INVESTIGATION OF EARTHING ARRANGEMENT FOR

SINGLE WIRE EARTH RETURN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

A DISSERTATION

submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree
of
MASTER OF ENGINEERING
in
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
(ELECTRICAL)

By

KAMAL LOCHAN SAHOO

: ~2 +7111
1.5 Acc. No, _.......
1_Q _U/ -i
ff~ _. ~ r
-

R• "•aee r.ns••'~~ '

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT TRAINING CENTRE

UNIVERSITY OF ROORKEE
ROORKEE - 24-1 667 (INDIA)

JANUARY, 1996
 CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION

I hereby state that the dissertation entitled "INVESTIGATION

OF EARTHING ARRANGEMENT FOR SWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM'S Which is

being submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

award of degree of MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN WATER RESOURCES

DEVELOPMENT (ELECTRICAL) University of Roorkee, is an authentic

record of my own work carried out during the period from 16th July

1995 to November 30, 1995 under the guidance of Prof. DEVADUTTA

DAS, WRDTC, and Prof. P. SULEEBKA of Electrical Engineering

Department, University of Roorkee.

The subject matter presented in the dissertation has not been

submitted by me for the award of any other degree or diploma.

ROORKEE (K.L. SAHOO)

qty JANUARY, 1996

This is to certify that the above statement made by the

candidate is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

(Dr. P. SULEEBKA) (DEVADUTTA DAS)

Professor, Electrical Engg. Professor, WRDTC,
Dept. UOR. Roorkee UOR, Roorkee-247667
247667 (U.P.) (U.P)

(i)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I acknowledge with sincere gratitude to Dr. P.Suleebka

Professor Electrical Engineering Dept. UOR who inspired me in

every step and steered me through for the fulfillment of this

dissertation. For his expert guidance & helping in arrangement of

different set of experiments even at the cost of his ill health, 1

could complete this work in time.

I express my gratitude to Prof. Devadutta Das, Professor in

Hydro-electrical Engineering, WRDTC UOR, Roorkee for his guidance

in sorting out different aspects andin- depth analysis of the

subject of dissertation. His interest in arrangement of different

Laboratory staff and finance for purchase of different materials

required for my experiments is also a part of my success.

I am grateful to Dr. U.C. Chaube, and Dr. S.K. Tripathi,

Professors, WRDTC for their suggestions and data informations

about the seasonal effect on variation of soil resistivity.

I am grateful to Professor & Head of Deptt. of Electrical

Engineering for his permission and Staff of Power- Systems and and

High current laboratories for helping me in conducting my

experiments.
 I am also grateful to Dr. S.N. Pandey & Dr. R.G.S.Shastri

Earth Science Dept and Staff of his geo-electrical Lab. for

extending co-operation in conducting some tests on soil

resistivity.

I am also thankful to all the Senior Laboratory Technicians

of Irrigation Water Management Lab, Soil Test lab and Electrical

Lab of WRDTC, UOR who have helped me continuously in all types of

sample tests from time to time

I express my gratitude to Director WRDTC and all faculty

members and of WRDTC for their kind co-operation and help extended

to me, as and when required.

I have no words to express my sincere and greatest

appreciation to my wife ANJALI and son GUDU for their cooperation

and forebearance during this course. Their consistent inspiration

and encouragement created a competative mentality in me to

achieve a step towards achievements, for a better tomorrow.

Dated : Januxary,c` 1996 (K. L. SAHOO)

 ABSTRACT

Loss saving & low cost technology is a call for the supply

authority either Govt. or Private to renovate old conventional L.

V. distribution system of electricity into H.V. distribution

system in major areas of Rural electrification and Agricultural

pump-sets energization. As per 1991 census data, only about 35% of

the total power generated in India is consumed by 70% of the

country's rural population. There is a need to extend the facility

of electricity for increase of per capita energy consumption in

rural sectors having low load densities and small cottage

industries. Single Wire Earth Return System (SWER) is one kind of

most economical andloss saving HV distribution system suitable for

rural scattered loads of both domestic & Agricultural pumps.

Again, the single wire earth return system is using the

earth in general as a conductor to complete the return path from

distribution transformer (6.35/0.440 KV) to 33/11 KV power

transformer. Now since it is a continuous current carrying process

the earthing system at distribution transformer poses some

problems towards :

- High Ground potential rise

- Increased step & touch potentials

- Power loss on grounding system (I2x Rg)

(iv)
 - Temperature rise of Ground electrodes

- Telephonic interference due to earth return

current in the area.

- voltage drop & voltage regulation as per I.E

rules.

Overall the environmental impact of SWER system needs the

concerted endeavour of the power engineers to have an in-depth

investigation of the above problems, for wide application of

this system. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd, New Delhi and

CBIP, New Delhi have published a number of technical reports on

SWER system and its economics [1,2,3,4,5,6,11] but there is no

specific information available regarding earthing system of SWER

and its allied problems and solutions. So an effort has been made

in this dissertation to fillup this gap as far as possible.

Design of grounding system mostly depends upon soil

resistivity of the area and the electrode depth, shape, size and

configuration. Again soil resistivity is a complex variable

parameter and its dependancies on soil moisture content,

temperature, density, and type of soil, precipitation, and ground

water table variation etc, posses a great concern of in-depth

study and analysis, both by area field data collection and

resistivity survey. Soil resistivity is a depth and time domain

function. It varies with time (season) and depth of soil. It is

(v)
also very difficult to guess, what is inside earth of an area for

the purpose of injecting current safely at a certain depth. So, it

is felt to have the idea of different layering effect of

soil-strata and their respective range of values of resistivity.

Resistivity survey gives an idea for different depths of

electrical conducting zones or layers available in the sub-soil.

This is a great help in putting the electrode to that depth in

order to leave the current in a more stable and safe zone, without

facing much fluctuation of resistivity throughouta year.

Secondly different field experimental results help in

assessing the best type of geometry and configuration of

electrodes to minimize the "ground resistance", the key factor of

the system.

The present dissertation work deals with some practical

experiments and theorectical analysis to throw some light towards

various problems of earthing system in implementation of SWER

distribution schemes.

(vi)
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page No.

1.1.1 SWER Distribution Transformer Ratings With Ground 2

Resistance

1.2.1 KW-KM Capacity of SWER System For 12-.5% Volt- 6

Regulation and 0.9 PF, at 6.35 KV

1.2.2 Comparision of HV Distribution With L.V. Three Phase 8

System

1.5.1 Review of System Losses 10

3.4.1 Variation of Resistivity With Temparature 41

3.4.2 Moisture content and Resistivity 41

3.4.3 pH Values of Water & Soil 41

3.6.1 Resistivity Measurement (Aug. 95) 51

3.7.(i) Observaton of Seasonal Effect on Soil Resistivity 54

Period July - Nov. 1995

3.7. (ii) Sieve Analysis of Soils at Test Site 54

3.7(iii) Observation of Rainfall and Ground Water Table 56

Variations with Resistivity

4.6.1(i) Rod Depth Vs. Resistance Measurement By Gradient 69

Method

4.6.1(ii) Rod Depth Vs Earth - Resistance 72

4.6.1(iii) Percentage Increase in Length Vs. Percentage Decrease 74

In Resistance
4.6.5 Resistance of Multiple Electrodes at Various Spacing 77

Vs. % Resistance of Single Driven Rod

4.7.1 Comparision of Experimental Results with 2 Layer Formula 85

4..8.2 Final Resistance Measurement From H.V. Lab Mother 89

Electrode (A)

4.9.2 Final Resistance Measurement From H.C. Lab Mother 96

Electrode (C)

4.10.2.(i) Time Vs. Current & Temperature Rise Test. 104

4.10.2(ii) Potential Measurement with Digital Voltmeter from 105

Mother Electrode (C)

4.10.2(iii) Residual Voltage Readings After Supply Off. From 106

Mother Electrode to Ring Electrode

4.10.2(iv) RID Calbibration 111

 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. No. Title Page No.

1.1 (a) SWER Polemounted Distribution Transformer 3

1.1(b) SWER 6.35 KV Distribution Transformer 3

1.1.(c) Typical 11 KV Radial Feeder 4

1.2(a) Cost Comparision of SWER vs. Three Phase, 4 wire 6

System

1.5(a) Trend of T•& D Losses in India 10

2.1(a) Spreading of electrons in side Earth-Shells 14

2.1(b) Mositure in soil forming Conductive Electrolyte 14

2.1.1(a) SWER Equivelent Electrical Circuit 16

2.2(a),(b)Flow of Current & Potential Difference Across an 20

Electrode

2.6(a) Section through Point Current Electrode Showing how 27

Potential (V) is related to Resistivity (p),

Current (I)

2.6(b) Point Source of Curerent at the Surface of a Homogenous 27

Medium

2.6(c) Plan view of Equipotential Circles on surface of the 27

ground near a Hemispherical Electrode.

2.6(d) Hemispherical Electrode in Hemispherical Volume of Soil. 30

3.4(a) Variation of Soil Resistivity with Moisture Content. 37
3.4(b) Moisture Content Variation vs Depth. 38

(ix
3.4(c) Resitivity vs Temperature Variation for different 42

Moisture Contents

3.4(d) Resitivity vs Temperature Variation. 42

3.4(e) Variation of Soil Resitivity with Salt Content. 44

3.6(a) Resistivity Measurement by Wenners Methods. 47

3.6(b) Resistivity Measurement by Schlumberger Arrangment. 47

3.6(c) Lines of Current Flow between Electrodes 47

3.6.1(a) Resitivity Survey 52

3.6.1(b) Average Resistivity vs Depth. 52

3..6. 1(c) Two Layer Soil Model. 52

3.7(a) Seasional Effect on Soil Resistivity. 55

3.7(b) Soil Moisture Effect on Resistivity. 55

3.7(c) Precipitation and Ground Water Table Variation Effect 56

on Resistivity

4.1.1 Resistance Components of Earth Electrode 59

4.3(a) Fall of Potential Method or three Point Method of 62

Measurement of Resistance

4.3(b) Effect of Resistance area on distance 62

4.3(c,d) Variation of Resistance obtained from Earth Resistance 64

4.4 CQ,b,c) E.c4ec 'oc.P,6d DimQngions on Resistance 66CA~

4.6.1(a,b,c,d) Single Rod Experiments at Different Depths. 70

4.6.1(e) Electrode Resistance vs Depth. 72

4.6.1(f) % Increase in Electrode Length vs % Decrease in Earth 74

Resistance.
4.6.2 Two - Rod Experiment 75

4.6.3 Three - Rod Experiment 75

4.6.4 Four - Rod Experiment 75

4.6.5(a) Resistance vs Spacing of Rods 77

4.6.5(b) Resistance of Multiple Electrodes at Various Spacings vs 78

R. of single Rod.

4.7(a) Driven Rod in' Two Layer Soil. 80

4.8.1(a) Different Geometrical Configurations, 84

4.8.2(a) Layout of the of Selected Earthing Model in 86

Perpendicular Direction to Mother Electrode (A).

4.8.2(b) Resistance Measurement along Perpendicular Direction 88

to Electrode Axis.

4.9.2(a) Locations of Test Site with Earthings. 91

4.9.2(b) Preparation of Mother Electrode by Artificial Treatment. 94

4.9.2(c) Resistance Measurement along the Electode Axis w.r.t 97

Remote Earth (C)

4.10.2(a) Experimental Setup of the Selected Earthing Arrangement 103

4.10.2(b) Time vs Current & Temperature. 107

4.10.2(c) Time vs Resistance and Temperature. 108

4.10.2(d) Potential Measurement Curve from Mother Electrode (C) 109

4.10.2(e) Residual Voltage Curve. 110

4.10.2(f) RTD Calibration Graphs. ill

 CONTENTS

Chapter Title Page No.

CANDIDATE DECLARATION (i)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (ii)

ABSTRACT (iv)

LIST OF TABLES (vii)

LIST OF FIGURES (ix)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Single Wire Earth Return System 1

1.2 Advantages of SWER System 5

1.3 Main limitations in Adopting SWER System. 8

1.4 Environmental Impact of Continuous Earth Current 9

1.5 Need of SWER system 11

1.6 Arrangement of the Report 12

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Earth As a Conductor of Electricity 15

2.1.1 Ground Resistance 17

2.1.2 Self-inductance of Earth Return Path 18

2.2 Earth-Impendance And Gradient Problem Near Ground 19

Electrode.

2.3 Earthing Principles Adopted in SWER System 21

2.4 Need for Low Electrode Resistance and Earthing Design 23

Consideration for SWER

I

2.5 Energy Loss Calculations Due to Ground Resistance of 25

a 25 KVA Distribution Transformer (Agricultural Load)

2.6 Potential Due to a Point Electrode and Theory of 26

Artificial Treatment.

3 EARTH RESISTIVITY INVESTIGATIONS

3.1 Resistivity & Conductivity of Soil 33

3.2 Logic of Uniform soil. 34

3.3 Effect of Inhomogeneous Ground 35

3.4 Study of Soil Resistivity with Seasonal Variations 36

3.5 Need for Resistivity Survey for SWER 45

3.6 Earth Resistivity Measurements and Separation of 46

Zones of Different Resistivity (Present Work)

3.6.1 Resistivity Measurements and Calculations 50

3.6.2 Discussions of Results on Resistivity 50

Measurement

3.7 Observation of Seasonal Effect on Soil Resistivity. 53

4. THE EARTHING ARRANGEMENT

4.1 Ground Electrode 57

4.1.1 Ground Resistance Components 58

4.2 Grounding System 60

4.2 Earth Electrode Heating and Temperature Rise

4.3 Measurement of Ground Electrode Resistance by 61

Three Point Method (Potential Gradient method)

4.4 Effect of Rod Dimensions on Resistance 65

4.5 Effect of Soil Resistivity on Resistance. B7

4.6 Experimental Results of different Rod Configurations

and Discussions

4.6.1 Single Rod Experiment Different Depths 68

4.6.2 Two Rods in Parallel (Straight Line) 68

4.6.3 Three Rods to Parallel (Triangle) 71

4.6.4 Four rods in Parallel (Square) 71

4.6.5 Resistance of Multiple Electrodes at Various 73

Spacings

4.6.6 Discussions 73

4.7 Verification of Two-layer Soil Formula With 79

Experimental Results

4.7.1 Discussion on Two-layer Results 83

4.8 Selection of Best Earthing Arrangement

4.8.1 Selection From Geometrical Configurations 84

4.8.2 Selection from Test Results 85

4.9 Some Experimental Results on Artificial Treatment

of Soil

.4.9.1 Mathematical Review of Dimensions of Artifical 90

Treated Soil Volume

4.9.2 Preparation of Mother Electrode with Artificial 93

Treatment-Using Betonite and Coal-ash

4.9.3 Calculation of Resistivity of Betonite and 95

Coal -d►sh

4.9.4 Discussion on Artificial Treatment 98

4.10 Ground Electrode Heating and Temperature Rise 99

 4.10.1 Temperature Distribution Around a Spherical 100

Earth Electrode

4.10.2 High Current Experiment on the Selected Earthing 102

Arrangement

4.10.3 Calculation of Potential Rise and Temperature 112

Rise

4.10.4 History and Discussion of Results of Past 113

Scientist

4.10.5 Discussions on Heat-Test. 115

S. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1-5.5 Conclusions 117-120

5.6 Suggestions for Future Works

5.9.1 Technical Works 121

5.9.2 Environmental Impact Assessment 121

References 123

Bibliography 126

Appendix I 128

Appendix II 129

Appendix III 134

Appendix IV 135
 CHAPTER - 1

INTRODUCTION '

1.1 SINGLE WIRE EARTH RETURN SYSTEM (SWER)

Single wire earth return or SWER is nothing but one kind of

High voltage (11Kv/6.35 kv) Distribution of Electricity. Where the

nature of load is scattered and low load demand especialy in

remote tribal hamlet villages and rural areas of

sparse-population, the SWER system has been found to be

economical. Because, the capital investment in such low load

density areas, electrification is never viable with conventional

primary distribution at 11 kv and secondary distribution with 440

volt, three phase four wire system in vogue.

This type of Hv distribution system involves in using

pole-mounted single phase distribution dry type transformers as

shown in Fig. 1.1(a) having ratings 4,6,8,10,16,25 and 50 KVA to

suit load demands with HV primary (11/1T) 6.35 KV and LV

secondary 220 V Table No. (1.1.1). The primary of transformer is

connected to HV single phase conductor and the other end is

earthed near the pole to serve as earth return circuit, as shown

in Fig.1.1(b). Since, the entire major length of supply is on HV

up-to the premises of the consumers and there is no 3 phase 4 wire

L.T. lines, this system is also sometimes designated as "LT Less

Distribution System".

1
 a~C

S.

R14J N Op M O .--i c i -t tr
H M -.t O O -
N Cr) u1
z
H
H

• u') C) C')
Pti A C) O O M cV cy'1
b
Q~ U II II ii IIII r II II

4 fl
•v-I R N N M M -ii- -7
4. o O C) O O o o
`° C) `° 0
N o 0
El W C)
H
r ~a0

z
H C~ CJ N N CV N N N N N
H M
M M c*) C) (n M Cr)
0 w pt

41

td

[]

z CO O\ cr) r- •-i O O -i.

