1

Parametric Analysis of Grounding Systems in

Two-Layer Earth using Galerkin’s Moment
Method
Dr. Chandrabhan Sharma, Senior Member, IEEE and Mr. Shawnton De Four,

analyze grounding systems in a soil structure with a maximum

Abstract—This paper describes the theoretical basis of the of two horizontal layers.
developed computer program, GAUMOM (Grounding Analysis The Galerkin method applies the variational principle [1],
Using Method of Moments). The software calculates the which has an error reduction property. Thus, for example, an
resistance and maximum step and touch potentials for any error of 1% in resistance, is the result of a 10% error in the
complex electrode in a two-layer earth structure using Galerkin’s
current distribution of the grounding system (i.e. 1% = 10% *
moment method.
10%).
Validation was performed using the Point Matching Moment
Method which yields accurate results provided that electrode
segmentation is fine. From the results obtained, GAUMOM II. GALERKIN’S MOMENT METHOD
produces errors of 0.4% and 6.1%, in grid resistance and voltage
respectively, for grids with rectangular meshes. However, for A. Homogeneous Soil Medium
grids with triangular meshes, the errors in resistance and voltage This moment method requires a resistance matrix for the
are 3% and 21% respectively. calculation of the grounding resistance of a rodbed. The
resistance matrix is an NxN matrix where N is the number of
LIST OF SYMBOLS segments in the grid. This matrix consists of self-resistance
ρ : Soil resistivity (ohm-meters) elements on the diagonal and mutual resistance elements off
ρ1 : First layer resistivity (ohm-meters) the diagonal.
The currents in the segments can be determined by the
ρ 2 : Second layer resistivity (ohm-meters) solution of the simultaneous equation given in (1).
K : Reflection factor, K = ( ρ 2 − ρ1 ) ( ρ 2 + ρ1 ) ⎛ V1 ⎞ ⎛ R11 K R1n ⎞ ⎛ I1 ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
Rg : Resistance of the grounding grid, Ω. ⎜ M⎟ = ⎜ M O M ⎟ ⎜ M⎟ (1)
⎜V ⎟ ⎜ R ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
H : Surface layer height, m ⎝ n ⎠ ⎝ n1 L Rnn ⎠ ⎝ I n ⎠
Em : Mesh Voltage, V The mutual resistance between two segments, m and n, is
given by
I. INTRODUCTION ⎡ ⎤
ρ r
U under normal conditions the grounding grid is at near
zero potential. With the occurrence of a phase to ground
Rmn =
4π I m I n ∫
lm
⎢
⎢
⎢⎣ ln
∫
J m (lm ) J n (ln ) G (r ) dln ⎥ dlm . (2)
⎥
⎥⎦
fault on a grounded power network, the fault current returns to
the generating source through the soil and neutral conductors.
During a ground fault the current to the earth causes a rise in
Ii =
∫ J (l ) dl
li
i i i (3)

the grid potential. Subsequently the potentials on the earth’s r 1

surface also increase. G (rm ) = r r (4)
rm − rn
The performance of a grounding system depends mainly on
its ground resistance (electrical resistance of the grounding where
grid). This, depends on factors such as: grid geometry, soil Ii total current from rod segment, i (A),
resistivity and soil structure (i.e. homogeneous or multilayer Ji outward current density along the rod segment, i,
soil structures). An effective grounding system not only
(A/m)
provides a low resistance to ground but also maintains the r
surface potentials below their tolerable limits. G ( rm )is Green’s function,
r
The analysis of grounding systems is concerned with the r is the position vector of the rod segment,
potentials developed on the surface of the earth under fault li length of rod segment.
conditions. GAUMOM utilizes Galerkin’s Moment Method to
In the analysis that follows, uniform outward current density
for each rod is assumed, and is given as
 2

