21, rue dArtois, F-75008 PARIS

http : //www.cigre.org

B3-207

CIGRE 2012

Safety analysis for Grounding Potential Rise of Two Neighbouring

Substations: Case Study of Metropolitan Electricity Authoritys System
A. Phayomhom*, N. Chirataweewoot and S. Intharaha
S. Sirisumrannukul
Metropolitan Electricity
King Mongkuts University of
Authority
Technology North Bangkok
Thailand
T. Kasirawat
A. Puttarach
Provincial Electricity Authority
Chiang Mai University
Thailand

SUMMARY
This paper presents construction procedures for small air insulated substation (temporary substation)
in the existing substation compound to be operated during renovation of the existing air insulated
substation (AIS) to be gas insulated substation (GIS). During the time of isolating ground grid of two
distribution substations, the effect of the auxiliary grounding system (de-energized electrical power
site) of the existing AIS substation will exist. This creates ground potential rise (GPR) to be steep
between the ground grids of two neighbouring substations. It is found that the percentage of GPR ratio
between the disconnecting auxiliary grounding system and the main ground grid in uniform or
homogenous soil is constant while the percentage of GPR ratio are different in case of two-layer soils,
i.e. The GPR ratio is proportional to the bottom soil resistivity while it is invertly proportional to the
upper soils. This implies that only a risky case can be considered in substation design, although the
condition of soil varies by season (rainy, winter or summer). The ground grid design for the
Pathumwan (PM) substation of Metropolitan Electricity Authority (MEA) is examined with the main
objective to assess its grounding grid system condition in terms of ground potential rise, maximum
touch voltage and step voltage. These three parameters are analyzed to ensure that they satisfy the
safety criteria defined in the IEEE Std 80-2000 with five scenarios classified by 25 kA in MEA
Distribution System Improvement and Expansion Plan (years 2012-2016). It is found that safety
criteria should not be ignored in the meantime of ground grid isolation because the auxiliary
grounding system of the existing substation can create steep ground potential rise and therefore the
voltage difference can harm personels working nearby and cause damage to equipment in the vicinity
of faults, particularly when the ground grid of the two neighbouring substations are not connected.
Modelling and simulation are carried out on the Current Distribution Electromagnetic interference
Grounding and Soil structure (CDEGS) program.

KEYWORDS
Ground potential rise, Substation, Step voltage, Touch voltage

*att_powermea@hotmail.com

1. INTRODUCTION
This paper proposes a safety grounding design system of two neighboring substations in Metropolitan
Electricity Authority (MEA). The methodology is illustrated by the case of Pathumwan (PM)
substation, a 69 kV outdoor air-insulated substation that has been operating for more than 30 years. To
enhance better security and reliability of the power system and also taking into account of
harmonizing with its surrounding, this substation will be replaced with an indoor gas insulated
substation (GIS). All high voltage GIS equipment will be installed in metalclad with SF6 insolated
and the supply voltage need to be upgraded from 69 kV to 115 kV in 2015. In the meantime, a small
AIS substation (temporary substation) is temporarily required to cover for the existing substation. The
existing outdoor substation will then be removed and replaced with a new indoor substation. Some
parts of the outdoor substation, however, can still be used as spare parts. The small AIS substation will
be put into operation for approximately 1 or 2 years before the new indoor substation can be put in
place [1].
Prior to the removal of the existing substation, a new small AIS substation has to be constructed to
temporarily cover for the existing substation. After that the existing substation can be removed and the
construction of the new GIS substation can be initiated. However, based on previous practice, during
the construction of the new GIS substation, the ground grid of the small AIS substation and that of the
existing substation are not joined together, this often leads to the damage of equipment and injury or
even loss of life of personnel. If this is the case, you are recommended to adapt the finding of this
paper as a guideline to reduce the effect. Additional study in this paper also covers the GPR ratio
between the auxiliary grounding system and the main ground grid which is the case generally found in
substations construction. The GPR ratio exhibits interesting finding related to soil resistivity, ground
grid distance, etc, which is worth to know in ground grid design.

