You are on page 1of 14

IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery,Vol.5, No.

2,April 1990

613

VALIDITY OF CONVENTIONAL APPROACHES


FOR CALCULATING BODY CURRENTS RESULTING
F. P. Dawalibi
Senior Member, IEEE
Safe Engineering Services
& Technologies Ltd.
12201 Letellier
Montreal, Canada H3M 2 2 9

FROM ELECTRIC SHOCKS


R. D. Southey
Member, IEEE
Safe Engineering Services
& Technologies Ltd.
12201 Letellier
Montreal, Canada H3M 229

ABSTRACT

In North America, ANSI/IEEE Standard 80 s almost


universally applied to determine electrica currents
flowing through the human body as the resul of touch
and step voltages near transmission and di tribution
facilities. This paper shows, however, that
significant inaccuracies can occur when the ANSI/IEEE
Standard 80 based method is applied without
understanding the assumptions which underlie it. In
particular, errors can occur when the method i s
applied to grounding situations where the remote foot
resistance of a human is much different from the
resistance through ground between a human's feet and
the buried grounding system under study. This paper
discusses the problem of determining body currents
from measilred touch voltages and presents an improved
model for doing so.
1.

INTRODUCTION

The conventional ANSI/IEEE method of determining body


currents occurring during electric shocks is
performed in two steps. First, the pre-existing
stress voltage in the absence of the victim of the
electric shock is calculated using a variety o f
methods, including very simple formulas [l] and
sophisticated computer programs [21, [3], [4], [51.
Next, the body current is calculated by assuming that
the pre-existlng stress voltage is applied across the
body points which are in contact with the energized
path.
This paper is not concerned with the methods used to
calcuibte the pre-existing stress voltage (Step 1). It
assumes, therefore, that this value is available with
the necessary accuracy, either by computations or
direct measurements. The main focus of this paper is
on the validity of the two-step methodology described
above, especially the adequacy of the assumptions and
techniques used to determine body currents from the
pre-existing stress voltage (Step 2). Hence, this
paper poses and addresses the following questions:
a - Is the two-step methodology valid in all
cases? If not, under which circumstances is
it inaccurate?
b - If the conventional two-step methodology is not
always valid (as will be demonstrated in this
paper), it then becomes important to develop
new approaches (one step or multi-step) to
determine accurately the prospective body
current resulting from electric shocks. In this

88 WM 108-3
A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Substations Committee of the IEEE
Power Engineering Society for presentation at the
IEEE/PES 1988 Winter Meeting, New York, New York,
.January 3 1 - February 5, 1988. Yanuscript
submitted August 26, 1987; made available for
printing December 7, 1987.

R. S. Baishiki
Senior Member, IEEE
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
77 Beale Street
San Francisco, CA 94106

case, which approach among the various ones


described in this paper ,,(some of which are
based on commonly used intuitive" circuit
models) is the most appropriate?
c - Assuming that a valid two-step methodology can
be developed, then which electric circuit
models are suitable for carrying out accurately
the calculations required in Step 2 for high
voltage (HV), medium voltage (MV), and low
voltage (LV) electric networks?
Although this study initially appeared to be quite
straightforward, a significant number of fundamental
questions arose, which needed to be reviewed,
studied, and developed. It became clear that it was
essential to proceed with a comprehensive parametric
analysis to estimate adequately the effects of all
variables, which significantly affect the physical
process being investigated. For these reasons, it was
decided to subdivide the scope of work in two phases.
This paper describes the result of Phase 1 of the
study.
The objectives of Phase 1 of the study were:
1. Develop an accurate method for calculating body
currents resulting from electric shocks,
assuming a constant current electric power
source.

2. Compare the results obtained based on this


accurate approach to a conventional one, in this
case, the methodology described in ANSI/IEEE
Standard 80 [6].
3. Identify and discuss the cases where differences
between
the
accurate
and conventional
methodologies are to be expected.
4 . Illustrate the preceding points using

practical exampl es .

realistic

Phase 2 of the study, which will be completed at a


later date, will address in detail subjects not
covered in the first phase. Among these let us
mention the following:
a - Effects of an insulating surface layer (such as
gravel )

b - Influence of the electric power source


impedance on the various methodologies (non
constant current power sources such as in LV
electric systems).

c - Detailed parametric analyses on the effects of


soil structure models, grid configurations and
sizes, types of stress voltage considered (step
and touch voltages), and relative Positions of
the feet with respect to the power system
ground.
d - Electric shocks

0885-8977/90/0100-0613$01.00 0 1990 IEEE

in

distribution

networks

614

including effects on livestock facilities in


rural areas.
2.

with gloves.

BACKGROUND

2. Resistance of shoes is highly variable and


indeed may be very low for damp leather shoes,
according to test measurements [8]. It is also
neglected, along with the shoe contact
resistance.

This section describes how a touch voltage electric


shock scenario is modelled based on the ANSI/IEEE
Standard 80 approach. The reader should refer to
other national and international documents and
compare the discussions of touch voltage shock
scenarios as discussed here.

3. The resistances of the hands, trunk and legs are


all lumped together and a value of 1000 ohms is
presently used regardless of the stress voltage
level. The validity of this approximation is not
discussed here as this subject alone deserves a
special study of its own [9], [IO].

2.1 Touch Voltage Shock Scenario

Figure 2.la illustrates a typical electric shock


scenario in which a human stands on the soil surface
above a grounding system and contacts a metallic
structure electrically connected to the grounding
system with his/her hands. The total earth current
It available from the electric network is assumed to
be independent of the presence of the human. Figure
2.lb shows the various voltages which exist in the
absence of the human.

4. Conductive coupl ing effects between feet are


neglected. Since this assumption leads to a safe
conservative approach for touch voltages, it is
acceptable in all cases. It results in a slight
overestimation of body currents.
5. Conductive coupling effects between
the
grounding system and feet is either neglected or
grossly estimated, at least as far as we can
tell
from most standards, guides, and
publications available in the open literature.
This conductive coupl ing effect constitutes the
main substance of the discussions which follow.

I
Grounding System

(a) Actual Situation

6. Thepre-existing touch voltage (i.e., the stress


voltage which exists between hand and foot Prior
to the presence of the victim of the electric
shock) is presumed to be applied between the
victim hand(s) and remote soil. This assumption
is also discussed later.
2.2 Origin of the Derivation of Guide No. 80 Formula

i
"
"
-

In October 1958, an AIEE Working Group published a


Committee Report [7] which laid the foundation of
what is now widely known as the ANSI/IEEE Standard 80
[6]. In this report [7], the touch voltage Etouch
was defined pictorially as shown in Figure 2.3.

Remo,eSoil

10 Volt Reference)

(b) Pre - existing Voltages


Figure 2.1 Illustration of touch voltageelectricshockscenario

Ifault

Etouch

Coupling

Effects

Figure 2.2 Identification of the dominant physical parameters

R1 .

RO

Figure 2.2 shows the various physical parameters


which may have a significant effect on the magnitude
of the body current.
Several simplifying assumptions, both explicit and
implicit, have been made by the AIEE committee [7],
which developed the first release of Guide No. 80.
Most of these assumptions were adopted (in some cases
with further explanations and clarifications) by the
working group which prepared the most recent release
of ANSI/IEEE Standard 80. These assumptions are
essenti a1 ly the foll owing:
1. Hand contact resistances may be very low and
therefore are neglected. Hands are not protected

The definitions of the elements shown in Fig re 2.3


are as follows.
Ifaul t

is
fault current enter ng the
human/gFk system

R1tRo

is the resistance
electrode system

Rbody

is the body resistance

of

the

ground

615

is the resistance of the ground


immediately under each foot

Rf

Rbody
Several problems arise from this definition of
Etouch[7] :

Rf

o The 1958 AIEE report [7] states that "for


practical purposes,. . . . the resistance R in
ohms for each foot can be assumed to be
pS
[where p s is the local soil resistivity]". At
least one of the references cited by the authors
of the AIEE report [l], however, describes 3
as the resistance of the soil between the foot
and infinity, not simply the resistance of the
ground immediately under each foot.

electrode system to remote


(ground grid resistance)
is the body resistance

earth

is the resistance of a human's foot to


remote earth (ground resistance of the
foot)

