Att Phayomhom, Ph.D.

Power System Planning Department

Metropolitan Electricity Authority
 2

Distribution Substation
 3

GPR ; Ground Potential Rise

Fault Current Overhead

Ground wire

Ground Return Currents

Ground Potential Rise : GPR

 4

Definition of Tolerable Voltage

 5

CDEGS Program
Current Distribution Electromagnetic Interference
Grounding and Soil Structure Analysis

CDEGS [MEA’s license]

RESAP
 6

Process of Safety Analysis

 7

Process of Safety Analysis

Step 1: Measure a resistance (Ω) of soil located within the
targeted substation area by using the wenner
arrangement method.

Step 2: Input the value of resistance obtained from step 1

into the Rural Electric Safety Accreditation Program
Module (RESAP) by using steepest method to get
the soil characteristic such as soil resistivity (Ω.M)
and the thickness of the soil layer.
 8

Process of Safety Analysis

Step 3: Input the value of resistance obtained from step 1
into the CDEG program using the MALT module to
achieve the safety criteria.

Step 4: Design the ground grid system of each substation

corresponds to each ground grid study.
 9

Process of Safety Analysis

Step 5: Compare the potential the maximum touch and step
voltage, which are simulated from each designed ground grid
configuration with the safety criteria to examine whether they
exceed the safety criteria level. If yes, the designed ground grid
configuration needs to be revised until the maximum touch and
step voltage are within the safety criteria.
Criteria Compare Design

>

>
 10

Soil Structure

The most important study in

ground grid design is soil
structure analysis. Substation
GPR values is directly depends
on both soil structure and soil
resistivities.
Structure of two-layer soil
 11

Real Soil Models

 12

Why Model Soil In Detail?

Volume of
Medium
Resistivity Soil

The ‘real’ world is more complicated than the ‘ideal’ world.

 13

Soil Resistivity Computer Model

CDEGS “RESAP” Input Screen
 14

Results: Soil Resistivity Model

Site-specific soil model for use as
input to design the ground system
(tabular and graphical representations
shown).

To be used later by CDEGS for the

ground grid system design
calculations.
 15

Case Study No. 1 : Laksi Substation

 16

Overview
1. Introduction
2. Description of the Laksi Substation Grounding System
3. Soil Characteristic
4. Case Study
5. Applicability
6. Conclusion
 17

1. Introduction
Based on MEA's statistical data, one of the main causes of
sustain interruptions is short circuits on electrical substations.
A short circuit generates large currents that flow in the
aboveground structures and grounding system and dissipate
in the soil. The high currents may cause damage to
equipment and may be dangerous to personnel working
nearby. It is there-fore important to consider and incorporate
safe step and touch voltage limitations into electrical designs
in order to achieve a safe electrical system without potential
electrical hazards after installation.
 18

2. Description of the Laksi Substation Grounding System

• 120 MVA, 115-24 kV

dimension is 3m × 3m
• ground rod is 2.4 m
long with a diameter
of 15.875 mm.
• buried at 0.5 m below
the ground surface
level
 19

Ground Grid Model for Laksi Substation

The ground grid system for the Laksi substation was

modelled using the CDEGS program.
 20

3. Soil Characteristic
Soil Resistivity Result
The soil layer characteristics of
the Laksi substation were
analyzed by a built-in module
in the CDEGS program called
Rural Electric Safety
Accreditation Program module
(RESAP), logarithmically shown
in Figure.
 21

Summary of Soil Resistivity

Layer Characteristic
Reflection Resistivity
Layer Resistivity Thickness Coefficient Contrast
(Ω ⋅ m ) ( Ω⋅m ) (p.u.) Ratio
Top 14.1521 1.21727 -1.0000 0.14152E-18
Bottom 2.96357 infinity -0.6537 0.20941
a a a

1.21 m h ρ1 Top layer 14.15 Ω ⋅ m

ρ2 Deep layer
2.96 Ω ⋅ m
 22

4. Case Study
Safety Criteria for 50 kg Body Weight
Fault Clearing Time
Surface 0.1 sec Foot
Layer Touch Step Voltage Resistance:
Resistivity Voltage (V) 1 Foot
(Ω ⋅ m) (Ω)
(V)
None 367.9 603.9 44.2
514.2 587.3 1,481.7 1,562
1,014.2 806.7 2,359.2 3,079.2
3,014.2 1,684.2 5,869.3 9,148.3
 23

