Performance Testing of Different Grounding Systems
S. Saleh, D. Jewett, and J. Cardenas A. Al-Durra and S. Kanukollu
2022 IEEE/IAS 58th Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference (I&CPS) | 978-1-6654-0918-6/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICPS54075.2022.9773920
M. Valdes S. Panetta
ECE Department, UNB Advanced Power & Energy Center ABB Industrial Solutions I-Gard Corporation
Fredericton, NB, Canada Khalifa Uni., Abu Dhabi, UAE
asaleh@unb.ca; djewett3@unb.ca ahmed.aldurra@ku.ac.ae
jcardena@unb.ca saikrishna.kanukollu@ku.ac.ae marcelo.valdes@us.abb.com spanetta@ieee.org
Abstract—This paper presents a performance comparison of the
solid, low impedance, high impedance, frequency-selective, and
isolated grounding systems. A grounding system (for any power
system component) is designed as an impedance (Z̄G ) that connects
the neutral point to the ground. The impedance Z̄G is constructed
using a combination of R, L, and C elements. The values and
combination type (series or parallel) of R, L, C, determine the
possible influence of Z̄G on ground currents and potentials. Each
grounding system is related to a system voltages level, a specific
combination of R, L, C, and a range of R, L, C values. The solid,
low impedance, high impedance, frequency-selective, and isolated
grounding systems are designed for laboratory 3φ transformer and
3φ synchronous generator in order to compare their influences
on ground currents and potentials during ground faults. The
transformer and generator are tested for line-to-ground and double
line-to-ground faults with all designed grounding systems. Test
results show that some grounding systems can reduce ground
currents only, while others can reduce ground potentials only. Such
capabilities can be used to fulfill certain system and operation
requirements (e.g. service continuity, ground capacity, etc.).
Index Terms—power system grounding, grounding system de-
signs, power system ground faults, and power system protection.
I. I NTRODUCTION
A. General
A proper grounding system design (for any power system)
aims to reduce voltage and thermal stresses created by faults,
increase personnel safety, minimize the interference on commu-
nications systems, provide a non-damaging path for lightning
strikes, support the function of ground fault protection, and
improve the power quality [1]–[6]. These objectives can be
translated into the need for reducing ground currents and
potentials during fault and non-fault (harmonics flow to the
ground, and circulating ground-neutral currents for systems
with multiple sources) conditions. A grounding system can be
designed as a solid grounding (SG), a low-impedance ground-
ing (LIG), a high-impedance grounding (HIG), a frequency-
selective grounding (FSG), and an isolated grounding (IG) (also
known as ungrounded) [6]–[10].
The majority of grounding system design objectives can
be met by the IG and HIG [11]–[13]. However, the IG and
HIG may fail to support the function of the ground fault
protection due to the significant reduction of ground currents
[14]–[19]. The SG, LIG, and FSG can support the function
of ground protection, but they may fail to prevent thermal
damage to equipment [1]–[4], [20], [21]. Ground faults (line-to-
ground and double line-to-ground faults) can be experienced by
different power system components (transformers, generators,
motor drives, etc.). These undesired events can adversely impact
faulted components, equipment, and instrumentation [1]–[3].
Furthermore, ground faults can initiate rapid increases in ground
potential, which may lead to transient over-voltages on the
Authorized licensed use limited to: Francisco Guillen. Downloaded on June 04,2022 at 11:31:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Cary, NC Mississauga, ON
USA Canada
un-faulted phase(s) [4]–[7]. In some cases, ground faults can
also evolve into arcing current faults that may create additional
damages and safety risks [15]–[19]. Such adverse impacts of
ground faults can be minimized by an adequate design of a
grounding system that is capable of influencing ground currents
and potentials [5].
B. Features and Capabilities of Grounding Systems
Several designs of grounding systems have been developed
and deployed in power systems. These designs can offer differ-
ent levels of influence on ground currents and potentials during
ground fault events. The diverse features and capabilities of
grounding system designs suggest the need to introduce system
operation constraints, such as [1]–[7]:
• the service continuity;
• the ground capacity (maximum current to flow to the
ground);
• the cost and maintenance;
• the harmonic and circulating currents through the ground.
The following paragraphs overview the grounding system de-
signs that are used in medium voltage systems.


