a TEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vo. 9, No.1, Janay 194 BEHAVIOUR OF GROUNDING SYSTEMS IN MULTILAYER SOILS: A PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS F-P, Dawalibi, Senior Member, IEEE. J.Ma, Member, IEEE —_R. D. Southey, Member, IEEE Safe Engineering Services & technologies ld 1544 Viel, Montreal, Canada, H3M 1G4 ABSTRACT: An extensive parametric study of rounding ‘rid performance in mulilayer sol structures has been car- ried out for the first time. Various practical cases have been examined and the corresponding grounding grid resis ‘ances, current distributions, earth surface potentials and ‘ouch voltages have been presented and compared for dif- ‘ferent soil structures. The results presented in this paper ‘provide a benchmark for future work inthis domain, They also ittustrate practical situations, such as frozen or par- filly frozen sell conditions, which has remained an open question 1o date, in which the mulilayer structure ofthe soil must be considered if a safe grounding system design is 10 bbe achieved Keywords: safety, grounding, foot resistance, frozen soil resistivity 1. INTRODUCTION Grounding grid performance, which ean be measured Jn terms of ground resistance, touch voltages and step vol- tages, is heavily dependent on soil structure. Although two layer soil models can represent the real soil structure in some cases, the use of multilayer soil models is unavoidable to accurately model most soil structures. Some representa tion ofthe soll structure is usually taken into account atthe time a grid is designed. However, the top sol characters- tics can vary significantly even after the grid is installed. For example, the resistivity of surface soil can increase by as much as two orders of magnitude when the soil freezes and it is also sensitive to the moisture content of the Sol [1.2]. The same is also true for crushed rock and concrete, ‘The behaviour of grounding systems in soils in various states of freezing has remained an open question to date ‘Therefore, itis desirable to study the effect of top sol resis- tivity variations on the performance of grounding systems of various types {An extensive parametric analysis of grounding grids Jn uniform and ewo-layer soils has been carried out by Dawalibi_ and Mukhedkar [3]. The comparison between ‘measured and computed current densities in buried ground conductors in uniform and two-layer soils was made a decade ago [4]. Foot resistances in two-layer and mul tilayer soils have been studied [5.6] and some measure- ‘menis and computations related to grounding systems buried in muldlayer soils ae also available (7). In this ‘paper detailed parametric analysis of grounding networks by the IEEE Substations Commtetec of the IEEE Powst Engineering Society for preaentacton at che TEEE/FES 1993 Winter Nesting, Coltmbur, OH, January 3L = February 5, 1993." Hamuucripe subetteed August 25, 41992; made’ avetlabte for printing January #199), in mullayer soil (more than two layers) is catied out for the first time. In particular, we focus our attention on the effects of multilayer soil structure variations on the perfor ‘mance of several grounding grid configurations. Inthe latter part of this paper, the effects of soil freezing and thawing 2. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYTICAL, APPROACH, ‘The numerical results presented here are based onthe method of images for mullayer soil following the tech- nique developed by Oslon and Stankeeva (8). See also Davalibi and Barbeito (7) for a discussion on various mul- tilayer analytical approaches (and successful comparison, between measured and computed results) and Chow eal (9) fora theoretical discussion on an algorithm wo accelerate computations involving multilayer soils. For a given mul- tilayer soil, a base thickness value is found and all layer thicknesses are expressed as a muliple of this base value. Ie should be noted that in (8), only the case of a point current source located on the earth surface is analyzed. When the source is at a certain depth, dhe authors of (8) states that the base value is the overall measure (largest ‘common divisor) ofall the layer thicknesses and the depth ‘of the current source. In this case itis impossible to analyze ‘other sources Such asa vertical or slant line current bocause different points on the line source have different depths. However, by rearranging the stating point for the image ‘generation, itis relatively easy to solect a base