Anda di halaman 1dari 10

272

IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 4, No. 1, January 1989


SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS OF ELECTRICAL GRADIENTS ABOVE A GROUND GRID, PART II The Beauty o f Improper Approximations f o r an Efficient Optimization o f Progressively Spaced Grids Under a Dominant Safety Constraint.

J. G. Sverak, Senior Member, IEEE Gibbs & Hill, Inc. New York, N. Y.

KEYWORDS: grounding, optimization, grid, safety, methodology, repro-modelling, progressive, spacing, algorithm. ABSTRACT -- The dual objective o f a ground grid design optimization is to find such a pattern o f grid wires that will ensure a nearly uniform level o f safety anywhere above the grid - while using the smallest possible number o f grid wires and ground rods. The dominant constraint is that both the step and touch potentials on the ground surface must not exceed given limits o f a safely tolerable voltage. This paper presents a radically new approach t o this practical but ill-conditioned problem, integrating several artificial intelligence concepts into a goal-specific methodology for obtaining the near optimal solution. Advantages o f using the pattern recognition and repro-modelling (RM) techniques f o r performance evaluations of alternative grid designs are demonstrated with a tandem set-up o f t w o computer routines: One representing the state o f art multi-segment matrix method, and the other one based on a fast yet potentially very accurate RM algorithm, simulating the gradient field effects.
1. INTRODUCTION
Complexity i s deep i n t h e nature of things, and determining t o l e r a b l e approximation procedures and h e u r i s t i c s t h a t permit huge spaces t o be searched very s e l e c t i v e l y l i e s a t t h e h e a r t of i n t e l l i s e n c e , whether human o r a r t i f i c i a l . H . A . Simon /11/

"SGA"

OUTPUT FOR G R I D Ab

13 MODEL A 3

(9 x 9 GPJI))

Is grounding still an art? In the era o f affordable PC's and powerful mainframe computers, it nearly seems inappropriate t o ask such a question. Nontheless, the notion o f certaiil wantonness is correct: Very little was done in the area o f grid design optimization in the past, and practically no work o f consequence has been reported in the recent literature. 13-5.13-211 Undoubtedly, one fairly formidable difficulty is finding a workable formulation o f the problem itself, as practically any "routine" design o f a ground grid requires at least a limited search f o r the most economical yet safe solution when many parameters are not known or include uncertainties. Another major obstacle could be seen in the !arge amount o f computational effort, which would be required even f o r a short series o f grid design evaluations, if each step would lead t o changes in the detail definition o f a studied system. followed by a complete recalculation o f the model. Specifically, if G(x) defines some quality measure o f a system characterized by n-vector o f variables x = ( x l , ~ a ,...,xn), in the case o f a grid design this quality measure is related t o all mesh voltages and to the distribution o f surface potentials above the entire grid. That results in a composed functional y = G(H l(xl,H,(xL...,Hn(x)) (1)

0 MODEL A 4 (7 x 7 GKLD) A KODEL A 1 ( 5 x 5 GFZD) MODEL A 2 (13x13 GRID) e s t i n .

5.00

0.00

15.00

30.00

95.00

D I S T A N C E F R O M GRID C E N T E R L I N E
buried

60.00

75.

METERS

Figure 1. Main diagonal profiles o f 90 m x 90 m grids ili 0.5 m depth. (Adapted f r o m EPRI reDort EL-3099.1

where each H i (XI may also be a composed function representing a series o f often tedious operations, and the model's algorithm G attains a pyramid-like functional form. Mathematically, the problem is that o f mapping one multi-dimensional vector space into another, I. e. G(H(u)); u=F(v), v=f(x), etc.

38 IT( ?49-5 A p a p e r recormended and a p n r o v e d bv t h e IEEE Tuh5tations Conmittee OF t h e IEEE Power C n g i n e c r i n g S o c i e t v o r p r e s e n t a t i o n a t t h e


CKEE/P?S 139'3 W i n t e r ' l e e t i n g , 'Jew Y u r L , 'Jew York, I a n u a r y 31 - F e b r u a r y 5 , 1988. Y a n u s c r i p t s u b q i t t e d Septeinber 7, 1997; made a v a i l a b l e Cor p r i n t i n g J a n u a r y 13, 1988.

Most o f the present state-of-art computer programs f o r grounding analysis, utilizing the method o f moments and advanced matrix techniques f o r a detail representation o f multi-conductor systems in a two-layer soil /5,14,15,20/, perform the type o f calculations characterized by (1). Although the extent and quality o f information obtained with the use o f these complex models is superior t o that attainable by standard approximate procedures f o r designing an equally spaced grid in uniform soil /2/, the complexity o f a solution process has its price. Disadvantages include: laborious preparation o f input data, high computation costs and, eventually, difficulties in interpretation o f the model behavior /16,21/. As concluded by Meisel et al. paradoxically, the quest for increased modelling capabilities often leads t o limitations area of upon the model applicability /7,12/. In the computerized grid design analysis, t w o important facets o f engineering work have been sacrificed: (a) ease of determining the basic characteristics o f a contemplated design, and (b) ability t o refine the design inexpensively. It is the purpose o f this paper t o document that most o f these difficulties can be eliminated with the application o f scientific methods currently used in the area o f artificial intelligence, such as goal programming (GPI and repro-modelling (RM), utilizing pattern-recognition and feature extraction techniques. /6,7,10,12/ The particular RM model discussed herein exploits a relatively very simple solution structure o f the weighed linear model o f N separate parallel wires, t o accomodate all necessary evaluation needs concerning the gradient field above a ground grid, both f o r uniform and nonuniform soil conditions.

0885-8977/89/0100-0272$01.00~1989 IEEE

213
Motivation: (a) In a complex model, the primary action o f individual variables is less important than the group effect o f their combinations. Therefore, in each Hi(x), some of the acting variables can be eliminated without any ill effect; that is, the conditional entropy a i (xp* ;PI q), representing the modelling uncertainity in H i after eliminating p and retaining only q o f the original number o f x's used in the H i group, is likely t o be minimal. (b) With some o f the remaining variables temporarily fixed, it is possible t o overcome the insufficient invariancy o f the complex model and obtain a decoupled form o f (1) below, where the dimensionless variables (a,,...,at). replace the remaining sparse combinations o f individual x's: o f mesh and step potentials below but close t o the corresponding limit o f a safely tolerable voltage (OBJECTIVE 3). as defined by some appropriate standard or guide /2/. Since OBJECTIVES 1-2 and 2 - 3 are in conflict, this type of problem belongs into the class o f multi-objective optimization methods which, in contrast t o the classical single-objective optimizations, permit t o perform trade-offs Generally, the problem is: between individual objectives /7,8,9/.

G ( H l,...,Hk)

G aiHi
i=l
where
U

The scope o f Part II is therefore twofold: (1) To describe a methodology toward the development o f a fast optimization algorithm f o r a broad class o f rectangular grid designs, based on "hard" safety and "soft" performance and cost constraints. (2) To demonstrate the utility o f the RM technique, allowing t o perform the needed sparse mapping o f a problem space in a tandem set-up with the multi-segment matrix method algorithm. 2. PROBLEM ANALYSIS AND SOLUTION METHODS Given the fact that grounding is a relatively inexpensive item in comparision t o the other substation equipment costs, usual applications follow a typical fast decision process: Identify the objectives, generate oDtions, and analyze the result. Grid Upgrading Problem Consider Fig. 1, showing the curves o f a surface potential measured above three 1 : 100 models A l , A3 and A4, in an electrolytic tank, as well as the extrapolated model A2. and output o f EPRl's SGA alogrithm /14/ f o r model A4, in connection with the following hypothetical scenario: Assume that the model A1 represents an existing grid designed many years ago, and that a switchyard above the grid is being upgraded from 69 k V t o a 138 k V service, resulting in a considerable increase o f the line-to-ground fault current. Since the mesh voltages within the grid area must not exceed a given touch potential limit, set equal t o 28 % o f the ground potential rise (GPR), the surface potential curve at any point inside the grid area must not drop below a horizontal line at 72 % o f GPR. Using a simplified method (applicable only t o equally spaced grids), the designer finds that the size o f a corner mesh must be reduced from 22.5 m t o 7.5 m, which would require t o convert the existing 5 x 5 grid wire pattern o f A1 into the 13 x 13 pattern o f grid A2. At best, he can decide t o economize such a design by removing several conductors from the grid center, hoping that the combined effect of the modified wire pattern and a reduced total buried length will not appreciably alter the magnitude o f currents in the corner mesh area. The 9 x 9 wire pattern o f model A3 shows this approach, and curve 111 indicates the result o f it. Obviously, in this example, the designer's guess would have paid off, as the design remains safe. This may not always be the case, however. 1201 Nevertheless, as documented by model A4, there exists another design which is even simpler than A3, yet still meets all safety requirements. As the grid A4 indeed is a very good design*, it is o f value t o define what are the qualities which make it a nearly optimal one. Problem Definition The evolution o f grid designs in Fig. 1 illustrates that in performing the optimization of a grid design, we wish t o accomplish the following t w o goals, encompassing three separate objectives: 1. t o equalize the level o f surface potentials above the grid as much as possible (OBJECTIVE l), and 2. t o minimize the number of grid conductors (OBJECTIVE 2), while simultaneously requiring t o keep the the maximum values
*) Actually the spacing pattern o f A4 was determined with the help of RENAB, a later version o f algorithm RENA described in /3/. The near-optimal spacing pattern, from perimeter t o center, was: 7.3m. 17.3 m, and 20.4 m. For a 1: 100 scale model, these values were conveniently given as D/3, 2D/3, and D; D = 22.5 cm, without losing much in accuracy.

