fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2425361, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2425361, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2425361, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
III. METHODOLOGY
The measurement system was developed to investigate the
benefits of recording substation ground potential rise events IF A
during actual power system ground faults and assist Ground
grid
grounding engineers address some of the key grounding V
challenges faced in executing their duty of care. Whilst the Auxiliary
Electrode
measurement of ground fault current is often readily available
within substations (via digital protection relays or bus
analyzers), it was surmised that the combination of this Soil
recorded fault current data with recorded ground potential rise voltage
waveforms may provide significant additional functionality to Etouch
traditional fault recording configurations. GPR Emeasured GPR
This section describes the ground potential rise
measurement system, including key design parameters, and distance
provides a summary of the analysis that may be performed on Fig. 2. Measurement Configuration
the recorded data.
A. Measurement System Description
The proposed measurement system is shown within Fig. 2.
The recording device measures either voltage between the
grid and an auxiliary electrode (as shown ‘V’), or the current
in a primary ground electrode. An additional recording device
may be installed at the transformer star point (neutral-ground
connection) to record the ground fault current IF.
Alternatively, the ground fault current may be recorded via
digital protection relay or a bus analyser. Touch and step
voltages can be directly measured using additional voltage
recording devices connected to auxiliary electrodes at the
desired site.
Fig. 3 shows a block diagram for the recording device.An
input module converts the measured voltage or current to an Fig. 3. Block diagram for ground potential rise recording device.
analogue signal, which is in turn converted into digital form
via an analog to digital converter (ADC). To achieve B. Summary of Analysis Performed
sufficient resolution to capture the power frequency faults Representative recorded waveforms are shown in Fig. 4.
(50Hz in Australia) a sample rate of at least five thousand The waveform type varies depending on the type of fault and
samples per second should be used. An adjustable digital whether there is a single or multi-phase involvement. For each
threshold trigger is used to identify when a ground fault recorded waveform, the RMS magnitude and duration is
occurs. When the device triggers, the waveform data for the calculated. A scaling factor, derived by current injection
fault is stored to memory, and will continue to record until the testing during the substation commissioning phase, is then
fault is cleared. applied to calculate the substation ground potential rise for
The recording devices used to capture the data within this each recorded ground fault. By comparing the ground
paper had a full scale input range of 2kV and 10kA for potential rise to the ground fault current IF, the total
voltage and current recorders respectively. To protect the substation grounding system impedance ZSGT is calculated for
device against large transient ground potential rises, such as each fault. Over successive ground faults, the total substation
indirect lightning strike, reverse diode input protection was grounding system impedance ZSGT may be profiled to identify
installed between the input module and the microcontroller any fundamental changes to the grounding system, such as
unit. damage to critical bonds, as well as the connection or removal
The developed recording device can be powered either of additional over-head shield wires or multi-grounded
from permanent mains supply, or solar / battery powered neutrals.
when permanent mains is not available at the installed For each ground fault the expected touch and step voltages
location, for example when the device is used to measure at each substation are compared against the IEEE 80TM
touch voltages outside of the substation. The battery also allowable touch voltage criteria for a 50kg person to confirm
provided backup supply power to allow the device to continue compliance.
monitoring reliably during power outages.
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2425361, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2425361, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
Recl. events GF
800 Recloser events OC
Fuse cleared events
Average substation grounding
system impedance 600
Faults on feeder with reduced Design Benchmark max.fault scenario
Sf due to new shield wire 400
Ground faults on cables with screen Fuse
bonded to substation grounding grid 200 curves
0
03 1 4 2 5 6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Year Ground Fault Current (normalised to Design Benchmark Max.)
Fig. 5. Grounding system impedance values for recorded ground faults.
