145 views

Uploaded by Islam Golać

- Cable Sheath Bonding Application Guide.pdf
- H.v. Installation
- IEC 60364-5-54_2008-01
- PPE 2011 Exam Brochure 30 Nov 2010 Final
- Advantage Team Introduces Utility Crew Safety Instrument at EPRI Conference
- Earthing ace
- SONY+KDL+40R470B+Chassis+ITC3-ME
- Large-Embedded-Generation-Connection-Principles-and-Guidelines.pdf
- Cable Selection Guide
- TM 5-811-1 Elct Pwr Supply.pdf
- Performance Analysis of Actual Step and Mesh Voltage of Substation Grounding System with the variation of Length and Number of Ground Rod
- Panasonic Sb Wa930ee
- stat fax 303
- 600.pdf
- General Technical Specifications(Electrical)
- 10.1.1.193.5946.pdf
- 3 Grounding
- NX-308-INS_PROG
- 201 Thinkpad Transnote
- KBMG 212D Manual

You are on page 1of 120

Computer Modeling and Simulation of Grounding Systems in power Stations and Substations

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering University of Technology in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering

Ghaith A. Abdul-Rahim

Supervised By

Dr. Hussein J. Al-Mashat

By

October 2003

SUPERVISOR CERTIFICATION

We certify that this thesis entitled Computer Modeling And Simulation of Grounding systems In Power Stations And Substations was prepared under our supervision at the Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Technology, Baghdad, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering.

Signature: Name: Ass. Prof. Dr. Hussein J. Al-Mashat Date: /10 /2003

We certify that we have read this thesis entitled Computer Modeling And

as an examining committee, examined the student Ghaith Ali Abdul-Rahim in its content and that, in our opinion, it meet the standards of a thesis for the degree of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering.

Signature:

(Supervisor )

Approved for the Electrical and Electronic Engineering Department, University of Technology, Baghdad.

Signature: Name: Ass. Prof. Dr. Ali Al-Shekhely (Head of Electrical and Electronic Engineering Department)

List of Symbols

SYMBO

GPR I Ib If Ig v VDF V a j r r u E R D Currents Body current Fault current Ground current Potential Voltage distribution factor voltage resistivity Current density radius Unit vector Electric field intensity resistance Spacing between two electrodes Electrode length Depth of burial frequency Body resistance Time duration of electric current x-coordinates y-coordinates Angels in cylindrical coordinates

A

DESCRIPTION

Ground potential rise

UNITS

Volts Ampere Ampere Ampere Ampere Volts volts volts Ohm. m Ampere/m2 m Volt / meter ohm m m m Hz Ohm seconds -

l

z f rb t x y

k L H Vtouch Vstep

Reflection factor Electrode segment length Upper layer height Touch voltage Step voltage

m m volts volts

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering American National Standard Institute Voltage Distribution Factor Ground Potential Rise

ABSTRACT

Proper grounding in power stations and substations provides reliable operation of equipment and safety of personal working at (or near) the site. Present work is a contribution in this field and is devoted to the modeling and simulation of various systems and configurations used in substation grounding. For this purpose the various available theoretical approaches were analyzed and compared. A universal computer model is presented. The model included all factors of influence such as short circuit level, soil resistivity, electrode type, size, material, and configuration. two cases for the grounding soil have been investigated; the first is the uniform soil and the second is the two-layer earth model. For each system tested important information is provided from the computer output such as the resistance of the overall grounding system, the touch and step voltages at any selected location, the voltage on any selected grid point, a plot of voltage profile on a selected line segment, the transfer on a metallic structures not bonded to the grounding system, if such structures exist. The various methods of soil resistivity measurements are analyzed and discussed. The developed model was tested for two practical substations (NewShergatt and Thoba) and the results obtained were compared with those presented by foreign design and construction companies for the above substations.

Chapter One

Introduction

1.1 Introduction ......1 1.2 Literature Survey ......3 1.3 The Present Work ...8

Chapter Two

Analysis of Simple Grounding Systems Techniques

2.1 Introduction .....11 2.2 Analysis of Simple Grounding Systems ....12 2.2.1 Hemispherical Electrode Buried in Earth .. .12 2.2.2 Two Hemispheres Embedded in earth .14 2.2.3 Other Simple Grounding Systems .....16 2.3 Body Current due to Touch and Step Voltages 18 2.4 Grounding system safety assessment ..........22 2.5 Basic Equations and Solutions ....24 2.6 Analysis of Grounding Systems-Matrix method .27 2.7 Combined Integration-Matrix method ...30 2.8 Computer program-uniform soil .....36 2.9 VDF Between Two-Segments with any Direction ...39 2.9.1 Coplanar Non-Parallel Line Segments ....41 2.9.2 Angled Line Segments, Coplanar or Skew ...41 2.10 Analysis of Grounding System with Two-Layer Earth42

2.10.1 Both segment in top layer .....43 2.10.2 Both segment in Bottom layer ...44 2.10.3 One Segment in Top Layer and One in Bottom 45 2.11 Computer Program-Nonuniform Earth ...45

Chapter Three

Soil Resistivity Measurement and Modeling

3.1 Introduction ...48 3.1.1 Wenner method .....48 3.1.2 Drinen Rod Method ....49 3.2 Soil model .51 3.3 Point source electrode in a two-layer earth .52 3.4 Computer program for modeling earth in two layer ..53 3.5 Two-layer Model by Weighted least square method ..56 3.6 Measurement of Ground Electrode resistance ..58 3.6.1 Three electrode method .....58 3.6.2 Fall of Potential Method ......... 58 3.6.2.1 Theory of the fall of potential ..60 3.6.2.2 Identical Electrode and Large Spacings ..61 3.6.2.3 Hemispherical Electrodes ....62 3.6.2.4 General case ........62 3.6.3 Electrical Center Method ..63 3.6.3.1 Test at a large substation .....64

Chapter Four

Theoretical Study and Design Considerations

4.1 Simplified equations ..66 4.1.1 Introduction ..66 4.1.2 Equations for the resistance of grounding systems ...66 4.2 Equations for the touch and step voltages ..68 4.3 Equivalent-circuit representation of grounding systems...70 4.4 Design Procedure .73

4.5 Basic problem and solutions .....74 4.6 Selection of Conductor and connectors76 4.7 Fusing of Conductor.78

Chapter Five

New-Shergat and Thoba Substations Grounding Grid Calculations

5.1 Introduction..........80 5.2 Data for the Substations ...........80 5.3 Calculation of maximum allowable touch voltage .82 5.4 Grid design ...............82 5.4.1 Grid Resistance ........82 5.4.2 Maximum encountered mesh and step voltages ...84 5.5 Discussion of the Results..92

Chapter Six

Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Works

6.1 Conclusions .. ......94 6.2 Suggestions for Future Works 96 References ..98 Appendix [A] ..103 Appendix [B] ......110

1.1 Introduction

For several technical and safety reasons, electric power system installations must be grounded. Grounding of power system is achieved by embedding metallic structures (conductors) into earth and electrically connecting these conductors to the neutral of the power system. In this way low impedance is provided between the power system neutral and the vast conducting soil, which guarantees that the voltage of the neutral with respect to earth will be low under all conditions. Grounding necessary for several reasons [1]: a) b) c) To assure correct operation of electrical devices, To provide safety during normal or fault condition, To stabilize the voltage during transient conditions and therefore to minimize the probability of a flashover during transients, d) To dissipate lightning strokes, and so on. The earth embedded metallic structures will be called the grounding system and provide a conducting path of electricity to earth, hence the purpose of grounding is to provide a low impedance electrical contact between the neutral of an electrical power system and earth. Ideally, the potential of the neutral of a three-phase system should be the same as that of earth. In this case, human beings are safe whenever they touch metallic structures connected to the system neutrals. However, abnormal operation includes highly unbalanced operating conditions or fault conditions may occur and violet safety. Depending on the level of potential difference between earth points and grounded structures, a hazardous condition may be

1

generated for human beings. This may be result from three distinct possibilities [1, 2]: 1) A person touching a grounded structure, which has a potential that is different from that of the point of earth, at which the person is standing. In this case, the person is subjected to a voltage that will generate an electric current through his body (this voltage is called touch voltage). 2) A person walking on the surface will experience a voltage between his feet. This voltage will generate electric body current, this voltage called (step voltage). 3) A person touching substation fence (in remote area) where the shock voltage may be approaching (or equal to) the full ground potential rise (GPR) of a ground electrode. Grounding systems should be designed such that the possible electric body current in an operator or bystander not exceeds a certain limit under any foreseeable adverse conditions. The analysis problem to determine the safety of electric power installations will be partitioned into two problems. The first analysis problem addresses the determination of the maximum voltage elevation of grounded structures [ground potential rise (GPR)] under all foreseeable adverse condition. For this purpose, the fault condition resulting in the highest ground potential rise must be identified and analyzed. The second analysis problem addresses the computation of the maximum body current in a person located in the ground-field given the ground potential rise. Based on available experimental data and accepted safety factors, the ANSI/IEEE standard-80 suggests that the electric body current below average person [1, 2].

116mA can be tolerated by the t

The analysis methods are based on dc analysis, which is accurate for spatially small systems energized with low frequency currents and voltages. Under these conditions, the resistance of the grounding system is the dominant component of the impedance. The reactance is neglected. This approach is accurate for most practical grounding system. [1, 22]

Due to the importance of the subject of power station and substation earthing it has been addressed by many investigators. S. J. Schwarz [5], derives analytical expressions for the ground grids, rodbeds, and their combinations, these give fairly accurate results. He found that design data, such as conductor diameter or the depth of laying are of secondary influence because of their logarithmic relation to the result. Eric T. B. Gross and Richard B. Wise [6,7], use Maxwells method of sub-areas for a flat rectangular plate of various L/W (L: length, W: width) ratios and its image considered in calculating the capacitance, different depths is assumed, and the resistance to ground is calculated using simple available relationships. They reported that their results are accurate to within 5%. J. Zaborszky [8], studied ground resistance on the basis of geometric dimensions and ground resistivity. The ground resistivity is assumed uniform and the vertical variations of the ground resistivity have extensive effects on the efficiency and ground resistance of the grounding grids. His equations apply only for the special type grid that was studied. G. F. Tagg [9] suggested a method for measuring the resistance of large electrode systems, his method is successfully avoided the use of very long leads to connect the potential and current electrodes. The basic principle is to obtain earth resistance curves for several current electrode spacings, and by assuming a number of successive positions for the electrical center of the

3

system, to produce intersection curves, which will give the earth resistance and the position of the electrical center. F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar [10]studied the grounding electrode resistance measurements by fall of potential method for non-homogeneous soil. Measurements must take into account the electrode spacing, the resistivity variations, the ground electrode dimension and shape, when a two-layer earth structure considered.The classical fall of potential method gives less variation in the required potential electrode position than the alternative method. F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar [11,12,13] developed a computer program which calculate grounding electrode performance, such as the potential to earth, the earthing system resistance, and the required position of the potential probe in field resistance measurement for any complex electrode in a twolayer earth structure. They reported that by using their program the difference between measured and calculated values did not exceed 10%. J.G. Sverak [14], introduced a concept of optimized grounding grid design, utilizing the technique of progressively unequal spacing, using a computerized evaluation of the system, potential profile throughout the entire grounding grids. F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedakar [15], presented some methods of calculating current distribution along a grounding electrode which solve an accurately the most general problem of interconnected electrodes. A multistep analysis method has definitive advantages with respect to accuracy, computing time and simplicity. F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedakar [16], also presented a number of methods for analyzing the grounding grid accurately. their study prove that uniform current approach to grounding problems is unrealistic, and dangerous effects of transferred potentials could result.

F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedakar [17], also showed and discussed the influence of the placement and arrangement of the test electrodes on the measurement of large grounding systems buried in uniform or two-layer soil. They concluded that the exact potential probe location is always larger when the deep soil has a higher resistivity than the top layer, it is possible to measure the true ground resistance by placing the potential probe at the return electrode side, and it is not possible when the probe is placed at the grounding system side. F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedakar [18], analyzed ground rods and their influence on horizontal ground conductors buried in two-layer soil, the current density damping effects of cross-conductors and the current drainage effects of ground rods on horizontal conductors. F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedakar [19], studied the effect of various parameters influencing grounding grid performance in uniform and two-layer soils, they found that soil parameters (,h,K), (: soil resistivity, h: upper layer thickness K: reflection factor) and ground grid configuration and buried depth influence significantly conductor current density, grid resistance step and touch potentials. L. G. Zukerman [20] presented a simple and rapid method for analyzing regular, multi-mesh grounding grids. His expressions suitable for any set of dimensions, resistivity, and fault current and calculations could be performed using a scientific calculator. Robert Heppe [21], derived equations to calculate the step and touch voltages, he found that body currents in a two-layer soil is four times larger than they would be in uniform soil. Robert J. Heppe, [22] also presented a method for the computation of voltages at the surface of the earth near a buried energized electrode grid of bare conductors allowing for the non-uniform leakage density caused by the

5

proximity of parallel conductors, cross conductors, angled conductors, and end effects. D. L. Garrett, Dr. H. J. Holley [23], developed a technique for directly calculation the input resistance from the self and mutual resistance before solving for the current which is necessary in order to calculate the grid potential rise. Their method is suitable for both uniform or multi-layered soil models. Pierre Kouteynikoff [24], develop a method for the calculation of the grounding resistance and potential distribution applicable to any practical arrangement of grounding electrodes, the calculation process involves segmentation of the electrode and then each segment is subdivided into smaller one hence the assumption of linear current distribution gives better approximation. A. P. Meliopoulos, R. P. Webb, E. B. Joy, [29], developed a general methodology for the analysis of electrical grounding system based upon an Equivalent Circuit Model of the earth embedded electrodes and conductive soil which is represented as a two-layer. Numerical solution of Laplace equations reduction techniques can be incorporated in the analysis method. C. J. Blatner [30] discussed the four point and driven rod (3-pins) method for both uniform and non-uniform soil model. He found that they are identical for uniform soil but they give significantly different results in the case of nonuniform soil model. Also the application of a relatively simple formula for calculation of the apparent soil resistivity of a driven ground rod based on the four point method is made. The result has been tested in the field, and he studied possible limitations of the four point test method. He concluded that, for small probe spacing where 2s h (s Electrode spacing, h upper layer depth) the measured value of w (w average soil resistivity) to depth s".m" will equal ( soil resistivity). As the probe spacing is increased until 2s>h

6

the measured value of w will start changing from 1 to 2, (1 and 2 is upper and lower layer resistivity respectively). E. B. Joy, N. Paik, T. E. Brewer, R. E. Wilson, R. P. Webb, and A. P. Meliopoulos [32] presented graphical data for the calculation of ground grid resistance. It is suitable for square grids with square meshes. Simple equations are presented to extend this data to rectangular shape grids with rectangular meshes. A. P. Meliopoulos, A. D. Papalexopoulos, R. P. Webb and C. Blatner [33, 39] presented a method for the estimation of soil parameters from usual measurements statistical estimation techniques, with a computer model for grounding system analysis are employed using field test data, method provide a satisfactory soil model. Several years later the computer program SOMIP is developed. The model is based on statistical estimation of soil parameters from four and/or three pin measurements. F. Dawalibi, C. J. Blattner [34], developed a new techniques which include: Logarithmic curve matching utilizing pre-calculated master curve with which a field curve can be compared directly. A computer program RESIST, which is based on the method of steepest descent. For an electrode spacing equal to upper layer thickness (2.5m) or greater, satisfactory agreement has been demonstrated between measured and computed results. K. A. Ewy, H. A. Smolleck [35], introduced easily constructed image location maps and reflection diagrams to explain the method of images as it is applied to the calculation of grounding resistance for horizontal and vertical rods in two-layer earth. J. C. Sverak [36, 37], presented a new approach to find a ground grid design ensures a nearly uniform level of safety any where above the grid with using the smallest possible number of grid wire and ground rods.

7

J. Nahman, D. Salamon [38, 40], modified Schwarzs formulae for the resistance of rod-beds and the mutual resistance of grid and rod-bed component parts of the combined grounding system. This enabled the application at non-uniform two-layer soils. Also a simple empirical formula for the practical assessment of the earthing system resistance is presented. Peter A. Zokes [43], extend the concepts and design recommendations from IEEE standard-80 to larger industrial complexes requires extensive time and numerous assumption in areas not covered by standard-80.

