Modelling of substation grounding grids
A. El-Morshedy, Ph.D., A.G Zeitoun, Ph.D., and M.M. Ghourab
Indexing terms: Modelling, Transmission and distribution plant, System protection
Abstract: The aim of this study is to perform scale model tests on various grounding grids with and without
ground rods to determine their effective resistance to ground and the surface potential distribution during
ground faults. The results obtained from the scale models will provide guidelines for accurate and safe design of
modern complex grounding systems of AC substations.
1 Introduction
In modern extra-high-voltage and ultrahigh-voltage AC
substations, grounding has become one of the dominant
problems of system design. It is essential to have an accu-
rate design procedure for the grounding system. Ground-
ing is of major importance to increase the reliability of the
supply service as it helps to provide stability of voltage
conditions, preventing excessive voltage peaks during dis-
turbances, and also a means of providing a measure of
protection against lightning.
It is required that the voltage rise during a fault be kept
to low levels. This dictates that ground resistances in high-
voltage substations must be very low. The most common
method of obtaining low values of ground resistance at
high-voltage substations is to use interconnected ground
grids. A typical grid system for a substation comprises 4/0
bare standard copper cable buried at a depth of from 30 to
60 cm parallel to the surface of the earth and spaced in a
grid pattern of about 3 to 10 m. At each junction of 4/0
cable, the cables are securely bonded together [1]. Such a
grid not only effectively grounds the equipment, but has
the added advantage of controlling the voltage gradients at
the surface of the earth to safe values for human contact.
Ground rods may be connected to the grid to have low
values of ground resistance when the upper layer of soil in
which the grid is buried is of much higher resistivity than
that of the soil beneath.
The best configuration of the grounding grid requires
studying the effect of the parameters usually encountered
in practice. Such parameters are the length of the ground-
ing grid, the number of meshes in the grid, the diameter of
the grounding conductor, the depth of burial of the grid
and the effect of using ground rods. It is impractical to
investigate the effect of these parameters on full-size grids
because of the lack of controlled conditions and variations
in soil resistivity at the site. Scale models offer a practical
and inexpensive alternative solution. Scale model tests are
generally employed to determine grounding resistance and
surface potential distributions during ground faults in the
case of complex grounding arrangements where accurate
analytical calculations are seldom possible [2-4].
The approximate formula for the percentage mesh
potential given in Reference 3 indicates that if all dimen-
sions of the grid are reduced by the same factor, the per-
centage mesh potential remains unchanged. The shape of
current and equipotential surfaces are unaltered. There-
fore, it is possible to simulate the actual grounding grids
with the help of scale models and the potential profiles
measured on a model may be used to determine the corre-
sponding potentials on a full-scale grid.
Paper 4670C (P8, P9), first received 6th January and in revised form 8th April 1986
Dr. El-Morshedy and Dr. Zeitoun are with the Department of Electrical Engineer-
ing, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. Mr. Ghourab is with
the Department of Electrical Engineering, Suez Canal University, Egypt
IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 133, Pt. C, No. 5, JULY 1986
2 Electrolytic tank
The dimensions of the electrolytic tank used for the experi-
ments are 1.70 m x 1.00 m x 1.10 m. The inner surface of
the tank is covered by a conducting sheath. Tap water has
been used as the electrolyte which serves as an adequately
conducting medium and represents homogenous earth. Its
electric resistivity, as determined by the 4-electrode
method, is 27 Qm.
The model grid was supported below the surface of the
electrolyte under tension so as to provide a horizontal
configuration with the minimum distortion and sag. Nylon
fish lines were attached to the grid, at different locations,
to maintain the regular shape of the grid. To take mea-
surements, a probe consisting of a copper wire inserted in
a plastic tube, for mechanical support, was used. Only the
tip of the wire was touching the surface of the water. The
probe was supported on a 'T'-shaped wooden frame which
rested on the edges of the tank and could be moved across
the surface of the electrolyte at a constant depth in a
straight line in any direction over any part of the grid.
Scales mounted along the tank edges permitted accurate
positioning of the grid and probe.
3 Experimental layout
The experimental layout is shown in Fig. 1. An alternating
current is used to avoid polarisation. The applied voltage
1 \JS
AC V C\
\
..water level
\£)
probe
r^.l
tank-
return m
electrode
Fig. 1 Experimental layout
to the model is obtained from a 220 AC source through a
variac. The magnitude of this voltage is kept constant
during the different tests.
By measuring the voltage applied to the model and the
current flowing through the electrolyte between the model
grid and the return electrode, the effective grid resistance
can be obtained. The potential of the test probe with
respect to the return electrode is monitored by a voltmeter
of a very high internal resistance.
287
4 Scale factor selection the centre of the mesh. The maximum percentage value of
EtOuch is given by
There are several points in choosing the proper scale factor
for the model grids. One of these is the maximum size grid F _
V -A — V •
grid mxn X <nn
which could be accommodated in a given size tank. h
touch - y 1UU

