Vijayaraghavan, G., Brown, M., Barnes, M., 2004) ‘Grounding, Bonding, Shielding and
Surge Protection’ Elsevier, Burlington (2004)
[12] (Phung, T., 2006) ‘Elec 9226 Lecture Notes - Earthing of Low Voltage Electrical
Systems:Personnel Protection ’ Sydney (2007)
Equipment’, 2006, Sydney, UNSW
[13] (Energy Australia, 2001), ‘NS 122 Pole Mounted Substation Construction – Energy
Australia’, [online] available: < http://energyaustralia.com.au/internet/pdfs/NS122-
NSA1347.pdf>
[14] (CYME International T&D, 2007), ‘CYMGRD, Substation Grounding Program, [online]
available: <http://www.cyme.com/software/cymgrd/>
[15] (The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2000), ‘ANSI/IEEE Std 80-2000
‘IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding’ IEEE, IEEE, New York
[16] (TransGrid, 2005), ‘Standard Drawing Transmission Installation Electrical Design
Earthing Methods 1-I-9 Design Standard’, Sydney (2007)
[17] (Dwight, H. B., 1936), ‘Calculation of Resistance to Ground. AIEE Transactions’, vol.
55, Dec. 1936, pp1319-1328.
[18] (Hallen, E., 1929), ‘Losung Zweir Potentialprobleme Der Elektrostatik’, Arkiv for
Matemalik, Astronomi och Fysik, v. 21A, No. 22, 1929 Stockholm.
[19] (Grover, F. W. , 1928), ‘Methods, Formulas and Tables for the Calculation of Antenna
Capacity’, Scientific Paper No. 568 of the Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C., 1928,
page 569.
[20] (Howe G. W. O., 1914), ‘Capacity of Radio-Telegraph Antennae’, The Electrician, v.
73, 1914, p. 829, 859 and 906.
[21] (Byerly W. E., 1893), ‘Fourier’s Series and Spherical, Cylindrical and Ellipsoidal
Harmonics’, Finn and Company, Boston, Mass., 1893
[22] (Pacific Test Equipment, 2006), ‘The Black Art of Earth Testing’, Pacific Test
Equipment Pty Ltd Catalogue , Sydney
[23] (Leibovich, M. J., 2007), ‘Earth resistance measurement’, Duncan Instruments Canada
LTD, viewed 9 September 2007, [online] available:
<http://www.duncaninstr.com/Gr_article.htm>
[24] (Tagg, G. F., 1964), ‘of earth-electrode resistance with particular reference to earth-
electrode systems covering a large area’, PROC. IEE, Vol. III, No. 12, December 1964
[25] (Leibovich, M.J., 1998), ‘"Analytical study of the 1.11 rule for earth resistance
measuring’, www.smeter.net, [online] available: < http://www.smeter.net/grounds/earthres-
5.php>
[26] (Edwards, R.J., 1998), ‘Measurement of Soil Resistivity & Calculation of Earth
Electrode Resistance’, S-Meter:Ground Systems 15th February , viewed 9 September 2007,
[online] available :< http://www.smeter.net/grounds/earthres-5.php>

[27] (Army Technical Manuals, 1985), ‘Soil Resistivity Measurement’ US Army Corps of
Engineers ARMY TECHNICAL MANUALS’, US Army Corps of Engineers ARMY
TECHNICAL MANUALS, viewed 9 September 2007,
[online] available :< http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/armytm/TM5-811-7/app-a.pdf>

[28] (DRANETZ BMI Power Monitoring Experts, 1985), ‘Understanding Ground Resistance
Testing Soil Resistivity’, DRANETZ BMI Power Monitoring Experts,viewed 9 September
2007,
[online] available : < http://www.dranetz-bmi.com/pdf/groundtesting.pdf>

[29] (Mathworks), ‘Matlab 7.0’, UNSW License, 2007-2008

[30] (CYME International), ‘CYMGRD – Substation Grounding Program’, USA & Canada,
viewed 9 September 2007, [online] available : http://www.cyme.com/software/cymgrd/
[31] (Central Station Engineers, 1964), ‘Electrical Transmission and Distribution Reference
Book 4th edition’, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pennsylvania.
[32] (Glover, J., Sarma, Mulukutla., 2002), ‘Power System Analysis and Design’
Brooks/Cole, California (2002)
[33] (Anderson, P., 1973), ‘Analysis of Faulted Power Systems’ Iowa State University
Press/AMES, USA (1973)
[34] (Phung, T., 2006) ‘Elec 9226 Lecture Notes – Electrical Supply Systems’ Sydney (2007)

[35] (Phung, T., 2006) ‘Elec 9226 Lecture Notes – Fault Calculation Methods’ Sydney
(2007)

[36] (Phung, T., 2006) ‘Elec 4205 Lecture Notes – Overcurrent and Overvoltage Events’
Sydney (2007)

[37] (ETAP, 2007), ‘ETAP Enterprise Solution for Electrical Power Systems’ [online] demo
available: <http://www.etap.com/demo.htm/>

[38] (Carey, W., 2006) ‘A hand book to Accompany the Short Circuit Calculation Program
From MSHA’s Approval and Certification Center’, viewed May 2008.

[39](Arcadvisor, 2008) ‘Short Circuit Calculation Data’ Arcadvisor Canada Ltd viewed April
2008, [online] available: < http://www.arcadvisor.com/reference.html/>
9. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Toan Phung whose supervision and courses taught on Electrical
Energy Systems and Services to Buildings provided valuable insight into how power is
understood and manipulated by the Electrical engineer and aided in understanding the context
of this thesis project.

I Jheeno Olidar would like to thank my other half E.Y.W. Bei whose sanity and logic aided
in bringing me back down to earth. I love you darling. Finally I would like to thank my
family and parents who’s guidance would only equate to the completion of my studious
career and the beginning of the rest of my life. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

I Edwin Mursidi would like to specially thank you to all my colleagues friends in school of
electrical engineering for proving reference and valuable advises in completing this thesis. I
also thank my parents who are always giving support and encouragement all this time.
10. Appendix - Index
1. IEEE Extracts
2. Matlab Figures and Codes
3. CYME Variables, Data, Graphs and Main Plots and Figures for Experiment 2
(Chapter 6.2)
Appendix – 1 – IEEE Extracts Index
Appendix 1.1 Std 142-1991 p177
Table – Earth Electrode Resistance to Earth Formulas (ref 5, p177)
Appendix – 2 – Matlab Figures and Codes Index
Appendix 2.1.1 Varying Length and Radius. Matlab Code
Resistance to Earth of a Cylindrical Rod with varying length and radius’