value which is independent ofthe depth ofthe curent source. Hence, an expression forthe potential due to a point curent source Duried at any depth in a multilayer sol is obtained. Subse- ‘quently, the potential due 10 a current leaking out from a short conductor segment can be obtained by direct integra tion. For a grounding network, te current distribution has to be determined frst. The commonly used technique isthe “Method of Moments, which requires, in this cae, the subdi- vision of conductor network, choosing basis functions and setting up and solving a set of linear equations. It should be noted that the method of images Aescribed in (8] and used by the authors is different from that proposed in [10,11], which requires the generation of large number of images to achieve a satisfactory accuracy Indeed, because the layer thicknesses are a multiple of a ‘common base value, the image generation process used to ‘conduct the parametric analysis in this paper is considerably simpler and more efficent. Also, once the images are gen- crated, they are used in determining both the curent distri- ‘ution and the earth potentials. Hence the computation time is quite reasonable, ie., usually 2 to 10 times that required fora uniform soi 0885.497/94/50400 © 1993 IEEE3. PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS In this analysis, four representative multilayer soil strcture models ae considered. The fist model consists of ‘alow resistivity layer sandwiched between two high resis- tivity layers. The second model consists ofa high resistivity layer sandwiched berween two low resistivity layers. The ‘third model consists of a high resistivity surface soil gradu ally docreasing in resistivity with increasing depth. The fourth model consists of alow resistivity surface soil gradu ally increasing in resistivity with increasing depth. Table 1 presents all the parameters of these four soil structures. In these models, all the layer thicknesses are assumed equal for simplicity. Nonequal thicknesses are as easily handled as shown inthe practical examples in Section 4.2. Model | Layer [Resistivity | Thickness (am | (meer) T 2000 30 w@ | 2 100 30 3 1000 - T 0 30 wm | 2 1000 30 3 100, = T 1000 20 2 750 20 © | 3 500 20 4 250 20 5 150 20 6 100 - T 100 20 2 150 20 @ | 3 250 20 4 500 20 5 750 20 6 1000 - ‘Table 1 Layer Characteristics of Sol Structures Studied ‘The grounding grids modelled inthis study are the follow ing: SI ~20m%20m square one-mesh grid: ‘$4 -20m 20m square four-mesh grid ‘S16 ~20.m x 20m square sixteen-mesh grid; $64 ~20:m x 20 m squae sixty-four-mesh grid. 3.1. Current Distribution in Grounding Networks “The current density distribution (cutent per meter of conductor length leaking into the cath) is plowed for dif- ferent scenarios in Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Grid types St, ‘4 and $16 were studied in this part of the analysis. The ‘cutent injected into the thre types of grids was maintained proportional to the total conductor length in each grid, i. 4x 100 A= 400 A for S1, 6% 100 A = 600 A for $4, and 10 x 100 A = 1000 A for S16. Hence ifthe current were distributed uniformly in all conductors, the current density would be 5 A/m, Figures 1 and 2 show the curent density fonetions when an SI grid is buried in soil models (a) and (), respectively, at different depths. It can be seen that as except for one curve, all the curves are rather fat, which implies that the current distribution is faily uniform. In ‘Figure 1, the curve with the largest variation epresents the current density when the grid is buried 45 meters deep. In Figure 2, the curve with the largest variation represents the ceurtent density when the grid is buried 1.5 meters deep. In both eases, the grid is buried in the low resistivity layer and. the current density i larger atthe conductor ends than in the middle, This is because the current tends w0 flow laterally away from the grid center rather than downwards, ‘due to the presence of a high resistivity layer beneath the low resistivity ayer. When the grid is in the high resistivity layer, the opposite is tre, though inthis case the variation of the current density along each conductor is relatively small. When the burial depth of the grid becomes very large, the current density is almost uniform in both soil suctures because the influence of the top layers is very Samalland the square loop behaves much ikea circular Toop would. wm) & Curent density g 45 o8 Distance along conductor (rr) Figure 1 One-Mesh Grid Curent Density in Soil Model (@) at Various Grid Depts. 