British Journal of Applied Science & Technology

10(3): XX-XX, 2015, Article no.BJAST.18626

ISSN: 2231-0843

SCIENCEDOMAIN international
www.sciencedomain.org

Validation of Grid Formulas Using a Scaled Model of

Earthing Grid System
Ignatius K. Okakwu1*, France O. Akpojedje2, Emmanuel S. Olowasogo3
and Abel E. Airoboman1
1
Department of Electrical/Electronic Engineering, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria.
2
National Institute of Construction Technology, Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria.
3
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kwara State University, Malete, Nigeria.

Authors’ contributions

This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. Author IKO designed the study,
performed the statistical analysis, wrote the protocol, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript and
managed literature searches. Authors FOA, ESO and AEA managed the analyses of the study and
literature searches. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Article Information

DOI: 10.9734/BJAST/2015/18626
Editor(s):
(1)
Reviewers:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Complete Peer review History:

st
Received 1 May 2015
Original Research Article Accepted 17th June 2015
th
Published 27 June 2015

ABSTRACT

The main objective of a safe grounding design is to carry current into earth under normal and fault
conditions without exceeding operating and equipment limits or adversely affecting continuity of
service, also, to ensure that personnel within the vicinity of the grounding facilities are not exposed
to the danger of electric shock. To attain these objectives, accurate determination of grid resistance
is of paramount. This paper presents the comparison between grid formulas (analytical methods)
used to calculate grounding resistance and experimental measurement. Also, variation of grid
resistance with number of meshes was also examined.

Keywords: Grid resistance; electrode; formula; experiment; mesh; resistivity.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Corresponding author: E-mail: igokakwu@yahoo.com;

 Okakwu et al.; BJAST, 10(3): xxx-xxx, 2015; Article no.BJAST.18626

1. INTRODUCTION made of plastic. The grid models are hung on

nylon fish lines below the surface of the
Power plants and substations are extremely electrolyte. The hanging provides a horizontal
vulnerable to hazards of lightning strikes, configuration with minimum deformation and
electrical and mechanical equipment bend. The potential on the surface of the water is
malfunctioning, and of course, human errors. measured by a probe suspended. It is only the tip
Therefore, earthing has become one of the of the probe that touches the surface of the
dominant problems of system design [1]. water. The tap water was doped by salt to lower
Earthing systems are designed to dissipate high the resistance measured (so that a low voltage
magnitude fault current to earth and provide supply can be used). For a scale modelling, a
safety to persons working in or living near variety of grids with outside dimensions 20 cm x
installations or power plants [2]. It is also of 20 cm, 30 cm x 30 cm and 24 cm x 12 cm is
essence that earthing systems are design with modelled and tested. The grid model is located in
low-magnitude earth impedance so that the the centre of the tank at a depth of 2 cm. The
magnitude and fast transient surges are layouts of grounding systems (Figs. 1.0 and 1.1)
dissipated to earth. One of the key parameters in are tested experimentally. The grounding
substation earthing design is to calculate systems are square and rectangular grids with
accurately the grounding resistance of the mesh number 1 x 1 to 4 x 4. Copper rods of
system [3]. In this paper, mathematical formulas cross-sectional area 2.5 mm2 are used for the
for calculating ground resistance and construction of the grounding grid system.
experimental measurement of ground resistance
will be studied. Also, how the resistance of grid Other equipment involved is a low voltage AC
system varies with the number of meshes and power supply for supplying voltage and a digital
depth will be investigated. This research work is multimeter for measuring either current or
restricted to the investigation of Laurent and voltage. A variable resistor was used between
Niemann grid formula (also known as the IEEE the conducting tank lining and one side of the
Standard 80 formula), Sverak grid formula and power supply to simulate approximately the
Nahman and Salamon grid formula. resistance between the outer tank wall and
infinity. This variable resistor is calculated by
2. METHODOLOGY assuming that the equipotentials have now
become hemispheres for radius of tank, r = a
Figs. 1.0 to 1.10 shows the experimental set up. where a is the hemispherical radius representing
The first-step that needs to be conducted in the cylindrical tank. The current density (i) at a
developing the scaled earthing system is to distance x from the centre of the hemispheres is
measure the salted tap water resistivity [4]. In
this study, the method explained below is used
for the resistivity measurement for the scaled I
i (1)
model. In this method, two copper rods of cross-
2
2x 2
sectional area 2.5 mm were made to pass
through a floating material called floater and the
copper rods have the same height on the surface Where I is the current
of the floating material and below the surface
likewise. This configuration was immersed into As per ohm’s law electric field strength e due to
the cylindrical tank containing the salted tap current density i is:
water with the two copper rods at a depth of 2cm
below the surface of the water and spaced (in
straight line) at intervals of 20 cm apart. A digital I
e  i  (2)
multimeter was connected to the two upper ends 2x 2
of the copper rods, the multimeter reading was
set to ohmmeter and the resistance of the salted
tap water was recorded (R=3.18Ω). The The voltage is the line integral of field strength
resistivity of the scaled model is gotten as ρa = (e) from the surface of sphere of radius (a) to the
2 aR ≈ 400Ω cm. distance x. therefore,

