~

206 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 31, NO. 1, JANUARYEBRUARY 1995

Earth Ground Resistance Testing

for Low-Voltage Power Systems
Kenneth M. Michaels, Member, IEEE

Abstract-A quality connection to earth through the grounding Example of T h r e e - P o i n t , Fall-of-Potential Test

electrode system for a commercial or industrial facility’s power Meter

system is necessary for: 1) providing a low impedance path for
lightning stroke current dissipation, 2) the reduction of “Step”
and “Touch” potentials under line-to-earth fault conditions, and
3) the dissipation of electrostatic charges. Previously accepted test
methods for resistance measurements of a grounding electrode
system may indicate incorrectly that high or low resistance
connections have been established.
Testing of several grounding electrode systems was conducted
by the author. This paper will present results of these tests
to illustrate deficiencies in grounding electrode resistance test
methods that have been accepted previously. Inaccuracies of
various test instrument principles will also be discussed.
The author found that close attention to the test procedure
must be given to ensure that an accurate measurement will be
achieved. This paper will provide recommendationson measure-
ment techniques to minimize errors and ensure valid test results.
Fig. 1
I. INTRODUCTION
* The type of test equipment being used.
T HE reasons and methods for installing a grounding elec-
trode system are well-documented in many engineering
practices and standards. Facilities engineers are aware of
*
*
Spacing of any auxiliary probes.
The possible influence of buried metal objects such as
these standards and recommend various grounding electrode conduits, pipelines, etc.
system configurations in order to meet the needs of the
facility. At the conclusion of the design and installation, the FALL-OF-POTENTIAL
11. THREE-POINT, PROCEDURES
grounding electrode system must be tested to verify if a The majority of test equipment utilized by installers of
particular required or recommended earth ground resistance grounding electrode systems provides results based on the
value has been met. This testing is accomplished to validate the Three-Point, Fall-of-Potential method to measure the earth
connection to earth as being sufficient as to become a desirable ground resistance. This test method will be the focus of this
path for lightning stroke current. It may also help indicate paper since the procedure, if applied properly, gives the most
the expected “Step” and “Touch’ potential that may develop consistent results. The intent of this procedure is to measure
during a line-to-earth fault thus causing personnel shock. the earth ground resistance of a grounding electrode with
Though an earthing system may be designed properly, it is the respect to the surrounding soil before connection to the power
facility electrician who will be instrumental in establishing, distribution system. This is accomplished by placing auxiliary
testing, and maintaining the grounding electrode system. In probes at predetermined distances from the electrode under
some cases, industrial facilities may rely on visiting electronic test. Fig. 1 shows how this test is performed.
technicians, who may be present at their site for the installation The electrode under test ( X ) will have an effective body of
or maintenance of electronic equipment, to verify the integrity earth that can be described as spherical shells with a certain
of the earth ground connection. radius surrounding it. The auxiliary probes provided by the
When performing the earth ground resistance measurement, equipment manufacturer will also have their associated bodies
consideration must be given to certain items that will influence of earth once they are placed in the soil to make measurements.
the test procedures and, ultimately, the results. These include: A current, which is generated by the test instrument, is injected
* The type of test being performed. into X and back to the tester through the auxiliary current
electrode (C). As the current passes through the earth, a
Paper ICPSD 94-18. approved by the Power Systems Engineering Com-
mittee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society for presentation at the 1994
voltage drop will develop between the X and the auxiliary
IEEElIAS Industrial & Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference, potential electrode ( P ) .The intemal components of the meter
Imine, CA, May 1-5. Manuscript released for publication July 13, 1994. will be able to calculate the resistance through Ohm’s Law:
The author is with Consumers Power Company, Holt, MI 48842 USA.
IEEE Log Number 9406602. R = VI1

0093-9994/95$04.00 0 1995 IEEE

MICHAELS: EARTH GROUND RESISTANCE TESTING FOR LOW-VOLTAGE POWER SYSTEMS 207

LOCATlON
. . DltTL Q-7R-Q5
DISTANCE T O CURRENT PROBE 100F E E T CLSTANCE To P O T E N T I A L PROBC

12.0
11.0 -~
0.3 0 FEET

10.0 0.3 a FEET

9.0 0.3 FEET
8 0 LL FEET
p 7.0 40 FEET
6 6.0 0.3 0 FEET
5.0 08 0FEET
4 0 LL FEET
3.0 09 5 FEET
2.0 0.8 90 FEET
k2 i o 2 FEET

