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

net/publication/270895623

Electrical earthing in troubled environment

Article  in  International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

17 5,195

3 authors:

Siow Chun Lim Chandima Gomes

Multimedia University Universiti Putra Malaysia
19 PUBLICATIONS   96 CITATIONS    280 PUBLICATIONS   1,757 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Zainal Kadir
Universiti Putra Malaysia
348 PUBLICATIONS   2,038 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Lightning Injury and injury prevention View project

Rain Attenuation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chandima Gomes on 24 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Electrical Power and Energy Systems 47 (2013) 117–128

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Electrical Power and Energy Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

Electrical earthing in troubled environment

Siow Chun Lim, Chandima Gomes ⇑, Mohd Zainal Abidin Ab Kadir
Center of Excellence on Lightning Protection (CELP), Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Practical challenges of electrical earthing in both steady and transient states have been revisited. By ana-
Received 16 August 2012 lyzing the cases based on theoretical and practical aspects, engineering guidelines are proposed to
Received in revised form 22 October 2012 develop suitable solutions. Less complicated cases can be approached with various electrode configura-
Accepted 25 October 2012
tions such as multiple ring, antenna, crow-foot and centipede arrangements. Distributed earthing
arrangements treated with backfill materials are suitable for the sites with extremely high resistive soil.
Clay based backfill materials such as bentonite-mix give corrosion and erosion protection for the elec-
Keywords:
trodes in highly acidic, alkaline, saline and sulfur-rich environments apart from reducing the low fre-
Grounding issues
Earthing practices
quency resistance. On-rock sites such as transmission and communication towers are better
Lightning protection approached with concrete-based earthing systems in both cases of power and lightning protection earth-
Soil resistivity ing. Extreme cases of soil instability have been identified and discussed. The suitability of vertical and
Electrode horizontal electrode components as well as copper and steel electrodes under various soil conditions
is also discoursed. For most cases, we recommend all types of earthing systems to be integrated, however,
properly coordinated system of Surge Protective Devices (SPDs) should be incorporated in such inte-
grated earthing system.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Electrical safety earthing or grounding (as in US English) is a
mechanism employed to dispose undesired and unwanted electri-
cal charge to the earth or send back to the generator via earth
mass. The transfer of charge may be due to earth faults at low fre-
quency, high frequency noise, or transients (e.g. Lightning or
switching impulses). To be qualified as an overall earthing system,
the designed system should be able to handle currents at all these
frequency windows.
There have been enormous amount of studies conducted on
various aspects of earthing system with the most recent ones as
found in the literature [1–4]. Yet, there is little clarification of what
can be deemed as best earthing system for a given situation. In
general, earthing can be categorized as serving five major objec-
tives. In most practices, these five categories were inefficiently
considered as five separate objectives.
Power earthing is basically the process of using earth mass for
returning fault currents at power frequency (DC, or 50 Hz/60 Hz
AC) to the generator/transformer neutral. Thus, handling of fault
currents is usually the main concern for power earthing. Uncon-
trolled fault currents may cause damage at various levels of sever-
ity depending on the magnitude of the fault current and the
susceptibility of the electrical equipment in handling overheating
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 (0) 389466311/389466327.
E-mail address: chandima.gomes@gmail.com (C. Gomes).
and arcing, etc. They also pose high risk of injuries to human
beings.
Transient earthing is the process of earthing sub-cycle currents
that have rise times in the order of nanoseconds to microseconds.
Many transients last for a short period, typically in the range of
microseconds to milliseconds. The commonest source of transient
currents is lightning; hence the transient earthing is also called as
lightning earthing. Other sources of transient current include
switching operations, blackouts, brownouts and energizing/de-
energizing of large banks of capacitors. Besides preventing damage
especially to sensitive equipment such as power electronic devices,
properly designed transient earthing system also ensure human
safety. Any form of physical contact made with improperly
grounded lightning currents could be extremely detrimental to hu-
man life. The steep rise of lighting current within microseconds
coupled with the inductance of the object it struck, could generate
step or touch potentials of values well above the safety limit that
human body can endure. Lightning has been acknowledged as a
primary source of degradation of power quality in power systems
[5].
In power earthing systems where the duration of rise time and
total existence of fault currents are in millisecond scale, the effec-
tive impedance consists only of low frequency resistance. In con-
trast, in lightning/transient earthing systems, inductance plays a
vital role due to the large value of current derivative hence earth-
ing impedance is much more important than the low frequency
resistance. Therefore in most cases, an earthing system which is

0142-0615/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.10.058
118 S.C. Lim et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 47 (2013) 117–128

