Assessment of Analysis Techniques used in determining
Grounding System Potential Rise from the Fall of Potential Method
D.J.Woodhouse, Member, IEEE
Energy Australia
Wallsend NSW 2287 Australia
Abstract: The prevalent method used to determine the Ground
Potential Rise (GPR) of an earthing or grounding system is to
perform a Fall of Potential (FOP) test undertaken during an
grounding system current injection test. Determining the test GPR
requires analysis of FOP test data due to the FOP responses non-
conservative asymptotic behaviour. This paper assesses achievable
tolerance by FOP test analysis including recognised and altemative
methods. Susceptibility to voltage and distance measurement noise is
examined by application to an grounding system model to establish
minimum error bounds and method estimation variation on GPR
estimates. The applicability of the FOP test rule of thumb
termination condition, to take three to four readings beyond the
knee of the FOP response, is also examined. In particular, the
question of whether appropriate information is gathered when this
condition is met is discussed.
Keywords: grounding, measurements, impedance, testing, current
injection testing, earthing.
I. INTRODUCTION
The FOP test is used to determine the GPR of a grounding
system during a grounding system current injection test.
Subsequently the GPR of a grounding system resulting from a
power system ground fault may be calculated. The GPR of an
installation is critical in determining accurately the
performance of the installations grounding system. This
includes soil potential contours around the installation, the
impedance of the installation and its components, and the
interaction with a third party system [ 1][2]. Such interactions
are categorised, nominally in accordance with International
[4] and National [5] standards, using the maximum grounding
system GPR and corresponding fault clearing time.
The FOP method is the most reliable and accurate method
for determining the GPR of an grounding system. Some
installations are located in environments unsuitable to
performing the FOP test, such as highly urbanised
environments [3]. In these cases the FOP method test
spacings are restricted and altemative methods may be
required to determine the GPR, such as discussed in [6].
11. ANALYSIS MODELS
The FOP test method is based on measurements of soil
potential with respect to GPR at increasing distances from the
grounding system of the installation under investigation. The response against the inverse of the distance. The points
behaviour of the resulting Voltage Profile Can be described beyond the knee which should appear to be linear, are used to
using either the linear or offset models, as described in the
extrapolate to 0 (or 1/00) in the Ilx plane, being equivalent to
following sections.
(c) 2000 IEEE
0-7803-6420-1/00/$10.00
Prof.R.H.Middleton, Fellow, IEEE.
University of Newcastle
Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia
A. Linear Model
As the measurement distance increases, the behaviour of
the measured voltage can be described by modelling the
grounding system as a point source in a resistive media [7], as
described in (1). The model derivation assumes the soil
resistivity is homogeneous, the size of the grounding system
is negligible in comparison to the spacings used, and the
measurement reference is the grounding system potential
(GPR).
-
V = GPR ~ 1 4 2 ~ ~ ) (1)
Where V = Voltage between GPR & soil x metres from grid [VI.
p = Soil resistivity [Q.m].
I = Fault current [A].
x = Separation between grounding system & point on soil [m].
r = Equivalent radius of the grounding system [m].
B. Offset Model
The linear model, as described by (1). is based on a point
current source and uniform soil resistivity. To improve upon
the estimates of the method a model which better describes
the system is required [$I. The offset model, which removes
the negligible grounding system size assumption, was used.
Based on empirical equations used for Mutual Earth
Resistance (MER) and conductive coupling calculations [9].
the offset model takes the form described in (2).
V = GPR - pI/(2xx+r)
(2)
111. MANUAL GPR ESTIMATION
The usual method for determining GPR from a FOP test is
to apply linear regression to the FOP response [lo]. A FOP
response-is typified by two distinct sections, separated by a
knee, as shown in Fig 1. The response of the FOP test in
proximity to the grounding system is steep due to its
dependence on grounding system geometry. requiring
complex analysis to accurately calculate. In contrast, the FOP
response beyond the knee approaches an inverse (or
hyperbolic) distance relationship as outlined in Section 2. At
these distances the influence of the grounding system
approaches that of a distant point current source [7].
The linear regression a plot of the FOP
1153
an extrapolation to remote ground(or 00 m), as illustrated in The following three cases examine the accuracy of the
Fig 2. linear regression analysis method under different soil
structure conditions with a simple groundmat geometry, as
"I CmtRIl
shown in Fig 3, buried at a depth of 05m The three soil
structures examined were:

Case (A) Homogeneous soil, p = 100 a.m.