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
D I S T A N C E 1D POTENTIAL PROBE (FEETI

Fig. 2.
where,
R Earth ground resistance,
V potential between the electrode under test X and the
auxiliary potential electrode ( P ) ,and
I amplitude of test current injected by the instrument.
When the spacing between X and C is sufficient, the body
of earth surrounding P will be able to be placed outside the
influences of both bodies of earth surrounding C and X. If
proper spacing is achieved, then a graph can be plotted that
will indicate variances in ohmic values that should indicate
what the earth ground resistance of X is.
When proper spacing is attained, the graph should initially
show a gradual increase of earth ground resistance as the
bodies of earth surrounding X and P separate. A point is
reached where P is outside the body of earth surrounding X
and is not yet overlapping into the body of earth surrounding
C. When this occurs, a relatively slow increase in earth
ground resistance readings where it appears to “plateau.”
This flattening of the graph is theorized to be reached at
approximately 62% of the distance between X and C. This
is why the test is also known as the “62% Method.” Extensive
testing by the author has shown that the variation between
readings at 50% and 70% of the distance between the electrode
under test and the current electrode is less than 5% which is
the accuracy of most common earth ground testers. Therefore,
it is possible that measurements taken at 60% could give
an acceptable mean average reading of an electrode’s earth
ground resistance.
However, the test does have limitations that may make
this type of testing impractical for some electrode systems
unless allowances are made for variances in test procedure.
The following case studies are intended to show: 1) the effects
of buried metal objects in the vicinity of the test, and 2) a
variance in the fall-of-potential method that could overcome
common obstacles in earth ground resistance testing.
The resistance of a grounding electrode will be affected
by the soil composition, moisture content, and salt content
within its body of earth. Likewise, the earth ground resistance
measurement results can be influenced by soil composition
between X and either P or C. This is especially true in
commercial and industrial facilities where buried metal objects
(such as underground gas or water pipelines, conduits, septic
tanks, etc.) in the soil either traverse or come in close proxim-
ity of the line of testing. When these objects are encountered,
Fig. 3.
it is often difficult to alter the line of testing due to the lack
of physical space needed for sufficient probe spacing. An
example of this type of problem can be seen in the graphs
that apply to Case Study #l.
It should be noted that three popular brands of testers were
used in all testing. One of the testers was a three-terminal
tester while the other two were four-terminal instruments. All
three were found to indicate values that were within &2% of
each other. Further conclusions are made in Case Study #3
to show the results of measurements made with a clamp-on,
earth ground resistance instrument.
111. CASESTUDY#1
This test location is an underground oil pipelinehank farm
facility that has two oil pipelines which come in close prox-
imity of a newly constructed pole barn. Fig. 2 shows electrode
and auxiliary probe placement at the site. A grounding elec-
trode was established 50 ft to the southwest of the pipeline
(see Fig. 2 for location). This particular grounding electrode
under test is 5/8 in x 10 ft. The line of testing consisted of
the auxiliary current electrode (C) spaced at 100 from the
electrode under test ( X ) and in parallel with the pipeline. The
auxiliary potential probe ( P ) was driven in the soil at 10%
increments of the distance between X and C (every 10 ft).
The positioning of P at these intervals seems to be a good
rule of thumb and has provided this author with consistent
readings for earth ground resistance measurements in various
soil compositions.
Fig. 3 shows the earth ground resistance measurements with
the C at 100 ft from X . The graph maintains a fairly steady
plateau throughout the complete distance. This graph shows
that the nearby pipeline acts as a short between the bodies
of earth that surround X and C. The cathodic protection
voltage that is impressed on the pipeline system is negated
by the internal circuitry of the earth ground testers since the
instruments inject currents at frequencies that differed from
the power frequency and have internal circuitry that voids the
influence of dc currents.
It is thought by some test equipment users that there needs
to be an increase of the spacing between X and C when a
graph such as this is plotted. The reasoning for this is that the
effective body of earth around X is so large that it extends
into or beyond the body of earth around C. However, if this
were the case, the graph would show a significant increase in
the resistance readings without reaching a discernable plateau.
208 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 31, NO. 1, JANUARYEEBRUARY 1995

