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

net/publication/3272594

A New Method and Instrument for Touch and Step Voltage Measurements

Article in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery · November 1994

DOI: 10.1109/61.329518 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

20 4,650

3 authors, including:

A.P. Sakis Meliopoulos George Cokkinides

Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology
427 PUBLICATIONS 8,047 CITATIONS 172 PUBLICATIONS 2,645 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Power System level Impacts of PHEVs View project

A very old project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by A.P. Sakis Meliopoulos on 10 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1850
A New Method and Instrument for Touch and Step Voltage Measurements
A. P. Sakis Meliopoulos Shashi Pate1
Fellow Senior Member
School of Electrical & Computer Engineering Research Center
Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Power Company
Atlanta, Georgia 30332 Atlanta, Georgia 30302
Abstract This paper describes a new method and instrument
for measuring touch and step voltages near a grounding system,
for example in and around a substation. The hardware,
software, and testing procedures are an extension of the smart
ground multimeter, developed under EPRI sponsorship. The
instrument injects a transient electric current between the
ground under testing and an auxiliary ground, and it measures
ground potential differences (GPDs) at up to six locations. The
GPD measurements are processed with software which rejects
external noise using correlation methods. Subsequently,
statistical estimation methods are used to extract the touch or
step voltages from the thousands of measurement points
normalized with the system short circuit capability. Knowledge
of the short circuit capability of the substation allows the quick
measurement of the touch and step voltages.
1. Introduction
Several instruments are available for grounding
measurements, for example ground impedance measurements,
and soil resistivity measurements. Recently, a PC based
instrument has been developed [7]which performs a number of
ground measurement functions. These functions are listed in
Table 1. This paper concentrates on the touch and step voltage
functions of the meter which have been recently developed and
tested. A brief description of these function is stated as follows:
Table 1. Present Functions of the Smart Ground
Multimeter
Substation Ground Impedance Meter ' software to extract the touch or step voltages at any frequency of
Touch Voltage Meter
Step Voltage Meter
Tower Ground Resistance Meter
Soil Resistivity Meter
(1) The touch voltage meter function of the Smart Ground
Multimeter measures the actual touch voltage at a
substation as a function of the fault current. The
measurement is performed at up to six points anywhere
above or near a grounding system. The measurement
provides the touch voltage per ampere of fault current. It
requires as an input the fault current available at the
location of the grounding system which is used to project
the actual touch voltage under fault conditions.
9 4 WM 140-4 PWRD A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Substations Committee of the IEEE Power
Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE/PES
1994 Winter Meeting, New York, New York, January 30 - Figure 1 Standard Probe Arrangement for Touch Voltage
February 3, 1994. Manuscript submitted August 2,
1993; made available for printing December 22, 1993.
0 1994 IEEE
0885-8977/94/$04.00
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 9,No. 4,October 1994
G. J. Cokkinides
Member
Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engr
University of South Carolina
Columbia, South Carolina 29208
(2) The step voltage meter function of the Smart Ground
Multimeter measures the actual step voltage at a substation
as a function of the fault current. The measurement is
performed at a user selected point anywhere above or near
a grounding system. The measurement provides the actual
step voltage per ampere of fault current. It requires as an
input the fault current available at the location of the
grounding system which is used to project the actual step
voltage under fault conditions.
*. Description Of the MeasurementApproach
The method for measuring touch voltages requires that six
probes be placed at six points, designated as 3B, 2B, lB, 3Y, 2Y,
and lY, where touch voltages must be measured, as it is
illustrated in Figure 1. The meter injects a transient electric
current i(t) between the ground grid under test and a
temporarily installed current retum electrode(as is shown in
Figure 1) for a short period of time, typically 0.3 seconds.
During this time, measurements of the injected electric current
and of the transient ground potential differences are taken
(locations 3B, 2B, lB, 3Y, 2Y, and 1Y shown in Figure 1). The
ground potential differences are measurements of the voltage
difference between the ground under test and points 3B, 2B, lB,
3Y, 2Y, and 1Y shown in Figure 1. For touch voltage
measurements, the probes 3B, ZB, lB, 3Y, 2Y, and 1Y can be
placed at any location where the touch voltage is to be
measured. For step voltages, the six probes must be placed in
the arrangement shown in Figure 2. The distance d is 3 feet or 1
meter. These measurements are processed by computer
interest.
Smart Ground
Multimeter 0
PROBE ASSEMBLY
Current YELLOW VOLTAGE
Return
Electrod
/fo
ground grid conductors
Measurements
*
I
Smart Ground
Multimeter

-------
BLUEVOLTAGE
FNBEASSEMBLY
3.1 Extemal Hardware

temporarily installed electrode to the smart ground multimeter,

a cableplack) connecting the ground system under test to the
Smart Ground Multimeter, and a cable(green) which is the
reference or safety ground and which must be connected to the
ground under test. A schematic representation of the extemal
hardware is shown in Figure 3.
3.2 The Current
Module(SGM)
Source and Data
1851