• II
O
H
a O
IS M C) CO ~t N .-~
H GJ
A4
H a4°
H
H
ur9
M
kC
In
II4

14 id• rl CO .7
If) u'1 O O
O O Q ~4 N M 00 U1 M
z N

Fl) z - N C', - if, N- CO

 SINGLE PHASE SINGLE
WIRE, II kV LINE
_IGH'TN1NG ARRESTOR...

NT BvsH INC,
LJ ERHALOT
1~ L
L'' 5uPPLY
POLEMOUNTED 1F

PLASTIC PIPE COV ER(NC-~.

NEUTRAL EART H

1 IG. 1.1•(a) SL ER VDLEN}OUNTED DISTN.'~'RANSfQRmE.R,

11 kV L.T. LINE. 720\"

SINGLE PHAs4Lc4D

r -63sy

L T. LINE (2„20V)
R Y g

_ — MID POINT CAftTH~D

F )- -SWE 63y- flISTR16uT10NT2ANSFORIdER ,

3
U

El
Ui

0
cz
c
Ui w v

Ui
o — Ui
Q
cOtJ
(J v F
Q

o
V <WV-i
e
 This type of distribution system is widely used in developed

Countries like America, Canada, Japan, Australia and European

Countries -Philippines also [1]. In India, this system of

electrification is found mostly in Himachal Pradesh, Andhra

Pradesh, Karnataka, Punjab, & Madya Pradesh on rural scattered

bastis both for domestic and agricultural purposes.APSEB is

leading on this field for wide application of the system in

Agricultural purposes.

1.2 ADVANTAGES OF SWER SYSTEM [1,3]

i) Economical to the extent of 30-40% over conventional 3

phase system under favourable circumstances. The

galvanized steel conductor system (in place of

Aluminium) affords further economy Fig. 1.2(a) and Table

1.2.1. Use of earth as a conductor, without cost, helps

in appreciable metal savings Table 1.2.2.

ii) Better voltage-regulation which is the main problem in

long conventional rural feeders, as per I.E. rule 54, -

9%, +6% for 11 KV.and ± 6% for 220 V.

iii) Improved power factor up to 0.95 - 0.98 as compared to

conventional system, having 0.7 to 0.75. The main reason

is that in use of single phase motors

(agricultural-pumps) capacitor start and run on SWER

system, improves power factor.

5
 y

ni
z
>
h

`10

0 6 8 10 It

LENGTH Oft LINE (km)

fiG. q•2 (Q) COST C0K1PARtS1ON OF 5WER VsIIIREE PHASE f0vR, WIRE 5Y5TEM. L32

TABLE i•2•t KW_KM CAPACITY OF Bruit SY 3I'r:M FOR 12.5% VOLT REGULATION
AND 0.9 PF, AT 6.35 KV . [6

K —KM Radial Feeder Max . Load (K1t1) Type of conductor

Length (km) with 8 Amp.

2680 132 40.5 For squirrel 4 ACSR

conductor

1370 67.6 40.5 For wren ACSR conduc-

tor

382 18.85 40.5 For 3/12 Galvanised

steel conductor
 iv) The reliability of power supply is more and outages are

less in SWER than the conventional system due to only

single wire run per span. Span loading is also less.

v) No pilferage of electricity by direct hooking from 11 KV

line.

vi) And in overall there is less fault in SWER system.

vii) Operational and maintainance charges are very less.

iii) Auto-reclosures and sectionalisers adopted in SWER.

radial and spur feeders helps in requiring "no-man

supervision", with instant proper safety to the supply

system.

TABLE NO.1.2.2

COMPARISION OF HV DISTRIBUTION WITH L. V. THREE PHASE SYSTEM [3]

SWER 6.35 KV 3 phase,440V

Current 10.0 100,0

Losses 0.85 100.0

Voltage drop 0.85 100.0

Power factor 0.9-0.98 O.7-.8

Cost/Km line 8000/- 16,500/-

Motors 3,5,7,5, Less efficient, more efficient,

and and
10 HP High cost low cost

7
1.3 MAIN LIMITATIONS IN ADOPTING SWER SYSTEM

The use of Earth as a current carrying conductor is fraught

with many technical and environmental problems.

Technical Problems

i) The flow of ground current inevitably has reactions and

interferences on the neighbouring current carrying

installations. Maximum ground return current permitted

by P.T.C. C is 8-10 Amp [ 1, 11 ] . However, there is

hardly any Telecommunication problems in rural areas.

ii) The most important problem, which must be solved in

order to make the system a success, are Earth Potential

Rise (EPR) in the vicinity of the earth electrode.

iii) Minimisation of energy losses (I2Rg) in grounding

system in earth circuit.

iv) Resistivity survey of the area for SWER and

maintenance/check of ground resistance needs thorough

and elaborate study. Earth shows very complex behaviour

for its resistivity variations with all seasonal

effects. High resistivity areas needs costly earthing

system and hence sometimes it may not be possible to

implement this scheme.

v) Mal-operation of earthfault relay due to unbalance

loading both in phase and magnitude, of all the 3 phases

 on 11 KV lines. When perfectly balanced, E(IR + IY +

IB) 0. But in practice there is certain mismatch due

to individual feeder loading patterns in different spur

lines which may cause mal-operation of E/F relays,which

are generally set at 20%. Hence, the percentage

mismatch or unbalance must be within 20%.

Generally single pole auto-reclosures are adopted

individually in all 3 phases to take care of individual phase

feeder protection and to see that the power is never completely

cutoff.

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF CONTINUOUS EARTH CURRENT

i) The power loss in earth conduction causes slow but

steady temperature rise of soil [4a].

ii) Electrolysis and electro-chemical changes in soil upto

root depth of 1.5 metres may help vegetation and

fertilizer effect [4a].

iii)Impact of electric and magnetic field (due to earth

current) on biological behaviour of underground

creatures [35]

iv) Earth current flow in areas of explosives both on ground

surface and underground may create some explosion hazard

[35].
 1951 M6 1961 1966 1471 1916 1931 1996 1991

Year

Trend of T Z 0 Losses in India [J

GROWTH RATE OF ELOCrRICTTY RE~U71(F. OF iLEC RILITY

4.7 Y. 1977 - 78 - 62-63 8th, Plan (94-95) = 72,711 riW (peak demand)
5.5 y 19S2 - 63 - 97-68 9th. plan (1999-200Qj c 1, 12, $19 M;j.
6.0 y. 1987 — 89 — 2000 — 2001

Ten.1 1, tin_ 4 4 0_..1_._. nc c_—,._,,.. I ,, r~i

Existing Internatonal Notm %

System Element Level %
Max. • Target
ToleTable Level
limit

T a mission. 4.0 4.0 2.0

Sub Transmission 50 45 2.25

High Voltage Distt►but,on 6.0 5.0 3.0

Low Voltage Distribution► 2.0 2.0 • 1.0

Total 23,0 15.E 8.?3

10
1.5 NEED. OF SWER SYSTEM

i) Last census (1991) says at present about 35% of the

total power generated in India is consumed by over 70%

of the country's rural population. The rural

electrification including energisation of agricultural

pumps are still to be accomplished by low cost design

technology of power supply system. And SWER is one of

the systems, most suitable for rural electrification,

agro-based industries and small scale cottage industries

for integrated and balanced socio-economic developments

of rural India.

ii) The present electricity tariff on LT Bus has gone up to

Rs 1.60 paise per unit. The same can be achieved on

H.V. (11 KV SWER system with 10% transformation energy

loss) having at, 1.60/1.1 = Rs. 1.45 per unit. More

over, the state electricity boards can incur less loss

due to agricultural subsidies [2].

iii)The data Table (1.5.1) on T & D energy loss shows, India

in the International level at 23 % as on 1993-94 [2].

India has maximum energy loss of 8% on LT secondary

distribution in comparision to 2 % International

Standard. Hence,our planning of distribution system

should be augmented to H.V. distribution system at least

to save 2 % energy on an average, while converting from

11
 low voltage to H.V. distribution system. If

distribution losses can be saved by 1 % in national

level which can result in saving of about 550 M.W. power

(with equivalent cost of generation about Rs. 2000

crore) [2]. As per Fig. 1.5(a), with the growth rate of

electricity in our country, the T&D losses is increasing

from year to year, which needs to be controlled.

iv) The 'Kutir Jyoti' scheme of present National Government

warrants very well its implementation by SWER, most

economically.

Hence, SWER system is a timely thought for the country's

present power economy, both in planing and implementation in place

of conventional L.T. distribution system for low load density

areas. In the same way also the limitations and problems of this

system needs further study and investigations to throw some light

for its success and wide application in furture.

1.6 ARRANGEMENT OF THE REPORT

(i) Chapter 2, deals with literature review and background

information required for the SWER earthing system,

collected both from text books as well as National and

International Journals, as given in Reference and

Bibliography

12
(ii) Chapter 3, deals with detailed analysis of different

dependancies of soil-resistivity, resistivity survey &

measurements, observation of seasonal effects on

resistivity

(iii)Chapter 4, deals with earth-electrodes, and various

experiments on electrode configuration. Potential rise

test and Heat-run test are also discussed in this

chapter. Artificial treatment of soil both theory and

experimental observations are dealt with in this

chapter.

(iv) Chapter 5, deals with conclusions of various

experimental observations and suggestions for future

works.

(v) The last but not the least items of the dessertation

are References, Bibliography and Appendixes.

13
 Ft6.2 )SPREADING of ELECTRONS,IN.51D EARTH SHELLS.

FI(*31-1 (O MOISTURE IN SO FORmtNG ELECTROLYTE

14
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 EARTH AS A CONDUCTOR OF ELECTRICITY [24]

Earth is a very Complicated 3 phase type of physico chemical

system, with the very different electrical conducting properties

of metals, dielectrics, & electrolytes. There are three types of

conduction take place inside earth.

(i) Electronic or Ohmic Conduction

Flow of electrons into earth layers by spewing, spraying and

discharge of electrons from the conductor in a increased

surface area in one plane. Hence the resistance decreases,

gradually from layer to layer, as shown on fig. 2.1 (a).

(ii)Electrolytic Conduction The propogation of current in soil

by ionic conduction i.e by molecules having an excess or

deficiency of electrons. Hence, the resitivity varies with

mobility concentration and degree of dissociation of the

ions in presence of water & chemicals Fig. 2.1 (b).

According to Archie (1942), [14] the soil resistivity

pertaining to a depth 'Z' & time 't' is a function of soil

porosity (Density, 0) soil mositure `S' Temperature (T),sa1t

concentration andwater resistivity p(w),Mathematically p =

z, t
Fn(0,S,T, Pw ....)

15
 (iii)Dielectric Conduction in soil is the displacement of current

flowing in non-conductors when the external electric field

changes with time. The significant parameter in dielectric

conduction is dielectric constant(k) or speicfic inductive

capacity of the medium.

L,

6.3skv/220V.
MFR.
DISTRt13VTfON TOM.
33/11 kv, Tw,

F'i, 2.1.1 (a) 5 WER E&U V 'tLLNT ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT.

16
2.1.1 GROUND RESISTANCE

For transfer of power through earth, it is necessary to have

ground electrodes at each end of the line, through which current

is conveyed to the earth. The resistance of the grounding (Rg)

arrangement constitutes the major part of the total circuit

resistance, as shown in Fig. (2. 1. 1 a)

R = Conductor resistance
c
RT = Resistance of distribution transformer

R = Grounding Resistance of distribution transformer

g
Re = Earth Resistance

Rc, RT, Re are very less as compared to Rg. which is in the

order of 25 ohm.

According Rudenburg [41 effective resistance of

7
ground return path is given by Re= n2 x f x L x 10 0

L = Length of line in mts.

f = 50 c/s

For L = 1000 mt. = 1 km

Re= 3.142x 50 x 1000 x 107

= 493.48 x 10

= 0.05 S2 per km

No metal conductor has so much low resistance per km. And it

is interesting to note that the arth resistance is independent of

its own resistivity. This paradox is explained bythe fact that

at high resistivity, the current spreads out over a large area and

17
at low resistivity, it restricts to an area nearer to the
condutor.
2.1.2 Self-inductance of Earth Return Path

562.5 /-~
L = 2 log ✓ f x 10-7H/km
h

Where,

h = Height of over head conductor above ground in mt.

p = soil/earth resistivity in S2 mt.

f = 50 c/s

For h = 10 mt, p = 100 Q mt, f = 50

562.5
L 2 log /100 x 10-7H/km
10
0

= 2 x 4.376 x 10-7

= 8.753 x 10-7 H/km

Xe = 2n fL = 6.28 x 50 x 8.753 x 10-7 SZ / km

= .2748 x 10-7 0 / km

= .000275 SZ / km

The inductance of SWER system per km is very, less in

comparision to resistance, hence, the earth circuit is a

resistance dominated circuit. And accordingly, earth resistivity

Plays an important role on all grounding designs. Since the

resistance and reactance of earth are very small, the earth can

be regarded as a very good,cost-free conductor with very little

loss and voltage drop.

is
2.2 EARTH IMPEDANCE AND GRADIENT PROBLEM NEAR GROUND ELECTRODE

In case of AC current flow, the distribution of current is

modified and limited due to the inductive effect of magnetic

field, except very near the electrode, where local resistance

dominates

local resistance in order of 5-25 Q.

Again the current density decreases in the transverse

direction, being highest under the conductor.

Since the electrode resistance, which is many times greater

than other reisistances met in the earth return circuit, is

responsible for

i) High and hazardous potential-gradient in the immediate

vicinity of the electrode

ii) More power loss (I2Rg)

iii) Temperature rise of soil and electrode.

Total impedance of earths = 0.05+jO.000275+ground resistance

(Rg 5-25 ohm),which is approximately equal to ground resistance.

One of the natural effects of current flow through earth

electrode is that a voltage gradient is present on the surface of

the earth in the immediate neighbourhood of the electrode. The

fundamental reason of this gradient is that the resistace of the

electrode is not concentrated at one point but is distributed over

the soil in the vicinity as shown Fig. 2.2(a & b).

19
 +I T

(a)

Cb)

Fi . 2..2.(o 9, (b) Ft ow o CuvYent Pon4-; at d;-~eYQnCQ

Acrcoss ci ELec~-YO4Q .

20
 Taking a simplest possible electrode, a sphere in the ground,

symmetrical in all directions. If a current "I" flow through the

electrode. Then current density at a distance "x" mt from the

centre of the electrode is given by

J = I2 Amp/m2
2Tr x

This produces an electric field strength in the soil equal

to E = p J volt/mt

(Voltage = 2~x-j
p 2n x2

where, p = Resistivity of Soil in ) mt,

This shows that a considerable potential difference can exist

over a relatively short distance near an earth-electrode

2.3 EARTHING PRINCIPLES ADOPTED IN SWER SYSTEM

A 33/11 Kv, 3.2 MVA(Delta/Star) Transformer is earthed at

secondary neutral, with grounding resistance of 3-5-ohm at the

sub-station. Because I R + IY + IB= 0 (in ideal case) but in

practice at worst condition of 12% unbalance current can flow

through the neutral. Earth fault relay setting usually at 20%

For a power transformer of capacity 3.2 MVA, power per phase.

3.2 x 103 KVA

3 Vph Iph _ --------------
3

21
 If Vph = 6.35 Kv
_______ _
Iph = 3 x 43 x 6 35 KV 97 A

This amount of per phase current is very very higher than the

PTCC limit of 10 Amp. If, we limit each phase current to 10

Amp(Due to PTCC restriction) max KVA /phase = 6.35 x 10 = 63.35

kVA, can be transmitted to different distances depending upon the

KW-KM loading capacity of the conductor used as per Table No:

1.2.1. With maximum unbalance current of 20% of 10 Amp = 2.0 Amp

wi l if low through neutral of the power transfomer.For HV/LV plinth

mounted distribution sub-stations it is ususal to combine the L.V.

neutral & H.V. metal works (Transformer frame & structures) to a

common earth of resistance value of 1 Q or less [28].

But in case of pole mounted transformer in SWER system the

H.V. metal work & L.V. neutral earths are kept separate, either by

shifting the secondary L.V.earthing atleast one pole distance away

or by insulating either one, and running them in opposite

directions. A separation of 25 feet (8 mt) is found to be

sufficient to avoid the proximity effect of the 2 earthings [6].

As per I.S 3043 [28] there should be one or two distinct

earthings separately connecting the metal structures of Transfomer

The H. V Primary terminal earthing is made directly connecting a

burned under gound electrode insulating itself from upper ground

surface contact (about 0.6m) in order to

22
 i. Reduce the ground potential rise near the electrode

ii Secondly due to maximum proximity-effect induction

voltage, there may be leakage current in between primary

& secondary of transformer through these 2 earthings,

raising neurtral potential greater than zero [6].

2.4 NEED FOR LOW ELECTRODE RESISTANCE AND EARTHING DESIGN

CONSIDERATIONS FOR SWER

As per IEEE/American National Standards [9] the limting earth

resistance of i) major Generating Stations & EHV.S/s <1.ohm

ii for medium grid S/S < 3 S2

iii) Other distribution s/s 5-10 ohm, but as per

NEC recommendations, the max. resistance should not be more than

25 ohm at any case [10].