Ii where
. Ji = (5) d is the perpendicular distance from point on earth’s
li
surface to the vertical rod as shown in Fig. 1 (b) (a1
As a result of this assumption, (2) becomes
and b1 are the z-coordinates of segment’s end points).
ρ
Rmn = D −1 (6) (xm ,ym ,0) (xm ,ym,0)
4π lm ln Z=0
Earth's surface
where a1
Pr
1
∫∫
−1 a1
D = dln dlm . (7) dxn
d

lm ln ( xn − xm )2 + ( yn − ym )2 + ( zn − zm )2 β
b1 dzn

D −1 is the reciprocal of the harmonic mean distance between Z P

b1
two segments.
(a) (b)
B. Mutual Resistance between Rod Segments
The equations for the mutual resistances between rod Fig. 1. Parameters required for the computation of surface voltage (a)
segments in configurations, such as parallel, perpendicular, horizontal segment, (b) vertical segment.
etc. are given in the Appendix. However the mutual resistance
between spherical segments is evaluated by application of D. Error Reduction in Surface Potential
Coulomb’s law. This is also applied to rod segments which As the result of the assumption of uniform current density in
are at acute angles to one another. The angled segments are rods, the equipotential boundary condition along a rod
conceptually replaced by spheres at their midpoints and segment is not satisfied. Dawalibi [2] analyses the variation of
Coulomb’s law is then applied. The mutual resistance current density and provides evidence of non-uniform current
between spheres is given by distribution. From the results obtained, it was observed that in
ρ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ most cases the current density was fairly constant along the
Rmn = ⎜ + ⎟ (8) length of the rod, except at the ends where high current
4π ⎝ rmn rmn′ ⎠
densities exist.
where Normally the grounding system is conceptually divided into
rmn and rmn′ are the distances between the centers of segments, where a segment is defined as the piece of rod
the spheres m and n and sphere m and the image of between crossings. However to satisfy the equipotential
sphere n respectively. boundary condition along a rod segment, a simple
modification to the segmentation of the grid is made. The rod
C. Determination of Surface Voltage
segments are shortened and spheres whose diameters are equal
The voltage produced by segment n, at point m is calculated to that of the segment, are placed at the tips of the shortened
using rods and the former intersections of the rod segments. An
r ρ In illustration of this modification is presented in Fig. 2. Without
V (rm ) = A (9)
2π ln the spheres, the grid consists of 16 segments, 12 horizontal
where and 4 vertical. However the addition of spheres increases the
1 number of segments to 39.
A=
ln ∫
( xn − xm ) + ( yn − ym ) + ( zn − zm )
2 2 2
dln . (10)

Fig. 1 demonstrates the parameters, which must be taken

into account for the different rod orientations. With respect to
Fig. 1(a), the point, P, is the projection of the point m onto the
horizontal plane in which the rod lies, while the point, Pr, is Fig. 2. Conceptual modification of grounding system, for boundary potential
the projection of the point P onto the rod. The distances β and corrections.
α are measured between P & Pr and between Pr & a1
respectively. (a1 and b1 are the end points of the rod segment) Salama [3] states that this modification results in a
1) Rod in Horizontal Plane: For a horizontal rod buried maximum potential error of 3%. While the sole purpose of the
at a depth zn, and with reference to Fig. 1(a) A is given by addition of the spheres is to correct the boundary conditions, it
also improves the resistance of the grounding system to within
⎛ l −α ⎞ ⎛ −α ⎞
A = sinh −1 ⎜ n ⎟ − sinh −1 ⎜ 2
⎟ ; d = β + zn .
2
(11) 2%.
⎝ d ⎠ ⎝ d ⎠
2) Rod in Vertical Plane: For a vertical rod, and with III. VALIDATING USE OF COULOMB’S LAW FOR ANGLED ROD
reference to Fig. 1 (b) A is given by SEGMENTS
⎛b ⎞ ⎛a ⎞ The previous section recommends the use of Coulomb’s
A = sinh −1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ − sinh −1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ (12)
⎝d⎠ ⎝d⎠ law as an estimate of the mutual resistance between angled
segments. An analysis is performed whereby, two horizontal
 3

segments of length 8m each, are at a depth of 0.5m in 1000
ohm-m soil. The segments are arranged perpendicularly as
shown in Fig. 3. The distance, xn, is varied in the direction
parallel to segment m. The variables a1 & b1 and a2 & b2 are
the x and y coordinates respectively of the segments’ end
points.
b2
IV. TWO LAYER SOIL MODEL
A. Introduction
The equations given previously (i.e. for resistance and
voltage) were given both under uniform soil conditions and
neglecting the effect of images. These equations will now be
applied to two-layer soil models. (It is critical that rods which
lie in both soil layers, are split into two segments, where one
lies in the top layer and the other in the basement layer.)
The image systems shown in Fig. 5, were derived based on