The present work is devoted primarily to the investigation of the most widely used methods in substation earthing system calculations and design, with the objective of selecting the most suitable method for Iraq and its various soil conditions. It also includes a comparative study between exact and approximate methods as to establish the level of accuracy. The various measurement techniques have been analyzed and studied. Computer models that simulate the performance of grounding systems in power stations and substations are presented and used. The results obtained have been compared with those presented by foreign design and construction companies worked in Iraq. The effect of various design parameters such as soil resistivity, the conductor size and type, and configuration is investigated. The results obtained are also tested for safety of personal walking in vicinity of the substation from either the step and the touch voltages. The thesis has six chapters as follows: Chapter one is an introduction and historical background of power station and substation grounding systems calculations, measurements and design.

8

Chapter two deals with theoretical background analysis procedures of power system grounding. It also describe techniques that are applicable to the analysis of substations grounding systems (as well as transmission line towers grounding). Expressions for the analysis of substation grounding systems for both uniform and non-uniform soils are given. The given expressions are for uniform soil, and then developed for two-layer soil for conductors at any direction and any angle. Two program flowcharts are shown in this chapter, one deals with uniform soil, the other with two-layer soil, both programs have been run and tested for New-Shergatt and Thoba substations, and gave the same results as calculated by the companies. Chapter three presents soil resistivity measurement methods, two methods of measurement are described, these are the three pins method and four pins method. Also modeling technique for the soil in two-layer is described. Flowchart for determining the soil resistivity by the two-layer model is given. Also this chapter describe methods for measuring the ground grid resistance by fall of potential method and electrical centers method, which is used for resistance measurement of large substations grids. Chapter four involved with the practical applications for the various methods of analysis techniques, firstly a simplified equations used for computing the ground grid resistance by simple but approximate formulae, this formulae used for rectangular and square grids only the matter which makes this formulae applicable for special cases only, also approximate formulae for step and touch voltages presented, they give the worst step and touch voltage in the grid, always the worst or larger step and touch voltages lay at the corners of the grids. A suggested design procedure of the substation grid has been introduced, and some practical considerations concerning the conductor size and conductor type selections.

9

Chapter five presents the results for the above techniques, several tables and curves of the programs output results are shown. Comparison of these results with several substations grounding grids implemented in the country like NEW-SHERGAT and THOBA substation is given.

Chapter six reveals the conclusions, which found during the work, and

suggests several broad lines for future works, which is not involved in the present work.

The objectives of the present work is concentrated mainly on the following Computing grounding system resistance in electric power stations and substations. Determining soil resistivity model. Computing resistance of grounding system in electric power stations and substations when the earth is represented in two layer model. Computing the step and touch voltages for both cases above.

10

2.1 Introduction

Grounding systems vary considerably in complexity from a simple vertical rod to a substation mat with both vertical and horizontal components of different lengths and angles [35]. The design of grounding systems of substation and electrical systems in general has the primary purpose of ensuring the safety and well-being of personal, any one who may come close to conductive media, electrically coupled to grounding mats during unbalanced fault conditions. In general, an unbalance fault will cause a potential rise of the system neutral and a conductive medium electrically connected to the neutral. During a fault, hazardous transfer voltages may be generated on these elements [38]. A safe grounding design has two objectives: 1. Provide means to carry and dissipate electric currents into ground under normal and fault conditions without exceeding any operating and equipment limits or adversely affecting continuity of service. 2. Assure such a degree of human safety that a person working or walking in the vicinity of grounding facilities is not exposed to the danger of critical electric shock [2]. In the past, a great many people assumed that any object grounded, however crudely, could be safely touched. This misconception probably contributed to many tragic accidents in the past [1,2,27]. A low station ground resistance is not, in itself, a guarantee of safety. Since there is no simple relation between the resistance of the ground system as a whole and the maximum shock current to which a person might be exposed, a station relatively low ground resistance may be dangerous under

11

some circumstances, while another station with very high resistance may still be safe or can made safe by careful design [2]. For instance, if a substation is supplied from an overhead line, a low grid resistance is important because a substantial part of the total ground fault current enters the earth, causing an often-steep rise of the local ground potential, figure (2.1).

IF=Ig IF

Ig

Rg

The effect of that particular portion of fault current, which enters and saturates the earth within the station area, has to be analyzed. If geometry, location of ground electrodes, local soil characteristics and other factors contribute to an excessive potential gradient field at the earth surface, the grounding system thus might be inadequate despite its capacity of sustain the fault current in magnitude and direction, as permitted by protective relays [2].

A simple grounding system will be examined here. The analysis of these systems is simple and provides the basic concepts underlying the design of grounding systems [1].

The simplest grounding system from analysis point of view is a hemispherical electrode embedded in earth of resistivity as shown in figure 2.2a, the center of hemispherical electrode is located on the surface of the earth. Assume that the potential of the hemisphere is v in this case electrode current will flow from the surface of the electrode into the earth.

12

Air Resistivity

Resistivity

(a)

v1 v2

Resistivity

a (b)

r u

Figure 2.2, hemispherical electrode embedded in earth, (a) actual system (b) equivalent system for analysis purpose

Because of symmetry, the flow of the electric current in the semi-infinite earth will be the same as in the system of figure 2.2b, which illustrates a sphere embedded in an infinite medium of resistivity . In other words, the flow of the current will be such that the equi-potential surfaces generated will be concentric spherical surfaces. If total current I flow from the surface of the hemisphere into earth figure 2.2a, total current 2I will flow from the sphere into earth figure 2.2b. The current density J(a) at a point located a distance from the center of the electrode will be [1]:

J (a) = Where:

2I r u 4r 2

Ampere/m2

r u ....2.1

r u : is a unit vector in the radial direction.

By ohms low, the electric field intensity at a point located at a distance from the center of the hemisphere will be: r r E (a) = J (a)u a r ...2.2 The potential of the hemisphere with respect to a point x located at a

distance a=a1 from the center of the hemisphere will be given by the equation:

a1

v(a1 ) =

a =r

J (a) da

v(a1 ) =

I 1 1 ( ) ....2.3 2 r a1

13

The potential of the sphere with respect to remote earth, v, is obtained by letting a1.

v =

I ..........2.4 2r

The potential on the surface of the earth along a line passing through the center of the hemisphere is illustrated in figure 2.3. The resistance of the hemisphere to remote earth is:

R=

v = I 2r

........2.5

I

Resistivity

Figure 2.3. Potential distribution on the surface of the earth generated by a hemisphere

An electric current source is connected between the two hemispheres, which will cause total electric current I to flow through earth, figure 2.4a. Assuming that the distance between the two hemispheres is much larger than their radii. In this case, the results of section 2.2.1 can be employed directly. The solution for this case is obtained by superposition. The electric current density J(x, y) at a point (x, y), illustrated in figure 2.4a is:

J ( x, y ) = Where: a1, a2: are distances illustrated in figure 2.4a, r r u1,u2 : are unit vectors.

14

2I r r u u1 2 2 2 4a1 4a 2 2I

Amps/m2 ......2.6

The first term is the contribution to the electric current density from the first hemisphere and the second term is the contribution from the second hemisphere. Similarly, the electric field intensity E(x,y) is computed to be:

r 2I r 2I r u1 u E ( x, y ) = 2 2 2 4a1 4a 2

Volts/m .2.7

r v = E ( x, y )du

Selecting an integration path along the line AB and carrying out the integration yield

v=

Air

I

I 1 1 1 1 + ( ) ......2.8 2 r1 D r2 r2 D a1

A r1 B

a2

r u

r u

1

-I r2

-I

Resistivity

D

a1

2

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.4 two hemispherical electrodes (a) configuration (b) lines of current flow

v=

I 1 1 ( ) ......2.9 r Dr

R= V 1 1 = ( ) I r Dr

.....2.10

15

2.2.3 Other Simple Grounding Systems

Practical grounding structure consists of ground rods, strips, rings, disks, ground mats, and so on. Some of the simplest practical grounding electrodes are illustrated in figure 2.5. Accurate analysis of the grounding systems of figure 2.5 requires numerical techniques, which will be presented later. Often it is necessary to estimate the resistance of grounding system with simplified formulae.

2r 2r (a) 2r z 2w b (b) z

(c)

(d)

z 2r b

b (e) (f)

Figure 2.5. Simple grounding systems. (a) Ground rod, (b) buried wire, (c) buried strip, (d) thin plate in infinite medium, (e) thin plate near the soil surface, (f) ring in infinite medium.

2l ln 2l r

...2.11

16

Buried wire figure 2.5b

R=

2l l (ln + ln ) r 2l 2z

z 6r

..2.12

R= 2l l (ln + ln ) 2l w 2z z 3w ....2.13

R=

8b

.....2.14

4b

..2.15

......2.16

Electrode

Two ground road Length L> radius a Two ground road Length L< radius a Right angle turn wire length of arm depth s/2 Three point star length of arm depth s/2 Four point star length of arm depth s/2 Six point star length of arm depth s/2 Eight point star length of arm depth s/2 of L,

expression

2 L4 L2 4L 1) + + (ln (1 ....) 2 r 4L 4D 3D 5D 4 4L 4L D D2 D4 (ln ....) R= + ln 2+ + 2 4L 2 L 16 L r D 512 L4 2L 2L D D2 D4 (ln R= + ln 0.2373 + 0.2146 + 0.1035 2 0.0424 4 ....) 4L r D L L L D D2 D4 2L 2L R= + ln + 1.071 0.209 + 0.238 2 0.054 4 ....) (ln r D L 6L L L D D2 D4 2L 2L R= + ln + 2.912 1.071 0.645 2 0.145 4 ....) (ln r D L 8L L L R=

L,

L,

L,

L,

D D2 D4 2L 2L + ln + 6.851 3.128 + 1.758 2 0.490 4 ....) (ln r D L 12L L L 2 4 D D D 2L 2L R= + ln + 10.98 5.51 + 3.26 2 1.17 4 ....) (ln r D L 16L L L R=

17

2.3 Body Current due to Touch and Step Voltages

Effects of an electric current passing through the vital parts of a human body depend on the duration, magnitude and frequency of this current. The most dangerous consequence of such an exposure could be ventricular fibrillation [1,2,26,27,28]. Humans are very vulnerable to the effect of electric current at frequencies of 50 Hz and 60 Hz. Currents about 0.1 Amp can eventually be lethal. Authorities generally agree that the human body can tolerate slightly larger current at 25 Hz an approximately five times larger at direct current. Similarly, at frequencies of 3000 Hz or 10000 Hz, even larger currents can be sustained. In the case of lighting surges, the human body seems able to tolerate very high currents, perhaps in the order of hundreds of amperes [2]. The most common physiological effects of electric current flow in the human body, sated in order of increasing current magnitude, are perception, muscular contraction, unconsciousness, fibrillation of the heart, respiratory nerve blockage and burning. One milliampere is generally recognized as the threshold of perception, a value of current at which a person is just able to detect a slight tingling sensation in his hands or fingertips, caused by the passing current. Currents from 1-6 mA, often termed let-go currents, though unpleasant to sustain, do not impair the ability of person holding an energized object to control his muscles and release it. Dalziels classic experiment with 28 woman and 134 men, provides data indicating an average let-go current of 10.5 mA for women and 16 mA for men, and 6 mA as the respective threshold value. In 9 to 25 mA range, currents may be quite painful and can make it hard or impossible to release energized objects grasped by the hand. For still higher currents, muscular contractions could make breathing difficult. Unlike the cases of respiratory inhibition from the much greater current mentioned next, these effects are not permanent and disappear when the current is

18

interrupted-unless the contraction is very severe and breathing is stopped not for seconds, but for minutes. Yet, even such cases often respond to resuscitation [2]. It is not until current magnitudes in a 0.1 Amp range are reached that such things as ventricular fibrillation, stoppage of the heart, or inhibition of respiration might occur and cause injury or death. Persons in such conditions do not respond to resuscitation. If shock currents can be kept below this value deaths or injury from this cause and also death from the causes, which require still higher current, will be avoided. As it has been shown by Dalziel and others, the non-fibrillation current of magnitude Ib at durations ranging from 0.03 to 3.0 seconds, is related to the energy absorbed by the body, as described by the following equation:

2 Ib t = k

Where: Ib: is (rms) magnitude of the current flowing through the body, t: is duration of this current flow, k: is empirical constant related to an electric shock energy tolerated by x% of a given population. Figures 2.6a and 2.7a,[1] illustrate human being in the vicinity of a substation ground mat subjected to step and touch voltages, respectively.

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.6 definition of equivalent circuit for the computation of body currents due to step voltage.

19

The computational procedure for body currents consists of computing a Thevinin equivalent circuit connected to the points of contact of the human

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.7definition of equivalent circuit for the computation of body currents due to touch voltage.

body with the ground field (i.e. points A and B in figure 2.7a and 2.7b). The Thevenin equivalent circuit comprises two parameters (a) the equivalent voltage source, and (b) the equivalent resistance. The voltage source equals the open circuit voltage, meaning in this case the voltage at the points of contact when the human being is not touching. This voltage will be the step or touch voltage, respectively. The equivalent internal resistance between the points of contact can be accurately computed with numerical techniques. For a fast but approximate computation, the human foot can be modeled as a plate touching the surface of the earth. The resistance of the plate to remote earth is approximately (section 2.2.3) R= Where:

4b

b : the radius of the plate. The human foot definitely is not a circular plate. However, it has been observed with scale models and numerical studies that the area of the foot in touch with the earth is the determining variable. For this reason, b can be approximated with:

20

b= A

Where: A: is the area of the foot in touch with the earth. For an adult with large feet, the area of the persons feet is approximately 200 cm2. Thus, the value of b is computed to be b0.08 m. Hence the resistance of one foot touching the earth is

R=

4 0.08

3 ........2.17

R = 3 + 3 = 6 .....2.18 While the equivalent resistance in figure 2.7b where the resistance of the two feet to soil are connected in parallel, is: req = 3 + 3 = 1.5 ......2.19 3 + 3

The equivalent resistance, req , in fig 2.7b, should also take into account the resistance of the grounding system. However, for practical grounding systems, this resistance is typically small compared to the resistance1.5 , and thus omitted. Once the Thevinin equivalent circuit has been computed, the electric current through the human body, I b , is computed from

Ib = v eq req + rb

..2.20

Where:

r b : is the resistance of human body between the points of contact. r b of human body depends on many factors, such as size, skin condition,

pressure at the contact, and level of voltage v eq [1,2]. For dc and ac at normal power frequency, the human body can be substituted by non-inductive

21

resistance. The resistance is between extremities, that is, from one hand to both feet, or from one foot to the other one. The value of this resistance is difficult to establish. The resistance of the internal body tissues, not including skin, is of the order 300 ohms, whereas values of body resistance including skin, ranging from 500 ohms to 3000 ohms, have been suggested in the literature. Dalziel conducted extensive tests to determine safe let-go currents, with hands on feet wet, in salt water. Values obtained using 60 Hz for men, were current 9.0 mA, corresponding voltages, hand-to-hand 21.0 volts hand-to-feet 10.2 volts. Hence, the alternating current resistance for hand-to-hand contact is equal to 21.0/0.009 or 2330 and the resistance hand-to-feet equals10.2/0.009 or 1130 . For very high voltage (above 1kv), and currents (above 5A), the human resistance is decreased by damage or puncture of the skin at point of contact. However, a wet hand contact resistance may be very low at any voltage. The resistance of shoes is uncertain; through it may be very low damp leather. A value of 1000 is selected for the calculations, which follow, as representing the resistance of a human body from hand-to-both feet and also from hand-to-hand or from one foot to the other foot are used; this value is suggested by ANSI/IEEE standard-80 [2].

The electric body current provides the basis for safety assessment of grounding systems. Based on available experimental data the ANSI/IEEE standard-80 suggests that the electric body currents below

0.116 Amp can be t

tolerated by average person. Thus according to this standard, the maximum allowable body current is[1]:

Ib = 0.116 t amps

22

Where: t: the duration of the electric current in seconds. On the other hand, the electric body current is:

Ib = v eq req + rb

voltage. Thus combining the two preceding equations, the maximum allowable step or touch voltage is computed:

v eq.allowable =(req + rb )

0.116

......2.21

To obtain the maximum allowable step voltage, req should be replaced with 6. To obtain the maximum allowable touch voltage, req should be replaced with 1.5. For body resistance, req the value of 1000 is suggested, yielding:

0.116 t t

volts...................................2.22

0116

volts........................................2.23

Thus, for a safe grounding system, the maximum touch and step voltage should not exceed the foregoing values. It is obvious from the equations above that safety can be assessed in terms of the touch and step voltages instead of the body currents. Safety assessment refers to the procedure by which the actual maximum touch and step voltages are computed and compared to the tolerable (safe) touch and step voltages.