Safety Criteria for 70 kg Body Weight

Fault Clearing Time
Surface 0.1 sec Foot
Layer Touch Step Voltage Resistance:
Resistivity Voltage (V) 1 Foot
(Ω ⋅ m) (Ω)
(V)
None 497.9 817.4 44.2
514.2 794.9 2,005.5 1,562
1,014.2 1,091.8 3,193.1 3,079.2
3,014.2 2,279.5 7,943.8 9,148.3
 24

Rod Length Type Voltage Level (V)

(m) of Configuration Cross-Section Area (mm2)
Voltage 240 185 120 95
without grid 1,170.2 1,171.7 1,174.1 1,175.4
GPR
with grid 1,117.5 1,119.5 1,122.8 1,124.5
without grid 640.27 641.77 644.26 645.55
2.4 Touch
with grid 563.48 565.88 569.71 571.71
without grid 177.98 176.31 174.8 173.78
Step
with grid 90.39 89.21 88.15 87.63
without grid 1,120.4 1,121.4 1,123 1,12.9
GPR
with grid 1,080 1,080.4 1,082.8 1,084.1
without grid 588.54 589.56 591.26 592.14
3 Touch
with grid 526.24 527.39 530.34 531.87
without grid 159.4 157.73 156.44 155.49
Step
with grid 83.32 82.29 81.28 80.76
without grid 953.15 953.38 953.76 953.35
GPR
with grid 936.86 937.33 938.1 938.5
without grid 422.11 422.37 422.8 423.03
6 Touch
with grid 391.34 392.06 393.25 393.86
without grid 104.61 103.21 102.52 101.87
Step
with grid 58.03 58.03 57.29 56.72
 25

Effect of Size of Ground Grid Conductor

It can be observed from Table that GPR, touch voltage
and step voltage are not much varied when the size of
ground grid decreases from 240 mm2 to 95 mm2.
Therefore, the 95 mm2 is able to acceptably substitute
the existing 240 mm2. By means of this method, GPR
and touch voltage see an increase of 0.44% (1,170.2
volt to 1,175.4 volt) and of 0.83% (640.27 volt to
645.55 volt) respectively whereas step voltage is
decreased 2.36% (177.98 volt to 173.78 volt).
 26

Effect of Depth of Ground Grid

The tests results obtained from the depth of ground
grid at 0.6, and 1.0 m are compared to those at the
depth of 0.5 m. It is found that the value of GPR at the
depth of 0.6 m is slightly different from that at the
depth of 0.5 m. But GPR, touch voltage and step
voltage at a depth of 1 m are approximately reduced
by 9.64%(1,170.2 volt to 1,057.4 volt), 27.73% (640.27
volt to 501.14 volt), and 41.16% (177.98 volt to 104.72
volt) respectively.
 27

Ground Potential Rise for Existing System

Existing System
• GPR= 1,170.2 kV
• Touch=634.71 kV
• Step=176.78 kV
External ground grid
• GPR= 936.86 kV
• Touch=391.34 kV
• Step=58.03 kV
 28

Ground Potential Rise of Existing System with

Added External Ground Grid
Existing System
•GPR= 1,170.2 kV
•Touch=634.71 kV
•Step=176.78 kV
External ground grid
•GPR= 936.86 kV
•Touch=391.34 kV
•Step=58.03 kV
 29

Touch Voltage Magnitude of Existing System

T1
 30

Touch Voltage Magnitude of Existing System

with Added External Ground Grid
 31

Step Voltage Magnitude of Existing System

 32

Step Voltage Magnitude of Existing System

with Added External Ground Grid

July 31, 2017

 33

Economic Analysis
Rod Investment Cost (Million Baht)
Length Configuration Cross-Section Area of Ground Grid
(m) (mm2)
240 185 120 95
without grid 1.08 0.86 0.59 0.46
2.4
with grid 1.23 0.98 0.67 0.52
without grid 1.10 0.88 0.61 0.48
3.0
with grid 1.25 1.00 0.68 0.54
without grid 1.17 0.95 0.68 0.55
6.0
with grid 1.32 1.07 0.76 0.61
 34