The external hardware consists of 6 voltage probes, 2 triplex

shielded cables which COMect the 6 voltage probes to the smart
ground multimeter, three probes which must be installed as a
temporary current return electrode, a cable(red) connecting the

Acquisition

This module consists of power electronics which generate

d = 1 meter
Figure 2. Standard Probe Arrangement for Step Voltage
Measurements
A brief description of the smart ground multimeter
hardware and software follows.
3. Description of Smart Ground Multimeter Hardware
The Smart Ground Multimeter hardware, required for
touch and step voltages, consist of the following major
components:
Extemal Hardware
Current Source and Data Acquisition Module (SGM)
an electric current which switches polarity at randomly selected
intervals. This current is circulated between the ground under
test and the temporarily installed current return electrode, as it ,
is illustrated in Figure 1or 3. A typical waveform of the injected
current is illustrated in Figure 4. This waveform was obtained
during a test at a Georgia Power Company substation. Note
that the injected current is a randomly switching polarity
current of about 15A. The meter has been designed to inject a
maximum nominal current of about 30A. The electric current is
generated from a 250 volt or 500 volt voltage source. The
voltage source is computer selected to insure maximum current
injection to the ground under test. The high value of the
injected current ensures a high signal to noise ratio.
I "1
Injected Currant Pest- 16.46

Personal Computer
These components are illustrated in Figure 3 and described
in the following paragraphs.
Vdtage Pmbe Assemply B Voltage Pmbe Assemply A

Triplex
Shielded
Cables

Figure 4. Typical Waveform of the Injected Electric Current

A signal acquisition and control unit is included which
collects data from the six voltage probes and one current probe,
P. c. it conditions the data and sends the data to the personal
computer to be stored in digital format for processing.

-
Ill
+ Specifically, the signals from the six voltage probes and the
current transformer first pass through the analog signal
processing unit. This circuit provides the following functions:
Protection of the personal computer electronicsagainst
C u m Return Gmunding System transients via proper MOV surge protectors
Electrode Under Test
Low pass filtering to prevent aliasing upon sampling
Figure 3. Illustration of the 'Smart' Ground Impedance
Meter
1852
0 Appropriate amplification to optimize the use of the
A/D converter dynamic range, via programmable gain
amplifiers.
0 Optional attenuation of 60 Hz signals to reduce
interference from nearby 60 Hz circuits
Operations such as gain selection, calibration, and 60 Hz
filter bypassing are controlled automatically by the computer.
A block diagram of the voltage signal processing circuit is
illustrated in Figure 5. The outputs of the signal acquisition and
control channels are connected to the input of the A/D
converter board which is installed inside the personal computer.
The data acquisition board also has several digital lines which
are used to select the gain, source voltage, etc.
An important feature of the smart ground multimeter
instrumentation is the ability to (a) measure the transfer
function of the measurement channel and compensate for it
during processing of the measurements (channel calibration)
and (b) to measure the ground resistance of the voltage probes
and the cable capacitance and compensate for it during
measurements (probe calibration). The calibration circuitry is
illustrated in Figure 5. Specifically, during the channel
calibration, a known noise source is connected to the input of
the channel, while the voltage probe is disconnected via the
indicated relays, and the output is recorded. From these
measurements the transfer function of the channel is computed.
The probe calibration (measurement of the voltage probe
resistance and cable capaatance) is performed by connecting a
known noise source to the voltage probe assemblies while the
channel is also connected to the voltage probes. The response is
measured. From this measurement, the admittance of the
voltage probes and cable capacitance is extracted. The
admittance is used in the probe error correction algorithm
during measurements. The calibration and associated error
correction algorithms ensure highly accurate and reliable
measurements.
In summary, the design of the Smart Ground Multimeter
hardware ensures:
Measurements with high signal to noise ratio
A dynamic range of above 90 db
Measurement accuracy
Probe
ibration
T
Fmm
-Lil E 7 n
Figure 5. Functional Block Diagram of a Single Channel of
the Signal Acquisition and Control Module
4. Description of Smart Ground Multimeter Software
The smart ground multimeter software is installed in a
personal computer which controls the measurement process,
processes the data and displays the results. The user interface is
fully graphic (GUI)and can be operated with a mouse or the F
keys. The software consists of the following components:
1. The user interface
2. Measurement data collection algorithm
3. Error correction algorithm
4. Channel Calibration Algorithm
5. Probe Calibration Algorithm
6. Data Analysis Software
The user interface allows the user to perform the followmg
functions:
Inspect and modify measurement parameters
Initiate Measurements
Generate warning messages about improper use of the
Smart Ground Multimeter
Generate reports of intermediate and final results
The data analysis software extracts the touch and step
voltages from the measurements. The algorithm employed was
developed after a careful analytical investigation of all factor
affecting measurement of touch and step voltages, and
subsequent field verification. The analytical investigation was
performed using the EPRI SGA package and consisted of
simulating a substation grounding system together with the
probes of the Smart Ground Multimeter. A three dimensional
plot of such a system is illustrated in Figure 6. The Figure
shows a ground mat, four tower grounding systems, the six
voltage probes of the Smart Ground Multimeter and the three
current return electrodes of the Smart Ground Multimeter. The
system was modeled as a multiground system. For this system
electric faults were simulated by injecting an electric current into
the ground mat and assuming that the current retum ground is
located very far away from the substation. The tower grounds
may or may not be connected to the ground mat. The operation
of the Smart Ground Multimeter was simulated the injecting a
current into the ground mat and assuming that the current
retums through the three current retum electrodes. Again the
tower grounds may or may not be connected to the ground mat.
S G S E V5.0 -
30 f m u n d i w 5v.L.n P l o t
TITLE: Smarl Ciound Y u l t l u 1 . r I Touch Va1t.p.
Eledmde
Y...urlmi.
Tower
Grounds
Figure 6. Three Dimensional Plot of a Typical Configuration
Used in the Analytical Investigation

