This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2425361, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

Real-Time Monitoring of Substation Ground Potential Rise and

Grounding System Impedance Using Power System Faults
Matthew Bastian William D. Carman
Member, IEEE
Consulting Engineer Bill Carman Consulting
22 Silsoe St
Hamilton South, NSW 2303, Australia Merewether NSW 2291, Australia
matt_bastian@yahoo.com.au billcarman2@gmail.com

Abstract -- Grounding system engineers and power utility
owners have a duty of care to ensure that substation grounding
systems continue to meet their safety performance requirements
over the operational lifetime of the installation. Changes to
power system or third party assets associated with an
installation, as well as environmental factors such as
temperature or moisture level fluctuations, can cause variation in
a grounding system’s performance. To perform a grounding
system assessment, engineers must select a suitable set of fault
scenarios on which to base their assessments. However, the
relative risk level of hazards produced by a ground fault depends
on that proportion of the fault current that passes to ground
through the local grounding of the installation and the duration
of the event. The consideration of all hazards posed by a single
installation is thus physically and theoretically an expensive
proposition, particularly for installations with complex
grounding systems.
An electronic recording system is proposed to capture the
characteristics of power system Ground Potential Rise (GPR)
events during ground faults. This system allows the failure of
critical grounding system components to be highlighted as
indicated by a substantial change in the measured impedance.
The system also establishes the GPR event frequency, allowing
the probabilistic nature of ground faults associated with an
installation to be assessed. This paper provides an explanation of
the GPR monitoring rationale, a methodology for implementing
such a system and typical results are shown from trials
undertaken in recent years.
Index Terms-- Ground Potential Rise, electric shock, fault
currents, grounding, impedance measurement, power distribution
faults, power system faults, substation measurements.
I. INTRODUCTION
When a ground fault occurs on the distribution network
supplied by a substation with a grounded wye transformer, the
fault current will return to the transformer wye point by
flowing through the general mass of earth and the local
grounding grid, as well as a percentage returning via any
associated conductive metallic paths. The former portion of
the fault current creates a ground potential rise (GPR) at the
source substation as it transitions from the soil into the
grounding grid. In turn, the substation ground potential rise
creates touch and step voltages inside the substation and also
Darren J. Woodhouse
Member, IEEE Member, IEEE
Safearth Consulting
111 Frederick St., 212 Macquarie Road
Warners Bay NSW 2282, Australia
dwoodhouse@safearth.com

within the surrounding area [1]. These touch and step voltage
hazards will exist until the substation protection systems
operate, or the ground fault self-clears. Therefore, it is
essential that substation owners ensure that grounding systems
function correctly in order to adequately execute their duty of
care with regard to the control of ground potential rise related
shock hazards to staff or the public in the neighborhood of
substations.
In recognition of this, most grounding related standards
recommend that substation grounding systems be regularly
assessed over their entire operational lifetime [1]-[5].
Substation owners typically achieve this using a combination
of minor and major assessments. Minor assessments, typically
include visual inspection and ground continuity testing, while
major assessments often involve low current injection testing
to simulate a ground fault in order to simulate and measure
touch and step voltages [4]. While the recommended period
between such major assessments is not usually specified
within these grounding standards [1]-[5], other standards
recommend that grounding system testing be performed at an
interval of 24 months [6]. The requirement for regular testing
provides a logistical challenge for utilities, who may own
hundreds of substations.
As the risk level associated with a given touch and step
voltage hazard depends not only on the magnitude of the
voltage, but also on its duration, selecting ‘worst case’ fault
scenarios presents designers with a key challenge. Commonly,
several ‘worst case’ fault scenarios are selected [1][4][5][7].
A measurement system is proposed which aims to help
utilities and engineers address some of the key grounding
challenges by providing ready access to the performance of
substation grounding systems using real world ground fault
events. The benefits of substation ground potential rise
monitoring include: online monitoring of inadvertent changes
to the substation grounding system impedance; real-time
evaluation of touch and step voltage compliance; validation of
the assumptions and parameters used in grounding system
design or off-line assessment methods; and enhanced
probabilistic characterization of the substation ground fault
performance which in turn provides valuable input to