1:Gtd depth o im ‘Current, densty 45 9 5 0 18 20 Distance along conductor (m) Figure 2. One-Mesh Grid Current Density in Soi! Model (b) at Various Grid Depths.336 Figure 3 shows the curent density along a center ‘conductor and a perimeter conductor ofan $4 grid buried at various depths in soil model (a). It can be soen that at nodes of the grid, the current density is low. The curent density along the center conductor is generally lower than that along the perimeter conductor. I is interesting to see that when the grid is buried in a low resistivity layer, the current density along the center conductor is the lowest while tht along the perimeter conductor i the highest. This again indicates thatthe current tends to flow laterally rather than downwards when the grid is in the low resistivity layer. Figure 4 shows the curent density along a perimeter ‘conductor of an $16 grid buried a different depths in soil ‘model (b). The ripples inthe curreat distribution are du to the presence of several nodes in the grounding grid. eczamnam [3m 7:Grid depth roma Current density (A/m) ost 5 10 15 20 Defence’ along conductor omy Figure 3 Four-Mesh Grid Current Density in Soil Model (©) at Various Grid Depths. [am 2Gkc.dopth Current density (Aj) ‘45m at 5 10 15 20 Uitance along conductor Gm) Figure 4 Sixteen-Mesh Grid Curent Density in Soil ‘Mode (a) at Various Grid Depshs. In Figure 5, the current density along a conductor of ‘an SI grid buried at vasious depths in soil model (a) is presented. Since the resistivity increases wih increasing depth, the variation in current density with depth is expected and is explained by the foregoing discussion, The current density functions corresponding to small grid depths have larger values atthe extremities than in the middle. AS the grid depth increases, the current distribution curves have larger Values in the middle than atthe extremities and Tile variation occurs. When the grid is very deep, the current density distribution is close to that of a ring elec- trode which is uniform because of symmetry. 60: am) Current density ash Défance’ along conductor (rn) 5 0 15 20 Figure §- One-Mesh Grid Current Density in S (@) at Various Grid Depths. Model ‘32. Barth Surface Potentials and Touch Voltages Figure 6 shows the earth surface potentials due four different grids buried 0.5 meter deep in soil model () ‘with 1000 A injection current. The increase in te number fof conductors in the grid increases the minimum earth potentials above the grid and makes the earth potentials ‘more evenly distributed. The ground potential rise (GPR) of the grid also decreases because the ground resistance is decreased. As a result, the touch voltages decrease. Figure 7 shows the touch voltages corresponding to Figure 6. The eat surface potentials due to an SIG grid buried in soil ‘model (b) at different depths are shown in Figure 8. In a uniform soil, the increase of the grid depth results in a simultaneous decrease of the grid potential rise and the ceath surface potentials (3), while in the muliayer case, this is not always tre. The increase of the grid depth will always result ina decrease of the earth surface potentials. ‘The grid povential rise, however, can increase or decrease significantly, depending upon whether the grid is in a high or low resistivity layer. The thee curves with the highest, ‘magnitudes in Figure 8 correspond to grid depths of 0.1m, (05 m and 1.5 m, respectively. The grid is in the top low resistivity layer in these three cases. The differences inthe‘magnitudes of the earth surface potentials in these three ‘cases are also relatively small. The GPRs in these three tases a: 265KV, 257KV and 2.51KV, respectively ‘Again the differences are small, as expected. The earth sur. face potential curve corresponding 10 the grid depth of 45 m is substantially lower than the curves corresponding to the depts of 0.Lm, 0.5 m and 1.5m. The GPR in this, case is 6.15 KV, much higher than forthe smaller depths. ‘As a result, the touch voluge increases markedly. The touch voltage curves comesponding to Figure 8 are shown, in Figure 9, S16 $64 kV) a g Potential profile magnitude ¢} 0 oO 10 20 30 Distance trom origin Of protien) Figure 6 arth Surface Potentials Duc to Various Grids in Soil Model (0). 18 1 SI “2 316 Touch vottage (kV) ~ Z S64 0 o 1) Dastance from origin OF proto (rm) Figure 7 Touch Voltages Due to Various Grids in Soil Mode! () 337 v | 75m —-——_ Pe ener som Potential profile magnitude (kV) &. 