GROUNDING/EARTHING SYSTEMS

2. GROUNDING/EARTHING SYSTEMS

2.1. INTRODUCTION

The National Electrical Code (NEC) divides grounding into two distinct areas:
equipment grounding and system grounding. Equipment grounding is the process
of connecting aboveground equipment to the earth. In other words, how to
properly bond grounding wires to equipment and route them through conduits,
circuit-breaker boxes, and so on. System grounding is the process of intentionally
making an electrical connection to the earth itself. This is the actual connection of
metal to soil and the minimum standards by which this connection is made. This
process is often referred to as earthing.

The goal of this chapter is to provide a basic knowledge of system grounding and
earthing in an easy-to-read and understandable manner. We will not discuss
aboveground wiring issues, except where needed. The topics that will be covered
are system grounding, the benefits and features of the available grounding
electrodes, the ground potential rise (GPR) hazards of high current discharges,
and the effects lightning strikes will have on a grounding system. We will also
introduce the principles of proper soil testing, resistance-to-ground (RTG) testing,
proper test-well installation, and meter selection.

Both equipment grounding and system grounding are becoming more important
as technology rapidly advances. Many of the latest and most advanced systems
have stringent grounding requirements. Understanding the available electrical
data through proper ground testing enables the electrical engineer to manage
grounding systems that will meet specified grounding criteria.

Our goal is to provide the basic knowledge needed to understand and make the
right choices when it comes to electrical grounding. Remember: "To protect
what's above the ground you need to know what's in the ground."

In the last few decades, much has been learned about the interaction between
the grounding electrode and the earth, which is a three-dimensional electrical
circuit. Ultimately, it is the soil resistivity (and spatial variations thereof) that
determines system design and performance. There are a number of different
grounding electrodes in use today. They are the standard driven rod, advanced
driven rod, grounding plate, concrete-encased electrode (sometimes called a
Ufer ground), water pipes, and the electrolytic electrode.

2.2. ZONE (OR SPHERE) OF INFLUENCE

An important concept as to how efficiently grounding electrodes discharge

electrons into the earth is called "the zone of influence," which is sometimes
referred to as the "sphere of influence" (see Fig. 2.1). The zone of influence is the
volume of soil throughout which the electrical potential rises to more than a small
percentage of the potential rise of the ground electrode when that electrode
discharges current into the soil. The greater the volume compared with the
volume of the electrode, the more efficient the electrode. Elongated electrodes,
such as ground rods, are the most efficient. The surface area of the electrode
determines the ampacity of the device but does not affect the zone of influence.
Case in point, the greater the surface area, the greater the contact with the soil
and the more electrical energy that can be discharged per unit of time.

Figure 2.1. Sphere of influence of an earth electrode.

The formula for calculating the volume of soil is shown in Fig. 2.2. A simpler
version is used when the formula is modified by rounding π (pi) down to 3 and
cross-canceling to get the formula:

Figure 2.2. Volume of the sphere of influence formula.

Thus, a single 10-ft driven rod will utilize 5000 ft3 of soil, whereas a single 8-ft rod
will utilize about half the soil at 2560 ft3. Going from an 8-ft to 10-ft ground rod
can provide a significant reduction in the resistance to ground (RTG), as the
sphere of influence will be nearly doubled, given that soil resistivity does not
increase with depth.

2.3. GROUNDING ELECTRODES

Grounding is the process of electrically connecting any metallic object to the

earth by way of an earth electrode system. The National Electrical Code (NEC)
requires that grounding electrodes be tested to ensure that they are under 25-Ω
resistance to ground (earth). It is important to know that aluminum electrodes are
not allowed for use in grounding (earthing), as aluminum will rapidly corrode
when buried.

Driven Rod.  The standard driven rod or copper-clad rod consists of an 8- to

10-ft length of steel with a 5- to 10-mil coating of copper (see Fig. 2.3). This is by
far the most common grounding device used today. The driven rod has been in
use since the earliest days of electricity, with a history dating as far back as
Benjamin Franklin.
Figure 2.3. Copper-clad driven grounding rod.

Driven rods are relatively inexpensive to purchase; however, ease of installation

is dependent upon the type of soil and terrain where the rod is to be installed.
The steel used in the manufacture of a standard driven rod tends to be relatively
soft. Mushrooming can occur on both the tip of the rod, as it encounters rocks on
its way down, and at the end where force is being applied to drive the rod
through the earth. Driving these rods into the earth can be extremely labor
intensive when rocky terrain creates problems and the tips of the rods continue
to mushroom. Often, these rods will hit a rock and actually turn back around on
themselves and pop back up a few feet away from the installation point.

Because driven rods range in length from 8 to 10 ft, a ladder is often required to
reach the top of the rod, which can become a safety issue. Many falls have
resulted from personnel trying to literally whack these rods into the earth while
hanging from a ladder many feet in the air.

The NEC requires that driven rods be a minimum of 8 ft in length and that 8 ft of
length must be in direct contact with the soil. To comply with this requirement,
the installer will typically use a shovel to dig down into the ground 18 in. before a
driven rod is installed, although the most common rods used by commercial and
industrial contractors today are rods 10 ft in length, which negates the need for
the extra installation process. This can save time as well as meet with the many
industrial specifications that also require this length as a minimum.
A common misconception is that the copper coating on a standard driven rod has
been applied for electrical reasons. While copper is certainly a conductive
material, its real purpose on the rod is to provide corrosion protection for the
steel underneath. Many corrosion problems can occur, because copper is not
always the best choice in corrosion protection. It should be noted that galvanized
driven rods have been developed to address the corrosion concerns copper
presents, and in many cases are a better choice for prolonging the life of the
grounding rod and grounding systems. Generally speaking, galvanized rods are a
better choice in all but high-salt environments.

An additional drawback of the copper-clad driven rod is that copper and steel are
two dissimilar metals. When an electrical current is imposed on the rod,
electrolysis will occur; also, the act of driving the rod into the soil can further
damage the copper cladding, allowing corrosive elements in the soil to attack the
bared steel and decrease the life expectancy of the rod. Environment, aging,
temperature, and moisture also easily affect driven rods, giving them a typical life
expectancy of 5–15 years in good soil conditions. Driven rods also have a very
small surface area, which is not always conducive to good contact with the soil.
This is especially true in rocky soils, in which the rod will only make contact on
the edges of the surrounding rock.

A good example of this is to imagine a driven rod surrounded by large marbles.

Actual contact between the marbles and the driven rod will be very small.
Because of this small surface contact with the surrounding soil, the rod will
increase in RTG, lowering the conductance and limiting its ability to handle high-
current faults.

Advanced Driven Rods.  Advanced driven rods are specially engineered

variations of the standard driven rod, with several key improvements (see Fig.
2.4). Because they present lower physical resistance, advanced rods can now go
into terrain where only large drill-rigs could install before and can quickly be
installed in less demanding environments. The modular design of these rods can
reduce safety-related accidents during installation. Larger surface areas can
improve electrical conductance between the soil and the electrode. Of particular
interest is that advanced driven rods can easily be installed to depths of 20 ft or
more, depending upon soil conditions.
Figure 2.4. Advanced driven grounding rod.

Advanced driven rods are typically driven into the ground with a standard drill
hammer. This automation dramatically reduces the time required for installation.
The tip of an advanced driven rod is typically made of carbide and works in a
similar manner to a masonry drill bit, allowing the rod to bore through rock with
relative ease. Advanced driven rods are modular in nature and are designed in 5-
ft lengths. They have permanent and irreversible connections that enable an
operator to install them safely while standing on the ground. Typically, a shovel is
used to dig down into the ground 18 in. before the advanced driven rod is
installed. The advanced driven rod falls into the same category as a driven rod
and satisfies the same codes and regulations.

In the extreme northern and southern climates of the planet, frost heave is a
major concern. As frost sets in every winter, unsecured objects buried in the
earth tend to be pushed up and out of the ground. Driven grounding rods are
particularly susceptible. Anchor plates are sometimes welded to some buried
portion of the rods to prevent them from being pushed up and out of the earth by
frost heave. However, this requires that a hole be augured into the earth in order
to get the anchor plate into the ground, which can dramatically increase
installation costs. Advanced driven rods do not suffer from frost-heave issues and
can be installed easily in extreme climes.
Grounding Plates.  Grounding plates are typically thin copper plates buried
in direct contact with the earth. The NEC requires that ground plates have at
least 2 ft2 of surface area exposed to the surrounding soil. Ferrous materials must
be at least 0.20-in. thick, while nonferrous materials (copper) need only be 0.060-
in. thick. Grounding plates are typically placed under poles or to supplement
buried ground rings.

As shown in Fig. 2.5A, grounding plates should be buried at least 30 in. below
grade level. While the surface area of grounding plates is greatly increased over
that of a driven rod, the zone of influence is relatively small, as shown in Fig.
2.5B. The zone of influence of a grounding plate can be as small as 17 in. This
ultra-small zone of influence typically causes grounding plates to have a higher
resistance reading than other electrodes of the same mass. Similar
environmental conditions, which lead to the failure of the driven rod, also plague
the grounding plate, such as corrosion, aging, temperature, and moisture.

Figure 2.5. Buried copper plate.

Ufer Ground or Concrete-encased Electrodes.  Originally, Ufer grounds

were copper electrodes encased in the concrete surrounding ammunition
bunkers. In today's terminology, Ufer grounds consist of any concrete-encased
electrode, such as the rebar in a building foundation, when used for grounding, or
a wire or wire mesh encased in concrete.

Concrete-encased Electrode.  The NEC requires that concrete-encased

electrodes use a minimum no. 4 AWG copper wire at least 20 ft in length and
encased in at least 2 in. of concrete (see Fig. 2.6). The advantages of concrete-
encased electrodes are that they dramatically increase the surface area and
degree of contact with the surrounding soil. However, the zone of influence is not
increased; therefore, the RTG is typically only slightly lower than it would be for
the wire without the concrete.
Figure 2.6. Concrete-encased electrode.

Concrete-encased electrodes also have some significant disadvantages. When an

electrical fault occurs, the electric current must flow out of the conductor and
through the concrete to get to the earth. Concrete, by nature, retains a lot of
water that rises in temperature as the electricity flows through the concrete. If
the concrete-encased electrode is not sufficient to handle the total current, the
boiling point of the water may be reached, resulting in an explosive conversion of
water into steam. Many concrete-encased electrodes have been destroyed after
receiving relatively small electrical faults. Once the concrete cracks apart and
falls away from the conductor, the concrete pieces act as a shield, preventing the
copper wire from contacting the surrounding soil and resulting in a dramatic
increase in the RTG of the electrode.