capable of handling lightning/transient currents should also be
able to cope up with fault currents at power frequency; however,
inverse of such is not correct.
Signal earthing provides return paths for signals usually at low
voltages. It is also used as reference potential for radio frequency
signals and ideally it should be kept at zero reference voltage
regardless of the amount of current flowing into or out of the earth.
Signal earthing creates a potential reference for different parts in
the signal system. Signal earthing if properly designed reduces
electric, magnetic, electromagnetic and conductive noise coupling
[6]. Similar to the facts discussed related to earthing for power sys-
tem; earthing system designed for lightning protection is able to
function as signal earthing system as well since earthing for light-
ning protection is done with the aim of equipotentializing the
ground surface as well as to neutralize immense amount of charges
which gave rise to high potential rises compared to the low poten-
tials that signal earthing intended to handle.
Another major purpose of earthing is to address issues regard-
ing Electrostatic Discharge (ESD). Earthing serves as a medium
for neutralization of static charges which if not properly attend,
may accumulate up to a limit which may cause ignition of objects
and sparking. The amount of charge carried by lightning strikes far
outnumber the amount of static charge generated within any
building especially those with conveying belts, gas or steam tanks
and other objects which may give rise to static electricity. There-
fore, earthing system good enough for lightning protection is again
good enough for ESD protection.
Based on the above discussions, a conclusion can be drawn in
that an earthing system fit for lightning protection is also fit for
power system earthing, signal earthing as well as ESD earthing. Sci-
entists and professionals for the past century or so has since upon
realizing the hazards of lightning strike and hence the dire need of
a good earthing system, devoted concentrated attention on matters
pertaining earthing for lightning protection purpose thus giving
rise to a few standards with the more notable ones include IEEE
Green Book (IEEE Std 142: Grounding of Industrial and Commercial
Power Systems), IEC 62305 (Protection against lightning – Part 3:
Physical damage to structures and life hazard), BS7430 (Code of
Practice for Earthing), and NFPA 70. Due to the complexity of the
nature of lightning and hence the hazards that associated with it,
these standards are still constantly being improved.
The effectiveness of any earthing system is highly affected by
the surrounding environment, mainly the properties of soil. The
ideal condition for earthing is to have sufficiently large homoge-
neous mass of soil of infinite conductivity, deep enough to hold
the buried earthing rods. According to the IEEE Green Book [7],
the maximum grounding electrode resistance of large electrical
substations and commercial and industrial substations should be
1 X and 2–5 X respectively. This low resistance is required to pre-
vent high potential elevations in the event of earth fault currents of
reasonably high values. However, ideal soil condition may not al-
ways exist in real practice. Difficulties such as shallow, rocky,
highly acidic or alkaline soil, and dry upper soil layers are very
common in real life earthing practices. Solutions to such patholog-
ical earthing issues are most often debated over the compromise
between the cost and efficiency. In such backdrop, there is a dire
need in identifying the practical challenges of electrical earthing
to design feasible solutions to each unique case that comes across
in the field.
Apart from the identified pathological issues concerning earth-
ing for lightning protection purpose, some ambiguities have also
been discovered regarding the current available international stan-
dard for lightning protection. This standard which is suppose to
serve as guide for practicing electrical engineer especially those
designing earthing system have advocated some questionable
earthing practices which will be uncovered and discussed in the
following sections. A comparative study on the suitability of cop-
per and steel earthing electrodes in various environments has also
been done.
2. Methodology and information analysis
2.1. Pathological issues
Electrical earthing encounters strenuous challenges under cer-
tain circumstances. One of the most chronic obstacles to imple-
ment ideal and effective earthing system is the undesirable soil
environment. All earthing systems are installed either on or under
the layer of soil which is strategically close to the building in which
such system is intended to protect. Therefore, the effectiveness and
performance of earthing system is fully governed by the conditions
of the soil concerned. The conditions of concern here are consid-
ered as pathological cases if they pose atypical opposition to the
realization of high performance electrical earthing.
These issues of earthing are being characterized into three main
components namely, soil resistivity, soil stability as well as envi-
ronmental factors which influences the performance of electrical
earthing system. Briefly described, soil resistivity is the electrical
property of soil which measures how conducive is the soil to effec-
tively earth currents. Ideally, this parameter should have as small a
value as possible since conductivity of current is the reciprocal of
resistivity. On the other hand, soil stability is a gauge of the
strength as well as the capability of the soil to support the loads
placed upon them without suffering from geological deformity
characterized by events such as landslides and ‘‘sagging’’. Last
but not least, the environmental factors worthy of concern here
are soil acidity and alkalinity, sulfur content, salinity of soil, as well
as other identified pollutants. These factors severely affect the
earthing systems by means of corrosion and erosion of earthing
electrodes.
2.1.1. Soil resistivity
One of the biggest challenges to industrial electrical engineers is
the issue of implementing reasonably low earth resistance in high
resistivity soil. Soil resistivity affects the design of an earthing sys-
tem as it is one of the main parameters that determines the earth-
ing impedance. Soil resistivity basically controls how high or how
low the resistance and impedance of an earthing electrode, depth
of installation of earthing electrode and also type of configuration
of earthing electrode. It is best to locate the area of lowest soil
resistivity to achieve the most economical grounding installation.
There are several factors which characterize soil resistivity namely
moisture content, temperature and environmental factors (which
will be addressed in different subsection). There is no typical value
of soil resistivity as it could be as low as several Ohm-meters or as
high as several hundreds of kilo Ohm-meters depending on the
aforementioned factors.
The dynamic behavior of soil resistivity can be attributed to var-
iation in the weather and season. Soil resistivity is highly affected
by the proportion of moisture, minerals and dissolved salts which
makes up the electrolyte as shown in Table 1 [8].
Wet soil generally has low resistivity whereas dry soil without
soluble salts has high resistivity. A soil is wet due to increased
Table 1
Approximate resistivity of some earth materials.
Glacial sediment Resistivity (X m) Sedimentary rocks Resistivity (X m)
Clays 5–100 Shales 6–14
Tilts 18–2000 Sandstone 18–1000
Gravel and sand 800–10,000 Conglomerate 1000–10,000
 S.C. Lim et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 47 (2013) 117–128
Fig. 1. Resistivity (logarithmic scale) of different types of soil against moisture
content.
moisture content of the soil. How wet a soil is depend on the ability
of soil to trap water which in turns depends on the composition of
the soil. Clayish soil as shown in Table 1 generally has lower soil
resistivity while rocky soil usually has the opposite. In areas with
high seasonal alteration of rainfall such as tropical countries, it is
crucial to consider moisture level in soil when designing earthing
system. As it has been observed with several types of soil, soil
resistivity decreases with increment in moisture content by weight
[9]. The information given in [9] is depicted graphically in Fig. 1. As
the moisture content reaches zero percent, the soil resistivity ap-
proaches towering figures in the order of 107 X m. In silica based
sand even at 5% moisture content the resistivity is about
50,000 X m. These trends raise severe earthing issues in sub-Saha-
ran countries, Middle East and some parts of Australia where the
soil contains high level of silica and soil moisture content plunging
