Correlation between laboratory and field tests on the

impulse impedance of rod-type ground electrodes

Y. Chen and P. Chowdhuri
Abstract: A previous study on laboratory-model ground rods showed that the impulse impedance
of these ground electrodes is a function of the injected impulse current and fits the relationship:
Z=k$, where k and a are two parameters which depend upon the electrode configuration, soil
properties and the impulse waveshape. The power-frequency and impulse impedances of two
vertical rods embedded in the soil of a field near the university campus are measured. It is found
that the ground electrodes in the field also have the similar relationship with the injected current. In
complementary experiments, the same soil is tested in the laboratory with a laboratory model
electrode system, consisting of a vertical rod embedded in the axis of a cylindrical soil holder with
controlled moisture content in the soil sample. The objective is to correlate the laboratory data on
the impulse impedance to estimate the impulse impedance of the ground electrodes tested in the
field and compare the results with that of the actual field tests. It is possible to estimate the impulse
impedance of the ground electrodes in the field from tests performed on laboratory-model
electrodes. In correlating the laboratory data to the field data, the critical electric field of soil
ionisation plays a critical role, which depends upon the soil properties, e.g. soil resistivity. Future
research should be directed to find a more precise relationship between the critical electric field and
the soil properties.
1 Introduction
When lightning strikes the sheld wire or the tower of an
overhead power line, impulse current flows along the tower
and is dissipated in the earth, raising the transient voltage
across the line insulator. The magnitude of this transient
voltage is a function of the voltage drop across the tower-
footing impedance under transient conditions, with a higher
tower-fooling impedance producing a higher insulator
voltage. Although this tower-footing impedance is assumed
to be equal to the steady state power-frequency resistance in
the analysis of lightning performance of overhead lines, in
reality it is a function of the impulse current, decreasing
with higher currents. This was discussed previously [I].
Soils from different regions in Tennessee were tested in
the laboratory in different soil holders and laboratory-
model ground rods under different waveshapes of the
applied impulse [I ]. It was shown that the relationship
between the impulse impedance of a ground rod and the
applied impulse current can he expressed as
Z =kl; (1)
where Z is the ground-rod impulse impedance (Q), Ip is the
peak impulse current (A), and k and c( are two parameters
which depend upon the electrode configuration, soil
properties and the waveshape of the applied impulse.
Q IEE. 2003
IEE Proceedings onlineno. 20030246
dot I O. IM9/iiFgld:20030246
Paper fin[ mxived 2lsL August 2002and in revlied form191hDecember 2002
Y . Chen is with the lrnpulse NC. Inc., Mount Olive, NC, 28365, USA
P. Chowdhu" i s with theCenter for Elctnc Power, TennesseeTchnolqical
University. P.0. Box 5032, Cookevillc. TN 38505. USA
420
Generally, the ground-electrode impulse impedance is
defined as [2]:
where V,, is the peak of the applied impulse voltage and Zp is
the peak of the impulse current flowing through the soil.
The ground-electrode impulse impedance' has also been
defined as [3]:
where Vjp is the magnitude of the applied impulse voltage at
the instant of the peak of the impulse current. The difficulty
in defining the impulse impedance as Z, or Z, is that the
peaks of the voltage and the current do not occur at the
same instant because of the nonlinearity of the soil impulse
impedance, particularly at high currents when soil ionisa-
tion sets in. Moreover, high-frequency oscillations are
superimposed on the voltage and current waves caused by
corona pulses during soil ionisation. In addition, the
grounding system initially appears to he a capacitive
impedance, particularly for high-resistivity soil and/or fast-
rising applied voltage and current. The instantaneous
impedance of a ground rod as a function of time,
Z(r) =V(r)/Z(t), is plotted in Fig. 1.
The sharp spikes on the impedance profile are origi-
nated by current spikes which, in turn, are produced
by high-frequency corona caused by soil ionisation.