0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2425361, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
probabilistic risk analysis methods[3][8][9].
This paper is organized as follows: Section I introduces the
rationale behind the proposed measurement system. Section II
identifies the key parameters to be monitored in relation to
substation grounding system performance, and discusses the
existing body of work. Section III provides the methodology
undertaken in developing the recording system and analyzing
the recorded data. Section IV presents the recorded results
and discusses the significance of the results to grounding
system engineers and power system asset owners. Section V
concludes the paper and summarizes future areas of study.
Note: The use of terms ‘ground’, ‘earth’ and ‘earth ground’
[10] may be considered synonymous and will be used
accordingly interchangeably within the paper as shown in the
following reference from IEEE 3003.2[11]: ‘ground: A
conducting connection, whether intentional or accidental,
between an electrical circuit or equipment and the earth, or
to some other body that serves in place of the earth. This term
is considered equivalent to the term earth as used in common
terminology outside North America.’
II. BACKGROUND
The ground return circuit for a typical ground fault at a
radially fed asset is described in Fig. 1. The ground fault loop
impedance (ZLOOP) is given by:
ZLOOP = ZSRC + ZLINE + ZF + ZSGT
where ZSGT is the total substation grounding system
impedance[2]; ZSRC is the source impedance of the supply
transformers and upstream supply network; ZLINE is the line
impedance to the point of fault; ZF is the combined fault
impedance, comprising the arc impedance (ZARC) and the
local ground system impedance at the point of fault (ZLOCAL).
During a ground fault the substation ground potential rise
magnitude will vary with the grounding grid impedance, the
fault current magnitude and the fault current division factor Sf
[1]. The ground fault current (IF) and GPR are then given by:
IF = ESRC / ZLOOP
GPR = ZSGT × IF = ZG × Sf × IF
where ESRC is the system source voltage; ZG is the substation
grounding grid impedance excluding other grounding
impedances e.g. cable screens and shield wires, and Sf is the
fault current division factor, defined as:
S f = IG / I F
IF = IG + IC-PATH
where IG is the proportion of total fault current that flows into
the substation grounding grid via the general mass of earth;
IC-PATH is the portion of the total fault current which returns to
the transformer wye point via conductive paths without
entering the substation grid through the general mass of earth.
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
ZSRC ZLINE IF
ESRC
ZARC
IF A IC-PATH
ZF
(Auxiliary conductive paths)
ZG V
ZLOCAL
IG
Remote Remote
earth earth
Fig. 1. Typical Ground Fault Return Circuit
Depending on the location of the ground fault within the
distribution network of the substation, the fault current
division factor Sf may vary significantly between fault
scenarios. Consequently a fault scenario with a large current
magnitude may not necessarily result in a large substation
ground potential rise [1]. For example, during a phase to
screen fault on a cable where the screen is bonded to the
substation grid it is expected that a large proportion of the
fault current will return to the substation via the screen
without entering the general mass of earth. As substation
grounding networks often comprise complex combinations of
conductive paths, such as overhead shield wires, cable
(1) screens, as well as auxiliary paths such as low voltage
distribution neutral bonds and metallic piping, determining
the fault current division factor Sf can be difficult, whether
either current injection test methods or analysis are employed
[7][12][13][14].
From (1), the magnitude of a given ground fault will vary
depending on multiple factors, including the location of the
fault, the soil resistivity and the local impedance at the point
of fault. This variation in the key parameters between
different ground fault scenarios means that the expected
magnitude of given ground fault can be described in
probabilistic terms [15]-[21]. The duration of a given ground
fault will be determined by the characteristics of the upstream
(2) protection device and the magnitude of the fault current.
Within the power industry there is a strong trend towards
(3)
the use of digital recording systems, to measure power
quality, and digital relays for monitoring and analysis of
network performance. Applications that have been identified
for such systems include confirming correct protection
operation [22], and estimating fault location and cause [23].
A device has been proposed [24] that injects a signal into the
(4) grid and measures step and touch voltages, however this
system relies on a single location for the fault (created where
(5) the injection unit is installed) and so will not readily capture
the variation in grounding system impedance due to different
fault locations on the distribution network.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2425361, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