This investigation revealed that the two most important
parameters which affect touch and step voltage measurements
are:
1. Proximity of the Current Return Electrode
2. Number of tower grounds connected to the ground
mat or specifically total impedance of other grounds
connected to the ground mat.
As an example of typical results of this investigation, Table
1 lists the computed touch voltages under four scenarios. The
first scenario designated as simulation of system fault and
neutrals/shields disconnected corresponds to the usual
definition of touch voltage (see for example IEEE Std 80). The
current is injected into the ground mat (and it is assumed to
retum from another ground at a remote location) and the effects
of other nearby grounds are neglected. In the second scenario,
designated as simulation of system fault and neutrals/shields
connected is similar to the first except that the effect of the
nearby tower grounds are accounted for. Note a slight decrease
of touch voltage as a percent of ground potential rise. The other
two scenarios designated as simulation of smart ground
Multimeter account for the current retum electrode proximity.
The values in Table 1 have been computed assuming the current
retum electrode to be placed 400 feet from the center of the
ground mat. Note in this case about 20% increase of touch
voltage due to current retum electrode proximity. On the other
hand the effect of nearby grounds is relatively small about 6%
for the cases in Table 1. The effect of the current return
electrode proximity was investigated by simulating many
configurations with the current return electrode at different
distances from the grounding system and computing the touch
voltage as a percentage of ground potential rise. As an example,
Table 2 presents a sample of results of this investigation. The
example system consists of a 200'x 200'ground mat with 50'x
50'meshes. The current retum electrode is placed at different
distances from the ground mat center. Note that the value
28.92% is the true value of the touch voltage. Note that if the
current retum electrode is placed 400 feet from the ground mat
center, the mesh voltage will increase by 23%. Based on these
results, which were verified in the field, the following has been
implemented. The smart ground meter, computes the effect of
the current retum electrode proximity and subtracts it from the
actual measurement. In addition, it is recommended that the
current return electrode be placed at least two times the
diagonal length of the ground from the ground center.
Table 1. Computed Touch Voltages Under Several
Scenarios (in percent of ground potential rise)
Simulation of System Simulation of Smart
Fault Ground Multimeter
Neutrals Neutrals Neutrals Neutrals
/shields /shields /Shields /Shields
29.38 27.44 35.71 37.81
P*z 30.09 28.13 36.62 38.86
P*3 30.49 28.51 37.06 39.47
1853
Table 2. Effects of Current Retum Electrode Proximity on
Touch Voltage Measurements
I&
00 900 600 400 300 200
5. Field Verification
The smart ground multimeter has been extensively tested in
the laboratory and in the field. In April 21, 1993 a set of
comprehensive field tests were performed at Georgia Power
Company's Texas Valley Substation.
The Texas Valley Substation is a 115kV/12kV located in
North Georgia near Rome. This substation has been used for
grounding related research by Georgia Power since 1981[2]. All
the neutrals and shield wires in this substation are connected to
a common point. A switch is used to connect or disconnect this
common point to the station ground mat. In this way, the
static/neutrak can be connected or disconnected from the
ground mat via a switch. In addition, the 115kV line between
Sommerville and Texas Valley can be deenergized. When
deenergized, one of the phase conductors is used to inject a
current into the Texas Valley ground mat from the Sommerville
Substation located many miles away. The method has been
coined the current injection(C1) method and it is described in
[2].The injected current is about 157A.
In April 21, 1993 measurements were performed of touch
and step voltages using the Smart Ground Multimeter & the
current injection method. The measurements were performed at
30 points along a line near the center of the station and at
another 24 points along a line near the northwest corner of the
station. The location of these lines with respect to the station are
shown in Figure 7. Measurements were made with the static
wires connected and disconnected. A typical report of the
Smart Ground Multimeter is shown in Figure 8. The same
measurements were made (the same day) using the current
injection method[2]. A comparison of all results is shown in
Figure 9,10,11,and 12. The Figures are self explanatory. Note
that both methods give comparative results.
The measured touch voltages were also compared to
computed values with EPRI's SGA program (81. First soil
resistivity measurements were taken with the wenner method.
For this purpose two locations (A and B) were selected near the
substation. At each location, 36 measurements were obtained
with spacing ranging from 2 feet to 90 feet. These
measurements were processed with the program SOMIP [8]to
establish the proper soil resistivity model. Using the soil
resistivity model, the ground resistance was computed using the
program SGSYS. The results are tabulated in Table 3. Note that
the program SOMIP provides expected errors vs. confidence
level. The soil resistivity measurements from location B provide
soil model parameters with very high expected errors. The soil
1854

