374 IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-103, No.
2, February 1984
EARTH RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENT INTERPRETATION TECHNIQUES
F. Dawalibi, Senior Member*
Safe Engineering Services Ltd.
12201 letellier, Montreal, Canada.
ABSTRACT
Earth resistivity measurement interpretation techniques
developed as part of a major EPRI research project on
transmission line grounding are described and discussed. The
interpretation techniques include graphical curve matching
and an advanced computer program (RESIST). The curve
matching technique requires a set of theoretical Master Curves
with which a field curve can be compared directly. Program
RESIST is based on the analytical methods used in a more
elaborate computer program which has been in operation for
several years. For an electrode spacing of 2.5 meters or
greater, satisfactory agreement is obtained between measured
and computed results using both interpretation techniques.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This paper describes earth resistivity measurement
interpretation techniques developed as part of a major research
project on transmission line grounding. The Final Report [1l
includes a comprehensive description of advanced theories
and techniques pertaining to the analysis, design and
measurement of transmission line grounding systems with a
particular emphasis on safety and mitigation techniques to
improve safety around exposed structures. Several analytical
methods described in the report are new or were not available
previously in the open literature. This is the case of the
resistivity interpretation method described in the appendix
of this paper. The research project was sponsored by the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
The design of a power system requires that normal and
abnormal conditions be considered in order to correctly
determine the design requirements and characteristics of the
installed power equipment. Of the abnormal conditions which
can occur on a power network the two most frequent are:
D Lightning strokes
o Phase to ground faults
* F. Dawalibi is the principal author of the EPRI report
referenced in this paper C. Blattner served as an
.
industry advisor on the EPRI Task Force.
83 SM 456-1 A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Transmission and Distribution Committee
of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presenta-
tion at the IEEE/PES 1983 Summer Meeting,
Los Angeles, California, July 17-22, 1983. Manu-
script submitted January 10, 1983; made available
lor printing May 13, 1983.
0018-9510/84/0002-0374$01.00 ( 1984 IEEE
C. J. Blattner, Senior Member*
Niagara iMohawk Power Corp.
300 Erie Blvd., Syracuse, New York.
In both cases, the overhead network and the earth path,
including buried metallic conductors such as counterpoises
and ground electrodes, are part of the circuit in which the
surge or fault current circulates. Generally, an analysis of
these abnormal conditions is based on a reasonably accurate
representation of the overhead circuit. The earth path,
however, is usually modelled as a perfect conductor or in a
very simplified form. This seldom leads to realistic results.
The apparent inconsistency of these engineering approaches
can be explained by the mathematical difficulties involved
in the solution of three dimensional current flow in earth.
Often, the wide variations observed in the characteristics of
earth, generally described as a semi-infinite nonhomogeneous
media, are used as justification for not pursuing detailed
modelling of the earth path for fault currents.
Thirty years ago, the lack of suitable high-speed digital
computers was a serious obstacle to accurate modelling of
the earth. Now, there are no computational limitations to
the development of an accurate model of the structure of
the earth. Recently published analytical works on power
system grounding describe accurate, computer based,
computational techniques for the design of grounding systems.
Large variations in earth resistivity need not be an obstacle
to the development of detailed earth structure models.
Relatively simple equivalent earth models can effectively be
used to accurately predict transmission line grounding
performance as evidenced by the field measurements described
in reference [1]. Finally, the earth structure at any particular
site can be accurately determined by a suitable selection of
the method and test equipment.
1.1 DISCUSSION OF MODELLING PROBLEM
The development of a mathematical model to represent the
electrical properties of earth can be a formidable task because
of the widely nonuniform characteristics of earth.
Fortunately for transmission line grounding purposes, the earth
can be reasonably approximated by a two-layered soil
structure. This soil structure is characterized by the layer
resistivities P1, P2 and the upper layer thickness h. The
lower layer is considered infinite. In some cases the thickness
of the upper layer is large enough so as the earth model
may be considered fairly uniform.
The variables P1, P2 and h are generally determined by
interpreting the apparent resistivity values measured using
the Wenner (or four probe) array.
Unlike most engineering problems, interpretation of earth
resistivity measurements is an "inverse" problem; i.e., from
the electrical response to impressed current at specific
locations on the earth surface, the electrical properties of
the conducting media (earth) are to be determined. In contrast,
conventional electrostatic problems determine the electrical
response or the excitation current sources, based on the
known properties of the conducting material. These are known
 375