Fig. 6. Comparison of recorded ground faults to circuit breaker, recloser and
The connection of a new feeder at the end of year six fuse protection curves. The ground fault current IF has been normalised to
resulted in a 30% overall reduction in the total substation ‘design benchmark maximum’ (worst-case) fault scenario current
grounding system impedance ZSGT for all faults, as described
in Section IV.A. In addition, all ground faults where the fault The faults that were cleared by over-current protection
current path ran parallel to the new feeder exhibited a further were typically those with multi-phase to ground involvement
reduced fault current division factor Sf, due to an increased and consequently are not expected to align with the ground
proportion of the fault current returning on the shield wire of fault protection curves.
the new feeder. For each recorded fault, the fault duration is used to
The observed variation in the fault current division factor calculate the allowable touch and step voltage criteria. The
Sf, and consequently the total substation grounding system expected touch and step voltages at known locations are
impedance ZSGT, illustrates one of the key challenges faced by calculated as a proportion of the measured substation ground
grounding engineers. Gaining access to enhanced information potential rise (identified during previous low-current injection
about the variation of the fault current division factor Sf tests). The calculated touch and step voltages are then
across multiple fault scenarios facilitates an increased compared against the safety criteria to confirm compliance.
understanding of the contribution of various conductive Fig. 7 shows the calculated touch voltage Etouch at a known
networks, including shield wires, cable screens, and bonds to touch voltage location against the IEEE 80TM allowable touch
local low voltage distribution or water mains in the
voltage criteria for a 50kg person Etouch50, calculated from
surrounding area to the overall performance of the grounding
the fault duration for each recorded ground fault. Fig. 7 also
system. This increased understanding in turn promotes
shows that in this instance all of the recorded fault events
confidence that the assumptions and key parameters selected
resulted in a touch voltage that was less than the allowable
within grounding system designs or assessments are valid.
touch voltage criteria, confirming compliance of the resultant
C. Real-Time Touch and Step Voltage Validation touch voltages at that location.
For a given ground fault the resultant ground potential rise The ability to assess the compliance of touch and step
magnitude and duration can be used to confirm the voltages in real-time during ground fault conditions has been
compliance of touch, step and transfer voltage hazards at shown to provide early warning of significant system changes,
known locations within and around the source substation. such as changes to protection settings, or changes to source
To detect inadvertent protection changes which may affect impedance due to upstream network modifications. The use of
the compliance of touch and step voltages, recorded fault additional networked data recorders at touch and step voltage
events may be plotted against the relevant protection curves. locations would allow direct measurement of the actual
A typical example case is given in Fig. 6. The recorded voltages present during ground faults, allowing locations of
ground fault currents have been characterized by the concern to be closely monitored. Additionally, enhanced
protection device that operated to clear the fault (either circuit knowledge of real ground potential rise parameters may prove
breaker (CB), recloser, or fuse), and also whether the fault invaluable during failure or shock incident investigations.
cleared on ground fault (GF) or over-current (OC) protection.
Within Fig. 6, the faults that were cleared by ground fault
protection align well with the ground fault protection curves.
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2425361, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
1 1.0
Measured touch CB Curve 1 - GF
(normalised to design benchmark max)
0.9
Cumulative Distribution
0.8
0 0.1
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.0
Allowable touch voltage IEEE80 50kg - Etouch50 (normalised) 0.1 0.2 0.0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Substation GPR (normalised to design benchmark maximum GPR)
Fig. 7. Comparison of calculated touch voltage Etouch to IEEE 80TM
Fig. 8. Cumulative distribution of the recorded ground potential rise events
allowable touch voltage for a 50kg person Etouch50 for each recorded ground
fault shown in Fig. 6. Etouch and Etouch50 have been normalised to the
1.0
expected touch voltage during the design benchmark maximum (‘worst
case’) fault scenario. 0.9
Fuse Cleared
D. Probabilistic Profiling of Substation Ground Faults 0.8 GF Cleared (CB1)
Cumulative Distribution
GF Cleared (CB2)
0.7
Fig. 6 shows how both the magnitude and the duration of GF Cleared (Reclosers)
