1979 2089
Assume now that a current I flows from grid to a- It is not possible to find an equivalent uni-
ground and that SOp S13,S2, ....Sn are the equipotential form soil (constant resistivity Pi) for an
surfaces which exist in the actual case described in actual heterogeneous soil (p1xpa4).
Figure 1.1. The distance between two consecutive sur- b- In contrast, it is possible to find an equi-
faces Si and Si+l is selected so that one can assume valent two-layer soil for the actual soil (or
Si=Si+l. Surface SO is the electrode's surface and is several two-layer soils which give the limits
at potential Eo with respect to remote ground. The of the actual case results):
line of current (or streamline) i m which runs through
point M at the soil surface causes at M a voltage drop The same grid of Figure 1.1, buried in the equi-
AVM (with respect to SO) expressed by: t valent two-layer soil-(with an upper layer resistivity
of Pi) will have its grounding performance described
AVM = i am /am
PiLmm L ipi = L
m m -P1 ....(3) by equations (6) and (7), with a ' sign where necessa-
mm t
SO ry. Therefore the conditions for the equivalence, as-
Where, suming Ar =Ar', are:
o 0
am is the cross-section of the elementary cy-
lindrical path where ground current density I /st =It/St = A ............... (8)
im (in A/m2) is practically constant - (m2)
0 0
Lm is the length of the preceding path - (m) L'4 = L = BB. .............. (9)
Am is the current density distribution function m m m m
along grid conductors (+m(x,y,z) = 1 if the
distribution is assumed uniform)
St0 is the surface of the conductors which are
P
a
Ar./S Epari/Si =
........ (lo)
in contact with the upper layer of soil A two-layer soil is characterized by its upper
It is the total current flowing out of St.
0
layer resistivity Pi and height h, and the bottom la-
yer resistivity P2 (or the reflexion factor K=[p2-pl]/
Between equipotential surface SO and SI (average [P2+Pl])i
distance between SO and Si = Aro) there is a voltage
drop AVO: AV0 piAr It/S
=
.(4) Thus, each of the equations (8),(9) and (10) will
impose a value of h and K, since Pi has been selected
Between equipotential surface Si and an equipo- equal to the actual upper layer resistivity. If the h
tential surface at infinity S,,0, the voltage drop is: are equal and the K are equal, then a unique two-layer
soil is equivalent to the actual one. If not, then the
i-l =Vi i-l paAriI/Si .................... (5) actual soil grounding performance is in between the
performances of both two-layer soils which give res-
pectively the best and worst results.
Where pai is an apparent resistivity value for the In practice however, the values of A, B or C are
heterogeneous soil located between surface Si and S i+ not known. Therefore, it is not possible to evaluate
(see Figure 1.2). the values of h or K. As a result, it will be necessa-
St1_&O~ .93
2091
ry to study the ground system for a wide range of h for K=0.98 and -0.98 respectively, were practically
and K values. The worst case obtained should be used identical with the uniform soil density curve.
as a reference for the design. A companion paper [11] to
shows that, effectively, there is a worst case which 1007A/m
does not correspond to the extreme values of h or K or
to a uniform soil. '
\ +
s. _
80 0.5 -a10. -
_.98
0
a I i
* . .
0 2 4 6 8 10
(Soil Surface) Rod length (meters)
Figure 2.1 - Single Rod Current Densities (h=5m)
Figure 2.2 is similar to 2.1 but for an upper la-
yer height of lm for heights slightly larger than rod 0.1 1. 10. 100.
length, it was noticed that the effect of the subsoil h, surface layer height (m)
becomes negligible even with extreme values of K (±1).
For instance when h = 12m, the current density curves, Figure 2.3 - Single Rod Resistance
2092
2.1.2 Resistance, "R" Because of the proximity effects between rods (mutual
coupling), the isolated rod current density function
Figure 2.3 gives the ground rod resistance as a (Section 2.1.1) is not always applicable for multiple
function of upper layer height h, for several values driven rods. The following will show to what extent
of the reflexion factor K. Again, it can be noticed current densities are modified by the mutual coupling.
that the soil stratification effect can be ignored if Touch voltage (%)
h is slightly larger than rod length L. This is parti-
cularly true when the subsoil is more conductive than - 80 K=
the surface. As soon as h becomes smaller than L, a
substantial drop or increase of the resistance occurs
suddenly. The resistance increases (K>0) more progres-
sively than when it decreases (K<0). For low values of
h (with respect to L), a further decrease of h has no
effect on the resistance value except when K is posi-
tive and close to 1. Thus a ground rod will be useful
only if it is effectively in contact with a low resis-
tivity subsoil.