While designing the grounding system, it should be borne in

mind the cost of the system accounts for hardly 1% of the total

cappita.l cost of project investment, hence any attempt to economise

on this front at the cost of risk, may not result any substational

savings but on the contrary may seriously imperil the lives of

personel and equipments [7].

The permissible earth resistance R = Max. potential Rise

p Max. Gr.fault Current

V
p ohm
If

23
The approximate resistance of ground can be calculated from
, soil resistivity (p)
Laurent s fomala Ra =
M

Where, a = radius of a circle having equivalent area of the

station of interest.

If, Ra>Rp, additional means are necessary for limiting the max.

step ' Etouch and EPR/ GPR within permissible limits

E

In SWER system, the normal load current

(i) small in magnitude but flow indefinitely

(ii) and the fault current high in magnitude but flows for a

short while.

The first one causes heating of electrode, where as the

second type of current causes flash over or fusing of electrode

when unable to carryout heavy rush of fault current.

So the earthing system (electrode + soil) should be capable

to cater in

(i) Handling the fault current for short time & normal load

current for indefinite time.

(ii) Reducing Estep & Etouch voltageoccuring under normal or

fault conditions to safe limit.

(iii)Limiting Temperature rise of grounding system by better

dissipation of heat generated by powerloss in grounding

24
 system. From the Table (1.1.1) it is seen that grounding

Resistance forsmall KVA Transfer (4 to 25 KVA) are not

problematic in comparison to higher rating 50 KVA

Transfermer. Where the required grounding resistance is

in the order of 1-2- 0 in order to keep the potential

rise 32 volt (from safety point of view)

2.5 ENERGY LOSS CALCUATION DUE TO GROUND RESISTANCE OF A 25 KVA

TRANSFORMER (AGRICULTURAL LOAD)

In a firm house say 7.5 HP pumps 2 nos = 15 H P'

5 HP grinder or Thrusher motors 2 nos = 10 H.P

25 H. P

(25 HP) 18.0 KW + 2.0 KW Light load = 20 Kw

20 KW at 0.9 pf = 22.3 KVA plus transformer losses & power

loss in grounding, Transformer capacity = 25 KVA

Rated current at 6.35 KV= 3.94 A(as per Table 1.1.1)

(i) For Safety Point of view required minimum ground resistance

for 32 V potentialrise = 8.1 Q Assuming 75% load factor

maximum load current = 3.94 x .75 = 3 Amp, for day time

loading 12 Hrs .& 10% for night light loads (12

Hrs),approximately.

Energy loss in a day (3)2x 8.1 x 12 Hrs + (.3)2x 8.1 x 12

= 883.5 watt-Hrs z 0.884 KW'hrs.

25
 Energy loss in a month = 0.884 x 30 = 26.52 KW hrs.

= Say,27 Units loss

Engergy loss in a year = 27 x 12 = 324 units

= 324 x 1.60 = Rs 518.40

With minimum required value of earth electrode resitance of

8.1 Q even, there is a loss of revenue of Rs 518.40 Per annum. If

there is an improvement of 50% of electrode resitance by some

extra means & cost, the saving is calculated as follows.

(ii) Energy Saving - Now, say with 50% improvement, earth electrode

resistance becomes 4.05 )

12s
Energy loss/Day (3)2x 4.05 x +(.3)2x 4.05 x 12 Hrs

= 442 watt Hrs or .442 KW hrs

Energy loss/year = .442 x 360 = 159 KW-Hrs/units

= Rs 254.40

- ----X18- -- = 50.93
518.4-254.4
Cost saving 51%

With improving earth resistance by 50 % Hence, there is a

financial justification for the need of reducing or lowering earth

electrode resistance. It is an energy saving to the power system

along with less financial loss to power supply authority.

2.6 POTENTIAL DUE TO A POINT ELECTRODE AND THEORY OF ARTIFICIAL

TREATMENT of soil [16]

Figure 2.6.(a) Shows the Section through a point, current

electrode (A) on surface of a conducting solid (earth). If, the

W
 L---A= 2u
Fes- ` -G(C.) Section through point current electrode, Shoc~ttng
how potential V is related to resistivity p, current 1,

Po~sr
C
l
c.

t ~r _

t r
' s
\ \Cuvvent Flow
s~u. i pot6n#:41s

F 1 !Z,6(b)Point source of current at the surface of a homoge:can medium.

t00 V 50v 20v lov

1

5.'

10 m

FIG.2.G(c) Plan view of equipotenttal circles on surface of the ground near a hemispherical
electrode of 1•m radius on which 100 V is impressed.

27
point electrode delivering I Amps current is located at the

surface of the homogenous isotopic medium and if the air above has

zero cnductivity, then all currents, flows into earth radiating

from the centre of point electrode [2.6(b).

Treating it as a half hemisphere, whose centre lies at point

electrode, A. The current density (J) is the total current through

the hemisphere devided by the area of the hemisphere.

J = -- 1-2- Amp/m2
2 nr

Where, I = current (A) entering ground from electrode

R = Radius (m) of hemisphere

2rrr2= Area of hemisphere (m2 ) .

The electric field intensity or the voltage gradient is

= p J =- e-I2- Volt/mt
21rr

Where, p = Resistivity of earth in (•SZ mt)

The electric potential at any point in the earth with respect to a

point- at infinite distance called ("Remote earth") is

dr _ - P J = -
-dV-
dv = - dr.
r eo
or v =-J dr, =- f
Jr
plxdr/2nr2
 (Negatative sign due to opposite current)

pI 1 1
V = _ 2n-- C r

V = -- Z_I- Volt

This value of potential holds good at the surface of the

earth as well as along vertical or inclined layers.The resistance

of electrode with respect to remote earth is given by

R
e
=V-
I
_ -e---
2nr
c

And hence is directly proportional to soil resistivity &

inverssely proportional to size of electrode (Radius,r). From the

above equation it indicates that low ground resistance (Rg)

warrants either (i) lowering of resistivity (p) or (ii) by

increasing size of electrode.

Increasing size of electrode and multiple numbers will be

discussed in next chapter of electrodes.

Kimbark [16] has discussed the lowering of soil resistivity

which is described below.

Now, let us think for lowering soil resitivity by deviding the

soil into two parts pl & p2 such that p1 < p2 Fig. 2.6(d).

29
Fig. lcmisphcric electrode in hcmisphcrical volume of soil of radius b and of
resistivity p l less than resistivity p1of the rest of the earth. D6]

This idea tends to creation of artificial/chemical treatments

of soil in the vicinity of electrode who serves in increaseing the

effective diameter/radius of the electrode located at its centre,

without actually increasing the metal- volume of electrodes.

Now we will have the same previous current density on metal

electrode surface, J = --I2- on ~ --I2 Amp/m2

2nr lira

30
 and voltage gradient = p j = -LD-2- volt/mt.
2itr

Now, the potential at the artificial junction layer (when

r=b) is the potential of volume of material with resistivity p1

from a to b plus potential of volume of material with resistivity

p2 from b toad(remote earth). Mathematically.

... dv = - C 1 . dr + (2.dr 1

p1 .I.dr p2. I dr

2n r2 21r r2

Now, integrating dv from'a, to Co

b
V=- 27r
p1I 1 r2
dr p21
27 f 2
rdr
a b

_ _ p1 I 1 1 + 02I 1 1
[-[----i
2n 2n Coo b

27c p1
b
- aP
1 + p
2 - p
2 )
eo b

' 1p1
P1 + p2
a b

= 2~ p1 + (p2 - p1 1
la b J

or, R = i = 2~ C p1 + (p2 T p1 )1 ohm

a b J

31
where,

a = Radius of metal electrode

b = Radius of circle enclosing the electrode with treated

soil.

p1 = Soil resistivity of treated soil volume

p2 = Soil resistivity of rest of earth beyond treated soil.

R = Earth resistance of electrode.

Now, with spliting the orginal soil resistivity (p) into p1

and p2 (such that p1 < p2), the effective soil resistivity reduced

to a new amount (p2 - p1) and it is again devided by `b', the

radius of volume of artificial is treated soil. The more the value

of b the less is the term (p2 - p i )/b.

From the above discussions it is inferred that the value of

p1 and b of treated soil should be suitably choosen while applying

artificial treatment across an electrode, in order to minimise the

term ( p1)/b and minimise the net value of R, (earth

p2
resistance) in the equation.

--~- 'C -,--

32
 CHAPTER - 3

EARTH RESISTIVITY INVESTIGATIONS

3.1 RESISTIVITY AND CONDUCTIVITY OF SOIL [13]

Resistivity is a property of the media, conducting

electricity. Even resistivity and conductivity are reciprocal to

each other, there is a basic physical difference between

resistivity and conductivity of soil. Resistivity is a measure of

the opposition to flow of charge in a material,where as,electrical

conductivity is a flow mobility of charge carriers,

conductivity a- = ne µ

where, n = density of charge carrier

e = charge in emu

µ = mobility measured by velocity in mt/sec per unit

electric field.

The charge carriers may be ions, electrons,or holes (the

absence of a charge)

o- = - p- = RA- since p = RLA

L

A V/1 L R = -I--

A/L

33
 = J/E

or, J = oE. Amp/m2

J = Current density in Amp/m2

E = Electric field (Volt/mt

3.2 LOGIC OF UNIFORM SOIL

As per IS Code 3043, 1987 (20.5), [28],[17] soil resistivity

in an area can neverbe uniform. Yet a uniform resistivity soil

model has been used extensively in earth electrode performance

calcuation. Such an assumption is valid if the resistivity varies

between relatively narrow limits over different electrode spacings

increasing from 1 mt to 50 metre (In steps ofl,5,10,15,25 & 50 mt)

The limit of variation is from 20-30% i.e.

1 _ 100_
0.77],
p2-- -130 =

The soil in the vicinity of the test location may be then

considered uniform [7].

Two layer soil model has also been assumed to represent

variation of soil resistivity along the depth below earth surface.

Such variation is possible because of stratification of earth

structure.

34
3.3 EFFECT OF INHOMOGENEOUS GROUND [131

So far, we have considered current flow and potential in and

over homogenenous ground, a situation which is extremely, rare in

the field and which would be of no practical significance anyway.

Since the current flows in ground is 3 dimensional (x,y,z) and the

current finds the least resistive path to move, it may face some

hudles like different interfaces of vertical or horizontal contact

planes of soil layers.

Deriavation for current density (J), Electric field (E) and

ressitivity (p) in three dimensional stratified earth 1131.

Let, J1, J2, J3 ......Jn be the current density of layers

1,2,3 ..... n layers. E1,E2 E3....... En be the electric

field intensities of 1,2,3........ nth layer. p

1,p2 ,p3..... pn be
the resistivities of 1,2,3 .... nth 1ayert, °-
11' 0'12'°_13 are
conductivities of soil layers (1), mutual conductivity between 1

and 2 and I and 3.

p1, J 1, E y Layer 1

J1 1 11 1213 E1 p2, J2 E2 Z Layer 2

`2 - b021 °22 023 E2
L J3 E3 P3, J3, E3 Layer 3
31 32 33

Where, J = a- E Amp/m2 in a homogenous soil, on discussed earlier

In X direction, Jx Ex 1 I Ex
= p = p a j
1 1 x

c1;
 Ey - 1 aEyl
In y direction, J - p - p ay J
1 1

In Z direction, Jz = pz (since,pz = p for nth layer)

n

Div. J= J +J +J =0
x y z

1 X aEy
3E 1 aEZ
or, A1 [8x ay , + pn az 0

The horizontal components (x,y) of the electric field is dominant

over the vertical component, (z), but the vertical component is

more sensitive to a change in the electrical properties in the

stratified earth medium. The vertical (z) component helps in

searching the least resistivity path for the current to flow.

3.4 STUDY OF SOIL RESISTIVITY WITH SEASONAL VARIATIONS [14,16]

The soil resistivity an electrical property of soil is a

complicated and highly variable characteristic. Its value depends

onthe following factors of geographic and seasonal variations of

the place and time.

(i) Depth of soil

(ii)Moisture content of soil

(iii)Freezing effect of soil

(iv)pH value-chemical and mineralogical composition of soil.

(v) Temperature of soil

36
 400

300

w
oc

I
a
z 200

0
0
LL
0

iC

MOISTURE IN SOIL,PERCENT
FiG.34/ARI.~TION OF SOIL RESISTIVITY WITH MOISTURE CONTENT

IS : 3043 - 1966

37
 361

2I

281

3 241
20

16
W
tT

12
0

l
4;-

CIO o g 0 o —.
o
0
N
DEPTH (cm) —h

fig.3.4(b) Mo sturo Varlat;on w4 1 h depi.h in typical alluvial

unsaturated so3 t prof4 tes. 1LQ
 (vi) Chemicals and salts in soil.

(vii)Type of soil, its mechanical composition & soil

structure etc.

As these soil parameters vary greately with season i.e

mositure in rainy season and temperature in summer, seasonal

variations has many effect on the change of soil resistivity, low

in rainy seaons high in dry season.

(i) Depth Variation

Depth is a main factor of dependancy because at higher depth

the electrode meets more numbers of layers of earth strata

may be of different thickness and resistivities but they all

considered equivalant to resistors connecged in parallel.

Also, it meets the steady value of moisture content in deeper

strata and hence the resistivity decreases with the depth.

So, if by any means the thicknesses of different layer can be

determined in an area, then it is easier to predict the

length of electrodes, to be selected for that area.

(ii)Soil Moisture and resistivity relation

The mositure content (w) of soil has a far greater effect on

resistivity than all other parameters of soil. Soil moisture

content depends upon soil porosity, infiltration capacity,

precipitation, ground water table variation etc. and overall

the type of oil and its mechanical composition.

39
 Ananyon [141 developes a linear relation (p=f(w) with an

empirical relation which represents the combined effect of

temperature, moisture content on resistivity

a+bt c
p = e xw

where, a = 10.6 to 14.2

b = -0.025 to -0.031

c=-0.81 to - 1.41

The values of a,b,c depends upon type of soil investigated

I.S 3043,1987 says moisture content varies from 10 to 35% in

dry & wet season (average 16-18%). A typical curve shows the

relation of moisture content Vs depth of an Alluvial soil

type. Fig.3.4 (b). [14]

(iii)Freezing Effect

There are 2 kinds of soil moisture available in side soil -

(a)Free moisture highly conducting electric chain.

(b) Oriented water (coming from vicinity due to

temperature. difference), causes low conducting thin

chain.

When soil freezes due to the freezing of only free water of a

particular place, the electrical conductivity is determined only

by the rest amount of unfrozen water, hence resistance increases.

40
 Table_34-j Variation of Resisliriry with Temperature
of Sandy Loam

Temperature Rtsuti vit •►•

(`FI fohm-metre)

20 (681 15
10 (50) 99
o (water) (32) 138
0 (ice) (32) 3txt
—5 (23) 790
—IS (14) 3300

'T2b1e-,3.4.Z Moisture Content and Rrsrn1vity

Morsrure conte,:f Resistivity
by weight Top spit Sandy loam
(per rent) (ohrn-mute) iohm -rrctrc►

0.0 1000 x 1 a4 1000 x104

2.5 2500 1500
5.0 1650 430
10.0 530 185
15.0 190 105
20.0 120 63
30.0 64 42

Tobte - 3.4.3 -- p'-' Values of wo#.er 9, SOU .

Extremely acidic pH value below 4.5

Very strongly acidic 4.5 to 5.0
Strongly acidic 5.1 to 5.5
Medium acidic 5.6 to 6.0
Slightly acidic 6.1 to 6.5
Neutral* 6.6 to 7.3
Mildly alkaline 7.4 to 7.8
Strongly alkaline 8.5 to 9.0.
Very strongly alkaline 9.1 and higher,

*Neutrality is pH 7.0 but in the Geld those soils between pil 6.6 to 7.3 are called neutral.

41
 1. ohm-m

Ttr Kt p E RAT U RE -- '6 C

fi$- 3.4 •(c) curves cf p ...f ttJ f or
di'fercnt W.(Mo,s-r. c..orv.ti.r)

zcv
167

E 15Q7 ` r IZtiJ ~P

5v 417
0
to 40 50
TE.MPERA`TURE - t..0
FIGURE .34(d) Electrical resistance of soils vs. tcrnperaturc.
The numbers 1, :, 3 correspond to different soil types :

Solid curve give the resistivity p, and dashed curves the

eicctrical cor)iuctivity a:

42
Ice structures (at o.0 to -15°c) inside soil hinder the passage

of electric current flow as seen in fig. 3.4 (c). The earth

electrodes should be placed well below the frost-depth of soil.

IV. Effect of pH value of Water [28]

Simply quantity of water does not improve conductivity

becasue pure water (PH value 6.6 -7.3) project high

resistivity Unless the soil-water contents sufficient

natural elements (salts & chemicals) to form a conducting

electrolyte in acidic or alkaline medium. Only water in pure

form can not improve conductivity.