There are many new products available that are designed to improve concrete-
encased electrodes. The most common are modified concrete products that
incorporate conductive materials, usually carbon, into the cement mix. The
advantage of these products is that they are fairly effective in reducing the
resistivity of the concrete, thus lowering the RTG of the electrode encased. The
most significant improvement of these new products is in reducing heat buildup
in the concrete during fault conditions, thus lowering the likelihood that steam
will destroy the concrete-encased electrode. However, some disadvantages are
still evident. Again, these products do not increase the zone of influence, and as
such, the RTG of the concrete-encased electrode is only slightly better than that
of a bare copper wire or driven rod. Also, a primary concern regarding enhanced
grounding concretes is the use of carbon in the mix. Carbon and copper are of
different nobilities and will sacrificially corrode each other over time. Many of
these products claim to have buffer materials designed to reduce the accelerated
corrosion of the copper caused by the addition of carbon into the mix. However,
few independent long-term studies are being conducted to test these claims.
Ufer Ground or Building Foundations.   Ufer grounds or building
foundations may be used, provided the concrete is in direct contact with the
earth (no plastic moisture barriers), rebar is at least 0.500 in. in diameter, and
there is a direct metallic connection from the service ground to the rebar buried
inside the concrete (see Fig. 2.7).

Figure 2.7. Building foundation or Ufer.

This concept is based on the conductivity of the concrete and the large surface
area, which will usually provide a grounding system that can handle very high
current loads. The primary drawback occurs during fault conditions, if the fault
current is too great compared with the area of the rebar system and moisture in
the concrete superheats and rapidly expands, cracking the surrounding concrete
and threatening the integrity of the building foundation. Another important
drawback to the Ufer ground is that it is not testable under normal
circumstances, as isolating the concrete slab in order to properly perform RTG
testing, is nearly impossible.

The metal frame of a building may also be used as a grounding point, provided
the building foundation meets the above requirements and is commonly used in
high-rise buildings. It should be noted that many owners of these high-rise
buildings are banning this practice and insisting that tenants run ground wires all
the way back to the secondary service locations on each floor. The owners will
already have run ground wires from the secondary services back to the primary
service locations and installed dedicated grounding systems at these service
locations. The goal is to avoid the flow of stray currents, which can interfere with
the operation of sensitive electronic equipment.
Water Pipes.  Water pipes have been used extensively over time as
grounding electrodes. Water pipe connections are not testable and are unreliable
due to the use of tar coatings and plastic fittings. City water departments have
begun to specifically install plastic insulators in the pipelines to prevent the flow
of current and reduce the corrosive effects of electrolysis. The NEC requires that
at least one additional electrode be installed, when water pipes are used as an
electrode. There are several additional requirements, including:

10 ft of the water pipe must be in direct contact with the earth.

Joints must be electrically continuous.

Water meters may not be relied upon for the grounding path.

Bonding jumpers must be used around any insulating joints, pipe, or meters.

Primary connection to the water pipe must be on the street side of the water
meter.

Primary connection to the water pipe must be within 5 ft of the point of

entrance to the building.

The NEC requires that water pipes be bonded to ground, even if water pipes are
not used as a grounding electrode.

Electrolytic Electrode.  The electrolytic electrode was specifically

engineered to eliminate many of the drawbacks found in other types of grounding
electrodes. The electrolytic electrode consists of a hollow copper shaft filled with
salts and desiccants whose hygroscopic nature draws moisture from the air. The
moisture mixes with the salts to form an electrolytic solution that continuously
seeps into the surrounding backfill material, keeping it moist and high in ionic
content. The electrolytic electrode is installed into an augured hole and is
typically backfilled with a conductive material, such as bentonite clay. The
electrolytic solution and the backfill material work together to provide a solid
connection between the electrode and the surrounding soil that is free from the
effects of temperature, environment, and corrosion (see Fig. 2.8). The electrolytic
electrode is the only grounding electrode that improves with age. All other
electrode types will have a rapidly increasing RTG as the seasons change and the
years pass. The drawbacks to these electrodes are the cost of installation and the
cost of the electrode itself.
Figure 2.8. Electrolytic electrode.

Various backfill products are available; the primary concern should be whether
the product protects the electrode from corrosion and improves its conductivity.
Carbon-based products should be avoided, as they will corrode the copper over
time.

There are generally two types of electrolytic electrodes that one can install: ones
that use sodium chloride (table or rock salt) and those that use magnesium
sulfate (Epsom salt). There are advantages and disadvantages for each type. The
electrolytic electrodes that use sodium chloride have very long life spans (30–50
years) and as such are often sealed closed, as there is no need to access the
tube. The disadvantage is that very little salt actually enters the surrounding soil,
so the time it takes to lower the RTG can be very long (years if not decades). The
electrolytic electrodes that use magnesium sulfate come with an access cap at
the top of the electrode, as the magnesium sulfate will rapidly dissolve away and
out of the tube, entering the surrounding soil and thus quickly lowering the RTG.
The disadvantages of magnesium sulfate electrodes is that they require annual
maintenance to refill the salts in the tube, and if the magnesium sulfate is
exposed to high heat, such as from a lightning strike, chemical reactions can
occur, resulting in some toxic substances. The material safety data sheet for
magnesium sulfate should be consulted prior to use. Some grounding engineers
have installed electrolytic electrodes with magnesium sulfate for the first few
years of operation so as to rapidly lower the RTG, and then switched over to a
sodium chloride and desiccant mix for the long-life and low-maintenance benefits
once the surrounding soil has been saturated with conductive materials.

Earth Electrode Comparison Chart.   Table 2.1 compares the various types
of electrodes with respect to some important characteristics that may prove
helpful in selecting proper electrode usage.

Table 2.1. Earth Electrode Comparison

Advanced Concrete-
Driven Grounding Building
  Driven encased
Rod Plate Foundation
Rod Electrode

RTG Poor Average Poor Average Above

Average

Corrosion Poor Good Poor Good* Good*

Resistance

Increase in Worsens Worsens Worsens Worsens Worsens

RTG in Cold slightly slightly slightly
Weather

Increase in Worsens Typically Worsens Typically Typically

RTG Over unaffected unaffected unaffected
Time

Electrode Poor Average Average Average* Above

Ampacity average*

Installation Average Excellent Below Below Average

Cost average average

Life Poor Average Poor Average* Above

Expectancy 5–10 15–20 5–10 years 15–20 average*
years years years 20–30 years

*
High-current discharges can damage foundations when water in the concrete is rapidly converted in

†When part of extensive, bare, metallic, electrically continuous water system.

Grounding Electrode Test Wells.   The purpose of a ground test well is
twofold: to be able to quickly and easily measure RTG of the grounding electrode
and/or to measure point-to-point continuity (resistance) from one electrode to
another. Most grounding test wells are improperly installed preventing accurate
RTG measurements of the electrode.

The first part, RTG, is a measurement of the total resistance to the flow of
electricity that the earth is providing against the ground system under test. As
the three-point fall-of-potential method is not usable for any active grounding
system, only the clamp-on or induced-frequency method can be used for testing
the RTG of electrodes with a test well. This involves a handheld meter with large
jaws that are "clamped" around a grounding conductor under test, thus the need
for a test well.

The second part, simple point-to-point continuity (resistance) measurements, can

be done at even an improperly installed test well. Point-to-point testing from a
ground test well back to a reference point can be very valuable for understanding
the integrity and conductivity of a grounding system. The goal is to install ground
test wells capable of allowing both types of measurement.

Improper Installation of a Ground Test.   One of the most common ways

ground test wells are improperly installed is seen in Fig. 2.9. In this scenario, the
installer has simply provided physical access to the ground ring with a ground rod
"T-welded" into the loop. This scenario allows us to clamp on to the ground loop
conductor above the ground rod itself. However, the signal from the clamp-on
ground resistance meter will merely travel around the copper conductor in a loop
and is never forced to travel through the earth itself. This test well is improperly
installed and will not allow an accurate RTG measurement.
Figure 2.9. Incorrect test well.

In Fig. 2.10, we see the second most common way test wells are improperly
installed, and this is with a twist or "loop" added to the ground conductor. As you
can see, this scenario is actually the exact same thing as scenario 1, although it
is quite possibly easier to clamp the meter around the conductor. The downside is
that this twist in the conductor is a major violation of the rules listed in NFPA ®
780 Lightning Standards and the Motorola R56 (and several IEEE standards) in
regard to the self-induced coupling effects that high-current, short-duration faults
can have on ground systems. When lightning strikes or a major short-circuit fault
occurs, a large and powerful magnetic field will form as the current travels
through the ground conductor. Any conductors with a "tight radius" are subject to
burn-open due to cross-coupling of the magnetic fields. The bottom line is that
this test well is improperly installed and not only is it at risk of critical failure
under electrical stress, but it will not allow an accurate RTG measurement test.

Figure 2.10. Incorrect test well with a loop.

Proper Installation of a Ground Test Well.   In Fig. 2.11 we can see that
installing a grounding electrode in a test well simply requires a short conductor
extension or "pigtail" to be added connecting the top of the electrode to the
ground loop. While this does require two welds instead of just a single exothermic
weld, it is often less labor intensive, as the conductor extension is easier to work
with than the ground loop. In this setup, we can see that the clamp-on meter has
easy access and the injected signal will be forced down the ground rod and
through the earth, enabling an accurate RTG reading of that ground rod. And, of
course, accurate point-to-point testing can be conducted as well.
Figure 2.11. Correct test well.

It is important to note that this test well scenario is only valid for testing a single
grounding electrode at a time, within the bigger grounding system. It does not
provide an RTG of your entire ground system. Depending on the size and
requirements of your ground system, it may not even be possible to design a
grounding system that can be tested as a whole. This is why multiple ground test
wells are often installed at key locations around your ground system; they
provide a means of validating the ground system integrity at multiple locations
for comparison over time.

2.4. SYSTEM DESIGN AND PLANNING

A grounding design starts with a design specification and is often followed by a

site analysis, collection of geological data, and a test of soil resistivity of the area.
Typically, the site engineer or equipment manufacturers specify a minimum RTG
number. The NEC states that the RTG shall not exceed 25 Ω for a single
electrode. However, high-technology manufacturers will often specify 3 or 5 Ω,
depending upon the requirements of their equipment. For sensitive equipment
and under extreme circumstances, a 1-Ω specification may sometimes be
required. In designing a ground system, the difficulty and costs increase
exponentially as the target RTG approaches the unobtainable goal of 0 Ω.