Therefore, defining the impulse impedance by either
Eq. (24 or Eq. (2b) is impractical. Moreover, the impe-
dance is not constant during the application of the impulse.
We have proposed a new definition of the impulse
IEE Proe-Gene,. Tmmm Dixrrib.. Vol. 150, No. 4, July ZW3
l o 1
0 5 10 15 20
time, ps
-2 1
Fig. 1 Profile qf'inipdse inipehnce ofground rod
impedance [I]:
( 2c)
VW,
Z& =-
1' I.y
where and are the average voltage and current
during the application of the impulse. Vac(, and larg were
obtained by measuring the voltage and current at each
point on the voltage and current traces and averaging from
the total number of points. The computation was
performed using microsoft Excel.
Vertical steel rods, embedded in soil_ were impulsed in a
field adjoining the campus of Tennessee Technolo_dcal
University during the present study to test the validity of
(I ). In addition, the same soil was tested in the laboratory in
cylindrical soil holders of I O and 2Ocm diameter with
laboratory-model ground rods, similar to the previous
study.
The primary objective of the present study was to
estimate the impulse impedance of ground rods in the field
by performing impulse tests in the laboratory on a small-
scale model of the ground-rod system. The experiments can
be divided broadly into (i) field tests, and (ii) laboratory
tests. The purpose of the laboratory tests was to determine
if the laboratory test results could becorrelated to the field
test results.
2 Field t est s
During the field tests, the steady-state resistivity of the soil
surrounding the test electrodes was measured with a
commercial soil resistivity measurement system prior to
Hipotronics
model PP50-5 trigatran
the impulse tests. The four-point measurement scheme was
used for the steady state resistivity measurements (41. Four
vertical rods (electrodes) were buried in soil, equally spaced
at A =7.62 m. Later, measurements were performed with
two additional spacings, i.e. A =I.Omand 0.3 m. The three-
point measurement scheme was used to measure the power-
frequency resistance of the test ground rods (Fig. 2). The
test current
rod
reference
rod
Fig. 2
method
Mernurement of ground electrode resistmce by three-point
current-retum and reference-potential rods in Fig. 2 were
2.5m long, 1.59cm diameter vertical galvanised steel rods
embedded in the soil.
The soil moisture content was estimated by weighing the
moist soil from the test site, drying i t for 48 h above 100C
in an oven and weighing the dry soil.
Two single galvanised steel rods were tested. The
schematic for the impulse tests is shown in Fig. 3 and the
dimensions of the two test rods are shown in Table I .
A single-stage, 50 kV, 1.2/50 ps impulse, generator was
connected between the test ground rod and the ground-
retum electrode. The ground-return electrode consisted of
ic 7.62 m +
1 driven
ground
rod
42 I
Table 1: Dimensions of the tested ground rods
Length, cm Diameter, cm Burial depth, m
30.48 0.9525 0.2286
45.72 1.5875 0.3048
ten 2.5111 long, 1.59cm diameter copper-clad steel rods.
They were buried vertically in the ground around the
circumference of a circle of 8 m diameter. The ten rods were
connected to a circular copper plate, which was placed on a
wooden pole at the centre of the circle. This copper plate
was connected to the impulse generator. The output voltage
was measured by a 10.8 kO, 430.6:l resistive voltage divider
(response time <80 ns) and the current by a 300 Hz current
transformer with a I O load resistor. The signals were
recorded by a twochannel, 60MHz digital oscilloscope and
the data were stored in a laptop computer.
3 Laboratory tests
All laboratory tests were performed with soil from the field
test site. Two different test configurations were used, as
shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Dimensions of soil sample holders
Test configuration Sample holder Sample holder
height, cm inner diameter,
cm
1
2
10 10
10 20
Roddiameter=0.635cm, burial depth=3cm
The soil sample from the field-test site was dried in an
oven at about 120C for at least 24 h. The dried soil was
then cooled to room temperature in a closed container,
weighed and mixed with deionised water of the required
amount. The moist soil was sieved to remove lumps before
fihng the lOcm soil holder with it. The soil was then
compacted in the soil holder with a 4 kg weight before the
vertical rod was placed in the middle. The rod was held in
place by a wooden bridge. The procedure for testing with
the'20 cmsoil holder was the same, except that exactly four
times the weight of moist soil was used and the soil was
compacted by a 16kg weight. All laboratory tests were
performed with two soil moisture contents by weight: 10%
and 15%.