Note that from this pictorial definition of


touch voltage (the only one given in the October
1958 version [7]), touch voltage is not the
potential difference between a shock victim's
hand(s) and feet, but rather the potential
difference between his/her hand(s) and some
point (Point A in Figure 2.3 [7]) in the earth,
separated from the feet by a resistance Rf/2.
The location of this point A in the earth is
ill-defined, and appears to have become the foot
contact point on the earth's surface for just
about all subsequent authors and in subsequent
revisions of Standard 80. Otherwise Etouch is
impossible to measure.
With E
as defined ;,n Figure 2.3, the 1958
AIEE [jTuc!tates
that any change in the
pre-existing voltage by reason of the current
diverted through the body can be neglected."
Since Point A is not a defined location, and
could even, as an extreme example, be taken to
be remote soil, this statement may or may not be
valid. If Et uc is measured between a human's
hands and tie Poot contact point on the earth's
surface, this statement becomes patently false.
At present, Etou h is determined in this latter
manner.
It is tie pre-existing voltage, without the
presence of the human, that is used to calculate the
current through the body of the human, using the
formula derived from Figure 2.3:
Etouch
Lbody =

Rbody

Rf'2

As noted previously, with Et uch as defined in Figure


2.4, there is no guarantee tlat Etouch with the human
present will be equal to the pre-existing potential
difference. Furthermore, although values for R
RI,
and R /2 can be determined to create a !:point
networl representing a given foot-grid situation
(discussed in Sections 3 and 4), we have found that
these values do not agree with the definitions given
in Figure 2.4.
From the above discussion, we see that the basis for
Equation 2-1 as described in the Standard 80 is not
convincing.
In order to find a solid theoretical basis for
Equation 2-1 (or a new equation), we designed a
series of circuit models. Two intuitive models were
developed, tested, and rejected before a third
PI-network model and a fourth, simpler, Thevenin
model were found to work and provide much insight
into the problem.
INTUITIVE MODELS

3.1 First Model

Rbody

is the human's body resistance

Ibody

is the current through the human's body

Rf

is the resistance of a human's foot to


remote earth (ground resistance of the
foot; note corrected definition)

This new definition of R deviates from the circuit


model presented in the 1956 AIEE report [7]. If the
circuit presented in Figure 2.3 is redrawn with the
presently used definition of Eto ch taken into
consideration, Figure 2.4 is obtainel.
The definition of the elements shown in Figure 2.4
are as follows:

R1 +Ro

Figure 2.4 Present touch voltage circuit used in ANSIlIEEE


Standard 80

3.

where:

Ifault

I
-

is the fault current entering the


human/gri d
is

the

resistance

of the ground

A simple PI-network was first used to model a typical


human-grid touch voltage situation and is shown in
Figure 3.1.
This four port network is defined by terminals A, B,
C, and D and by resistors Ra, Rb and Rc in Figure
3.1. The values of Ra, Rb, and Rc are determined by
making the appropriate measurements or in this study,
computing the appropriate voltage and current values
in the actual proposed situations at the network
terminal s.
It was hypothesized that Ra could be equated to the
grid resistance (to remote earth) and Rc to half the
remote foot impedance (touch voltage stress type),
leaving Rb to be determined by computer simulations.
This hypothesis was made because it is clearly true
when the feet and the grid are widely separated. The
question to answer is: Is the hypothefis true, when
the feet and grid come closer together?

Rg

is the grid resistance (to remote earth)

Rm

is an unknown mutual resistance

Rf is the resistance of a humans foot to remote


ground
(i.e.
remote
foot
resistance)
When reduced into an equivalent PI-circuit as shown
in Figure 3.1, the values of R Rb, and Rc were
found to be given by the folfAwing recursive
relations:
Remote Earth

Ra = RL(N)

Figure 3.1 Simple PI-network used to model humadgrid


system

When the computer simulations were actually performed


(using Computer Program MALZ [2],[4],[5]*),
and the
values of Ra, Rb, and Rc as well as the grid and
remote foot impedances determined, it was found that
the hypothesis described above was wrong: although R
was found to be approximately equal to the gri!
resistance in the cases examined, R, varied widely
and did not resemble the remote foot impedance. Rb
also varied significantly. For example, in one
sequence of simulations using a 100 ohm-meters soil
and a typical electrode representing the feet in
parallel, the value of Rc varied from 299.2 ohms to
2579.8 ohms as the position and number of meshes of
the grid was changed, while Rf/2 remained constant at
158.8 ohms.
3.2

% = RT(N)

(3-1)
(3-2)

R,= R R ( N )

(3-3)

where

Second Model

It was first thought that the hypothesis described in


the previous section had failed because it had not
taken into account the distributed nature of the soil
resistances. The distributed PI-network model shown
in Figure 3.2 was therefore developed.

and
1

h(i) =

(1-E)

(3-7)

_
k(i)
_

(1 - E )

+ 3k (i- 1)

(1-E)

r = - Rg
g

Figure 3.2

(3-9)

+ &)

(3-10)

r = - Rf
2N

(3-11)

r, = n R m

(3-12)

Distributed PI-network model


E

rm

rm + r f + rg

The definitions of the elements shown in Figure 3.2


are as follows:

(3-13)

and where
Rg is the grid resistance
*The accuracy of this program has been verified by
extensive computer modeling and field testing: it has
been in use by a growing number of major North
American utilities for several years. Furthermore,
MALZ results in this study have been confirmed by
MALT[3],
another program which is based on a
different algorithm and which has been verified for
real world situations and on scale models since the
1970s.

Rf

is the remote foot resistance

,R

is the mutual resistance (to be determined)

is the number of loops in the circuit o f


Figure 3.2

This new intuitive distributed PI model also failed:


a typical foot/grid/soil configuration was simulated

617

with the MALZ computer program [4] and the true


values of Ra, Rb, and Rc were determined as well as
the grid and remote foot resistances. These grid and
foot resistances were fed into the above formulas
along with a series of values of Rm to obtain the
formula-based Ra, Rb, and Rc.
It turned out that when the value of R, became such
that the true and formula-based values of Rb were
equal, circuit voltages and currents computed using
the model in Figure 3.2 were significantly different
from those computed using the MALZ program [4].
4.
ACCURATE MODELS
4.1 PI-Model

Having rid ourselves of the notion of including grid


and remote foot resistances in circuit models, we
began once more with a simple PI-model (Figure 3.1).
This time we made no assumptions as to the possible
values of Ra, Rb, and R , thus ensuring the validity
of the resulting mode7. A series of computer
simu1 ati ons
with
di fferent
foot/gri d/soi 1
combinations were made to find typical values of
these three resistances. Also, found for each
simulation were the grid and remote foot resistances.
From the values mentioned above, obtained from a
given simulation, it was possible to calculate the
current through a body (represented by a varying
resistance Rbody) connected across points A and B of
the PI-circuit in Figure 3.1, as well as the
potential existing across points A and B with the
body not present, i.e., the touch voltage. This touch
voltage was then inserted into Equation 2-1 along
with the remote foot resistance and body resistance
to obtain the ANSI/IEEE version of the body current.
As mentioned in Section 3.1, R was approximately
equal to the grid resistance in a h cases studied,
whereas Rc and Rb varied independently of the remote
foot impedance.
The body current, as computed by the ANSI/IEEE
method, diverged from the accurately computed value
by as much as 9% for a uniform 1000 ohm-meters soil,
a 1000 ohms body resistance, and a 20m x 20m, 16 mesh
grid buried 0.5 m below the feet.
Note also that the computer runs vividly illustrated
how the presence of the human significantly altered
the earth potential values at his/her feet with
respect to the pre-existing values in his/her
absence. For cases where the human was in the center
of a large mesh, the increase in earth potential
values approached the product of remote feet
resistance (Rf/2) and body current. Since foot
resistance is typically a significant proportion of
the body resistance (even exceeding it for large soil
resistivities), this change in potential can also be
on the same order of magnitude as the potential
difference across the body (especially for high
resistivity soils). For example, for the 20m x 20m
mesh and foot described in the Appendix, a 100
ohm-meter
soil resistivity, 1000 ohms body
resistance, and an assumed fault current of 1000
amperes, the pre-existing foot potential is 2176.13
volts, while the foot potential with the human
present is 2281.07 volts (the remote feet resistance
is approximately 155 ohms, while the body current is
approximately 0.68 amps and the grid potential rise
is 2961 volts).
These results confirmed the need for further computer
runs to understand which factors cause the Standard
80 approach to err. Because the program (MALZ [4])
used to run the simulations thus far is designed to

Earth Surface

... ........

rTermin
Two. Port
Network

Rhdy

-Terminal

Figure 4.1 Two-port representation of earth-grid-foot


system
Terminal 2 is simply a point in the system at the
same potential as the grid where the fault current is
injected. Terminal 1 is the small area on the
earths surface which is in contact with the humans
feet. Indeed, if the resistance of the feet
themselves are imagined to be in the ankles, this
terminal could be the humans feet.
For high voltage systems, the transmission line
network supplying fault current to the grounding grid
can be approximated by an ideal (or constant) current
source (this is because the equivalent network
impedance is very large compared to the impedance of
the grid). Hence, the two-port network shown in
Figure 4.1 consists only of passive elements and an
ideal current source. Thevenins Theorem allows us to
represent this two-port by the circuit shown in
Figure 4.2.

