2011 7th Asia-Pacific International Conference on Lightning, November 1-4, 2011, Chengdu, China

Finite-Difference Analysis of the Potential

Distribution around an L-shape Building Base under
the Measurement of Grounding Resistance
Jiaqing Chen

Wenchun Liao

Yingqiang Wang

Xiangyu Liu

National Key Laboratory on

Electromagnetic
Environmental Effects and
Electro-optical Engineering
PLA Univ. of Sci. & Tech.
Nanjing, China
cjq65111@163.com

National Key Laboratory on

Electromagnetic
Environmental Effects and
Electro-optical Engineering
PLA Univ. of Sci. & Tech.
No.60, PLA 94701
Nanjing, China
liaowenchun@163.com

National Key Laboratory on

Electromagnetic
Environmental Effects and
Electro-optical Engineering
PLA Univ. of Sci. & Tech.
Nanjing, China
wyqiang198253@163.com

National Key Laboratory on

Electromagnetic
Environmental Effects and
Electro-optical Engineering
PLA Univ. of Sci. & Tech.
Nanjing, China
384985864@qq.com

usually claviform; both of them are far away from regular

hemisphere. In this case, errors will be produced by using
0.618 method. It will cause greater errors if we measure the
resistance of large-scale irregular grounding system with the
methods used for small-scale regular grounding system
without change.

AbstractFor the first time, a three-dimensional finite difference

method 3D FDM is adopted to simulate the potential
distribution during grounding resistance measurements around
an L-shape building under different directions and electrodes
arrangements. The results show that the distributions of zero
potential region with different measurement points and
measurement electrodes arrangements are strikingly different
when using a straight-line-three-probes method. To obtain more
accurate measurement results, scientific and suitable
measurement point locations should be properly chosen for the
grounding resistance measurement of L-shape buildings
according to the surrounding conditions in practical
measurements.

Nowadays, research for accurate grounding resistance

measurement mainly focuses on grounding resistance
measurements of regular grounding systems in complex soil
conditions, electrodes arranging distance and angle, multilayer
soils and influence of underground metal object [6-9].
However, there are still fewer studies on the influence of
irregular shape of building foundation on grounding resistance
measurement.

Keywords- large-scale irregular grounding system; grounding

resistance measurement; potential distribution; three-dimensional
finite difference method

I.

Finite difference method is one of the earliest methods

applied in numerical simulation calculation; it is prevalently
applied in electromagnetic numerical calculation fields because
its concepts and methods are clear, direct and simple
[10].Three-dimensional finite difference method 3D FDM
has been widely used in exploration, seismology and other
fields since the late 1980s [11]. However, it hasnt been applied
in grounding resistance measurements simulation research in
the open literature. This paper adopts 3D FDM to simulate the
measurement of grounding resistance of an L-shape building
foundation. In this simulation, we can obtain the whole
potential distribution around a large-scale irregular grounding
system.

INTRODUCTION

The measurement of grounding resistance is one of the most

important questions in the test and acceptance of lightning
protection projects. It is applied to determine whether
lightning grounding systems meet standards and design
requirements or not in practical lightning protection
measurement; the value of impulse grounding resistance is
calculated based on tested power-frequency grounding
resistance with a certain ratio [1, 2]. Thus, how to measure
grounding resistance accurately is a very important issue in the
test and acceptance of lightning protection. The fall-ofpotential method is widely used for grounding resistance
measurements in the world, especially the 0.618 method
which is derived from the straight-line-three-probes method
[3-5]. However, this method is based on several ideal
hypothesises: the grounding device, potential probe and
current electrode are all assumed to be hemispherical; the
terrain above the grounding device is flat and open; the soil is
uniform around the grounding device [2-5].In practice, we
often encounter irregular building base grounding systems
such as L-shape buildings, and measuring electrodes are

