Substation Ground Grid Analysis Using Commercial Software – A Case Study

James K. Niemira, P.E.

S&C Electric Company
6601 North Ridge Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60626
773-338-1000, Fax 773-338-4254
jniemira@sandc.com

touch voltages to new (lower) tolerable levels;

Abstract
Ground resistance, ground fault current, and
potential gradients all play a role in assuring that
step and touch potentials in substations will not
exceed acceptable levels. This presentation will
discuss the safety considerations in substation
ground grid design and will present an example
of a substation ground grid design using
commercially available analysis software. Use
of the computer model facilitates iterative
modifications of the ground grid design to
assure effectiveness of the grid design while
reducing cost.
Introduction
Installation of a 69 kV switching substation
at an industrial plant required design and
analysis of a ground grid for the station to
assure safety of operating personnel. The open-
air switchyard included 15 circuit breakers rated
2000 A arranged as 5 breaker-and-a-half
schemes for 10 sets of cables. Two main busses
were included, each rated 4000 A. The initial
ground grid design was laid out based on the
placement of the circuit breakers and buswork.
The soil was modeled as a two layer composite.
Analysis of the initial grid indicated deficient
areas where step and touch potentials were
above allowable levels. These areas were
addressed by adding ground rods to reduce the
Ground Potential Rise and by including a layer
of crushed rock on the surface of the ground.
The computer program used, CYMGRD for
Windows, allowed the modifications to be made
and the analysis to proceed with each iterative
step. Different design trade-offs were
investigated: use of a thinner layer of crushed
rock could be accommodated by addition of grid
wires and ground rods to further reduce step and
elimination of some ground rods could be
allowed by addition of more grid wires. Several
alternative designs were proposed with selection
from among the alternatives to be based on
construction considerations.
Reason for Ground Grid
The ground grid serves to provide an
adequate path to convey ground fault current to
ground, limits the ground potential rise during a
fault, and controls the surface potential gradient
to limit touch and step potentials to safe values
during fault conditions.
Fault Current, Ground Resistance, and
Ground Potential Rise
The ground potential rise (GPR) is the
maximum voltage the ground grid may assume
with respect to remote earth. This voltage is
determined by the ground resistance and the grid
current (the fraction of the ground fault current
that flows from the grid to earth). A multiplying
factor is applied to the symmetrical grid current
to account for the effect of the dc offset that can
occur. This decrement factor depends on the
fault circuit X/R ratio and the fault clearing
time. An additional multiplying factor may be
applied to the fault current to allow for future
growth of the power system.
Safety Concerns – Body Current
Physiological effects caused by electric
current flow through the human body is the
basic concern. Effects range from perception of
the current as a slight tingling sensation to
impairment of breathing, ventricular fibrulation,
and death. The threshold of perception is
generally taken as approximately 1 mA.
Currents in the range of 1 to 6 mA are termed
“let-go currents”; these may be unpleasant, but
generally the person can still control the
muscles and release an energized component.
Higher currents in the range of 9 to 25 mA may
be painful, may impair voluntary muscular
response preventing release of a grasped object,
and may temporarily impair breathing; at this
current range, these effects are not permanent
and cease when the current is interrupted. As
current approaches 60 to 100 mA, ventricular
fibrillation can occur, heart may stop beating, or
breathing may be stopped. Actual current that
may cause these problems will depend on the
individual involved, and the duration of the
current. Statistically, the current that can be
safely tolerated (that is, without ventricular
fibrillation) by 99.5% of the human population
is related to body mass. Body mass can usually
safely be assumed to be at least 70 kg for areas
not accessible to the general public, such as
fenced switchyards; outside the fence, a 50 kg
assumption may be appropriate, depending on
particular circumstances.
Maintain voltages to tolerable levels.
The IEEE Standard 80 [1] derives equations
for maximum permissible step and touch
voltages based on conservative estimates of
contact resistance between the feet and ground,
length of stride, and permissible current through
the body to avoid ventricular fibrillation. The
equations so derived include the insulating
effects of a layer of crushed rock. Note that it is
the body current that is the safety hazard and
not the voltage per se. The amount of current
flow for a given voltage will depend on the
impedance and, more specifically, the
resistance. The human body itself has some
resistance, there is contact resistance between
the feet and the ground, and there may be some
intentionally introduced resistance such as the
layer of crushed stone. The resistance of each
of these will also vary depending on the
particular situation as well. For example, dry
skin may present a fairly high contact resistance,
but if the skin is wet, sweaty, or broken a much