0.6 OC Cleared (CB or Recl.)
the recorded fault currents will vary between different faults. Combined (all)
The recorded faults were also typically much smaller in 0.5
Design Benchmark
max fault scenario
magnitude than the selected ‘design benchmark maximum’ 0.4
0.5 x Etouch 50
0.9 x Etouch 50
0.2 x Etouch 50
(worst-case) fault scenario. The observed variation in 0.3
magnitude of ground faults supports previous work
Etouch =
Etouch =
Etouch=
0.2
surrounding the concept that grounding system performance
0.1
may be described in probabilistic terms [15]-[21]. Factors that
affect the magnitude of ground fault current that will flow 0.0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
during a ground fault include the fault cause, the soil Relative Hazard Level (Etouch / Etouch50)
Fig. 9. Cumulative distribution of touch voltage relative hazard level
resistivity, the distance of the fault from the source substation
(Etouch/Etouch50) at a specific touch voltage location for each recorded GPR
and the impedance at the point of the fault. For faults at load event shown in Figs. 6 and 7. A cumulative distribution is shown for all
substations, the local impedance may vary significantly touch voltage events (combined). Component distributions are also shown
depending on whether medium voltage and low voltage for: fuse cleared faults; circuit breaker / recloser cleared faults with ground
fault protection trip; and circuit breaker / recloser cleared faults with over-
grounds are bonded or segregated from each other [25]. current protection trip.
The recorded results confirm that the probabilistic nature
of ground fault current magnitudes also extends to the Of all recorded ground faults (fuse, over-current protection
corresponding ground potential rise events. Fig. 8 shows a and ground fault protection cleared) the most onerous ground
cumulative probability distribution of substation ground
fault resulted in a touch voltage Etouch that was 73% of the
potential rise for a series of recorded events. The largest
recorded substation ground potential rise equated to only 51% IEEE 80TM allowable touch voltage Etouch50. Whilst this fault
of the calculated substation ground potential rise using the approaches the ‘design benchmark’ fault scenario in terms of
‘design benchmark maximum’ fault scenario. Further, for relative risk, it is noted that approximately 95% of recorded
90% of the recorded faults, the ground potential rise was less ground faults resulted in a touch voltage Etouch that was less
than one third of the ‘design benchmark maximum’ fault case. than half of the IEEE 80TM allowable touch voltage Etouch50.
A measure of the relative hazard level for each ground Similarly, over 60% of all recorded ground faults resulted in a
fault may be calculated by taking the ratio of the measured touch voltage Etouch of less than 20% of the IEEE 80TM
touch voltage Etouch to the IEEE 80TM allowable touch allowable touch voltage Etouch50. This large proportion of
voltage Etouch50. A cumulative distribution of this ratio for low-risk faults is partly contributed to by the fast typical
each recorded fault is shown in Fig. 9. At this example touch clearing times of ground faults cleared by fuse (i.e., faults at
voltage location, the ‘design benchmark maximum’ fault load substations) or over-current protection (i.e., multi-line to
scenario would result in a touch voltage that is 90% of the ground faults), since shorter duration faults imply higher
IEEE 80TM allowable touch voltage. allowable touch voltages. From Fig. 9, it may be seen that all
fuse cleared, and more than 70% of over-current cleared,
ground faults created touch voltages that are only a small
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2425361, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
proportion (<20%) of the allowable touch voltage. Whilst it variance of fault current reduction factor Sf allows grounding
should be noted that the above percentage values are specific engineers to validate assumptions used within grounding
to this example substation and touch voltage location, the system designs or off-line assessments. Access to enhanced
general principles outlined above have been found to be knowledge of real ground potential rise parameters may also
broadly applicable. In other words from the recorded results, prove invaluable during system failure or shock incident
for a given touch voltage location, whilst some faults may investigations. Furthermore, the measurement of substation
result in touch voltages that approach the ‘worst-case’ fault ground potential rise allows a greatly improved understanding
scenario selected for grounding system assessments, the of the probabilistic nature of power system ground faults,
majority of faults may be significantly smaller in terms of facilitating the further development of explicit probabilistic
risk, due to either a smaller fault magnitude or fast clearing risk assessment methods.
time.
General Note 1: Transient ground potential rise waveforms
While the use of conservative, ‘worst case’, design
benchmark conditions is a worthwhile aim, it often comes All references to ground fault events within this paper
with great cost. This is particularly the case when the resultant should be taken to imply power system frequency ground
extremely conservative ground potential rise value requires fault events. Non-periodic ground potential rise events, such
costly mitigation of shock conditions associated with the as transients (e.g. switching events or storm activity) have
public in properties adjoining the substation [17][26][27][28]. been excluded from the data analysis.