3 ° 0 10 «620 30 Distance trom origin of profile (m) Figure 8. Barth Surface Potentials Due to an $16 Grid in ‘Soil Mode! (bat Various Grid Depths. 4 6 Touch voltage (kV) ° om 0 Distance from origin ef profle (rd Figure 9 ‘Touch Voltages Due to an S16 Grid in Soil Model () at Various Grid Depths. 33. Ground Resistances Ground resistances for grid types $4 and S16 buried at various depts indifferent soils are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Tt can be seen thatthe resistance values are greatly dependent on the layer in which the grid is located. When it is located in a low resistivity layer, the ground resistance is tow. In the case of uniform soil, when the depth of a grid increases, the ground resistance decreases. In the case of multilayer soil this is not always tru, even ifthe change of rid depth is confined within one layer. Consider the case of338 ‘rid type S4 buried in soil model (a) for example. The ‘ground resistance value is 14.63 ©. when the depth of the ‘rid is 7.5 meters and 16.16 © when it is 15 meters. The resistance value Keeps increasing even when the depth of the grid is $0 meters. The reason fortis behavior is that a6 the grid depth increases, the influence of the low resistivity layer decreases. When the grid is deep enough so thatthe inluence ofthe low resistivity layer is negligible, we expect the resistance value to reach a maximum and then begin to ‘decrease. This is confirmed by the resistance calculation for the case when a grid of type $4 is buried in soil model (a) at a depth of 100 meters. The resistance is 13.86 9, which is smaller than that forthe case when the depth ofthe grid is ‘50 meters, in which case the resistance is 16.32 0, In Table 3, the ground resistance value decreases rapidly with increasing grid dept inthe case of soil model (©) because of the low resistivity of the deeper layers. The ground resistance value increases with inreasing grid depth inthe case of soil model (d) because the resistivity values are higher in the deeper layers. We also expect a maximum ‘ground resistance value at a certain depth andthe resistance will decrease with increasing grid depth after this critical ‘depth has been stained. Ground Resistance () ing clear indication of the asymptotic tends due 10 wide variations in some key parameters. The tends will remain similar, although not identical, if the grid depths an the layer thicknesses are divided by a constant If, in addition, the grid dimensions are also divided by this constant, all results will tl apply if they are multiplied by the constant. 4. PRACTICAL CASES In this section, we will examine the behaviour of ‘rounding system resistances, foot resistances and touch ‘voltages in several practical sitations which involve mul: tilayer soil structures. 4.1. Frozen Soil ‘When the temperature is below ffeezing, the resis- tivity ofthe soil close to the earth surface increases rapidly as the temperature drops. A soil whichis intially uniform, with a resistivity of 100 Q-m, may exhibit a multilayer structure with the resistivity of its top layer as high as 10000 -m, when it fieezes. Table 4 lists the kyer Uicknesses and resistivities of two representative ozen soil structures corresponding to a soil which is uniform, with a resistivity of 100 O-m when no freezing has ‘occured, | pet ae Ra Tea Gaines | cartes ean _| omen) 7 Sela Se eww [tae T > mm) a@lelele gett et omelet aoe eT Het toe tl etn 2 | 2m|en| oe | ae Het eae ttlett eg iene |e acre tus Pamela 1] 50.0 3 16.32 | 1.66 | 14.05 143 2 500 eet Tie? Gmmitavemsafswescowia | 90,| 3 | mo | a | WSiseecreny toc sersnnee ‘| 2 | TT eel ee Grd Type: 54 | Gra Type: S16 on | ee Soil Model ol Tole Lr a zo | 2 | 903] 724 724] 68 so | 3 | 606] sor} 4s7| 750 30 | 4 | 370] 999] 312] was 90 | 3 | 267| 12a} 234| 047 wo | 6 | 97 | isan | 175] 1316 soo |_6 | ter| roar | tas | 139 Table 3 Ground Resistances of $4 and $16 Grids Buried at Various Depths in Type (c) nd (4) Soil Structures. It should be noted thatthe large depth values provide Computation results for scenarios. involving condactors buried inthe various layers of a mullilayer soil, while giv- Table 4 Two Soil Structures Corresponding to Frozen ‘Condition of 100 2-m Uniform Soi ‘Model (e) simulates the soil in mid-winter and model (9 in early spring. Consider a 20 m>%20m 16-mesh grid buried at at depth of 0.45 meter with a 1000 A fault current Injected into the grid. Figure 