III. METHODOLOGY
The measurement system was developed to investigate the
benefits of recording substation ground potential rise events
during actual power system ground faults and assist
grounding engineers address some of the key grounding
challenges faced in executing their duty of care. Whilst the
measurement of ground fault current is often readily available
within substations (via digital protection relays or bus
analyzers), it was surmised that the combination of this
recorded fault current data with recorded ground potential rise
waveforms may provide significant additional functionality to
traditional fault recording configurations.
This section describes the ground potential rise
measurement system, including key design parameters, and
provides a summary of the analysis that may be performed on
the recorded data.
A. Measurement System Description
The proposed measurement system is shown within Fig. 2.
The recording device measures either voltage between the
grid and an auxiliary electrode (as shown ‘V’), or the current
in a primary ground electrode. An additional recording device
may be installed at the transformer star point (neutral-ground
connection) to record the ground fault current IF.
Alternatively, the ground fault current may be recorded via
digital protection relay or a bus analyser. Touch and step
voltages can be directly measured using additional voltage
recording devices connected to auxiliary electrodes at the
desired site.
Fig. 3 shows a block diagram for the recording device.An
input module converts the measured voltage or current to an
analogue signal, which is in turn converted into digital form
via an analog to digital converter (ADC). To achieve
sufficient resolution to capture the power frequency faults
(50Hz in Australia) a sample rate of at least five thousand
samples per second should be used. An adjustable digital
threshold trigger is used to identify when a ground fault
occurs. When the device triggers, the waveform data for the
fault is stored to memory, and will continue to record until the
fault is cleared.
The recording devices used to capture the data within this
paper had a full scale input range of 2kV and 10kA for
voltage and current recorders respectively. To protect the
device against large transient ground potential rises, such as
indirect lightning strike, reverse diode input protection was
installed between the input module and the microcontroller
unit.
The developed recording device can be powered either
from permanent mains supply, or solar / battery powered
when permanent mains is not available at the installed
location, for example when the device is used to measure
touch voltages outside of the substation. The battery also
provided backup supply power to allow the device to continue
monitoring reliably during power outages.
IF A
Ground
grid
V
Auxiliary
Electrode
Soil
voltage
Etouch
GPR Emeasured GPR
distance
Fig. 2. Measurement Configuration
Fig. 3. Block diagram for ground potential rise recording device.
B. Summary of Analysis Performed
Representative recorded waveforms are shown in Fig. 4.
The waveform type varies depending on the type of fault and
whether there is a single or multi-phase involvement. For each
recorded waveform, the RMS magnitude and duration is
calculated. A scaling factor, derived by current injection
testing during the substation commissioning phase, is then
applied to calculate the substation ground potential rise for
each recorded ground fault. By comparing the ground
potential rise to the ground fault current IF, the total
substation grounding system impedance ZSGT is calculated for
each fault. Over successive ground faults, the total substation
grounding system impedance ZSGT may be profiled to identify
any fundamental changes to the grounding system, such as
damage to critical bonds, as well as the connection or removal
of additional over-head shield wires or multi-grounded
neutrals.
For each ground fault the expected touch and step voltages
at each substation are compared against the IEEE 80TM
allowable touch voltage criteria for a 50kg person to confirm
compliance.