Another is the original specifications for this grid. grid

A scale factor of 100 :1 is a convenient choice for the
size of grid used. Typical grid conductors are made for 4/0
copper, with a diameter of 1.35 cm. The conductor diam-
eter of the model is 0.135 mm, but this size of wire is not
available and it is difficult to construct a model with this
small diameter. A few tests showed that it is not necessary
to scale the wire diameter by the same scale factor as the
other grid dimensions. This will be discussed later in
Section 6.4. As the wire diameter is always small compared
with the mesh spacing, a change in wire diameter has no
effect on the potential profiles. Thus all model grids are
made of 1 mm conductor diameter, which is available, and
it is also easy to build models with this diameter.
A few tests were carried out to determine the maximum
size of a model grid which can be used in the tank avoid-
ing the distortion of the electric field due to the tank walls.
It is concluded that the maximum size of the model grid
used must be 25 cm x 25 cm to minimise boundary effects
due to the tank walls.
where Vmin is the minimum surface potential.
The maximum step potential Estep occurs along the
diagonal just outside the grid where the slope of the
recorded surface potential against distance is maximum.
Both mesh and step potentials are normalised to the
grid potential so that the results may be compared to the
full scale case. The grid resistance is also inversely pro-
portional to the scale factor of the model. If a scale factor
of 100 is used, the resistance measured on the model will
be 100 times that which would exist in the full scale situ-
ation for the same ground resistivity.
Typical profiles for a 16-mesh grid of 10 cm x 10 cm,
1 mm conductor diameter, at a depth of 1 cm are shown in
Figs. 2 and 3 for the normal and diagonal profiles. The
surface potential is given as a percentage of applied grid
voltage and the horizontal axis is in cm measured from the
ABCDEF
i
1
i

85
5 Test procedures 80 !
vol tage

The grid was first installed and adjusted to the proper 75

depth. The grid was then energised and the voltages and 70
currents were monitored and the grid resistance could be
gri

65
obtained. The probe carriage was aligned over the centre o 60
line of the grid. The potential values were recorded at
intervals of 2 cm starting from the grid centre and ending 55
o
at approximately 10 cm outside the grid. The positions c 50
considered cover the area of one quarter of a grid, due to & 45
symmetry. a 40
U
o
35
6 Test results 30
25
For a scale factor of 100 :1, a variety of grids with outside 50 5 2.5 0 2.5 E 50
dimensions 10 m x 10 m, 20 m x 20 m, 25 m x 25 m and distance from grid centre line,cm
10 m x 20 m were modelled and tested in uniform soil. Fig. 2 Normal profiles of surface potential for a 16-mesh 10 cm x 10 cm
The effect of changing the parameters usually encountered grid, 1 mm conductor diameter, 1 cm depth
in practice was examined. These parameters include
number of meshes, depth of burial of the grid, grid conduc-
tor diameter and the effect of using ground rods with dif- /