model obtained with the program SOMIP by combining the
measurements from locations A and B (A+B) are also given for
comparative purposes. As an additional check point the ground
resistance was measured (the same day) and found to be 0.565
ohms. Note that the soil resistivity measurements at locatiion A
are in conformance with the measured ground resistance.
T.*. Valley S"b.tat1.a"
4, 3 - b N
For each one of the soil models, the touch voltages, at the same
locations indicated in Figure 7, were computed using the
program SGSYS and assuming a current injection of 157
amperes into the ground grid. The computed maximum and
minimum touch voltage were superimposed on those measured
with the smart ground multimeter and the current injection
Ten1 SusLem method. Figure 13 illustrates these results for a specific case
56SV5 V5 0 using the soil model obtained at location A and Figure 14
illustrates similar results for the same case using the soil model
obtained from both locations A and B. The results indicate that
the computer models are conservative as compared to measured
values.

I I
-108. -72 -36 0 36 72 108
x-hiis ( f e d )
l o p VI." x-* Pl."s

Locetbn of Measurements
Figure 7. Ground Mat at the Texas Valley Substation

Touch Voltage Report Casename: CN1318-C

--
ul
3- 2.0-
m
a,
r

q
2 1.0-

0.0
0
I

5
,

10 15
,

20
, ,
25
,

30
Locationlndex +
Figure 9. Measured Touch Voltages Near the Center of
the Ground Mat at Texas Valley Substation
with the SGM and the Current Injection (Cl)
Method. Neutral Wires Connected.

f 20.0

15.0
r
cc
E
5
0
U
Q 10.0

-
g
a,

ul
e
0
r.
5.0
=
m
P
5
2 0.0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Location Index
Figure IO. Measured Touch Voltages Near the Center of
the Ground Mat at Texas Valley Substation
with the SGM and the Current Injection (CI)
Method. Neutral Wires Disconnected.
 1855

32.0.

30.0

4
1 25.0

2
-
s
C
20.0

5
0
3
3 15.0
-
??
Y

-a
sg) 10.0
m
L

>
5
ss
I- 0.0 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Location Index +
Figure 11. Measured Touch Voltages Near the North
West Comer of the Ground Mat at Texas 5 10 15 20 25 30
Valley Substation with the SGM and the Location Index +

"i
Current Injection (Cl) Method. Figure 13. Computed and Measured Touch Voltages
Neutral Wires Connected. Near the Center of the Ground Mat at Texas
Valley Substation. Soil Model A.

A 60.4

Lo 20.

