See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275208028

Industrial wastes and natural substances for improving electrical earthing

systems

Article  in  International Journal of Electrical Engineering · July 2014

DOI: 10.6329/CIEE.2014.2.01

CITATIONS READS

10 1,537

4 authors:

Chandima Gomes Zainal Kadir

University of the Witwatersrand Universiti Putra Malaysia
313 PUBLICATIONS   2,608 CITATIONS    399 PUBLICATIONS   2,883 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Siow Chun Lim Chamath Kottachchi

Multimedia University Wayne State University
22 PUBLICATIONS   141 CITATIONS    324 PUBLICATIONS   20,589 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

High Power Microwave Devices View project

Transparent Solar Cell: Measurement and System View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chandima Gomes on 20 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 C.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Gomes, C. L. Kottahchi, S. C.OF
LimELECTRICAL ENGINEERING,
and M. Z. A. Ab VOL.
Kadir: Industrial 21, NO.
Wastes and2Natural
PP. 39-47 (2014)
Substances 39
39
for Improving Electrical Earthing Systems

INDUSTRIAL WASTES AND NATURAL SUBSTANCES FOR

IMPROVING ELECTRICAL EARTHING SYSTEMS

C. Gomes and M. Z. A. Ab Kadir

Center for Electromagnetic and Lightning Protection (CELP), Universiti Putra Malaysia,
Serdang, 43400, Selangor, Malaysia

Chamath. L. Kottachchi
Department of Physics, Wayne State University, Detroit Michigan, USA

S. C. Lim
School of Engineering, Taylor’s University, 47500 Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

ABSTRACT
Performance of deep driven Galvanized Iron (GI) electrodes encased in several
backfill materials, which are freely available as industrial waste or at a low cost in many
countries, were investigated over a period of 2-3 years. The best performing material,
metal oxide powder (a waste product of the steel industry), was tested against several
commercially available and traditionally used backfill materials. It was found that these
industrial wastes reach the level of performance of commercially available backfill mate-
rials after several months. It was also found that the percentage of material erosion of GI
due to corrosion in the presence of metal oxide powder is less than 1% after more than
two years in contact. Lime and coke breeze also show good performance with respect to
corrosion while commercially available natural Bentonite performs the best. Sodium
Chloride, a backfill material that is widely used in South Asia, gave a highly undesirable
outcome; the earth resistance of the relevant electrode fluctuates in a wide range of val-
ues and the corrosive effects are unacceptably high. It is also shown that the earth re-
sistance of electrodes with sodium chloride as backfill material is 100% greater than the
value predicted by theoretical formula available in the literature.

Key words: Electrical engineering, IEC Standards, Power industry, Transformers.

the inrush of charge from cloud and the masses of soil.

I. INTRODUCTION
“Earthing” is a term popularly used in Britain and
countries of former British Empire for the process of
connecting any conducting system electrically to the
mother earth of which the potential is treated as the zero
reference. For the same process, the American termi-
nology is “grounding”. Throughout this paper we use the
term “earthing” to refer this process.
Earthing plays a major role in the fields of lightning
protection, power, and communication. In lightning pro-
tection the earthing system acts as the interface between
The objective of the earthing system is to disperse the
flow of charge to the soil masses as fast as possible.
Therefore, the efficiency of a lightning protection system
is strongly dependent on the performance of the earthing
network.
Research reported in this paper basically addresses
earthing systems used in lightning protection methodol-
ogies. The main difference between an earthing network
designed for lightning protection system and that for a
power system depends on the handling of rate of transfer
of energy by the two systems. In power systems, energy
is transferred at a frequency of 50 Hz whereas in light-
ning strikes energy is distributed in a large spectrum that