as the Laplace and Diriclet problems. Obviously, the "inverse" FOUR TERMINAL
problem, where the physical constants of the material are TEST SET
unknown, presents more difficulties than those problems where
the physical constants of the material are known functions
of position.
Moreover, the number of parameters required to represent a
model of the earth structure is usually so great that it is
difficult to choose initial values to these parameters and
have a computer algorithm converge to an acceptable solution
within a practical time frame. Consequently, the selection
of initial values becomes a fundamental task in the
CURRENT
interpretation process. POTENT AL PROBE
PROBES

Success or failure in this important initial assessment is

generally dependent on the experience of the engineer and Figure 1.1 Wenner Arrangement
the knowledge of earth electrical properties available to the
engineer responsible for the interpretation of the
measurements. 1.3 POINT SOURCE ELECTRODE IN A TWO-LAYER EARTH
There is one further problem with the "inverse" solution of There are several mathematical approaches which have been
resistivity measurements. It is not always possible to obtain used to calculate potentials in a layered soil structure [3-10].
a unique solution to a data interpretation problem. The method which is adopted here is to search for a particular
Because of inaccuracies in the measurements (usually 5% solution to Laplace's equation which satisfies the boundary
with classical geoelectric instruments), several models of conditions of the problem.
earth structure can be found to give satisfactory agreement
with the measured results. These models will usually differ One of the simplest and most important eprth structure
in the characteristics of the deep soil layers. models is the two-layer earth model. It can be shown that
the potential in earth can be always expressed as the sum
The above discussions are not presented to discourage the of a normal potential (uniform soil), and a disturbing potential,
power system engineer from performing a scientific which accounts for the deep layers of soil. Therefore, the
interpretation of resistivity measurements, but rather to make two-layer model can be used as the simplest equivalent earth
him aware that this task requires careful preparation, structure for interpreting practical resistivity measurements,
investigation, and engineering judgement. The difficulties as shown in Figure 1.2.
mentioned previously, while imposing a considerable challenge
to the geologist, have significantly smaller impact on the
electrical engineer. Firstly, the existence of multiple solutions
to the substratum structure is of little consequence in
determining the response of ground electrodes, particularly
those of the transmission line tower grounds. Secondly, a h z
two-layer earth model, is generally sufficient for modelling P1 M(x,y Z)
substation and transmission line tower grounding systems.
Finally, there are numerous charts, algorithms, and simple
engineering visual estimation techniques, which can be
used to determine an equivalent two-layer earth-model with
reasonable accuracy.
Figure 1.2 The two-Layer Earth Model
1.2 RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENT
The apparent resistivity, Pa, as measured using the
Because of the wide variations in the structure and properties Wenner method is derived for the two-layer earth condition
of earth materials, there are numerous methods and techniques in Chapter 4 of LlJ and is expressed as:
for determining the structure of earth. A complete description
of all of these methods is beyond the scope of this paper.
However, information on a variety of these methods may be p = Pi 1 + 4kn [ )2 2
found within [1].
(i 1)
-

In power system engineering applications, the Wenner method 1

L2] is used almost exclusively for resistivity measurements. [4+(2nh/a)21]2 JJ
It is our opinion that this method, when used with suitable
test equipment, will provide sufficient data for an accurate where,
earth structure model for the analysis of power system
grounding installations. Because of the relative simplicity of Pa = the apparent resistivity as measured using the
results interpretation and widespread availability of test Wenner Method.
equipment supporting the use of this method, it is
recommended as an effective and suitable standard test a = separation distance between current and potential
procedure. probes.
The Wenner four-electrode arrangement is shown in Figure PI = surface layer resistivity of thickness h
1.1. Four electrodes are driven in the earth alonq a straight
line. The electrodes are uniformly spaced and the burial depth P2 = second layer resistivity which extends to an infinite
of the electrodes is usually less than 10 per cent of the depth.
spacing between two adjacent electrodes. Thus, each electrode
will appear as a point with respect to the distances involved k = reflection coefficient = (P2 - P1) / (P2 + P1)
in the measurement.
376

