See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265161873

An Approach to Reduce Copper Theft in Transmission Line Grounding

Systems

Conference Paper · November 2013

DOI: 10.1109/SIPDA.2013.6729183

CITATIONS READS

2 1,219

3 authors, including:

Arturo Galvan Ernesto Diaz Lozano

Instituto de Investigaciones Electricas 1 PUBLICATION   2 CITATIONS   
22 PUBLICATIONS   140 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

An approach to reduce copper theft in transmission line grounding systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arturo Galvan on 29 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2013 International Symposium on Lightning Protection (XII SIPDA), Belo Horizonte, Brazil, October 7-11, 2013.
An Approach to Reduce Copper Theft in
Transmission Line Grounding Systems
Arturo Galván D.
Instituto de Investigaciones Eléctricas
Cuernavaca, México
agalvan@iie.org.mx
Abstract—Electrical grounding systems are heavily dependent
upon copper. Due to its scrap metal value copper is an attractive
target for thieves and vandals. Copper theft presents one of the
biggest threats to electrical safety systems and results in
escalating costs, operational downtime and threats to life and
assets. This is the case for transmission lines, because their
isolated location and the unattended conditions. This paper
attempts to reduce copper theft in transmission line grounding
systems, according to already applied measures in power utility
as an alternative measure still under assessment.
Keyword: grounding systems, transmission lines, copper theft,
theft deterrent system.
I. INTRODUCTION
In México, like in many other countries, copper theft is
increasing at an alarming rate. One reason is the high scrap
metal value of the copper (rising several times in few years)
and the other one is a not updated legislation to increase the
penalties for copper thieves and recycling facilities as well.
Transportation systems, power utilities, agriculture systems,
construction systems, vacant housing markets and
telecommunications networks spend millions of dollars every
year on system replacement costs directly resulting from
stolen copper. In the electric utility industry, copper theft often
result in power outages and unnecessary expense to restore the
damaged power electric infrastructure, not to mention the
safety threat to the thief. The United States Department of
Energy estimates copper wire theft costs approximately $1
billion US Dollars per year. Theft appears to be increasing and
the culprits are becoming bolder and more sophisticated [1].
Since this type of theft is relatively new, many of the
methods used to combat the problem are untested and
theoretical. The common general approach common attempted
to decrease these types of theft has been based on a trial-and-
error scheme [1]. Therefore, it looks necessary to determine, in
base on experience and a root-cause study, suitable measures in
order to reduce the copper theft. According to the results of the
root-cause study, the main subjects to be changed or improved
to decrease the copper theft in transmission lines are the
following: (a) Use materials with a very low scrap metal value;
(b) Increase the difficulty for the metal theft; (c) Build the
grounding system according to design; and the last but not the
least (d) change the legislation and apply severe penalties for
copper theft and scrap recycling industries rejecting stolen
materials.
258
Ernesto Díaz Lozano
ERICO México, D.F.
ediaz-lozano@erico.com
This article shows an approach to reduce copper theft in
grounding transmission lines by a pilot program applied in
several towers in three regions of México. The pilot program is
still under assessment.
II. SCRAP METAL OF LOW VALUE
Exposed grounding copper leads are prone to be stolen in
grounding transmission lines, by cutting the leads with hand
tools. Therefore, it is important to make these leads not so
attractive to thieves.
There are several materials available in the market to
substitute copper leads. However, there are two main popular
arrangements for bimetallic cables: copper-bonded steel and
concentric stranded copper wires with peripheral galvanized
steel stranding. The former, due to the inseparable union of the
two metals, it deters theft since copper recovery is impractical
and thus has very little scrap value. The latter, due to its
external appearance, it deters theft too since it has low
attractiveness and a very little scrap value as well.
A. Conductor made of copper-bonded steel wires
There are various manufacturing methods for combining
cooper and steel. Figure 1 shows this special cable. The