Segment n
the theory presented in Maxwell [4], Heppe [5] and Salama

8m
[6].
etc

y 8m K 2I -2H-z s

x a2 KI -2H+z s (1+K)I (1-K 2 ) I -zs

a1 Segment m b1
KI -z s
xn 0 0
H I zs -KI 2H-z s
Fig. 3. Orientation of segments, with varying xn.

⎧ −1 ⎛ b1 − xn ⎞ ⎫ KI 2H-z s I I zs

⎪sinh ⎜
b2 ⎟ ⎪
ρ ⎪ ⎝ T ⎠ ⎪
Rmn ( actual ) =
∫
KI 2H+z s K(1+K)I 2H+z s
⎨ ⎬ dyn (13)
4π lm ln ⎪ −1 ⎛ a1 − xn ⎞⎪
a2 − sinh
⎜ T ⎟⎪ 4H-z s 4H-z s
K 2I
⎪⎩ ⎝ ⎠⎭ etc z
where (a) (b) (c)
T = ( ym − yn ) 2 + ( z m − z n ) 2 (14) Fig. 5. Image systems for (a) an upper layer field segment, with source in
upper layer, (b) an upper layer field segment, with source in lower layer, (c) a
lower layer field segment, with source in lower layer. (The bar represents the
ρ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ source segment and the dot the field segment.)
Rmn ( approx.) = ⎜ + ⎟ (15)
4π ⎝ rmn rmn ' ⎠ B. Both Segments in Top Layer
The image system when both segments lie in the topsoil
Rmn ( actual ) − Rmn ( approx.) layer is given in Fig. 5 (a). The source segment, S, at depth zs,
% error = × 100. (16) injects a current of I amps into the soil. The field segment at a
Rmn ( actual )
depth of zf, will not only see the source at zs injecting I amps
The percentage error in the use of Coulomb’s law as into the soil, but also the image of the source, S', at - zs.
compared to the evaluation of (13) for perpendicular segments The source, S, and image, S', are then reflected in the
is shown in Fig. 4. The results obtained, shows that the error is interface between the two soil layers. The images S'' and S'''
2% or less when the distance between the segments is more are located at 2H- zs and 2H+ zs respectively. These images
than 200% of the length of the reference segment. Therefore are then reflected in the interface at the earth’s surface,
this approximation is suitable since, for any given mesh, there appearing at -2H- zs and -2H+ zs. The mutual resistance of the
is a maximum of one segment that will be at an acute angle to field segment as seen by the source segment is given as:
the other segments in the mesh (i.e. GAUMON is limited to
⎧ ∞ (
⎡ D −1 Zimage = −2nH − zs ⎤ ⎫ )
grids composed of rectangular and/or triangular meshes). ⎪
⎪
K n⎢
∑
⎢ + D −1 Z = − 2 nH(+ z
⎥⎪
⎥⎪ )
ρ1 ⎪ n =0 ⎣ image s ⎦⎪
Rm = ⎨ ⎬ . (17)
4π ⎪ ∞ (
⎡ D −1 Zimage = 2nH − zs ⎤ ⎪ )
⎪+
⎪ n =1
Kn ⎢ ∑
⎢ + D −1 Z = 2 nH + z(
⎥⎪
⎥⎪ )
⎩ ⎣ image s ⎦⎭

With K = 0 only the first term of the first summation is non-

zero, therefore
ρ1 −1
Rm =
4π
{
D ( Z source = z s ) + D −1 ( Z image = − zs ) . } (18)

Fig. 4. Percentage Error in mutual resistance for varying xn.