Data Collection.  Once the specifications have been established, data

collection begins. Soil resistivity testing, geological surveys, and test borings
should provide the basis for all grounding designs. Proper soil resistivity testing
using the Wenner four-point method is recommended because of its accuracy.
This method will be discussed later in this chapter. Additional data is always
helpful and can be collected from existing ground systems located at the site. For
example, driven rods at the location can be tested using the three-point fall-of-
potential method or an induced-frequency test can be conducted using a clamp-
on ground resistance meter.

Data Analysis.  Rarely is soil uniform in resistivity from the surface down to

depth equal to the whole grounding system's sphere of influence. Soil is typically
organized into horizontal layers of largely homogenous materials that have been
laid down through the ages, each with different electrical properties. The
resistivity of these layers can be inferred with careful measurements and
sophisticated computer-modeling techniques. The results are often that the
actual soil resistivities from layer to layer can vary by many orders of magnitude.
Only by calculating the resistivity and depths of these layers (creating a soil
model) can you accurately design a grounding system.

Grounding Design.  Soil resistivity is the key factor that determines the

resistance or performance of a grounding system. It is the starting point of any
grounding design. As you can see in Tables 2.2 and 2.3 below, soil resistivity
varies dramatically throughout the world and is heavily influenced by electrolyte
content, moisture, minerals, compactness, and temperature.
Table 2.2. Surface Materials versus Resistivity

  Average Resistivity in Ohm-meters

Type of Surface
Dry Wet
Material

Crusher granite w/fines 140 × 106 1,300

Crusher granite w/fines 4,000 1,200

1.5"

Washed granite: pea 40 × 106 5,000

gravel

Washed granite: 0.75" 2 × 106 10,000

Washed granite: 1–2" 1.5 × 106 to 4.5 × 106 5,000

Washed granite: 2–4" 2.6 × 106 to 3 × 106 10,000

Washed limestone 7 × 106 2,000 to 3,000

Asphalt 2 × 106 to 30 × 106 10,000 to 6 × 106

Concrete 1 × 106 to 1 × 109 20 to 100

Table 2.3. Soil Types versus Resistivity

Average Resistivity in Ohm-

Soil Types or Type of Earth
meters

Bentonite 2 to 10

Clay 20 to 1,000

Wet organic soils 10 to 100

Moist organic soils 100 to 1,000

Dry organic soils 1,000 to 5,000

Sand and gravel 50 to 1,000

Surface limestone 100 to 10,000

Limestone 5 to 4,000

Shales 5 to 100

Sandstone 20 to 2,000

Granites, basalts, etc. 1,000

Decomposed gneisses 50 to 500

Slates, etc. 10 to 100

2.5. SOIL RESISTIVITY TESTING

Soil resistivity testing is the process of measuring a volume of soil to determine

the conductivity of the soil. The resulting soil resistivity is expressed in ohm-
meters or ohm-centimeters.

Soil resistivity testing is the single most critical factor in electrical grounding
design. This is true when discussing simple electrical design, dedicated low-
resistance grounding systems, or the far more complex issues involved in ground
potential rise (GPR) studies. Good soil models are the basis of all grounding
designs, and they are developed from accurate soil resistivity testing.

Wenner Soil Resistivity Test and Other Soil Resistivity Tests.   The
Wenner four-point method (sometimes called four-pin) is by far the most used
test method to measure the resistivity of soil. Other methods do exist, such as
the general method and Schlumberger method; however, they are not frequently
used for grounding design applications and vary only slightly in how the probes
are spaced when compared with the Wenner method.

Electrical resistivity is the measurement of the specific resistance of a given

material. It is expressed in ohm-meters and represents the resistance measured
between two plates, covering opposite sides of a 1-m cube. This test is commonly
performed at raw land sites during the design and planning of grounding systems
specific to the tested site. The test spaces four probes out at equal distances to
approximate the depth of the soil to be tested. Typical spacings will be in the
range of 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4.5, 7, 10 ft and so on, with each spacing increasing from
the preceding one by a factor no greater than 1.5, up to a maximum spacing that
is approximately one to three times the maximum diagonal dimension of the
grounding system being designed. This results in a maximum distance between
the outer current electrodes of three to nine times the maximum diagonal
dimension of the future grounding system. This is one "traverse" or set of
measurements, and is typically repeated, albeit with shorter maximum spacings,
several times around the location at right angles and diagonally to one another to
ensure accurate readings.

The basic premise of the test is that probes spaced at 5-ft distances across the
surface, will measure the average soil resistivity to an approximate depth of 5 ft.
The same is true if you space the probes 40 ft across the earth, you get a
weighted average soil resistance from 0 down to 40 ft in depth and at all points in
between. This raw data must be processed with computer software to determine
the actual resistivity of the soil as a function of depth.

Conducting a Wenner Four-Point Test.  The following describes how to

take one traverse or set of measurements. As the "four-point" indicates, the test
consists of four pins that must be inserted into the earth. The outer two pins are
called the current probes, C1 and C2. These are the probes that inject current into
the earth. The inner two probes are the potential probes, P1 and P2. These are the
probes that take the actual soil resistance measurement.

In the test shown in Figs. 2.12 and 2.13 a probe C1 is driven into the earth at the
corner of the area to be measured. Probes P1, P2, and C2 are driven at 5, 10, and
15 ft respectively from rod C1 in a straight line to measure the soil resistivity from
0 to 5 ft in depth. C1 and C2 are the outer probes and P1 and P2 are the inner
probes. At this point, a known current is applied across probes C1 and C2, while
the resulting voltage is measured across P1 and P2. Ohm's law can then be
applied to calculate the measured apparent resistance.
Figure 2.12. A four-point testing pattern.

Figure 2.13. A four-point test setup.

Probes C2, P1, and P2 can then be moved out to 10-, 20-, and 30-ft spacing to
measure the resistance of the earth from 0 to 10 ft in depth. You can continue
moving the three probes (C2, P1, and P2) away from C1 at equal intervals to
approximate the depth of the soil to be measured. Note that the performance of
the electrode can be influenced by soil resistivities at depths that are
considerably deeper than the depth of the electrode, particularly for extensive
horizontal electrodes, such as water pipes, building foundations, or grounding
grids.
Soil Resistance Meters.  There are basically two types of soil resistance
meters: direct current (DC) and alternating current (AC) models, sometimes
referred to as high-frequency meters. Both meter types can be used for four-
point and three-point testing and can even be used as a standard (2-point) volt
meter for measuring common resistances.

Care should always be given when selecting a meter, as the electronics involved
in signal filtering are highly specialized. Electrically speaking, the earth can be a
noisy place. Overhead power lines, electric substations, railroad tracks, various
signal transmitters, and many other sources contribute to signal noise found in
any given location. Harmonics, 60-Hz background noise, and magnetic field
coupling can distort the measurement signal, resulting in apparent soil resistivity
readings that are larger by an order of magnitude, particularly with large
spacings. Selecting equipment with electronic packages capable of discriminating
between these signals is critical.

Alternating current or high-frequency meters typically use a pulse signal

operating at 128 pulses per second or greater. Often these AC meters claim to be
using "pulsed DC," which is in reality simply a square-wave AC signal. These AC
meters typically suffer from the inability to generate sufficient current and
voltage (typically less than 50 mA and under 10 V) to handle long traverses and
generally should not be used for probe spacings greater than 100 ft.
Furthermore, the high-frequency square-wave signal flowing in the current lead
induces a noise voltage in the potential leads that cannot be completely filtered
out: this noise becomes greater than the measured signal, as the soil resistivity
decreases and the pin spacing increases. High-frequency meters are less
expensive than their DC counterparts and are by far the most common meter
used in soil resistivity testing.

Direct current meters, which actually generate low-frequency pulses (on the
order of 0.5 to 4.0 s/pulse), are the preferred equipment for soil resistivity
testing, as they do away with the induction problem from which the high-
frequency meters suffer. However they can be very expensive to purchase.
Depending upon the equipment's maximum voltage (500 to 2000 mA and 800 V
peak to peak), DC meters can take readings with extremely large probe spacings
and often many thousands of feet in distance. Typically, the electronics filtering
packages offered in DC meters are superior to those found in AC meters. Care
should be taken to select a reputable manufacturer.

Data Analysis.  Once all the resistance data is collected, the formula shown
in Fig. 2.14 can be applied to calculate the apparent soil resistivity in ohm-
meters. For example, if an apparent resistance of 4.5 Ω is measured at 40-ft
spacing, the soil resistivity in ohm-meters would be 344.7. Figure 2.14 shows the
entire soil resistivity formula in detail. One refers to "apparent" resistivity,
because this does not correspond to the actual resistivity of the soil. This raw
data must be interpreted by suitable methods to determine the actual resistivity
of the soil. Also note that the final 1.915 number is calculated by converting
meters into feet.

Figure 2.14. Soil resistivity calculation.

When we describe a soil resistivity test such as the Wenner four-point method, we
often correlate the spacings between the probes as a depth or sounding reading.
In other words, the distance between the pins in theory equates to the
approximate depth being measured. Remember that there are many factors that
relate to the actual depth of the measurements read by the meter, so this
concept is just a general guideline.

When a resistivity meter takes a measurement, that individual number means

nothing in itself; a little math must first be done to determine resistivity. The
simplified formula is to take the reading from the meter, multiply it by the probe
spacing (in feet), and then multiply it again by 1.915. The result is a resistivity
number. When we combine a series of measurements taken at different spacings,
we can begin to determine what the characteristics (resistivity) of the earth are
like at various depths. The process of comparing numerous individual soil
resistivity measurements (at differing spacings) is how one develops a soil model.

The soil model will show changes in resistivity of the earth at various depths.
What is the resistivity of the soil at 5 ft? What is it at 10 ft? A good soil model will
answer these questions. Of course, there are many rules as to how many
measurements must be taken and what spacings are required in order to get an
accurate model, but that is a different topic. The concern in this case is what
happens when a drastic change in resistivity occurs from one layer to the next.

When we conduct a soil resistivity test, we are injecting a test signal (electrical
energy) into the surface of the earth, down through the soil to various depths,
and recording the loss of energy as a resistance. As the electrical test signal
passes from one layer to the next, the test signal will degrade in proportion to the
changes in resistance it encounters. This is especially true when the signal must
try to move from a very conductive layer of soil to a very resistive layer of soil.
The test signal will simply prefer to stay in the most conductive material.

If you have ever seen a submarine war movie, you may have noticed the sub
commander will move his submarine below a colder layer of ocean water to avoid
being detected by sonar. The cold layer of water will bounce the sonar signal up
and away from the submarine, hiding it from the enemy. This is similar to what
happens when we conduct soil resistivity tests; the test signal may in fact not
penetrate the layers as well as we might hope.