(V) Effect of temperature [14,28]

External temperature Variation causes the soil dry up to a

depth of 1 or 2 feet (.6 mt) in dry season raising the

resistivity to a higher value . Hence, the top soil of about

.6 to .9 mt depth vary the resistivity abruptly throughout a

year.This depth may be taken as burial depth of grounding

grid in order to get rid of the abrupt seasonal variation

effect on electrode resistance.The internal temperature

rise,helps soil+water solution (electroyte) in ionic

conduction.

rK]
 400

w 350
a

300

0 250
Pd

-2 200
0

150
0

-- 100

50

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
PERGEui OF SALT IN M0t5TURE --*

FIG,34( ) VAuIATION OF SOIL RESISTIVITY WITH SALT ( N ICI) CONTENT,

CLAY-SOIL HAVING 3 PERCENT MOISTURE

t•S •3043 [I4a

44
(vi) Effects of chemcial & salts in soil [14,28]

Fig. 3.4 (e) there is little advantage in increasing salt

concentration above 3%. To avoid corrosion, alakline medium

is prefered with PH value more than 7. In agricultural areas

the presence of nitrous components from fertilizers dissolves

inside soil forming NaOH which is very good conductive in

nature & maintaining PH of soil more than 7 (alkaline).

3.5 NEED FOR RESISTIVITY SURVEY FOR SWER [7]

As the soil resistivity is influenced by so many geological

and seasonal parameters it is necessary that measurement of earth

resistivity should be carried out during different seasons, at

least over a period of one year. The highest soil resistivity of

the time & places (locations of interest) is taken into

consideration for design purpose.The question of which kind of

earth electrode to be used can only be decided from a knowledge of

the sub-soil. In a homogeneous soil where resistivity is

uniform,cost of vertical earth & surface earth is about the same.

The second information obtained from resistivity survey is

the equivalent depth at which it occurs. It is required to have

the idea of high or low resistive zones in sub-soil strata,

indication of ground water table position etc. to fix the depth

of electrodes and its type of configuration. In this case, the

vertical earths are more advisable and fruitfull, because the

deeper soil strata are generally of higher conductivity.

45
 Detailed knowledge of resistivity of an area also helps in

accessing the costing of earthing system to be provided. High

resistivity area requires costly earthing system and low

resistivity area saves some cost in earthing system. Again for the

same earth resistance a vertical earths needs to be about half the

length of a surface earth. Surface earth are usefull when the

sub-soil is stony or rocky giving higher resistivity with increase

of depth.

Since in SWER system the earth system involves in continuous

current carrying process, the earth resistance, potential rise of

electrode, all depends upon a suitable range of resistivity

values.

3.6 EARTH RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENT & SEPARATION OF ZONES OF

DIFFERENT RESISITIVTY [PRESENT WORK]

Two methods adopted for resistivity measurements. [19]

(i) Wenner's Method or potential method, mostly used in USA,

Canada and other English speaking countries.

(ii)Schlumberger or Gradient method, mostly used in USSR & some

European countries.

But as per I.S-3043-1966 [28] Wenner's method is only

recommended. However, it is not suitable for long range more than

50 meters Span survey, for long range survey Schlumberger method is

46
 C E.M.F. SOURC E

OTNTIAt. EL~CT~ E LAMP.

I
V
CI OI P C2 GROUND

CURRENT ~~
ELECTRODE 4-i

3.6.(Q-)
F.

I V 1

G P. pZ c1
L
~-- n —+-{--- b - •~-- a - -•-~ T

Four Pin Method (a) b = a Wenner Arrangement (b) x a Schlumberger - Palmer Arrangement