Manuscript received Feb. 18, 2014; and revised Apr. 28, 2014; accepted June 16, 2014.
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation, Sri Lanka for grant no RG/2004/E/01, Universiti Putra Malaysia
for Grant No: 05-01-11-1195RU/F-RUGS and the private sector for providing various materials.
40 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, VOL.21, NO.2 (2014)
peaks at the kHz range [1, 2]. A lightning protection
system consists of (a) air-termination, which intercepts
with the downward stepped leader, (b) down conductors,
which bring the lightning current to the base of the
structures and (c) earthing system, which safely and
quickly disperse lightning energy into earth. A bad
earthing system will create a potential rise along the
down conductor, which in turn will create sparking be-
tween the down conductor and other parts of the build-
ing. Such aerial discharges will result in equipment
damage, ignition of fires and even severe explosions that
may cause devastation. Therefore a proper earthing sys-
tem is essential for a lightning protection system to en-
sure the estimated safety level of a building. Most often,
failures occur in a totally unsuspecting atmosphere, thus
the cause of failure is hardly attributed to the correct
source. Due to these reasons, industrial, commercial and
public sectors should pay extra attention on transient
protection to avoid unforeseen losses.
As per many standards [3, 4], performance of an
earthing system is validated by its “earth resistance”. It
is understood that although the frequency dependent
impedance is a better entity to represent the performance
of an earthing system under impulse conditions, stand-
ards specify a limiting low frequency resistance; solely
for the convenience of technical persons who take field
measurements.
In compliance with internationally recognized
standards such as [3] & [4], a lightning protection sys-
tem should maintain earth resistance below a limiting
value of 10 Ω. The typical recommendation of these
standards in reducing earth resistance is to increase the
dimensions of earth conductors. However, due to high
material cost and possible space limitation, increasing
dimensions of earth electrodes is problematic in many
applications. Therefore, it has now become a popular
practice to use conductance-enhancement material to
reduce earth resistance. Such materials are commonly
termed backfill materials. A good backfill material pro-
vides earth resistance considerably less than that is given
by the background soil, maintain low resistance for a
long period of time with low level of fluctuation in val-
ue, and should not react with electrode material.
Characteristics and performance of backfill materi-
als have been investigated in several studies [5-8]. Re-
search outcomes in [5] and [6] justify the performance of
low cost material that is available for earth resistance
reduction. However, they have not discussed in detail the
long term performance of the materials and their impact
on corrosion environment of the electrode.
II. METHODOLOGY
The experiment was conducted in two stages from
April 2004 to December 2008. The first stage was done
in Colombo, Sri Lanka in a land where the soil was
stratified. The upper most soil layer has a thickness
about 1 m of mixed soil, probably brought from an ex-
cavation site to fill the land, about 10 years before the
time of the experiment. From the bottom of the upper
layer down to about 3 m, the soil is sandy in nature
(white powdery sand). The resistivity of the soil was
calculated by taking grounding measurements at the site
on a dry day by a 4-pole ground resistivity meter
(MEGER DET5 / 4R). At each site the measurement was
repeated three times and averaged. The pH value and
chemical composition of soil have also been tested.
For initial installation, we selected two materials
which are abundantly available in Sri Lanka (available at
free of charge at the time), and a third material which is
available in small quantities, yet free of charge at most
places. The three materials are Metal oxide powder,
Granite powder, and Cast iron powder. The first material
is a waste product in the steel industry. It basically con-
sists of Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) as per the qualitative chem-
ical analysis conducted on the material, however, some
quantities of other metal compounds and traces of iron
dust may be mixed with the material. The second mate-
rial is a partially wasted product in the building material
industry. The main components of the material by
weight are SiO2 (72%), Al2O3 (14%), K2O (4%), Na2O
(4%), CaO, FeO and Fe2O3 (each contributing about 1-
2%) [9]. The third material is a waste product in the
metal-work industry. It comes in the form of filing and
dust collected from the cutting machines of devices
(pipes, structures etc.) made basically of grey cast iron.
Hence the composition is Iron (95%), Carbon (2-4%)
and Silicon (1-3%) [10].
In the first stage, six Galvanized Iron (GI) rods (3
mm thickness, 4 cm diameter, hot dipped and heavy du-
ty) each of a length slightly greater than 3 m were in-
stalled vertically. In the installation each rod was placed
in the middle of a bore hole of diameter 120 mm. the
layer of thickness 40 mm surrounding the electrode was
covered with the backfill material (Figure-1). During the
installation of the backfill material 20 liters of water was
introduced to maximize the packing density. One rod
was forcefully driven (total length) to be used as the
reference electrode. The mixing of materials is done on
an arbitrary basis taking into account the availability of
materials. Electrodes were,
Electrode-1: reference electrode (forced driven into
earth)
Electrode-2: with metal oxide powder (MOP)
Electrode-3: with granite powder
Electrode-4: with granite powder & MOP in the ra-
tio 1:1
Electrode-5: with granite powder and cast iron
powder in the ratio 1:1
Electrode-6: with granite powder, cast iron powder
and iron powder in the ratio 1:1:1
The earth resistance of each electrode was measured
with an earth resistance meter (Digital earth resistance
meter KYORITSU MODEL4105A) on a weekly basis.
The earth resistance of each electrode was taken twice in
V lines as shown in the Figure-2 and the average has
been taken as the value of a given day. Measurements
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, VOL.21, NO.2 (2014) 41

Fig. 1 Arrangement of the earth electrodes at site-1 (a) Cross-sectional view of the electrode after installation. (b) The protrusion of
the electrode above ground level (about 0.4 m). The black circle shows the area filled with backfill material (c) The plan view
of the electrode system.