distinction between continuous current-carrying capability and
ground-fault conductivity must be made. If copper-bonded
steel wire were to be used for a continuous current-carrying
condition, then it would not be suitable. However, fault
currents are high-current pulses of a higher frequency and
travel on the outer diameter of the wire, not through the entire
wire cross section, requiring only a percentage of the
conductivity of the same-sized copper wire. This is known as
Skin Effect for carrying high-frequency pulses. Copper-bonded
steel has been in use in grounding rods, cathodic wire, utility
pole staples, resistor leads and, most abundantly, coaxial cable
for TV (high-frequency signals) usage [2]. Unfortunately, due
to the attractiveness of the still “copper appearance”, if it is use
in exposed conditions like grounding leads in transmission
lines still has a high risk to be stolen. However, its use in
buried systems like counterpoises can guarantee its operation
and performance.
B. Cable made of concentric stranded copper wires with
peripheral galvanized steel stranding
Figure 2 shows this special cable, also called “theft
deterrent cable”. This conductor is ideal for exposed electrical
grounding leads where copper theft may be an issue, due to the
“steel appearance” and therefore its low attractiveness. This
cable is normally used for grounding leads (bonding from the
leg of the tower to the buried conductors of the grounding
systems). The conductor is also difficult to cut with hand tools.
Figure 1. Appearance of special cable made of copper-bonded steel
Figure 2. Appearance of special cable made of concentric stranded copper
and peripheral galvanized steel stranding. Theft deterrent cable by ERICO ®
[3].
C. Vertical rod made of copper-bonded steel
Grounding rods are another essential part of the antitheft
system and must be manufactured with a material that provide
a low resistance and allows the fault current to flow in an easy
way to ground. Any type of metal can be used for grounding
rods but there are metals that are more attractive to be stolen
and other ones that will not provide the electrical and corrosion
resistance specifications that it is needed in grounding systems.
To accomplish the electrical, mechanical, corrosion resistance
and theft deterrent requirements the best material in grounding
rods is steel with a minimum of 10 mil copper-bonded.
III. INCREASE THE DIFFICULTY FOR THE METAL
THEFT
One of the major problems for the copper theft in
grounding transmission lines is the effortless to dig up the
buried copper conductor. If the grounding cable is not at the
design depth, or the installation of the cable is not properly
made, the cable is easily pulled out with a truck or beast of
burden.
259
In order to make harder the copper theft of buried material,
it is imperative to fix the grounding system vertical rods and
the horizontal conductors of the grounding system firmly
joined to the soil. This can be done by doing the following: (a)
encase the horizontal conductors at 0.8 m depth minimum with
a very hard and suitable enhancing compound, in a
configuration of 10cm x 10cm, (b) encase the vertical
electrodes with a very hard and suitable enhancing compound
in a drill of 15.24 - 20.32 cm of diameter, (c) bond the
horizontal conductor with the vertical electrodes with
exothermic welding, in order to ensure the electric continuity
and the robustness of the grounding systems to be unearthed by
thieves.
IV. EXOTHERMIC CONNECTIONS
Exothermic connections for grounding systems can be
considered as permanent connection, and provide the best
connection for any high current condition in all type of soils,
and also create a permanent bonding between the cable and the
grounding rod or the tower structure due to the molecular bond
between conductors that ensures equal current sharing between
conductor strands or the grounding rod, as shown in figure 3.
Figure 3. Molecular bond between conductors and vertical rods that ensures
permanent connection.
Figure 4 shows how the horizontal buried conductor of
transmission line grounding system (counterpoises) must be
joined to vertical rods by exothermic connection at the bottom
of the trench and at the end of the counterpoise, in order to
avoid the easy pulling out of grounding system elements. Note
that vertical rod is also filled in with hard ground enhancement
material.
The advantages of exothermic connections are, but not limited
to: (a) conductivity, (b) corrosion resistance, (c) overload
withstand, (c) reliability and long life, (d) small space available
or large conductors, (e) Compliance with IEEE 837 [4] &
IEEE Std 80 [5] guidelines.

