IEEE PEDS 2011, Singapore, 5 - 8 December 2011 1

Measurement and Simulation of Grounding Resistance with Two and Four Mesh Grids
M. A. Salam, Senior Member, IEEE, Koh Ming Jen and Md. Ayub Khan
Abstract--This paper presents the simulation and measurement
of grounding resistance with two different mesh grids. Initially, soil resistances have been measured by F. Wenner four-pole equal method at the selected sites near the Power Station. Then soil resistivity has been calculated from the measured soil resistance. The root mean square errors between the measured and simulation soil resistivities are respectively found to be 3.77% and 4% for two and four mesh grids. The Fall-of-potential (FOP) method is used to measure the grounding resistance and the minimum values are found to be 100.3 and 96.8 respectively for two and four mesh grids. The measured results are then compared with the simulation results and are found to be in good agreement. In addition, ground potential rise (GPR), maximum permissible step and touch potentials have been calculated using CYME GRD simulation software. Index TermsTwo and four meshes grids, fall-of-potential method, soil resistivity, grounding resistance.

I. NOMENCLATURE A nomenclature list is shown below: Re is the soil resistance, a is the distance between stakes, b is the vertical distance of the stakes, is the soil resistivity, 1 is the first layer resistivity,

2 is the deep layer resistivity,

K is the reflection coefficient.
II. INTRODUCTION

oor grounding system is very dangerous and increases the risk of equipment failure as well as human being. That is why grounding system is very important for safety purposes. The poor grounding system exposes the risk of hazard such as electrical shock that will cause fire at particular places. It also
M. A. Salam is with Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Institute Technology Brunei (A Technology University), Jalan Tungku Link, BE 1410, Brunei Darussalam (e-mail: abdus.salam@itb.edu.bn). Koh Ming Jen is with Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Institute Technology Brunei (A Technology University), Jalan Tungku Link, BE 1410, Brunei Darussalam (email: saiful.jaafar@itb.edu.bn). Md. Ayub Khan is with Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Institute Technology Brunei (A Technology University), Jalan Tungku Link, BE 1410, Brunei Darussalam (email: m.izhermi@itb.edu.bn).

leads to instrumentation errors, harmonic distortion and power factor problems. If fault current has no path to the ground through a properly design grounding system, then this current will find alternate paths that could be harmful for human being. However, good grounding system is not only for safety purposes but also used to prevent damage to industrial plants and equipment. F. P. Dawalibi et al. [1] have provided information about grounding grid performance in multiplayer soil structures. Various practical cases have been examined and the corresponding grounding grid resistances, current distributions, earth surface potentials and touch voltages have been presented and compared for different soil structures. A new way of calculating ground resistance of grounding grids using the finite-element method (FEM) has been presented [2]. B. Phithakwong et al. [3] have described the software programming for the substation grounding system which is designed for workers safety. This grounding system presents new method to increase grounding resistance of human foot. The new method can decrease the number of conductors of an unequally space grid and it is a supplement to ANSI/IEEEE std. A. Puttarach et al. [4] have presented a substation grounding grid which was analyzed with the variation of soil layer depth. The grounding grid was made from copper and the experiment was conducted by using CDEGS software, the study was supported by Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA) and it was based on the grounding system of Royal Flora RATCHAPHRUEK substation. The supporting soil resistivity was obtained from an actual field which was tested at the 22KV substation. Robert Southey et al. [5] have conducted a study where they measured the impedances of four grounding grids using tuned-frequency test equipment operating close to the system operating frequency. It was carried out by a nonconventional Fall-of-Potential method where the current injection and potential test leads formed an angle of approximately 90 in order to lessen the inductive coupling between the leads which was analyzed. P. Hajebi et al. [6] have used one of the most accurate numerical methods for computing of grounding grid resistance. However, these methods were complicated and time consuming for design purpose. Several ground grids in two-later soil with different dimensions and soil parameters were simulated using FEM. H. M. Khodr et al. [7] have developed an optimized model for the design of the grounding grid in electrical substation. This model incorporates the variables that define the grid geometry, depth and conductor size. F. Rodriguez et al. [8] have used a method for the calculation of the ground resistance using the finite element method to the resolution of solid models in 3D.