Fig. 2 Arrangement of the earth resistance measurement (a) diagram (b) actual location.

were taken continuously for 30 months. Nine months
after the abandoning of taking regular measurements
(during which the site was not accessible) the site was
inspected again. As the arrangement had not been altered
we re-started the measurements and continued for an-
other six month period.
The experiment was repeated at a different site after
the completion of the first part with (a) the best per-
forming material in the first part, (b) several commer-
cially available backfill materials, and (c) several mate-
rials traditionally used by local engineers for improving
earthing systems. The experiment was done in order to
compare the performance of the best material identified
in our experiment with materials that are already used as
backfill materials in reducing the earth resistance. The
experiment was also aimed at validating the applicability
of materials traditionally used by local and regional en-
gineers.
The electrodes and backfill materials were installed
in Site-2 in a similar manner. The land was in a Colom-
bo suburb which has a mixed soil (filled) layer of about
1.5 m followed by a clay-slurry type soil uniformly
down to about 3 m. The electrodes installed were:
Electrode-7: reference electrode (forced driven into
earth)
Electrode-8: with metal oxide powder
Electrode-9: with Bentonite
Electrode-10: with commercially available material
Electrode-11: with coke breeze (charcoal dust)
Electrode-12: with Sodium Chloride and coke
breeze
Bentonite used in this study has been imported from
China. The manufacturer’s specifications states the main
composition of Bentonite (by weight) as SiO2 (59%),
Al2O3 (24%), Na2O (4%) and Fe2O3, MgO, TiO2 (each
contributing to 1-2 %). Coke breeze is a bi-product of
the coke industry. Once a waste product, coke breeze
now has a commercial value due to its applications as a
backfill material in stabilizing soil. The coke breeze we
used in this experiment has been imported from Malay-
sia. The manufacturer’s specification states the composi-
tion (by weight) of coke breeze as fixed Carbon (86 %),
Ash (8-10%) and moisture (6-9%). Sodium Chloride
used is table salt that comes in the form of coarse grain.
About eight months later, two other electrodes were
added; one with Sodium Chloride (Electrode-13) and the
other with fine ground limestone (Electrode-14). The
two materials are widely used in many countries in the
South Asian region as backfill materials.
The measurements for the first six electrodes were
done for 24 months and for the other two electrodes for
18 months. After the completion of taking the measure-
ments of the second site the electrodes were removed
carefully to test for corrosion. Extra care was taken in
the removal of the electrode with Sodium Chloride to
obtain a qualitative understanding of the contact between
GI rod and salt layer.
The resistivity of the materials was checked by fi l l -
42 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, VOL.21, NO.2 (2014)
ing each material into a Perspex box of inner side length
10 cm (height was slightly greater than 10 cm). Thin
square aluminum plates of side length 10 cm were fixed
to two facing sides. A flat square iron plate of side
length almost 10 cm and mass 6 kg (with a mass added
on top) was used to get a nearly uniform packing density
for each material (by compressing the material until it
reaches the 10 cm mark in the vertical direction). The
weight has been kept for 1 hour on the surface of the
material before taking the measurements. The resistance
was measured between the two plates by an LCR meter
with maximum error of 0.1%. The resistance without
any material in the box exceeded 10 MΩ, hence the par-
allel component of resistance due to the presence of the
box could be neglected. After taking measurements of
dry material, 100 ml of water was uniformly added by
spraying to the material in the box. Another measure-
ment of resistance was taken 10 minutes after the water
is added. The measurement was repeated three times at 2
minute time intervals to check whether there is any sig-
nificant difference in resistance with time. The tempera-
ture and relative humidity during the period of experi-
ment remained at 29°C-31°C and 75%-88% respective-
ly. For both dry and wet conditions, the resistivity was
calculated.
From each electrode, rings of length 2 cm were cut
at three randomly selected places. Each ring was washed
with a low speed jet of distilled water, dried a n d
weighed (m1) by means of a digital electronic balance
with a minimum reading of 0.1 mg. Then the ring was
washed with petroleum (Octane-90) until the surface
regains the dull metallic colour of a new iron pipe. Then
the ring was washed with distilled water, dried and taken
another reading (m2). The percentage of rust was calcu-
lated by [(m2-m1) /m2] × 100. For each material, calcu-
lation was done for 3 samples to get the average.
The average value of each material was calculated
as a ratio of the least average value (material with least
corrosion) for comparison. A piece of new GI pipe was
subjected to the same procedure and found that there is
no difference in mass within the experimental uncertain-
ties; hence we ensure that there is no wash-away of ma-
terial that has not been corroded.
III. RESULTS
The soil resistivity of Site-1 was 101 Ω m at 2 m
depth (measured with 4-pole soil resistivity meter) and
the pH value was 6.8 (slightly acidic). The initial meas-
urements show that the earth resistances values of all
electrodes with backfill materials are less than that of the
reference electrode. Following are the percentage values
of the initial earth resistance of each electrode with re-
spect to the reference electrode.
Electrode-2: 75%
Electrode-3: 70%
Electrode-4: 95%
Electrode-5: 80%
Electrode-6: 77%
The earth resistance of both the reference electrodes
and the others varied with time. Except for a few brief
periods, the earth resistance of Electrode-2 and 3 re-
mained below the earth resistance of the reference. After
about 24 months, the earth resistance of most of the
electrodes with backfill materials reached a stable value.
Figure-3 shows the variation of earth resistance of Elec-
trode-2 (set up 2); metal oxide powder, and that of Elec-
trode-1(set up 1); reference electrode, with time. The
resistance values are averaged per month.
After 30 months of taking measurements, as we av-
eraged the earth resistance for the final 3 months, it was
found that the set up with metal oxide powder (Elec-
trode-2) shows the best performance with respect to the
reference set up (60%) which was closely followed by
the set up with granite powder (68%). As we restarted
taking the measurements after a lapse of nine months, we
found that the earth resistance of the Electrode-2 has
reduced much further while that of the Electrode-3 has
drastically increased. Table-1 depicts the earth resistance
values at the end of the experiment as a percentage with
respect to the initial value and the value of the reference.
The soil resistivity of Site-2 was 98 Ω m at 2 m
depth and the pH value was 7.8 (basic). The earth re-
sistance of each electrode with respect to the reference
electrode is given in Table-2. It was seen that the earth
resistance of the electrode with metal oxide powder
Fig. 3 Temporal variation of earth resistance of the reference
electrode (set up 1) and of the electrode with metal ox-
ide powder as the backfill material.
Table 1 Final Earth Resistance of Electrodes Column-2: Per-
centage of earth resistance with respect to the initial
value (nearest 5%). Column-3 Percentage of earth
resistance with respect to the reference electrode
(nearest 5%).
Electrode Column-2 Column-3
Electrode-2 40% 50%
Electrode-3 65% 90%
Electrode-4 60% 80%
Electrode-5 60% 80%
Electrode-6 65% 90%
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 21, NO. 2(2014) 43