10 shows the resulting earth surface potentials along a profile traversing the gid, for soil models (¢) and (O) and for a uniform soil witha resistivity ‘of 100 2-m, It can be seen thatthe earth surface potentials for soil models () and (Dare much higher than for the uni- {orm sol. Figure 11 shows the touch voltages for the tree soil models along the same profile. The touch voltage and the foot resistance are key elements for the calculation of body currents. From Figure 11, itcan be seen thatthe touch voltages over the grid area in Cases (e) and (f) are about 10 times higher than in the case of the non-freezing uniform soil (Le. over 2200 volts versus 220 volts)Potential profile magnitude GV) ow » 9% Distance from cxgin of profle (mn) ‘Figure 10 Barth Surface Potentials Over a 16-Mesh Grid in Soil Experiencing Varying Degrees of Freezing. \o) Winter © S00, ow Delance fom argh of profie (i) Figure 11 Touch Voltages Over a 16-Mesh Grid in Soil Experiencing Varying Degrees of Freezing. “The foot resistances calculated using the Thevenin equivalent impedance method described in {5], the touch wollages in the grid area of the earth surface and ground resistance of the grid for the three soil models are listed in Table 5. Ground Foot] Touch Model | Resistance | Resisunce | Voltage @, @ _ | _ ois) Vaiform | 230 1362 | 220 (Winer | 5.73 amas | 780 {spring | 499 2149 |_2200 ‘Table 5 Variations in Grid Resistance, Foot Resistance and Maximum Touch Voltage as a Function of Degree of Soil Freezing. 339 For soil model (@), although the touch voltage increases by a factor of 11, the foot resistance increases feven more (by factor of 19 inthis case). A different pat- tem is displayed by soil model (0, for which the foot resis tance increases only slightly while the touch vollage jncreases by a factor of 10. This raises the question of safety in this situation, The addition of ground rods will increase the safety and robusiness of the grounding system design, as will be seen in the following. Nowe that the found resistances also change for the frozen soil in both cases. Let us now consider the case when an S16 grid with round rods as shown in Figure 12 is buried in soi suc tures given in Table 4 and in a 100 Q-m uniform soil. The ground resistances and touch voltages are fisted in Table 6, ean be seen that the addition of ground rods reduces the touch voltages for the cases of soil models (e) and (P) by half. The ground resistances forthe two cases are a0 sub sSantally decreased. By contrast, the addition of rods has ‘smaller effect on the grounding grid performance for the ‘case of uniform sol (fam LeuMomeeot, Figure 12, A 16-Mesh Grid with Ground Rods. Ground | Touch Modet | Resistance | Voltage | Crotts) Triforn | 216 180 (Winer | 3.55 1080 osmring |__ 335, 1100 ‘Table 6 Grid Resistances and Touch Voltages forthe Case ‘of aGrid with Ground Rods. 42, Frozen Soil with Crushed Rock Covering Layer ‘Three different soil models are shown in Table 7. Soil model (g) represents uniform soil of 100 S-m ‘covered by a 0.2 meter thick layer of crushed rock with a resistivity of 1000 2-m. Soil model (h) represents the same oil during mid-winter freezing, which increases the resis- tivities ofthe gravel and the top 0.5 meter of surface soil by ‘factor of 10 and the next 0.5 meter of soil by a factor of 2. ‘Soil model (represents the soil during early spring when it has started to thaw. Here, only the crushed rock layer has thawed, while the surface soil remains frozen as in mode! @.aT Lge) Rasy Ts | Ray | Tease (Q-m) (meters) (Qm) (meters) @ T 1000 02 T 30 0.05 | w | 2 > | wm | Se iar] ee @ ] 2 | mo | os Tie 9 Su vin Cw Rak Layer Cod y Tin 3 | me fos iar 190] 7 The comping esa sown in Tae 1 of? | % | os 3 | im | Gand Fo — rar ressams | Resta: | eine Table 7 Parameters of Three Soil Structures Modeled in. @) @ (volts) ins Sus of een ny Gee tet fap aes PS Covering Layer. ‘The grid ground resistances, foot resistances and ‘maximum touch voltages forthe dyce soil models shown in ‘Table 7 are presented in Table 8. When the resistivities of both the crushed rock and the top sol increase (ie, winter conditions), the touch voltage increases by a factr of 10:5, while the foot resistance increases by a factor of 10. AS result, safety is almost not affected. On the other hand, when the resistivity of the crushed rock remains constant while that of the top soil increases due to freezing (i, eatly spring conditions), the touch voltage increases by factor of 8 and