IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-103, No.

9, September 1984

2633

CURRENT FOR DESIGN OF GROUNDING SYSTEMS

Sunil K. Madan

B. Thapar

Punjab Engineering College

Punjab State Electricity Board

Chandigarh.

Abstract - A simple method to estimate the

current for calculating the size of the groundingconductor and for evaluating the step,touch
and transferred potentials, is presented. The
factors effective in making these currents different from the total fault current have been
indicated. Various types of substations, different fault locations and a wide rangeof parameters of aerial ground wire encountered in
practice are considered.Data presented emphasizes
the saving in grounding design costs that can
be realised by using maximum realistic ground
currents rather than maximum calculated total
fault currents for evaluation of step & touch
potehtials.

INTRODUCTION
For the design of grounding systems in
high voltage stations it is necessary to evaluate the realistic value of the fault current
to be used in determining (a) the size of the
grounding conductor and (b) the step,touch and
transferred potentialsl. For determining the
size of the grounding conductor it is necessary
to know the maximum current, Ic,that would
flow in any section of the grounding system
and for evaluating the potentials the maximum
current, IG' that would be discharged by the
grounding system to the ground is required.
Only-single line to ground fault is considered as this gives the highest zero sequence current in most cases. The -total fault current returns to the system through a number of
paths.Only the current flowing through7thegrounding system at the station to the ground conanalytical
stitutes the current I . Accurate
methods to determine tie fault current distribution between soil and ground conductor are
available2,394. These methods require the use
of the computer and the values of the network
to measure
parameters which may not be easy
with certainty. For the design of grounding
systems, high degree of accuracy is not necessary because of the uncertainty of basic data
of the soil resistivity. This paper presents a
directly applicable simple method, to estimate
I and I-. Because of their extensive use only
tge overfiead transmission lines are considered
in this paper.

FAULT LOCATION
The fault location which produces the maximum I and IG may be either on the higher volthe
of
tage side or lower voltage side
station transformer. It may be either inside

84 WM 147-5
A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Substations Committee of the IEEE
Power Engineering Society for presentation at the
IEEE/PES 1984 Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas,
January 29 - February 3, 1984. Manuscripts submitted August 26, 1982; made available for printing November 28, 1983.

Chandigarh (India).

or outside the station on a transmission line.

Inside the station,the current supplied to the
fault by the local transformer circulates i-n
the station itself and does not form part of
IG, whereas the current supplied to the fault
through the transmission lines has to return
to the system through the grounding system and
ground or through the aerial ground wires on
transmission lines. When a fault is outside the
the
fault
station the current supplied to
other
through the transmission line from the
stations has negligible contribution to IG.The
the
by
component of fault current supplied
local transformer returns to the system via(i)
metallic
overhead ground wires which have
connection to the neutral through the station
structure and(ii)the tower footing and grounding system of the station. The current flowing
via path (ii) constitutes IG. If the fault is
near a station, major part of the current supplied by station will return via
path(i) and
if the fault is far away from the station
the magnitude of the fault current supplied by
the station will be less because of the line
impedance. Therefore, in most cases maximum IG
will be obtained for faults insidethe station.
The substations in an electric power system for purposes of determining IC and IG may
be classified into following categories.

Step up station at generating station,

transformer connected in delta-wye.
Intermediate station(Power source on both sides).
i) Wye-wye connected transformer.
ii) Auto transformer.
iii) Delta-delta connected transformer.
iv) delta-wye connected transformer.
Terminal station (Power source only on H.V
side). This can be considered as a special
case of the Intermediate Station when the
contribution of the fault current fed from
the lower voltage lines is zero.
Wye-wye connected transformers and autotransformers may have a tertiary winding.
The analysis presented in this paper can be
applied to stations having transformer with
or without the tertiary winding.

Fig. 1 gives the components of line to ground

fault current in various paths for fault on
higher voltage or lower voltage side of the
transformer in various categories of substations.
Notations used for the currents shown in the
figure are:

IFH,IFL,IFW,IFD

= Total fault current for fault

on higher voltage side,lower
and
voltage side, wye side
delta side of the transformer

IHH,IHL

= Current fed from otherstations

on higher voltage lines when
the fault is on higher voltage
side and lower voltage side of
the transformer respectively.
= Current fed from other stations
on lower voltage lines when
the fault is on lower voltage
side and higher voltage side
of the transformer respectively.