The experimental tank used in this research is

cylindrical and its dimensioning is as follows:
x I x d x  I 1 1
E   ed x    (3)
70 cm in diameter and 40 cm depth. The tank is a 2  a x2 2  a x 

2
 Okakwu et al.; BJAST, 10(3): xxx-xxx, 2015; Article no.BJAST.18626

20cm

20cm
20cm 20cm
1x1 earthing grid 2x2 earthing grid

20cm
20cm

20cm
20cm
3x3 earthing grid
4x4 earthing grid

30cm 30cm

30cm 30cm

1x1 earthing grid 2x2 earthing grid

30cm
30cm

30cm
30cm

3x3 earthing grid

4x4 earthing grid
Fig. 1.0. Square shape earthing grids tested

3
 Okakwu et al.; BJAST, 10(3): xxx-xxx, 2015; Article no.BJAST.18626

24cm 24cm

12cm 12cm

1x1 earthing grid 2x2 earthing grid

24cm
24cm

12cm
12cm

3x3 earthing grid

4x4 earthing grid

Fig. 1.1. Rectangular shape earthing grids tested

The voltage between the hemispherical electrode resistance of the tap water to give a better
and a point at infinity (i.e. x =  ) is conductivity. The second difficulty is the hanging
of the grid model to avoid large deformation and
I bend. To overcome this difficulty, maximum care
E (4) was taken to handle the grid models during
2 a hanging.

Hence, the value of the external resistor is 2.1 Laurent–Niemann Method

E  1 The ground resistance is a function of the area

R   (5) covered by the substation and the soil resistivity
I 2 a 2  a in the substation region. The soil resistivity has
non-uniform nature. It is a well-known fact that
The applied voltage thus simulates that which soil resistivity may vary both vertically and
would exist between the earthing grids being horizontally in the earth region [5]. Varying soil
tested and infinity. A voltmeter was used to resistivity causes varying resistance from the
monitor this voltage and the digital multimeter direct relation between soil resistivity and
measures the current through the tank and resistance. So, the designer tries to estimate the
external resistor. The ratio of these two readings minimum value of ground resistance at a certain
is a measure of the effective grid resistance depth h from the ground surface. Laurent –
when buried in a semi-infinite earth. The Niemann Method tries to estimate the ground
multimeter also measures the potentials of the resistance.
voltage probe with respect “infinity”. Fig. 1.2
illustrates the electrolytic tank circuit.
  
R=  (6)
In the beginning of the experiment, some 4 A LT
difficulties were encountered. The first one was
how to get the actual conductivity that will be 2
satisfactory for the experiment. To overcome this Where A = Grid area (cm ), LT = Total length
difficulty, more dopant was used to reduce the (cm),  = Resistivity (Ω cm).

4
 Okakwu et al.; BJAST, 10(3): xxx-xxx, 2015; Article no.BJAST.18626

Fig. 1.2. Electrolytic tank circuit

2.2 Sverak Method spacing and the number of conductors in both

the horizontal and vertical directions, and it is
This method can be called the integrated form of given by
Laurent-Niemann Method Ground resistance at
1
the surface of the soil. It is modified in order to  0.53 1.75  4
 100hd  (8)
improve the accuracy of the ground resistance R    1
 1  0.8 
calculated. Researchers observed significant  A LT n 3   n A 
effect of the grid depth on ground resistance and
decided that this effect is large enough to be where  is the resistivity of soil, (m),
included in the equation [6,7].
n = the number of grid conductors in one
   direction,
1  
 1  1  . (7) d = the diameter of the grid conductors in one
R _ 1 direction and
 LT 20 A  20 
  1 h  h = the depth of the grounding grid in metre.
  A 
All these grounding grid formulas discussed
2.3 Nahman and Salamon above assumed solutions on uniform soil model.
Also, they are all inversely proportional to the
Nahhman and Salamon, jointly introduced primary parameters such as length of total
correction factors for the non-uniform current conductors (Lt) used in grid and area covered by
density over the corners of the meshes of a grid. the grid (A).
Nahman and Salamon give a better
approximation than Prof. H.C. Dwigight grid 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
formula, however, these correcdtion factors were
not rigorously generated, and in adddition, the Table 1.0 to 1.1 and Figs. 1.11 to 1.13 shows the
equation was still limited to uniform soil [8,9]. The result of the experimental investigation and grid
equation did take into account the conductor formulas as tabulated below.