These changes in layer resistivity affect the signal in a predictable way and as
such can be calculated and the effects corrected. This is why good engineers
prefer soil resistivity models calculated using computer-modeling programs
instead of simple hand calculations (good computer-modeling programs perform
thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of calculations). Today's sophisticated
algorithms take into account most of the variables and provide vastly superior
and more accurate soil resistivity models.

That said, computer algorithms can only help correct the math. A good soil
resistivity technician will know how to improve the original signal. The first step is
to always use true DC meters. It is recommended to use 800-V p-p DC meters,
which require an additional car battery to generate the needed power. The next
step is to have many readings starting at 6-in. spacings, with spacing intervals
increasing at a factor of no greater than 1.5, with 1.33 preferred. You also need to
keep taking readings and increasing your spacings at those intervals until your
spacings are at least as great as the depth you are trying to read, preferably two
or three times as great. This would certainly mean many dozens of
measurements and a lot of work.

Shallow Depth Readings.  Shallow depth readings, at as little as 6-in.

depths, are exceedingly important for most, if not all, grounding designs. As
described above, the deeper soil resistivity readings are actually weighted
averages of the soil resistivity from the earth's surface down to depth and include
all the shallow resistance readings above it. The trick in developing the final soil
model is to pull out the actual resistance of the soil at depth, and that requires
"subtracting" the top layers from the deep readings. Figure 2.15 demonstrates
how the shallowest readings impact deeper ones.

Figure 2.15. Importance of shallow readings.

As you can see from Fig. 2.15, if you have a 5-ft reading of 50 Ω·m and a 10-ft
reading of 75 Ω·m, the actual soil resistance from 5 to 10 ft might be 100 Ω·m
(the point here is to illustrate a concept: precomputed curves or computer
software are needed to properly interpret the data). The same is true for larger
pin spacings. The shallowest readings are used over and over again in
determining the actual resistivity at depth.

Shallow depth readings of 6 in. and 1, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 ft are important for
grounding design, because grounding conductors are typically buried 1.5 to 2.5 ft
below the surface of the earth. To accurately calculate how those conductors will
perform at these depths, shallow soil readings must be taken. These shallow
readings become even more important when engineers calculate GPR, touch
voltages and step voltages.

It is critical that the measurement probes and current probes be inserted into the
earth to the proper depth for shallow soil resistivity readings. If the probes are
driven too deep, then it can be difficult to resolve the resistivity of the shallow
soil. Ideally a 20 to 1 ratio (5 percent) is best; however, when doing very shallow
readings that rule cannot always apply. A good rule of thumb when conducting
short spacing measurements is that the penetration depth of the potential probes
should be no more than 10 percent of the pin spacing, whereas the current
probes must not be driven more than 30 percent of the pin spacing.

Deep Readings.  The type of meter used often determines the maximum

depth or spacing that can be read. A general guideline is that AC soil resistivity
meters are good for no more than 100-ft pin spacings, particularly in low-
resistivity soils. For greater pin spacings DC soil resistivity meters are required.
While DC meters are always the preferred choice, they are the only type of meter
that can generate the required voltages needed to push the signal through the
soil at long distances, keeping it free of induced voltages and signal noise error
from the current injection leads.

Test Location.  Soil resistivity testing should be conducted as close as

possible to where the proposed grounding system will be located, taking into
consideration physical items that may cause erroneous readings. There are two
issues that may cause poor quality readings:

1. Electrical interference, causing unwanted signal noise to enter the meter.

2. Metallic objects "short-cutting" the electrical path from probe to probe. The
rule of thumb here is that a clearance equal to the pin spacing should be
maintained between the measurement traverse and any parallel buried
metallic structures.

Testing in the vicinity of the site in question is obviously important; however, it is

not always practical. Many electric utility companies have rules regarding how
close the soil resistivity test must be in order to be valid. The geology of the area
also plays into the equation, as dramatically different soil conditions may exist
only a short distance away.

When left with little room or poor conditions in which to conduct a proper soil
resistivity test, one should use the closest available open field with as similar
geological soil conditions as possible.

2.6. TESTING OF EXISTING GROUNDING SYSTEMS

The measurement of ground resistance for an existing earth electrode system is

very important. It should be done when the electrode is first installed and then at
periodic intervals thereafter. This ensures that the RTG does not increase over
time. There are two methods for testing an existing earth electrode system. The
first is the three-point or fall-of-potential method (see Fig. 2.16) and the second is
the induced-frequency test or clamp-on method. The three-point test requires
complete isolation from the power utility. This involves not just power isolation,
but also removal of any neutral or other ground connections extending outside
the grounding system. This test is the most suitable test for large grounding
systems and single isolated grounding electrodes when initially constructed.

Figure 2.16. A three-point test method.

The second method is the induced-frequency test and can be performed while
power is on. It actually requires the utility to be connected to the grounding
system under test. This test is accurate only for small electrodes, as it uses
frequencies in the kilohertz range, which see long conductors as inductive chokes
and therefore do not reflect the 60-Hz resistance of the entire grounding system.

Both tests inject a signal into the electrode system; they differ only in the return.
The three-point test uses a small probe installed at some distance from the
electrode as the signal return; the induced-frequency test uses the utility
company's grounding system.

Fall-of-Potential Method or the Three-Point Test.   The three-point or fall-

of-potential method is used to measure the RTG of existing grounding systems.
The two primary requirements to successfully complete this test are the ability to
isolate the grounding system from the utility neutral and knowledge of the
diagonal length of the grounding system (i.e., a 6-ft × 8-ft grounding ring would
have a 10-ft diagonal length). In this test, a short probe, referred to as probe Z, is
driven into the earth, at a distance of 10 times the diagonal length of the
grounding system (rod X). A second probe (Y) is placed in-line at a distance from
rod X equal to the diagonal length of the grounding system.

At this point, a known current is applied across X and Z, while the resulting
voltage is measured across X and Y. Ohm's law can then be applied (R = V/I) to
calculate the measured resistance. Probe Y is then moved out to a distance of two
times the diagonal length of the grounding system, in-line with X and Z, to repeat
the resistance measurement at the new interval. This will continue, moving probe
Y out to three times, four times, … nine times the diagonal length to complete
the three-point test, with a total of nine resistance measurements (see Fig. 2.17).

Figure 2.17. A three-point test setup.

Graphing and Evaluation.  The three-point test is evaluated by plotting the

results as data points with the distance from rod X along the X axis and the
resistance measurements along the Y axis, to develop a curve. Roughly midway
between the center of the electrode under test and the probe Z, a plateau or "flat
spot" should be found, as shown in the graph on Fig. 2.18. The resistance of this
plateau (actually, the resistance measured at the location 62 percent from the
center of the electrode under test, if the soil is perfectly homogeneous) is the RTG
of the tested grounding system.
Figure 2.18. Comparison of valid vs. invalid three-point test.

Invalid Tests.  If no semblance of a plateau is found and the graph is

observed to rise steadily, the test is considered invalid. This can be due to the
fact that probe Z was not placed far enough away from rod X and can usually
indicate that the diagonal length of the grounding system was not determined
correctly. If the graph is observed to have a low plateau that extends the entire
length and only rises at the last test point, this may also be considered invalid.
This is often because the utility or Telco-neutral connection remains connected to
the grounding system (see Fig. 2.18).

Induced-frequency Testing or Clamp-on Testing.   The induced-frequency

test, commonly called the clamp-on test, is one of the newest test methods for
measuring the RTG of a grounding system or electrode. This test uses a special
transformer to induce an oscillating voltage (often 1.7 kHz) into the grounding
system. Unlike the three-point test which requires the grounding system to be
completely disconnected and isolated before testing, this method requires that
the grounding system under test be connected to the electric utility's ground
system (or other large grounding systems, such as one from the telephone
companies), with a connecting conductor (typically via the neutral return wire) to
provide the return path for the signal. This test is the only test that can be used
on live or "hot" systems. However, there are some limitations, primarily:

1. The amount of amperage running through the tested system must be below
the equipment manufacturer's limits.

2. The test signal must be injected at the proper location, so the signal is forced
through the grounding system and into the earth.
3. The instrument, a "clamp-on meter," actually measures the sum of the
resistance of the grounding system under test and the impedance of the utility
neutral grounding, including the neutral wiring. Due to the high frequency
used, the impedance of the neutral wiring is nonnegligible and can be greater
than the ground resistance of a very-low-resistance grounding system under
test, which can therefore not be measured accurately (see Fig. 2.19).

Figure 2.19. Induced-frequency test diagram.

4. The ground resistance of a large grounding system at 60 Hz can be

significantly lower than at 1.7 kHz.

Many erroneous tests have been conducted in which the technician only
measured metallic loops and not the true RTG of the grounding system, and the
veracity of the induced-frequency test has been questioned due to testing errors.
However, when properly applied to a small to medium-sized, self-standing
grounding system, this test is rapid and reasonably accurate.

Test Application.  The proper use of this test method requires the utility
neutral to be connected to a grounded wye-type transformer. The oscillating
voltage is induced into the grounding system at a point where it will be forced
into the soil and will return through the utility neutral. Extreme caution must be
taken at this point, as erroneous readings and mistakes are often made. The
most common of these occur when clamping on or inducing the oscillating
voltage into the grounding system at a point where a continuous metallic path
exists back to the point of the test. This can result in a continuity test being
performed rather than a ground resistance test. Understanding the proper field
application of this test is vital to obtaining accurate results. The induced-
frequency test can test grounding systems that are in use and does not require
the interruption of service to take measurements.
Ground Resistance Monitoring.  Ground resistance monitoring is the
process of automated, timed, and/or continuous RTG measurement. These
dedicated systems use the induced-frequency test method to continuously
monitor the performance of critical grounding systems. Some models may also
provide automated data reporting. These new meters can measure RTG and the
current that flows on the grounding systems that are in use. Another benefit is
that electrical service need not be interrupted for these measurements to be
taken.

2.7. GROUND POTENTIAL RISE

Ground potential rise is a phenomenon that occurs when large amounts of

electricity enter the earth. This typically happens when substations or high-
voltage towers fault or when lightning strikes occur. When currents of large
magnitude enter the earth from a grounding system, not only will the grounding
system rise in electrical potential, but so will the surrounding soil as well.

The voltages produced by a GPR event can be hazardous to both personnel and
equipment. As described earlier, soil has resistance that will allow an electrical
potential gradient or voltage drop to occur along the path of the fault current in
the soil. The resulting potential differences will cause currents to flow into any
and all nearby grounded conductive bodies, including concrete, pipes, copper
wires, and people.

Ground Potential Rise Definitions

Ground potential rise (as defined in IEEE Std. 367)   is the
product of a ground electrode impedance, referenced to remote earth,
and the current that flows through that electrode impedance.

