Tech Tips

Commissioning a Grounding System

here a ground rod, grid, or system is concerned, many people do not even consider the implementation of a commissioning or installation test. Such tests have obvious significance for highperformance equipment like motors and transformers, where it is readily apparent that the test item undergoes daily stress and must be able to conform to rigorous operational requirements. The new owners understandably want an assurance that they got what they paid for. Yet with a grounding electrode, the attitude is frequently one of out of sight, out of mind. An adequate ground, however, is not just a matter of contact with the earth. The objective is to establish a grounding resistance below some threshold that not only optimizes protection but also enhances performance. The commissioning test is a necessary tool in assuring that this goal has been accomplished. The only nationally prevalent standard for grounding resistance is the NEC requirement of 25 ohms or less. This familiar standard has found its way into the generic literature of the industry to the extent that it is often borrowed and quoted without question. The source is Article 250-84, which states: A single electrode consisting of a rod, pipe, or plate that does not have a resistance to ground of 25 ohms or less shall be augmented by one additional electrode of any of the types specified in Section 250-81 or 250-83. Where multiple rod, pipe, or plate electrodes are installed to meet the requirements of this section, they shall be not less than 6 feet (1.83 m) apart. However, it must be understood that the aim of the code is protection, not performance. In Article 90-1 (b), it states: Compliance therewith and proper maintenance will result in an installation essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use. By contrast, for many vital applications, it is advisable to have ground resistance as close to zero as can be practically achieved. Prime examples are process-control manufacturing, telecom/datacom applications, and safety grounding in industries like chemical production and gas transport. In these situations, 25 ohms is not a recommended standard. The NEC is a relatively forgiving requirement, devised with an emphasis on practicality. For more demanding applications, the electrical system design should be the source of the commissioning requirement. A general industry standard for commercial applications is five ohms. More
Winter 2004-2005

by Jeff Jowett Megger

demanding situations call for even lower ground resistances, down to an ohm or two. Examples are utility substations, computer operations, and nuclear generation. The objective, then, is to determine if, upon installation, the grounding electrode meets the specified conformance. Merely burying something metallic in the soil is not enough! For residential grounds, however, the practice is often little more than this. The code states only that a second rod be driven if the first does not meet code. After the second rod is driven, no additional testing need be performed. In effect, two rods could be driven in the first place and no testing done at all. The resultant ground could still be well over 25 ohms, yet in conformance. This seeming anomaly actually promotes safety while at the same time remaining in the realm of practicality. Where commercial grounds are concerned, however, no such latitude should be permitted. Equipment is too valuable, to say nothing of production time and efficiency.
1

Commissioning tests should be performed in strict accordance with a standard procedure. Frequently, the procedure to be used will be specified in a contract, and in such cases, should be rigorously adhered to with no shortcuts in order to avoid contention. Of the two technologies employed in ground testing traditional three-point methods and clamp-on techniques only the former is suitable for commissioning tests.

Ground Electrode Under Test (X)

Potential Probe (P) Positions

Current Probe (C)

Three-Point Tests
Three-point tests are so called because their performance requires three points of contact with the earth: the test electrode, a current probe, and a potential probe. The fundamental method is called fall-of-potential, and was described in a previous article. This method is fully rigorous and reliable but does require a lot of work. The operator measures soil resistances across a suitable distance from the test electrode and, by connecting the dots, constructs a complete profile of the surrounding soil (Figure 1). Thus, local irregularities can be recognized and averaged out, and the maximum resistance of the test electrodes footprint is easily determined. Furthermore, the reliability of the test is apparent from the results. Sloppy work produces a sloppy graph. This method has the backing of an independent standards agency, IEEE, and is described in Standard #81: Recommended Guide for Measuring Ground Resistance and Potential Gradients in the Earth. It is often required by clients of testing companies, complete with data points and graph. It should be performed painstakingly as, done properly, no other method produces as reliable and uncontestable a result. It is apparent from the description that fall-of-potential is time and labor intensive. Budgetary considerations may be a limiting factor, but that does not preclude commission testing. A much simpler test can be substituted, in the form of the simplified fall-of-potential. This too was described in a previous article. Instead of collecting so many data points as to plot an entire graph, this method requires only three points to be measured, then put to a mathematical proof test. The mathematical proof calculates a percentage accuracy for the average of the three readings. The specifying authority should have decided upon a required accuracy as well as maximum allowable resistance, and so this test will show at once whether both have been met. What the mathematical proof aims to accomplish is to determine whether the readings were taken at the maximum resistance of the test electrode and, therefore, represent only random variations in soil consistency or were taken within the test grounds electrical field and thus do not reflect the actual ground resistance. This determination could be made by the operator alone, without the mathematical proof, but that will not withstand the objective scrutiny required of a genuine commissioning test.