23

2.5 Basic Equations and Solutions

The fundamental analysis problem is illustrated in figure 2.8. Consider an infinitesimal section of an earth-embedded metallic structure. Assume that total electric current Is emanates from the surface of the infinitesimal section and is flowing into earth. It will be referred as a point current source.

Region 2 Conductivity 2=0 z As y x Region 1 Conductivity 1 As r A As

(a)

(b)

Fig 2.8 A point current source inside the semi-infinite conducting earth

The location of the source is at point As, illustrated in figure 2.8. The voltage, V(r,,z), at a point (r,,z) in side the earth must satisfy the Laplace equation

2V (r , , z )= Where:

1 V (r , , z ) 1 2V (r , , z ) 2V (r , , z ) + =0 2.24 (r )+ 2 2 2 r r r r z

r, , and z are the coordinates of the point A relative to a system of cylindrical coordinates as indicated in figure 2.8a. Because of the symmetry of the problem, the solution is independent of the coordinate . Thus V(r,,z)=V(r,z). In this case the Laplace equation reads 2V (r , z )= 1 V (r , z ) 1 2V (r , z ) r + =0 2 2 r r r r z .2.25

The general solution to this equation is given in terms of Bessel function of zero order, Jo:

I V (r , z ) = S 4

k =0

(k ) J o (kr )e

kz

dk .....2.26

24

Where: k: is a dummy variable and (k ) is an arbitrary function of k. For a specific problem, the function (k ) is determined from boundary conditions. Note that the solution has two possible functional forms, corresponding to the positive and negative signs, which correspond to propagation in the +z and z direction, respectively. The general solution for the voltage in region 2 is: V2 (r , z ) =

2 (k ) J o (kr )e 4 1

0

IS

kz

dk

z > 0 ..2.27

In the general equation above, the term corresponding to propagation is the +z direction (e kz ) must be omitted because V2 (r , z ) 0 as z + . The general solution for the voltage in region 1 is: V1 (r , z ) = J o (kr )e 4 1

0

IS

k z zS

dk +

1 (k ) J o (kr )e 4 1

0

IS

kz

dk

z 0 2.28 In the general solution above, the term corresponding to propagation is the +z direction (e kz ) has been omitted because V1 (r , z ) 0 as z . In the set of two equations above, two unknown functions appear, 1 (k ) and 2 (k ) . The boundary conditions at the interface of the two regions will provide two equations which, if solved, will determine 1 (k ) and 2 (k ) . At the interface, the voltage must be a continuous function and the electric current must also be a continuous function. These requirements result in the fallowing boundary conditions: V1 (r ,0)=V2 (r ,0) For every r

For every r

.....2.29

.....2.30

V1 (r ,0) V (r ,0) = 2 2 z z

25

Note that

V 2 ( r ,0 ) = IS 4 1

2 (k ) J o (kr )dk

0

V1 (r ,0) =

IS

4 1

J o (kr)e

0 0

+ kz S

dk +

IS

4 1

1 (k ) J o (kr )dk

0

I k V (r ,0) 1 1 = S z 4

J o (kr )e

+ kz s

I k dk + S 1 (k ) J o (kr )dk 4

V 2 (r ,0) =0 z

2 ( k ) =e

e

kz S

+ kz S

+ 1 (k )

+ 1 (k )=0

1 ( k ) =e

kz S kz S

....2.31 .2.32

2 ( k ) = 2e

Finally upon substitution of the computed function 1 (k ) and 2 (k ) , the general solutions for the voltage in region 1 and 2 are obtained: V 2 (r , z ) = 2 J o (kr )e 4 1

0

IS

k ( z zS )

dk .2.33 IS

V1 (r , z ) =

J o (kr )e 4 1

0

IS

k z zS

dk +

J o (kr )e 4 1

0

k ( z + zS )

dk

..2.34 we shall be concerned with the voltage in region 1 only. The integrals appearing in the equation for V1 (r , z ) are evaluated by utilizing the following identity of Bessel functions:

26

J o (kr )e

0

ka

dk

1 r 2 +a 2

...2.35

1 1 V1 ( r , z )= + ..2.36 2 2 2 4 1 ( x x ) 2 + ( y y ) 2 + ( z z ) 2 ( x x ) +( y y ) +( z + z ) s s s s Or I 1 1 ...2.36a V= 1 + 4 r r Where: r :is the distance between p and the source of current,

IS

r :is the distance between p and the image of the source current. The derived result is interpreted as follows: the voltage in region 1 is identical to the voltage generated by two point sources of magnitude I S located at points ( x s , y s , z s ) and ( x S , y s , z s ) in an infinite region of conductivity 1 . In other words, the interface between 1 and 2 has the effect of generating the image of the point source with respect to the plane interface. This interpretation is illustrated in figure 2.8b. The result derived is the basic building block of all numerical analysis procedures of grounding systems.

The basic equation (2.36) can be utilized in a number of ways for the purpose of analysis of practical grounding system [1]. The basic idea in all methods is to divide a grounding system into small segments, then utilizing the basic equations results in a relationship between the voltage of these

27

segments and the electric current emanating from the surface of the segments. Consider, for example, the simple system of figure 2.9a. The ground electrodes are divided into n very small segments. Let the total electric current Ii emanate from the surface of segment (i) and flow into earth as is illustrated in figure 2.9b. The figure also illustrates the neighbors of segment (i). If segment (i) is very small, it can be represented with a point source of electric current Ii located at the center of the segment; the voltage at the surface of the

Total current i

Vi

i-1

voltage i+1 Vi

i (a) (b)

Ii (c)

Figure 2.9, Illustration of the matrix method. (a) Simple grounding system, (b) small segments i-1, i+1, (c) mathematical model of segment i.

segment is vi. This is illustrated in figure 2.9c. The same model can be assumed for segments (i-1, i+1), and all other segments. Then the basic equations are utilized to develop relationships among the electric currents Ii, i=1,2,, n, and the voltages vi, i=1,2, , n. Specifically, the voltage vi (i.e., voltage of segment i) at point A will be: vi = f ( x Ai , y Ai , z Ai , x j , y j , z j , ) I j j =1 Where:

f ( x Ai , y Ai , y Ai , x j , y j , z j , ) = 1 1 + 4 ( x x ) 2 + ( y y ) 2 + ( z z ) 2 Ai j Ai j Ai j

n

......2.37

( x Ai x j ) 2 + ( y Ai y j ) 2 + ( z Ai + z j ) 2 1

28

I j : total electric current emanating from the surface of segment j.

In general, n such equations can be written, one for each segment:

v1 = f ( x A1 , y A1 , z A1 , x j , y j , z j , ) I j v 2 = f ( x A2 , y A2 , z A2 , x j , y j , z j , ) I j

j =1 n j =1 n n

.....2.38

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v n = f ( x An , y An , z An , x j , y j , z j , ) I j

j =1

If the voltages vi , i = 1,2,..., n, are known, then the equations above can be solved to yield the electric currents I j , j =1,2,...,n . Once the electric currents are specified, the voltage v( x, y, z ) at any point ( x, y, z ) in the earth can be computed from the equation v( x, y, z ) = f ( x A , y A , z A , x j , y j , z j , ) I j .2.39

j =1 n

In general, grounding systems are constructed with copper conductors. In this case, because of the high conductivity of copper, the entire grounding system is at essentially the same potential, the ground potential rise (GPR). Thus, the voltage of all segments is the same and equal to v (i.e.,

notation: v1=[VDF][I] Where:

1=[1 1 1 . . . 1]

...2.40

[I] T=[I1 I2 . . .In] [VDF] I, j=f (xAi ,yAi zAi ,xj, yj,zj,) v : is the ground potential rise of the grounding system. The electric currents [I] are computed from [I]=[VDF]-11v ....2.41

29

Note that the electric currents are proportional to the ground potential rise. Thus a resistance can be computed for the grounding system as the ratio of the ground potential rise over the total electric current. Specifically, the total electric current is I T = I j =1T[I]

j =1 n

.... 2.42

And v ...2.43 IT This method bears the name matrix method because it involves the R= matrix [VDF]. The entries of this matrix will be called voltage distribution

factors (VDFs) because they provide the voltage at a given point due to the

flow of a specific current source. The voltage distribution factors have dimensions of resistance (ohms).

The matrix method is conceptually simple. However, it is impractical because it involves the inversion of large matrix. Here we will discuss another method that is suitable for practical applications. The matrix method provides the electric current distribution along the conductors of a grounding system. Such analyses indicate that the distribution of electric current is more or less uniform along the conductor except at the two ends of conductor or where there are conductor crossings. The actual current distribution along the conductors of a grounding system can be approximated with a staircase function. This approximation is equivalent to assuming that the current density is constant along small segments of the conductor. Since the current density along the conductors is not known a priori, a method will be developed for the computation of the current density. For the purpose of computing the current density the conductors of a grounding system are partitioned into a number of finite segment is assumed constant but unknown. Next, expressions are developed relating the voltage at

30

a point to the total current emanating from the finite segment. Then the matrix method is applied to yield the unknown values of the electric current. The size of the involved matrix is equal to the number of selected segments. Thus the size of the matrix can be kept relatively small by appropriate segmentation of the grounding system conductors. It should be emphasized that the number of segments determines how accurately the actual current distribution will be represented by a staircase function. More segments will result in a better approximation but in a larger matrix (and, therefore, more computations). Appropriate application of this method provides a good compromise between accuracy and efficiency. The method bears the name combined integrationmatrix method because it involves integration along the length of a finite segment and subsequent application of the matrix method, as will be shown subsequently. The application of the combined integration/matrix method requires the development of relationships between the total electric current emanating the surface of a finite length of conductor and the voltage at a given point in earth. These relationships will be developed next. Consider two conductor segments of length 2L1 and 2L2, respectively, as in figure 2.10. The two conductor segments are part of a grounding system.

z

y

Figure 2.10 Tow earth embedded conductor segments of length 2L1 and 2L2 respectively.

(x2,y2,z2)

The coordinates of the center of conductor segments are (x1,y1,z1) and (x2,y2,z2), respectively. Assume that a total electric current, I1, emanates from

31

the outside surface of conductor segment 1 and flows into earth. Also, assume that the flow of current is uniform over the outside surface of the conductor segment (constant current density). The following three elementary problems are defined: Problem 1: compute the voltage at a point (x,y,z) in the earth due to the flow of the electric current I1 (current of conductor segment 1). Problem 2: compute the voltage transferred to conductor segment 2 because of the flow of the current I1 (current of conductor segment 1). Problem 3: compute the voltage of the conductor segment 1 due to the flow of its own current, I1. It is shown later that the voltage at any point (x,y,z) or the transferred voltage to another conductor or the voltage of the conductor itself is proportional to the total electric current emanating the conductor, that is, v=RtI ...2.44 Where: I: total electric current emanating the surface of the conductor under the consideration. Rt: a function depending on the geometry of the system and the conductivity of the soil (this function, which has dimensions of resistance, is a generalization of the voltage distribution factors introduced earlier), it will be also referred to as VDF. Because of the large number of configurations that earth embedded conductors may assume, the number of possible geometric arrangements for the three problems is large. To limit the possibilities, assume that earth embedded conductors are oriented only along the three coordinate axes x, y, or z. In this case only three distinct geometric arrangements need to be considered for problem 1, leading to three distinct expressions for VDF between a conductor segment and a point. These expressions are summarized

32

in table 2.1. Similarly, only six distinct geometric arrangements need to be considered for problem 2, leading to six distinct expressions for the VDF between two conductor segments. These equations are summarized in table 2.2. Finally, for problem 3, only three distinct geometric arrangements need to be considered, leading to three distinct expressions, which are summarized in table 2.3, the derivation of these expressions is illustrated with for sample calculations: (a) VDF between an x-directed conductor segment and a point (x,y,z), (b) VDF between two x-directed conductor segments, (c) VDF between an x-directed conductor segment and a y-directed conductor segment, and (d) self-VDF of an x-directed conductor segment.

Table 2.1 Equations for voltage distribution factors between a conductor segment and a point (transfer resistance)

x-directed

1 f ( x x + L, A ) f ( x x L, A ) + f ( x x + L, A+ ) f ( x x L, A+ ) 1 x 1 1 x 1 1 x x 1 1 8L 1

y-directed

1 [ f ( y y + L, A ) f ( y y L, A ) + f ( y y + L, A+ ) f ( y y L, A+ )] 1 y 1 1 y 1 1 y 1 1 y 8L 1

z-directed

1 [ f ( z z + L, A ) f ( z z L, A ) + f ( z + z + L, A ) f ( z + z L, A )] 1 z 1 1 z 1 1 z 1 1 z 8L 1

f (t , u) = ln(t + t + u ) Ax = ( y y1 ) 2 + ( z z1 ) 2

2 2 1

b c

2 2 , Ay = ( x x1 ) + ( z z1 ) ,

Az = ( x x1 ) 2 + ( y y1 ) 2 .

33

Table 2.2 Equations for voltage distribution factors between two-conductor segments (or voltage distribution factor) c,d Conductor segment a,b Voltage distribution factors

Segment 1 x-directed Segment 2 x-directed

f ( x x + L + L ,B ) f ( x x + L L ,B ) 2 2 1 1 2 x 16 L L 2 2 1 1 2 x

1 1 2

f ( x x L + L ,B ) + f ( x x L L ,B ) 2 2 1 1 2 x 2 2 1 1 2 x

y-directed

y-directed

+ f ( x x + L + L ,B+ ) f ( x x + L L ,B+ ) 2 2 1 1 2 x 2 2 1 1 2 x f ( x x L + L , B + ) + f ( x x L L , B + ) 2 2 1 1 2 x 2 2 1 1 2 x I 1 f ( y y + L + L ,B ) f ( y y + L L ,B ) 2 2 1 1 2 y 16 L L 2 2 1 1 2 y

1 2

f ( y y L + L ,B ) + f ( y y L L ,B ) 2 2 1 1 2 y 2 2 1 1 2 y

+ f ( y y + L + L ,B+ ) f ( y y + L L ,B+ ) 2 2 1 1 2 y 2 2 1 1 2 y f ( y y L + L , B + ) + f ( y y L L , B + ) 2 2 1 1 2 y 2 2 1 1 2 y

z-directed z-directed

f ( z z + L + L ,B ) f ( z z + L L ,B ) 2 2 1 1 2 z 16 L L 2 2 1 1 2 z

1 1 2

f ( z z L + L ,B ) + f ( z z L L , B ) 2 2 1 1 2 z 2 2 1 1 2 z + f ( z + z + L + L ,B ) f ( z + z + L L ,B ) 2 2 1 1 2 z 2 2 1 1 2 z f ( z + z L + L , B ) + f ( z + z L L , B ) 2 2 1 1 2 z 2 2 1 1 2 z

x-directed y-directed

1

16 L1 L 2

[ f3 ( x2 x1 + L1, y2 y1 + L2 , z2 z1)

f 3 ( x2 x1 + L1, y2 y L2 , z2 z1) f 3 ( x2 x L , y2 y + L2 , z2 z1) 1 1 1 1 + f 3 ( x2 x1 L1, y2 y1 L2 , z2 z1) + f 3 ( x2 x + L , y2 y + L2 , z2 + z1) 1 1 1 f 3 ( x2 x1 + L1, y2 y1 L2 , z2 + z1) f 3 ( x2 x L , y2 y + L2 , z2 + z1) 1 1 1 + f 3 ( x2 x1 L1, y2 y1 L2 , z2 + z1)]

x-directed

z-directed

1

16L L

1 2

[ f 3 ( x2 x1 + L1, z2 z1 + L2 , y2 y1)

f 3 ( x2 x1 + L1, z2 z1 L2 , y2 y1) f 3 ( x2 x L , z2 z + L2 , y2 y1) 1 1 1 + f 3 ( x2 x1 L1, z2 z1 L2 , y2 y1) + f 3 ( x2 x + L , z2 + z + L2 , y2 y1) 1 1 1 f 3 ( x2 x1 + L1, z2 + z1 L2 , y2 y1) f 3 ( x2 x L , z2 + z + L2 , y2 y1) 1 1 1 + f 3 ( x2 x1 L1, z2 + z1 L2 , y2 y1)]

34

y-directed z-directed

1

16 L1 L 2

[ f3 ( y2 y1 + L1, z2 z1 + L2 , x2 x1)

a

b

f 3 ( y2 y1 + L1, z2 z1 L2 , x2 x1) f 3 ( y2 y L , z2 z + L2 , x2 x1) 1 1 1 + f 3 ( y2 y1 L1, z2 z1 L2 , x2 x1) + f 3 ( y2 y + L , z2 + z + L2 , x2 x1) 1 1 1 f 3 ( y2 y1 + L1, z2 + z1 L2 , x2 x1) f 3 ( y2 y L , z2 + z + L2 , x2 x1) 1 1 1 + f 3 ( y2 y1 L1, z2 + z1 L2 , x2 x1)]

segment 1 length is 2L1. segment 2 length is 2L2. segment 1 is centered at (x1,y1,z1). segment 2 is centered at (x2,y2,z2).