12.
0.2 ~
0 FEET 1 1
0FEET
0.2 20 FEET 10 2 FFET
0.2 40 FEET 9. 20 FEET
0.z 60 FEET 8 _uL FEET

~
0.2 80 FEET 2 ’ 40 FEET
0.2 100 FEET $ 6 ~~ 50 FEET

~
0.3 120 FEET 5 60 FEET
0.z 140 FEET
E A FEET
03 160 FEET 2 3 5 FEET
0.4 & FEET ; 2 FEE1
_eL JL!!L FEET E 1 2 FEET
_ ~ F E_E 1
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 io0 110
o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
D I S T A N C E TU POTENTIAL PROBE (FEET)
OISTI\NCE TO POTENTIAL PROBE ( l E E l >

Fig. 4. Fig. 6 .

for Fig. 5 and could indicate the true resistance reading for X .
12
If an unsuspecting electriciadtechnician were performing
0FEET
11. this test, they may conclude that the spacing between X and
10. 2 FEET
9 20 F E E T C was insufficient and thus place C further from X . The
8 A FEET
r 7 4 0 FEET individual performing the tests is warned in testing procedure
$ 6 2 FEET documents provided by the manufacturer that sharp increases
5 50 FEET
E 4 2 FEET in the meter’s resistance indicate that the spacing between X
2 3 L? FEET
x 2 0 FEET and C is not great enough. However, the testing performed on
E l 100 FEET
made electrodes by this author have indicated that the installer
o IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 inn
90
DISTANCE TO P O T E N l l A L PROBE ( I E E T ) could achieve the necessary plateaus in the graphs to show true
Fig. 5. resistance without exceeding 130 ft and sometimes can be seen
at distances not exceeding 80 ft for single electrodes.
To combat the influence of metallic objects near an ground-
Thus there would be a greater margin of error between 50% ing electrode system, a northern Michigan telephone com-
and 70% of the distance between X and C. To verify that the pany’s electrode testing requirements have specified installa-
placement of P and C lateral to the pipeline was insufficient, tion technicians to set C a minimum distance of 10,500 ft
an effort was made to increase the spacing between X and C (2 mi) from X in order to be safely outside the influence
to 200 ft. The placement of P would still be accomplished in of any buried metal objects. The procedure then calls for the
10% increments (every 20 ft). Fig. 4 shows, again, that the measurement personnel to make placements of P every 5-7
test results were influenced by the underground oil pipeline ft between X and C. According to their specification, this
and that the earth ground resistance readings never reached an procedure is necessary whether X is a single made electrode
ohmic value which was distinguishable as being characteristic or extensive substation ground grid. This method of testing
of the resistance of X . for a single electrode can be a considerable waste of time and
Fig. 5 shows the plotted values that came as a result of effort as one can assume that a myriad of metal objects can be
moving the physical locations of P and C away from, and buried in a two mile stretch of earth. This author’s experience
perpendicular to, the pipeline. A steady increase in the ohmic is that this form of testing could also be inadequate even for
values can be seen between 0 and 50 ft. At 50 ft, the resistance some of the larger substations.
value attains a level of 3.2 R. A slight increase to 3.3 R is
seen at 60 ft and 3.5 R at 70 ft. This plateau would indicate
that the body of earth around P is outside the influence of X A. Conclusions: Case Study #I
and C. It also evidence of the earth ground resistance for X . It is necessary to locate, if possible, any buried objects in
At the same facility, the electrode was driven into the the soil where the auxiliary probe line of testing may traverse
soil between the pole barn and its service entrance supply its sphere of influence. Studies conducted by independent
transformer. It was decided to test the electrode in this location researchers have documented the effect of buried metal objects
because the line of testing would be at a right angle of when performing soil resistivity measurements tests. If this is
the underground 3” conduit run between the pole barn and the case, then it is possible that the sphere of influence of
the service transformer. It was determined that the conduit a buried metal object may overlap into one or more of the
traversed the line of testing at 35 ft from X towards C. Fig. 6 spherical shells surrounding X , C , or P , it can act as a low
illustrates a negligible increase in the graph’s resistance value impedance conductor. This can, in a sense, act as a “short
until P extends beyond the sphere of influence created by circuit” between any of the three test locations and therefore
the conduit. The resistance value at 60 ft increases to 3.4 R result in a chart seen in Figs. 3 and 4.
and extends upwards as P is placed closer to C. The value Likewise, Fig. 6 would indicate that a metallic buried object
at 60 ft is significant because although the conduit may have that travels directly through the test locations can directly alter
influenced the earth ground resistance readings previous to 50 the plotted resistance values. If the individuals performing
ft, the ohmic value at 60 ft is nearly identical to the 60% value the tests base their earth ground resistance measurements on
MICHAELS: EARTH GROUND RESISTANCE TESTING FOR LOW-VOLTAGE POWER SYSTEMS 209