The 60 Hz resistance of the soil sample was measured by
applying a variable 60Hz voltage between the rod and the
outer shell of the cylindrical soil holder. The voltage was
varied from 25V in steps of 25V up to IOOV, and then
back again in 25 V steps to 25 V.
The 1. 2/ 50~s impulse voltage was generated by a four-
stage 20 kV Marx generator and applied across the rod and
the outer shell of the cylindrical soil holder. Seven impulses
were applied with increasing amplitudes. The output voltage
was measured with a IOkR, 401:1, 300MHz resistive
voltage divider. The current was measured with a 300 MHz
current transformer with a 50R load resistor. The signals
were recorded by a four-channel 500 MHz digital oscillo-
scope and processed and stored in a personal computer.
4 Test results
4.7 Field tests
The average power-frequency resistivity of the soil from the
earth's surface to the depth A is given by [4]:
p,=2n.A.R (Om); (3)
where A is the distance between the electrodes, and R is the
meter reading. The power-frequency resistances of the test
rods were also measured by the soil resistivity meter. using
the three-point measurement scheme (Fig. 2). The compo-
site soil resistivity as 'seen' by the test electrode can be
evaluated from the equation
(4)
where & is the measured resistance of the test rod (meter
reading), t , is the burial depth of the rod and Y is its radius.
Table 3 summarises the power-frequency measurements on
the test rod.
Table 4 summarises the impulse tests on the two ground-
rod configurations. Z,, and Z,,, as defined in Eq. (%) and
(2c) are shown in Table 4. Z,, and Z, , were computed from
the measured applied voltage and current. These impe-
dances are plotted in Figs. 4 and 5 as a function of the peak
impulse current. A curve was plotted using the least square
technique to match the seven experimental points.
4.2 Laboratory tests
The resistivity, ps, of the soil sample was computed from the
measured resistance, R, from the following equation:
where V and Z are the voltage across and the current
through the soil sample, I , is the depth of the rod in the soil,
r, is the inner radius of the cylindrical soil sample holder,
and r, is the radius of the rod.
Figs.6 and 7 show the plots of impulse impedance
profiles for laboratoly-model ground rods.
Table 3 Summary of power-frequency field tests on ground rods
p,. p2, p3 measured with A= 7.62 m. 1 m and 0.3028 m, respectively: pg calculated from measured test-rod resistance, Rd by (4)
~
Test no. Rod dia- Burial Soil Soil resistivity. Clm Measured Soil
meter depth IQ, moisture. p, P2 P3 Rd, R resistivity
I2rL cm cm % pg.
1 0.9525 22.86 16.17 244.10 148.20 63.40 287 105.9
2 0.9525 22.86 12.91 242.62 344.77 144.04 327 120.4
3 1.5875 30.48 16.17 244.10 148.20 63.40 220 114.6
4 1.5875 30.48 12.91 242.62 344.77 144.04 253 131.7
Table 4 Summary of f i el d i mpul se tests on gr ound rods
Rod diameter, Burial depth, Soil moisture, Impulse impedance, k n
cm cm % kR
0.9525 22.86 16.97 2,"s 0.2940 -0.1375
ZP 0.2937 -0.1475
1.5875 30.48 12.91 z., 0.2874 -0,1119
ZD 0.2786 -0.1253
0.18-
c 0.16-
$ 0.14-
1
c
; 0.12-
.- E 0.10-
0.18,
. . .
!:Ir,, measured Z
, , , ,
least square fit
002
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
peakcurrent, A
a
0.18,
3 0.08-
-
2 0.06-
0.04 -
0.02 -
.-
0.16-
0.14-
r
g 0.12-
.E 0.08.