978-1-4577-0001-9/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

208

A practical example of ground resistance measurement is presented in a 154KV substation under commercial operating condition [9]. Conventional FOP and the measurement of ground current splits to each part of the grounding system were conducted simultaneously. N. Mohamad Nor et al. [10] contributed a research to show the validity of the formula available in the literature against the measured earth resistance value at field site. Omar Ferrer et al. [11] stated that the strong foundations in a substation yard have extensive reinforcing steel conductor. Donald A. Blank et al. [12] have explained that a large number of grounding grids in substations had shapes other than a square or a rectangle, whereas the formulas and graphs for the ground resistance of grounding grid available were applicable only to nearly square or rectangular grids. In this paper, grounding resistance has been measured using two and four mesh grids. In addition simulation has been carried out to calculate the grounding resistance, ground potential rise, permissible touch and step potentials. III. EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENT Soil resistivity data are the main parameters to install the grounding resistance either in substation or in residential areas. Two sites are considered to measure the soil resistivity as well as grounding resistance. F. Wenner [13] four-pole (four stakes) method with equal distance is considered to measure the soil resistivity. The connection diagram of the soil resistivity measurement is shown in Fig. 1.

resistance was used to find the value of the soil resistivity with the following formula: (1) 2 aRe
Table 1. Soil resistivity data of Gadong Power Station site for N 2 .

Probe distance (m) 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5

Resistance, Re () 101.40 74.41 55.80 44.10 37.19

Resistivity, (-m) 191.13 280.5 315.54 332.5 350.5

Table 2. Soil resistivity data of Gadong Power Station site for N 4 .

Probe distance (m) 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5

Resistance, Re () 107.1 80.6 60.1 55.1 44.6

Resistivity, (-m) 201.88 303.85 339.857 415.44 420.35

The grids were made by using four equal length of copper rods. The length of each rod is measured to be 1.689 m and the diameter is 14 mm. In this measurement, two types of meshes ( N 2 and N 4 ) were considered as shown in Fig. 2.

1
a

3
a a

4
b
N 2 N 4

Fig. 2. Grids with N 2 and N 4 . Fig. 1. Connection diagram for soil resistivity measurement.

The experiment was carried out on July 31 and August 14, 2011 in Gadong Power Station site of Brunei Muara district. The sky was very clear and the temperature was moderate during the measurement. The stakes were put 10% deep ( b 0.1a ) of the distance between each stakes into the soil [13]. The range between the stakes was varied from 0.3 m to 1.8 m, in steps of 0.3 m. A generator (fluke meter 1625) is used to inject a measurement current, I between the two outer stakes (1 and 4). The potential V is then measured with a voltmeter between the two central stakes (2 and 3). After that, the value of grounding resistance was measured by pressing the start button of the fluke meter and the measured data are shown in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. Then the measured

The measurement site was dug to 0.6 m depth both for N 2 and N 4 grids. Then the grid was placed in the hole and earth tester equipment was connected to the grid as shown in Figs. 3 and 4 respectively.

N 2

EC1

EC 2

EP 2
x

Fig. 3. Connection diagram for N 2 mesh grid.

209

The probe (inner stake) and auxiliary ground (outer stake) were put at 0.25 m depth into the soil and the distance apart from each stake was maintained according to 62% method [14]. Then the earth electrode, probe (inner stake), and outer stake were connected to EC1 , SP2 and HC 2 respectively.

N 4

HC1

HC 2

Fig. 5. Grid layouts with two meshes.

HP 2
x

Fig. 4. Connection diagram for N 4 mesh grid.