2. SAFETY CRITERIA [2]

In the process of designing the ground grid system, safety criteria is considered firstly to specify the
required safety level, then the maximum touch and step voltage are calculated in comparision with the
safety criteria to assure whether it is safe to work on the area.

2.1 Touch Voltage Criteria

Touch potential is normally the voltage between the energized object and the feet of a person in
contact with the object. In this case, it is the difference in voltage between the grounded structure a
person in contact and the point where the person stands on his feet and undergoing ground potential
rise (GPR).

2.2 Step Voltage Criteria

Step potential is the voltage between the feet of a person standing with two feet (approx. 1 foot) apart
near an energized grounded object. It is equal to the difference in voltage, given by the voltage
distribution curve, between two points at different distances from the "energized grounded object ".
For example, during a stroke of lightning, a person could be at risk of injury owing to step voltage
across his or her feet by standing near the grounding point of the lightning arrestor.

3. MAXIMUM OF MESH AND STEP VOLTAGE

To calculate both maximum touch and step voltage, apparent resistivity factor is required and it can be
obtained by applying the Wenner arrangement method.

4. PROCESS OF SAFETY ANALYSIS

The safety analysis is carried out using the CDEGS program via adhering to the steps as follows:
Step 1: Measure the resistance () of the soil located within the interested substation area by using the
Wenner arrangement method.
Step 2: Input the obtained resistance value from step 1 into the Rural Electric Safety Accreditation
Program Module (RESAP) by using steepest method to get the soil characteristic such as soil
resistivity (.M) and the thickness of the layer soil.
Step 3: Input the obtained resistance value from step 1 into the CDEGS program using the MALT
module to achieve the safety criteria.
Step 4: Design the ground grid system corresponding to each studied ground grid configuration for the
substation.
Step 5: Obtain the maximum touch and step voltage by running the simulation program for each
ground grid configuration, then justify the result by comparing the achieved maximum touch
and step voltage with the safety criteria neglect the one should either its maximum touch or
step voltage exceed that specified in the safety criteria, otherwise, retain it. The configuration
that fails may subject to further improvement until both its maximum touch and step voltage
are well within the limit of the safety criteria.

5. EFFECTS OF NEARBY AUXILIARY GROUNDING SYSTEM OF SUBSTATION

Many a time, the small AIS substation is under construction while the existing substation is still in
operation and not yet removed. There are two grounding systems for each substation that is not
connected each other. The ground grid of the main substation is called main ground grid whereas that
of the small AIS substation is called auxiliary ground grid. During the time of disconnecting of ground
grid, the small AIS substation is de-energized, its auxiliary grounding system however exposes to the
risk of high GPR caused by the main substation which is still in operation. The GPRs steepness is
located between the main and auxiliary ground grid.

6. CASE STUDY
Fig. 1 shows the installation of a typical grounding system for Pathumwan (PM) substation together
with its grid dimension. The cross section of the ground grid conductor used is 240 mm2 and its
ground rod is 2.4 m long and 15.875 mm in diameter. The ground grid is 0.5 m buried below the
ground surface level, and all ground rods are exothermic welded to the main ground grid. The
auxiliary ground grid, the cross section of the ground grid conductor is 95 mm2; 0.5 m below the
ground surface, ground rod is 3.0 m long; 15.875 mm in diameter; exothermic welded to the ground
grid.

6.1 Ground Grid Simulation Model

The ground grid system of the PM substation
modelled by CDEGS program as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig.1. Typical installation of grounding system in

MEA

Fig.2. Top view of ground grid model of PM

substation

6.2 Soil Resistivity Result

The soil layer characteristics of the PM substation were analyzed by a built-in module called Rural
Electric Safety Accreditation Program module (RESAP) in the CDEGS program, the result is shown in
logarithm scale in Fig. 3. Given the soil resistivity model in Fig. 3, the resistivity of the PM substation is
shown in Table I. The resistivity of the top and bottom layers is 22.2588 and 1.019092 m
respectively. The resistivity of top layer is more than that of the bottom layer (deeper layer) due to a
number of factors, such as: moisture content, chemical composition, salts dissolved in the water, and
grain size [3].