= ( y2 y1) 2 + ( z2 z1) 2 B y = ( x2 x1) 2 + ( z2 z1) 2 B z = ( x2 x1 ) 2 + ( y 2 y1 ) 2 ; ,

2 2 2 2

c Bx

t +u + t 2 +u 2 + v 2 ) v

Segment direction a,b

x-directed

1 16 L

1 16 L

2 2

[ f 2 (2 L,a )+ f 2 (2 L,a ) 2a + f 2 (2 L, z1 2 )+ f 2 (2 L, z1 2 ) 2 z1 2 )

[ f 2 (2 L,a )+ f 2 (2 L,a ) 2a + f 2 (2 L, z1 2 )+ f 2 (2 L, z1 2 ) 2 z1 2 )

y-directed

z-directed

1

2

16 L 2 f (2 z1 , a )

2

[ f 2 (2 L, a ) + f 2 (2 L, a ) 2a + f 2 (2 z1 + 2 L, a ) + f 2 (2 z1 2 L, a )

a b

f 2 (t ,u ) =t ln(t + t +u ) t +u

2 2 2 2

The following flowchart is suggested to perform the analysis of grounding systems utilizing the formulae of tables 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 for uniform soil.

35

Start

Input Data

Repeat computations to all segments Yes Compute self Yes i=j ? No Compute mutual Direction of segment i =dirction of segment j =1 No Yes Compute self Yes i=j ? No Compute mutual

VDF

VDF

VDF

VDF

Yes Compute self Yes i=j ? No Compute mutual

VDF

VDF

2

36

Yes

37

I actual =

GPR R

Yes

Equation 2.36 could be interpreted to provide the voltage distribution factor between any two segments in any direction. In order to find the average voltage produced in a line segment of length L2 by a line source of length L1. One integrates over the length of L2 and

38

divides by L2 to obtain the average value, choosing a coordinate system in which the x and y axes lie on the surface, obtaining: v= IM Where: M = 4L1 L2

dsdS r

...2.45

The voltage distribution factor between segment 1 and 2 is the voltage produced in segment 2 by one ampere leaking from segment 1. The symmetry of (2.45) shows that this will also be the voltage produced in segment 1 by one ampere leaking from segment 2. Therefore, VDFjk=VDFkj, where VDF is the voltage distribution factor. In (2.45) r is the distance between a source element of length ds and a receiving element of length dS. One is therefore faced with the problem of evaluating the above integrals for line segments, which may be paralleling, coplanar but angled, or skewed. The paralleled case is easy to integrate. The others are more difficult. The way of evaluating the Neumann integral:

M = cos Where: : is the angle between the two line segments S and s: are measured along the segments from their intersection with their common perpendicular. To remove the cos() term and to avoid use of mixed lower case and upper case letters (which are difficult to program), one obtains, for 0 [22], dsdS r

M = cos

dsdS BF + BF AF + AF BF + F B = CB ln CA ln + GF ln r BE + BE AE + AE AF + F A GE ln BE + E B CG AE + E A sin

..2.46

Where:

CB GF sin CG CB GE sin CG 1 = tan 1 + + tan BF BE BF tan CG BE tan CG

39

CA GF sin CG CA GF sin CG 1 tan 1 + + + tan ...2.47 AF AE AF tan CG AE tan CG

Figure (2.12) is the diagram corresponding to these equations. Line segments AB and EF are shown projected in planes perpendicular to their common perpendicular CG. E and F are the projections of E and F on AB. A and B are the projections of A and B on EF. CG and all other distances are taken as positive except those (underscored) measured along AB and EF, which are taken as algebraically positive in the directions AB, and EF, respectively. is the (positive) solid angle subtended at B by a parallelogram EFHI constructed on EF with FH parallel and equal to AB.

A G

E B I

F H

E F B

would not vary smoothly when the terms shown underscored in (2.47) change sign. The above equations become greatly simplified in some frequently encountered cases, such as coplanar line segments, parallel lines, and perpendicular lines.

y x Since tan 1 = tan 1 , we can write (2.47) as: x 2 y

BE CG tan = tan 1 (CG ) 2 + CB GE sin tan AF CG tan + tan 1 (CG ) 2 + CA GF sin tan

40

BF CG tan tan 1 (CG ) 2 + CB GF sin tan AE CG tan tan 1 (CG ) 2 + CA GE sin tan ..2.48

With 0, as CG is reduced towards zero, making the segments coplanar, approach zero.

If the line segments are neither parallel nor perpendicular, the following procedure may be used to obtain the required quantities in (2.46) and (2.47). (as noted above, (2.47) does not have to be evaluated if the segments are coplanar). Let the x- axis lie along the segment having length L1, extending to the right from the origin at point A. figure 2.13. Let E of the segment having length L1 be at coordinates x, y, z in this system, and let the angle between the two segments be , where 0 . The voltage distribution factor will be computed from the values of x, y, z, , L1, and L2.

L1

B`

A`

E

y

C,G

E` L1

F`

To obtain the quantities needed to compute M in (2.46), proceed as follows: If z=0 and y=0, set y=a small number, such as the wire radius. This will avoid the possibility of attempting to take the logarithm of zero. It will not change the result appreciably. W2=y2+x2 y GE= sin y CF = F tan XF=x+L2cos y GF = F sin CA=CE-X

41

GA=CAcos GB=CBcos BE = ( x L1 ) 2 + w 2 BF=GF-GB

2 BF = ( X F L1 ) 2 +Y F + z 2 BE=CE-GB

2 2 AE=GE-GA AE= x 2 +w2 AF = X F +YF + z 2 AF=GF-GA EA=CA-CA EA=CA-CA FA=CA-CF EB=CB-CE FB=CB-CF CG=z M can be computed from the above constants, using (2.46). The voltage

distribution factor VDF is computed from M by (2.45). Two values of VDF must be computed and added to allow for the effect of the surface: The value for the two wires themselves, and the VDF between one wire and the image of the other. This can conveniently be done by calling the VDF subroutine twice, once with z=0, and once with z=2D (for horizontal coplanar wires).

The idea of adding the effects of a line source and its image, as described above, is appropriate if the earth is uniform to a great depth. If the soil consists of two layers, the top layer having resistivity 1 and thickness H, the bottom layer having resistivity 2 and extending to great depth, there are an infinite number of images of decreasing magnitude. Instead of calling the VDF subroutine twice, it is necessary to call it several times, with increasing values of z, until the magnitude of the images is small enough to be disregarded. Let the reflection factor

k=

2 1 2 + 1

42

2.10.1 Both segment in top layer

Let z be positive going downward from the surface. Consider horizontal segments i and j at depths zi and zj below the surface, both being in the top layer of the soil. If segment j inserts Ij amps, segment i will see not only segment j itself at vertical coordinate zj, but also an image reflected in the surface of the earth at coordinate - zj. This image will also appear to insert Ij amperes. The vertical distances of these two sources from segment i are zj-zi and zj+zi. Segment j and the image will both be reflected in the interface between the two layers, appearing as segments injecting currents of kIj amperes. These reflections are at coordinates 2H-zj and 2H+zj, respectively. These two images will be reflected with equal intensity by the top surface of the earth, appearing at coordinates -2H+zj and -2H-zj, respectively. The vertical distances of these four images from segment i are 2H-zj-zi, 2H+zj-zi, 2H-zj+zi, and 2H+zj+zi. Continuation of this process leads to the following equation for the VDF of segment j as seen by segment i, that is, the voltage produced in segment i per ampere leaking from segment j:

n VDFm = k M (2nH + z j + z i ) + M (2nH + z j z i ) 4L1 L2 n =0 + k n M (2nH z j + z i )+ M (2nH z j z i ) .2.49 n =1 Where:

M(z): is the function of z defined previously. M is, of course, also a function of x and y displacement of one segment relative to the other, the lengths, and the angles , but these are the same for all of the images of a given pair of segments. In uniform soil k=0. All of the above terms drop out except for n=0, remembering that 00 is defined as 1, hence the above equation is reduced to

43

VDFm =

4L1 L2

[M ( z j + z i ) + M ( z j z i )]

That is, of course, just the VDF of the two segments themselves plus the VDF between one segment and the image of the other. As usual, the equations are symmetrical, so that the above equations also give the VDF of segment i as seen by segment j.

Using the same geometry as above except that both segments in the bottom layer, segment i sees segment j injecting Ij amperes at vertical coordinate zj. This is at vertical distance from segment i of zj zi. Segment i sees a reflection of segment j in the interface between the two soil layers. This reflection appears to be injecting kIj amperes, and is located at vertical coordinate 2H+zj. Call this image j. Segment j is reflected by the top surface of the earth. This image is at vertical coordinate -zj, and appears to inject (1-k2) Ij amperes. Call this image j. Its distance from i is zj +zj. Image j is reflected in the interface between the two layers, and is rereflected. It is caused by energy leaving j, which strikes the bottom of the interface between the two layers, and bounces downward, off the interface towards i. Such energy does not hit any additional reflecting surfaces. Energy, which penetrates into the top layer, by contrast, can keep bouncing back and forth, some leaking out each time it hits the boundary between the two layers. The equation for the VDF of segment j as seen by segment i, or segment i as seen by segment j is therefore:

VDFm =

2 [M ( z j z i ) kM (2 H z j + z i ) + 4L1 L2

44

(1 k )

2

k n M (2nH + z j + z i ) ..2.50 n =0

Proceeding similarly, one obtains the following equation for the voltage distribution factor of segment j in the basement layer as seen by segment i in the top layer:

VDFm =

1 M ( z j zi ) + 4L1L2

n=0

k n M (2nH + z j + zi ) +

k (2nH + z

n n =1

zi )

...2.51 The first term is the voltage distribution factor of the two segments themselves. The first infinite sum is caused by the image point i sees looking up towards the surface. The second infinite sum is caused by the reflections of these images segment i sees when looking down toward the interface between the two layers. The VDF of segment i as seen by segment j has 1(1-k). These two expressions are equal, again making, rij=rij.

For a layered earth, the analysis of grounding systems can be done with aid of the algorithm presented previously. Here each formula does not change except the vertical coordinate (z), which is a function of top layer height (H) and the coordinates of the segments themselves. Therefore, each equation may be written as a function in matlab language (or subroutine in other languages), and called several times according to summation of the infinite series. The infinite series can be stopped after several calls about 6-10 with very small errors in the results.

45

Following the flowchart of the matlab program for non-uniform soil

Start Input Data

No

Yes Compute M

Compute self VDF Repeat for several image coordinates Compute Mutual VDF Compute self VDF Repeat for several image coordinates Compute Mutual VDF 2 1 1

Yes Compute M

Yes i=j ? No

Yes

Both segments in the bottom layer?

Yes

Yes

47

The first step in the design procedure is to determine the soil model in the vicinity of the substation. The soil model can be established through a number of field tests. Of those, the most widely used are the Wenner method and the driven rod method. Both methods are very simple to implement. There are several commercial instruments for performing these measurements. Then the soil may be prepared in a two-layer model, this model can be done by several methods, like weighted least square [34,39], and steepest descent [35].

3.1.1Wenner Method

The Wenner method is the most widely used in practice. It involves placing four small pins into the earth in straight line, as illustrated in figure 3.1a. A source, connected between the outer pins, generates an electric current, which is injected into the earth from one pin and collected at the other pin. The flow of this electric current in the earth generates a potential distribution in the soil. As a result, the potential at the location of the two inner pins is nonzero. The voltage between the two inner pins is measured with a voltmeter. The injected current I, and the measured voltage V are related to the resistivity of the soil. This relationship is obtained as follows. Assume that the length of the pin is very small compared to the separation distance between them. In this case, the two outer pins can be considered as point current sources of current I and I, respectively, located on the surface of the earth. The voltage at a point a long the line of the pins, located at a

48

distance x from the pin injecting current I into the soil figure 3.1a is given by the following equation:

V ( x) =

2x 2 (3a x)

.....3.1

The voltage of the two inner pins is V(a) and V(2a), respectively. Thus the voltage V between the two inner pins is

V =V (a )V (2a )=

I 2a

.....3.2

=2a

Where:

V I

.......3.3

: resistivity of soil .m a: probe spacing m. V: voltmeter reading volts, I: ammeter reading amperes. In uniform soil, the four-pin arrangement should provide the same soil resistivity irrespective of separation distance a. when the soil is not uniform, which is the most common case, the method will provide the apparent soil resistivity which depends on the separation distance a. From this information, it is possible to determine a non-uniform soil model.

The driven rod method consists of inserting a ground rod into soil [1,46,47]. When a length of the ground rod is driven into the soil, the resistance of the ground rod with respect to remote ground is measured. For this purpose, a source is employed which is connected between the driven rod and auxiliary electrode (current probe) located a distance D away from the driven rod, as illustrated in figure 3.1b. This connection causes electric current I to be injected into the earth from the driven rod which is collected at

49

the auxiliary electrode. Another electrode (voltage probe) is placed away from the driven rod, and away from the current probe to minimize the interference. The driven rod resistance with respect to remote earth is approximately R=V/I. This resistance is related to the soil resistivity. An approximate expression of a ground rod resistance to remote earth is:

R=

2l ln r 2l

2lR 2l ln r

......3.4

....3.5

Where:

l : rod length,

R=V/I, r: radius of rod, If the soil is uniform (constant resistivity throughout), the driven rod method should provide the same soil resistivity irrespective of the length of the driven rod in contact with the soil. When the driven rod method is applied to a non-uniform soil, it will provide an apparent soil resistivity which will vary with the length of the ground rod in contact with the soil.

Source

A Source A

Earth surface

I a x a a

I

V

Voltage probe

Current probe

1 2

(a)

(b)

Figure 3.1 Soil resistivity measurement system arrangements. (a) Wenner method, (b) driven rod method

In the application of driven rod method, the position of the current and voltage probe is important. Specifically, the current probe should be placed away from the driven rod so that the electric field around the ground rod is

50

not affected by the presence of current probe. Similarly, the voltage probe should be placed at a point of approximately zero voltage, that is, a point whose voltage is not affected by the presence of the ground rod and the current probe.

The development of a mathematical model to represent the electrical properties of earth can be formidable task because of the widely nonuniform characteristics of earth. The variables 1, 2, h are generally determined by interpreting the apparent resistivity values measured using the Wenner (or four probe) array. Unlike most engineering problems, interpretation of earth resistivity measurements is an inverse problem [34]; i.e., from the electrical response to impressed current at specific locations on the earth surface, the electrical properties of the conducting media (earth) are to be determined. In contrast, conventional electrostatic problems determine the electrical response or excitation current sources, based on the known properties of the conducting material. These are known as the Laplace and Diriclet problems. Obviously, the inverse problem, where the physical constants of the material are unknown, presents more difficulties than those problems where the physical constants of the material are known functions of position. Moreover, the number of parameters required to represent a model of the earth structure is usually so great that it is difficult to choose initial values to these parameters and have a computer algorithm converge to an acceptable solution within a practical time frame. Consequently, the selection of initial values becomes a fundamental task in the interpretation of the measurement. There is one further problem with the inverse solution of the resistivity measurements. It is not always possible to obtain a unique solution to a data interpretation problem. Because of inaccuracies in the measurements (usually 5%), several models of earth structure can be found to give satisfactory

51

agreement with the measured results. These models will usually differ in the characteristics of the deep soil layers. Therefore performing a scientific interpretation of resistivity measurements requires careful preparation, investigation, and engineering judgment. A two-layer earth model is generally sufficient for modeling substation-grounding systems. There are numerous charts, algorithms, and simple engineering visual estimation techniques, which can be used to determine an equivalent two-layer earth model with reasonable accuracy.