(Electrode-2) gradually reduced and reached the values surrounding material has been reduced to a very poor
of the best performing commercially available material level which may have increased the earth resistance.
Bentonite. However it took almost 15 months for the The performance of the electrode with powdered
Electrode-2 to reach the performance of Bentonite which lime stone closely followed that of Electrode-8, 9 and
was uniform throughout the experimental period. The 10. Compared with the cost of limestone and that of
performance of the commercially available material commercially available materials, limestone can be
closely followed Bentonite. ranked as a highly suitable material as a backfill materi-
Electrode-11 (with coke breeze) also performed ap- al.
preciably well and reached a steady value at the end. The The experiment which was done to find the corro-
electrode with Sodium Chloride & coke breeze (Elec- sive effects of each material showed that Bentonite pro-
trode-12) showed a large fluctuation in the earth re- vides the least corrosion. It is followed by coke breeze, a
sistance, with a maximum monthly average of 90%. commercially available material, limestone powder,
The electrodes with Sodium Chloride powder metal oxide powder, soil (reference electrode), Sodium
(Electrode-13) and that with limestone powder (Elec- Chloride & Coke Breeze and Sodium Chloride. The
trode-14) showed the characteristics depicted in Table-3. percentage of corrosion and its value as a fraction of that
The variation of the earth resistance of Electrode-13 was of betonies is given in table-4. The table shows that
extremely high with minimum and maximum values Sodium Chloride is extremely corrosive with GI even
30% and 120% respectively. when it is mixed with other materials. More than 10% of
As per the observation of weekly measurements, the the material of the electrode has been corroded where
earth resistance of Electrode-13 increases to very high the metal was in contact with Sodium Chloride. This
values during prolonged dry periods and drastically re- value is more than 100 times of that of Bentonite, the
duces with heavy showers. least corrosive. Note that electrodes with Sodium Chlo-
During the removal of Electrode-13, it was found ride and limestone were installed 8 months after the oth-
that at many places along the surface of the GI pipe gaps ers. The resistivity of the materials used in this experi-
of a few millimeters have been formed probably due to ment is tabulated in Table-5.
the dissolving of salt in water (and it being washed
away). Hence the contact between the electrode and the
IV. DISCUSSION
Table 2 Earth Resistance of Electrodes at Site-2 Column-2
Percentage of earth resistance with respect to the ref- The selection of materials for the first phase of the
erence (nearest 5%) soon after installation. Column-3 experiment was based on the availability and anticipa-
Percentage of earth resistance with respect to the ref- tion of the researchers. The materials for the second
erence (nearest 5%) after 8 months. Column-4 Per- phase was selected with the view of investigating the
centage of earth resistance with respect to the refer- performance of commonly used backfill materials and
ence (nearest 5%) after 15 months. comparing their performance with that of the most effec-
tive material from phase one. The second site was se-
Electrode Column-2 Column-3 Column-4 lected due to the short term unavailability of the first
Electrode-8 85% 70% 55% site. It was envisaged that the characteristics of the two
sites to be similar. While the gross earth resistivity
Electrode-9 60% 60% 55%
(measured with 4-pole earth resistivity meter) was simi-
Electrode-10 65% 60% 60% lar in the two sites, the resistivity of the stratification
Electrode-11 75% 70% 65% (values given in Table-5) and pH values were different.
Electrode-12 55% 70% 60%
Table 4 Corrosion of Electrodes at Site-2 Col-2 Percentage of
corrosion. Col-3 Percentage of corrosion divided by
Table 3 Earth Resistance of Electrodes 13 & 14 Col-2 Per- that of Bentonite (least corrosive).
centage of earth resistance with respect to the refer-
ence (nearest 5%) soon after installation. Col-3 Per- Material Col-2 Col-3
centage of earth resistance with respect to the refer- Bentonite 0.1% 1
ence (nearest 5%) after 6 months. Col-4 Percentage Coke breeze 0.3% 3
of earth resistance with respect to the reference
Com. available material.-2 0.4% 4
(nearest 5%) after 12 months. Col-5 Percentage of
earth resistance with respect to the reference (nearest Limestone 0.8% 8
5%) after 18 months. Metal oxide powder 0.9% 9
Soil 1.8% 18
Electrode Col-2 Col-3 Col-4 Col-5
Electrode-13 60% 55% 85% 100% Sodium Chl. + Coke breeze 5.8% 58
Electrode-14 70% 65% 60% 60% Sodium Chloride 11.0% 110
44 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, VOL.21, NO.2 (2014)