L=50:1:500;
a1=1;a2=6;a3=7.5;a4=8;a5=15;a6=18;a7=21;a8=25;a9=28;a10=31;a11=100;
res=20000; <-//”Value changed from 200 to 2000 to 20000 ohm-centimetres”//
R1=res./(2*pi*L).*(log(4*L/a1)-1);
R2=res./(2*pi*L).*(log(4*L/a2)-1);
R3=res./(2*pi*L).*(log(4*L/a3)-1);
R4=res./(2*pi*L).*(log(4*L/a4)-1);
R5=res./(2*pi*L).*(log(4*L/a5)-1);
R6=res./(2*pi*L).*(log(4*L/a6)-1);
R7=res./(2*pi*L).*(log(4*L/a7)-1);
R8=res./(2*pi*L).*(log(4*L/a8)-1);
R9=res./(2*pi*L).*(log(4*L/a9)-1);
R10=res./(2*pi*L).*(log(4*L/a10)-1);
R11=res./(2*pi*L).*(log(4*L/a11)-1);
plot(L,R1,L,R2,L,R3,L,R4,L,R5,L,R6,L,R7,L,R8,L,R9,L,R10,L,R11)
legend('radius = 3cm','radius = 6cm','radius = 9cm','radius = 12cm','radius = 15cm','radius =
18cm','radius = 21cm','radius = 25cm','radius = 28cm','radius = 31cm','radius = 100cm')
title('Resistance vs Length of cylindrical rods of varying radius and length (cm),
Resistivity=200ohm-metres')
ylabel('Rod Resistance to Earth (ohm)')
xlabel('Length (cm)')
Appendix 2.1.2 Varying Length and radius.
Resistivity = 2ohm-metres
Appendix 2.1.3 Varying Length and radius.
Resistivity = 20ohm-metres
Appendix 2.1.4 Varying Length and radius.
Resistivity = 200ohm-metres
Appendix 2.2.1 Rod spacing and configuration
Resistance to Earth of cylindrical rods and spacing behavior. Matlab code

%Earth Resistance of one Rod

%Length (cm)
L=180
%Rod radius (cm)
rad=7.5;
%Soil resisitivity
res=20000; <-//”Value changed from 200 to 2000 to 20000 ohm-centimetres”//
R1=res/(2*pi*L)*(log(4*L/rad)-1);
%Reference Resistance
rref=R1;
%Rod spacing (cm) [1,200]
s=0.5:0.5:40;
%Equivalent Resistance for two rods
Req1=rref/2*(1+rad./s);
%Equivalent Resistance for three rods arranged in a line
Req2=rref/3*(1+2*rad./s);
%Equivalent Resistance of three rods spaced in a triangular manner
den=(6*s-(7*rad))./(6*s);
num=((2*s.^2)+(rad*s)-(4*rad^2))./(2*s.^2);
Req3=(rref/3)*(num./den);
plot(s,Req1,s,Req2,s,Req3);
legend('Two rods radius 7.5mm length 1.8m','Three rods Equilateral Triangle radius 7.5mm
length 1.8m','Three rods Linear radius 7.5mm length 1.8m')
ylabel('Equivalent Resistance (Ohm)')
xlabel('Rod Spacing (cm)')
title('Equivalent Resistance vs Spacing (m), Resistivity = 200 ohm-m')
Appendix 2.2.2 Rod spacing and configuration
Soil resistivity = 2ohm-metres
Appendix 2.2.3 Rod spacing and configuration
When Soil resistivity = 20ohm-metres
Appendix 2.2.4 Rod spacing and configuration
When Soil resistivity = 200ohm-metres
Appendix 2.2.5 Equivalent Resistance from spaced electrodes

(Extract from ref. 12 p45 )

Whereby
Req = Equivalent resistance
R = Resistance of one electrode
s = spacing of electrode (centimetres)
r = rod radius (centimetres)
Appendix – 3 – CYME Variables, Data and Graphs -
Index
Appendix 3.1.1 – General Variables and (x,y,z) data of rods and conductors.

Tm
Conductor Copper anneal soft-drawn Conductivity (%) (°C) Nominal Size
Conductivity Alpha Factor (1/C°) 100 1083 7.0069 2/0AWG
100 0.00393 Pr (µohm-m) TCAP (J/cm3-°C) Tm
1.72 3.42 1083
Tm
Rod Copper-clad steel Conductivity Alpha Factor (1/C°) Conductivity (%) (°C) Kf Nominal Size
20 0.00378 20 1084 14.629 3/8"
Pr (µohm-m) TCAP (J/cm3-°C) Tm
8.62 3.85 1084

