IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 10, No.
2, April 1995
EQUIVALENT RESISTIVITY OF NON-UNIFORM SOIL FOR
GROUNDING GRID DESIGN
Baldev Thapar
Senior Member
Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana
-
Abstract This paper develops a method to determine
equivalent resistivity of heterogeneous soils to be used in the
available expressions for uniform soils employed to calculate the
ground resistance, mesh and step voltages. The results obtained
with the proposed equivalent resistivity are compared with the
results obtained from the two layer and the multilayer models
of the soil and with the results from a computer program,
developed by the authors, directly based on the potential
produced by a point source in heterogeneous soil.
Keywords: Grounding Grids, Ground Resistivity, Substations.
I. INTRODUCTION
Important parameters in the design of grounding grids for ac
substations are ground resistance, mesh and step voltages. If the
soil is assumed uniform, simple formulas to determine these
parameters are available.[ 1 1. However, the ground under the surface
of the earth is by no means homogeneous. Techniques and
computer programs have been developed to calculate the design
parameters of the grounding grids in non-uniform soil by
considering the soil as a two or a multilayered media with
horizontal or spherical stratifications.[2,3,4], These techniques
require the use of complex mathematics and time consuming
computations but they give accurate results only when the actual
ground conditions are close to the model of the ground used. A
typical cross section of the underground indicates complex
heterogeneity and does not show regular and distinct stratification.
Therefore, the refined techniques for grounding calculations in
multilayered media are good only for particular cases and may not
give good results in practical situations. It has also been suggested
to use the expressions for uniform soil employing an equivalent
resistivity for the heterogeneous soi1.[5,6,7]. However, this
equivalent resistivity is based on the horizontally stratified ground
and is not convenient to determine.
Changes caused by weather and season, by rain and frost and
by temperature variations influence the resistivity of the soil and
greatly affect the grounding parameters. Because of the random
nature of these changes a high degree of accuracy in the calculations
of the grounding parameters is not required. A method that is
simple, reasonably accurate and applicable to heterogeneous soils
without requiring the modelling of the soil is needed for the
grounding calculations and to ascertain that the electric system shall
not experience technical trouble or cause accidents. This paper
presents two such methods.
In both the methods a knowledge of the underground soil
structure is not required and only a point source apparent resiTtivity
graph for the site is needed.
(1) The first is the direct method. The potential produced by a point
94 SM 387-1 FWRD A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Substations Committee of the IEEE Power
Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE/PES
1994 Summer Meeting, San Francisco, CA, July 24 - 2 8 ,
1994. Manuscript submitted July 19, 1993; made
available for printing May 9, 1994.
08X5-8977/95/$04.00 0 1094 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JAMSHEDPUR. Downloaded on September 22, 2009 at 08:03 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
759
Victor Gerez
Senior Member
source is used directly to calculate the ground resistance, mesh and
step potentials.
(2) The second is the equivalent resistivity method. The present
available expressions to calculate the ground resistance, the mesh
and the step voltages, are used. The value of the resistivity to be
used in these expressions is determined from the point source
apparent resistivity graph.
The results obtained with these two methods are compared
with the results from scale model studies and with the results from
the refined methods for the multilayered grounds.
11. POINT SOURCE APPARENT RESISTIVITY
In a uniform soil, the voltage produced by a point current
source S near the surface of the ground at a point P also near the
surface of the ground is given by[X]:
Where I = current discharged by S.
p = resistivity of the soil.
x = distance between S and P.
At a site direct measurement of V and 1 for a spacing x
between S and P are made. For these measurements a vertical
linear electrode of length less than 1/5th of the spacing x may be
considered as a point electrode. To obtain reasonable accurate
results the remote current and potential probes C, and Pz
respectively, should be located at a distance of about 10 times the
value of "x", from the point current source S. To avoid mutual
coupling between the leads the angle between S-C, and S-P, should
be about 90'. Using measured data for various values of x, the
resistivity of the soil is determined from equation (1 ). This is the
apparent resistivity of the soil, pa, between the points S and P.
When the soil is heterogeneous pa will change with x.
The relation between paand x is independent of the location
of the source and the direction of x if the soil is horizontally
stratified. In practice this is not true; but as the variation of the
resistivity in the vertical direction is generally more than the
variation in the horizontal direction, the relation between pa and x
does not vary much with the location of S and directions of x within
the switchyard area. A mean graph of pd vs x over the area of the
switchyard for a number of point source locations and directions of
x is obtained.
Because of the large distance between the probes the method