Investment Cost for Different Configurations of

Grounding System
1.60

1.40 1.32
1.10 1.17
1.23 1.25
1.20
1.08 1.07
Investment Cost (Million Baht)

0.88 0.95
0.98 1.00
1.00
0.86
0.76
0.80 0.61 0.68
0.67 0.68 0.61
0.59 0.48 0.55
0.60
0.52 0.54
0.46
0.40

0.20

-
240 185 120 95
Cross Section Area (sq.mm)
Rod 2.4m (Existing) Rod 2.4m External Ground Grid
Rod 3.0m Rod 3.0m External Ground Grid
Rod 6.0m Rod 6.0m External Ground Grid
 35

5. Applicability
1) The new safety criteria can replace the existing
ones for new substations in MEA without
significant change in GPR, touch voltage and step
voltage; for example, reducing the cross section
area of ground grid from 240 mm2 to 95 mm2 or
increasing the length of ground rod from 2.4 m to
3 m or 6 m.
 36

Applicability (con’t)
2) The work carried out in this paper takes into
consideration the safety criteria based on IEEE-Std
80-2000 for the construction of substations in the
MEA service areas. Because soil characteristics in
the MEA service areas obtained from several field
tests are not much physically different the
presented method can be, to certain extent, used
for substations only in the areas.
 37

Applicability (con’t)
3) However, if the method were to be applied in
any other areas in Thailand, measurement of soil
resistivity would be strongly recommended as it is
one of the most important factors in the
calculation of safety criteria.
 38

6. Conclusion
1) These three parameters are investigated to ensure
that they satisfy the safety criteria defined in the IEEE
Std 80-2000.
2) On the basis of the test results, a ground rod of 6 m
and ground grid with a cross-section area of 95 mm2
could be a suitable option for the grounding system.
3) However, as far as installation costs should financially
reflect incremental total cost and worth for various
alternatives while respecting the established safety
criteria.
 39

Conclusion (con’t)
4) However, if the method were to be applied in any
other areas in Thailand, measurement of soil resistivity
would be strongly recommended as it is one of the
most important factors in the calculation of safety
criteria.
 40

Case Study No.2 Bangkrachao Substation

 41

Overview
1. Introduction
2. Description of the Bangkrachao Substation
3. Soil Characteristic
4. Case Study
5. Conclusion
 42

1.Introduction
Based on MEA's statistical data, one of the main causes of
sustain interruptions is short circuits on electrical substations.
A short circuit generates large currents that flow in the
aboveground structures and grounding system and dissipate
in the soil. The high currents may cause damage to
equipment and may be dangerous to personnel working
nearby. It is there-fore important to consider and incorporate
safe step and touch voltage limitations into electrical designs
in order to achieve a safe electrical system without potential
electrical hazards after installation.
 43

2. Description of the Bangkrachao Substation

 44

Ground Grid Model for Bangkrachao

 45

3. Soil Characteristic
Soil resistivity model.
 46

Summary of Soil Resistivity

 47

Safety Criteria for 50 kg Body Weight

Surface Fault Clearing Time Foot
Layer 0.1 sec Resistance:
Resistivity 1 Foot
Touch Step
(Ω ⋅ m) Voltage Voltage (Ω )
(V) (V)
None 329.50 450.40 278.80
500 505.20 1,153.30 1,494.10
1,000 718.30 2,005.60 2,967.80
1,500 931.30 2,857.60 4,441.00
2,000 1,144.30 3,709.60 5,914.00
The safety criteria of the BC substation are analyzed by MALT,
which is shown in Table II for 50 kg Body Weight. Taking a surface
layer resistivity of 2,000 ohm-m as a safety criterion, the touch and
step voltage are 1,144.3 V and 3,709.6 V for 50 kg body weights.
 48