Earth Grid Symmetrical Conductors

Elements per Elements per
X1 X2 Grid Conductors Conductor parallel Grid Conductors Conductor parallel Depth Diameter
(m) Y1 (m) (m) Y2 (m) parallel to X to X parallel to Y to Y (m) (mm)
Power Station
0 -2000 60 -1940 7 14 7 14 0.5 14.273
15 -1989 45 -1981 3 4 2 4 0.5 14.273
12 -1975 48 -1955 3 10 4 18 0.5 14.273
Switchyard 1 closest to Power Station. Location of Bus 1 & Bus 2
0 -1000 50 -940 7 14 6 12 0.5 14.273
7.5 -957.5 42.5 -952.5 3 6 7 14 0.5 14.273
12.25 -987.75 37.75 -962.75 9 18 9 18 0.5 14.273
Switchyard 2 closest to Load/Motor. Location of Bus 3 & Bus 4
0 8500 50 8560 7 14 6 12 0.5 14.273
7.5 8542.5 42.5 8547.5 3 6 7 14 0.5 14.273
12.25 8512.25 37.75 8537.25 9 18 9 18 0.5 14.273
Load / Motor
0 9500 40 9540 5 10 5 10 0.5 14.273
7.5 9507.5 32.5 9522.5 6 14 9 18 0.5 14.273
9 9525 31 9535 5 10 8 16 0.5 14.273
Earth Grid Asymmetrical Conductors
X1 Y1 Z1 X2 Y2 Z2 Number of Conductor Diameter
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) elements (mm)
Power Station
10 -1990 0.5 10 -1990 4.2 2 14.273
30 -1990 0.5 30 -1990 4.2 2 14.273
50 -1990 0.5 50 -1990 4.2 2 14.273
20 -1980 0.5 20 -1980 4.2 2 14.273
40 -1980 0.5 40 -1980 4.2 2 14.273
10 -1970 0.5 10 -1970 4.2 2 14.273
30 -1970 0.5 30 -1970 4.2 2 14.273
50 -1970 0.5 50 -1970 4.2 2 14.273
20 -1960 0.5 20 -1960 4.2 2 14.273
40 -1960 0.5 40 -1960 4.2 2 14.273
10 -1950 0.5 10 -1950 4.2 2 14.273
30 -1950 0.5 30 -1950 4.2 2 14.273
50 -1950 0.5 50 -1950 4.2 2 14.273
Substation 1 closest to Power Station. Location of Bus 1 & Bus 2
10 -990 0.5 10 -990 4.2 2 14.273
40 -990 0.5 40 -990 4.2 2 14.273
20 -980 0.5 20 -980 4.2 2 14.273
30 -980 0.5 30 -980 4.2 2 14.273
10 -970 0.5 10 -970 4.2 2 14.273
40 -970 0.5 40 -970 4.2 2 14.273
20 -960 0.5 20 -960 4.2 2 14.273
30 -960 0.5 30 -960 4.2 2 14.273
10 -950 0.5 10 -950 4.2 2 14.273
40 -950 0.5 40 -950 4.2 2 14.273
Substation 2 closest to Load/Motor. Location of Bus 3 & Bus 4
10 8510 0.5 10 8510 4.2 2 14.273
40 8510 0.5 40 8510 4.2 2 14.273
20 8520 0.5 20 8520 4.2 2 14.273
30 8520 0.5 30 8520 4.2 2 14.273
10 8530 0.5 10 8530 4.2 2 14.273
40 8530 0.5 40 8530 4.2 2 14.273
20 8540 0.5 20 8540 4.2 2 14.273
30 8540 0.5 30 8540 4.2 2 14.273
10 8550 0.5 10 8550 4.2 2 14.273
40 8550 0.5 40 8550 4.2 2 14.273
Load / Motor
10 9510 0.5 10 9510 4.1 1 14.273
30 9510 0.5 30 9510 4.1 1 14.273
20 9520 0.5 20 9520 4.1 1 14.273
10 9530 0.5 10 9530 4.1 1 14.273
30 9530 0.5 30 9530 4.1 1 14.273
Power Station to Substation 1 Grid to Grid Conductor
0 -1940 0.5 0 -1000 0.5 1 14.273
Substation to Load/Motor Grid to Grid Conductor
0 8560 0.5 0 9500 0.5 1 14.273
Earth Electrodes
X1 Y1 Z1 X2 Y2 Z2 Length Diameter
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (mm)
Power Station
10 -1990 4 10 -1990 5.8 1.8 15
30 -1990 4 30 -1990 5.8 1.8 15
50 -1990 4 50 -1990 5.8 1.8 15
20 -1980 4 20 -1980 5.8 1.8 15
40 -1980 4 40 -1980 5.8 1.8 15
10 -1970 4 10 -1970 5.8 1.8 15
30 -1970 4 30 -1970 5.8 1.8 15
50 -1970 4 50 -1970 5.8 1.8 15
20 -1960 4 20 -1960 5.8 1.8 15
40 -1960 4 40 -1960 5.8 1.8 15
10 -1950 4 10 -1950 5.8 1.8 15
30 -1950 4 30 -1950 5.8 1.8 15
50 -1950 4 50 -1950 5.8 1.8 15
Substation 1 closest to Power Station. Location of Bus 1 & Bus 2
10 -990 4 10 -990 5.8 1.8 15
40 -990 4 40 -990 5.8 1.8 15
20 -980 4 20 -980 5.8 1.8 15
30 -980 4 30 -980 5.8 1.8 15
10 -970 4 10 -970 5.8 1.8 15
40 -970 4 40 -970 5.8 1.8 15
20 -960 4 20 -960 5.8 1.8 15
30 -960 4 30 -960 5.8 1.8 15
10 -950 4 10 -950 5.8 1.8 15
40 -950 4 10 -950 5.8 1.8 15
Substation 2 closest to Load/Motor. Location of Bus 3 & Bus 4
10 8510 4 10 8510 5.8 1.8 15
40 8510 4 40 8510 5.8 1.8 15
20 8520 4 20 8520 5.8 1.8 15
30 8520 4 30 8520 5.8 1.8 15
10 8530 4 10 8530 5.8 1.8 15
40 8530 4 40 8530 5.8 1.8 15
20 8540 4 20 8540 5.8 1.8 15
30 8540 4 30 8540 5.8 1.8 15
10 8550 4 10 8550 5.8 1.8 15
40 8550 4 10 8550 5.8 1.8 15
Load / Motor
10 9510 4 10 9510 5.8 1.8 15
30 9510 4 30 9510 5.8 1.8 15
20 9520 4 20 9520 5.8 1.8 15
10 9530 4 10 9530 5.8 1.8 15
30 9530 4 30 9530 5.8 1.8 15
Appendix 3.1.2 – Network 3-d Grid Diagrams.

Power Station
Substation ( Both at the Power station and Switchyard end)
Load / Motor
Network

Earth Grid connecting

Conductor

Earth Grid connecting

Conductor
Appendix 3.2.0 – Experiment Summary Data

Parameters
Upper Layer
Title Earthing for Distribution Systems Thickness 100 meters
Upper Layer
Soil Model Uniform Resistivity 100 ohm-m
IEEE Std. 80- Lower Layer
Safety Model 2000 Resistivity 100 ohm-m
Shock
Surface Layer Thickness 0.2 meters Duration 0.5 secs
Surface Layer Resistivity 2500 ohm-m Body Weight 50 kg
Output Results
Study 1A 1B 2 3 4A 4B 5
Maximum Permissible Touch 711.44 volts 711.44 volts 711.44 volts 711.44 volts 711.44 volts 711.44 volts 711.44 volts
Maximum Permissible Step 2353.6 volts 2353.6 volts 2353.6 volts 2353.6 volts 2353.6 volts 2353.6 volts 2353.6 volts
Reduction Factor Cs 0.889796 0.889796 0.889796 0.889796 0.889796 0.889796 0.889796
Buses (For L-G Fault)
LG Fault Remote
Current Contribution Rtg Transmission Rdg Distribution
Study Bus ID (amps) (%) LG X/R (ohms) Lines (ohms) Feeders
1A Bus11kV 969 92.3 0.012827 100 1 45 2
Bus132kV 81 7.7 64.54892 100 1 45 2
1B Bus11kV 21469 92.28 0.0215 100 1 45 2
Bus132kV 3383 7.72 0.00891 100 1 45 2
2 Bus11kV 85034 92.28 0.0108 100 1 45 2
Bus132kV 7108 64.548902 0.00891 100 1 45 2
3 Bus11kV 85034 92.14 78.594093 100 1 45 2
Bus132kV 7108 7.86 64.54892 100 1 45 2
4A Bus132kVPS 5637 84 53.458244 100 1 45 2
Bus132kVMT 1073 16 94.185157 100 1 45 2
4B Bus132kVPS 5256 81.48 56.066398 100 1 45 2
Bus132kVMT 1194 18.52 95.604396 100 1 45 2
5 Bus132kVMT 7049 10.23 63.259669 100 1 45 2
Bus11kV 61835 89.77 63.753582 100 1 45 2
Fault Occurrence Details
Study 1A 1B 2 3 4A 4B 5
Ground Potential Rise 220.397 volts 4882.15 volts 19336.5 volts 23575.7 volts 2333.01 volts 2122.82 volts 16201.8 volts
Calculated Ground Resistance 0.246418 ohms 0.246418 ohms 0.246418 ohms 0.246418 ohms 0.425753 ohms 0.425753 ohms 0.246429 ohms
Equivalent Impedance 0.246412 ohms 0.246412 ohms 0.246412 ohms 0.246412 ohms 0.425735 ohms 0.425735 ohms 0.246423 ohms
Appendix 3.2.1 – Experiment 1a

XYZ Co-ordinates In Study

X1 -10 meters
Y1 -1050 meters
X2 60 meters
Y2 -890 meters

Surface Potential Touch potential

Potential Thresholds
Maximum Permissible
Ground Potential Rise 220.397 volts Touch 711.44 volts
0% 0 0% 0
25% 55.0992 33.33% 237.147
50% 110.198 66.67% 474.293
75% 165.298 100% 711.44
100% 220.397 133.33% 948.587
Minimum Potentials
Surface Potential At Point(s) 65.821 volts Touch Potential At Point(s) 154.576 volts
X (meters) 60
Y (meters) -890
Potential profile Long
report Short
Study Test1a