lower resistance is presented. The layer of
crushed stone will also likely have a lower
resistance when it is wet as compared to dry, so
the worst cases should be considered. Thus, in
some situations, 1500 volts or more may be
tolerable while in others 400 volts or even less
may be too high. Step voltage is the voltage
between one foot and another, the distance
between the feet being 1 meter. Touch voltage
is the voltage between the hand and feet or one
hand to the other; for the substation grounding
problem, touch voltage is taken as the difference
between the surface voltage (where the feet
would be) and the grid voltage (to which
equipment will be bonded). Since a person may
be standing anywhere within a mesh and could
touch the metal frame of a piece of equipment
connected to the grid, the mesh voltage is
defined as the maximum touch potential within
a mesh of the ground grid. This is usually the
worst case touch voltage in a conventional
substation, however, the possibility of metal-to-
metal contact hand-to-hand or hand-to-feet
should be investigated where such conditions
may occur as in gas-insulated substation, for
example. Transferred potential is a special case
of touch potential where a voltage from a remote
location is brought into the substation, or the
GPR of the substation is transferred to some
remote location. For example, pipes, static
wires, neutral wires, railroad rails, or
communications circuits may be grounded at
some remote location or, if connected to the
station ground grid, can create a transfer
potential hazard at a remote location. Special
precautions to isolate or neutralize this sort of
hazard are often required.
Soil Resistivity
Soil resistivity obviously has an important
effect on the ground resistance and GPR. Soil
resistivity varies with type of soil, moisture
content, and temperature, so variation with
seasons of the year are to be expected in most
locations. The soil may be modeled as uniform
resistivity, ignoring variation of resistivity with
depth. Typically, the soil is comprised of
several layers, each having a different
resistivity. Thus, a more accurate model can be
achieved by assuming a two-layer soil model.
Computer Program Features
The CYMGRD program includes many
features that simplify the analysis of a ground
grid.
 An analysis routine to match a two-layer
soil model to measured resistivity data is
included. Values of soil apparent resistivity
measured using the Wenner technique can be
entered along with the probe spacing used to
make each measurement, and the program
calculates a best fit model determining the
resistivity of each of the two layers and the
thickness of the top layer (the lower layer
extends to infinite depth). Alternatively, if the
parameters for the two-layer soil model are
known from previous analysis, the resistivity of
each layer and the thickness of the upper layer
can be entered directly.
Safety assessment calculations are also
included. Based on the soil model and surface
covering (rock layer) thickness, body weight,
and shock duration, the program will calculate
permissible step and touch potentials using the
equations from IEEE 80-1986. Data is
automatically transferred between the soil
model, the safety assessment, and the grid
analysis routines.
Analysis of the ground grid is accomplished
using a finite element technique. Conductors,
ground rods and grid wires, are divided into
smaller segments called “elements.” Current is
diffused from the elements into the surrounding
ground and the resulting voltages at the surface
of the soil are calculated. Increasing the number
of elements can give greater accuracy in the
solution, but the program is limited to 1500 total
elements [2]. Usually, good accuracy is
obtained when the element size is equal to the
length between junctions of the grid wires, and
further increase of the number of elements does
not significantly affect accuracy [3,4].
Electrodes can be one of three types: primary,
return, or distinct. The ground grid being
analyzed is comprised of primary electrodes;
any metal objects directly bonded to the grid,
such as fence posts, would also be part of the
primary electrode system. Return electrodes
convey the current from the ground back to the
power system. If the return is nearby, the
surface gradients at the station under study may
be influenced. For example, if the source for
the ground fault is another nearby substation,
the source-substation grid is the return electrode
– see Figure 1. Return electrodes may be as
IF
Primary Return
Figure 1: Primary and Return Electrodes.
simple as a single ground rod. Distinct
electrodes can also be included. Distinct
electrodes are conductive structures such as
pipelines or cable sheaths that are near the
ground grid but not connected to the power
system. It is also possible to include a
resistance in parallel with the primary electrode
to account for current conveyed back to the
source via other remote parallel paths, such as
overhead ground wires and counterpoises.
Initial Design of the Grid
Available line to ground short-circuit
current had been determined to be 40 kA with
24 kA returning to the source via the ground
grid. Fault clearing time was 0.25 seconds
maximum. Customer standards required the
grid to be buried 0.5 meter below the soil
surface and to extend 1.5 meter outside the
fence line. Local conditions indicated that the
soil could be modeled appropriately using a
2-layer model, using soil resistivity of 200 •m