ferent lengths. /

//
/ /
The maximum number of meshes for a model grid was / •
/

/
/

16 and the maximum length of the modelled ground rods /

was 7 cm. The maximum depth of the model grid was A B C D E F

4 cm, with the majority of the tests run at a depth of 1 cm. a, 80

For all grids tested, the applied voltage and current §* 75

were recorded in addition to the surface potential profiles. 1 70
The potential profiles were recorded along lines parallel to •o
the side of the grid, and along lines parallel to the diagonal S. 6 5
of the grid. The profiles are designated by the distance of 0 60
that profile from the centre line profile or from the diago- ? 55
o
nal profile. The location of the profiles were chosen such | 50
that maximum and minimum potentials throughout the 1 45
grid could be determined. §40
The maximum mesh potential is found at the point
% 35
within the grid boundary where the surface potential is in
lowest. The mesh potential is then the potential between 30
this point and the grid; it is in fact the touch potential, 50 5/2* 2.5/T 0 2.5/2" 5/2 50
Etouch, which would be experienced by a person standing at distance from centre line.cm
this point and touching some apparatus connected to the Fig. 3 Diagonal profiles of surface potential for a 16-mesh
grid. It is generally found in the corner mesh at a point in 10 cm x 10 cm grid, 1 mm conductor diameter, 1 cm depth

288 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 133, Pt. C, No. 5, JULY 1986

centre of the grid. From these figures, the maximum and
minimum potentials throughout the grid could be deter-
mined.
6.1 Effect of ground rods
Ground rods are of particular value when the upper layer
of soil in which the grid is buried is of much higher resis-
tivity than that of the soil beneath. There are two philos-
ophies in grid design. The first one recommends the
extensive use of ground rods in grids, practically one at
each cross connection [5]. The second trend in grid design
ignores the ground rods or, if necessary, a few ground rods
are installed.
To examine the effect of adding ground rods to the
grounding grid, a 16 mesh grid 10 cm x 10 cm with 25
ground rods of length 3 cm located at each conductor
junction, 1 mm conductor diameter at a burial depth of
1 cm was tested. Fig. 4 gives the normal profiles of surface
6.2 Effect of length of ground rods and number of
meshes
To determine the effect of length of ground rods and
number of meshes on grid resistance and maximum values
of touch and step potentials, a series of tests were per-
formed on a 20 cm x 20 cm grid, at a depth of 1 cm, with
either 4 or 16 meshes. The lengths of the tested ground
rods varied from 0 cm to 7 cm. The ground rods were
located at each conductor junction.
Fig. 5 shows the main diagonal potential profiles for a
model grid with different lengths of ground rods, whereas
Fig. 6 shows the diagonal profiles for square grids with
different number of meshes. Figs 7 and 8 illustrate the
80 r16mesh
75
§,70
| 65

1
1
f.50
.5 45
S 40
&35
II 3025
1

= 75 ABCDEF

I ?0
S> 6 5
50 10 0 10 50
distance from grid centre line.cm
3 60 Fig. 6 Diagonal profiles of surface potential for a 20 cm x 20 cm grid,
| * 55 with different number of meshes, 1 mm conductor diameter, 1 cm depth
1 50
8. A5
65

3 35 60

50 5 55
50
distance from grid centre line,cm 50
Fig. 4 Normal profiles of surface potential for a 16-mesh 10 cm x 10 cm
grid, with 25 ground rods of 3 cm length and 1.5 mm diameter, 1 mm con- 45
ductor diameter, 1 cm depth
40
potential as a percentage of applied grid voltage. From 35
Figs. 2 and 4, it is concluded that the addition of driven
rods will decrease the grid resistance by about 50%,
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
whereas the maximum value of touch potential decreases length of ground rods,cm
by 12%.
Fig. 7 Grid resistance against length of ground rods for a
20 cm x 20 cm grid, 1 mm conductor diameter, 1 cm depth
4 mesh
16 mesh
90 a*
en
85 O
40
en
O 75
80
1
'C 35
CT
1 70
"o 30
o> 65
o 60 25

55 20
o
c 50
15
& 45
m 10
u 40
35
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
30
50 10 0 10 -v-1 length of ground rods,cm
distance from grid centre line.cm 50
Fig. 8 Maximum touch potential against length of ground rods for a
Fig. 5 Diagonal profiles of surface potential for a 16-mesh 20 cm x 20 cm grid, 1 mm conductor diameter, 1 cm depth
20 cm x 20 cm grid, with ground rods of different lengths, 1 mm conductor 4 mesh
diameter, 1 cm depth 16 mesh