ILL'ILH

0018-9510/84/0900-2633$01.00 1984 IEEE

respectively.

2634
A perusal of Fig. t.will indicate that the
maximum value of I in all cases is the total
C
fault current on higher
voltage side or lower
voltage-side.The higher value of the two is to
be considered. However if care is exercised
and it is ensured that the total fault current
will have atleast two paths to follow,Ic maybe
safely taken as half of the total fault current
or even less depending on the actual configuration of the system. Maximum value of IG in
terms of various components of the 9ault current in each case is given in table I
It is observed that in all cases maximum
value of IG is given by sum of the currents
(in amps) supplied by other stations to the
ground on all transmission lines minus the
current diverted by the ground wires due to
induction and conduction.

DIVERSION OF CURRENT DUE TO INDUCTION

Fault current flowing in the line conductor,
induces current, I.,in the overhead ground
wires, of the same line.

IL,

TABLE I
CURRENT FOR DESIGN OF GROUNDING SYSTEMS

S.No. Type of station

i
(0

tB'IWW-Iwi-la

1
rG=

station-fault on higher
side.
station-fault on lower
side.
(c),(e),(g) Intermediate station fault on higher voltage side.
(d),(f),(h) Intermediate stationfault on lower voltage side.
(i) Intermediate station-fault on
wye side.
(j) Intermediate station-fault on
delta side.

ww

IDD
It
IHi

wi
,? IDi

Step up station

intermediate station IFIHH +ILH -I Hi -I Li -I a

wye-wye
or auto-transformer ILL+IHL - Li - Hi -Ia

Intermediate station
delta-delta

OD-IDi-t

Fig. 1.(a) Step up

voltage
(b) Step up
voltage

= Current fed from other stations

on wye connected side of the
transformer when the fault is
on- wye connected side.
= Current fed from other stations
on delta connected side of the
transformer when the fault is
on delta connected side.
= Current supplied by
local
transformer.
= Current diverted on ground
wires of higher voltage lines
and wye connected lines respectively due to,induction.
= Current diverted on ground
wires of lower voltage lines
and delta connected lines respectively due to induction.
= Current diverted from station
the
through conduction by
all
ground wires of
the
transmission lines terminating
on the station and,
having
their ground wires connected to
grounding system of the station.

IHH-I Hi-Ia

Intermediate station
delta-wye
Terminal station

I HH -I Hi a
-ia
Hi

LLLI

Ia

IWW- IWi Ia
ILDO
I -I Di -I a
Same as for interme diate station-contribution of fault current
from low voltage lines
is zero.

Note: 1. Where more than one current is mentioned select the one that
has the
higher value.
2. All currents are to be taken in amps
and not in p.u. values.

Ii

IL

(1)

Z /Z g
gm
Mutual
impedance
between phase
m
conductor and the ground wires-ohms/
9
km
Z
= Self Impedance of ground wire with
g
ground return-ohm/km.
Z gm and Z given by6:
9
Z gm = 0.000 988 f
D
ohms/km
+j 0.002 8938 f log eD
(2)
separation

where m
Z

=
=

= rc+c
O.000 988 f
Zg g
o.002 8938 f log1O GRD
e
+ jO.002 8938 f log1
10GMR (GW) ohms/km

(3)

\s~ mlACSR

2635

return
earth
m
658.4 -/f
rc = Resistance of ground wire-ohms/km
p = Resistivity of earth - ohm-m
f = Frequency - H

De

Where

The ratio m was calculated for the following ground wires and for all the configuration
of conductors shown in Fig.2.

GSS
ACSR

(6A1+lSt)/3.66,(6Al+lSt)/
(6Al+1St)/3.O0
4.09,(12A1+7St)/2.924 ,(18Al+19St)/2.591.

Resistivity of earth was assumed to be 100 ohm - m.

Variation of the earth resistivity from 50 to
300 ohm-m will not cause an error of more than
12% in the value of Iml.

I6.8,JF11.42.,

(bI

(a)

;
(f)

(e)

2~~3.28

b
*

3.39

42.

(h)

(g)

(i)

Fig. 2. Disposition of phase and ground conductors

for various transmission lines-132 kV,220 kV
and 400 kV (Dimensions in meters).

The results of calculations showed that

the variation in configuration of conductors
and number of circuits, within practical limits, had negligible effect on the ratio m. The
parameters that mainly affect m are material,
size and number of the ground wires. Fig. 3
ground
gives variation of m with diameter of
wire for GSS and ACSR conductors.