%
.- E
c
i 0.10-
P
0.06 -
0.04-
0.02,
.
"
g 0.10-
.E 0.08-
0 P
D (I)
2 0.06-
E
0.04-
.-
least square fit
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
peak current, A
b
Fi g. 4
Rod diameter=0.9575cm, burial depth =22.8hm, soil moist.
ure =16.97%
oZ,,,= VJ/,,z; h=0.294, a=-0.1375
b Z,,= Kp/ID: k=0.2937, a= -0,1475
Profiles of qround-rod impulse impedance: field tests
5 Analysis
5.1 Models of electrode systems
5.1.1 Model for laboratory tests: For laboratory
tests in a cylindrical soil sample holder and a cylindrical rod
with hemispherical tip, the resistance for the ground-rod
systemis
0.20,
O j
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
peak current. A
a
0.1a1
measured Z
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
peak current, A
b
Fi g. 5 Profiles of ground-rod impuhe impedunce: field tests
Rod diameter=1.5875cm. burial deolh=30.48cm. soil moist-
ure=12.91%
U Z ml = V&//& k=0.2874, x=-O.1119
b Zp= l'J/,,: k=0.2786, a=-0.1253
r , is the radius of the rod (m). Under high impulse currents,
the soil surrounding the embedded rod will ionise. The
extent of ionisation will depend on the level of the injected
current, being limited by the critical electric field for
ionisation, E,.. It is assumed that the soil resistivity is
negligible inside the ionised zone compared to that of the
rest of the soil. This is the dynamic model of the electrode
system. The electric field at a radial distance, r , from the rod
axis is given by
423
7
14
7 -
5 4
I
D
~P
.- E 3 -
a 2 -
0 ,
l -
E
.-
peakcurrent, A
a
7 ,
: I : \ *
measured2
least square f i t
D
.-
"> I
7 -
6.
cm 4 .
8
.E 3 .
9
E 2
E
a
D
.-
0
l -
.
:-5-\ .
.
least square lit
EzT!
least square lit
. .
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
peakcurrent, A
b
Fig. 6 Profiles of ground-rod impulse impedance: laboratory tests
Test COnfigurdtiOn I of Table2; soil moisture=15%, soil re-
sistivity =31s Qm
U Z,,= VnCv/L,: k=4.3139, a=-0.2215
b Z,= Vq/I,: k=4.2012, a= -0.2343
where i(r) is the current density (Aim') at a radial distance r
from the rod axis, and I is the total injected current. Then,
at the edge of the ionisation zone (r =r,):
From (S), the quadratic equation of r, is:
and
where a =2xE,, b =2xE,I, and c =-pyZ. Replacing r,in
( 6) by r; will give the impulse impedance, Z,,, of the
electrode systemconsisting of the rod embedded in soil at
the axis of the cylindrical soil holder, i.e.
surface to infinity:
If the level of the injected current exceeds a critical value,
the soil surrounding the rod will ionise, extending the
effective radius of the rod to the edge of the ionised zone
(rr + Ti ) , similar to the case of the model for laboratory
tests in a cylindrical soil holder. If the critical electric field,
E, is known, then the radius, r,, of the ionisation zone
surrounding the rod, i.e. the effective radius of the rod, can
bederived from (10). Knowing r,, the impulse impedance of
the systemconsisting of the rod embedded in semi-infinite
earth can be found by replacing r, in (12) by ri:
From (S), ri is a function of the injected current, I.
increasing with higher I. From (11) and (13), the impulse
impedance, Z,,,,,, is a function of r;, and hence a function of
I. Therefore, Z,, decreases with increasing current for both
the laboratory setup and the field setup.