C. One segment in Top Layer, Other in Bottom
With reference to Fig. 5(b), the first summation in (19), is
the result of the images the field segment experiences from
 4

above. Whereas the second summation in (19), is due to the N

images the field segment experiences from below. Rg = V ∑I . i (24)
⎧ ⎫ i =1
⎪ ⎪ 4. The GPR (Ground Potential Rise), for a given fault
⎪ D −1 ( Z source = zs ) ⎪ current, I G , is then determined by
⎪ ∞ ⎪
ρ 1 (1 + K ) ⎪ ⎪ GPR = Rg × I G . (25)
Rm =
4π
⎨+
⎪ n =0
∑ n ⎡ −1
K ⎣ D ( Z image = −2nH − z s ) ⎦⎤ ⎬ . (19)
⎪ 5. Step 3 is repeated with the potential of the grid [V]
⎪ ∞ ⎪ equal to that of the GPR. The currents in the
⎪
⎪+
⎩ n =1
∑ n ⎡ −1
K ⎣ D ( Z image = 2nH + zs ) ⎤⎦ ⎪
⎪
⎭
segments, Ii, for the fault current IG is determined as
before.
6. With the segment currents for the fault, IG, known,
D. Both Segments in Bottom Layer the voltage at any point on the surface is determined
In this situation, an approach similar to when both segments from the contribution of each segment.
are in the top layer is used, with the sole exception of there 7. The touch potential at any point on the surface is
being no images in the bottom layer. This is the result of an simply the difference between the GPR and the
absence of a reflecting surface below the field segment. When surface potential at that point.
images are reflected into the bottom layer they are re-reflected 8. The step potential is calculated as the difference in
in the interface between the soil and air. The mutual potential between two points spaced 1m apart on the
resistance, Rm in accordance with Fig. 5(c) is given by, earth’s surface. The true step potential at point x is
determined by the maximum difference in potential
⎧ ⎫
⎪ −1 ⎪ within a 1 meter radius of x, as shown in Fig. 6.
⎪ D ( Z source = zs ) ⎪ GAUMOM determines the step potential at a point,
ρ 2 ⎪⎪ −1 ⎪⎪ as the maximum potential difference within both the
Rm = ⎨− KD ( Z image = 2nH − z s ) ⎬ . (20) x and y directions. This approximation gives a
4π ⎪ ⎪
∞ modest value for the step potential.
⎪ ⎪
⎪⎩
2
⎪+(1 − K ) ∑
n =0
n ⎡ −1 ⎤
K ⎣ D ( Z image = −2nH − zs ) ⎦ ⎪
⎪⎭
A

1m
1m
E. Determination of Surface Voltage D
1m 1m
B x
x
For segment in the top layer
1m

⎧ A ( Z source = zs ) ⎫ C
ρ I n ⎪⎪ ∞ ⎪
r
V ( rm ) = ⎨ ( )
⎡ A Z image = 2nH + zs ⎤ ⎪⎬ . (21) (a) (b)
2π ln ⎪+ ∑
⎪⎩ n =1
Kn ⎢
⎢+ A Z ( = 2 nH − z
⎥⎪
)
⎥⎪ Fig. 6. Calculation of Step Potentials (a) approximation method, (b)
⎣ image s ⎦⎭ determination of true step potential.
For segment in the basement layer
⎧ A ( Z source = zs ) ⎫ VI. RESULTS
r ρ I n ⎪⎪ ∞ ⎪⎪
V ( rm ) = ⎨ ⎬. (22)
2π ln ⎪+ ∑
⎪⎩ n =1
⎣ (
K A Z image = 2nH + zs ⎤ ⎪
n⎡
)
⎦
⎪⎭
A. Comparison with Point Matching Moment Method
Tables 2 and 3 compare the grid resistance and touch
voltage (for the grounding system in Fig. 7) produced by two
V. COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURES variations of GAUMOM, with that of the Point Matching
Moment Method of Dawalibi [7] (used as reference).
The procedure for computer analysis of grounding grids as Variation 1 of GAUMOM is where Coulomb’s Law is
performed by, GAUMOM, is as follows: substituted for evaluating the mutual resistance between
1. The grid is divided into N linear segments. perpendicular segments. In Variation 2 the integrals of (2) for
2. The resistance matrix, [R] (NxN matrix), of the perpendicular segments, are evaluated. The touch voltage is
grounding system is then formulated. taken at the centre of the upper right corner mesh as shown in
3. The resistance of the grid is determined by assuming Fig. 7 and is given as a percentage of the GPR.
that the grid is at an arbitrary potential [V] and the Table 1 Case Parameters
currents, [I], in the segments, are determined at this Soil Model Grid
potential. Both [V] and [I] are Nx1 matrices, and the Two-layer 20m x 20m with 10m ground
currents in the segments can be determined by the ρ = 100 Ωm , rods,
1
Conductor radius = 75cm
solution of (23). Surface layer height Burial Depth = 0.5m
[ R ][ I ] = [V ]. (23) = 5m
The grid resistance, Rg, is given by
 5