0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2425361, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Fig. 4. Representative recorded waveforms of substation ground potential
rise measured in Volts; (a) stable, (b) stepped (typically indicates multi-
phase involvement for radially fed faults), (c) developing (with arcing), (d)
self-clearing (with arcing), and (e) flashover (partial discharge)
The measured ground potential rise magnitude and
duration data is collated into a probabilistic profile of the
substation grounding system performance. Access to real-
world probabilistic information is considered essential to the
further development of explicit probabilistic touch and step
safety criteria [3][8][9], which is an area of significant
ongoing development internationally. The recorded events are
compared against a ‘design benchmark maximum’ fault
scenario, which equates to a worst-case fault scenario as may
be selected via the processes described within IEEE 80TM.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The following subsections outline the benefits of substation
ground potential rise monitoring, using example recorded
data. These benefits include the real-time monitoring for
detecting changes in substation grounding system impedance;
the validation of assumptions used within grounding system
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
designs or off-line assessment methods such as low-current
injection testing; real-time monitoring of the compliance of
touch, step and transfer voltages; and probabilistic
characterization of substation grounding system performance
for use within explicit probabilistic risk assessment methods.
A. Real-Time Grounding System Impedance Monitoring
Ground potential rise monitoring provides operational
benefits to utility owners and grounding system engineers by
allowing direct measurement of grounding system impedance
during actual ground faults on the distribution system.
Measured values of total substation grounding system
impedance ZSGT for a range of ground faults is shown in
Fig. 5. The total substation grounding system impedance can
be seen to change significantly (a step reduction of
approximately 30%) with the connection of a new feeder with
a shield wire into the substation at year seven. Conversely the
loss of a critical cable sheath bond would be reflected in an
increase in grounding system impedance.
By successfully detecting a change in the total substation
grounding system impedance ZSGT the measurement system
has demonstrated significant potential as an asset
management tool, providing asset owners with early
identification of any substantial increases to the substation
grounding system impedance caused by the failure of critical
components (e.g. cable screen bonds, overhead shield wires)
between major assessments.
B. Validation of Grounding System Parameters
Tracking the performance of a substation grounding
system during actual ground faults provides engineers with
continual validation of the analysis and the assumptions made
within grounding system assessments. The recorded results
demonstrate the variance that may occur within the fault
current division factor Sf between different fault scenarios.
During the recording period shown in Fig. 5, two ground
faults occurred on cables with their screens bonded to the
substation grid (approximately years three and four). While
each fault was large in magnitude (the two largest recorded
ground fault current magnitudes), the corresponding
substation ground potential rise during each fault was low.
This was due to a high proportion of the respective fault
currents returning to the transformer wye point via the screen,
without having to enter the general mass of earth. This
resulted in a low value for the fault current division factor Sf
and correspondingly for the total substation grounding system
impedance ZSGT.
Within the first six years of recorded faults, with the
exception of these two cable faults described above, the
recorded total substation grounding system impedance ZSGT
varied approximately 12% around the average value. This
variation is attributed to the variation in the fault current
division factor Sf between different fault scenarios.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2425361, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
Variation in Sf between New feeder with shield wire
ground fault scenarios connected at substation
Total Substation Grounding System
Impedance Z SGT (Ohms)
Average substation grounding
system impedance
Faults on feeder with reduced
Sf due to new shield wire
Ground faults on cables with screen
bonded to substation grounding grid
03 1 4 2 5 6 0
Year
Fig. 5. Grounding system impedance values for recorded ground faults.
The connection of a new feeder at the end of year six
resulted in a 30% overall reduction in the total substation
grounding system impedance ZSGT for all faults, as described
in Section IV.A. In addition, all ground faults where the fault
current path ran parallel to the new feeder exhibited a further
reduced fault current division factor Sf, due to an increased
proportion of the fault current returning on the shield wire of
the new feeder.
The observed variation in the fault current division factor
Sf, and consequently the total substation grounding system
impedance ZSGT, illustrates one of the key challenges faced by
grounding engineers. Gaining access to enhanced information
about the variation of the fault current division factor Sf
across multiple fault scenarios facilitates an increased
understanding of the contribution of various conductive
networks, including shield wires, cable screens, and bonds to
local low voltage distribution or water mains in the
surrounding area to the overall performance of the grounding
system. This increased understanding in turn promotes
confidence that the assumptions and key parameters selected
within grounding system designs or assessments are valid.
C. Real-Time Touch and Step Voltage Validation
For a given ground fault the resultant ground potential rise
magnitude and duration can be used to confirm the
compliance of touch, step and transfer voltage hazards at
known locations within and around the source substation.
To detect inadvertent protection changes which may affect
the compliance of touch and step voltages, recorded fault
events may be plotted against the relevant protection curves.
A typical example case is given in Fig. 6. The recorded
ground fault currents have been characterized by the
protection device that operated to clear the fault (either circuit
breaker (CB), recloser, or fuse), and also whether the fault
cleared on ground fault (GF) or over-current (OC) protection.
Within Fig. 6, the faults that were cleared by ground fault
protection align well with the ground fault protection curves.
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1200
CB curve 1 events GF
Recorded Waveform Duration (msec)
CB curve 1 events OC
1000 CB curve 2 events GF
CB curve 2 events OC
Recl. events GF
800 Recloser events OC
Fuse cleared events
600
Design Benchmark max.fault scenario
400
Fuse
200 curves
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Ground Fault Current (normalised to Design Benchmark Max.)
Fig. 6. Comparison of recorded ground faults to circuit breaker, recloser and
fuse protection curves. The ground fault current IF has been normalised to
‘design benchmark maximum’ (worst-case) fault scenario current
The faults that were cleared by over-current protection
were typically those with multi-phase to ground involvement
and consequently are not expected to align with the ground
fault protection curves.
For each recorded fault, the fault duration is used to
calculate the allowable touch and step voltage criteria. The
expected touch and step voltages at known locations are
calculated as a proportion of the measured substation ground
potential rise (identified during previous low-current injection
tests). The calculated touch and step voltages are then
compared against the safety criteria to confirm compliance.
Fig. 7 shows the calculated touch voltage Etouch at a known
touch voltage location against the IEEE 80TM allowable touch
voltage criteria for a 50kg person Etouch50, calculated from
the fault duration for each recorded ground fault. Fig. 7 also
shows that in this instance all of the recorded fault events
resulted in a touch voltage that was less than the allowable
touch voltage criteria, confirming compliance of the resultant
touch voltages at that location.
The ability to assess the compliance of touch and step
voltages in real-time during ground fault conditions has been
shown to provide early warning of significant system changes,
such as changes to protection settings, or changes to source
impedance due to upstream network modifications. The use of
additional networked data recorders at touch and step voltage
locations would allow direct measurement of the actual
voltages present during ground faults, allowing locations of
concern to be closely monitored. Additionally, enhanced
knowledge of real ground potential rise parameters may prove
invaluable during failure or shock incident investigations.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2425361, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

