IEEE STD 81 Tutorial Handouts

Tutorial
IEEE Standard 81TM 2012

IEEE Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity,
Ground Impedance, and Earth Surface
Potentials of a Grounding System
IEEE POWER & ENERGY SOCIETY
2014 Annual Substation Committee Meeting
Portland, Oregon, USA
May 18, 2014
Photo Courtesy of E&S

Grounding Solutions (Permission
Pending)
5/21/14
THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND

ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS, Inc.
Substations Technical Committee

Annual Meeting
May 18-22, 2014
May 18, 2014
IEEE PES Std 81-2012 Tutorial
IEEE Standard 81TM 2012

IEEE Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground Impedance,
and Earth Surface Potentials of a Grounding System
IEEE POWER & ENERGY SOCIETY
2014 Annual Substation Committee Meeting
May 18, 2014
Photo Courtesy of E&S Grounding Solutions

(Permission Pending)
Presented by
Bryan Beske, PE
Carson Day, PE
Dennis DeCosta, PE
Lane Garrett
Jeff Jowett
Carl Moller
Steve Palmer
Sashi Patel
Will Sheh
George Vlachos
May 18, 2014
American Transmission Co.

NEETRAC/Georgia Tech
Commonwealth Associates, Inc.
Commonwealth Associates, Inc.
Megger
CANA High Voltage
Safearth Consulting
NEETRAC/Georgia Tech
TectoWeld Inc.
AEMC Instruments
5/21/14
Will Sheh
Tectoweld, Inc.
May 18, 2014
PRESENTER TUTORIAL OBJECTIVE

What we want you to take away from this tutorial:
1. Understand the basic principles of measuring the electrical
characteristics of grounding systems
2. Learn the basic methods of measuring earth resistivity, power
frequency impedance to remote earth, step and touch voltages, and
verifying the integrity of the grounding system
3. Identify various conditions and instrument limitations that can distort
test measurements
4. Recognize that a lethal voltage can exist during testing and implement
appropriate safety precautions
May 18, 2014
AUDIENCE TUTORIAL OBJECTIVE

Why are you here today?
&
What do we want you to take away from this tutorial?:
1. Professional development hours for PE License.
2. Introduce inexperienced engineers/designers to practical methods for
ground testing.
3. Provide experienced engineers/designers with an enhanced knowledge
of test methods and techniques used for measuring the electrical
characteristics of grounding systems.
May 18, 2014
5/21/14
TUTORIAL OUTLINE
1. Introduction
1.1 Test objectives & key definitions
1.2 Safety considerations
1.3 Understanding the circuit being tested
1.4 Typical problems encountered during testing
2. Test methods
2.1 Earth resistivity
Break
2.2 Ground Impedance
2.3 Earth potentials and step & touch potentials
Lunch
2.4 Ground integrity testing
2.5 Surface aggregate testing
3. Test simulations
3.1 Part 1
Break
3.2 Part 2
3. Questions and answers
Will Sheh
George Vlachos & Jeff Jowett
George Vlachos & Jeff Jowett
Carl Moller
Lane Garrett
8:45 am
9:45 am
10:00 am
11:00 am
Shashi Patel
Carl Moller
12:00 pm
Carson Day
Bryan Beske
1:00 am
1:30 pm
Steve Palmer
2:00 pm
3:30 pm
3:45 pm
5:00 pm
Steve Palmer
4. Adjourn
May 18, 2014
8:00 am
8:10 am
8:20 am
8:30 am
5:30 pm
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Image Courtesy of Ground Level

Systems, LLC (Permission Pending)
May 18, 2014
5/21/14
INTRODUCTION
Test Objectives
1. Earth resistivity measurements
1.1 Estimate the ground impedance of a grounding system
1.2 Estimate potential gradients including step & touch voltages
1.3 Compute inductive coupling to nearby power & communication
cables, pipelines and other metallic objects
1.4 Design cathodic protection systems
2. Impedance and potential gradient measurements
2.1 Verify the adequacy of the new grounding system
2.2 Detect changes in an existing grounding system
2.3 Identify hazardous step and touch voltages
2.4 Determine the ground potential rise (GPR)
May 18, 2014
INTRODUCTION
Key Definitions
Coupling: The association of two or more circuits or systems in such a way
that power or signal information is transferred from one to another.
Ground electrode:
A conductor embedded in the earth and used for
collecting ground current from or dissipating ground current into the earth.
Ground grid: A system of interconnected ground electrodes arranged in a
pattern over a specified area and buried below the surface of the earth.
Ground impedance: The vector sum of resistance and reactance between a
ground electrode, grid or system and remote earth.
Remote earth: A theoretical concept that refers to a ground electrode of zero
impedance placed an infinite distance away from the ground under test.
Remote earth is normally assumed to be at zero potential.
Soil (earth) resistivity: A measure of how much a volume of soil will resist
an electric current and is usually expressed in -m.
May 18, 2014
INTRODUCTION
Key Definitions (Continued)
Ground potential rise (GPR): The maximum electrical potential that a
ground electrode, grid or system might attain relative to a distant
grounding point assumed to be at the potential of remote earth.
Step voltage: The difference in surface potential that could be experienced
by a person bridging a distance of 1 meter with the feet without contacting
any grounded object.
Touch voltage: The potential difference between the GPR of a grounding
grid or system and the surface potential where a person could be
standing while at the same time having a hand in contact with a grounded
structure or object. Touch voltage measurements can include or exclude
the equivalent body resistance in the measurement circuit.
Transferred voltage: A special case of touch voltage where a voltage is
transferred into or out of the vicinity of a ground electrode from or to a
remove point external to the ground electrode.
May 18, 2014
5/21/14
George Vlachos, Jeff Jowett

AEMC Instruments
May 18, 2014
Megger
Safety considerations
Three Prime Safety Hazards
Lethal voltage between electrode and ground
Power-system fault during test
Step & Touch Potentials
2
Other Possible Hazards
Ground Potential Rise
Can reach several thousand volts!
Lightning Strokes (Strikes)
5/21/14
Create a test plan that includes Safety Rules
Body prevented from closing circuit between points of
potential difference
Gloves and footwear
Isolate exposed leads and electrodes
Keep test signal application brief
Leads and probes kept within sight
Avoid induced voltages from overheads
4
Surge Arrester Testing:
Do not disconnect ground while primary
remains connected to energized line!
Lightning & switching currents can exceed 50
kA.
If arrester fails during test, system fault risk.
Disconnecting Neutral & Shield Wires:
Avoid coupling
5/21/14
George Vlachos, Jeff Jowett

AEMC Instruments
May 18, 2014
Megger
Understanding the circuit being tested

Distinctive complexities
May need to plot multiple points
Interference from stray voltages
5/21/14
Carl Moller, P.Eng,

CANA High Voltage Ltd.
May 18, 2014
Not a Simple World

Measurements always come
with uncertainty
The world isnt as simple as
wed like it to be
Variability in theory vs. actual
installations
Trending over time -> clearer
picture
Once installed, grounding
systems can change over time
Noise
Manifests itself in many ways
Noise can come and go
temporally
Buried metallic structures
Nearby encroachment of
utilities
3
0.09
Measurements
Measured Results
0.08
Expected Results
0.07
0.06
Apparent Resistance ()
My gear tells me the value is

0.012 Ohms
Accuracy
Precision
Bias
Seasonal Soil Variations
What are affects of:
harmonics?
power frequencies?
DC noise?
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Distance From Center (m)
5/21/14
Test Electrodes
Test electrodes can introduce
mutual ground resistances
For fall of potential testing the
return electrodes can influence
the voltage measurements by
significant amounts
Stray AC and DC currents will
pick up through the electrodes
Test gear has to be able to
reject this noise
Stray noise can be a
significant safety concern
Telluric currents
Scalar Potential Showing Mutual Conductive Effects

-5--4
-4--3
-3--2
-2--1
-1-0
0-1
1-2
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
May XX, 2014
Reactive Ground Grids

Large ground grids (ie. 150m
diagonal or larger)
Multi-grounded neutrals
HV Cable incomers
Reactive components of
impedances can become
significant.
DC meters will not help with
this
AC switchmode meters may
not be able to reject the
reactive component
!"#$%&' "#)' = !"#$%&' "#)' 15

!"#$%&' "#)' > !12%3#45
5/21/14
0.2585V
Test Lead Coupling
Test leads may be inductively coupled