Planning Criteria
MEA has power distribution improvement and expansion plans to
reinforce its power distribution system to accommodate load
growth in the future. The plans consist of the construction of
terminal stations, distribution substations, subtransmission lines,
and distribution feeders as well as the installation of new
equipment (e.g., transformers, circuit breakers) in the
subtransmission and distribution systems. This expansion plan
will increase the effective short-circuit current at the BC
substation.
 49

Planning Criteria (con’t)

Therefore, such construction and equipment installation need
to take into account equipment rating. At present, a three-
phase fault level of 7.8 kA is used in the planning process of
Expansion Plan No. 10 (years 2007-2011). This amount of short
circuit current is expected to be increased to 25 kA in
Expansion Plan No.12 (years 2017-2021) and to the highest
level at 40 kA, which is estimated based on a worst case
scenario analysis. Note that the 40 kA short circuit level is the
interrupting capacity (IC) of 69 kV circuit breakers in MEA.
Six cases are of interest as follows:
 50

4. Case Study
 51

GPR , Touch and Step

Voltages for 6 Cases

Criteria
Touch=1,144 V
Step=3,709 V
 52

Investment Cost for Different Configurations of Grounding System

 53

GPR for existing System of 7.8 kA fault level.

 54

Touch voltage magnitude of existing system of 7.8 kA fault level

 55

Step voltage magnitude of existing system of 7.8 kA fault level.

 56

Ground potential rise of case 5 of for 40 kA fault level.

 57

Touch voltage magnitude of case 5 of for 40 kA fault level.

 58

Step voltage magnitude of case 5 for 40 kA fault level.

 59

Requirement of Material Resistivity

 60

Touch Voltage without Crushed Rock on Top

 61

Touch Voltage of Surface with Crushed Rock of

2,000 ohm.m Resistivity
 62

Touch Voltage of Surface with Crushed Rock of

3,000 ohm.m Resistivity
 63

Touch Voltage of Surface with Crushed Rock of

5,000 ohm.m Resistivity
 64

5. Conclusion
The ground grid design for the BC substation is examined with
the main objective to assess its grounding system condition in
terms of ground potential rise, touch voltage and step
voltage. These three parameters are analyzed to ensure that
they satisfy the safety criteria defined in the IEEE Std 80-2000
with three scenarios classified by fault levels: 7.8 kA for the
existing configuration, 25 kA in Expansion Plan No.12 (years
2017-2021) and 40 kA for the interrupting capacity of 69 kV
circuit breakers in MEA.
 65

5. Conclusion (con’t)
As far as installation costs and other necessary expenses in
grounding system planning is concerned, the length of ground
rods, the size of conductor, the short circuit current and IC
of 69 kV circuit breakers should financially reflect incremental
total cost and worth for various alternatives while respecting
the established safety criteria.
 66

Case Study No.3 The Renovation of AIS to GIS

 67

Overview
1. Introduction
2. Description of the Pathumwan Substation
3. Soil Characteristic
4. Case Study
5. Conclusion
 68

1.Introduction
 69

GIS AIS

Small AIS
substation
 70

The Renovation of AIS to GIS

Industry University

Shopping
Mall AIS

Mass Transit
 71

Industry The Renovation of AIS to GIS

University

Shopping
Mall AIS

Mass Transit
 72

The Renovation of AIS to GIS

Industry University

Shopping
Mall AIS

Mass Transit
 73

The Renovation of AIS to GIS

Industry University

Shopping
Mall AIS

Mass Transit
 74

The Renovation of AIS to GIS

Industry University

Shopping
Mall

Mass Transit
 75

The Renovation of AIS to GIS

Industry University

Shopping
Mall

Mass Transit
 76

The Renovation of AIS to GIS

Industry University

Shopping
Mall

Mass Transit
 77

Industry University
The Renovation of AIS to GIS

Shopping
Mall

Mass Transit
 78

2. Description of the Pathumwan Existing Substation

 79

Typical Installation for Grounding System

Existing substation
•Cross section of ground
grid conductor 240 mm2
AIS •ground rod is 2.4 m
long with a diameter
of 15.875 mm.
•buried at 0.5 m below
the ground surface level
Small AIS substation
Small AIS substation •Cross section of ground
grid conductor 95 mm2
•ground rod is 3 m
long with a diameter
of 15.875 mm.
•buried at 0.5 m below
the ground surface level
 80