of measurement outlined above may not be convenient to use in all
situations. For such cases the source point apparent resistivity can
be indirectly determined from the data obtained with the Wenner
Four Probe Method, which is commonly used to measure the
resistivity of the soil. Let paw(x)be the resistivity obtained with the
Wenner Four Probe Method for a spacing of "x" between the
adjacent probes. The following equation gives the relation between
the point source apparent resistivity, pa, and the Wenner resistivity,
paw @I:
 760
A convenient procedure to estimate p,(x) from the Wenner
resistivity paw(x),is given below:
(a) paw(x)versus x graph is obtained for various values of x upto
a value of x large enough so that p,,(x) does not change appreciably
with further increase in x.
(b) From this graph note pawfor x equal to 1,2,4,8,16,32,64......m.
(c) Start at a high value of x beyond which paw(x)does not change
appreciably. Suppose this value of x is 128m. At this point
consider paw(128)=p,( 128)
(d) pa for the next lower value of x, i.e. 64m, is then calculated
from equation (2).
(e) pa at the next lower value of x, i.e. 32m, is then calculated and
this procedure is continued until the pa for the lowest value of x is
determined.
An illustration of getting pa(x) from paw(x)will be found in
Table 3.
111. DIRECT METHOD
To calculate the ground resistance of a horizontal grid, the
point source apparent resistivity graph obtained with both the source
and the observation point at the depth of the grid is required.
Whereas to calculate the mesh and step voltges, the point source
apparent resistivity graph obtained with the source point at the depth
of the grid and the observation point at the surface of the ground is
needed.
A grounding grid is usually buried at a depth of 0.5 m. For
this depth there is only a little difference between the two apparent
resistivity graphs mentioned above. Therefore, as an approximation
the apparent resistivity, pa, obtained with both source and the
observation point near the surface of the soil may be used to
calculate the ground resistance, the mesh and the step voltages.
A computer program "NUGL" has been developed by the
authors, to determine the ground resistance, the mesh and step
voltages. This program is based on the modified form of the
commonly used method of analysis in which the grid is divided in
small linear segments. The following modifications are adopted.
(a) To determine the self ground resistance of a small linear
segment, the apparent resistivity, pa, for x=r is used. Where r is the
equivalent radius of the linear segment given by:
Where I, = length of the segment
a = radius of the segment.
(b) To determine the mutual ground resistance between the two
small segments p and q the apparent resistivity, pa. for x=pq is used.
Where pq is the distance between the centers of the two segments.
(c) To determine the potential at a point m on the surface of the
ground because of the current discharged by a segment p, the
apparent resistivity p, for x=pm is used. Where pm is the distance
between m and the center of the segment p.
The program is good for grounding grids without vertical
rods. Presence of a few short vertical rods does not change the
Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JAMSHEDPUR. Downloaded on September 22, 2009 at 08:03 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
results appreciably. However, the computer program can be
extended to include the vertical rods of large lengths. To do this,
additional measurements of the resistivity are needed to determine
the apparent resistivity of the soil with the source and the
observation points at various depths.
The computer program NUGL should give good results as it
is based directly on the potential measurements made at the site and
does not require the modelling of the soil. The validity of the
computer program was tested with the scale model tests described
in the next section.
IV. MODEL TESTS
Analog model studies were conducted in a cylindrical tank
of about 2 m diameter, filled with tap water to a depth of about 10
cm. The inside cylindrical surface of the tank was lined with
aluminum foil to act as the collecting electrode for the current.
Tests were conducted in two widely different cases of heterogeneous
soil. The lower layer of the soil had infinite resistivity in one case
and zero resistivity in the other case. These cases were simulated
by lining the bottom of the tank (a) with a non conducting plastic
sheet and (b) with an aluminum foil connected to the aluminum foil
on the cylindrical surface, respectively.
The apparent resistivity was obtained by discharging a
current of about 30 mA through a 12 AWG probe placed vertically
at the center of the tank with a length of about 1 cm dipping in the
water. Voltage between the collecting electrode and points on the
surface of the water at various distances from the probe was
measured. From these measurements the graph of apparent
resistivity, pa , versus the distance x from the probe was obtained.
The graphs for the two cases, AR1 (lower layer of infinite
resistivity) and AR2 (lower layer of zero resistivity) are shown in
Figure 1 .
The following models of the square grids made of 12 AWG
bare copper wire were tested in the tank.
1. 20 cm x 20 cm, 4 meshes.
2. 20 cm x 20 cm, 16 meshes.
3. 30 cm x 30 cm, 4 meshes.
4. 30 cm x 30 cm, 16 meshes.
The model was suspended horizontally at a depth of about
1 cm and a current of 0.1A to 1.0A was discharged through it. The
ground resistance and the mesh potential at the center of the corner
mesh were measured in each case. These experimental values were
P.
ohm-m
x. cm.
Figure I - Apparent resistivity of the two models of the soil.
 ~