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 133, Pt. C, No. 5, JULY 1986 289

variation of grid resistance, maximum Etouch as a function It is concluded that the grid conductor diameter has a
of the number of meshes and the length of ground rods. small effect on the grid resistance and on the percentage
The values of Etouch are taken along the main diagonal of
the grid in the corner mesh.
It is concluded that the resistance of the grid decreases
with the increase of the length of ground rods. The
maximum value of Etouch decreases with the increase of the o

id vol
number of meshes and with the increase of the length of
75
ground rods.
70
o
6.3 Effect of grid depth 65
Tests to determine the effect of grid depth on grid per- g 60
formance, in uniform soil were conducted. The grids tested c 55
were 25 cm x 25 cm, with different numbers of meshes. o
o. 50
The grids were tested at depths of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0 cm.

face
Figs. 9 and 10 show the variations of the grid resistance, 45
40

50 50 10 0 10 50
distance from grid centre line,cm
45
Fig. 11 Diagonal profiles of surface potential for 4-mesh 20 cm x 20 cm
40 grid, with different conductor diameters, 1 cm depth

35
Table 1 : Effect of conductor diameter on the grid per-
30 formance
Grid conductor Grid resistance % Etouch % Estep
« 25
diameter, mm Q
20 0.5 62.78 33.5 11.0
0 1 2 3 4 1.0 62.2 32.0 9.5
depth of grid ,cm 2.0 59.3 31.5 9.0
Fig. 9 Grid resistance against grid depth for a 25 cm x 25 cm grid, with
different number of meshes, 1 mm conductor diameter
touch and step potentials. Thus the effect of conductor
4 mesh
16 mesh diameter can be neglected.

5 6.5 Comparison between the effect of ground

rods and the additional horizontal conductors
£ 50 The effects of ground rods against the additional horizon-
tal conductors on the grid resistance, maximum values of
i 45 touch and step potentials were investigated. Scale model
3 grids of 20 cm x 20 cm with 4 and 16 meshes. For the
u 40 4 mesh model grid, ground rods of 7 cm length were added
5 35 at each conductor junction.
A comparison of these test results is presented in
E 30 Table 2. It is concluded that, for approximately the same
I«
a Table 2: Effect of ground rods against additional horizontal
1
conductors for a 20 cm x 20 cm grid
e 20
depth of grid,cm 16-mesh 4-mesh

Fig. 10 Maximum touch potential against grid depth for a length of ground rods, cm 0 7
25 cm x 25 cm grid, with different number of meshes, 1 mm conductor diam- Total conductor length, cm 200 183
eter gr,d
51.8 42
4 mesh Maximum Etouc 32 25
16 mesh

maximum touch potentials against grid depth and number
of meshes. These curves indicate that these quantities are
inversely related to the depth of the grid and the number
of meshes.
6.4 Effect of conductor diameter
To determine the effect of increasing the grounding grid
conductor diameter on the grid resistance and the percent-
age touch and step potentials, a 20 cm x 20 cm, 4-mesh
square grid with different conductor diameters was tested.
The potential profiles for grids with 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 mm
conductor diameters are plotted in Fig. 11. Table 1 gives
the values of grid resistance and maximum values of touch
and step potentials for the tested grids.
290
length of conductor, ground rods are more effective in
terms of reducing the grid resistance and maximum value
of touch potentials than adding horizontal conductors.
6.6 Rectangular grids
A series of tests were performed for 10 cm x 20 cm rec-
tangular model grids with rectangular meshes. Fig. 12
gives the normal profiles for a 16 mesh grid with 1 mm
conductor diameter, at a depth of 1 cm.
Table 3 gives the values of resistance and maximum
touch potentials for 10 cm x 20 cm model grids with dif-
ferent numbers of meshes. It is seen that the grid resistance
and maximum touch potential decrease with the increase
in the number of meshes.
IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 133, Pt. C, No. 5, JULY 1986
Table 3: Dependence of grid performance on number of and those obtained from model tests for 25 m x 25 m
meshes for rectangular grids, 10 cm x 20 cm grids, buried at a depth of 1 m, with different numbers of
Number Grid Maximum touch 0.8
of meshes resistance, Q potential, % of
grid voltage
4 70 32
8 68 30.5
16 66.7 28.7
BD F
I1