Close parallel leads for zero degree tests
Close parallel leads for long Wenner/Schlumberger
soil resistivity Tests
Coiling effects
Test lead current and potential reels can interfere
with each other
0.1822V
Test Lead Coupling

d
Reading Point
nxd
Reading Point
nxd
Source: CDEGS 2008 Users Group

Meeting Conference Proceedings
Automation and Fall of Potential
Testing by Carl Moller
Frequency Dependency
Area/Depth
50
10
Tim esDiagonal
Soil
LH
HIF R E Q F OP Ninety D egrees
HIF R E Q F OP Z ero D egrees
F ixed: A /D , T imes D iagonal, S oil; V ary: F requenc y
1.0000
2.5000
0.9000
2.2500
0.8000
2.0000
0.7000
0.6000
52
60
0.5000
128
0.4000
0.3000
0.2000
Appa rent R es is ta nce
Appa rent R es is ta nce
Extend 10x
diagonal of
ground grid
Vary frequency
Up to 180% Error
if not accounting
for lead coupling
Low over High
resistivity soil
1.5000
52
60
1.2500
128
1.0000
0.7500
0.5000
0.2500
0.1000
0.0000
0.0000
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
HIF R E Q F OP Ninety E rror W ith MAL Z
10
12
14
16
18
20
HIF R E Q F OP Z ero E rror W ith MAL Z
60.00%
200.00%
150.00%
40.00%
1
52
30.00%
60
128
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
-10.00%
P ercent E rror with MAL Z
P ercent E rror with MAL Z
T es t P oint
T es t P oint
50.00%
Source: CDEGS 2008 Users Group

Meeting Conference Proceedings
Automation and Fall of Potential
Testing by Carl Moller
1.7500
1
52
100.00%
60
128
50.00%
0.00%
-50.00%
0
10
T es t P oint
12
14
16
18
20
10
12
14
16
18
20
T es t P oint
5/21/14
10
Buried metallic objects

Pipelines (Cathodic
Protection systems)
Rail Lines
Foundations with rebar
Fences
Geological variations
Transmission line tower
grounds
Adjacent facility
grounding systems
Multi-grounded neutral
networks
Telephone/Cable
grounds
Source image courtesy of Dr. Bill Carman: DREC2012, 'Vt is not enough
Common Pitfalls
Hiring an inexperienced contractor
Not knowing what to do with the test data.
Interpretation of questionable results
Dealing with variability in expected
measurements
Forgetting to accurately record measurements or
locations
Not understanding the test circuit
11
12
How to Interpret this?

Site Soil Testing Survey
1E+3
T SR-1 NE-SW
T SR-1 NW-SE
1E+2
T SR-2 E-W
T SR-2 N-S
T SR-3 NE-SW
T SR-3 NW-SE
Apparent Resistivity (-m)
T SR-4 NE-SW
T SR-4 NW-SE
T SR-5 N-S
T SR-5 E-W
T SR-6 NE-SW
T SR-6 NW-SE
MSR-1 NE-SW
MSR-1 NW-SE
MSR-2 N-S
MSR-2 E-W
1E+1
DSR-1 NW-SE
1E+0
0.1
10
100
1000
Spacing (m)
5/21/14
13
Questions
5/21/14
TEST METHODS
Earth resistivity
Lane Garrett
Commonwealth Associates
General: Safety, Circuit, Problems, Environmental
How to perform/basic principles: Wenner, Schlumberger,
Driven Rod, Computer-based Multi-meter
Interferences
Interpretation of results: During testing, Visual, Software
May 18, 2014
TEST METHODS
General
Safety
PPE
Hard-soled (steel toe?) shoes
Safety glasses
Leather gloves
Traffic vest/cones
Voltages/currents during testing
Call before you dig (or drive rods into the ground)
May 18, 2014
TEST METHODS
General
Circuit
Current source circulate current into ground between two
pins
Voltmeter measure voltage between two pins
Wire connects current source and voltmeter to various pins
May 18, 2014
5/21/14
TEST METHODS
General
Problems
Access to site:
New site grubbed, graded, final soil compaction
Existing site where to test
Injecting sufficient current varies with instrument type
Earth is not uniform
Interferences
May 18, 2014
TEST METHODS
General
Environment
See access to site
Avoiding other construction activities
Near roadway?
When to test
Design schedule/materials delivery dictated?
When is site available?
Wait until final substation grading?
Soil moisture and temperature
May 18, 2014
TEST METHODS
General
Effect of moisture on soil resistivity

Soil Resistivity Ohm-m
10000
1000
100
10
0
10
20
30
Moisture
May 18, 2014
40
50
Image Courtesy of
Southern Company
5/21/14
TEST METHODS
General
Effect of temperature on soil resistivity

Soil Resistivity Ohm-m
10000
1000
100
10
-20
-10
10
20
30
Temperature (C)
Image Courtesy of
Southern Company
May 18, 2014
TEST METHODS
Basic Principles
Inject current into earth to create potentials throughout the
earth
Measure voltage between two pins
Apparent resistance is V/I
From test geometry, derive formula to convert apparent
resistance to apparent soil resistivity
Simple formulas assume uniform soil resistivity
Apparent soil resistivity: the equivalent, overall resistivity
of a volume of soil with varying properties
May 18, 2014
TEST METHODS
Basic Principles
-80--60
-60--40
-40--20
-20-0
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
May 18, 2014
5/21/14
TEST METHODS
Wenner 4-pin test
=
a
May 18, 2014
4 aR
2a a
1+
2 2 2 2
a + 4b a + b
= 2 a R
a
Image Courtesy of
Southern Company
10
TEST METHODS
Wenner 4-pin test
Measure series of apparent resistivities by varying pin spacings
along a straight line (profile)
Run at least two profiles across the site in different directions
For each profile, plot apparent resistivity vs. pin spacing
Use visual method or computer programs to determine layered soil
resistivity model
Sample pin spacings: 2, 4, 6, 8, 16, 24 32,96 (or larger for very
large substations or generating plants)
May 18, 2014
11
TEST METHODS
Wenner 4-pin test - Good test location?
Image Courtesy of
Southern Company
May 18, 2014
12
5/21/14
TEST METHODS
Schlumberger-Palmer test
a= c(c+d)R/d
depth = (2c + d)/2
May 18, 2014
Image Courtesy of
Southern Company
13
TEST METHODS
Schlumberger-Palmer test
Vary potential (inner) pin separation, keeping distances
between potential and current pins equal
Can leave current pins in one place, moving only potential pins
Could speed up measurement process move 2 pins
instead of 4 pins
Might better detect changes in soil resistivity vs. depth
Associate each apparent resistivity measurement with depth
(spacing) computed using (2c + d)/2
Run at least two profiles across the site in different directions
For each profile, plot apparent resistivity vs. pin spacing
Use visual method or computer programs to determine layered
soil resistivity model
May 18, 2014
14
TEST METHODS
Driven-rod test
I
Test Rod
Diameter d
V
P1
C1
S
P2
C2
a =
2 L R
8 L
ln
1
0.62D
Image Courtesy of
Southern Company
May 18, 2014
15
5/21/14
TEST METHODS
Driven-rod test
Drive ground rod to varying depths. For each depth:
Circulate current between ground rod and remote current pin
Measure voltage between ground rod and potential pin
Resistance is V/I
See section 2.2 for testing ground rod impedance
Use simple (uniform soil assumption) formula to compute apparent
resistivity
Sample depths: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15 20,100 (or refusal)
Drive test rods at multiple locations across the site
For each test rod location, plot apparent resistivity vs. pin spacing
Use visual method or computer programs to determine layered soil
resistivity model
May 18, 2014
16
TEST METHODS
Driven-rod test - Dont do this!
Image Courtesy of
Southern Company
May 18, 2014
17
TEST METHODS
Computer-based Multimeter
Image Courtesy of Advanced

Grounding Concepts
May 18, 2014
18
5/21/14
TEST METHODS
Computer-based Multimeter
Injects white noise current as high as several Amperes

Automatically switches between the multiple potential
probes
Each measurement is actually several Schlumberger-Palmer
measurements
Software automatically displays 2-layer soil and parameter
errors
May 18, 2014
19
TEST METHODS
Errors due to limited probe spacing
May 18, 2014
20
TEST METHODS
Interferences
Any conductive object in the vicinity that can divert the test
current or distort the soil potentials
Metal fences
Buried pipes (metal)
Grounding systems
Transmission or distribution pole grounds, especially if
connected to other pole grounds
Distribution cables with bare concentric neutrals
Any circuit that can induce voltages onto test leads
Transmission or distribution lines
Outside sources of current in the soil
Lack of space to achieve desired maximum pin spacing
May 18, 2014
21
5/21/14
TEST METHODS
Example of interference 3 ft parallel to grid
4-pin resistance at 10 ft spacing = 9.45

Interference-free resistance = 15.11
May 18, 2014
22
TEST METHODS
Example of interference perpendicular to grid
4-pin resistance at 10 ft spacing = 14.12

Interference-free resistance = 15.11
May 18, 2014
23
TEST METHODS
Interpretation of results - software
Perfect 2-layer soil: 2< 1
May 18, 2014
24
5/21/14
TEST METHODS
Perfect 2-layer soil: 2> 1
May 18, 2014
25
TEST METHODS
Cancel
Wenner Method Field Data