76 1

compared with the calculated values using the computer program

"NUGL". Both sets of values are shown in Table 1.

A comparison of the values in Table 1 shows that the results

obtained from the computer program NUGL both for the ground
resistance and the mesh voltage are close to the model test results.
The data given in Table 1 also shows that for the two widely
different models, AR1 and AR2, of the ground, the ground
resistance of a grid is very different whereas the mesh voltage is
not. This clearly shows that the equivalent resistivity of the medium
to be used for ground resistance calculations is different from the U
one to used for the mesh voltage. Figure 2 - Model of a grid for ground resistance calculations.
V. EQUIVALENT RESISTIVITY

A . Ground Kesisturtce

The ground resistance, R, of a grid in uniform soil is given

by [1J: Where I, = current that flows from the plate to ground.
p,(x) = the point source apparent resistivity at distance x.
R = pa (4)
The total potential at the center of the plate is given by:

(5)
(7)

Where p = resistivity of the soil, ohm-m.

L = the length of the buried conductor, m.
A = the area occupied by the grid, sq.m. Consider Vfl, to be the ground resistance, R.
h = the depth of the grid, m.

The ground resistance of a grid in heterogeneous soil can be

calculated conveniently with the use of equation (4) if the equivalent
resistivity of the soil to be used in the equation can be estimated.

Practical grounding grids are buried near the surface of the Let per, (independent of x) be the equivalent resistivity of the soil
earth and have usually more than 30 meshes. Their ground that gives the same ground resistance, R.
resistance is close to that of a circular plate whose area is equal to
the area occupied by the grid. Consider a circular plate of diameter
6 buried horizontally near the surface of the earth. Assume that the
current dissipation over the surface of the plate is uniform. The
potential at the center of the plate due to an elemental ring of radius
x and thickness Ax, as shown in Figure 2 is given by [ 5 ] :
From equations (8) and (9)
Table I - Ground Resistance and Mesh Voltage.

Apparent Test Results Computer Results

Gridr Resistivity Ground Mesh Ground Mesh
Graph Resistance Voltage Resistance Voltage
Therefore, per is the average value of the point source apparent
2 0 x 2 0 ~ 4 AR1 163 16.4 174 14.3 resistivity of the soil from x=0 to x=6/2.
2 0 x 2 0 ~ 4 AR2 47.7 15.8 49.6 14.2

20x20~16ARl 158 5.7 17 1 6.4 B. Mesh Voltage

20x20~16AR2 43.8 5.1 48.3 4.6
In a uniform soil the mesh voltage is given by [11:
3 0 x 3 0 ~ 4 AR1 129 10.3 135 10.5
3 0 x 3 0 ~ 4 AR2 30.9 11.2 28.8 13.9 Em = P I, P (1 1)

30x30~16AR1 125 5.8 133 6.7 P=K,Y/L (12)

30x30~16AR2 24.2 4.1 26.5 4.1
K, = 0.656 + 0.172 n (13)
The ground resistance is in ohms. The mesh voltage is in volts per
ampere current discharged by the grid.
* Length, cm x Width, cm x Number of meshes.

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JAMSHEDPUR. Downloaded on September 22, 2009 at 08:03 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 762

C. Step Voltage

The major contribution to the step voltage comes from the

conductors of the grid which are near to the location where the step
voltage is calculated as the conductors located farther away produce
about the same voltage at the location of the two feet. The step
voltage is normally calculated with one foot above the corner the
grid. The equivalent resistivity p, for calculating the step voltage
can be taken as approximately equal to the point source equivalent
resistivity at x=h. In practical cases the step voltage is not as
critical as the mesh voltage. Therefore, any refined estimation of
Figure 3 - Model of a grid for mesh voltage calculations.
the equivalent resistivity for the step voltage was not attempted.