The experiment shows that metal oxide powder, in the literature [11]. Calculation of grounding resistance
granite powder, limestone powder and cock breeze are of a vertical single rod immersed in a layer of backfill
low cost materials that can be used as backfill materials materials can be approximated by the following equation
with appreciable success. However, the long time taken [10]:
by most of these materials to achieve stable low earth
resistance is a significant short fall of them in competing
Bentonite.
This delay in attaining a stable low value of earth
resistance may be due to the time required either for R = Estimated resistance
reaching the maximum packing density or for undergo-
ρ = Soil resistivity (Ω m)
ing chemical changes in producing mobile ions (or
ρc = Resistivity of backfill material (Ω m)
both). The reason can be determined by checking the
d = Electrode diameter (m)
ionic concentration of material installed on regular basis,
D=diameter of backfill material (m)
which is tedious, yet highly useful work.
L=driven length of electrode (m)
The outcome of the experiment on resistivity of the
For the value of ρ, we have considered the onsite
materials shows that most of the materials that demon-
measurements of soil resistivity; 101 Ωm for site-1 and
strated low earth resistance characteristics are not the
98 Ωm for site-2. Earth resistance has been calculated
ones with very low dry/wet resistivity but the ones that
separately for wet resistivity and dry resistivity of each
undergo significant change in resistivity with the incre-
material (given in table-5).
ment in moisture level. This observation justifies that
As per the results given in Table-6, it can be seen
mobile ions in the material play an important role in
that, with the exception of granite powder (of which the
reducing earth resistance. Hence, we emphasize the im-
dry resistivity is over 20 times the wet resistivity), the
portance of maintaining a high moisture level at earth
calculated earth resistance values do not change much
pits of both power and lightning protection systems.
for wet and dry resistivity of backfill material for a given
The high level of corrosion caused by Sodium
site, when the other parameters remain the same. The
Chloride is well known, however, the usage of salt with
measured values are also not very much deviated from
the expectation of improving the earth conductivity is
the theoretical values except in the case of Sodium
still widely practiced in many countries. In an environ-
Chloride. The measured earth resistance of the electrode
ment of high salinity, the corrosion of the material will
encased in Sodium Chloride is more than 100% greater
be even promoted if the electrode is in plate shape. Apart
than both R1 and R2 of the corresponding case. It is ev-
from the corrosion problem, the removal of salt from the
ident from the previous discussion that in the case of
neighbourhood of the electrode (due to dissolving in rain
Sodium Chloride, not only the resistivity of the material
water) may also cause unexpected sharp increments in
but its interaction with other materials such as water in
earth resistance, especially during the dry season. This
the environment will also play a significant role in de-
will cause dangerous safety risks in power earthing sys-
termining the earth resistance of the electrode.
tems where earth faults may arise under extremely dry
conditions.
Apart from Sodium Chloride and mixtures of that, Table 5 Resistivity of Materials Under Wet and Dry Condi-
other low cost backfill materials tested show acceptably tions.
low levels of corrosive effect on GI. Although the per-
centages of corrosion are several times greater than that Dry Wet
Material
of Bentonite, they are in par with other commercially Resistivity Resistivity
available material (of which the trade name is not re- Metal oxide powder 28 Ω m 8Ωm
vealed). And most importantly, GI corroded less once Granite powder 488 Ω m 24Ωm
encased in these materials compared with the corrosion
Cast iron powder 0.1 Ω m 0.1 Ω m
undergone by the reference rod which is in contact with
the surrounding soil at this particular location. Iron powder 0.001 Ω m 0.001 Ω m
The performance of limestone in powder form Surface Soil (at site-1) 54 Ω m 36 Ω m
shows that it is one of the best materials that can be used Soil at 3 m depth (at site-1) 190 Ω m 174 Ω m
as backfill material, as per its earth resistance and corro- Surface Soil (at site-2) 168 Ω m 100 Ω m
sion resistive characteristics. However, it seems that,
before it is recommended as a commercially viable Soil at 3 m depth (at site-2) 78 Ω m 37 Ωm
backfill material, limestone needs certain processing to Bentonite 18 Ω m 3Ωm
achieve stable earth resistance for an encased electrode Coke breeze 24 Ω m 5Ωm
at a faster rate. Com. available material. 7Ωm 3Ωm
Table-6 makes a comparison between the earth re-
