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

net/publication/234116820

Analysis of earth resistance of electrodes and soil resistivity at different

environments

Conference Paper · November 2012

DOI: 10.1109/ICLP.2012.6344314

CITATIONS READS

7 2,110

4 authors:

Lee Weng Choun Chandima Gomes

MMC Gamuda University of the Witwatersrand
2 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS    344 PUBLICATIONS   4,361 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Zainal Kadir Wan Fatinhamamah Wan Ahmad

Universiti Putra Malaysia Universiti Putra Malaysia
475 PUBLICATIONS   4,291 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   235 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Experts for Africa - Graduate Training EE, HV, lightning and electromagnetic compatibility View project

Lightning Safty View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chandima Gomes on 01 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2012 International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), Vienna, Austria
Analysis of Earth Resistance of Electrodes and Soil
Resistivity at Different Environments
Lee Weng Choun
CELP, Electrical & Electronic Engineering Dept
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Serdang, Malaysia
wengchounlee@gmail.com
Chandima Gomes
CELP, Electrical & Electronic Engineering Dept
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Serdang, Malaysia
chandima@eng.upm.edu.my
Abstract— Theoretical calculations have been done for
determining the low frequency earth resistance of a set of
individual electrodes, once the electrode dimensions, installation
geometry and soil resistivity profile are given. Accuracy of
theoretical estimations was tested by taking measurements of 25
electrodes installed at various soil conditions and environments.
It has been found that in most of the site locations, especially
vegetation and built-up environments, model predictions deviate
considerably from measured values. Three dimensional soil
resistivity map of a given land mass is essentially needed in
predicting the final earth resistance of a given electrode system.
Existing models are not able to produce the large variation in
earth resistance, specifically due to the non-uniformity of soil
resistivity and probably due to the contact resistance between
electrode and surrounding soil. The outcome of this study will
immensely be helpful in designing earthing systems for a given
installation even at pre-construction stage.
Keywords-ground resistance; grounding; environmental
factors; electrode; soil resistivity; contact resistance, vegetation
I. INTRODUCTION
Designing of an earthing electrode system to meet required
low frequency earth resistance is one of the biggest challenges
that an electrical engineer encounters. Based on various
electrical engineering standards the limiting earth resistance
that should be achieved for a given installation differs. This
limiting value may vary from 10 Ω for most of the lightning
protection to as low as 1 Ω for substations and large scale
switch yards, while for telecommunication systems a middle
value; 5Ω or 3Ω; is recommended [1-5].
Most often engineers use their long term experience or
trial-and-error techniques to determine the suitable electrode
system. However, such methodology sometimes leads to high
cost and practical complexities as either the system is under-
designed, needing more electrodes or over-designed wasting
material and labour. Grounding system designs that deviate
very much from practically achievable ground resistance
Mohd Zainal Abidin Ab Kadir
CELP, Electrical & Electronic Engineering Dept
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Serdang, Malaysia
mzinal@eng.upm.edu.my
Wan Fatinhamamah Wan Ahmad
CELP, Electrical & Electronic Engineering Dept
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Serdang, Malaysia
wanfatin@eng.upm.edu.my
parameters may quite be problematic in cases such as on the
rock tower sites in remote areas, as the repeated delivery of
materials and site accessing is restricted due to various
constraints [6]. Under such circumstances it is highly
necessary to have accurate set of models to determine the
electrode configuration, once the soil resistivity profile and
required limiting earth resistance is given. It is also required to
find the optimum solution for a given system (power, signal,
lightning protection etc) that will have minimum material cost
without compromising the safety. Such requirement arises as
the same limiting earth resistance can be achieved for a given
installation by different electrode arrangements. The models
developed need verification of their predictability in a real
situation and investigation on various other factors (presence
of vegetation, built-in environment, contact resistance,
seasonal variation etc.).
In this study we investigate many of the above issues with
a view of developing a set of models to pre-determine the
required earth electrode design for a given installation.
II. METHODOLOGY
Equations developed previously and published in literature
have been used to calculate the variation of earth resistivity for
many different combinations of electrode length and cross
section, number of electrodes and their orientation, soil
resistivity profile, buried depth etc.
Following the calculations, the validity of outcome has
been checked by taking earth resistance of earth electrodes at
different locations. The locations selected are
a. large open spaces with nearly uniform soil surface soil
resistivity profile
b. land plots near built-in areas (close to buildings with
varying depth of foundation)
c. land plots in the proximity of vegetation (large trees
and thick shrubs).
 The soil resistivity profile of the selected site has been
measured by a 4-pole ground resistivity meter (MEGER
DET5/4R). Measurements were repeated for better accuracy.
Earth resistance measurements of the electrodes were taken by
a digital earth resistance meter KYORITSU MODEL4105A,
which works on fall of potential techniques. Each
measurement was repeated in perpendicular directions and the
average value has been taken for analysis. To determine the
effect of electrode-soil contact resistance, for selected number
of electrodes the measurements were repeated on daily basis
for a period of three weeks.
In this paper we present only the results obtained with
single deep driven rods installed at various locations. The
theoretical equation developed in the literature [7] for the
estimation of grounding resistance of such electrodes is

