GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING

===============================================================

DESIGNING FOR A
LOW RESISTANCE GROUNDING

Introduction

Grounding (or earthing) is the art of making an electrical connection to the earth. The
process is a combination of science and art as opposed to pure science. This process is
required because it is necessary to go through a process of testing the options, as
opposed to calculations made via some formal process. The options for each site must be
determined through visualization and evaluation, individually, using a related analytical
process.
The earth must be treated as a semiconductor, while the grounding electrode itself is a
pure conductor. These factors make the design of an earthing system complex, not
derived from a simple calculation or the random driving of a few rods into the soil.
Knowledge of the local soil conditions is mandatory and is the first step in the design
process. This includes its moisture content, temperature, and resistivity under a given set
of conditions.

Evaluating the Soil Conditions

Accurate design of a grounding system requires an accurate assessment of the sites soil
conditions. However, even a small site will often have widely varying soil resistivity
from one spot to another. Many measurements must be made, and samples of the soil
must be taken from several test locations and analyzed for both moisture and temperature.
The actual measurement technique using the four-point tester is illustrated in Figure 1.
Note that at least 10 measurements are recommended to properly assess the site soil
resistivity. Large areas require more measurements, but 10 should be the minimum. Only
soil to a depth of 10 feet, or 3 meters, needs to be tested in most situations. In very
unusual situations, more specifically in very dry areas or under extreme conditions, refer
to the test meter instructions for the procedure required to assess resistivity as a function
of depth. Table 1 lists some common soils and their resistivity.

When the measurements are completed, the average resistivity should be calculated, the
temperature measured, and the moisture content assessed. Moisture content is assessed by
taking soil samples at depths of about 1 foot, or 1/3 meter, and putting it in a plastic bag
immediately. Weigh the sample first, dry it out completely, and weigh it again. Express
the difference in percentage. The result is the percent moisture by weight.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (1/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================

Figure 1: Ground resistance testing

Figure 2: The influence of moisture content

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (2/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================

Figure 3: The influence of temperature

The temperature measurement and the percent of moisture should be compared with
Figures 2 and 3, respectively, to determine the actual soil resistivity under optimum and
worst-case conditions. This will permit a calculation of the range in grounding resistance
achievable in that soil with the final system design. The required design data has now
been defined, and the design process can start from a solid foundation; i.e., the required
parameters. The initial calculations should be based on the measured resistivity, and the
final system design must take into account the extreme moisture and temperature
variations. Within the USA, variations of about 250 percent are normal for conventional
systems.

Design Step 1: Calculating the Requirements with Conventional Rods

From work performed by many experts, we know that the resistance of any grounding
electrode R1 may be estimated from:

Where:
= Soil resistivity in ohm-meters
L = The electrode length in feet
d = The electrode diameter in inches

If the soil resistivity averaged 100 ohm-meters, then the resistance of one -inch by 10-
foot electrode to true earth would be found to be 0.321p or 32.1 ohms. Obviously, that is

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (3/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================
high and most likely not acceptable. The next step is to determine how many of these
rods are required to achieve a given goal.

Design Step 2: Calculating the Required Number

Where:
R1 = Resistance of one rod
K = The Combining Factor =
N = The Number of Rods Required (when they are properly deployed) actual
design process.
Since making an electrical connection to earth involves a connection between a conductor
and a semiconductor, it is not point-to-point contact but conductor-to-area contact. That
is, making an electrical contact with earth requires a significant volume of that earth
around the conductor to complete the connection. This can best be illustrated by
considering the implications of the data presented by Figures 4 and 5, which illustrate the
result of measuring the change in resistance of equal segments of earth along any radial
from a driven rod. Notice that the change in measured resistance decreases exponentially
with distance from the road, as illustrated by Figure 4. Notice also that at about 1.1 times
the length of the rod in earth, the change in resistance becomes negligible. This indicates
that its connection to earth is nearly complete. Actually, about 95% + 2% of the
connection has been completed.

