Analysis of influence of imperfect contact

between grounding electrodes and

surrounding soil on electrical properties of
grounding loops
J.Trifunovic & M.Kostic

Electrical Engineering
Archiv fr Elektrotechnik
ISSN 0948-7921
Volume 96
Number 3
Electr Eng (2014) 96:255-265
DOI 10.1007/s00202-013-0291-9

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by SpringerVerlag Berlin Heidelberg. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com.

1 23

Author's personal copy

Electr Eng (2014) 96:255265
DOI 10.1007/s00202-013-0291-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

Analysis of influence of imperfect contact between grounding

electrodes and surrounding soil on electrical properties
of grounding loops
J. Trifunovic M. Kostic

Received: 13 July 2011 / Accepted: 10 November 2013 / Published online: 30 November 2013
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Abstract The measurements of the grounding resistance

of grounding loops installed in soils characterised by the
structure that prevents a good contact between the grounding
electrodes and the surrounding soil (e.g. karst and sandy terrains) showed that it is considerably influenced by the effective contact surface. Therefore, in such cases the grounding
resistance cannot be predicted using the standard engineering
methods based on the Laplace solution of the problem, where
the perfect contact was assumed. The aim of this research
was the estimation of the influence of imperfect contact on
the loop grounding resistance and potential distribution in
the soil during the earth fault. The research is performed
applying the finite-element method on a real grounding loop
buried in a two-layer soil. Imperfect contact is modelled by
air gaps placed between the grounding loop electrodes and
the surrounding soil. The analysis of the influence of size,
number and position of such air gaps on the loop grounding
resistance and potential distribution in the soil showed the
dominant effect of the grounding loop surface covered with
air gaps.
Keywords Grounding loop Grounding resistance
Potential distribution Imperfect contact
Contact resistance Finite-element method
1 Introduction
The safety and reliability of electric power systems depend
on the quality of their grounding grids, usually made of steel
J. Trifunovic (B) M. Kostic
Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Belgrade,
Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
e-mail: jovan.trifunovic@etf.rs
M. Kostic
e-mail: kostic@etf.rs

strips forming two-dimensional grids. The grounding resistance, which represents one of the most important parameters
of the grid, considerably affects the earth potential rise during earth faults. If the grounding resistance is high, personnel may be killed or injured and equipment damaged. Therefore, the grounding resistance should be estimated in an early
design phase to conceive the main geometrical parameters of
the grid. This justifies the efforts made in the past to develop
relatively simple formulas for assessing the grounding resistance of typical grounding systems including grids. Simple
methods and the designer-oriented formulas for the calculation of the grid grounding resistance are given in standards
[1] and [2]. In addition, many papers proposed simple methods and formulas for the calculation of the grounding resistance of complex grounding systems buried in uniform or
non-uniform soil. For example, the calculation of the grounding resistance of a rectangular grid installed in uniform soil
was presented in [3]. Grids and rods buried in two-layer soil
were analysed in [46] and [7], respectively. The foundation
grounding systems, which represent grounding grids encapsulated in concrete, were considered assuming uniform soil
in [810]. More complex geometries were also analysed (e.g.
foundation grounding systems surrounded by two-layer soil
[11,12], foundation grounding systems with external loops
and rods [13] and foundation grounding systems with external grids [14]). All of those methods and the derived formulas
are based on the Laplace solution of the problem, assuming
perfect contact surface between the grounding grid electrodes
and the surrounding soil. However, it was noticed in practice [15] that such formulas could not satisfactorily be used
for the calculation of the grid grounding resistance in soils
where the contact surface is significantly smaller than the surface of the electrodes (e.g. karst and sandy terrains). In such
cases, calculated grounding resistances several times lower
than the actual ones are frequently obtained. Such deviations