978-1-4577-1466-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

II. CALCULATION MODEL

The steps of 3D FDM are as follows: (1) set certain
calculation space; (2) adopt proper discrete grids; (3) construct
a difference format; (4) choose an appropriate algebra
equation solution from the difference format and compile
corresponding programs to work out the discrete solutions [11,
12]. The issue of power-frequency grounding resistence can be
treated as a question of constant electric field. We take the
potential in soil as variable and set as the potential of any

482

2011

point except the grounding system and loop electrode; then,

satisfies the Laplace equations:
2 2 2
+
+
=0
x 2 y 2 z 2

(1)

As shown in Fig. 1, the grid partition is square 3D grid

nodes division in Cartesian coordinates in the model. Then, we
can deduce the Jacobian iterative formula of formula (1) by
Taylor expansion equations:
1
(i, j, k) = [(i 1, j, k) + (i +1, j, k) + (i, j 1, k)
6
+(i, j +1, k) + (i, j, k 1) +(i, j, k +1)]

that of measured grounding system. For instance, the

potentials of G and C are set as 12 V and -120 V, respectively,
to produce current in the soil between G and C. Then we can
deduce the three-dimensional potential of any position in the
calculation space. We approximately treat the steel as an ideal
conductor and assume the whole base steel frame be buried in
homogeneous soil with the soil resistivity of 50 m . The
grid size is 0.5 m 0.5 m 0.5 m. All the sides of the
calculation space are fixed at zero value (the first boundary
condition) except the upper side (i.e. the earth surface) whose
normal potential derivative is set as zero (the second boundary
condition).

(2)

where, (i , j , k ) is the potential of node.

Figure 2.

Finite difference space model.

The L-shape building foundation and the measurement loop

are shown in Fig. 3. The burial depth of the steel frame of the
base is 0.5 m; the steel grid size is 0.5 m 0.5 m 0.5 m; the
diameter of the steel bar is 10 mm and the size of its exterior
frame is labeled in the figure.

Figure 1. Three-dimensional finite difference grids division.

The successive over-relaxation method (SOR) is used to

process the numerical calculation [10, 11].The iterative
formula of SOR is:

(n+1) (i, j,k) =(n) (i, j,k) + [(n+1) (i 1, j,k) +(n) (i +1, j,k)
6
+(n+1) (i, j 1,k) +(n) (i, j +1,k) +(n+1) (i, j,k 1)
+(n) (i, j,k +1) 6(n) (i, j,k)]

where,

(n)

(3)

( n + 1)

( i , j , k ) and
(i, j , k )
are the iterative
solutions of No.n and No.n+1, respectively; is the relaxation
factor and is set as 1.94 in this study.

The finite difference space model of grounding resistance

measurement is shown in Fig. 2. The grounding system,
potential probe and loop electrode are represented by G, P and
C, respectively; they are all along a straight line. The
calculated region is limited in a three-dimensional space with
200 m long,200 m wide and 20 m high; its upper surface is the
boundary between air and soil. According to the definition of
resistance, the measured results will be the same whether we
use voltage as encouraging source on grounding system to
obtain corresponding current response or we inject current
encouraging source to get corresponding voltage response.
Because the grounding resistance of loop electrode is much
larger than that of measured grounding system, we set the
absolute potential of auxiliary loop electrode much higher than

978-1-4577-1466-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

Figure 3. Exterior steel frame of the L-shape building base.

Two different test points and four different loop electrode

locations are shown in Fig. 4. In order to compare the
maximum coupling with the minimum coupling between
measurement loop and L-shape building base, in one case the
inner concave corner G1 is set as the test point and the loop
electrodes is located at from C1 to C3, respectively; in the
other case the exterior convex corner G2 is set as the test point
and the loop electrode is located at C4. The distances between
the test points and the loop electrodes are given in the figure.