Auxiliary
.
Current Electrode LOC~~TION Field Electrode OITL 1-11-94

.
100 OIST.WCL 1
T O CURRENT P ~ O B L00F E E T OISTANLE T O PO T L N i l i L PROBE

600
90 550
8.5 0F E E T
500 19.0 -10F E E T
0 450 *o.o 20 FEET
BO 400 llze 30 FEET
Auxiliary Polenlial Auxiliary Potential 4 350 143.0
~ % FEET
Probe Placement 70
0 Probe P l a c e m e n t 6 300 __ 205.0 50 FEET
250 210.0 60 FEET
;200
~

210.0
711
,, ~
--+---
60
.., 2 150 ~
210.0
290.0 80
FEET
FEET
100 577.0 90 FEET
50 ~
480.0 100 FEET
500

O o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 an 90 100 110
DISTANCE T O P O T E N l l A L PROBE <FEET>
/ \

Fig. 9.
\ 0 /
\
\
\\\
. 30

/
/
/

Field Electrode OiiTC 1-13-94

\ . /
LOCATJON
\ 20 /
\ / DISTANCE T O CURRENT PROBE 100F E E T DISTANCE 10 POTENTIAL PROBC
\

\ 10 / 600
9.4 0F E E T
\ / 550 ~

21.0
- 10 FEET
500
450 20 FEET
Electrode U n d e r Test 400 84.0 30 F E E T
350 150.0
- & FEET
Fig. I . 6 300 205.0 50 FEET
250 218.0
~
60 FEET
y 200 220.0 711 FEET
2 150 250.0 80 FEET
LOCATION^ lmlLEl&red. O*TE 1/13/94 310.0 90 FEET
100
DISTANCE T O CURRLNT PROBE 100F E E T DISTANCE TO PCITLNTIAL PROBE 365.0 FEET
50

0F E C i
DISTANCE TO POTENTIAL PROBE (FEET)
10 FEET
20 FEET Fig. 10.
Jo FE-
& FEET
50 FEET
60 FEET by moving P away from X at various angles as shown in
70 FEET
FEET Fig. 7.
90 FEET
100 FEET Fig. 9 shows the readings taken at a 45" angle (clockwise)
~ FECT
with respect to the original line of testing. It shows a definitive
DISTaNCE TO POTENTIAL PROBE (FEET)
plateau being reached at the 205-210 R range. It also shows
Fig. 8.
the slopes before and after the plateau. This demonstrates that
the potentials developed through the bodies of earth for X
graphs such as Fig. 5, then one must consider the influences and C have an influence on measurements taken along this
of these obstacles. line of testing.
The line of testing for P was then set away from X and
perpendicular (or to the East) of the original line of testing.
IV. CASESTUDY#2 Fig. 10 shows these results. Once again, a plateau was reached
In some geographical locations, the "straight line" place- at the 60-ft portion of the graph. The slope leading to the
ment of the auxiliary probes may not be practical due to 50-ft mark is well-defined, however, the trailing slope after
factors such as the availability of continuous homogeneous 70 ft shows a decrease in the amount of influence the current
soil and the lack of physical space needed to perform the test. electrode has on P. The same type of graphs were plotted when
It has been thought by some that an alternative arrangement testing was done in the Northwest and West lines of testing
of the auxiliary electrodes can help the user to achieve an (see Figs. 11 and 12). As the placement of P is established
acceptable earth ground resistance measurement graph. One away from C, the graphs do not show a prominent increase
such recommended test procedure is to place the auxiliary in the values beyond 70 ft. The results of the testing of P in
potential probe at 60% of the distance between X and C. the Westerly direction show the influence of a buried septic
However, instead of measuring in a straight path between X tank between 60 and 80 ft. In this graph, however, ohmic
and C , the measurements would be taken at various angles values of between 205 and 210 R were measured. This shows
with respect to the line of testing between X and C. To see if consistency with the previous readings at 60% distance though
this technique is effective, tests were conducted in this manner the trailing end of the graph is not at a steep incline.
on a 10 ft x 518 in grounding electrode driven into sandy soil An additional measurement was made 180" from the orig-
(see Fig. 7). inal line of testing to see the limits of the auxiliary probe
A fall-of-potential test was performed in a straight line placement. Fig. 13 exhibits the absence of a slope near the end
between X and C. Fig. 8 shows the results of this testing. The of the graph thus signifying the lack of influence by C. Another
earth ground resistance is measured to be within the 200-210 significant area of the graph is the 60% distance reading. This
R range. Once the earth ground resistance for X had been value recorded by each different meter was 208 0. This is
established, earth ground resistance measurements were taken within 5% of the measurements close to C.
210 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 31, NO. 1, JANUARYiFEBRUARY 1995