Limestone 92 Ω m 12 Ω m
sistance values that have been measured and the theoret-
ical values predicted by the empirical formula proposed Sodium Chloride 9Ωm 0.9 Ω m
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 21, NO. 2(2014)
Table 6 Calculated and Measured Earth Resistance Values for
Several Electrodes with Backfill Materials
R1: Earth resistance calculated with dry resistivity of
backfill material; R2: Earth resistance calculated
with wet resistivity of backfill material; R: Re-
sistance measured at the end of the period at each site
R1 R2 R done by Lim et al. [15, 16] reports that the earth re-
Material Site #
Ω Ω Ω sistance of electrodes encased in bentonite mixed con-
Metal oxide powder 1 25 23 22
Metal oxide powder 2 24 23 28
Granite powder 1 52 24 33
Bentonite 2 23 23 28
Com. material 2 23 23 31
Coke Breeze 2 24 23 33
Sodium Chloride 2 23 22 51
Lime stone 2 28 23 31
However, we suggest that the above empirical equa-
tion proposed in British Standards [11] and later adopted
by several other standards [12], will not be able to make
accurate predictions of earth resistance of electrodes
surrounded by backfill material, as the equation does not
consider many important parameters such as, water sol-
ubility and ionic mobility of material and its interaction
with electrode both electrode material and surrounding
soil.
A majority of materials used in this experiment are
either natural substances or industrial waste. The indus-
trial waste used are also not known to have any adverse
soil conditioning properties. They are not known to emit
toxic material in decomposing or reacting with other
substances in the soil. However, we recommend a thor-
ough chemical study in this regard before introducing
the materials to be used on a commercial basis. In any
case, these industrial waste are dumped in man-made or
natural pits at present; hence there will be no overall
impact on the environment by using such materials as
backfills in earthing practices. Furthermore, the soil
treatment materials stated in IEEE Green Book [13];
magnesium sulphate, copper sulphate, and calcium chlo-
ride, may cause worse environment problems than the
materials suggested in this study.
While these backfill materials are recommended for
many sites, even those with extremely high soil resistiv-
ity; we propose that when such materials are used at on-
rock sites, with little or no soil layer, extra precau-
tions should be taken to prevent material erosion. Espe-
cially in regions with heavy rain, snowfall or gusty wind,
concrete based electrodes [14] or electrodes embedded
in concrete-backfill material mixed solid blocks may be
more effective. It is also recommended that irrespective
of the suitability of the grounding system for a given
application bonding or isolation of different systems
should be done either by direct means or by a coordi-
nated system of surge protective devices.
Lim et al [15, 16] have done a series of experiments
on bentonite based materials as backfill materials for
45
electrical earthing. Results of their studies reveal that
Bentonite mixed concrete are a better option for backfill
materials in powder or granular form for sites having
ultra high resistive or unstable soil. However, our ob-
servations show that after few months electrodes en-
cased in bentonite have earth resistance reduced to al-
most 50% of the initial value. In contrast, investigations
crete reduces to about 30% of the initial value during
similar period of time. Although further experiments are
needed for concrete evidence, we can conclude at this
stage that bentonite is most effective as it is in slurry
form without mixing with fixing agents such as cement.
In many metropolitan cities in the world with high
population densities, accessibility of space for distribut-
ed electrical earthing systems is a major challenge. The
communication sector is especially, affected in this re-
gard as it is an uphill task for finding adequate space for
earthing systems for tower sites in city limits [17]. Simi-
lar issues are encountered by power utilities with regard
to distribution transformers installed in major cities; es-
pecially in Middle East region such as Tehran, Dubai,
Doha etc. where the soil resistivity in most parts of the
city are ultra high. Furthermore, those who seek good
earthing systems for in-house transformers and main
distribution panels may also face similar challenges. For
all these cases where space restriction and very high soil
resistivity makes the achievement of low earth resistance
extremely difficult, the only feasible solution is to use
ground conductivity enhancement materials.
Apart from the above cases, we would also like to
highlight the need of such backfill materials in all types
of earthing systems in areas of high lightning occurrence
density. Such areas are characterised by heavy human
casualties due to earth potential rises (step potential)