There are several mathematical approaches that have been used to calculate potentials in a layered soil structure. One is to search for particular solution to Laplaces equation satisfies the boundary conditions of the problem [34]. The potential in earth can be expressed as the sum of normal potential (uniform soil), and a disturbing potential, which accounts for the deep layers of soil. Therefore, the two-layer model can be used as the simplest equivalent earth structure for interpreting practical resistivity measurement, as shown in figure 3.2.

y I h r z x 1 M(x,y,z) 2 z Figure 3.2 the two-layer soil model

The apparent resistivity, a, as measured using the Wenner method is derived for the two- layer earth condition is expressed as:

52

1 1 a = 1 1 + 4 k n 2 2 n =1 2nh 2nh 4+ 1+ a a

.....3.6

Where:

a : the apparent resistivity as measured using the Wenner method.

1 : surface layer resistivity of thickness h 2 : second layer resistivity which extends to an infinite depth.

k=

2 1 =Reflection coefficient 2 + 1

The program is based on the method of steepest-descent. This method is readily visualized by an analysis of the two variable function (x,y), illustrated in figure 3.3.

Minimum Mo(xo,yo)

The gradient of this function is calculated at an initial point Mo defined by xo, yo. The values of x and y are then selected so that the function decreases along the direction defined by the gradient vector. The process is repeated until the function along the initial direction starts to increase. The process will stop when all possible directions of the gradient indicate that the present (x,y), coordinates corresponds to a minimum of the function (zero gradient). This process will normally converge to a minimum of the function. However there is no guarantee that the minimum obtained will be the only one nor that it is the minimum of the minima. When a secondary minimum is

53

obtained, the initial starting point was most likely within the zone of influence of this minimum. In this case another pair of initial x and y values should be selected and the process started again. The following algorithm is suggested for the purpose of computer computation of the two-layer of the soil model from the measured apparent resistivity data, the resistivity values must have been measured using equally spaced four probes or Wenner method. Let o(ai), i=1...n be the series of apparent resistivity values as measured at a given site by the Wenner method for n different inter-electrode spacings ai. Let (ai), i=1...n be the calculated apparent resistivity values, based on a two layer earth model at the same spacings ai used during the measurements. The interpretation task consists of finding the most suitable earth model for which the difference between the set of measured and calculated values, according to certain criteria, is minimum. In theory any criterion can be used (e.g., sum of the absolute value of differences). In practice, the classical leastsquare criterion is preferred. Let (1, k, h) be the square error function defined as:

2

o (a i ) (a i ) ( 1 , k , h) = ...3.7 o (a i ) i =1 The best fit is obtained when is minimum. The values of 1, k, and h,

which lead to this minimum, are determined by the steepest-descent algorithm. The gradient vector is defined as:

, , 1 k h each component of the potential vector is determined from equation 2.7, thus: GV =

= 2 1 = 2 k

1 1 n

o o 1 o o k

....3.8a ....3.8b

54

n o = 2 ...3.8c o h h 1 Assume now that 1, k and h are small stepwise changes along the

1 = k = h =

1

.3.9

k h

Where: is a positive value expressed in p.u. of GV, suitably selected to guarantee a smooth search for the minimum. The above changes cause a small variation in in the error function :

1 + k + h or 1 k h

Therefore the main steps in the steepest-descent algorithm are: 1. Estimate initial values of 1, k and h (i.e., 1o, ko, ho). 2. Calculate a suitable value of . 3. Determine 1, k and h. 4. Estimate a new starting point:

( ( 1 q ) = 1 q 1) + 1

k ( q ) = k ( q 1) + k

....3.12

h ( q ) = h ( q 1) + h

5. Calculate and compare it with :

55

If < ,the fit is completed. If > continue the process at step 2 (or 3 if is maintained constant). In order to calculate from equation 3.6, the partial derivatives of must be known. The partial derivatives of the theoretical two-layer earth apparent resistivity function are obtained as follows:

2 1 n 1 n(1 k ) 1 k =1+ 4 2k i B A n =1 16 1 h n 1 1 = k 3 3 h B a2 A n =1

.3.13

1 1 = 4 nk n 1 k B A n =1 Where:

Consider a set of measurements Ri, made by Wenner method or driven rod method [33, 39], the basic idea is implemented in terms of a mathematical optimization problem. The objective is to minimize the sum of differences between the computed and measured values. Let Ri be the measured resistance values, the resistance values of the model are computed Rmi(1,2,h), the best estimate of soil parameters 1, 2, and h is computed upon the solution of the following minimization problem: Minimize Where: n: is the number of measurements. w: are the weights, selected to be inversely proportional to measurements errors w=1/Ri. And is the proportionality constant.

56

n

i =1

...3.14

The solution to the above optimization problem is obtained with weighted least square estimation algorithm. The algorithm is defined with:

T T k +1 = k + ( H k wH k ) 1 wH k ( Ri R mi ( 1 , 2 , h))

..3.15

Where:

1 = 2 h

.3.16

In the above definitions, is the parameter vector, Hk is a (n3) matrix, w is a (nn) diagonal matrix, and k denote iteration count. The estimation is independent of the constant . The estimation algorithm described with equation (3.15) may some times not converge to the solution, it may oscillate (slow convergence) or it may diverge. Convergence is guaranteed if equation (3.15) is substituted with:

T T k +1 = k + a( H k wH k ) 1 wH k ( Ri Rmi ( 1 , 2 , h)) .....3.19

The scalar a is computed in each iteration such that two criteria are met: (a) the parameter values do not change more than 50%, and (b) the objective function (3.14) assumes a smaller value. The algorithm (3.19) always converges to the solution. The following flowchart evaluates the two-layer soil model described above [33,39].

57

Start Read data Compute initial guess of parameters ( , , h) 1 2 Set k=0 k=k+1

Compute resistance values Rmi((1,2, h), i=1,2,.n

k +1

No

Converged? Yes

Figure 3.4 flowchart for modeling the soil in two-layer by means of weighted least square method

Several methods are available for measuring the resistance of an installed ground electrode. Of these, the three-electrode method and the fall-ofpotential method are most common [9, 10, 17, 44].

Consider a ground electrode E whose resistance is to be measured experimentally [44]. This requires that two other electrodes, P and R, be temporarily buried in the ground figure 3.5. The electrodes are shown as hemispheric electrodes. They might be driven ground rods or other shape. It is

58

necessary that the electrode spacing are large compared to their radii; otherwise errors are introduced. A bridge or other measuring circuit connected with one terminal on electrode E and one on electrode P measures Rx as: Rx= RE+ RP 3.20 Similarly, Ry is measured between electrodes P and R, and Rz between electrodes R and E with the result Ry= RP+ RR .3.21 Rz= RR+ RE .....3.22 Solving these three equations simultaneously gives the value for RE as:

RE =

Rx + R y + Rz 2

E

......3.23

P R

Figure 3.5 Three ground electrodes provide a system for measuring ground electrode resistance

This method of measurement gives best results if the three resistors are of approximately the same resistance magnitude.

The resistance of ground connection may also be measured by the fall of potential method presented in figure 3.6. It involves passing a current I through the grounding system E and another electrode and another electrode called return electrode [17, 44]. The passage of this current produces at a distance X from E a voltage drop vX in the soil. vX is measured by potential probe P. The quotient vX/I is an apparent resistance, which under certain conditions can give the true resistance RE of the grounding system. The simplest form of the fall of potential method is obtained when E, P and R are on the same line. The most widely used arrangement is when P is located between E and R.

59

Source

I P

E V R D

If the distance D is large enough (with respect to the grounding system dimensions) the center part of the fall of potential curves tends to the approximately horizontal. This flat section of the curve gives the true resistance RE for large grounding systems, large distances D may not be practical or even possible and as a result the horizontal section of the curve will not exist. In this case accurate measurements will not be obtained unless one has already a good idea of the exact probe P position.

The potential of the remote soil is assumed to be zero. A current I enters the grounding system E and return through the return electrode R. the voltage difference between E and a point at the surface of the soil is measured using a potential probe P figure 3.6.

G Let v M be the potential caused by electrode G (G=E or R) at point M (M=P or

G v M is in V/A. The following equations can be written.

E R U P = v P I + v P 1 ........3.24

E R U E = v E I + v E I .3.25

60

The voltage v measured by the fall of potential method is: V=UE-UP Thus:

E R E R v = I (v E v E v P + v P ) ....3.26 E v E is the potential rise of electrode E assuming a current of 1 ampere.

This is by definition the resistance RE (or impedance) of electrode E. Therefore; equation 3.26 can be written as: R= v R R E = RE + (vP vE vP ) .......3.27 I

configuration of the electrodes and soil characteristics. Let us define the following functions , , and with respect to the coordinate system shown in figure 3.6:

R v E = (D)

......3.28

R v P = ( D X ) .....3.29

E v P = ( X ) ...3.30

According to (3.27) the measured resistance will be equal to the true resistance if:

R R E v P v E v P = 0 , that is:

.....3.31

If electrode E and R are identical = and if D is large enough that

R v E = ( D) 0 then condition (3.31) becomes. (D-X)- (X)=0 ;thus:

Xo=D/2

61

3.6.2.3 Hemispherical Electrodes

If electrodes E and R are hemispheres and their radius are small compared to X and D and if soil is uniform, then the potential functions , , and are inversely proportional to the distance relative to the hemisphere center. If the origin of the axis is at the center of hemisphere E then, equation (3.31) will be proportional to the following one [17]:

1 1 1 =0 DX D X

.......3.32

The positive root of (3.32) is the exact potential probe location Xo=0.618D

P3

Xo=1 D

P3= 0.5 D

P1 E

Xo= 0.618 D

P2

1D Xo= 1.618 D

Figure 3.7 Electrode arrangement, which minimize error in fall of potential method

If the potential probe P is at location P1 (E side figure 3.7) then D-X should be replaced by D+X in (3.32). In this case the equation has complex root only. If P is at location P2 (R side) then D-X should be replaced by X-D in (3.32), the positive root of (3.32) is: Xo=1.618D

If the soil is not uniform and/or electrode E and R have complex configurations then the functions ,, and are not easy to calculate. In such cases computer solutions are generally required [17].

62

If the earth-electrode is replaced by its equivalent hemisphere [9], and the fall of potential used, the measured resistance is given by the expression:

R 1 1 1 =1 + R ac / r ap / r ac / r ap / r Where:

.....3.33

ac: distance from arbitrary starting point to the current electrode. ap: distance from arbitrary starting point to the potential electrode. r: radius of equivalent hemisphere. R=V/I, is the measured resistance. R: true resistance of an earth system. And if the true resistance is obtained when R= R and ap=0.618ac. This will give very accurate results [9]. But two conditions are necessary. First, it must be possible to consider the earth electrode system as a hemisphere. A number of measurements have shown that the resistance curves of most electrode systems approximate closely to that of hemisphere, except at points very close to the system. The second, problem is to know at what point to start the measurements of the distances to the current and potential electrode; i.e. where is the center of the equivalent hemisphere? It is very difficult to

63

decide just where this is in a complicated system of rods, tapes etc., and so a method is required in which it is not necessary to know this exact center. In figure 3.9, suppose that all measurements are made from an arbitrary starting point O, the distance ac to current electrode and the variable ap to the potential electrode being measured from this point. Then a curve such as abc, giving in the figure 3.9 is obtained. Now suppose the electrical center of the earth electrode is at O1, distant from O. then the true distance from the center to the current electrode is ac+, and the true resistance is obtained when the potential electrode is at a distance 0.918(ac+) from O1. This means that the value of ap, measured from O, is 0.918(ac+)-. If is now given a number of values, the corresponding values of ap can be calculated and the resistance read off the curve. These resistances can be plotted against the value of , in another curve. When this process is repeated for a different value of ac, and another curve of resistance against obtained, the two curves should cross at the required resistance. The process can be repeated for a third value of ac as a check. It has been assumed that O1O and ac are in the same

resistance

O1

Measurement were made at large substation, it area covers approximately 91.5 m 76.2 m, and the grounding system consists of a number of earth plates and rods jointed together by copper cables. The testing line was run out from a point on approximately halfway along one side, and the current electrode was placed at distances of 122, 152.4, 243.8, and 304.8 m from the starting point. The resulting earth-resistance curves are given in figure 3.10.

64

An application of the method to these curves gave those of the theoretical work and the model tests.

Resistance

204.8

0.2

0.1

60

240

300

0.3

122 152.4

Resistance

0.2

243.8 204.8

0.1

12 , m

15

18

21

24

65

4 Theoretical Study and Design Considerations 4.1 Simplified equations 4.1.1 Introduction

For fast approximate calculations, simpler formulae can be derived by taking into consideration the specific structure of grounding systems. Such simple formulae have been presented in section 2.2. In this section typical simplified formulae are considered and the approximations involved in deriving these formulae are discussed.

In this section we examine the simplified equations for resistance of two typical cases, a ground rod and a substation ground mat. Consider a ground rod in figure 2.5a. Typically, a ground rod is approximately 8 ft long and of diameter on the order of less than 1 in. thus l>>a . Assume that the ground rod is buried in such a way that the top point of the rod is near the surface of the earth. In this case the z coordinate of the center of the ground rod is z1=/2. Assuming uniform current distribution along the ground rod, the resistance of the ground rod is given in table (2.3), assuming that =2L and z1=/2=L. Substitution gives us

1 [ f 2 (4 L,a) f 2 (2 L,a)+ f 2 (2 L,a)3a ] = 2 16 L Upon substitution of the function f2, we have

66

1 R= 4 Lln 4 L+ (4 L) 2 + a 2 (4 L) 2 + a 2 2 Lln 2 L + (2 L) 2 + a 2 2 16 L

(2 L) 2 + a 2 3a Note the following approximations:

[ { 2 Lln{ 2 L+

2 2

4 L + (4 L) 2 + a 2 8 L +

a2 8L

8L

a2 R= 4 Lln8L 4 L2 Lln 4 L 2 Lln 3a 4L 16 L2 The result above can be rewritten in the following form:

1 (8 L)(4 L) 1 8L 2 Lln 4 L 3a + 2 Lln R= 4L 16 L2 a2 (2)(2 L) 1 = (4 Lln 24 L 3a)+ 4 Lln a 2 16 L Now observe that the quantity 4Lln2-4L-3a is very small compared to the quantity 4 L ln

R= or R= Where:

(2)(2 L) 1 ln 4 L a

2l ln 2l a

67

The formula above is exactly the approximate equation (2.11) given for the resistance of a ground rod in section 2.2.3. It is expedient to summarize the assumptions utilized in the derivation of the approximate equation: i) the current distribution along the ground rod is uniform, and ii) the length of the ground rod, , is much larger than its radius, a. As a second typical system, consider a substation ground mat. Typically, consist of conductors placed 5 to 20 ft apart and the ground mat may comprise many parallel conductors. It is buried in earth typically 1 to 5 ft deep. By construction, then, a ground mat resembles a plate with its distance to the surface of the soil much smaller than its dimensions. Studies of the resistance of ground mats reveal that the most important parameter that determines the resistance is the area covered by the mat. The specific shape of the ground mat (square, rectangular, etc.) is of secondary importance. Thus, as a first approximation, we claim that the resistance of the ground mat is approximately equal to the resistance of the disc near the soil surface, which has an area equal to the area of the ground mat. Assuming that the area of the ground mat is A and the radius of the disk is b, b= resistance of the disk near the soil surface is R =

4b

substitution, the approximate resistance of a ground mat of area A is ....4.1 4 A Note that since the equation above is approximate, alternative formulae are possible [3, 5, 19, 20, 36, 38, 40].