i s a n optimum design strategy f o r improving t h e i n i t i a l xo design t o become a n optimal one, x*; xo,x* E X , X being I.hr s e t of a l l possible designs.

ai,
P R

i=1,2, , i s some weighing functional which v l a t e s conflicting objectives


i s n-dimensional vector of design parameters p1,p2, which may be varied within A ,

.. .

....pn

i s region i n n-dimensional s p c e i n which P i s r e a l i z a b l r , i. e. t h e design is p r a c t i c a l i n terms of physical laws,

~ ( p is ) a s e t of s c a l a r performance functions of some ( o r a l l ) parameters ( p ) , p = pk, M n; constrained by t h e condition


s e t So.

The inherent difficulty o f this optimization problem stems from three causes: (1) conflicting objectives, (2) necessity t o drastically reduce the computing time f o r safety evaluations o f complex ground electrodes, and (31 the need t o provide for a certain flexibility in the selection o f a "best" design, introducing an element o f purposeful fuzziness into the definition o f design goals, t o make the process practical. For attaining a solution, most o f the cost and performance related aspects of each design need t o be treated as subdominant (soft) constraints, allowing the user t o impose his preferences in the final choice of a near-optimal design. Nontheless, in the particular case o f a grid design optimization, there exist several possibilities t o simplify the matter: (a) By narrowing the class o f grid designs considered, t o reduce the number o f design parameters which are being changed during the search f o r optimal solution, t o two; spacing o f grid conductors and the total buried length o f horizontal and vertical conductors. (b) To reduce the number o f safety constraints governing the grid wire pattern selection from t w o t o one: a safe touch voltage limit. (c) Since decisions must be made as t o how much o f one objective is t o be sacrificed f o r an improvement of the other one, t o establish a fixed hierarchy o f preference: removal o f a grid wire is always preferred, as long as the safety limit is not exceeded (not minding t o o much the unavoidable relative increase in the surface potential variations when moving from one mesh t o another). Id) By postulating that design changes are made one at a time, t o imbue what essentially is a multi-dimensional static problem with time-like properties, and in doing so, t o convert it into that of a single-dimensional allocation problem solvable by dynamic programming. (e) Use the technique o f repro-modelling (RM) f o r a rapid evaluation of the individual designs, in order t o rank their relative success in meeting the safety and performance objectives. ( f ) Utilize goal programming (GP) techniques, t o overcome the vagueness o f OBJECTIVES 1 and 2 by the priorization of"hard" (dominant) constraints over the "soft" (subdominant) ones: The dominant constraint being that both the step and touch potentials on the ground surface must not exceed given limits of a safely tolerable voltage (OBJECTIVE 3), whereas treating the roughly targetable objectives o f a cost-efficient design as subdominant ones. Because a typical utilization o f computer memory is such that it is advantageous t o carry out a large number o f one-dimensional problems, rather than just one multi-dimensional problem, measures (d), (e) and ( f ) are of considerable importance.

214
3. GRID PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ALGORITHM

g*(N)

max { g(x): A x = c

(6)

REPRO - MODELING (RM): Repro-model is a simplified "cause-and-effect'' representation o f a full mathematical model o f some complex system, that within the confines o f a particular decision making or evaluation goal can mimic the behavior o f the original model with far less demands on the computer memory and computational speed. The principal idea o f RM technique is t o define a number o f critical input-output relationships in such a way that the formulation o f a suitable RM model may be partially or completely divorced from the original problem structure, without compromising the accuracy o f a sought solution. Hence, the key to a successful implementation o f these methods is not using a lot o f algebra but rather knowing what algebra to do. Mathematically speaking, if one knows enough o f the problem topology to make a correct cut, he not only can decompose the original large problem into a hierarchy o f independent subproblems, but also eliminate those which are irrelevant to the overall solution. A good comprehesion o f the form o f an answer is the most valuable asset; here, a prior knowledge as to how certain changes in the grid geometry affect the shape and distribution o f the electrical field. For instance, in the context of a grid design optimization, it is important that all physical properties o f an energized grid which matter f o r the safety and performance evaluations, are expressable in a linear form o f AaX = C. where c represents a fixed vector o f given design parameters and constraints, x denotes the vector o f remaining unknown design parameters that are to be selected during the optimization process (decision variables), and A a is an appropriately dimensioned matrix. Since any economical aspects o f the grid design optimization problem are notwithstanding in the sense that they merely represent an added infrastructure o f the underlying c = A a x problem, the optimization in terms of OBJECTIVES 1 and 3 (safety and performance) can be defined as: ; xa E (3) max g(xl subj. %x; c

If correctly applied, this technique - which belongs into the spectrum o f pattern recognition methods - is known to yield results that are virtually indistinguishable from those o f the "true" complex model. The efficiency o f obtaining selected input-output relationships by using RMT often is most dramatic in the interactive environment. Reduced drudgery in assembling input data is another practical benefit.

x 'Xopt

Reference /12/ reports that in estimating the average radar cross-section (RCS) o f a complex target (a ship), the applied repro-model was 150-times faster in CPU time and required less than one-tenth o f the memory, yet its output was generally well within the error margins o f the original "full-size" mathematical model, Inspired by these experiments, in 1974 this author developed a computatlonally very efficient algorithm f o r a ground grid analysis, which has become the core o f an interactive type o f computer progrijm successfully used by United Engineers & Constructors, Inc. in their project work. It is therefore believed that the RENA type o f algorithm has been the first practical application o f pattern recognition techniques in the area o f grounding analysis. Since the explanation o f its characteristics is useful f o r a better understanding o f typical virtues and limitations o f the RM technique outlined herein, a brief review o f RENA's theoretical underpinnings is provided next. In a way, it also complements /3/, in which the part o f theoretical information leading to RM roots has not been discussed. RM Part o f RENA The algorithm seeks a near-optimal pattern o f grid wires in a series o f approximations, starting with a set o f N equally spaced parallel wires, and moving toward more and more progressively unequal spacings, until a fairly even level o f mesh voltages is achieved. A near-optimal solution is reached when the number and spacing o f modelled N wires is such that all "valleys" o f the produced surface potential profile are close to, but not exceeding the "plane" o f a permissible touch voltage. As such, it is based on the following postulates: DEF. The f l o w o f leakage current from a ground into the earth is analogous to the emission electric an electrode having an isolated electrostatic charge, the natural boundary condition f o r the electrostatic = E (constantl, on its surface. e,(x,y,z) electrode flux from satisfying potential,

xa +x

{XI

where g is a combined measure o f the safety and performance benefits associated with each choice o f x. Bearing in mind that the secret o f a successful decomposition often lies in a convenient regrouping o f variables, assume further that an equivalent representation o f Aaxa= c, ABXB = c & also exists, allowing rearrangement o f the variables in a nonsingular transformation T :
?