RUN MEASUREMENTS FOR 300,100,20 SOIL MODEL
Print
Import
Export
Sort
Default *
Update
Update
Probe Spacing
inFeet (a)
Probe Length
ininches (L)
Resistance
inOhms ( V/ I )
Apparent Resistivity
Ohm-Meters
1.0000
3.0000
5.0000
10.000
15.000
20.000
30.000
50.000
70.000
90.000
110.00
130.00
150.00
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Accept
Copy
Grounding System / Geometric Model
151.40
51.940
31.130
15.110
9.4530
6.4930
3.5270
1.5050
0.89750
0.64240
0.50540
0.41900
0.35890
289.95
298.41
298.09
289.37
271.55
248.70
202.64
144.11
120.32
110.72
106.47
104.32
103.10
Bad Measurements
Delete Measurement
Delete All Measurements
Mark / Unmark
Probe Diameter
0.560
inches
3.00
inches
Induced Voltage Correction

Operating Frequency
72.00
Hz
V/I Lead Separation
20.00
feet
* Default Probe Length
Unmark All
Algorithm Controls
Distance
No Correction
Real Part Only
Real + Reactive
Raw-Meas
Model
Corrected
Plot
Upper Rho:
Model/Data Fit
View Corrected Data
1, 2,
1
2
Lower Rho:
Layer Depth:
300.64
100.04
19.94
feet
Sensitivity
3 Layer
Model Fit
Soil Model
Advanced Grounding Concepts
May 18, 2014
STOP
State Limits
Process
Objective:
0.000000
Form SOIL_WENNER - Copyright A. P. Meliopoulos 1998-2013
26
TEST METHODS
Wenner Method Soil Parameters
Close
Case Name 300-100-SOIL-MEASUREMENTS
Soil Resistivity Model

Exp. Value
Tolerance
Upper Soil Resistivity
300.9
0.8
Ohm Meters
Lower Soil Resistivity
100.1
0.3
Ohm Meters
19.9
0.1
Feet
At Confidence Level
90.0
225.0
Upper Layer Thickness
Results are valid to depth of
Conf:
Error:
Conf:
Program WinIGS - Form SOIL_RA
May 18, 2014
Close
Description: Grounding System / Geometric Model

Wenner Method Model Fit Report

File: RUN MEASUREMENTS FOR 300,100,20 SOIL MODEL
Description RUN MEASUREMENTS FOR 300,100,20 SOIL MODEL
Error:
Conf:
Plot Cursors
300.9
Ohm Meters
100.1
Ohm Meters
Measured
19.9
Feet
Separation Distance
Computed
X Scale
Linear
Log
%
Feet
Error:
Program W inIGS - Form SOIL_RB
27
5/21/14
TEST METHODS
Driven Rod Method Field Data
Cancel
Accept
RUN MEASUREMENTS FOR 300,100,20 SOIL MODEL - 3-PIN TEST

Driven Ground Rod
Table Operations
Print
X (feet)
Import
Copy
Y (feet)
Export
Diameter
Sort
Update
0.000
feet
0.000
feet
0.625
inches
V
h
Update
X
Rod Length in Contact

with Soil in Feet (h)
Resistance
in Ohms ( V / I )
Ohm Meters
1.0000
3.0000
5.0000
10.000
15.000
20.000
30.000
50.000
70.000
90.000
110.00
130.00
150.00
647.70
270.70
177.20
97.710
67.930
50.900
21.850
10.990
7.4830
5.7170
4.6440
3.9190
3.3950
307.46
303.00
300.65
295.29
289.42
277.32
168.83
132.43
121.11
115.46
112.00
109.61
107.82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Probe
Parameters
Delete Measurement
Voltage Probe
Current Return
1000.002
-1000.002
feet
0.000
feet
0.625
inches
0.000
Diameter
0.625
Length
4.000
4.000
feet
Bad Measurements
Mark / Unmark
Algorithm Controls
Unmark All
View Corrected Data
Distance
No Correction
Operating Frequency
72.00
Hz
V/I Lead Separation
20.00
feet
Real Part Only

Real + Reactive
ft
Model
Plot
Model/Data Fit
1, 2,
1 2
Model Fit
Soil Model
STOP
Process
State Limits
Raw Meas
Corrected
Upper Rho:
307.77
Lower Rho:
101.78
m
m
Layer Depth:
20.04
feet
Objective:
0.000000
Program WinIGS - Form SOIL_DRIVENROD
May 18, 2014
28
TEST METHODS
Driven Rod Method Soil Parameters
Close

Exp. Value
Tolerance
307.0
0.5
Ohm Meters
101.8
0.2
Ohm Meters
20.0
0.0
Feet
At Confidence Level
90.0
300.0
Conf:
Error:
Conf:
May 18, 2014
Close

Driven Rod Method Model Fit Report

File: RUN MEASUREMENTS FOR 300,100,20 SOIL MODEL - 3-PIN TEST
Case Name 3-PIN-300-100-SOIL-MEASUREMENTS

Description RUN MEASUREMENTS FOR 300,100,20 SOIL MODEL - 3-PIN TEST
Error:
Conf:
Plot Cursors
307.0
Ohm Meters
101.8
Ohm Meters
Measured
20.0
Feet
Rod Length
Computed
X Scale
Linear
Log
%
Feet
Error:
29
TEST METHODS
Interpretation of results - visual
The computed apparent resistivities are always positive.
As the actual resistivity increases or decreases with greater depth,
the apparent resistivities also increase or decrease with greater
probe spacings.
The maximum change in apparent resistivity occurs at a spacing
larger than the depth at which the corresponding change in actual
resistivity occurs. Thus, the changes in apparent resistivity are
always plotted to the right of the probe spacing corresponding to
the change in actual resistivity.
The amplitude of the curve is always less than or equal to the
amplitude of the actual resistivity vs. depth curve.
In a multi-layer model, a change in the actual resistivity of a thick
layer results in a similar change in the apparent resistivity curve.
May 18, 2014
30
10
5/21/14
TEST METHODS
Interpretation of results - visual
May 18, 2014
31
TEST METHODS
Interpretation of results during testing
If using software, input data in laptop while at site
If using visual techniques, plot measurements by
converting measured resistance to apparent resistivity
Does apparent resistivity profile match expected based on
soil type and environmental conditions?
If results jump all over, check connections and/or look for
interferences
May 18, 2014
32
TEST METHODS
The good driven rod test
Cancel
Accept
T14067 - PIEDMONT TS GPR

Driven Ground Rod
Table Operations
Print
X (feet)
Import
Copy
Y (feet)
Export
Diameter
Sort
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Probe
Parameters
Update
0.000
feet
0.000
feet
0.625
inches
h
Voltage Probe
Current Return
62.000
100.000
feet
0.000
0.000
feet
Update

Resistance
in Ohms ( V / I )
Ohm Meters
2.0000
4.0000
6.0000
8.0000
10.000
12.000
14.000
16.000
18.000
20.000
22.000
24.000
26.000
28.000
30.000
1600.0
1000.0
730.00
560.00
490.00
400.00
330.00
290.00
250.00
230.00
200.00
190.00
170.00
160.00
150.00
1296.3
1413.2
1439.8
1403.3
1480.9
1410.1
1325.8
1305.5
1244.5
1253.1
1182.6
1210.8
1160.8
1164.7
1159.0
Delete Measurement
Diameter
0.625
0.625
inches
Length
1.000
1.000
feet
Bad Measurements
Mark / Unmark
Algorithm Controls
Unmark All
View Corrected Data
No Correction
Operating Frequency
72.00
Hz
V/I Lead Separation
20.00
feet
Real Part Only

Real + Reactive
Distance
ft
Model
Plot
Model/Data Fit
1, 2,
1 2
Model Fit
Soil Model
STOP
Process
State Limits
Raw Meas
Corrected
Upper Rho:
1438.22
Lower Rho:
824.33
m
m
Layer Depth:
19.00
feet
Objective:
0.000000
Image Courtesy of
Southern Company
May 18, 2014
33
11
5/21/14
TEST METHODS
The good driven rod test
Driven Rod Method Soil Parameters
Close
Case Name PIEDMONT-TS-T14067

Description T14067 - PIEDMONT TS GPR
Exp. Value
Tolerance
1438.2
65.9
Ohm Meters
824.3
64.6
Ohm Meters
19.0
2.7
Feet
At Confidence Level
90.0
104.0
Feet
Conf:
Error:
Conf:
Error:
Conf:
Image Courtesy of
Southern Company
Error:
May 18, 2014
34
TEST METHODS
The bad 4-pin test
Cancel
Wenner Method Field Data