LDCAT~ON Field Eledrode ”ATE 1-13-94

Testing Locations a t Real Estate Firm
DISTANCE TO CURRENT PROBE 100F E E T DISTANCE TO POTENTIAL PROBE

Auxiliary Current Electrode

~
12.0 0FEET a
100 S

t
~
24.0 10 FEET
11.0 20 F E E T a
90
_pee 50 FEET
150.0
- 40 FEET
200.0 50 FEET 80
60
~
200.0
z10.0
300.0
370.0
e
90
FEET

FEET
Auxiliary Poiential
Probe P l a c e m e n t a
70
Auxiliary Potential
Probe Plocemsnt

430 0
~ 100 FEET
\ ,’
165.0
_ - - - so* - - - --_..
Fig. 11.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
DISTANCE TO POTENTIAL PROBE (FEET)
80 90 100 110

1 “d
//”

164.0
50

40
\
\
\ /
a /
LOCATTION Field Electrods DATE 1-13-94 /
/
DISTANCE TO CURRLNT PROBE &FEET DISTANCE TO POTENTIAL PROBE
/

-
/
600 /
6.0 0 FEET
‘ 550 ~~

500 25.0 10 FEET

450 20 FEET
400 -~
92.0 30 FEET
g 350 161.0 40 FEET
6 300 205.0
~~
50 FEET
250 210.0 60 FEET
;
~~

200 55.0’ 70 FEET Fig. 14.

150 ~
60.0 * 80 FEET
f 100 ~
320.0 90 FEET
k! 50
405.0 100 FEET
LOCAT~ON Real Estate Firm DATE 10-20-93
0 10 20 30 50
40 60 70 80 90 100 110
DISTANCE TO CURRENT PROBE 100F E E T DISTANCE To POTENTIAL PROBE
DISTANCL TO POTENTIAL PROBE (FEET)
600
Fig. 12. 550
2 0 FEET

500 26.5 10 FEET

450 Il;e 20 FEET
400 67.5 30 FEET
LOCATION Field Electrode O6TE 1-U-94 @ 350 ~
100.5 FEET
DISIe” T O CURRENT PROBE 100F E E T D I S T ~ C ETO P O T E N T l A i PROBE 5 300 165.0 50 FEET

600
250 165.0 60 FEET

550
6.5
- __0 FEET 200 159.0 70 FEET
20.0 10 FEET
:150 220.0 80 FEET
500
450 ~
47.0 20 FEET 4 100 JI0.0
m
90 FEET
100 FEET
400 ~
92.0 30 FEET % 50
2 350 171.0
- A FEET 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
6 300 207.0
- 50 FEET DISTANCE TO POTENTIAL PROBE (FEET)
250 200.0 60 FEET
p
~

200 ~
200.0 70 FEET Fig. 15.
150 ~
200.0 80 FEET
100 ~
209.0 90 FEET
200.0 100 FEET
k! 50
of C on the measurements with P beyond 70 ft. It should
~