7 cm

Where:
R = resistance of the single electrode, Ω
L = length of electrode, m
a = radius of electrode, m
= soil resistivity, Ω m
Steel rods bonded with 250 micron layer of copper have
been used as earth electrodes (Fig. 1). each rod has length
1.65m and diameter 13mm. Twenty five rods were installed at
five sites (five rods at each site). The rods were forced driven
into the earth using hammers. Rods have been installed at
buildup environment (manmade structures), natural
environment (vegetation and water masses such as lakes and
ponds) and open area. Installation was done in such that 7 cm
segment of the upper part of the rod protrudes above ground
level for measurement purposes (Fig. 2). An exposed part of
the rod was covered after taking the measurements to prevent
rainwater from contaminating with the electrode.
Figure 2. The buried rod before covering the exposed part with
metal can for protecting from rain.
The five sites where the measurements have been taken are
detailed below.
Site-1: A land adjacent to a large water mass (artificial lake)
and a small building complex. It is flat lowland which
temporarily floods during heavy rain (Fig.3).
Site-2: A land next to a large building complex from one side
and the rod. A small lake is situated within about 100 m. This
is also lowland subjected to temporarily flooding during the
rainy season (Fig.4).
Site-3: A barren land on a hill. From the site, there are about
100 m to the nearest building. It composed of very dry rocky
soil. Except for few low-height bushes there are no vegetation
in the area (Fig.5).

Site-4: Flat lowland with dry rocky soil. No building within

about 150 m. Except for a solitary low-height tree there are no
vegetation in the proximity (Fig.6)

Site-5: Lowland with medium-height vegetation in the

surrounding (Fig.7)

At each site average soil resistivity has been obtained by

13mm by taking readings in three directions using the maximum
possible span within the area where the rods are installed. To
find the resistivity of soil close to a rod, the measurements
have been taken across a line that runs through the relevant
rod.
Fig. 3-7 depict site view, google map and map with
approximate dimensions respectively for each site.
1.65m

Figure 1. Copper bonded steel rods used as earth electrodes .

 Lake

Site 1

Built up area by the

time measurements
were taken

Library of Engineering and Architecture UPM

B4 2.2m
Lake in 33.2m
faculty of 0.5m
A3 16.6m 3.4m
5.5m
engineering
(UPM)
18.1m 9.1m Academic 0.4m B5
Complex B1 B3 4.2m
10.4m 16m
17m
A1 A4
3m
1.3m
45.1m

8.2m 13.4m 11m

8m
6.4m
B2
A2 2m
2.6m
5.6m A5
1.6m

Walkway

Figure 3. Site-1. A1-A5 are Road

positions of electrodes Figure 4. Site-2. B1-B5 are positions of electrodes
 lllllllllllll