Consequently, some standards bodies explicitly describe the
overall grounding design targets for staff, the public and other ACKNOWLEDGMENT
utility workers in terms of risk (i.e., in explicit probabilistic M. B. Bastian thanks P. J. Sokolowski for his efforts in
terms) [3][9]. These methods aim at providing a consistent proof reading this paper.
process across asset classes including major substations,
transmission and distribution, in order to justify expenditure REFERENCES
based upon the real risks associated with different exposures. [1] IEEE Std 80-2000 "IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation
Locations where few people are exposed and ground potential Grounding,"
rise events are rare, such as transmission towers require less [2] IEEE Std367 “IEEE Guide for determining the electrical power station
ground potential rise and induced voltage from a power fault,”. 1987.
expenditure. Alternatively for sites where many people are [3] ENA EG-0 “Power System Earthing Guide, Part 1: Management
frequently located in a position to receive a shock more Principles”., Energy Networks Association Limited Australia, May
stringent design targets and hence higher expenditure is 2010.
[4] IEC 61936-1 “Power Installations Exceeding 1 kV a.c.—Part 1:
justified. Common Rules”, ed.2.0, 2010.
By collating recorded substation ground potential rise [5] IEC 50522_1 “Earthing of Power Installations Exceeding 1kV AC”.
events over time, probabilistic profiles can be developed for a 2010
[6] ANSI/NETA MTS 2011 “Standard for Maintenance and Testing
given substation, However, in order to maximize the Specifications for Electrical Power Equipment and Systems”
applicability of risk-based substation grounding approaches, it International Electrical Testing Association.
is desirable to develop a predictive probabilistic model for [7] IEEE Std81-2012 “Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground
substation ground fault current and ground potential rise Impedance, and Earth Surface Potentials of a Grounding System,"
IEEE P81/D10, March, 2012 , pp.1-84, May 17 2012
magnitude profiling based on key information about the [8] A. Dimopoulos, H. Griffiths, N. Harid, A. Haddad, A. Ainsley, and G.
substation and the network it supplies. Monitoring real Mpofu “Probability Surface Distributions for Application in
substation ground potential rise events provides invaluable Grounding Safety Assessment” IEEE Transactions On Power Delivery,
Vol. 27, No. 4, October 2012 pp1928-1936.
information for the future development of such probabilistic [9] UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE), “Reducing risks, protecting
modelling. The development of predictive ground fault people—HSE’s decision making process”, London, U.K., 2001,
modeling is the subject of further study. HMSO
[10] NFPA70B 2006 “Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment
Maintenance” National Fire Protection Association.
V. CONCLUSION [11] IEEE 3003.2-2014 “Recommended Practice for Equipment Grounding
and Bonding in Industrial and Commercial Power Systems”,
The proposed substation grounding system measurement [12] Woodhouse, D.J.. “An Evolution in Earthing System Testing:
device has potentially significant implications to the manner Refinement of Earthing System Current Injection Testing and its
in which grounding systems are designed and assessed. Analysis, with Emphasis on Earth Potential Rise Estimation.” PhD
thesis, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The
Recording substation ground potential rise enhances
University of Newcastle., 2003.
understanding of the performance of the substation grounding [13] Sarmiento, H.J., Fortin, J, and Mukhedkar, D. “Substation ground
system across a range of real faults. By comparing the impedance: Comparative field measurements with high and low current
measured ground potential rise to the ground fault current, the injection methods.” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, pages 1677– 1683, 1984.
grounding system impedance can be directly calculated for [14] BS EN 50341-1:2001+A1:2009, EN 50341-1:2001+A1:2009 (E)
each fault, highlighting any substantial changes that may be “Overhead electrical lines exceeding AC 45 kV. - Part 1: General
the result of the failure of critical components of the requirements — Common specifications”. April 2009
grounding system. An improved understanding of the
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2425361, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
[15] Burke, J.J.; Lawrence, D.J.; , "Characteristics of Fault Currents on he has been closely involved in grounding system design and testing, R&D
Distribution Systems," Power Apparatus and Systems, IEEE projects, and training throughout Australia and the Asian Region. Since
Transactions on , vol.PAS-103, no.1, pp.1-6, Jan. 1984 August 2014 Bill has worked as an independent consultant to utilities and
[16] Hanninen, S.; Lehtonen, M.; Hakola, T.; Antila, E.; Strom, J.; Ingman, industry regarding the management of grounding and lightning related risk.