[ Aaxa
cP =

= c
$C

] *: A Px - c P8
;

(4)

xP = PTxa ;
PT,&r

... n o n s i n g u l a r

-1 = qAaPT

t r a n s f o r m a t i o n matrices

Consequently, assuming now that the new vectors xBand c B can be partitioned into subvector sets and A 8 decomposed into t w o matrices, B B and H 8 the problem o f (31 becomes that o f

THEOREM 1: The current density on a ground electrode other than a sphere, cannot be the same at different points of its surface: f o r a square or rectangular closed grid formed by at least 4 parallel wires and 4 interconnections, there always exists a spacing pattern that will result in a less uneven average current distribution between mesh wire segments than the one which results from an equally spaced wire pattern o r other arbitrary patterns. Corollary 1: Calculation errors o f a simple model based on the equal current distribution are reduced in each step o f such an iterative series that keeps bringing the design spacings closer to that o f a relatively best (near-optimal) uneven spacing pattern that is progressively denser toward perimeter, such as
D ( i ) = D*Cd(i,M.a);
Cd(i,M,a) = [ ( Z i - l ) / ( z i ) ]

(sa) where

where y is a vector o f coupling variables, and (5al completes t8e formalism o f a valid decomposition o f (3). The following remarks are in order with respect to the above. First, the solution o f a subproblem so extracted need not be optimal at (or relative to) the given interaction level; an improvement o f the previous decision variables is sufficient enough. Second, since only the new values o f decision variables are required in order to proceed from one iteration to the next iteration in the overall optimization process, the particular choice o f ways and means f o r solving the decomposed problem is analytically irrelevant. The only concern is the convergence o f the overall process; that is, f o r an optimal overall benefit level g*(N) after N optimization iteration steps, g*(N) 2 (g*(N-l), ..., g*(ll), so that it indeed is

, D ( N - l ) , is a function o f a-th degree pattern D( 1) ,D(Z), of progresivity a=TEl, M=1,2, ,. For equal spacing a = 0 , and for t y p i c a l progressive spacing patterns 0 S a 4 0.9 , and T = 0.1 :

.. .

...

D* =

s/[
i=l

Cd(i,M,a)] ; S = s i d e o f the g r i d .

THEOREM 2: In bi-symmetrical grids and a broad class o f symmetrical grids, the area o f diagonal (square) meshes is such that f o r a progressively spaced grid the magnitude o f mesh voltage in such meshes is always larger in the point o f a local a E(x,y,Ol/ a n, than that in acjacent rectangular extreme meshes; a n being in the direction o f a main diaclonal. Corollary 2: Because o f the definition o f a gradient field (Part I), a change o f wire spacings toward the relatively best spacing pattern is a primary agent o f design optimization.

215
Comparision With IEEE Gradient Method As described in Part I, the IEEE gradient method extends the equation for a voltage difference between two points on the earth's surface, produced by current i emanating from an element o f a single horizontal wire in depth h, The significance o f this approach lies in the fact that it allows us to study the impact o f various spacings, for the however incorrect initial guess o f a current distribution between the individual wires, upon the shape o f a surface potential profile, on its own merit. The coefficients C F , k = 1.2, ..., N, used in determining i(k) in TWOG, are defined by:

v ,

2 . 7

= . I " . grad u(xP)dx =


X1

.I"..
XI

x2

(7)
i,j = 1,2,

t o a set on N parallel wires, each dissipating identical current per unit o f length, i = I/L, L being the total length o f buried wires and I the total current flowing into the ground. Assuming an equally spaced grid in uniform soil, the safety assessement o f a particular design is limited t o theestimation o f a surface potential above the center o f a corner mesh, calculated as

..

where
3-1 Ln Z D

vcm =
f o r a n eq-1

Ki i [

f P Kii k=l 0
- l)D
;

+ Ki

vo

(73)
( 7b)

C.

.=

1J

+i+$

- 9.n Z Dm
U

i-1 -

; for

i+l

m=i

spaciw II, x(k) = X + (k

c.1 J.
k =1,2,

= an ( x / D ~ ); f o r i = j = I n (Iii/r)
; for i

..., N

' i j

+1=

and Ki and Kii are corrective factors compensating for the geometry of a grid pattern, the presence o f ground rods and the inability to fully account for all mutual resistance effects in a simplified N-wire model. In RENA and TWOG, the definition of x(k) is generalized for unequal spacings between wires, and a composite gradient o f N wires is calculated prior t o any integration, as and
x(k) = x
+

X ( D .;j=O,k-1)

grad u(x,O;N) =

; D(0)

= 0
+ hz] -1

i(k) x(k)[x(k)z

(8) (sa)

j=1

Note on Subroutine PROFIL i n Reference /3/ During reprugraming of R E N A ' s gradient integrating subroutine PROFIL(JN) , a potentiaLy irksome conversion bug w a s discovered by t h i s author curing t e s t runs with the use of an IIIM 431 mainframe computer with Fortran "H" type of compiler. The bug lurks i n the original Fortran code of a nested t r i p l e do loop, snown on page 366 i n /3/. Specifically, the innermost DO 71 loop contains a s e r i e s term B(K)=B(K)+B(L); l ~ K - 1 ,with K vzrying from 1 t o JNN. After the loop i s completed, a reference is then once more d e t o the last calculated B(K), which of course i s t h a t f o r K=N, within the next outer DO 40 loop. Although such a. reference is legitimate i n the CDC KRONOS system environment, the IBM system does not r e t a i n the last value of B(K) on a K-label internal address and s o B(o)=o. results, spelling trouble f o r any reader who t r i e s t o apply the code i n other than the CDC "KRQNOS" Bystem environment. A remedy i s disarmingly simple: Calling the last calculated B(K) w h a t it actually i s , B(JNN). Hence, DO 71 K=l,JNN B~K)=B(K)+B(L) 71 CONTINUE

RENA has, however, one peculiar feature: Although it can generate an optimizing series and produce a near-optimal design solution o f a progressively spaced grid, as well as plot the substation surface potential profile, estimate the corresponding gradient field, and calculate the touch and step voltages above and near the grid with an impressive accuracy in just a f e w seconds o f CPU time - a feat SGA still cannot match - it is less accurate in estimating the performance o f more conventional equally spaced grids; being about on par with the recently revised IEEE gradient method. These observations justify the following viewpoint: Hardly any attention has been given t o the fact that it took just one fatal modelling choice thirty years ago, to give simplified methods a bad name: The decision to use the concept o f an equally spaced grid without ground rods as the kernel of a simplified approach toward estimating the surface gradient effects, led t o a host o f difficulties with the "corner mesh criterion"; all rooted in the necessity to calculate surface potentials above the area that usually is o f little practical importance but, analytically, most difficult t o deal with due t o a singularity phenomenon. As it will be shown here, a progressively spaced grid with peripheral ground rods is, in fact, not only a much more practical concept'but also one far easier to evaluate by very simple means.
4. TANDEM SET-UP EXPERIMENTS

xeo.

CDIC=B(JNN)*P(~)*CID*

..., etc.

In either case, instead of calculating the surface voltage at one predetermined point directly, an entire voltage profile is generated as a curve floating with respect t o GPR:
Y1 = V , =

.I"

6x grad u(x,O;N) dx + ? '26x grad u(x,O;N) dx + V ,

(8b)

In principle, any simulation algorithm which requires the use of a good measure o f approximations to match the output o f a more complex parental model, leads t o the following dual form of a problem formulation, where a and b are n-vectors characterizing the parental model A and the simulation algorithm B, C is a set o f constraints, and T indicates the transpose operation; all variables must be realizable and bounded:
Min.
subj.

. 6x

z = fTa

fTb 1,2,

C'rb = C'ra ;

.. .

,N

(10) ( 1 1)

etc.

Using (8cL the position o f the curve is adjusted in a separate step, by calculating the surface voltage above the wire cc that is at or near to the center o f N wires first, so that all other points on the curve then can be recursively adjusted and the integration constant Vo, shown as "?" in (8b), determined. vcWz [4h2/(hd - h2)] i ( c c ) ; cc +N (8C) Digression: In RENA all currents i(k) are assumed to be identical, i(k) = I/L = i ; whereas in TWOG applications described herein, an option for a simultaneous solution of the current distribution in N parallel wires, i(k) = i CFk, per (9). is also available; the main reason being a better estimate o f the current dcc) in a most central wire and the vertical voltage drop above it.