to almost 0% due to the extreme heat during daytime. Similar prob-
lems can be observed in temperate regions as well, where the
ground becomes frozen solid during winter times, increasing the
soil resistivity dramatically due to the lack of moisture. In other
words, an earthing system which is fairly functional during moder-
ate weather may lose its effectiveness significantly in winter.
The earth electrode should be installed deep enough to reach
the ‘‘permanent moisture level’’ or the portion of soil where water
is trapped (usually deep down and away from the soil surface).
However, there may be instances where thick soil is unavailable.
The worst possible situation is whereby the earthing site has rocky
surface.
Soil resistivity also varies with variation in soil temperature.
Soil temperature depends on effect of insolation, geothermic activ-
ity and air temperature [10]. As it has been reported by Wenner
[11] the soil resistivity of a certain type of soil showed almost lin-
ear decrement from 2000 X m to about 300 X m as the tempera-
ture increased from 10 °C to 0 °C. At 0 °C the resistivity dropped
drastically to about 100 X m and then up to 25 °C the decrement
was not more than 20–30%. Another observation made in [7]
shows that for another type of soil the resistivity dropped from
70 kX m to 10 kX m when the soil temperature raised from
5 °C to 0 °C and from 10 kX m to 4 kX m when the temperature
was increased from 0 °C to 50 °C. However, in both studies it was
not mentioned about the controlling of soil moisture content dur-
ing the experiment. Hence, the large increment in soil resistivity as
the temperature reaches minus Celsius temperatures may be
attributed to the decrease in moisture content with further lower-
ing temperatures. The relatively low decrement in soil resistivity
above 0 °C may be due to the enhancement of ionic conduction
with temperature.
The above information show that in tropical and sub-tropical
countries where the temperature remains above freezing point
119
throughout the year, soil moisture content plays a much vital role
in determining the earth resistance of an electrode, compared to
the soil temperature.
In a nut shell, soil resistivity is a complex parameter as it de-
pends on not one but a few factors concurrently. Engineers for
the past century have came up with several ways to reduce earth-
ing resistance and in most cases, reducing soil resistivity is a com-
pulsory practice owing to the large effect it bears on earthing
resistance of electrodes. The effectiveness and drawbacks of sev-
eral such practices will be reviewed in the upcoming sections.
2.1.2. Soil stability
The significance of soil stability in affecting the performance of
earthing system is vast but also vastly unrealized by practicing
electrical engineers. In general, soil stability is judged based on
its shear strength, compressibility and its tendency to absorb water
[12]. Earthing system is mostly buried under soil. Hence its func-
tionality is also dependent on the strength of the soil. Most engi-
neers think that their job is done once the earthing system was
successfully installed underground. It is their assumption that
the installed earthing system will remain as it is, completely ob-
scured underground. This assumption is true if and only if the soil
which houses the earthing electrodes is stable. An unstable soil
will undergo rapid physical transformations resulting in exposure
and even incurring physical damages to the buried earthing
electrodes.
One such pathological case arises when buildings are con-
structed in marshy environment. In marshy lands the soil condi-
tion is characterized by high salinity and sometimes acidity as
well. From the perspective of electrical engineers, this condition
is highly suitable as the soil resistivity is significantly low when
soil is moist and salty. However, from the viewpoint of civil engi-
neers, marshy lands may create unforeseen problems due to the
instability of landmasses which may change over the time. Build-
ings constructed on such land masses may submerge or sink into
a certain depth due to deficiency of soil strength. When such mis-
hap occurs, the existing electrical earthing systems could be jeop-
ardized as the connection from the building to the earthing
electrode could be broken. Also, the earthing system could be ex-
posed as the building sinks which may then lead to issues of elec-
trode corrosion due to atmospheric condition and increased earth
resistance due to lack of proper contact between the electrode
and surrounding soil.
Building sites in the vicinity of acute slopes are also problematic
due to high susceptibility to soil erosion. One such situation is
illustrated in Fig. 2. As the soil on the slope get washed away by
rainwater or a mass of soil slides down the slope initiated by grav-
ity pull, there will be an eventuality of earthing system being ex-
posed in the air. Most often the electrode may be exposed to the
atmosphere or detached from the building without the knowledge
of the building owner. Sometimes due to the erosion of the lower
soil layers the electrode system becomes suspended in loosely
bound soil for several months before it collapses finally. In such
stages the earth resistance of the electrode shows extremely high
values. The authors have come across such cases in several tower
sites in hilly locations in Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan and Nepal. Sim-
ilar situations are also observed in buildings constructed at land-
slide prone locations in Pakistan and Malaysia.
2.1.3. Environmental factors
Corrosive and erosive environment could also be potential
threat to effectiveness of earthing system. Corrosion is a phenom-
enon whereby metal is attacked by chemical or electrochemical
reaction with its environment resulting in loss of metallic ions
and thus, loss of mass. Erosion in this context is the process of
wearing away of metal by mechanical forces augmented by weath-
120 S.C. Lim et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 47 (2013) 117–128
building
Earthing Hill slope
system
Direction of
corrosion
Fig. 2. Earthing system on landslide-prone area.
ering or chemical reaction such as acid rain resulting in loss of solid
metals. Metals are susceptible to corrosion under certain condi-
tions. Presence of an electrolyte is a must for corrosion to take
place. However, erosion can happen without the existence of an
electrolyte. Moisture is usually the main component which causes
corrosion of metals. Since earthing system requires a good conduc-
tor to be used, metals such as copper and steel are usually the bet-
ter choice. This in turn explains the significance and relevance of
corrosive and erosive environment to an earthing system.
The ease at which earthing rods corrodes depend on the follow-
ing factors:
(a) Soil resistivity – the higher the soil resistivity, the lower the
rate of corrosion of grounding rods. If salt are introduced to
increase electrolyte conductivity around the rod, corrosion
rate will increase.
(b) Porosity – the more porous is the soil, the more oxygen
reaches the surface of earthing electrode, the higher the cor-
rosion rate.
(c) pH – extremely low or high pH speeds up corrosion.
(d) Sulfides and chlorides – sulfides destroys the protective cop-
per oxide layer of electrode, enabling corrosion to take place.
Once the rods are corroded, the earthing of current will no long-
er be as effective and mitigations have to be taken. Issues of how
highly acidic or alkaline soil, sulfur rich soil, high salinity soil and
soil under petrochemical environment jeopardizes the perfor-
mance of earthing system will now be discussed.
2.1.3.1. Highly acidic and alkaline soil. Soil is acidic due to the exces-
sive presence of H+ ions. The more acidic is the soil the lower is the
pH value. Soil is considered very acidic if its pH value drops below
4. The main causes of high acidity in soil are abundance of rainfall,
fertilizer usage, plant’s root activity and acid rain. Rainwater lea-
ches or dissolves the positive ions already present in soil. Use of
+
fertilizer such as ammonium (NHþ 4 ) releases more H ions into
the soil via certain chemical reaction. While absorbing nutrients
from soil, plants may also excrete organic acids into the soil and
also release H+ via its roots. Acid rain which is happening more fre-
quently in industrial area may also to a lesser extent, lowers the pH
of the soil.
In chemical-based industrial area, the soil condition could be
acidic due to improper waste treatment as well as acid rain. Nitric
acid, carbonic acid, sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid could be
highly concentrated in the soil in such area. These acids in highly
concentrated quantity may corrode copper albeit at much lower