1.4 POINT SOURCE ELECTRODE IN EARTH WITH INCLINED

LAYERS
P2 /10"-C2
If the boundary separating two regions of earth with different
resistivities is not horizontal, but inclined at an angle to the Line of Fault d2
surface, an exact mathematical solution for the potential .A rL x
function is arduous to obtain. The potential function is obtained
- -I-

through a double integration process on two dummy variables, h t I0

w m
of a complicated function containing hyperbolic sines and
Bessel functions of the second type [3,9,10]. dI
When the angle of dip is 90ga simple solution can be obtained. t PI
Figure 1.3 illustrates this case. The case where a vertical z
interface between two dissirnilar earth resistivity areas exists
will be referred to as a vertical fault structure. In practice,
this effect can be the result of a number of different
mechanisms, included but not limited to geological faulting.
Figure 1.4 Vertical Fault (Top View)

1.5 INTERPRETATION OF THE MEASUJREMENTS

V2 I
The simplest interpretation problem is the case where the
measured apparent resistivities, Pa, vary minimally around an
average value P. This indicates that earth at the measurement
site is reasonably uniform and has a resistivity P.

a - SIDE-VIEW - TOP- V IEW Observed resistivity variations can be attributed to small

local discontinuities, which may be neglected, or to
inaccuracies in the measurements due a number of factors
such as stray currents in earth or inadequate sensitivity of
the measuring equipment.
Figure 1.3 Vertical Fault Unfortunatley, such cases rarely occur in practice. In most
cases, apparent resistivity, plotted as a function of the
electrode spacing, shows large variations with probe spacing.
This indicates that the earth is nonuniform.
The apparent resistivity, Pa, as measured usingIthe
Wenner method, for the vertical fault condition, is deDrived In general, apparent resistivity curves change smoothly and
within [1] and is expressed as: do not exhibit sudden changes. When the latter occurs, it is
a clear indication that the array has just crossed a vertical
fault or a local discontinuity close to earth surface. The
magnitude of the jump is an indication of the difference
Pi K( 1-K) between the resistivities of the two adjacent earth materials.
Pa = 11+ k2 + 1 The presence of buried pipes or other metallic structures
(1-k) L [4(sinw+h/a)2+COS2J]2

I
close to the surface is also a typical cause of sudden changes
(1 -2) in apparent earth resistivity, as shown in Figure 1.5.
K(1+K )
[4(s
[4 (s inw-h/a 2cos2~]21
nub-h/a))2+cos2]2

where,
Pa = the apparent resistivity as measured by the Wenner
Method.
a = separation distance between current and potential L/)
probes.
P1 = resistivity of region on one side of vertical fault
line.
cL
a-
P2 = resistivity of region on opposite side of vertical
fault line.
P I PE SPAC NG a
h = distance from center of array direction and the
line of fault (See Figure 1.4).
ci = angle of array direction to line of fault (See
Figure 1.4). Figure 1.5 Presence of Buried Metallic Structures

The method used for interpreting the measurements can be
grouped into two simplified categories:
o Empirical interpretation
377
measurements taken by an experienced crew under the best
of conditions, will never give a perfect match with analytical
results computed from the optimum earth model derived from
the measurement data.

o Analytical interpretation
2.0 LOGARITHMIC CURVE MATCHING
Analytical interpretation is, in theory, independent of the
person conducting the interpretation. In contrast, the results The apparent resistivity functions (equations 1-2 and 1-3)
of an empirical interpretation are significantly influenced by may be written in terms of the dimensionless ratios K, Pa'P1
the background and experience of the interpreter. and h/a:
It is preferable to use a combination of both approaches for Horizontal Two-Layer Earth
maximum accuracy and a minimum of uncertainty. For 00

example, when analytical methods indicate that two or more

earth models are reasonable, the most realistic choice can pa /p = 1 + 4 Kn[ [ + 4n2(h/a) 2]