the foot resistance increases by only 20%. In this sitaation, a grid design thai satisfactory in winter and in summer may become unsatisfactory in early sping. The presence of ground rods will typically increase the safety ‘and robustness of the grounding system design as can be seen in Section 4.1. Ground] Foot Touch Model | Resistance | Resistance | Voliage @ a) (volts) @ | 230 13068 | 240 a | 4st 130531 | 2520 @ | 4a isg08 [1930 ‘Table 8 Variations in Grid Resistance, Foot Resistance and Maximum Touch Voltage as a Function of Degree of Soil Freezing, with Crushed Rock Layer Present 43. Crushed Rock Surface with a Thin Layer of Mud High resistivity crushed rock is widely used in prac~ tice in order o increase foot resistance. However, the resis: tivity ofthe crushed rock may decrease due to contamina: tion, as discussed in (6) Here we consider another scenario in which the crushed rock is covered by a thin layer of Water or residue such as mud or clay. When a thin layer of ‘mud is on top of soil model (g) in Section 4.2, the soil ‘model shown in Table 9 results. ‘Table 10 Grid Ground Resistance, Foot Resistance and ‘Maximum Touch Voltage Resulting from Soil ‘with Crushed Rock Layer Covered by Thin Layer of Mud. 11 can be seen that the touch vollage increasod as ‘compared to the case of soil model (g) in Section 4.2 and the foot resistance decreases markedly from 13068 Q to 219.8 0. This results in a significant rie of body currents (picaly, a 100% increase) 5, CONCLUSIONS An extensive study of grounding grid performance in different multilayer soils has been carried out, Various practical cases have been examined and the variations of ‘grounding grid resistance, current distribution, earth surface ‘potentials and touch voltages have been presented and com- pared for different soil structures. The results presented in this paper can be used as a benchmark for reference in future studies in this area. Examples have also been presented showing how the safety performance ofa ground- ing system is influenced by various types of freezing and by ‘the presence of low resistivity top soil layers caused by ain. 6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, ‘The authors wish to thank Safe Engineering Services & technologies for the financial support and facilities pro vided during this research effort. 7. REFERENCES: (1) P. Hoekstra and D. McNeil, "Electromagnetic Prob- ing of Permafrost’, Sec. In. Conf., North American ‘Contribution, NAS, 1973, pp. 517-526, (2) "Earth Resistivites of Canadian Soils", Research Report, Canadian Electrical Association, July 1988. (3) FP. Dawalfbi and D. Mukhedkar, "Parametric ‘Analysis of Grounding Grids", IEEE Trans. on PAS Vol. 98, No.5, Sept-Oct. 1979, pp, 1659-1668, 4] F. P. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar and D. Bensted, "Measured and Computed Current. Densities inBuried Ground Conductors, IEEE PES 1981 Winter ‘Meeting, Paper # 81 WM 128-8 PWRD. R. D. Southey and R. S. Baishiki “Validy of Conventional Approaches for Calculat- ing Body Currents Resulting from Electric Shocks" IEEE Trans. on PWRD, Vol. 5.No. 2, April 1990, pp. 613-626. (6) F. P. Dawalibi, W. Xiong and J. Ma, “Effects of eteriorated and Contaminated Substation Surface Covering Layers on Foot Resistance Calculations", IEEE PES 1992 Winter Meeting, Paper # 92 WM 221-2 PWRD. [71 FP. Dawalibi and N. Babeito, “Measurements and ‘Computations of the Performance of Grounding Sys- tems Buried in Multilayer Soils", IEEE Trans. on PWRD, Vol. 6,No. 4, October 1991, pp. 1483-1490. [8] A. B. Oslon and I. N. Stankoova, “Application of Optical Analogy to Calculation of Electric Fields in Multilayer Media", Electric Technology, USSR. No.4, 1979, pp. 68.75. (9) ¥.L. Chow, J. J. Yang and K. D. Srivastava, “Grounding Resistance of Buried Electrodes in Multi-Layer Earth Predicted by Simple Voltage Measurements along Earth Surface - A Theoretical Discussion", TEEE/PES 1992 Summer Meeting, Paper 92 SM 608-0 PWRD. (10) P. J. Lagace, J. L. Houle, Y. Gervais and D. ‘Mukhedkar, “Evaluation of the Voltage Distribution ‘Around Toroidal HVDC Ground Electrodes in N- Layer Soils’, IEEE Trans. on PWRD, Vol. 3, No. 4, etober 1988, pp. 1573-1577. (11). 5, Lagace, D. Mukbedkar, H. H. Hoang and H. Greiss, "Evaluation of the the Effect of Vertical Faults on the Voltage Distibution around HYDC Electrodes Using a Supercomputer’, IEEE Trans. on PWRD, Vol 5, No. 3, July 1990, pp. 1309-1313. 