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
DISTANCE TO POTENTIAL PROBE (FEET) be noted that the physical layout of the facility did not allow
Fig. 13. the survey team to test in other directions with respect to the
original line of testing.
The same manner of testing was performed at the grounding
electrode system at a mid-Michigan real estate firm.Fig. 14 A. Conclusion: Case Study #2
shows the general direction of auxiliary probe (P)placement. It was previously mentioned in this paper that the earth
Fig. 15 shows the plotted earth ground resistance as P was ground resistance (R) indicated by the meters is the quotient
placed in a direct line with the current probe (C). Definitive O f
slopes are present at each end of the graph while the plateau is
reached between 50 and 70 ft away from the electrode under VI1
test (X). The earth ground resistance shown on the graph is
approximately 168 R. (V)-The voltage drop developed between the electrode
As with the previous site, P was then placed away from under test and the auxiliary potential probe.
X in 10-ft increments at a 45’ angle from the original line (1)- The current flow injected by the test equipment
of testing toward C. Figs. 16 and 17 show the slopes along through the electrode under test and back through
with the flattening of the graphs at 60 ft. The values attained the current electrode.
for each line of testing at this distance were between 164 to
168 R. The difference between the readings are within 3% of When the potential probe is driven at intervals in a straight
each other. Another significant point is that all three testers line between the electrode under test and the current electrode,
that were employed displayed the same readings at almost the definition of the plotted graphs is enhanced by the auxil-
every test point. More importantly, the values at 60 ft for each iary potential probe penetrating the effective body of earth
instrument were identical. It can be seen that the slope at the surrounding the auxiliary current electrode. As the generated
trailing end of Figs. 16 and 17 show the waning influence test current flows through the current electrode, a potential will
MICHAELS: EARTH GROUND RESISTANCE TESTING FOR LOW-VOLTAGE POWER SYSTEMS 211

LOCATIOII Reo1 E r t o l s Firm U~TL 10-20-93 LOCATION Real Lrlolo Firm D ~ T L 10-29-93
DISTANCE T O CURRLNT PROBE 100F E E T DISTANCE T O POTENTIAL PPOBC DISTANCE TO CURRENT PROBE 100F E E T DISTANCE T O POTENTIAL PROBE

600 600
6.5
-~ 0 FEET ~ 6.0 0 FEET
550 550
22.0 10 FEET
500 10 FEET 500
450 AQA 20 FEET 450 41.5 20 FEET
400 ~~ 69.0 30 FEET 400 77.5 30 FEET
@ 350 Los & FEET p 350 -
105.0 40 FEET
6 300 155.0 2-
FEET 4 300 ~ 163.0 50 FEET
250 1680 60 FELT 250 164.0 % FEET
; 200 1680 70 FEET ; 200 157.0
2J50
70 FEET
,“ 150 217.0 80 FEET 2 150 80 FEET
:
~

R 100 288.0
5100
90 FEET
100 FEET
100
3750
323.0 90
100
FEET
FEET
E 50 ~

e 50
o 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Ion 110
n l C T I N T 1 Tn P n T F N T l A L PROBE (FEET) D I S T A N C E TU POTENTIAL PROBE ( F E P I )

Fig. 16. Fig. 17.

develop through its body of earth and eventually between the LOCATION Core Study il3- Industrial Facililv MTL 11/15/93
auxiliary probes once they are brought in close proximity to D I S T ~ N C L T O CURRENT PROBE 100F E E T DISTANCE TU POTENTIAL PROBE

each other. The increasing influence of the current electrode 120

-
1.0 0 FEET
110
and the decreasing influence of the electrode under test will 100 2 10 FEET
90 19.5 20 FEET
result in the higher numerical values indicated by the meters 80 ~~
320 30 FEET

at the 80-100 ft distances. g 70 -40

FETT
6 60 ~~
49.0 50 FEET
However, when the auxiliary potential probe ( P ) is driven 50 490 60 FEET
2 50.0 70 FEET
at distances away from the electrode under test ( X ) at angles ,“
40
30 79.0 80 FEET
to the original line of testing, the slope of the graphs beyond : 20
~