be determined from empirical considerations or visual

inspection of the curves. In any case, it should be emphasized
that experience is of paramount importance in the
interpretation process.
Empirical methods are based on experience gained through
numerous measurement and interpretation exercises. Thus,
such methods can be described as statistical in nature.
Essentially, it is observed that the shape of an apparent
resistivity curve is closely related to the earth structure and
its characteristics at the site. Therefore, certain
properties of the measured curve are used to deduce the
resistivity and thickness of the earth layers. Although there
may be inherent inaccuracies in some of these methods, they
are of less consequence to the design engineer than they are
to the geologist. Empirical methods may be useful for on
site interpretations and serve as a good starting point for
more rigorous methods. A complete discussion of empirical
methods is included in the referenced EPRI report, and will
not be repeated in this paper.
Analytical methods, as termed herein, follow a constant
methodology, i.e:
Step 1
The measured results are examined and preliminary
interpretation is performed, typically based on the empirical
methods described previously.
Step 2
One or several possible earth models are proposed.
Step 3
The measured results are compared with those calculated
from the proposed imodels.
Step 4
The most suitable model is retained. If more that one model
is suitable, these are considered to be equivalent.
Step 5
The selected model is optimized. Often the opimization
process is based on engineering judgment. Sometimes one
may choose to conduct additional surveys in order to check
the validity of some assumptions or to eliminate uncertainties.
However, in power system design this step is generally omitted.
Two analytical methods of earth resistivity measurement
interpretation were developed for the EPRI project and
are described in the following sections. First, the use of
precalculated curves is described. Next, a computer program
(RESIST) based on the method of steepest-descent is described.
The word 'analytical" can be misleading as it is often
interpreted as meaning "accurate" or "rigorous". Earth
resistivity measurements are rarely accurate to within 1%,
even when sophisticated equipment is used. Usually,
careful measurements with conventional equipment are
accurate to within about 5%. Careless measurements,
inexperience or poor equipment can lead to measured results
significantly different from the real values. Even
(2-1 )
- 4 + 4n2(h/a)2 2]j
Vertical Fault
Pa"/ (1 K) [ 1 + K2 + K(1-K) [4(sinw + h/a) 2
n to -,).
+ cos 2w ] - K(1+K) [(2sinw-h/a)2+cos2j1
If one of the above dimensionless apparent resistivity functions
Po = Pa/ Pl is plotted in logarithmic coordinates, i.e., ln(Pa/ PI
F(ln(a/h)) the coordinates, of a point on the resistivity curve
will be:
on the y axis (2-3)
y =
lnpa - lnp
x = Ina - lnh on the x axis (2-4)
If we now assume that a number of apparent resistivity
reference curves, designated as Master curves, are plotted,
for various reflection coefficients K, then:
y = lnp (2-5)
x = lna (2-6)
Assuming that Pl = 1 Q-m and h = 1 m.
Resistivity curves derived for two-layer earth structures
where P1 and/or h are not equal to unity, will be shifted
by -ln(P1) vertically and -ln(h) horizontally with respect to
the corresponding Master curves. The shapes of the curves
are thus preserved. This property of the apparent resistivity
curve when plotted in logarithmic coordinates, is the basis
for the logarithmic curve matching method.
Thus, a field curve can be compared directly with a set
of theoretical Master curves, through a series of appropriate
translations of the field curve plotted on a transparent paper.
If a satisfactory match is found between the field and a
theoretical curve, then the real earth reflection factor K, is
equal to that of the computed curve.
This method requires that a set of precalculated Master
reference curves be available to the interpreter. Such curves
can be easily determined based on Equation 2-1 for horizontal
layers and Equation 2-2 for a vertical fault. Figure 2.1 is a
set of Master curves for the case of a two-layer earth. When
a field curve falls between two curves, the corect values
can be interpolated. If more precision is required, additional
curves for closer K values should be constructed.
Figure 2.2 is a set of Master curves applicable to vertical
fault when the direction of the traverse is at 00 angle with
the line of fault. It should be noted that additional charts
(different traverse angles) are required for a complete set
of master charts. The construction of such charts is
straigthforward with a programmable calculator. Reference
charts for 30, 60 and 900 angles are provided in Volume 2
if El].
378