C, C.L CI C2

w--
NTE2FAC£

CIC2 <• ~ I Ct C2 ~1

~~~-3• G •(c) LINES OF CVRREN i FLOW BETWEEN f LECTRODES.

47
suitable. And secondly all software developments for data

interpretation to obtain equivalent depth are only possible in

Schlumberger method, so far. A ca—pu+-eY resui} oc. Sctumberg~r

Shown In APP¢nd;xI

Four electrodes are required for both methods, in Wenner it is

equally spaced but in Schlumberger it is unequally spaced as shown

in Figure 3.6 (a)(b). The resistivity is proportional to spacing

between the current electrodes, in both the cases.

The usual practice is to pass current into the the ground

bymeans of 2 electrodes called current electrode (C1 C2)and the

potential drop is measured by a second pair electrodes

P1 P2 called potential electrode in line with C 1 C2

By a variable resistnace a null balance is obtained by equal

and opposite current in P1& P2so that it gives the exact value of

resistance (R= -) for a particular spacing (a).

The apparent resistivity ( p) = 2 it aR ohm-m.

If the different values of resistivity are uniform or within

20-30% variation, the soil or ground is called homogeneous and in

this case the apparent ressitivity is equal to true resistivity.

But, in practice the earth is not homogeneous, it is a

heterogeneous body having many layers of soil stratas, and may be

of different resistivities. The combined or net resistivity is a

weighted average of the resistivity of the sub-soil stratas,

through which the current passes.

In a horizontal two layer soil as per [15]

(i ) if C1 C2<< hl, all the currents is virtually confined to the

surface of the layerl.

(ii) If, C1 C2>> h1,a greater fraction of current penetrates

deeper in the sub-stratum layer2,where h1is the depth in

metre of upper layer soil.

As we go on increasing the spacing, more area of earth is

covered for current circulation and hence the resistance value go

on decreasing.But, the resistivity (p=2TraR) may increase or

decrease from spacing to spacing depending on the soil strata as

shown in figure 3.6 (c).

Equivalent depth calculation There is no specification for this in

I.S. 3043.However, Goyal [18] suggests the equivalent depth of

resistivity is equal to the spacing (a),Reeves [21] suggests the

depth equal to 3/4th of spacing (a), and John Walles [10] suggests

2/3rd of spacing (a). Since the third suggestion is given by an

International conference report by the Power Division of TEE [10]

this value is used in this work.

49
3.6.1 RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENT AND CALCULATIONS -

Soil Resistivity by Wenner methods was measured in

North-South and East-West direction and their average values are

calculated and tabulated in Table no 3.6.1.

3.6.2. DISSCUSSION OF RESULTS ON RESISTIVITY MEASURREMENT

The resistivity has been measured by both method of Wenner &

Schlumerger at test site. But only Wenner results are taken into

consideration for all calculation purposes.

The resistivities measured on both North-South and East-West

direction from the test site, does not vary much from each other,

indicating there is no lateral veriation in resistivity of earth

strata.

The average of the two resistivity is taken and where the

variation does not exceed 30% they are considered to be within one

zone of uniform soil. Thus from Fig 3.6.(b) of depth Vs

resistivity, it is seen that resistivities from 0.3 m depth to 1.2

m. depth are within the variation of 30% and hence in one layer

/zone. And similarly, resistivity from depth 1.2 m to 3 m lie

within 2nd layer of sub-soil. The second layer soil is of higher

resistivity (p2) than top layer soil (p1 ).From the above

discussion and table 3.6.1, it is inferred that the test site is

having two layers of soil with average resistivity, p= 52 ohm-mt,

P2= 75 ohm-mt depth of upper soil layer h1 = 1.2 (approximately).

50

b a
 E E
N
U) F
ow U)
0
("4
u)
I) -ri N
Ir -.-eu)
C) s~
On
wl
'-
O °~
•r_)
O~ O
•0

> r c) c13
~u 1~ 4 ►
Q\ 4)
N >

4J
U) [t
► O Xn U') to V) O U1
o •
M N tp N

z
O U) ri N
p d/ N O CO r-1 U)
H N N N N s'
4l to '.0

,-$ N r1 N N 0 r-i CU
•-4 t(1
cn a, a) a
uz '.r Ln w N
• U
z
W_

OD O in 0 Ln 0 N d~
!s~ co r U1 11 d' ~f' ~' M N
z r-I

U,
a r„1 r~. CO N co M CO 0
• • • N N
'-4

'-1
•

())

C ,). C' N a) a N 0
O O O . 1 r-1 N N tv ()

~n in :n !n ~n
a7 <v N '-+ '.p 0 tn
e • i'1 I') '.J' ' '
.-- 1 N N
O O
•
N •
i _I' n ,p N :n rn
 ee
*_ EAST-WEST C 1 FELT I CI-I
1 t7 NORTH- SOUTH DIRECT ION!

I
75 L s
H
H

~ 5n
~ A
H

25
J)

SPACING(M)
FIG NO--3.6.1Ca) RESISTIVITY SURVEY

0
c) .0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2J) 2.5 3.0
DEIF1H M)

FIG 1`1 3.64(bb AVER AGE RESISTIVITY VS DEPTH

52
 EARTH SURFACE

UPPER LAYER OF
RESISTIVITY 4~_sz Mt.

LOWER LAYER OF
RESISTIVITY

FlG.3.6.1(C}Two Layer Soil Model

52 (A)
3.7 OBSERVATION OF SEASONAL EFFECT ON SOIL RESISTIVITY

The monthly average precipitation, ground water table and

soil moisture at a particular depth (0.6m) are tabulated in

Table no (3.7.1) from July' to Nov '95 and from graph fig 3.7 (a)

and 3.7(c) it is observed that as the precipitation decreases

from July to November, the soil moisture content is decreasing

gradually and the resistivity is increasing. Ground water table

also falls with precipitation. The electrical conductivity and pH

values of soil show negligible variation over this period.

From Fig. 3.7(b) it is seen that, the moisture content of

soil at a particular depth (0.6 m) at two sites (about 30 m.

apart) gradually decreases and the soil resistivity is

appreciably rising from August to November. Table 3.7.2 gives the

result of Seive analysis done in Soil lab of WRDTC, and the type

of soil at site is found to be clayey soil (soil granules mostly

less than 300 microns), soil granules greater than 300 microns is

sand [14]..

The ground water table measured at farm site of IWM,WRDTC but

the test site is located at a higher level of about two metres from

the farm-site level. Hence, the ground water table result is

modified and shown in Table no 3.7.(iii).

53
 TALE-3.7.(); OBSERVATION OF SEASON yL LFECT UN SOIL
RESISTIVITY PER1O ULY 0 95 TO NOV.95

June July hug. Sep. Oct. Nov.

Rainfall in min 127 357 436 116 3 0

Ground water level
from surface(mm) 560 480 350 270 370 400

moisture contccit
in soil at .6m depth

Site 1 wRDTC front - 30.3% 3'4% 27. 21.6;0 14%

Site 2 EED Front - 37% 39.5% 34.8% 25.5% 16%

Monthly average soil 47.5 45.6 67.6 96.8

Resi sti vi ty (ohm--m t) 110.120

Soil PH (.6rn depth) 7.81 7.0

Site-1 - - 7,75 7.7

Site-2 - - - 7.28 7.42 7.35 7.3

Electrical conduc- Site-1-------- 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.18
ti vi ty of soil (. 6m Site.-2--- ---- 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.16
depth) (m.mho/an)

TA13LE-3.7({) SIEVE ANJ~LYSISOF SOIL AT TEST SITE(.6m depth.

-4.7 mm size - 200 gn = 20%
2 mm size - 130 can = 13%'
1 mm size - 25 can = 2.5%
600 micron - 20 gm = 2%
425 micron - 130 gm = 13%
150 micron - 390 3rn = 39%-Major constituents-150 microns C►a4 sevo)
75 micron - 55 can = 5.5%
Pan size - 50 cam = 5.0%
1000 gm = 100%

* Tests made in I6~1 & Soil Lab, WRLTC, University of Roorkee,Roorkee,

54
 4 RAINFALL
QQQ GR . WATER TABLE
QLLUD.p SOIL RESISTIVITY

2 see
Lu

400

(jJ
m
J

r
300

w
Q 200
3

100

6 7 B 9 10 11 12
MONTH
FIG NO-3 -7•Ca) SEASIONAL EFFECT C.-IN SOIL P:E SISTJV1Ty

i- t± MOISTURE SITE-1( IN FRONT OF W. R. D. T. C.)

Z 2- QQOaQMOISTURE SITE-2( IN FRONT OF E.E.DEPTT.)
Q 3- AVE.SOIL RESISTIVITY IN OHM-M
>-

F—
Co
W

w 7E
F--
'-4

Lii
pi 50

26
W

F
G 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
MONTH
FIG NO-- 3.7-.Cb) M015 T U KE EFFECT ON RESISTIVITY

S5
 TABLE : 3.7(111)
OBSERVATION OF RAIN FALL EFFECT ON RESISTIVITY

SL.. MONTH RAIN FALL 'GR,WATER GWT AT AVE, SOIL

(mm) TABLE BT TEST RESISTIVITY
WRD FARM SITE (O}3 —MT)
(c,m) (f~.m)
— — ------------------------------------------------
1. 3UL Y' 9 5 . 357 430 630 47,5
20 AUG.' 95 437 350 550 45.6
3. SEP.'95 116 270 470 67,6
4, OCT.' 95 3 370 570 96.8
5, NOV.'95 0 400 600 110.0

600

400

300

I
GR. WATER TABLE
200 46M PRECIPITATION

SOIL RESISTIVITY

I ",
100

JULY'96 AUG'96 SEPT.'96 0CT.'96 NOV.'96

PRECI PITATION&'(5:OUND WATEP~TABtE.
f G•-3'7 (C)-V.4RIi T ►ON EFFECT ON RESISTIVITY

56
 CHAPTER 4

THE EARTHING ARRANGEMENT

4.1 GROUND ELECTRODE

Ground is defined as a conducting connection, by which an

electric circuit or equipment becomes grounded. The term

`Electrode' means a way in or way out for electricity.

Electric power systems including SWER systems are grounded

i.e. connected to earth by means of earth embeded electrodes for

a number of reasons -

i) To assure a safe carriage and dissipation of electric

currents into ground under all normal and fault

conditions without exceeding any operationallimits that

adversly affect the continuity of service.

ii) To assure a high degree of human safety so that a

person working or walking in the vicinity of the

grounded facilities is not subjected to any danger of

electrical shock.

iii)To stabilise the voltage during transient conditions

and to minimise the probability of flash over during

transients.

57
 iv) To dissipate lightning strokes. Sometimes special

consideration is made in grounding design, where the

places are prone to higher " Isoceraunic levels".

Ground Potential Rise (GPR), also referred to as earth

potential size (EPR) of an earthing system is a function of

(i) Current magnitude and (ii) Earthing system Resistance.

The current through the earthing system multiplied by its

resistance measured from a point remote from the sub-station,

determines the ground potential rise with respect to that remote

ground.

4.1.1 Ground Resistance Components

The grounding resistance of a burned electrode is a

function of

(i) The resistance of the electrode itself along with

connecting conductor to it.

(ii)Contact resistance between electrode and the

surrounding soil.

(iii)Resistance of the body of surrounding soil from

electrode surface outwords, in the geometry setup for

the flow of current to infinite earth.

The electrodes should be adequate in shape and size so that

their metal resistance is negligible. The second contact

resistance between electrode and earth is also much less, as per

U.S. National Bureau of standards No. 108 [9].

The third component, viz, resistance of the body of earth is

the main subject of investigation. The main features are

discussed below

GROUND ROD
AND CLAM'

CONCENTRIC' CONTACT
(J RESISTANCE
I SHELLS OF';: I
11.11 BETWEEN ROD AND SOIL

71,11 ,
~~11 -.~,:,,, j J l' ~r = =
i

Fig. 4.1.1 Resistance Components of Earth Electrode

A ground rod which has been driven into uniform soil

resistivity, earth conducts currents in all directions. As shown

in Fig. 4.1.1. Let us consider the electrode is being surrounded

by shells of earth, all of equal thickness. The earth shell

closest to the ground rod has the smallest surface area and

consequently offers the greatest resistance. The next earth shell

is some what larger in area and offers less resistance and so on.

59
Finally, a distance from the ground rod will be reached where

inclusion of additional earth shells does not add significantly to

the earth resistence.

Earth is a conductor of electricity ( if not best like

metals). The conductivity of earth surrounding a

ground-electrode vary with both season (temperature and moisture)

and its own type of composition and nature.

4.2 GROUNDING SYSTEM

The earth-embeded metalic structure either single or in

multiple combination of electrodes connected in parallel is

called grounding system.

Types of grounding systems in practice and their ohmic

values.

(i) Generating station Grounding systems (0.50 ohm)

consists of groundmat, ground rods, and other earth

embeded metalic structure.

(ii)Transmission tower Grounding system (2-5 ohm) consists

rings, crow-footing counter Poises, ground rods etc.

(iii) Small sub-stations (11 kv- 6.35Kv) grounding system

consists of Ring, mat, and rods. (2-5 0).

 (iv) LT domestic consumers graunding system consists of one

or more ground rods, pipes as simplest types of

grounding systems (5-25 c).

As per national electric code (NEC), ANSI/NFPA 70-1981- [9] the

maximum resistance of single electrode is less than 25-9.

4.3 MEASUREMENT OF EARTH ELECTRODE RESISTANCE BY 3 POINT METHOD

OR POTENTIAL GRADIENT METHOD

Earth resistance measurement is done using the earth tester

based on the principle of fall of potential. Let us consider

steel rod (R), as an earth-electrode driven into the ground, at a

distance D from the mother earth electrode (E).

A potential is applied between E and R as shown in Fig.

4.3(a) and the current flow is measured in the ammeter (A).. If, a

second rod (P) called potential electrode having a volt meter (v)

is now driven into the ground at various points on the straight

line of E and R, the voltmeter will measure the potential

difference between mother electrode E and the respective points in

the surrounding soil.

By Ohms law, this potential difference will be directly

proportional to the resistance of the earth upto the point

measured and hence the relationship between the resistance and

61
 Fig. 4•210)Fall of potential method

RESISTANCE TO EARTH OF ROD(R)

ROD P MAY BE ANY
— WIIERE WITHIN—
THESE LIMITS

' 7 - RESISTANCE
RESISTANCE TO EARTH OF OF
0 ELECTRODE(E)- ~" ._ '' E+R

DISTANCE
Fig. 4.(b) Effect of the resistance area of the distance
rod "R" on the fall oA potential curve

62
distance from E can be plotted as shown in Fig 4.3 (b). It is

found that the resistance increased as the rod P is placed further

away from E towards R.

The rate of increase rapidly diminishes so that at a certain

distance from E, it becomes negligible. Infact, the amount of

resistance, represented by this distance is about 99% of the

total resistance to an infinite distance. Similarly, an equal

curve can be plotted in opposite direction radiating from the

electrode and a sereis of points say m1,m2,m3 and m4 obtained

encircling an area m1,m2,m3 and m4 which for all practical

purposes may be to contain the whole of the resistance of the

electrode (E) to earth Fig. 4.3(c).

This is called " Resistance Area" of the earth-electrode.

The shape and size of resistance area solely depends on the

dimension of the electrode. The resistance area of a rod or pipe

driven into earth will have a comparatively small resistance area

and that of a multiple electrodes connected in parallel will have

a correspondingly large-area. The resistance measured depends on

the dimension of the resistance area and the resistivity of the

soil within it.

The conditions for this type of measurement are -

(i ) The current electrodes E and R must be sufficiently far

away from each other. So that resistance areas do not

over-lap.

63
 ? PZ Po P, P~,

'TTT- ITITi T7i ~7i 7Ti /777/; IIT

E Q R

/A- oc.
4 tc t- Po}-er~#ict .
n-cd'e rrt- .
Ml,
Main o, ►4o£e r Auxi& -ry ECl~tt}
£ct-,rf, frLec#mde ~ Elpct 'aciQ~R~

1
RE Mr

J1
28 -
24 -

\\ a 2 ~a► o F 1 MF L6Crtoe~ D I S TA N C

Meatsvlrtna Region Probe

E - Earth elcctrodc P, to P Lcxations of probc in rncasurcrncnt Scciucncc
Prtibc
R - AuxiIi:,ry earth cfectsodc
RE -: Earth resistance at particufat Iocatfon

Fig.4.2(C)Vxriation ( resistance ot►t;rinedfiori carth-resistance noris~itcincntc

E P R

C-EKACTUA-L TOTAL
REStSTA"CE

F.4.2)

64
 (ii) The potential electrode (P) must be between electrodes E

and R in a straight line, joining them.

It is noted that, this resistance curve at first rises

rapidly, then becomes nearly horizontal and eventually rises

again as the rod (P) enters the resistence area of rod (R).The mid

point between E and R, where the value of resistance tends to

change the direction, as we go towards R is called "Point of

inflection" Fig. 4.3 (c).

When, the rod (R) is too close to E, and the 2 resistance

areas overlap, the behaviour of the curve is as follows

Fig.4.3 (d).There is no horizontal portion of curve.

4.4 EFFECT OF ROD DIMENSIONS ON RESISTANCE

As per [25] increase in length is more, effective in reducing

the electrode-resistance than that of diameter_ Ac nr-v

0
mathematical formula resistance to earth, for a single ground rod

developed by professor H.B. Dwight

R 2tL .[ loge 4a -1] ohm.

or in a more simplified manner, as given in [101.

R = 0.3666 L log10 3d ohm.

65
 where,

p = Average soil resistivity in ohm-mt, uniformly

distributed over entire soil volume.

L = Ground Rod length in mt.

a = Ground Rod radius in mt.

d = Diameter of rod in mt.

Taking the example of a rod of length 1 m x 20 mm diameter

p = Average resistivity = 50 mt.

0.366 x 50 3 * 1
R' = 1 log
10 0.02

= 40 ohm.

Case (i) If, diameter is doubled i.e 40 mm; keeping length

constant at 1 m.

* 1
R = 0.3666 50 * log
10 30.04

= 34.32 ohm.

Decrease in resistance = 40 -4304.32 x 100 = 14.2%

Case (ii) If, the length of rod is doubled, keeping the

diameter constant at 20 mm. and p = 50 ohm mt. L =21.

0.366 x 50 3 x 2
R = 2 log
10 0.02
= 22.66 ohm.
40
Decrease in resistance = 40 2 66 x 100 = 44%
 "V
V I6o
15o
140
130
01120
c 110
1 c,o
00
6o
70
607
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 loll
p ft.
Variat4ori of Soil resistivity with depth forSoil having uniform moisture
conlcnl .it all depths (Front National Bureau of Standards Tlt,hr a t. Report 109.)

(a)
too

o
12 16 20 25 30 40 15
ROI) DIAMETER (mm)
(b)
AT DEPTH OF ELECTRODE Im
AO
O 70
W 60

~» 30
AT DEPTH OF ELECTRODE 3 m
Cl)
W 10

SOIL RESISTANCE SEASONAL

Cc)
fig.4 4 Variation in earth resistance:
(a) with depth;
Le .251
(b) with diameter,
(c) seasonal

6b CA)
 Hence, as seen from Fig. (4.4a and b) doubling the rod

length reduces the resistance by more than 40% . Doubling the

diameter of the rod, however, does not appreciably reduce its

resistance, more than 15% .

The effect of change in length of rod has been confirmed by

our depth experiment also, at 4.6.

4.5 EFFECT OF SOIL RESISTIVITY ON RESISTANCE

Dwight formula shows that the resistance to earth of

grounding electrode depends not only on the depth and to some

extent on the surface area of the electrode, but also on soil

resistivity.

As discussed in chapters -3, soil resestivity is the key

factor that determines the resistance of a grounding electrode and

the depth to which it must be driven to obtain low ground

