Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Substation Grounding Grid Analysis With The Variation of Soil Layer Depth Method
Substation Grounding Grid Analysis With The Variation of Soil Layer Depth Method
(3)
A two-layer soil model can be represented by an upper
layer soil of a finite depth above a lower layer of infinite
depth. The abrupt change in resistivity at the boundaries of
each soil layer can be described by means of a reflection
factor. The reflection factor (see Figure 3), K, is defined by
Equation (4) [11].
2 1
2 1
K
=
+
(4)
C. Parametric Analysis of Grounding Systems of the Two-
Layer Soil
In case of Two-layer soil, substation grounding systems
must be carefully designed by the safety reason. Some of
these basic factors include Ground grid, rods as well as
combination of both grid and rods have also directly
influence on performance of the grounding systems[13].
From IEEE 80-2000 : Guide for safety in AC Substation
Grounding standard [2], discussions of how the grid buried
in each layer affect the value of GPR are summarized in
TABLE I.
TABLE I
Basic Factors affect the value of GPR [2]
The Values of Reflection Coefficient
Factors
Positive values of K
(
1
<
2
)
Negative values of K
(
1
>
2
)
Grid
Only
- A larger portion of the
current is discharged in
the low resistivity soil
layer.
- The periphery grid
conductors discharge a
larger portion of the
current into the earth
than do the centre
conductors.
- Most of the grid
current discharged from
the grid downward into
the low resistivity layer.
- As the first layer depth
increases, the higher
current density in the
outer grid conductors
becomes more
dominant.
Rod
Only
-For rods that are mainly
in the low resistivity first
layer, most of the grid
current can be well-
discharged in this layer.
So, the rods length is not
necessary reach to the
high resistivity deep
layer.
- Higher current density
in the outer rods as
compared to rods near
the centre of design.
-For rods that are mainly
in the high resistivity
first layer, most of the
grid current can be
discharged at the small
level. Most of the grid
current discharged in to
the high conductor
layer. So, the rods have
to reach the deep layer
in order to discharge the
current in this layer .
-The current density of
the outer rods is higher
than the current density
of the rods at the centre.
Combination
of grid
and rods
- Current density for the
portion of the ground
rods in the low first layer
is still higher than that of
the grid conductors.
- The ground rods
become largely
dependent on h, or on
the length of the rods in
the more conductive
layer. The rods length
are effectively shortened
so that they may not
contribute significantly
to the control of step and
touch voltages.
- The majority of the
current is discharged
through the rods into the
lower resistivity layer.
- Current density is
higher in the ground
rods than in the grid
conductors.
Fig. Required Potential Electrode Position in a Two Layer.
III. CDEGS MODEL OF STUDIED SYSTEM
A section of a typical 115 kV, transmission line with 22
kV soil resistivity and ground grid models have been
modeled using CDEGS (Current Distribution Electromagnetic
Interference Grounding and Soil Structure Analysis) program
[14]. Models of system studied have been presented as
following.
To study the influence of the soil layer depth in which
ground grid is buried to the effect of GPR, ground grid buried
at 0.5m below the ground level with 3m rod length is chosen
to be the original model in this study, as shown in Figure 4.
The following of ground grid characteristics on GPR are
investigated:
Fig. 4 The grounding grid system of Royal Flora
RATCHAPHRUEK substation.
95 mm
2
. Hard Drawn Copper Cable.
Exothermic Welding (Graphite Mould).
Copper - Clad Steel Ground Rod.
Case A: Ground grid with constant ground rod (
1
<
2
).
Case B: Ground grid without constant ground rod (
1
<
2
).
Case C: Ground grid with constant ground rod (
1
>
2
).
Case D: Ground grid without constant Ground rod (
1
>
2
).
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
From simulation, the results show the interpreted soil
resistivity. Moreover, the ground potential rise of each case
before and after the development is shown. The fault current
value 8,740A of PEA fault current report at 22 kV level was
utilized in the studies.
Fig. 5 Variation of soil layer thickness for ground grid in
case A,B,C and D.
A. Soil resistivity results
The soil resistivity interpretation, which was done by
using RESAP module of CDEGS program, is logarithmically
manifested in Figure 6.
R
a
t
i
o
n
x
/
d
i
n
%
10
-4
10
4
10
-2
10
0
10
2
Ratio h/d
80
70
60
50
K=0
Fig. 6 Soil Resistivity Model.
The resistivities of the top and bottom layer are 37.8167
Ohm-m and 120.4224 Ohm-m respectively. The top layer has
the less resistivity than the bottom layer (deep layer).
TABLE II
Resistivity of each soil layer (System information summary)
Layer Characteristics
Resistivity Thickness Reflection Resistivity
Layer
(Ohm-m) (Meters) Coefficient(p.u.) Contrast Ratio
Top 37.38167 5.153056 -1.0000 0.37382E-18
Bottom 120.4244 infinite 0.52623 3.2215
Soil layer characteristics were shown in TABLE II, the soil
characteristic was interpreted in two-layer model.
B. Ground potential rise results
The result of GPR in each case is shown in Table III and
the GPR performance in each layer thickness shown in Fig. 7
and 3-D of GPR in original case are shown in Figure 8-9.