Figure 4: Measured resistance change as a function of distance from the rod

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (4/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================

Figure 5: Shells of resistance (around a vertical rod)

Figure 6: The interfacing hemisphere

From these data, we know that for every rod driven into earth, an interfacing hemisphere
of that earth is required to complete the electrical connection. The diameter of that
hemisphere is approximately 2.2 times the length of the rod (L) in earth, as illustrated by
Figure 6. When more than one rod is required, they should be spaced no closer than 2.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (5/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================
times the length of that rod in any direction. If multiple rods are driven too close together,
those connections are considered incomplete; because all rods do not have a complete
interfacing hemisphere, and the effectiveness of those additional rods are reduced
proportionately and, in reality, wasted.
To illustrate, consider Figure 7. Using those data, if we assume that one 10-foot rod
provides a resistance to earth of 100 ohms, then 10 rods at 5-foot intervals reduces the
resistance to about 28 ohms. At 10-foot intervals, it is about 18 ohms; and at 22-foot
intervals (2.2 times their length), it is down to only about 8 ohms. There are the same
number of rods, but properly spaced.
One other factor of concern is length of the grounding electrode. It is common practice to
keep extending the length of the electrode into the earth to lower its resistance. This
practice is not recommended for most situations, as will become apparent from an
evaluation of the data offered by Figure 8. An analysis of these data show that as the
electrode is extended into the earth, the percent reduction in resistance to earth per unit
length of rod becomes exponentially less with each increment of length . For
example, to reduce the resistance of a 10-foot rod in a given soil to half the 10-foot value,
it requires extending that rod to 100 feet in that same soil. Further, it is unusual for the
soil to remain constant as a function of depth. Most often, resistivity increases with depth,
compounding the problem. A reasonable conclusion from these data is this: Many short
rods (six to ten feet in length) are usually more productive than a few long ones in
achieving a given resistance to earth. Remember: the longer the rod, the greater the
interfacing hemisphere diameter.

NOTES:
1. Often one or a few very long rods are tried, and because of measurement errors, the
user thinks he has achieved a low resistance when, in fact, he probably has not.
2. More often than not, grounding systems are subjected to transient phenomena where
the di/dt can exceed 100 kA/microseconds. In these situations, the surge impedance is the
important factor, not the DC resistance. Using short, large diameter rods such as the
Chem-Rod is far more effective in reducing the surge impedance. Use of Ground
Augmentation Fill (GAF) reduces the impedance further.

b- Grounding Grid

Design Step 1: calculate the grid conductor radius from the following expression

A = I 76 t /( ln ((234 +Tm)/(234+Ta))

A : the conductor copper cross section in ( circular mils)

t : the fault duration in sec.
Ta : ambient temperature
Tm : maximum conductor temperature
I : fault current in amp.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (6/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================
Design Step 2:
Grounding grid resistance R = /{ 1/( 4 r ) + 1/L }
r : the radius of equivalent circular plates ( same area with the
grid )
L : the total grid conductor length

Figure 7: Rods too close

Figure 8: Ground rod resistance versus length

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (7/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================

Given the foregoing guidelines, the design process can start with the proper spacing
criteria, using the expression given to calculate the resistance of one rod plus that for N
rods (RN) as above. When there is limited space, as there usually is, that must be taken
into account. To optimize the calculations, a personal computer may be programmed to:
1. Vary electrode length and the size of the interfacing hemisphere in concert.
2. Vary the location of these interfacing hemispheres to gain maximum use of available
land area.
3. Conduct a trade-off analysis between the number, length, and location of the electrode-
hemisphere combination.

When the lowest resistance combination has been found and yet is too high to satisfy the
requirements, other factors must be considered. Limits have been reached which are
established by the area of land available and the soil resistivity. Doubling the rods in that
area will reduce the resistance by no more than about 10%. To reduce the grounding
resistance, either more land is required or the resistivity of the available land soil must be
lowered. Soil resistivity can be lowered, and the related cost is usually much less than the
cost of more land.