2.1.3 Touch Voltages "Vt"
The touch voltage in this case, is defined as the
difference between the rod potential rise (RI) and the
surface soil potential at a distance of lm from the 5 10 20 30
rod. Figure 2.4 shows the touch voltage (in Volts) as Surface layer height (meters)
a function of h, for several values of K. The touch
voltage curves are very similar to the resistance ones Figure 2.5 - Single Rod Touch Voltage in %
(see Figure 2.3). Thus, similar conclusions are appli-
cable. However the volts values are perhaps misleading 2.2.1 Current Densities
because in practice it will not always be possible to
have 1000 A in the rod when its resistance is high. In Each curve of Figure 2.6 represents the current
fact, the term "prospective touch voltage" is probably density along a ground rod of various multiple rod
more adequate. Percent values are also convenient. electrodes, as shown in the figure. These curves were
obtained assuming a uniform soil. The total current of
Figure 2.5 presents the touch voltages in percent the electrode is lOOOn Amperes, where n is the total
of the corresponding grid potential rise. The curves number of rods in the electrode. Thus, the average cu-
show that, when expressed in percent, touch voltages rrent density is 100 A/m.
exhibit a minimum and maximum value (for positive and
negative values of K respectively), when upper layer The current density in one of electrode R2 rods,
height h is in the order of rod length L. The previous is practically identical to the isolated rod current
results show that, assuming a constant rod potential density. This is a logical result, because of symmetry
rise value, the worst touch voltages occur when the and the fact that current density is given in Amperes
subsoil is more conductive than the surface soil. per meter. However the surface current density in A/m2
is not the same as in the single rod case.
4-i
120 '
,2.~~~~~
' i 5, _ ;,i=, :=
-ea 80
0.1 4-i ..A --:
**..& I '*u, R5 * -- -- - R2
a) * * Rl
0. 1 1. 10. 100. $4
P 40'
h, surface layer height (m) 0
Figure 2.4 - Single Rod Touch Voltage
Uniform Soil --__0 R3
isolated rod case are larger in the low conductivity sistivity Pi (which is assumed lOOQ-m) but also a
layer than in the more resistive one. function of h (upper layer height) and P2 (subsoil re-
?I x * - ,-
2~-I
(h=5m) K=O.9 sistivity) or, *which is equivalent since Pi is kept
constant, reflexion factor K instead of P2.
i11 3
>: K=0.9
o 1.=0.98
100.
4)
o
S
4--i
0
> 10.
Cd .Z
0
H
N
-0.9.
He
$4
1. -0.
1.-.
o z=05m
0 z=0. 5m
0.1.
-0.98) 0. 1-
nected. Everything being equal, the observations made ess. Examination of Figures 4.1 and 4.2 (also Fi-
in Section 2.2.1 for ground rods are also valid for 3.2 of Reference [11] shows mainly that:
this case. The effect of the two outer cross-conduc-
tors of electrode HC4-(not considered in 2.2.1) can be Ground rods are good "fault current discharge"
observed in this figure. These cross-conductors ,ctors, even in uniform soils. This is confirmed
damp significantly the high conductor edge current eir average current density values which are al-
densities. The same phenomena occurs also in "meshed" double the horizontal conductors ones, and by
type grid, but the damping effect is less effective at ,ctor No. 1 current density curve (electrode SR3)
the grid edges than at its center [1lJ. ,lacks symmetry because of the large damping ef-
of the corner rod.