5.7.2 Model for field tests: For a single ground rod
with hemispherical tip, buried in semi-infinite earth, the
ground resistance of the rod can becomputed by integrating
the resistance of the elemental cylindrical shell from the rod
424 IEE Proc.-Gmer Tramm. Dkrrib.. V d I S U. No. 4, J u b 2003
CHANl
5.000 Vldiv " +!
c2
t
5 8 -
c m
CHAN2
100.0 mVldiv
I f I
a
b
Fig. 8
soil holder
Soil holder: lOcmhigh and lOcmdiameter
Ground rad: diameler=0,635cm. embedded 3- in soil
U soil moisture=10% (p!,=2OfMh)
b soilmoisture=ZO% (p,=71.lQm)
Volraqe and currenf profiles.$). qround rod in cylinrlrical
5.2 Critical electric field
The critical electric field, E,, for soil ionisation is the most
significant parameter in the nonlinear characteristics of the
impulse impedance of gound electrodes. However, no
agreement has been found in estimating E,. Oettle suggested
a value of 1000 kV/m [ 5] , whereas Mousa suggested a value
of 300kV/m for typical soil [6]. However, typical soil is
atypical. Originally, Oettle proposed an empirical equation
for E,. as a function of soil resistivity, pg, based on tests:
E, =241pYt5 (kV/m) (14)
We believe that a constant value of E, is not justified.
Fig. 8 shows the voltage and current profiles from two tests
in the laboratory on the same soil. The two tests were
identical, except that in Fig. Xu, the soil moisture was 10%
(pe= 2000Qm) and in Fig. 86, the soil moisture was 20%
(p,=71.1 Qm). In Fig. 8u, the soil withstood the voltage,
whereas in Fig. 86, it sparked over. Therefore, weadopted
(14), pending further research.
5.3 Correlation between tests
As the electric field is the most important parameter, the
criterion for correlation between two sets of tests should be
that the electric fields for the two sets of tests bethe same. If
the parameters for the series 1 tests are put , it and It (soil
resistivity, current density and current), and similarly pU2. i2
and I2 for series 2, then
I '
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
peak current. A
a
-
s 5 8 : \ \ + - - - - - - - - - - - -
.-
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
peak ~ur r eni . A
b
Fig. 9
correlation between two laboratory test confrgurations
Laboratory test configuration 2 of Table 2 soil moisture=15%
Correlated with lest configuration 1 of Table 2 and 15% soil moisture
(Fig. 6)
01 Z,, =V'/Ioui correlated with test of Fig. 6a (estimated: k =6.41 IO:
a=-0.1825, measured k=6.1910: a=-0.2325)
h Z,= V@/I; correlated with test of Fig. 6b (estimated: k=6.2301:
a=-0.1953; measured k=6.1272 u=-O.2195)
Estimated and e.rperimenta1 impulse-impedance profiles:
where I t , rrl and 1 2 , rrz are the embedded lengths and radii
of the ground rods for the two configurations. Then, the
current, I*, of the second setup corresponding to It in the
first setup, i.e. Et(rrl) =E2(r,*), is
For correlation between the two test setups in the
laboratory, (6) gives:
and
or
For correlation between a laboratory test and a field test,
the equation for Zt i s the same as in (17rr). Invoking (13):
425
8 0,051
, , , ,
estimated
_ _ _
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
peakcurrent. A
a
a 0.10-
3
-
" ,
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
peakcurrent. A
b
Fig. 10
correlation hetwen Iubburarorj' andfield tesrs
Field test configuration I of Table I : soil moisture=16.97%
Correlated with test configuration 2 of Table 2 and 15% soil moisture
(Fig. 7)
U Z,,g =V,,,,/Iou~ correlated with test of Fig. 7u (estimated: k =0.3440
z=-O.l638; Measured k=0.2940: cr=-O.l375)
h Z,= Kp/f p: correlated with test of Fig. 7h (estimated k=0.3312
a=-O.1590; Measured: k=0.2937 0=-0.1475)
kkiimuied und rrperimenral impulse-iiiipedance pnfi1e.s:
or
If the electric field is higher than Ec, the actual radii of the
rods should be replaced by their effective radii.