From case A, as soil layer depth of buried ground grid is
varied, the results show that soil resistivities of top-layer is
lower than the bottom layer and the GPR is continuously
reduced along with the increasing of layer thickness until it
reaches the boundary of this two-layer.
From case B, the ground grid without rods, the result
shows that GPR trends is similar to case A as shown in Figure
6. However, the difference in case that the positive value of K
is the GPR of grid without rods will increase along with the
increment of deep layer depth.
From case C, ground grid with constant ground rod, for
negative values of K(
1
>
2
), As the first layer depth increases,
GPR tendency is quickly reduced and its value will abruptly change
near the boundary of soil layer.
From case D, The ground grid without constant Ground
rod, the result is quite similar to case C due to the same soil
layer resistivity. Nevertheless, ground grid without rods
buried in top layer can lower the GPR more than the grid
buried in deep layer, therefore, it is necessary to design
grounding system with rods in case of the negative values of
K.
TABLE III
Substation Ground Potential Rise in each case
Ground Potential Rise (V)
Layer
Thickness (m)
case A
(
1
<
2
)
With Rod
case B
(
1
<
2
)
No Rod
case C
(
1
>
2
)
With Rod
case D
(
1
>
2
)
No Rod
0.20000 8,494.3 8,562.3 7,564.0 7,770.8
0.40000 8,415.4 8,481.6 7,342.2 7,547.8
0.50000 8,386.0 8,450.5 7,257.2 7,459.2
0.60000 8,359.2 8,422.2 7,178.3 7,377.3
0.80000 8,312.0 8,372.5 7,033.2 7,227.8
1.00000 8,270.6 8,328.0 6,898.7 7,090.2
1.40000 8,200.9 8,255.6 6,650.3 6,837.7
1.80000 8,144.9 8,196.3 6,418.8 6,604.7
2.15306 8,105.0 8,153.2 6,221.7 6,409.3
3.15306 8,039.6 8,070.4 5,538.9 5,883.2
4.15306 8,020.6 8,044.5 5,055.5 5,360.8
5.00000 8,072.4 8,103.8 4,582.0 4,807.7
5.50000 8,889.7 9,017.5 3,779.1 3,852.1
6.15306 8,997.5 9,139.3 3,661.9 3,730.0
7.15306 9,038.3 9,191.2 3,592.2 3,592.2
8.15306 9,026.9 9,185.2 3,424.8 3,483.7
Fig. 7 GPR value with the variation of soil-layer depth
-Dimension GPR of case A in top layer are shown in
figure 8(a) and 8(b). The more layer thickness, the more GPR
reduction. But in figure 8(c) the more layer thickness of high
resistivities bottom layer, the more value of GPR.
For the GPR from case C, ground grid with constant
ground, at different layer thickness is shown in Figure 9. The
more of the layer thickness, the less of GPR value.
METRIC/LOGARTHMIC X AND Y
Average Inter-Electrode Spacing (meters)
A
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
R
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
O
h
m
-
m
e
t
e
r
)
Measured Results Curve <General>
Computed Results Curve
10
2
10
1
10
-2
10
2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
G
r
o
u
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
i
s
e
(
V
o
l
t
s
)
Thickness (m)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
8,300
8,600
6,800
8,000
7,400
6,200
5,600
5,000
4,400
3,800
3,200
(a) At 0.5 m layer thickness.
(b) At 1.40 m. layer thickness.
(c) At 5.5 m. layer thickness.
Fig. 8 3-D GPR from case A with different layer thickness
when (
1
<
2
).
(a) At 0.5 m layer thickness.
(b) At 1.40 m. layer thickness.
(c) At 5.5 m. layer thickness.
Fig. 9 3-D GPR from case C with different layer thickness
when (
1
>
2
).
SINGLE-ELETRODE/SCALAR POTENTIALS
SINGLE-ELETRODE/SCALAR POTENTIALS
Distance from Origin of Profile (m)
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
r
o
f
i
l
e
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
V
o
l
t
s
)
Distance (m)
8,500
8,000
7,500
7,000
6,500
6,000
28.0
21.0
14.0
7.0
35.0
0 10 20 30 40
SINGLE-ELETRODE/SCALAR POTENTIALS
Distance from Origin of Profile (m)
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
r
o
f
i
l
e
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
V
o
l
t
s
)
Distance (m)
28.0
21.0
14.0
7.0
35.0
0 10 20 30 40
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
SINGLE-ELETRODE/SCALAR POTENTIALS
Distance from Origin of Profile (m)
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
r
o
f
i
l
e
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
V
o
l
t
s
)
Distance (m)
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
28.0
21.0
14.0
7.0
35.0
0 10 20 30 40
SINGLE-ELETRODE/SCALAR POTENTIALS
Distance from Origin of Profile (m)
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
r
o
f
i
l
e
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
V
o
l
t
s
)
Distance (m)
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
28.0
21.0
14.0
7.0
35.0
0 10 20 30 40
Distance from Origin of Profile (m)
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
r
o
f
i
l
e
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
V
o
l
t
s
)
Distance (m)
28.0
21.0
14.0
7.0
35.0
0 10 20 30 40
8,500
7,500
6,500
5,500
SINGLE-ELETRODE/SCALAR POTENTIALS
Distance from Origin of Profile (m)
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
r
o
f
i
l
e
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
V
o
l
t
s
)
Distance (m)
28.0
21.0
14.0
7.0
35.0
0 10 20 30 40
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
CONCLUSION
Substation grounding grid design can be designed by lessen
the number of ground rod in case of which the top soil-layer
resistivity is less than the bottom-layer resistivity. Because the
ground rod can slightly reduce the GPR value. The deeper the
grid buries in the layer, the less of the GPR value is.