Dealing With High Soil Resistivity (Soil Conditioning)

Soil resistivity is a function of several factors. These include the type of soil, moisture
content, temperature, mineral content, granularity, and compactness. Usually, moisture
and mineral content are the only factors that can be influenced by any practical control
concept. Figures 2, 3, and 9 illustrate the influences of moisture, temperature, and mineral
content, respectively. Controlling temperature is usually not practical, but reducing
sensitivity to temperature is. Moisture can be controlled where required, but the mineral
content has the most dramatic influence, as illustrated by Figure 9. The higher mineral
content also reduces soil sensitivity to moisture content. It is, therefore, obvious that
increasing the mineral content is the first step to be considered in soil conditioning. Soil
conditioning is the process of adding the right amount of metallic salt into the soil
uniformlyto achieve the required conductivity. Various methods have been attempted
to accomplish this objective. In Table 2, the results of some examples are contrasted and
compared with a conventional -inch by 10-foot conventional rod in five different soils.
The top line is the conventional rod alone; the second and third lines involve a
conventional rod in soil that was hand mixed with salt (NaCl) and measured after one and
three years. The fourth is a two-inch diameter copper tube filled with NaCl, provided
with air breathing holes at the top and leaching holes at the base. It extracts moisture
from the air (if it has any) and forms a saturated solution of the metallic salts which are
leached out as the solution is formed. In dry areas where conditioning is needed the most,
it is about as effective as the equivalent length of empty two-inch pipe.
In 1984, LEC introduced the Chem-Rod to the marketplace. Its design results in a more
uniform distribution of the metallic salts throughout the electrode interfacing hemisphere.
It absorbs moisture from the soil and air and leaches the metallic salts out at all levels,
conditioning most of the interfacing hemisphere and using the available soil moisture.
The metallic salts are selected on the basis of application and location.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (8/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================

From the Table 2 data, two factors are evident:

1. The Chem-Rod provides a much lower resistance to earth than any other option
available.
2. That resistance is much more stable; it varied by only 40%, while the other options
varied from 200 to 250%.

NOTE:
The Chem-Rod resistance is dependent on the conditioning process. When the metallic
salts migrate slowly through the soil, it may take up to six months for the process to
stabilize at the lower resistance.

Figure 9: The influence of salt on soil resistance

The higher the soils resistivity, the longer the conditioning process takes. The next step
in the design process is to calculate the resistance R1 using the Chem-Rod data, again
using the same variables as before but with the Chem-Rod parameters. The resistance of
one Chem-Rod after conditioning is completed is:

*Can vary between 0.5 and 0.05% but normally does not exceed 20% after six months.
The higher the initial soil resistance, the greater the percentage of reduction. High-density
soil will take much longer to stabilize.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (9/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================
If this still does not meet the objective, or if time is a critical constraint, then more
extensive steps are in order. Still, we must deal with the soil within the interfacing
hemisphere (IH).

Replacing Soil in the Interfacing Hemisphere (IH)

Since about 95% of the grounding resistance of a given electrode is determined by the
character of the soil within the IH, it is obvious that replacing that soil with a more
conductive soil could achieve the desired objective. However, that action may prove
impractical. A more practical action may be to replace only that part of the soil that
exercises the greatest influence on the ultimate grounding resistance and to use the lowest
resistivity soil available. Figure 10 presents a plot demonstrating the influence of the
surrounding soil as a function of the radius of what we choose to call the Critical
Cylinder (that is, the amount of backfill to be placed around the grounding electrode).
Notice that 52% of the connection is completed by a 12-inch-diameter Critical Cylinder,
and 68% of that connection is completed by a 24-inch Critical Cylinder. The most
productive option is therefore expected to be between these two diameters.