78 o.7r

G+JB

0.6
0.5

0.3

24- 0.21
<

la 0.Q

.1

0g

Zspan
2 +

span

x Rt

ohms/km.

determined with the help of

resultant admittance Y' of all the
lines connected to the station can be determined
by considering the ladder networks of all the
lines in parallel.Y'and the station grounding
resistance, R , act in parallel. The current
discharged te the ground from the station
Z

Hean

can be

given by:

|GI lIdI |R + 'I= I' a

99

10
10

14D6
I!I3
14O15
OUTSIDE DLAMETER, mr

12
11II12

---L--__R

.5
17 ID 6

Fig. 3. m Versus outside diameter of ground wire.

(5)

Where I' is the sum of currents supplied

by other stations to the ground over all transmission lines minus the current diverted by
the ground wires due to induction.
large
G,B and a have been computed for a
range and number of practical values of the various
parameters.The charts shown in Figs.4 to 6 have
been generated with the results obtained from
the computer. Figs. 4 & 5 give the value of G
& B respectively as functions of the diameter of the
ground wire, span length, tower footing resistance
and the number of ground wires used. To use the
charts one selects the diameter on the left
ordinate & follows along a horizontalline where
it intersects the required curve of the span.
One then proceeds vertically upto the intersection
with the curve representing the tower footing

