The International Conference on Electrical Engineering 2009

Practical Considerations for Fault Current Split

Computation in Power System Grounding
Jinxi Ma, Senior Member, IEEE, Xiao Wei Zhao, and Farid P. Dawalibi, Senior Member, IEEE

AbstractPractical considerations for fault current split

calculations are presented. Scenarios involving various
transformer types such as delta-star connected, star-star
connected, auto-transformer with a delta tertiary, and zigzag
grounding transformers are analyzed. It is shown that the fault
current going into the grounding system can be overestimated or
underestimated if the actual situation is not modeled correctly.
Proper examination of various fault current paths involving
different transformer types is also presented. The examples
given in this paper can be used as a reference by power
engineers to carry out fault current distribution calculations
accurately and therefore avoiding inappropriate designs in
grounding studies.
Index Terms--Fault current, current split, earth current,
grounding

I.

INTRODUCTION

Accurate calculations of the fault current distribution are

one of the most important tasks when carrying out grounding
analyses of electric substations and power plants [1]. The
purpose of the fault current distribution calculation in
grounding analysis is to determine the earth current, i.e., the
current discharged to earth by the grounding system at the
faulted substation or power plant. Fault current distribution
calculations are also called fault current split calculations,
since they determine how the current splits between the earth
and the overhead ground wires (OHGW) and other return
metallic conductors. When determining the earth current, it is
important to identify the local and remote fault current
contributions. The local fault current contribution is the fault
current from transformer banks at the faulted substation. The
remote fault current contribution is the fault current from the
lines connected to other substations or power plants. Some
mistakes are often made when identifying and modeling the
local and remote fault current contributions. For example, a
local fault current contribution is systematically assumed to be
a circulating current problem, since the source location and the
fault location are both in the same substation. However,
depending on the transformer type, there may be a remote
fault current contribution related to the fault current
contribution from the local transformer. Not taking into
account this remote fault current contribution may result in an
optimistic grounding design.
_______________________
This work has been supported by Safe Engineering Services &
technologies ltd, Laval, Canada.
Xiao Wei Zhao is with the Department of Medical Image, Shandong
Medical College, 5460 South Erhuan Road, Jinan, Shandong, P. R. China (email: zxwrui@126.com).
Jinxi Ma and Farid P. Dawalibi are with Safe Engineering Services &
technologies ltd, 3055 Blvd. Des Oiseaux, Laval, Qubec, Canada, H7L 6E8
(e-mail: info@sestech.com).

Another common mistake is the use of the total fault

current at the fault location for a grounding study. The
common perception is that this is a conservative approach.
While this is often the case, there can be exceptions. As will
be demonstrated in this paper, in some cases, the remote fault
current contribution can actually be larger than the total fault
current at the fault location.
There are many publications describing methods for fault
current split calculations [2-5]. In this paper, the main
objective is to present practical considerations for fault current
split calculations used in grounding studies rather than
focusing on the computation methods. Scenarios involving
various transformer types such as delta-star connected, starstar-connected, auto-transformer with a delta tertiary, and
zigzag grounding transformer are analyzed. The cases
analyzed demonstrate that the fault current going into the
grounding system can be overestimated or underestimated if
the actual situation is not modeled correctly. Proper
examination of various fault current paths involving different
transformer types is also presented. The examples given in this
paper can help power engineers to carry out fault current
distribution calculations accurately, thereby resulting in
appropriate grounding designs.
II.

-Y TRANSFORMER

Fig. 1 shows a one-line diagram of an actual power

network, with fault current values for a 66 kV single-line-toground fault. The high voltage side of the 66 kV / 4 kV
transformer is delta-connected and the low side starconnected. Naturally, there is no fault current contribution
(3I0) from the transformer banks in this case. The figure also
shows that there is no current contribution from the low
voltage lines. As a result, modeling only the fault currents
from the 66 kV lines is appropriate.
Fig. 2 is similar to Fig. 1 but for a 4 kV single-line-toground fault. In this case, there is no remote fault current
contribution (3I 0 ) from the 66 kV lines although phase
currents of the 66 kV lines are not zero. The currents on Phase
A on the 66 kV lines are also shown in Fig. 2. The huge fault
current (52665 A) is all from local sources the transformer
banks. It is simply a circulating current problem. To
demonstrate the concept of circulating current, Fig. 3 shows a
simple model for a fault on the Y-side of a -Y transformer
together with a grounding grid. It can be seen that the total
fault current (3 I 0L ) enters the grounding grid at the fault
location and then returns to the transformer neutral point via
the ground conductors. Because of the low impedance path
provided by the ground conductors, only a small amount of
this current is leaking out from the ground conductors to earth,
especially for a small grounding grid. As a result, the grid

Fig. 4 Current path of a line fault.