For each point (II, ZJ of the laboratory test, the
corresponding point (12, Z,) can thus beestimated either for
a second laboratory setup or for a setup in the field by
applying (16) and (IS) or (20). A curve is then plotted for
the estimated points by the least square method, and k and
a for Z=k P are estimated. Figs. 9 and I O show the
correlations between two laboratory tests, and between
laboratory and field tests, respectively.
6 Discussion
The field tests with rod-type ground electrodes confirm our
earlier findings from laboratory tests that the impulse
impedance of a rod electrode follows (I ). We have defined
the impulse impedance in two ways, as given in (2b) and
(2c). The values of k and a estimated in either way, do not
differ significantly (Tahle4). However, the scatter of the
individual points from the least square plot of 2 is lower
when (24 is used.
We have succeeded in correlating the laboratory results
with that of the field, i.e. the results of the field tests could be
predicted from the laboratory tests in small soil sample
holders (Figs. 9 and 10). In the analysis for correlation, we
have assumed that the critical electric field in the soil is a
function of the soil resistivity, which follows (14). Extensive
tests need to he performed on soil samples to amve at a
better relationship between the critical electric field and the
soil resistivity. The critical electric field may also be a
function of other variables, such as the waveshape of the
applied impulse. The tests were performed with a 1.2/5Ops
applied impulse voltage. For waveshapes with shorter front
times, the soil permittivity may become significant.
Eventually, the impulse impedance of a ground rod system
may bepredicted from soil characteristics without perform-
ing any small-scale laboratory tests.
The soil resistivity was measured, using (3), with a soil
resistivity meter in several ways. The four rod electrodes
were spaced equally with separation distance, A =7.62 m,
I m and 30.48m. The power-frequency resistance of the
test electrode was measured by the three-electrode method
(Fig. 2) and the soil resistivity was computed by (4). A
significant difference in the results was noted (Table 3). We
believe that the difference was caused by the variation in the
resistivity in different layers of soil. The resistivity computed
from the measured resistance of the test electrode, i.e._ from
(4), was finally used because it is the resistivity which the test
electrode 'sees'.
7 Conclusions
1. The impulse impedance of rod type ground electrodes
follows the relation, Z =U;, where k and a are two
parameters which are functions of the soil properties and
the electrode configuration for a given impulse waveshape.
This is similar to the relationship found previously in
laboratory tests on small soil sample holders.
2. It is possible to estimate the impulse impedance of ground
rods in the field from test results in the laboratory.
3. The critical electric field of soil ionisation is a significant
parameter in the impulse behavior of ground electrodes. It
is expected that the impulse impedance of a ground rod
in the field may be estimated without performing any
laboratory tests if the relationship between the critical
electric field and the soil resistivity were known accurately.
Therefore, efforts should be directed to extensive tests on
the soil critical electric field.
8 References
Chowdhun. P.L.: 'I mpuk impdance tests on laboratory model
ground electrodes'. Suhnzirred lo IEE Pruc., Genrr. Trmsm. Disrrib
Bellaschi. P.L.: 'Impulse and 60sycl e charactenstics afdnven grounds'.
AIEE Tram.. 1941, 60. pp. 12.~128
Liew, A.C.. and Dawenh, M. : 'Dynamic model of impulse
charactenstics of concentrated earths'. P w c lmr Elecrr Eng.. 1974,
121. (2). pp. 12?-135
IEEE Guide for measuring earth resistivity. ground Impedance. and
carth surface potentials of B ground system(Part I). IEEE Standard 8 I -
1983
Oettle. E.E.: ' A new general estimation cuwe for predicting the impulse
impedance of concentrated earth electrodes'. IEEE Trmr. Poircr Ddic..
1988, 3. (4), pp. 202G2029
Mousa, A.M.: 'The soil ionization gradient associated with discharge of
high currents into concentrated elmtrades', IEEE Tram. Powr Delia,
1994. 9, (3). pp. 16691677
426