123

Author's personal copy

256

can cause dangerous situations during earth faults. It was suggested in [15] that the big difference between the measured
and computed grounding resistances is caused by a bad contact between the grounding electrodes and the surrounding
soil. However, this physical phenomenon was not theoretically investigated in [15], because it was impossible to model
a bad contact with mathematical techniques and calculation
tools available at that time.
The development of the finite-element method (FEM)
and the corresponding software, as well as improvements
of the performance of PCs, enabled the application of threedimensional (3D) finite-element models based on small size
elements surrounding the grounding electrodes. FEM is a
numerical technique for finding approximate solutions to
boundary condition problems. The method is based on the
division of the problem domain into a set of small subdomains, named finite elements, to accurately represent
its complex geometry and dissimilar material properties.
Each finite element is represented by a set of equations
related to the problem. The element equations are simple
(for steady-state problems they represent algebraic equations), locally approximating the original complex equations (often partial differential equations). All sets of element equations are systematically recombined into an overall system of equations, which can be solved using standard
techniques. A mathematical basis for the FEM was given in
[16], while the explanations for its use in electromagnetics
and electrical engineering were presented in [17] and [18],
respectively.
During the past decade, FEM has been used for the calculation of the grid grounding resistance in a number of cases
[1922]. The advantages of FEM, compared to the conventional methods for the calculation of the grid grounding resistance, are a simple representation of the total solution and
capture of local effects. It also possesses an advantage of not
having any limitations regarding the shape and size of the
grid, as well as the soil structure. For the calculation of the
electrical properties of grounding grids using FEM a reasonable level of segmentation is sufficient for practical purposes,
and an increased number of elements is needed only if highly
accurate results are requested [23]. Consequently, considerably smaller computational effort is required for practical
purposes.
In order to develop a method for precise predictions of the
grounding resistance of loops (grids) laid in soils that prevent a good contact between the grounding electrodes and
the surrounding soil, it is essential to theoretically investigate and gain understanding of the electrical behaviour of
the grounding loops installed in such soils. The aim of the
research presented in this paper was estimation of the influence of imperfect contact between the grounding electrodes
and the surrounding soil on the loop grounding resistance
and potential distribution in the soil during earth fault. To the

123

Electr Eng (2014) 96:255265

best of the authors knowledge, such an analysis has not been

carried out until now.
This paper deals with the application of FEM to a grounding loop embedded in a two-layer soil, the behaviour of which
was experimentally analysed in [15]. Imperfect contact was
modelled by a number of air gaps placed between the grounding loop electrodes and the surrounding soil. The influence
of size, number and position of such air gaps on the loop
grounding resistance and potential distribution was analysed
in detail.

2 Application of the finite-element method on the

considered loop
In order to obtain the necessary understanding of the electrical behaviour of grounding loops buried in soils characterised by a bad contact with the grounding electrodes, the
experimental set-up described in [15] was modelled applying the FEM. All input parameters necessary for modelling
the grounding loop embedded in two-layer soil were taken
from [15], where the experimental set-up and measurement
procedure were presented in detail.
As reported in [15], the grounding loop was installed in
a former stonebed, located 50 km from Belgrade. This site
was selected because it is distant from the nearest buildings
and installations (there is no influence of let-go currents) and
the soil has almost identical electrical properties (resistivities) through the whole location. Using the Wenners four-pin
method [24] and the ground resistivity measurement interpretation techniques [25], the soil structure was represented by
a two-layer soil (upper = 170 m, lower = 75 m and
H = 8 m). The upper soil layer is made of stone. The loop,
made of frequently used zinc-protected steel strips with a rectangular cross-section (30 4 mm), was installed at a depth
of 0.5 m (Fig. 1).
The dimensions of the buried grounding loop (5 5 m)
belong to the range of the dimensions of grounding loops
used as parts of a grounding system for 35 kV transmission line towers, as well as of loops used in transformer stations 10/0.4 kV. The backfill material of the loop channel was
the excavated material. It was reported in [15] that the loop
grounding resistance was measured to be R = 50.2  (the
fall-of-potential method was used [26]), while the calculated
resistance amounted to R = 14.6  (formula from [6] was
used). It should be mentioned that another identical grounding loop was installed at the same site, but backfilled with
1,200 L of bentonite suspension (to enhance contact between
the loop electrodes and the surrounding soil)the rest of the
channel was filled with the excavated material. The difference
between the measured and calculated values of the grounding
resistance in that case was very small, which indicates that