Oveq

TWO- Port

Figure 4.2 Thevenin equivalent circuit of two-port


Note that this Thevenin equivalent circuit is valid
for a given grid configuration, a given foot size and
location, and a given soil resistivity. Note also
that ZSystem in Figure 4.1 does not affect any of the

618

Thevenin parameters. lhis implies that all impedances


in the two-port are to be found in the soil,
consequently, Zeq is proportional to the soil
resistivity and can also be taken to be resistive.
Hence, Zeq becomes Req. These facts will be useful in
examining the effect of soil resistivity on body
current.
4.2.1 Computer Modelling

In order to obtain the parameters of the circuit


depicted in Figure 4.2 for a given earth-grid-foot
configuration,
the
open-circuit voltage and
closed-circuit current are first determined by a
computer program such as MALT [3]. For the
open-circuit run, the grounding grid alone is
injected with current; the foot electrodes (a
computer simulated model of each foot made of small
wires) are left in the ground, but are not connected
to the system in any other way. The open circuit
voltage is then taken to be the grid potential rise
less the average potential on the foot electrodes
lying near the earth's surface.
For the closed-circuit run, the ground bus is shorted
to the foot electrodes as if these latter were a part
of the grid. The current entering the foot electrodes
i s then cal cul ated.
The Thevenin Equivalent circuit parameters are then
simply:
e'q

= 'opencircuit

e'4

(4-1)

(4-2)

'short circuit

R =
eq

o' pen

circuit

(4-3)

'short circuit

4.2.2 Body Current from Thevenin Circuit

From this Thevenin model, it is seen that the true


body current through a human with a body resistance
Rb, when connected to the two-port, is given by:
(4-4)

where ib-true is the true body current


The value obtained using ANSI/IEEE Guide 80 is given
by :
e4'
b-IEEE - _ _ _ _ ~
R,/2 + Rb

(4-5)

where
Rf/2

is the remote foot resistance of the two


feet

ib-IEEE

is the body current obtained using


Standard ANSI/IEEE Guide 80

For these formulas to agree, the following must hold:

Rq

(4-6)

Rf
__

This is clearly impossible, since Rf is a quantity


which is fixed for a given soil type and foot size,
whereas Re can be made to vary under these fixed
conditions fiy altering the grid size and location
with respect to the feet. It appears that in normal
applications, R i s approximately equal to Rf/2. But
how does one def!ne "normal"?
4.2.3 Effect of Body Resistance and Soil Resistivity

For a uniform soil, Rf and Re are both proportional


to Soil resistivity, P , ani can, therefore, be
expressed as:
Rf

= 2ap

(4-7)

Rq = PP

(4-8)

The ratio of the ANSI/IEEE body current to the true


one is given by- (.4 - 9 ) when these values for Rf and
Req are-used:
~

PP + Rb
Ratio = ____
aP + Rb

We see that large body


resistivity tend to mask
between 6 and o or R
resistivities and
accentuate an inequality,
6 / a or 2 Req/Rf.

1E8

(4-9)

resistance and low soil


the effect of an inequality
and Rf/Z.
High soil
body resistance tend to
but not beyond a ratio of

Factors which affect body resistance include the size


of the victim and the eiectrical path through the
body.
If a human is lying down or is in a crouching
position or the contact locations are other than the
hands and feet, the body resistance is different.
Similarly, if the victim is a cow or other
four-legged animal with current passing from the
mouth to the four hoofs, the body resistance can be
significantly lower than that of a standing human (as
low as 244 ohms [ll] vs. 1000 ohms for a human).
Hence, we see that the significant parameters of the
ratio of IEEE current to true current are the grid
size, location of the foot, and the soil structure
(i.e.,
uniform, multilayer, etc.).
Low soil
resistivities and high body resistances only serve to
attenuate the effect of the significant parameters
listed above. We see then, that in ,,order to answer
the question formulated earlier, How do you define
'normal'", it is necessary to study what kinds of
conditions can make Req differ greatly from Rf/2. We
now know the role that body resistance and soil
resistivity play, so these need not be studied any
further.
4.2.4 Effects of Soil Structure, Grid Configuration, and Foot
Location

In order to determine the possible effects of soil


structure, grid configuration, and foot location, one
might ask what conditions maximize the difference
between Req (the Thevenin equivalent resistance of
the system shown in Figure 4.1) and Rf/2 (the
resistance to remote ground of the human's feet).
It is helpful to take another look at Figures 4.1 &
4.2 and realize that R is independent of Ifau t,
i .e., for a given foot/grEI/soil configuration, Req
is the same for all values of Ifault, including zero.
However, Ifau t 0 corresponds to an open-circuit
between the $a;lt current source and the ground bus
injecting fault current into the grid. The resulting

619

system f o r
Ifault=O
and corresponding Thevenin
e q u i v a l e n t c i r c u i t are drawn i n F i g u r e 4.3.

r e s i s t i v i t i e s . Two comparison c a l c u l a t i o n s made f o r


t y p i c a l s o i l r e s i s t i v i t i e s and body r e s i s t a n c e f o l l o w
f o r h=O. 6:

T h i s s i m p l i f i e d system makes i t much e a s i e r t o


understand what k i n d o f c o n f i g u r a t i o n s w i l l produce
d i f f e r e n c e s between Rf/2 and R q, f o r we see i n t h i s
s i m p l i f i e d system t h a t Req i s t l e r e s i s t a n c e , through
earth, between t h e f e e t and t h e g r i d .
Terminal 2

P-low
p-hi
Rb

R
RF72

Terminal 1

'b-IEEE

r--1
I

R +R
L

Rf!2 + R,

--

0.91

T h i s means t h a t t h e t r u e body c u r r e n t i s 110% o f


t h a t p r e d i c t e d u s i n g t h e ANSI/IEEE Standard 80
formul a.

I
Terminal 1

Thevcnin Equivalent

Figure 4.3 Simplified system with same Thevenin equivalent


resistance as original system

4.2.5 Some Examples

P-low
P-hi
Rb

= 500 ohm-meters
= 10000 ohm-meters
= 500 ohms

$2

= 784.2 ohms (from computer r e s u l t s )


= 1087.5 ohms ( f r o m computer r e s u l t s )

-'b-IEEE
-

One way t o produce a l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e between Rf/2


an:! Reg i s t o minimize Re , w h i l e maximizing Rf/2.
Examining a l l p o s s i b l e aays o f doing t h i s i s beyond
t h e scope o f t h i s paper. However, one p o s s i b i l i t y ,
which c o u l d q u i t e e a s i l y occur i n p r a c t i c e , i s t h e
example i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 4.4.

t
I

Groundins Grid
1

t
h

'

R +Rb
eq

._---

= Om8'

Rf/2+Rb

T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t r u e body c u r r e n t i s
about 123% o f t h a t p r e d i c t e d by ANSI/IEEE
Standard 80 formula.