Fig.3. Soil resistivity model

Table I Summary of soil resistivity of PM substation Table II Safety criteria for 50 kg body
weight
Reflection Resistivity
Layer Resistivity Thickness
Fault clearing
coefficient Contrast
(m)
(m )
ratio
Surface
time
Foot
(p.u.)
Top
22.2588
1.831156
-1.0000
0.22259E-18
layer
0.1 sec
resistance:
Bottom 1.019092
infinity
-0.91244 0.45784E-01
resistivity Touch
1 Foot
Step
( m)
()
voltage voltage
1 : resistivity of top layer soil,
(V)
(V)
2 : resistivity of bottom layer soil
None
371.50 618.60
69.6
500
583.3 1,465.7
1,534.3
The safety criteria for a person of 50 kg body weight of
1,000
804.9 2,352.0
3,066.7
PM substation is analyzed by MALT and the result is
1,500
1,026.4 3,238.3
4,599.1
shown in Table II. Lets select 1,000 .m as the surface
2,000
1,248.0 4,124.5
6,131.5
layer resistivity, the touch and step voltage is then 804.90
and 2,352 volt respectively. Although there are a number
of suitable ground grid configurations can be applied, User defined extra foot resistance: 500 ,
only five combinations of existing and temporary ground Body resistance: 1,000 .
grid configuration will be analized as given in Table III.

Table III Difference combination of ground grid

configuration
rod length of existing
grid = 2.4 m
Case 1:

Case 2:

Case 3:

fault at existing
substation
(existing grid )
rod length of temporary
grid = 3.0 m
fault at small AIS
substation
(temporary grid )
rod Length of existing
grid = 2.4 m
rod length of temporary
grid = 3.0 m
fault at temporary or
existing substation
(existing grid with connected temporary grid)
rod length of existing
grid = 2.4 m

Case 4:

rod length of temporary

grid = 3.0 m

existing grid: existing ground grid of the

existing outdoor substation
temporary grid: temporary ground grid of
the small AIS substation
The three voltage performance indices are
listed in Table IV. The data in Table IV
are graphically displayed in Figs 4 to 5.
Table IV. GPR , touch and step voltages
for all five cases

Case

Voltage level (V)

Type of voltage
GPR
Touch
Step
1,166.6
313

1,082
774.9
694

171.5

542.72
451

118.7

770.6
662

171.5

1,161.4
312

1,054

1
2
3
4
5
Legend:
touch (Max.) : 804.9 volt
step (Max.) : 2,352 volt

: acceptable (within the limit)
: Not acceptable (out of the limit)

fault at small AIS

The study of all 5 cases found that: for 2
substation
(existing grid disconnects with temporary grid) unconnected ground grids, and one of
rod length of existing
which is a substation that is under
grid = 2.4 m
operation. When fault occurs, its touch
rod length of temporary voltage may violate the safety limit stated
Case5:
grid = 3.0 m
in safety criteria as in case 5. Case 5 is the
same as case 4 except their fault location,
fault at existing
case 4 faults at the small AIS station
substation
(existing grid disconnects with temporary grid) while case 5 faults at the main substation.
In this case, 0.45% (1,166.6 volt to 1,161.4 volt) for maximum GPR, 2.59% (1,082 volt to 1,054 volt)
for maximum touch voltage and 62.08% (313 volt to 312 volt) for maximum step voltage are
decreased because the total resistance of case 5 is less than that of case 1. The 3-dimension GPR and
2-Dimension spot touch voltage of case 5 is shown in Fig. 4 and 5 respectively. The areas that are
colored in orange and red are unsafe.

Fig.4. 3-Dimension ground potential rise of case 5 Fig.5. 2-Dimension spot touch voltage of case 5
From all 5 cases, we can conclude that, steep GPR found in the boundary of existing and small AIS
substation in cases 4 and 5. This will be the cause of ground potential difference (GPD). If the value of
GPR is high, the touch voltage within the substation area will also be high. Anyway, despite the GPD,
it is still safe as long as the maximum touch voltage does not exceed safety criteria.
For the procedure of constructing the substation, case 2 should be chosen for the design. Because there
is only ground grid of a small AIS substation, it is safe for the first step. After that, the design which
consists of two neighbouring substations is processed for the next step of substation building. Despite
the safety value of maximum touch voltage in case 2, the rate of safety is increased when there is the
connection with ground grid system of nearby substation. If there is a separation with ground grid, the
status of main return will occur and it will create GPD. Hence, the value of maximum touch voltage
within safety criteria should be considered before commencing the construction in the next step.