Fig. 1 One-line diagram of a system with -Y transformer banks: fault on the
-side (66kV) of a transformer bank.

Fig. 2 One-line diagram of a system with -Y transformer banks: fault on the

Y-side (4 kV) of a transformer bank.

Fig. 3 Circulating current for fault on the Y-side of a -Y transformer.

GPR (Ground Potential Rise) and the touch and step voltages
will be small. For a large substation or power plant, the
distance between the fault location and the transformer neutral
point can be quite large. As a result, high potential differences
due to this large circulating current may exist within the
grounding grid.
A question often arises regarding the fault location
yielding the worst case (in the sense of having the largest earth
current): is it on the high voltage side or on the low voltage
side? As discussed above, remote fault contributions usually
result in more earth current than local fault contributions.
Obviously, in the above example, the 66 kV bus fault in the
substation is the worst case because all the fault current
contributions are from remote sources. While the total fault
current for a fault on the 4 kV bus is much larger, it is from
local sources. It should be pointed out that for a fault on the
low voltage side, a line fault should be considered to
determine the worst case because the local fault current is very
large. A line fault is a fault along a power line outside the
substation. In this case, a phase conductor is shorted to a
neutral conductor outside the substation. The resulting fault
current flows into the tower footings and the neutral conductor
and then returns to the transformer banks in the substations, as
shown in Fig. 4. For such a case, the current flowing into the
grounding grid from the earth can be large, potentially larger
than for a fault on the high voltage side.
Step-up transformers in a power plant are mostly -Y
transformers with the low voltage side -connected. When a
fault occurs at the high voltage switchyard adjacent to the
power plant, the fault currents from the step-up transformers
are local contributions, while the fault currents from the high
voltage lines are remote contributions. Fig. 5 shows a singleline diagram depicting the short-circuit currents of a system in
a power plant for a fault on the high voltage side. In order to
see the fault current on each phase more clearly, Fig. 6 shows
the three phase circuit together with the main power
transformer with the fault current flowing in each phase
identified. It can be seen that the total fault current from both
the remote source (SS Substation) and the local source (Main
Power Transformer) is 21.90<-85.20 kA, out of which 9.88<92.20 kA is flowing into the neutral of the transformer. This
current, 9.88<-92.20 kA, is the circulating current between the
fault location and the transformer neutral location and should
be modeled when evaluating the grounding system

Fig. 5 One-line diagram of the system.

Fig. 6 Illustration of circulating current and remote current.

performance. It is interesting to see that part of this current,

5.16<-90.60 kA, is flowing via Phase A from the transformer
to the fault location, while the rest of this current, 2.37<-95.40
kA + 2.36<-92.40 kA, is flowing via Phases B and C from the
transformer to the remote source and then back to the fault
location via Phase A. But for grounding analysis which is only
concerned about how currents entering and leaving the
grounding system, the amount of the circulating current is
simply the 3I0 from the transformer side, which is 9.88<-92.20
kA.
III.

AUTO-TRANSFORMER WITH A DELTA TERTIARY

Fig. 7 shows a one-line diagram of a power system with a

500 kV / 230 kV transformer bank. The zero sequence shortcircuit currents (3I0) for a 500 kV bus fault are also shown in
the figure. Usually, fault current data provided for grounding
studies are for the lines directly connected to the faulted bus,
i.e., the 500 kV lines in this case. This is due to the incorrect