> I

, k 0.0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Location Index + I
5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 12. Measured Touch Voltages Near the North Locatlonlndex +
West Comer of the Ground Mat at Texas Figure 14. Computed and Measured Touch Voltages
Valley Substation with the SGM and the Near the Center of the Ground Mat at Texas
Current Injection (Cl) Method. Valley Substation. Soil Model A+B.
Neutral Wires Disconnected.
1856
6. Summary
A new €unction of the Smart Ground Multimeter has been
developed and successfully tested in the field against a well
established and accepted method. This function provides
measurements of touch and step voltages for a specific fault
current level. The advantages of the new instrument are (a) ease
of performing the measurements, and (b) accuracy of results by
means of error correction algorithms and compensation for the
effects of the current retum electrode and other grounds which
may be connected to the ground mat. To our knowledge this is
the first device of its kind. The instrument can be used to
investigate and measure the maximum touch or step voltage in
a substation.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the financial support from EPRI
and in developing the touch and step voltage function of the
smart ground multimeter.
References
1. "A Manual on Ground Resistance Testing," James G. Biddle
Company, Publication No. 25-J,
1952.
2. S.G.Patel, "Field Measurements at Texas Valley Substation,"
December 1981.
Final Report on EPRI, RP-1494-2,
3. I.D. Lu and R.M. Shier, "Application of a Digital Signal
Analyzer to the Measurement of Power System Ground
Impedances," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, vol. PAS-100, no. 4,pp. 1918-1922,April 1981.
4. IEEE Std. 81, "IEEE Recommended Guide for Measuring
Ground Resistance and Potential Gradients in the Earth,"
1962.
5. ANSI/IEEE Std. 80,"IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation
Grounding" 1986.
6. P.H. Reynolds, D.S. Ironside, A.H. Silcocks, and J.B.
Williams, "A New Instrument for Measuring Ground
Impedances," presented at the IEEE PES Winter Meeting,
New York, New York, Paper A 79 080-3,February 1979.
7. A.P. Meliopoulos, G. Cokkinides, H. Abdallah, S. Duong,
and S. Patel, "A PC Based Ground Impedance Measurement
Instrument," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol 8,
No. 3,July 1993.
8. AP. Meliopoulos, "SGA Users Manual, Vol. 3, Computer
Model SGSYS Version 5.0," and "SGA Users Manual, Vol. 1,
Computer Model SOMIP Version 2.0,"EPRI Report, 1992.
Biographies
A. P. Sakis Meliopoulos (M '76,SM '83,F '93) was bom in
Katerini, Greece, in 1949.He received the M.E. and E.E. diploma
from the National Technical University of Athens, Greece, in
1972;the M.S.E.E. and Ph.D. degrees from the Georgia Institute
of Technology in 1974 and 1976, respectively. In 1971, he
worked for Westem Electric in Atlanta, Georgia. In 1976, he
joined the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Georgia Institute of
Technology, where he is presently a professor. He is active in
teaching and research in the general areas of modeling, analysis,
and control of power systems. He has made significant
contributions to power system grounding, harmonics, and
reliability assessment of power systems. He is the author of the
books, Power Systems Grounding and Transients, Marcel
Dekker, June 1988, Ligthning and Overvoltage Protection,
Section 27, Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers,
McGraw Hill, 1993, and the monograph, Numerical Solution
Methods of Algebraic Equations, EPRI monograph series. Dr.
Meliopoulos is a member of the Hellenic Society of Professional
Engineering and the Sigma Xi.
Shashi Patel (M '70,SM '84) was bom in Fiji Islands in 1943. He
received the B.S.E.E. degree from M.S. University of Baroda,
India in 1965 and M.S.E.E. degree from Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, Georgia in 1976. From 1965 to 1967 he was
with Gujarat Electricity Board, India, in charge of a district
office. He worked as a Power System Engineer at BPA,
Portland, Oregon during the summer of 1969. Since 1970, he
has been employed by Georgia Power Company. He is
presently a Staff Services Engineer in Georgia Power Research
Center, Forest Park, Georgia. He has been actively involved in
IEEE/PES Substation Committee since 1978. His other areas of
interest include HV testing, switchgears, induced voltages,
grounding and corrosion. He is registered Professional
Engineer in the state of Georgia.
George Cokkinides (M '85)was bom in Athens, Greece, in
1955. He obtained the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees at the
Georgia Institute of Technology in 1978, 1980, and 1985,
respectively. From 1983 to 1985,he was a research engineering
at the Georgia Tech Research Institute. Since 1985,he has been
with the University of South Carolina where he is presently an
Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering. His research
interests include power system modeling and simulation, power
electronics applications, power system harmonics, and
measurement instrumentation. Dr. Cokkinides is a member of
the IEEE/PES and the Sigma Xi.