194.0
110.0 90 FEET
100 FEET
!& 10
70 ft are not so well-defined since the potential probe’s body O o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 ion 110

of earth does not penetrate the body of earth for the auxil- DISTANCE TO POTENTIAL PROBE (FEET)

iary current electrode. Yet, more significant is the consistent Fig. 18.
flattening of the graph at distances between 50 and 70 ft.
This testing was performed at three other sites with the same
results. It can be concluded through this testing that variations end show that sufficient spacing has been reached to prevent
in the arrangement of the auxiliary probes can be achieved the auxiliary potential probe ( P )from being influenced by the
and could allow the equipment users to overcome certain bodies of earth surrounding the electrode under test ( X ) and
obstacles encountered within a straight line of testing such as the auxiliary current electrode (C).
non-homogeneous soil (due to an asphalt or gravel patch)and After the graph in Fig. 18 had been plotted, each of the
various physical obstructions (i.e., sheds, roadways, etc.) multi-terminal meters were configured to perform a Two-
Point or “Direct” Method test. This test method is used by
some electrical contractors to compare of resistance between
V. CASE STUDY#3 a larger grounding electrode system and a smaller electrode
A combination of three tests methods were employed at an system (i.e., made electrode). It is assumed that the larger
industrial facility to test the effectiveness of each. These tests electrode system’s body of earth covers an extensive area and,
are: therefore, has a resistance to ground that is close to zero ohms.
1) The Three-Point, Fall-of-Potential Method using one Consequently, the value recorded by the meters should indicate
three-terminal and two four-terminal instruments. the ohmic value of the smaller electrode system.
2) The Two-Point or Direct Method. The values of the three different meters ranged from 6.0-8.5
3 ) Clamp-on Earth Ground Resistance Measurement. R. These values differ greatly in comparison to the Three-
The setup for this testing was the placement of a 5/8 in x 10 Point, Fall-of-Potential Method results. This may be due to
ft grounding electrode approximately 150 ft from a remote 30’ the fact that the structure’s body of earth covers such a large
x 50’ structure that housed four pump motors. This structure area that it extends into the smaller electrode’s body of earth.
had grounding electrodes established at each comer of the Furthermore, testing at other facilities revealed that this type
building. These electrodes were tied directly to structural steel of test is prone to error if measurements are made between a
supports with a 500 kcmil copper conductor. In addition, a 500 made electrode and a water piping system. This is due mainly
kcmil copper conductor was run in a ground ring around the to the increasing use of PVC water mains that are installed at
perimeter of the building to which each electrode was tied. most facilities and, subsequently, may not have an adequate
The first test performed at this site was the Three-Point, Fall- connection to earth necessary to make earth ground resistance
of-Potential Method using three separate earth ground testers. comparisons.
As with the previous case studies, the intent was to determine At the conclusion of the Direct Method tests, a #4 AWG
the resistance of the electrode with respect to the surrounding copper conductor was run between the structure’s perimeter
soil. Fig. 18 shows the plotted resistance with a flattening of ground and the remote electrode (see Fig. 19). This direct
the graph between 50 and 70 ft. The resistance values of the tie between electrode systems is necessary for earth ground
rod range between 49 and 50 R. The slopes of the graph at each resistance measurements made using a clamp-on earth ground
212
2.B Ohm‘ ,1390 ohms I 2 0 ohms 50
II I I
tester. This tester, which resembles a clamp-on ammeter,
allows the user to clamp the jaws of the device around a
grounding electrode or grounding electrode conductor to make
earth ground resistance measurements. The meter induces a
current into the electrode and compares it to the current coming
back through a closed-loop grounding electrode configura-
tion. This type of test is a benefit for persons in charge of
maintaining a grounding electrode system who cannot directly
disconnect the electrode without causing injury to themselves
or the potential to damage equipment.
When the clamp-on meter was clamped around the remote
electrode, the resistance indicated by the meter was 48 0. This
reading measured with the clamp-on meter is within 4% of the
readings made using the Three-Point, Fall-of-Potential method.
The clamp-on test method, nevertheless, has some limitations
that may caution the users to second guess the results acquired
by the meter.
A 10-0 resistor was installed in series with the #4 AWG
conductor to simulate the resistance that could be associated Michigan State University, Edward Cantwell of PowerTek
with a loose connections between electrode systems. The Services, and Dr. Timothy D. Unruh of Consumers Power
meter readings went from 48 0-67 0, thus concluding that Company for their help in the research of this project.
the resistor had some effect on the indicated value. The
drawback to this scenario is that some users of this tester