483

2011

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 5 shows the potential distributions at earth surface
when the test points and loop electrode are at different
positions in Fig. 4. The equipotential line closer to the
building has a shape more similar to that of the L-shape
building base; while the equipotential line far away from the
building has a shape like an ellipse. Moreover, the distribution
density of the equipotential lines near the building is high with
a great potential gradient; the maximum of potential gradient
appears near the exterior convex corner.This result is basically
consistent with the conclusion of Mukhedkar et al about
surface potential distribution around the miniatures of simple
grounding systems under the potential measurement in
experimental environment [13].
It can be seen in Fig. 5 that the potential near the green line
is approximately equal to zero. In the straight-line-threeprobes method, there is a blank region between the outermost
green equipotential line A around the building base and the

Figure 4. Top view of test point and loop electrode locations.

25

25

12 (V)

100

Y(m)

Y(m)

%
$

100

-20

-40
175
25
25

100
X(m)
(a)

175
25

175

100
X(m)
(b)

25

175
-60

%
$

100

Y(m)

Y(m)

-80
100
-100

$
%
175
25

100
X(m)

175

175
25

(c)
Figure 5.

-120
100
X(m)
(d)

175

Earth potential distributions under four different electrode arrangements :( a) current loop G1-C1; (b) current loop G1 -C2;(c) current loop G1 -C3;(d)
current loop G2 -C4.

When the inner concave corner of the L-shape building

(point G1 in Fig. 4) is chosen as the test point, we compare Fig.
5 (a) with (b) and (c). It can be seen that the distributions of
ground potential are different with the change of distance
between the test point and the loop electrode. In Fig. 5 (a), the
distance between G1 and C1 is 40 m and there is almost no
zero potential region; this may bring an obvious change of

outermost green equipotential line B around the loop electrode

along the straight-line direction; we name it as zero potential
region. If the zero potential region is large, the measurement
results will change slightly when the potential sampling probe
moves in the zero potential region back and forth. Generally,
larger zero potential region enables more accurate grounding
resistance measurement.

978-1-4577-1466-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

484

2011

increased to obtain accurate measurement result. However, the

longer leads also bring some problems: leads arrangement
difficulty, signal disturbance, inductance coupling and other
problems. On the contrary, obvious and large enough zero
potential region is relatively easier to be obtained if the
exterior convex corner of L-shape building base is chosen as
the measurement point.

measured value when the potential sampling probe moves

only a very short distance. However, the zero potential region
in Fig. 5(b) becomes obvious when the distance between G1
and C2 increases to 80m. Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 5(c),
the zero potential region is larger when the distance between
G1 and C3 extends to 100 m. Thus, 40 m long loop lead cant
meet the requirement for an accurate measurement of
grounding resistance; to make the zero potential region large
enough, we have to lengthen the test lead.

(4) In practical measurements, we should give priority to

choose the exterior convex corner instead of the inner concave
corner of L-shape building base for measuring on account of
following reasons: when the exterior convex corner is chosen
for measuring, the produced zero potential region is larger, the
location of potential sampling probe is relatively easier and the
probability of producing measurement errors will be smaller.

As shown in Fig.4 and Fig. 5(d), the exterior convex

corner of the L-shape building (point G2 in Fig. 4) is selected
as the test point. The distance between G2 and C4 is also 40 m.
The distribution of ground potential is strikingly different
from the situation in Fig.5(a); although the loop lead length is
still 40 m, we can obtain a certain zero potential region.

In general, 3D FDM analysis makes the potential

distribution around large-scale irregular grounding system
become clear at a glance; the exact measurement directions
and positions will be easily found and the more accurate
measurement will be more easily obtained according to the
potential distributions. The results presented in this study will
serve as a strong directive significance in applying straightline-three-probes method to measure grounding resistance of
L-shape building in practical measurement.