Discussion
Jacques Fortin (Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada): The authors have published a welcome paper
for engineers having to certify the security of persons in
the vicinity of power installations.
In one of our measurement techniques, based on the
Fall-of-Potential method, test current may be varied in
the range of 0.1 to 20A, depending on the circuit used to
perform the grounding test and of course on the purpose.
A single frequency (50-55 to 65-70 Hz) is applied be-
cause of practical advantages. Depending on the case, the
test current is circulated through a communication cable
pair, a drop wire lying on the soil or a de-energized power
line.
Depending on the case, the folliwng measurements are per-
formed.
1. ground current distribution on:
-overhead wires and counterpoises connected to
power lines;
-neutral conductors connected to distribution lines;
-communication cables shields;
-ground connections to neutral point of Y connected
transformers;
-other ground conductors or metallic structures;
2. touch and step voltages inside and outside the substa-
tion up to 1 km away (aerial pothead, tower, fence,
private installation, etc.);
3. potential profile up to a certain point (k 1 km). The
extrapolation ( s 15%) of the curve gives the impedance
to remote earth.
All measurements are referred to the test curtent by a
standard two channel F I T instrument. Calibration factors
for amplitude and phase are verified and entered in the
instrument. A simple computer program interpolates
measurements at 60 Hz. Analysis of results can then be
performed.
Our field experience shows that current electrode dis-
tance to the multi grounded system under test affects
particularly touch voltage measurements by a factor of 1
to 4 inside or close to the substation. This factor is
dependent on the distance to the current electrode and
on the soil resistivity between current electrodes (100 -
10OOO Cl * m). A factor of 1.2 or greater, to us is unaccept-
able. The correction in such a case would appear closer to
a mathematical algorithm than a field test measurement.
Could the authors give the following factors concerning
results shown in figures 9 to 14 for eachprobe:
157 Vti/I (from Fm at 60Hz)
real correction factor =
Vti (from CI method)
What are the corresponding factors applied by the
SGM?
Did authors use the de-energized line to circulate the
SGM test current to remote earth? If that is possible,
assuming adequate protection, the Fall-of-Potential
method could be performed to measure touch voltage and
1857
impedance. A comparison of results with figures 9 to 14 of
the present paper and with figure 7 of the author’s refer-
ence [7] would be self speaking. Again real correction
factors should be given.
More results and comparisons are needed to attain
confidence in the proposed method based on GPD.
Specifically the real correctionfactor should be determined
on the field test site for a wide variety of distances to
current probe (100 m to 10 km and more) and for a wide
-
variety of soil resistivities (100 0 m to 10 000 Cl m).
Current distribution is also affected by the position of
the current electrode when in proximity, which in turn
affects touch voltage near substation and elsewhere.
We have developed new methods to measure the ground
impedance of a line and the ground resistance of a single
tower in presence of overhead ground wires and counter-
poises. No corrections are needed. It could be interesting
to compare all those methods at the same site.
The authors have presented a new method which needs
more field testing to allow comparison with long current
injection circuit for a large variety of external conditions.
If the author’s method were to be validated, it would
represent a new method overcoming some practical prob-
lems of the Fall-of-Potential method. If not, it should be
possible to use the SGM to apply the Fall-of-Potential
method.
Manuscript received February 15, 1994.
F. P. DAWALIBI, Safe Engineering Services &
technologies Itd., Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3M
164. The authors have deployed considerable hardware
and software resources to design their Smart Ground
Multimeter. It is however regrettable to note that they have
not carried out a similar effort with respect to the
fundamental grounding principles on which the meter
should have been based. This meter has been designed with
implicit assumptions, the most noticeable of which are:
Homogeneous and isotropic uniform soils or two-
layer horizontal soils.
0 No significant localized soil heterogeneities or
perturbations are to be expected.
No extensive metallic structure (such as water lines,
pipelines, buried tanks, etc.) are present in the soil.
0 The grounding, network has a reasonable regular
shape easily identifiable by the operator who must
define its skeleton a n w r center.
As stated by the authors, this multimeter is an extension of
their original Smart Ground Multimeter. Consequently, it
is still plagued by all the deficiencies which I identified and
discussed more than a year ago (see discussion and closure
of Reference 7 of the authors’ paper). The authors eluded
most of the points I raised by concentrating their closure on
1858
details which did not address the questions and criticisms
raised. This time, I am including a discussion of a few
basic points for the benefit of the readers who should
clearly undestand my reservations conceming the
multimeter before deciding to use it:
1. The authors state in the paper that ' I . . . . the algorithm
employed was developed after a careful analytical
investigation of all factors.... The analytical
investigation was performed using the EPRI SGA
package...". This software package handles uniform or
two-layer horizontal homogeneous soils. Consequently,
the multimeter may be severely handicapped by the lack
of a wider soil structure perspective. The use of a
different software package, such as CDEGS which can
handle multilayer horizontal and vertical soils as well as
layered hemispherical heterogeneities, would have been
a significant asset in further expanding the knowledge
of the multimeter. But this still would not be enough, as
evidenced by a quick investigation of the geophysics
literature. Soil structure may change abruptly or
gradually from one point to another particularly if
backfill is used to level a substation's surface. Layers
are not always parallel or perpendicular to the soil
surface and often change from one location to another
gradually if not suddenly. Consequently, the multimeter
is at best performing accurately only at sites where the
soil can be reasonably approximated by a two-layer
horizontal type. What about substations built in
arbitrarily multilayered wavy soils, or worse, near the
seashore, a deep valley, an open mine pit or a geological
fault? It is certainly indispensable to examine cases in
complex soil structures to enhance the credibility of the
Smart Ground Multimeter and help the authors refine
and further validate their approach. The discusser is
willing to assist in this endeavour as long as there is a
possibility that the equipment will behave as hoped in
the most complicated soil structures which can be
modelled by the most advanced software packages.
2. In their closure of the discussions pertaining to their
previous paper [7],the authors stated that the factor "ke
is nearly constant for the area of application of the
voltage probes..." What does "nearly" mean? To
demonstrate their point, they provided a series of curves
calculated based on a two-layer soil! This is not an
acceptable scientific proof. Besides, some of their
curves varied by more than 20% from the edge of the
grid to 100 feet away, despite the fact that soil structure
was assumed to be the same while moving along the
profile. Therefore, gradual variations of soil layer
thicknesses and resistivities and the presence of
heterogeneities may very well change the value of Ke
dramatically. There are no ways to prove this in a
satisfactory fashion with a software package limited to
two-layer soils. The authors must be courageous and
admit this to their present and future potential
customers in order to prevent widespread use of the
multimeter at sites which are clearly outside the range
of the multimeter. This is important, particularly if the
shape of the grounding network is complicated and does
not present a clearly identifiable center.
3. There is also another serious problem with respect to
Ke. The authors assumed that Ke is constant throughout
the area covered by the test and that it is the same at the
measured ground and at the retum electrode, as
evidenced by their Equation 5 of Reference [7].It is
simple to show that this is not the case, even if the soil
is a perfect multilayer type, because Ke will change
depending on whether or not the ground rod is in
contact with the lower layers and the actual length of
the portion of rod penetrating the deeper layers!
4. Finally, the use of six potential probes and associated
leads simultaneously can be an extreme nuisance to a
team of three people or less and quite exhausting. This
fact alone can be quite detrimental to the successful use
of a piece of equipment in the field. The simplicity of
using a suitable moving probe associated with a
continuous data acquisition system is by far more
appealing if one wishes to survey touch voltages within
a substation. This is perhaps what needs to be done
once the decision to measure touch voltages at
substations has been taken. In this case, it is important
to measure as many points as possible for a credible
assessment of the safety status. Measurement of step
voltages in a substation is unnecessary if touch voltages
are measured.
In summary, the problem with the Smart Ground
Multimeter is that it is not smart enough to do the job for
every type of site and associated soil structure. Given this
shortcoming, it is preferable to carry out the measurements
in a neutral fashion, i.e., without any "corrections", "bad
data rejection", and similar interventions and let the
engineer interpret the results based on his knowledge of the
problem. One or several long fall-of-potential traverses
coupled with a reasonable sample of potential
measurements inside and outside the substations using
suitable selective voltmeters and/or modem spectrum
analyzers, can reveal to the eyes of an experienced engineer
much more information than a collection of "conditioned'
curves and data carried out by unsuspicious operators
relying on the smartness of a sophisticated piece of
equipment. Measurement is the ultimate design verification
step in any engineering project. It is intended to provide an
estimate of the differences which exist between computed
values based on some approximate model and the real
world, which may often include hidden or unknown
elements. It is the responsibility of the authors to address
these weaknesses of their Smart Ground Multimeter and