R=

The computation of the touch and step voltages by use of numerical techniques has been discussed. In this section we discuss simplified equations for touch and step voltages [1]. In general, it is very difficult to develop

68

simplified equations for these two quantities because of the complexity of the problem. Based on experimental data, following empirical formulae were suggested, which is applied to square ground grids:

L K K I E s= s i e L Where:

: soil resistivity

E m=

K m K i I e

.4.2 .4.3

Ie: total current injected into the soil from the ground grid (earth current) L: total length of the ground grid conductor Ki: nonuniformity factor which accounts for the fact that the current distribution is not uniform along the grid conductors. Km and Ks are geometric factors defined with the following approximate formulae:

Km = 1 D 2 1 n 2i 3 ln + ln 2 16hd i =3 2i 2 ....4.4 ..... 4.5

n 1 1 1 1 Ks = + + h D + h i =3(i 1) D Where:

n: number of parallel grid conductors D: spacing between two adjacent conductors d: diameter of the conductors h: burial depth In addition, the following empirical formula is suggested for the nonuniformity factor Ki: Ki=0.65+0.172n .....4.6 The approximate formulas above have been compared extensively against computer models and found to be acceptably accurate only for square or nearly square ground grids. The simplified equations discussed in this section

69

are useful for obtaining a first order approximation of the performance of a grounding system with a scientific calculator.

4.3 Equivalent-circuit representation of grounding systems

The analysis of grounding systems is often better understood through the use of equivalent circuits [1, 28]. Specifically, it is possible to represent a general grounding system with an equivalent circuit. The conceptual basis for such an equivalent circuit is illustrated in figure 4.1. The figure illustrates three conductor segments buried in earth. Assume that each conductor segment is connected to a thin wire that is brought outside the soil. Further assume that the thin wires are insulated from the soil in such a way that electric current may not flow from the surface of the thin wire into earth. Under these conditions, the presence of thin wires does not affect the electric current flow or the voltage distribution in the soil. On the other hand,

1 2 3

Figure4.1 Representation of the soil surrounding a grounding system by an equivalent circuit. (a) Earth embedded conductors, (b) equivalent circuit of the surrounding soil.

2 g23

g33

the entire system appears as a system with three terminals. It is well known from the theory that given any linear system with terminals, no matter how complex, it can be represented with a circuit that has the same input/output

70

relationships as the actual system. Thus the grounding system of figure 4.1a can be represented with the equivalent circuit of figure 4.1b. The equivalent circuit is purely resistive because we assume that the grounding system is energized with low-frequency currents and voltages. The parameters of the equivalent circuit are computed from the requirement that the input/output relationship of the systems of figure 4.1a and b should be identical. The input/output relationship of the system of figure 4.1b is expressed in terms of the admittance matrix as follows:

relationship for the system of figure 4.1a. Specifically, the voltage of conductor segments 1, 2, and 3 is given by the equations V1=Rt11I1+Rt12I2+Rt13I3 V2=Rt12I1+Rt22I2+Rt23I3 V3=Rt13I1+Rt23I2+Rt33I3 Where: Ii: electric current flowing from the surface of conductor segment i into earth, which is the same as the electric current flowing into the terminal i. Vi: voltage of segment i, which is the same as the voltage of terminal i. Rtij: voltage distribution factor between conductor segment i and j. In compact matrix form, these equations read [V]=[R][I] ... 4.8 Where:

V1 I1 V And [V ]= 2 [I ]= I 2 V3 I 3 The equation above is solved for the currents [I], to yield

71

[I]=[Y][V] Where: [Y]=[R]-1. Equation (4.9) represents the input/output relationship of the system of figure 4.1a. For equivalence, equations (4.8) and (4.9) must be identical. Thus g11+g12+g13=y11 -g12 =y12 -g13=y13 Where: Yij is the (i,j) entry of the matrix [Y], equation (4.9). Upon solution for the unknown conductances of the equivalent circuit, we have: g12=-y12 g13=-y13 g11=y11+y12+y13 g23=-y23 g22=y12+y22+y32 g33=y13+y23+y33 The result for the simple system of figure 4.1 can be generalized. The conductor segments can be part of the same conductor or of different conductors, which are not electrically connected. Assume that the grounding system is divided into n segments. Writing one equation for the voltage of each segment i, equation (4.8) in compact matrix form is obtained. Where: etc. ..4.9

Ii: total current emanating from the surface of conductor segment i.

72

[R]: symmetric nn matrix. Solution of (4.9) for the currents [I] yields [I]=[Y][V] Where [Y]=[R]-1. The parameters of the equivalent circuit are obtained from [Y] as follows: 1. the negative value of the entry Yij, ij of the matrix [Y] equals the conductance of an element connected between conductor segments i and j. 2.

n

Yij

j =1

between conductor segment i and remote earth. Note that the equivalent circuit represents the soil surrounding the grounding system. Since a grounding system will typically be connected to a power system, the equivalent circuit can be used to represent the grounding system in the power network. The equivalent circuit approach is practically useful in the analyses of systems with multiple grounds.

The importance of well designed grounding systems to the performance of power systems and safety of personnel has been recognized since the early days of power systems. Unfortunately, design procedures are hindered by a number of factors that are difficult to quantify. Based primarily on experience and simple analytical models, the first guide for the design of substation grounding systems was introduced in 1961: the ANSI/IEEE standard 80. This document, together with two major revisions in 1976 and 1986, has been the primary tool available to substation engineers for analysis and design of substation grounding systems. The increased complexity and higher short circuit capacities of presentday interconnected power systems require improved analysis, which are computer based. The bases and theoretical background for such method have been introduced in chapter 2. In this chapter we discuss utilization of these methods for substation grounding system design.

73

4.5 Basic problem and solutions

The leading design criteria of substation grounding systems are (a) Safety of personnel operating in and about the substation, (b) Minimization of ground potential rise, resulting in reduced protection requirements of communication equipment. Hazards to personnel result primarily from touch, step, and transfer voltages during fault conditions on interconnected power system. The protection requirements of communication circuits depend on the maximum possible ground potential rise and induced voltages. In general, the grounding system must be designed to: 1. Limit the ground potential rise of substation ground mat to an acceptable value for any possible fault condition. 2. Limit the resulting touch, step, and transfer voltages in and around the substation to values that are below the hazard level to human beings. The two objectives are interrelated. Touch, step, and transfer voltages are proportional to the ground potential rise. The proportionality constant depends on the design of the grounding system. In general, the performance of grounding system is determined from a large number of parameters, such as: 1. Soil resistivities in the vicinity of earth embedded grounding conductors 2. Grounding grid area and geometry 3. Structure and parameters of the interconnected power system, including transformer connections, overhead ground wires, transmission tower grounding, counterpoise wires, and the use of URD cable The basic problem in the design of grounding systems will be discussed with the aid of figure 4.2. The figure illustrates a distribution substation with one transformer, one transmission line, and one distribution line. Typically, the substation will have its own ground mat, ground rods, and so on. The towers/poles of transmission line, as well as distribution line, will have their

74

own grounding system (counterpoise, ground rods buttstrap, etc.) In normal operation, the voltage of the grounds will be near zero. The power system of figure 4.2 is susceptible to short circuits inside the distribution substation or along the 132- or 11-kv lines. During an asymmetrical ground fault, electric current will flow from the grounding structures into earth. The level of the electric current flowing into earth (earth current) depends on the grounding structures, soil resistivities, design of the overhead power system, and location and type of the fault. The electric current flow in the earth causes the ground potential rise and potential distribution on the surface of the earth. The potential distribution in the earth determines touch, step, and transfer voltages. The grounding system is classified as safe if the touch, step, and transfer voltages meet postulated safety criteria or. Thus grounding system analysis must address the following problems: 1. Determination of the soil resistivities 2. Computation of maximum ground potential rise 3. Computation of touch, step, and transfer voltages 4. Safety assessment Given a power system and the parameters of the grounding system, an analysis can be made to determine the maximum touch and step voltages that can occur in the system under adverse conditions. Analysis procedure for this purpose was discussed in previous chapter. With this in mind, the design procedure of a substation grounding system can proceed in an iterative fashion. The design engineer must assume a certain design and then perform an analysis of the design. The analysis determines whether the design criteria are met or not. In case they are not met, modifications must be made and the procedure repeated.

75

Sky wires HA HB HC LA LB LC Neutral

Transformer

Ground rod

Ground mat Substation Figure 4.2 Illustration of power system grounding structures

The general procedure outlined above involve the following specific tests: Step 1. Perform soil resistivity measurement around the substation site. Step 2. Analyze soil resistivity measurements to establish the soil model. Step 3. Collect and prepare data for the interconnected power system. Step 4. Assume a preliminary design for the substation ground grid. Step 5.Compute the impedances of all grounding structures of the system, such as substation ground resistance. Step 6. Perform a detail analysis of the substation grounding system to determine ground resistance, maximum touch voltage, and maximum step voltage as a percentage of ground potential rise. Step 7. Identify the worst fault type and location and determine by computation the maximum earth current. Step 8. Perform safety assessment. Specifically, compute the maximum touch voltage and maximum step voltage in volts. Determine whether these values meet postulated safety criteria. If yes, the procedure stops here. Otherwise, the design must be modified and steps 6, 7, and 8 must be repeated.

A substation grounding system includes the following elements [42]:

76

Grid conductors, Grounding electrodes, Equipment grounding conductors, Connections or joints. Each element in the grounding system should be designed so that, for the expected design life of the installation, each element has the following characteristics:

Corrosion resistance:

to

relate

deterioration

in

the

surrounding

environment.

Electrical conductivity: such that the element will not contribute

Current carrying capability: sufficient to withstand the thermal stress and

mechanical stress during the most adverse conditions of fault current magnitude and duration.

Mechanical strength and ruggedness: to withstand electromagnetic forces

and physical abuse. In order to design such a grounding system, it is necessary to determine: Magnitude of fault current. The current that equipment and structure grounding conductors may be required to carry depends upon particular design, which is used when a single grounding conductor is used, it must be capable to carry of carrying the total fault current. Also when two grounding conductors are used for redundancy, each of them must be capable of carrying the total fault current. When two grounding conductors used and divide fault current equally, each must be capable of carrying one-half of the total fault current, The fusing of grounding electrodes such as ground rods is normally not considered because the current is divided by the number of rods connected in parallel by the grid conductors. In case where the rods provide a lower ground resistance than the grid conductors, and

77

therefore, carry more current, the current carrying capability of rods must be determined. IEEE standard 80 suggests a maximum current density of 200 amp/m2 for ground rods. The diameter of ground rod is usually determined by mechanical requirements. Duration of fault current. IEEE standard 80 states that fault clearing time may approach three second or longer for small substations. For larger substations, because they usually have complex or redundant protection schemes, the fault will generally be cleared in one-half second or less. Material of conductor and grounding electrode. Grid conductors are usually stranded cable made of copper, tinned copper, copper clad steel, steel, galvanized steel, stainless steel or aluminum. Grounding electrodes are usually copper clad steel, steel, galvanized steel, concrete encased steel or stainless steel. The principal factor in the choice of materials is the underground corrosion characteristics of the material. Type of connector. Maximum allowable temperature.

4.7 Fusing of Conductor

The conductor used should be large enough for the material being used to

prevent fusing under the maximum fault current and maximum fault time to which that conductor may be subjected. The fusing formula used for any material, knowing the material constants [42]:

TCAP10 4 K o +Tm ln I=A t K +T ..... .....4.10 c t t o a Where: I: rms current, in kA A: conductor cross-section, in mm2

78

Tm: maximum allowable temperature, in oc Ta: ambient temperature, in oc o: thermal coefficient of resistivity at 0 oc t: thermal coefficient of resistivity at t oc t: the resistivity of the ground conductor at t oc, in .cm Ko: 1/ o tc: time current flow, in seconds TCAP: a material constant in Joules/cm3/ oc Equation (4.10) is based on a fault time not exceeding a few seconds. The values for the most commonly used grounding conductors are listed in appendix table B.1 [3]. For these materials the formula can be simplified to:

A= Ik f t c

Where:

.....4.11

A: conductor cross-section, in circular mils I: rms current, in amperes Tc: current flow duration, in seconds Kf: constant from table B.1 (appendix) and using: Ta=40 oc The conductor size actually selected may be larger than that based on fusing because of factors such as:

Conductor must have strength to withstand any expected mechanical

Conductor must have a high enough conductance to prevent any

Conductor temperature must be less than fusing temperature

79

In this chapter the technical data of the earthing grid for New-Shergatt and Thoba substations are employed with the computer programs presented in chapter 2. The results obtained are compared with the results presented by foreign companies for the above substations.

The data for New-Shergat and Thoba substations used in the design by the companies is [50, 51]:

Table 5.1 Data used by the companies for New-Shergat and Thoba substations Substation Item New-shergatt Thoba Earth fault current 20KA 25KA Soil resistivity 20 .m 102.7 .m Depth of burial of grid 0.8m 0.5m Main 7065m2 2 Area included within grid 202109m External 5020m2 Rod (142.4) m. long o Ambient temperature 30 C 40oC Allowable temperature in joints 250oC 450oC Voltage of operation 132kv 132kv Time duration fault current 1second 1second s (gravel top layer) 5000 .m 3000 .m

80

109m 19m 7m 202m Figure 5.1. New-Shergatt substation lay out 15m

15m

65 meter

81

5.3 Calculation of maximum allowable touch and step voltages The maximum allowable touch and step voltages can be calculated with the aid of equations (2.22) and (2.23), the results is shown in table (5.2) Table 5.2 maximum allowable touch and step voltages for New-Shergat and Thoba substations Substation Item New-shergat Thoba Etouch,allowable,v 966 885.3 Estep,allowable,v 3616 3133.9 These calculated two values, (Estep,allowable, Etouch,allowable), are used as the criteria that are to be satisfied by any design. In other words values of actually encountered touch and step voltages are not to exceed the above values.

The grid for the preliminary design is shown in figure 5.1. All conductors are of 120mm2 circular cross section stranded copper conductor. The average mesh size is 1515 m. All equipments capable of attaining a dangerous potential level are connected to the grid. The indoor grid is not included in this calculation as its sole role is to collect current and drain it to the outdoor mesh.

R=

4r

....5.1

Where: R: grid resistance . : soil resistivity .m, =20 .m. r: radius of circle with same area as that enclosed by grid m,

r=

202 109

=83.7 m

82

Thus,

Table 5.3, comparison between programs values (both uniform and non-uniform soil) and companies values for Thoba and New-Shergat substations Substation New-shergatt grid resistance Thoba substation grid resistance External grid Main grid Rod system Total grounding system resistance Company value 0.07 1.657 0.741 1.53 0.384 Our value Uniform soil 0.06237280304 1.43422246308 0.69126833235 1.84681213686 0.55308930944 Non-uniform soil 0.04010048223 1.12734987059 0.48215701566 1.69864902837 0.37052448504

Table 5.4, comparison between programs values uniform and non-uniform soil for Thoba and New-Shergat substations Substation New-shergatt grid resistance Thoba substation grid resistance External grid Main grid Rod system Total grounding system resistance Our value Uniform soil 0.06237280304 1.43422246308 0.69126833235 1.84681213686 0.55308930944 Uniform soil 0.06257495483 1.43509768223 0.69046051157 1.84789197951 0.54202746664

In other words the condition that this value be less than 1 , has been satisfied.