rate than iron based on the following chemical reactions:
CuðsÞ þ 4HNO3 ðaqÞ ! CuðNO3 Þ2 ðaqÞ þ 2NO2 ðgÞ þ 2H2 OðlÞ
CuðsÞ þ H2 SO4 ðlÞ ! CuSO4 ðsÞ þ SO2 ðgÞ þ H2 OðgÞ
Note that CuSO4 is soluble in water.
Although these electrolytic reactions causes corrosion of metals,
earthing resistance is reduced since ionic conduction is now
enhanced.
On the other hand, alkalinity of soil depends on the concentra-
tion of hydroxyl ions, OH which in turn is produced via chemical
reaction of sodium carbonates (Na2CO3) which is also known as
soda. The higher the pH is, the more alkaline is the soil. Possible
sources of alkaline soil include presence of soil minerals and appli-
cation of irrigation water which contains high composition of car-
bonate ions. Clay soil is more alkaline than loamy or sandy soil.
When soil is highly acidic or alkaline, it implies that the soil is rich
in hydrogen (H+) and hydroxyl (OH) ions which could speed up
corrosion of metal electrodes.
2.1.3.2. Brackish soil. Brackish soil is soil with excessive amount of
soluble salts or having high salinity. Excessive usage of fertilizer,
low humidity due to dry climate and irrigation of saline or briny
water are the root causes of brackish soil. Salts are known to cata-
lyze the process of corrosion of metal only in the presence of water.
This explains why metals corrode at higher pace near the beach.
Dry soil with high salinity does not speed up corrosion. Therefore,
salinity of soil is another point of consideration when installing an
earthing system.
2.1.3.3. Sulfur rich soil. Sulfur rich soil is another environment
which is conducive to earthing rods’ corrosion. Copper when in
contact with moistened air usually will be oxidized into a highly
corrosion-resistant layer, copper (II) oxide. However, in the pres-
ence of hydrogen sulfide, H2S, the protective layer of Cu2O is at-
tacked, depleted and Cu2S is formed instead. This will lead to
acceleration of further corrosion of copper. The following half
equations summarize the whole process [13]:
4Cu $ 4Cuþ þ 4e
O2 þ 2H2 O þ 4e $ 4OH
H2 S þ OH $ HS þ H2 O
4Cuþ þ 2HS þ 2H2 O $ 2Cu2 S þ 2H3 O
Sulfur concentration is generally higher in industrial area. In air,
it usually exists as sulfur dioxide gas which forms acid rain when
dissolved in rainwater. Acid rain is of the main concern here as it
is corrosive to metal rods. The main contributors of sulfur dioxide
gas in industrial areas are the power plants.
2.1.3.4. Petrochemical environment. Petrochemical plants churned
out huge amount of soil contaminants such as chlorinated hydro-
carbons and solvents which could cause alteration in the natural
soil environment. These soil contaminants may speed up the soil
erosion process which in turn encourages corrosion of the earthing
rods planted in the eroded soil. In the event that chlorinated water
successfully seeps into soil, copper electrodes can be corroded
according to equation:
CuðsÞ þ Cl2 þ 2H2 O ! CuCl2 ðH2 OÞ2
Corrosive sulfur gas is also produced in petrochemical industry.
 S.C. Lim et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 47 (2013) 117–128
2.2. Questionable recommended earthing practices from IEC 62305
There are several ambiguities as well as confusions encountered
if one were to follow the earthing practices as advocated by IEC
62305-3 [14] which had been discussed by Lim et al. [15]. One ma-
jor questionable practice as recommended by these codes is
whether the achieving of low earthing resistance (if possible lower
than 10 X when measured at low frequency) is sufficient for earth-
ing of lightning current. However, it has been shown by Lim et al.
[15] that the earthing impedance greatly exceeds earthing resis-
tance at increasing frequency. Typical frequency spectrum of light-
ning reaches MHz region and this means that in the event of
lightning strikes, frequency dependent earthing impedance, rather
than low frequency earthing resistance should be considered.
Another pathological issue derived from that standard is the
depth of burial of earthing electrode for Lightning Protection Sys-
tem {LPS} Class III and IV is independent of soil resistivity. Lim
et al. [15] showed that when these two classes of LPS are installed,
development of step potential of magnitudes far greater than the
maximum safety step potential that the human body can with-
stand takes place putting human safety at grave jeopardy. This is
not the case if LPS Class I and II are installed instead. An LPS is sup-
posed to safeguard human’s life at all cost. Therefore, does this
means that LPS III and IV are not qualified as Lightning Protection
System?
2.3. Issues related to earthing practices
The primary objective when implementing earthing system for
transient grounding is to achieve the minimum possible earthing
impedance. However, this is still a challenging task and therefore
engineers usually only aims to achieve low earthing resistance.
Based on this aim, many methods have been proposed and prac-
ticed over the years. The NFPA 70-2008: National Electrical Code
(and its successors so far) recommended eight types of earthing
rods.
The first type is the metal underground water pipe which is de-
scribed as the main domestic water pipe that serves the building
structure and is in contact with earth for at least 3 m as shown
in Fig. 3 [16]. Earthing electrodes are connected to the metal pipes
and continuity of points of connection of the grounding rod con-
ductor and the bonding conductors is prioritized. This type of
earthing practice may lead to a pathological case if the electrode
is of different material of metal pipe for example copper as the for-
mer and steel as the latter. Steel pipe will experience galvanic cor-
rosion since it is more electronegative than copper with the soil as
electrolyte. Although copper electrode is not corroded, the corro-
sion of steel will also increase the overall earthing resistance since
the steel pipe is also part of the earthing system. However, with
building
Metal pipe
Earthing
system
Fig. 3. Metal underground water pipe.
121
plastic pipes being increasingly in used to replace steel pipes, this
problem should be gradually lessens.
Next, the metal frame of the building itself, can be used to cre-
ate an effective grounding system as shown in Fig. 4 [16]. Direct
metal-to-metal contact of columns, joists and beams provides a
low resistance path for current to flow. A vast interconnected steel
beams and columns which form the structure of the building will
provide a low impedance path for lightning current to be dispersed
to the ground. However, extreme care has to be exercised when
jointing the steel bars. A good practice before employing such
earthing configuration is to measures, or when not viable, simu-
lates the earth resistance of the entire metal frame to check for
the effect of any discontinuity of joints which may render it unsuit-
able [7].
Thirdly, Ufer ground uses a concrete-encased electrode to im-
prove earthing system effectiveness especially in dry area as
shown in Fig. 5 [16]. Ufer grounding consists of two major materi-
als namely concrete and rebar. Combination of concrete and rebar
is also known as reinforced concrete (RC). Concrete takes up mois-
ture speedily and retains it for a considerably long period. The
abundance of ions in the concrete mixture aids the conduction of
current.
When the soil around concrete makes contact with concrete,
the pH of the soil rises. This rise in pH value coupled with the abil-
ity of concrete to retain moisture makes Ufer ground a good con-
ductor for lightning currents [16]. Commercially, Ufer earthing is
used in building footers, concrete floors, communication towers
and steel towers of high voltage transmission lines.
Like any other earthing practices, there are some issues of Ufer
earthing. Firstly, cracking may occur when the moisture trapped in
it superheats and rapidly expands, possibly weakening the building
foundation [17]. Cracking may also occur due to freeze–thaw expo-
sure stemming from pre- and post-winter weathering condition
and usage of high alumina cement [18]. Steel rod is usually used
as the electrode in Ufer earthing. The use of steel reinforcement
as an ‘‘Ufer’’ ground prevents concrete from chipping as has been
found with copper [19]. Issue of electrical continuity and adequate
conductivity must be dealt with to ensure satisfactory performance
of galvanized iron (GI) as earthing electrode [20].
Another issue with concrete is the degradation of reinforced
concrete (RC) structures in the coastal areas of the petroleum-rich
area. A typical example is the Arabian Gulf due primarily to corro-
sion of reinforcing steel [18]. The deterioration of RC in the Arabian
Fig. 4. Metal frame of the building or structure.
122 S.C. Lim et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 47 (2013) 117–128