for the top 5-ft layer and 100 •m below 5 ft.
The initial design of the grid was determined by
equipment layout and was based on experience
with other substations of similar type. It was
desired to avoid use of layer of crushed rock, if
requirements could be met without it, and to
minimize the number of ground rods.
The substation enclosed area was 208 ft by
184 ft. The initial model included 11 grid wires
running North-South and 10 running East-West
(see Figure 2). This grid indicated a GPR of
approximately 22,200 volts and touch potentials
on the order of 6500 volts. Because there was
no layer of crushed rock included, allowable
touch potential was relatively low, about
410 volts. The addition of a
layer of crushed rock does
not significantly affect the
surface potentials or gradient,
but the high resistance of the
rock layer greatly increases
the allowable step and touch
potentials. Also, the addition
of ground rods, especially
when they penetrate the
lower resistance soil layers,
helps to limit the ground
resistance and resulting
ground potential rise.
Addition of Ground
Rods. The next step in the
design of the of the grid was
the location of ground rods.
Perimeter rods are most
effective in uniform soil; Figure 2: Initial grid design, without ground rods.
rods on the interior plane are
shielded somewhat by the perimeter rods and tolerated for a given current flow through the
thus are less effective. In the case of stratified body. A 9-inch layer of rock was modeled, with
soil, as in the present example, ground rods an assumed minimum resistivity of 3000 •m.
penetrating the lower, less-resistive soil layers A contour plot showing touch potentials of one
for a significant depth are most effective [5]. corner of the grid is shown in Figure 3. It is
Best performance of the deep rods is obtained seen that the touch voltage does not exceed the
by distributing the rods, again to avoid a increased tolerable voltage level except at the
shielding effect between the rods. Initially, rods perimeter of the grid.
were dispersed throughout the plane of the grid. Additional details were then included in the
The rods were 10 ft long, and thus penetrated model. Fence posts near the perimeter of the
the basement, lower resistance, soil layer for grid will act as auxiliary ground rods. These
half of their length. This configuration was also were included by modeling as 2.5-inch diameter
analyzed and was again found lacking. Ground ground rods driven 3-feet deep and spaced
resistance and GPR were reduced approximately roughly every 20-feet along the perimeter.
7 % compared to the base case with no ground Additional primary ground rods along the
rods, and maximum touch voltage was reduced perimeter were still needed to further decrease
about 22 %. Increasing the length of the ground the touch voltage along the fence line. These,
rods was the next step. Increasing rod length to too, were added and the resulting grid was seen
30 ft decreased the GPR by an additional 15 % to meet the safety requirements. A surface
and decreased the maximum touch voltage by potential plot of this solution to the design
44 % compared to the 10 ft rods. Although this problem is shown in Figure 4. Particular
was much improved, the touch voltage was still attention should be paid to areas where hazards
too high by a factor of more than 6. are more likely. For example, it is very likely
Recognizing that it is sometimes easier to that people will be walking and touching the
raise the bridge rather than lower the water, a fence in the area of the gates. Special
layer of rock was added to the model. The rock consideration should be given as to whether
layer does not significantly affect the surface increased grid density may be desirable in such
voltages, but does add a high resistance in series areas.
with the feet, allowing higher voltages to be
 The color contour
plotting feature of the
computer program quickly
identified areas of the
modified grid in need of
attention. Grid wires or
ground rods could be added
to areas having excessive
touch voltages. Conversely,
ground rods could be
eliminated from areas
identified as having voltages
lower than the maximum
tolerable levels.
A final design option to
eliminate some of the ground
rods was also analyzed. By
adding N-S and E-W grid
wires, ground rods within the
Figure 3. Touch potential contour plot. plane of the grid could be
eliminated while still
Having completed a workable design, it was maintaining voltages within tolerable limits.
then desired to explore other possible trade-offs The resulting grid and equipotentials are shown
in the design solution. For example, a thinner in Figure 7a and 7b. “What-if” analysis was
layer of crushed rock (4 inches)
was desired. As expected, the
surface voltage distribution is
not affected by the change in
thickness of this layer, but the
maximum tolerable voltage is
reduced. With this lower
tolerable threshold, the
maximum limit was exceeded
in the area of the fence line.
The thinner layer of rock
covering could be used if
additional grid wires were
added near the fence line and at
the aprons in front of the
entrance gates to control the
touch voltages to the resulting
lower tolerable limit. Voltage
profiles, showing step and
touch voltages along a diagonal
of the grid both before and after
addition of perimeter grid wires
along the fence line are shown
in Figure 5a and 5b. The
modified grid is shown in
Figure 6. Figure 4: Touch voltage 3-D contour plot of first design solution.
 (a)