83

5.4.2 Maximum encountered mesh and step voltages

The maximum encountered mesh (touch) and step voltages are defined by equations (4.2), (4.3), (4.4), (4.5), (4.6): Thus, yielding: Item Emesh,v Estep,v Substation New-shergat Thoba 198.2 838.7 73.2 899.3

Thus, this calculation shows that the grid design too more satisfy the requirements. The following table summarizes these results: Item

E touch

E step

Substation New-shergat Thoba Maximum Maximum Encountered Encountered allowable allowable 966> 198.2 885.3> 838.7 3616> 73.2 3133.9> 899.3

The following curves illustrates the voltage profile, touch and GPR voltages at certain x-direction line and constant y-coordinate 1- Program run results at 0 meter y-coordinates for New-Shergatt substation Rg: 0.06233 GPR: 1246.66115 Itotal: 1604.28518 Min touch: 46.52105 its coordinate: 128.00000 Max touch: 223.98297 its coordinate: 202.00000 Vminpoint: 1022.67818 its coordinate: 202.00000 Vmaxpoint: 1200.14010 its coordinate: 128.00000

84

Voltage profile at y-coordinate 0 meters

Distance Meters

Figure 5.3 Voltage profile at y-coordinate of 0 Meters

Distance meters

Figure 5.4 Touch voltage at y-coordinate of 0 Meters

85

Distance Meters

Figure 5.5 Voltage profile at y-coordinate of 0 Meters

2- Program run results at 7.5 meters y-coordinates for New-Shergatt substation Min touch: 88.14394 its coordinate: 46.00000 Max touch: 274.98181 its coordinate: 198.00000 Vminpoint: 971.67934 its coordinate: 198.00000 Vmaxpoint: 1158.51721 its coordinate: 46.00

Distance Meters

Figure 5.6 Voltage profile at y-coordinate of 7.5 Meters

86

Touch voltage at y-coordinate 7.5 meters

Distance Meters

Figure 5.7 Touch voltage at y-coordinate of 7.5 Meters

Distance Meters Figure 5.8 Voltage profile, GPR against distance y-coordinate 7.5 meters

87

3- Program run results at 100 meters y-coordinates for New-Shergatt substation Min touch: 91.22521 its coordinate: 98.00000 Max touch: 254.99011 its coordinate: 198.00000 Vminpoint: 0.38219 its coordinate: 32.00000 Vmaxpoint: 204.67862 its coordinate: 107.00000

Distance Meters

Distance meters

88

Figure 5.10 Touch voltage against distance y-coordinate 100 meters

Dstance meters

Figure 5.11 Voltage profile, GPR against distance y-coordinate 100 meters

4- Program run results at 0 meters y-coordinates for Thoba substation Rg: 0.53315 GPR: 13328.70379 I total: 187.56513 I actual: 25000.00000 Min touch: 147.01068 its coordinate: 37.00000 Max touch: 1389.52641 its coordinate: 1.00000 Vminpoint: 11939.17738 its coordinate: 1.00000 Vmaxpoint: 13181.69311 its coordinate: 37.0

89

. . x

Distance Meters

Distance Meters

90

. . . x

. . . . . .

Distance Meters

5- Program run results at 2.5 meters y-coordinates for Thoba substation Min touch: 52.75847 its coordinate: 37.00000 Max touch: 1156.71756 its coordinate: 69.00000 Vminpoint: 12171.98624 its coordinate: 69.00000 Vmaxpoint: 13275.94532 its coordinate: 37.00000

. . x

Distance Meters

Figure 5.15 Touch voltage against distance y-coordinate 2.5 meters

91

Distance meters

Figure 5.16 Touch voltage against distance y-coordinate 2.5 meters

. .

Distance Meters

New-Shergatt and Thoba substations have data given in table 5.1, and their layout shown in figures 5.1 and 5.2. The calculations starts with computations of maximum allowable touch and step voltages and the grid

92

resistance using the approximate formula and computer programs, this is shown in tables 5.3 and 5.4.

Table 5.3 shows the values of approximate formula for New-Shergatt and

Thoba substations. Thoba substation has three groups or grids: the main and external grids and the rod systems, each grid is calculated individually and then the total grid resistance is calculated. The same manner done with computer programs uniform and non-uniform soil.

Table 5.4 shows comparison between the outputs of uniform and non-

uniform computer programs. The soil resistivities considered equal for both upper and lower layer in case of non-uniform computer program.

The computer program has been run for an x-directed line with constant y-

coordinate, three curves obtained each time. The first curve is the voltage profile against distance and touch voltage against distance and the third voltage profile-GPR against distance.

Several runs needed for the grid at different y-coordinates for example 0.5

The touch voltage curve shows clearly that the maximum touch voltage

The step voltage is calculated form the voltage profile by subtract the

voltages between two points one step apart, say 0.5 or 0.75 meter.

93

Conclusions and suggestions for future works 6.1 Conclusions and discussions

The thesis has been dealt with the modeling and simulation of grounding systems of power stations and substations. There are several point concluded during the work, they are: 1. Power stations and substations grounding system have been modeled and a suitable computer program was developed and used successfully. 2. The grounding system with various configuration consisting with one or more or any combination of the elementary grounding structures such as: ground mat, ground rods, fence, metallic pipes and so on is investigated and analyzed with the aid of the developed program. The information supplied by the program includes : The resistance of the overall grounding system. The touch voltage at any selected point. The step voltage at any selected point and direction. The voltage on a selected grid of points. A plot of the voltage profile on a selected line segment. The transfer voltages on metallic structures not bonded to the grounding system, if such structures exist. 3. Two cases for the earth have been considered the first is the uniform soil and the second is the two-layer earth model. 4. The assumption of a uniform soil resistivity provided reasonable results. However, resistivity of the soil exhibits space and seasonal variations. Analysis that will take all these variations into account is practically impossible. On the other hand, the effects of variations in soil resistivity

94

are substantial (the resistivity of the top layer may vary with weather conditions such as rain or ice). Due to the fact that soil resistivity below a certain distance from the surface of the earth remains approximately constant (practically invariant with time), a two-layer soil model is assumed for most practical cases as a compromise between modeling simplicity and the required accuracy. 5. The analysis of the computer model gave very accurate results for the system to be analyzed. The accuracy of the analyses depend on the segmentation process of the grid (the smaller segmentation gave a more accurate results). Sophisticated computers have no problem with the number of segment but the input data required for the program may be tedious. 6. Simplified equations has been developed to analyze grounding systems like: vertical rods, buried strip, buried wire, ring, and mat, these are useful for use with small calculators. However, these equations are not suitable for unsymmetrical grid and other complex configurations, the later require a computer model. 7. The simplified equation provide the design engineer with the worst step and touch voltages which always occurs at the corners of the grid, this step and touch voltages may be compared with the maximum allowable step and touch voltages to decide if the design is safe (step and touch voltages should be less than maximum allowable IEEE standard). 8. The buried conductors should be selected so that the cross sections could carry the short circuit current without exceeding the thermal limits. If the computations results gave a cross section of less than 120mm2, a cross section of 120 mm2 should be used according to ANSI recommendations. There are several types of material could be chosen for the grounding systems like: soft drown copper, hard drown copper, copper-clad steel, aluminum, galvanized steel and stainless steel.

95

9. Grounding systems can be represented with an equivalent circuit. The equivalent circuit is purely resistive because the grounding system is energized with low frequency currents and voltages. The resistive equivalent circuit is particularly useful in the analysis of systems with multiple grounds, which is defined as one that comprises two or more groups of earth embedded conductors which are not bonded together. Each group of conductors is electrically connected to other groups through the conductive soil.

This thesis considered the modeling and analyses of the grounding systems, the following subjects were not included, and may be recommended for future works, these are: 1. The study of the transient impedance of the grounding systems in the case of surges (for example lightning) which may have higher frequencies (of order of several kHz) and grounding systems can not be represented in this case with a simple resistive equivalent circuit. 2. Current division between soil and lightning protection structures in substations and transmission lines (i.e. protection wires), and its effect on the current passing to the earth. 3. Grounding systems performance can be investigated with a scaled model; with the aid of this scaled model the grounding systems can be studied in the laboratories. This scaled model represents the practical grounding systems with smaller one in electrolytic tank with small dimensions of order of few meters. 4. The effect of fault type (i.e. single or double line to ground, etc.) and location, inside the substation site or a long transmission line could be investigated with the aid of a suitable computer program.

96

5. On site measurements of soil resistivity for different regions in Iraq (for example, north, middle, and south) could provide more accurate results in grounding system design calculations.

97

References

References 1. []A. P. Meliopoulos Power system grounding and transient an introduction Marcel Dekker, Inc New York and Basel 1988 2. []J. G. Severak, W. k. Dick, T. H. Dodds, R. H. HeppeSafe substation grounding PART-I Report of substation committee working group 78.1 IEEE 80 guide for safety in AC substation. Review IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-100, No.9 September 1981 pp. 4281-4290 3. [SII]J. G. Severak, R. U. Benson, W. k. Dick, T. H. Dodds, D. L. Garret, J. E. Idzkowski, R. P. Keil, S. G. Patel, M. E. R. H. Heppe Safe substation grounding PART-II Report of substation committee working group 78.1 IEEE 80 guide for safety in AC substation. Review IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-101, No.10 October 1982 pp4006-4023 4. E. D. Sunde Earth conduction effects in transmission systems Dover Publications, New York, 1948 5. [I1]S. J. Schwarz Analytical expressions for the resistance of grounding systems AIEE, August 1954 pp1011-1016 6. [A1]Eric T. B. Gross, Richard B. Wise Grounding grid for high voltage stations, II-resistance of large rectangular plate AIEE, trans. October 1955 pp801-819 7. [B1]Eric T. B. Gross, Robert S. Hollitch Grounding grid for high voltage stations, III-resistance of rectangular grid AIEE, trans. October 1956 pp926-935 8. [H1]J. Zaborszky Efficiency of grounding grids with non-uniform soil AIEE, trans. December 1956 pp 1230-1233 9. [MR]G. F. Tagg Measurement of the resistance of an earth electrode system covering large area Proceeding IEE Transaction Vol. 116, No. 3, March 1969, pp 475-480

98

98

References

10. [A]F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhdkar Ground electrode resistance measurement in non-uniform soil IEEE-trans. vol. PAS-93 No.1 Jan. 1974, pp 109-115. 11. [U]F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar Optimum design of substation grounding in a two-layer earth system. Part I. Analytical study IEEE trans. vol. PAS-94, No. 2, march/April 1975 pp252-261 12. [V]F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar Optimum design of substation grounding in a two-layer earth system. Part II. Comparison Between theoretical and experimental result IEEE trans. vol. PAS-94, No. 2, march/April 1975 pp262-266 13. [W]F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar Optimum design of substation grounding in a two-layer earth system. Part III. Study of grounding grids performance and new electrode configuration IEEE trans. vol. PAS-94, No. 2, march/April 1975 pp267-272 14. [S]J. G. Severak Optimized grounding grid design using variable spacing technique IEEE trans. vol. PAS-95, No. 1, Jan/Feb 1975 pp362373 15. [J]F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar Multi step analysis of interconnected grounding electrodes IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-95, No.1, Jan/Feb 1976, pp113-119 16. [kk]F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar Transferred earth potentials in power systems IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-97, No. 1, Jan./feb.1978, pp 90-101 17. [A1]F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhdkar Resistance measurement of large grounding systems IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-98, No. 6, Nov/Dec1979, pp 90-101 18. [C1]F. Dawalibi, D. mukhedkar Influence of ground rods on grounding grids IEEE trans. vol. PAS-98, No. 6, January 1979 pp20892098

99

99

References

100

19.

[E1]F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar Parametric Analytic of grounding grids IEEE trans. Vol.PAS-98. No.5, No.5, Sept/Oct 1979 pp1659-1668

20.

[D1]L. G. Zukerman simplified analysis of rectangular grounding grids IEEE trans. vol. PAS-98, No. 5, Sept/Oct 1979 pp1777-1785

21.

[G1]Robert J. Heppe Step potentials and body currents near grounds in two-layer earth IEEE trans. vol. PAS-98, No. 1, Jan/Feb 1979 pp45-59

22.

[R]Robert J. Heppe Computation of potential at surface above an energized grid or other electrode allowing for non-uniform current distribution IEEE Trans.Vol.PAS-98, No. 6, Nov/Dec 79 pp 1978-1987

23.

[I]D. L. Garrett, H. J. Holley Calculation of substation grounding system resistance using matrix techniques IEEE Trans. Vol.PAS-99 No.5 Sept/Oct 1980 pp 2008-2011

24.

[NC]Pierre Kouteynikoff, Numerical computation of grounding resistance of substation and towers IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-99, No.3 May/June 1980 pp957-965

25.

[Survey]F. Dawalibi, M. Bouchard, D. Mukhedkar Survey on power system grounding design practice IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-99, No.4 July/August 1980 pp1396-1405

26.

P. G. Biegelmeier, W. R. Lee New considerations on the threshold of ventricular fibrillation for AC shocks at 50-60 Hz IEE proceedings Vol.1270, No.2, pt. A, March 1980 pp103-110

27.

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, IEEE Brown book, IEEE standard-399, 1980, Industrial and commercial power system analysis IEEE New York, 1980

28.

[O]A. P. Meliopoulos, R. P. Webb, E. B. Joy Analysis of grounding system IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-100, No.3 March 1981 pp1039-1048

100

References

101

29.

[MC]F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhdkar, D. Bensted Measured and computed current densities in buried ground conductors IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS100, No.8 August 1981 pp4083-4092

30.

[D]C.J. Blattner study of driven ground rods and four point soil resistivity tests IEEE Trans. vol. PAS-101, No.8 Aug 1982 pp2837-2850

31.

Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, IEEE green book, IEEE standard-142, 1982, IEEE recommended practice for grounding of industrial and commercial power systems IEEE New York 1982

32.

[N]E. B. Joy, N. Paile, T. E. Brewer, R. E. Wilson, R. P. Webb, and A. P. Meliopoulos Graphical data for ground grid analysis IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-102 No.9September 1983 pp3038-3048

33.

[B]A. P. Meliopoulos, A. D. Papalexopoulos, R. P. Webb, C. Blattner Estimation of soil parameters from driven rod measurements IEEEtrans. vol. PAS-103, No.9, sept1984 pp2579-2585

34.

[E]F. Dawalibi, C. J. Blattner Earth resistivity measurement interpretation techniques IEEE trans vol. PAS-103, No. 2, Jan 1984 pp374-382

35.

[K]K. A. Ewy, H. A. Smolkck A graphical explanation of the resistance and surface potential-calculation for grounding system in twolayer earth IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-103, No.3, March 1984 pp631-639

36.

[M]J. G. Sverak Simplified analysis of electrical gradients above a ground grid-I. How good is the present IEEE method? (A special report for WG 78.1) IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-103 No.1 Jan 1984 pp7-25

37.

[L]J. G. Sverak Simplified analysis of electrical gradients above a ground grid part-II; the beauty of improper approximation for an efficient optimization of progressively spaced grid under a dominant safety constraint IEEE Trans. Vol. PWRD-4 No.1 Jan 1989 pp272-281

101

References

102

38.

[Q]J. Nahman, D. Salamon Analytical expressions for the resistance of grounding grid in nonuniform IEEE Trans. Vol. PAS-103, No.4 April 1984 pp880-885

39.

[C]A. P. Meliopoulos, A. D. Papalexopoulos Interpretation of soil resistivity measurements: experience with the model, SOMIP IEEE trans. on power delivery, vol. PWRD-1, No. 4 October 1986 pp 142-151

40.

J. Nahman, D. Salamon Analytical expressions for the resistance of roadbeds and of combined grounding system in non-uniform soil IEEE Trans. Vol.PWRD-1 No.3 July 1986 pp 90-96

41.

E. P. Joy, R. E. Wilson Accuracy study of the ground grid analysis algorithm ibid pp97-103

42.

D. L. Garret IEEE tutorial course; practical applications of ANSI/IEEE standard-80-1986 IEEE guide for safety in substation grounding IEEE 1986

43.

[T]Peter A. Zotos Ground grid design in large industrial plant IEEE Trans. on industry applications Vol. 24, No.3 May/June 1988 pp521-525

44.

J. Robert Eaton, Edwin Cohen Electric power transmission systems Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1991

45.

Chien-Hsing Lee A. P. Meliopoulos A Comparison of IEC 479-1 and IEEE Standardd-80 on Grounding Safety Criteria IEEE Trans. Vol. 23, No. 5, 1999. pp 612-621

46.

Dr. F. J. Alazzwi, Dr. Q. A. Majboor, Dr. M. T. Lazim Earthing system A 4-day course October 5-8 1999

47.

Tercel training staff Earthing systems version 1.2-October 1999 Researched and compiled by Tercel training staff.

48.

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory ES&H Directives (PPPL) Isolation of Hazards section 2 Chapter 4 www-local.pppl.gov/services/ support services

102

References

103

49.

AEMC Instruments Understanding Ground Resistance Testing Chauvin Arnoux, Inc. sales@aemc.com www.aemc.com

50.

SPRECHER ENERGIE New-Shergatt earthing calculation Sprecher Energie for power distribution projects Switzerland 1-4-1989

51.