Feet

0.5m

'b-me

-K= 0.98 (100nm/10,000nm)


-----_K= 0.96 (100s" 5,000s"

Earth Surface

Terminal 2

---

L---_I

ohms (from computer r e s u l t s )


ohms (from computer r e s u l t s )

b-true

O T t - - f ) R b d y

= 160.09
= 265.13

__
Grid

= 1000

ohm-meters
ohm-meters
ohms

= 100

= 10000

- K= 0.95
---- K- 0.82

(100nmI 2,000s"
(100nm/ 1,000nm)
500nm)
K= 0.33 (100s" 200nm)

"small

K- 0.67 (1000ml

-__-

----- ------- _--_


4arge

Soil Layer Interface

Figure 4.4 Example grounding situation with large R42 and


relatively small R
eq

I n t h i s example, t h e f o o t e l e c t r o d e s (computer model


of t h e f o o t ) and g r i d are b o t h i n a low r e s i s t i v i t y
s o i l l a y e r o f v a r i a b l e depth, h. T h i s r e s u l t s i n a
low r e s i s t a n c e between t h e f o o t and t h e g r i d .
In
o r d e r t o f u r t h e r decrease t h i s r e s i s t a n c e , t h e f o o t
e l e c t r o d e s are placed near t h e c o r n e r o f t h e g r i d ( a t
a nominal depth o f 0.01 m) which increases t h e mutual
coupling. F i n a l l y , t h e g r i d i s made t o be f a i r l y
l a r g e (see Appendix f o r numerical d e t a i l s ) t o f u r t h e r
increase t h e mutual coup1 ing

On t h e o t h e r hand, a second s o i l l a y e r w i t h a h i g h
r e s i s t i v i t y l i e s below t h e f i r s t . l a y e r , n o t v e r y f a r
below t h e grounding g r i d . T h i s s o i l l a y e r increases
t h e ground r e s i s t a n c e o f t h e f e e t much more t h a n t h e
mutual r e s i s t a n c e between t h e f e e t and t h e g r i d .
The p l o t i n F i g u r e 4.5 shows t h e worse case r a t i o o f
I E E E body c u r r e n t / t r u e body c u r r e n t ( w i t h Rbody=O) .as
a f u n c t i o n o f t h e depth o f t h e low/high r e s i s t i v i t y
s o i l i n t e r f a c e f o r several p o s s i b l e combinations o f
s o i l r e s i s t i v i t i e s . I n t h i s example, t h i s r a t i o
reaches
a minimum o f 60% f o r a high/low s o i l
r e s i s t i v i t y r a t i o o f 100 and 72% f o r a r e s i s t i v i t y
r a t i o o f 20. T h i s means t h a t t h e t r u e c u r r e n t s
passing through a body i n such s i t u a t i o n s can reach
167% and 139%, r e s p e c t i v e l y , o f those p r e d i c t e d u s i n g
t h e formula suggested i n t h e ANSI/IEEE 80 standard,
for
minimum body
r e s i s t a n c e and maximum s o i l

",

0.51

'2
5
3

201 O.b2

0.05 0:l

0:2

0:5

1.0

2.b

5.b

10.0 2d.0 50:O lOd.0

h= Tap Layer Height (in meters)

Figure 4.5 Plot of the worst case ratio of IEEE body current/
true body current for different top soil layer
thicknesses
T h i s example showed how Re c o u l d be made t o be much
Anoaher t h r e e more examples
s m a l l e r than Rf/2.
f o l l o w which d e s c r i b e t y p i c a l grounding s i t u a t i o n s
and i n d i c a t e t h e value o f t h e Re /(R /2) r a t i o f o r
each case. A l l examples use t h e s a l e foot/grounding
g r i d c o n f i g u r a t i o n described i n t h e Appendix A.
The examples g i v e n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s are n o t
n e c e s s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a l l s i t u a t i o n s , b u t are
c i t e d r a t h e r t o e s t a b l i s h a data p o i n t f o r elach s o i l
configuration.
These
examples
have
nolt
been
c o n t r i v e d t o r e p r e s e n t e i t h e r worst cases o r b e s t
cases from a s a f e t y p o i n t o f view.

620

4.2.5.1 Two-Layer Vertical Soil

A two-layer vertical soil model was obtained by


equating the resistivity of the soil occupied by most
of the grounding grid to 2000 ohm-meters and that of
the soil layer where the human is standinq to 1000
ohm-meters (see Figure A.2b).
The resulting
Req/(Rf/2) ratio is 0.93.
4.2.5.2 Multi-Layer Vertical Soil

A three layer vertical soil was modelled,


as
illustrated in Figure A.2c. The soil resistivity of
the semi-infinite layers is 2000 and 1000 ohm-meters,
respectively, and that of the inner layer is 100
ohm-meters. The resulting Req/(Rf/2) ratio is 0.83.
4.2.5.3 Multi-Layer Horizontal Soil

A three-layer horizontal soil model was simulated


with a top layer resistivity of 100 ohm-meters, a
middle layer resistivity of 2000 ohm-meters, and a
bottom layer resistivity of 200 ohm-meters (see
Figure A.2d). The layer interfaces lie at 0.6 m and
1.2 m, respectively. The resulting Req/(Rf/2) ratio
is 0.84.
5.

CONCLUSION

The following conclusions can be drawn from the


research described in this paper:
1) This study has shown that the formula presently
given by ANSI/IEEE Standard 80 can produce
erroneous results when the resistance through
earth between a human's feet and the grounding
grid varies greatly compared to the remote foot
resistance of the human's two feet. Several
examples have been given showing how this is the
case.
2) It has been demonstrated that when a fault
current independent of the presence of a body can
be assumed, the formula given by ANSI/IEEE 80 can
be applied with Req in place of Rf/2 (Reg is the
resistance through earth between a human s feet
and the grid, and R /2 is the ground resistance
of a human's two feet!.
3) The divergence between results obtained using the
ANSI/IEEE Standard 80 method and true values
increases under the following conditions: low
body resistance, high soil resistivity, good
conductive coupling through earth between feet
and the grid (produced by soil structure,
proximity of feet to grid, size of feet and
grid), and large ground resistance of the feet.
This applies particularly to livestock with low
body resistance.
4) The preceding conclusions have been verified only
for cases in which the fault current is
independent of the presence of a body. This
assumption is typically valid for transmission
substation grids, which have very low grid
impedances relative to the system impedance. This
assumption may not be true for distribution
systems, or tower and pole grounds. In such
cases, a more involved analysis must be
performed, which accounts for system source
impedances, line impedances, etc.

5) The presence of a human usually significantly


alters pre-existing soil potentials at his/her
feet when other parts of his/her body are in
contact with an energized, grounded metallic
structure.
6.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank both Safe Engineering


Services & Technologies Ltd. and Pacific Gas &
Electric Company for the support and facilities
provided during this research effort.
7.
REFERENCES
[ 11 Pierre
Laurent,

"General Fundamentals of
Electrical Grounding Techniques", Le Bulletin de la
Societe Francaise des Electriciens, July 1951.

[2] F. Dawalibi, A. Pinho, "Computerized Anal{sis of


Power Systems and Pipelines Proximity Effects IEEE
Transactions on Power System Delivery, Vol. bWRD-1
No. 2, April 1986, pp. 40-48.
[3] "Low Frequency Analysis of Buried Conductor
Networks - User's Manual for Computer Program MALT",
Version 2.15, July 1986, Safe Engineering Services
and Technologies Ltd., Montreal, Canada.
[4] "Frequency Domain Analysis of Conductor Networks
Manual for Computer Program MALZ", Version
3.4, March 1987, Safe Engineering Services and
Technologies Ltd., Montreal, Canada.

- User's

[5] F. Dawalibi, R. D. Southey, "Software Methods:


State of the Art in Power Line/Pipeline Interference
Analysis", CEA Symposium on Joint Right-of-way Use by
Oil and Gas Pipelines and Power Transmission Lines,
Vancouver, March 1987.
[6] American National Standards Institute, "IEEE
Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding",
ANSI/IEEE Std 80-1986, July 26, 1986 Grounding, IEEE.

[7] AIEE Committee Report,


"Voltage Grtdients
Through the Ground Under Fault Conditions , AIEE
Transactions, October, 1958, pp 669-692, Appendices I
& 11.