VI. VERIFICATION
K,, = 1424'" for grids with no rods or grids with only a few rods,
none located in the corners or on the perimeter.
To verify the equivalent resistivities given in the previous
section, five point source apparent resistivity graphs shown in
K,, = 1 for grids with ground rods along the perimeter or for
Figures 4 and 5 were considered. These graphs represent
grids with ground rods along the perimeter and
approximately the point source apparent resistivity of the
throughout the grid area.
heterogeneous soils at the following five locations:
K, = I/(l+hj
a. Reston Substation, Bonneville Power Administration.[Y].
b. E. Omak Substation, Bonneville Power Administration.[ IO].
Where
c . W. Davenport Substation, Florida Power Corp.[ll].
D = spacing between the parallel conductors, m.
d. Bayridge Substation, Florida Power Corp.[ 111.
h= depth of the grid conductor, m.
e. Texas Valley Substation, Georgia Power Company.[ 121.
n = number of the parallel conductors.
d = diameter of the grid conductor, m.
I, = grid current that flows from the grid to the ground, A.

T o estimate the equivalent resistivity, pem, of the

heterogeneous soil that can be used in equation ( 1 I ) , consider the
grid as a circular plate of diameter 6. A mesh with a conductor
spacing of D may be represented by a circular hole of diameter D
at the center of the plate as shown in Figure 3. When this plate is
buried horizontally near the surface of the ground, the potential, V,,
of the ground surface at the center of the mesh (hole in the plate),
for Di<6, is given by:
P.
ohm-m ,":
4ooo-

[
From equation (7) and (15) the mesh potential is obtained as x, meters
Figure 4 - Apparent resistivity (a).

If pen,(independent of xj is the equivalent resistivity of the soil that

3000 .!
gives the same mesh voltage, E , , then

From equation (16) and (17)

:,, 1
(18)

Therefore, p,. is the average value of the point source x, meters

apparent resistivity of the soil from x=O to x=D/2. Figure 5 - Apparent resistivity (b, c, d , e)

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JAMSHEDPUR. Downloaded on September 22, 2009 at 08:03 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 763

Following four square grids made of 4/0(1.2cm dia.) The ground resistance and the mesh voltage for all the 20
conductor, at a depth of 0.5 m were considered: combinations of the soils and the grids were determined with the
computer program NUGL. The parameters a and p for all the grids
1. 30m x 30m, 16 meshes. were calculated and the current I, was taken as unity. From
2. 30m x 30m, 25 meshes. equations (4) and (1 1) the equivalent resistivities for the ground
3. 32m x 32m, 64 meshes. resistance and the mesh voltage were calculated. The results of the
4. 80m x 80m, 64 meshes. calculations are given in Table 2. This Table also gives the
equivalent resistivities determined from the point source apparent
resistivity graphs with the use of equations (10) and (18).
Table 2 - Verification of the Equivalent Resistivities. Since equation (10) and (18) have been developed
considering the grid as a plate, the values given by these equations
Equivalent Resistivity, ohm-m are good if the variation of the apparent resistivity with respect to
the spacing between the conductors is not large. Study of a number
Soil Grid per (Grd. Resist.) pem(Mesh Voltage) of cases shows that these equations give good results if the
# # following unitless ratio, q, is less than 1.
From From From From
NUGL pa graph NUGL pa graph

a 1 3216 3016 1996 2227

Where U = slope of the point source apparent resistivity graph at
a 2 3242 3016 2021 2182
x=O, ohm-m/m.
a 3 3350 3083 208 I 2124 p =Maximum value of the point source apparent resistivity,
a 4 4327 4394 2548 230 1 ohm-m.
b 1 1883 1961 1639 1709 In most practical situations q < 1. Table 2 shows a close
b 2 1892 1961 1674 1688 agreement between the equivalent resistivities obtained from the
b 3 1900 1965 1731 1660 detailed calculations done by the computer program NUGL and
b 4 1800 1905 1655 1745 from the point source apparent resistivity graphs. For q < 1, the
difference is less than 20%.
C 1 1823 1958 3037 2845
C 2 1794 1958 2984 2895
The method of equivalent resistivity is compared with the
C 3 1697 1882 2853 2961 two layer and multilayer methods for the following three stations:
C 4 1057 912.7 2364 2761
1. Bayridge Substation, Florida Power Corp.
d 1 1175 927.4* 3320 1912*
2. W. Davenport Substation, Florida Power Corp.
d 2 1090 927.4* 2913 2126*
3. Texas Valley Substation, Georgia Power Company.
d 3 999.8 905.6 2357 2407
d 4 803.8 633.2* 2678 1555*
The Wenner soil resistivity,p,,, data for these stations is
given in Table 3. From this data the point source apparent
e 1 294.4 277.6 587.2 486.5
resistivity, pa, is calculated and is tabulated in Table 3. The grid
e 2 288.1 277.6 555.0 508.8
data is given in Table 4. The ground resistance and the mesh
e 3 271.4 268.0 505.9 538.2
voltage calculated with the equivalent resistivity method and with
e 4 211.0 173.2 506.3 449.3
two layer and multilayer models are given in Table 5. The results
show that the values obtained from the equivalent resistivity method
* q > l
are close to those obtained from the two layer and multilayer
models.