Author's personal copy

Electr Eng (2014) 96:255265

257

Fig. 2 The final finite-element model for the grounding loop under
consideration
Fig. 1 A grounding loop buried in a two-layer soil

where

all input parameters used for the calculation of the grounding

resistance were correctly measured or determined.
In this research FEM was applied similarly as in Refs. [20,
27,28]. The initial model comprised a cubical volume (20
20 20 m). The grounding loop, located at a depth of 0.5 m
and in the middle of the cube cross-section, was modelled
as a subdomain with its realistic dimensions and electrical
properties. The properties of each soil layer were defined
by means of the electrical conductivity. The finite-element
mesh in this volume was made by four-node solid elements
(tetrahedrons). Each side of this volume, except for the upper
side representing the boundary between the soil and air, was
surrounded by additional 2 m-thick walls (subdomains) made
of boundary infinite elements [29], also tetrahedrons. Due to
the symmetry, the final model (Fig. 2) comprises only one
eighth of the initial model, with a triangular cross-section
(the area determined by = 45 in Fig. 1). Its depth is
20 + 2 = 22 m.
The following formulas are valid for each finite element:
2 = 0
E =

(2)


J = E/

(3)

= N e ,

(4)

(1)

is the potential of a point within the finite element, including the points on the lateral faces,
e is the column vector of potentials of finite element representative nodes,
N is the correlation matrix depending on the type of a finite
element,
E is the electrical field vector,
J is the current density vector, and
is the electrical resistivity within the finite element.
It is assumed that the grounding resistance only depends
on the soil structure and the loop geometry. Accordingly,
the grid potential can be arbitrary. The following boundary
conditions are adopted for the considered case:
e0 = 200 V

(5)

e inf = 0 V

(6)

E 1t = E 2t

(7)

E 1n /1 = E 2n /2

(8)

where
e0 is the potential of the grounding loop,
einf is the potential of the external boundaries of outer
subdomains made of the infinite elements,

123

Author's personal copy

258

Electr Eng (2014) 96:255265

Fig. 3 The finite-element mesh close to the strip of the grounding loop
(close-up of a part of the model, containing one eighth of the loop)

E 1t , E 2t and E 1n , E 2n are the tangential and perpendicular components of the electrical field vector at the
boundary surface between the adjacent finite elements, respectively, and
1 and 2 are electrical resistivities of the material
enclosed by the adjacent finite elements.
Using Eqs. (1)(8), the potentials of all finite-element
nodes, as well as the current density at arbitrary location
of the model volume, can be calculated. This makes it possible to determine the total current, I , dissipating from the
grounding loop:

J d S
(9)
I =

Fig. 4 Schematic representation of the two basic concepts of placing

air gaps along the grounding strip (C1 and C2)

of RAM. The duration of simulations ranged from 20 to 110 s,

depending on the number of tetrahedral finite elements.

3 Modelling of imperfect contact between the grounding

loop electrodes and the surrounding soil
Imperfect contact was modelled by air gaps placed between
the grounding loop electrodes and the surrounding soil. The
following two basic concepts of placing air gaps along the
grounding loop strip (C1 and C2, shown in Fig. 4) were used:

where S is a surface enclosing the loop.

The following equation can be used for the determination
of the loop grounding resistance:
R=

e0 e inf
.
I

(10)

The number of tetrahedral finite elements used in this analysis

ranged from 105,000 to 220,000 providing high accuracy of
the results. Figure 2 shows the model and the finite-element
mesh used for the calculation of the resistance and other
electrical properties of the loop. The close-up of a part of
the model, containing one eighth of the loop, is presented in
Fig. 3. It shows that very small elements are used close to the
strip, increasing in size as they get further away (the strip,
which cannot be seen in Fig. 3, connects the centres of the
dark areas).
All FEM calculations were performed using the COMSOL
Multiphysics software package, installed on a PC which was
equipped with a 2.53 GHz dual-core processor and 3.50 GB