Case (B) Two layer soil model - high on low.

= 100 Q.m Upper soil layer resistivity, depth 2m.
p2 = 10 Q.m Lower soil layer resistivity.

Case (C) Two layer soil model - low on high.

pI = 10 Q.m Upper soil layer resistivity, depth 2m.

91 p2 = 47 Qm Lower soil layer resistivity.

3 : ,L 1 IS
, *.
Distance{om Earlhgdd[m]
tin

Fig. 1: Typical fall of potential response.

The linear regression method relies on the user selecting the

appropriate data points from either the linear or inverse
distance FOP responses. For FOP tests containing a

I
p ~ o ~ p o . l o , o . 5 - - - 0.l0,O.S
significant number of data points there is no quantitative
method for selecting the optimal 'inverse' subset of data as
there is no measure of true error in the estimate.

~ 0.0.5 lO,O,O.s 20,0,05

Fig 3: Grounding System used for Assessment

The GPR in these cases was calculated using a least squares

fit to the subset of points from the FOP response which
produced the greatest GPR estimate. The points chosen were
usually those points at the greatest spacings. The maximum
GPR was used as it was the result closest to the actual GPR
for each example. The analysis of an ideal FOP response in
the (l/x,V) plane using this manual method as illustrated in
Fig 2, produces GPR estimates approaching the actual GPR as
underestimates. This behaviour is due to the inclusion of non-
OlOS Rzoa
Inverse Btance to Earth Grid [llm] ideal data within the FOP response to the response expected
by an ideal point model, with data points at smaller spacings
Fig 2: Determining GPR using linear regression. having the most significant error. As these points are removed
from the subset used to calculate an GPR estimate, the
IV. MANUAL GPR ESTIMATION ASSESSMENT estimate approaches the actual GPR. This method is only
suitable for use on near 'ideal' data. The results of this
Assessment of manual estimation methods, which are based method are summarised in Table 1.
on manual point selection, is difficult due to inherent bias
incurred by the analyst's experience and result expectation. A. Linear Model
This investigation restricted the scope of the manual
estimation method assessment to near ideal data and the 'best' To achieve an estimate with accuracy better than 1% using
result ie the nearest result to actual GPR. Further development the linear model, without detailed knowledge of the soil
is being undertaken to extend the methods described here to model, the FOP test would have had to have been performed
field data. The assessment considered the dependency of the to a distance of 6 times Dsub'to provide sufficient data. To
method on soil resistivity and grounding system geometry.
For brevity and consistency between results, only results of I Dvlb- the largest dimension of the earthing system. In a
the soil resistivity investigation are outlined here. rectangular system it is approximately the length of the system
diagonal.