Fig. 5. Concrete-encased rod/Ufer ground. Fig. 6. Earthing ring.

Gulf region is due to corrosive environment in the form of sulfate
attack and also the penetration of salts, moisture, oxygen and car-
bon dioxide into RC [21]. This corrosion issue is worsened by del-
eterious acidic rains and earthing performance of Ufer ground is
greatly severed when the rebar is corroded. This is because the rust
formed on the corroded rebar will greatly increase the earthing
electrode’s resistance. The simultaneous penetration of salts
(mostly chloride and sulfate ions) and water into RC also speeds
up the process of corrosion although earthing resistivity is reduced
as well under ionic soil condition.
The soil in Arabian Gulf region is mostly arid, saline, composed
of sand, silt and clay, and also frequently layered with salt with
shallow groundwater tables [22]. These soil conditions coupled
with its proximity to major petrochemical industrial zones are
greatly detrimental to the efficiency of any earthing system being
installed there. It is expected that performance of copper electrode
used as earthing here would be much worse as its resistance to cor-
rosion is inferior to that of Ufer ground.
The IEEE Green Book further raised two more pathological is-
sues related to Ufer earthing namely sizing and jointing of rebars
[7]. The amount of rebar necessarily required generally depends
on [19]:
rounding soil especially those which is either sulfur rich or acidic
or brackish soil as highlighted in previous section.
Earthing rod installation is the simplest earthing practice
whereby a metal rod usually copper is buried to a specified depth
underground to provide sufficient surface area in contact with the
earth which presents a low resistance electrical path to the earth as
shown in Fig. 7 [16]. The rule of thumb of earthing electrode instal-
lation is to drive the electrodes as deep into the ground as possible
to reach the permanent moisture and frost free soil levels in order
to minimize soil resistance. Typically, these levels are few meters
below the surface.
Since the moisture content of the soil increases with depth, the
soil resistivity decreases with depth. A remarkable decrease in the
earthing resistance will occur when an earthing rod reaches the
low resistivity soil [23].
However, driving the electrode into the ground may to some ex-
tent damages the rod especially in rocky ground in which the rocks
scratch off the ‘‘skin’’ of copper rod causing erosion of the metal.
This loss of material will increase the resistivity of copper rod thus
increasing the overall earthing resistance.

(a) density, resistivity and pH factor of concrete,

(b) contact surface area between concrete and surrounding soil,
(c) soil resistivity and ground water content,
(d) characteristics of the lighting strike current such as magni-
tude and frequency behavior.

Fourthly, an earthing ring is a continuous copper conductor that

completely encircles a building or structure and is buried at a min-
imum depth in order to provide a low grounding resistance as
shown in Fig. 6 [16]. This practice was also identified as Type B
arrangement earthing electrodes in standard IEC 62305 [14]. The
main idea of earthing ring is to increase the effective area of the
earthing electrode, thus lowering the overall earthing resistance.
Two possible shortcoming of this practice is insufficient soil depth
for burial of ring and increased risk of corrosion especially in highly
corrosive environment. The IEC 62305 suggested a minimum depth
of 0.5 m [14]. However, this amount of depth may not be available
at shallow, rocky soil. Risk of corrosion of earthing ring is high be-
cause of the amount of contact surface area made with the sur- Fig. 7. Earthing rod.
 S.C. Lim et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 47 (2013) 117–128
The next practice is installation of earthing pits as shown in
Fig. 8 [16]. This practice requires construction of earthing pits be-
fore installing chemically enhanced earthing rods into them. Brine
or salt solution or backfiller is added to the earth to draw moisture
to reduce resistance to the earth. One example is called the electro-
lytic earthing rod where the combination of electrolytic solution
and bentonite contains or traps moisture and provides a firm con-
nection between the earthing rod and the surrounding soil to min-
imize detrimental effects of corrosion, environment and
temperature [17].
This practice is actually a method of soil treatment. Lowering
the grounding resistance via addition of more grid conductors re-
quires immense cost. Driving earth electrodes deep into the earth
is another alternative but it is not possible for all types of soil con-
ditions especially rocky area. Ground mats are also uneconomical
for mass surge arrestor grounding [24].
Therefore, another alternative industrial earthing practice is to
treat the soil with salts such as sodium chloride, magnesium sul-
fate or copper sulfate. These salts will be dissolved into the soil
and reduces the earthing resistance as they encourage ionic con-
duction. The main advantage of this method is more practical
and durable because less maintenance work is required. However,
it may cause corrosion to the grounding rods and it may contami-
nate the environment [6].
In developing countries such as those located in South Asian re-
gion, sodium chloride is widely used to lower the earthing resis-
tance. Gomes et al. [25] and Wan Ahmad et al. [26] show that
earthing resistance of the electrode with sodium chloride is signif-
icantly less than the same system without salt. Gomes et al. [25]
has investigated further to find that the corrosive effects of sodium
chloride are very high, especially when galvanized iron electrodes
are used. They have also found that grounding systems embedded
in sodium chloride shows remarkably high ground resistance after
few months of installation, especially during prolonged dry periods
which followed heavy rain. During the rainy period sodium chlo-
ride surrounding the electrode is ‘‘washed away’’, leaving a cavity
that separate the electrode system and background soil. As the
water filled in these cavities dry out during the draught the ground
resistance increase to very high values due to the lack of contact
between the electrode and soil. Similar results have been observed
with respect to many other types of water soluble salts used as
ground resistance reducing agents.
Fig. 8. Earthing pit.
123
The soil may also be treated with ground fillers or also known as
backfill materials such as coke powder or bentonite clay. These
substances absorb and retain moisture from the surrounding soil.
Backfill materials are viable mitigations for the issues of high
resistivity soil as well as rocky area. One of the most widely used
backfill material is bentonite. This material was experimented back
in year 1980 by backfilling a drilled hole installed with grounding
rod with bentonite [27]. Sand is impractical as it possesses high
resistivity [27]. Mixing salt with sand may induce a corrosive envi-
ronment for the rods although it could bring down its resistivity.
Jones [27] showed that bentonite treated rods showed a reduction
of up to 36% of earthing resistance as compared to the driven rods.
Bentonite causes significant reduction in grounding resistance
especially during drought periods. This is because bentonite has
good conductive properties and able to absorb and retain immense
amount of water as well as able to stick to most of the types of sur-
face that it touches [28].
In 1999, improvement of the electrical properties of earthing
loops by using bentonite suspension, bentonite powder and waste
drilling mud as backfill materials was proposed [28]. Kostic et al.
[28] showed that bentonite stabilizes the earthing resistance with
the corrosive rate of bentonite at acceptable level.
Apart from commercial Bentonite, it was also proven that metal
oxide which is waste product of steel industry can also be used as
backfilling material. Metal oxide powder possesses all the charac-
teristics of a good backfilling material. It significantly lowers the
earthing resistance, able to maintain such low resistance for a long
period without significant fluctuation in changes of value and the
percentage of material erosion of GI due to corrosion in the pres-
ence of metal oxide powder is less than 1% after more than 2 years
in contact [20]. There is also no observed contamination effect on
the surrounding soil due to the metal oxide powder. Another alter-
native is planting-clay soil which has almost similar capability as
bentonite in this aspect [29].
In 2004, a resistance reduction material which is mixtures of
inorganic salts such as halite, bloedite, stevensite, montmorillonite,
huntite, ankerite, calcite, saponite, diaspora, hanskite and gismon-
dine was introduced by Martinez et al. [30]. These inorganic salts
are residues acquired from mining activity. The resistance reduc-
tion material proposed was found to be not corrosive to the earth-
ing electrodes, able to rapidly lower earthing resistance upon
treatment with water and maintain the reduced resistance value
for more than a year without adding water [30].
In 2006, the effect of water–cement–salt ratio and temperature
on the resistivity of the proposed earthing filler – fly ash was inves-
tigated [31]. Granulated blast furnace slag is a by-product of the
steel-making process which has low resistivity. The use of fly ash
as grounding filler material was a waste utilization method where
it was an attractive alternative to disposal in that disposal cost and
potential pollution problems were reduced. At the end of the
experiment, the earthing resistance reduction rate was found to
be more than 35% [31]. A grounding resistance reduction agent
such as granulated blast furnace slag increases the radius and
length of an earthing electrode, thus lowering the grounding
resistance.
Usage of water-absorbent polymer was also experimented be-
fore. Compared to bentonite, the anhydrous-saleic-acid polymer
is much less corrosive and lesser amount is required to achieve
the same grounding resistance rate when using bentonite. Yamane
et al. [32] discovered its ability to maintain low level of ground
resistance for reasonably long term. However, the water-absorbent
polymer must have absorbed water first before being mixed with
epoxy in order for it to be functional as grounding resistance
reducing agent [32].
In 2009, a study on Palm Kernel Oil Cake (PKOC) which is a
derivative of palm kernel nut after extraction of oil as an earth
124 S.C. Lim et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 47 (2013) 117–128