123

1. Air gaps are placed sequentially along the grounding

loop perimeter, preventing any contact between the strip
and the surrounding soil over the whole surface of the
sequence which is completely surrounded by the air gap
[the cross-section in x z plane of the modelled air gap surrounding a strip sequence, as well as a part of the strip in
x y plane showing the sequential distribution of air gaps,
are presented in Fig. 4C1 (b represents the length of
the strip sequence completely surrounded by the air gap,
and w the length of the strip sequence with the perfect
contact between its surface and the surrounding soil)],
2. Air gap is placed continuously along the grounding strip,
causing a reduced contact between the strip and the surrounding soil over its whole length (Fig. 4C2, where a
represents the width of a part of the strip surface having
the perfect contact with the surrounding soil).
The first concept simulates the situation where the grounding loop channel is backfilled with the excavated material

Author's personal copy

Electr Eng (2014) 96:255265
Table 1 Grounding resistance
of the loop for various
distribution of air gaps along the
loop

259
a(103 m)

14.85

Yes

50

21.07

Yes

50

19.96

C1

Yes

12

50

19.29

M4

C1

Yes

80

50

16.92

M5

C1

No

50

20.97

M6

C1

No

50

19.48

M7

C1

No

12

50

18.97

M8

C1

No

12

50

19.01

M9

C1

No

16

12

50

19.06

Model

Concept
of placing
air gaps

Air gaps on the

loop corners

M0

C1

M1

C1

M2

C1

M3

R()

M10

C1

Yes

16

80

50

17.38

C1

Yes

16

80

80

23.92

M12

C1

Yes

16

80

92

37.25

M13

C1

Yes

16

80

95

49.12

M14

C1

Yes

16

80

96

56.64

M15

C2

16

27.20

60

23.68

M16

C2

16

13.60

80

30.32

M17

C2

16

6.80

90

42.16

M18

C2

16

4.76

93

52.06

M19

C2

16

3.40

95

64.50

where T is determined by
P
n

F(%)

M11

containing large pieces which cannot tightly compress the

strip surface. This causes big air gaps which prevent the dissipation of current from those parts of the strip.
The second concept simulates the situation where the
backfill material is fragmented into finer pieces. In such
cases, big air gaps along the strip surface are not formed.
However, the air gaps exist on the microscopic level, covering
a larger part of the strip surface. As it is practically impossible to model the remaining microscopic surfaces with perfect
contact, they were integrated in a rectangular segment of the
strip surface with the width a (Fig. 4, C2).
The influence of size, number and position of the described
air gaps on the grounding loop resistance (varying the length
of a, b, d and w shown in Fig. 4, as well as the number of
the air gaps along the whole loop, n) is analysed using FEM,
to better understand the influence of the contact resistance
on the electrical properties of the grounding loops and grids.
An important parameter that was also varied during the calculations is the fraction of the grounding loop surface which
is covered with air gaps, F. For the concept C1 it can be
calculated as
b
b
100,
(11)
F(%) = 100 =
T
b+w

T =

d(103 m)

(12)

[P is the grounding loop perimeter (20 m)],

and for the concept C2 as
F(%) =

a
100,
p

(13)

where p is the length of the strip cross-section perimeter

( p = 2 (30 mm + 4 mm) = 68 103 m).
Table 1 contains the relevant input parameters of 20 different models (M0M19), which were analysed using FEM. It
should be emphasised that the air gaps were placed in a manner to keep one eighth symmetry. Besides, two possibilities
were analysed when the concept C1 was used:
the loop corners are surrounded by air gaps, and
the loop corners are in contact with the surrounding
soil.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Grounding resistance
Model M0 represents the basic case without air gaps, i.e. the
case with perfect contact surface. In this case the grounding
resistance obtained by FEM amounted to R0 = 14.85 ,
which is very close to the value of R = 14.6 , [15] obtained