T08149 WARRENTON PRIMARY GROUND REVIEW
Print
Accept
Copy
WARRENTON PRIMARY
Default *
Update
Update
Probe Spacing
inFeet (a)
Probe Length
ininches (L)
Resistance
inOhms ( V/ I )
Ohm-Meters
2.0000
2.0000
4.0000
4.0000
8.0000
8.0000
16.000
16.000
24.000
24.000
32.000
32.000
40.000
40.000
48.000
48.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
12.000
59.500
57.200
34.100
42.300
22.900
34.100
28.500
11.700
23.200
7.3000
4.1000
17.600
2.7000
15.300
1.9000
12.500
227.90
219.09
261.22
324.04
350.85
522.44
873.29
358.51
1066.3
335.53
251.26
1078.6
206.83
1172.1
174.66
1149.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Import
Export
Sort
Bad Measurements
Delete Measurement
Mark / Unmark
Unmark All
Probe Diameter
0.500
* Default Probe Length
12.00
inches
72.00
Hz
Operating Frequency
inches
Algorithm Controls
Distance
Raw-Meas
Model
Remove Induced Voltage
Corrected
Plot
Model/Data Fit
! "! " ! #! " $
!"
!#
Upper Rho:
Lower Rho:
Layer Depth:
238.17
% m
502.07
% m
2.40
feet
Image Courtesy of
Southern Company
Sensitivity
3 Layer
Model Fit
Soil Model
Advanced Grounding Concepts
STOP
Process
State Limits
Objective:
0.000000
Form SOIL_W ENNER - Copyright A. P. Meliopoulos 1998-2009
May 18, 2014
35
TEST METHODS
The bad 4-pin test
Wenner Method Soil Parameters
Close
Case Name WARRENTON-PRIMARY

Description T08149 WARRENTON PRIMARY GROUND REVIEW
WARRENTON PRIMARY
Exp. Value
Tolerance
414.7
213.3
217.7
323.6
Ohm Meters
Feet
At Confidence Level
90.0
144.0
Feet
10
100m
0.00
Conf:
20.0
40.0 60.0 80.0

Conf. Level (%)
Error %
100
10
Error %
100
10
Error %
100
100m
-0.020 -0.010 0.00 0.010 0.020 0.030
Conf. Level (%)
100
Error:
Conf:
Ohm Meters
Error:
100m
-0.020 -0.010 0.00 0.010 0.020 0.030
Conf. Level (%)
Conf:
Image Courtesy of
Southern Company
Error:
May 18, 2014
36
12
5/21/14
TEST METHODS
The ugly driven rod test
Cancel
Accept
T14066 - PERDIDO TS GPR

Driven Ground Rod
Table Operations
Print
Import
Copy
Export
X (feet)
0.000
feet
Y (feet)
0.000
feet
0.625
inches
Diameter
Sort
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Update
Resistance
in Ohms ( V / I )
Ohm Meters
15.000
20.000
25.000
35.000
40.000
45.000
50.000
55.000
60.000
65.000
70.000
75.000
80.000
85.000
90.000
1490.0
1210.0
1510.0
121.00
105.00
137.00
169.00
109.00
127.00
106.00
110.00
89.000
98.000
67.000
26.500
5528.4
5771.5
8759.7
944.21
922.08
1335.4
1808.9
1269.8
1598.6
1432.9
1588.6
1366.9
1594.5
1150.8
479.07
Delete Measurement
V
h
Voltage Probe
Update

Current Return
600.005
0.000
feet
0.000
600.005
feet
Diameter
0.625
0.625
inches
Length
1.000
1.000
feet
Bad Measurements
Mark / Unmark
Algorithm Controls
Unmark All
View Corrected Data
Distance
No Correction
Operating Frequency
72.00
Hz
V/I Lead Separation
20.00
feet
Soil Model
ft
Plot
Model/Data Fit
1, 2,
1 2
STOP
State Limits
Process
Raw Meas
Model
Real Part Only

Real + Reactive
Computations Completed
Model Fit
Probe
Parameters
Corrected
Upper Rho:
8011.66
Lower Rho:
496.19
Layer Depth:
31.75
feet
Objective:
Image Courtesy of
Southern Company
15.329631
May 18, 2014
37
TEST METHODS
rod test Close
The
driven
Driven Rod Method
Soilugly
Parameters
Case Name PERDIDO-TS-T14066
Description T14066 - PERDIDO TS GPR
Exp. Value
Tolerance
8011.7
6050.5
Ohm Meters
496.2
188.9
Ohm Meters
31.7
8.7
Feet
At Confidence Level
90.0
280.0
Feet
Image Courtesy of
Southern Company
Conf:
Error:
Conf:
Error:
Conf:
Error:
May 18, 2014
38
TEST METHODS
The ugly driven rod test
Driven Rod Method Model Fit Report
Close
File: T14066 - PERDIDO TS GPR

Plot Cursors
8011.7
Ohm Meters
Rod Length
496.2
Ohm Meters
Measured
31.7
Feet
Computed
X Scale
Linear
Log
Image Courtesy of
Southern Company
May 18, 2014
39
13
5/21/14
TEST METHODS
Interpretation of results Sometimes good
testing is masked by interpretation limitations
Metric/Logarithmic X and Y
10
LEGEND
Measured Data
Computed Results Curve
Soil Model
Measurement Method..:
Layer
Apparent Resistivity (Ohm-meters)
10
Thickness
(Ohm-m)
(Meters)
==============
==============
Air
2
3
4
Infinite
902.9030
13.05638
48.61163
RMS error...........:
10
Wenner
Resistivity
Number
======
Infinite
0.4469047
16.47048
Infinite
3.88%
10
-2
10
-1
10
10
10
10
3
RESAP <Site2_S2
>
Inter-Electrode Spacing (meters)
May 18, 2014
40
TEST METHODS
Interpretation of results Same data with 2layer limitation
Metric/Logarithmic X and Y
10
LEGEND
Measured Data
Computed Results Curve

Soil Model
Measurement Method..:
Layer
Apparent Resistivity (Ohm-meters)
10
Resistivity
Number
(Ohm-m)
======
==============
Thickness
(Meters)
Infinite
Infinite
967.4861
0.4259189
16.93228
Infinite
RMS error...........:
10
Wenner
==============
Air
27.35%
10 -2
10 -1
10 0
10 1
10 2
10
RESAP <Site2_S2_2Layer
>
Inter-Electrode Spacing (meters)
May 18, 2014
41
TEST METHODS
In the end, it is sometimes just a roll of the dice!
May 18, 2014
42
14
5/21/14
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
May XX, 2014
43
15
5/21/14
Shashi Patel
NEETRAC/ Georgia Tech
May 18, 2014
TEST METHODS
2.2 Ground Impedance
Shashi Patel
General: Characteristics, Why Measure, Basic Tests, Safety,

Problems
How to perform/basic principles: Two Pin, Fall of Potential,
Computer Based Grounding Multimeter, Current Injection,
Clamp-on and FOP/Clamp-on
Limitations: FOP, Computer Multimeter, Clamp-on
Interferences: Conductive, Inductive
Interpretations of results: Field Test Examples
May 18, 2014
General
Basic Characteristics
Depends on soil resistivity and size of the grounding system (covered area)
Components
Resistive component dominates for small isolated grounding systems
Inductive component increases with the ground grid size and specially
when connected with multi grounded neutral/shield wires (interconnected
grounding system)
Changes in ground resistance
Reduces following initial installation due to settling of the soil
Seasonal variations particularly for grounds buried in a permafrost or over a

high resistivity stratum such as rock bed
May 18, 2014
5/21/14
General
Why measure?
Substations
Verify new design or additions
Existing ground grids
Seasonal variations
Safety concerns for old substations
Fault or lightning events

Quick estimate of Ground Potential Rise (GPR)
GPR = Igrid x Rgrid or Ifault x Zinterconnected system
Touch, step and transfer voltages depend on GPR
Power line poles/structures (typical practice)
Limit resistance to a specified value
Install ground electrodes until the desired resistance value is obtained
May 18, 2014
General
Seasonal Variations of Grounding Parameters
North Georgia Weather
CI Method, CP @~12 mi, PP @~ 4000
Date
Zg
Ohms
GPR
Volts
Igrid
Amps
Vt(max)
Volts
10/13/81
1.1
111
101
N/M
8/22/86
0.95
96
101
N/M
9/28/89
(Rain)
0.9+j0.04
140
156
23
2/26/90
(winter)
1.0+j0.05
155
155
30
8/21/90
Summer
0.76+j0.03
120
157
17
206x186 ground grid (isolated), 10x5 meshes, 16 ground rods, soil 1=412 -m, 2=87 -m, h=16
Source: EPRI TR-100863, July 1992 [R7]
May 18, 2014
General
Basic Tests
Fall of Potential (FOP) or Three Pin Test substation ground grids
Pass current between subject ground and current reference electrode