Ground potential rise (as defined by IEEE Std. 80-2000)   is the
maximum electrical potential that a (substation) grounding grid may
attain, relative to a distant grounding point, assumed to be at potential
of remote earth. This voltage, GPR, is equal to the maximum grid
current times the grid resistance.

Ground potential rise events are a concern wherever electrical currents of large
magnitude flow into the earth. This can be at a substation, high-voltage tower or
pole, or a large transformer. In cases in which a GPR event may be likely,
grounding precautions are required to ensure personnel and equipment safety.
Electrical potentials in the earth drop abruptly around the perimeter of a
grounding system but do not drop to zero. In fact, in a perfectly homogenous soil,
soil potentials are inversely proportional to the distance from the center of the
grounding system, once one has reached a distance that is a small number of
grounding system dimensions away. The formula is as follows:

Where earth potential is in volts, soil resistivity is in ohm-meters, current is the

current flowing into the soil from the grounding system in amperes, circle
constant pi (unitless), and distance is in meters from source current.

Probably the most commonly noted GPR event involves the death of cows in a
field during a lightning strike. Imagine lightning striking the center of an open
field where cows are standing. The current injected into the earth flows radially
away from the strike point in all directions, creating voltage gradients on the
surface of the earth, also in a radial direction. All the cows facing the lightning
strike would have their forehooves closer to the strike point than their rear
hooves. This would result in a difference of potential between their forelegs and
rear legs, causing current to flow through their bodies, including their hearts, and
killing the cows. On the other hand, those cows with their flanks turned toward
the lightning strike would have a greater chance of surviving, as the distance
between their forelegs and therefore the voltage applied between them, would be
relatively small, resulting in a lesser current flow.

GPR studies are typically conducted on substations and high-voltage towers.

Substations have relatively large grounding areas, especially when compared
with high-voltage towers and poles. Towers and poles represent by far the most
potentially dangerous and difficult GPR situations to handle and are often not
protected, unless they are located in high-exposure areas or have equipment
installed at ground level at which service personnel might be required to work.

Ground Potential Rise Analysis.  The primary purpose of a GPR study is to

determine the level of hazard associated with a given high-voltage location for
personnel and/or equipment. As can be seen in Fig. 2.20, electrical faults can
occur at a tower, resulting in electrical energy flowing into the earth. When the
degree of electrical fault hazard is identified, the appropriate precautions must be
made to make the site safe. To do this, the engineer must identify what the
minimum grounding system for each location will be. The engineer must also take
into consideration all local and federal guidelines, including utility company
requirements.

Figure 2.20. Electric fault at a transmission tower.

For example  Many utility companies require at a minimum that a

simple ground ring be installed at least 18 in. below ground and 3 ft
from the perimeter of all metal objects. This ground ring is also referred
to as a counterpoise.

Once the minimum grounding system is identified, the engineer can run a GPR
analysis and identify the extent of any electrical hazards.

Typically, items reported in a GPR study will include the following: the square
footage, size, and layout of the proposed grounding grid; RTG of the proposed
grounding system; the estimated fault current that would flow into the grounding
system; GPR (in volts) at the site; 300-V peak line; the X/R ratio; and the fault
clearing time in seconds. Touch and step voltages are usually computed as well,
as these are the primary indicators of safety.

The grounding engineer needs three pieces of information to properly conduct a

GPR study:

1. Soil resistivity data

2. Site drawings with the proposed construction

3. Electrical data from the power company

Soil Resistivity Data.  The soil resistivity data should include apparent

resistivity readings at pin spacings ranging from 0.5 or 1 ft to as many as three
grounding grid diagonals, if practical. Touch and step voltages represent the
primary concern for personnel safety. Understanding the characteristics of the
soil at depths ranging from immediately underfoot to one or more grid
dimensions is required for a cost-effective and safe grounding system to be
designed. See previous section on soil resistivity.

Site Drawings.  The proposed site drawings should show the layout of the
high-voltage tower or substation and any additional construction for new
equipment that may be occurring on the site, including fencing and gate radius.
Incoming power and Telco runs should also be included. In the case of high-
voltage towers, the height and spacing of the conductors carried on the tower
and any overhead ground wires that may be installed on the tower need to be
detailed during the survey. This information is needed to properly address all the
touch and step voltage concerns that may occur on the site.

Electric Utility Data.  The electric utility company needs to provide electrical

data regarding the tower or substation under consideration. This data should
include the name of the substation or the number of the tower, the voltage level,
the subtransient X/R ratio, and the clearing times. In the case of towers, the line
names of the substations involved, the amount of current contributed by each
substation in the event of a fault, and the type and positions of the overhead
ground wires, if any, with respect to the phase conductors installed on each tower
or pole should also be included. If overhead grounding wires are present, tower or
pole ground resistances along the line are of interest as well, be they measured,
average, or design values.

This information is important, as high-voltage towers have small ground area, yet
handle very large amounts of electricity. Knowing whether a tower has an
overhead ground wire is important, because the overhead wire will carry away a
percentage of the current, which will depend on the overhead ground wire type
and ground resistances of adjacent towers, to other towers in the run, reducing
the GPR event. Additionally, towers with overhead ground wires tend to have
shorter clearing times. The same holds for substations: overhead ground wires on
transmission lines and neutral wires on distribution lines can significantly reduce
the magnitude of fault current that flows into the substation grounding system
during fault conditions.
The following information is required from the utility company:

1. Phase-to-ground fault current contributed by each power line circuit

2. Fault clearing time

3. Line voltage

4. Subtransient X/R ratio

5. The make/type/number of overhead ground wires on each tower/pole line and

position with respect to the ground wire continuity and bonding configuration
back to the tower and substation phase conductors

6. The average distance from tower to tower and tower to substation

7. Typical tower/pole ground resistance: measured or design values

As-built drawings are often acquired and are useful for towers with existing
grounding systems. They are also useful in the case of modifications and
upgrades to existing substations, which will have extensive grounding systems
already installed.

Personnel Safety during Ground Potential Rise Events.   The grounding

engineer will be required to develop safety systems to protect any personnel
working where GPR hazards are known to exist. Federal law mandates that all
known hazards must be eliminated from the workplace for the safety of workers.
It is the engineer's choice as to which voluntary standards to apply to comply
with the law. Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1910.269 (29 CFR
1910.269) specifically states that step and touch potentials must be eliminated
on transmission and distribution lines, which include any related communications
equipment.

Substations are always considered workplaces, and step and touch potentials
(voltages) must always be eliminated. Transmission and distribution towers or
poles are not always considered workplaces and therefore are often exempt from
these requirements. Take, for example, a lonely tower on a mountainside or in
the middle of the desert: these towers are not typically considered workplaces.
However, any high-voltage tower or pole becomes a workplace as soon as
equipment is installed that is not related to the electric utility company and
requires outside vendors to support the new equipment. Cellular
telecommunications, environmental monitoring, and microwave relay equipment
are good examples of equipment that, when installed on a high-voltage tower,
turns the tower into a workplace. This would make the elimination of step and
touch potentials required.

Hazardous Voltages.  Fibrillation current is the amount of electricity needed

to cause cardiac arrest from which recovery will not spontaneously occur in a
person and is a value based on statistics. IEEE Std. 80-2000 provides a method to
determine the pertinent value of fibrillation current for a safety study, along with
a good explanation of how it is derived. Many different methods exist for
calculating fibrillation current; however, the 50-kg IEEE method is the one most
commonly used in North America. The formula shows that the fibrillation current
level is inversely proportional to the square root of the fault duration; however, it
must be increased by a correction factor based on the subtransient X/R ratio,
which can be quite large for shorter fault durations. If personnel working at a site
during fault conditions experience voltages that will cause a current less than the
fibrillation current to flow in their bodies, then they are considered safe. If a
worker will experience a greater voltage than is acceptable, additional safety
precautions must be taken.

The subtransient X/R ratio at the site of the fault is important in calculating the
acceptable fibrillation current and determining the maximum allowable step and
touch potentials that can occur at any given site.

Fault duration is a required piece of data for properly calculating maximum

allowable step and touch potentials. The fault duration is the amount of time it
takes for the power company to shut off the current in the event of a fault.

Ultimately, the engineer must determine two things:

1. The site-specific maximum allowable voltage that a person can safely

withstand

2. The actual voltages that will be experienced at the site during a fault

Each site will have different levels of voltage for both of the above. Unfortunately,
we cannot simply say that a human being can withstand a certain level of current
or voltage and use that value all the time, because the maximum safe human
voltage threshold is determined by the surface layer resistivity, the fault duration,
and the subtransient X/R ratio. Additionally, as each site has different fault
durations and different soil conditions, it is critical that calculations be made for
each and every possible fault location.
Step Potential.  When a fault occurs at a tower or substation, the current will
enter the earth. Based on the distribution of varying resistivities in the soil
(typically, a horizontally layered soil is assumed), a corresponding voltage
distribution will occur. The voltage drop in the soil surrounding the grounding
system can present hazards for personnel standing in the vicinity of the
grounding system. Personnel "stepping" in the direction of the voltage gradient
could be subjected to hazardous voltages (see Fig. 2.21).

Figure 2.21. Step potential near a transmission tower.

In the case of step potentials, electricity will flow if a difference in potential exists
between the two legs of a person. Calculations must be performed that determine
how great the tolerable step potentials are and then compare those results with
the step voltages expected to occur at the site.

Hazardous step potentials can occur a significant distance away from any given
site. The more current that is pumped into the ground, the greater the hazard.
Soil resistivity and layering plays a major role in how hazardous a fault occurring
on a specific site may be. Low-over-high soil models tends to increase step
potentials at farther distances from the ground-fault location. While high-over-low
soil models tend to increase step potentials when in close proximity to the
ground-fault location.

In other words, a high-resistivity top layer and low-resistivity bottom layer tends
to result in the highest step voltages when personnel are in close proximity to the
source of the ground fault: the low-resistivity bottom layer draws more current
out of the electrode through the high-resistivity layer, resulting in large voltage
drops near the electrode.

When personnel are standing farther from the source of the ground fault, the
worst-case scenario occurs when the soil has conductive top layers and resistive
bottom layers: in this case, the fault current remains in the conductive top layer
for much greater distances going away from the electrode.

Fault clearing time is an important factor to consider as well. The more time it
takes the electric utility company to clear the fault, the more likely it is for a
given level of current to cause the human heart to fibrillate.