(c) 2000 IEEE

0-7803-6420-1/00/$10.00 1154
increase estimate accuracy measurements are required at effort required to achieve an equivalent result from the linear
greater spacings. If the soil model is known, the number of model is approximately 3 times that of the offset model. This
readings and effort required can be significantly reduced. represents a significant saving in time and effort, if the same
From Table 1 it is also apparent that selection of the accnracy is required or a significant increase in accuracy for
maximum spacing by choosing four points past the knee the same expenditure of effort.
point of the FOP response appears adequate for accurate
analysis. V. AUTOMATED GPR ESTIMATION
Table 1:
Linear Regression Response on FOP Test Analysis Every GPR estimate is dependent on the data set selected
Dependence on Soil Conditions
for parameter estimation. There are at least two aspects of
I I Soil Soil Soil I data set determination to be considered. The first is estimation
of the knee point, since we know from Section 3, inclusion of
data points before the knee frequently do not allow good
curve fitting, particularly for linear model based methods.
3 140 I Additionally, measurement errors, or local soil or ground
variations, may give outliers in the data which need to be
4 80 2.8 1.7 0.4 3.5 eliminated. At present, data set selection is performed
5 160 5.6 OS* 0. I I .2 manually. Clearly, to improve the objectivity of the tests, and
reduce the time taken to perform the analysis, automation of
this process is desirable. Two methods are proposed, which
use different methods to assess the estimate error, for
determining the appropriate data set:
300 10.6 0.2 0.3
a. First Order Least Squares Minimisation Method
9 400 14.1 0.1 0.3
b. Second Order Least Squares Minimisation Method
* - Estimate of nading when knee OCCUR.
As part of the automation process they calculate for all
B. Offset Model suitable data sets in the FOP response an GPR estimate and
use the set with the smallest error as the optimal GPR
The accuracy of GPR estimates derived using the manual
estimate. Both methods performance are compared in the
selection method based on the offset model is summarised in
following sections using both the linear and offset models of
Table 2. To achieve estimates with accuracy better than 1%.
the FOP response.
without any knowledge of the soil model, requires the FOP
test to be performed to a minimum distance of 2 times Dsub.
.A. First Order Least Squares Error Minimisation
This is a significantly smaller requirement, and hence better
result than for estimates based on the linear model.
This method assumes that the best GPR estimate to the
Table 2: FOP response has the least deviation from a linear model. It
Offset Model Linear Regression Response on FOP Test Analysis also describes a linear fit to the data when modelled in the
I r
Dependence on Soil Conditions
I I I k
(I/x,V) p l m , as descFibed in Section 3 and shown in Fig 2.
Case (A) Case (B) Case (C) The method involves determining the least squares best fit to
y,-5 Maximum
Spacing (x)
[ml %E 4 %E %E
a line for each set of points in the response, where the set
contains
basis of:
at least three points. The estimate is selected on the

i. The result with the smallest error estimate and

ii. The GPR estimate exceeds the largest voltage
measurement in the FOP profile.

B. Second Order Least Squares Error Minimisation

The premise of the second order (or parabolic) method is

that the best estimate is the set of data points which
10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
minimise the second order content of the estimation in the
* ~ Eslunate of reading when knee. occurs. (l/x, V) plane. Firstly, the estimate is assumed to be of the
form
From Table 2 it is apparent that selection of the maximum V = ay2+ by f c (5)
spacing by choosing four points past the knee point of the
FOP response appears excessive to produce an GPR estimate where y = x-l
and a,b & c are constants.
of the required accuracy of 1% in this investigation. The

0-7803-6420-1/00/$10.00 ( c ) 2000 IEEE 1155

 All possible combinations of points containing a minimum
of three points are used to generate a least squares tit using
the least squares form given by (6), as outlined in [ 1 t]:

e = (YTY)-'YTv 16)

where 8 = matrix of parameters a,b.c.

Y = matrix of y measurements. U
V = vector of v meawfements.
pr;
Each combination of points produces an GPR estimate and
the amount of curvature in the estimation. The 'best' result is
5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.0
chosen on the basis of:
1. Curvature of the result being less than that of any 6 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.0
other result.
ii. The calculated GPR is greater than the maximum 7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
measurement in the FOP response. I 8 I 0.0 I 0.2 I 0.0 I 0.0

C. Automation Methods I 9 I0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I

Table 5:
Combining the two automation methods with the two Estimates using Automated Calculators of FOP Test Analysis
system models results in four automated estimation methods.

0 First Order Linear Model (LR)

0 First Order Offset Model (OR)
0 Second Order Linear Model (PLM)
0 Second Order Offset Model (POM)

The four automated estimation methods were assessed for

accuracy for three cases of soil resistivity models. The results
of the tests are summarised in Tables 3.4 and 5.
Table 3:
Estimate.. using Automated Calculators of M P Test Analysis 8 0.2 0.0 0.2 . 0.0

9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0

The methods based on the linear model compare

unfavourably with the. corresponding methods based on the
offset model. This is explained by the better match the offset
model has to a typical FOP response. The responses from the
methods are dependant on the type of soil structure the
grounding system is situated in. Soil structures which extend
the zone of influence of the grounding system, such as a low
on high soil resistivity structure, require greater spacings to be
made than would a homogeneous or high on low soil
resistivity structure.