3
perception that only lines connected directly to the faulted bus
are relevant. Fig. 7 indicates that the total fault current for a
500 kV bus fault is 11808 A, with 4974 A from remote
sources and 6857 A from the local transformer bank. The way
the fault current contribution from the transformer bank is
treated has a significant effect on the final grounding analysis.
A common approach is to treat this current as a local
contribution. This is based on the thinking that since the
transformer bank is local, the fault current contribution must
be local. Another approach is to take this current as a remote
contribution and apply a similar split factor as for the other
transmission lines. This approach is often regarded as
conservative. In fact, both approaches are inappropriate: the
first approach can be too optimistic and even the second one
may not necessarily be conservative. In Fig. 7 the 230 kV zero
sequence currents are also shown. The total remote fault
current contribution from all the 230 kV lines is 8808 A. It is
this current that has to be considered in the fault current
distribution calculations because this current will ultimately
return to its sources through the earth and the overhead ground
wires. Since the remote fault contribution from the 500 kV
lines is 4974 A, the total fault current used for the grounding
study should be 13782 A. It is surprising to see that this
current is actually greater than the total fault current for a 500
kV bus fault at the fault location. Now we can see that when
the 6857 A from the transformer bank is taken as a local fault
current contribution and the remote contributions from the 230
kV lines are ignored, the grounding analysis will be based on a
much smaller fault current than the actual value. Even when
the 6857 A from the transformer bank is taken as a remote
fault current contribution, the grounding analysis is still based
on a smaller current because the 8808 A remote fault current
contribution from the 230 kV lines is larger than 6857 A from
the transformer bank.
Fig. 8 is similar to Fig. 7 but for a 230 kV bus fault. It can
be seen that the remote fault current contribution from the 230
kV lines is 13044 A and the fault current contribution from the
transformer bank is 16076 A. In the fault current distribution
calculation, the remote fault current contribution from the 500
kV lines must be included. In this case, if the fault current
contribution from the transformer bank is modeled as a remote
contribution, the grounding analysis based on the fault current
distribution calculation will be very conservative, resulting in
over design. If it is treated as a local contribution and the 500
kV line currents are omitted, the grounding analysis will be
optimistic.
As mentioned before, one question that often arises in
grounding analysis is to determine the worst case fault: on the
high voltage side or on the low voltage side. Unfortunately
there is no simple answer. Take the present case as an
example. The low voltage side fault (230 kV) is probably the
worst case because the total remote fault current is 15448 A
compared to 13768 A for a 500 kV bus fault. In general,
however, fault current split calculations should be carried out
for faults on both voltage levels to determine the maximum
earth current, which corresponds to the worst case for
grounding analysis.
IV.

Y-Y TRANSFORMER

Y-Y transformers are similar to auto-transformers with a

delta tertiary as far as fault current split calculations for

Fig. 7 One-line diagram of a system including a 500 kV / 230 kV autotransformer with a delta tertiary: fault on the 500 kV bus.

Fig. 9 Fault on the high voltage side of a Y-Y transformer.

Fig. 8 One-line diagram of a system including a 500 kV / 230 kV autotransformer with a delta tertiary: fault on the 230 kV bus.

grounding analysis are concerned. When a fault occurs on one

side of a Y-Y transformer, there is always a fault current
contribution (3I0) from the other side of the transformer. This
is different than for a -Y transformer. Fig. 9 shows a Y-Y
transformer when the fault is on the high voltage side. In this
case, the zero sequence current from the source feeding the
low voltage side is not zero. Because the fault is on the high
voltage side, we have 3I 0p > 3I 0L . We can see that 3I 0p is actually
a remote contribution which must return to its source through
the earth and the overhead ground wires. Clearly, considering
3I 0L as a circulating current and ignoring 3I 0p will be an
incorrect approach. Again we can see that the total remote
fault current contribution, 3I 0p + 3I 0R , is actually larger than the
total fault current at the fault location, 3I 0L + 3I 0R . As shown in
Fig. 9, the remote fault current contribution from the low
voltage line, 3I 0p , actually splits into two components: 3I 0L and
3I 0p 3I 0L . Component 3I 0L flows to the neutral point of the high
voltage windings and eventually enters the grounding system
at the fault location while component 3I 0p 3I 0L enters the
grounding system at the transformer neutral connection point
to the grounding system. In this situation, there is no
circulating current.
If the fault indicated in Fig. 9 is a low voltage side fault
(i.e., the windings on the right side is the low voltage
windings), then 3I 0P < 3I 0L . As shown in Fig. 10, the fault
current contribution from the high voltage lines, 3I 0p , is part of
the fault current contribution from the transformer. In other

Fig. 10 Fault on the low voltage side of a Y-Y transformer.

words, the fault current contribution from the transformer,

3I 0L , consists of two parts: the remote fault current
contribution from the high voltage lines, 3I 0p , and a
circulating current which is 3I 0L 3I 0P .
V.

GROUNDING TRANSFORMERS

Grounding transformers such as zigzag transformers are

normally used together with an ungrounded delta connected
winding of a transformer to provide a path for current to flow
into earth under fault conditions. Under steady-state
conditions, the transformer impedance to balanced three-phase
voltages is high so that only a small magnetizing current flows
in the transformer winding. The transformer impedance to
zero-sequence voltages, however, is low so that it allows high
ground currents to flow under fault conditions. Fig. 11 shows
a zigzag grounding transformer connected to a delta winding
of a transformer. Clearly, without the grounding transformer,
the fault current contribution from the delta winding of the
transformer will be zero. With the grounding transformer,
current enters the ground at the fault location and then returns
to the neutral point of the grounding transformer. This is very
similar to the case of a star connected winding of a
transformer. If a circulating current is generated by a delta
winding of a transformer connected to a grounding
transformer, the grounding transformer should be considered
as the source of this circulating current in the grounding
analysis.