80
i
75
70
65
60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
55 number of meshes along one side
g 50 Fig. 13 Grid resistance against number of meshes for a 25 m x 25 m
a* grid with experimental and theoretical methods
45
I (i) Schwarz
40 (ii) Laurent
35 (iii) Recent Laurent
(iv) Koch
30 (v) J. Nahman
50 5 2.5 0 2.5 5 50 (vi) Scale model
distance from grid centre line,cm
55r
Fig. 12 Normal profiles of surface potential for 16-mesh 10 cm x 20 cm
rectangular grid, 1 mm conductor diameter, 1 cm depth 50

0i 45
o>
7 Comparison between model tests a
and theoretical equations 75 40

A comparison between experimental and theoretical •o 35

C7I
results of the grid resistance and mesh potential was "o 30
carried out to obtain the nearly accurate theoretical
method which can be used.
Some analytical methods using simplified equations are 1 "
| 20
used [6-8] to obtain the resistances of 25 m x 25 m o
Q.
square grids with different numbers of meshes, at a depth r. 15
of 1 m. The resistivity considered was that of water. Scale
E 10
model tests on these grids were performed, and the resist-
ance values are obtained for different numbers of meshes.
By dividing these values by the scale factor, the full scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
resistance values are obtained. number of meshes along one side
Table 4 presents a comparison of the grid resistances Fig. 14 Corner mesh potential against number of meshes for a
25 m x 25 m grid, with experimental and theoretical methods
Table 4: Comparison between theoretical and experimental # Thapor eqn.
values of resistance O scale model
Grid resistance, Q
meshes is given in Fig. 14. It is noticed that the scale
Number of Schwarz Laurent recent Koch J. Nahman Scale model values are higher by about 8%.
meshes Laurent model
1 0.54 0.747 0.594 0.594 0.648 0.518
4 0.536 0.658 0.540 0.594 0.567 0.493
16 0.527 0.585 0.498 0.594 0.513 0.443 8 Conclusions
64 0.513 0.538 0.467 0.594 0.474 0.424
During these investigations experimental methods are used
to calculate resistance, mesh and step potentials for several
obtained from model tests and simplified equations. grounding grids, with and without ground rods, at differ-
Fig. 13 shows the results obtained from model tests and ent depths, number of meshes, and different grid conductor
theoretical equations for 25 m x 25 m grids, buried at a diameters.
depth of 1 m. It is noticed that the values of resistance (i) The resistance of the grid decreases with increasing
obtained using recent Laurent equation is the closest one the number of meshes. The decrease is quite rapid at the
to the values obtained from model tests, the percentage beginning but slow when the number of meshes exceeds
deviation is about 9%higher than the experimental values. 16; a better way of reducing the resistance is to increase
The mesh potential can be obtained mathematically as the area enclosed by the grid. Also the values of mesh and
a percentage of the grid potential rise by the Thapor equa- step potentials are inversely related to the number of
tion [3]. A comparison between these theoretical values meshes.
IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 133, Pt. C, No. 5, JULY 1986 291
 (ii) The grid resistance, mesh and step potentials are
slightly reduced with the increase of conductor diameter,
but the variation is small for sizes of conductor that would
be used.
(iii) Addition of driven rods to the grid decreases the
resistance, but if the grid area is increased, the addition of
rods do not help to decrease the grid resistance. Also mesh
and step potentials are decreased with increasing the
length of ground rods.
(iv) The grid resistance, mesh and step potentials are
decreased with increasing the burial depth of grid.
(v) Additional conductors in the form of ground rods
are more effective in improving grid performance com-
pared with additional horizontal conductors.
9 Acknowledgment
The authors appreciate the facilities made available in the
High Voltage Laboratory, University of Cairo, and the
Book Review
Short-circuit currents in three-phase systems
Richard Roeper
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, John Wiley & Sons, 1975,
167pp., £17.95
ISBN 0-471-90707-3
In the design of electrical machines and power systems an
essential element is the calculation of the maximum cur-
rents likely to occur due to short-circuit faults. This book
provides a logical and systematic approach to short-circuit