3.0 COMPUTER PROGRAM RESIST

The resistivity measurement interpretation process is
considerably simplified when program RESIST is used. Detailed
information on the use of this program is included in Chapters
3, 4 and 10 and in Appendix B of [1].
Because RESIST requires a minimum of data from the user,
it can be used by engineers with very little exposure to
power system grounding. The input data consists of the probe
spacings and apparent resistances (or resistivities)
measured using the Wenner method. RESIST automatically
selects and calculates all the other data needed to
proceed with the final computations.
For example, RESIST must select initial values for the upper
layer thickness and layer resistivities before starting its
iterative search algorithm. The initial values retained are
appropriate for relatively small grounding systems such as
those employed in transmission line structures.
This program determines an equivalent two-layer earth model
from the measured apparent resistivity data. The resistivity
values must have been measured using the equally-spaced
four probe or Wenner method. The equivalent earth model is
characterized by the thickness of the first layer and by the
resistivity values of the upper and lower layers of soil.
RESIST was developed for use in an interactive mode. In this
mode, the user is prompted to provide the required input
data and answers in free-format.
The program can also be readily operated in batch mode. In
this mode, the user must organize the data in a file prior
to running the program. The batch mode is particularly
Figure 2.1 Horizontal Two-Layer Earth Master Chart advantageous when running several cases with small
differences in the input data.

)o
a
h
a
h -to -
PA
D
r
/10'
VERTICAL FAULT/

-.1
-.5

-.7

...
.... . . . . -. . . . .~~~~~~~~~~~~1.0
-.9 .
_2 _5 _1 .5 _1

-.99

Figure 2.2 Vertical Fault Master Chart

 379
The following method was used as the basis for the computer Table 4.1 clearly shows that the soil at the site is not
program RESIST, developed by SES. This method was selected uniform. Therefore, an equivalent two-layer earth model must
for the following reasons: be determined to improve the accuracy of the grounding
performance calculation.
* A more elaborate version of the method has been
operational for several years and has been The resistivity values of Table 4.1 were used as input data
extensively tested in practical cases. It has proved to computer program RESIST as shown in Figure 4.2.
to be a very stable, reliable method which requires
a minimum amount of input data. Initial values
for the presumed earth model are not required ......... etc.
from the user. Therefore, it can be used by
engineers with limited experience in resistivity
interpretation.
YOU MAY ENTER
* The method is easy to implement. 1- THE APPARENT MEASURED RESISTANCE (V/I), OR
2- THE APPARENT RESISTIVITY VALUES
* The program is particularly suited to transmission APPARENT RESISTANCE ?
line tower grounding design where very large
spacings between the electrodes of an array are ENTER YOUR FIELD DATA RESULTS IN SEQUENCE.
not necessary. ONE LINE FOR EACH MEASUREMENT AT A GIVEN SPACING.
TERMINATE WITH END AT THE BEGINNING OF A NEW LINE.
This program is based on the method of steepest-descent. EXAMPLE SPACING (M OR FT), MEASURED VALUE (OHMS OR OHMS-METER)
5.0,433.0
?2.5y320
The method of steepest-descent is most readily vizualized ?5.0,245
by an analysis of the two-variable function p(x,y), illustrated X7.5,18
in Figure 3.1. The analytical development of this method is ? 10.0,162
X 12.5,168
shown in the Appendix. ? 15.0,152
? end
The gradient of this function is calculated at an initial point
Mo defined by xo, yo. The values of x and y are then selected ......... etc.
so that the function decreases along the direction defined
by the gradient vector. The process is repeated until the
function along the initial direction starts to increase. The
process will stop when all possible directions of the gradient Figure 4.2 Program RESIST Input Data
indicate that the present (x,y), coordinates corresponds to a
minimum of the function (zero gradient).
This process will normally converge to a minimum of the
function. However, there is no guarantee that the rninimum The computer printout, shown in Figure 4.3, shows that the
obtained will be the only one nor that it is the minimum of equivalent earth resistivity structure determined by RESIST
the minima. Experience shows that when a secondary minimum corresponds to a 2.56 m (8.4 feet) thick first layer with a
is obtained, the initial starting point was most likely within resistivity of 383 Q-m underlain by a second layer with a
the zone of influence of this minimum. In this case another lower resistivity value of 147.7 Q-m.
pair of initial x and y values should be selected and the
process started again.
COMPUTATION RESULTS
TOP LAYER RESISTIVITY 383.4982 OHMS-METER
BOTTOM LAYER RESISTIVITY 147,6571 OHMS-METER
REFLECTION FACTOR - 4440 (P.U.)
TOP LAYER THICKNESS 2.5626 METERS

M (x ,y)
MINIMUM Figure 4.3 Computation Results

Figure 3.1 The Method of Steepest-Descent A comparison between the actual measured resistivities and
the calculated apparent resistivities based on the two
layer earth structure determined by RESIST is shown in the
4.0 A TYPICAL EXAMPLE computer printout in Figure 4.4.

The apparent soil resistivity at the site of a power system SPACING CALCULATED APPARENT MEASURED APPARENT DISCREPANCY
grounding installation was measured using the Wenner method. (METERS) RESISTIVITY(OHMS-M) RESISTIVITY(DHMS-M) (PERCENT)
The results of the measurements are given in Table 4.1.
2.j00 3271.4372 320.0000 2.32
5.000 233.8807 245.0000 -4,54
PROBE APPARENT 7,500 187.4388 182 .0000 2.99
SPACING (i) RESISTIVITY (Q-m) 10.000 168.0307 162,0000 3. 72
2.5
5.0
320
245
12.500
15,000
159.5344
155 3505
168.0000
152.0000 iO
-5,04
i-220
7.5 182
10.0 162
12.5 168
15.0 152 Figure 4.4 Comparison of Resistivities

Table 4.1 Apparent Soil Resistivity

380
An almost identical two-layer earth model can be determined CONCLUSIONS
using the logarithmic curve matching technique described in
Section 2. The field resistivity curve is plotted on a transparent Advanced earth resistivity measurement interpretation
logarithmic graph and is then compared directly to the set techniques have been developed and demonstrated. The new
of theoretical Master curves provided in Section 2 (Figure techniques include:
2.1). The comparison process, illustrated in Figure 4.5, consists
of obtaining a satisfactory match between the measured and a- Logarithmic curve matching utilizing precalculated
theoretical curves through a series of appropriate horizontal Master curves with which a field curve can be compared
and vertical translations of the transparent graph sheet. When directly.
this is accomplished, the thickness of the upper layer is the
value of the abscissa on the vertical line passing through the b- An advanced computer program RESIST which is
Master chart abscissa corresponding to a/h=1. From Figure based on the method of steepest-descent. The program
4.5 it is found that the upper layer thickness is approximately is particularly suited to transmission line tower grounding
2.5 m (8.2 feet). Similarly, the upper soil resistivity is the desi gn.
value of the ordinate on the horizontal line passing through The interpretation techniques demonstrate that large
the Master chart ordinate corresponding to Pa/P1 = 1. Fiqure variations in earth resistivity measurements need not be an
4.5 shows that the upper soil resistivity is about 390 Q-m. obstacle to the development of detailed earth structure models.
Finally, this figure indicates that the measured apparent For power system grounding purposes, the earth can be
resistivity curve corresponds to a reflection factor in the reasonably approximated by a two-layer soil structure. For
range of -0.4 to -0.45. This leads to a lower resistivity value an electrode spacing of 2.5 meters or greater, satisfactory
between 148 and 167 Q -m. agreement has been demonstrated between measured and
computed results using both techniques.
A comparison of the two-layer earth models obtained by ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
computer program RESIST and the curve matching technique
is shown in Table 4.2. The results demonstrate that the results The authors wish to aknowledge the financial support of the
are almost identical. electrical
r7I--:- M-_n
t-ower
.-
researcn
^ -
instLtute
h T FF Tor
F-for rInis rot r iOh rojeCL.
k;" researcn -niof-f

RESIST CURVES Mr. J. Dunlap, the EPRI Project Manager, and the Advisory
-------- ---------- Task Force members; Messrs. T. E. Bethke, A. C. Pfitzer,
G. B. Niles, and R. S. Baishiki, are also acknowleged for
Top Layer Resistivity 383 390 their assistance and guidance on this EPRI project.
Bottom Layer Resistivity 147.7 148-167
Top Layer Thickness 2.56 m 2.5 m
R EERENCES
Table 4.2 Comparison of Interpretation Results
1- F. Dawalibi, "Transmission Line Grounding", EPRI Research
Project 1494-1, Final Report EL 2699, October 1982.
2- F. Wenner, "A Method of measuring Resistivity", National
Bureau of Standards, Scientific Paper 12, NO. S-258, 1916,
P. p. 499.
P
3- G. F. Tagg, "Earth Resistances", George Newnes Ltd.,
London 1964 (book).
4- E. D. Sunde, "Earth Conduction Effects in
Transmission Systems", Dover Publications, New York, 1968
(book).
5- F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar, "Influence of Ground Rods
on CGrounding Grids", IEEE Transactions on PAS, Vol. PAS-98,
No. 6, November/December 1979, pp. 2089-2098.
6- S. Stefanesco, C. & M. Schlumberger, "Sur la Distribution
Electrique Potentielle Autour d'une Prise de Terre Ponctuelle
dans un Terrain a Couches Horizontales Homogenes et
Isotropes", Journal de Physique et Radium, Vol. 1, Serie VII,
No. 4, 1930, pp. 132-140.

7- M. Muskat, "Potential Distribution About an Electrode

on the Surface of the Earth", Physics, Vol. 4, NO. 4, April
1933, pp. 129-147.
8- H. M. Mooney, E. Orellana, H. Pickett, L. Tornheim, "A
Resistivity Computation Method for Layered Earth
Models", Geophysics, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, February 1966, pp.
192-203.
9- K. Maeda, "Apparent Resistivity for Dipping Beds,
Geophysics, Vol. XX, No. 1, January 1955, pp, 123-139.
10- L. S. Palmer, "Examples of Geolectric Surveys", IEE
Figure 4.5 Logarithmic Curve matching Technique Journal, Vol. 106, part A, June 1959, pp. 231-244.
 381

APPENDIX or
Let PO(aj), j = 1, n be the series of apparent resistivity values F-T p1 + [ a~
a) 2
12]
as measured at a given site by the Wenner method for n At =
IT +
(4)
different inter-electrode spacings aj. pil K~ rLh J
The sought for minimum is obtained when AW = 0 or practically
Let P (aj), j = 1, n be the calculated apparent resistivity when:
values, based on a two-layer earth model at the same spacings
aj used during the measurements.
IA < E (5)
The interpretation task consists of finding the most suitable where E is the desired accuracy.
earth model for which the difference between the set of
measured and calculated values, according to certain criteria, The main steps in the steepest-descent algorithm are
is a minimum. In theory any criterion can be used (e.g., sum therefore:
of the absolute value of the differences). In practice, the
classical least-square criterion is preferred. 1- Estimate initial values of P1, K and h (i.e., Pl
KO, h)
Let + ( P1, K, h) be the square error function defined as:
2- Calculate a suitable value of T
n~p(aj) _p (aj ) l2
')(Pj, K, h) = E[- )P(a ) J (1) 3- Determine AP1,AK and Ah
4- Estimate a new starting point:
The best fit is obtained when p is minimum. The values of
Pi, K, h which lead to this minimum are determined by the Pi 0) = (i-i) + AP
steepest-descent algorithm.
The gradient vector is defined as: K(i) K(1-i) + AK

V= X h( = h i-) + Ah
ap1 ah aK 5- Calculate Ail and compare it with a:
Each component of the potential vector is determined from
Equation 1. Thus: a- if Ai < a , the fit is completed.

n2n a
)P (2a)
b- if IAyI > E , continue the process at step 2
(or step 3 if T is maintained constant).
apJ

(2b) In order to calculate Aip from Equation 4, the partial

aK 1 p aK derivatives of P must be known. These are determined from
Equation 5 where the partial derivatives of the theoretical
n
ap 0 ah two-layer earth apparent resistivity function are obtained
(2c) from Equation 4-46 of the EPRI report [1]. These calculations
ah lead to:
00

Assume now that AP1, AK, Ah are small stepwise changes

along the gradient represented as: -= I + 4 Kn( - n(I - K2)/2K) (A:
Upl n=l (6)
-- a ]
Ap1 = -T - (3a)
DP,
ap 16plh
AK = -T -
(3b) -= Kn A-' B-' (7)
ah a2