Parameters
Bus ID Bus11kV
LG Fault Current 969 amps
Remote Contribution 92.30%
Return Electrode Current 0 amps
Upper Layer Thickness 100 meters
Upper Layer Resistivity 100 ohm-m
Lower Layer Resistivity 100 ohm-m
Equal Potentials
(Distinct) Yes

X1 2 meters 2 meters
-1025
Y1 meters -700 meters
X2 2 meters 2 meters
-1900
Y2 -910 meters meters

Step Interval 1 meters 2.4 meters

Potential Thresholds
220.397 220.397
Ground Potential Rise volts volts
Maximum Permissible 2353.6 2353.6
Step volts volts
Maximum Permissible 711.44 711.44
Touch volts volts

Maximum Potentials
204.55
Surface Potentials 205 volts volts
Step Potentials 18.59 volts 36.61 volts
135.367 191.437
Touch Potentials volts volts
Appendix 3.3.1 – Experiment 1b

XYZ Co-ordinates In Study

X1 -10 meters
Y1 -1050 meters
X2 60 meters
Y2 -890 meters

Surface Potential Touch potential

Potential Thresholds
Maximum Permissible
Ground Potential Rise 4882.15 volts Touch 711.44 volts
0% 0 0% 0
25% 1220.54 33.33% 237.147
50% 2441.07 66.67% 474.293
75% 3661.61 100% 711.44
100% 4882.15 133.33% 948.587
Minimum Potentials
Surface Potential At Point(s) 1457.99 volts Touch Potential At Point(s) 3424.15 volts
X (meters) 60
Y (meters) -890
Potential profile
report Short Long
Study Test1b

Parameters
Bus ID Bus11kV
LG Fault Current 969 amps
Remote Contribution 92.30%
Return Electrode
Current 0 amps
Upper Layer
Thickness 100 meters
Upper Layer
Resistivity 100 ohm-m
Lower Layer
Resistivity 100 ohm-m
Equal Potentials
(Distinct) Yes

X1 2 meters 2 meters
Y1 -1025 meters -700 meters
X2 2 meters 2 meters
Y2 -910 meters -1900 meters

Step Interval 1 meters 2.4 meters

Potential Thresholds
Ground Potential Rise 4882.15 volts 4882.15 volts
Maximum Permissible
Step 2353.6 volts 2353.6 volts

Maximum Permissible
Touch 711.44 volts 711.44 volts

Maximum Potentials
Surface Potentials 4540.85 volts 4531.09 volts
Step Potentials 411.66 volts 810.88 volts
Touch Potentials 2998.63 volts 4240.74 volts
Appendix 3.4.1 – Experiment 2

XYZ Co-ordinates In Study

X1 -10 meters
Y1 -1010 meters
X2 60 meters
Y2 -930 meters

Surface Potential Touch potential

Potential Thresholds
Maximum Permissible
Ground Potential Rise 19336.5 volts Touch 711.44 volts
0% 0 0% 0
25% 4834.11 33.33% 237.147
50% 9668.23 66.67% 474.293
75% 14502.3 100% 711.44
100% 19336.5 133.33% 948.587
Minimum Potentials
Surface Potential At Point(s) 8874.64 volts Touch Potential At Point(s) 10461.8 volts
X (meters) 60
Y (meters) -930
Parameters
Bus ID Bus11kV
85034
LG Fault Current amps
Remote Contribution 92.28%
Return Electrode
Current 0 amps
100
Upper Layer Thickness meters
100 ohm-
Upper Layer Resistivity m
100 ohm-
Lower Layer Resistivity m
X1 2 meters 2 meters
-1025 -700
Y1 meters meters
X2 2 meters 2 meters
-910 -1900
Y2 meters meters
Step Interval 1 meters 2.4 meters

Potential Thresholds
19336.5 19336.5
Ground Potential Rise volts volts
Maximum Permissible 2353.6 2353.6
Step volts volts

Maximum Permissible 711.44 711.44

Touch volts volts
Maximum Potentials
17985.3 17946.7
Surface Potentials volts volts
1630.51 3211.72
Step Potentials volts volts
11876.2 16796
Touch Potentials volts volts
Appendix 3.5.1 – Experiment 3

XYZ Co-ordinates In Study

X1 -10 meters
Y1 -1015 meters
X2 60 meters
Y2 -925 meters

Surface Potential Touch potential

Potential Thresholds
Maximum Permissible
Ground Potential Rise 23575.7 volts Touch 711.44 volts
0% 0 0% 0
25% 5893.92 33.33% 237.147
50% 11787.8 66.67% 474.293
75% 17681.8 100% 711.44
100% 23575.7 133.33% 948.587
Minimum Potentials
Surface Potential At Point(s) 8279.4 volts Touch Potential At Point(s) 15296.3 volts
X (meters) 60
Y (meters) -925
 Long
Potential profile
report Short
Study Test 3
Parameters
Bus ID Bus11kV
85034
LG Fault Current amps
Remote Contribution 92.14%
Return Electrode
Current 0 amps
100
Upper Layer Thickness meters
100 ohm-
Upper Layer Resistivity m
100 ohm-
Lower Layer Resistivity m
X1 2 meters 2 meters
-1025 -700
Y1 meters meters
X2 2 meters 2 meters
-910 -1900
Y2 meters meters
Step Interval 1 meters 2.4 meters
Potential Thresholds
23575.7 23575.7
Ground Potential Rise volts volts
Maximum Permissible 2353.6 2353.6
Step volts volts

Maximum Permissible 711.44 711.44

Touch volts volts
Maximum Potentials
17958 17919.4
Surface Potentials volts volts
1628.04 3206.86
Step Potentials volts volts
16126.8 21039
Touch Potentials volts volts
Appendix 3.6.1 – Experiment 4a

XYZ Co-ordinates In Study

X1 -10 meters
Y1 -1010 meters
X2 60 meters
Y2 -930 meters

Surface Potential Touch potential

Potential Thresholds
Maximum Permissible
Ground Potential Rise 2333.01 volts Touch 711.44 volts
0% 0 0% 0
25% 583.253 33.33% 237.147
50% 1166.51 66.67% 474.293
75% 1749.76 100% 711.44
100% 2333.01 133.33% 948.587
Minimum Potentials
Surface Potential At Point(s) 788.013 volts Touch Potential At Point(s) 1545 volts
X (meters) 60 -10
Y (meters) -1010 -1010
XYZ Co-ordinates In Study
X1 -10 meters
Y1 8490 meters
X2 60 meters
Y2 8570 meters