123

Author's personal copy

260

by an analytical expression [6]. Models M1M19 are used for

the analysis of the influence of the following input parameters
on the loop grounding resistance:
n (M1M7),
d (M7M9), and
F (M10M19).
4.1.1 Influence of the number of the air gaps on the loop
grounding resistance
By examining the values of the grounding resistance calculated for models M1M4, it can be concluded that the number
of the air gaps along the loop does not have significant influence on its grounding resistance [for n = 80, the increase of
the grounding resistance equals 14 % compared to the basic
value, R0 , while for n = 4 the increase amounts to 42 % (in
all four cases for d = 4 103 m and F = 50 %)]. In fact,
by increasing the number of the air gaps the loop grounding
resistance approaches its basic (theoretical) value, and not the
actual (experimentally obtained) one. In addition, by comparing the values of the grounding resistance calculated for
models M1M3 with those computed for models M5M7, it
can be noticed that the grounding resistance is always a bit
higher if the air gaps are placed on the corners of the grounding loop. However, the differences are practically negligible.
Therefore, it can be concluded that for d = 4 103 m and
F = 50 % the experimentally obtained value of R = 50.2 
cannot be achieved by varying the number of air gaps along
the loop.
4.1.2 Influence of the depth of the air gaps on the loop
grounding resistance
In models M7M9, the depth of the air gaps, d, was varied
for the fixed values of n = 12 and F = 50 %. By examining
the values of the grounding resistance shown in Table 1, it
can be noticed that an increase of d for even 300% (from 4 to
16 103 m) causes an increase of the grounding resistance
of only 0.5 % (from 18.97 to 19.06  ). Hence, the depth of
the air gaps does not practically influence the grounding loop
resistance.
4.1.3 Influence of the fraction of the loop surface covered
with the air gaps on the loop grounding resistance
In models M10M14 (concept C1) and M15M19 (concept
C2), F was varied for the fixed value of d = 16 103 m
(and for n = 80 for the concept C1), aiming to approach
the experimentally obtained value of the loop grounding
resistance of R = 50.2 . The results show that F represents a parameter which most significantly influences the
loop grounding resistance. By examining the values of the

123

Electr Eng (2014) 96:255265

grounding resistance shown in Table 1, it was noticed that

the grounding resistance, as a function of F, can be approximated by the following expression:
R(F) = R0 Riv + K P (F) Rbc ,

(14)

where
R0 is the basic (theoretical) value of the loop grounding
resistance, representing the soil resistance between
the whole loop surface and the remote earth,
Riv is the resistance of the soil in an immediate vicinity of the loop electrodes (up to a distance d from
the electrodes), assuming perfect contact between the
electrodes and the surrounding soil; it can be approximated as
Riv =

upper d
,
pP

(15)

Rbc is the resistance of the soil in an immediate vicinity of the loop electrodes (up to a distance d from
the electrodes), assuming a bad contact between the
electrodes and the surrounding soil; it can be approximated as
Rbc =

upper d
, and
p P (100 F)/100

(16)

K P (F) is the correction polynomial of the second order

K P (F) = K 0 + K 1 F + K 2 F 2

(17)

(K 0 , K 1 and K 2 are the correction coefficients).

The correction polynomial was needed to compensate the
errors made when approximating Riv and Rbc by Eqs. (15)
and (16), respectively. Its second order was sufficient for
providing high accuracy of the results.
Incorporating Eqs. (15)(17) into Eq. (14), the latter
becomes
upper d
R(F) = R0
pP
+ (K 0 + K 1 F + K 2 F 2 )
upper d 100
.

p P (100 F)

(18)

By using the method of least squares and the iterative

calculation method which started from (K 0 , K 1 , K 2 ) =
(1, 0, 0), the following values of the correction coefficients
K 0 , K 1 and K 2 , providing the best compliance of Eq. (18)
with the values of the loop grounding resistance given in
Table 1, are determined:
(K 0 , K 1 , K 2 ) = (0.857573, 0.017936, 0.000184) for
the concept C1, and

Author's personal copy

Electr Eng (2014) 96:255265

261

Fig. 5 Fitted curves R(F) for

the considered case and both
concepts (C1 and C2)