1 1.0
Measured touch CB Curve 1 - GF
(normalised to design benchmark max)

0.9

(51% of benchmark maximum)

voltage compliant CB Curve 1 - OC
Measured Touch Voltage - Etouch

Cumulative Distribution
0.8

Maximum recorded GPR

(i.e., Etouch< Etouch50) CB Curve 2 - GF 0.8

(33% of benchmark maximum)

CB Curve 2 - OC 0.7

90th percentile recorded GPR

0.6 Recloser cleared - GF
0.6
Recloser cleared - OC
Fuse Cleared 0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2

0 0.1
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.0
Allowable touch voltage IEEE80 50kg - Etouch50 (normalised) 0.1 0.2 0.0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Substation GPR (normalised to design benchmark maximum GPR)
Fig. 7. Comparison of calculated touch voltage Etouch to IEEE 80TM
Fig. 8. Cumulative distribution of the recorded ground potential rise events
allowable touch voltage for a 50kg person Etouch50 for each recorded ground
fault shown in Fig. 6. Etouch and Etouch50 have been normalised to the
1.0
expected touch voltage during the design benchmark maximum (‘worst
case’) fault scenario. 0.9
Fuse Cleared
D. Probabilistic Profiling of Substation Ground Faults 0.8 GF Cleared (CB1)

Cumulative Distribution
GF Cleared (CB2)
0.7
Fig. 6 shows how both the magnitude and the duration of GF Cleared (Reclosers)
0.6 OC Cleared (CB or Recl.)
the recorded fault currents will vary between different faults. Combined (all)
The recorded faults were also typically much smaller in 0.5

Design Benchmark
max fault scenario
magnitude than the selected ‘design benchmark maximum’ 0.4

0.5 x Etouch 50

0.9 x Etouch 50
0.2 x Etouch 50
(worst-case) fault scenario. The observed variation in 0.3
magnitude of ground faults supports previous work