It is important to remember that step voltages are life-threatening, because most

power companies use automated re-closers. In the event of a fault, the power is
shut off and then automatically turned back on. This is done in case the faults
occurred due to an unfortunate bird that made a poor choice in where to rest or
dust that may have been burned off during the original fault. A few engineers
believe that fibrillation current for step potentials must be far greater than touch
potentials, as current will not pass through any vital organs in the former case.
This is not always true, as personnel who receive a shock due to step potentials
may fall to the ground, only to be hit again, before they can get up, when the
automatic re-closers activate.

Touch Potentials.  When a fault occurs at a tower or substation, the current

will pass through any metallic object and enter the earth. Those personnel
"touching" an object in the vicinity of the GPR will be subjected to these voltages,
which may be hazardous (see Fig. 2.22).
Figure 2.22. Touch potential at a transmission tower.

For example, if a person happens to be touching a high-voltage tower leg when a

fault occurs, the electricity would travel down the tower leg into the person's
hand and through vital organs of the body. It would then continue on its path and
exit out through the feet and into the earth. Careful analysis is required to
determine the acceptable fibrillation currents that can be withstood by the body
were a fault to occur.

Engineering standards use a 1-m (3.28-ft) reach distance for calculating touch
potentials. Please note that meters are used instead of feet in this rule as the
standards are metric based. A 2-m (6.54-ft) reach distance is used when two or
more objects are inside the GPR event area. For example, a person could have
both arms stretched out and be touching two objects at once, such as a tower leg
and a metal cabinet. Occasionally, engineers will use a 3-m distance to be
particularly cautious, as they assume someone may be using a power tool with a
power cord 3 m in length.

The selection of where to place the reference points used in the touch potential
calculations are critical in getting an accurate understanding of the level of
hazard at a given site. The actual calculation of touch potentials uses a specified
object (such as a tower leg) as the first reference point. This means that the
farther away from the tower the other reference point is located, the greater the
difference in potential. If you can imagine a person with incredibly long arms
touching the tower leg and yet standing many dozens of feet away, you would
have a huge difference in potential between that person's feet and the tower.
Obviously, this example is not possible: this is why setting where and how far
away the reference points used in the touch calculation is so important and why
the 1-m rule has been established.

Mitigating Step and Touch Potential Hazards.   Mitigation of step and

touch potential hazards is usually accomplished through one or more of the
following three main techniques:

1. Reduction in the RTG of the grounding system

2. Proper placement of ground conductors

3. The addition of resistive surface layers

Understanding the proper application of these techniques is the key to reducing
and eliminating any GPR hazards. Only through the use of highly sophisticated
three-dimensional electrical simulation software, which can model soil structures
with multiple layers and finite volumes of different materials, can the engineer
accurately model and design a grounding system that will safely handle high-
voltage electrical faults.

Reduce the Resistance to Ground   Reducing the RTG of the site is often the
best way to reduce the negative effects of any GPR event, where practical. The
GPR is the product of the fault current flowing into the grounding system times
the RTG of the grounding system; in essence, Ohm's law. Thus, reducing the RTG
will reduce the GPR to the degree that the fault current flowing into the grounding
system does increase in response to the reduced RTG. For example, if the fault
current for a high-voltage tower is 5000 A and the RTG of the grounding system is
10 Ω, the GPR will be 50,000 V. If we reduce the RTG of the grounding system
down to 5 Ω, and the fault current increases to 7000 A as a result, then the GPR
will become 35,000 V.

As seen in the example above, the reduction of the RTG can have the effect of
allowing more current to flow into the earth at the site of the fault, but will always
result in lower GPR values and touch and step voltages at the fault location. On
the other hand, farther away from the fault location, at adjacent facilities not
connected to the faulted structure, the increase in current into the earth will
result in greater current flow near these adjacent facilities and therefore an
increase in the GPR, touch voltages, and step voltages at these facilities. Of
course, if these are low to begin with, an increase may not present a problem,
but there are cases in which a concern may exist. Reducing the RTG can be
achieved by any number of means, as discussed earlier in this chapter.

Proper Placement of Ground Conductors  A typical specification for

ground conductors at high-voltage towers or substations is to install a ground
loop around all metallic objects and connected to the objects; keep in mind that it
may be necessary to vary the depth and/or distance that ground loops are buried
from the structure in order to provide the necessary protection. Typically, these
ground loops require a minimum size of 2/0 AWG bare copper conductor buried in
direct contact with the earth and 3 ft from the perimeter of each object and 18 in.
below grade. The purpose of the loop is to minimize the voltage between the
object and the earth's surface, where a person might be standing while touching
the object: that is, to minimize touch potentials.

It is important that all metallic objects in a GPR environment be bonded to the

ground system to eliminate any difference in potentials. It is also important that
the resistivity of the soil, as a function of depth, be considered in computed touch
and step voltages and in determining at what depth to place conductors. For
example, in a soil with a dry, high-resistivity surface layer, conductors in this
layer will be ineffective; a low-resistivity layer beneath that one would be the best
location for grounding conductors. On the other hand, if another high-resistivity
layer exists farther down, long ground rods or deep wells extending into this layer
will be less effective.

It is sometimes believed that placing horizontal grounding loop conductors very

close to the surface results in the greatest reduction in touch potentials. This is
not necessarily so, as conductors close to the surface are likely to be in drier soil,
with a higher resistivity, thus reducing the effectiveness of these conductors.
Furthermore, while touch potentials immediately over the loop may be reduced,
touch potentials a short distance away may actually increase, due to the
decreased zone of influence of these conductors. Finally, step potentials are likely
to increase at these locations: indeed, step potentials can be a concern near
conductors that are close to the surface, particularly at the perimeter of a
grounding system. It is common to see perimeter conductors around small
grounding systems buried to a depth of 3 ft below grade to address this problem.

Resistive Surface Layers  One of the simplest methods of reducing step and

touch potential hazards is to wear electric hazard shoes. When dry, properly rated
electric hazard shoes have millions of ohms of resistance in the soles and are an
excellent tool for personnel safety. On the other hand, when these boots are wet
and dirty, current may bypass the soles of the boots in the film of material that
has accumulated on the sides of the boots. A wet leather boot can have a
resistance as low as 100 Ω. Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that the general
public, who may have access to the outside perimeter of some sites, will wear
such protective gear.

Another technique used in mitigating step and touch potential hazards is the
addition of more resistive surface layers. Often a layer of crushed rock is added
to a tower or substation to provide a layer of insulation between personnel and
the earth. This layer reduces the amount of current that can flow through a given
person and into the earth. Weed control is another important factor, as plants
become energized during a fault and can conduct hazardous voltages into a
person. Asphalt is an excellent alternative, as it is far more resistive than crushed
rock, and weed growth is not a problem. The addition of resistive surface layers
always improves personnel safety during a GPR event. Please review the previous
sections on step and touch potentials.

Telecommunications in High-voltage Environments.  When

telecommunications lines are needed at a high-voltage site, special precautions
are required to protect switching stations from unwanted voltages. Running any
copper wire into a substation or tower is going to expose the other end of the
wire to hazardous voltages, and certain precautions are required.

Figure 2.23. A 300-V line at a transmission tower.

Industry standards regarding these precautions and protective requirements are

covered in IEEE Standards 387, 487, and 1590. These standards require that a
GPR study be conducted, so the 300-volt peak line can be properly calculated.

To protect the telephone switching stations, telecommunication standards

require that fiber-optic cables be used instead of copper wires within the 300-V
peak line. A copper-to-fiber conversion box must be located outside the GPR
event area at a distance in excess of the 300-V peak, which is the same as the
212-V RMS line. This is known in the industry as the 300-V line. This means that,
based on the calculation results, copper wire from the telecommunications
company may not come any closer than the 300-V peak distance. This is the
distance at which copper wire must be converted over to fiber-optic cable. This
can help prevent any unwanted voltages from entering the telephone companies'
telecommunications networks.
The current formulae for calculating the 300-V line, as listed in the standards, has
led to misinterpretation and divergences of opinion, resulting in order-of-
magnitude variations in calculated distances for virtually identical design input
data. Furthermore, operating experience has shown that a rigorous application of
theory results in unnecessarily large distances. This has caused many
compromises within the telecommunications industry. The most noted one is a
newer standard, IEEE Std. 1590-2003, which lists a 150-m (~500-ft) mark as a
default distance if a GPR study has not been conducted at a given location.
However, it is always recommended to calculate the actual voltage and not use
this shortcut.

Regulations and Standards for Human Safety in High-voltage

Environments.  The primary federal regulation and enforcement for human
safety in high-voltage environments is under 29 CFR 1910.269. This federal law
requires the elimination of known electrical hazards in the workplace, including
hazardous step and touch voltages. The law does not inform you how to eliminate
these electrical hazards or what standards should be used; it merely requires you
do eliminate them. To date, the only known U.S. standard for the elimination of
hazardous step and touch voltages is the IEEE Std. 80.

IEEE Std. 80 is the IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding. It was
originally published in 1961 and has been updated three times, in 1976, 1986,
and finally in 2000. This standard is fairly difficult to understand, not only
because of the complex nature of the topic, but because the standard is trying to
accomplish two functions. First, it is trying to provide a reasonably safe
environment for personnel working in high-voltage substations. Second, it is
trying to show how to calculate and mitigate hazardous step and touch voltages.

There are a number of areas outside substations that require the mitigation of
hazardous step and touch voltages, and the IEEE Std. 80 is often listed as a
requirement for non–substation grounding standards. This has led to a lot of
confusion within the grounding industry. When cellular telephone companies
install equipment on high-voltage transmission towers, the towers must be made
safe for the cellular personnel. The only available standard for mitigating these
hazardous voltages is the IEEE Std. 80, which specifically states it is only
applicable to substations. As a result, many telephone companies ignore the
requirements of IEEE Std. 80, placing their own personnel at risk.
An excellent solution for the IEEE would be if they split Standard 80 into two
separate standards, one for the protection of personnel in substations and
another for the mitigation of hazardous step and touch voltages.

Computer Modeling for Human Safety in High-voltage Environments.   

Back in the early 1960s, when the first standards were being developed to
mitigate the hazards to human safety caused by step and touch voltages, the
best that any engineer could do was go through a series of hand calculations and
try to determine the best ways to make a particular high-voltage environment
safe. Today, we have the ability to use computer modeling that can take into
account far more variables than could ever be reasonably calculated by hand.
The goal of this section is to make the argument that computer modeling is the
only cost-effective and ethical way to comply with the requirements of federal law
found in 29 CFR 1910.269.

There are a number of engineering programs on the market that can be useful in
designing safe workplaces in high-voltage environments. These programs
generally fall into one of two categories: those that provide a general analysis of
the hazards, and those that provide an accurate, detailed analysis. The
differences between these two may sound small, but in reality they are quite
important. The general analysis programs usually result in overinstallation in
grounding in areas that do not need it, and underinstallation in grounding in
areas that do need it. The reason for this is that the general analysis programs do
not calculate step and touch voltages from specific objects within the computer
model, but use an average potential across the entire compound.