Table 2
Comparisons between each earthing configuration.

Characteristics Metallic underground water Concrete encased earthing Earthing rod and Electrolytic earthing Earthing
pipe rod pipe rod plate
Resistance against time Increases Increases Increases Decreases Decreases
Corrosabilitya High Low High Low High
Ampacityb High High Low High High
Variation with temperature Low Low Low High Low
change
Weakens building’s foundation No Yes No No No
Expected lifespan Not known Not known 5–10 years 30–50 years 5–10 years
a
Ampacity is the maximum amount of electrical current a conductor or device can carry before sustaining immediate or progressive deterioration. Metallic underground
pipe and earthing plate has high ampacity if continuously in direct contact with earth and dependent upon surface area respectively.
b
Corrosability is the ease for corrosion to occur.

resistance reducing agent was done [33]. Over a 6 years period
measurement, George et al. [33] claimed that the results showed
an average earth resistance improvement of about 50% and when
compared with chemicals used as electrolyte such as sodium chlo-
ride, magnesium sulfate, copper sulfate, magnesium chloride, cal-
cium chloride, ammonium chloride, PKOC is more
environmentally friendly and has no risk of being washed away
by rainwater. The PKOC is quite stable with resistance to acids
and alkalis, and are able to maintain permanently earth resis-
tance-reducing effect substantially without being lost by rainfall.
As a result, fluctuation of earth resistance due to seasonal changes
of climate and rainfall is substantially negligible [33].
One of the major challenges of using such backfills with the
exception of PKOC and bentonite is that the risk of them getting
washed or leaked away by heavy rainwater. Under such circum-
stance, refilling is required but this is a tedious task and the task
itself may bring up new unforeseen complications. Therefore, a
mixture of bentonite with reinforced concrete was proposed by
Lim et al. [34]. There may also be other issues such as backfills
attacking the surface of the electrode [24] and creating corrosive
environment for electrodes.
The seventh method is installation of earthing plates [16].
Earthing plates are flat metal plates of minimum thickness and sur-
face area that are buried at depth to provide sufficient surface con-
tact with the earth to present a low resistance electrical path to the
earth. One advantage of such practice is equipotentializing of the
land surface. However, this practice is also subjected to threat of
corrosion. Finally, earthing using underground storage tanks, pip-
ing systems and well casings that are not bonded to a metal water
pipe are also practiced [16]. Galvanic corrosion is again prevalent.
Table 2 summarizes the advantages and drawbacks of each con-
figuration specified by NFPA 70-2008: National Electrical Code
[17].
2.4. Steel and copper
Material wise, steel and copper rods are generally used as earth
electrodes. Copper rod is one of the most suitable earthing conduc-
tors because of its high conductivity level and lower permeability
level, thus making it easier to discharge current to earth which is
crucial when the grounding system is to provide lightning protec-
tion. Another advantage of copper is that it is significantly more
resistant against corrosion because of its neutral and inert charac-
teristics, compared to other type of conductors. This is, however,
not the case in sulfur rich soil as discussed in previous section.
Steel is also extensively used in China as grounding conductors
because the price of steel is much lower compared to copper. Be-
sides, the risk of theft of steel conductors is lower compared to
copper which is again due to its cheaper price. However, steel
bar has much higher permeability and lower conductivity than
copper. This high permeability of steel is of major concern espe-
cially for lightning protection because it may lead to high induced
electric field to nearby conductors as governed by Maxwell’s equa-
tion. Steel conductors are more vulnerable to corrosion, compared
to copper. When steel conductors are corroded, it can severely im-
pair grounding system especially in the event of a lightning strike
or power system fault.
Another issue which can be used to evaluate the performance of
any given material used as earthing electrode is the rate of charge
dissipation in that material. This issue is addressed by the term
‘‘relaxation time’’ Tr which specifies the time for a charge purposely
injected into a material to decay to e1 of its original injected value.
Tr is governed simply by the ratio of permittivity,  and conductiv-
ity, r of any material. In this context of discussion, the source of
injection of charge is the lightning strike. The relaxation time of
both copper and iron is calculated as below:
(i) Copper
 ¼ 0 ¼ 109 =36p F=m
R ¼ 5:96  107 S=m
T r ¼ 109 =36p=5:96  107 ¼ 1:48  1019 s
(ii) Iron
 ¼ 0 ¼ 109 =36p F=m
r ¼ 1:00  107 S=m
T r ¼ 109 =36p=1:00  107 ¼ 8:84  1019 s
Based on the above calculations, iron needs approximately six
times the duration for charge to be dissipated by copper. However,
these values are still insignificantly small compared to typical time
required for dissipation of lightning charge which is in the range of
ls. In other words, the rate of dissipation of charge of both copper
and iron is many times higher than the typical discharging dura-
tion of lightning which means that both are equally effective in dis-
charging lightning strike in relative to the natural discharging
duration of lightning strike.
3. Discussions
3.1. Resolving issues in standards
As raised in previous section, the derived information from
IEC62305 of installation of LPS Class III and IV being independent
of soil resistivity can be considered as meaningless to electrical
 S.C. Lim et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 47 (2013) 117–128
engineers. Following such practices as advocated spells disaster as
we may never know when and where lightning will strike. Many
triggered lightning experiments conducted at Camp Blanding test
site in Florida, USA have revealed that irrespective of the less-
than-10 X earth resistance of the channel base earth electrode,
surface flashover could be observed up to about 100 m. Further-
more, it has been commonly observed in many parts of the world
that people at sites close to transmission and telecommunication
towers in rocky areas, are injured frequently due to step potentials
in the event of lightning strikes into the tower [35]. These incidents
have been observed even when 10 X upper limit was achieved by
the respective grounding systems. Hence it is of vital importance
that, not only the limiting low frequency resistance, but length of
the electrode (electrode configuration) also matters in assuring
the safety of both human beings and equipment.
The primary and immediate action to be taken is a major re-
vamp of the standard concerned especially pertaining to earthing
practices as discussed by Lim et al. [15]. We propose editors of
standards (executive technical committee or working group) to
bring forth amendment to the recommendations to formulate
practical correlation between depth of installation of earthing rod
for LPS level III and IV with soil resistivity. They may consider hu-
man susceptibility to ground potential rise (GPR) as a major issue.
While waiting for such amendment to be done, practicing engi-
neers who still wants to adopt LPS III and IV should make proper
adjustments in their design by taking into account the effect of soil
resistivity on the depth of installation of earthing rod as well. Both
human and equipment safety should be equally and complementa-
rily treated, especially for critical buildings with significant level of
human mobility.
3.2. Earth electrodes in general
Thus far, a few solutions have been suggested in Section 2.3
when difficult earthing situations were encountered. Nonetheless,
each method discussed has its own advantages as well as draw-
backs. Most of the methods are unique solution which could only
cater for certain situation.
Deep-driven of earthing rods if possible, should be imple-
mented at all time under all situations. The advantage of doing
so as stated in previous sections is it is able to reach the moistened
part of soil deep underground thus lowering the earthing resis-
tance. However, implementing this method in rocky soil is very
costly and may damage the rods themselves as they are forced into
the hard ground.
Parallel installations of multiple earthing rods are highly recom-
mended in rocky, mountainous as well as shallow soil when deep-
driving earthing rods are not feasible. By providing multiple earth-
ing paths for lightning current to be earthed, the probability of
flashover is significantly reduced. However, the main drawback
of this method is the high implementation cost.
Backfilling to lower earthing resistance is a good option espe-
cially when space available for installation of earthing rods is lim-
ited. However, some backfilling materials may result in
environmental pollution of more specifically, soil contamination.
In the upcoming discussion, recommendations are proposed for
several pathological cases as defined in Section 2.1. These sugges-
tions are apart from those discussed in Section 2.3.
3.3. High soil resistivity
Dry soil has higher resistivity than wet soil. To address this is-
sue, soil treatment by using bentonite to reduce the soil resistivity
as discussed in Section 2.3 is viable. Additionally, mulching which
is placing a protective cover over a mass of soil can be done to re-
tain moisture content in soil and reduce erosion. Compost can be
125
used as the protective cover as it strengthens soil structure, im-
proves its texture, and enhances its water retention capability. Bet-
ter water retention improves the soil condition for earthing
purpose as it lowers the earthing resistance. Another plus point
of using compost is it is environmentally-friendly.
Soil resistivity is very high when the moisture level is extremely
low or almost zero in soil especially in desert area or area with
hardly any rainfall over the year. For a desirable earthing system,
the soil resistivity should be kept as low as possible. Another viable
option to achieve this objective under such extreme soil is by keep-
ing the soil moistened. This can be done by a method as proposed
in Fig. 9.
A pipe which is made of certain material which allows water to
be seeped out into the surrounding soil can be connected from the
main water supplying piping system.
Periodically, water should be channeled through the controlling
valve to the soil under the building to keep the soil moistened thus
reducing soil resistivity. The valve is of great importance as accord-
ing to BS 7430 [20], any site should not be kept moist by having
constant water flow over it as beneficial salts or ions may be
washed away in such situation. As soil can retain water for a cer-
tain period of time depending on its nature, periodic irrigation will
be best.
3.4. Earthing of building on marshy land
Buildings built on marshy land may sink thus exposing or even
damaging the buried earthing system. To address such pathological
case, the issue of soil stabilization has to be resolved. One feasible
solution is to perform soil grouting. Soil grouting is the mechanism
involved in stabilizing soil with the objective to improve the
strength and load bearing capability of the intended area. As de-
picted in Fig. 10, cements are injected at a depth greater than the
depth of marshy land. The cement would then distribute itself in
the underground soil by filling in the voids in the soil thus achiev-
ing soil compaction. This beneficial compaction effect is especially
experienced by the marshy soil. A compact soil is mechanically
stronger and stable. As the result, soil strength is improved and
the integrity of the earthing system is thus not jeopardized.
3.5. Earthing of building on landslide prone area
One way of addressing this issue is to redesign the earthing sys-
tem of the building and consider the option of relocating the earth-
ing electrode to an area further away from the direction of erosion
(on the other side of the building). This can only be short-term
solution as soil erosion will eventually affect the new earthing
building
Earthing
valve system Underground
pipe
water
Water
seepage
Fig. 9. Proposed irrigation system.
126 S.C. Lim et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 47 (2013) 117–128

Cement er depth resulting in increased soil resistivity for the installation of

injection the new earthing system for the new building. Therefore, the new
earthing electrodes for the new buildings have to be driven much
deeper to reach deeper layer of soil with desirably lower resistivity
as well as to contact with stable ground [20]. This is vital to ensure
stability of earthing electrode resistance in case the top layers of
soil which supported the foundation of the older, demolished
buildings dried out.
building
3.7. Earthing system on rocky soil