After that, the value of grounding resistance was measured by pressing the start button of the fluke meter and the measured data are shown in Tables 3 and 4 respectively.
Table 3. Measured grounding resistance at 0.6 m depth of grid with N 2 . Fig. 6. Grid layouts with two meshes in 3D view.

Distance, D (m) 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9

Distance, x (m) 0.93 1.86 2.79 3.72 4.65 5.58

RE () 199.6 170.3 161.8 155.9 140.5 100.3

Fig. 7. Grid layouts with four meshes.

Table 4. Measured grounding resistance at 0.6m depth of grid with N 4 .

Distance, D (m) 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9

Distance, x (m) 0.93 1.86 2.79 3.72 4.65 5.58

RE () 172.2 133.0 121.9 115 109.6 96.8

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Five and six conductors with equal length of 1.689 m and diameter of 14 mm are used respectively to make the two and four mesh grids. The 2D and 3D grid formations along with their respective meshes are shown in Figs. 5, 6, 7, and 8. The software CYME GRD was used to analyze data of Batu Bersurat Power Station sites.
Fig. 8. Grid layouts with four meshes in 3D view.

In the simulation, two layer soils were used [14]. According to the IEEE standard, the body weight of the soil, surface layer thickness, surface layer resistivity and shock duration are

210

considered respectively to be 70 kg, 0.2 m, 2500 ohm-m, and 0.5 seconds to simulate grounding resistance. A two-layer soil model is normally represented by an upper layer soil of a finite depth above a lower level of infinite depth. The resistivity of the soil changes abruptly at the boundaries of each soil layer. This kind of change can be represented by a reflection factor. The reflection is expressed [14] as, 1 (2) K 2 2 1 The measured resistivities are put into the software window and then calculated the resistivities. The measured and simulation resistivities are shown in Figs. 9 and 10 respectively for two and four mesh grids.

for the grounding system and the lines in the diagram represent the contour lines.

Fig. 11. Touch potential plot for two mesh grid.

Fig. 9. Comparison of soil resistivities for two mesh grid.

Fig. 12. A 3D layout of touch potential for two mesh grid.

Fig. 10. Comparison of soil resistivities for four mesh grid.

From Fig. 9 and the soil analysis report for two meshes grid, the reduction factor, rms error, maximum permissible step and touch potentials are found to be 0.828637, 4%, 2981.78 V, and 911.97 V respectively. The calculated grounding resistance in this case is found to be 83.68 and the minimum value of the measured grounding resistance is 100.3 as shown in Table 3. In the four mesh grid, the reduction factor, rms error, maximum permissible step and touch potentials are found to be 0.828574, 3.72%, 2981.57 V, and 911.92 V respectively from Fig. 10 and the grid analysis report. In this grid, the simulation grounding was found to be 102.53 . The simulation grounding resistance is very close to the measured grounding resistance as shown in Table 4. Touch potential and its 3-D layout are shown in Figs. 11 and 12 respectively. From Figs. 11 and 15, it is seen that the contour lines are in red zone condition which represent that the touch potential is dangerous

Fig. 13. Surface potential plot for two mesh grid.

Fig. 14. A 3D layout of surface potential for two mesh grid.

211

profile for four meshes grid represents the touch potential, step potentials, ground potential rise, maximum permissible touch and step potentials.

Fig. 15. Touch potential plot for four mesh grid.

As the area is getting nearer to the grounding rod the voltage is increasing and as the area is getting away from the grounding rod, the voltage is decreasing. It is found that the soil resistivity of top-layer is lower than the bottom layer, which represents that the reflection constant is positive. In this case, most of the current is discharged in the top layer soil.
Fig. 18. A 3D layout of surface potential for four meshes grid.

Fig. 19. A potentials profile for four mesh grid.

Fig. 16. A 3D layout of touch potential for four mesh grid.