[8] "Recherche de 1 ' Influence des Chaussures sur 1;s


Dangers Presentes par les Tensions de Pas ,
Certificat No. 162763, Electricite de France.
[9] Biegelmeier, 6.: "Report on the Electrical
Impedance of the Human Body and on the Behaviour of
Residual
Current -Operated
Earth- Leakage
Circuit-Breakers in Case of Direct Contact for
Tensions up to 200 V a.c., 50 Hz", Transactions:
Symposium on Electrical Shock Safety Criteria,
Toronto 1983. Pergamon Press, Toronto 1984;
[lo] M. S. Hammam and R. S. Baishiki, A Range of
Body Impedance Values For Low Voltage Low Source
Impedance Systems of 60Hz", IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-102, No. 5, May
1983.

[ll] T. C. Surbrook, N. D. Reese, and A. M. Icehrle,


"Stray Voltage: Sources and Solutions",
IEEE
Transactions and Industry Applications, Vol. IA-22,
No. 2, March/April 1986.
APPENDIX: CONFIGURATION OFTHE BASIC EXAMPLE
PROBLEM

The basic problem analyzed in Section 4 consists of


the grid and foot (representing two actual feet), a
top view of which is depicted in Figure A.l.

development

He then joined Monte1 -Sprecher & Schuh, manufacturer


of high voltage equipment in Montreal as Manager of
Technical Services. He was involved in power system
design, equipment selection and testing ranging from
a few kV to 765kV.
In 1979, he joined Safe Engineering Services &
Technologies, a company specializing in soil effects
on power networks.
Since that time, he is
responsible for the engineering activities of the
company including the development of specialized
software code relating to power systems applications.
Figure A.1 Top view of grid and foot electrodes

All electrode conductors have a radius of 0.006111. The


grid is buried at a depth of 0.511and the foot at
0.01m.

Figure A . l
shows the grid equivalent foot
configuration. Note that the configuration and size
of the electrode representing the feet were chosen so
that the ground resistance of the feet is about 3 p S .
Other sizes and shapes of the electrode would lead to
similar results and conclusions. Figure A.,? (parts
a, b, c, and d, respectively) shows the soil
structures which were studied.

-----_-

/m

Ptop

Cl0WF-f

G
di:

Soil Interface

Grid

P botlom

(high)

/2000nm

1OOnm
nterface

a) Horizontal %Layers
Side View

b) Vertical 2-Layers
Top View

Earth Surface

100rlm

lOOOnm

Soil

C)

Vertical Multi-Layer
Top View

Soil Interface 2

2000nm

Dr. Dawalibi is a corresponding member of various


IEEE Comnittee Working Groups and a Senior Member of
the IEEE Power Engineering Society and the Canadian
Society for Electrical Engineering. Dr. Dawalibi is
a registered Professional Engineer in the Province o f
Quebec.
Mr. Robert Southey (M87) was born
in Shawinigan, Quebec, Canada, on
April 26, 1964. He graduated from
McGill University, Montreal, in
December 1985 with a B.
Eng.
(Honors) degree in El ectr 1cal
Engineering.

Earth Surface

T
t

Dr. Dawalibi is the author of more than 50 papers on


power system grounding, soil resistivity analysis,
safety, and electromagnetic interference. He is also
the author of several research reports on behalf of
CEA and EPRI.

200nm

d) Horizontal Multi-Layer
Side View

Figure A.2 Soil structures examined in Section 4

Dr. Farid Dawalibi (M72 SM82) was


born in Lebanon in November 1947.
He received the Engineering degrees
from St. Josephs University,
affiliated to University of Lyon,
and the M.Sc.A. and Ph.D. degrees
from
Ecole
Polytechnique,
University of Montreal.
From 1971 to 1976, he was with the
Shawinigan Engineering Company,
Consul ti na
Enq ineers in Montreal, where he
participaied in -numerous projects involving power
system analysis and design, railway electrification
studies and specialized computer software code

From that time to the present, he


has worked for Safe Engineering
Services
Technologies as an
el ectr i c
power
engineer
speci a1 i zing in software devel opment
He was
extensively involved in an EPRI research project
investigating electrical
interference
between
pipelines and transmission lines as well as a CEA
project studying Canadian distribution grounding
practices.

Mr. Southey has coauthored several papers on


grounding and related subjects. Mr. Southey is a
registered Junior Professional Engineer in the
Province of Quebec.
Mr. Rod S. Baishiki (S63 M67
SM77) was born in Buffalo, NY, on
August 12, 1945. He received a
B.S.
degree
in
Electrical
Engineering with honors
from
California
State
Polytechnic
University, San Luis Obispo, CA,
and a M.S. degree in Electrical
Engineering
from
Stanford
University, Stanford, CA, in 1967
and 1972, respectively.
He is presently a Consulting Electrical Engineer in
the Technical Systems Analysis Group of the
Electrical Engineering Department of Pacific Gas b
Electric Company, San Francisco, CA, where he has
worked since 1967.
Mr. Baishiki is a Senior Member of IEEE, a member of
the Power Engineering Society, IEEE AC Fields Working
Group, Magnetic Coupling Effects Task Force and Radio
Noise Working Group, CIGRE, BENS, Tau Sigma, Tau Beta
PI, Blue Key, and Whos Who Historical Society, and a
Registered Professional Electrical Engineer in the
State of California.

622

Discussion
A. P. Sakis Meliopoulos, (School of Electrical Engineering Georgia
Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332): The subject of this paper
is very important in safety assessment of grounding systems and the authors
should be commented for opening the discussion on this matter.
The purpose of this discussion is twofold: (a) the authors are asked to
clarify the interpretation of Figure 2.4 and (b) to present the basis of the
IEEE Std 80 on the subject of body current calculations.
In my opinion, Figure 2.4 of the paper represents a misinterpretation of
the ANSIlIEEE Std 80. For comparison purposes, Figure 6 of the guide is
repeated here. Note that the touch voltage is shown to be not across the
human body resistance but across the series combination of Rf/2 and Rb. In
other words, the Std 80 states that the touch voltage is the Thevenin
equivalent voltage and Rf/2 is the Thevenin equivalent resistance of the soil
at the points of contact. A tutorial explanation of Figure 6 of the Std 80 was
given in the EPRI report EL-2682 and it is repeated here for convenience.
The computational procedure for body currents consists of computing a
Thevenin equivalent circuit connected to the points of contact of the human
body with the ground field (i.e., points A and B in Fig. lb). The Thevenin
voltage source, and (b) the equivalent resistance. The voltage source equals
the open-circuit voltage, meaning in this case the voltage at the points of
contact when the human being is not touching. This voltage will be the
touch voltage. The equivalent internal resistance between the points of
contact can be accurately computed with numerical techniques (1).
For fast but approximate computations, the human foot can be modeled
as a plate touching the surface of the earth. The resistance of the plate to
remote earth is approximately

where p is the resistivity of the earth and b is the radius of the plate. The
human foot definitely is not a circular plate. However, it has been observed
with scale models and numerical studies that the area of the foot in touch
with the earth is the determining variable. For this reason, b can be
approximated with
b=d:

(b)
Fig. 1. Definition of equivalent circuit for the computation of body currents due
to a touch voltage.

where A is the area of the foot in touch with the earth. For an adult with
large feet, the area A of the persons feet is approximately 200 cmz. Thus
the value of b is computed to be

A
4

b z 0.08 m
In this case the resistance of one foot touching the earth is

where p is expressed in ohm.meters. Thus, approximately, the equivalent


resistance in Fig. lb, where the resistances of the two feet to soil are
connected in parallel, is

R A = R s + ~ ( R +F RMF)

Fig. 6 . Touch Voltage Circuit


Reference
1. EPRI Report EL-2682, Analysis Techniques for Power Substation

The equivalent resistance, rq, in Fig. lb, should also take into account the
resistance of the grounding system. However, for practical grounding
systems, this resistance is typically small compared to the resistance 1.5 p ,
and thus omitted. In my opinion, cases in which the effect of the grounding
system resistance can account for more than 5 % are of academic importance
only.
Once the Thevenin equivalent circuit has been computed, the electric
current through the human body, ih, is computed from
ib=Veq
req

+ rb

where rb is the resistance of the human body between the points of contact.
It is this reasoning which leads to the equations in the IEEE Std 80. The
accuracy of the approximate equation for reg has been checked by the
discusser using sophisticated computer models (Reference 1, pages 2-12
through 2-17.) and found acceptable for all practical applications.