Ground Grid Top View Model for PM Substation

Ground Grid Model for Pathumwan Substation

The ground grid system for the PM substation was modelled using
the CDEGS program as shown in Figure
 81

3. Soil Characteristic
Soil resistivity model
The soil layer characteristics of
the PM substation were
analyzed by a built-in module
in the CDEGS program called
Rural Electric Safety
Accreditation Program module
(RESAP), logarithmically shown
in this Figure.
 82

Summary of
Soil resistivity
a a a

1.83 m h ρ1 Top layer

22.2488 ohm.m
ρ2 Deep layer 1.019092 ohm.m
The resistivity of the top and bottom layers is 22.2588 and
1.019092, respectively. The top layer has a more resistivity than
the bottom layer (deep layer) due to a number of factors such as
moisture content of the soil, chemical composition, concentration
of salts dissolved in the contained water, and grain size
 83

Safety Criteria for 50 kg Body Weight

The safety criteria of the PM substation are analyzed by MALT,

shown in this Table for 50 kg body weight. Taking a surface
layer resistivity of 1,000 as a safety criterion, the touch and step
voltage are 804.90 volt and 2,352 volt for 50 kg body weights.
 84

4. Case Study
Effect of Nearby Auxiliary Grounding System of Substation
The ground grid of the substation that is still energized is called
main ground grid (energized electrical power site) whereas that of
the under construction substation (temporary or permanent
distribution substation) is called auxiliary grounding system
(auxiliary ground grid). During the time of disconnecting of these
ground grids, the under construction distribution substation is de-
energized, the substation surrounding area then exposes to the risk
of high GPR caused by the main distribution substation which is still
in operation. The GPR’s steepness is located between the main and
auxiliary ground grid.
 85

Effect of Nearby Auxiliary Grounding System

of Substation

Main ground grid Auxiliary grounding system

of substation
 86

Difference Configuration of Ground Grid

Five cases are of interest as given in Table

 87

GPR , Touch and Step Voltages for Five Cases

 88

3-Dimension Ground Potential Rise for Case 1 2-Dimension Ground Potential Rise for Case 1

2-Dimension Spot Touch for Case 1

 89

3-Dimension Ground Potential Rise for Case 2 2-Dimension Ground Potential Rise for Case 2

2-Dimension Spot Touch for Case 2

 90

3-Dimension Ground Potential Rise for 2-Dimension Ground Potential Rise for Case 3
Case 3

2-Dimension Spot Touch for Case 3

 91

3-Dimension Ground Potential Rise for 2-Dimension Ground Potential Rise for Case 4
Case 4

2-Dimension Spot Touch for Case 4

 92

3-Dimension Ground Potential Rise for Case 5 2-Dimension Ground Potential Rise for Case 5

2-Dimension Spot Touch for Case 5

 93

Step of Safety Construction

Touch voltage exceed criteria

 94

Table Configuration of Auxiliary Table GPR, Touch Voltage and Step Voltage for Different
Grounding System of Substation Configuration
 95

GPR ratio between auxiliary and main ground grid configuration

0
 96

GPR ratio between auxiliary and main ground grid configuration

From the case B, it is found that if the distance

is increased by 6 and 11 times in the case of
soil is homogeneous, the percentage value of
GPR ratio between auxiliary ground grid per
main ground grid will be decreased. For
instance, 30.21% and 21.75% are the value of
GPR ratio between auxiliary grounding system
per main ground grid when the distance is
expanded by 6 times and 11 times respectively
in any values of resistivity. For case C and case
D, they will have the same characteristic of GPR
percentage as in case B.
 97

Difference Configuration of Ground Grid

From the study case of
case B to case C and case
D, it is found that the case
of PM substation in case 4
distributes the electricity
to small AIS substation.
The old distance value is
4.4 m. After that, the
distance of substation is
varied to 74.4 m and 144.4
m in the specified order.
 98