analysis for the practising engineer based on the Verband
Deutscher Electrotechniker (VDE) regulations.
It commences with a section describing the transient
short-circuit currents which occur during the period from
fault initiation until the steady-state fault condition is
reached. A single-phase, constant voltage system is con-
sidered initially with the short circuit remote from the gen-
erator. The loaded and unloaded cases are described
before the analysis is extended to the three-phase situation
with short circuits close to the generator. Fault currents in
interconnected systems and the short-circuit characteristics
of various motor loads are then described.
A brief introduction to symmetrical components follows
and the positive, negative and zero sequence impedances
presented by various power system devices are detailed.
The symmetrical component method is then applied to the
determination of fault currents in a range of unbalanced
systems. These calculations are made with and without
taking the system load into account, in the latter case
using a method based on the VDE recommendations
which is simple to apply. A series of asymmetrical short-
circuit fault situations are next analysed using symmetrical
component theory applied to a simple generator/
transformer/transmission line circuit. The formulas
required to calculate the initial short-circuit currents are
deduced for a range of fault situations. Useful graphical
results are presented, comparing various short-circuit cur-
292
assistance they received with the experiments from the
technical staff.
10 References
1 'IEEE Guide for safety in alternating-current substation grounding'
IEEE no. 80, 1961
2 ARMSTRONG, H.R., and SIMPKIN, L.J.: 'Grounding electrode
potential gradients from model tests', Trans. Amer. Inst. Electr. Eng.,
1960, PAS-79, pp. 618-623
3 THAPAR, B., and PURI, K.K.:'Mesh potentials in high-voltage
grounding grids', IEEE Trans., 1967, PAS-86, pp. 249-254
4 CALDECOTT, R., and KASTEN, D.G.: 'Scale model studies of
station grounding grids', IEEE Trans., 1983, PAS-102, pp. 558-566
5 JENCEN, C : 'Grounding principles and practice, II—Establishing
grounds', Electr. Eng., 1945,64, pp. 68-74
6 SCHWARS, S.J.: 'Analytical expressions for the resistance of ground-
ing systems', Trans. Amer. Inst. Electr. Eng., 1954, PAS-73, pp. 1011-
1016
7 LAURENT, P.G.: 'General fundamentals of electrical grounding tech-
niques', translated from Bull. Soc. Fr. Electr., 1957,1, pp. 368-402
8 NAHMAN, J., and SKULETICH, S.: 'Resistances to ground and mesh
voltages of ground grids', Proc. IEE, 1979,126, (1), pp. 57-61
rents for a range of zero-to-positive sequence impedance
ratios and phase-angle differences.
A section follows on the calculation of the impedances
of synchronous machines, asynchronous motors, trans-
formers and various power system components including
cables and overhead lines. A useful table of equivalent cir-
cuits for two- and three-winding transformers for positive,
negative and zero sequence systems is given, and examples
of meshed systems with multiple infeeds are shown.
The short-circuit impedances of various fault systems
met with in practice are also listed and these form a useful
reference source.
The whole text is based on the VDE Regulations 0102
Parts 1/11.71 and 2/11.75 which require the use of an
equivalent voltage source, and the author includes a com-
prehensive array of circuits incorporating this idea.
Although neglecting resistance can simplify matters, the
use of a programmable calculator enables the complex
impedance terms to be easily included in short-circuit cal-
culations.
The author concludes with a brief section on digital
computer calculation of short-circuit currents. It would
have added greatly to the usefulness of the text had this
section been expanded to include a selection of modern
analytical methods. However, the extensive use of worked
examples coupled with the tables of characteristic values of
the parameters of a range of synchronous generators,
transformers and other equipment make this book an
extremely useful source of data.
The VDE regulations are based on electrical practice in
Germany and may be at variance with other countries'
systems, particularly with respect to neutral earthing.
However, if these differences are borne in mind and some
variations in notation are accepted, this book should be of
great value to all power systems engineers.
N.M. LEVY
4738C
IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 133, Pt. C, No. 5, JULY 1986