[18].
IEC 625671-7:2011 [19] specifies the requirements
and testing for backfill compounds that produce low
earth resistance of metal electrode systems. This stand-
ard document basically focuses on the environmental
impact of such materials (through leaching test etc.) ra-
ther than ensuring the efficiency of such materials in
improving the earth conductance of encased electrodes.
On the other hand, the commercial sector is fast intro-
ducing many processed backfill materials into the mar-
ket as the demand for such is significantly high. Addi-
tionally ground level engineers in many countries with
high soil resistivity tend to opt for indigenously devel-
oped materials. Hence, the need of comprehensive
standards on the classification and quantification of
backfill materials for their effectiveness in reducing
earth resistance of electrodes is strongly felt at present.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The earth resistance and corrosive characteristics of
several backfill materials, which are available either
46 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, VOL.21, NO.2 (2014)
freely or at low cost, have been investigated. These ma-
terials are available as industrial waste in Sri Lanka and
other South Asian countries. The measurements have
been taken for several years.
Depending on the long term earth resistance char-
acteristics, we selected metal oxide powder (a waste
product of the steel industry) as the best performing ma-
terial, out of several such low cost materials investigat-
ed. Hence, in the second phase, this material is tested
against several commercially available and traditionally
used backfill materials.
The observations show that these industrial waste
and several other traditionally used materials reach the
level of performance of commercially available backfill
materials after several months. It was also found that the
level of corrosion of metal oxide powder on GI is less
than 1% after more than two years in contact. Lime and
coke breeze also show good performance with respect to
corrosion, whereas bentonite shows the best perfor-
mance.
Sodium Chloride, a backfill material that is widely
used in South Asia, should strictly be avoided applying
as a backfill material due to several reasons. The earth
resistance of the electrode with sodium chloride fluctu-
ates in a broad range of values and the corrosive effects
are also very high. The GI pipe used as the earth elec-
trode in this experiment was more than 10% eroded
within a period of about 18 months. The resistivity and
the change of resistivity of each material under dry and
wet conditions were measured to find a relationship be-
tween the ground resistance and those observed parame-
ters. Under dry conditions, the resistivity of most of the
well performed backfill materials has somewhat higher
values, however under wet conditions the resistivity re-
duced considerably to a low value. This change of resis-
tivity appears to be a characteristic of a good backfill
material compared with a material with low conductivi-
ty.
The need of comprehensive standards or guidelines
for development and testing backfill materials for their
effectiveness as ground resistance reducing agent should
strongly be emphasized. The absence of such standards
may create a chaotic situation in the market as the cus-
tomer is at the mercy of the manufacturer in selecting
such ground conductivity enhancement materials.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the National
Science Foundation, Sri Lanka for grant no RG/2004/E
/01, Universiti Putra Malaysia for Grant No: 05-01-11-
1195RU/F-RUGS and the private sector for providing
various materials.
REFERENCES
[1] R. B. Anderson, and Eriksson A. J., Lightning pa-
rameters for engineering applications, CIGRE,
Electra no 69, p. 65-102, 1980.
[2] C. Gomes, On the nature of lightning flashes: With
special attention to the initiation, modeling, and
remote sensing of return strokes, PhD Thesis, Uni-
versity of Colombo, 1999.
[3] IEC 62305-1: Protection against lightning-Part 1:
General principles, 2010.
[4] IEEE C62.41-1991: IEEE Recommended Practice
on Surge Voltages in Low-Voltage AC Power Cir-
cuits, 1991.
[5] N. Kumarasinghe, A low cost lightning protection
system and its effectiveness, 20th Lightning detec-
tion conference, Tucson, Arizona, USA, April,
2008.
[6] G. Eduful , C.J. Ekow and F.M. Tetteh, Palm Ker-
nel Oil Cake as an Alternative to Earth Re-
sistance-Reducing Agent, International Journal of
Applied Engineering Research, vol 4, issue 1, 2009.
[7] Gilbert Sharick, Grounding and Bonding, abc Tele
Training Basic Series, abc TeleTraining, Geneva,
IL, vol. 13, 1999.
[8] G. Vijayaraghavan, Mark Brown, Malcolm Barnes,
Practical grounding, bonding, shielding and surge
protection, Elsevier Publishers, 2004.
[9] H. Blatt and R.J. Tracy, Petrology (2nd ed.). New
York: Freeman, 1997, pp 66.