5
 Okakwu et al.; BJAST, 10(3): xxx-xxx, 2015; Article no.BJAST.18626

Table 1.0. Experiment grid resistance

Grid shape Grid Number Depth Resistivity Voltage Current Experiment

size of (cm) ρ(Ω cm) (V) (A) grid
2
(cm ) meshes resistance
R (Ω)
Square 20 x 20 1x1 2 400 164.5 17.69 9.30
shape 2x2 2 400 165 18.30 9.02
3x3 2 400 164 18.66 8.79
4x4 2 400 164 19.48 8.42
Square 30 x 30 1x1 2 400 165 27.09 6.07
shape 2x2 2 400 165 27.97 5.90
3x3 2 400 160 27.78 5.76
4x4 2 400 163 28.80 5.66
Rectangular 24 x 12 1x1 2 400 153 14.93 10.25
shape 2x2 2 400 155 15.58 9.95
3x3 2 400 155 16.06 9.65
4x4 2 400 160 16.65 9.61

Fig. 1.4. Measuring the resistance of

Fig. 1.3. Electrolytic tank with water
electrolyte in the electrolytic tank

Fig. 1.5. Electrolytic tank circuit setup Fig. 1.6. Grid under test

6
 Okakwu et al.; BJAST, 10(3): xxx-xxx, 2015; Article no.BJAST.18626

Fig. 1.7. 1 x 1 earthing grids tested Fig. 1.8. 2 x 2 earthing grids tested

Fig. 1.9. 3 x 3 earthing grids tested Fig. 1.10. 4 x 4 earthing grids tested

Table 1.1. Grids resistance of mathematical calculations and experimental results

Grid shape Grid Number Laurent Sverak Nahmann & Experimental

size of niemann method salamon method
(cm2) meshes method method
R % R % R % R
(Ω) error (Ω) error (Ω) error (Ω)
Square 20 x 20 1x1 13.86 49.03 12.56 35.05 12.83 37.96 9.30
shape 2x2 12.20 35.25 10.90 20.84 12.46 38.14 9.02
3x3 11.36 29.24 10.06 14.45 11.96 36.06 8.79
4x4 10.86 28.98 9.56 13.54 11.33 34.56 8.42
Square 30 x 30 1x1 9.24 52.2 8.61 41.8 11.91 96.21 6.07
shape 2x2 8.13 37.8 7.50 27.1 9.96 68.81 5.90
3x3 7.57 31.4 6.95 20.7 8.32 44.21 5.76
4x4 7.24 27.9 6.61 16.8 8.01 41.52 5.66
Rectangular 24 x 12 1x1 16.00 56.10 14.28 39.32 12.76 24.49 10.25
shape 2x2 14.15 42.21 12.43 24.92 13.83 38.99 9.95
3x3 13.22 36.67 11.50 18.92 13.57 40.62 9.65
4x4 12.67 31.84 10.94 13.84 13.33 38.71 9.61

7
 Okakwu et al.; BJAST, 10(3): xxx-xxx, 2015; Article no.BJAST.18626

16
14
12
Grid Resistant 10
8 Laurent-Niemann
6 Sverak
4 Nahman and Salamon
2 Experiment
0
Mesh 1 Mesh 2 Mesh 3 Mesh 4
Number of Meshes