5
[5]

G. Yu, J. Ma, and F. P. Dawalibi, Computation of return current

through neutral wires in grounding system analysis, in Proc. of the
Third IASTED International Conference on Power and Energy System,
Las Vegas, Nevada, pp. 455-459, Nov. 8-10, 1999.

VIII. BIOGRAPHIES
Dr. Jinxi Ma (M'91, SM'00) was born in Shandong, P. R. China. He
received the B.Sc. degree from Shandong University, P. R. China, and the
M.Sc. degree from Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, both
in electrical engineering, in 1982 and 1984, respectively. He received the
Ph.D. degree in electrical and computer engineering from the University of
Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada in 1991.

Fig. 11 Fault current path in a system with a grounding transformer.

VI.

CONCLUSIONS

Practical considerations regarding fault current split

calculations were presented. Scenarios involving various
transformer types such as delta-star connected, star-star
connected, auto-transformer with a delta tertiary, and zigzag
grounding transformer were analyzed. It was shown that the
fault current going into the grounding system can be
overestimated or underestimated if the actual situation is not
modeled correctly. Proper examination of various fault current
paths involving different transformer types was also presented.
The examples given in this paper can help power engineers
understand the subtle differences in fault current split
calculations for various transformer configurations and assist
them in carrying out fault current distribution calculations for
grounding designs accurately.
VII. REFERENCES
[1]

IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, IEEE Std. 802000.

[2]

F. P. Dawalibi, Ground fault current distribution between soil and

neutral conductors, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. 99, no. 2, pp.
452-461, Mar./Apr. 1980.

[3]

F. P. Dawalibi, Transmission Line Grounding, vol. 1, Chapter 6, EPRI

Report EL-2699, Oct. 1982.

[4]

D. Garrett, J. Mayers, and S. Patel, Determination of maximum

substation grounding system fault current using graphical analysis,
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 725-732, Jul. 1987.

From 1984 to 1986, he was a faculty member with the Department of

Electrical Engineering, Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
He worked on projects involving design and analysis of reflector antennas
and calculations of radar cross sections of aircraft. Since September 1990, he
has been with the R & D Dept. of Safe Engineering Services & technologies,
where he is presently serving as manager of the Analytical R & D
Department. His research interests are in transient electromagnetic scattering,
EMI and EMC, and analysis of grounding systems in various soil structures.
Dr. Ma is the author of more than one hundred papers on transient
electromagnetic scattering, analysis and design of reflector antennas, power
system grounding, lightning, and electromagnetic interference. He is a senior
member of the IEEE Power Engineering Society, a member of the IEEE
Standards Association, and a corresponding member of the IEEE Substations
Committee and is active on Working Groups D7 and D9.
Ms. Xiao Wei Zhao is an associate professor and head of the Medical
Engineering Group with the Department of Medical Image, Shandong
Medical College, Jinan, Shandong, P. R. China.
Dr. Farid P. Dawalibi (M'72, SM'82) was born in Lebanon. He received a
Bachelor of Engineering degree from St. Joseph's University, affiliated with
the University of Lyon, and the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from Ecole
Polytechnique of the University of Montreal.

From 1971 to 1976, he worked as a consulting engineer with the

Shawinigan Engineering Company, in Montreal. He worked on numerous
projects involving power system analysis and design, railway electrification
studies and specialized computer software code development. In 1976, he
joined Montel-Sprecher & Schuh, a manufacturer of high voltage equipment
in Montreal, as Manager of Technical Services and was involved in power
system design, equipment selection and testing for systems ranging from a
few to several hundred kV. In 1979, he founded Safe Engineering Services &
technologies, a company specializing in soil effects on power networks.
Since then he has been responsible for the engineering activities of the
company including the development of computer software related to power
system applications.
He is the author of more than two hundred papers on power system
grounding, lightning, inductive interference and electromagnetic field
analysis. He has written several research reports for CEA and EPRI.
Dr. Dawalibi is a corresponding member of various IEEE Committee
Working Groups, and a senior member of the IEEE Power Engineering
Society and the Canadian Society for Electrical Engineering. He is a registered
Engineer in the Province of Quebec.