For the grid optimization, a technically attractive approach is first to find a fair suboptimal solution by means of a "raw" (unadjusted) RM model, and then to refine both the immediate result and the modelling capacity o f the RM model for the same and similar designs in a tandem set-up with a full model, utilizing the conventional multi-segment matrix method. Since repeating o f the tandem operation for a range of typical design parameters constitutes a learning process, the final benefit o f such an experiment can be the emergence o f a new approximate solution method, in which the simpler B algorithm is refined t o such a degree that for a broad class o f designs it can be decoupled from A and used alone. ut course, in order t o make this ultimate goal truly tangible, a good screening process is needed t o facilitate the problem decomposition, i. e. to single out those significant dependencies between the parental functions and subfunctions o f the original model A, which matter for the chosen simulation technique o f model B. As such, the screening, process must provide answers to the following criteria: (a) I f an input change occurs in one parental function, i t is likely

276
that there will be a significant change in some other function? (b) Is i t conceivable that a different approach can b e used t o link the change in the first function t o the change in the second function? (c) Does the use of RM model yield a simulation o f the desired cause-and-effect relationship without excessive distortions? Toward these objectives, Heppe's RMUTl and RMUT2 subroutines from 1978 /5/ were modified and used in lieu o f modei A f o r a multi-segment matrix solution o f progressively spaced grids in both the uniform and non-uniform soil, operating alongside the RM algorithm in a special computer program TWOG, written by this author. The RM algorithm, representing model B, was deliberately used only in its "raw" form. The following three examples, produced by TWOG, demonstrate the utility of RM technique and the developmental potential o f an unrefined model of a RENA type (that is, RM based on a disjoint set o f parallel wires), in three fundamental modes of grid modelling: 1) predicting performance o f a grid in uniform soil before and after a series of wire pattern changes, 2 ) evaluation o f a very progressively spaced grid in a two-layer soil, and 3) accounting for an "open" grid effect caused by sharp peripheral extentions. NOTATION: In Figures 3-6, the background of "+" characters symbblires the RM output, whereas characters "$" and "#" denote values calculated by the multi-segment matrix method. In particular, "V represents a peripheral profile taken along the centerline o f the first r o w o f meshes, and "$" depicts the diagonal profile. The surface potential profiles always start at -2.00 m. that is, 2 m outside the grid perimeter. In Table A, the leakage currents of individual .groups (type) o f grid segments are given in per unit, as well as in ampere values. The latter ones are normalized with respect t o a comparable leakage per unit of length f o r uniform current distribution. eaual t o 1. Comparison of the outputs f o r an equal 8 m spacing, and f o r a 2.85 m, 7.70 m, 10.41 in, and 14.08 m progressive spacing, yields the following results: a) Transition from the even spacing t o uneven spacing, leads t o a decrease o f the grid resistance, from 8.42 ohms t o 8.33 ohms, and t o a reduction of the difference between the highest and lowest leakage current values, f r o m 67% t o 54%. b) For an equally spaced grid, the RM-produced profile shows (with the exception o f external areas) a steady conservative margin between 807 and 847 volts with respect t o the diagonal "$" curve. Viewed from the grid center, there also is a decreasing 807 volts t o 59 volts margin with respect t o the peripheral "W curve, Fig. 3. In the case' o f a progressively spaced grid. Fig. 4, the diagonal margin is reduced t o about 350 volts. whereas the profile of peripheral meshes flattens out and is of no consequence.
9.156 -2.000-*
,

0.0

- * * + + + * * + + . *
. + + * + + + + + * +
I * + * * * + * *

I . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . I * + * x * 1 *$I * f f f x
IN
SX
f"

10.313

11.469

12.625

.... I ..

13.782

14.938 . , I CURVfl+) IKV) CURVEIN) CURVEIS)

10.121
Y

10.545
11.561 12.845 12.251 11.906
11.836

8.755
19.745 1.883

, * + + * + + + * + , + * * * + * + * * +

11.401 10.694 11.104 10.948 IO.SS7


11.065

12.152
11.813

11.755
(1.905

. + + + * * + + + + *
, * + + + i t + +

I $
* + +

11.259

. . + + + + + * + + * * * + *

I
I

11.554

I
x
x

. + . * * + + * + + + + * * * +
.

. + + + + + + * + + + + l + + + +

1 0 . ~ 0 - + + + * * + + + * + + + r +I

. + * * + + * * + + * + * + * . * + + + + + + + + + + + + * +

+ * + + + + + + + * + + * +

x . + * + + * + + + + + + + + + + + +

x x x

s
I

12.019 12.631 (2.248 12.014


11.951

I
I

. + * + * + + + + + * * + + + * + + + +
. * + * + * + + + + + + * + + t + + . + + + t + + + + + + + + + + + + * , + + + + + t + * + + + + + + + + "

I
x
f

"
I I
f

20.000-

. +

+ + + + + + + + + + + f ++X r + + + r + + i + + + r * r + "

. + + + * t + + * * + * + + + + + + n . + f + + + * + + + t + + + + + +x :+

I
I

11.992 12 123 12.359 12.768 13.325 12.892 12.608 I2 496 12.491 12.577 12.768 13.133
13.648 13. 173 12.848 12.695 12.650 12.695 12.848 13,173 13.648

11.905 12.075 12.355 12.820 13.450 12.955 (2.630 12.498 12.481 12.558 12.745
13.111

12.243 12.784 13.679 14.719 13.782 13.259 13.063


13.051

13.634
13. 155

. * + + r + r + + + l + + + + * + + l + + #

+ *

+ + + + + + +

+ + +

+"
$
$

. * + + + + + + + + t + + + + . * "

30.000- 1 f f f f + + f f f + + 1 + + + x S , * * + + + + + r + + * * + + + * + + " . r + + t * + * + + + + + + + r + + r r + "

. + * . * * + + * + * + + . * + + " . + * + + + + + + + + + + + + + * " . + + + * * * + + + + + + + ~ + + * "

I
$

12.835 12.692 12.658 12.713 12.874 13.207 13.693 13.219 12.898 12.749 12.704 12.749 12.898 13.219 13.693

13.182 13.471 14.008 14 725 14.056 13.630 13.445 13.405 13.486 13.704 14.138 14.754 14.I51 13.745 13.555 13.498
13.555

13.745 14.151 14.754

9 256

I.........I.........I.........I..

-2.000-

+ + +* 0.0 1 f f + + + f $ + + + X I . + + * + + + + + + + + + + + + + $ "
+ * .f+ + + + f + +
f

10,413

11.569

12.725

. . . . . .I . . . .

13.882

15.038 ( K V )

. I

CURVfl+) CURVEIN) CURVE10


11.686

+ +

x + +
f

+ t'

. I +

, + + + + + r + * + + * + + * * * + ~ Y $
. t * + + + * * + r * * + + + + + r + * * "

. * + + + + + * + + r * + + + + + * + " s
. + + + + + + + + + + * + + + + + ~ " f + + f + + + + + + + + ++$ x , + + + * + * + 1 * + + ++I x
f

, + + * + + + + + + + + + * + + * $ "
I + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + *

I , ~ . ~ - + + + + + + * * + + . . + + + * * + ~x

Fig. 2 T r a n s i t i o n from a n evenly s p c e d p a t t e r n t o a p r o g r e s s i v e l y spaced p a t t e r n of 8 x 8 w i r e s g r i d . Note: The shown segment c u r r e n t s alp from Heppe /5/. As such, t h e y s l i g h t l y d i f f e r from t h o s e c a l c u l a t e d by Tulffi , t a b u l a t e d below i n Table A . TABLE A

, . * * * + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ~ + + + * + + + + + * * + + + + + + XI . + + * + + + + + + + + + + + * I" * + + + + + + + + * + + + + + + I" + + + + + + + + + + * + + + + $ x + + + + + + + + * * + + * + + I x . a + + + + + + + + + + + + + + s x ~ * + + + * * + + + * + + + + * + I N
, * * + * + + + t + + + + * I + + +

12.358 13.204 13. 104 13.299 13.628 13.075 12.779 12.659 12.654 12.753 12.985 13.451 13.503 12.990 12.714
12.561

10.394 li.506 13.055 13.027 13.298 13.714 13.279 13.096 13.060


13. 1 0 1

13.205
13.394

2 ~ . 0 0 0 - + + + ' + + + * . + + ~ + * + + + *
, t + + + t + + + t t + + + + * + + +

* + + * * * + + + * * + + + . + + * + * x * + * + * + * * + + * * * + + + + + * + + + + + * * + + + + I
I + * + + + + + + + + + + + + +

x x

s
I
I

s
x

$ I

L e a w e Currents
9 819 5 654 4 540 4 136 22 098 15 302 I3 269 12 351 27 442 19 721 17 595 16 587 36 709 27 329 25 075 23 939
8 33

TYPE
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
8

29 806
I8 0 0 4

MA)

Is(PU)
1 87418 1 13210 1 01828 0 87633 1 51035 0 84836 0 73513 0 69556 1 42790 0 78038 0 66578 0 62545 I 40420 0 76230 0 64734 0 60676

I d A I
2 2 2 7
847

Is(PU)
1 71615

+ + * * + + + + * + + + . +
+ * t + + * * + + + t l * * , * + t t + t + + t t + + * *

16 1 9 4 15 527

9 1 0 11 12
13

24 020 13 492 I I 691 I 1 062 22 709 I2 411

7
7 7 1 0

IO 588
9 947 22 332 I2 123 IO 295 9 650

IO IO

847 847 700 700 700 700 412 412 412

0 0 0 I 0 0 0
I

0
0 I 0

I4
15 16
RG.