Etouch =
Etouch =

Etouch=
0.2
surrounding the concept that grounding system performance
0.1
may be described in probabilistic terms [15]-[21]. Factors that
affect the magnitude of ground fault current that will flow 0.0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
during a ground fault include the fault cause, the soil Relative Hazard Level (Etouch / Etouch50)
Fig. 9. Cumulative distribution of touch voltage relative hazard level
resistivity, the distance of the fault from the source substation
(Etouch/Etouch50) at a specific touch voltage location for each recorded GPR
and the impedance at the point of the fault. For faults at load event shown in Figs. 6 and 7. A cumulative distribution is shown for all
substations, the local impedance may vary significantly touch voltage events (combined). Component distributions are also shown
depending on whether medium voltage and low voltage for: fuse cleared faults; circuit breaker / recloser cleared faults with ground
fault protection trip; and circuit breaker / recloser cleared faults with over-
grounds are bonded or segregated from each other [25]. current protection trip.
The recorded results confirm that the probabilistic nature
of ground fault current magnitudes also extends to the Of all recorded ground faults (fuse, over-current protection
corresponding ground potential rise events. Fig. 8 shows a and ground fault protection cleared) the most onerous ground
cumulative probability distribution of substation ground
fault resulted in a touch voltage Etouch that was 73% of the
potential rise for a series of recorded events. The largest
recorded substation ground potential rise equated to only 51% IEEE 80TM allowable touch voltage Etouch50. Whilst this fault
of the calculated substation ground potential rise using the approaches the ‘design benchmark’ fault scenario in terms of
‘design benchmark maximum’ fault scenario. Further, for relative risk, it is noted that approximately 95% of recorded
90% of the recorded faults, the ground potential rise was less ground faults resulted in a touch voltage Etouch that was less
than one third of the ‘design benchmark maximum’ fault case. than half of the IEEE 80TM allowable touch voltage Etouch50.
A measure of the relative hazard level for each ground Similarly, over 60% of all recorded ground faults resulted in a
fault may be calculated by taking the ratio of the measured touch voltage Etouch of less than 20% of the IEEE 80TM
touch voltage Etouch to the IEEE 80TM allowable touch allowable touch voltage Etouch50. This large proportion of
voltage Etouch50. A cumulative distribution of this ratio for low-risk faults is partly contributed to by the fast typical
each recorded fault is shown in Fig. 9. At this example touch clearing times of ground faults cleared by fuse (i.e., faults at
voltage location, the ‘design benchmark maximum’ fault load substations) or over-current protection (i.e., multi-line to
scenario would result in a touch voltage that is 90% of the ground faults), since shorter duration faults imply higher
IEEE 80TM allowable touch voltage. allowable touch voltages. From Fig. 9, it may be seen that all
fuse cleared, and more than 70% of over-current cleared,
ground faults created touch voltages that are only a small