GPR, Touch and Step Voltage for PM Substation Case 3

to 5 with Vary Distance
 99

Safety criteria
3D:GPR Case 3 Touch=804.9 V, Step=2,352 V
Distance=74.4 m
Distance increase
• GPR (444.26V), decease
•Touch (381.25) , decease

2D:GPR

Touch:Spot 2D
 100

Safety criteria
3D:GPR Case 3 Touch=804.9 V, Step=2,352 V
Distance=144.4 m
Distance increase
• GPR (393.24V) ), decease
•Touch (340.68) ), decease

2D:GPR

Touch:Spot 2D
 101

Safety criteria
Case 5 Touch=804.9 V, Step=2,352 V
3D:GPR
Distance=74.4 m
Distance increase
GPR M/R=3.68% , de
(M:1,166.6V,R:42.89V), de
•Touch (1,097.55), in

2D:GPR

Touch:Spot 2D
 102

Safety criteria
3D:GPR Case 5 Touch=804.9 V, Step=2,352 V
Distance=144.4 m
Distance increase
• GPR M/R=2.11%, de
(M:1,166.6V,R:24.26V), de
•Touch (1,122.18), in

2D:GPR

Touch:Spot 2D
 103

5. Conclusion
1. The ground grid design for the PM substation has thoroughly
examined with the main objective to assess its grounding
system condition in terms of ground potential rise, touch
voltage and step voltage. These three parameters are
analyzed to ensure that they satisfy the safety criteria
defined in the IEEE Std 80-2000 with three scenarios
classified by 25 kA in Expansion Plan No.11
 104

Conclusion (con’t)
2. Found that when ground grid is installed, only whether the
existing outdoor substation or the small AIS substation or
two neighbouring substations interconnected or isolated it
should have had considering design to safety. This creates
GPR to be steep at the main ground grid and can be harmful
to personal operating due to high voltage difference.
3. The first important is the accurate soil resistivity from
measurement in field test.
 105

Case Study No.4 Safety Design Improvement

of Grounding System by Compression Ratio
and Ground Rod Layout Methods
 106

Overview
1. Introduction
2. Description of Pathumwan Substation
3. Optimal Design Principal of Grounding System
4. Process of Safety Analysis
5. Case Study
6. Conclusion
 107

1. Introduction
 Pathumwan (PM) - a 30-year, 69-kV AIS
 Security and to build a new substation that is in
harmony with the environment.
The substation will be then changed to be 115-kV,
gas-insulated switchgear (GIS), indoor type
substation in 2015.
 108

Objective
This paper presents a safety design of MEA’s new
Pathumwan distribution substation – a 3x60 MVA,
115/24-12 kV substation’s grounding system. Safety step
and touch voltage are analyzed with reference to safety
criteria based on body weight defined in IEEE Std. 80-
2000.
 109

2. Description of the Pathumwan Substation

 110

3. Optimum Compression Ration (OCR)c

This calls for the optimum compression ratio (OCR) be applied
in the design together with the target to keep the touch
voltage its minimum value
 111

Grounding Grid Scheme Arranged with Exponential Rule

L

i=0
...
dmax di
i=0 1 2… m
 112

Optimum Compression Ration (con’t)

 113

Process of Safety Analysis

The safety analysis is carried out using the CDEGS program via adhering to
the steps as follows:
Step1 : Measure the soil resistivity.
Step 2 : From step 1 into RESAP by steepest method get the soil
characteristic.
Step 3 : From step 1 into CDEGS program using the MALT module to achieve
the safety criteria.
Step 4 : Design the ground grid system corresponding to each studied ground
grid configuration for the substation.
Step 5 : The maximum touch and step voltage are calculated in comparison
with the safety criteria.
 114

Process of Safety Analysis

5. Compare the potential the maximum touch and step voltage,
which are simulated from each designed ground grid configuration
with the safety criteria to examine whether they exceed the safety
criteria level. If yes, the designed ground grid configuration needs to
be revised until the maximum touch and step voltage are within
the safety criteria.
Compare
Criteria Design