Grounding Systems, Volume 1, Methodology and Tests, October


1982.
Manuscript received Feb. 19, 1989.

Abdul M. Mousa, D. A. Jensen and R. M. Rockwell (BC Hydro,


Vancouver, Canada): The 1986 Edition of the IEEE substation grounding
guide differs from both the earlier 1976 edition and the 1958 AIEE
Committee Report regarding the definitions of the touch voltage and the
resistance of the foot Rf. The following physical facts are presented to put
the definition and calculation of Rf into perspective: The dimensions and the
material of the physical resistor which corresponds to the resistance of the
feet vary from case to case. Parts A and B of Fig. 1 show the case of a
transferred potential situation with a large separation between the man and
the injection point of the fault current If. In this case, the body current Ih

flows from the feet to infinity and is governed by pa which is the effective
resistivity from the surface of the earth to infinity. The corresponding foot
resistance Rfmcan be calculated assuming the pattern of the flow of Ibto be
unaffected by the flow of If. If the foot is taken as a circular plate having a
radius r = 0.08 m, then,
Ro
If

Rfm=p,,/4r s 3p,

(1)

. p , / d = 3p,

Rfs=0.5p1/?rr:

(3)

(4)

the above numerical values are approximately given by:


Rfs E 36%

(5)

Comparing (3) and (5) gives:


r1

= 0.23 m

(8)

TRANSFERRED POTENTIAL SITUATION

(D)

(C )

The 1958 AIEE report and the 1976 edition of the Standard use eqn. (2)
to calculate Rf . This is not appropriate because it corresponds to the case of
transmission towers rather than the case of substations for which the
Standard is intended. The method used in the 1986 edition of the Standard is
also not appropriate since it corresponds to Fig. 1A which is not a touch
voltage situation at all. On the other hand, section 4.2.4 of this paper
correctly identifies the subject resistance as the resistance, through earth,
between the feet and the grid. The numerical examples given in Section
4 . 2 . 5 g i v e G = 160Qforpl = 1 0 0 Q m a n d Q = 784Qforp, = 5 0 0 Q
m. Noting that:

%q = 0.5Rh,

(A)

(2)

where p. is the resistivity of only the surface layer of the earth. Although a
numerical similarity exists between (1) and (2), they are completely
different from each other because each is expressed in terms of a different
resistivity.
Parts E and F of Fig. 1 show the case of a substation. In this case, the
driving voltage is taken as the mesh voltage rather than the voltage
corresponding to 1 m reach which is used in the case of a transmission
tower. Here there is no significant fault current flowing in the layer (usually
0.5 m thick) separating the ground mat from the surface of the earth. The
body current flows from the feet to the ground mat, as shown by the dotted
lines in Fig. 1E. Hence Rk (subscript s denotes the substation) is equivalent
to a parallel plate resistor having a length equal to 0.5 m and an effective
cross section significantly larger than that of the foot. Let this cross section
be a circular plate of radius rl . In the typical case, the 0.5 m burial depth of
the mat consists of two layers: a thin surface layer of resistivity p s (crushed
rock) followed by native soil of variable resistivity p , . If the whole burial
depth is covered by a single material of resistivity p , , then,

(6)

which is physically reasonable. Note that the above numerical values are
based on a ground mat consisting of a single 20 m x 20 m mesh and without
a crushed rock layer. Obviously, this is not a typical design case.
Other comments on the paper and the IEEE Standard follow.
1. Assume the fault current to be flowing and the man to be standing next to
the structure but not yet touching it. This is indicated in Figs. 1D and 1F
by switch S. The touch voltage should be logically defined as the
difference in voltage between the structure and the hand of the man in
the above situation. This is the definition used in both the 1958 AIEE
Report and the 1976 edition of the Standard, as per Fig. 2.3 of the paper.
After the hand contact is established, a fraction of the touch voltage
appears across the mans body, and that portion should be rather called

Rb
0.5 Rfs

Parts C and D of Fig. 1 show the case of a transmission tower using


concentrated grounding which can be represented by an equivalent
hemisphere (designated 0). The fault current flows in radial lineslconical
surfaces (labelled 1, 2, 3...), and the hemispheres shown by dotted lines
(labelled 0, P, Q, R, ...) become equipotential surfaces. Let point A (the
location of the mans feet at the ground surface) be on the equipotential
surface P, and let the intersection of surface P with current flow line No. 1
(which is the one closest to the surface of the ground) be point A. Point A
is separated from point A by a small vertical distance AH. Note that the
body current is a negligible fraction of the fault current. Hence the potential
distribution and current flow lines shown in Fig. 1C apply regardless of the
existence of the man on the site. When the hand contact takes place, the
body current flows in almost vertical lines over the short distance AH, then
it joins current flow surface No. 1. Hence the resistance R,., (subscript t
denotes the tower) can be taken to be that of a parallel plate resistor having a
length AH and a cross section equal to the area of the foot. Takmg AH =
0.06 m, which is physically reasonable, and r = 0.08 m as above gives:
Rn = AH

623

CASE OF TRANSMISSION TOWERS

(GPR -Emesh)

(F)

(E)

CASE OF SUBSTATIONS

Fig. 1. Definition of Rf for the different cases.


the BODY VOLTAGE (Eb). (There is a need to specify this quantity
because some jurisdictions tend to legislate safety in terms of voltage
rather than body current). In a survey done by one of the discussers
covering a large number of points of a 230 kV/69 kV substation, the
measured values of the ratio (Eb/EfoUch)were
found to be 0.2 or less. The
body current is given by:
I b = &ouch/(%
Ib=

i0.5

Rd

(7)
(8)

The 1986 edition of the Standard defines &ouch as given in Fig. 2.4 which
is not appropriate. Having done so, I b should be calculated using the
form of eqn. (8). Instead, the Standard uses a form similar to (7) [eqn.
(25) on p. 461 which is incorrect. This confusion would be cleared up by
using two different terms: Touch Voltage and Body Voltage.
2. When measuring the touch voltage, the mans body is replaced by a high
impedance instrument as shown by the dotted lines in Figs. 1D and 1F.
Since this draws a negligible current, the voltage drop across the
resistance (0.5 Rf) is also negligible. Hence the instrument records the
correct value of the touch voltage without requiring access to point A in
the mound.
3. The ultimate fault current upon which the design of the ground mat of a
HV substation is based, is usually in the range 5-50 kA. For the ground
mat to meet safety requirements, it must limit the body current to a
fraction of an ampere: about 0.2 A for the typical case of a 0.3 second
fault duration. Without restoring to calculations, it is obvious that the
diversion of such a negligible fraction of the total fault current into a
different path (the mans body) cannot change the voltage distribution in
the ground. With Etouchproperly defined as in Fig. 2.3, the assumption
that the touch voltage is practically the same regardless of the existence
of the man at the site must be valid. Of course, preliminary design
work may include grounding configurations which turn out to be
inadequate and hence are dropped. For some of those preliminary design
cases, the body current may be excessive enough to invalidate the above
Y

624

assumption. This, however, is not important because those cases do not


represent a solution which meets the IEEE guidelines and will not appear
in design documentations.
The numerical example in Section 4.1 gives a body current equal to 0.68
A for an assumed fault current of only 1OOO A. That case violates IEEE
guidelines even though it is based on a fault current which is too low to
be realistic. Hence it is not appropriate to use that example to study the
change in the pre-existing voltage.
The data in Fig. 4.5 appear to be misleading since it is based on the
unrealistic case of a zero body resistance. Note that the error in
calculating the body current, reported in the two examples in Section
4.2.5, would be practically eliminated if Rf is correctly defined as per
Fig. lE, and eqn. (5) is used to calculate it.
It would be appreciated if the authors provide numerical values for KS
based on realistic data regarding total size of the ground grid, grid
spacing, the existence of a thin surface layer of crushed rock, and the
filling of the balance of the burial depth of the ground grid by a native
soil of variable resistivity.
Manuscript received February 25, 1988.