Figure 10: The influence of soil within the critical cylinder

The next step is to select the proper backfill or soil to replace that within the Critical
Cylinder. The options include top soil that is 10 ohm-meters, betonite that is 2.5
ohmmeters, and various forms of special mixes. LEC has chosen to use a special mix to
overcome the negative effects of various conductive clays such as betonite and provide a
very conductive backfill. The volume of bentonite varies by 300% between wet and dry
and does not absorb or pass through metallic salts easily. The LEC backfill is called
Grounding Augmentation Fill (GAF). The resistivity of the GAF is between 0.4 and 0.8

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (10/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================
ohm-meters and is very osmotically conductive, thus assuring the required moisture
supply. Refer to Table 3 for a list of options and their parameters.
Then one needs to calculate the impact of using GAF backfill within the previously
defined Critical Cylinder (Figure 10). Installation involves first augering the appropriate
hole in the interfacing hemisphere, inserting the Chem-Rod, then backfilling that hole
with 100% GAF, wetting it as it is installed. The resulting immediate resistance (before
conditioning) of one -inch by 10-foot rod to earth may be calculated from the
following:
The 12-inch cylinder: R1 = .321 (.52GAF + .48)
The 24-inch cylinder: R1 = .321 (.68GAF + .32)
The resulting long-term resistance should approach about 0.2 R1 for the average site.
As an example, consider a 10-foot Chem-Rod in a 24-inch hole, backfilled with GAF,
when the soil in the area is 100 ohm-meters.
That resistance (R1) is now:

RCR-10 = .321 [(.68)(.8) + (.32)(100)] = 10.5 ohms

before the Chem-Rod conditions the local soil and no more than 2.2 ohms after an
average of three to six weeks of conditioning. Some dense soils require a much longer
period of time.
Again, if one rod does not achieve the desired goal, multiple rods must be considered as
before (refer to prior section).

Making Up the Required Moisture

As indicated by the formerly referenced Figure 9, if there is too little moisture in the
interfacing hemisphere for any electrode, the resistance will be proportionately higher, to
the point where the connection is virtually non-existent. If the connection is needed and
little or no moisture is present, moisture must be provided. This can be accomplished via:

1. The LEC Autonomous Automated Moisturizer shown in Figure 11, if there is no local
source of water, or
2. Using the local water source for automatic water injection and control, as illustrated by
Figure 12.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (11/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================

Figure 11: LEC autonomous solar motivated moisturizer

Figure 12: The utility motivated moisturizing concept

Either of these sources can be used to inject the required moisture into the Chem-Rod.
The Chem-Rod will add moisture and minerals both to the soil that surrounds it and then
out beyond the GAF. Both of these options are in use and have been proven to satisfy the
requirements.

Permafrost and Temperature Problems

Frost levels and freezing temperatures have always been a problem situation for
grounding systems. It is true that controlling temperature may not be practical; however,
it is possible to minimize the effects. Using permafrost as the worst-case, consider the
following situation: Figure 3 illustrates the impact of low temperatures on resistivity,
based on conventional soils. Tests performed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers in Alaska
have proven that the resistance of a simple conventional electrode can be lowered by
factors of over twenty (i.e., 1/20). The treatment involved simply replaces some of the

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (12/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================
soil in close proximity to the electrode. The Critical Cylinder of a ground rod is
illustrated by Figure 13.

The tests performed by the Corps of Engineers, using a treated Critical Cylinder, yielded
dramatic results as illustrated by Figure 14. Notice that the resistance of a single
untreated rod reached about 20,000 ohms, while the GAF-treated rod reached only 1,000
ohms, one-twentieth of the conventional driven rod.