[10] S. Da, Cast iron containing rare earths, Tsunga
University Press, China, 2000, pp 206.
[11] BS 7430 Ed. 2.0, Code of practice for earthing,
1998.
[12] EN 62561-7, Lightning Protection System Compo-
nents (LPSC); Part 7: Requirements for earthing
enhancing compounds, 2011.
[13] IEEE SDT-142 (Green Book), IEEE Recommended
Practice for Grounding of Industrial and Commer-
cial Power Systems, 2007.
[14] C. Gomes and A G Diego, Lightning protection
scenarios of communication tower sites; human
hazards and equipment damage, Safety Science, vol.
49, 1355-1364, 2011.
[15] S. C. Lim, C. Gomes, M. Z. A. Ab Kadir and S. D.
Buba, Preliminary Results of the Performance of
Bentonite-mixed Concrete as Grounding Electrode,
31st International Conference on Lightning Protec-
tion-2012, Vienna, Austria, September 2012.
[16] S.C. Lim, C. Gomes and M.Z.A. Ab Kadir, Elec-
trical earthing in troubled environment, Interna-
tional Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Sys-
tems, 47, 117-128, 2013.
[17] A.PL. Chandimal and C. Gomes, Lightning Related
Effects to the Neighborhood Due to the Presence of
Telecommunication Towers, 31st International
Conference on Lightning Protection-2012, Vienna,
Austria, September, 2012.
[18] C. Gomes and M.Z.A. Ab. Kadir, A Theoretical
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 21, NO. 2(2014)
Approach to Estimate the Annual Lightning Haz-
ards on Human Beings, Atmospheric Research, 101,
719-725, 2011.
[19] IEC 62561-7:2011, Lightning Protection System
Components-Part 7: Requirement for Earthing En-
hancement Compounds, 2011.
Chandima Gomes is a Professor
of Engineering at Universiti Putra
Malaysia. He holds visiting pro-
fessorships in Engineering, Physics
and Meteorology at several other
universities in the world. Chandima
obtained a First Class Degree in
Physics from the University of Co-
lombo in 1993. He has done his PhD Degree (1999)
and some postdoctoral research on lightning protec-
tion and high voltage experiments at Uppsala Uni-
versity, Sweden. In addition to lightning protection,
grounding and bonding, he is also an expert in elec-
tromagnetic compatibility, occupational safety, at-
mospheric physics and research methodology. For
the last ten years, he has conducted over 100 train-
ing programs on lightning and transient protection
technologies and several other topics on electrical
safety for the engineers in over 12 countries. Chan-
dima has published over 130 research papers and
several books on lightning protection.
Chamath Lalitha Kottachchi
has obtained his PhD in High
Energy Particle Physics from
Wayne State University, USA
and at present he is a Postdoctor-
al Researcher at the same univer-
sity. He is an expert in experi-
mental high-energy particle
physics with experience in big data analytics, statis-
tical modeling, machine learning, scientific compu-
ting, Monte Carlo simulation, and business analytics.
His first degree was obtained from the University of
Colombo in the field of physics. Over the last 10
years, he has worked as a post-doctoral graduate
47
researcher for the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS)
experiment at CERN analyzing the proton-proton
collision data in the order of petabytes and a
business analyst for Victoria’s Se- cret and NIKE
products while managing a product range that has
an annual retail worth of $100 mil- lion.
Siow Chun Lim was born in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia on November 1,
1987. He obtained his Bachelor of
Electrical & Electronic Engineering
Malaysia in 2011 and his Ph. D in
Electrical Power Engineering from
University Putra Malaysia, Selangor
three years later. Currently, he is a
lecturer in Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, Ma-
laysia. His research interests include backfill mate-
rials, electrical properties of concrete, power system
grounding, high voltage engineering and engineer-
ing education.
Mohd Zainal Abidin Ab Kadir
received his B.Eng. degree in Elec-
trical and Electronic Engineering
from Universiti Putra Malaysia in
2001, and a Ph.D. degree in high-
voltage engineering from the
University of Manchester, U.K. in
2006. Currently, he is the Deputy Dean (Research &
Innovation) and Professor at the Faculty of Engi-
neering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Ma-
laysia. He is also the Director at the Centre for
Electromagnetic and Lightning Protection Research
(CELP), Universiti Putra Malaysia. Professor Zainal
is a Professional Engineer (PEng) and a Chartered
Engineer (CEng) and currently is the Chair of IEEE
PES Malaysia Chapter, Working Group Member of
IEEE PES Lightning Performance on Overhead
Lines and Senior Member of IEEE. To date he has
authored and co-authored over 180 technical papers
comprising of high impact journals and conference
proceedings
48 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 21, NO. 2(2014)

View publication stats