Donald N. Laird, (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Los


Angeles, California): There appears to be a misunderstanding by the
authors of the method used by the guide (IEEE-80-1986) to allow for the
computation of body current. In statement 2.1.6, they refer to the voltage
between the victims hand and remote soil. The voltage that causes the
body current to flow is the voltage between the victims hand and the
victims feet. The victims feet are not touching remote soil but are in close
proximity to his hands. If the victims feet were on remote soil, the victim
might experience transfer potential.
The authors Figure 2.4 should also show E touch as being the voltage
across the combined resistance of R body and Rf/2. Perhaps this
misunderhanding has led to some questioning of the methodology used in
the guide. In the case analyzed by the authors of soil with no high resistivity
rock layer, this difference in the understanding of the definition of touch
voltage may not be too significant.
Rewriting Equation 26 of the guide gives the body current as the touch
voltage divided by (1,OOO + 1.5C S) where C is a reduction factor which
takes into account the thickness of the rock layer (here taken as 0) and a
reflection factor (also 0). If the soil resistivity was 100 ohm-meter, then the
resistance limiting body current would be: [(l,OOO + 1.5(100)] or 1,150
ohms. In this case, the 150 ohms is taken to be the contact resistance to the
earth at this point of contact.
In many substations, a rock layer is needed to further reduce the body
current. If a six-inch layer of 1,OOO ohm-meter gravel is used, the total
resistance would be [(1,OOO + 1.5(0.73)(1,OOO)] or 2,095 ohms. In this
case, the 1,095 ohms is the combined contact resistance and effect of the
six-inch layer of rock. The touch voltage is the voltage between the
interference between the soil and rock, and the grounding grid or grounded
object.
I hope this discussion will be beneficial to the understanding of the
methodology used in the guide. In general, I would disagree with the
authors conclusions. The guide presents a reasonable method of allowing
for the beneficial effect of a thin layer of gravel without the use of a
complex computer program. For additional discussion of this, please refer
to Chapter 5, IEEE Tutorial Course Text Practical Applications of ANSI/
IEEE Standvd 80-1986, 86 EH0253-5-PWR.
Manuscript received February 22, 1988.

F. P. Dawalibi, R. D. Southey, and R. S . Baishiki

The discussers have made quite a few interesting


comments and we thank them for their input. In the
following, we would like to respond to each discusser
separate1y .
Mr . Me1 i opoul os :
We thank the discusser for his comments. In our
opinion, it is the discusser who is misinterpreting
the ANSI/IEEE Std. 80. As far as Figure 2.4 of our
paper is concerned, we are aware that it i s not the
touch voltage circuit illustrated in recent releases

of the present standard; however, it is certainly the


touch voltage circuit defined by the following
passage fro; Chapter 6, Section 1 of the present
standard: touch voltage: the potential difference
between the ground potential rise (GPR) and the
surface potential at the point where a person is
standing, while at the same time having his hands in
contact with a grounded structure. No reference is
made, in this definition, of open circuit voltage or
foot resistance. The intent of our Figure 2.4 was to
indicate the lack of a comprehensive definition and a
sol id theoretical basis to the present standards
body current equation, and we still believe that we
have succeeded.
Also, contrary to the discussers claims, there is no
explicit nor implicit reference to Thevenin voltages
or impedances in the standard. As far as EPRI Report
EL-2682 is concerned, it is not part of Std. 80 and
it is not a standard. Therefore, its contents
reflect the perspective of its authors. In the same
way as another EPRI report written by one of the
authors of this paper reflects his perspective (EPRI
EL 2699).
Furthermore, the discusser does not appear to
understand the nature of the Thevenin equivalent
resistance in the touch voltage situation discussed.
The discusser goes into detail describing how to
approximate a foot by a circular plate and how to
calculate its resistance to remote earth, but never
mentions why he is concerned with the resistance
between foot and remote earth, when, according to his
own Fig. 1 b Thevenin model, he should be concerned
with the resistance between foot and grid.
As an afterthought, the discusser mentions that the
Thevenin equivalent resistance should account for the
resistance of the nearby grounding system. Now, our
paper shows that in cases where a foot is well
coupled to a nearby grounding grid, proceeding
incorrectly by measuring the resistance from foot to
remote earth, produces in equivalent resistance that
can be much bigger than the resistance determined
(correctly) between foot and grid. It is precisely
grounding systems which have low resistances which
permit good coupling with nearby feet and therefore
afford the greatest potential for error. Yet
Mr. Meliopoulos declares that the low resistance of a
grounding system is a good reason for ignoring its
presence! This is simply in contradiction with
scientific evidence.
If it is true, as stated by the discusser, that it
is this reasoning Yhich leads to the equations in
IEEE Standard 80 , and we suspect that it is in
part, then we suggest that it is all the more urgent
that the standard be revised to correctly describe
the concepts and approximations behind the present
equations.
We understand the discusser has felt the need using
sophisticated computer models to verify the adequacy
of the IEEE approach in a manner similar to the
methodology developed in this paper. However, we
regret his study was not published to reassure other
potentially concerned colleagues.
Mr. Laird:
In the first paragraph of his discussion, Mr. Laird
summarizes the authors view point of the fundamental
problem with the present IEEE-80-1986 Standard: In
computing the resistance of the body current path
through the earth, the present standard places the
body resistance in series with the resistance of the
earth between the foot and remote ground: as if a

625

t r a n s f e r p o t e n t i a l were causing t h e shock.


Our
suggested remedy, which i s h i n t e d a t by
early
i n v e s t i g a t o r s o f touch v o l t a g e shocks, such as P i e r r e
Laurent (Reference [ l ] o f o u r paper), i s t o r e p l a c e
t h e remote f o o t r e s i s t a n c e by t h e r e s i s t a n c e through
e a r t h between t h e f e e t and t h e g r i d .
I n h i s discussion o f gravel layers, Mr. L a i r d i n s i s t s
upon d e s i g n a t i n g th;
e a r t h p a t h r e s i s t a n c e as t h e
"contact resistance.
T h i s widespread misunders t a n d i n g must be c l a r i f i e d .
The f o o t r e s i s t a n c e
represents a d i f f u s e r e s i s t a n c e produced by t h e mass
o f e a r t h between t h e f o o t and t h e g r i d ; i t i s i n no
way c o n f i n e d s t r i c t l y t o t h e f o o t c o n t a c t p o i n t .
F i n a l l y , we must agree t h a t t h e guide presents an
adequate
s i m p l i f i e d method f o r c a l c u l a t i n g f o o t
r e s i s t a n c e i n most t y p i c a l t r a n s m i s s i o n s u b s t a t i o n
cases, b u t we m a i n t a i n t h a t i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o
i n d i c a t e under which c o n d i t i o n s problems w i l l occur,
and t o p r e s e n t t h e c o r r e c t concept behind t h e t r u e
body c u r r e n t e q u a t i o n which i s approximated b y
ANSI/IEEE Standard 80.

