2M. Osman
to
technical
and
economic
implications
resulting
in
distribution
using
EPR which are both determined by the current flow from the
earth grid to the surrounding soil [2]. The earth grid must also
substation
earth
grid
was
designed
be
impact
on
safety
criteria
of
the
earth
grid.
Results
designed
and
installed
to
withstand
corrosion
and
indicated that, the EPR for 100% fault current was higher,
The
whereas the step and touch voltages were lower. It was also
major
challenge
encountered
by
power
system
and 25%.
Keywords-
CDEGS.
through
the
grid
for
various
possible
earth
fault
INTRODUCTION
the current discharged into the soil. However, part of the fault
grid. Only the current discharged into the soil through the
disperse electric current into the soil under both normal and
fault
and
conditions
without
exceeding
any
operating
762
2
occupying an area of 62Sm The value of the short circuit
flowing into the earth grid. A fault clearing time of 0.3s which
single core cables) will returns via the cable sheaths due to
fibrillation was used. The grid was redesigned using the same
SO% and 2S% of the fault current assumed to flow into the
of
grid
fault
current
returning
to
the
substation
earth
similar split factor for the two systems may lead to an error in
P r;n
4 A
(1)
Where.
and
are: AutoGround,
utilities.
The
MultiGround,
main
packages
J3x VL
(2a)
MultiGround+,
MultilLines,
Where,
2
A is the area occupied by the grid in m .
AutoGridPro,
Isc
I[
x 100 A
(2b)
%Z
Where.
the transformer.
II.
The proposed site
METHODOLOGY
of
the
III.
and
recommended by [8].
probes
were
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
all
(1) where a
763
arranged
in
straight
line
SOl'1
. . fiIeId data
resIstivIty
Average Apparent
Resistance (n)
46.2
27.8
20.0
12.5
8.0
Average Apparent
Resistivity (n-m)
290
349
377
314
251
as
These field data were used as inputs to the RESAP module for
a soil model to be determined which is presented in Table 2.
Note that this is the initial step in the design of any substation
earth grid and has to be done as accurate as possible.
Table 2 depicts the soil model obtained after the RESAP
run which indicates that the soil comprises of three layers. The
first, i.e. and top soil layer has a resistivity of 2630-m with a
thickness of approximately 1m. The second, i.e. middle soil
layer has a resistivity of 1560.40-m with 0.63m thickness.
The third, i.e. the bottom soil layer has the lowest value of soil
resistivity of 35.60-m with an infinite thickness. In summary,
the soil model is made of three layers with high resistivity
layer sandwiched between two low resistivity layers. Ideally,
the earth grid could have been buried in the third layer to take
voltages for 75%, 50% and 25% fault currents from the spot
levels at the middle of the grid indicating the same colour and
pattern. Nwnerical details have been provided in Tables 3 to 5.
27
21
15
764
765
the step and touch voltages were exactly the same, which are
893.3 and 367.6V, respectively for all the three fault currents
applied.
The safety criteria for the earth grid designed with surface
layer material of resistivity 3000Q-m is presented in Table 4.
Results indicate that for 100% fault current, the step and touch
voltages
were
lower
with
values
of
3098.7
and
919V,
respectively, while for 75%, 50% and 25% fault currents, the
values of step and touch voltages were similar for all three
fault currents and higher than the step and touch voltages of
the case for 100% fault current.
Step voltage
(V)
508.6
893.3
893.3
893.3
Touch
voltage (V)
271.4
367.6
367.6
367.6
Table 3 lists the safety criteria for earth grid designed without
Visual
inspection of equations (4) and (5), i.e. the formula for step
similar for all fault current variations, as the grid were similar
in terms of area occupied, dimensions and the number of
the step and touch voltages than EPR which were observed to
766
ESlep50
[8]
(4)
[9]
(5 )
IV.
[10]
CONCLUSION
or
underestimation
of
the
grid
geometric
parameters.
REFERENCES
[I]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
767