VII. REFERENCE
[1] C.Pongsriwat, T.Kasirawat and C.Wattanasakpoobal,
Ground Potential Rise Analysis for the damage problem of
recloser control unit , Provincial Electricity Authority
Conference of transmission and distribution engineering, PEA,
Bangkok, 2005.
[2] IEEE Guide for safety in AC Substation Grounding, 2000.
[3] APuttarach, NChakpitak, TKasirawat and CPongsriwat, The
Ground Potential Rise Effect Reduction on Sensitive Electronic
Equipment, The IASTED International Conference on Power
and Energy System, Phuket, Thailand, April.2-4, 2007
[4] APuttarach, NChakpitak, TKasirawat and CPongsriwat, Analysis of
Substation Ground Grid for Ground Potential Rise Effect Reduction in
Two-Layer Soil, The ECTI International Conference 2007, Proceeding
of The Fourth Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer,
Telecommunication, and Information Technology Annual Conference,
Chinag Rai, Thailand, May 11-12, 2007.
[5] IEEE Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity Ground Impedance
and Earth Surface Potentials of a Ground System, 1983.
[6] A. P. Meliopoulos, R.P. Webb, and E.B. Joy, Analysis of
grounding systems, IEEE Trans. PAS, Vol.100, No.3, March
1981, pp.1039-1048.
[7] F. P. Dawalibi and N. Barbeito, Measurement and
computations of the performance of grounding systems buried in
multilayer soils, IEEE Trans. PWRD, Vol.6, No.4, October
1991, pp.1483-1490.
[8] J. Ma, F.P.Dawalibi and W.K. Daily, Analysis of grounding
systems in soils with hemispherical layering, IEEE Trans.
PWRD, Vol.8, No.4, October 1993, pp.1773-1781.
[9] J. Ma and F.P.Dawalibi, Analysis of grounding systems in soils
with cylindrical soil volumes, IEEE Trans. PWRD, Vol.15,
No.3, July 2000, pp.9133-918.
[10] F. P. Dawalibi and D. Mukhedkar, Optimum design of
substation grounding in two-layer earth structure - Part I,
Analytical study, IEEE Trans. PAS, Vol.94, No.2, March-April
1975, pp.252-261.
[11] Research Project of PEAs Ground Grid in Substation and
Grounding in HV and LV Distribution System, Thailand,2006.
[12] F.Kiessling, P.Nefzger, J.F.Nolasco and U.Kaintzyk, Overhead
Power Lines, Germany:Dip.-Ing, pp.115-141,2003.
[13] F.Dawalibi and C.J. Blattner Earth Resistivity Measurement
Interpretation Techniques IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol.pp-103-106,No.2
[14] Engineering Guide a Simple Substation Grounding Grid
Analysis, Safe Engineering Services & Technologies, Ltd,
2004,www.sestech.com/Downloads/Engineering HowTo.aspx
[ 15 September 2006 ].
VIII. BIOGRAPHIES
Arwut Puttarach was born in Chiang Rai. He
received his B.Eng, degree in Electrical
Engineering from Rajamangala Institute of
Technology Chiang Mai Campus, Thailand, in
2003. He is currently a master degree student in
Electrical Engineering, Chiang Mai University,
Thailand. His currently interests in power system grounding
analysis.
.
Nopasit Chakpitak received his first degree in
Electrical Engineering from Chiang Mai
University. His professional career was in
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
between 1989-1994. He has finished his Ph.D in
Electrical Engineering in 2003 from the
University of Strathclyde Scotland. Now he is a full-time
lecturer of department of Electrical Engineering,Chiangmai
University.
Tirapong Kasirawat was born in Krabi,
Thailand 1963. He received B.Eng (Electrical
Engineering) M.Eng (Electrical Engineering)
from Chiang Mai University, Thailand, in 1987
and 1995 respectively. Currently, He works
with Provincial Electricity Authority, Thailand (PEA North1)
and special lecturer of department of Electrical Engineering
Chiang Mai University. His research interest includes high-
voltage engineering, power quality, and information
technology in power system.
Chotepong Pongsriwat was born in Lampang,
Thailand 1976. He received B.Eng (Electrical
Engineering) , M.S.(Information Technology
and Management) and M.Eng (Electrical
Engineering) from Chiang Mai University,
Thailand, in 1997, 2003, and 2004
respectively. Currently, He works with Provincial Electricity
Authority, Thailand (PEA North1). His research interest
includes power quality, power system analysis and
information technology in power system.