>
>
 115

5. Case Study
5.1 Resistivity Measurements

The soil layer characteristics of

the PM substation were
analyzed by a built-in module
in the CDEGS program called
Rural Electric Safety
Accreditation Program module
(RESAP), logarithmically shown
in Figure 3.
 116

5.1 Resistivity Measurements (con’t)

With the model in Fig. 3, the resistivity of the PM substation is
shown in Table I. The resistivity of the top (upper) and bottom
(lower) layers is 22.2588 and 1.019092 ohm-m, respectively. The top
layer has more soil resistivity than the bottom layer.
 117

5.2 Safety Criteria

The safety criteria of the PM substation are analyzed by MALT, which is a

built-in module in the CDEGS program as shown in Table II for 50 kg Body
Weight. Choosing none surface layer resistivity as the safety criterion, the
touch and step voltages are respectively 299.20 volt and 329.40 volt for a
person of 50 kg body weights can withstand.
 118

5.3 Scenario Configuration

 119

5.3 Scenario Configuration

Grounding grids with
compression ratios 1.0
 120

Ground Potential Rise

 121

Maximum Touch Voltage

 122

Maximum Step Voltage

 123

Maximum Touch Voltage

 124

Maximum Touch Voltage (con’t)

 125

Fig.7. 3-Dimension GPR

for Base Scenario

Fig.8. 2-Dimension Spot

Touch for Base Scenario
 126

Fig.9. 3-Dimension GPR

for Scenario 1, C 0.1

Fig.10. 2-Dimension Spot Touch

for Scenario 1, C 0.1
 127

Fig.11. 3-Dimension GPR

for Scenario 1, C 1.0

Fig.12. 2-Dimension Spot

Touch for Scenario 1, C 1.0
 128

Fig.13. 3-Dimension GPR

for Scenario 3, C 0.7

Fig.14. 2-Dimension Spot Touch

for Scenario 3, C 0.7
 129

Fig.15. 3-Dimension GPR

for Scenario 5, C 1.0

Fig.16. 2-Dimension Spot

Touch for Scenario 5, C 1.0
 130

5.4 Cost Saving

 131

6. Conclusion
1. Compare the 3-m ground rod configuration with distributed
(scenario1) and edged laying (scenario2) with its compression ratio
intervals, we found that at 0.1 to 0.3; the maximum touch voltage
of the edged laying is lower, whereas 0.3 to 1.0; the maximum
touch voltage of the edged laying is higher.
2. Compare the 3-m ground rod (scenario1) with 6-m ground rod
(scenario 3) of the same distributed laying, we found that given the
same total length of the ground rod, the smaller number of longer
ground rods supersede the larger number of shorter ground rods
for the former provides lower touch voltage than the later for all
compression ratios.
 132

6. Conclusion (con’t)
3. Compare the 3-m ground rod distributed laying (scenario1) with
6-m ground rod edged laying (scenario 4), we found that given the
same total length of the ground rod, the smaller number of longer
ground rods supersede the larger number of shorter ground rods
for the former provides lower touch voltage than the later for all
compression ratios. For scenario 4, all maximum touch voltages are
within the safety criteria for all compression ratios.
 133

6. Conclusion (con’t)
4. Both the maximum touch and step voltages of scenario 5
exceed the safety criteria, because of the lack of ground rods that
allow the fault current to penetrate into the ground as of scenario
1-4. Such kind of design even you put in excessive amount of
conductors to the grid until it equal to that of the base scenario,
the touch voltage will still exceed the safety criteria. However, if we
bury such ground grid lower than usual, would its performance be
improve? This issue will be studied in the future.
 134

6. Conclusion (con’t)
Given equal total length of conductors in a grounding system, as
per the configurations suggested in scenario 1 and 3, compression
ratio 0.7 seem to provide lowest touch voltage, and the one with
longer ground rods have 27.43% lower in touch voltage, and can
save up to 30.78% in ground rod length to achieve the same touch
voltage.
As far as installation costs and other necessary expenses in
grounding system planning is concerned, the length of ground rods,
the size of conductor, the amount of short circuit current directly
and financially reflect the incremental cost and worth of various
alternatives while conforming to the established safety criteria.
 135

[email protected]
02-348-5629
089-968-6079