(K 0 , K 1 , K 2 ) = (1.001041, 0.044629, 0.000438) for

the concept C2.
The curves R(F) related to the considered case, plotted
using Eq. (18), are shown in Fig. 5. They contain the points
representing the loop grounding resistance for various values
of F taken from Table 1.
Applying Eq. (18), the experimentally obtained loop
grounding resistance of R = 50.2  is obtained for F =
95.19 % using the concept C1, and for F = 92.60 % using the
concept C2. It was reported in [15] that during 30 months the
loop grounding resistance varied in the range of 50.2216 .
For the grounding resistance of 216  Eq. (18) gives the values of F = 99.19 % for the concept C1 and F = 98.88 %
for the concept C2 (the variations of the soil resistivity are
neglected). It appears that in cases where grounding loops
(grids) are laid in soils that prevent a good contact with the
electrodes (e.g. karst and sandy terrains) the current is being
dissipated from a very small fraction of the electrode surface.
Therefore, the contact resistance becomes the dominant component of the total grounding resistance. In such cases, there
exists a problem with the prediction of the contact resistance:
due to extremely high values of gradient R/ F (see Fig. 5),
small variations of the effective contact surface (which are
usually caused by the changes of the soil moisture content)
cause great variations of the contact resistance and, consequently, the total grounding resistance.
The method presented above can successfully be used
for the analysis and explanation of the measured results.
Unfortunately, it cannot be used for precise predictions of
the grounding resistance of loops (grids) laid in soils that
prevent a good contact. Our present attempts are focused

on the development of a method which will solve this problem. Nevertheless, the presented results show that the contact
resistance can have major influence on the loop grounding
resistance. In such cases the use of backfill materials, such as
bentonite [15], is recommended, because they significantly
reduce the contact resistance in karst and sandy soils.
4.2 Potential distribution in the soil
As stated in Sect. 1, using FEM not only the grounding
resistance of complex grounding systems can be calculated,
but also the potential at any point of the model volume can
be determined. This offers an opportunity to perform further analysis to obtain deeper understanding of the electrical
behaviour of grounding loops. Figure 6, serving as an illustration, displays the potential distribution in the soil obtained
for model M10.
Once the potentials at all points of the model volume are
determined, potential distribution over any plane or along
arbitrary line within the model volume can be obtained. For
the considered case, the potential distribution over x y plane
located at the depth of 0.5 m gives the best insight into the
electrical behaviour of a grounding loop buried in the soil
characterised by a bad contact with the electrodes (x and y
coordinates correspond to the coordinate system defined in
Fig. 1). Figure 7 shows the comparison of the two potential
distributions over the considered x y plane: the first is related
to the case of perfect contact (Fig. 7a, model M0), and the
second to the case of an imperfect contact characterised by
F = 50 % (Fig. 7b, model M10).
According to the diagrams shown in Fig. 7, it appears
that imperfect contact does not significantly influence the

123

Author's personal copy

262

Electr Eng (2014) 96:255265

Fig. 7 Potential distributions over the considered xy plane [one eighth

of the grounding loop, models M0 (a) and M10 (b)]
Fig. 6 Potential distribution in the soil (one eighth of the grounding
loop, model M10)

uniformity of the potential distribution over the whole area

of interest. However, although in such cases the potential
distribution becomes uniform very close to the grounding
electrode (at a distance of around 0.1 m), it seems that the
fall of potential in the soil in the vicinity of the grounding
electrodes becomes significant when increasing the fraction
of the grounding loop surface covered with air gaps. The
potential distribution in the soil, over the considered x y plane
and in the vicinity of the grounding electrodes, is presented
in Fig. 8.
According to the graphics shown in Fig. 8, it appears that
the structure of the soil closest to the electrodes can significantly influence the potential rise in the vicinity of the
electrodes and, consequently, in the whole area of interest.
In order to investigate the influence of the parameter F on
the fall of potential in the soil in an immediate vicinity of the
grounding electrodes, the potential distribution along the line
which is only 20 mm away from one of the loop electrodes is

123

analysed for various values of the parameter F. The potential distributions along the straight line between the points
(x, y) = (2.535 m, 0 m) and (x, y) = (2.535 m, 1 m),
placed in the considered xy plane, are presented in Fig. 9 for
models M0 and M10M14 (x and y coordinates correspond
to the coordinate system adopted in Fig. 1).
According to the diagram shown in Fig. 9, the parameter F significantly influences the fall of potential in the
soil in an immediate vicinity of the grounding electrodes,
which affects the potential distribution at the ground surface, relevant for the calculation of touch and step voltages.
The diagram shown in Fig. 10 contains curves representing
the potential distributions along the line between the points
(x, y) = (0 m, 0 m) and (x, y) = (8 m, 0 m) belonging to
the ground surface (z = 0 m), related to models M0 and
M10M14. Figure 11 presents the dependence of the maximum potential along the considered line at the ground surface
(max ) from the parameter F. The maximum potential varies
from 140.8 V (valid for F = 0 %) to 37.2 V (F = 96 %).
The diagrams shown in Figs. 10 and 11 illustrate how
the effective contact surface between the grounding elec-