S.;"Characteristics of earth faults in power systems with a compensated
or an unearthed neutral," Electricity Distribution. Part 1: Darren J.Woodhouse received his B.E.(Elec.)(Hons I) in 1993, BMaths in
Contributions. CIRED. 14th International Conference and Exhibition 1994 and Doctorate in the area of grounding system testing in 2003. He is a
(IEE Conf. Publ. No. 438) , vol.1, no., pp. 16/1- 16/5 vol.2, 2-5 June Principal Engineer with Safearth Consulting, a consulting firm specialising
1997 in grounding system design and assessment. Darren joined Shortland
[17] El-Kady, M.A.; Hotte, P.W.; Vainberg, M.Y.; "Probabilistic Electricity in 1987 as a Cadet Engineer. In 1992 he joined Safearth
Assessment of Step and Touch Potentials Near Transmission Line Engineered Solutions, a grounding business unit in Shortland Electricity,
Structures," Power Apparatus and Systems, IEEE Transactions on , later to be renamed EnergyAustralia and now Ausgrid. Before leaving
vol.PAS-102, no.3, pp.640-645, March 1983 EnergyAustralia Darren was the Development Manager for Network
[18] Kulkarni, Saurabh; Lee, Duehee; Allen, Alicia J.; Santoso, Surya; Earthing. Darren holds a conjoint Senior Lecturer position in the School of
Short, Thomas A.; , "Waveform characterization of animal contact, tree Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Newcastle.
contact, and lightning induced faults," Power and Energy Society He has research interests on ground return effects, cable performance,
General Meeting, 2010 IEEE , vol., no., pp.1-7, 25-29 July 2010 ground potential rise modelling and transient analysis.
[19] Ford, G.L, Sengupta, S.S, “Analytical methods for probabilistic short-
circuit studies”, Electric Power Systems Research, Volume 5, Issue 1,
March 1982, Pages 13-20, ISSN 0378-7796
[20] Vega-Garcia, V.; Cebrian, J.C.; Kagan, N.; , "Evaluation of probability
functions related to short circuit random variables using power quality
meters," Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition:
Latin America (T&D-LA), 2010 IEEE/PES , vol., no., pp.712-718, 8-
10 Nov. 2010
[21] Carman, W.D.; Woodhouse, D.J.; Bastian, M.B.; Acton,
M.;“Earthfault Current Monitoring And Modeling In Probabilistic
Earthing System Design”, Down To Earth Conference 2010, Engineers
Australia Perth, Western Australia, April 2010.
[22] "Summary of the special publication `Application of fault and
disturbance recording devices for protective system analysis'," Power
Delivery, IEEE Transactions on , vol.4, no.3, pp.1625-1630, Jul 1989
[23] Short, T.A.; Sabin, D.D.; McGranaghan, M.F.; , "Using PQ Monitoring
and Substation Relays for Fault Location on Distribution Systems,"
Rural Electric Power Conference, 2007 IEEE , vol., no., pp.B3-B3-7,
6-8 May 2007
[24] Xun Long; Ming Dong; Wilsun Xu; Yun Wei Li, “Online Monitoring
of Substation Grounding Grid Conditions Using Touch and Step
Voltage Sensors”, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol.3, no. 2, June
2012
[25] Parise, G.; Gatta, F.M. and Lauria, S., "Common grounding system,"
Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference,
2005 IEEE , vol., no., pp.184-190, 8-12 May 2005
[26] Sverak, J.G.; Wang, W.; Gervais, Y.; Do, X.-D.; Mukhedkar, D.; , "A
probabilistic method for the design of power grounding systems ,"
Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on , vol.7, no.3, pp.1196-1206,
Jul 1992
[27] Carman, W.D., “A systematic earthing system design procedure
employing probabilistic analysis of discrete decisions”, PhD thesis,
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The
University of Newcastle., 2002
[28] Carman, W.D., “Development of risk profiles associated with electrical
power substation earthing systems,” in IEEE Proc. Int. Conf. Power
Syst. Technol., Perth, Australia, 2000, pp. 2063–2071.
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.