These results produce the following conclusions about the

analysis methods examined:
The low on high soi1 resistivity case requires the most
effort to achieve accurate results, in agreement with the
previous results.
0 The two estimation methods using the offset model are
superior to the methods using the linear model for these
ideal conditions. The offset model based methods
achieve near perfect results with only 5 readings with the
largest required reading at a distance less than 5 times
VI. WHITE NOISE ERROR PERFORMANCE
A number of simulations, using Monte Carlo Analysis,
were performed to determine the performance of the
automated methods when white noise is introduced into the
FOP response. A set of near ideal data points (correct to three
significant figures) for a FOP response curve were used as the
basis of the analysis. Each point in the response was varied
randomly from the ideal data set within defined tolerance
limits for each run of the Monte Carlo analysis. The variation
for each point was independent of the variation made at any

0-'7803-6420-1/00/$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 1156

other point. An GPR estimate was calculated with each run are summarised in Table 7, which confirms that the effect of
and the process repeated. the distance error is linear. However, in comparison to the
effect of voltage measurement error is almost negligible. The
A. Variation in Voltage Tolerance ratio of the relative effects of distance and voltage
measurement errors is estimated at lo3.
The first set of runs examined the effect of varying the
tolerance in the voltage measurements, as summarised in Table 7:
Effect of distance measurementerror tolerance on
Table 6, using the Parabolic Minimisation Method based on GPR estimate using the Parabolic Minimisation Method
the linear model. Table 6 summarises the average GPR and (True GPR = 2.565V)
standard deviation [o]for the estimates made within the given
voltage tolerance range. These results indicate that the error in
the estimate is proportional to the voltage measurement error.
This is a significant result considering that the effect is not
modelled as a linear relationship but acts to minimise
distortion in the linearised form of a rational equation.

B. Variation in Distance Tolerance

Analyses where carried out to investigate the effect of error
in the distance measurement component of the FOP data
points, again using the Parabolic Minimisation method based
on the linear model. The results of the analyses are 5.0 2.563 9.6 2.541 7.3
summarised in Table 7.
10.0 2.563 9.9 2.541 10.0
Table 6:
Effect of voltage measurementerror tolerance on 20.0 2.562 10.7 2.554 21.5
GPR estimate using Parabolic Minimisation Method
(Ax = 0. Im, True GPR = 2.565V) C. Comparison of Minimisation Methods
I I I I

The effect of white noise in voltage and distance

measurements on GPR estimates for all four automated
methods was examined. The soil model used was Case C the
23 2.563 2.6 low on high soil resistivity structure from Section 3.
5.0 2.562 4.9
7.5 2.563 7.1
0.655
10.0 2.561 9.3
E
c
12.5 2.562 12.0 B
25.0 2.565 22.5
.g
w E.65 ,
e L..

250.0 2.754 151.6

U
a
Lu
., . .
--
+ Case1
0.645
0
d
-9- Case2 *
case3 \
d
- Actual EPR
0.64
LR OR PLM POM
Method
Fig 3 Average GPR estimate for minimisation methods

It was found that the First Order Offset Method gave the
best average estimate to the GPR, with h e Seoond Order
Offset Method having the smallest standard deviation. All
estimates are within 1.6% of the correct GPR,as shown in Fig
3. It is reasonable for either of the methods based on the
offset model be recommended as the most accurate method
when the effects of white noise are considered. Under the
various conditions examined no methods consistently
produced the smallest error. Consequently no method could