Author's personal copy

Electr Eng (2014) 96:255265

263

that the touch voltage, which represents the potential difference between the ground potential rise and the ground
surface potential at a point where a person is standing while
at the same time having a hand in contact with a grounded
structure, considerably depends on the effective contact surface. The step voltages, representing the difference in ground
surface potentials experienced by a person bridging a distance of 1 m, show similar dependence. Consequently, in
soils in which the contact resistance represents the dominant
component of the total grounding resistance, the touch and
step voltagesthe parameters that indicate the quality of the
grounding systemcannot accurately be predicted using the
standard methods (derived assuming a perfect contact surface). Therefore, a new method is needed for such cases to
enable precise predictions of the grid grounding resistance
and touch and step voltages. The method should provide the
designer a possibility to take into account the variations of
the effective contact surface, as well as the effects of the use
of backfill materials. The research presented in this paper,
along with the research presented in [30], represents a theoretical basis for the development of such a method, and
our present attempts are focused on the achievement of that
goal.

5 Conclusions
Fig. 8 Potential distributions in the soil over x y plane at a depth of
0.5 m and in the vicinity of the grounding electrodes [models M0 (a)
and M10 (b)]

trodes and the surrounding soil affects the potential distribution on the ground surface during earth fault. It is obvious

The aim of this research was the estimation of the influence

of imperfect contacts between the grounding loop electrodes
and the surrounding soil on the loop grounding resistance
and potential distribution in the soil during the earth fault.
The research is performed applying the FEM on an actual
grounding loop embedded in a two-layer soil.

Fig. 9 Potential distributions

along a line placed in an
immediate vicinity of one of the
loop electrodes, presented for
models M0 and M10M14
(curves from top to bottom)

123

Author's personal copy

264

Electr Eng (2014) 96:255265

Fig. 10 Potential distributions

along a line situated at the
ground surface, presented for
models M0 and M10M14
(curves from top to bottom)

Fig. 11 Dependence of the maximum potential along the considered

line at the ground surface from the parameter F

Imperfect contact is modelled by air gaps placed between

the grounding loop electrodes and the surrounding soil. Analyzing the influence of size, number and position of such
air gaps on the loop grounding resistance, it is concluded
that the number of the air gaps along the grounding loop
and their depth do not have significant influence. However, the fraction of the loop surface covered with the air
gaps has the most significant impact on the loop grounding
resistance.
The results showed that in soils in which the contact resistance represents the dominant component of the total grounding resistance, the loop grounding resistance, as well as touch
and step voltages, will vary a lot with the variations of the
effective contact surface (which are usually caused by the
changes of the soil moisture content). Therefore, their values

123

cannot satisfactorily be predicted using the standard engineering methods, based on the Laplace solution of the problem, assuming perfect contact surface.
The method presented in this paper can successfully be
used for the analysis and explanation of the deviation of the
measured values of the grounding resistance from those calculated using the standard engineering methods. However,
it cannot be used for precise predictions of either the loop
(grid) grounding resistance or the potential distribution at
the ground surface for soils causing imperfect contact with
electrodes. Our present attempts are focused on the development of a method intended for the practitioners, which will
enable to take into account the influence of imperfect contacts, as well as the use of backfill materials. The research
presented in this paper, along with the research presented in
[30], represents a theoretical basis for the development of
such a method.
Acknowledgments This research was partially supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of Serbia (project TR 36018).