then convince the scientific community that their approach
is technically sound
Manuscript received February 22, 1994.
A. P. SAKIS MELIOPOULOS, S. PATEL (Georgia Power
Company), and G. J. COKKINIDES (University of South
Carolina): The authors would like to thank the discussors for
giving us the opportunity to comment on this new method
and emphasize some key points.
We are grateful that Mr Jacques Fortin has shared his
experience and provided independent verification that the
current retum electrocde distance affects particularly the
touch voltage measurements inside or close to the
substation. He reports that he has observed errors as high as
300%(factors of 1to 4). He suggests that an error of 20% or
higher (factor of 1.20) is unacceptable and should be
corrected with mathematical algorithm. We totally agree.
The Smart Ground Multimeter does exaclty that. It is an
integrated system of hardware and software which correct
the measurement error by a mathematical algorithm which
requires as inputs the approximate size of the grounding
system and the distance of the current electrode. More
sophisticated algorithms can be applied if necessary.
Information requested by Mr Fortin is provided below. The
correction factors applied by the SGM for the measurements
at the Texas Valley substation ranged from 1.08 to 1.92. The
real correction factor, as defined by Mr Fortin, can be read
from Figures 9, 10,11, and 12 as the ratio of the solid line
(SGM data) to the dotted line (CI method). We did not use
the de-energized line as the current retum system for the
SGM measurements. We agree with Mr. Fortin, it would
have been a valuable test to use the de-energized line as the
current retum system for the SGM. Mr. Fortin suggests a
comparison of the results with Figure 7 of reference [A.
Specifically, Figure 7 of reference [7] shows measurements
of the ground grid impedance with the static/neutrals
connected/disconnected. The grid resistance is 0.56 when
the static/neutrals are disconnected. This measurement is in
close agreement with the computed value of 0.584 ohms,
using the soil model A (see Table 3). Note also that in
Figure 13, the touch voltage measurements with the SGM
are in agreement with the computed touch voltages using
the soil model A (see curve MIN in Figure 13). This
agreement suggests that the soil model of the Texas Valley
Substation is the one provided by the soil resistivity
measurements at location A (model A).
We agree that more results and comparisons are needed to
attain confidence in the proposed method and instrument.
We are planning many more tests and comparisons and we
will report the conclusions in subsequent papers.
Mr. Dawalibi's discussion is in large part irrelevant to touch
voltage measurements and the proposed method and
instrument. Specifically, most of his comments are relative
to the ground impedance meter function of the Smart
Ground Multimeter, for example, the k, factor, etc. These
issues have been addressed and fully explained in the
closure of our previous paper (reference [7] of the present
1859
paper). It will be rather confusing to the readers if we
address for example the k, factor again here in view of the
fact that the factor k, is not relevant to the touch voltage
measurements, the subject of this paper. For this reason we
refer Mr. Dawalibi and interested readers to the closure of
our previous paper.
Here, we will address issues relative to touch voltage
measurements only. First, we would like to address his
statement it is preferable to carry the measurements in a
I...
neutral fashion, i.e. without any corrections, "bad data rejection",
and similar interventions ...I. This statement ignores the
fundamental behaviour of grounding systems, which our
paper brought into focus and Mr. Fortin's discussion has
amplified: 'current electrode distance affects particularly touch
voltage measurements by a factor of 1 to 4'. Experienced
engineers with this type of measurements would agree with
Mr. Fortin and ourselves that these errors must be corrected.
Our paper offers a practical method and instrument for this
purpose. For the benefit of our readers, we emphasize that
touch voltage measurements with practical lengths of
current retum electrodes are subject to large errors. These
errors are independent of the quality of the hardware. It is
our belief that the only practical way to correct for these
errors is by software. Mr. Fortin's discussion also suggets
correction with a mathematical algorithm.
Mr Dawalibi states that measurements of step voltages are
unnecessary if touch voltages are measured. This statement
is regretably false: it is possible, for specific ground grids,
step voltages may exceed allowable levels while touch
voltages are within limits. For the benefit of our readers, we
present a simple case where step voltages exceed limits
while touch voltages are within limits:
Consider an 8x8 mesh ground grid, 10 feet spacing between
parallel ground conductors, buried 1.5 feet in a two layer
soil (upper soil resistivity = 200 ohm.meters, lower soil
resistivity = 1000 ohm.meters, and upper soil thickness of 6
feet). The maximum earth current is 415 Amperes (current
flowing into soil from grid, under worst fault conditions).
Consider the usual case where a 4 inch layer of 3000
ohm.meter crushed rock covers the substation and extends 3
feet outside the fence. The fence is located 3 feet inside the
perimeter of the ground grid and it is bonded to the ground
grid. For a 0.5 second fault duration, the permissible touch
and step voltages are:
Inside the Substation and up to 3 Feet from Fence (crushed
rock):
Outside Substation at Least 3 Feet from Fence (native soil):
Vtoudr,permissible
= 215 volts
For above system, the following are computed:
Maximum Touch Voltage = 551 volts. It occurs at the comer
of the substation for someone standing 3 feet from the
substation fence and touching the fence. Applicable
permissible touch voltage is 573 volts.
 1860