Figure 13: The critical soil cylinder within an interfacing hemisphere

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (13/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================

Figure 14: Ground rods in permafrost: Point Barrow, Alaska

Assessing the Results

Finally, it is essential that the end results are measured correctly. All too often, it has
been assumed that a single measurement may be made from one point of a grounding
system, regardless of its size, using the components that the manufacturer provides with
his tester. In fact, that is seldom correct. The instrument usually is supplied with the
components to test one or two rods only, provided the rods are not too long. For long rods
and large grounding systems, it is necessary to move out away from the site a significant
distance, sometimes up to one or more kilometers. The Fall-of-Potential measurement
technique is the most common and the most accurate technique available today, if it is
implemented properly. Figure 15-a illustrates the technique for single rods and small
systems. Figure 15-b illustrates one technique for large systems.

Conclusions

This section has presented a logical approach to the design of a required earthing system,
approaching it step by step. It starts with the site soil assessment and proceeds as
follows:
1. Estimate the resistance of one conventional rod.
2. Estimate the resistance of multiple rods that will fit.
3. Estimate the resistance of one Chem-Rod after conditioning.
4. Estimate the resistance of multiple Chem-Rods after conditioning.
5. Review the moisture content and temperature ranges and modify as required.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (14/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================

Figure 15-a: Ground resistance testing

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (15/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================

Figure 15-b: Ground resistance testing

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (16/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================

TABLE 1
SOIL RESISTIVITIES
(Approximate Ohm-Meters)

Description Median Minimum Maximum

Topsoil, loam 26 1 50
Inorganic clays of high plasticity 33 10 55
Fills ashes, cinders, brine wastes 38 6 70
Gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays 43 25 60
Slates, shales 55 10 100
Silty or clayey fine sands with slight plasticity 55 30 80
Clayey sands, poorly graded sand-clay mixtures 125 50 200
Fine sandy or silty clays, silty clays, lean clays 190 80 300
Decomposed gneisses 275 50 500
Silty sands, poorly graded sand-silt mixtures 300 100 500
Clayey gravel, poorly graded gravel, sand-clay mixture 300 200 400
Well graded gravel, gravel-sand mixtures 800 600 1,000
Granites, basalts, etc. 1,000 --- ---
Sandstone 1,010 20 2,000
Poorly graded gravel, gravel-sand mixtures 1,750 1,000 2,500
Gravel, sand, stones, little clay or loam 2,585 590 4,580
Surface limestone 5,050 100 10,000
Notes:
1. Low-resistivity soils are highly influenced by the presence of moisture.
2. Low-resistivity soils are more corrosive than high-resistivity soils.

TABLE 2
GROUNDING RESISTANCE OF VARIOUS ELECTRODES

GROUNDING MEASURED ELECTRODE VARIATION

ELECTRODE SOIL RESISTANCE OVER A YEAR
RESISTIVITY (OHMS)
(OHM-METER)
Copper-Clad 9 7.2
Rod 62 22
(3/4x10) 270 65
3.7K 430
30K 10K 2.5
Rod in Manually 9 2.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (17/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================
Salted Soil - 62 18
First Year 270 44
3.7K 350
30K 1.5K 2.0

Rod in Manually 9 5.0

Salted Soil - 62 30
Third Year 270 80
3.7K 400
30K 3K 2.0

Air-Breathing 9 0.5
Rod 62 9
270 22
3.7K 240
30K 2K 2.0

Chem-Rod 9 0.2
62 2
270 10
3.7K 90
30K 1K 0.4

TABLE 3
SOIL ENHANCEMENT OPTIONS

1. Conductive Concrete
30 to 90 ohm-meters
Subject to ice and corrosive effects

2. Bentonite
2.5 ohm-meters
Highly variable with respect to moisture (300%)

3. Carbon-Based Backfill Materials

0.1 to 0.5 ohm-meters
Water-retention capability inferior to clays

4. Clay-Based Backfill Materials (GAF)

0.2 to 0.8 ohm-meters depending on moisture content
High water-retention capability

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (18/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================

GROUNDING RESISTIVITY
AND
RESISTANCE MEASUREMENTS
The equations for the resistance of any complex system of earth electrodes can be
developed from the fundamental principles. The starting point for such a development is
the use of a buried metallic electrode with a hemispherical base of radius r. It is assumed
that the hemispherical base is completely buried in the soil.