6.3 Nearby Distribution Substation Building

The above discussed unsafe condition owing to GPR in the case of two grounding grids exist close
together can also be applied for a newly constructing distribution substation which happens to be close
to another substations mesh of ground grid. Safety consideration requires that the new distribution
and existing substations ground grid are interconnected, so that the de-energized electrical power
sites (the constructing sites) ground grid can act as an auxiliary grounding system of the existing
substation. However, if the effect of the existing is to be taken into account for a grounding design so
as to reduce the performance requirements of the substation grounding system, the copper conductors
must be connected in a reliable manner to the substation grid [4].
The essence of the study case mentioned above is the case of two substations, the grounding systems
of which are isolated from each other, thus create the effect of the auxiliary grounding system of one
to another. To make it simple, the case will further be divided into 4 cases : case A to D. According to
the appearance of 3 auxiliary grounding system of the substations status, the steep GPR will create
high GPD and high GPD will subsequently cause the high touch voltage. However, it still depends on
ground grid whether it is designed to deal with such a situation or not, in other words, although high
GPD results in high touch voltage, but it may still fall within the limit of the safety criteria. The 4
cases represent different ground grid configuration as follows :
For cases A to D, all of the cross section of the ground grid conductor is 95 mm2 and the ground rod is
3.0 m long and 15.875 mm in diameter. All the grid conductors are 0.5 m deep buried in the top layer
soil. The figure of an installation of ground rod will be spread out. The dimension of ground grid
which presents the status of return will be categorized into 3 sizes : small (15 mx15 m), medium
(30 mx30 m), and large (45 mx45 m). The main one is of medium size (30 mx30 m). Furthermore, the
value of soil resistivity is chosen to be 1, 50 and 100, this applies to both top and bottom layer soil.
Thus, the short circuit current of 25 kA is specified.

Table V Configuration of the auxiliary grounding Table VI GPR, touch voltage and step voltage for
system of the substation
different configurations
Configuration
Voltage level (V)
Case
1
Type
Case
of
2 ( m )
(m)
voltage
1
50
100
A

1
50
100
1
Touch
50
100
1
Step
50
100
1
M 50
100
GPR
1
Au 50
100
1
Touch
50
100
1
Step
50
100

334
419.41
422.02
279
364
367
122.7
246
250
327.71
418.02
418.48
172.11
170.73
169.02
254
373
376
135.7
258
259

4,812.7
16,700
18,417
2,762
13,941
15,470
497
6,133
7,628
4,636.7
16,386
18,136
3,932.5
8,605.7
8,831.6
373
12,761
14,229
258
6,787
8,263

6,338
29,245
33,400
3,163
24,011
27,881
536
9,356
12,265
6,132.1
28,529
32,771
5,400.5
16,359
17,211
2,397
21,554
25,431
594
10,320
13,574

1
50
100
GPR
1
Au 50
100
1
Touch
50
100
1
Step
50
100

314.77
407.17
409.91
142.51
139.83
139.8
233
395
440
141.4
262
266

4,310.2
15,738
17,544
3,578.9
7,125.7
7,322.9
1,374
11,636
13,957
523
7,072
8,586

5,733.1
27,129
31,477
4,990.6
13,637
14,251
1,499
18,032
23,271
523
10,762
14,143

304.76
400.41
405.32
115.18
113.37
114.18
253
419
427
152.4
270
278

4,014.2
15,238
17,081
3,176.8
5,759.1
5,935
1,217
12,647
15,043
596
7,621
9,177

5,366.7
26,052
30,476
4,519.2
11,054
11,518
1,314
19,838
25,293
621
11,783
15,241