0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2425361, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
proportion (<20%) of the allowable touch voltage. Whilst it
should be noted that the above percentage values are specific
to this example substation and touch voltage location, the
general principles outlined above have been found to be
broadly applicable. In other words from the recorded results,
for a given touch voltage location, whilst some faults may
result in touch voltages that approach the ‘worst-case’ fault
scenario selected for grounding system assessments, the
majority of faults may be significantly smaller in terms of
risk, due to either a smaller fault magnitude or fast clearing
time.
While the use of conservative, ‘worst case’, design
benchmark conditions is a worthwhile aim, it often comes
with great cost. This is particularly the case when the resultant
extremely conservative ground potential rise value requires
costly mitigation of shock conditions associated with the
public in properties adjoining the substation [17][26][27][28].
Consequently, some standards bodies explicitly describe the
overall grounding design targets for staff, the public and other
utility workers in terms of risk (i.e., in explicit probabilistic
terms) [3][9]. These methods aim at providing a consistent
process across asset classes including major substations,
transmission and distribution, in order to justify expenditure
based upon the real risks associated with different exposures.
Locations where few people are exposed and ground potential
rise events are rare, such as transmission towers require less
expenditure. Alternatively for sites where many people are
frequently located in a position to receive a shock more
stringent design targets and hence higher expenditure is
justified.
By collating recorded substation ground potential rise
events over time, probabilistic profiles can be developed for a
given substation, However, in order to maximize the
applicability of risk-based substation grounding approaches, it
is desirable to develop a predictive probabilistic model for
substation ground fault current and ground potential rise
magnitude profiling based on key information about the
substation and the network it supplies. Monitoring real
substation ground potential rise events provides invaluable
information for the future development of such probabilistic
modelling. The development of predictive ground fault
modeling is the subject of further study.
V. CONCLUSION
The proposed substation grounding system measurement
device has potentially significant implications to the manner
in which grounding systems are designed and assessed.
Recording substation ground potential rise enhances
understanding of the performance of the substation grounding
system across a range of real faults. By comparing the
measured ground potential rise to the ground fault current, the
grounding system impedance can be directly calculated for
each fault, highlighting any substantial changes that may be
the result of the failure of critical components of the
grounding system. An improved understanding of the
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
variance of fault current reduction factor Sf allows grounding
engineers to validate assumptions used within grounding
system designs or off-line assessments. Access to enhanced
knowledge of real ground potential rise parameters may also
prove invaluable during system failure or shock incident
investigations. Furthermore, the measurement of substation
ground potential rise allows a greatly improved understanding
of the probabilistic nature of power system ground faults,
facilitating the further development of explicit probabilistic
risk assessment methods.
General Note 1: Transient ground potential rise waveforms
All references to ground fault events within this paper
should be taken to imply power system frequency ground
fault events. Non-periodic ground potential rise events, such
as transients (e.g. switching events or storm activity) have
been excluded from the data analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
M. B. Bastian thanks P. J. Sokolowski for his efforts in
proof reading this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] IEEE Std 80-2000 "IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation
Grounding,"
[2] IEEE Std367 “IEEE Guide for determining the electrical power station
ground potential rise and induced voltage from a power fault,”. 1987.
[3] ENA EG-0 “Power System Earthing Guide, Part 1: Management
Principles”., Energy Networks Association Limited Australia, May
2010.
[4] IEC 61936-1 “Power Installations Exceeding 1 kV a.c.—Part 1:
Common Rules”, ed.2.0, 2010.
[5] IEC 50522_1 “Earthing of Power Installations Exceeding 1kV AC”.
2010
[6] ANSI/NETA MTS 2011 “Standard for Maintenance and Testing
Specifications for Electrical Power Equipment and Systems”
International Electrical Testing Association.
[7] IEEE Std81-2012 “Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground
Impedance, and Earth Surface Potentials of a Grounding System,"
IEEE P81/D10, March, 2012 , pp.1-84, May 17 2012
[8] A. Dimopoulos, H. Griffiths, N. Harid, A. Haddad, A. Ainsley, and G.
Mpofu “Probability Surface Distributions for Application in
Grounding Safety Assessment” IEEE Transactions On Power Delivery,
Vol. 27, No. 4, October 2012 pp1928-1936.
[9] UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE), “Reducing risks, protecting
people—HSE’s decision making process”, London, U.K., 2001,
HMSO
[10] NFPA70B 2006 “Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment
Maintenance” National Fire Protection Association.
[11] IEEE 3003.2-2014 “Recommended Practice for Equipment Grounding
and Bonding in Industrial and Commercial Power Systems”,
[12] Woodhouse, D.J.. “An Evolution in Earthing System Testing:
Refinement of Earthing System Current Injection Testing and its
Analysis, with Emphasis on Earth Potential Rise Estimation.” PhD
thesis, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The
University of Newcastle., 2003.
[13] Sarmiento, H.J., Fortin, J, and Mukhedkar, D. “Substation ground
impedance: Comparative field measurements with high and low current
injection methods.” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, pages 1677– 1683, 1984.
[14] BS EN 50341-1:2001+A1:2009, EN 50341-1:2001+A1:2009 (E)
“Overhead electrical lines exceeding AC 45 kV. - Part 1: General
requirements — Common specifications”. April 2009
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2425361, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