Fig. 1.11. Grid resistance against number of meshes for 20 x 20

14
12
10
Grid Resistant

8
Laurent-Niemann
6
Sverak
4
Nahman and Salamon
2
Experiment
0
Mesh 1 Mesh 2 Mesh 3 Mesh 4
Number of Meshes

Fig. 1.12. Grid resistance against number of meshes for 30 x 30

The results show that for 20 cm x 20 cm grid Niemann formula (9.24), Sverak formula
size. Mesh-1, the experimental resistance was (8.61) and Nahmann and Salamon formula
9.30, Laurent and Niemann formulas (13.86), (11.91); Mesh-2, experimental resistance
Sverak formula (12.56) and Nahamann and (5.90), Laurent and Niemann formula (8.13),
Salamon formula (13.86). Mesh-2, Sverak formula (7.50) and Nahmann and
experimental resistance (9.02), Laurent and Salamon formula (9.96); Mesh-3, experimental
Niemann formula (12.20), Sverak formula resistance (5.67), Laurent and Niemann
(10.90) and Nahmann and Salamon formula formula (7.57), Sverak formula (6.95) and
(12.46); Mesh-3, experimental resistance Nahmann and Salamon formula (8.32); Mesh-
(8.79), Laurent and Niemann formula (11.36), 4, experimental resistance (5.66), Laurent and
Sverak formular (10.06) and Nahmann and Niemann formular (7.24), Sverak formular
Salamon formulas (11.96); Mesh-4, (6.61) and Nahmann and Salamon formula
experimental resistance (8.42), Laurent and (8.01); For 24 cm x 12 cm grid size, Mesh-1,
Niemann formula (10.86), Sverak formula experimental resistance (10.25), Laurent and
(9.56) and Nahmann and Salamon formula Niemann formula (16.00), Sverak formula
(11.33). For 30 cm x 30 cm grid size, Mesh-1, (14.28) and Nahmann and Salamon formula
experimental resistance (6.07), Laurent and (12.76); Mesh-2, experimental resistance

8
 Okakwu et al.; BJAST, 10(3): xxx-xxx, 2015; Article no.BJAST.18626

18

Grid Resistant
16
14
12
10
Laurent-Niemann
8
Sverak
6
Nahman and Salamon
4
Experiment
2
0
Mesh 1 Mesh 2 Mesh 3 Mesh 4
Number of Meshes

Fig. 1.13. Grid resistance against number of meshes for 24 x 12

(9.95), Laurent and Niemann formula (14.15), COMPETING INTERESTS

Sverak formula (12.43) and Nahmann and
Salamon formula (13.83); Mesh-3,
Authors have declared that no competing
experimental resistance (9.65), Laurent and
interests exist.
Niemann formula (13.22), Sverak formula
(11.50) and Nahmann and Salamon formula
(13.57); Mesh-4, experimental resistance REFERENCES
(9.61), Laurent and Niemann formula (12.67),
Sverak formula (10.94) and Nahmann and 1. Akpojedje FO, Ubeku EU, Omogbopsere
Salamon formula (13.13). ME, Ijeh-gboi C. Comparative error
analysis of earthing grid expressions. The
4. CONCLUSION Journal of the Nigeria Association of
Mathematical Physics. 2013;24:291-302.
In this paper, the comparison of the calculated 2. Badmus GO, Ogungbemi OS, Ola OF.
grounding resistance by three grid formulas Hydrogeological implication of electrical,
using scaled model of earthing grid system in resistivity sounding in Ita-Eku, Ado Ekiti,
electrolytic tank is investigated. The results Nigeria. British Journal of Applied Science
obtained from both experimental method and and Technology. 2014;4:3473-3480.
three grid formulas were compared for accuracy. 3. Garett DL, Pruitt JG. Problems
The large variation of some grid formulas results encountered with the average potential
from experimental results may be due to the fact method of analyzing substation grounding
that their accuracy is limited to a particular size systems. IEEE Trans on Power Apparatus
or area of applications. The variation of the grid and Systems. 2002;587-595.
formulas which found agreement with
4. Gary G. High voltage grounding systems
experimental method was Sverak formula.
Ph.D. Thesis. University of Waterloo,
Hence, Sverak formula yields better result for
Canada; 2011.
accuracy. In conclusion, this research work has
been able to establish the fact that the 5. Guemes JA, Hernado FE. A practical
experimental method using a scaled model of approach of determining the ground
earthing grid system in electrolytic tank is a resistance of grounding grids. IEE
veritable tool for checking the accuracy of Transactions on Power Delivery. 2006;21.
conventional grid formulas during preliminary 6. Gupta BR. Power system analysis and
th
design of earthing grid and the calculations of design. 5 Edition, S. Chand and C., New
grounding resistances. Delhi; 2008.

9
 Okakwu et al.; BJAST, 10(3): xxx-xxx, 2015; Article no.BJAST.18626

7. Joseph AE. Schaum’s outline series. 9. Jatau BS, Patrick NO, Baba A, Fadele SI.
Theory and Problems of Electromagnetics’, The use of vertical electrical sounding
2nd Edition, Tata McGraw – Hill Publishing (VES) for subsurface geophysical
Company Limited New Delhi; 2003. investigation around Bomo Area, Kaduna
8. Mehla VK, Mehta R. Power system, S. State, Nigeria. IOSR Journal of
Charid and Company Limited, New Delhi; Engineering. 2013;3:10-15.
2004.
_________________________________________________________________________________
© 2015 Okakwu et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://sciencedomain.org/review-history/9915

10