Banquet Hall

Hill

1.3m C3 4m
C2 11.8
m
14.4m
Slope

17.7
C1
m
2.8m
14m
C5 16.4m 6m
C4
1.5m
6.7m 2m 5m
D1 4.5m
D2
9m 7m
24m
D3
Solar Panel
10.7m
2.6m
14.8m D5
D4

Figure 4. Site-3. C1-C5 are positions of electrodes Figure 5. Site-4. D1-D5 are positions of electrodes
 III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The resistivity of the soil was measured from 2 m to 10 m

at each site by 2 m steps increments. The soil resistivity
showed a considerable variation with depth. The difference
between the two extremes at a given location was as low as
50% to as high as 500%. However, as none of the standards
or research papers indicate any specification of the depth at
which the soil resistivity to be taken into account, we
considered the soil resistivity at 2 m depth which is the closest
to the depth of the electrodes. The average soil resistivity
values of the five sites are given below

Location Average soil resistivity (Ω m)

Site-1 32
Site-2 43
Site-3 1685
Site-4 184
Site-5 442
The specific resistivity close to a given electrode (ρs) and
average site resistivity (ρa) for each electrode at each site are
compared in fig.6 to fig.10. Note that curves joining the points
have no significance other than highlighting the fluctuation.
The percentage difference (Δρ) of resistivity in each case is
calculated by the equation.

Values of Δρ pertinent to each electrode are also given

alongside the graphs. The graphs show that within few tens of
meters the soil resistivity may vary considerably. The
percentage variation has no relevance to the average soil
resistivity. At each site there was at least one location at which
the magnitude of Δρ is on or above 50%. The fluctuation of
values shows that the behavior of soil resistivity at a given
location is highly unpredictable when average soil resistivity
is available as the only site parameter.
MDTC In order to find a relationship between soil resistivity and
its neighbourhood we analyzed Δρ with respect the following
4.15m four cases (Table I). The closeness was considered as equal or
E1 less than 5 meters. This is only an arbitrary selection. Note
9.7m 8.6m 2.23m S
i that some locations belong to more than one case.
g

E3 13.6
E2 1.2m
n
B
a. Close to built up area
13.9 m o
a
b. Close to vegetation
E5 m r
d c. Close to water mass
4.6m E4
4.6m d. Away from any of the above.

TABLE I. ΔΡ OF LOCATIONS DEPENDING ON THEIR PROXIMITIES

a b c d
65% 9% 28% 45% -36% 47%
50% 81% 3% 84% -23% 26%
28% 3% -22% -19% 45%
7% -31% -28%
Figure 5. Site-4. D1-D5 are positions of electrodes 18% -16% -65%
35% -74% -14%
 Comparison of ρs (red) and ρa (blue) Comparison of ρs (red) and ρa (blue)
400
70 Δρ 339 Δρ
58 350

Soil resistivity, ρ (Ωm)

60 53
Soil resistivity, ρ (Ωm)

47 A1: 47% 300 D1: -36%

50 A2: 9% 250 217 D2: 84%
35 33 184 184 184 184
40 A3: 65% 200 D3: 18%
30 A4: 81% 150 D4: -31%
184
32 32 32 32 32 100 155
20 A5: 3% D5: -16%
117 126
10 50
0
0
0 2 4 6
0 2 4 6 Earth electrode D1-D2
Earth electrode A1-A5

Figure 6. Comparison of ρs and ρa at Site-1 Figure 9. Comparison of ρs and ρa at Site-4

Comparison of ρs (red) and ρa (blue) Comparison of average and specific soil

70 63 61 600 resistivity
Δρ Δρ
Soil resistivity, ρ (Ωm)

Soil resistivity, ρ (Ωm)

60 53 442 442 566 442 442

500
50 42 42 42 42 B1: 50% E1: 35%
400 442
40 B2:26% 454 E2: -74%
42 300
30 34 B3: -22% 342 E3: 28%
33 200 289
20 B4: -19% E4: 3%
114
10 B5: 45% 100 E5: -23%
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Earth electrode B1-B5 Earth electrode E1-E2
Figure 7. Comparison of ρs and ρa at Site-2 Figure 10. Comparison of ρs and ρa at Site-5

Comparison of ρs (red) and ρa (blue) Table I shows a detectable pattern of variation. In both cases
2000 of near the water and near the built up area soil resistivity
1685 1685 1685 1685 1685 Δρ shows higher values than the average soil resistivity for the
Soil resistivity, ρ (Ωm)

site. Near vegetation, six out of seven cases shows soil

1500 1798 C1: -28% resistivity values less than the average value. If we eliminate
C2:-65% location B5 which belong to both near vegetation & near
1458
1000 1295 C3: -30% water, in six out of seven cases, the soil resistivity decreases as
1219 one moves towards vegetation. As we suspect both cases of
C4: 7% near water and near built-up area, soil may be loosely bound.
500 C5: -14% Hence the resistivity shows a higher value compared to the
585 site average. On the other hand in the case of vegetation soil
may be compact due to the action of the roots. Vegetation may
0
also promote high moisture content which may reduce the soil
0 2 4 6 resistivity. While we present these trends of soil resistivity
Earth electrode C1- C2 based on the environmental factors, we emphasize the need of
further investigations to draw more formidable conclusions in
Figure 8. Comparison of ρs and ρa at Site-3 this regard.
The measured values of earth resistance of electrodes (Rm)
were then compared with calculated values of the same (Rc)
using the equation
For each electrode RC was calculated twice, one with average
soil resistance and then soil resistivity at the location as an
input parameter. Hence two values were calculated for the ΔR
for each electrode. Results are depicted in fig.11 to fig.15.
Note that in this case too, curves joining the points have no
significance other than highlighting the fluctuation.

ΔR at each electrode where ΔR at each electrode where

Rc is calculated by ρs Rc is calculated by ρa
50%
46% 20%
11% 11% 12%
40% 10%
30% 0%
ΔR%

ΔR%
32%
-10% 0 2 4 6
20%
18% -20%
10% 15%
-30% -21%
0% 9% -32%
-40%
0 2 4 6
Earth electrode A1- A5 Earth electrode A1-A5
Figure 11. ΔR for each electrode at Site-1where Rc is calculated by considering ρs and ρa as soil resistivity

ΔR at each electrode where ΔR at each electrode where

Rc is calculated by ρs Rc is calculated by ρa
20% 40%
10% 3% 16% 26% 19%
9% 20%
0% 0%
-4%
ΔR%

-10% 0 2 4 6
ΔR%

-20% 0 -32% 2 4 6
-20% -40% -19%
-36%
-30% -60%
-66%
-40% -80%
Earth electrode B1-B2 Earth electrode B1-B5

Figure 12. ΔR for each electrode at Site-2 where Rc is calculated by considering ρs and ρa as soil resistivity

ΔR at each electrode where ΔR at each electrode where

Rc is calculated by ρs Rc is calculated by ρa
80% 100%
67% 77%
60% 80%
ΔR%

34% 60% 76%

40%
ΔR%

41%
34% 40% 50%
20% 44%
27%
20% 30%
0%
0 2 4 6 0%
Earth electrode C1-C5 0 2 4 6
Earth electrode C1-C5
Figure 13. ΔR for each electrode at Site-3where Rc is calculated by considering ρs and ρa as soil resistivity
 ΔR at each electrode where ΔR at each electrode where
Rc is calculated by ρs Rc is calculated by ρa
40% 50%
27% 27% 14%
20% 34%
0%
0% 21% 0 2 4 6
-20% 0 2 4 6 -50%
ΔR%

ΔR%
-27%
-15%
-40% -100%
-60% -39%
-150%
-80%
-87% -155%
-100% -200%
Earth electrode D1-D2 Earth electrode D1-D2

Figure 14. ΔR for each electrode at Site-4where Rc is calculated by considering ρs and ρa as soil resistivity

ΔR at each electrode where ΔR at each electrode where

Rc is calculated by ρs Rc is calculated by ρa
40% 100% 76%
25%
20% 34%
5% 50%
-1% 23%
0%
ΔR%

ΔR%

0 2 4 6 0%
-20% 0 2 4 6
-15% -14%
-40% -50%
-47%
-47%
-60% -100%
Earth electrode E1-E2 Earth electrode E1-E2

Figure 15. ΔR for each electrode at Site-2where Rc is calculated by considering ρs and ρa as soil resistivity

Deviation of Rc from Rm as shown in Fig. 11 – 15 indicates
that irrespective of considering average soil resistivity of the
site or soil resistivity specifically close to the electrode, the
calculated earth resistance of an electrode by the empirical
equations given in the literature has large variation from the
measured values. Interestingly in some cases the calculated
value may be higher or lower than the measured value
depending on what soil resistivity parameter has been used in
the calculation. However, in the comparison of extreme cases;
cases where ρs is considered for calculations there were 11
cases where ΔR is less than 20% and only two cases ΔR where
is greater than or equal to 50%. The same two parameters for
cases ρa is considered for calculation are seven and six
respectively. This shows that using the soil resistivity at the
location close to the electrode gives marginally better
estimation when the earth resistance of the electrodes are
calculated using the empirical formula. However, a larger
sample is required to make solid conclusion in this regard as
well.
There are no apparent relationships to the values of ΔR and
the location, in either cases of using ρa or ρs in calculating Rc.
However, it is of interest to investigate how these observation
will change (or remain the same) as the depth of the electrode
increases.
It should be noted that the above observations may also be
affected by soil compactness which in turn determines the
contact resistance between the earth electrode and the
surrounding soil. Loosely bound soil may give poor contact,
increasing the overall earth resistance of the electrode.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
One of the basic drawbacks of empirical formulae
developed in the literature in calculating the earth resistance of
grounding systems is the non-specification of what soil
resistivity to be used as the input parameter. In a given site the
soil resistivity varies with depth as well as location. Hence the
even at a given depth the average soil resistivity at a site and
soil resistivity in the proximity of any specific location may
have a difference over 50%.
Our investigations show that the soil resistivity at a given
location has some dependence to the environmental factors.
Soil resistivity within about 5 m from water masses and built-
up area may have higher soil resistivity than the respective
average values of the site. In contrast, close to vegetation the
local soil resistivity tends to be less than the average resistivity
of the site. Somewhat similar observations have been made
earlier as well [8].
No matter whether ρa or ρs, has been used, the calculated
earth resistance of an electrode by the empirical equations may
have large deviation from the corresponding measured value.
However, marginally more accurate results can be obtained by
using ρs instead of ρa.
Apparently there is no correlation between the percentage
difference between the measured and calculated earth
resistance, Δ, and the location of the electrode, irrespective of
of using ρa or ρs in calculating Rc.
The above observations should be further investigated with
larger sample size. The readings should also be repeated after
about one year to investigate the effects of soil compactness
which may affect the contact resistance of the electrode and
the surrounding soil. However, with information available so
far, it can firmly be confirmed that there are many flaws in the
empirical formulae, in their present state, in calculating
accurate estimation of earth resistance of a given electrode.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research has been supported by Grant No: 05-01-11-
1195RU/F-RUGS. Facilities provided by the Department of
Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Universiti Putra
Malaysia is greatly acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] IEC 62305: Protection against lightning, 2006
[2] IEEE SDT-142 (Green Book), IEEE Recommended Practice for
Grounding of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems, 2007
[3] IEEE Guide for safety in AC substation grounding, IEEE Std.80-2000
[4] ITU-T REC K.27:1996, Bonding configuration and earthing inside a
telecommunication building, 1996
[5] ITU-T REC K.31:1993, Bonding configuration and earthing inside a
subscriber’s building, 1993
[6] C. Gomes and A G Diego, “Lightning protection scenarios of
communication tower sites; human hazards and equipment damage”,
Safety Science, Vol. 49, 1355–1364, 2011
[7] Elya B. Joffe, Kai-Sang Lock. “Ground for Grounding”, A Circuit-to-
System Handbook. Wiley, IEEE, 2010
[8] Yamaura, I.; Tanaka, K.; Yajima, M.; Takahashi, N.; Yamada, K.; , "An
estimation method of ground resistance of trees growing in different
lands," Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference,
2002. IMTC/2002. Proceedings of the 19th IEEE , vol.2, no., pp. 949-
952 vol.2, 2002.

View publication stats