0-7803-6420-1/00/$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE 1157

be considered outstanding and analysis should rely on a
combination of methods rather than a singular method.
VIICONCLUSIONS
Two models have been used to determine the GPR from the
results of a fall of potential test. Analysis of these models
using manual point selection of the data sets was examined
and found to be:
0 Lacking in consistency through dependence on user
experience.
0 To achieve 1% accuracy the FOP test using the linear
model requires measurements to a distance of 6 times
Dsubfor the test case examined. Using the offset model a
distance of 2 times Dsubwas sufficient.
Selection of the maximum spacing, by choosing four
points past the knee point of the FOP response, appears
to be adequate for accurate analysis.
0 Due to the asymptotic nature of a fall of potential
response, manual methods tend to result in non-
conservative GPR estimates.
The four methods automating the GPR estimation process,
were examined, and found to be:
0 Two automated methods employing offset models were
superior to the linear model based methods. Near perfect
results were achieved with only 5 readings with the
largest required reading distance being less than 5 times
Dsub.
The error in the GPR estimate is proportional to and
dominated by the voltage measurement error. This
indicates that GPR analysis accuracy is limited by the test
methodology and instrumentation used to perform the
FOP test.
These methods have been found to be very accurate in
simulated testing. When used with field data the analysis
results are significantly better than the present methods,
thereby reducing safety risk exposure due to incorrect GPR
determination.
Further research is being conducted into increasing GPR
analysis technique robustness, accuracy and error
identificationand correction for field data.
VXEFERENCES
[I] ANSVIEEE Std81.1-1983, IEEE Guide for Measuring Earth
Resistivity, Ground Impedance, and Earth Surface Potentials of a
Ground System, March I I , 1983.
[2] ESAA-EGI (97) ESAA, Substation Earthing Guide, Carman,
W.D. et. al. 1997.
[3] Carman, W.D., Woodhouse, D.J., Poon, P.W.Y. Measuring the
performance of Earthing Systems in Cable Fed Systems in highly
Urbanised Environments, IO CEPSl Conference, Christchurch,
1994, Vol. 111, pp.101-112.
0-7803-6420-1/00/$10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE
Directives concerning the protection of Telecommunications
Lines against harmful Effects from Electricity Lines, CCITT
Geneva, 1%3.
Earth Potential Rise - Code for Practice for the Protection of
Personnel and Equipment Against Earth Potential Rises Caused by
High Voltage Power System Faults. Telecom Australia -
ESAA( 1984).
IEEE Std81.2-1991. IEEE Guide for Measurement of Impedance
and Safety Characteristics of Large, Extended or Interconnected
Grounding Systems, June 25. 1992.
E.D.Sunde, Earth Conduction Effects in Transmission Systems.
Dover, London,1968. Revision of publication by Bell Telephone
Laboratories 1949.
Ljung, L,System Identification - Theory for the user, Prentice
Hall, 1987.
J.M.Nahman,Fximity effect? on the ground fault current
distribution within the earthing system formed by a substation and
the associated transmission lines, IEE Proceedings, Vol. 135. Pt.
C, No.6, November 1988, pp.497-502.
Jacques Fortin, Guide for Measuring Hydro-Quebecs Grounding
System Installations, Master of Applied Science Thesis,
Electrical Engineering Department, Ecole Polytechnic. University
of Montreal, CP 6079 Succ. A. Montreal, Canada H3C 3A7.
December 1985. Report No. 85102.
R.H.Middleton, G.C.Goodwin, Digital Control and Estimation -
A Unified Approach, Prentice-Hall Intemational Inc.. 1990.
VI. BIOGRAPHIES
Darren.J.Woodhouse (M2000) was bom in
Maidand, NSW, Australia, on May 25 , 1969.
He received his B.E.(Elec.)(Hons I) (1993) and
BMaths (1994) from the University of
Newcastle, Australia. He joined Energy
Australia, then Shortland Electricity. in 1988 as
a cadet engineer. Since 1993 he has been
Development Engineer in Safearth Engineered
Solutions, a specialist engineering group
focussed on earthing, including research and
development. He is currently working towards
his PhD in the area of power system earthing
system testing.
Professor Richard H. Middleton was born on
10th December 1961 in Newcastle Australia. He
received his B.Sc. (1983), B.Eng. (Hons-
1)(1984) and Ph.D. (1986) from the University
of Newcastle, Australia. He has had visiting
appointment3 at both the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign and at the University of
Michigan. ln 1991 he was awarded the
Australian Telecommunications and Electronics
Research Board Outstanding Young Investigator
award (national -annual award). In 1994 he was
$\
$ 1[ awarded the Royal Society of New South Wales
Edgeworth-David Medal (annual award for an
outstanding young scientist). He has served as an associate editor of the E E E
Transactions on Automatic Control and as Head of Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering at the University of Newcastle. He was elected to
the grade of Fellow of the IEEE starting 1999. He is currently an Associate
Editor for the IEEE Transactions on Control System Technology and also of
Automatica, a panel member for the Australian Research Council, a Professor
in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University
of Newcastle, and is also associate director of the Centre for Integrated
Dynamics and Control (A Commonwealth Special Research Centre). His
research interests include a broad range of Control Systems n e o r y and
Applications.
1158