M r . Mousa e t a l . :
We n o t e t h a t t h i s d i s c u s s i o n u n d e r l i n e s o u r p r i n c i p a l
a s s e r t i o n : t h a t t h e ANSI/IEEE Standard 80 equation
can o n l y be made accurate i f f o o t r e s i s t a n c e i s
d e f i n e d as " r e s i s t a n c e , through e a r t h , between t h e
f e e t and g r i d " , r a t h e r t h a n t h e p r e s e n t i m p l i c i t
d e f i n i t i o n which i s " t h e r e s i s t a n c e through e f r t h ,
between t h e f e e t and i n f i n i t y (remote e a r t h ) .
In
o t h e r words, t h e p r e s e n t standard n e g l e c t s
the
f o o t - g r i d p r o x i m i t y e f f e c t when c a l c u l a t i n g t h e f o o t
r e s i s t a n c e v a l u e t o use i n t h e body c u r r e n t equation.
The d i s c u s s e r s have under1 i n e d t h a t t h e examples we
have presented do n o t r e p r e s e n t t y p i c a l design cases.
We must emphasize t h a t , i n e x p l o r i n g t h e e f f e c t s o f
v a r i o u s parameters on t h e importance o f t h e g r i d - f o o t
p r o x i m i t y e f f e c t , we have chosen designs which a r e
not
often
encountered
i n t y p i c a l transmission
substations i n order t o obtain s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s .
I n so doing, we have u n d e r l i n e d t h e s i g n i f i c a n t
parameters, c l e a r l y
i l l u s t r a t e d t h e i r . possible
e f f e c t s i n a conceptual and q u a n t i t a t i v e manner, and
shown t h a t i n "normal"
transmission
substation
grounding
situations,
p r o x i m i t y e f f e c t s can be
neglected.
The d i s c u s s e r s p o i n t o u t t h a t no case has been
examined i n which, as i s t y p i c a l l y t h e case f o r
t r a n s m i s s i o n s u b s t a t i o n s , a l a y e r o f crushed r o c k
covers t h e e a r t h ' s surface.
The e f f e c t o f such a
l a y e r , assuming t h a t i t s r e s i s t i v i t y i s g r e a t e r t h a n
t h a t o f t h e s o i l below, w i l l be t o d i m i n i s h t h e
importance o f t h e g r i d - f o o t p r o x i m i t y e f f e c t . To see
t h i s , remember t h a t t h e g r i d - f o o t p r o x i m i t y e f f e c t i s
g r e a t e s t when t h e r e s i s t a n c e through e a r t h between
t h e f e e t and t h e g r i d i s small compared t o t h e
r e s i s t a n c e through e a r t h between t h e
feet
and
i n f i n i t y (remote ground).
A crushed r o c k l a y e r
diminishes t h i s d i f f e r e n c e , and hence d i m i n i s h e s
f u r t h e r t h e p o s s i b l e i n a c c u r a c i e s generated by t h e
present ANSI/IEEE method. I t i s , however, i m p o r t a n t
t o n o t e here, t h a t t h e s u r f a c e c o v e r i n g m a t e r i a l
i n t r o d u c e s o t h e r d i f f i c u l t i e s , which a r e n o t r e l a t e d
t o t h e problem discussed i n t h i s paper; t h i s s u b j e c t
i s p r e s e n t l y under i n v e s t i g a t i o n and research r e s u l t s
w i l l be communicated as soon as t h e y
become
available.
I n d e s c r i b i n g t h e c u r r e n t conduction mechanism i n t h e
s o i l , t h e d i s c u s s e r s have r e s o r t e d t o d e s c r i b i n g
v a r i o u s types o f p a r a l l e l p l a t e r e s i s t o r s , imaginary

l i n e s o f c u r r e n t , and an a r i b i t r a r y depth d e l t a H
which i s r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e 1958 AIEE Committee
Report
pictorial
definition
o f touch v o l t a g e .
S t r i c t l y speaking, we cannot agree w i t h
these
e x p l a n a t i o n s which a r t i f i c a l l y c o n f i n e t h e f o o t
r e s i s t a n c e t o c y l i n d r i c a l clumps o f e a r t h below t h e
feet,
and c o n f i n e c u r r e n t f l o w t o imaginary l i n e s of
c u r r e n t . One statement i n p a r t i c u l a r , " t h e bofy
c u r r e n t f l o w s from t h e f e e t t o t h e ground mat ,
r e q u i r e s c o r r e c t i o n : body c u r r e n t f l o w s from t h e
f e e t t o remote ground ( o r t h e remote g e n e r a t i n g
ground) a l o n g every p o s s i b l e path, b u t tends t o a v o i d
t h e ground mat; t h i s l a t t e r behaves as a competing
e l e c t r o d e which a l s o i n j e c t s c u r r e n t i n t o t h e ground.
Also, f o o t r e s i s t a n c e i s t h e r e s i s t a n c e o f t h e mass
o f e a r t h s e p a r a t i n g t h e f e e t from t h e grounding g r i d ,
and n o t
any k i n d o f c y l i n d e r .
The p i c t o r i a l
d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e d i s c u s s e r s i s u s e f u l t o some
e x t e n t because i t h e l p s i n v i s u a l i z i n g t h e problem on
an i n t u i t i v e l e v e l .
We must i n s i s t t h a t t h e v o l t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n a t t h e
e a r t h ' s s u r f a c e near t h e f e e t o f t h e human s u b j e c t i s
d i s t u r b e d as soon as t h e s u b j e c t i s connected t o
r e c e i v e an e l e c t r i c shock, however small, and t h a t
t h e change i n t h e p o t e n t i a l a t t h e f o o t c o n t a c t
p o i n t , when t h e shock begins, i s independent o f t h e
magnitude o f t h e ( p o s s i b l y v e r y s m a l l )
current
passing through t h e body, f o r a g i v e n p r e - e x i s t i n g
touch voltage: i t i s a f u n c t i o n o f
the
body
resistance
and
foot-to-grid
resistance
(and
p r e - e x i s t i n g touch v o l t a g e ) o n l y .
Admittedly, t h e
extent
of
t h e e a r t h mass which experiences a
s i g n i f i c a n t change i n v o l t a g e due t o t h e connection
o f t h e human i n t h e c i r c u i t can be v e r y small, and
decreases w i t h decreasing body c u r r e n t ; b u t Mousa e t
a l ' s Body Voltage t o Touch Voltage r a t i o o f 0.2
confirms t h e c o n c l u s i o n s (about v o l t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n
near t h e f e e t ) d e r i v e d from o u r s t u d i e s .

I f tough v o l t a g e i s d e f i n e d as t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n
p o t e n t i a l between a p o s s i b l e ( o r a c t u a l ) hand c o n t a c t
p o i n t and a p o s s i b l e ( o r a c t u a l ) f o o t c o n t a c t p o i n t
on t h e e a r t h ' s surface, and i f t h e f o o t - t o - g r i d
r e s i s t a n c e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f r a c t i o n o f t h e body
r e s i s t a n c e , t h e n c l e a r l y , t h e touch v o l t a g e w i l l
change s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e case i n which no human
i s p r e s e n t t o t h e case where t h e human i s present,
even i f t h e body c u r r e n t i s 0.2 A o n l y .
i s f a r as F i g u r e 4 . 5 i s concerned, we l a b e l l e d i t
w o r s t case r a t i o o f I E E E body c u r r e n t / t r u e body
current" i n order t o underline i t s t r u e s i g n i f i c a n c e
and t h u s a v o i d m i s l e a d i n g anybody; we c l e a r l y p o i n t
o u t i n S e c t i o n 4 . 2 . 5 and on t h e p l o t i t s e l f , t h a t
t h i s r a t i o a p p l i e s f o r Rbody = 0 ( o r h i g h s o i l
resistivities).
We f u r t h e r presented 2 examples t o
i l l u s t r a t e t h e r e s u l t s when t h e c o r r e c t approach i s
a p p l i e d t o t y p i c a l cases, and t o show t h a t these
r e s u l t s d i f f e r from t h o s e o b t a i n e d from t h e w o r s t
case scenario.
I n conclusion, t h i s whole i s s u e b o i l s down t o one
question: p r e s e n t l y ANSI/IEEE Standard 80 performs
body c u r r e n t c a l c u l a t i o n s u s i n g a f o o t r e s i s t a n c e
which assumes a t r a n s f e r r e d p o t e n t i a l s i t u a t i o n as
i l l u s t r a t e d by F i g u r e 1 A o f Mousa e t a l ; i . e . , t h e
e f f e c t o f mutual c o u p l i n g between a s u b j e c t ' s f e e t
and
a nearby g r i d i s completely ignored.
Our
q u e s t i o n was: how much d i f f e r e n c e does t h i s make - i n
any s i t u a t i o n : w i t h o r w i t h o u t g r a v e l , f o r v a r i o u s
1 i k e l y and u n l i k e l y body r e s i s t a n c e s , f o r v a r i o u s
s o i l structures?
Our research i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i n
general, p r o x i m i t y e f f e c t s a r e minimal f o r t y p i c a l
We
t r a n s m i s s i o n s u b s t a t i o n grounding s i t u a t i o n s .
have described, however, circumstances under which

626

inaccuracies can occur, and what order of magnitude


such inaccuracies can atain. This is important for
grounding situations which iannot be labelled
"typical transmission substation.
We have stated
clearly what conceptual model must be used to
understand what the foot resistance truly represents
in the body current equation.
Manuscript received July 20, 1988.

You might also like