GPR

Main 30mx30m
A
B

Main 30mx30m, Auxiliary 15mx15m

Main 30mx30m, Auxiliary 30mx30m

Main 30mx30m, Auxiliary 45mx45m

Legend :
M: main ground grid system
Au: auxiliary grounding system of the existing
substation

The interesting findings are as follows:

Case A: The value of GPR, touch and step
voltage will increase if either the soil resitivity of
top or bottom layer or both increases. In addition,
1
the concept can be well applied to the site the soil
M
50
of which is homogeneous.
100
Case B: This case includes the effect of the
GPR
1
auxiliary grounding system of the existing
Au
50
substation status (return ground grid). The
100
resulting GPR, touch and step voltage are
D
1
thesame as Case A : they increase if either the soil
Touch
50
resitivity of top or bottom layer or both increases,
100
with the exception that, the GPR of return ground
1
grid, when the resistivity of top layer soil is
Step
50
higher than the bottoms, the GPR will decrease
100
(sheaded area) when the resitivity increases. In
the case of the homogeneous soil, the resulting
GPR of main and return ground grid, touch and step voltage are directly
resistivity.

proportional with the soil

Case C and D, the GPR value of main and auxiliary ground grid, touch and step voltage have the same
characteristic as case in B.
Now, lets consider the normalized ratio expressed in percent (%) between GPR of auxiliary
grounding system to the main ground grid of Case B, C and D, and putting in the distance between
each ground grid as a new parameter of interest. The result is listed in Table VII.
For all cases, if the soil is homogeneous, the ratio is the same (diagonally shaded), no matter how
much the resistivity is. This implies that the ground grid design can still be applicable in case of
homogeneous soil without the consideration of its ground resistivity even the gournd resistivity
changed by season. The higher the ratio, it means the GPR of auxiliary grounding system approaches
that of the main grids. This is a safety condition, becuse the GPD between the two grids is small and
hence small value of touch and step voltage. In case of two layer soil, the ratio is proportional to the
resistivity of bottom layer, whereas it is inversely proportional to the resistivity of the top layer soil.
Table VII GPR ratio between auxiliary and main From Table VII, the value of top and bottom
ground grid configuration
layer resistivity at any point where the status
of main and auxiliary of case B occurs. We
can note that the GPR ratio of case B is
GPR
(%)
1
Distance
higher than that of case C and D for the same
2 ( m )
Case
(m)
(m)
distance, because of the higher total grid
1
50
100
resistance of case B. It is therefore evident
1
52.52 84.81 88.07
that, case C and D constutes unsafe condition
3
50
40.84 52.52 57.34 and should be subjected to further
100 40.39 48.70 52.52 consideration against the safety criteria.
1
30.21 62.69 68.90 In addition, the study of case B is analyzed
18
50
23.91 30.21 33.37 by varying the distance between the main and
B
100 23.76 28.03 30.21 auxiliary ground grid. In the previous case,
21.75 51.05 58.28 the inter-distance is fixed at 3 m. In this
1
33
50
17.23 21.75 24.06 study, the GPR ratios (Table VII) of the inter100 17.12 20.19 21.75 distance of 18 m (6 times) and 33 m (11
45.27 83.03 87.05 times) are obtained.
1
3
50
34.34 45.28 50.27 It is found that the greater the distance, the
100 34.11 41.74 45.27 lower the GPR ratio. For instance, in case B,
1
26.37 58.96 65.81 for a given resistivity, the GPR ratio of the
18
50
20.82 26.37 29.23 inter- distance of 18m compares to that of
C
100 20.69 24.43 26.37 33m will be 30.21% and 21.75%
1
19.51 47.92 55.51 respectively.We know that low GPR ratio
33
50
15.45 19.51 21.61 results in high touch and step voltage, and
100 15.35 18.10 19.51 finally, constutes an unsafe contition. We
1
37.79 79.14 84.21 have little to discuss about the results of case
3
50
28.31 37.79 42.43 C and D, for they have the same
100 28.17 34.75 37.79 characteristic as of case B.
1
22.98 55.12 62.58 Compare the last 3 study cases B, C and D,
18
50
18.11 23.04 25.56 with the case of PM substation distributes the
D
100 18.00 21.26 22.98 electricity to small substation as illustrated in
1
17.52 44.98 52.82 case 4. The old inter-distance between the
33
50
13.85 17.52 19.43 main and the auxiliary grid was 4.4 m and
100 13.77 16.24 17.52 later had been proposed to change to 74.4 m
or 144.4 m if applicable. The GPR ratio of
Table VII was implemented for PM substation, and found that : the GPR ratio decreases from the
original 21.84% (4.4m) to 5.53% (74.4 m) and 3.18% (144.4 m) repectively. The study result is shown
in Table VIII. However, when the resulting touch voltags were checked to see review. However, if the