(CP)
Measure voltage between the ground and voltage reference electrode

(PP)
Ground impedance = V/I
Clamp-on or Stakeless Test power line poles or structures
Induce current in the loop made by the subject ground and multi
grounded neutral or shield wire system
Measure the loop voltage
Ground impedance = V/I (assume zero impedance for the multi

grounded neutral or shield wire system)
May 18, 2014
5/21/14
General
Safety
High voltages around reference electrodes
Stray current
Fault current
Test instrument producing >50 volts
Induced voltage on long test leads laid in parallel with energized power
line(s)
Measures
Personal protective equipment (PPE)
Take appropriate measures to protect general public
May 18, 2014
General
Problems
Test method limitations
Interferences
Conductive
Inductive
Testing in high soil resistivity areas
High resistance current electrode
Test current too low
High resistance voltage electrode
Measured voltage lower than the actual
Reduce electrode resistance
Drive ground rod deeper or multiple ground rods
Distances between multiple ground rods no closer than their depths
Pour water around the ground electrodes

May 18, 2014
How to Perform/Basic Principles

Two Pin Method
Resistance is measured in series with a nearby low impedance grounding

system such as power companys neutral system.
Impedance of the reference grounding system assumed negligible
Measured resistance represents the resistance of the ground
Ground electrode under test

Isolated
High resistance value
May 18, 2014
5/21/14

Fall of Potential (FOP) or Three Pin Method Basic Circuit
Widely accepted method

Isolated or interconnected grounds
Test current - 50 Hz to 3400 Hz
Reference electrodes CP and PP
PP direction at any angle from CP
May 18, 2014
10

Fall of Potential (FOP) or Three Pin Method Instrument Connections
P1
Ground Grid
C1
PP
P2
C2
CP
P1
Ground Grid
C1
P2
PP
C2
CP
Resistances of Ground Grid Leads are not

Included in the Measurement
Resistance of Ground Grid Lead is

Included in the Measurement
May 18, 2014
11

FOP Variations
PP in same direction as CP (solid
line)
CP=100m
a) Flat part on the graph

b) 62% rule (PP @ 62m)
c) Taggs slope method (PP @ 60m)
PP in opposite direction (dotted line)
62% & Tagg

Flat part
a) Approaching true value from below

Approaching true
value from below
Assumptions
a) Small, isolated ground grid
b) Uniform Soil
May 18, 2014
12
5/21/14

FOP Variations
Ground grid in single or two-layer soil
Determine required PP location from
Figure 8 (Guide81)
Assumptions
a) Small, isolated ground grid
b) PP in same direction as CP
May 18, 2014
13

Computer Based Multimeter
One CP and six PPs
Short duration current pulses (white noise)
Input
a) ground grid design
b) X, Y co-ordinates of CP and six PPs
Solving 2 x 6 matrix (weighted least square)
Displays
a) ground impedance vs. frequency
b) magnitude and phase angle
May 18, 2014
14

Computer Based Multimeter Recommended Locations for Reference Electrodes
CP (>2x L)
6 PPs (>100<1.2L)
May 18, 2014
15
5/21/14
How to Perform/Basic principles

Current Injection Method (CI Method)
Sometimes used for large substations
Use of de-energized line
High test current (100-200 amperes)
Can test with substation energized
Can Measure GPR and voltage gradients
May 18, 2014
16

Staged Fault Test
Rarely performed for grounding measurements
More practical to use spare channels on existing recorders
Attenuation circuits (CTs, VTs and Voltage dividers) are required due to high
currents and voltages
Safety PPE
May `8, 2014
17

Clamp-on or Stakeless Method
Widely used method for power line grounds
Measures resistance of pole/structure ground
without disconnecting shield/neutral wire
Itest = 1 kHz-3.4 kHz
Several limitations
May 18, 2014
18
5/21/14

FOP/Clamp-on Method
IT
IT
May 18, 2014
IL1, IL2, IL3 & IL4
19
Limitations
FOP
Current Probe (CP) must be far enough to eliminate interelectrode

mutual resistances (>5 x maximum dimension)
Reference electrodes are close to

ground electrode
May 18, 2014
Reference electrodes are far and clear of each

others mutual resistances
20
Limitations
Limitations Based on Theories of FOP Variations
Flat slope, 62% ,Tagg and Figure 8 Plots
Small, isolated ground electrode system
Geometrical center same as electrical center
Must be represented by an equivalent hemispherical electrode
Only Tagg method allows measuring distances from a convenient point

on the perimeter
Uniform soil structure
Only Figure 8 Plots allow non-uniform soil represented by a two layer

model
May 18, 2014
21
5/21/14
Limitations
Computer Based Multimeter
Also, measures impedance of standalone ground grid without disconnecting

shield/neutral wires
Shorter CP and PP distances
Compensation for CP location
Correction for induction of CP lead on PP lead
No restriction for soil type
Measured data may not be accurate
Large, irregular shaped substation ground grids
Interconnected grounding system
Provides range for the impedance value
May 18, 2014
22
Limitations
Clamp-on Method
Not suitable for grounding system connected at more than one point such as
substation ground grid
Resistance of subject ground must be significantly higher compared to

multigrounded shield or neutral system
Errors
Partially corroded neutral or shield wire
Device indicates open neutral or shield wire
High frequency current injection

Low signal/noise ratio for high resistance ground electrode
May 18, 2014
23
Interferences
Conductive interference
CP and PP located near metallic objects that are connected to ground

under test
Pole/structure grounds
Bare concentric cable neutrals
Pipes, fences etc
CP near metallic objects - current path altered
PP near metallic objects soil potential altered
Inductive interference
CP lead inducing voltage on PP lead when placed in proximity
Special problem low impedance ground and long PP distances
CP and PP leads placed in proximity and parallel to metallic objects

connected to the ground under test
Increases with the frequency
May 18, 2014
24
5/21/14
Interferences
Interferences can increase or decrease the true impedance value
The best approach is to minimize interference
Keep reference electrodes away from interfering metallic objects
Keep PP lead away from the CP lead
Direction of PP at a large angle from that of CP
May 18, 2014
25
Interpretation of Results
Finding the true impedance value is difficult
Basic Requirements
Avoid or minimize interferences
Place CP as far as practical (>5xlargest dimension)
Expect accurate results if test is performed within the limitations
Try for best estimate in other cases

Non-uniform soil
Large or irregular shaped ground grids
Interconnected grounding systems
May 18, 2014
26
Significance of increased CP distance
Estimate based on a trend
Source: B44
May 18, 2014
300 x 250 Isolated Ground Grid

(Rtrue =0.146 )
(soil resistivity not known)
CP Distance
ft
62%
Rg
Slope Method
Rg
400
0.215
0.215
600
0.18
0.166
800
0.165
0.152
1000
0.15
0.151
27
5/21/14
Interpretations of Results
Non-Uniform Soil, Test Result Comparison
Isolated Ground Grid
Interconnected Ground Grid
CP @1664' (6xdiagonal)
CP @1664' (6xdiagonal)
PP in same direction as CP
PP in same direction as CP
PP in opposite direction to CP
2.5
2
1.5
Comp Multi
62% & Fig 8
0.87+j0
1.06
1
0.5
0
>0.8
1.6
1.2
Comp Multi
62% & Fig 8
0.29+j0
0.57
0.8
>0.22
0.4
0
130
218
313
352
413
486
568
654
744
837
931
1026
1122
1218
1315
1413
1511
1609
Apparent Resistance,
130
218
313
352
413
486
568
654
744
837
931
1026
1122
1218
1315
1413
1511
1609
Apparent Resistance,
PP in opposite direction to CP
PP Distance, ft
PP Distance, ft
206x186 substation, 10x5 meshes, 16 ground rods, two layer soil 1=412 -m, 2=87 -m, h=16
Rg(computed, SGSYS)=1.13
Source for the base graphs: EPRI unpublished data, 1994
May 18, 2014
28
Matching between Test and Software Computed Data PP in the Same Direction as CP
(Interconnected Urban Substation)
C2
P2
Test equipment:
Resistance ()
Expected zero
Fall of Potential Test Extent:

Current: 700 m
Potential Zero Degree: 700 m
Potential Vary Degree: 475 m
Percent Error
0.6
0.5
Bow
0.45
Minimum readings: 21.

Last reading on Fence ground
er
Riv
0.4
Fixed spacing for Zero Degree: 15m
0.4
0.2
0.35
Roadwa
y
-0.2
0.25
LEGEND
Current Lead Extent
138kV Lines
Sub
0.2
Potential Lead Extent

HV Transmission Line
LV Transmission Line
-0.4
Fences
Pipeline
0.15
13
8k
V
-0.6
0.1
Pipelines
Railway Lines
Lin
es
Roadways
Driving Range
Water
-0.8
Light Forest
0.05
Heavy Forest
P2
-1
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Source: CANA High Voltage

May 18, 2014
29
Matching between Test and Software Computed Data PP in Opposite Direction as CP
(Interconnected Urban Substation)
C2
P2
Test equipment:
Resistance ()
Fall of Potential Test Extent:

Current: 700 m
Potential Zero Degree: 700 m
Potential Vary Degree: 475 m
Expected
0.1
Minimum readings: 21.