5) BIOGRAPHIES Dr. Farid Dawalibi (M'72, SM'82)_ was bom in Lebanon in November 1947, He received a. Bachelor of Engineering degree from St. Joseph's University, afitiated with the ‘University of Lyon, and the M.Se. and Ph.D. degrees from Ecole Polytechnique of the University of Montreal. From 1971 t0 1976, he worked as a consulting engineer withthe ‘Shawinigan Engineering Company. in Montreal. He worked ‘on numerous projects involving power system analysis and design, rilway electrification studies and specialized com- pier software code development. In 1976, he joined ‘Montel-Sprecher & Schuh, a manufacturer of high voltage ‘equipment in Monureal, as Manager of Technical Services and was involved in power system design, equipment sclec- tion and testing for systems ranging from a few to several Inundred kV. 3a In 1979, he founded Safe Engineering Services & technologies, a company which specializes in sol effects on ‘power networks. Since then he has been responsible forthe fengincering activities of the company including the development of computer software related to power system applications. He is the author of more than sity papers on power system grounding and safety, soil resistivity and clec- twomagnetic interference. He has writen several research repons for CEA and EPRI, Dr. Dawalibi is a corresponding member of various IEEE Commitee Working Groups, anda senior member of, the IEEE Power Engineering Society and the Canadian Society for Electrical Engineering. He is a registered Engineer in the Province of Quebec. Dr. Jinxi Ma was bom in Shandong, PR. China in December 1956, He received the B.S. degree in electronics engineering from Shandong University, and the MSc. ‘degree in electrical engineering from Beijing University of ‘Aeronautics and Astronautics (BUAA), in 1982 and 1984, respectively. He received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. ‘Canada in 1991. From 1984 to 1986, he was a research associate with the Dept, of Electrical Engineering, BUAA. He worked on projets involving design and analysis of reflector antennas and calculations of radar cross sections of aircraft. Since September 1990, he has been with the R & D Department of Safe Engineering Services & technologies, Montreal, Canada. His research interests are in transient electromagnetic seating and grounding systems in mul- tlayer soils nd in soils with finite heterogenites. Dr. Mais a member of IEEE. ‘Mr. Robert Southey (M'87) was bom in Shawinigan, Quebec, Canada, on April 26, 1964. He graduated from ‘McGill University, Montreal, in December 1985 with a B. Eng. (Honors) degree in Electrical Engineering. From that time to the present, he has worked for Safe Engineering Services & technologies, where he is now manager of the Applied R&D Department. of Safe Engineering Services & technologies. He was extensively involved in an EPRI research project investigating electrical inerference between pipelines and transmission fines, in a CEA project revising the Canadian Electrical Code section ‘on distribution substation grounding, and in several AC interference studies for gas pipeline construction projects ‘Mr. Southey has coauthored several papers_on rounding and related subjects. He is a member of IEEE fand a registered Professional Engineer in the Province of Quebec.3a Discussion D. L, Garret and F. J. Latham (Southern Company Services, Birmingham, AL): The authors have provided a useful analysis of the effects of using a mult-layer Soil instead of two layers. Mr. Dawaliis earlier work on parametric analysis of grids in tworayer soils can be used asa basis to show the magnitude of effect the multi-layer model might have. We believe the results ofthis paper will be very useful, even for those not using a ‘computer program with this capability, to evaluate the impact of frozea soils and substation surfacing materi To see just how much impact the multi-layer model might have, we analyzed some of the examples in the paper using a ‘vorayer sol model, wth the two sail Tesistivities chosen based fn the values ofthe multi-layer sol mode, The results showed that sometimes the impact ofthe mult-lyer model as smal, While for other eases it was quite significant. ‘Some of the results for our two-layer models are shown here: Figure 1 ~ p= 2000 ~ m, p, = 100 2m, h = 3m, Z = 1m ioe bottom ress ridin upper igh resty lye current density at conductor extremes current density at conductor middle 485(A/m) = 505 (Am) For this case, the tworlayer model compares wellthe bottom, high resistivity layer had lite effect. Figure 1 ~ p, = 2000 2m, p,= 100 0 ~m, = 3m, Z = 445m ignore’ bottom resistivity, grid in Tower, low resistivity layer) current densiy at conductor extremes =5.15 (Am) current density at conductor middle =496 (A/m) For this ease, the comparison isnot as good—the bottom, high resistivity layer has more ofan effect beeause it bounds the low resistivity layer Figure 8 — py = 50. ~ mp = 1000 0. ~ m,h = 3m (ignore bottom resistin) For Z.