16 40 -
1 60-
"v,w -"
' SE2, 1
., SR25,2
Table 3.1 C
'0
4.0 MULTIPLE DRIVEN RODS CONNECTED VIA A GROUND GRID vC 40'
a) ' <v SR9,1
It is not possible to present in a short paper wl--
3.4
the results of the numerous possibilities of grid-rods
combinations and two-layer soil structures. Consequen-
0 20. K= 0. SR5 2
tly, this section will be restricted to a four mesh
grid buried in a uniform or two-layer soil (h=5m, with 4 8 12 16 20
A A I
-O.9<K<O.9) at a depth z=0.5m. The grid edge dimension I i
is 20m. Location on conductor (meters)
Figure 4.1 - Rods and Grid - Grid Currents
4.1 Current Densities
Power station ground grids are usually designed 4.1.2 Effect of Subsoil
for maximum potential rise of lOkV. Thus,assuming an
a
average power system ground fault current of 2MkA, the The effect of soil structure is shown using the
grid resistance must be less than 0.5Q. Consequently, current density curves of Figures 4.3 and 4.4. These
the power network ground fault magnitude is determined figures confirm several observations made previously
by system impedances and a moderate variation of grid in Sections 2.0, 3.0 and 4.1.2. Figure 4.4 should be
resistance will not have any significant effect on the compared with 2.7. The main conclusions of this analy-
grid current. For this reason, in this section, the sis are:
grid current is lOkA regardless of the number of rods
connected to the grid. a-The rod drainage effect observed previously for
uniform soils, exists also when soil is stratified,
4.1.1 Ground Rods-Grid Conductors Mutual Effects even when the subsoil is less conductive than the top
layer.
Figure 4.1 shows the horizontal conductor current b-When the subsoil has a very low resistivity, the
densities when lOm long ground rods are connected pro- electrode's current is almost entirely discharged by
gressively to the grid. Figure 4.2 shows the ground the rod parts which are in contact with the subsoil.
rod current density while the previous operation is in c-The outer conductors still carry higher current
2096
densities than the inner ones. However, the differen- S3 SRI SR2 SR5 SR9
ce is negligible for low resistivity subsoils but con-
siderable (with respect to uniform soil case) when the Electrode
surface layer has the lowest resistivity value. Type_
Resistance 2.58 __ 2.28 2.00 1.81
Touch *
Voltage (%) 35.0 __ 31.0 25.0 21.0
a- Uniform Soil
Reflexion Uniform
Factor K -0.9 .-0.5 Soil (0.0) 0.5 0.9
Resistance 0.164 __ 1.81 3.50 7.78
(Q) __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Touch *
Voltage(% 350
_ -13.4
_ 210 1.
6.6
66
a_ 1 2 5 .3
W 40 - 3 SR9 ". K=-0.9
only 4
200
20 a)
20n -
-W
1
a- -- ----= K=-O. 9
A
.
2 "XU) 150
4 8 12 16 20 a)
Location on conductor (meters) JJ
'0
Figure 4.3 - Electrode SR9 -
Two-Layer Soil (h=5m) 4) K=0.9 ,.' 'J > K
5 =0.03
p 100 /5 K=0. 0
c- It was shown that ground conductors current den- 4- C. Jensen, "Grounding principles and practice, II-
sities are influenced by soil characteristics, Establishing grounds", Elec. Eng., Vol. 64, Februa-
conductor location and its interconnections with ry 1945, pp. 68-74.
other conductors, and conductor direction with
respect to the vertical. 5- W.R. Bullard, "Grounding principles and practice.
IV- System Grounding", Elec. Eng., Vol. 64, April
d- A curious phenomena was observed when the subsoil 1945. pp. 145-151.
has a high resistivity and an horizontal conduc-
tor is buried below a thin surface layer. The 6- F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar, "Optimum design of sub-
touch voltage, instead of increasing continuously station grounding in two-layer earth structure",
up to the uniform soil value (when upper thick- part I, II, & III, IEEE Transactions, Vol. PAS-94,
ness is decreased to zero), exceeded the previous No. 2, March/April 1975, pp. 252-272.
value significantly before decreasing again tow-
ards the uniform soil value. 7- F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar, "Multi-step analysis of
interconnected grounding electrodes" IEEE Transac-
e- The current density "damping" effects of cross- tions, Vol. PAS-95, No. 1, January/February 1976,
conductors and the current "drainage" effects of pp. 113-119.
ground rods on horizontal conductors were shown
clearly and are believed to be new concepts not 8- F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar, "Transferred earth po-
previously reported or, at-least, insufficiently tentials in power systems", IEEE Transactions, Vol.