TWO GROUND WIRES

---- ONE GROUND WIRE

~~~~~~-

(4)

= Average tower footing resistance

for the first 20 towers-ohms.

__

C'*GSs

B 0.4

Where Z span = The self impedence of one span of

ground wire with ground return-

is

(dl

(cI

58

(3).

1..

68

Overhead ground wires and tower footing

resistance form a ladder network. If the number
of towers is 20 or more the length of the line
can be considered as infinite for the purpose
of determining the admittance Y of the ladder
network which is approximately given by4,7,8.

7/2.794, 7/3.15, 7/4.064, 19/2.642

DIVERSION OF CURRENT DUE TO CONDUCTION

= Equivalent depth of

En!

Fig.

4. Value of G for

overhead lines.

2636
CONCLUSIONS
Current diverted through induction in the
ACSR ground wires is about 3 times
the
current diverted through induction in GSS
ground wires under similar situations for
ACSR & GSS wires having about the same
tensile strength.

i4

In all cases the total fault current governs the size of the conductor for the
grounding system.

The current to be adopted for calculating

the potential gradient is equal to thesum
of currents supplied by other stations to
the ground through transmission lines minus
the current diverted by the ground wires
due to induction and conduction.

Maximum realistic currents IC and IG when

adopted for design calculations can result
in substantial saving in the cost of grounding system.

IL

Fig. 5. Value of B for overhead lines.

REFERENCES
.8

in
"IEEE Guide for safety
substation
grounding", IEEE std. 80, 1976.

S.A Seebo, "Zero sequence current distribution along transmission lines" ,

IEEE
Transactions PAS, Vol. PAS 88, 1969, pp
910-919.

-3

F. Dawalibi, "Ground fault current distribution between soil and neutral conductors"
IEEE Transactions, PAS, Vol. PAS-99, 1980
pp 452-459.

J
.6
cc
x
,g,0

.4

.2

.1

.*

.3

Fig. 6. Value of

.5.

.4

Rg

for substations.

,resistance, then continues from this intersection horizontally to the right until the curve
representing the number of ground wires is
reached. From this point one follows verti-

cally down and reads G or B. The resultant

value of G'=and B ' of all the lines connected to
the station can be determined by directly adding
the values of G & B respectively for all these
lines.

Fig. 6 gives the value of a as function

of
G', B' a'd the station grounding
resistance,
R . To use this chart one selects the (G'xR
tHe
oR tihe horizontal axis and (Bt x R t on
vertical axis & locates the point
given by
these co-ordinates. The value of a can then be
determined from the values given on thecircular
used
arc. Either scale A or scale B is to be
on both horizontal and vertical
axis.

F. Dawalibi, D.Bensted, D.Mukhedkar, "Soil

Effects on ground fault currents". IEEE

Transactions, PAS, Vol. PAS 100, 1981 pp.
3442-3450.
S.K. Madan, "Current for design of Grounding grids in substations". M.Sc.Electrical

Engg. Thesis,

Panjab

University,1982.

C.F. Wangner, R.D. Evans,"Symmetrical components", McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc,

New York, 1933 (Book).

J.R. Alderton, P.C.Anderson,R.J.Cakebread,

"Calculation and measurement of the impedance of an ehv substation", Proceedings IEE,
Vol. 125, 1978 pp 1367-1375.

R. Verma, D. Mukhedkar, "Ground

fault
current distribution in sub-station, towers
and ground wire", IEEE Transactions, PAS,
Vol. PAS-98, 1979, pp 724-730.

2637
B.Thapar (S'61-M'63-SM'70 )
born in Ludhiana,India on

was

Sept.

1,193O.He

received

the

Electrical
B.Sc.degree in
Banaras
Engineering from
Hindu University, M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees in Electrical
Illinois
Engineering from
Technology,
Institute of
Chicago, in 1953,1960, and
1963 respectively.
From 1953 to 1955 he was

with Punjab Public Works Department, Electricity

Power
in
Branch,Chandigarh, India, working
joined
System operation section. In 1955 he
the faculty of Punjab Engineering College,ChandiElectrical
garh, and is now a Professor of
of
number
Engineering. He has published a
Technical papers and is co-author of a book on
power

system transients.

of
Dr. Thapar is a member of IEE, Fellow
IE(India). He is working on a number of bodies
for the development of electrical education and
research in electric power systems.

in
Sunil K. Madan was born
Delhi, India,on Jan.10,1950
He received the B.E.degree in
from
Electrical Engineering
Thapar Institute of Engineering
and Technology, Patiala, the
Project Management diploma from
Punjabi University,Patiala, and

M.Sc.Engineering

degree

in

from
Electrical Engineering
Punjab Engineering College ,
Chandigarh in 1970, 1973 and

1982 respectively.
From 1970 to 1972 he was with HindustanWire
Products Pvt.Ltd. Patiala as Assistant Development Engineer. In 1973 he joined the Punjab
State Electricity Board, Patiala as Assistant
Engineer and is now working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Hydel Designs Organisation,
Chandigarh of Punjab State ElectrictyBoard and
of Electrical
is responsible for the design
Systems of Hydro Power Stations.
of
Mr. Madan is a member of Institution
Engineers (India).

2638

Discussion
J. Fortin (Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, Quebec, Canada): The subject of
current distribution in ground design is of growing interest and I would
like to address my discussion to that specific point.
Equation 5 used in introducing the admittance of overhead ground
wires (and by extension also that of the distribution neutrals), in conjuction with the reduction of cost mentioned in conclusion 4, may lead
the designer to reduce the use of burried copper conductor and rod to
a minimum. This seems to indicate that if this admittance is high, the
soil resistivity of the site is not important to the designer.
In consequence the fault currents will rebound to the outside where
it is impossible to control the protection against step and touch potentials.
It does not seem sufficient, to me, to design a grid such that:
a) The size of the grounding conductors is enough for the maximum
fault current.
b) The crushed-stone layer insures a protection against step and touch
potentials.
I think that the evolution of the grid design must whenever possible
minimise the rebounding of the fault currents away from the station and
not the opposite.
Based on this I cannot agree with the orientation suggested by your
conclusion 4. It is desirable that a discussion of the subject, among the
intervenning parties, can clarify the concerned IEEE committees'
positions.