1 0 112 14 079 14 0 7 9 14 079 14 079

98825 79357 72300 42825 98897 85757 79825 3 1167 94264 84099 79284 29760 96605

3 0 . 0 0 0 - + + + + + + + + + + + + + +s

*I
$
+ t

x x
x x

+ * * + + * * + * + + * * + +
f t + + * * + t t + * * *

x s x

s
x
f

, + t + * + + + + * + + * + + t t + +

. + * * + . * * * + + * * * + . * + * * +

12.484 12.468 12.508 12.612 12.807 13.166 13.634 I 3 092 12.713 12.486 12.340 12 247 12.196 l2.179 12.196 12.247 12.340 12.486 12.713 13.092 13.634

13.758 13.812 13.453 13.290 13.216 13.190


13.200

13.240
13.316

13.448
13.694

14.034 13.679 13.456 13 336 13 265 13.222 13.198


13.191 13.198

9.022 10.074 12.277 12.955 13.512 14.332 13.376 12.893 12.729 12.770 12.990 13.437 14.278 14.399 13.570 13.142 12.917 12.818 12.816 12.905 13.097 13.435 14.042 14.852 13.999 13.389 13.025 12.791 12.643
12.560

13.222 13.265
13.336 13 456 13.680

(2.533 12.560 12 643 12.791 13.025 13.389


13.999

14.034

14.852

Fig.

( t o p ) and F i g . 4 (bottom). S u r f a c e p o t e n t i a l s of a "closed" 8 x 8 g r i d i n uniform s o i l f o r e q u a l ( t o p ) and p r o g r e s s i v e (bottom) spacings of g r i d w i r e s .

0 88637 0 84622

8 42

EXAMPLE 1. A square 8 x 8 grid in uniform soil, identical t o that calculated in /5/ by Heppe (56 m x 56 m grid area, spacing between wires 8 m, depth of burial 0.5 m, radius o f grid wire 0.007 m, soil resistivity 1 000 ohm-in; applied voltage 15 000 volts), was chosen to show the effect of progressive spacing, as well as t o prove Theorems 1-2. For these purposes, the RM algorithm was programmed to use (7) f o r an equal current distribution instead of (9). and the exit f o r a "near-optimal solution" was bypassed in order t o obtain no less than four progressive spacing steps.

DISCUSSION 1: These results prove the validity o f Theorems 1-2, and indicate that f o r both an equally spaced and progressively spaced grid in uniform soil, the RM-generated profile can b e viewed as if taken through the diagonal mesh row. Use o f (9) would further narrow the differences between the RM output and the outcome o f multi-segment calculations, but would impair the proof. EXAMPLE 2 . Using the same experimental set-up as in the first example, a 5 x 5 grid (32 m x 32 m grid area, 8 m spacing between wires, etc.) was modelled as if buried 0.5 m deep in a 2.5 m layer o f 1 000 ohm-m soil, overlaying a 500

211
ohm-soil. In this case, the RM algorithm was programmed to use (5). following a rather simple adjustment o f the total current by the ratio of grid resistance in the uniform soil and in the two-layer soil structure. The progressive spacing loop was run ten times, to obtain a very extreme spacing pattern o f 3.09 m and 12.91 m, respectively; see Fig. 5.
5 900

{F;M}

with those of a repro-set {f*;M};


D(f,f*) =

typically,

.X ( f - f*)2
k

,k

= 1,...,M

(14)

I
0.0

7 388

8 876

10 364

I 1 851

13 339

i t is conceivable that devising o f another metric may be necessary to prevent cluttering o f the problem space, as follows. Using a weighing operation, let
f' =

- 2 ~ 0 - * f * + + ' + n + + ' + ' + + + + +

+ 1 + +$+ + + + + X + + + + + + ++ - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + s + + *"*
, + + + + + + + + + * + + + + + + +
tft

+ + +

[Wl

fT,

a n d f f ' = [I] ( f * l T

(15)

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

t + + t + + + * + + + + + + + + + + " * r + ~
l l + + # * *

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

+ + + + + +

+
.

+ + + +

lo--

+ * t + + +

+ + + 1 + + + + + +
1 I

+ + + + * + + * + + $ + + + + + " + + + + + * + + + + + + $ + + + + + " + + + + + + + + + + +$+ + + X I + + + + 1 + + + + + + + + 1 + + I + + "+

+ + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + t + +$+ + + +f+ + * + f + + * * +I++

+ +

+ + + + + + + + + + +"+ + + + * Y

+$+ + +

+#+ tYt. Y + X t

where, as before, fTand ( f * p a r e the transpose o f f and f*, I is identity matrix, f = ($ ,f2, ...,FM), and [W] is a M x R matrix o f weiging coefficients. The resulting metric D' would then be:
M D'(f',ff')
6 400
7 887

(C [I : wks(f;
k=l s=l
10,861 9,374

ff;)I2

3.
I 3 835

(16)

+ + t + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + " s
+ + + + + + + t + + + + + + t t + + + t t l * X

.. I.....

..I

..I

12 348

+ + + + + + t + t r + + + + + r + + + + " $

2o.m-

+ + + + + + + + + I + + + +It t X t f + * + I + + f f + I$+ + + X I + + I + + + + f I I I + + + + *"


t
f
f f

-2.000-

0.0

+ + + * + + + + + + $ + + + + + # * 1 1 + + + + + + + +$+ 1 + + x

+ + + + + + + + + + + * I +
+ + +
f

I 1

t .

30000- +

, + + * + + + + + * + + . + + + * * + + + * " * + f I + * f 1 + I + t + + t * XI'. * * + + + + + * + + + * + + + + + + + $ * + + +
+ + + + + + * + + + + + + + + * + + * * * + + +

+ + + + + $ + + + + +I+ + + + + + +$* 1 + + X t + t t + I + +st + + + Y + + + + + + tf' + +"** I I + + + * + I + + r s t *"+ + + + + + * I + + + + I 4 + + +"I


f

+ + +Y+ I f $ + + # tt - + + & * + + " + + + + + $ + + "1 I + + I + +I+ + X I


'L
f

+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + +
1

$ rn

+ + +

I$+"

+$

. * r r + + * r + + + + + Y s
+ + + + + + + + + + + t + Y

rt

. + + + + + + + + * a + + + + +

Y
+

* +

t +

+ I

t
f

10ooo.

+ + + + + + +
t + + + + t t + +

+ *
+ + +

Is(A)
I

Ls(m)
3 244 3 244

Is(PU)
1 20454 0 76837 1

3 4 5 6
PG=

279 660 619 486 103 56 010 18 I 1 67 56 1 0


10 0 2

I2 756
12 756

I3330
20

12 756 12 756

94672 0 16933

0 93875

'+ ooo- +
+

"OPEN" 8 x 8 &ID

1
+

+ +

+ +
. +

Fig.

Surface p o t e n t i a l s of 5 x 5 "closed" g r i d , i n two-layer s o i l ; v e r y p r o g r e s s i v e spacing.

. *
. +

As it can be observed from the plotted output, there is a close match between the RM-produced "+" curve and the peripheral "#" curve taken via "open" meshes. However, the extremes o f diagonal curve "$" are approximately 2 000 volts below those o f RM's "+" curve. The grid resistance is 10.4 ohms. DISCUSSION 2: Although in this case the simulation o f a peripheral profile would not be t o o practical from the safety standpoint, the results are nevertheless encouraging from an analytical point of view. Simply put, the "well behaving" nature o f the shown curves, in conjunction with the results o f more extensive tests in an electrolytic tank reported by Kasten and Caldecott /13/, are good indications that there is no reason why a convenient transformation o f the basic RM model would not lead t o workable simulation o f the diagonal meshes. In more detail, since the goal is t o approximate another class o f profiles which have a definite functional affinity t o those which RM already does rather well, the task is to generate a scalar function f o f N input variables x = (xl,+, _.., xN), by a simpler RM model using only a subset o f x; x*, having only R members; R -Z N. Assuming further to have a set x2,f(Q )/, ... ,kM,f(xy)/, o f M input-output samples x,,fl xi/, one then needs to minimize the mean square error E,

30 W-

. *
+ + * + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Fig.