In systems with an isolated grounding Z̄G = ∞ , the neutral
point is viewed to be connected to the ground through the sys-
tem equivalent parasitic capacitance (non-physical connection)
[1], [2]. Ground faults in systems with an IG initiate ground
currents, whose magnitudes depend on the fault impedance, z F ,
and zero-sequence component of the system capacitance, x C0 .
These systems can remain operational (continue their service)
during sustained ground faults [4]–[8]. However, ground faults
in systems with an IG may trigger high transient voltages that
may excite arcing currents. Moreover, voltage transients may
fuel over-voltage in the un-faulted phase(s) [5]. In addition, the
IG can make it difficult to locate ground
faults. 
In systems with a solid grounding Z̄G = 0 , the neutral
is directly connected the ground. The SG allows connecting
multiple neutrals to the same grounding point [16], [17]. When
a SG is used, ground faults can trigger ground currents with
high magnitudes that can cause equipment damage. Responses
to such faults may lead to service interruption, the duration
of which can be reduced by deploying automatic multishot-
reclosers [9], [12], [13]. The use of SG can minimize the
possibility of transient over-voltage experienced by non-faulty
phase(s). Furthermore, the SG is found effectively capable of
supporting the operation of the ground fault protection [1], [2],
[5]. However, the SG does not offer any reductions on ground
currents triggered by ground faults, thus increasing the risk of
equipment damage. In addition, systems with a SG are prone to
have ground faults that can quickly evolve into arcing current
faults [9].
 In systems with a low impedance grounding, the neutral is The achievement of these objectives support the following
connected to the ground through a low-impedance resistor or contributions:
inductor to create Z̄G . The value of Z̄G is selected to limit i) An experimental testing of grounding systems to demon-
ground currents, during ground faults, to 100 A for low voltage strate their capabilities and features.
systems, and 400 A for medium voltage systems [1]–[6]. The ii) A performance comparison between grounding systems.
LIG can effectively reduce equipment thermal stress during
ground faults, and support the function of ground fault protec- II. D ESIGNING G ROUNDING S YSTEMS FOR A 3φ
tion. This grounding system design can reduce ground potentials T RANSFORMER AND A 3φ G ENERATOR
and minimize the possibility for transient over-voltages. The The capabilities and features of the IG, SG, LIG, HIG, and
LIG is popular in industrial plants and distributed generation FSG are evaluated and compared for a 3φ synchronous genera-
units [10]. The main disadvantages of LIG include the ratings, tor and a 3φ transformer. These grounding systems are designed
size, cost, high maintenance requirements, and possible needs for the test transformer and generator. The specifications for the
for tripping upstream circuit breakers (CBs) [5], [6]. test 3φ generator and 3φ transformer are provided in the next
In systems with a high impedance grounding (HIG), the subsection.
neutral is connected to the ground through a high-impedance
resistor or inductor to create Z̄G . The value of Z̄G is selected A. Data for the Tested Components
to limit ground currents, during ground faults, to 10 A for low The test 3φ generator is a laboratory 4 kVA 3φ synchronous
voltage systems and 25 A for medium voltage systems [6]. Some machine, whose parameters are listed in Table I.
industrial practices recommend the value of Z̄G to be selected
equal to the total system equivalent capacitive impedance x C . TABLE I
The HIG can offer service continuity during ground faults with PARAMETERS FOR THE T EST 3φ S YNCHRONOUS G ENERATOR
low magnitude ground currents. This grounding system design
Rated Power 4.0 kVA
can also reduce the transient over-voltages, and can be used with Rated Voltage 208 V
grounding transformers [6]. Nonetheless, the HIG has limited Number of Poles 4
support for locating ground faults, and may not be effective in Rated Frequency 60 Hz
supporting the function of ground fault protection [5]. x1 2.66 Ω
r1 0.45 Ω
In systems with a frequency-selective grounding, the neutral x2 2.93 Ω
is connected to the ground through a parallel R − C circuit r2 0.80 Ω
to create Z̄G . The value of the resistive part (r G ) is selected x0 1.80 Ω
r0 0.48 Ω
to limit ground currents similar to the LIG, and the value Configuration Y -Connected
of capacitive part (c G ) is selected to have an impedance of Inertia H 0.193 sec.
xcG = 5rG [10], [12]. The FSG can be deployed for low and
This generator is grid-connected through a short cable that has
medium voltage systems that may have harmonic distortions
a negligible capacitance (x C0 ≈ ∞).
(e.g. battery storage systems). This grounding system design
The test 3φ transformer is a 35 kVA, 3φ, 60 Hz, core-type,
offers support to functions of ground fault protection, along with
power transformer that is fed by a 3φ supply with an accessible
an effective reduction of voltage transients during ground faults.
neutral and ground points [22]. The data for this transformer is
Moreover, the FSG can reduce ground currents during faults,
provided in Table II.
thus reducing the thermal stresses on grounded equipment. The
cost and maintenance are the main disadvantages for the FSG
TABLE II
[5], [10]. PARAMETERS FOR THE T EST 3φ T RANSFORMER

C. Objectives and Contributions Rated Power 35.0 kVA

Rated Voltage 380/208 V
The overview of grounding system designs has highlighted
Rated Frequency 60 Hz
the capabilities and features of each grounding system design. x1 3.28 Ω
The variety of such capabilities and features provides options r1 0.66 Ω
for accommodating the requirements and operational constraints x2 3.33 Ω
r2 0.90 Ω
mandated by grounded components and equipment. Further- x0 2.94 Ω
more, the various capabilities and features of grounding systems r0 0.53 Ω
can be considered for changing and upgrading existing ground- Configuration ∆−Y
ing systems. This paper intends to experimentally test different The cable connecting the primary side of the test 3φ transformer
grounding system designs, and assess their performance. The to the supply is a short cable with x C0 ≈ ∞. The grounding
objectives of this paper can be summarized as: capacity in the testing laboratory is 300 A.
• to evaluate the performance of grounding systems during
ground faults; B. The Design of the LIG, HIG, and FSG



• to compare the performance of grounding systems in terms The designs of a SG Z̄G = 0 and IG Z̄G = ∞ do not
of ground currents and potentials; involve specifying a value for Z̄G . The LIG is
designed
 by
• to examine the impacts of grounding systems on the selecting a value for its grounding impedance Z̄G
to limit
grounded equipment during non-fault conditions. the ground current to 100 A for a low-voltage (LV). Since the

Authorized licensed use limited to: Francisco Guillen. Downloaded on June 04,2022 at 11:31:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.


test transformer and generator have their voltage ratings as LV, with rGff being the resistive part of the FSG impedance Z̄Gff .
the value of Z̄G
has to limit the maximum ground current The aforementioned discussion leads to stating the following
(|iG |max ) to 100 A. The LIG can be designed as a low-resistance equations for determining r gff and CGff :
or a low-inductance as:  
0.4VP = |iG |max Z̄Gff  (11)
• A low-resistance:
VP
VP |iG |max = (12)
|iG |max = ≤ 100 (1) rGff
rG
xGff = 8rGff (13)
where VP is the line-to-neutral voltage, and r G
is the
The solution of these equations provides r Gff ≥ 1.84 Ω and
low-resistance of the LIG. The voltage ratings of the test
CGff ≤ 181.19 µF.
generator and transformer is 208 V (line-to-line), which
simplifies equation (1) to: III. H ARDWARE -I N -T HE -L OOP T EST R ESULTS
208 The Hardware-In-the-Loop (HIL) testing was conducted us-
√ ≤ 100 =⇒ rG
≥ 1.21 Ω (2)
3rG
ing the dSPACE MicrolabBox (ds1202) platform. This platform
compiled models created using the real-time interface (RTI), and
• A low-inductance:
executed them using field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs)
VP [23], [24]. Tested faults were created by circuit breakers (CBs)
|iG |max = ≤ 100 (3)
xG
that were activated with pulses generated by the ds1202 plat-
form. Voltages, currents, and ground potentials were collected
Substituting for VP simplifies equation (3) to:
using analog output ports of the ds 1202 platform, and were
208 collected using digital oscilloscopes. All HIL tests were con-
√ ≤ 100 =⇒ xG
≥ 1.21 Ω (4)
3xG
ducted with a time step of 20 µsec. Several faults were created
on the secondary side of the test 3φ transformer, and on the
The value of the LIG inductance L G
is determined as: terminals of the test 3φ synchronous generator. These tests were
xG
created for both tested components, as they were grounded using
LG
= =⇒ LG
≥ 3.2 mH (5)
2π60 different grounding system designs (as described in Section II).

 The following subsections present and discuss sample HIL test
The HIG can be designed with a grounding impedance Z̄Ghh
results. It should be noted that all line-to-ground faults were
to limit the ground current to 25 A. Similar to the LIG, the HIG
created as phase A-to-ground, while all double-line-to-ground
can be designed as either a high-resistance or a high-inductance
faults were created as phase B-to-phase C-to-ground faults.
as:
These settings were made to support a fair comparison between
• A high-resistance: the different tested grounding system designs.
VP
|iG |max = ≤ 25 (6) A. 3φ Transformer Testing
rGhh
These tests were created with secondary side grounded using:
where rGhh is the high-resistance of the HIG. Substituting
• A low resistance grounding (LRG): designed as a LIG;
for VP simplifies equation (6) to:
• A low inductance grounding (LXG): designed as a LIG;
208 • A high resistance grounding (HRG): designed as a HIG
√ ≤ 100 =⇒ rGhh ≥ 4.80 Ω (7)
3rGhh • A high inductance grounding (HXG): designed as a HIG
• A frequency selective grounding (FSG);
• A high-inductance: • A solid grounding (SG);

VP • An isolated grounding (IG).

|iG |max = ≤ 25 (8)
xG
The design of the LIG and HIG has been discussed in Section
II. The transformer was kept at 60% of its rated power, and all
Substituting for VP simplifies equation (8) to: tested ground faults were created with a fault impedance z̄ F =
208 0. The following test cases are sample cases to demonstrate
√ ≤ 25 =⇒ xGhh ≥ 4.80 Ω (9) the impacts of ground faults created with different grounding
3xGhh
systems.
The value of the HIG inductance L Ghh is determined as: Phase A-to-Ground Fault with LRG
xGhh The objective of this test was to examine the impacts of a line-
LGhh = =⇒ LGhh ≥ 12.70 mH (10) to-ground fault on the 3φ transformer, when grounded using a
2π60
LRG. This test was conducted as the 3φ transformer supplied
The FSG is designed as a parallel R − C circuit to limit
a linear (R − L) load. The phase A-to-ground fault was created
|iG |max to 66 A, and a ground potential |v G |max to 0.4VP [12].
on the secondary side of the test 3φ transformer. Fig. 1 shows
The value of the capacitance C Gff is selected as [10]:
the secondary side 3φ line voltages, 3φ currents, phase A
8 current, ground potential, and ground current (flowing through
CGff = the LRG).
2π60rGff

Authorized licensed use limited to: Francisco Guillen. Downloaded on June 04,2022 at 11:31:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 1. The phase A-to-ground fault on the terminals of the 3φ transformer
secondary side, when grounded with a LRG: (a) the 3φ line voltages, voltage
scale 300 V/Div. (b) the 3φ currents, current scale is 80 A/Div, (c) phase A
current, ground current, and ground potential, iA scale is 80 A/ Div, iG scale
80 A/Div., and vG scale is 300 V/Div. The time scale is 40 msec./Div.
The results in Fig. 1 show that the solid line-to-ground fault,
with the LRG resulted in transient changes in the voltages and
currents. The phase A-to-ground fault caused a severe reduction
in vAB , an over-voltage in v BC , and minor decrease in v CA ,
as shown in Fig. 1 (a). Furthermore, the tested ground fault
triggered large increases in i A and iB , and slightly decreased
iC (see Fig. 1 (b)). The solid line-to-ground fault also resulted
in high ground current i G and a small increase in the ground
potential vG , as could be seen from Fig. 1 (c). The results of this
test demonstrated that the LRG was able to reduce the ground
current that was triggered by the tested fault. However, the LRG
was not able to eliminate the ground potential that caused v BC
to reach more than 140% of its pre-fault value.
Phase B -to-Phase C -to-Ground Fault with IG
This HIL test aimed to examine the impacts of a solid double
line-to-ground fault, which was created on the secondary side
of the test transformer. The secondary side of the transformer
was with an isolated grounding. This test was conducted as the
transformer supplied a dynamic load (a 3φ induction motor).
Fig. 2 shows the secondary side 3φ line voltages, 3φ currents,
faulted phase B current, ground potential, and ground current.
It could be seen from Fig. 2 (a) that the double line to ground
Authorized licensed use limited to: Francisco Guillen. Downloaded on June 04,2022 at 11:31:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 2. The phase B-to-phase C-to-ground fault on the terminals of the
3φ transformer secondary side, with isolated grounding (IG): (a) the 3φ line
voltages, voltage scale 300 V/Div. (b) the 3φ currents, current scale is 80 A/Div,
(c) phase B current, ground current, and ground potential, iB scale is 80 A/
Div, iG scale 80 A/Div., and vG scale is 300 V/Div. The time scale is 40
msec./Div.
fault significantly reduced the line voltages v BC and vCA . The
phase B-to-phase C-to-ground fault resulted in large increases
in iB and iC , with minor changes in i A , as shown in Fig.
2 (b). The tested ground fault eliminated the ground current,
while allowing the ground potential to increase (see Fig.2 (c).
The results of this test demonstrated that the IG allowed v G to
increase, which triggered a transient over-voltage in v AB .
Phase A-to-Ground Fault with FSG
This HIL test aimed to examine the impacts of a line-to-
ground fault on the secondary side of the 3φ transformer,
when grounded using a FSG. This test was conducted as the
3φ transformer supplied a dynamic load. Fig. 3 shows the
secondary side 3φ line voltages, 3φ currents, phase A current,
ground potential, and ground current flowing through the FSG.
One could see from Fig. 3 that the solid phase A-to-ground
fault on the secondary side, with a FSG, created transients in
voltages and currents. The tested line-to-ground fault signif-
icantly reduced v AB , increased vBC (over-voltage), and de-
creased vCA , as shown in Fig. 3 (a). The phase A-to-ground
fault triggered large increases in i A , with small changes to
Fig. 3. The phase A-to-ground fault on the terminals of the 3φ transformer
secondary side, when grounded using a FSG: (a) the 3φ line voltages, voltage
scale 300 V/Div. (b) the 3φ currents, current scale is 80 A/Div, (c) phase A
current, ground current, and ground potential, iA scale is 80 A/ Div, iG scale
80 A/Div., and vG scale is 300 V/Div. The time scale is 40 msec./Div.
iB and iC (see Fig. 3 (b)). The tested solid ground fault also
resulted in a high ground current i G with a medium increase in
vG , as shown in Fig. 3 (c). The results of this test demonstrated
that the FSG was able to reduce i G (relative to the SG), and
limit vG (relative to the IG). However, medium changes could
be observed in v BC and vCA .
Phase A-to-Ground Fault with SG
This HIL test aimed to examine the impacts of a line-to-
ground fault on the secondary side of the 3φ transformer, which
was grounded using a SG. This test was conducted as the 3φ
transformer supplied a linear (R − L) load. Fig. 4 shows the
secondary side 3φ line voltages, 3φ currents, phase A current,
ground potential, and ground current flowing through the SG.
Fig. 4 shows that the solid phase A-to-ground fault on the
secondary side, with a SG, created transient changes in voltages
and currents. The tested fault significantly reduced v AB , and
slightly decreased vBC and vCA (see Fig. 4 (a)). The phase
A-to-ground fault triggered large increases in i A , with minor
changes in iB and iC , as shown in Fig. 4 (b). The solid line-
to-ground fault also resulted in a very high ground current i G
without changes in the ground potential v G , as could be seen
from Fig. 4 (c). The results of this test demonstrated that the SG
Authorized licensed use limited to: Francisco Guillen. Downloaded on June 04,2022 at 11:31:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 4. The phase A-to-ground fault on the terminals of the 3φ transformer
secondary side, when grounded with a SG: (a) the 3φ line voltages, voltage
scale 300 V/Div. (b) the 3φ currents, current scale is 80 A/Div, (c) phase A
current, ground current, and ground potential, iA scale is 80 A/ Div, iG scale
80 A/Div., and vG scale is 300 V/Div. The time scale is 40 msec./Div.
was able to eliminate ground potentials, thus no over-voltage in
vBC and vCA . However, the SG was not able to limit or reduce
the ground current i G triggered by the phase A-to-ground fault.
B. 3φ Synchronous Generator Testing
The HIL tests of the 3φ synchronous generator were created
with the stator grounded using the LRG, LIG, HRG, HIG, FSG,
and IG (as designed in Section II). During these tests, the 3φ
synchronous generator was grid-connected and delivered 60%
of its rated power at a power factor PF = 0.87 lagging. All
ground faults on the terminals of the 3φ synchronous generator,
were created as solid faults (i.e the fault impedance Z̄F = 0).
The following test cases are sample cases to show the impacts of
ground faults, when created with different grounding systems.
Phase A-to-Ground Fault with HRG
The objective of this test was to examine the impacts of a
line-to-ground fault on the terminals of the 3φ synchronous
generator, when grounded using a HRG. Fig. 5 shows the stator
3φ line voltages, 3φ currents, phase A current, ground potential,
and ground current flowing through the HRG.
The results in Fig. 5 demonstrate that the solid phase A-to-
ground fault on the terminals of the 3φ synchronous generator,

Fig. 5. The phase A-to-ground fault on the terminals of the synchronous
generator, when grounded with a HRG: (a) the 3φ line voltages, voltage scale
300 V/Div. (b) the 3φ currents, current scale is 80 A/Div, (c) phase A current,
ground current, and ground potential, iA scale is 80 A/ Div, iG scale 80 A/Div.,
and vG scale is 300 V/Div. The time scale is 40 msec./Div.
created transients in stator voltages and currents. The tested
fault significantly reduced v AB , slightly decreased v BC , and
significantly increased v CA (see Fig. 5 (a)). The phase A-to-
ground fault triggered a large increase in i A , a big reduction
of iB , and an increase in i C , as shown in Fig. 5 (b). The solid
line-to-ground fault also resulted in a very small ground current
iG with a large increase in the ground potential v G , as could be
seen from Fig. 5 (c). The results of this test demonstrated that
the HRG was able to significantly reduce the ground current
that was triggered by the fault. However, the large increase in
vG resulted in an over-voltage experienced by v CA .
Phase B -to-Phase C -to-Ground Fault with FSG
This HIL test aimed to assess the impacts of a double line-to-
ground fault on the terminals of the 3φ synchronous generator,
when grounded using a FSG. The stator 3φ line voltages, 3φ
currents, phase A current, ground potential, and ground current
flowing through the FSG, are shown in Fig. 6.
The results in Fig. 6 show that the solid double line-to-
ground fault on the terminals of the 3φ synchronous generator
(with the FSG) caused in abrupt variations in stator voltages
and currents. The phase B-to-phase C-to-ground fault caused a
Authorized licensed use limited to: Francisco Guillen. Downloaded on June 04,2022 at 11:31:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 6. The phase B-to-phase C-to-ground fault on the terminals of the
synchronous generator, when grounded with a FSG: (a) the 3φ line voltages,
voltage scale 300 V/Div. (b) the 3φ currents, current scale is 80 A/Div, (c)
phase B current, ground current, and ground potential, iB scale is 80 A/ Div,
iG scale 80 A/Div., and vG scale is 300 V/Div. The time scale is 40 msec./Div.
severe reductions in v BC and vCA , and an over-voltage in v AB ,
as shown in Fig. 6 (a). The tested ground fault triggered large
increases in iB and iC , and a minor increase in i A (see Fig. 6
(b)). The solid double line-to-ground fault also resulted in high
ground current i G and a small increase in the ground potential
vG , as could be seen from Fig. 6 (c). The results of this test
demonstrated that the FSG was able to limit the ground current
(lower than that with a SG). However, the FSG was not able to
completely eliminate the ground potential, which caused v AB
to reach more than 120% of its pre-fault value.
Phase B -to-Phase C -to-Ground Fault with LXG
The objective of this test was to examine the impacts of a double
line-to-ground fault on the terminals of the 3φ synchronous
generator, when grounded using a LXG. Fig. 7 shows the stator
3φ line voltages, 3φ currents, phase A current, ground potential,
and ground current (flowing through the LXG).
Fig. 7 shows that the solid double line-to-ground fault on
the terminals of the 3φ synchronous generator (with the LXG),
caused transient changes in stator voltages and currents. The
phase B-to-phase C-to-ground fault resulted in severe reduc-
tions in vBC and vCA , and an over-voltage in v AB (see Fig. 7
(a)). This solid ground fault caused large increases in i B and
 TABLE III
S UMMARY OF G ROUNDING S YSTEM I MPACTS ON G ROUND C URRENTS ,
G ROUND V OLTAGES , AND OVER -V OLTAGES , D URING S OLID G ROUND
FAULTS
Grounding System
iG [p.u] vG [p.u] Over-Voltage [%]
Design
Line-to-Ground Fault
SG 2.4 0.0 0.0
LRG 1.7 0.3 25.0
LXG 1.6 0.2 22.0
FSG 1.6 0.2 17.0
HRG 0.3 0.8 135.0
HXG 0.2 0.7 125.0
IG 0.0 1.1 167.0
Double Line-to-Ground Fault
SG 2.6 0.0 0.0
LRG 1.9 0.4 35.0
LXG 1.8 0.3 30.0
FSG 1.7 0.2 22.0
HRG 0.3 0.9 145.0
HXG 0.3 0.8 138.0
IG 0.0 1.1 167.0