In other point of view, the zero potential region reflects the

degree of overlapping between the effective resistance region
of measured grounding system and that of loop electrode in
soil. If the distance between loop electrode and measured
grounding system is not far enough, the above two effective
resistance regions will overlap each other; thus, the zero
potential region becomes quite narrow and even almost
doesnt exist [1, 3, 4]. It can be shown that long measurement
leads can produce obvious zero potential region, the choice of
potential measurement points is relatively easy and the
measurement error will be smaller. However, long
measurement leads also cause difficult leads arrangement,
increased signal disturbance and enhanced inductance
coupling [4, 14]. Therefore, the theoretical analyses of both
electromagnetic disturbance and the engineering achievement
of field measurement show the preference of shorter
measurement leads [14]. Furthermore, measurement
instrument only provides a fixed measurement lead, thus we
should take account of selecting the exterior convex corner of
L-shape building base for measuring and locate the loop
electrode at near C4 in Fig. 4. The effective resistance region
around the measured grounding system is the narrowest along
this direction.
IV.

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

CONCLUSIONS

[8]

In this study, the 3D FDM is adopted to study the potential

distribution during the grounding resistance measurement of
an L-shape building foundation. From the calculation results,
the following conclusions can be drawn:

[9]

(1) The equipotential line closer to the building has a shape

more similar to that of the L-shape building base, and the
maximum potential gradient appears at the exterior convex
corner.

[10]

[11]

(2) When the straight-line-three-probes method is adopted

and the length of loop electrode lead is fixed, the potential
distribution on ground surface is changed with different test
point and measurement direction, and the size of zero potential
region is also different.

[12]

[13]

(3) When measuring the grounding resistance at the inner

concave corner of the L-shape building foundation, it is
difficult to obtain large enough zero potential region if the
lead of loop electrode is short; the lead length has to be

978-1-4577-1466-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

[14]

485

Yang Zhongjiang, Test and acceptance of lightning protection

engineering, Beijing, China: Meteorology Press, 2005.
Technical specifications for inspection of lightning protection system in
building, GB/T21431-2008, 2008.
IEEE Guide for safety in AC substation grounding, IEEE Std 80-2000.
G.F. TaggMeasurement of earth-electrode resistance with particular
reference to earth-electrode systems covering a large area, PROC. IEE,
vol.3,pp. 2118~2130,Dec.1964
Guide for measuring earth resistivity, ground impedance and earth
surface potentials of a ground system Part: Normal measurements
GB/T 17949.1-2000, 2000.
Jinxi Ma, Farid P. Dawalibi, Extended Analysis of Ground Impedance
Measurement Using the Fall-of-Potential Method, IEEE Transactions
on Power Dilivery, vol.17,pp. 881-885,Apr.2002.
Zhong Jianling, Wang Jingjing, Zhang Bo, et al, Grounding resistance
measurement by angle-offset method for urban substations, Power
System Technology, vol.34, pp. 34-37, Jun.2010.
Zeng Rong, He Jinliang, Gao Yanqing, et al,Effects of electrode
placement on grounding resisitance of grounding system measured in
vertical three-layer soil, Journal of Tsinghua University (Science and
Technology),vol.41,pp. 28-31,Mar.2001.
He Jinliang, Yu Shaofeng, Zeng Rong, et al,Influence of neighboring
underground metal object on measurement of substation grounding
resistance, High Voltage Apparatus,vol.40,pp.1-2,Feb.2004.
Ni GuangZheng, Yang Shiyou Qiu Jie. Engineering electromagnetic
numerical calculation, 2nd ed, Beijing, China: Machinery Industry
Press, 2010.
Shi Fengfeng, Study of magnetometric electric method based on 3D
finite difference method, A dissertation submitted to China University
of Geosciences for master degree, pp.7-26,May.2010.
Sefer Avdiaj ,Janez Setina, Numerical solving of Poisson equation in
3D using finite difference method, Journal of Engineering and
Applied Sciences ,vol.5,pp.14-18,Jan.2010
D. Mukhedkar, Y. Gervais, F. P. Dawalibi, Modelling of potential
distribution around a grounding electrode,IEEE Transactions, vol.2,
PP.1455-1459, May.1973.
Rao Hong, Influence of length of current electrode in grounding
resistance measurement by fall-of-potential method, Power System
Technology, vol.30, pp.41-49, Apr.2006.