Table 3 - Soil Resistivity

Soil Resistivitv. ohm-m

Table 4 - Grid Data
x, m Syndge W.Davenport ‘3) Valley
Texas
T-x- Paw@ Pa Paw Pa Items Bayridge“’ W.Davenport‘” Texas Vall@’
1 4000 3089 3200 3048 630 555 Area of grid, sq.m 3969 1951 3561
2 3500 2179 3200 2896 600 480
Length of buried cond, m 2772 530 1289
4 1000 857 3000 2593 480 360 Depth of grid, m 0.5 0.5 0.5
8 800 715 3500 2186 340 240
Spacing between cond, m 3 9 5.7
16 800 630 1500 872 170 140
Dia. of grid cond, cm 1.2 1.2 1.2
32 700 460 400 244 110 110
Number of parallel cond. 22 6 12
64 280 220 90 88 110 110
128 160 160 86 86 110 110
( 1 ) and ( 2 ) - The data is from reference / I 1 1 (Bayridge 4 and West
Davenport 2).
( 1 ) and ( 2 ) - The data is from the graphs in reference [ l l ]
( 3 ) - The data is from reference [I21
( 3 ) - The data is from the graph for winter in reference 1121

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JAMSHEDPUR. Downloaded on September 22, 2009 at 08:03 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 -

764

Table 5 - Comparison of Results 6. B. Thapar and E.T.B. Gross, "Grounding Grids for High
~
Voltage Stations. IV - Resistance of Grounding Grids in Non-
Items Bayridge* W.Davenport* Texas Vallep* unform Soil," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, vol. 82, pp. 782-788, 1963.
Equiv. resistivity for 703.8 1465 194.8
ground resistance, perQ-m 7. B. Thapar and J.K. Arora, "Step and Mesh Potentials at High
Equation (10) Voltage Stations in Non-uniform Soil," Proceedings, 43rd
Equiv. resistivity for 2545 2794 513.2 Annual Research Session, Central Board of Inigation and
mesh voltage, p,,Q-m Power, India, vol. IV (Power), 1973.
Equation( 18)
8. E.D. Sunde, "Earth Conduction Effects in Transmission
Ground resistance, ohm Systems," (book), Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1968.
Equiv. restvty method 5.16 17.2 1.56
2 layer model 5.77 11.7 1.1 9. A.L. Kin yon, "Earth Resistivity Measurements for Grounding
Multilayer model 5.25 20.3 Grids," AIEE Transactions, Pt.111 (Power Apparatus and
Systems), vol. 80, pp. 795-800, 1961.
Mesh voltage, V per Amp
Equiv. restvty method 2.14 8.97 0.80 10. "Soil Resistivity Analysis at East Omak Substation Site",
2 layer model 1.8 7.6 0.66 Department of Energy - Bonneville Power Administration,
Multilayer model 1.9 6.1 Laboratory Report No. ERGJ-8 1-4, 1981.