The computer programs that provide a detailed analysis of the step and touch
voltage hazards at a given site are typically quite expensive and require a great
deal of training to master. The simulations conducted by these systems can take
hours and hours of computing time using high-speed computers just to run a
single simulation. This is in stark contrast to the general analysis systems, which
provide near-instantaneous results on even the slowest of computers. Detailed
computer simulation programs are also capable of using soil models with three or
more layers.

A proper study of the step and touch voltage hazards found at a given site
involves a detailed drawing of all the metallic objects at the site, including
transformers, towers, switches, concrete foundations, buildings, posts, fences,
gates/doors, and any other object that could be touched by a person, along with
the grounding system. These objects must be placed in a multilayered soil model.
Most sites require soil models with three to five layers in order to accurately
model the propagation of electrical energy through the grounding system and
into the earth. Single- and two-layer models are almost always inaccurate. Single-
layer soils simply do not exist in reality, and two-layer models typically present
such a high contrast between the layers as to present calculation errors that are
nearly impossible to overcome. The general analysis computer programs are
almost always limited to two-layer soil models and often have further limitations
as to the available resistivities and depths they can calculate.

Chapter 13 of the 2000 edition of IEEE Std. 80 deals with the soil structures and
the selection of a soil model. The new edition introduced a flawed method for the
calculation of a two-layer soil structure and only briefly discusses multilayer
structures. This new method uses a uniform soil structure that claims to provide
accurate two-layer soil equivalences. In a paper titled Effects of the Changes in
IEEE Std. 80 on the Design and Analysis on Power System Grounding, by J. Ma, F.
Dawalibi, R. Southey, of Safe Engineering Services & Technologies, the authors
state that the two-layer soil structure method presented in annex E of the IEEE 80
standard is flawed. The paper shows that in some cases using the IEEE Std. 80
two-layer soil method, when the grounding grid is increased in size, the
calculated RTG increased. This is contrary to what will happen in reality, when a
grounding grid is increased in size, the RTG of the grid will decrease. In other
examples, when the soil resistivity was increased in the two-layer calculation, the
resistance of the grounding grid was calculated to decrease. Again, this is
contrary to what will occur in real life. The results presented in this paper
demonstrate that the calculations found in IEEE Std. 80 are only valid for uniform
(single-layer) models and should not be used for multilayer soil configurations.
This further demonstrates the need for detailed computer models instead of the
suggested hand calculations from annex E of Std. 80.

But even beyond the issue of being able to accurately calculate multilayer soil
models, there are still far too many variables to ever calculate by hand. There are
the formulas regarding permissible body current that must be analyzed and new
requirements for calculating the surface layer derating factor; the calculation of
foot resistances is now based on a formula with a rigorous series expression, with
each term being a surface integral; and one must also take into account the
effects of the DC offset current generated due to the asymmetrical fault current.
And these are only a few of the basics. Combining all of this data when trying to
determine the touch voltage for a 1-m reach distance at a 45° angle from a
specific transformer located at a specific location within a ground grid at a
substation on top of a three-layer soil model is nearly impossible to do by hand.
And that is just one location around a single transformer that may have dozens of
touchable locations around its perimeter! Let alone the thousands, if not
hundreds of thousands, of other locations that could be touched within the
substation that must also be analyzed.

There are a number of other issues (particularly calculating the touch voltages for
the exterior fences) that could be discussed, but by now it should be obvious that
hand calculating these variables would be a daunting task. In fact, if you were to
print out all the calculations that a detailed computer model performs, it would
look like a doctorial thesis. In short, computer modeling is the only viable and
ethical way to design a substation grounding grid. In today's computer age and
under 29 CFR 1910.269, a jury may consider hand calculations and/or general
computer modeling to be criminal negligence. Detailed computer modeling is the
only way to accurately conduct the proper IEEE Std. 80 calculations.

2.8. THE EFFECTS OF LIGHTNING ON A GROUNDING SYSTEM

Lightning is an atmospheric electrostatic discharge (spark) that can travel at

speeds of 220,000 km/h and can reach temperatures approaching 30,000°C,
which is hot enough to fuse silica sand into glass. There are some 50–100
lightning strikes occurring somewhere on the planet every second that can carry
as much as 200,000 A of electricity and generate more than 1 × 108 V with each
strike. The Federal Emergency Management Agency estimates there are 750
severe injuries and 200 deaths in the United States annually from lightning and
that it causes an estimated $4–5 billion in damage per year.

There are a number of engineering issues to be concerned with when lightning

strikes an object, including a power plant. For this discussion, we will assume that
this is a basic power plant/substation with an overhead lightning protection
system (LPS) tied into the standard ground grid of the facility. It should be
understood that all of the engineering principles mentioned in this article are
wholly dependent upon having excellent soil resistivity data and valid soil models.
Soil resistivity data is, and always will be, the heart of grounding science. Please
refer back to the earlier section on soil resistivity.

Distribution of Current.  When lightning strikes an aboveground object, such

as an aerial on an LPS, the current will start to divide itself across the LPS
proportionally to the impedance it encounters on its way down to the earth. We
can imagine the lightning striking the aerial and the current dividing in two as it
moves from the aerial into the conductor. As the current flows down the
conductor, at each conductor intersection the current will divide again and again,
until it finally reaches the earthing electrode system, where it will finally travel
into the soil and dissipate. Our primary concern with the distribution of current in
a grounding system is whether or not the conductors can handle the current
levels, without burning open like a fuse.

Down conductors for an LPS must terminate in a connection to an earthing

electrode of some kind. Most typically, it is a single standard ground rod, and on
occasion three rods installed in a triangular pattern with conductors tying them
together. The effectiveness of the connection to earth of each of these electrodes
(or electrode systems) is measurable and is called resistance-to-ground. The RTG
of any given electrode will vary, given the immediate soil conditions in which the
electrode finds itself (moisture content, specific soil chemistry, proximity of
nonconductive buried rocks, proximity to other conductive buried objects and/or
soils, etc.), and as a result, each electrode will have a specific RTG.

As there will be multiple down conductors for any given LPS, electrodes with a
lower RTG will see a proportionally larger percentage of the current. In other
words, the electrodes with a better connection to the earth will see more current
than the other electrodes, "unbalancing" the LPS. The European Lightning
Protection Standard EN 62305 (or BS EN 62305 or IEC 62305) calls for the
"balancing" of these electrodes by either supplementing each electrode until all
have the same RTG or installing a buried ground ring tying all the electrodes
together. The United States has no such requirement.

When lightning enters a conductor, huge magnetic fields are formed as the
energy passes through the conductor. These magnetic fields hold huge amounts
of inductive energy and will induce currents into nearby metallic objects,
including the same conductors (wires) they are currently traveling on. When a
conductor is routed in such manner as to enable the magnetic fields from one
part of the conductor to induce energy into another part of the same conductor
(imagine a tight bend or circle), this is called a self-induced magnetic coupling.
Self-induced magnetic couplings such as this can quickly lead to a thermal
avalanche wherein the two magnetic fields keep cross-coupling into each other,
forming a perpetually increasing energy level, thereby increasing the heat in the
conductor until it melts and burns open.

All known LPS regulatory codes have detailed instructions on how to properly
route conductors so as to prevent these self-induced magnetic couplings (and
thus prevent thermal avalanches). Not only must the straight current portion of
the lightning strike be considered (impedance of the conductors, current-carrying
capacity, etc.), but the magnetic fields that are formed and the subsequent
current that will re-enter the system upon the collapse of the magnetic fields,
must also be taken into account. Computer modeling along with good design and
diligent installation techniques will prevent an overcurrent situation on any one
given conductor at any point in the LPS, both above and below grade.

Frequency Spectrum and Time Domain.   It is a well known phenomenon

that lightning has both an AC component and a DC component at the same time.
In fact, lightning will propagate through a structure at many (if not all) possible
frequencies. A typical lightning strike will see a range of frequencies from 0 Hz to
as much as 10 MHz, and sometimes even higher. However, the distribution of
these frequencies is not spread evenly, and certain frequencies will be prominent.
This collection of frequencies generated by a lightning strike is called the
frequency spectrum and is primarily determined by the geometric shape of the
structure struck by the lightning.

Just as the length of an antenna determines the best frequency to

broadcast/receive radio signals, the same is true for lightning. The lightning will
adjust its frequency based on the structure (antenna) it strikes and will resonate
due to impedance imbalances between the structure and the earth. In the case of
lightning, all structures are antennas. Most structures make up very complex
antennas, with the buried portion adding a further complexity, as it will affect the
lightning strike, following many of the same principles found in the half-
wavelength theory for antennas. All the various variables and nuances of the
calculations can become very complex, given all the different types of materials
to be found on a typical structure, the erratic pathways of the LPS, and the
variations found in the soil; only computer modeling can adequately calculate the
expected resonant frequencies for a lightning strike on a given structure.

To calculate the frequency spectrum (or frequency response) of a lightning strike,

one must first develop an accurate model of the structure with the LPS (including
material types) and develop an accurate soil model for the site. Numerous
frequencies must be run individually through the model until an accurate profile
can be developed. Mathematical algorithms have been developed to assist in the
proper selection of the test frequencies, to reduce run times and improve the
statistical accuracy of the profiles. But needless to say, many hundreds if not
thousands of individual frequencies must be run through the computer simulation
to accurately determine the frequency spectrum. The final result is a graph
showing the entire range of expected frequencies on the X axis, with magnitude
on the Y axis. Typically, the simulation will demonstrate that two or three
frequencies will resonate through the structure during a lightning strike.
In the time domain, you can calculate the length of time it takes the energy from
a lightning strike to clear out of your structure. The actual lightning strike itself
will start and stop in a very short time frame, typically only a few microseconds.
However, as described earlier, magnetic fields will form not only in the LPS, but in
the structure itself. The time it takes to generate the magnetic fields to full
strength, the reflections of energy through the structure, and the time it takes to
collapse the fields (steel is at least 250× more magnetic than copper and
therefore holds magnetic fields for far longer) is the time duration of the lightning
strike. While the actual lightning stroke may start and stop in microseconds, the
time your system will be impacted by the electrical energy from the strike, will
almost certainly be many thousands of times longer, as the energy generated by
the strike will take time to dissipate out to the earth through the grounding
system.

Conducting studies related to frequency spectrum and time domain can have
substantial benefits. The primary benefits include:

1. Human safety: Lightning strikes are different from standard electrical utility
faults not only in dramatic amounts of current but in the near-limitless voltage
potential and the high frequencies that will be generated. The frequency
spectrum and time domain are critical for accurately calculating the effects of a
lightning strike with regards to human safety studies involving step and touch
voltage hazards, GPR studies, and electromagnetic interference studies.