When a current I enters the earth through such an earth electrode, due to its hemispherical
base, the current flows radially outward as shown in Fig.16 below.

If is the resistivity of the soil, the resistance offered by a hemispherical shell of

thickness dx at a radial distance x from the electrode is given by

Hence, the resistance encountered by the earth electrode up to the depth of r1 can be had
by

If r1 is made , the total resistance of the earth electrode will be

This is the maximum resistance of the earth electrode.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (19/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================
The earthing system , in general , has different earthing electrodes . The equations for
the resistance of any complex system of earth electrodes is given in the following table .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (20/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================
SOIL RESISTIVITY TESTING PROCEDURES

As earthing systems are installed near the surface of the Earth, the top soil layers being
subject to higher current densities are the most significant and require the most accurate
modelling.

Measuring specific resistivity of soil at a site

Before sinking an earth electrode into the ground for a new installation it is often
advantageous to make preliminary survey of the soil resistivity of the surrounding site.
Such a survey may produce considerable savings in electrode and installation costs
necessary to achieve a required earth resistance value.

The most generally used method of measuring earth resistivity is the four electrode
method. As shown in the Fig. 16 below, four metal rods whose diameter is small relative
to their length and which are exposed only at the end are driven into the ground. A known
current is passed from electrode C1 to electrode C2 and the potential drop is measured
across electrodes P1 and P2.

Figure . 17 Ground resistivity testing

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (21/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================

Figure 18 Earth resistance measurement

The total potential at P1 due to the current entering at C1 and that leaving at C2 will be

Similarly the total potential at P2 will be

Hence, the potential difference between P1 and P2 will be

But for the circulating current I, if we tap the potential difference between the points P1
and P2, then V/I = R should give the resistance between P1 and P2 which is a constant.

But, V / I = R = / 2 a and hence,

= 2 aR

For increasing the accuracy of measurements the four rods are spaced in a row at a
spacing of about 20 to 30 m if 30 cm solid spikes of mild steel are used as the current and
potential electrodes.

The Wenner and Schlumberger test methods are both recommended, with testing and
interpretation techniques summarised in the following sections.

Soil Resistivity Testing Procedure Guidelines

The purpose of resistivity testing is to obtain a set of measurements that can be

interpreted to yield an equivalent model for the electrical performance of the earth, as
seen by the particular earthing system. However, the results may be incorrect or

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (22/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================
misleading if adequate investigation is not made prior to the test, or the test is not
correctly undertaken. To overcome these problems, the following data gathering and
testing guidelines are suggested:

A number of guidelines associated with the preparation and implementation of a testing

program are summarised as follows:

(a) Test Method

Factors such as maximum probe depths, lengths of cables required, efficiency of the
measuring technique, cost (determined by the time and the size of the survey crew) and
ease of interpretation of the data need to be considered, when selecting the appropriate
test type. Three common test types are shown in Fig. 19. The Schlumberger array is
considered more accurate and economic than the Wenner or Driven Rod methods,
provided a current source of sufficient power is used.

In the Wenner method, all four electrodes are moved for each test with the spacing
between each adjacent pair remaining the same.

With the Schlumberger array the potential electrodes remain stationary while the current
electrodes are moved for a series of measurements.

In each method the depth penetration of the electrodes is less than 5% of the separation
to ensure that the approximation of point sources, required by the simplified formulae,
remains valid.

(b) Selection of Test Method Type

Wenner Array

The Wenner array is the least efficient from an operational perspective. It requires the
longest cable layout, largest electrode spreads and for large spacings one person per
electrode is necessary to complete the survey in a reasonable time. Also, because all four
electrodes are moved after each reading the Wenner Array is most susceptible to lateral
variation effects.

However, the Wenner array is the most efficient in terms of the ratio of received voltage
per unit of transmitted current.