(b)
Figure 5. Voltage profiles across grid diagonal with 4-inch rock covering, (a) before and (b)
after addition of grid wires near the fence line.
further simplified by the ability to “turn off” the data file; the elements can later be “turned
selected grid wires and ground rods. This on” for subsequent analyses, if desired.
feature allows eliminating the selected elements
from the analysis without deleting them from
 and Systems, vol. PAS-103, No. 3, pp. 631-639,
March 1984.
[4] R.J. Heppe, “Computation of Potental at
Surface Above an Energized Grid or Other
Electrode, Allowing for Non-Uniform current
Distribution,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-98, No. 6,
pp. 1978-1989, Nov/Dec 1979.
[5] H. Lee, et al., “Efficient Ground Grid
Designs in Layered Soils,” IEEE Transactions
on Power Delivery, vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 745-751,
July 1998.

Figure 6: Modified grid for voltage profile of

5b.

Conclusion
As with any design problem, there are
many different alternative solutions that
can achieve a safe substation ground grid
design. Ground rods may be eliminated at
the expense of adding more grid wires.
Higher voltages may be tolerated by
adding a relatively high resistance layer of
crushed stone. Trade-off between the
various options are most often made as a
result of non-technical requirements such
as cost of materials, cost of labor, and ease
of construction. Use of the CYMGRD
computer program allows for rapid (a)
analysis of various design alternatives to
choose an economical solution for any
particular installation.

References
[1] ANSI/IEEE Standard 80-1986, IEEE
Guide for Safety in AC Substation
Grounding, IEEE Inc., New York, 1986.
[2] CYMGRD for Windows User’s Guide
and Reference Manual, CYME
International Inc., Quebec, Canada, March
1998
[3] K.A. Ewey, H.A. Smolleck, “A
Graphical Explanation of the Resistance
and Surface-Potential Calculation for
Grounding Systems in Two-Layer Earth,” (b)
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus Figure 7: (a) Alternative ground grid. (b) Equipotentials in
corner area.