The data in Table III shows a variety of impacts on the

Fig. 7. The phase B-to-phase C-to-ground fault on the terminals of the
synchronous generator, when grounded with a LXG: (a) the 3φ line voltages,
voltage scale 300 V/Div. (b) the 3φ currents, current scale is 80 A/Div, (c)
phase C current, ground current, and ground potential, iC scale is 80 A/ Div,
iG scale 80 A/Div., and vG scale is 300 V/Div. The time scale is 40 msec./Div.
iC , and a slight increase in i A as shown in Fig. 7 (b). The phase
B-to-phase C-to-ground fault also caused a significant increase
in the ground potential v G , while limiting the ground current
iG as could be seen in Fig. 7 (c). The LXG grounding was
able to significantly reduce the ground current, however, it was
not able to limit the ground potential to prevent over-voltage in
VAB . The ground potential v G resulted in vAB to have 130%
of its pre-fault value.
The HIL test results obtained from ground faults in a 3φ
transformer and a 3φ synchronous generator, have demonstrated
different impacts of grounding systems. These impacts have
been quantified by the ground currents, ground voltages, and
over-voltages triggered by solid ground faults for each ground-
ing system. These results have provided several observations,
which are summarized as in Table III. The data in Table III
was calculated as the following:
• The values of i G , vG , and over-voltage were calculated
as the average value of those measured from the 3φ
transformer and 3φ synchronous generator.
• The base value for i G , vG and over-voltage was taken as
the rated current and line voltage of the 3φ transformer
and 3φ synchronous generator.
ground current i G , ground potential v G , and over-voltage by
different grounding systems during ground faults. These impacts
 
are directly related to the equivalent grounding impedance Z̄G ,
which has direct influences on i G and vG . On one hand,
grounding systems with high Z̄G  are able to significantly
reduce iG , thus minimizing possible damages due to ground
faults. Nonetheless, such grounding systems can not reduce
vG , and may fail to prevent over-voltages.
 On the other hand,
grounding systems with low Z̄G  can not effectively reduce i G ,
and may not prevent damages due  to ground faults. However,
grounding systems with low Z̄G  can reduce vG , and prevent
over-voltages.
IV. C ONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented performance results for various
grounding system designs during ground faults. Performance
testing has been focused on the abilities of grounding systems to
influence ground currents and potentials. Such influences are of
remarkable interests to support and facilitate the stable, reliable,
and functional operation of any power system. The influence of
any grounding system on ground currents and potentials are
 