Surface Potential Touch potential

Potential Thresholds
Maximum Permissible
Ground Potential Rise 2333.01 volts Touch 711.44 volts
0% 0 0% 0
25% 583.253 33.33% 237.147
50% 1166.51 66.67% 474.293
75% 1749.76 100% 711.44
100% 2333.01 133.33% 948.587
Minimum Potentials
Surface Potential At Point(s) 787.893 volts Touch Potential At Point(s) 1545.12 volts
X (meters) 60 -10
Y (meters) 8490 -1010
Potential profile
report PS Subs Mot Subs PS TO MOT
Study Test 4a
Parameters
Bus ID Bus132kVPS
LG Fault Current 5637 amps
Remote Contribution 84%
Return Electrode
Current 0 amps
Upper Layer Thickness 100 meters
Upper Layer Resistivity 100 ohm-m
Lower Layer Resistivity 100 ohm-m
X1 2 meters 2 meters 2 meters
Y1 -920 meters 8580 meters -1100 meters
X2 2 meters 2 meters 2 meters
Y2 -1020 meters 8480 meters 8550 meters
Step Interval 1 meters 1 meters 19.3 meters
Potential
Thresholds
Ground Potential Rise 2333.01 volts 2333.01 volts 2333.01 volts
Maximum Permissible
Step 2353.6 volts 2353.6 volts 2353.6 volts

Maximum Permissible
Touch 711.44 volts 711.44 volts 711.44 volts
Maximum Potentials
Surface Potentials 1845.25 volts 1845.22 volts 1821.35 volts
Step Potentials 193.71 volts 193.73 volts 729.57 volts
Touch Potentials 1579.73 volts 1579.79 volts 2317.15 volts
Appendix 3.7.1 – Experiment 4b

XYZ Co-ordinates In Study

X1 -10 meters
Y1 -1020 meters
X2 60 meters
Y2 -920 meters

Surface Potential Touch potential

Potential Thresholds
Maximum Permissible
Ground Potential Rise 2122.82 volts Touch 711.44 volts
0% 0 0% 0
25% 530.706 33.33% 237.147
50% 1061.41 66.67% 474.293
75% 1592.12 100% 711.44
100% 2122.82 133.33% 948.587
Minimum Potentials
Surface Potential At Point(s) 602.806 volts Touch Potential At Point(s) 1545.12 volts
X (meters) 60 -10
Y (meters) -1020 -1020
XYZ Co-ordinates In Study
X1 -10 meters
Y1 8480 meters
X2 60 meters
Y2 8580 meters

Surface Potential Touch potential

Potential Thresholds
Maximum Permissible
Ground Potential Rise 2122.82 volts Touch 711.44 volts
0% 0 0% 0
25% 530.706 33.33% 237.147
50% 1061.41 66.67% 474.293
75% 1592.12 100% 711.44
100% 2122.82 133.33% 948.587
Minimum Potentials
Surface Potential At Point(s) 602.718 volts Touch Potential At Point(s) 1520.1 volts
X (meters) 60
Y (meters) 8480
Potential profile
report PS Subs Mot Subs PS TO MOT
Study Test 4a
Parameters
Bus ID Bus132kVPS
LG Fault Current 5256 amps
Remote Contribution 81.48%
Return Electrode
Current 0 amps
Upper Layer Thickness 100 meters
Upper Layer Resistivity 100 ohm-m
Lower Layer Resistivity 100 ohm-m
X1 2 meters 2 meters 2 meters
Y1 -920 meters 8480 meters -1020 meters
X2 2 meters 2 meters 2 meters
Y2 -1020 meters 7580 meters 8580 meters
Step Interval 1 meters 1.8 meters 19.2 meters
Potential
Thresholds
Ground Potential Rise 2122.82 volts 2122.82 volts 2122.82 volts
Maximum Permissible
Step 2353.6 volts 2353.6 volts 2353.6 volts

Maximum Permissible
Touch 711.44 volts 711.44 volts 711.44 volts
Maximum Potentials
Surface Potentials 1668.91 volts 681.24 volts 1574.27 volts
Step Potentials 175.2 volts 24.05 volts 892.5 volts
Touch Potentials 1441.53 volts 2082.97 volts 2108.47 volts
Appendix 3.8.1 – Experiment 5

XYZ Co-ordinates In Study

X1 -10 meters -10 meters
Y1 8480 meters 8480 meters
X2 60 meters 60 meters
Y2 8600 meters 8600 meters

Surface Potential Touch potential

Potential Thresholds
Maximum Permissible
Ground Potential Rise 16201.8 volts Touch 711.44 volts
0% 0 0% 0
25% 4050.46 33.33% 237.147
50% 8100.92 66.67% 474.293
75% 12151.4 100% 711.44
100% 16201.8 133.33% 948.587
Minimum Potentials 5502.37 volts
Surface Potential At Point(s) 5502.37 volts Touch Potential At Point(s) 10699.5 volts
X (meters) 60
Y (meters) 8480
Potential profile
report MOT subs MOT to SUB
Study Test 2
Parameters
Bus ID Bus11kV
LG Fault Current 61835 amps
Remote Contribution 89.77%
Return Electrode
Current 0 amps
Upper Layer Thickness 100 meters
Upper Layer Resistivity 100 ohm-m
Lower Layer Resistivity 100 ohm-m
X1 2 meters 2 meters
Y1 8580 meters 8480 meters
X2 2 meters 2 meters
Y2 8480 meters 9515 meters
Step Interval 1 meters 2.07 meters
Potential Thresholds
Ground Potential Rise 16201.8 volts 16201.8 volts
Maximum Permissible
Step 2353.6 volts 2353.6 volts

Maximum Permissible
Touch 711.44 volts 711.44 volts
Maximum Potentials
Surface Potentials 12748.5 volts 12747.9 volts
Step Potentials 1155.12 volts 1270.72 volts
Touch Potentials 10128.7 volts 13015 volts
151
152
Data for the experiment

Generator

Rating

S = 100 MVA pf = 0.85 efficiency = 95% poles = 4 P = 85 MW

Impedance

X0 = 0.05pu X1 = 0.15pu X2 = 0.15

From the ANSI table A (appendix 4.1), the X/R typical ratio for 100000 kVA is 80

Transformer 1

Rating

S = 100 MVA Vprimary = 13.8 kV Vsecondary = 138kV

Impedance

X0 = 0.1pu X1 = 0.1pu

From the ANSI table B (appendix 4.2), the X/R typical ratio for 100 MVA is 37.5

Connection

Delta-Y

Cable

Length = 5 km No of conductor in each phase = 1 with equal spacing (1 ft)

Total impedance

X0 = 50 ohm X1 = X2 = 20 ohm

Cable temperature

Base = 75 Min = 75 Max = 75

153
Transformer 2

Rating

S = 100 MVA Vprimary = 138 kV Vsecondary = 13.8kV

Impedance

X0 = 0.1pu X1 = 0.1pu

From the ANSI table b, the X/R typical ratio for 100 MVA is 37.5

Connection

Y-delta

Synchronous motor

Nameplate

P = 120000 HP Voltage = 13.8 kV S = 100 MVA SF = 1

Impedance

X0 = 10 X1 = X2 = 0.2

From the ANSI table a, the X/R typical ratio for 100000 kVA synchronous motor is 80

Results and Discussion

First Case: Solid earthed in each component

All components in the distribution system is solidly earthed (generator, wye connection in
T1, Y connection in T2 and motor).