As for the choice of installation for protection of communication
cables. I think it would be realistic to consider the group of neutrals connected to the grid when the station is energized. Your paper could be
very helpful in the assessment of the station's G.P.R. as additional connections are made to the station's grounding grid.

John F. White (Bonneville Power Administration EKSE, Vancouver,

WA): and Eldon J. Rogers (Vancouver, WA): The authors have presented
an excellent guide for determining current distribution in the grounding
complex. Besides those indicated by the authors, there are many additional pathways that fault currents follow on return to their sources. They
could include buried counterpoise, grid tie conductors, control cable
shields and direct burial bare concentric neutrals (URD). These additional paths could parallel with or intersect at an acute angle overhead
fault current carrying phase conductors. Will the authors indicate how
their method is adaptable to these additional fault current paths? At BPA
our standard practice is not to connect overhead ground wires (OHGW)
to our grounding grids. To reduce transmission losses, tower footing corrosion and prevent transfer of grid potential to remote locations continuous OHGWs are sectionalized and only grounded at the center of
each 30 mile section.
In general, the size of the grounding grid conductors are determined
by current carrying requirements, by their ruggedness and longevity while
buried in the earth environment and by redundacy of the fault current
path from faulted equipment.
The authors have prepared convenient charts to determine G and B
factors for overhead lines. Are the procedures used to determine these
charts adaptable to hand-held programable calculators? Has the authors
calculated current division in the grounding complex been verified by
staged fault tests?

S. J. Arnot and E. P. Dick (Ontario Hydro, Toronto, ON, Canada):

The authors have presented a convenient method for estimating the fault
current splits at stations fed by several overhead lines, assuming these
lines are not inductively coupled. For completeness, we should point out
that this theory was published at least 17 years ago [1] including the additional effect of counterpoise. It is routinely applied to grounding design
and inductive coordination using computer programs [2]. This reference
also includes the effect of several lines on the same right-of-way. However,
the graphical method of this paper is handy alternative. A cursory check
of Figs. 3 to 6 showed that the estimated is within 10 percent of more
detailed calculations.
In our opinion, further work is needed
1) for cable fed stations preliminary results with cable shielding
calculated from [3] show that the GPR at intermediate overhead
line/cable junctions can be higher than at the faulted station due
to induction.
2) for assymmetric (dc offset) faults the dc component of the fault
current split through the station ground impedance is not proportional to the 60 Hz component [4].
Two small errors in the paper were noted: Z span following (4) should
have units of ohms and B in Figs. 5 and 6 should be negative in sign.

B. Thapar and S. K. Madan: The authors wish to thank the discussers

for their interest and comments. The intent of our paper was to develop
a handy guide for determining the current to be used in evaluating the
potential gradiants in a high voltage substation. The value of ca obtained from Figs. 3 to 6 is within 10 percent of more detailed and lengthy
calculations. This has been checked and confirmed by Mr. Arnot and
Mr. Dick.
We agree with Mr. Fortin that the grounding grid design must aim
to minimise the rebounding of the fault currents away form the station.
The paper does not advocate the reduction of grounding conductor to
the extent that would increase the grounding resistance of the grid. For
a given substation switchyard area at a particular site the reduction in
the grounding resistance is very small if the number of meshes is increased
beyond 64. However closer meshes in the grid may be needed to limit
the step and touch potentials to safe values. The step and touch potentials are directly proportional to the current IG flowing through the
grounding system at the station to the ground. If proper value of the
current is adopted for design, use of extra conductor which is required
to limit the step and touch potential is reduced resulting in saving in the
cost of the grounding system.
The subject of protection of communication cables is beyond the scope
of the paper.
Mr. White has pointed out that there are many additional pathways
that the fault current follows on return to the source. The consideration
of the additional pathways will further reduce the current IG. However
because of the random nature of these pathways a general analysis cannot be made. The data presented in the paper is applicable only to the
station where the overhead groundwire is connected to the grounding grid.
The procedure used to determine the graphs of Figs. 3 to 6 is adaptable to hand held programable calculators.
Attempts were made to verify the calculated current division in the
grounding complex at two locations. In both cases the actual value of
IG as obtained from the potential gradient on the earth was less than
the calculated value indicating that the value of a obtained from Fig.
6 can be safely used to determine the step and touch potentials. The two
typographical errors pointed out by Mr. Arnot and Mr. Dick are obvious. Only the numerical value of B is given in Figs. 5 and 6.

Manuscript received February 23, 1984.

Manuscript received February 15, 1984.

REFERENCES

[1] J. Endrenyi, Analysis of transmission tower potentials during ground

faults, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst. PAS-86, no. 10, p. 1274, October, 1967.
[2] M. S. Tibensky and L. J. Perfecky, Methods for RMS symmetrical

station ground potential rise calculations for protection of telecommunications circuits entering power stations" IEEE Trans. Power
App. Syst. PAS-100, no. 12, p. 4785, December 1981.
[3] L. M. Wedepohl et al, "Transient Analysis of Underground Power
Transmission Systems" IEEE Proc 120, no. 2, p. 253, February 1973.
[4] A. S. Morched, "Fault Current Calculation for Ground Potential
Rise Studies", paper 82-EC-80, Canadian Electrical Association, Proceedings Spring Meeting, Montreal, March 1982.

Manuscript received February 27, 1984.

Manuscript received April 18, 1984.