Last reading on Fence ground
Bo
0.09
wR
iv er
0.08
Fixed spacing for Zero Degree: 15m
0.07
Ap p arent Resistance ()
App arent Resistance ()
0
0.3
0.06
0.05
Sub
0.04
Roadwa
y
LEGEND
Current Lead Extent
138kV Lines
Potential Lead Extent

HV Transmission Line
LV Transmission Line
0.03
Fences
Pipeline
138
0.02
0.01
Pipelines
kV
Lin
Railway Lines
es
Roadways
Driving Range
Water
Light Forest
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
P2
Heavy Forest

May 18, 2014
30
10
5/21/14
Test Method Comparison Power Line Ground Electrodes
FOP Methods
(Neut or Sh Disconnected
Line &
Ground
Clamp on
(N or Sh
Conn)
f=1667 Hz
FOP/
Clamp on
(N or Sh
Conn)
f=128 Hz
Computer
Method
(N or Sh
Disconn)
Flat Slope
Tagg
62%
46 kV TL
2- 35 CPs
*38.4
*39.9
*39.6
37.2
*30.7
31.0 @0.14
12%
230 kV TL
2- 100 CPs
#58.0
#59.0
#59.4
56.0
#80.8
57.6 @0.5
12%
25 kV DL
1-8 Rod
#199.0
#202.0
#201.0
240.0
#325.0
214.0@0.2
16%
46 kV TL
1-8 Rod
*234.0
*>234.0
*234.0
310.0
*136.0
247.0@0.2
8%
*CP=350, #CP=600
Source: NEETRAC Project 06-209
May 18, 2014
31
Appendix - A
Interferences - Examples
May 18, 2014
32
Urban Substation 1 FOP Test Layout
Water Pipe

May 18, 2014
33
11
5/21/14
US-1 - Altered Soil Potentials due to Buried Structures

May 18, 2014
34
US-1 Inductive and Conductive Interferences between Buried

Structures and Test Current Circuit

May 18, 2014
35
12
5/21/14
Carl Moller, P.Eng,

CANA High Voltage Ltd.
May 18, 2014
Variability in Grounding Design

Many assumptions in
grounding design
Variability in Parameters of
Design
Temperature
Moisture
Non-homogeneous
Site built-up,
Nearby cliffs etc.
Reality has even more
variables for which we can
accurately account in our
designs
How to Interpret this?
5/21/14
Fault at Substation
GPR OF SEGMENTS (VOLTS)

Maximum Value : 1152.015
Minimum Value : 248.330
1152.02
1061.65
971.28
880.91
790.54
700.17
609.80
519.44
429.07
338.70
Surface Potentials, Touch and Step Voltages

Surface Scalar Potentials
0-200
200-400
400-600
600-800
800-1000
1000-1200
=1152
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1
=249
2
=457
=281
What do we know?
When we install a ground grid,
what have we achieved?
Green-Field
Brown-Field
5/21/14
Back to Basics
Can we measure the performance of the ground grid?

How might we measure scalar potentials
Transferred potentials?
Touch Potentials?
Step Potentials?
Inject current into the grid
Measure the soil scalar potentials.
Source: IEEE 80
Does this sound familiar?

Similar concept to fall of potential testing.
Characteristics of the current circuit
Current Generator Injection
Collection point remote from ground grid
How far is far enough?
Source: IEEE 80
Variability in Design parameters

Measure actual response of
ground conductors
Non-homogeneous soil
Temperature at time of
test
Moisture at time of test
Geology Actual grid!
Nearby foundations,
metallic structures,
houses, industrial ground
gridsall will be present
under event conditions
Many benefits to
measuring actual Volts.
5/21/14
10
Measurements
The actual grid response can
be measured
Measure, review and validate
design compliance
requirements
Compare measurements with
tolerable limits
Measure open circuit
conditions
Measure loaded circuit
conditions (measure body
current)
Source: IEEE 80
11
What do we measure?
12
Step Voltage
Lay definition: Voltage across your feet spaced 1m apart.

Worst cases typically OUTSIDE substation where no insulating gravel
is present
Around sharp corners of ground conductors
Significantly dependent on soil resistivity
Around geological changes
Source: IEEE 80
5/21/14
13
Touch Voltages
Lay Definition: Voltage from your hand to two feet (typically 1m arm
reach)
What can you touch in a substation or nearby which might have a
voltage difference?
Metallic objects within the substation and the fence will be at the GPR
of the site.
What you are standing on will be a surface potential.
Source: IEEE 80
14
Internal Transferred Voltages

Internal
Extension cords
Cable sheaths bonded
remotely
Water supplies
Gas supplies
Sewer services
Telephone networks
Railways
Pipelines
15
Typical Touch Voltage Exposure

Mesh: middle of ground
grid loops
Fence: 1m outside/inside
edge of fence
Gate: 1m off gate which is
open. Also on gate while
opening or unlocking
Structure: pretty much
everything else you can
touch with a 1m reach
Source: Figure 12 - IEEE 80
5/21/14
16
Remote Transferred Voltages

Maximum voltage
differential at 1m arm
length:
Water faucets
Multi-grounded
distribution neutral
Telephone and cable
boxes
Fences
Gas lines
Cathodic Protection
test points
Light standards etc.
Construction Power
feeds
17
Construction Power Hazards

Present Touch Voltages Outside Fence Area Safety [ID:Nab_spr @ f=60.0000 Hz ]
LEGEND
59
39
Y AXIS (METERS)
Maximum Value : 526.681

Minimum Threshold : 160.800
Transferred hazards to
construction ground
grid for 25kV fault in
temporary substation!
526.68
490.09
453.51
416.92
19
380.33
343.74
Security Fences
-1
307.15
270.56
233.98
197.39
-21
-30
-10
10
30
50
X AXIS (METERS)
Touch Voltage Magn. (Volts) [Near]
Source: CDEGS 2013 Users Group Meeting

Conference Proceedings Hazards With Temporary
Construction Power Substations by Carl Moller
17
Methods of Measurements
General Method:
Touch Voltage:
Inject current
Measure voltage differentials
Between metallic object and

soil potential
Step Voltage:
!"#$%&'"(#
Between two soil potentials

1m apart
Voltage
Response
of Ground
Grid
Transferred:
Same as touch
Measured
soil
potentials
5/21/14
19
Specific Methods
Staged Fault
Actually fault the substation
and measure touch and step
voltages
Almost impossible to perform
without extensive resources
and extremely high speed
multi-channel data collection
systems
Some large utilities will
perform these tests if the risks
are sufficient enough.
Current Injection Test

Overland Current Circuit
Transmission Line
Off-power frequency
Generator, arc welder, Custom
amplifier with frequency
generator
Currents will split down any

interconnected shield wires
Voltages are measured
Tuned volt meter (frequency
selective)
RMS voltages with and without
signal
Phase measurements can be
significant.
20
Injection Test Current

Current generator:
Conventional Generator
(120/240V or 600V) with
governor (frequency counter)
Mobile substation generator
(engineered)
Amplifier with frequency
generator. These can be
commercially bought or made
yourself.
! RMS vs Switchmode
21
Current Injection
Overland test leads
Transmission Line
Generator Current 2-200A

Size Test Leads
Return electrodes:
Array of Ground Rods in Soil
Minimize Mutual effects
Injection: Generator 2-200A

Return electrode:
Transmission Tower and
shield wires
Measurement of phase angle
is important
5/21/14
22
Measuring Voltages
Tuned Volt-meter (offfrequency)
Commercial gear
Measuring phase for voltages
less important.
Measuring the soil potentials
Small probe in contact with
soil (thin metallic probe)
Small plate in contact with
the soil (representing two
feet)
Touch Voltages
Measure between the metallic
objects (using alligator clips
or similar) and the soil
potentials
Step Voltages
Measure voltages between
two points 1m apart
Where?
23
Voltage Measurements
Probe
Unloaded (direct connection
to volt-meter)
Loaded (connection in series
with 1000 Ohm resistor)
Plate
Unloaded
Loaded (Most realistic)
Issues with Probes:

Does not represent a foot
Provide scalar touch
potentials (as would be
modeled in software)
Issues with Plates:
Soil contact becomes
significant
Use a bit of water to achieve
good contact with crushed
rock or soil
Provides realistic foot
impedances in-situ
Step Voltage
24
Voltage measurements
Source: IEEE 80
Touch Voltage
Probe
5/21/14
25
Conventional Gear
Four pin resistance meter
Set up to measure a touch or step resistance
In practice, touch and step resistance measurements are below the
reliable range (ie. <0.03 Ohms)
If you have a high resistance grid, they can be very helpful!
Great noise rejection
Cannot take loaded measurement
Source: IEEE 80
26
Bias in measurements
If other circuits are energized:
Imbalance zero sequence
currents in the grid
Induction on current circuit
Stray DC currents
Currents down unforeseen
paths
Conductive interference with
return electrode ground grid
Methods to overcome Noise