154
Short circuit at bus 1

Sbase = 100 MVA Vbase1 = 13.8 kV Vbase2= 138 kV

At 13.8 kV line

Sbase1 = Vbase1 X Ibase1 Sbase = Vbase1 X Ibase1

= Vbase12/Zbase1 Ibase1 = 100000000/(13800 X √3)

Zbase1 = 138002/100000000 = 4.18 kA

= 1.9044 ohm

1.05  13800
Calculating the peak current with Vrms = Volt = 2958 V
3 2  2

At the line or 13800 kV line

Sbase2 = Vbase2 X Ibase2 Z0linebasepu = Z0lineohm/Zbase2

= Vbase22/Zbase2 = 60/190.44

Zbase2 = 1380002/100000000 = 0.315 pu

= 190.44 ohm

Z1linebasepu = Z1lineohm/Zbase2 Z1linebasepu = Z2linebasepu

= 20/190.44

= 0.105 pu

Zero sequence equivalent circuit network

Generator T1 T2 Motor

X/R = 80 X/R = 37.5 X/R = 37.5 X/R = 80

155
R0gen = 0.000625 R0T1 = 0.0027 R0T2 = 0.0027 R0mot = 0.0013

As stated in the theory above, in delta-Y transformer, the zero sequence network provides a
path on the Y side for current to flow, but not to on the delta side.

The zero sequence impedance of a Y connected winding is a series of the zero sequence
impedance of the transformer and impedance of neutral grounding devices that might be
present

Positive sequence equivalent circuit network

Generator T1 T2 Motor

X/R = 80 X/R = 37.5 X/R = 37.5 X/R = 80

R0gen = 0.0019 R0T1 = 0.0027 R0T2 = 0.0027 R0mot = 0.0027

156
Generator and motor source voltage is only included in the positive sequence network. In
delta-Y or Y-delta connection transformer, the phase shift should also be evaluated.
However, in practice this is usually neglected by most engineers, as it is not significant

Negative sequence equivalent circuit network

Generator T1 T2 Motor

X/R = 80 X/R = 37.5 X/R = 37.5 X/R = 80

R0gen = 0.0019 R0T1 = 0.0027 R0T2 = 0.0027 R0mot = 0.0027

Negative sequence equivalent circuit network is same with positive sequence network with
exception that in this negative circuit, the voltage source is not included.

Thevenin equivalent circuit with respect to bus1

Zero sequence equivalent circuit

Due to delta connection in T2, the zero sequence networks looking at the right of bus 1 is
open. Hence, the Z0gen is the only impedance considered.

Z 0  0.00625  j 0.05

157
Positive equivalent circuit

Zs1  Z1T1  Zcable  Z1T 2  Z1mot

 0.000542  j 0.505

Z1  Zs1 // Z1gen  0.0015  j 0.1157

Negative equivalent circuit

Z1=Z2

Three phase fault

At this fault, the fault currents are balanced and only have a positive sequence component

Phase current

Vf 1.050
I1  = = -j9.074 pu I0  I2  0
Z1 (0.0015  j 0.1157)

Ia 1 1 1 I 0 9.074  90
Ib = 1 a 2 a I1 = 9.074150 pu
Ic 1 a a 2 I 2 9.07430

158
Ia 9.074  90 37.92  90
Ib = 9.074150 x Ibase1 = 37.92150 kA
Ic 9.07430 37.9230

In  Ia  Ib  Ic  0 kA

Calculating the symmetrical AC current and offsetting DC as periodic function of time

V
I (t )  2 ( Sin(t      Sin(   )e^ ( Tt ))
Z1

Phase voltage

Vo 0 Z0 0 0 I0 0
V 1 = Vf - 0 Z1 0 I1 = 0.013987.5 pu
V2 0 0 0 Z2 I2 0

Va 1 1 1 V 0 0.0139  87.5
Vb = 1 a 2 a V 1 = 0.0139327.5 pu
Vc 1 a a 2 V 2 0.0139207.5

159
Va 0.0139  87.5 191.82  87.5
Vb = 0.0139327.5 x Vbase1= 191.82327.5 V
Vc 0.0139207.5 191.82207.5

Phase to earth fault

Phase current

Ia
I 0  I1  I 2 
3
Phase current
3Vf
Ia 
Z 0  Z1  Z 2  3Zf

Phase current
3 1.050
= 0.0006  j 0.05  0.0015 j 0.1157  0.015  j 0.1157

= 11.2  90 pu

11.2  90
I0 = = 3.73   90 pu
3

Ia 1 1 1 I 0 11.19  90
Ib = 1 a 2 a I1 = 0 pu
Ic 1 a a 2 I 2 0

Ia 11.19  90 46.82  90

Ib = 0 x Ibase1 = 0 kA
Ic 0 0

In  Ia  Ib  Ic  46.82  90 kA

Calculating the symmetrical AC current and offsetting DC as periodic function of time

3Vrms
I (t )  2 ( Sin(t      Sin(   )e^ ( Tt ))
Z 0  Z1  Z 2  3Zf

160
Phase voltage

Vo 0 Z0 0 0 I 0  0.1865  0.7
V 1 = Vf - 0 Z1 0 I1 = 0.6187  0.5 pu
V2 0 0 0 Z 2 I 2  0.4314  0.7

Va 1 1 1 V 0 0.01906.51
Vb = 1 a 2 a V 1 = 0.9471.5 pu
Vc 1 a a 2 V 2 0.94  72.65

Va 0.01906.51 262.26.51
Vb = 0.9471.5 x Vbase1 = 1297271.5 V
Vc 0.94  72.65 12972  72.65

Phase to phase fault

Phase current

161
 I0  0
Vf
I1   I 2 
Z1  Z 2  Zf

= = 4.5392  90 pu
1.050
0.0015  j 0.1157  0.0015  j 0.1157

Ia 1 1 1 I 0 0
Ib = 1 a 2 a I1 =  7.86190 pu
Ic 1 a a 2 I 2 7.86190

Ia 0 0
Ib =  7.86190 x Ibase1 =  32.860 kA
Ic 7.86190 32.860

In  Ia  Ib  Ic  0 kA

Calculating the symmetrical AC current and offsetting DC as periodic function of time

3Vrms
I (t )  2 ( Sin(t      Sin(   )e^ ( Tt ))
Z1  Z 2  Zf

162
Phase voltage

V 0  0 pu

V 1  Vf  I1 Z1

 1.050  4.5392  90  0.115790  0.5250 pu

V 2  I 2  Z 2

 4.5392  90  (0.0015  j 0.1157)  0.5250 pu

Va 1 1 1 V 0 1.050
Vb = 1 a 2 a V 1 =  0.5250 pu
Vc 1 a a 2 V 2  0.5250

Va 1.050 144900
Vb =  0.5250 x Vbase1 =  72450 V
Vc  0.5250  72450

Phase to phase to earth fault

Phase current

Vf
I1 
Z1  ( Z1 //( Z 0  3Zf ))

163
 1.050
= = 6.9735   90 pu
0.0015  j 0.1157(0.0006  j 0.05)
0.0015  j 0.1157  ( )
0.0015  j 0.1157  0.0006  j 0.05