~ 1m (in top layer)—potential at edge = 431k. Potential at center = S3SkV ‘The calculated GPR is 5508 vl For Z = 45m (in middle layer)—potential at edge ~ 4.12kV. potential at center = S3kV. The calulated GPR is 1,165 vote, For Z.= 75m (in botiom lyer)—potential at edge = 3.83V. potential at center = A68kV ‘The calculated GPR is 12.757 volt “These results seem to indicate that the grid is signileanty fected by lower sol resistivity above below a grid located in 4 thin, high resistivity layer, Although the potential as a percent ‘of GPR is not that much diferent, the absolute vale i signif cantly diferent. Would it have been more appropriate to ignore the middle layer? ‘Table 2—grid $4, p; = 100. ~ mp; 10000 ~ m, (assume top resistivity same as middle layer) 6 For Z = 1m (in top layer) -R= 6150 For Z = 45m (in middle layer) = R= 608.0 For Z = 75m (in bottom layer) R For Z = 15m (deeper in bottom layer) — R= ‘The most error occurs when the grid is in the ignored layer, as the two-layer model under estimates the resistance for these ‘cases, Once the grid is in the high resistivity layer, the elfects of different resistivity layers above it appear to have negligible affect The discussors would like the authors to comment on the following For soil model like aor b (thre layers), can the bottom layer ‘be ignored sithout significant error ifthe grid inthe upper wo layers? For soil models ike © oF d (lve layers), can some kind of sverage or median values (ie, Oy = 150, 0, = 750, H = 6 for Soil model a) be used to model a two-layer soil without Significant error? Manuscript reched Mach 1 198 FP DAWALIBI,. MA, R. D. SOUTHEY: The authors wish to thank the dicunsers for their discussion ofthe pape. Their comments emphasize the inaccuracies which anise’ when using simplified eworayer soil modes instead of mulilayer modes. In Some cases he inaccuracies are sal, while i eter cases they sre significant. (Qusstion 1 of the dscusers refers to the elimination ofthe ‘ttm layer in soil models lik (a) or (b). In most cass, this ‘Simplification wil cause sigan enor, while i sme cases, the ‘ror willbe tolerable. For example, wen the eid sin the mile Tayer of sol model (a) ignoring the botom layer wil lead 12 Signieant eros inthe grounding resisance. When the grid isin the tp layer of soil model the err introduced by ignoring the botlom layer wil be less sania, especially when the middle layer resistivity is exrerely high. Ioring them layer inthis soil model wen the grid nthe Top oF mide layer, however, wil ead 10 considerable eto (in answer tothe question in the Ile ofthe cscusson) One other facet consider isthe ine fof the grounding system. The effet of the baiom layer on the performance ofa grounding sytem is heavily dependent on the ‘Sze ofthe grounding system with respect to theft thekness of the layers above the bouom layer. Geerally, if the size ofthe ‘rounding syste is small compared to the total lyer thickness, the effect of the botom layer is small. Wen the sizeof the ‘rounding system is large compare tothe total layer thickoes, the effect will be sastintl, It should also be noted that Simplified sil model can sometimes ive acceptable results for ‘one cleric quinity (eg, grounding resistance) but not for Another (ouch vole). “The answer to Question 2 ofthe discusers i yes: because in this cae the resistivity is monotonically increasing or decreasing, 2 twolayer soil model cam give approximate results without Signicantemor. The accuracy of am equivalent tva-laer sol ‘model depends not only on the real muller sol self bt also fn the size and Tecation of the grounding system. as mentioned above, For example, i grounding gids ery lage, he Bosom Taye sould eat aarger weight inthe equivalent sel mode. The suggested twolayer soil model p)=180Gm, hk=6m and 2 =780.2-m for sol model (€) shouldbe a good approximation fora small or medium sized grid. However, fra large grid whose dimension i many times the toa layer thickness, the resistivity of the bottom layer shouldbe higher than 750 2. Masri ese March 31,198.