Resistance in Ohms X Ground Electrode Position

Distance of Potential Probe from X (dp)

C Current Electrode Position

Figure 1

The method is not as thorough or accurate as fallof-potential, but will give a measurement within an acceptable accuracy. A third common method not recommended for commissioning is the ubiquitous 62 percent rule (also described in a previous article). This reference appears so much in the literature that it is often applied without question. However, the caveat is that it is based on an ideal model. It states that under conditions of ideality, the most accurate measurement is the one taken at 61.8 percent of the distance to the current probe. This is obviously a simple test, requiring only one reading, but the result has to be taken on faith. It has no proof. The method is useful for sites that have previously been tested rigorously enough that the general soil profile is known. However, commissioning is generally done at new sites where too many uncontrolled variables exist. What if a water main or power cable happens to be running directly below the 62 percent location? The reading could be adversely affected with no knowledge of the problem forthcoming. In the same situation, fall-of-potential would show a deviation in the graph, and simplified fall would fail the math test by yielding a poor accuracy. Many commission sites have the added problem of being very large electrodes with correspondingly extensive electrical fields and/or locations in congested or limited access areas. In such cases, it may be prohibitively difficult to position the current probe outside the footprint of the test ground. The common methods for meeting such challenges are the slope method and intersecting curves method (both previously described). Although it demands a devilish amount of work, intersecting curves may be considered preferable. The slope method, while popular, requires repetition for complete verification. The mathematical proof is subject to influence by the current probes field, and so should be repeated in order to establish consistency.
NETA WORLD

Intersecting Curves
Repeat the exercise for curves EC2 and EC3 You will get a eries of graphs which look like this:

Clamp-On/Stakeless Methodology

Clamp-On Ground Tester

Figure 2

Figure 3

This is often not done, with a single test being accepted with a degree of faith. Intersecting curves requires the plotting of multiple graphs from which the ground resistance reading is taken (Figure 2). An actual test can be performed at that point, and its degree of agreement with the graphic result can be a powerful proof of the reliability of the test.

Clamp-On Technique
Finally, a method that cannot be used to commission a grounding electrode is the popular clamp-on technique. This is not a method so much as a different technology. The clamp-on ground tester has two windings in the jaws. One is powered by an oscillator that induces a current when clamped over a ground rod. The second winding senses the voltage drop around a circuit and calculates the series resistance. The critical factor here is that a circuit must exist (Figure 3). Unlike a three-point tester, where the operator establishes a test circuit by placement of the current probe, the clamp-on must have a return path already in place in order to operate. This is typically provided by the system neutral. It should be apparent what is wrong here. Grounds are commissioned before connection to the utility. Otherwise, the utility ground becomes part of the measurement and seriously masks the local contribution. Three-point testers, being self-contained, have no problem, but a clamp-on has no return path to constitute a test circuit. Of course, one could jury-rig some sort of temporary return, but it would be better to spend the time stringing out the three-point probes and benefit from the increased accuracy enjoyed by traditional methods. A word should be added about the problem posed by premature connection to the electrical system. This is a common error, and easy to commit. All that has to be done is that the grounding conductor coming off the electrode is connected to the ground bus at the
Winter 2004-2005

panel, and the resistance of the grounding electrode on site is paralleled with that of the utility ground. This connection, therefore, must not be made until after the commissioning test is performed, but it often happens that a premature hookup is done. As a last resort, a resistance test can still be performed, but it is hardly ideal. The problem is that the test current now has multiple paths to ground. It will divide according to the law of parallel resistances. Therefore, if the operator can measure the amount of current flowing in each path, the resistance contribution of the local ground can be calculated by working backward from Ohms law. Since the amount of current employed by modern testers is on the milliampere level, a highly sensitive and highly accurate clamp-on ammeter is required. Even so, its error will be superimposed on that of the ground tester. Plus, in many environments, the clamp-on will be destabilized by inductive noise, making it difficult to get a reliable reading. Some testers come equipped with a built-in clamp for this purpose, and perform the calculation automatically. Still, this method may not stand up to rigorous scrutiny, although, as a last resort, it may be preferable to sawing off the conductor! A final note should be made about the nature and timing of a commissioning test. A grounding electrode is only as good as its maximum resistance that is to say, on the worst day of the year for grounding. Typically, this would be at the end of a dry summer, or in the dead of winter if freezing occurs. Of course, a commissioning test cannot wait but must be performed upon completion of construction. However, some judicious points of application are in order. If at all possible, it is a good idea to allow the soil to settle around the electrode, preferably for one to two weeks while other construction proceeds, before the test is done. This way, the soil will have made a firm interface with the electrode, which will be more representative of its on line condition than a measurement
3

made when still loosely packed due to excavation. Conversely, if rain has recently fallen, the soil will be highly conductive and may well lead to a false sense of security through an uncharacteristically low reading. It is best to wait a few days after a rainfall. If the construction schedule makes it necessary to test at a time of optimum ground resistance, further distortion can at least be avoided by following these pointers. Then, if the commissioning test barely meets specifications, it is likely that the facility will not enjoy adequate protection year round.

might want to consider taking responsibility for administering the test and having it certified by independent technicians or engineers, not merely leaving it to the contractor. Taking shortcuts may look like an easy way out but only until the building burns or equipment is lost. The next article will take a closer look at clamp-on testing with an explanation of its strengths and weaknesses.

Cheating the Test

As these examples indicate, a ground test is fairly easy to cheat. The test electrode could be deliberately watered, or the measurement taken sufficiently close to the test electrode to indicate a low resistance. This is why full procedures like fall-of-potential are often specified in contracts. Furthermore, the facility owner

Jeffrey R. Jowett is Senior Applications Engineer for Megger in Valley Forge, PA, serving the manufacturing lines of Biddle, Megger, and Multi-Amp for electrical test and measurement instrumentation. He holds a BS in Biology and Chemistry from Ursinus College. He was employed for 22 years with James G. Biddle Co. which became Biddle Instruments and is now Megger.

NETA WORLD