 grounding impedance Z̄G .
directly related to its equivalent
 
Grounding systems with low Z̄G (SG, LRG, LXG, and FSG)
can effectively minimize ground potentials and reduce possible
over-voltages. However, SG, LRG, LXG, and FSG can not limit
ground currents, and may not prevent equipment damage or pos-
sible arcing current faults. Grounding systems with high Z̄G 
(IG, HRG, and HXG) can effectively minimize ground currents
and reduce possible equipment damage. Nevertheless, IG, HRG,
and HXG can not reduce ground potentials, and may not be
able to eliminate over-voltages. These abilities of grounding
systems have made their use recommended for different systems
and equipment. For example in medium voltage (MV) systems,
HRG is widely used. The LRG and LXG are used in generator
grounding, while the FSG is widely used for grounding grid-
connected power electronic converters. Performance assessment
of various grounding system designs has shown the different
impacts on ground potentials and currents, which further help
employing grounding systems in industrial applications.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Francisco Guillen. Downloaded on June 04,2022 at 11:31:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 R EFERENCES Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference (I&CPS),
Niagara Falls, ON, pp. 1–9, 2018.
[1] IEEE Recommended Practice for System Grounding of Industrial and [23] Power System Toolbox User Guide. Natick, MA: MathWorks, 2017.
Commercial Power Systems, IEEE Std. 3003.1-2019. [24] Digital Signal Processing and Control Engineering, dSPACE Gmbh, Pader-
[2] IEEE Recommended Practice for Protection and Coordination of Industrial born, Germany, 2019.
and Commercial Power Systems (IEEE Buff Book), IEEE Std. 242-2001.
[3] IEEE Guide for the Application of Neutral Grounding in Electrical Utility
Systems, Part V-Transmission Systems and Subtransmission Systems, IEEE
Std. C62.92.5-2009.
[4] IEEE Standard for Interconnection and Interoperability of Distributed
Energy Resources with Associated Electric Power Systems Interfaces, IEEE
Std. 1547-2018.
[5] S. A. Saleh, D. Jewett, and S. Panetta, “Features and Capabilities of
Grounding System Designs,” In Proc. of the 58th IEEE IAS Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference (I&CPS), Las Vegas, NV,
pp. 1-10, May 2022.
[6] M. Fulczyk and J. Bertsch, “Ground-Fault Currents in Unit-Connected
Generators with Different Elements Grounding Neutral,” IEEE Trans. on
Energy Conversion, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 61–66, 2002.
[7] S. A. Panetta, “Hybrid Grounding of Electrical Systems,” IEEE Trans. on
Industry Applications, Vol. 53, No. 6, pp. 6033–6037, 2017.
[8] J. Rorabaugh, A. Swisher, J. Palma, G. Andaya, M. Webster, B. Kirkpatrick,
B. Garcia, M. Harrington, M. Hughes, A. Fresquez, A. Ojeda, J. Park, and
T. Tran, “Resonant Grounded Isolation Transformers to Prevent Ignitions
From Powerline Faults,” IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 36, No. 4,
pp. 2287–2297, 2021.
[9] J. P. Nelson, J. D. Billman, J. E. Bowen, and D. A. Martindale, “The Effects
of System Grounding, Bus Insulation, and Probability On Arc Flash Hazard
Reduction—Part 2: Testing,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, Vol. 51,
No. 3, pp. 2665–2675, 2015.
[10] S. A. Saleh, “On the Design and Capacity of a Grounding Configuration
for Grid-Connected DGUs,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, Vol. 51,
No. 6, pp. 5366–5375, 2015.
[11] J. M. Guerrero , G. Navarro, K. Mahtani, and C. A. Platero, “Ground Fault
Detection Method for Variable Speed Drives,” IEEE Trans. on Industry
Applications, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 2547–2558, 2021.
[12] S. A. Saleh, X. F. St-Onge, C. Richard, E. Ozkop, and S. A. R. Panetta,
“The Design and Testing of a Frequency-Selective Grounding for 3φ Power
Transformers,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, Vol. 56, No. 1,
pp. 74–87, 2020.
[13] M. Yousaf, A. Jalilian, K. M. Muttaqi, and D. Sutanto, “An Adaptive
Grounding Scheme for Synchronous-Based DG to Prevent the Generator
Damage and Protection Malfunctioning During Ground Faults Under Dif-
ferent Operating Modes,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, Vol. 57,
No. 3, pp. 2307–2316, 2021.
[14] A. Kotsonias, M. Asprou, L. Hadjidemetriou, and E. Kyriakides, “State
Estimation for Distribution Grids With a Single-Point Grounded Neutral
Conductor,” IEEE Trans. on Instrumentation and Measurement, Vol. 69,
No. 10, pp. 8167–8177, 2020.
[15] E. R. Collins and J. Jiang, “Analysis of Elevated Neutral-to-Earth Voltage
in Distribution Systems With Harmonic Distortion,” IEEE Trans. on Power
Delivery, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 1696–1702, 2009.
[16] G. Parise, L. Parise, L. Martirano, F. Tummolillo, G. Vagnati, and A. Bar-
resi, “Tests and Monitoring of Grounding Systems in HV/MV Substations,”
IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 929–935, 2017.
[17] G. Parise, L. Parise, and L. Martirano, “Intrinsically Safe Grounding
Systems and Global Grounding Systems,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Ap-
plications, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 25–31, 2018.
[18] M. E. M. Rizk, M. Lehtonen, Y. Baba, and S. Abulanwar, “Performance
of Large-Scale Grounding Systems in Thermal Power Plants Against
Lightning Strikes to Nearby Transmission Towers,” IEEE Trans. on Elec-
tromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 400–408, 2019.
[19] G. Cafaro, P. Montegiglio, F. Torelli, A. Barresi, P. Colella, A. De Simone,
M. . Di Silvestre, L. Martirano, E. R. Morozova, R. Napoli, G. Parise,
L. Parise, E. Pons, E. R. Sanseverino, R. Tommasini, F. Tummolillo, G.
Valtorta, and G. Zizzo, “Influence of LV Neutral Grounding on Global
Earthing Systems,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, Vol. 53, No. 1,
pp. 22–31, 2017.
[20] A. Nikander, “Development and Testing of New Equipment for Faulty
Phase Earthing by Applying RTDS,” IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery,
Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 1295–1302, 2017.
[21] M. Popov, L. Grcev, H. Kr. Hoidalen, B. Gustavsen, and V. Terzija, “Inves-
tigation of the Overvoltage and Fast Transient Phenomena on Transformer
Terminals by Taking Into Account the Grounding Effects,” IEEE Trans. on
Industry Applications, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp. 5218–5227, 2015.
[22] S. A. Saleh, X. F. St. Onge, C. Richard, E. Ozkop, K. McDonald, and
S. Panetta, “Impacts of Grounding and Winding Configurations on Voltage
Harmonics in 3φ Power Transformers,” In Proc. of the 54rd IEEE IAS

Authorized licensed use limited to: Francisco Guillen. Downloaded on June 04,2022 at 11:31:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.