Figure 4. Recommended connection between horizontal buried conductor
(counterpoise) and vertical rods before filling them with hard ground
enhancement compound in theft deterrent grounding systems for transmission
lines.
V. INSTALL THE GROUNDING SYSTEM
ACCORDING TO ENGINEERING DESIGN
Unfortunately, real installations differ from engineering
design. There are basically three problems: (a) the depth of the
horizontal conductor of the grounding system is not as the
engineering design, (b) the length of the vertical rods are
shorter, due to bad practices, and (c) the enhancing compound
for lowering ground resistance is not hard enough to avoid
digging out the grounding conductor. It has been observed that
the grounding systems more prone to be stolen are those in
which the design parameters of installation depth were not well
applied.
VI. LEGISLATION
There are countries which have solved the problem in a
large degree by effectively monitor/police the recycling
industry. Any person/company that is bringing in copper to
scrap should be able to verify where the material was taken.
Proper identification and contact information should be
required. Changing laws can make easier to catch the thieves.
VII. AN APPROACH TO REDUCE COPPER THEFT
By applying the given recommendations shown above, a
suitable arrangement can be recommended, as shown in figure
5.
Note that the arrangement aims the following: (a) reduce
the theft of grounding leads that bond tower leg and buried
conductor, by using theft deterrent cable that it is not so
attractive, harder to cut with hand tools and very low scrap
value. (b) ensure the horizontal buried wire (copper-bonded
steel conductor – CONDUCLAD® [6]) is at the design depth
(≥ 0.8m), (c) encase the horizontal wire in a very hard
enhancing compound, like GEM® [7], with an area of at least
260
10cm x10cm, (d) the soil bed compaction should be done by at
least three layers (moistening each) in order to guarantee the
soil contact with the grounding system and to increase the
difficulty of pulling the wire out by the use of truck or beast of
burden, (d) use exothermic welding only, like CADWELD®,
to bond the tower leg and the theft deterrent cable, the theft
deterrent cable and the horizontal wire (counterpoise), and the
counterpoise and vertical rods.
Figure 5. Recommended approach to reduce copper theft in grounding
transmission line systems. Verticals rod are omitted for clarity of drawing.
VIII. COMPACTION LAYERS
Compaction is of high relevance, when installing buried
grounding conductors. The key issue is to make harder the
pulling out with a truck or beast of burden of the buried
conductor. The recommended steps for the trench fill is the
following: (a) Install the buried grounding conductor by
encasing it with grounding enhancement material, (b) fill the
first layer of soil, at 1/3 of the total depth, (c) moisture the layer
before adding the second layer, (d) repeat the step of trench fill
for one layer, until the trench is fulfilled.
IX. RELIABILITY OF COPPER-BONDED STEEL
VERSUS COPPER CONDUCTOR
Copper conductors exhibit good conductivity and corrosion
free extend life when buried in soil. For low frequency faults,
the entire grounding system of the tower made of copper
conductors is almost at the same potential. Due to copper theft
problems, alternate materials have been proved, and copper-
bonded steel wires have been compared with copper
performance from the point of view of the total ground
resistance, touch and step voltages and voltage drop along the
grounding systems.
Meliopoulos et al. [8] carried out a study with several cases in
order to evaluate the cooper-bonded steel cables
(Copperweld®[9]): (a) by using a rectangular ground mat 8
meshes by 6 meshes, each mesh 40 ft by 40 ft and buried 1.5 ft
below grade, injecting a 5 kA fault current; (b) a substation
grounding systems following the IEEE Std 80 guidelines [4],
and (c) design of a wind farm grounding system. X. ZINC GALVANIZED STEEL
Zinc galvanized steel is another alternate material that can be
used instead of copper for grounding systems. However, and in
The conclusion of the study was the following: The particular for grounding rods, there are important differences
performance of copper and copperweld® conductors is between copper-bonded steel and galvanized steel.
practically the same in terms of ground impedance and touch
and step voltages as long as their diameter is the same, as When comparing copper-bonded steel and galvanized steel for
shown in tables 1 and 2 for case (a). This is because the grounding rods [10], both are composed of a steel core: (a)
conductor impedance is of secondary importance. Of course, copper-bonded steel rods use cold drawn steel with a tensile
one has to keep in mind that the fault current carrying strength of 90,000+psi, (b) most galvanized steel rods use hot
capability for cooper is higher than copper-bonded steel rolled steel with a tensile strength of 58,000+psi. In theory,
conductor for the same diameter. higher tensile strength leads to less rod deformation.
The thickness and type of coating material determines
TABLE 1. PERFORMANCE OF GROUNDING SYSTEMS OF TYPICAL GROUND corrosion resistance and service life: (a) copper-bonded steel
CONDUCTOR TYPES AND SIZES – VOLTAGE DROP ALONG GROUND
CONDUCTORS IS NEGLECTED – INJECTED CURRENT IS 5 KA. ADAPTED FROM rod is coated with 10 mils (0.010”) of copper minimum, (b)
[8] galvanized steel rod is coated with 3.9 (0.0039”) mils of zinc,
Ground
limited by hot dip galvanizing process. Thicker the coating
Max Touch Max Step longer the service life. Figure 6 shows the life expectancy
Copper resistance GPR (V)
Voltage (V) Voltage (V)
(ohms) differences of several material-bonded steel when they are
4/0 0.5690 2845 673.2 336.9
buried in soil.
3/0 0.5705 2853 682.7 335.4
2/0 0.5721 2861 692.2 333.9
1/0 0.5737 2869 701.6 332.5
Ground
Max Touch Max Step
Copperweld resistance GPR (V)
Voltage (V) Voltage (V)
(ohms)
7#5 0.5685 2843 670.2 337.4
7#6 0.5700 2850 679.5 335.9
7#7 0.5716 2858 688.9 334.4
3/8 0.5735 2868 700.3 332.7
Figure 6. Life expectancy of several material-bonded steel for grounding
systems.
TABLE 2. PERFORMANCE OF GROUNDING SYSTEMS OF TYPICAL GROUND
CONDUCTOR TYPES AND SIZES – VOLTAGE DROP ALONG GROUND
CONDUCTORS IS NOT NEGLECTED – INJECTED CURRENT IS 5 KA. ADAPTED There are several purposes to increase the life expectancy of
FROM [8]
type and materials of buried conductors in grounding systems,
Ground
Max Touch Max Step in the order shown below:
Copper resistance GPR (V)
Voltage (V) Voltage (V)
(ohms) a) Resistant. Copper is corrosion resistant in most soils.
4/0 0.5698 2849 673.2 336.9 b) Prevention. Copper coating is designed to prevent
3/0 0.5716 2858 682.7 335.4
corrosion of the steel core.
c) Sacrifitial. Zinc coating will delay corrosion of the
2/0 0.5734 2867 692.2 333.9
steel core by providing a sacrificial barrier.
1/0 0.5754 2877 701.6 332.5
Ground
Max Touch Max Step XI. CONCLUSIONS
Copperweld resistance GPR (V)
Voltage (V) Voltage (V)
(ohms)
An approach to reduce copper theft in grounding
7#5 0.5722 2861 669.0 336.8 transmission lines is shown. The key issues are: (a) use
7#6 0.5747 2874 677.9 335.3 materials not so attractive to be stolen, specially all those
exposed and to be easily cut and removed, like theft deterrent
7#7 0.5775 2888 686.9 333.5 conductor by ERICO®, (b) Use suitable materials (copper-
3/8 0.5813 2907 697.6 331.6 bonded steel) to guarantee high conductivity and corrosion
NOTE: Voltage drop along the ground conductors (copper or copperweld ®) is
resistance, like CONDUCLAD® or COPPERWELD® (d)
practically negligible. apply fully the engineering design, especially the depth of