[15] Burke, J.J.; Lawrence, D.J.; , "Characteristics of Fault Currents on he has been closely involved in grounding system design and testing, R&D
Distribution Systems," Power Apparatus and Systems, IEEE projects, and training throughout Australia and the Asian Region. Since
Transactions on , vol.PAS-103, no.1, pp.1-6, Jan. 1984 August 2014 Bill has worked as an independent consultant to utilities and
[16] Hanninen, S.; Lehtonen, M.; Hakola, T.; Antila, E.; Strom, J.; Ingman, industry regarding the management of grounding and lightning related risk.
S.;"Characteristics of earth faults in power systems with a compensated
or an unearthed neutral," Electricity Distribution. Part 1: Darren J.Woodhouse received his B.E.(Elec.)(Hons I) in 1993, BMaths in
Contributions. CIRED. 14th International Conference and Exhibition 1994 and Doctorate in the area of grounding system testing in 2003. He is a
(IEE Conf. Publ. No. 438) , vol.1, no., pp. 16/1- 16/5 vol.2, 2-5 June Principal Engineer with Safearth Consulting, a consulting firm specialising
1997 in grounding system design and assessment. Darren joined Shortland
[17] El-Kady, M.A.; Hotte, P.W.; Vainberg, M.Y.; "Probabilistic Electricity in 1987 as a Cadet Engineer. In 1992 he joined Safearth
Assessment of Step and Touch Potentials Near Transmission Line Engineered Solutions, a grounding business unit in Shortland Electricity,
Structures," Power Apparatus and Systems, IEEE Transactions on , later to be renamed EnergyAustralia and now Ausgrid. Before leaving
vol.PAS-102, no.3, pp.640-645, March 1983 EnergyAustralia Darren was the Development Manager for Network
[18] Kulkarni, Saurabh; Lee, Duehee; Allen, Alicia J.; Santoso, Surya; Earthing. Darren holds a conjoint Senior Lecturer position in the School of
Short, Thomas A.; , "Waveform characterization of animal contact, tree Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Newcastle.
contact, and lightning induced faults," Power and Energy Society He has research interests on ground return effects, cable performance,
General Meeting, 2010 IEEE , vol., no., pp.1-7, 25-29 July 2010 ground potential rise modelling and transient analysis.
[19] Ford, G.L, Sengupta, S.S, “Analytical methods for probabilistic short-
circuit studies”, Electric Power Systems Research, Volume 5, Issue 1,
March 1982, Pages 13-20, ISSN 0378-7796
[20] Vega-Garcia, V.; Cebrian, J.C.; Kagan, N.; , "Evaluation of probability
functions related to short circuit random variables using power quality
meters," Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition:
Latin America (T&D-LA), 2010 IEEE/PES , vol., no., pp.712-718, 8-
10 Nov. 2010
[21] Carman, W.D.; Woodhouse, D.J.; Bastian, M.B.; Acton,
M.;“Earthfault Current Monitoring And Modeling In Probabilistic
Earthing System Design”, Down To Earth Conference 2010, Engineers
Australia Perth, Western Australia, April 2010.
[22] "Summary of the special publication `Application of fault and
disturbance recording devices for protective system analysis'," Power
Delivery, IEEE Transactions on , vol.4, no.3, pp.1625-1630, Jul 1989
[23] Short, T.A.; Sabin, D.D.; McGranaghan, M.F.; , "Using PQ Monitoring
and Substation Relays for Fault Location on Distribution Systems,"
Rural Electric Power Conference, 2007 IEEE , vol., no., pp.B3-B3-7,
6-8 May 2007
[24] Xun Long; Ming Dong; Wilsun Xu; Yun Wei Li, “Online Monitoring
of Substation Grounding Grid Conditions Using Touch and Step
Voltage Sensors”, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol.3, no. 2, June
2012
[25] Parise, G.; Gatta, F.M. and Lauria, S., "Common grounding system,"
Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference,
2005 IEEE , vol., no., pp.184-190, 8-12 May 2005
[26] Sverak, J.G.; Wang, W.; Gervais, Y.; Do, X.-D.; Mukhedkar, D.; , "A
probabilistic method for the design of power grounding systems ,"
Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on , vol.7, no.3, pp.1196-1206,
Jul 1992
[27] Carman, W.D., “A systematic earthing system design procedure
employing probabilistic analysis of discrete decisions”, PhD thesis,
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The
University of Newcastle., 2002
[28] Carman, W.D., “Development of risk profiles associated with electrical
power substation earthing systems,” in IEEE Proc. Int. Conf. Power
Syst. Technol., Perth, Australia, 2000, pp. 2063–2071.

Matthew B. Bastian (M’2009) became a Member (M) of IEEE in 2009.

Matthew was born in Newcastle, NSW, Australia in 1977 and holds a
Bachelor of Electrical Engineering (Hons I) and a Bachelor of Mathematics
from the University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia. Both degrees were
completed in 1999.
He is currently working as a Consulting Electrical Engineer, based in
Newcastle, Australia. His primary fields of interest are grounding system
monitoring and probabilistic modeling of grounding system faults within
MV networks.

William D. Carman was born in Newcastle, Australia in 1960. He received

his Bachelor of Electrical Engineering (Hons I) in 1982 and Doctorate in the
area of grounding system risk quantification and mitigation in 2002, and is a
conjoint Senior Lecturer with the Engineering School at Newcastle
University.. He began his career within power utilities in 1977 when he
joined Ausgrid (then Shortland Electricity) as a cadet engineer. Since 1982

0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.