6 Surface p o t e n t i a l s of 8 x 8 "open" g r i d , i n
uniform s o i l ; e q u a l spacing o f g r i d w i r e s .

(12)

where w, S are weighing and modelling coefficients o f the represents a convenient RM model. With S matrix given, {A} mapping transform f o r which w can be determined as
w = [QTQ]-'QTf

: f = (f,

Q = [q. 1J

....,f,,), .I. q i j

fi=f(xi) = Xj(xi.S)

(13)

As is usually the case, not all o f the features characterizing the output o f compared models are o f the same importance; hence, a well-thought featare weighing should facilitate the selection of corrective measures. Defining D as a metric f o r straightforward comparisons o f the original set o f outputs

EXAMPLE 3. The 8 x 8 grid from Example 1 was converted into an "open" grid covering a 76 m x 76 m area, by the addition o f 10 m long wire extensions at each side, Fig. 6. The purpose of this experiment was t o show that a grid with peripheral ground rods or similar sharp extentions can be modelled as if its peripheral meshes were in the second r o w o f an extended "open" grid, as already suggested in Part 1, Fig. 3. As shown in Fig. 6, in the vicinity o f a grid corner the RM-generated output almost agrees with the '#' curve of peripheral "open" meshes, which f o r this type o f evenly spaced wire pattern would be critical t o safety. Resistance o f - this "open" grid was 7.01 ohms. DISCUSSION 3 Since the RM model nearly matched the "#" curve o f an evenly spaced grid, which is more difficult to do than f o r a progressively spaced one, this result verifies the thesis that a progressively spaced grid with peripheral ground rods is analytically the easiest t o model by approximate methods, whereas an equally spaced grid without ground rods is the worst. A direct representation o f vertical rods was not used, because inasmuch as the assumption o f an equal current density along each segment is excellent f o r horizontal conductors within the grid perimeter, it is only a fair one f o r modelling o f ground rods. The rather obvious notion that a mere reliance on brute computing power may not always compensate for the deficiency o f a concept is now extensively documented after the fact /14,16/. With the emphasis on a speed o f optimizing series, the impetus f o r TWOG is t o consider a different approach, though a conventional (computationally extensive) representation o f ground rods, based on /15/, is presently available.

218
5. RUDIMENTARY OPTIMIZATION SCHEME The overall feasibility of an entire grid design optimization process under the given fixed hierarchy of "hard" and "soft" constraints can be tested by means of a rudimentary scheme, based on the dynamic programming concept. The only concession asked from the reader is to accept the inconvenience of recasting the problem into one of "resources" and "gains", allowing one t o convert what essentially is a multi-dimensional static problem into a sequential single-dimensional problem. Using the classical formulation from Bellman 181.
f ~ ( x )= M a x

Of course, what still remains t o b e done, is the assigning of the gain and penalty functions. Given the fixed preference hierarchy mentioned before, this is relatively easy t o do. Starting with the "hard" safety constraint, a very high penalty must b e imposed on exceeding the touch voltage; hence, a = -lo4 f o r Vm(k) 2 Vtmx, and (20)
=

for

Vm(k) 5 Vtmx; k = l , . . , M

[ gN(%)

fN-l(x

- 511 s u b j .

hi = x

0S;xNCX where fN(x)

i = 1.2. ..,N

(17)

The performance o f individual grid designs, in terms of the relative uneveness of the surface potential field, checked at M critical points,can be related t o a value o f penalty 8 , by a proper selection of constant ; 8 itself should not nullify the gain realized by removing a grid wire, if a remains at zero value. As such, 8 is "soft" constraint.

is optimal r e t u r n f r o m a l l o c a t i n g of x r e s o m e s t o N activities, i s t h e t o t a l number of r e s o u r c e s t o be a l l o c a t e d .

7C

-n

(V,(k)

2 1

Vtmax)

(21) length of

gN(%) i s a g a i n a s s o c i a t e d with t h e N-th a c t i v i t y , x

For trade-offs a penalty ground rods, v , is


v

for

adding an extra

only one analytical allowance has t o be made with respect t o (17): The entire amount of resources (wires and rods) n e e d n o t be allocated f o r the best result. Therefore, what is desired is a more general formulation,

=-(a**/!,

1 )

(%/CC1

(22)

where ,cc is a ratio of the grid wire and ground r o d is also comparable installation costs per unit o f length; v ; , can now be "soft". The gain and loss terms, gN and g defined as

fN(x.y) is a n o v e r a l l improvement index (tased on zero v a l u e f o r a n e q d y spaced &d with x wires and no ground rods), c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e near-optimal a l l o c a t i o n of wires + y rods s e l e c t e d f r o m x + y w%es and r o d s , or r e s u l t i n g trade-offs, a f t e r N improvement s t e p s ;

A n

is t r a d e - o f f c o s t f a c t o r r e l a t i n g t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of one g r i d wire t o t h e n e a r e s t l e n g t h of ground rods;

Although the above assignment of gains and losses may appear rather crude, i t works equally well for both the uniform soil and the two-layer soil structure assumptions. For example, the benefit of ground rods penetrating a more conductive lower soil is implicitly accounted for by the fact that more grid wires are eventually removed than what would be allowed f o r the uniform soil condition.
START
CALL Z . P I ( L w i r e

gN(%,yN;VN,a(%)) i s a combined r e l a t i v e g a i n r e s u l t i n g from itn a l l o c a t i o n of 5 g r i d wires i n a - t h l e v e l of spacing p m g r e g s i v i t y , and use of yN r o d s .

'.erd

,x ,Y :vtnax)]

The dimensionality is further reduced, equation (19) below.


f N ( 2 ) = Max k N ( l i ) +
0 -

if (18) is replaced by

w E= -99999

l=xxlwi,e+,
(19)

P&*C

<(lit%) + fN-l(i - E i - i f ; ) ]
.el;) 1

6a=O.l ; 61"=4**Lrd*c

a <.e'il''-=.e
N N< ( A i ,.ti;) = Min bnalty(VN,Vtmax;CYmesh,
XI

=x i y1 =y

"e.h= F ( . e i # a i P a ( % ) )
o
5 a(%)
_C

for N = 1 for N = 2,3,

a(%-1)

2 a(%)

...

where. in a d d i t i o n t o t h e a l r e a d y d e f i n e d symbols, fN(l)

i s a n o v e r a l l r e t u r n r e s u l t i n g from t h e near-optimal all o c a t i o n of a t o t a l buried l e n g t h l, part as l' ( a t o t a l l e n g t h of g r i d w i r e s ) , and part as ( a combiied l e n g t h of ground rods), a f t e r N improvement s t e p s ;

a;;

gN(.8i) is g a i n r e a l i z e d from a l l o c a t i n g of combined l e n g t h 1 ; is l e s s t b n 1:


g*(.l'

5 grid

wires, i f t h e

N N' N

P)i s

minimized loss due t o p e n a l t i e s a , @ , y , g E ( a i , l f ; ) = Min

[a + B

y]

The substitution of (18) for (19) is far from being just a formal redefinition of variables: It makes sense t o assume that once a certain combined length of rods and grid wires is determined as necessary for the initial design, one may wish either t o reduce the amount of each, or b e willing t o trade-off grid wires for ground rods, as long as the initial is improved. expenses are not exceeded and the design Also, the introduction of a maximized negative gain (minimized penalty loss) term is o f more than passing interest. Since the search f o r a design improvement always starts with the last (a-th degree) spacing pattern of the previous step and moves only toward lower values o f a(x(0, this provision for N - 1 consecutive optimizing steps avoids much o f the computation e f f o r t which would be required if (18) were programmed directly.

15
& & , 1 6

17 *1(="K-1-

OUTPUT (K-1)th DESIGN


STOP

Fig. 7. Flowchart of Optimization Process.

279
Programming aspects o f the resulting 18-step process can be grasped from Fig. 7. The essence o f shown activities is as follows: Firstly, an initial design o f an equally spaced grid is performed by subprogram PI, utilizing the standard procedures o f 121, and using only a rough adjustment f o r the two-layer soil conditions. Secondly, holding the total number and length o f grid wires and rods constant, changes in the wire spacing pattern are made and their e f f e c t evaluated by subprogram PII, which begins to increase the degree o f till spacing progressivity by raising the value o f factor a(xll, the improvements toward minimizing o f (1;1") level o f f . Thirdly, pairs o f wires are removed and a(%), k = 2,3, ..., is gradually lowered to the point when the penalties for exceeding the safety limit or f o r the uneveness o f a surface potential field eventually nullify any gain from the wire removal. Lastly, tradeoffs in gains and penalties are tried, first by adding more ground rods and, if their equivalent length exceeds that o f t w o wires, also by removing more wires, until the results begin t o worsen. The next t o last (least penalized) alternative is then considered to be a near-optimal design solution, and the process is terminated. Thanks are expressed to United Engineers & Constructors, Inc., f o r the permission to discuss program RENA, and to the management o f Gibbs & Hill f o r the use o f computer facilities, as well as f o r their general support during the preparation o f this paper. REFERENCES
/1/ J. G . Sverak, "Simplified Analysis of E l e c t r i c a l Gradients Above a Ground Grid. Part I: How Good is t h e Present IEEE Method?", IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-103. Fp 7-25, January 1984.