10m

10m

Fig. 7. 20m x 20m grid with 2x2 meshes.

Table 2 Comparison between results produced by GAUMOM and those of
reference for grid resistance Fig. 9. 3D demonstration of the touch potentials for L-shaped grid.
K Var. 1, Rg (Ω) Var. 2, Rg (Ω) Ref. Rg (Ω)
0.9 7.80 7.83 7.78
0.5 3.34 3.49 3.5
0.0 1.68 1.80 1.81
-0.5 0.76 0.80 L
-0.9 0.16 0.16 0.16

Table 3 Comparison between results produced by GAUMOM and those of

reference for touch potentials
K Var. 1, V (%) Var. 2, V (%) Ref. Touch V (%)
0.9 5.4 5.6 6.6
0.5 10.1 13.9 13.4
0.0 15 21.4 21.0
-0.5 23.7 29.7 L
-0.9 30.8 36.3 35.0

B. 3D Plots of Absolute, Touch and Step Potentials

The absolute, touch and step profiles for the L-shaped Fig. 10. 3D demonstration of the step potentials for L-shaped grid.
grounding system in the conditions specified in Table 4, are VII. DISCUSSION
given in Fig. 8, Fig. 9 and Fig. 10.
Table 4 Parameters for an L-shaped grounding system
In Section VI, a study was performed comparing variations of
Case Parameters GAUMOM, with the Point Matching Moment Method.
Soil Model Surface Material Fault Grid Table 5Table 5 gives the mean deviations in grid resistance
Uniform Crushed Rock I G = 1908 A 105m x 70m and 70m and mesh voltage for the variations of GAUMOM examined.
ρ = 400 Ωm ρ s = 2500 Ωm x 35M, with ground
As expected variation 1, proved to be the least accurate
rods at perimeter,
Thickness = 0.102m ts = 0.5sec Conductor diameter = method, giving an average error of 21% in mesh voltage and
0.01m 3% in grid resistance.
Burial Depth = 0.5m
Table 5 Mean Deviations in results for Variations of GAUMOM
Variation 1 Variation 2
Rg
3.0% 0.4%
Em 20.8% 6.1%

Earlier it was stated that Coulomb’s law can be used to

estimate the mutual resistance between angled segments. The
error induced by this approximation for angled segments can
be assumed to be equivalent to that of Variation 1 i.e. 3% in
grid resistance and 21% in mesh voltage.

APPENDIX
Fig. 8. 3D demonstration of the absolute potentials for L-shaped grid.
A. Mutual Resistance between Rod and Sphere
Salama [3] states that the mutual resistance, Rmn, between rod
and sphere is given by (9) divided by In which gives,
 6

ρ 1
Rmn =
4π ln ∫
ln
( xn − xm )
2
+ ( yn − ym ) + ( z n − z m )
2 2
dln .
b1
b2

z dzn
(A1) r

1) Rod in Horizontal Plane: In Fig. 11 (a) the relative dzm

d
position of the sphere with respect to the rod is shown and in a2
Fig. 11 (b) shows the rod and its image. Since relative a1
distances are used, the rod can be considered to lie on the x-
axis with the origin over the left end of the rod. Fig. 13. Parallel rod segments.