SAE Societa Anoninma elettrificazione S.P.A. Milano Thoba substation Grounding system calculation description SAE Societa Anoninma elettrificazione S.P.A. Milano 12-3-1985

103

Appendix

A Derivation of equations of tables 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3

VDF between an x-directed conductor segment and a point (x,y,z) Consider the conductor segment 1 illustrated in figure A.1 and an arbitrary point (x,y,z) in the earth. Our objective will be to compute the voltage at point (x,y,z), due to the flow of current I1, neglecting all other sources of electric current (i.e., neglecting the presence of other conductor segments). The electric current I1 is assumed to be uniformly distributed on the surface of the conductor. Typically, the radius of the conductor is small (less than 0.5 inch). In this case it is reasonable to assume that the source of this current is an ideal line source located on the axis of the conductor segment. The line current density is I1/2L1 (amperes per meter). The electric current of an infinitesimal length of the line source, dxs, is I1dxs/2L1. The contribution of this current to the voltage at point (x,y,z) is

I 1 dx s 1 1 + dV ( x, y, z )= 2 8 L1 ( x x ) 2 + A 2 ( x x s ) 2 + A+ s Where

2 A =( y y1 ) 2 +( z z1 ) 2

Figure A.1 illustrates the geometry of the infinitesimal current source and the point of interest (x,y,z). For simplicity, the conductor segment length will be denoted as 2L and the current as I. The voltage at point (x,y,z) results from the contributions of all infinitesimal current sources, that is,

V ( x, y, z )= dV ( x, y, z )

I = 8 L

1 1 + 2 2 2 ( x x s ) 2 + A+ xs = x1 L ( x x s ) + A

x1 L

dx s

104

Appendix

z y x

2 r = ( x xs ) 2 + A

(x,y,z)

(xs,y1,z1)

Dxs

(x1,y1,z1)

Figure A.1 Illustration of conductor segment represented with a line current source of constant current density.

The integral above is evaluated with the aid of the following indefinite integral:

(t 2 u 2 ) The result is:

dt

=ln(t + t 2 u 2 )

V ( x, y , z ) =

I [ f 1 ( x x1 + L, A ) f 1 ( x x1 L, A ) + 8 L

f 1 ( x x1 + L, A+ ) f1 ( x x1 L, A+ )] Where:

...A.1

f1 (t ,u )=ln(t + t 2 +u 2 ) ... A.2 Comparison of the derived formula to the one defining the VDF yields VDF = 1 [ f 1 ( x x1 + L, A ) f1 ( x x1 L, A ) 8 L f1 ( x x1 + L, A+ ) f1 ( x x1 L, A+ )] . A.3 In summary, equation A.3 provides the voltage distribution factor (otherwise known as transfer resistance) between a conductor segment of length 2L, oriented parallel to the x-axis, and a point (x,y,z).

105

Appendix

VDF between two x-directed conductor segments

Consider the configuration of two conductor segments as illustrated in figure 2.10. The coordinates of the centers of the two conductor segments are (x1,y1,z1) and (x2,y2,z2), respectively. The lengths of the segment are 2L1 and 2L2,respectively. The total electric current of conductor segment 1 is I1. the flow of the current I1 will transfer a potential to the conductor segment 2. Let this potential be V2. Our objective is to compute this voltage. A reasonably accurate way to compute this voltage is to compute the average voltage along the centerline of the conductor segment 2, assuming that the second conductor does not exist. The coordinates of a point on the centerline of conductor segment 2 are (x,y2,z2), where x varies in the interval [x2L2xx2+L2]. The voltage at point (x,y2,z2) is given from equation A.3

V 2 ( x, y 2 , z 2 ) = Where:

I1 [ f 1 ( x x1 + L1 , B ) f1 ( x x1 L1 , B ) 8 L1 f1 ( x x1 + L1 , B+ ) f1 ( x x1 L1 , B+ )]

1 V2 = 2 L2

x2 L2

x = x2 L2

V2 ( x, y 2 , z 2 )dx

.. A.4

The integral above is evaluated with the aid of the following indefinite integral: The result is

f1 (t, u) = t ln(t +

t2 + u2 ) t2 + u2

I1 V2 = [ f 2 ( x 2 x1 + L1 + L2 , B )+ f 2 ( x 2 x1 + L1 + L2 , B + ) 16 L1 L2 f 2 ( x 2 x1 + L1 L2 , B ) f 2 ( x 2 x1 + L1 L2 , B + ) f 2 ( x 2 x1 L1 + L2 , B ) f 2 ( x 2 x1 L1 + L2 , B+ ) + f 2 ( x 2 x1 L1 L2 , B )+ f 2 ( x 2 x1 L1 L2 , B+ )] A.5

106

Appendix

Where

f 2 (t ,u )=t ln(t + t 2 +u 2 ) t 2 +u 2 ..A.6 Comparison of the equations above with the one defining the VDF yields

I1 VDF = [ f 2 ( x 2 x1 + L1 + L2 , B )+ f 2 ( x 2 x1 + L1 + L2 , B+ ) 16 L1 L2 f 2 ( x 2 x1 + L1 L2 , B ) f 2 ( x 2 x1 + L1 L2 , B + ) f 2 ( x 2 x1 L1 + L2 , B ) f 2 ( x 2 x1 L1 + L2 , B + )

+ f 2 ( x 2 x1 L1 L2 , B )+ f 2 ( x 2 x1 L1 L2 , B+ )] A.7

In summary, equation A.7 provides the voltage distribution factor (otherwise known as transfer resistance) between two x-directed conductor segments of length 2L1and 2L2 respectively.

VDF between an x-directed and y-directed conductor segment

The configuration of two conductor segments, one x-directed and the other y-directed, is illustrated in figure A.2. Let the x-directed conductor segment be of length 2L1 and centered at the point (x1,y1,z1). The y-directed conductor segment is of length 2L2 and centered at the point (x2,y2,z2). The total electric current of the x-directed conductor segment is I1. Our objective is to compute the voltage transferred to the y-directed segment due to the current of the x-directed segment. Again, a reasonably accurate way to compute the average voltage along the centerline of the y-directed conductor segment assuming that the y-directed conductor does not exist. The coordinates of a point on the centerline of y-directed conductor are (x2,y,z2), where y varies in the interval [y2-L2yy2+L2]. The voltage at point (x2,y,z2), due to the current of the x-directed conductor is given with an appropriate application of equation A.3: V 2 ( x 2 , y , z 2 )= I1 [ f 1 ( x 2 x1 + L1 ,C ) f 1 ( x 2 x1 L1 ,C ) 8 L1

+ f1 ( x 2 x1 + L1 ,C + ) f1 ( x 2 x1 L1 ,C + )]

107

Appendix

z y x (x2,y2,z2) (x1,y1,z1)

Figure A.2 Tow earth embedded conductor segments (x- and y-directed).

1 V2 = 2 L2

y2 L2

y = y2 L2

V2 ( x 2 , y, z 2 )dy .A.8

The integral above is evaluated with the aid of the following indefinite integral:

2 2 2 f 1 (t ,u ,v)= ln(t + t +u +v )du

1 t +u +

t 2 +u 2 + v 2 ) v

Applying the integral above for each one of the four terms involved in equation A.8 yields I1 V2 = [ f 3 ( x 2 x1 + L1 , y 2 y1 + L2 , z 2 z1 ) 16 L1 L2 f 3 ( x2 x1 + L1, y2 y1 L2 , z2 z1 ) + f 3 ( x2 x1 + L1, y2 y1 + L2 , z2 + z1 ) f 3 ( x2 x1 + L1, y2 y1 L2 , z2 + z1 ) f 3 ( x2 x1 + L1, y2 y1 + L2 , z2 z1 ) + f 3 ( x2 x1 L1, y2 y1 L2 , z2 z1 ) f 3 ( x2 x1 L1, y2 y1 + L2 , z2 + z1 ) + f 3 ( x2 x1 L1, y2 y1 L2 , z2 + z1 )].......................................................... A.9

The voltage distribution factor (VDF) (or transfer resistance) equals the voltage V2 divided by the current I1.

108

Appendix

Self-VDF of an x-directed conductor

The self-VDF is defined as the ratio of the voltage rise of an earth embedded conductor segment to the total electric current flowing into earth from the outside surface of the conductor. The computation of the self-VDF requires consideration of the finite diameter of the conductor segment. Specifically, as in our previous discussions, the conductor segment is modeled as a line current source located on the axis of the conductor. A constant current density along the line current source is assumed. Then the voltage of the conductor segment is computed as the average voltage on the cylindrical surface of the conductor segment. Because the conductor segment length is typically much larger than the radius, the two end surfaces of the segment are ignored. Let the length of the conductor segment be 2L, its radius (r), and the total current I. The current density of the line source is

I 2L Consider an infinitesimal cylindrical surface of the conductor segment at J= location (x) as illustrated in figure A.3. An infinitesimal length dxs of the line current source is also shown. This length represents an infinitesimal current source of current Idxs/2L. Now consider a point (x,y,z) located on the infinitesimal cylindrical surface. The voltage at this point due to the infinitesimal current source is dV ( x, y, z )= Where:

A+ = ( y y1 ) 2 +( z + z1 ) 2 . Assuming that the conductor is buried in earth at depth much greater than

Idx s 1 1 + 8 L ( x x) 2 + a ( x x) 2 + A 2 s s +

....A.10

109

Appendix

2 A + 2 z1

z y x dx(x,y1,z1)

(x,y,z)

(x1,y1,z1) dx(x,y1,z1)

dxs

Figure A.3 Illustration of an x-directed conductor segment. (Conductor radius is enlarged to illustrate the analysis procedure.)

The voltage at point (x,y,z) will be equal to the sum of the contributions from all infinitesimal sources:

x1 L

V ( x, y , z ) =

dV ( x, y, z)

V ( x, y, z ) =

I [ f 1 ( x x1 + L , a ) f 1 ( x x1 L , a ) 8 L

+ f 1 ( x x1 + L, z1 2 )+ f 1 ( x x1 L, z1 2 ) ..A.11 Where the function f1 is defined with equation (A.2). The average voltage around the infinitesimal cylindrical strip of figure A.3 will be equal to V(x,y,z) since from equation A.11 it is apparent that the voltage V(x,y,z) depends only on the coordinate (x). Thus V(x)=V(x,y,z) Now the voltage elevation of the conductor is computed as the average voltage along all infinitesimal surfaces:

V1 =

110

Appendix

Where the function f2 is defined with equation A.6. Note that f2(0,a)=-a, f 2 (0, z1 2 )= z1 2 . The self-VDF of the conductor segment is computed as the ratio of the voltage V1 to the current I:

I VDF = [ f 2 ( 2 L , a ) f 2 ( 2 L , a ) 2 a 16 L2 + f 2 (2 L, z1 2 )+ f 2 (2 L, z1 2 )2 z1 2 ) ...A.14 In summary, equation (A.14) provides the self-VDF (otherwise known as

B Meterial constants

Table B.1 material constants material Copper, soft drown Copper, soft drown Copper, soft drown Copper, soft drown Copper, hard drown Copper, hard drown Copper, hard drown Copper, hard drown Copper-clad, steel 40% Copper-clad, steel 40% Copper-clad, steel 40% Copper-clad, steel 40% Copper-clad, steel 30% Copper-clad, steel 30% Copper-clad, steel 30% Copper-clad, steel 30% Aluminum 61% Aluminum alloy 5005 Aluminum alloy 6201 Aluminum-clad steel 20% Copper-clad rod, 20% Steel Galvanized steel (zinc) Stainless steel, 304 Tm 1083 450 350 250 1084 450 350 250 1084 450 350 250 1084 450 350 250 657 660 660 660 1083 1300 419 1400 kf 7.01 9.18 10.10 11.65 7.06 9.27 10.20 11.77 10.46 13.74 15.13 17.47 12.08 15.87 17.46 20.17 12.13 12.38 12.45 19.90 15.39 23.32 28.97 30.05

111

- Cable Sheath Bonding Application Guide.pdfUploaded bykaushikray06
- H.v. InstallationUploaded byVaibhav Jain
- IEC 60364-5-54_2008-01Uploaded byBasabRaj
- PPE 2011 Exam Brochure 30 Nov 2010 FinalUploaded byknexp
- Advantage Team Introduces Utility Crew Safety Instrument at EPRI ConferenceUploaded byGaile Meeks
- Earthing aceUploaded byYamith David
- SONY+KDL+40R470B+Chassis+ITC3-MEUploaded byRMMA
- Large-Embedded-Generation-Connection-Principles-and-Guidelines.pdfUploaded byvbgiri
- Cable Selection GuideUploaded byangelboy_20
- TM 5-811-1 Elct Pwr Supply.pdfUploaded bymarcela
- Performance Analysis of Actual Step and Mesh Voltage of Substation Grounding System with the variation of Length and Number of Ground RodUploaded byATS
- Panasonic Sb Wa930eeUploaded byJose Domingo Maltez Vallecillo
- stat fax 303Uploaded byCox Ca
- 600.pdfUploaded byHai Tung
- General Technical Specifications(Electrical)Uploaded byromeshmorey
- 10.1.1.193.5946.pdfUploaded byLê Thị Phương Viên
- 3 GroundingUploaded byZulu Bravo Mike
- NX-308-INS_PROGUploaded byCadego Telecomunicaciones
- 201 Thinkpad TransnoteUploaded bySoporte Tecnico Buenos Aires
- KBMG 212D ManualUploaded byavillafana
- TOSHIBA_Q9PLUS_VFD.pdfUploaded byMeagan Jones
- BondingUploaded bykratika gupta
- RF3Uploaded byRobinson Ismael Llenque Trelles
- 6Uploaded byjosethompson
- Csc 211 Multifunction Protection Ied Engineering and Operation ManualUploaded byIrfan Ashraf
- Hydra Step 2Uploaded byगुंजन सिन्हा
- YN0878_C2_YAT20212_DP(1).pdfUploaded bykyawsoe_segcoltd
- 1-s2.0-S0041134510007980-mainUploaded byadijaypt
- EDS+06-0017+Customer+Installation+Earthing+Design.pdfUploaded byRajendra Prasad Shukla
- baterias UPS Liebert.pdfUploaded byRodrigo Alonso Rosales Ortega

- 4-The Comparison Performance Between of PIR and PUR FoamUploaded byJpolyPoly
- ACSR Thermal Mechanical White PaperUploaded byleonardonaite
- 0817.1.K_MHDUploaded byRamana Ikkurthi
- Preparation of Polyaniline Nickel Oxide Nanocomposites and Evaluation of Its Electrical PropertiesUploaded byIJSTE
- 10584580903139792Uploaded byBhabani Sankar Swain
- 9781447940258_takeapeek.pdfUploaded byRohit Adhikari
- Tailoring the Conducting Polymers Ppy and Pani With Ionic Liquid Bmimbr for Enhanced Electrochromic PropertiesUploaded byIJSTR Research Publication
- Common Causes of Motor Failure.pdfUploaded byradio-chaser
- Electronics Paper 1Uploaded by9290010274
- Lecture non-ferrousUploaded byMuhammed Adil Iqbal
- propiedades teflon.desbloqueado.pdfUploaded byCarlos Patiño Gómez
- leg edema sensor 1Uploaded byapi-309959382
- 8942V-00-CN-16-12-007-1-sUploaded byAshwin Sevaria
- Electrical All Sizing CalculationUploaded byvijaydev75
- Kwok K. Ng(auth.)-Complete Guide to Semiconductor Devices, Second Edition-Wiley-IEEE Press (2002).pdfUploaded byAndres Galeano
- Attenuation of Electromagnetic Waves by VegetationUploaded byHam Radio HSMM
- Band Gap Engineering- Lecture 7Uploaded byldaukiya
- Long High Capacity Gas Insulated LinesUploaded byGerson Fernandes
- XLPE Insulated Low Voltage CablesUploaded bySellappan Muthusamy
- nphoton.2014.134Uploaded byRoshdy AbdelRassoul
- Free Electron Theory of MetalsUploaded byJiten Thapa
- Bernard Granger2014Uploaded bySeptian Eka Trueno
- 0071450297_ar002Uploaded byLja Csa
- Bimodal and monomodal diamond particle effect on the thermal properties of diamond-particle-dispersed silver matrix composite fabricated by SPSUploaded bySEP-Publisher
- ASTM D257-1999Uploaded bysam0107
- 1455352413Uploaded byAmey Raje
- B105Uploaded byrobertotoccaceliblas
- 2008802.pdfUploaded byIgba Tobit Uvieoghene
- Cable Capacity - Example Calculating 300 MmUploaded byNedunuri.Madhav Murthy
- edc-jaganUploaded bysrinivas