/2/

&

ANSI/IEEE Std 80-1986, GUIDE F O R SAFETY I N AC SUESTATION CROUNDIK, N e w York: IEEE/John Wiley & Sons 1986) IBSW 471-85393-3.

/3/
/4/

J. G . Sverak, "Optimized Grounding Design Using Variable Spacing Technique", IEEE Trans. vol. PAS-95, R $2-374, January-Feb. 1976.
J . G . Sverak. C . H . Booraem and D. G. Kasten, "Post-deeign Analysie V and Scale Model T e s t s For a Two-grid Earthing System Serving 9 5 k F a c i l i t i e s at Seabrook Power Plant", Proceedings of the 1985 CIGRE Symposium on High Currents i n Power Systems Under Normal, Emergency and F a u l t Conditions. Paper 410-06. pp 1-6, Bruesels: CIGRE l%g.
A . J . Heppe, "Computation of P o t e n t i a l at Surface Above Energized Grid or Other Electrode, Allowing For Non-uniform Current Distribut i o n " , IEEE Trans. vol. PAS-%, Fp 1978-1%9, NovemberDecember 1979.

/5/
/6/ /7/

W. S. Meisel. COMPUTER-ORIENTED APPROACHES To PATPERN REGNITION, New York: Academic P r e s s , 1972. S. M. Lee, G O A L PHCGRAMMIM: FOR DECISION ANALYSIS, Philadelphia, PA: Auerbach, 1972.
R . E. B e l l m n and S. E. Dreyfus, APPLIED DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING, k-th

6. CONCLUSIONS
Fundamental analytical concepts and a problem-specific methodology, leading t o the development o f an efficient algorithm f o r optimizing the design of grounding grids, have been presented together with experimental evidence, which corroborates: 0 the utility o f using RM techniques for a simulation of field effects in the vicinity o f an energized ground grid, f o r both the uniform and multi-layer soil conditions: 0 a theoretical justification o f the idea that a progressively spaced grid with peripheral ground rods is not only the most practical design concept, but also the one which is most easily simulated by approximate techniques. Further research is needed in the following areas: (a) refinement o f the RM algorithm f o r a complete coverage o f all critical conditions in the multi-soil environment, (b) fast but accurate calculation of long ground rods, and (c) transition from the established learning mode o f W O G (tandem set-up), to the final separation o f a small user-friendly program module suitable f o r personal computer applications.

/e/
/9/

e d i t i o n , Princeton NJ: Princeton University P r e s s , 1971. L. S. Pontrjagin e t al. MA?HEMATICAL 'IIiEXRY OF OPTIMAL PROCESSES, (Czech t r a n s l a t i o n ) , Chapter 1.9, "Connection between t h e p r i n c i p l e of mximum and dynamic pmgraming", Fp 76-80. m e : SNTL 1964. L. N. Kana1 and J. F. Lemmer, E d i t o r s , UNCERTAINTY I N INTELLIGENCE, New York: North Holland, 1986. ARTIFICIAL

/lo/

/ 1 1 / H . A . Simon, "Rationality as a Process and Product of Thought", Amer. Econom. Review, vol. 68. Fp 1-16, 1978. /12/ W. S. Meisel and D. C . C o l l i n s , "Repro-Modeling: An Apprmch t o E f f i c i e n t Model U t i l i s a t i o n and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n " . IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and c y b e r n e t i c s , vol. SMC-3. Fp 349-358, J u l y 193.

/13/ D.

G . Kasten and R . Caldecott, EPRI RP-1494-3, Interim Task Report, "Substation Grounding Scale Model Tests", Palo Alto, CA: EPRI l%3.

/14/ E. B. J o y , A . P. Meliopoulos and R . P. Webb, "Analysis Techniques P R I Report EL-2682, J u l y f o r Power Subntation Grounding Systems", E
1562, A t l a n t a , CA.

/15/

K. A . Ewy and H. A. Smolleck, "A Graphical Explanation of Resistance and Surface-Potential C a l c u l a t i o n s f o r Grounding Systems i n Two-layer Earth", IEEE Trans. vol. PAS-103, FQ. 631-639, March 1564.
G . P r u i t t , "Problems Encountered with t h e Avemge P o t e n t i a l Method of Analyzing Substation Grounding Systems", Ibid. vol. PAS-104, Fp 3336-35%. December 185.

/16/ D. L. Garrett and J .

7. SUMMARY OF PARTS 1-11


Part I examined the basic premises and analytical underpinnings of the IEEE gradient method for evaluating the performance o f grounding grids, determined the cause o f long-known application difficulties in the use o f simplified equations f o r estimating the critical touch and step voltages o f nontrivial equally-spaced rectangular grids in uniform soil, and derived a set of robust equations for determining Em* (corner mesh voltage), Esr (maximum step voltage near the grid perimeter) and Rgr (grid-rod system resistance in non-zero depth), as well as a simple approximate formula for derating the resistivity of a thin protective surface layer. These new equations. which make a distinction between the presence o f peripheral ground rods vs. no rods or rods inside the grid area, have become the core o f a revised IEEE gradient method used In ANSI/IEEE Std 80-1986. Part 11, looking toward the future editions o f Std. 80, demonstrated that a series o f practical grid designs can easily be generated by a small computer and, at the same time, a near-optimal design solution obtained under a ' h a d safety constraint. On the strength o f evidence presented herein, a vision of the future guide - supplemented by a PC disc containing an IEEE-certified RM type of optimizing algorithm may n o w be regarded as a realistic goal f o r serving the Industry. Acknowledgement This paper is submitted in lieu o f the title " Part I1 A Tandem Approach to Approximate and Exact Computer Solutions f o r Progressively Spaced Grids With Ground Rods", originally announced in Part I by this author and R. H. Heppe. The change is mainly due to the fact that contrary t o the earlier expectations, the reported research has remained unfunded.

/17/ S. Sata and W. S. Zaengl, "Effective Grounding Mesh Calculation Technique", IEEE paper 86 S M 454-3, presented during t h e 1986 IEEE/PES Summer Meeting i n Mexico C i t y .

/l8/ J. Nahnnn and N. Mijuskovic. "Optipieation of Earthing Grids", Proc. IEE, Vol. 126. No. 8. August 1979, P. 777 (summary). /19/ R. F. Stevens, " O p t i m a Diameter, Spacing. and B u r i a l Depth of Ground
Grid Conductor", AIEE Traneactions on Power Apparatus and Systems 111, Vol. 80, Fp 313-316. June 1961.

/20/ J. G. Svexak, Discussion of IEEE p p e r T-74-191-3, "Optimum Design of Substation Grounding i n Two-lsyer f i r t h S t r u c t u r e . P a r t 11 Analytical Study". by F. Dawalibi and D. Mukhedkar, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-*, Dp 257-260. March-April 1975.
/21/ E. B. Joy and R . E. Wilson, "Accumcy Study of t h e Ground Grid Analysie Algorithm", IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. FWRD-1, Dp 97-103, J u l y 1986. ***

J i r i (home) Svenrk (nn6y;sn'75) was born i n m e , Czechoslovakia, on June 9, 1935. He received t h e Dipl. Ing. D e g r e e i n E l e c t r i c a l Power Engineerlllg f r o m t h e VSSE U n i v e r s i t y P i l s e n and t h e Postgzadmta Degree i n Computer Applications From t h e CVVT University Prague i n 1 9 9 and 1%2. Uhile worWng for Energovod PnrM. he earned i n a n externrb r e s e a r c h fellowahip his Ph.D. (eqv.) a t t h e E U Power Research I n s t i t u t e i n Prague, prior t o August 1W when he left t h e oountry. I n 1974 he studied Advanced Systems Theory a t D n a r e l Universit y i n Philadelphia, PA, and in 1 has becow a US oitizen.
Currently, h e is a Consulting E l e c t r i c a l Engineer i n t h e h s n s r i s s i o n and h a n s p o r t a t i o n Department of Gibbe & H i l l New York, r e s p o n s i b l e for m j o r p n a l y t i c a l s t u d i e s of t h e tmnsmlssion-genemtion systems and modeling of electrical milroads. Between 1971-78 and 1W-71 he was with t h e United Engineers & C o n s t m c t o r s i n P h i l a d e l p h i a , and t h e American Power S e r v i c e Corporation i n New York r e s p e c t i v e l y , preceeded by t e n y e a r s i n hrrope. msmbBr of t h e Substation Committee of IEEE Power Engineering Society, member of t h e Systems, Man. and Cybernetics S o c i e t y of IEEE. i n d i v i d u s l member and E q m r t Advisor of t h e U.S. National Committee of CICREl t h e i n t e w t i o n a l Study Committee 23 Substations. He is t h e past chairmsn of IEEE YC 78.1, reeponsible for t h e 15% e d i t i o n of USI/IEEE S t d 80.