Maximum Step Voltage = 392 volts. It occurs about 6.5 feet for the range of current probe locations (325to 1660 feet), the
from the corner of the station fence. Applicable permissible Smart Ground Multimeter provides measurements which
step voltage is 368 volts. are practically constant (20% excursion), while the
Note that the step voltage is over the limit, while the touch measurements with the Ground tester show an excursion of
voltage is below the limit. Above computations were 85 percent. The figure illustrate the superiority of the SGM
performed with our analysis program (El" program) and as compared to other meters or measurements without
we expect that they can be verified with a number of other correction. The small variability of the SGM measurements
programs. In above case, and many other similar cases, is attributed to the presence of distribution poles near the
measurement of step voltages is necessary. location of the current retum electrode. The advantage of
the SGM approach is that corrections for the proximity of the
Another minor point that we would like to make is that Mr. distribution pole ground or other grounds can be integrated
Dawalibi's belief that the use of six potential probes and
I... into the SGM system.
associated leads simultaneously can be an extreme nuisance to a
team of three people or less and quite exhausting
...Iis amusing.
One person is enough to operate the smart ground . . - .- Ground Tester
multimeter and it takes less than 5 minutes to move six 2.0 SGM
probes from one location to another. The meter performs
touch voltage measurements simultaneously at six locations,
thus minimizing the overall testing time. The users of the
Smart Ground Multimeter will totally disagree with Mr
Dawalibi's statement.
F I
In summary, touch and step voltage measurements with
conventional methods may have unacceptably large errors.
This fact has been brought into focus by our paper and
amplified by Mr. Fortin's discussion. These large errors
must be corrected with software or other means. The new
method and istrument does just that: it combines hardware 0 500 1000 1500 2000
and software for the direct measurement of touch and step
voltages and uses error correction methods via software. Distance of Current Return Electrode from
The central requirement of a touch and step voltage meter is Grid Center (feet) >
-
to provide the same measurement independent of the
position of the current probe. To illustrate this point, we Figure 1. Touch Voltage Measurements vs Current
have performed touch voltage measurements at a specific Probe Location
substation using the Smart Ground Multimeter and the
Ground tester, while the current probe location was Manuscript received May 9.1994.
variable. The results are illustrated in Figure 1. Note that

View publication stats