resistance. The resistivity of soil varies widely throughout the

world and changes seasonally also. Hence, the resistence of any

grounding system varies accordingly during different seasons as

seen in Fig. (4.4c). The seasonal variation is less significant

at large depths.

Hence, it follows that ideally the grounding system, should

have ground rods driven down to a considerable depth to have least

and steady resistance at all times. Best results are obtained, if

67
the ground rods reaches the permanent moisture level (sub-soil

water level).

4.6 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF DIFFERENT ROD CONFIGURATIONS AND

DISCUSSIONS

4.6.1 Single Rod Experiment at Different Depths (Table 4.6.1(i)

i) At .3 m depth - 83.0 ct
ii) At .6 m depth - 50
iii) At .9 m depth - 37
iv) At 1.2 m depth - 30 S2

Resistance curves shown in Fig. 4.6.1 (a) (b) (c) (d)

4.6.2 Two Rods in Parallel Combination

i) Two Rods with 1 m spacing in straight line along the mother

electrode = 29 0
ii) Two Rods with 1 m spacing in in perpendicular to the mother
electrode = 25 SZ

iii) Two rods with 2 m spacing perpendicular to the mother

electrode = 18.5 cZ

iv) Two rods with 3 m spacing perpendicular to the mother

electrode = 16 Q

v) Two rods with 6 m spacing perpendicualerto the mother

electrode = 5 2

vi) Two rods with 8 m spacing perpendicualer to the mother

electrode = 4 S2
TABLE N04.6.1(t)ROD DEPTH Vs. RESISTANCE MEASUREMENT BY GRADIENT
METHOD (SEPT'95)

Distance (Mt) .3mt depth .6mt .9 nit 1.2mt

(1 ) (4 i) (Aid)

0.5 .5 .5 .5 .5
1.0 .7 .7 .8 .8
2.0 .9 1.0 1.0 1.2
3.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.4
4.0 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.6
5.0 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
6.0 2.5 2.8 2.8 3.0
7.0 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6
8.0 4.5 4.8 4.5 4.6
9.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
11.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
12.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
13.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
14.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
15.0 5.0 .5.0 5.0 5.0
16.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
17.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
18.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.2
19.0 6.5 6.5 7.0 7.2
20.0 7.2 7.0 8.0 8.4
21.0 8.0 9.0 11.0 11.5
22.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 14.5
22.5 15.0 16.0 16.0 16.5
23.0 20.0 23.0 17.5 19.0
23.5 35.0 30.2 20.0 22.0
24.0 88.0 55.0 42.0 35.0
a-
w
0 1G
M
3~-
¢ 50
w

X25
U-)

0
0 ~ 5 6 10 13 15 16 20 23 25
DISTANCE( M)

2
4
w 25
LU
z
r

i)1STANGE( P1)

(b)
a.

r
a 37..n
w
a
r

5n-
(rrrr7lr~
3 5 6 10 (3 15 S8 20 23 25
DISTANCE( n)

(C)

DIST{ANCE( M)
(CD

FFG .4.6 1 - SINGLE-ROD AT DIFFERENT DEPTHS,

70
4.6.3 Three Rods in Parallel (Triangle)

i) 3 Rods, 1 m spacing in straight line along the motter

electrode = 25 ohm

ii) 3 Rods, 1 m spacing in perpendicular to motter electrode =

18 ohm

(iii) 3 rods, 1 m spacing in triangle, with one rod facing the

mother electrode = 22 ohm.

iv) 3 Rods, 1 m spacing in triangle, tow rod facing the mother

electrode = 19 ohm

v) 3 Rods, 2 m spacing in triangle, tow rod facing the mother

electrode = 16 ohm

vi) 3 Rod 3 m spacing in triangle, two rod facing the mother

electrode = 12 ohm

vii) 3 Rod 4 m spacing in triangle, tow rod facing the mother

electrode = 9.5 ohm

viii)3 Rod 6 m spacing in triangle one rod facing the motter

electrode = 7.5 ohm

4.6.4 Four Rods in Parallel (Square)

4 Rods with 1 m spacing, 2 Rods facing towards mother electrode =

15 SZ

4 Rods with 2 m spacing, 2 Rods facing towards mother electrode =

11.5 ohm

4 Rods with 3 m spacing, 2 Rods facing towards mother electrode =

8.5 ohm

71
 TABLE NO. 4 . 6 . 1 (ii)
ROD -- DEPTH Vs EARTH — RESISTANCE

Resistance Resistance % Decrease in % Decrease in

Depth
L (mt) Calculated Observed R Calculated B—Observed
(Ohm)* (Ohm)
0.3 107 83.0
0.6 64 50.0 40.8 39.4
0.9 45 37.0 57.0 55.2
1.2 39 30.0 65.9 63.7

*, August '95— Average soil Resistivity (~) = 52 Ohm — m

Rcc cuw+ed = 0.366 L Logo

d

L.

U;
50
W

Z
H

W 25

C7o
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 t.s u5
ROD DEFTH( M)

FIG NO-4.6.1 (e) ELECTRODE RESISTANCE VS DEPTH

72
4 Rods with 4 m spacing, 2 Rods facing towards mother electrode =
6.5

4 Rods with 6 m spacing, 2 Rods facing towards mother electrode =

4.00

4.6.5 Multiple Electrodes

The results of different multiple Electrodes with different

spacings are tabulated in Table No. 4.6.5 & the result curves are

shown in Fig. 4.6 (a) & (b) .

4.6.6 Discussion

Single Rod Experimental Results

From mathematical formula and known-value of resistivity (p =

52 ohm). The resistance of rod at different depth and the

percentage in increase of electrode length vs. percentage decrease

in earth resistance are tabulated in table No. 4.6.1 (ii) (iii).

It is observed from the graph Fig. 4.6.1 (e) that the earth

electrode resistance decreases with length and tends to saturate

beyond 1.5m. The calculated values remains at higher side than

the observed values because, the measured resistivity is not so

much closure,to accuracy both in soil and instruments. Similarly,

the percentage degree in resistance is less than that of

calculated value.

Two Rods Results Fig. 4.6.2

73
 TABLE NO, 4 0 6 . 1 (iii)
PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN LENGH Vs PERCENTAGE DECREASE IN RESISTANCE

% Increase in % Decrease in % Decrease in

electrode length Rcal cul ated R
exp erirental y Observed

100 40.8 39.4

200 57.0 55.2
300 65.9 630 7

w
70
4
F-
c1)
c)
W
60
I
H
Q
w
z 50

LU
Q
W
40
W
0
Z

~a 1 00 150 200 250 300 360

% INCREASE IN ELECTRODE LENTH
FIG NJ4b•1(f)-% INCREASE IN ELECTRODE LENGTH
VS % DECREASE IN EARTH RESISTANCE

74
 41E+1-1 RESISTANCE ,l d"

~Ltn1E OF MEASUREMENT

-1ST F_I.ECTRODE
E Low RE5157KA NC

RZ
R, R2 = SPAC-iN Ba Eeni 2 -LECiRODES.
WO T i4 Ei2 F_L ODE EMOTE EARx14)

E.xA.4.c.?Two- ROD ExPeRIMENT

_ LO W fZ — _ qd TEST ELECfROQDE

24M
R2

41UU

LOW 2
4
R J R, , R ZR3-SPACING-. BETW E.EN Ei-ECTRO
E- REMOTE EARTH

Fi .4.6.3 THE ROD EXPE.RiME.NT.

GPI R2-

E_f.----. 1.1N E. Of MtASvREN1

r- 24Mt.

R, R1 R-' R4 -FOUR 1 OnS tN A SQUARE

E- REMOTE EARTH

f. 4.64 four, ROD EXPERIMENT.

75
 Two rods when driven to .9 m length and the 1 m apart, along

the direction of measurement shows higher resistance (29 ohm) than

that when placed in perpendicular direction (25 ohm). Along the

direction - the front rod only contributes to the maximum extent

of current flow than the back one. In the perpendicular direction

a both electrodes face the mother electrode and contribute almost

equally to the current flow, being equidistant from the source.

From spacing curve in Fig. 4.6.5(a) for two rods, the

percentage reduction in resistance is more prominent from 3 m to 6

m than that from 6 m to 8 m. So, for two rods 6 m spacing is most

suitable.

Three Rods Results Fig. 4.6.3

The triangle with one rod (corner) facing the mother

electrode (source) offers more resistance than that of two rods

facing as shown in Figure.With increase of spacing among the

electrodes, the resistance gradually decreases and at 6 m spacing

the incremental benefit seems to be maximum as seen from Fig.

4.6.5 (a).

Four Rods Results : Fig. (4.6.4)

The four electrodes in square geometry, with 2 rods facing

the reference line/mother electrode projects minimum resistance

among all the configurations. Fig.4.5.5(a). With increase of

NEV
 TABLE NO.4. 6±&

RESISTANCE OF MULTIPLE ELECTRODES AT VARIOUS

SPACINI-S VS RESISTANCE OF SINGLE DRIVEN ROD

% RESISTANCE OF SINGLE ROE) AT DIFFERENCE SPACINGS

NO. OF RODS 1 m 2 m 3 lfl 4 m 5 m

2 62 42 30 17

3 64 48 3S 25 15

50 38 28 22 13

km
ovpr
vo

ne
z

10

II 11_i . E -I
Lb 0
SPACING( M)
FIC NO-.4..5(Q)RE3ISTANCE VS SPACING OF RODS

77
 t T, S~AGNG 511 2MI. M 3 MT.
4MT. M Co MT

YYt~i. .... Y 14''3

G
iI
4Q

• ~ ,`v y,'~~ ~ t'l,'~~'~'',lt.

._....
'ti t i {'J.
(/1~] 20 ~

Y
,'~ 7: a Y'Y 1 y ( 1 ~;
y'SiL ,Y'Y'~~.' •~'S'5,1. n

0
2 3 4

NUMBER OF RODS
FIG.4.6.5 (b) RES. OF MULTIPLE ELECTRODES AT
VARIOUS SPACINGS VS % R.OF SINGLE ROD.
spacing, the earth resistances decreases and saturates after 6 m

spacing.

So, ,6 m spacing seems to be next to the optimum value of

spacing among the electrodes for minimisation of earth resistance.

Multiple Electrodes-Fig. 4.6.5.(b) shows multiple rods with

different spacing gives resistence as percentage of single

resistence. Where single rod is not feasible in field this graph

gives an idea about the alternative solutions of multiple-rod

combination without sacrificing the result. Multiple rods

utilises the horizontal spacings instead of vertical depth.

4.7 VERIFICATION OF TWO-LAYERS SOIL FORMULA WITH EXPRIMENTAL

RESULTS

$— J.Nahman, University of Belgrade, Yugosiovia, 1988

[30]has suggested the following simple semi-empirical

expressions for the ground resistance of a single rod, driven in

two layer soil, with notations -

p2 = Earth resistivity of the upper and layer soil layers

p 1,

L,d = Rod length and diameter

h = Depth of upper soil layer

L1 ,L2 = Rod length in upper and lower soil layer.

79
 TF-,r ROD ©V 1.25 M x2Omm .

Nz 3 M
2
Low J LAYER 0
.fQ_ = L5 Ohrn-M

FLg.4. t(a) DRIVEN ROD iN TWO LASER 501L.

75

~r
:©

0
0.0 0.5 T
i.0'' 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
DEPTH( M)
FIG NQ-4.?-l(b)AVERAGE RESISTIVITY VS DEPTH
Case(a) Rod entirely lies in the upper soil layer with p l > p2

The general rod formula R = 2~L

I n 4d

Case (b) Rod entirely lies in upper soil layer but p1<p2

The empirimal formula for this

P1 4L pi p2
R = 2L 1n d + 2nh
in
p1

Case (c) The rod lies in both soil layers

4Le
R = p2 In
2irLe d
P2
where , Le = 12 + L1 . -
Pi
p
Range of ratio of p1 and p2 = 0.1 1 -- 10
P2

and 0. 1 1/h - 5

The errors of these approximate formula is upto 10%

except in case (a) which may yield upto 20% higher resistance

Calculated Result of Rod Resistance in 2 layered soil- The above

statements are tried for a check in our 2 layer soil resistivity

obtained in Table (3.6.1) and Fig. 4.7.1 (a).

(i) At .3mt depth (Rod in Upper Layer)

p1 4L P1 p2
R = 2rL Ln d + 2nh In p1
 p1 = 52.00 ohm mt,p2 = 75.0 ohm mt

L = .3 mt, d = dia of rod = 0.2 mt, h = 1.2 mt

52.00 4 x .3 + 52.00 75
Log
R __ 2irx.3 loge 0.2 2fr 1.2 g 52

= 104.5 + 2.5 = 107 ohm.

(ii) At .6 mt depth (Rod in Upper Layer)

p1 = 52.00 ohm mt p2 = 75.00 ohm mt

p1 4L
p1 p2
R - 2irL Ln d + 2nh In pl

R= 1g 40x2. 6 2. 5 = 64. 0 ohm

222.0006

(iii) At .9 mt depth (Rod in Upper Layer)

52.0
40x2.9 + .25 = 45.0 ohm
R = 22x09 log

(iv) Rod Resistance at 1.25 mt depth, touching the lower layers

The rod length was 1.25 mt. and the entire rod was driven

into the ground.

p2 4le
R = 2nLeLn d
 P
Where Le = L2 + U. 2 ,L2 = 0.05 L1 = 1.2 m
p1

= 0.05+ 1.2 x 75.00= 1.8 mt

52.00

R = 75.00 In 4 x1.8 = 39 ohm

fir 1.8 .02

4.7.1 Discussion on Two Layer Results

Table 4.7.1 : Comparison of Experimental Results with 2 Layer

Formula

Depth in Calculated value of R Experimental Value of

(mt) from 2 Layer Formula R (ohm)

1. .3 107 83.0

2. .6 64 50. 0

3. .9 45 37.0

4. 1.25 39 30.0

The 2 layer formula of earth resistance has taken an approximate

value from the original formula

log 4L
-1 l as R = 2Tr L i og
R 2n L [ I dL

where, `a' is radius and `d' is diameter of rod.

The used second formula gives the value at higher side about

10%. Otherwise both results of two layer resistance is a good

 approximation to the journal values.Hence it is confirmed here

that tbQexperimental results are correct.

4.8 SELECTION OF BEST EARTHING ARRANGEMENT:

ST. LINE TRIANGLE SQUARE CIRCLE

N6484M- DIFFERENT GEOMETRICAL

CONFIGURATION OF ELECTRODE

4.8.1 Selection From Geometrical Configuration Fig. 4.8.1(a)

Area Perimeter
(i) Triangle of side (a) 0.433 a2 3a

(ii)Square of side (a) a2 4a

(iii)Circle of diameter (a) 0.785 a2
3.14 a
(iv)Circle of diameter (V2a) 1.57 a2
4.443a

Square is preferred so far area and perimeter is concerned

but at the corner of a squasre grid, the potential will be higher

being /2a times away from the centre. So, if a circle of diameter

'2a is chosen, it offers more area (1.57 times) of coverage and of

perimeter is also longer than that of a square (1.11 times).

The circular grid ring takes care of ground potential rise,

and potential and rods take care of depth of lesser

Estep Etouch
conductivity of soil layers.

4.8.2 Selection From Test Results

From Fig. 4.6.5(a) it is seen that all values of resistances

are converging towards one point at 8m spacing and from 6m to 8m

spacing, all configuration have almost closure value of

resistances. Two rods combinatin with 6 m sapcing seem to be

economical without sacrificing much and hence can be choosen for a

trial, and priliminary model earthing system. Higher spacings can

be taken, subject to availability of space and so also the number

of •rods. With minimum materials optimisation is aimed. Results

of 6 metre spacings for triangle & square configurations are also

available [6] as shown on appendix I:V by Karnatak Electricity

Board, Banglore. 6 m finally choosen for comparision purposes

also.

The inter connecting wire may be a straight wire or circular

or elliptical shape covering more ground area. Again this may be

on ground surface or under ground burial. The under ground burial

85
 A 2d1&
Eac15TING _ — --
MOTi+ LECTiR00 B
(NV.LAB)

12MMx2OM ALuri

RiN(~

FtG. 4.8.2 (a) LAYOUT Or THE SELECI

E A RTN t N G MODEL P ER.PEND iCULARTO MOTH ER F-LECTTRODE(AA

E:1:1
is more advantageous in reducing the earth-potential rise and

toueh potential [31].

Second decision is to be taken on how much burial of the

connecting ring'. From the view point of seasonal effects on

resistivity, it has been observed that the resistivity and earth

resistance of top soil varies more quickly and prominently in dry

and winter season. And, it affects the soil moisture upto a depth

of .5 to 1m from surface [14, 20]. Hence, it is preferable to

bury the earth conductor ring below .5m deep and then the two

electrodes are driven full length into the ground and connected to

the ring Fig. 4.8.2 (a) .

Electrode configuration chosen 6m. circular ring having two

electrodes in diametrically opposite direction and to be inter

connected by a 12 mm aluminum wire. About 2' (0.6 m) soil was

excavated and then the 2 electrodes are driven into ground by

hammering. The aluminum wire with length about 20 ml (nD=,18.8) was

stretched and inter connected with 2 rods by binding aluminum wire

tightly to rod. The RTD was placed just below the inter

connection along the length of one electrode Fig. 4.10 (a).

The test earthing connection lead and RTD leads are enclosed

on plastic pipes separately and brought to surface after back

filling all the dry soil, excavated earlier. The moisture content

of this backfill soil was tested to be about 4%.

 25

20
R
E
S
I
S 15
T
A
N
E
10
0
H
M

5
t'
I

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

DISTANCE (M)

FIG.4.8.2(b) RESISTANCE MESUREMENT

PERPENDICULAR TO ELECTRODE AXIS

4
TABLE:¢•82 FINAL RESISTANCE MEASUREMENT- FROM H.V. LAB
MOTHER ELECTRODE (A) DTAED-30-11-95
D15TANCE 2q M

Distance (m) Resistance (ohm)

0 2
1 4
2 5
3 7
4 10
5 10
6 10
7 10
8 10
9 10
10 10
11 10
12 10
13 10
14 10
15 10
16 10
17 10
18 10
19 10
20 10
21 10
22 10
23 10.5
24 11
25 11
26 12
27 14
28 18
29 21
30 11
.31 2
32 0
 The soil consolidation (compaction) is done by manual

hammering, without treating any water, to observe the value in the

worst condition of dry soil.

The resistance of ring model earth system offered

11 SZ table 4.8.2 and graph Fig. 4.8.2 (b) perpendicular

direction to a remote earth (Mother-electrode A) as shown in Fig.

4. 8. 2 (a) .

4.9 SOME EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ON ARTIFICIAL TREATMENT OF SOIL

Since there was no mother earth electrode available near High

- Current Laboratory to pass current to earth for the heat run

test, it was proposed to prepare one mother earth with artificial

treated soil. The same earth was used for the experiment of the

model earthing system.

4.9.1. Mathematical Review of Dimensions of Artificial treated

Soil volume

From previous chapter (2.6) and Fig. 2.6 (d) it is known that

by splitting up the high soil resitivity around the electrode

into 2 parts, one treated soil (p1) close to electrode and other

one the common soil of earth mass (p2), we have the net

resistance of earth electrode of treated soil, -.

__ 1_ p1 * b +(P2 -p1) a
R2 2n L a * b I

AN
 1.25 m x 20 mm ROD
A LOW RESISTANCE DIRECTION
29m 2mm AI.
,-ORIGINAL — / WIRE OF
20M.
6m

30m HIGH RESISTANCE

DIRECTION

MOTHER ELECTRODE
(PREPARED)

fG- .4.9.2(0-)-LOc-ATION5.OF TEST SITES WITH EARTHIN(aS.

91
 where, a = radius of metal electrode

b = radius of volume of treated soil (Asuming

hemispherical volume) around the electrode.

If, R1 = Original resistance of earth electrode prior to any

treatment with common mass earth resistivity (p =p2)

P2
ohm
R1 2na-r

Deviding R1 with R2 we get

R2 __ 1 p1 b (P2 P1) a * 2Tra

R 27r L ab 1 p2
1

p1 b +(p2 -p1) a
p2 b

= P1 + a
P2 ib . P2 b

P1 1 a + a
p { b ) b
2 J

If, p2ia much greater than p1 , in Rocky area such that

P1
> 0, then
P2

a
a or R2 = R1 ohm
R2
1

92
 In otherwords, the treated soil merely increases the

effective dimension of the electrode materials, in reducing

ground resistance, since b always made greater than' a.

4.9.2 Preparation of mother electrode with, artificial treatment

Using Betonite and coal-ash.

At High current laboratory site C as shown in Fig. 4.9.2 (a)

a mother electrode was prepared by two rods (of 1.25 meterx 20

mm) having artificial treatment with Betonite and Coal Ash plus

salt solution separately. Fig. 4.9.2 (b)

Single rod hammered in dry soil upto 1.2 meter offered 150

Ohm resistance

One 8" dia x 1.2 m deep hole filled with Betonitc 75% + 25

clay soil with water Compaction the rod offered a resistance of

50 Ohm. Another 8" dia hole filled with Coal-Ash only with water

compaction, the rod offered a resistance of 80 Ohm. After

allowing 24 hours soaking with crystal salt (sodium chloride 25%

solution) next day the resistance measured to be

Rod with betonite = 32 Ohm and after 24 hrs 30 Ohm

Rod with coal ash = 68 Ohm after 24 hrs 65 Ohm

r