*Data for 2-layer and multilayer models is from reference [ I l l
**Data for 2-layer and multilayer models is from reference [I21
VII. CONCLUSIONS
1. The two methods for calculating the grounding parameters
presented in this paper do not require a knowledge of the
underground soil structure that is usually complex. Only the point
source apparent resistivity of the soil at the site is needed. This can
be either measured directly at the site or obtained from the Wenner
Four Probe resistivity measurements.
2. A computer program, based on the direct method has been
developed. This program does not require to model the
heterogeneity of the earth as it is based directly on the potential
measurements made at the site. Model testing has shown that it
gives good results.
3. The method to determine the equivalent resistivity of the soil
given in the paper is simple. The use of the equivalent resistivity
in the expressions for uniform soil gives reasonably accurate results.
VIII. REFERENCES
1. "IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding",
ANSI/IEEE Std. 80, 1986.
2. F. Dawalibi and Dinkar Mukhedkar, "Optimum Design of
Substation Grounding in a Two Layer Earth Structure, Part I -
Analytical Study", IEEE Transactions on Power apparatus and
Systems, vol. PAS - 94, pp. 252-261, 1975.
3. R.J. Heppe, "Step Potential and Body Currents Near Grounds
in Two-layer Earth," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, vol. PAS - 98, pp. 45-59, 1979.
4. A.P. Meliopoulos, R.P. Webb and E.B. Joy, "Analysis of
Grounding Systems," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus
and Systems, vol. PAS - 101, pp. 1039-1048, 1981.
5. J. Zaborszky, "Efficiency of Grounding Grids with Nonuniform
Soil," AIEE Transactions, pt. I11 (Power Apparatus and
Systems), vol. 74, pp. 1230-1233, 1955.
11. F. Dawalibi and N. Barbeito, "Measurements and Computations
of the Performance of Grounding Systems Buyried in
Multilayer Soils", IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol.
6 PWRD, pp. 1483-1490, 1991.
12. "Seasonal Variations of Grounding Parameters by Field Tests",
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI TR - 100863, 1992.
Baldev Thauar (M'60, SM'62)was bom in India
on Sept. 1, 1930. He received the
B.Sc.(Honours) degree from Banaras Hindu
University, M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Illinois
Institute of Technology, in 1953, 1960 and 1963
respectively, all in electrical engineering.
From 1953 to 1955 he was with Punjab
Public Works Department, India, working in
Power System Operation. In 1955 he joined the
faculty of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, India, where he was
Professor, Electrical Engineering from 1966 to 1985. In 1985-86 he was
a visiting Professor at Louisiana State University. At present he is a
Professor in the faculty of Electrical Engineering Department, Montana
State University, Bozeman.
Dr. Thapar is a Fellow of Institution of Engineers (India). He is
a member of Eta Kappa Nu, Tau Beta Pi and Sigma Xi. His research
interests are in electric power system analysis, protection and grounding.
Victor G e m (SM) was bom in Santander, Spain,
on April 11, 1934. He received his Engineering
degree from National University of Mexico and
his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University
of California at Berkeley in 1958, 1969 and 1972
respectively, all in electrical engineering.
From 1958 to 1965 he was an electrical
design engineer in several Mexican companies.
From 1966 to 1973 he was a member of the
technical staff of Mexico's National Utility. In 1973 he became
chairman of the Mechanical-Electrical Engineering Department at the
National University of Mexico. In 1977 he was named director of the
power system division in Mexico's Electric Research Institute. He joined
the Electrical Engineering Department at Montana State University in
1983 and became chairman in 1984.
Dr. Gerez is the author of several articles on system and power
engineering and co-author of six electrical and system engineering
textbooks widely used in Spanish speaking countries.

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JAMSHEDPUR. Downloaded on September 22, 2009 at 08:03 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

D I S C U S S ION
Hans R . Seedher and J. K. Arora (Punjab
Engineering College, Chandigarh, India) : The
authors are to be complemented for presenting
two methods for obtaining performance of
grounding grids using measured soil
resistivity data !:stead ' o f a soil model
based on the measured data. The designer is
thus not constrained to use a simplified soil
model for a complex variation in measured
Wenner resistivity. The equivalent
resistivity concept is useful in extending
the well known formulae applicable to uniform
earth to the case of non-homogeneous soil.
The discussers would appreciate authors'
comments about the following:
i) Point source apparent resistivity p is
to be obtained from the measured values
of Wenner apparent reistivity paw. In
order to use (2) for obtaining pa,
Wenner apparent resistivity measurement
must be made for electrode spacing large
enough so that paw does not change
appreciably with further increase in
electrode spacing. For a relatively
large resistivity of the lower stratum,
required maximum electrode spacing would
be impracticably large. For example,
for a two layer earth structure with a
ratio of lower to upper soil
resistivities equal to 50 and depth of
upper layer equal to 5 m, the required
electrode spacing would be about 500 m.
Unless the measured apparent resistivity
curve is available upto this spacing,
extrapolation might be needed, and
determination of pa by (2) might lead to
large error.
ii) From measured paw, values of p can be
obtained only for discrete values of x .
How are the values of pa for other
values of x required for computing self
and mutual resistances and for earth
surface potentials computed in NUGL.
iii) The expressions for equivalent
resistivity developed in the paper may
not be justified for configuration of
a grid differing considerably from that
of a square grid with square meshes; and
it is rare that a practical grid is
square shaped with square meshes.
Manuscript received August 9, 1994.
F. P. Dawalibi, Safe Engineering Services &
technologies ltd, Montreal, Quebec, Canada,
H3M 1G4.:
My first reaction when 1 read this paper was that
it introduced a novel and interesting method.
However, afier carefully reviewing all aspects of
the engineeiing process which takes place during
a realistic grounding design, it became very clear
to 11ic that one should avoid using the approach
described in this paper for the reasons outlined
hereafter.
Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JAMSHEDPUR. Downloaded on September 22, 2009 at 08:03 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
~
765
1. No proof, or upper-bound error analysis is
provided to demonstrate that the response of
a point source electrode at the surface of the
soil will be a good approximation to that of a
conductor segment buried at a depth of
0.5m or more in various soil structure
models. It is incorrect to state that the
apparent soil resistivity between a current
source and an observation point is dependent
only on the separation between them. The
buiial depths in hoiizontally layered soils and
relative locations of the source and
observation point in vertically hyered soils as
well as sphcricully layered soils inay have a
significant eflcct on the response. Our
expericnce reveals that the response of a
conductor scgment close to rhc interl'aoe of
two horizontal layers with a high resistivity
contrast may be quite different froin the
response of a point source at the surface of
the soil.
2. The use of complex mathematics in modern
engineeiing software is transparcnt to the
user and should not be a dctencnt or a
justification for using or not using a specific
method, Many time-consuming computations
are based on simple mathematical approaches
while very coinplex analytical method inay
very well be computationally inexpensive. A
typical example of this is illustrated by
hemispherically laycred soils. What should
matter is the fitness of a particular approach
for coinplcring a specific: design task. It
appears t o me that rhc paper is trying to
address a non-cxistcnt problcin. A carchil
investigation of the situations in which the
novel approach of the paper can be used inay
reveal other types of problems to which it
could be applied successfully. Grounding
does not appear to be one of them at this
time.
3. Ironically, exactly the same reasons given by
the authors to justify the use of their new
approach can be invoked to strongly oppose
their suggestion. "Changes caused by
weather and season, by rain and frost and by
temperature variations..." affect only top soil
resistivities up to a depth which rarely exceed
one or two meters. Because of this, a sound
engineering design of any grounding system
may take into account the resistivity
 766