261
buried conductors, (e) Fix firmly all the buried components to
the soil, by using hard enhancing components and exothermic
welding, like GEM®, and (f), install the buried conductor
firmly to soil, by compacting several layers of soil in the
trench.
Antitheft grounding system arrangements installed in three
critical transmission line towers have worked properly for the
last two years, without any report of vandalism and theft. Still
the arrangements are monitored monthly in order to improve it
if necessary.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Authors thank to Mexican Power Electric Utility (CFE) to
be willing and open to apply the recommended measures
shown in this article by a pilot program still under assessment.

REFERENCES

[1] Jeremy Schoenfelder, “Options for Reducing Copper Theft”, Arizona

Department of Transportation (ADOT), Final Report 657, October 2009.
[2] Peter Tyschenko, Ron Riley and Curt Schultz, “Cutting Out Copper
Theft,” Transmission and Distribution World, Dec 1, 2010.
http://tdworld.com/overhead-distribution/cutting-out-copper-theft.
[3] ERITECH, Theft Deterrent Composite Cable, Technical Brochure,
http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/LT21426.pdf.
[4] IEEE Std 80-2000 (Revision of IEEE Std 80-1986). “IEEE Guide for
Safety in AC Substation Grounding”
[5] IEEE Std 837-2002 (Revision of IEEE Std 837-1989). “IEEE Standard
for Qualifying Permanent Connections Used in Substations Grounding”
[6] CONDUMEX, Conduclad Techical Brochure, In Spanish.
http://www.condumex.com.mx/ES/noticias_condumex_cables/Documen
ts/Folleto_conduclad_vff.pdf
[7] ERITECH, Ground Enhancement Material, Techical Brochure,
http://www.erico.com/products/gem.asp#
[8] A.P. Sakis Meliopoulos, G.J. Cokkinides, R. james, C. Syarif, D. Fox,
“Comparison of Grounding System Design Using Copper or
Copperweld Ground Conductors”, Power and Energy Society Meeting,
pp. 1-9, July 2012,
[9] Fushi Copperweld. http://www.fushicopperweld.com/.
[10] DÁlessandro F. and B. Baumgartner, “Experimental Evaluation of the –
Corrosion Performance of Cooper-Bonded and Galvanized Grounding
Electrodes, IAEI NEWS, pp. 78-87, Sept-Oct 2009.

262

View publication stats