O'Ir" 4 i2 M* 4L.U)INIUMSF)CRT1Nft WIPLE

_ - 15M
ii
S-) EEL ROD _
11M

COAL ASV t SAL.)

- (DF-TONITF- SA LT _

`'~•4.9•Z (t PREPARAT ION OF MOTHER F-L.ECRODL BY ARTIFlCJArLTRE►rMHT

 This shows that the variation of resistivity with different

treatment of soil. Lastly, both electrodes were connected by a 12

mm aluminium wire, 1.5 m long below 0.1 m ground level as shown in

Fig. 4.9.2 (b).

The net resistance offered by two rods = 21 Ohm and next day

(after 24 hours) 18 Ohms as shown in Table 4.9.2 and graph Fig.

4.9.2 (c). The differences of resistances are due to soaking

effect and mositure absorption (salt solution) to dry soil in

vicinity, increasing the effective diameter of the volume of

treated soil.

4.9.3 CALCULATION OF RESISTIVITY OF BETONITE AND COAL-ASH FROM

THEIR RESISTANCES

R1 = Resistance of Untreated soil = 150 Ohm

R2 = Resistance of treated soil [ Bet onite + Salt = 30 0 ]

Coal-Ash + Salt = 65 Q

From 4.9.1 Theory of artifical treatment

R2 __ pl _ a a
R1 p2 C 1 b + b

where,

p1 = Treated soil resistivity

p2 = Common mass earth resistivity, in present case it

is about 110 Q mt. from table 3.7.1

95
TABLE49.Z FINAL RESISTANCE MEASUREMENT FROM H.C. LAB
MOTHER ELECTRODE (C) DATED-3-12-95

Distance (m) Resistance (ohm)

0.5 2
1 3
1.5 6
2 11
3 15
4 17
5 18
6 18
7 18
8 18
9 18
10 18
11 18
12 18
13 18
14 18
15 18
16 18
17 18
18 18
19 18
20 18
21 18
22 18
23 18
24 18
25 18
26 18
27 18
28 18
29 18
30 18
31 18
32 19
33 22
33.5 24
34 27
34.5 30
35 32
35.5 34
36 37
 40

R 30
E
S
S
I
S
T
A 20
N
E

1
Q
H
M 10

0.6 6 10 16 20 26 30 36 40

DISTANCE (M)

FIB; 4.q.2(c) RESISTANE MEASTJRMENT ALONG

THE ELECTRODE AXIS
 a = Radious of electrode Rod = 10 mm = 0.01 mt.

b = Radious of treated soil hemisphere = 4 = 10cm = .1 mt

For Betonite,

30 p(Betonite) r 1 _ 01 • .01
150 110 .1 .1.

1 _ p(Betonite) 1 - 1 + 1
5 110 10 10

- p(Betonite) x 0.9 + .1
110

or p .1 x 110 = 11.11 Q-mt.

(Betonite) .9

For Coal Ash,

65 p(Coal-Ash) r - 1 1 +
15O 110 l 10 J 10

13 (Coal-Ash)
or 0.9 + 0.1
' 30 110

or, p = 0.33 x 110 = 41 Q-mt.

(Coal-Ash) 0.9

4.9.4 Discussion on Artificial Treatment

Only betonite offered 30 S2 and only coal-ash offered 65 0

and combindly offer 18 S2 as seen from resitance curve at Fig.

4.9.2 (c).
 It is observed that the coal ash has shown some improvement

than ordinary soil of the site but less effective than Betonite.

This is also confirmed from the following laboratory tests (WRDTC).

pH Value Electrical Conductivity mm/cm

i)Soil at test site 7.3 (Alkaline) 0.16

ii)Coal ash(Brick Kiln) 6.3 (Acidic) 0.22

iii)Betonite clay 8.6 (Alkaline) 0.37

From the Calculations of registivity, value of Betonite

agrees with the result of K.S.E.B. Research Directorate, Bangalore

(1993) [34]. But. there is no previous reference values available

so far for the registivity of Coal-Ash of brick kiln. However,

its registivity is less than common soil. Betonite + Salt offers

better result than coal ash + Salt, but Benonite is costlier.

Coal ash is chiefly available. Betonite is alkaline and coal +

ash is acidic in nature, as seen from their pH values.

4.10 GROUND ELECTRODE HEATING AND TEMPERATURE RISE

Electrode may be subject to the following 3 types of

loading.

a) Small current for long duration

b) large current for short duration (impulse)

c) large current for long duration (S.C. current).

 Case (a) is only considered at present for the work. With

long duration loading the predominating factors are the heating of

the comman mass of soil and the conduction of heat away from the

electrode. If the thermal resistance is high and heat conduction

does not take place, it forms a crust of high resistivity layer of

dry soil adjacent to the electrode.

As per Sunde [26] and Taylore [33], if the thermal resistance

increases, the electrical resistance also increases, and as such.

electrical conductivity is a constant for any soil

Thermal co ductivity

4.10.1 Temprature Distribution around a spherical ground

electrode [26, 33]

Heat (H) genrated within the electrode 12R, KCa1.

I = Current
R = Resistance between rod and soil, sphere

having a redius x = P
4nx

Heat at any point x, H = - 4nx2A. de

0 = Temperature of ground at radius X
AF; ui
A = Thermal conductivity of soil

4nx2A dx 2
= I. R

=i2 p
4nx

100
 2p dx
or dA = 1
4nx2A 4nx

x I2p dx
Intigrating both sides, f do = f-
r 167T2A x

Ir1 - 1
or A = PI2
2 2x j
32n 1 x

Temperature is maximum at rod surface, where x=r

2
;. Amax —p I
32 ir2Ar2

8
2 = 2 max '
or I x 16rr2r2
P

= 2 A. p x 1Bn2r2
0max'
f

=2.0 .A.p -1 4nr'

max R2 C R = p

or I = ^J2. A
maxA p R

or IR = 2.0 Ap
max

or potential, V = 420 Ap volt

max

If,
0max is assumed constant , the potential (v) depends on square
root of thermal conductivity and resistivity (or, electrcal

101
conductivity) of soil. From the above equation, it is evident that

potential is independent of the size of the electrode and

dependent only on the characteristics of the soil i.e. (8, A and

p). The above equation can be written as

1_ 1 2
e max 2 A p

_ -2 _
a- V2 = 1 CV2

Where, c = constant = electrical conductivity of soil

Thermal conductivity

= 1x10-2to 3x10-3 C/volt2 for clay soil

4.10.2 HIGH CURRENT EXPERIMENT ON THE SELECTED EARTHING

ARRANGEMENT

The experimental setup was made ready as shown in Figure

4.10.2 (a)The test electrode was buried at 0.6 mt. under ground

along with the RTD and the leads connections of electrode and RTD

were separately brought to surface with proper insulation from

each others. At about 36 mt away from the test electrode, the

mother earth was also prepared as discussed in previous topic

4.9, near High Current Laboratory to feed 230 V A.C. suply to

earth the phase line connected to the test electrode terminal and

neutral to the mother earth electrode.

102
 r ~
Ag
a
cc CO Q

Z
0
'U
2

E
ca ~

I /p
H/ N
E

N
M
O

U-
0
a

V)

E
0

0
U-
U
 TIME ^/ CURRENT TEMPRATUF<E RISE TFST
-----------`------------` '------ - '------------------------ ----
ACTUAL
TIME CURRENT (c) RESTSTANCE V/T RTr r DING TEMPTURE
C --_--__________~~`-_-__-

16 00 5. 32. 22
1.0.02' 4'5 5.4 32 22
2().00 3.5 70 72 22
21.00 3.5 70 32 22
22.00 3.4 72 :1'3 22'5
23.00 3.? 72 3? 22.5
24.00 .' 3 74.2 35 24
1.00 2 81.7 ^- -
2.00 2.3 -
-
13.00 2 106.5 _
l.7 -
4.02 1.22,5 -
-~
5.70 l.0 206.1.
1.6 153'1 35
7.00 1.6 I53.1 70 39
8.00 1 6 153.I 77 40
9'00 1.0 153'1 60 41.
10.02' 1 .5 163.7 85 42
11'00 l.4 175 00 43
12.00 1.9 188.5 95 44
13'00 1'2 204'2 100 46
14'0{) I'2 204'2 105 47
15.00 1.2 204'2 109 40
1.2 204.2 112 49
17.00 1 204.2 112. 49
18.00 1.2 204'2 112 49
19'00 1'2 204'2 112 49

104
 Table 4-1O.2L )

Potential Measurement with Digital Voltmeter from mother

Electrode

Distance of Electrode Voltage Distance Voltage

.5 mt 1. IV 30 mt 24.7. V
1.0 in 2.36 V 31 mt 13.0 V

1. J m 3.2V 32 mt

2.( m 3.6V 33 mt

.5 m 3..9V L4 mt 10.0 V

?.Om 3.7 V L5 mt 1l.0 V

4.0 m 4.2 V ?b mt 18.0 V

4.5 in 4.8 V 37 mt 11.3 V

5,0 m 4.B V :`8 mt 7.8 V

b.0 m 5.® V

7.0 in 5.1 V
8.0 in 5.1 V
Vpt _ GonS Q►l~ om M - 22 m

23.0 m 5.1 V

24.0 in 5.2 V

26.0 m 6.9 V

28.0 m 7.9 V

29.0 in 9.0 V

30.0 m 24.7 V

105
 4.10.2(4ii,)
TABLE NO: RESIDUAL VOLTAGE READINGS AFTER SUPPLY OFF
FROM MOTHER ELECTRODE TO RING ELECTRODE

Distance (m) Voltage (v)

0 0.001
0.5 0,04
1 0.08
2 0.09
3 0.15
4 0.19
5 0.21
6 0.23
7 0.24
8 0.24
9 0.24
10 0.24
11 0.24
12 0.24
13 0.24
14 0.24
15 0.24
16 0.24
17 0.24
18 0.24
19 0.24
20 0.24
21 0.24
22 0.24
23 0.24
24 0.24
25 0.24
26 0.24
27 0.25
28 0.26
29 0.31
30 0.31
31 0.31
32 0.32
33 0.34
34 0.37
35 0.43
36 0.64
37 0.45
38 0.23

106
1819 20 21222324 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213141618171819
TIME IN HOURS
FFU.4.10.4)-TIME VS CURRENT & TEMP.

107
260

200

160

100

TEMPTRATURE °C

0
1819 20 21222324 1 2 3 4 8 6 7 8 91O11121314116171819
TlKAC th1 Uni 100
1 IlVIG II nVVnk?
FL.4.tO.z(C) - TIME VS RESISTANCE AND TEMP.
 30

..................................................................;.2,~.. Tv ...........-.....~
25
P
0
T
E ,,0
N
T
I
A
L 15
R
I
S
E 10

Ou
0.6 6 10 16 20 26 301 351 40
RING

DISTANCE (M)

FIG.4.10. L(c() POTENTIAL MEAE UREMENT

FROM MOTHER ELECTRODE- C

109
 0.7

0.6

0.5
V
0
L
T 0.4
A
G
E
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 16 20 26 X30 40
RAN ~~'
DISTANCE (M)

FIG4J0.2,(€)RESIDTJAL VOLTAGE CURVE

110
 TABLE NO. 4.10.2('ty)
R T D CALIBRATION

R T D Reading °c Actual Temperature °c

28 — —--——— 18

32 —— ————— 22
42 ———————- 28.5
82 —— ————-- 42
124 ——————- 53
135 ——————- 58
158 ——————- 66

172 ——————- 72
183 ——————- 82
194 ————--- 92
196 — —--—— — 96

10

U 7

L1

~.7

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 2100

RTD READING C
FIG NN104.90.2,(f)R.T.D. CALIBRATION ' P APH

111
 With high current about 5-10 Amp, was planned to pass

continuously for observation of temperature rise, potential rise

at electrode. But due to lack of capacity of transformer/variac,

only 5.5 Amp. was made available. The initial and final readings

are noted as follows Applied voltage (Single phase) = 245 V

Initial current = 5.5 Amp.(AC)

Initial resistance = 45.5 ohm

Initial soil temperature at 0.6 meter sub-soil near

electrode (RTD) = 220C

Atmospheric Temperatore during day time = 180C,

during night 140C

Initial mositure content of back filled soil = 4.2%

After 19 hrs continuous supply current reduces to = 1.2 Amp.

& remains steady

After 19 hrs. resistance = 204.2 ohm remain steady

After 22 Hrs. Temperature = 490 c and remains steady

After 48 hrs. with supply off moisture content of soil at .6

mt depth near RTD = 2%

4.10.3 Calculation of potential rise (v) & Temperature Rise

Result Tabulation-Resistence and temperature rise Table

4.10.1 (i), Potential Rise Table 4.10.2 (ii). Residual Voltage

112
Measurement 4.10.2 (iii), RTD calibration Table 4.10.2 (iv).

Grpahs - Fig. 4.10.2 (b) Time Vs Temperature and Current

- Fig 4.10.2 (c) Time Vs temperature and resistance

- Fig. 4.10.2 (d) Distance Vs potential Rise in volt

- Fig 4.10.2 (e) Residual Voltage Curve

- Fig. 4.10.2 (f) - RTD Vs Actual Temperature

The analytical temperature rise from theory, at 4.10.1.

T = 1/2 CV2
max

where, C = Electrical conductivity/thermal conductivity

= 3 x 10-2 (for clay soil)

V = Potential at the ring periphery

= 24.7-5.1 = 19.6 V

T = 1/2 x 3x 10-2 19.62= 60c

max

The actual' temperature rise observed from RTD display and

its calibration graphs

= 49-22 = 270C.

4.10.4 History and Discussion of Results of past scientists on

Heat-Run test

As per [33) some of the results of past scientists are given

below

IF

113
(i) O.B.BOTEN (1924) observed in his experiment on a pipe

electrode whose resistance increased to several hundred of

ohms with 1-2 Amperes of continuous current(AC). When

resistance increased to a high value, steam was also

observed rising from around the pipe & the temperature

inside the pipe measured to be 1000 C. Cooling the pipe by

pouring water inside pipe, caused the resistance to drop

back - to normal.

(ii) G.VIEL (1930) In order to observe the consistency (steady

value) of earth electrode resistance in an earth return of

H.V. single phase A.C. for Rural Electrification, Viel had

chosen a plate electrode of one square meter size, buried

vertically in a bed of crushed coke to a depth of 2.5 Mts.

Applied voltage 84 v & current 1.4 Amp (A.C)

continuously for 4 years to observe the seasonal effect on

resistance variation.

He observed no appreciable temperature rise, because the

resitance of coke is largely un affected., by moisture.The

Thermal & electrical conductivity of coke are also very

(iii) T.0 GILBERT (1932) Observed in his experiment on a pipe

electrode of 11 feet and 1" diameter carrying current of 1

amp (AC) with applied voltage 90v, into the ground of

114
 sandy/gravel soil of resistivity about300 ohm-m, caused the

electrode earth resistance to increase in few hours from 90

ohm to 420 ohms. High resistivity sandy/gravel soils have

poor thermal conductivity and is the cause of temperature

rise.

4.10.5 DISSCUSSION OF HEAT RUN TEST

The theoretical temperature rise(60C) and the actual

temperature rise (270C) differs appreciably because this test is

not so sensitive having controlled parameters, like model tests

conducted in the laboratory. This is a coarse-method of testing

which may not match perfectly with theoretical calculated value.

Secondly, there are so many uncontrolled parameters of soil

moisture content, imperfect soil consolidation leading to creation

of contact resistance.

i) During back filling of the ring and rod electrodes it was

made with completely dry soil and compacted manually, without

any water.

ii) Secondly, any slight-looseness might have created some voids

along the surface of contact, there by increasing the contact

resistance. iii) This increased contact resistance generates

heat (I2R loss) and temperature rise. iv) With continuous

temperature rise and under certain condictions it warm up the

earth electrode environment and try to evaporate whatever

115
 remnant moisture is in the vicinity. Again this, evaporation

of moisture cumulatively effects in increasing the resistance

and temperature rise progressively.

High Current Test of about 10 Amp. or more was in plan for

test. But the high current transformer available could not give

more than 5.5 Amp. due to lack of capacity.

After heat run test, with supply made off, the potential

measurement with digital voltmeter was done from mother electrode

which shows a negligible residual voltage rise from 0.001 to

0.64V upto the connecting lead of electrode ring. This indicates

that our results are not ofset by any background earth current.

From the graph of potential rise Fig. 4.10.2 (c), it is seen

that the ground surface potential rise is maximum (24.7V) at the

front side of ring periphery (30 m) from the remote earth. At

the centre of the ring (33 m) 8 V and at the opposite and (36 m)

18 V and decreases beyond 36 m. These potential rise is with

respect to the mother earth (remote earth) which is not at zero

potential but its potential is at 5.1 V, as seen in Graph. The

maximum potential rise 19.6 V is well below the limit of 32 volt.

116
 CHAPTER - 5
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

All the experiments have been performed in normal ground with

general purpose instruments available in the Electrical

Engineering Department Laboratory. No special or sophisticated

instruments or techniques were used in this work because only a

comparative study was contemplated.

5.1 Resistivity survey and measurement gives an indication of the

different subsoil layerings and its conductivities, so that

while designing, it helps to fix the electrode length atleast

upto that level, for preliminary calculations. The

measurements show a two layer structure of the test sites.

5.2 From Table 3.7 (iii] and Graph Fig. 3.7(c), it is concluded

that regular soil moisture measurement shows that there is a

rise and fall of moisture content in soil (at a particular

depth of 0.6 meter observed) from month to month. This rate

of variation is ofcourse less with deeper soil strata.

Hence, the top 0.5 to 1 m depth of soil from surface seems to

have been prone to more seasonal changes of moisture and

temperature also.

117
 If the electrodes are put beyond this depth, the electrode

encounters less effect of change of seasonal resistivity. Hence,

the ground resistance offered by a particular system remains

almost at steady value which does not go beyond certain limit,

fixed as per design value.

Secondly, the ground potential rise minimises when the

electrode is put at certain depth below the-ground.

5.3. From 3 point measurement of resistance, the rods when put in

straight line, along the line of mother electrode, offers

more resistance, than when put in perpendicular direction to

the line of measurement as shown in Fig. 4.6.2 and 4.6.3.

In SWER System, if the 33/11 kV substation neutral earthing

is treated as remote mother earth, the electrode

configuration axis should be perpendicular to the line

joining the remote earth to the distribution transformer

using such grounding arrangements. During our experimental

observations for a two rod and a ring conductor ground

electrode behaves as follows, in two different directions

perpendicular to each other.

Resistance offered by Ring electrode with

reference to mother electrode at A = 11 Ohm

118
 Resistance offered by Ring electrode with reference to

mother electrode at C = 19 Ohm Fig. 4.9.2(a)

5.4 The selected Ring Electrode burned below 0.6 m of depth and

backfilled with dry soil and packed manually, without any

treatment of water or chemicals, gives a potential rise of

19.6 V with an A.C. current flow of 1.2 Amp during

experiment. This is actually high resistance direction

choosen for test. In perpendicular direction, with respect

to mother electrode (A), the same grounding will give rise to

(11 Ohm x 1.2 Amp.) =13 Volt potential rise which is still

less.

Further, if a chemical or artificial treatment is applied to

this grounding system with proper care of consolidation and

compaction, the 11 Ohm earth resistance may reduce to one third of

its values (as seen in the case of Botonite + Salt or Coal Ash +

Salt). Hence, an ultimate lower value (11/3 = 3.6 Ohm), can be

expected, from this test electrode (Ring Model). With less than

four Ohm earth resistance, it is now capable of taking about 8

Amp. normal rating current of a 50 KVA distribution transformer,

with safe potential rise of (8A x3.6 Ohm) =RB2 Volt, as seen from

Table 1.1.1.

If, by chance, this grounding-resistance increases due to

ageing in future, this can bit controlled easily, by putting

119
one/two more rod-electrodes inside ground, along the periphery of

ring conductor. To achieve further lower value of earth

resistance, the diameter of ring is to be increased more than 6 m.

5.5 COMPARISON OF EARTH RESISTANCE OF THE MODEL ELECTRODE

With results of Research Directorate, K.E. Board, Bangalore

[6] as shown in Appendix IV.

Research Directorate KEB..Result Test Result of Selected Earthing

(a)At 50 c2-mt resistivity-3 1.25 mtrs. x 20 mm dia. rods

electrodes in triangular triangular configuration 6mt.

configuration 3m long 4cm. dia. spacing offers 7.5 0 (Aug. ' 95)

electrode with spacing 6 mts with soil resistivity 52c2-mt.

offers 5.2 0.