would clamp around a conductor and determine the earth
ground resistance of a particular reference to be the indicated
value. The testing performed with this meter by this author
has shown that it can mislead the operator with instrument
readings that can cause them to expend money to improve
an electrode system that may be adequate but for a loose, or
open, connection.
Another limitation to this instrument is the inability to
utilize the device if the current on the electrode or conductor
being measured exceeds 1.99 A. This limitation is set by
the manufacturer and is intended to protect the meter from
damage. In most industrial environments, current flow on
the grounding electrode conductor due to electromagnetic
induction can easily exceed this level.
In the several instances where the grounding electrode
system under test consisted of a “closed-loop’’ configuration
(see Fig. 19 for an example), the clamp-on resistance tester
never indicated the same value twice. According to the man-
ufacturer’s literature, the indicated value on the meter for this
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 31, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1995
type of electrode system configuration should be close to zero
ohms. It is possible that corroded, loose, or open connections
between electrodes can result in the inconsistent readings. Yet,
the users of these instruments do not take this into account
when implementing this device.
VI. CONCLUSION
II I I Specifications for performing earth ground resistance mea-
I
I
surements in the field are presented in the test equipment man-
ufacturers’ literature. However, electrode systems are rarely
installed and tested with the knowledge that the physical
placement may have a direct bearing on the test results.
To gain valuable information from earth ground resistance
measurements, one must consider the influence of buried
metallic objects that are in close proximity of the electrode
under test as well as the auxiliary probes. In addition, the Fall-
of-Potential Method appears to give the most consistent results
and would rule out factors that may cast doubt upon the results
as in the case of the clamp-on earth ground resistance tester.
The clamp-on tester would be inappropriate in larger electrode
systems where the probability of exceeding the meter’s ground
current operating tolerance is relatively high. Generally, most
commercially available, multi-terminal testers were found to
be reliable and operated within the specified manufacturers’
tolerances. Finally, altering the arrangement of the auxiliary
electrodes may provide the users with the necessary data in
some locations. It is recommended, however, that this testing
arrangement should be experimented with in various soil
conditions as well as assorted facility and electrode system
layouts.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank Dr. Truman Surbrook of
REFERENCES
IEEE Recommended Practice for Grounding of Industrial and Commer-
cial Power Systems, IEEE Standard 142, 1991.
G. F. Tagg, “Earth resistances,” in The Measurement of Earth Electrode
Resistances. ch. 10, pp. 178-205, 1964.
Eugene J. Fagan and Ralph H. Lee, “The use of concrete-enclosed
reinforcing rodes as grounding electrodes,” vol. E A - 6 , no. 4, pp.
337-348, July/Aug. 1970.
IEEE Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground Impedance, and
Earth Surface Potentials of a Ground System, ANSIlIEEE Standard 81,
1983.
IEEE Guide for Measurment of Impedence and Safety Characteristics of
Large, Extended or Interconnected Grounding Systems, IEEE Standard
81.2, 1991.
C. J. Jenson, “Standardized measurement techniques of shock potential
in diary production systems,” presented to Michigan State University,
Dec. 1992.
E. J. Rogers, R. H. Hall, and J. F. White, “Fault induced voltages on
metallic fencing located in the vicinity of a high voltage substation,”
vol. PAS-101, no. 3 pp. 746-850, March 1982.
T. C. Subrook, N. D. Reese, and A. M. Kehrle, “Stray voltage: Sources
and solutions,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat. vol. 22, no. 2, MarcWApril
1986.
MICHAELS: EARTH GROUND RESISTANCE TESTING FOR LOW-VOLTAGE POWER SYSTEMS 213

Kenneth M. Michaels (M’89) received the

A.S.E.E. in electronic engineering technology in
September 1985, from I l T Technical Schools,
Chicago, IL.
He has worked in the field of power quality
for several years. He joined CPCo’s Power Quality
program as a consultant in 1991 and as an employee
in 1993. He is currently a Senior Power Quality
Specialist for Consumers Power Company, Jackson,
MI. He has developed Power Quality/Grounding
seminars and the field testing procedures for the
Power Quality program. In addition, he has beeninstrumental in the
establishment of test procedures for the Stray Voltage Investigation program.
As a published author of grounding issues, he has conducted numerous
power quality seminars and power site surveys for various industries located
throughout North America.
Mr. Michaels is currently serving as Chapter Chairman for IEEE Standard
142 (Green Book) Recommended Practices for Grounding of Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems and acting as chapter chairman for Chapter 6 (Site
Surveys and Analysis) of IEEE Standard 1100 (Emerald Book) Recommended
Practices for Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment.