AbstractThis paper presents a substation grounding grid

analyzed with the variation of soil layer depth. The grounding

grid system of a practical 22 kV substation, in which the ground
grid is made from copper, is calculated by virtue of the CDEGS
software. The study, supported by Provincial Electricity
Authority (PEA), Thailand, is based the on grounding system of
Royal Flora RATCHAPHRUEK substation. The supporting soil
resistivity data has been obtained from actual field tested at the
substation.
The result has shown that soil resistivity at the substation was
interpreted to a two-layer earth structure. Moreover, the burial
depth of the grid affects the Ground Potential Rise (GPR) to
some extent as well as the ground rod, connected with the grid,
and also plays an important role in GPR reduction. In case that
the top soil-layer resistivity is more than the bottom-layer, the
ground grid with and without ground rod will greatly reduce the
value of GPR. On the contrary, in case that the top soil-layer
resistivity is less than the bottom-layer resistivity, the ground
grid with and without ground rod will slightly reduce the value of
GPR. This indicates that the current density over the grid affects
directly to the current distribution to the soil layer. Therefore,
the design and construction of grounding grid in the area which
the top soil-layer resistivity is less than the bottom-layer
resistivity, can lessen the number of ground rod used in the grid
because the value of GPR is insignificantly different. Finally, the
deeper the grid buries in the layer, the less of the GPR value is.


Index TermsGrounding, Ground Potential Rise, Resistivity,
Ground Grid, Ground Rod, CDEGS

I. INTRODUCTION

HE effect of fault-produced ground potential rise can
directly result in a mistaking operation, damaging of
equipment or human safety [1].Ground grid is mostly done at
the beginning stage of substation design and, firstly, its design
purpose is considered well for both the human safety and
equipment protection [2-4]. Hence, the ground grid design
plays an important role in substation design and one of the
most important concerned factors is the soil structure analysis.



A. Puttarach and N.Chakpitak are with Department of Electrical
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai,
50200 Thailand (e-mail : Arm_Arwut@hotmail.com , nopasit@camt.info).
T. Kasirawat and C.Pongsriwat are with PEA (Provincial Electricity
Authority), Chiang Mai, 50000 Thailand (e-mail : tirapong.kas@pea.co.th ,
chotepong.pon@pea.co.th).
However, after the analysis was done, the number of soil
layer, the soil layer thickness as well as the soil characteristic
must be clearly shown [5-9].
Due to the different in soil characteristics at each
substation, ground grid designation must carefully be done to
gain acceptable safety as well as optimal investment. From the
past, ground grid design without rods and with rods was
carried out. In fact, a vertical rod is more effective electrode
than a horizontal rod[10-11], in this study, the rod length is
varied to determine the influence of rod length on GPR,
furthermore, when the soil structure is two-layer structure, the
optimum ground layer depth and rod length for ground grid
must be determined to gain safety and proper investment [8].
Therefore, the study of ground grid buried in each layer depth
is done to determine the effect of GPR.

II. SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
A. Resistivity Measurements
The method mostly used method to determine the soil
resistivity depth is the four-point method. Wenner method,
(see Figure 1). The four rods are arranged with the same
spacing a, five measurements with the spacing a = 2 m, 4, 8,
16 and 32 m are carried out, b is the depth of the electrodes in
m. For each measurement a current I is injected between the
probes C
1
and C
2
and the voltage between P
1
and P
2
is
measured [5].


(a) (b)

Fig. 1 (a) Principle diagram of an earthing tester. [4]
(b) Current injection into the soil. [4]

The resistivity in the terms of the length units in which a
and b are measured is:

Substation Grounding Grid Analysis with the
Variation of Soil layer depth Method
A. Puttarach, N. Chakpitak, T.Kasirawat, and C. Pongsriwat
T

2 2 2 2
4
2
1
4
a
aR
a a
a b a b
t
=
+
+ +
(1)

It should be noted that this does not apply to ground rods
driven to depth b; it applies only to small electrodes buried at
depth b, with insulated connecting wires. However, in
practice, four rods are usually placed in a straight line at
intervals a, driven to a depth not exceeding 0.1 a. Then we
assume b = 0 and becomes [2],[5]:

2
a
aR t = (2)

And gives approximately the average resistivity of the soil to
the depth a.
B. Two-Layer Soil Apparent Resistivity
A resistivity determination using the Wenner-method (see
Figure 2) result in an apparent resistivity which is a function
of the electrode separation, a in terms of the above parameters
the apparent resistivity (
a
) can be shown to be:


Fig. Two-Layer Earth.

Where
h First layer height.

1
First layer resistivity, in Om

2
Deep layer resistivity, in Om
1
2 2
1
1 4
1 2 4 2
n n
a
i
K K
h h
n n
a a


=
| |
|
|
= +
|
|
| | | |
+ +
| | |
\ . \ .
\ .

(3)

A two-layer soil model can be represented by an upper
layer soil of a finite depth above a lower layer of infinite
depth. The abrupt change in resistivity at the boundaries of
each soil layer can be described by means of a reflection
factor. The reflection factor (see Figure 3), K, is defined by
Equation (4) [11].

2 1
2 1
K

=
+
(4)

C. Parametric Analysis of Grounding Systems of the Two-
Layer Soil
In case of Two-layer soil, substation grounding systems
must be carefully designed by the safety reason. Some of
these basic factors include Ground grid, rods as well as
combination of both grid and rods have also directly
influence on performance of the grounding systems[13].
From IEEE 80-2000 : Guide for safety in AC Substation
Grounding standard [2], discussions of how the grid buried
in each layer affect the value of GPR are summarized in
TABLE I.

TABLE I
Basic Factors affect the value of GPR [2]
The Values of Reflection Coefficient
Factors
Positive values of K
(
1
<
2
)
Negative values of K
(
1
>
2
)
Grid
Only

- A larger portion of the
current is discharged in
the low resistivity soil
layer.

- The periphery grid
conductors discharge a
larger portion of the
current into the earth
than do the centre
conductors.

- Most of the grid
current discharged from
the grid downward into
the low resistivity layer.

- As the first layer depth
increases, the higher
current density in the
outer grid conductors
becomes more
dominant.
Rod
Only

-For rods that are mainly
in the low resistivity first
layer, most of the grid
current can be well-
discharged in this layer.
So, the rods length is not
necessary reach to the
high resistivity deep
layer.

- Higher current density
in the outer rods as
compared to rods near
the centre of design.

-For rods that are mainly
in the high resistivity
first layer, most of the
grid current can be
discharged at the small
level. Most of the grid
current discharged in to
the high conductor
layer. So, the rods have
to reach the deep layer
in order to discharge the
current in this layer .

-The current density of
the outer rods is higher
than the current density
of the rods at the centre.
Combination
of grid
and rods


- Current density for the
portion of the ground
rods in the low first layer
is still higher than that of
the grid conductors.

- The ground rods
become largely
dependent on h, or on
the length of the rods in
the more conductive
layer. The rods length
are effectively shortened
so that they may not
contribute significantly
to the control of step and
touch voltages.

- The majority of the
current is discharged
through the rods into the
lower resistivity layer.

- Current density is
higher in the ground
rods than in the grid
conductors.

Fig. Required Potential Electrode Position in a Two Layer.

III. CDEGS MODEL OF STUDIED SYSTEM
A section of a typical 115 kV, transmission line with 22
kV soil resistivity and ground grid models have been
modeled using CDEGS (Current Distribution Electromagnetic
Interference Grounding and Soil Structure Analysis) program
[14]. Models of system studied have been presented as
following.
To study the influence of the soil layer depth in which
ground grid is buried to the effect of GPR, ground grid buried
at 0.5m below the ground level with 3m rod length is chosen
to be the original model in this study, as shown in Figure 4.
The following of ground grid characteristics on GPR are
investigated:

Fig. 4 The grounding grid system of Royal Flora

RATCHAPHRUEK substation.



95 mm
2
. Hard Drawn Copper Cable.
Exothermic Welding (Graphite Mould).
Copper - Clad Steel Ground Rod.

Case A: Ground grid with constant ground rod (

1
<
2
).
Case B: Ground grid without constant ground rod (
1
<
2
).
Case C: Ground grid with constant ground rod (
1
>
2
).
Case D: Ground grid without constant Ground rod (
1
>
2
).

IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
From simulation, the results show the interpreted soil
resistivity. Moreover, the ground potential rise of each case
before and after the development is shown. The fault current
value 8,740A of PEA fault current report at 22 kV level was
utilized in the studies.


Fig. 5 Variation of soil layer thickness for ground grid in
case A,B,C and D.

A. Soil resistivity results
The soil resistivity interpretation, which was done by
using RESAP module of CDEGS program, is logarithmically
manifested in Figure 6.


R
a
t
i
o
n

x
/
d

i
n

%

10
-4
10
4
10
-2
10
0
10
2
Ratio h/d

80

70

60

50

K=0





Fig. 6Soil Resistivity Model.
The resistivities of the top and bottom layer are 37.8167
Ohm-m and 120.4224 Ohm-m respectively. The top layer has
the less resistivity than the bottom layer (deep layer).


TABLE II
Resistivity of each soil layer (System information summary)
Layer Characteristics
Resistivity Thickness Reflection Resistivity
Layer
(Ohm-m) (Meters) Coefficient(p.u.) Contrast Ratio
Top 37.38167 5.153056 -1.0000 0.37382E-18
Bottom 120.4244 infinite 0.52623 3.2215

Soil layer characteristics were shown in TABLE II, the soil
characteristic was interpreted in two-layer model.
B. Ground potential rise results
The result of GPR in each case is shown in Table III and
the GPR performance in each layer thickness shown in Fig. 7
and 3-D of GPR in original case are shown in Figure 8-9.

From case A, as soil layer depth of buried ground grid is
varied, the results show that soil resistivities of top-layer is
lower than the bottom layer and the GPR is continuously
reduced along with the increasing of layer thickness until it
reaches the boundary of this two-layer.

From case B, the ground grid without rods, the result
shows that GPR trends is similar to case A as shown in Figure
6. However, the difference in case that the positive value of K
is the GPR of grid without rods will increase along with the
increment of deep layer depth.

From case C, ground grid with constant ground rod, for
negative values of K(
1
>
2
), Asthe first layer depth increases,
GPR tendency is quickly reduced and its value will abruptly change
near the boundary of soil layer.

From case D, The ground grid without constant Ground

rod, the result is quite similar to case C due to the same soil
layer resistivity. Nevertheless, ground grid without rods
buried in top layer can lower the GPR more than the grid
buried in deep layer, therefore, it is necessary to design
grounding system with rods in case of the negative values of
K.

TABLE III
Substation Ground Potential Rise in each case
Ground Potential Rise (V)
Layer
Thickness (m)
case A
(
1
<
2
)
With Rod
case B
(
1
<
2
)
No Rod
case C
(
1
>
2
)
With Rod
case D
(
1
>
2
)
No Rod
0.20000 8,494.3 8,562.3 7,564.0 7,770.8
0.40000 8,415.4 8,481.6 7,342.2 7,547.8
0.50000 8,386.0 8,450.5 7,257.2 7,459.2
0.60000 8,359.2 8,422.2 7,178.3 7,377.3
0.80000 8,312.0 8,372.5 7,033.2 7,227.8
1.00000 8,270.6 8,328.0 6,898.7 7,090.2
1.40000 8,200.9 8,255.6 6,650.3 6,837.7
1.80000 8,144.9 8,196.3 6,418.8 6,604.7
2.15306 8,105.0 8,153.2 6,221.7 6,409.3
3.15306 8,039.6 8,070.4 5,538.9 5,883.2
4.15306 8,020.6 8,044.5 5,055.5 5,360.8
5.00000 8,072.4 8,103.8 4,582.0 4,807.7
5.50000 8,889.7 9,017.5 3,779.1 3,852.1
6.15306 8,997.5 9,139.3 3,661.9 3,730.0
7.15306 9,038.3 9,191.2 3,592.2 3,592.2
8.15306 9,026.9 9,185.2 3,424.8 3,483.7


Fig. 7 GPR value with the variation of soil-layer depth
-DimensionGPR of case A in top layer are shownin
figure 8(a) and 8(b). The more layer thickness, the more GPR
reduction. But in figure 8(c) the more layer thickness of high
resistivities bottom layer, the more value of GPR.
For the GPR from case C, ground grid with constant
ground, at different layer thickness is shown in Figure 9. The
more of the layer thickness, the less of GPR value.
METRIC/LOGARTHMIC X AND Y
Average Inter-Electrode Spacing (meters)
A
p
p
a
r
e
n
t

R
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y

(
O
h
m
-
m
e
t
e
r
)


Measured Results Curve <General>
Computed Results Curve
10
2
10
1
10
-2
10
2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
G
r
o
u
n
d

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

R
i
s
e

(
V
o
l
t
s
)

Thickness (m)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
8,300

8,600

6,800

8,000

7,400

6,200

5,600

5,000

4,400

3,800

3,200

(a) At 0.5 m layer thickness.

(b) At 1.40 m. layer thickness.

(c) At 5.5 m. layer thickness.

Fig. 8 3-D GPR from case A with different layer thickness
when (
1
<
2
).


(a) At 0.5 m layer thickness.



(b) At 1.40 m. layer thickness.



(c) At 5.5 m. layer thickness.


Fig. 9 3-D GPR from case C with different layer thickness
when (
1
>
2
).
SINGLE-ELETRODE/SCALAR POTENTIALS
SINGLE-ELETRODE/SCALAR POTENTIALS
Distance from Origin of Profile (m)
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

(
V
o
l
t
s
)


Distance (m)
8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

6,500

6,000

28.0

21.0

14.0

7.0

35.0

0 10 20 30 40

SINGLE-ELETRODE/SCALAR POTENTIALS
Distance from Origin of Profile (m)
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

(
V
o
l
t
s
)


Distance (m)
28.0

21.0

14.0

7.0

35.0

0 10 20 30 40

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

SINGLE-ELETRODE/SCALAR POTENTIALS
Distance from Origin of Profile (m)
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

(
V
o
l
t
s
)


Distance (m)
7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

28.0

21.0

14.0

7.0

35.0

0 10 20 30 40

SINGLE-ELETRODE/SCALAR POTENTIALS
Distance from Origin of Profile (m)
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

(
V
o
l
t
s
)


Distance (m)
6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

28.0

21.0

14.0

7.0

35.0

0 10 20 30 40

Distance from Origin of Profile (m)
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

(
V
o
l
t
s
)


Distance (m)
28.0

21.0

14.0

7.0

35.0

0 10 20 30 40

8,500

7,500

6,500

5,500

SINGLE-ELETRODE/SCALAR POTENTIALS
Distance from Origin of Profile (m)
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

P
r
o
f
i
l
e

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

(
V
o
l
t
s
)


Distance (m)
28.0

21.0

14.0

7.0

35.0

0 10 20 30 40

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000


CONCLUSION
Substation grounding grid design can be designed by lessen
the number of ground rod in case of which the top soil-layer
resistivity is less than the bottom-layer resistivity. Because the
ground rod can slightly reduce the GPR value. The deeper the
grid buries in the layer, the less of the GPR value is.

VII. REFERENCE
[1] C.Pongsriwat, T.Kasirawat and C.Wattanasakpoobal,
Ground Potential Rise Analysis for the damage problem of
recloser control unit , Provincial Electricity Authority
Conference of transmission and distribution engineering, PEA,
Bangkok,2005.
[2] IEEE Guide for safety in AC Substation Grounding, 2000.
[3] APuttarach, NChakpitak, TKasirawat and CPongsriwat, The
Ground Potential Rise Effect Reduction on Sensitive Electronic
Equipment, The IASTED International Conference on Power
and Energy System, Phuket, Thailand, April.2-4, 2007
[4] APuttarach, NChakpitak, TKasirawat and CPongsriwat, Analysis of
Substation Ground Grid for Ground Potential Rise Effect Reduction in
Two-Layer Soil, The ECTI International Conference 2007, Proceeding
of The Fourth Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer,
Telecommunication, and Information Technology Annual Conference,
Chinag Rai, Thailand, May 11-12, 2007.
[5] IEEE Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity Ground Impedance
and Earth Surface Potentials of a Ground System, 1983.
[6] A. P. Meliopoulos, R.P. Webb, and E.B. Joy, Analysis of
grounding systems, IEEE Trans. PAS, Vol.100, No.3, March
1981, pp.1039-1048.
[7] F. P. Dawalibi and N. Barbeito, Measurement and
computations of the performance of grounding systems buried in
multilayer soils, IEEE Trans. PWRD, Vol.6, No.4, October
1991, pp.1483-1490.
[8] J. Ma, F.P.Dawalibi and W.K. Daily, Analysis of grounding
systems in soils with hemispherical layering, IEEE Trans.
PWRD, Vol.8, No.4, October 1993, pp.1773-1781.
[9] J. Ma and F.P.Dawalibi, Analysis of grounding systems in soils
with cylindrical soil volumes, IEEE Trans. PWRD, Vol.15,
No.3, July 2000, pp.9133-918.

[10] F. P. Dawalibi and D. Mukhedkar, Optimum design of
substation grounding in two-layer earth structure - Part I,
Analytical study, IEEE Trans. PAS, Vol.94, No.2, March-April
1975, pp.252-261.
[11] Research Project of PEAs Ground Grid in Substation and
Grounding in HV and LV Distribution System, Thailand,2006.
[12] F.Kiessling, P.Nefzger, J.F.Nolasco and U.Kaintzyk, Overhead
Power Lines, Germany:Dip.-Ing, pp.115-141,2003.
[13] F.Dawalibi and C.J. Blattner Earth Resistivity Measurement
Interpretation Techniques IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol.pp-103-106,No.2
[14] Engineering Guide a Simple Substation Grounding Grid
Analysis, Safe Engineering Services & Technologies, Ltd,
2004,www.sestech.com/Downloads/Engineering HowTo.aspx
[ 15 September 2006 ].





VIII. BIOGRAPHIES
Arwut Puttarach was born in Chiang Rai. He
received his B.Eng, degree in Electrical
Engineering from Rajamangala Institute of
Technology Chiang Mai Campus, Thailand, in
2003. He is currently a master degree student in
Electrical Engineering, Chiang Mai University,
Thailand. His currently interests in power system grounding
analysis.
.
Nopasit Chakpitak received his first degree in
Electrical Engineering from Chiang Mai
University. His professional career was in
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
between 1989-1994. He has finished his Ph.D in
Electrical Engineering in 2003 from the
University of Strathclyde Scotland. Now he is a full-time
lecturer of department of Electrical Engineering,Chiangmai
University.

Tirapong Kasirawat was born in Krabi,
Thailand 1963. He received B.Eng (Electrical
Engineering) M.Eng (Electrical Engineering)
from Chiang Mai University, Thailand, in 1987
and 1995 respectively. Currently, He works
with Provincial Electricity Authority, Thailand (PEA North1)
and special lecturer of department of Electrical Engineering
Chiang Mai University. His research interest includes high-
voltage engineering, power quality, and information
technology in power system.
Chotepong Pongsriwat was born in Lampang,
Thailand 1976. He received B.Eng (Electrical
Engineering) , M.S.(Information Technology
and Management) and M.Eng (Electrical
Engineering) from Chiang Mai University,
Thailand, in 1997, 2003, and 2004
respectively. Currently, He works with Provincial Electricity
Authority, Thailand (PEA North1). His research interest
includes power quality, power system analysis and
information technology in power system.