(b)At 100 ca-mt, resistivity 2 (b) 2 electrodes 1.25mx20 mm

electrodes of 3 mt long in a connected to a circular-grid

square grounding grid 6mx6m ring of 6mt. diameter with a

with a depth of burial 0.9 mt depth of burial 0.6mt and

and m.s. galvanised 7 mm Aluminium conductor of 12 mm

conductor offers 7.1 0 dia offers 11 SZ in axial

ground-resistance. direction, with soil resistivity

110 Q-m (Dec.'95)

The variation between the above two results may be due to

variation in length of electrodes, otherwise, both results are in

close approximation at both the values of soil resistivites.

120
Besides, there is difference in type of soil, site conditions,

instruments used and type of shorting (clamping or binding) for

making the rods connected parallel.

5.6 SUGGESTION FOR FUTURE WORKS

5.6.1 TECHNICAL WORKS:

(1) Further study needs on impulses current test and

longterm observation with currents more than 10 Amp. to

be investigated on SWER earth electrode.

ii) This test also can be carried out in different types of

soils like sandy/gravel soil and snow fall areas.

(iii) As per CBIP Annual Review 1965 [4a], 4% cement- + 4%

NaOH (by weight of soil) gives vary good result of low

earth resistance. As per CBIP 58th Research Session

April'1993 [34], Thermal Power Plant fly-ash also gives

some satisfactory result next to Betonite. Since,

cement is costlier and may not have good binding with

soil mixture, cement plus fly-ash combinations with NaOH

treatment may be investigated in different proportions,

for artificial treatment to electrodes. It is expected

to give good result and long life due to the presence of

NaOH (Alkaline).

5.6.2 Environmental Impact Assessment

i) As per [4a], the possible warming-up of soil and

movement of moisture (Electrolysis) in soil may be

121
 studied in Agricultural fields upto the root-depth of

1.5 mt. Its electro-chemical changes in soil and

possibility of fertilizer-effect on vegetation also need

to be investigated.

(ii) As per [351, impact of electric and magnetic field due

to continuous earth •current, on the biological

behaviours of under ground creatures, micro-biological

behaviours of under ground creatures,

micro-biology-changes on soil microbia-population, soil

fertility etc. may need to be investigated.

iii) Possibility of explosion hazards due to earth-current

flow in areas having explosive gases and materials

inside and outside the earth surface also to be studied.

122
 REFERENCES

1. Rural Electrification Corpn. Ltd. New Delhi,

- "H. V.Distribution System" circulation no-REC-

BH/Tech-106/1034 dt. 26.8.93 to all SEBS

2. KRISHNARAO, M.V., VIDYASAGAR, GEC, "H. V. Distrubtion system

for Reduction of distribution Losses". CIGRE Regional Meeting

on The Requirements of a Developing Country, 6-7 September

1993, New Delhi India. Organised by CBIP New Delhi.

3. C.P.R.I, Bangalore, "Economics of single phase Distribution

system Vs Three-phase system for application in Rural

Electrification,"CBIP New-Delhi, Technical Report no-70,

Feb. 1989. (p-8)

4. CBIP Annual Riview of Research on fundamental & Basic

problems Relating to power, (4a) Aug. 1965(p-23-32, 71) & (4b)

Dec. 1966 (p.65-87)

5. CBIP New-Delhi, "Symposium on SWER system for Rural

Electrification", CBIP publication No-87 March 1968 (p.49-50)

6. Research Directorate of Karnataka State Electricity Board,

Bangoklo re, Report on Single Wire earth Return system,"

CBIP,New Delhi, Technical Report no. 11, June 1977.

7. DAS, DEVADUTTA. Professor WRDTC, UOR Lecture note on

"Grounding for Sub-Stations & Generating Stations" (p.6-8)

123
8. SAKIS MELIOPOULOS, A:P, - "Power System grounding &

Transients (An Introduction"), 3rd Edition (p 55-135) 1988,

Mercel Dekker, Inc. New york.

9. IEEE standard. 142. 1982 Green Book Grouding IEEE Recommended

Practic for grounding of Industrial and commercial power

system.

10. The Power Division of the IEE-- Conference on "International

Medium Voltage Earthing Practices" 21-23 March

1972,(p.103-124). The Institution of Electrical Engineers,

Savoy Place, London We 2,

11. CBIP, New Delhi, "Interference of power lines with Telephone

lines", CBIP Technical Report No-29 Sept 1978.

12. IEE & ERA - "Distribution" Conference publications no. 73,

20-22 Oct. 1970, At the Assembly Rooms, George Street, Edin

Burgh. (p.199-201)

13. TELFORD, W.M., GELDART, L.P. & others "Applied Geophysics"

Cambridge University Press Cambridge, London (p.445-642)

14. NERPIN, S.V. & CHAUDVOSKI, A.F."Physics of Soil" Chapter XI

Electrical Conductivity of Soil (p.278-310) Jerusalum 1970

15. SHARMA, P.V. "Geophysical Methods in Geology" Chapter - II

Measurement of Resistivity (p.273-276)

16. KIMBARK, E. W. "H. V. DC Transmission (p.226-397)

17. Punjab Engineering Colege, Chandigarh "Workshop on Design of

Earthing System" 25-28 April 1994(p-4) Organised by CBIP New

Delhi, Malcha Marg, Chanakya Puri New Delhi-110021.

124
18. GOYAL, V.C., "Use of Resistivity Technique in Soil Moisture

study" Hydrology Journal of IAH,Vol. IX, No 4, October-Dec

1966(p,48)

19. GRIFFITH, D.H., KING, R.F. "Applied Geophysics for Engineers

and Geologists", Chapter II - Theory of Electrical

Resistivity Surveying, p. 8.

20. BHAUMIK, N.P. & BHATTACHARYA,B.-" EHV Sub-Stations and

Equipments"1988. Topic Sub-Station earthing (p.298), Tata

McGraw Hill publication, New Delhi,

21. REEVES, E.A., "Hand Book of Electrical installation

Practices" Vol. I, Chapter-7 Earthing (p.212-221) Granada,

London.

22. WAGNER, C.F. and EVANS, R.D."Symmetrical Components" Chapter

-earth Return Circuit, (p.146)

23. GONEN, TURAN "Moden Power System Analysis" Chapters

Grounding (p.191-198),1988 John wiley, New york.

24. REELAY RONALD P.O. "Electrical Grounding" (p.16-58)

25. PABLA A.S. "Electric Power Distribution Systems" 3rd edition,

1992, (p.222-235) PSEB, Chandigarh, TATA Mc Graw Hill

publishing Co. Ltd, New Delhi.

26. SUNDE, ERLING D., "Earth Conduction Effects in Transmission

systems" Chapter III Resistance of Grounding Arrangemtns

(p.66-94) D.Van Nostrand Co, Inc, New York 1949.

27. MIKHAVE, M."Foundamental of Heat Transfer"(p.309)

28. I.S. 3043, 1987 (p 16-18)

125
 APPENDIX I

MEASUREMENT OF RESISTIVITY BY SCHLT)MBERGER METHOD AT TEST SITE

BETWEEN WRDTC AND EED, UOR DATED 16.11.95.

FIELD CUHVE , NW.'95

10000
R
E
S
1
S
T 1000

T
Y
100

I V-

ELECTRODE SPACIN+.. IN tIETERS

1 4Hl1
R
E
S
i
s
T 1H;i

I
T
Y
IH

H
M
i

1 10 100
DEPTH, IN METERS

128
 Effective ground connection is the key to the successful

operation of earth return for continuous flow of the current. And

selection of the proper grounding electrodes is of prime importance

to provide the effective ground connection.

The Class I earth-electrodes which are generally used for

grounding are

1. Driven rods or pipes

2. Plate Electrodes

3. Strips

4. Buried Straight horizontal wires.

Driven Rods or Pipes

From the practical view point, where conditions are

satisfactory, the most suitable form of electrode is the driven

rod or pipe. Resistance for rods of different length and diameters

and for a specific resitance.of 100 ohm-meters as shown in Fig....

These curves show that an increase in length has a much greater

effect. The best length of rod to use is determined by the nature

of the soil and layering effect'of resistivity. If for instance,

specific resistance tests indicate that there is an underlying

structure or lower resistivity, a rod, long enough to reach this

should be used so that benefits of lower resistivity can be

achieved.

130.
18. GOYAL, V.C., "Use of Resistivity Technique in Soil Moisture

study" Hydrology Journal of IAH,Vol. IX, No 4, October-Dec

1986(p,48)

19. GRIFFITH, D.H., KING, R.F. "Applied Geophysics for Engineers

and Geologists", Chapter II - Theory of Electrical

Resistivity Surveying, p. 8.

20. BHAUMIK, N.P. & BHATTACHARYA,B.-" EHV Sub-Stations and

Equipments"1988. Topic Sub-Station earthing (p.298), Tata

McGraw Hill publication, New Delhi,

21. REEVES, E.A., "Hand Book of Electrical installation

Practices" Vol.I, Chapter-7 Earthing (p.212-221) Granada,

London.

22. WAGNER, C.F. and EVANS, R.D."Symmetrical Components" Chapter

-earth Return Circuit, (p.146)

23. GONEN, TURAN "Moden Power System Analysis" Chapters

Grounding (p.191-198),1988 John wiley, New york.

24. REELAY RONALD P.O. "Electrical Grounding" (p.16-58)

25. PABLA A.S. "Electric Power Distribution Systems" 3rd edition,

1992, (p.222-235) PSEB, Chandigarh, TATA Mc Craw Hill

publishing Co. Ltd, New Delhi.

26. SUNDE, ERLING D., "Earth Conduction Effects in Transmission

systems" Chapter III Resistance of Grounding Arrangemtns

(p.66-94) D.Van Nostrand Co, Inc, New York 1949.

27. MIKHAVE, M."Foundamental of Heat Transfer"(p.309)

28. I.S. 3043, 1987 (p 16-18)

125
29. IEEE Standard 142-1982 (Green Book) (p.119-131)

30. NAHMAN, J., "A practical method for the Interpretation of

Earth Resistivity Data obtained from Driven Rod Test" IEEE

TRANS. POWD, Vol3, No 4, October 1988.(p.1375).

31. GUSTAFSON, R.J." Seasonal Grounding Resistance Variations on

Distribution Systems" IEEE Trans on POWD, Vol.5, No2,April

1990 (p.1013)

32. FAWSSETT, E. & others "Practical Aspects , of Earthing"

IEEE(london) Vol. 87. July-Dece 1940, (p.362)

33. TAYLOR, H.G."The current Loading Capacity of Earth

Electrodes" JIEE (India),Vol.77, 1935(p.544& 556-560)

34. ARUNACHALAM, A. "Investigations on Fly Ash for Effective

Earthing", CBIP, New Delhi, Publication of 58th R & D

Session, 19-22 April 1993, Section VIII - Sub-Station, (p 131

- 133).

35. ATONIAN, G.E., "Are There Biological and Psychological

Effects Due. to E.H.V. Installations ?" I. E. E. E. TRANS. PAS,

Vol. 97, No. 1, Jan/Feb 1978, (p 8 - 14).

I :3 I : 31 [. Z ► •d

1.0 FINK, DONALD. G. & BEATY, H. WAYNE, Standard Handbook for

electrical Engineers 11th Edition, Mc graw Hill Book Co New

York Chapter 17-Sub-Station•Graounding (p.17.33-17.39)

126
2.0 KUSSY FRANK W. & WARREN, JACK, L.-"Design Fundamentals for

L. V. Distribution & Control" 1987, Marcel Dekker, Inc. New

York Chapter I&III 9

3.0 TAG, G.F "Earth _ Resistances" 1964,

4.0 RYDER, R.W. "Earthing principles & practice" George Newnes

Ltd. Tower House, South Campton street, 1964.

5.0 GRINDLEY J.H. H.V. "Distribution practice" London.

6.0 SEEVERS, O.C. "Ground currents & stray voltages" 1988

7.0 KELLER, GEORGE~V & FRISCHKNECHT FRANK C. "Electrical Methods

in Geophysical prospecting"Chapter I Electrical properties of

Earth materials. Pergamon press, oxford, London.1966.

127
 APPENDIX I

MEASUREMENT OF RESISTIVITY BY SCHLT]MBERGER. METHOD AT TEST SITE

BETWEEN WRnTC AND EED, UOR DATED 16.11.95.

FIELD CURVE , N'/. ' S , (Ls,% ,trrc

10060
R
E
S
S
T 1000

.ii

T
V

n
A i.0
I

ELECTRODE SPACING IN METI RS

1H~ib
R
E
S

S
T 1 si h

V
I
T
Y
tN

0
H
n

.1 1 10 100
DEPTH, IN METERS

128
 APPENDIX II

REVIEW OF THE DIFFERENT EARTH ELECTRODES AND STANDARD

SPECIFICATION

The earth electrodes may be divided into 2 classes.

Class I : Used as. primary earth electrodes only - plates, strips,

conductors, pipes, rods etc.

Class II: Water pipes, building, foundation frame works,

well-linings, and cable sheatts and armouring.

Water pipes are in common use for LT domestic earthing and in

that case also minimum length of pipe should not be more than 10

feet. In america the use of driven rods/pipes, buried

strips/conductors are the commonest earth electrode and buried

pipes or plates are very rarely used.

As per IEEE - Standard 142 - 1982 :. Usual size of ground rod

diameters are upto 1 inch (25.4 mm) and lengths upto 16 ft

(4.88m). The metallurgy of the above electrodes are cast-iron,

steel, copper and steenless steel. The most favoured metal is

copper having best conductivity and corrossion resistant to the

salts and oxides present in soil. But it does not have sufficient

strength or hardness to enable a copper rod to be driven to a

great depth. Copper clad steel rods are more suitable in this

case and can penetrate most type of soils to a depth upto 30 m.

129
 Effective ground connection is the key to the successful

operation of earth return for continuous flow of the current. And

selection of the proper grounding electrodes is of prime importance

to provide the effective ground connection.

The Class I earth-electrodes which are generally used for

grounding are

1. Driven rods or pipes

2. Plate Electrodes

3. Strips

4. Buried Straight horizontal wires.

Driven Rods or Pipes

From the practical view point, where conditions are

satisfactory, the most suitable form of electrode is the driven

rod or pipe. Resistance for rods of different length and diameters

and for a specific resitance of 100 ohm-meters as shown in Fig....

These curves show that an increase in length has a much greater

effect. The best length of rod to use is determined by the nature

of the soil and layering effect of resistivity. If for instance,

specific resistance tests indicate that there is an underlying

structure or lower resistivity, a rod, long enough to reach this

should be used, so that benefits of lower resistivity can be

achieved.
 The practical advantages of driven rods over other forms of

electode may be summarised as follows

1) Low cost of driven rods when compared with other

electrodes.

2) Where the surface soil is sandy, or where the permanent

mositures is at a considerable depth, rods can be driven

to such a depth as it results in too much reduction in

resistance.

3) Seasonal variations are very much less with the deep rods

than with buried electrodes. As such rods will be

unaffected by drying-out the soil in summer or freezing in

winter.

4) If, artificial treatment with a salt solution is

considered necessary, the process is simpler with earth

rods than with any other electrode.

5)Quite a number of electrodes can be driven for the cost of

single earth plate, giving much lower earth-resistance.

6)The connection between the earth-rod and the conductor to

which it is coupled can be quite simple and can be easily

inspected and where necessary can be replaced or rejointed.

7) There is flexibility of putting more number of additional

rods in case there is any rise of ground.resistance due to

aeging, in future.

8) In case of steep front surges, pipe electrodes behave

better than other form of electrodes.

131
 The practical advantages of driven rods over other forms of

electode may be summarised as follows

1) Low cost of driven rods when compared with other

electrodes.

2) Where the surface soil is sandy, or where the permanent

mositures is at a considerable depth, rods can be driven

to such a depth as it results in too much reduction in

resistance.

3)Seasonal variations are very much less with the deep rods

than with buried electrodes. As such rods will be

unaffected by drying-out the soil in summer or freezing in

winter.

4) If, artificial treatment with a salt solution is

considered necessary, the process is simpler with earth

rods than with any other electrode.

5)Quite a number of electrodes can be driven for the cost of

single earth plate, giving much lower earth-resistance.

6)The connection between the earth-rod and the conductor to

which it is coupled can be quite simple and can be easily

inspected and where necessary can be replaced or rejointed.

7)There is flexibility of putting more number of additional

rods in case there is any rise of ground resistance due to

aeging, in future.

8) In case of steep front surges, pipe electrodes behave

better than other form of electrodes.

131
Plate Electrode

The second type of earth electrode is the buried plate. This

was the earliest form of earth electrode to be used. In the past

considerable use has been made of buired platers of 3' .x 3'. The

earth plates, due to the following draw-backs, are being possibly

replaced by driven rode.

1. Cost of burying the plate is high.

2. The connection between the earth plate and the conductor to

which it is connected cannot be quite easily inspected, and

is also susceptible to corrosion.

3. Seasional variations are more prominant as compared to the

driven rods.

4. After certain depth, the plate can not be driven by

hammering.

Strip Electrode

These electrode if in the form of strips are ususally made

from copper having section not less than 1" x-- which is

preferably untined.These are mainly used for spreading grounding

mat and inter connection of electrodes and equipment.

Buried Straight Horizontal Wire

In many situations, where it is desirables to obtan a ground

of low resistance, it may be convenient to install a buried wire

under ground by digging. Especially where, hard soil rock is

132
present under the surface having a superficial layer of lower

resistivity at the top, the only solution is to use horizontal

wire buried at the required depth. The depth of burial has little

effect on resistance. It is necessary to bury only deep enough to

prevent theft.

133
 ApPEND)X - III

SPHERE

Ra P ohric
crrr
P PESIS1tvrTY OF IHE EARTH IN ohms
RADIUS Of T14F. SPHERE tU m..trr5

IL
ROD
R_, 2-P
,;T Cloge p -1joh
cv. R c O 366 Lc 3L ohms.
L
AIL DIMEt4SONS APE W Mo-Iris,

51 pc

P 4L
R_ 4tTL Log e )

k.— 2w

PLAIE ELE'TROL
P P
9t 4nD
FOR SQUARE VERTICAL F'LU'TE I IiC RE51SYAU CE IS
THE SAME AS FOR ROUdWD PLATE OF T1lE SAtAE
AREA

BURIEC STRAIC,H7 HORIZONTAL WIRE

7 LJJTiir-"7T=i11?J,{,/•1 =•ii • 7J-~rii _i•I

3
0/2 R: Z
rt loge-
L
-+k09
' 4 L 4 2-+
r 16L J
1u

~.-_ --- 2L - ----~

EARTH RESISTANCE OF GROUND ELECTRODES

134
., t U a)
"J •r1 0 N r .1
;J O W N
to o -4
.e-j Q)
h-4
Q) 14 LII '
o
a c•) u7 cN
N d' M N
~ro
c4 p a
E ,p .
44 .l . a+ no N
o(0 r,a f7 N < -~
a
o" N • • a
r-i
4-'t--
4Jkrn
c o•-c
co cl` N (g
N O{) vI Q 0 •
(-1 ) 4 Q) 0 C- •
44 •rd j O
.Q Q~

--1 O.1
o --+ 0 o• c- r-4 r
LW (0, 0 r.t) C` d"
a: r-4 rA
En ViZ
4J
3 a+J
0
U) 5•,O LO

N 41 0 N
'.p* tv
U)N~ L[1 . 0 •
N N N -1 <{

ro .~
w U •0 a)
(4 (U
o) .0 a) 'O . ui
CO 004 +) o _
N W
•
00

(I) U) U) 4-)
rt3 ) 7' 0, 'o
(no
o N -! s (U v ?S
awn
-rl 0 t
.- .: v cu
oar r- o r4
•{ N r-i o 4-) .,.{
0 R7 • 5 L-t C- 0
0 ru U) 4-1 V US
' ~O .-. Ql LS O rU r3
0) ! i
p .r1 .- tit p to .r•{ R1 N 0
u V+- 4 }4 4 (n '0 •
0
ro 44 - t; o0) 4Jro04J•d ! •
U - e 1-1 ,.Q U z .0 • .-.
+' n , r4
v3 U ,0 ,_j ~ 4J U -P ~-I b' `0 0 > +n
-'-4 v U) E 4) "U .rt r-! ri '< I-I
U) V ro
M tl3 04 0) 1p N r0 is - U1 tt~
o (U fl

N r' ?+