-zn
The distance, d, is the perpendicular distance between
y segments. For parallel rod segments,
a
z=0 b1 b2
b
1 1
∫∫
yn = 0 −1
x
zn D = dzn dzm .
lm ln
(a) (b) a1 a2 ( xn − xm ) 2
+ ( yn − ym ) + ( z n − z m )
2 2

(A7)
Fig. 11 (a) Relative position of sphere with respect to rod, (b) rod and its
image. The integration of (A7) gives,
⎡ ⎛ a2 − b1 ⎞ ⎛ b2 − b1 ⎞ ⎤
Thus in (A1) dln = dxn , yn - ym= y, and zn, zm are the depths ⎢f ⎜ ⎟− f ⎜ d ⎟ ⎥
at which the rod and sphere respectively, lie beneath the earth. d ⎢ ⎝ d ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎥
D −1 = , (A8)
The image of the rod is located at -zn. The mutual resistance lm ln ⎢ ⎛ a2 − a1 ⎞ ⎛ 2 1 ⎞⎥
b − a
between a horizontal rod of length L and a sphere is as ⎢− f ⎜ ⎟+ f⎜ ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ d ⎠ ⎝ d ⎠⎦
follows:
where
ρ
Rmn =
4π ln
(D −1
+ D −1image ) (A2) f ( x) = x sinh −1 x − 1 + x 2 . (A9)
where For the mutual resistance calculation between parallel rods
⎛ L−x⎞ −1 ⎛ − x ⎞
D −1 can be written in terms of its variables
y 2 + ( zn − z m )
2
D −1 = sinh −1 ⎜ ⎟ − sinh ⎜ ⎟ ; d =
⎝ d ⎠ ⎝ d ⎠ as: D −1 ( a1 , b1 ; a2 , b2 ; d ) . Equations (A10) and (A11) are
(A3) derived from Fig. 14. Now for vertical rod segments,
D −1image = D −1 ( zn = − zn ). (A4) D −1image = D −1 (a1 , b1 ; b2 , a2 ; d ) (A10)
2) Rod in Vertical Plane: Fig. 12 shows a sphere at depth Similarly for horizontal rod segments both buried at depth, h,
D −1image = D −1 ⎛⎜ a1 , b1 ; a2 , b2 ; ( 2h ) + d12 ⎞⎟ .
zm in the vicinity of a vertically driven rod. The letters a and b 2
(A11)
represent the z-coordinates of the end points of the rod ⎝ ⎠
segment. (It is important that a < b.) where
-b
d1 is the perpendicular distance between the reference
-a
segment and the projection of the other onto the
z=0
horizontal plane which the reference segment resides.
zm b1
d
a
a1

Fig. 12. Vertical rod and its image.

a2
Since the rod lies in the vertical plane, its differential length a1
z d
dln is equal to dlz. Equations (A3) and (A4) are modified for b1
b2

vertical rods giving,

⎛ b − zm ⎞ ⎛ a − zm ⎞
D −1 = sinh −1 ⎜ ⎟ − sinh −1 ⎜ ⎟, (A5) Fig. 14. Vertical parallel line segments and their images.
⎝ d ⎠ ⎝ d ⎠
To calculate the mutual resistance between collinear
⎛ − a − zm ⎞ −1 ⎛ −b − zm ⎞
D −1image = sinh −1 ⎜ ⎟ − sinh ⎜ d ⎟. (A6) segments, (A8) through (A11) are used with d equal to the
⎝ d ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ radius of the segment.
B. Mutual Resistance between Parallel and Collinear Rods C. Self-Resistance of Rod Segments
Fig. 13 shows two parallel rods, m and n, in the vertical For the calculation of the self resistance of a rod segment,
plane, where a1, b1, a2 and b2 represent the z-coordinates of the segment can be considered to be composed of two
the end points of segment m and n respectively. segments as shown in Fig. 15.
 7

2) One Rod in Vertical Plane Other in Horizontal: With

a2 a1
respect to Fig. 17, D −1 is given by
n m l ⎧ ⎛ ⎞ ⎫
⎪sinh −1 ⎜ b1 − α ⎟ ⎪
b2 ⎪ ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟ ⎪
⎝ β + ( zn − zm ) ⎠ ⎪⎪
α ⎪⎪
2 ⎟
1
b2 b1
D −1 =
lm ln ⎪ ∫ ⎨
⎛ ⎞⎪
⎬ dz n (A17)
a2
⎪− sinh −1 ⎜ a1 − α ⎟⎪
Fig. 15. Parameters for the self resistance calculation of a rod segment. ⎪ ⎜
⎜ β 2 + ( zn − zm )2 ⎟⎟ ⎪
⎩⎪ ⎝ ⎠ ⎭⎪
The same geometry is used as in (A8) through (A11) with d
equal to the radius, α , of the rod segment. Thus for a vertical
rod segment, a1
D −1image = D −1 (a, b; − b, − a; α ). (A12) α
dxm
b1

