IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 39, NO.

3, MAY 2003 1159

A Study for Optimizing the Number of Subareas in

the Maxwell’s Method
M. Sylos Labini, A. Covitti, G. Delvecchio, and C. Marzano

Abstract—This paper aims at reducing the number of subareas

needed for studying a large grounding grid by the Maxwell’s sub-
areas method. This is possible by resorting both to the similarity
between grounding electrodes and to an exhaustive study of the
formulas for calculating the voltage coefficients.
Index Terms—Electric fields, grounding, numerical analysis.

I. INTRODUCTION

T HE STUDY of a grounding system can be carried out by

the Maxwell’s subareas method [4], [7]. This method is
based on the subdivision of the electrode into a number of
subareas. In regard to this number, the experts in this field just
say that must be appropriate, that is such that the current Fig. 1. Calculation of the voltage coefficients R and R .
leaked by each subarea can be considered to be constant along
the whole subarea [2]–[7]. As a consequence, the larger the elec- be considered to leak uniformly, along its length, the current
trode under examination is, the larger must be. This leads to [2]–[7]. If the length of each subarea is much greater than its
a long calculation time and to a considerable use of memory radius, the voltage coefficients can be expressed by [7]
[1]–[7]. The procedure suggested in this paper allows us to re-
sort to a “calculation electrode” smaller than the first one, so as (2)
a very low number of subareas can be chosen.
(3)
II. CALCULATION OF THE EARTHING RESISTANCE
(4)
Briefly, the Maxwell’s subareas method for studying the cur-
rent field generated by a grounding grid leaking a known current
consists in subdividing the grid in a suitable number of el- (5)
ementary subareas, and in setting the following system:
where (see Fig. 1) is the soil resistivity; is the barycenter
of the induced subarea ; and are the barycenter and
(1) the length of the inducing subarea , respectively; is the
barycenter of the element which is the image of the inducing
subarea with respect to the soil surface; and (or—see
The solution of (1) gives the subcurrents leaked by each Fig. 3— and ) are the distances of the barycenter
subarea as well as the earthing voltage and the resistance (or ) from the ends and of the inducing subarea ; and
given by . are the distances of the barycenter (or—see Fig. 3— )
The voltage coefficients referring to the inducing ( ) from the ends and of the inducing subarea (image) .
and induced ( ) subareas can be calculated in this way. Let’s The mutual voltage coefficient is calculated by approx-
refer to a horizontal cylindrical electrode buried at a depth in imating the induced subarea to its barycenter . Each self-
a homogeneous soil, such an electrode representing a side of voltage coefficient is determined by considering as the
a more complex grounding grid. Let’s subdivide this electrode induced point instead of the barycenter [7]. is any point
into such a suitable number of subareas that each subarea can of the cylindrical surface put on the section perpendicular to the
subarea , this section passing through .
Manuscript received June 18, 2002.
M. Sylos Labini and A. Covitti are with the Department of Electrotechnics III. CALCULATION OF FOR SIMILAR
and Electronics, Polytechnic of Bari, 70125 Bari, Italy (e-mail: sylos@poliba.it; GROUNDING ELECTRODES
covitti@teseo.it).
G. Delvecchio is with the University of Bari, 70100 Bari, Italy (e-mail: By means of theoretical studies and studies carried out in an
g.delvecchio@area-tecnica.uniba.it). electrolytic tank, it has been possible to define the similarity
C. Marzano is with Fonderia Meridionale, 70100 Bari, Italy (e-mail:
armarz@tin.it). notion between two grounding electrodes [4]. Let’s refer to a
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TMAG.2003.810328 family of similar electrodes and let’s choose on each electrode
0018-9464/03$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
1160 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 39, NO. 3, MAY 2003

the same geometrical parameter as a geometrical reference as and ) relating to each pair of homologous subareas
parameter (reference parameter). In [4], it has been proven that, have the same values of (and ). Thus, we can write
for each family of similar electrodes, it is possible to find a con-
stant which allows us to easily calculate the earthing resis- and (11)
tance of any electrode of this family. The formula is
and (12)
(6)
That is, the mutual and self-voltage coefficients relating to
where is the value of the reference parameter of the electrode each pair of homologous subareas differ only in the quanti-
whose earthing resistance we want to calculate. ties [ ] and [ ]. It follows that, if we intro-
The constant of a family can be determined by (6) once duce the earlier voltage coefficients in (1), we obtain, for each
the earthing resistance of any electrode of the same family has grounding electrode, a system whose solution gives values of re-
been calculated (or measured) sistance which differ only in the quantities [ ] and
[ ]. So we can write
(7)

We will name this electrode “calculation electrode” and we and

will mark its parameters with and .
(13)
IV. HOW TO BROADEN THE NOTION OF SIMILARITY IN THE
The value of the constant is the same for the two similar
MAXWELL’S SUBAREAS METHOD
electrodes, and (13) is absolutely analogous to (6) since is
According to the aforementioned similarity notion, we have proportional to and is proportional to .
thought of studying any electrode by applying the Maxwell’s In conclusion, the application of the Maxwell’s method to
method to a “calculation electrode” similar to the one given similar grounding electrodes still leads us to write a formula
but much smaller compared to the first one, so as to signifi- like (6), on condition that the two grounding electrodes are sub-
cantly reduce the number of subareas. A very exhaustive study divided into the same number of subareas.
on the formulas giving the voltage coefficients has led to the
following conclusion (see the Appendix). If we consider a hor- V. HOW TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SUBAREAS BY
izontal grounding electrode buried at a depth in a soil having RESORTING TO SIMILARITY
resistivity and subdivided into subareas, all formulas of the
voltage coefficients (both mutual and self-coefficients) can al- According to what we have found, it is certainly possible to
ways be written as follows: study any large electrode by means of a small number of
subareas by resorting to a “calculation electrode” similar to the
and (8) one given but much smaller compared to the first one. We can
proceed in two ways.
• is the length of each subarea, this length being constant
for all the subareas of the electrode under study; A. First Way
• is a function of the “geometrical ratio” , as well We must follow these steps.
as of the “position ratios” and , the latter being de- 1) We must pass from the grounding grid under examination
pendent on the geometrical position existing between the to a small “calculation electrode” similar to our electrode.
subareas and (see the Appendix). That is 2) We must choose an adequate number of subareas for
this “calculation electrode.”
(9)
3) We must apply the Maxwell’s method to the “calculation
electrode” and find its earthing resistance .
• is a function only of the “geometrical ratios.” That is
4) We must calculate the constant by means of (7).
5) We must put this constant in (6) and determine the resis-
(10)
tance of the electrode under examination.
From what we have said, we can conclude that the two sim-
ilar electrodes must be subdivided into the same number of B. Second Way
subareas so that the value of determined by applying the The second way is more easier and faster than the first one,
Maxwell’s subareas method to the two electrodes is the same. since we must only refer to the “calculation electrode” and
Indeed, if we subdivide the two similar electrodes into the same choose an adequate number of subareas for this “calcula-
number of subareas, the homologous subareas th and th of tion electrode.” After that, as far as we have already seen in
the two electrodes have necessarily the same “position ratios” Section IV, this number is suitable for the electrode under
and (see the Appendix); moreover, these subareas, al- examination. In other words, we can apply the Maxwell’s
though they have obviously different lengths and , have the method directly to the electrode under examination, after
same “geometrical ratios” ( ) and ( having subdivided it into subareas.
. Consequently, the coefficients and (as well The next examples show us both ways of proceeding.
LABINI et al.: OPTIMIZING THE NUMBER OF SUBAREAS IN THE MAXWELL’S METHOD 1161

VI. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES method. General formulas have been found. These formulas en-
able the well-known similarity notion between grounding grids
As a first example, let’s refer to the horizontal cylindrical
to be extended even when the Maxwell’s method is employed.
electrode which was also taken into account in [3]; this electrode
This has allowed us to define a “calculation electrode” similar
can be considered as a side of a more complex grounding grid.
to the electrode under examination. This “calculation electrode”
The electrode is buried in a soil having m, and its pa-
can be studied by a low number of subareas, thus leading to a
rameters are m ft m ft)
great saving of both memory and calculation time.
mm in . In agreement with [3], let’s divide the elec-
trode into 20 subareas ( ). By applying the Maxwell’s
subareas method to this electrode, we obtain APPENDIX
Let’s refer to a horizontal cylindrical conductor, having
in [3] was obtained
length and diameter , which belongs to a horizontal
grounding grid buried at a depth in a homogeneous soil
1. First Way having resistivity . We want to demonstrate that the voltage
Let’s consider a cylindrical electrode similar to the previous coefficients are a function of the “geometrical ratios” and
one as a “calculation electrode.” The geometrical size of the new , and also of the geometrical position existing between the
electrode is reduced by ten times compared with the first one inducing conductor and the induced point .
( m, m, mm). Since the If and the conductor leaks uniformly, along its length,
size of the “calculation electrode” is small, we can choose only a current , the voltage generated by such a conductor in a point
three subareas ( ). By applying the Maxwell’s subareas is given by [7]
method to this electrode, we have .
By (7), we have . From (6), we infer (14)

where is the voltage coefficient between the conductor

having length and the point under examination; it can be
put in the form
2. Second Way
Let’s apply the Maxwell’s method directly to the cylindrical (15)
electrode under examination with . We obtain
where (see Fig. 2)

These results show how the method suggested allows to

reduce the number of subareas compared to the traditional (16)
method. As you can see from the further results given later, this (17)
reduction is much higher when the electrode under examination
is a side of a more complex grounding grid. If we refer to a cylindrical subarea having length , (3), which
Further results, obtained by applying the second way to the allows us to determine the voltage coefficient between the
following grounding electrodes, buried at a depth m in inducing subarea and the induced subarea , are both like (16),
a soil having m, are given. on condition that is replaced by and the point is replaced
• Electrode A (square m and mm : by the barycenter of the induced subarea (see Fig. 1). Also,
m m . (5) enables us to determine the self-voltage coefficient are
• Electrode B (meshed square m, with 4 meshes like (16), providing that is replaced by and is replaced by
and mm : m the point (see Fig. 1). So, we can refer to (16), and put it in
m . the form
• Electrode C (rectangle 240 m 120 m; mm :
m m .
• Electrode D (meshed rectangle 240 m 120 m, with 4 and
meshes along and 3 meshes along ; mm : (18)
m m .
These examples show how the value of does not really and consider on which parameters depends the ratio and so
change much according to the number of subareas. It is worth on which parameters depend the quantities and .
noting that, on the basis of the results of a few computer-aided Let’s examine two cases.
simulations on some grounding electrodes, this phenomenon
was also referred to in [1] and [3]; but no theoretical explanation A. First Case: Voltage Coefficient
was given. Let’s refer to the cylindrical element having length and to
the induced point shown in Fig. 2. The point represents
VII. CONCLUSION the barycenter of the induced subarea and so the point is
We have thoroughly studied the basic formulas for the cal- put on the Cartesian plane ( ) in which lies the whole grid, the
culation of the voltage coefficients relating to the Maxwell’s subarea under examination being only a part of this grid.
1162 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 39, NO. 3, MAY 2003

Fig. 2. Calculation of the voltage coefficient R .

Fig. 3. Calculation of the voltage coefficient R .

Referring to Fig. 2, we have

By (19) and (20), and can be put in the form

and (21)
If we put and , we have
That is, ( depends on the ratio and on the
“position ratios” and . Therefore, we can conclude that the
voltage coefficient given by (15) is a function of the “geo-
metrical ratio” and of the “position ratios” and .

So, it follows . B. Second Case: Self-Voltage Coefficient

It may easily be inferred that If we refer to Fig. 3, where the induced point is the point ,
we obtain
(19)
(22)
It is useful to point out that and are two quantities which (23)
are strictly dependent on the mutual position between inducing
conductor and point under examination. Consequently, if for By (22) and (23), and can be put in the form
example we double the length of the cylindrical conductor and,
at the same time, we double the distance of point from the and (24)
ends and of the conductor, the ratios and are unchanged;
so also the ratio given by (19) is unchanged. We will name That is, ( depends on the “geometrical ratios”
and “position ratios.” and . Therefore, we can conclude that the self voltage co-
Now, let’s refer to the image of the inducing conductor. Re- efficient , obtainable by applying a formula like (15), is a
ferring to Fig. 2, the point represents also in this case the function of the “geometrical ratios” and .
barycenter of the induced subarea . We have
REFERENCES
[1] P. Kouteynikoff, “Numerical computation of the grounding resistance of
substations and towers,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-99, pp.
957–965, May/June 1980.
[2] D. L. Garrett and J. G. Pruitt, “Problems encountered with the average
potential method of analyzing substation grounding systems,” IEEE
Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-104, pp. 3586–3596, Dec. 1985.
[3] E. B. Joy and R. E. Wilson, “Accuracy study of the ground grid analysis
If and , it follows algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. PWRD-1, pp. 97–103,
July 1986.
[4] P. Pugliese, P. Settanni, and M. Sylos Labini, “Una procedura per deter-
minare rapidamente la resistenza di terra di dispersori di forma usuale in
terreni non omogenei,” L’Energia Elettrica, vol. 11, pp. 467–475, 1987.
[5] A. P. S. Meliopoulous, F. Xia, E. B. Joy, and G. J. Cokkinides, “An
advanced computer model for grounding system analysis,” IEEE Trans.
Power Delivery, vol. 8, pp. 13–21, Jan. 1993.
[6] J. Ma and F. P. Dawalibi, “Analysis of grounding systems in soils with
cylindrical soil volumes,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 15, pp.
Thus, , and so we obtain 913–918, July 2000.
[7] A. Covitti, S. De Nisi, F. Laddomada, and M. Sylos Labini, “A fuzzy-
Maxwell combined method for simplifying the calculation of the current
field generated by a cylindrical electrode,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 36,
(20) pp. 708–711, July 2000.