variations of the top layers and the worst case conducted with the source and the observation points both on
scenario should constitute the basis for the or near the surface of the soil. Therefore, in general, a
final design. This is easily done when one has model developed from Wenner test data is good only for the
conductor segments that are at or near the surface of the
determined a suitable model for the soil
soil. If the conductor segments are not near the surface of
stmcture. Moreover, "what if" types of the soil then the two layer model may give erroneous results
questions can be easily answered during the unless the soil is actually made of the two distinct layers as
design stage when a soil structure model is determined in the model. This is apparent from the
available. For example, questions such as following simple example.
"what if a thin layer of water is above the soil
surface..." or "what if the surface layer is In most of the soils the resistivity gradually changes with the
frozen or thawed...", etc. There is a depth. Consider a soil where the resistivity,p,changes with
the depth,z, according to the following equation:
fundamental difference between inability to
obtain accurate data and normal variations of p = 100+9900 Ohm-m
data for which upper and lower bounds are
easily obtainable. Applying the method given by Sunde [Cl], the Wenner Four
Soil resistivity measurements should be used Probe Test data for this soil is calculated and is given in
to develop approximate soil models, not only Table C1. For this data the computer program "SOMIP"
to calculate grounding system perfoiniance gives the following best estimte of the two layer soil model.
but also to determine the most appropriate Resistivity of the top layer = 3293 ohm-m
design €or the kind of soil model encountered Resistivity of the bottom layer = 101 ohm-m
( use of short versus long ground rods, use of Depth of the top layer =3m
equal or unequal conductor spacing, etc.).
Last but not least, since the method, as
admitted by the authors themselves, is
I
restricted to cases in which the soil model has
horizontal layers only and the grounding
system is only in the top layer with no
conductors penetrating the other layers, the
designer is confronted with the contradictory
requirement of determining the soil structure
to insure that he is not violating the preceding
requiremen t s.
The authors' reply to our comments would be
greatly appreciated. TABLE Cl - WENNER FOUR PROBE DATA

Manuscript received August 15, 1994.