Z 0  3Zf
I 2   I1( ) = -4.8686   90 pu
Z 0  3Zf  Z 2

Z2
I 0   I1( ) = -2.1049   90 pu
Z 0  3Zf  Z 2

Ia 1 1 1 I 0 0.0006  90
Ib = 1 a 2 a I1 = 10.68  17 pu
Ic 1 a a 2 I 2 10.6817

Ia 0.0006  90 0.0025  90

Ib = 10.68  17 x Ibase1 = 44.624  17 kA
Ic 10.6817 44.62417

In  Ia  Ib  Ic  85.340

Calculating the symmetrical AC current and offsetting DC as periodic function of time

Vrms
I (t )  2 ( Sin(t      Sin(   )e^ ( Tt ))
Z1  ( Z1 //(Z 0  3Zf ))

164
Phase voltage

Vo 0 Z0 0 0 I0  0.10
V 1 = Vf - 0 Z1 0 I1 = 0.2440 pu
V2 0 0 0 Z 2 I 2  0.5630

Va 1 1 1 V 0  0.3920
Vb = 1 a 2 a V 1 = 0.7  85 pu
Vc 1 a a 2 V 2 0.785

Va  0.3920  54100
Vb = 0.7  85 x Vbase1 = 9660  85 V
Vc 0.785 966085

Conductor sizing

At the fault point the X/R ratio is

0.05  0.1157  0.1157

X /R  78.2
0.0006  0.0015  0.0015

L X
Ta  = tf = 0.5 s
R R 
Ta (1  e^ ( Ta
2 tf
))
78.2 Df  1   1.2163
= = 0.2437s tf
2 50

The symmetrical earth fault current is used as If (phase to earth fault symmetrical current)
IF  Df  If

= 1.2163  46.82 = 57 kA

165
 From table, assuming the use of copper wire with conductivity of 100% and melting point
1084 ۫C, the Kf = 7

Akcmil  IF  Kf tc

 57 7 0.5 = 282.9 kcmil= 142.95 = 143 mm2

Result from the ETAP experiment

All components solidly earthed

I 3 phase fault I L-G fault I L-L I L-L-G

short
circuit I Irms
location Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) rms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) (kA) Ipeak(kA)

bus1 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51

bus2 2.81 7.78 3.35 9.27 2.44 6.73 3.21 8.86

bus3 2.68 7.41 3.22 8.92 2.32 6.42 3.09 8.54

bus4 31.25 86.66 34.44 95.52 27.06 5.05 33.28 92.29

Considering the fault current that happen in the bus, the worst case is happened in bus1
because of highest earth fault current to flow. Thus, different method of earthing is performed
with the respect of bus1 to figure out or to reduce the damaging fault current

Because of the nature of T1 and T2 which has delta connection in the primary and Y in the
secondary connection, any change in the earthing (the method of earthing) in T1, T2 and
synchronous motor is not affect the fault current value in bus1.

Second case: Unearthed system in generator neutral point

Zero sequence equivalent circuit network

166
As there is no connection between generator and the earth hence, the neutral point of
generator is considered as open circuit.

Positive and negative sequence equivalent circuit network is same with the positive and
negative equivalent circuit network in solid earthed case (first case).

Thevenin equivalent circuit with respect to bus1

Zero sequence equivalent circuit

Z0 is open circuit hence it can be considered as infinite

Positive and Negative equivalent circuit

Z1  0.0015  j 0.1157 Z 2  0.0015  j 0.1157

Three phase fault

Phase current and phase voltage is exactly same with the phase voltage and current from the
first case as at this type of fault Z0 is not involved

Phase to earth fault

I 0  I1  I 2  0
Phase current

167
 Ia 1 1 1 I 0 0 0
Ib = 1 a 2 a I1 = 0 pu = 0
Ic 1 a a 2 I 2 0 0

Phase voltage

When one phase get fault, the voltage across remaining in two distributed capacitor to earth
will increase from line to neutral to line to line. Thus, voltage in other two phases increase by
the root of 3.

Va 0
Vb = 23874 V
Vc 23874

Phase to phase fault

Phase current and phase voltage is exactly same with the phase voltage and current from the
first case as at this type of fault Z0 is not involved

Phase to phase to earth fault

Phase current

Vf
I1 
Z1  Z 2

1.050
=
0.0015  j 0.1157  0.0015  j 0.1157

= 4.54   90 pu

168
 Z2
I 0   I1( )  0 pu
I 2   I1 Z 0  3Zf  Z 2

Ia 1 1 1 I 0 0
Ib = 1 a 2 a I1 =  7.860 pu
Ic 1 a a 2 I 2 7.860

Ia 0 0
Ib =  7.86190 x Ibase1 =  32.860 kA
Ic 7.86190 32.860

Phase voltage

V 0  0 pu

V 1  Vf  I1 Z1

 1.050  4.5392  90  0.115790  0.5250 pu

V 2   I 2  Z 2  4.5392  90  (0.0015  j 0.1157)  0.5250 pu

Va 1 1 1 V 0 1.050
Vb = 1 a 2 a V 1 =  0.5250 pu
Vc 1 a a 2 V 2  0.5250

Va 1.050 144900
Vb =  0.5250 x Vbase1 =  72450 V
Vc  0.5250  72450

Third case: Low resistance earthing system

In the case of low resistance earthing, fault current is limited to 100-1000A. While for high
resistance earthing, the fault current is limited to 10A.

The calculation below shows high resistance earthing.

169
 Zero sequence equivalent circuit network

Add resistor in the generator neutral point

Positive and negative sequence equivalent circuit network is same with the positive and
negative equivalent circuit network in solid earthed case (first case).

Thevenin equivalent circuit with respect to bus1

Zero sequence equivalent circuit

Vl  n 13800
Z 0^2  R0^2  X 0^2
Z0  3 3  796.75

If 10 R0  796.75^2  0.09522^2

R0  796.75
For 3 phase

R0  796.75 3  2390.25

Hence,
2390.25
Z0   j 0.05
1.9044
Z 0  1255.1  j 0.05

Positive and Negative equivalent circuit

Z1  0.0015  j 0.1157

170
 Z 2  0.0015  j 0.1157

Three phase fault

Phase current and phase voltage is exactly same with the phase voltage and current from the
first case as at this type of fault Z0 is not involved

Phase to earth fault

Phase current
Ia
I 0  I1  I 2 
3

3Vf
Ia 
Z 0  Z1  Z 2  3Zf
= 3.150
1255.003  j 0.2813

= 0.0025   90 pu

0.0025  90
I0 = = 0.0008333   90 pu
3

Ia 1 1 1 I 0 0.0025  90
Ib = 1 a 2 a I1 = 0 pu
Ic 1 a a 2 I 2 0

Ia 0.0025  90 0.010  90

Ib = 0 x Ibase1 = 0 kA
Ic 0 0

Phase voltage

171
Vo 0 Z0 0 0 I 0  1.05  90
V 1 = Vf - 0 Z1 0 I1 = 1.050 pu
V2 0 0 0 Z2 I2 0

Va 1 1 1 V 0 1.0545
Vb = 1 a 2 a V 1 = 0.3  15 pu
Vc 1 a a 2 V 2 0.315

Va 1.0545 1449045
Vb = 0.3  15 x Vbase1 = 4140  15 V
Vc 0.315 414015

Phase to phase fault

Phase current and phase voltage is exactly same with the phase voltage and current from the
first case as at this type of fault Z0 is not involved