Where unfavourable conditions such as very dry or frozen soil exist, considerable time
may be spent trying to improve the contact resistance between the electrode and the soil.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (23/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================

Fig. 19 Resistivity Test Probe Configurations

Schlumberger Array

Economy of manpower is gained with the Schlumberger array since the outer electrodes
are moved four or five times for each move of the inner electrodes. The reduction in the
number of electrode moves also reduces the effect of lateral variation on test results.
Considerable time saving can be achieved by using the reciprocity theorem with the
Schlumberger array when contact resistance is a problem. Since contact resistance
normally affects the current electrodes more than the potential electrodes, the inner fixed
pair may be used as the current electrodes, a configuration called the Inverse The

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (24/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================
minimum spacing accessible is in the order of 10m (for a 0.5m inner spacing), thereby,
necessitating the use of the Wenner configuration for smaller spacings.

Lower voltage readings are obtained when using Schlumberger arrays. This may be a
critical problem where the depth required to be tested is beyond the capability of the test
equipment or the voltage readings are too small to be considered.

EARTH RESISTANCE OF AN ELECTRODE - MEASUREMENT

Figure 19 below shows an arrangement of three electrodes. Let E be the electrode whose
resistance to earth is required to be measured and let P and C be the auxiliary rods driven
into the earth. A known value of current I is circulated between C and E, and the voltage
drop V between E and P is measured. The resistance of the electrode E to the earth is V/I.
Let the base of the electrode E be a hemisphere of (equivalent) radius r and the other two
electrodes designated as shown in the figure.

Arrangement of the electrodes for the Fall of Potential method

Resistance as a function of the distance from the electrode B

Figure 20

The potential at E due to the entering current is I /2 r and due to the current leaving at
C is - I /2 D. The total potential at E can be given by
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (25/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================

Similarly the total potential at P due to the current entering at E and that leaving at C can
be given by

he net potential difference between E and P will be given by

V = VE -VP

If the resistance curve (Fig. 19) between E and C is observed, it flattens beyond P (if
located optimally between E and C) and the resistance of the earth electrode between E
and P and that between E and C are nearly same. An upward bend in the resistance curve
above, near the point C is due to the resistance of the auxiliary rod C itself and does not
affect measurement of the resistance of the main electrode E.Therefore the potential
difference between E and C and between E and P will also be the same. Hence, the
measured resistance of the electrode E will be

where c = D/r and p = H/r.

But the resistance of the earth electrode is R = /2 r.

If the measured value R is to be equal to RE , the condition to be satisfied will be

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (26/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================

p2 + pc + c2 = 0

From this, it follows that H = 0.618D will satisfy this condition. This indicates that for
any separation of the current electrodes (E and C), the true resistance of one of them is
obtainable when the potential electrode (P) is 61.8% ( 62 %) of the distance toward the
other.

EARTH RESISTANCE MEASUREMENT METHODS:

Fall of Potential Method

The 62% Method
Other Test Methods

(a) Two Point Method

(b) The Slope Method

(c) The Star-Delta Method- Three- point method

(d) The Four Potential Method

(e) Ratio Method

Fall of Potential Method

This is one of the most common methods employed for the measurement of earth
resistance and is best suited to small systems that dont cover a wide area. It is simple to
carry out and requires a minimal amount of calculation to obtain a result.

This method is generally not suited to large earthing installations, as the stake separations
needed to ensure an accurate measurement can be excessive, requiring the use of very
long test leads.

Normally, the outer test electrode, or current test stake, is driven into the ground 30 to 50
metres away from the earth system, (although this distance will depend on the size of the
system being tested) and the inner electrode, or voltage test stake, is then driven into the

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (27/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================
ground mid-way between the earth electrode and the current test stake, and in a direct line
between them.

The Fall of Potential method incorporates a check to ensure that the test electrodes are
indeed positioned far enough away for a correct reading to be obtained. It is advisable
that this check be carried, as it is really the only way of ensuring a correct result.