1 6640
2 4485
BALDEV THAPAR, VICTOR GEREZ: The authors thank 4 2075
the discussers for their comments and the interest shown by 8 533
16 126
them. Since most of the questions raised by the discussers 32 100
relate to the layered soil models, first of all we would like 64 100
to comment on the application of these models. Layered soil
models are useful for the analysis of the grounding systems
in heterogeneous soils. However a misconception has Figure C 1 gives the variation of the resistivity with the depth
developed in recent times that these models are good for the of the actual soil and of its two layer model.
analysis of the grounding electrodes located anywhere in the
soil. This needs to be corrected. Now consider a sphere of radius 10 cm at a depth of 4 m.
The ground resistance of the sphere is primarily determined
Two layer or multilayer soil models are developed from the by the resistivity of the soil around it up to a distance of
test data obtained either from the Wenner Four Probe about 10 times the radius of the sphere (1 m in this case).
Method or Driven Rod Method. The Wenner test is The resistivity of the actual soil up to a distance of 1 m

Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JAMSHEDPUR. Downloaded on September 22, 2009 at 08:03 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

around the sphere varies from 600 to 2000 ohm-m (an
average value of 1300 ohm-m). In the two layer model the
resistivity up to a distance of 1 m around the sphere is 100
ohm-m. Therefore the two layer model will give the pound
resistance of the sphere approximately 80 ohms
[ lOO/(4XO.1)], whereas the actual ground resistance is
approximately 1035 ohms [1300/(47d).l)]. There is a
difference of order in the two values. Hence, the error in
using a two layer soil model in this case is enormous and is
not acceptable even in grounding practice.
A similar situation will occur with the practical linear
electrodes when they are not near the surface of the soil.
Vertical rods which are near the interface of the two layers
will not have the same response in a two layer model as in
an actual soil where the resistivity varies gradually.
The soil model obtained from the driven rod test data is also
not unique. It can be shown that this model is good only for
driven rods which are of approximately same length as those
used to determine the test data. This model may give
erroneous results for other configurations of the grounding
electrodes unless the model matches the actual soil
conditions.
An ideal two layer stratification is seldom encountered. A
two layer model of the soil obtained from the Wenner test
data is good to be used for the conductor segments which
are near the surface of the soil. For the segments which are
deep in the soil, this model is not applicable and may give
erroneous results for most of the soils where the resistivity
changes gradually with the depth.
Now we shall answer the specific questions raised by the
discussers:
F.P. Dawalibi
1. When conducting Wenner Four Probe resistivity test, in
most of the soils it is necessary to drive the probes to a
depth os 15 cm or more. Electric field strength because of
these probes at a distance of more than 1 m becomes
identical with that for a point source. As mentioned in the
paper the source and the observation points are near the
surface of the soil. Through a number of field
measurements we have experienced that no significant
difference is noticed in the apparent resistivity if the source
and the observation points are at a depth of 0.5 m or 0.15 m.
However this will not be true in a very rare case when a
distinct stratification of the soil with large variation of the
resistivity occurs very near to the surface of the soil. In that
case the measurements can be made with the source a a
depth of 0.5 m and the observation points near the surface
Authorized licensed use limited to: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JAMSHEDPUR. Downloaded on September 22, 2009 at 08:03 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
161
and at a depth of 0.5 m. Because of the nature of the
problem the upper bound error analySis is considered
needless.
2. The layered soil models using complex mathematics do
not give good grounding design in every case. As shown
above these models have limitations. Unless the actual soil
conditions are known, the layered soil models, horizontal or
spherical, cannot be claimed to give good design. The
method presented in the paper uses the actual response of
the electrodes directly without resorting to any model. It
gives reliable results.
3. The practical worst case scenario for any particular case
can be determined through measurements and for that the
assumptions and the modelling are not necessary. What is
needed is to make the resistivity measurements at a suitable
time. Cold dry season will give the highest resistivity
measurements.
4. The layered soil models have some applications but the
analysis of the vertical ground rods is not one of these
unless the actual soil conditions match the model. We are
working on extending the method given in the paper to
include the vertical ground rods. This will be reported soon.
5. In the methods given in the paper we do not assume any
distinct horizontal stratifkauon of the soil.
Hans R. Seedher and J.K.Arora
i) If the Wenner method is used and the resistivity
measurements cannot be made for large spacing, it would be
necessary to make extrapolation. That may introduce some
judgement errors. In such cases it would be better to make
the point source apparent resistivity measurements directly
as described in the paper.
ii) Using the method of least squares a polynomial function
to fit the known points of pa versus x is obtained. This
function can then be used to determine the value of pa for
any value of x.
iii) The equivalent resistivities developed in the paper can
be used for the grounding grids which are nearly square.
Model studies have been conducted to check the validity of
the equivalent resistivities for rectangular grids having width
to length ratio up to 1:3. This covers most of the grids
encountered in practice.
[Cl]. E.D. Sunde, "Earth Conduction Effects in Transmission Systems;'
(book), Dover Publications,Inc., New York, 1968.
Manuscript received October 26, 1994.