References
1. (1986) Guide for safety in AC substation grounding. ANSI/IEEE
Std 80
2. (2000) Guide for safety in AC substation grounding. ANSI/IEEE
Std 80
3. Nahman J, Skuletic S (1979) Resistances to ground and mesh voltages of ground grids. Proc IEE 126:5761
4. Salama MMA, Elsherbiny MM, Chow YL, Kim KC (1995) Calculation and interpretation of a grounding grid in two-layer earth with
the synthetic-asymptote approach. Electr Power Syst Res 35:157
165

Author's personal copy

Electr Eng (2014) 96:255265
5. Mombello E, Trad O, Rivera J, Andreoni A (1996) Two-layer soil
model for power station grounding system calculation considering
multilayer soil stratification. Electr Power Syst Res 37:6778
6. Nahman J, Salamon D (1984) Analytical expressions for the resistance of grounding grids in nonuniform soil. IEEE Trans Power
Appar Syst 103:880885
7. Chow YL, Elshabiny MM, Salama MMA (1996) A fast and accurate analysis of grounding resistance of a driven rodbed in a twolayer soil. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 11:808814
8. Brandenbursky V, Farber A, Korj V, Braunshtein A (2011) Ground
resistance calculation for small concrete foundations. Electr Power
Syst Res 81:408413
9. Kostic MB, Popovic BD, Jovanovic MS (1990) Numerical analysis
of a class of foundation grounding systems. IEE Proc C 137:123
128
10. Thapar B, Ferrer O, Blank DA (1990) Ground resistance of concrete
foundations in substations yards. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 5:130
136
11. Kostic MB, Shirkoohi GH (1993) Numerical analysis of a class of
foundation grounding systems surrounded by two-layer soil. IEEE
Trans Power Deliv 8:10801087
12. Kostic MB (1994) Parametric analysis of foundation grounding
systems surrounded by two-layer soil. IEEE Trans Power Deliv
9:14061411
13. Kostic MB (1993) Analysis of foundation grounding systems with
external loops and rods. IEE Proc C 140:7376
14. Kostic MB (1998) Analysis of complex grounding systems consisting of foundation grounding systems with external grids. IEEE
Trans Power Deliv 13:752756
15. Kostic MB, Radakovic ZR, Radovanovic NS, Tomasevic-Canovic
MR (1999) Improvement of electrical properties of grounding
loops by using bentonite and waste drilling mud. IEE Proc Gener
Transm Distrib 146:16
16. Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL, Zhu JZ (2005) The finite element method: its basis and fundamentals. Elsevier ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford

265
17. Jin J (2002) The finite element method in electromagnetics. Wiley,
New York
18. Silvester PP, Ferrari RL (1996) Finite elements for electrical engineers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
19. Colominas I, Gomez-Calvino J, Navarrina F, Casteleiro M (2002)
A general numerical model for grounding analysis in layered soils.
Adv Eng Softw 33:641649
20. Nahman J, Paunovic I (2006) Resistance to earth of earthing grids
buried in multi-layer soil. Electr Eng 88:281287
21. Gemes JA, Hernando FE (2004) Method for calculating the
ground resistance of grounding grids using FEM. IEEE Trans
Power Deliv 19:595600
22. Gemes-Alonso JA, Hernando-Fernndez FE, Rodrguez-Bona F,
Ruiz-Moll JM (2006) A practical approach for determining the
ground resistance of grounding grids. IEEE Trans Power Deliv
21:12611266
23. Colominas I, Navarrina F, Casteleiro M (1999) A boundary element numerical approach for grounding grid computation. Comput
Method Appl M 174:7390
24. Wenner F (1916) A method of measuring earth resistances. Bull
Natl Bureau Stand 12:469482 (Report no. 258)
25. Dawalibi F, Blattner CJ (1984) Earth resistivity measurement interpretation techniques. IEEE Trans Power Appl Syst 103:374382
26. (1983) Guide for measuring earth resistivity, ground impedance,
and earth surface potentials of a ground system. ANSI/IEEE Std
81
27. Nahman J, Paunovic I (2007) Effects of the local soil nonuniformity upon performances of ground grids. IEEE Trans Power Deliv
22:21802184
28. Nahman J, Paunovic I (2010) Mesh voltages at earthing grids buried
in multi-layer soil. Electr Power Syst Res 80:556561
29. Zienkiewicz OC, Emson C, Bettess P (1983) A novel boundary
infinite element. Int J Numer Method Eng 19:393404
30. Trifunovic J (2012) The algorithm for determination of necessary
characteristics of backfill materials used for grounding resistances
of grounding loops reduction. J Electr Eng 63:373379

123