2. The frequency spectrum and time domain can be used in an electrical

coordination and short-circuit fault study, to improve the settings of the
overcurrent protection devices and reduce downtime due to unintentional
power outages caused by lightning strikes. For many facilities, such as military
facilities, hospitals, data centers, and power plants, a single power outage can
have huge consequences and often is measured in millions of dollars in lost
revenue.

3. The frequency spectrum and time domain can be used for improving surge-
protection systems. While all sites will want broad-spectrum frequency
protection for unwanted surges and transients, the addition of specially tuned
surge protectors designed to stop the resonant frequencies determined during
the frequency spectrum study can prove especially useful for protecting vital
equipment from the impact of lightning strikes.
4. In some countries, these studies are compliance requirements for international
lightning protection codes (IEC 62305, BS EN 62305, or EN 62305) without
overengineering. These codes have strict rules that in many cases will simply
result in overdesigned LPSs for many buildings. A good frequency spectrum
and time domain study can prove the effectiveness of an LPS without adding
huge installation costs due to overengineering. Or it will at least prove the
necessity of those costs.

Additionally, once the resonant frequencies of a lightning strike have been

determined, the distribution of current can be better analyzed as impedances can
now be properly calculated.

Hazardous Step and Touch Voltages for Human Safety during a

Lightning Strike.  Human safety is always a paramount concern, and when
dealing with lightning strikes, the critical issues can compound quickly. Personnel
touching a conductive object or even stepping near a lightning strike can suffer
serious injury and even death. Calculating step and touch voltage hazards during
a lightning strike is in principle the same as when one calculates the hazard
during a line-to-ground fault. However, we must take into account the new
frequencies and clearing time that will be generated during the strike, as
determined by the frequency spectrum and time domain analysis.

Step and touch voltage hazards are calculated using the strike amperage at the
point of contact, the frequency, the X/R ratio, the clearing time (i.e., time
domain), and the specific soil resistivity conditions. Only a computer simulation
can accurately model the frequency spectrum and time domain of the lightning
strike to determine the touch and step voltages that will be experienced during a
strike. Once the safety parameters (crushed rock, shoes, etc.) have been applied
to the computer model, the overvoltage hazards will appear, and standard
mitigation techniques for reducing these hazardous voltages can be applied, thus
making the site safe.

Electromagnetic Interference and Ground Potential Rise during a

Lightning Strike.  Another key factor during a lightning strike is
electromagnetic interference. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, large
magnetic fields will form in both the LPS and in the buried grounding/earthing
system. Additionally, the GPR will cause scalar voltages to form across the
surface of the earth with the potential decreasing with distance. These large
magnetic fields and GPR effects will transfer voltages and currents (by inductive
and capacitive coupling and through earth coupling) into nearby pipelines,
railways, communication lines, homes, industrial facilities, farms, and other such
utilities, whether buried or aboveground.

The current and voltages that are induced into the nearby utilities can cause
great damage. One of the primary concerns is the induced voltages/currents that
can form on the data and/or shield lines of communications cables, causing
damage, as these transient currents will flow through sensitive electronic
equipment on their way to earth. The neutral wires from the utility power
company can carry stray currents formed from the electromagnetic fields up and
into homes and industrial parks. Nearby gas pipelines can have their protective
coatings compromised by the stress voltages caused by the difference in
potential between the surrounding earth and the pipe.

Again, using the highest-magnitude frequencies of the lightning strike, as

determined by the frequency spectrum analysis, the electromagnetic fields and
the GPR can be accurately calculated, and the impact on the surrounding
infrastructure can be properly analyzed and potential problems mitigated.

2.9. SUMMATION OF LIGHTNING EFFECTS ON GROUNDING

SYSTEMS

When calculating the effects of a standard electrical utility fault on a grounding

system, we know that the utility fault will have clamped voltages at a very
specific frequency (60 Hz). With a lightning strike, the potential voltages are
virtually unlimited and will have multiple frequencies based upon the geometric
shape of the structure that is struck. The hazards presented by an electrical fault
at 60 Hz are very different from the hazards presented by an electrical fault at 60
kHz or even 60 MHz. These order-of-magnitude increases in frequency present
unique engineering challenges and are why lightning strikes are so dangerous.
The bottom line is that GPR and step and touch voltage hazard studies conducted
using power company (utility) fault data are simply not applicable for a lightning
strike.

So, in summation, all of the factors presented above need to be taken into
account when building an effective LPS, be it for a utility substation,
telecommunication site, or simply just a personal home.

2.10. STANDARDS FOR LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEMS

There are significant differences between the U.S. standards and the international
standards for lightning protection. The international standards, such as the IEC
62305 and its British counterpart, the BS EN 62305, have many additional
requirements above and beyond those found in the U.S. standard NFPA 780. The
differences between these standards are worth noting for those who are
interested in providing lightning protection for their structures.

Lightning Protection Systems.  Lightning protection systems are not only

one of the most important (and expensive) infrastructure components of a
building but also one of the least understood. A poorly designed LPS can add
unnecessary expense, add legal liabilities to your construction project, and may
not provide the protection you need. A good LPS is engineered and designed
specifically for your structure and the needs of your facility. In the United States,
most industry and the government facilities are protected by NFPA 780 Standard
for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems. This standard is issued by the
National Fire Protection Association® (NFPA), the same group that writes the
NEC and provides a guideline for installing a one-size-fits-all LPS.

U.S. Standard NFPA 780.  NFPA 780 provides guidelines for how often to
place air terminals; spacing for cross- and down conductors; ground rod and loop
requirements; surge-protection requirements; and installation of protection for
trees, towers, and so on. The standard, however, has two primary shortcomings
in that it does not analyze the installed system's ability to handle an actual
lightning strike, nor does it take into consideration what the system is protecting.
In other words, NFPA 780 has the same requirements for a garage as it does for
a billion-dollar computer farm. These shortcomings, along with virtually no legal
and/or insurance industry requirements for lightning protection, has led many
facilities managers to simply take their chances and forgo protecting their
buildings.

International Standard IEC 62305.   We can learn a lot about lightning
protection by looking at the requirements of IEC 62305, which is significantly
more demanding than the U.S. NFPA 780 standard. Here are the basic
requirements of IEC 62305:

1. It requires a risk factor assessment that determines the level of required

lightning protection. This risk assessment is quite complex, and software is
almost always needed to make a proper assessment. The calculation includes
human life, public services, cultural heritage, economic risk, and occupancy
issues. This risk assessment is both good and bad, in that a garage will have
fewer requirements than found in NFPA 780, but billion-dollar computer farms
 will have greater requirements.

2. The IEC 62305 standard requires an actual assessment of the LPS to insure it is
capable of handling a lightning strike. The lightning strike calculations are far
more significant for both the time-domain parameter and the actual strike
amperages (100–200 kA), than the U.S. industry standard (often only 15 kA).
Calculations that are often required include:
a. Expected amount of current to be carried on individual conductors in DC
amps, to ensure that current carrying capacity is not exceeded.

b. Rolling-ball theory of lightning protection tested against 3D computer

models of the structure and surrounding area.

c. Spark gap and arc-flash calculations from the LPS to adjacent conductive
utilities.

d. Time domain of the lightning strike on the specific structure. This is critical
to understanding the amperage carrying capacity of the conductors. Without
an actual calculation, the IEC 62305 default time domain could force the
unnecessary installation of additional conductors.

e. Frequency spectrum of the lightning strike on the specific structure. This

data is needed for both surge protection and for timing of circuit breakers to
prevent power outages

3. In general, IEC 62305 has physical construction and installation requirements

that are far greater than NFPA 780.
a. Down conductors vary from 10-m to 20-m spacings. The NFPA 780 uses
one-size-fits-all 30-m spacing.

b. The zone of protection or rolling-ball theory in the IEC standard varies the
angle required based on the risk assessment, which can impact placement
of certain types of aerials from 20-m to 60-m heights.

c. Concrete columns that are used for down conductors must be tested at a
0.2-Ω or less continuity, and rebar must be welded with 20× diameter
overlaps. These must be bonded to the floor slab.

d. Ground rings are required for all nonconductive buildings, buildings housing
electronic systems, and certain risk factors. Individual rod installations
(without ground rings) must be tested, so each electrode is at the same RTG.

e. Spark gaps between lightning conductors and other metallic objects must be
 considered.

f. Incoming utility services (such as overhead power lines) and adjoining public
spaces may also be required to have protection systems installed, based on
the risk assessment.

g. Both internal and external lightning surge-protection systems are

mandatory.

4. The IEC 62305 has stringent requirements for annual testing and inspection of
the LPS. This, of course, goes along with mandatory maintenance
requirements.

5. The IEC 62305 standard gives you three choices when it comes to selecting an
interception model; we recommend you use the rolling-sphere model (RSM),
sometimes known as the electro-geometric model. The protection angle
method and the mesh method should not be used. These are legacy methods
that have been left in the standard due to historical reasons; you will be far
better served by using the RSM.

Lightning Protection System Recommendation.   It is recommended that

you look at both the NFPA 780 and the IEC 62305 for guidance. Using a
combination of the two, including a reasonable risk assessment and computer
modeling, a good engineering firm will be able to maximize human safety and
cost effectiveness when designing your LPS. Advanced computer-modeling
techniques which include the RSM, frequency spectrum and time-domain
analysis, and step and touch voltage analysis will ensure that your facilities'
needs are met without over- or underengineering your LPS.

2.11. CONCLUSION

We sincerely hope that we have provided you, the reader, with a better overall
understanding of system grounding, the benefits and features of the available
grounding electrodes, the GPR hazards of high current discharges, and the
importance of properly considering soil layering. We were also able to introduce,
albeit briefly, the importance and principles of proper soil testing, RTG testing,
meter selection, and LPS design. We are confident that with this basic knowledge,
you will be able to make the right decision when it comes to grounding choices.
Remember: "To protect what's above the ground you need to know what's in the
ground."
Citation
EXPORT
David R. Stockin: McGraw-Hill's National Electrical Code® 2014 Grounding and
Earthing Handbook. GROUNDING/EARTHING SYSTEMS, Chapter (McGraw-Hill
Professional, 2014), AccessEngineering

Copyright © McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved.

Any use is subject to the Terms of Use. Privacy Notice and copyright information.

For further information about this site, contact us.

Designed and built using Scolaris by Semantico.

This product incorporates part of the open source Protégé system. Protégé is
available at http://protege.stanford.edu//