For rocky areas, parallel installation of many short earthing rods

Marshy soil
Solid soil
Cement Cement
seepage seepage
Fig. 10. Soil grouting.
location as well. Another more viable solution is to tackle the issue
of soil stabilization first before moving on the earthing system’s
side. To improve soil strength thus preventing soil erosion in the
form of landslide, a reinforced concrete (RC) retaining wall should
be built to hold the soil firmly as shown in Fig. 11. Better still,
planting of vegetative cover or deep rooting plant on the slopes
may also lessen the erosion effect of soil.
3.6. Earthing system on soil which was once a construction site
In areas where construction space is scarce, there are bound to
be demolition of old buildings to be replaced with the construction
of new ones. Under such cases, land has to be dug out and refilled
due to ground works for the construction. These actions may sig-
nificantly change the composition as well as condition of the soil.
The groundwater bed could in fact only be available at much great-
building
Earthing
system
RC
retaining
wall
Fig. 11. Construction of RC retaining wall.
is suitable as deep penetration of rod is not possible. Backfilling the
rod with bentonite is even better. In mountainous region, earthing
site should be as near as possible to streambed as the soil there has
high level of moisture content. Site with rock outcroppings should
be avoided as it signified that the soil is shallow. When soil is shal-
low, horizontal rod installation should be considered. Conductive
cement can be used to increase the contact surface area between
the earthing electrode with the surrounding soil.
At tower sites on extremely high resistive grounds; rocks and
sandy soil with no soil available, efforts to achieve low ground
resistance could be highly costly. Extending copper taps from the
tower to another site with good earthing condition is very costly.
Therefore, the transient equipotentialization is more suitable for
the safety of people and protection of equipment and it is more
economically viable [35].
For completely on-rock sites, Gomes and Diego [35] proposed
100% concrete embedded steel electrode system for electrical
grounding. The system is proposed for a communication towers
on a rocky hill where sufficient soil masses are not available for
grounding. Tower legs are connected by concrete covered galva-
nized iron tapes. Another similar steel tape encircles the base
transmission station. These two ring conductors are integrated
with a mesh of GI tapes that spreads over the site. The entire grid
is covered with a 10 cm layer of concrete mix. Galvanized iron
tapes in the mesh are connected to the reinforcement steel bars
of the concrete beam that runs at the perimeter of the site. There
is no need (and no way) to measure the earth resistance of elec-
trodes. Combined with a system of coordinated surge protective
devices [36], this design provides excellent protection for the
tower related equipment and safety for the occupants of the site.
However, any person who stays outside the perimeters of the site,
during the thunderstorms may subject to serious step potential
hazards if he is within few tens of meters from the boundary.
Hence the protection scheme is suitable for isolated sites with no
immediate neighborhood.
Issues of earthing design for towers on rocky surface have also
been discussed by Thottappillil et al. [37]. Driving earthing elec-
trodes, either horizontally or vertically bears no practicality as
resistivity of dry hard rock could reach several MX m. It is ex-
pected that most of the lightning current will arc along the surface
of the rock when lightning strikes a tower on solid rock due to the
high resistivity of rock.
Ye et al. [38] recommended that radial conductors can be con-
nected to a vertical earth electrode through the fissures in the rock
by which the bulk earth of lower resistivity can be accessed or the
radial conductor can be terminated in a large body of water. The
rationale is that radial conductors installed on the rock surface
can channel these arcing currents. If the tower is on non-solid-
rocky, high resistivity soil, the radial conductors can be buried hor-
izontally at shallow depths. Yet, it is best to install at least one ver-
tical electrode per radial conductor as it can connect to lower
resistivity earth layer. Horizontal earthing conductors placed on
the rocks can be encased in cement concrete to provide mechanical
stability and low contact resistance between metal and rock.
 S.C. Lim et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 47 (2013) 117–128
3.8. Earthing system of substation built on hill
It is sometimes inevitable for substations for urban areas to be
built on hilly areas with high soil resistivity usually due to rocky
soil condition. Under such situations, two earthing methods were
proposed by a group of Chinese researchers to maximize the earth-
ing system’s efficiency.
The first proposed method to overcome problem in earthing
system in rocky area is by blasting the rocks to create cracks which
will then be filled by low resistivity materials such as bentonite un-
der pressure [39].
Another less expensive method which is applicable for this sit-
uation is known as the deep well grounding method. The deep well
grounding method requires the construction of a well at a certain
depth underground to attract and retain water molecules via cap-
illary effect and also establish water saturation region in area sur-
rounding the well [40]. Then, the existing earthing grid system is
connected to the wells with a remarkably lowered soil resistance
as the end result.
3.9. High acidity and salinity soil
When soil is highly acidic, it implies that the soil is rich in
hydrogen (H+) ions which could speed up corrosion of steel
electrodes.
To counter such issues, efforts to preserve or restore soil neu-
trality should be taken. This is because neutral soil has extremely
low or negligible concentration of free H+ ions which are the main
culprit of acceleration of electrode corrosion. Soil conditioning can
be done to achieve such objective. Soil conditioning is the process
of adding materials into soil to alter the structure of the soil. Lime
can be used to make the soil less acidic and thus reduce the corro-
sion rate of electrodes. However, introducing excessive amount of
lime must be avoided as it will result in significant increase in soil
resistivity.
Environmental factors such as moisture, salinity or quantity
of dissolved salts forming an electrolyte, degree of aeration,
and seasonal temperature variations and extent of movement
of electrolyte heavily influence the corrosion rate of earthing
electrodes.
For steel earth electrodes, pH values in the range of 2–4 are ex-
tremely detrimental while for copper or copper coated steel, the
significant increase of corrosion rate is when pH is higher than
12. Extremely high or low soil pH greatly eases the dissolution of
the oxides layers on surface of earth electrode material. Marciniak
and Loboda [41] are highly against the practice of installing the
zinc coated steel earth termination system components in corro-
sion friendly climatic conditions. Use of stainless steel rods and
magnesium-anode protection may be considered to prevent corro-
sion of copper electrodes in corrosive soil. However, one shortcom-
ing is that the anode has to be constantly replaced to prolong
cathodic protection.
To improve brackish soil, the soil must be drained and the
brackish salts must be washed out off the soil with good-quality
irrigation water. Caution must again be exercised to ensure that
not all salts are washed away as these salts aid ionic conduction
of current.
3.10. Sulfur rich soil
The field experience of the authors in Gulf region shows that
horizontal grounding copper tapes encased in calcium bentonite
shows good corrosion resistance in sulfur rich soil. The experi-
ments have been done in a 20 m  20 m section of a large switch
yard in the proximity of sulfur emission plant. The copper tapes
which have been buried 50 cm depth were embedded in bentonite
127
made into a slurry form. Once solidified the bentonite formed a
casing of rectangular cross section of sides about 10 cm and 5 cm
with copper tape running in the middle. After 1 year, the observa-
tions showed that the copper tape encased in bentonite is almost
unaffected where as the parts which are in contact with back-
ground soil showed significant wearing out due to corrosion. Such
encasement in bentonite substantially reduces the earth resistance
of electrodes as well.
We also propose that a new alloy, resistant to sulfur attack be
developed for using as earthing electrode in areas of sulfur-rich
soil. Another viable practice is to perform frequent inspection of
earthing electrodes in areas of high sulfur content or its associated
compounds. However, regular replacement of earthing electrodes
is both costly and impracticable.
3.11. Petrochemical environment
Researchers with electrical earthing background should im-
prove on the current available backfilling method perhaps by
inventing backfill materials which are highly resistant to corrosion
when used with earthing electrodes. As with the case of sulfur rich
soil, designing of highly corrosion-resistant alloy to be used as
earthing electrode is also viable. Regular inspection of earthing
rods is also recommended.
3.12. Addressing impedance issue for equipment protection
Most parts of our discussions above were focused on minimiz-
ing earthing resistance for human and equipment safety (in gen-
eral). As aforementioned, highly sensitive equipments such as
power electronic devices and sensors is very susceptible to even
small fluctuations of voltage caused possibly by GPR. In the event
of electrical anomalies highly transient in nature such as lightning,
the failures of system components heavily depends on earthing
impedance. In such cases, not only grounding but proper bonding
or separation also plays an important role [35,36]. Proper coordina-
tion and selection of SPDs based on critical factors such as zone of
protection, current withstand capability, voltage protection level
or let-through voltage; maximum continuous operating voltage
(MCOV), should be considered in selecting power system SPDs
[36]. In protecting data and other signal systems many other fac-