discussed and described. PAS-97, No. 1, January/February 1978, pp. 90-101.
f- Last but not the least, multiple driven electro- 9- T.N. Giao, M.P. Sarma, "Effect of two-layer earth
des are shown to be, everything being equal, more on the electric fields near HVDC electrodes", IEEE
effective than equivalent ground grids made of Transactions, Vol. PAS-O1, No.6, November 1972, pp.
horizontal conductors. This is true even when 2346-65.
soil is uniform. However,when subsoil resistivity
is high, the horizontal conductors are more ef-
fective because they reduce significantly the 10-J. Sverak, "Optimized grounding grid design using
touch voltages. variable spacing technique", IEEE Transactions,
Vol. PAS-95, January/February 1976.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their appreciation to the Na-
tional Research Council of Canada for providing the 11-F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar, "Parametric analysis
necessary financial support of the work. The authors of grounding grids". Companion paper submitted for
also acknowledge the cooperation and facilities offe- presentation at the IEEE PES winter meeting, New-
red by Ecole Polytechnique and Montel Inc. York, 1978.
2098
D. Mukhedkar, for photograph and biography please see page 728 of F. Dawalibi and D. Mukhedkar: We would like to thank Mr. Wehling
the May/June 1979 issue of this TRANSACTIONS. for his interest in our paper and for his encouraging comments. Mr.
Wehling questions are answered in the sequence they are raised in his
Farid Dawalibi, for photograph and biography please see page 1667 of discussion.
the September/October 1979 issue of this TRANSACTIONS. The theory which is the analytical basis of MALT program permits
the analysis of grounding electrodes buried in two-layer soils. The elec-
Discussion trode may be in contact with both layers, (partially buried in the first
layer). Therefore, the equations are valid for any grounding electrode
J. Wehling (United Power Association, Elk River, MN): The authors buried in two-layer soil regardless of the way it is in contact with both
have made a valuable contribution to our understanding of the overall layers.
performance of a grounding system in this paper as well as in earlier We fully agree with Mr. Wehling conclusion related to table 4.1
related papers. Because of the complexities involved, most earlier results. As pointed out by Mr. Wehling, when the bottom layer has a
studies have not attempted to analyze the combined effects of a groundlower resistivity than the top one, the addition of ground rods which are
grid which utilizes ground rods extending into a soil of differing in contact with this bottom layer, reduces significantly the grid
resistivity. While many areas of the world may contain formations resistance and as a consequence the potential rise and the touch voltages
which make it infeasible to drive ground rods very deeply, there are are also greatly reduced.
other areas where it is possible to go as deep as 34m (111 ft.) with good In several of our previous publications we already have compared
the theoretical results with experimental ones. We have also compared
results. This paper gives the engineer a better understanding of the ef-
fect of these variables on the important design parameters of a grid. our results with measurements conducted by others. In all cases we have
The authors have developed generalized equations to show the obtained satisfactory agreement. However, we have not made yet any
comparisons when the electrode is simultaneously in contact with both
behavior of a grounding grid in two layer soils. It is not completely clear
layers. The reason is mainly because this will require that the reduced
from the analysis (Section 1.0) or Figures 1.1 and 1.2 whether the grid
scale model be made of two stable liquids of different resistivities.
itself is in actual contact with soils of two resistivities as might be the
case with deep grounding. Do the authors feel the equations retain their However, Mr. C. J. Blattner (1) has made some comparisons with
a real life installation (including ground rods in contact with the bottom
generality if the electrode is indeed in contact with soil of one resistivity
only? layer). Our predictions were in good agreement with his measurements.
The results given in Table 4.1 are particularly interesting in that REFERENCE
they show the effect upon Touch Voltages of adding ground rods to the
grid. It can be seen that even though the listed Touch Voltage is 35% (1) Discussion by Mr. C. J. Blattner of "Parametric analysis of
(for K = -0.9), the addition of rods still result in a lower Touch grounding grids" IEEE paper F 79 243-7, IEEE PES winter
Voltage when multiplied by the corresponding IR drop of the grid. meeting, Feb. 1979.
Finally, have the authors had the opportunity to confirm their
results by scale model tests as they have with their earlier analysis?
Manuscript received February 26, 1979. Manuscript received April 23, 1979.