If the voltage is higher than the maximum permissible step and touch potentials respectively 2981.57 V and 911.92 V as shown in Fig. 19, a person will get shock. V. CONCLUSION The soil resistivities are calculated respectively 3.72% and 4% for two and four mesh grids using CYME GRD software. The grounding resistance has been measured 100.3 and 96.8 using fall-of-potential method with two and four mesh grids respectively. It has been found the measured grounding resistances matches closely to the simulation grounding resistance especially for four mesh grid. The touch potentials for both meshes grids have showed unsafe condition to touch the grounding system, whereas surface potentials are in safe condition. . VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In addition, the periphery grid conductors discharge a larger portion of the current into the earth than to the center conductors. The surface potentials and its 3D layouts for two meshes and four meshes grids are shown in Figs. 13, 14, 17 and 18 respectively.

Fig. 17. Surface potential plot for four mesh grid.

From Figs. 13 and 17, it is observed that the contour lines are in blue zone condition which represent that the surface potential is safe for the grounding system. The potential

The authors would like to thank the Institute Technology Brunei (A Technology University) for funding the project (ITB/P1/1.1/PGSR/RC/1/2010 (1)) on simulation of grounding resistance for different soil properties. Also the authors thank to the related staff who were involved to accomplish this project.

212

VII. REFERENCES
[1] F. P. Dawalibi and J. Ma and R. D. Southey, Behaviour of Grounding Systems in Multilayer Soils, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 334-342, January 1994. J. A. Guemes and F. E. Hernando, Method for Calculating the Ground Resistance of Grounding Grids FEM, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 595-600, April 2004. B. Phithakwong, N. Kraisna Chinda, S. Banjongjit, C. ChompooInwai and M. Kando, New Techniques for the Computer-Aided Design for Substation Grounding, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol.3, No. 2, pp. 2011-2015, January 2000. A. Puttarach, N. Cchakpitak, T. Kasirawat, and C. Pongsriwat, Substation Grounding Grid Analysis with the Variation of soil layer depth Method, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, pp. 1881-1886, July 2007. Robert Southey, Winston Ruan, Farid Dawalibi, Mike Kizuik, Measurement and Interpretation of Ground Impedance of Substations by Non-Conventional Fall-of-Potential Methods, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 23482354, November 1979. P. Hajebi, A. A. Heidari and A. Mirzaei, Resistance to Earth of Grounding Grids in Two-layer soil structure using FEM and GA, PIERS Proceedings, Xian, China, March 22-26, 2010. H. M. Khodr, G. A. Salloum and Vladimiro Miranda, Grounding System Design in Electrical Substation: An Optimization Approach, IEEE PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition Latin America, Venezuela, pp.1-5, March 2006.

[8]

[9]

[2]

[10]

[3]

[11]

[4]

[12]

[5]

[13]

[6]

[14]

[7]

F. Rodriguez, J. A. Guemes, J. M. Ruiz, F. E. Hernando, Determination of the ground Resistance and Distribution of Potentials in Grounding Grids using FEM, IEEE Transactions On Power Delivery, Vol. 21, No 3, pp. 1261-1266, July 2006. J. K. Choi, Y. H. Ahn, J. W. Woo, G. J. Jung, K. C. Kim, Evaluation of grounding Performance of energized substation by ground current measurement, Journal Electric Power System Research, Vol. 77, pp. 1490-1494, November 2004. N. Mohamad Nor, R. Rajab and K. Ramar, Validation of the calculation and Measurement Techniques of Earth Resistance Values, American Journal of applied Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 10, pp. 1313-1317, January 2008. Omar Ferrer, Donald A. Blank, , Baldev Thapar, Ground Resistance of Concrete Foundations in Substation Yards, IEEE Transactions On Power Delivery, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 130-136, January 1990. Donald A. Blank, Victor Gerez, Arun Balakrishman, Baldev Thapar, Evaluation of Ground Resistance of a Grounding Grid of Any Shape, IEEE Transactions On Power Delivery, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 640-647, April 1991. IEEE 81-1983 Standard, IEEE Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground Impedance, and Earth Surface Potentials of a Ground System, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., USA. IEEE 80-2000 Standard, IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., USA.

213