tors such as insertion loss, plug and pin type, operating current,
and category of cable also come into play [36]. Issues of earthing
impedance should be addressed only after (or simultaneously)
implementing such bonding system. Extensive study on the role
of backfill materials in minimizing earthing impedance is currently
undertaken by the authors.
4. Conclusions
Various cases of earthing practices in troubled environment
have been discovered and analyzed. These cases have been classi-
fied into four main topics namely high acidity/alkalinity soil, sulfur
rich soil, high soil resistivity, soil instability and issues concerning
material of electrode. Several earthing practices advocated by
existing earthing standards have been reviewed in terms of their
effectiveness as well as shortcomings. A brief review on the incon-
sistencies in IEC 62305 has also been emphasised. Finally, solutions
to certain extreme pathological cases have been proposed.
The basic recommendations of this study are listed below.
1. For on-rock sites of little or no soil masses available the
best solution is to achieve equipotentialization through
concrete embedded steel/galvanized iron electrodes with
coordinated surge protective devices essentially installed.
128 S.C. Lim et al. / Electrical Power and Energy Systems 47 (2013) 117–128
2. For earthing system buried in unstable soil, soil grouting
should be done to improve soil strength. Earthing installa-
tion for buildings on landslide prone area can be safe-
guarded by building RC wall to hold the landmasses.
3. The best way to tackle the issue of soil with high resistivity
is by performing soil treatment using suitable backfill
materials. The most effective such material is bentonite
and its mixes.
4. To alleviate corrosive issue developed in soil with high
acidity, soil conditioning can be performed by neutralizing
the soil with appropriate amount of lime. Cathodic protec-
tion is impractical as the sacrificial material has to be
replaced periodically. For brackish soil, salt can perhaps
be drained off the soil by proper irrigation system.
5. For both cases of sulfur rich soil and soil under petrochem-
ical environment, regular inspection of earthing electrodes
should take place. Also, suitable backfill material which is
resilient against sulfur and petrochemical-induced corro-
sion could be designed.
6. Earthing impedance should be considered especially for
earthing systems intended to safeguard sensitive equip-
ment. Careful selection and installation of SPDs is war-
ranted before addressing the issues of earthing
impedance. Studies on effectiveness of backfill materials
in reducing earthing impedance are currently under
investigation.
Nonetheless, economical factor when considering employing
certain means to lower earthing resistance should be thoughtfully
accounted for.
This report may serves as a guideline for earthing engineers
when encountering difficulties in implementing earthing system
for real applications.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Grant No.: 05-01-11-1195RU/F-
RUGS. Facilities provided by the Department of Electrical and Elec-
tronics Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia is greatly
acknowledged.
References
[1] Mohamad Nor N, Trlep M, Abdullah S, Rajab R. Investigations of earthing
systems under steady-state and transients with FEM and experimental work.
Int J Electr Power Energy Syst January 2013;44(1):758–63. ISSN 0142-0615.
[2] Mohamad Nor N, Abdullah S, Rajab R, Othman Z. Comparison between utility
sub-station and imitative earthing systems when subjected under lightning
response. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst December 2012;43(1):156–61. ISSN
0142-0615.
[3] Mohamad Nor N, Rajab R, Othman Z. Validation of the earth resistance
formulae using computational and experimental methods for gas insulated
sub-station (GIS). Int J Electr Power Energy Syst December 2012;43(1):290–4.
ISSN 0142-0615.
[4] Mohamad Nor N, Abdullah S, Rajab R, Ramar K. Field tests: performances of
practical earthing systems under lightning impulses. Int J Electr Power Energy
Syst February 2013;45(1):223–8. ISSN 0142-0615.
[5] Saini MK, Kapoor R. Classification of power quality events – a review. Int J
Electr Power Energy Syst December 2012;43(1):11–9.
[6] Nanometrics Equipment Grounding Recommendations. Nanometrics, Systems
Engineering; 2003.
[7] IEEE SDT-142 (Green Book). IEEE Recommended practice for grounding of
industrial and commercial power systems; 2007.
[8] Samouëlian A, Cousin I, Tabbagh A, Bruand A, Richard G. Electrical resistivity
survey in soil science. A review. Soil Till Res September 2005;83(2):173–93.
[9] Kizhlo M, Kanbergs A. Research of the parameter changes of the grounding
system. In: World non-grid-connected wind power and energy conference, 24–
26 September 2009. WNWEC 2009; 2009. p. 1–4.
[10] Laver JA, Griffiths H. The variability of soils in earthing measurements and
earthing system performance. Rev Energy Ren. Power Engineering, School of
Electrical Engineering, Cardiff University, UK; 2001. p. 57–61.
View publication stats
[11] Wenner F. A method of measuring earth resistivity. Report no. 258, Bulletin of
Bureau of Standards, vol. 12(3); 11 October 1915.
[12] Retrieved on 20th February 2012 from <http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/
concept?cp=12717>.
[13] Rivera MA. Design considerations for reliable electrical control and
instrumentation systems in geothermal power plants with emphasis on
hydrogen sulphide related problems. Ahuachapan geothermal power plant.
Report 2007 Number 20; 2007.
[14] IEC 62305–3 (2010–12) Ed. 2.0. Protection against lightning – Part 3: physical
damage to structures and life hazard; 2010.
[15] Lim SC, Gomes C, Ab Kadir MZA, Jasni J. Ambiguity of grounding specifications:
IEC 62305 revisited. In: International conference on lightning protection
(ICLP), Vienna, Austria; 2012.
[16] NFPA 70-2008: National electrical code.
[17] Stockin DR. Design and testing of facilities ground, EOS/ESD symposium. CA,
USA: Anaheim; 2000. p. 368–374.
[18] Al-Amoudi OSB. Protection of reinforced concrete structures in chloride-
sulfate exposures. NACE International; 11–15 March 2007.
[19] Retrieved on 20th February 2012 from <http://www.psihq.com/iread/
ufergrnd.htm>.
[20] BS 7430 Ed. 2.0. Code of practice for earthing; 1998.
[21] Mays GC, editor. Durability of concrete structures: investigation, repair,
protection. London: E & FN Spon; 1992.
[22] Al-Amoudi OSB, Abduljauwad SN, El-Naggar ZR, Rasheeduzzafar. Response of
Sabkha to laboratory tests: a case study. Eng Geol 1992;33(2):111–25.
[23] Nielsen RW. Reducing resistivity in an electrical grounding system. Utah,
USA: Permanent Buildings and Foundations; 1995.
[24] Howard RS, Zipse DW. Grounding/earthing electrode studies. 2. In: Industrial
and commercial power systems technical conference, 1994. Conference
record, papers presented at the 1994 annual meeting, 1994 IEEE; 1–5 May
1994. p. 175–9.
[25] Gomes C, Lalitha C, Priyadharshanee C. Improvement of earthing systems with
backfill materials. In: 30th International conference on lightning protection-
2010, vol. 1086. Italy: Cagliari; 2010. p. 1–9.
[26] Wan Ahmad WF, Abdul Rahman MS, Jasni J, Ab Kadir MZA, Hizam H. Chemical
enhancement materials for grounding purposes. In: Proceedings of 30th
international conference on lightning protection 2010 (ICLP 2010), Cagliari,
Sardinia, Italy; 13–17 September 2010.
[27] Jones WR. Bentonite rods assure ground rod installation in problem soils. IEEE
Trans Power Apparatus Syst 1980;PAS-99(4):1343–6.
[28] Kostic MB, Radakovic ZR, Radovanovic NS, Tomasevic-Canovic MR.
Improvement of electrical properties of grounding loops by using bentonite
and waste drilling mud. IEE Proc – Generation, Transm Distrib Jan
1999;146(1):1–6.
[29] Jasni J, Siow LK, Ab Kadir MZA, Wan Ahmad WF. Natural materials as
grounding filler for lightning protection system. In: International conference
on lightning protection, Cagliari, Italy; 13–17 September 2010.
[30] Martínez HE, Fuentealba EL, Cisternas LA, Galleguillos HR, Kasaneva JF, de la
Fuente OA. A new artificial treatment for the reduction of resistance in ground
electrode. IEEE Trans Power Deliv April 2004;19(2):601–8.
[31] Chen SD, Chen LH, Cheng CK, Chen JF. An experimental study on the electrical
properties of fly ash in the grounding system. Int J Emerg Electr Power Syst
2006;7(2).
[32] Yamane H, Ideguchi T, Tokuda M, Koga H. Long-term stability of reducing
ground resistance with water-absorbent polymers. In: 1990 IEEE international
symposium on electromagnetic compatibility, 1990 symposium record; 1990.
p. 678–82.
[33] George E, Ekow CJ, Tetteh FM. Palm kernel oil cake as an alternative to earth
resistance – reducing agent. Int J Appl Eng Res 2009;4(1).
[34] Lim SC, Gomes C, Ab Kadir MZA, Sani DB. Preliminary results of the
performance of bentonite-mixed concrete as grounding electrode. In:
International conference on lightning protection (ICLP), Vienna, Austria; 2012.
[35] Gomes C, Diego AG. Lightning protection scenarios of communication tower
sites human hazards and equipment damage. Saf Sci 2011;49(10):1355–64.
[36] Gomes C. On the selection and installation of surge protection devices in a TT
wiring system for equipment and human safety. Saf Sci 2011;49:861–70.
[37] Thottappillil R, Scuka V, Zitnik M, Liu Y, Lövstrand K-G. Grounding of
communication towers for lightning protection. In: 2nd Proceedings of 6th
international conference on lightning protection (ICLP) 2002, Cracow, Poland;
2–6 September 2002.
[38] Ye M, Scuka V, Lövstrand K-G. Earthing mechanism for an electrical system in
sea water. In: Proceedings, 22nd international conference on lightning
protection (ICLP), Budapest, Hungary; 1994. Paper R3a-04.
[39] Meng QB, He J, Dawalibi FP, Ma J. A new method to decrease ground
resistances of substation grounding systems in high resistivity regions. IEEE
Trans Power Deliv 1999;14(3):911–6.
[40] He J, Yu G, Yuan J, Zeng R, Zhang B, Zou J, et al. Decreasing grounding resistance
of substation by deep-ground-well method. IEEE Trans Power Deliv April
2005;20(2):738–44.
[41] Marciniak R, Loboda M. Influence of climatic conditions on corrosion of earth
electrodes for lightning protection. In: Proceedings of 30th international
conference on lightning protection 2010 (ICLP 2010), Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy;
13–17 September 2010.