two neighbouring ground grids are connected, it is safe for the people if working g around. Care
should be given in obtaining the accurate soil resistivity from measurement in field test.they violated
against the safety criteria in Table II. It is found that the touch voltage's for both distance are still
within the safety limit, with the exception that, case 5 was unsafe from the begining, so it remains
unsafe when its inter-distance increases. In addition, case 3 is analyzed by varying the inter-distance, it
will remain safe because the two neighbouring gronding grids are interconnected and the total
resistance of 74.4 m (0.01777 ) and 144.4 m (0.015734 ) grounding system are less than 4.40 m
(0.021709 ).
Case 5 is not safe for the given configuration, however, this can be mistigated by reducing its
construction time interval by increasing the number of workers. Also, it can be alleviated by dropping
crushed rock#2 with the resistivity of 3,000 ( m ) for approximately 10-20 cm in thickness.
Table VIII GPR , touch and step voltages for PM
substation cases 3 to 5 with varied distance

Cases

Distance
(m)
Main

Voltage level (V)

Type of voltage
GPR
Auxiliary
Return
/Main (%)

4.40
542.72
74.40 444.26
144.40 393.34
4.40
770.6 168.27
74.40 774.91 42.887
144.40 774.92 24.673
4.40 1,161.40 168.36
74.40 1,166.60 42.89
144.40 1,166.6 24.673

21.84
5.53
3.18
14.50
3.68
2.11

7.CONCLUSION

The ground grid design for the PM

substation is examined with the main
objective to assess its grounding system
condition in terms of ground potential rise,
Touch
touch voltage and step voltage. These three
parameters are analyzed to ensure that they
451.00
satisfy the safety criteria defined in the
381.25
IEEE Std 80-2000 with five scenarios
340.68
classified by 25 kA in MEA Distribution
System Improvement and Expansion Plan
662.00

No.11 (years 2012-2016). The study found
700.00

that, if two unconnected ground grids
727.00
happen to exist closed together, they may
1,054.00 expose the workers to unsafe condition as
1,097.55 the touch and step voltages violate the
1,122.18 safety criteria. In such a case, the original
design should be subjected for safety

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The first author was financially supported by MEA Thailand. He would like to express his
deepest gratitude to late Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jamnarn Hokierti, Kasertsart University, Thailand
and Mr. Praditpong Suksirithaworngule, ABB, Thailand, for teaching him the essential
knowledge of power system. The author would like to express his sincere thanks to Provincial
Electricity Authority (PEA) for CDEGS program and MEA for the technical data used in this
research work. High appreciation is given to Mr. Chotepong Pongsriwat, PEA, Northern
Region1, Chiang Mai, Thailand for his constructive comments. The author is deeply indebted
to Power System Planning Department for research time and strong support in this work.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1]

[2]
[3]
[4]

A. Phayomhom, S. Sirisumrannukul and T. Kasirawat. Safety Design of Ground Grid in

Distribution Substation: Case Study of Metropolitan Electricity Authoritys System
(International Journal of GMSARN ,vol. 4, no. 2, June 2010, pages. 64 - 74)
IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding. (IEEE Standard 80-2000, January 2000)
BS. Code of Practice for Earthing (BS Standard 7430:1998, November 1998, pages 8 - 10)
Safe Engineering Services & Technologies Ltd., Grounding & Electromagnetic Field
(Technical Semina. Chapter 2 Fundamental Grounding Concepts, 1996, pages 2_2 -1 _ 15)