(Section 9.4.2):
Take three measurements:
! Standard Section 9.4.2
! Follow equations
Model the test scenario to

apply correction factors
Advanced techniques
required
Can provide expected values
26
What to do with the measurements

Injection Testing
Determine Current scaling
factor
Multiply voltages by current
scaling factor
Compare with IEEE 80
tolerable voltages
!"#$%& ' ()
$"&') = *+
%"#+ !!- "$+-/

-&./ $!' "1/'2
0##/$_! ' ()
%"#+
!!-
"$+-/_&# /-/
1000
Loaded voltages with plates:

Compare with body current
tolerable current levels
Voltage across 1000 Ohm
resistor is a scaled version of
the current through the body
Source: IEEE 80
5/21/14
28
Conventional Meter
Touch and step resistances
Multiply by expected earth-return current to get respective unloaded
touch and step voltage values
Compare with IEEE 80 tolerable threshold voltages
Use of only probes will not easily represent loaded touch voltage
values
29
Other Issues
Seasonal Variations
Freezing
Drying out of soil
High ground-water table
Recent Rain
Recent hot weather
Nearby geological changes
Encroaching MGN
Mining
30
Only one slice of the pie

You get an excellent picture of actual voltages.
You have to decide whether seasonal variations are significant:
Urban
Rural
Its only one slice of time.
In Canada and US parts of the country must account for seasonal
variations
More engineering judgment is required.
10
5/21/14
31
Gain Experience Testing

Who is doing these tests?
It is highly recommended to go
out in the field and perform
this test.
Get as much experience as you
can in the field.
32
Questions
11
5/21/14
Carson Day
NEETRAC/ Georgia Tech
May 18, 2014
TEST METHODS
Ground integrity testing
1. The Ground Grid
2. Test Methods
3. Test Result Interpretation
4. Safety Considerations
Image Courtesy of Ground Level

Systems, LLC (Permission Pending)
May 18, 2014
The Ground Grid

Consists of:
Buried ground conductors
Above ground risers that are attached to
equipment and support structures
Control/relay house grounds
Equipment panel grounds
Equipment cabinet grounds
Cable trench grounds
3
5/21/14
The Ground Grid

Protects personnel by limiting step and touch
voltages in the yard during normal and
abnormal conditions
Protects equipment by limiting transient
voltages
A Good Ground Grid

Withstands available fault currents
Limits touch and step potentials
Limits transient voltages on I&C cables at
equipment terminations.
Provides shielding to I&C cables.
Ground Grid Testing - General

Verification that integrity of ground grid is intact
No fully or partially corroded conductors or
connections
Can identify area of yard with relative high
resistance
It does not measure the ground grid resistance to

remote earth.
6
5/21/14
Methods in IEEE 81
Section 10.2 - High Current Test Method
Section 10.3 - Measurement of Resistance
between two risers
Section 10.4 - Low impedance continuity
measurement by computer-based grounding
multimeter
7
General Procedure
Select a riser as a reference & connect source
Connect second test lead to test riser
Push current
Measure
M
General Procedure
Select a riser as a reference & connect source
Connect second test lead to test riser
Push current
Measure
M
Go to next test riser
Repeat
I
5/21/14
High Current Test Method

Impedance Measurement measure voltage,
calculate impedance
+=
Figure 16 from IEEE81-2012
10
Measurement of Resistance between

two risers
Resistance Measurement test equipment
calculates resistance from V, I, and
TR
11
Measurement of Resistance between

two risers Resistance Calculation
=/
Equation 11 from IEEE 81-2012
12
5/21/14
Low impedance continuity

measurement by computer-based
grounding multimeter
Provides a complete
characterization of
impedance (R+jX).
I
V
Rejects the influence

of ambient currents
13
What is a good resistance value?
1.5V per 15m?
(i.e. 5m at 300A)
Other Considerations: Compare to adjacent
readings, considering:
Current Division
Distance between points
Ambient Currents
Ambient currents
Test Lead Impedance
Multiple paths
14
Current Division
AC
0A
Single Point Ground
15
5/21/14
Current Division
AC
16
17
Ambient/Circulating Currents
Ambient currents usually exist
60
Ambient Current
Test Current
Current Magnitude (A)
40
20
-20
Magnitudes
Ambient Current
Test Current
-40
-60
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
12.3 A
30.0 A
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0.05
18
Can be additive or subtractive with test current
80
Additive Currents
Subtractive Currents
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
Magnitudes
Additive
Subtractive
-60
-80
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
40.4 A
21.8 A
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0.05
5/21/14
19
Can be additive or subtractive with test current
Will affect80the voltage reading
Additive Currents
Subtractive Currents
60
Assume 8 m
impedance with 30 A test current:
40
VMeasured =20 323 mV for additive current
VMeasured = 174 mV for subtractive current
0
Some test equipment alternates the polarity of

the test current to get both additive and
subtractive currents and averages the resistance
-20
-40
Magnitudes
Additive
Subtractive
-60
-80
0.005
0.01
0.015
40.4 A
21.8 A
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0.05
Test Lead Resistance

Where you measure affects results!
1. Measurement
includes test
lead impedance
Voltage Source
Ztestlead
Ztestlead
Meter
2. Measurement
does not
include test lead
impedance
Zgroundgrid
Meter
20
Safety Considerations
Generally
Equipment safety - Voltage gradients across the
ground grid conductors
Personnel Safety - Touch and Step Voltages
Specific Examples
When using high current, ensure that appropriate
rated equipment is used (i.e. clamps, cables,
transformers, etc.)
A potentially dangerous voltage can exist on the
remote test lead at the reference location
21
5/21/14
Resistance Method Example

Ref.
Point
Rem.
Test
Point
Return
Current (A)
Up
Down
Curr.
(A)
Volt
(V)
PF
R1
28.5
0.9
29.52
3.06
0.18
0.019
R1
20.6
8.9
29.73
2.96
0.17
0.018
OK
R1
0.013
OK
2.77
0.14
Resis.
()
Notes
Questionable due to low Down
current
14.5
16.5
29.62
R1
5.5
24.2
29.94
3.06
0.15
0.015
R1
17.8
11.7
29.52
3.80
0.36
0.033
Questionable due to high

resistance
R1
15.0
15.0
29.81
2.96
0.13
0.005
OK
R1
1.5
27.5
29.52
3.00
0.17
0.018
Questionable due to low Up

current and high resistance
OK
22
5/21/14
Bryan Beske
American Transmission Company
May 18, 2014
TEST METHODS
Surface Aggregate Testing
Bryan Beske
General
How to perform/basic principles
Limitations
Interpretation of results
May 18, 2014
General - Background
IEEE Std 80: Section 12.5 - Use of surface material
layer
Table 7 Typical surface material resistivities

Sentences at end of third and fourth paragraph
! Thus, it is important that the resistivity of rock samples
typical of the type being used in a given area be
measured.
! Tests should be performed to determine the resistivity of
the stone typically purchased by the utility.
Problem no standardized test method currently

exists
but it still can be done.
5/21/14
General Understanding the Circuit

Like other tests comes down to the basics
injecting a current and measure a voltage
4 - Pin
2 - Pin
I
4
General Circuit Cont.

=R
A
a
V
I
Where:
= Resistivity (m)
R = Resistance (V/I) ()
A = Cross sectional area of the container
perpendicular to the current flow (m2)
a = Probe inner spacing (m)
5
General Safety
Test doesnt require high current or voltage
Field
Standard field safety items
! Traffic, system faults...
Lab
Standard lab safety items
6
5/21/14
General Problems
Meter capabilities
Does it have the resolution
! Upper/lower
AC not DC
Box Considerations
Large enough, non-conductive, easy to clean
Sturdy
! Able to withstand repeated compaction of material
Properly quantifying material properties

7
How to perform - Lab versus field

Same
Two pin four pin
Hard to replicate in-situ conditions
Different
Quantifying material properties
Limitations
Field testing
Reproducibility
Seasonal variations
Quantifying parameters
Laboratory testing
Replicating field conditions
5/21/14
How to perform Choose the method

Two pin versus four pin
V
I
10
Choose the method Calc Example
Box Dimensions (m)

Width
Height
Length
Pin Sep
0.06
0.05
0.40
0.20
11
Example Cont.
A
=R
a
Box Dimensions (m)

Width Height Length Pin Sep
0.06
0.05
A = (0.06)(0.05) = 0.0030
a = 0.2
= R (0.015)
V
= 0.015
I
0.40
0.20
12
5/21/14
How to perform Quantify parameters

What parameters will impact the resistivity:
Sample size
Moisture content
Particle size
Compaction
Water resistivity
13
Quantify parameters - Sample size
Vessel size: minimum of 3 times max particle

diameter
14
Quantify parameters Moisture

Content
! ASTM C127, Density, Relative Density (Specific

Gravity), and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate
! ASTM D2216, Laboratory Determination of Water
(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
15
5/21/14
Quantify parameters Particulate Size
! ASTM C136, Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse

Aggregates
16
Quantify parameters Compaction

ASTM C29, Bulk Density (Unit Weight) and
Voids in Aggregate
ASTM D698, Laboratory Compaction
Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort
ASTM D1557, Laboratory Compaction
Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort
17
Quantify parameters Water Resistivity

What to use
Tap water
! Typical resistivity from 0.2m to 200m1
Rain Water
! Typical resistivity from 100m to 5,000m1
Distilled water
! Typical resistivity from 3,300m to 20,000m2
Laboratory Modified water

! User determined
1Sanders, L.L., 1998, A Manual of Field Hydrogeology: Prentice-Hall, NJ, 381p.