Similarly for a horizontal rod segment, at depth zn, β

D −1image = D −1 (a, b; − b, − a; d ), (A13)
where a2

d = α 2 + ( 2 zn )
2
(A14) dzn
Z
b2
D. Mutual Resistance between Perpendicular Rods
Fig. 187. Non-coplanar perpendicular rod segments.
1) Both Rods in Horizontal Plane: In the analysis to
follow, segment m is chosen as the reference segment, where Equations (A16) and (A17) are evaluated numerically using
the x-axis, lies over segment m and the origin is located at the the Lobatto quadrature.
left most end of the segment. The reference segment facilitates
the use of relative distances in the equations that follow. REFERENCES
The system of images for perpendicular rod segments is [1] R. E. Collin, “Field Theory of Guided Waves”, second edition, IEEE
similar to that given in Fig. 14 and D −1 is as follows, with Press, 1991.
[2] Dawalibi, Mukhedkar, “Influence of Grounds Rods on Grounding Grids.
respect to Fig. 166.
IEEE Trans on PAS, Vol 98, Nov/Dec 1979, pg 2089-2098.
b2 b1
[3] Salama, Chow, Elsherbiny, "Surface voltages and resistance of
1 1
∫∫
−1
D = dxm dyn (A15) grounding systems of grid and rods in two-layer earth by rapid
lm ln
a2 a1 ( xm − α )2 + yn 2 + ( zm − zn )2 Galerkin's moment method", IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 12,
No. 1, January 1997 pp 179-185
b2 [4] Maxwell J. C. “A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism”, Third Edition,
Clarendon Press, pp. 441-444.
segment n

dy n [5] Heppe R.J., “Computation of potential at surface above an energized

grid or other electrode, allowing for non-uniform current distribution”,
IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems., PAS-98, Nov/Dec
r a2 1979, pp1978-1989.
[6] Salama, Elsherbiny, Chow, "A fast and accurate analysis of grounding
a1 dxm b1 resistance of a driven rodbed in a two-layers soil", IEEE Trans. on
ym = 0 Power Delivery, Vol. 11, No. 2, April 1996, pages 808-814
segment m [7] Dawalibi, Mukhedkar, “Parametric analysis of grounding systems,”
α IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-98, no.
5, pp. 1659–1668, Sept./Oct. 1979.
Fig. 17. Perpendicular rod segments in horizontal plane.
BIOGRAPHIES
Equation (A15) is reduced to (A16) by evaluating the inner
integral. Chandrabhan Sharma (M’80) is a senior lecturer in the Department of
⎧ ⎛ ⎞ ⎫ Electrical and Computer Engineering – The University of The West Indies. He
⎪sinh −1 ⎜ b1 − α ⎟ ⎪ has been a member of staff for the last 15 years. Before that he was attached to
b2 ⎪ ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟ ⎪
various petrochemical industries. He has a BSc (Hons), an MSc in power
⎝ yn + ( zn − zm ) ⎠ ⎪⎪
⎪⎪
2 ⎟ systems, and a Ph.D. in electrical and Computer Engineering, all from The
1
D −1 =
lm ln ⎪
⎨ ∫ ⎛ ⎞⎪
⎬ dyn (A16) University of The West Indies. He is a senior member of the IEEE and a
senior member of the Instrument Society of America.
a2
⎪− sinh −1 ⎜ a1 − α ⎟⎪
⎪ ⎜
⎜ yn + ( zn − zm )2 ⎟⎟ ⎪
2 Shanwton De Four is a graduate of the Faculty of Engineering University of
⎩⎪ ⎝ ⎠ ⎭⎪ the West Indies St Augustine Trinidad and Tobago. He has a BSc (First Class)
in Electrical and Computer Engineering.