Phase to phase to earth fault

Phase current

Vf
I1 
Z1  ( Z1 //( Z 0  3Zf ))

= 1.050
(0.0015  j 0.1157)(1255  j 0.05)
0.0015  j 0.1157  ( )
0.0015  j 0.1157  1255  j 0.05

172
 = 4.56   90 pu
Z2
I 0   I1( )
Z 0  3Zf Z 0  3Zf  Z 2
I 2   I1( ) = 0 pu
Z 0  3Zf  Z 2

= -4.56   90 pu

Ia 1 1 1 I 0 0
Ib = 1 a 2 a I1 =  7.90 pu
Ic 1 a a 2 I 2 7.90

Ia 0 0
Ib =  7.90 x Ibase1 = 33.0220 kA
Ic 7.90 33.0220

Phase voltage

Vo 0 Z0 0 0 I0 0
V 1 = Vf - 0 Z1 0 I1 = 0.520 pu
V2 0 0 0 Z 2 I 2 0.530

Va 1 1 1 V 0 1.050
Vb = 1 a 2 a V 1 =  0.530 pu
Vc 1 a a 2 V 2  0.530

Va 1.050 144900
Vb =  0.530 x Vbase1 =  73140 V
Vc  0.530  73140

Fourth case: Reactance earthing system

A reactor is placed between neutral point and earth. The ratio of X0/X1 should be bigger than
3.

173
Zero sequence equivalent circuit network

Add Xreactor in the neutral generator

The calculation below use X0/X1 ratio 3.1 to meets the minimum requirement. The X1 value
is same as it not affected by neutral impedance. From the value above the X1 is 0.1157
(Positive thevenin equivalent circuit). Hence the X0 system at the fault point is

X 0  3.1 X 1

X 0  3.1  0.1157

X 0  0.35867 Pu

The generator X0 is 0.05,

X 0reactar  0.35867 0.05  0.3087 pu

X0reactor = 0.3087 1.9044  0.59  0.6

For 1 phase,

0.3587
X0   0.12 pu
3

The allowable current to flow in the neutral point is

Vl  n
Z0  3
If

13800

If  3
= 34864   90 A
(0.0006  j 0.12)  1.9044

174
Zero sequence equivalent circuit

Z 0  R0  jX 0  0.0006  j 0.35867

Positive and Negative equivalent circuit

Z1  0.0015  j 0.1157 Z 2  0.0015  j 0.1157

Three phase fault

Phase current and phase voltage is exactly same with the phase voltage and current from the
first case as at this type of fault Z0 is not involved

Phase to earth fault

Phase current
Ia
I 0  I1  I 2 
3

3Vf
Ia 
Z 0  Z1  Z 2  3Zf
= 5.34  90 pu

5.34  90
I0 = = 1.78   90 pu
3

Ia 1 1 1 I 0 5.34  90
Ib = 1 a 2 a I1 = 0 pu
Ic 1 a a 2 I 2 0

Ia 5.34  90 22.32  90

Ib = 0 x Ibase1 = 0 kA
Ic 0 0

Phase voltage

175
Vo 0 Z0 0 0 I 0  0.6380
V 1 = Vf - 0 Z1 0 I1 = 0.8440 pu
V2 0 0 0 Z 2 I 2  0.2060

Va 1 1 1 V 0 0
Vb = 1 a 2 a V 1 = 1.1230 pu
Vc 1 a a 2 V 2 1.12  30

Va 0 0
Vb = 1.1230 x Vbase1 = 1545630 V
Vc 1.12  30 15456  30

Phase to phase fault

Phase current and phase voltage is exactly same with the phase voltage and current from the
first case as at this type of fault Z0 is not involved

Phase to phase to earth fault

Phase current

Vf
I1 
Z1  ( Z 2 //( Z 0  3Zf ))

= 1.050
(0.0015  j 0.1157)(0.0006  j 0.35867 )
0.0015  j 0.1157  ( )
0.0015  j 0.1157  0.0006  j 0.35867

176
 = 5.25   90 pu
Z2
Z 0  3Zf I 0   I1( )
I 2   I1( ) = -4   90 pu Z 0  3Zf  Z 2 = -1.281   90 pu
Z 0  3Zf  Z 2

Ia 1 1 1 I 0  0.031  90
Ib = 1 a 2 a I1 = 8.23  13.4 pu
Ic 1 a a 2 I 2 8.2313.4

Ia  0.031  90  0.13  90

Ib = 8.23  13.4 x Ibase1 = 34.4  13.4 kA
Ic 8.2313.4 34.413.4

Phase voltage

Vo 0 Z0 0 0 I 0 0.6070
V 1 = Vf - 0 Z1 0 I1 = 0.4430 pu
V2 0 0 0 Z 2 I 2 0.46280

Va 1 1 1 V 0 1.5130
Vb = 1 a 2 a V 1 = 1.0630 pu
Vc 1 a a 2 V 2 1.0630

Va 1.5130 208790
Vb = 1.0630 x Vbase1 = 146700 V
Vc 1.0630 146700

The data in the table below is taken from experimenting using ETAP software. Experiment is
only changing the earthing system in the generator, as changing the earthing system in other
components besides generator brings no change from the experiment 1 (all neutral is solidly
earthed). It can be caused by the delta connection in T2.

I 3 phase fault I L-G fault I L-L I L-L-G

short

177
 circuit
location at I Irms
bus1 Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) rms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) (kA) Ipeak(kA)

Solidly
earthed
system 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51

Unearthed
system 37.37 103.7 0 0 32.37 89.81 32.37 89.81

Low
resistance
system 37.37 103.7 0.52 1.46 32.37 89.81 32.5 90.17

High
resistance
system 37.37 103.7 0.01 0.03 32.37 89.81 32.37 89.82

Reactance
system 37.37 103.7 21.93 60.84 32.37 89.81 33.36 92.56

Table 5.1 Fault current at bus1 with changing the neutral point connection in the generator
and all other components are solidly earthed

short I 3 phase fault I L-G fault I L-L I L-L-G

circuit
location at I Irms
bus1 Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) rms(kA) Ipeak(kA) Irms(kA) Ipeak(kA) (kA) Ipeak(kA)

Solidly
earthed
system 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51

Unearthed
system 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51

Low
37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51
resistance

178
 system

High
resistance
system 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51

Reactance
system 37.37 103.7 46.07 127.83 32.37 89.81 44.15 122.51

Table 5.2 Fault current at bus1 with changing the neutral point connection in the T1,T2 an
generator and generator is solidly earthed

From the result above, we can find that the value of hand calculation is confirmed the results
from the simulation experiment conducted by using ETAP. The complete data of ETAP
experiment is provided in the appendix.

179