2http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms59.cfm
18
5/21/14
Interpretation of results
During testing
Know the limitations of your equipment
Considerations for acceptance

Conditions tested at vs those experienced in field
Comparison to other testing results
Historical testing performed
19
Utility Experience
Current Practice
Existing Stations
! Obtain representative sample and test
! Evaluate ground grid using tested value
New Stations
! Obtain sample from quarry and test
! Design grid using tested value
20
Test setup being used
21
5/21/14
22
Effects of Compactions and Water Used

Moisture
Tap Water
Loose
Content (%) Compacted
0.5
21,728
24,881
1.2
5,157
5,624
2.3
1,748
2,094
Sample 1 - Open Graded Aggregate

Distilled Water
% Diff
Compacted
Loose
% Diff
15%
33,849
38,580
14%
9%
9,477
10,819
14%
20%
3,360
3,947
17%
% Diff Between Waters

Compacted
Loose
56%
55%
84%
92%
92%
88%
Moisture
Tap Water
Loose
Content (%) Compacted
5.0
224
538
5.8
196
376
7.6
145
254
Sample 2 - Dense Graded Aggregate

Distilled Water
% Diff
Compacted
Loose
% Diff
140%
430
1,174
173%
92%
338
747
121%
75%
282
475
68%
% Diff Between Waters

Compacted
Loose
92%
118%
72%
99%
94%
87%
23
24
5/21/14
Presentation was based on the paper:

Edlebeck, J.E.; Beske, B., "Identifying and
Quantifying Material Properties That Impact
Aggregate Resistivity of Electrical Substation
Surface Material," Power Delivery, IEEE
Transactions on , vol.PP, no.99, pp.1,1
doi: 10.1109/TPWRD.2013.2284819
Available at:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6648455&isnumber=4359248
25
IEEE 81 Tutorial, Portland, May 2014
May 21, 2014
Test Simulations and Field Examples
Presented by:
Stephen Palmer, Director, and
Bill Tocher, Principal Engineer
Safearth Consulting
TEST METHODS
Test Simulations & Field Examples
Session Overview
Topics:
Current Flow in Soil

Electrode Resistance
Interference
Soil Resistivity
3-Point Impedance
Current Injection
Grid Integrity
Topics covered with a mix of theory, practical demo and video
May 18, 2014
DEMOS TESTING IN A TUB

Current Mechanism
Scale
Accuracy
Limitations
Layers
Infrastructure
(c) safearth.com
May 21, 2014
CURRENT FLOW IN SOIL

Theory Recap

Theory Recap
Fault Circuit

Demonstration
(c) safearth.com
May 21, 2014
ELECTRODE RESISTANCE
Theory Recap
R =
2 r
7
Theory Recap
RR
8l
ln 1
2 l d
Resistance of driven rod
=
=
[]
[ ]
where :
= Earth resistivity [ m ]
l = Rod length
[m]
d = Rod diameter
[m]
Demonstration
(c) safearth.com
May 21, 2014
CLAMP-ON METHOD
Theory Recap
10
CLAMP-ON METHOD
Demonstration
11
CLAMP ON METHOD
Video
12
(c) safearth.com
May 21, 2014
INTERFERENCE Mutual Resistance /

Proximity Effect
Theory Recap
13
INTERFERENCE Mutual Resistance /

Proximity Effect
Finger Puppets can help
14
Mutal Resistance Demo

950
INTERFERENCE MER/PROXIMITY
900
Demonstration
850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
1
(c) safearth.com
15
May 21, 2014
INTERFERENCE - CONDUCTIVE
16
17
Demonstration
18
(c) safearth.com
May 21, 2014
INTERFERENCE STANDING VOLTAGES

Theory Recap
What could cause a standing voltage?
What difference could a standing voltage make?
19

Demonstration
20

Theory Recap
Noise Immune Test Instruments should be OK
Test Frequency Versus Noise Sources
Signal to Noise Ratio
21
(c) safearth.com
May 21, 2014
INTERFERENCE - INDUCTION
Theory Recap
22
Theory Recap
Z0 (N)
Zm (LN)
Z0 (L)
It
I in
23
Demonstration
24
(c) safearth.com
May 21, 2014
SOIL RESISTIVITY TESTING

Wenner Method
Schlumberger-Palmer Method
Drilled Rod
25
WENNER RESISTIVITY TEST

Theory Recap
26

Demonstration
27
(c) safearth.com
May 21, 2014

Video
28
DRILLED OR DRIVEN ROD TEST

Theory Recap
29
Driven Rod Res Test Demo

2200
DRILLED ROD TEST
2000
Demonstration
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
1
(c) safearth.com
30
10
May 21, 2014
DRIVEN ROD TEST

Video
31
THREE-POINT IMPEDANCE
Theory Recap
61.8% Rule
32
Demonstration
33
(c) safearth.com
11
May 21, 2014
Theory Recap
61.8% Rule
Works best for homogeneous soil
Higher resistance isolated grids
34
Video
35
CURRENT INJECTION
Theory Recap
36
(c) safearth.com
12
May 21, 2014
CURRENT INJECTION
Theory Recap
37
CURRENT INJECTION
Fall-of-Potential
Theory Recap
38
CIT FOP Demo
CURRENT INJECTION
Fall-of-Potential
Demonstration
0
0
(c) safearth.com
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
39
13
May 21, 2014
CURRENT INJECTION
Current Distribution
Theory Recap
40
CURRENT INJECTION
Current Distribution
Demonstration
41
CURRENT INJECTION
Step/Touch Voltage
Theory Recap
42
(c) safearth.com
14
May 21, 2014
CURRENT INJECTION
Step/Touch Voltage
Demonstration
43
CURRENT INJECTION
Video
44
INTEGRITY TESTING
Theory Recap
45
(c) safearth.com
15
May 21, 2014
INTEGRITY TESTING
Demonstration
46
INTEGRITY TESTING
Video
47
TRICKS & TRAPS RECAP
48
(c) safearth.com
16
May 21, 2014
QUESTIONS?
49
(c) safearth.com
17

IEEE STD 81 Tutorial Handouts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IEEE STD 81 Tutorial Handouts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IEEE STD 81 Tutorial Handouts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tutorial

IEEE Standard 81TM 2012

Photo Courtesy of E&S

THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND

Substations Technical Committee

IEEE PES Std 81-2012 Tutorial

IEEE Standard 81TM 2012

Photo Courtesy of E&S Grounding Solutions

May 18, 2014

American Transmission Co.

IEEE PES Std 81-2012 Tutorial

May 18, 2014

IEEE PES Std 81-2012 Tutorial

PRESENTER TUTORIAL OBJECTIVE

May 18, 2014

IEEE PES Std 81-2012 Tutorial

AUDIENCE TUTORIAL OBJECTIVE

May 18, 2014

IEEE PES Std 81-2012 Tutorial

May 18, 2014

IEEE PES Std 81-2012 Tutorial

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Image Courtesy of Ground Level

May 18, 2014

IEEE PES Std 81-2012 Tutorial

May 18, 2014

IEEE PES Std 81-2012 Tutorial

May 18, 2014

IEEE PES Std 81-2012 Tutorial

May 18, 2014

IEEE PES Std 81-2012 Tutorial

George Vlachos, Jeff Jowett

May 18, 2014

IEEE PES Std 81-2012 Tutorial

Can reach several thousand volts!

Lightning Strokes (Strikes)

George Vlachos, Jeff Jowett

May 18, 2014

IEEE PES Std 81-2012 Tutorial

Understanding the circuit being tested

Carl Moller, P.Eng,

May 18, 2014

IEEE PES Std 81-2012 Tutorial

Not a Simple World

My gear tells me the value is

Distance From Center (m)

Scalar Potential Showing Mutual Conductive Effects

May XX, 2014

IEEE PES Std 81-2012 Tutorial

Reactive Ground Grids

!"#$%&' "#)' = !"#$%&' "#)' 15

Test Lead Coupling

Test leads may be inductively coupled

Test Lead Coupling

Source: CDEGS 2008 Users Group

HIF R E Q F OP Ninety D egrees

HIF R E Q F OP Z ero D egrees

F ixed: A /D , T imes D iagonal, S oil; V ary: F requenc y

F ixed: A /D , T imes D iagonal, S oil; V ary: F requenc y