Ah = -T
(3c)
4 nKnl (A-: -
B) (8)
Where T is a positive value expressed in p.u. of V), suitably n=l
selected to generate a smooth search for the m-ninimum. The
above changes cause a small variation A in the error function where
11:
A = 1 + (2nh/a) 2
AWl= al APi + a* AK + a'p Ah
api 3K a~~h (9)
B = A + 3
 382
Discussion
Eldon J. Rogers, (Bonneville Power Adm., Vancouver, WA): It would
appear the author's computer technique for resolving Wenner test earth
resistivity into two-component earth would start with parameters deter-
mined from the logarithmic curve matching. I have used Roman's loga-
rithmic curve fitting method for two-layer earth, described by the
authors, to analyze earth resistivity data measured for the substation
grid sit (Refer to [3], Ch. 3, pp. 72). Generally, Wenner resistivity sur-
vey data fall into several categories: The data are obviously due to two-
layer earth and logarithmic comparison is easily made; the data appear
to be two-layer but logarithmic fit is inaccurate; or, it is evident the data
are 3- or 4-layer earth. As most of the substation data fall in the last two
categories, the author's computer technique could be useful to deter-
mine their two-layer equivalent. Even for towers, earth resistivity varia-
tions may require more than one Wenner test location to adequately
describe the earth volume.
One important aspect of resistivity survey is determining the earth's
resistivity near the surface. The earth's resistivity near the surface can
be calculated from the measured resistance (Rn) of each Wenner test
probe (Pn = YY L Rn/(In8L/D- 1) ). For a typical test probe length
(L) of 0.3m, earth resistivity samples are obtained of an earth cylinder
0.5m in depth and 0.6m diameter. The composite earth surface layer
resistivity is found by the parallel combination of all sample volumes
00
[Pi = n/I (1/Pn) ).
I
When the composite Wenner test data for a grounding electrode site
differ significantly from the two-layer earth model (for example, data
from three-and four-layer earth), will the author's RESIST program
determine the best two-layer fit? How are the p.u. value of V, "r", and
the desired accuracy "e" Eq.(5) selected? It would appear their selec-
tion depends on how well the data fit the theoretical model. Would the
author please discuss? What are the theoretical considerations which
justify the assumptions used to form Eqs. 3a, 3b, 3c shown in the Ap-
pendix? There appear to be several typo errors in the Appendix:
Eq. (4): First term has incorrect numerator.
Eq. (7): Should have a negative sign in front of 16.
a2, in the denominator
n2, between summation symbol and kn
Eq. (8): Should have P1 between 4 and summation symbol
In his closure will the author include equations for the Vertical Fault
case similar to Eqs. (6), (7) and (8) of the Appendix. Will his computer
technicque be adaptable to the case of the rod electrode penetrating
two-layer earth?
The authors are to be congratulated for reviewing the logarithmic
curve matching technique and developing a computer program to fit the
two-layer earth model to the earth resistivity survey.
Manuscript received August 2, 1983.
F. Dawalibi and C. J. Blattner: We thank Mr. Rogers for his discussion
and pertinent comments.
The initial parameters required by the steepest-descent technique
could be determined from the logarithmic curve matching method. Mr.
Rogers points out rightfully that our technique is particularly useful to
determine an equivalent two-layer model for complex soil structures.
When soil is practically a two-layer configuration, then the logarithmic
curve matching method provides accurate solutions.
Program RESIST is designed to give the best two-layer fit based on
the Wenner test values.
There is no selection of an initial value of the gradient vector V. The
components of this vector are defined by Eq. 2 of the paper. Guidance
for the selection of the accuracy is included in [1] (see p. B-3).
Eq. 4 has a correct numerator, (it was corrected after the review by
the Technical Committee).
We are grateful to Mr. Rogers for reporting the typo errors in Eq. 7
and 8. It seems that these mistypes appeared a few years ago when the
first author was involved in the revision of IEEE Guide 81. Unfortu-
nately, the mistypes were reintroduced in this paper and also in Ref. 1.
Fortunately however, the code in program RESIST is correct.
The case of vertical layers requires that the direction of the traverse
and the location of each probe of the array be known relative to the ver-
tical fault plane (interface betweeen layers). This introduces several
possibilities with 3 equations similar to Eqs. 6, 7 and 8. Although we
have not yet derived all these new equations., we believe that it is a
relatively easy task (see p. 4-26 of [1]).
The rod electrode penetrating two-layer earth requires major
modifications to the computer algorithm.
Manuscript received September 26, 1983.