....

Dr. Sverak is a Registemd P r o f e s s i o n a l Engineer i n Pennsylvania,

280

Discussion David W. Jackson, R. W. Beck and Asssociates, In presenting his improved Waltham, MA. computational approach the author hints at some important motivations which drive the search for better and more accurate methods to design grounding grids. Indeed, the investment cost of station grounding is small so the possible savings in labor or material by more efficient grids do not justify the engineering effort being expended in seeking better design methods. The primary motivation is safety and the high human life and money costs which result from lack of safety, either in damage awards for injuries suffered or insurance premiums for indemnity coverage. There are other motivations which stem from the political society in which electric supply companies exist. They must provide safe working environments for employees under federal law. They must evidence competent concern to protect all persons against undue danger from electric facilities in order to maintain sufficient freedom from regulation to operate profitably. This requires maintaining a perception in the minds of regulators, legislators and the public that their first concern is always safety. On these grounds a continuing search for improved design methods as suggested by the author is fully justified and should be welcomed and supported by the electric power industry. There are two points in the application of the proposed dynamic optimization programing upon which it would be instructive to have the author's comment. The first point deals with the selection of the initial simple repro model for evaluation by subprogram P1. It would appear that a judicious choice of grid spacing for this model must be made at the outset to yield a near optimal final design. If a small spacing is chosen, the subsequent optimization are based on a larger than necessary total length of conductor, and spacing progressivity will be somewhat different and spacings closer than necessary. Safety criteria would be well met, and many wires would have to be removed during later optimization steps to achieve least cost at the safety criterion level. Contrariwise, if the initial grid is selected with wide spacings, safety criteria may be barely met and later optimization opportunities may be curtailed. The trade-off technique of adding perimeter ground rods and removing grid wires raises a question and an issue. The question is; does the program have some priority or sequence of adding ground rods in order to place them in preferential locations of efficacy in descending rank? Are rods first placed at corners, then adjacent to corners and successively toward the middle of the sides? The issue relates to removal of grid wires near the center. From a practical standppoint, station equipment is likely to be located throughout the interior of a station grounding grid. This equipment requires direct connection to the grid. Usually the most efficacious method of effecting these connections is to run a wire across the grid in the vicinity of the equipment. If an optimal design grid has wide spacings between interior grid wires it may not serve very well for the ground connections to equipment. Would the author clarify his statement in Example 3 about modeling a grid with peripheral ground rods. He states that the peripheral mesh would behave similar to the second row of an open grid, yet his example of Fig. 6 makes it appear that the

similarity occurs in the first peripheral row of the open grid. Rather than prove a point this example raise doubt because the plotted # peripheral which matches the RM generated curve is sectioned in the grid extension area rather than through the second row, and the diagonal $ plot shows a higher voltage and is not a good match. The author has opened the door on a new area to explore. He has demonstrated the results which may be obtained by defining a particular set of goals, decision criteria and weighing factors. His choices appear to be rational and well chosen. However, it may be that some experimentation in this area could result in an improved optimization.
Manuscript r e c e i v e d February 26, 1988.

J. M.Nahmsn (UniversityofBelgrade,Belgrade, Yugoslavia): The author has t o be highly commended f o r developing a procedure f o rt h e optimizat i o n of such a complex object a s a substation grounding system. The examples worked i n the paper c l e a r l y show the b e n e f i t s offered by the approach. The a u t h o r ' s comments on some points addressed below would be highly appreciated. 1) Ground grid configuration is t oac e r t a i n degree influenced by t h e equipment disposition. There are two extreme p r a c t i c a l approaches: a ) Ground g r i d conductors are buried along switchgear bays which provide shortground connections f o rthe equipment.Sometimes,to avoid t h ejoints, t h e ground g r i d conductors are connected t o the equipment directly; b ) Ground g r i d is designed irrespective of the substation layout. Such a solution requires conductorj o i n t s and longer ground connections. The method suggested i n the paper simply applies t o case (b). Can it also be used f o r case ( a ) if employed t o optimize grounding systems with p a r t i a l l yf i x e d structure? Maybe a comparison of approaches ( a ) and (b) would be worthwhile. 2) P o t e n t i a l l y dangerous locations within substations regarding touch voltages are determined by both grounding systems configuration and the d i s p o s i t i o n of grounded m e t a l l i c objects within the substation. I t is i n t e r e s t i n gt o mention t h a t ,i n many cases, comer mesh voltages cannot cause a touch voltage as,a tt h i s location,there is no p o s s i b i l i t yf o r a person o account f o r such r e a l t o touch a grounded object. Is it possible t circumstances by an appropriate s e l e c t i o n of dangerousp o i n t st h a t are t o be controlled during t h e optimization procedure? 3) The use of crushed stones and of other bed conducting materials a s surfacesoil layers a tc r i t i c a llocationst o reduce p o t e n t i a l l y dangeroustouch and s t e p voltages provides acceptable design solutions i n some cases. Can such a solutionbe evaluated i n connectionwith point 2 using the suggested r i t i c a l optimization approach? Namely, this solution eliminates some c p o i n t st h a t are t o be under control i nt h e optimizationwhich might r e s u l ti na reduction of t o t a l grounding system cost.
Manuscript received February 26, 1988.

CLOSURE

J. G. Sverak: It i s a pleasure t o respond to the thoughtfull points and well-focused questions raised b y the discussers. Answering M r . Jackson:
1. The f i r s t g r i d pattern i n an optimizing series i s derived from the minimal length of buried conductors for an equally spaced g r i d with peripheral ground rods ( K i i = 1). per Eq. 78 of /2/, further reduced b y a 0.85 factor. Although the subprogram PI can make either upward or downward adjustments i n the t o t a l conductor length as necessary, before generating the next pattern, the best i n i t i a t i o n of t h i s process i s to start w i t h a m i l d overdesign, resulting i n a removal of two o r three p a r a l l e l wires l a t e r i n the series. 2. A p r i o r i t y sequence for the allocation of peripheral ground rods i s exactly as guessed b y Mr. Jackson.

28 1
3. He is also correct in pointing out a certain discrepancy in the statement concerning Fig. 6. The missing key word is "shapewise". Thus, the emphasis indeed is on comparing the shape o f RM output with the shape o f a $ curve from the second mesh (first closed mesh) toward the grid center, irrespective o f the fact that, because o f a lesser voltage bias, the RM output is numerically closer t o the values o f a # curve. 4. Both Mr. Jackson and prof. Nahman raised the same question, concerning the necessity t o use longer ground leads for connections t o the " f i x e d structures in the switchyard. In reality, i t is rather unlikely that some o f the north-south wires, as well as some o f the east-west wires, would not run sufficiently close t o the desired interconnection points. Therefore, in a majority o f actual designs, such as in the case o f a progressively spaced grid design f o r the 345 kV line termination area described in /4/, any increases in the average length o f ground leads due t o the use o f an optimized grid pattern, have been insignificant. Responding t o prof. Nahman's other points; 5. Supplementary ground mats under operating handles, etc., would have t o be added as an extra safety measure, i f the wire position has been substantionally changed in the actual installation.

6. The algorithm can be programmed t o exclude the first 1 or 2 peripheral wires f r o m the progressive spacing action. This accounts f o r the possible heed t o run an extra loop outaide a grounded metallic fence, where the spacing o f outside w i r e k ) is dictated by a reach distahce t o the fence.

7. Presently there are no provisions t o consider, for example, the addition o f an extra inch o f crush stones, as another tradeoff within the optimization sequence. As this would not be difficult t o do, it might be worthwlle t o investigate the use o f such a measure on a limited basis, f o r instance, f o r "qualifying" the nekt more efficient design alternative, if i t only narrowly "fails" the safety criterion without the measure. Manuscript received April 27, 1988.