To perform a check on the resistance figure, two additional measurements should be

made; the first with the voltage test electrode (P) moved 10% further away from the earth
under test, and the second measurement with the (P) electrode moved 10% closer to the
earth under test, If these two additional measurements are in agreement with the original
measurement, within the required level of accuracy, then the test stakes have been
correctly positioned and the DC resistance figure can be obtained by averaging the three
results. However, if there is substantial disagreement amongst any of these results, then it
is likely that the stakes have been incorrectly positioned, either by being too close to the
earth system being tested, too close to one another or too close to other structures that are
interfering with the results. The stakes should be repositioned at a larger separation
distance or in a different direction and the three measurements repeated. This process
should be repeated until a satisfactory result is achieved.

Maximum Distance from electrical Minimum distance from

dimension centre of earth system to electrical centre of earth
across earth voltage test stake system to current test stake
system
1 15 30
2 20 40
5 30 60
10 43 85
20 60 120
50 100 200
100 140 280

Table 2 Variation of current and voltage electrode separation with maximum earth system
dimensions, in metres.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (28/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================
The 62% Method

The Fall of Potential method can be adapted slightly for use with medium sized earthing
systems. This adaptation is often referred to as the 62% Method, as it involves positioning
the inner test stake at 62% of the earth electrode-to-outer stake separation (recall that in
the Fall-of-Potential method, this figure was 50%).

All the other requirements of test stake location - that they be in a straight line and be
positioned away from other structures - remain valid. When using this method, it is also
advisable to repeat the measurements with the inner test stake moved 10% of the earth
electrode-inner test stake separation distance, as before.

The main disadvantage with this method is that the theory on which it is based relies on
the assumption that the underlying soil is homogeneous, which in practice is rarely the
case. Thus, care should be taken in its use and a soil resistivity survey should always be
carried out. Alternatively, one of the other methods should be employed.

Other Test Methods

Many other methods exist for taking earth resistance measurements. Many of these
methods have been designed in an attempt to alleviate the necessity for excessive
electrode separations, when measuring large earth systems, or the requirement of having
to know the electrical centre of the system.

Three such methods are briefly described below. Specific details are not given here, but
instead the reader is referred to the relevant technical paper where these systems are
described in detail.

The Slope Method

This method is suitable for use with large earthing systems, such as sub-station earths. It
involves taking a number of resistance measurements at various earth system to voltage
electrode separations and then plotting a curve of the resistance variation between the
earth and the current. From this graph, and from data obtained from tables, it is possible
to calculate the theoretical optimum location for the voltage electrode and thus, from the
resistance curve, calculate the true resistance.The additional measurement and calculation
effort tends to relegate this system to use with only very large or complex earthing
systems.

The Star-Delta Method

This technique is well suited to use with large systems in built up areas or on rocky
terrain, where it may be difficult to find suitable locations for the test electrodes,
particularly over long distances in a straight line.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (29/30)
 GROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN AND TESTING
===============================================================
Three test electrodes are used, set up at the corners of an equilateral triangle with the
earth system in the middle and measurements are made of the total resistance between
adjacent electrodes, and also between each electrode and the earthing system.Using these
results, a number of calculations are performed and a result can be obtained for the
resistance of the earth system.

The Four Potential Method

This method is similar in set up to the standard Fall of Potential method, except that a
number of measurements are made with the voltage electrode at different positions and a
set of equations are used to calculate the theoretical resistance of the system.

The main draw back with the Four Potential method is that, like with the Fall of Potential
method, it can require excessive electrode separation distances if the earthing system
being measured is large.

The detailed circuit of earth resistance meter as shown below in figure 20.

(Solid lines indicate Circuits carrying direct current and those carrying alternate current
are shown by the broken lines).

Figure 21 Earth resistance meter

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by : Prof. Dr. Rabah Y.Amer
Electrical Engineering Department, Cairo University
Page (30/30)