Grounding1
- 1. Newage Energy 1 DESIGNING FOR A LOW RESISTANCE EARTH INTERFACE (GROUNDING) Newage Energy Holdings Page http://newage-energy.net http://newage-energy.com
- 2. Newage Energy 2 Introduction Grounding (or earthing) is the art of making an electrical connection to the earth. The process is a combination of science and “art” as opposed to pure science. This process is required because it is necessary to go through a process of “testing the options,” as opposed to calculations made via some formal process. The options for each site must be determined through visualization and evaluation, individually, using a related analytical pro- cess. The earth must be treated as a semiconductor, while the grounding electrode itself is a pure conductor. These factors make the design of an earthing system complex, not derived from a simple calculation or the random driving of a few rods into the soil. Knowledge of the local soil conditions is mandatory and is the first step in the design process. This includes its moisture content, temperature, and resistivity under a given set of conditions. Evaluating the Soil Conditions Accurate design of a grounding system requires an accurate assessment of the site’s soil conditions. However, even a small site will often have widely varying soil resistivity from one spot to another. Many measurements must be made, and samples of the soil must be taken from several test locations and analyzed for both moisture and temperature. The actual measurement technique using the four-point tester is illustrated in Figure 1. Note that at least 10 measurements are recommended to properly assess the site soil resis- tivity. Large areas require more measurements, but 10 should be the minimum. Only soil to a depth of 10 feet, or 3 meters, needs to be tested in most situations. In very unusu- al situations, more specifically in very dry areas or under extreme conditions, refer to the test meter instructions for the procedure required to assess resistivity as a function of depth. Table 1 lists some common soils and their resistivity. When the measurements are completed, the average resistivity should be calculated, the temperature measured, and the moisture content assessed. Moisture content is assessed by taking soil samples at depths of about 1 foot, or 1/3 meter, and putting it in a plastic bag immediately. Weigh the sample first, dry it out completely, and weigh it again. Ex- press the difference in percentage. The result is the percent moisture by weight.
- 3. Newage Energy 3 Figure 1: Ground resistance testing C1 P1 P2 C2 A A A B A = 20B 1. A is less or equal to 20B 2. Resistivity in ohms per meter equals 19.15 ohm when A equals ~3.5 metre and B equals 12 cm. Soil Resistivity Testing Four Terminal Method of measuring soil resistivity
- 4. Newage Energy 4 Figure 2: The influence of moisture content Top soil clay Sandy loam Moisture by Percentage 4 8 12 16 20 24 40k 80k 120k 160k 200k Resistanceinohmpercm Resistanceinohmpercm Influence of change of state Ice Water Temp degrees C -10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50
- 5. Newage Energy 5 The temperature measurement and the percent of moisture should be compared with Figures 2 and 3, respectively, to determine the actual soil resistivity under optimum and worst-case conditions. This will permit a calculation of the range in grounding resistance achievable in that soil with the final system de- sign. The required design data has now been defined, and the design process can start from a solid foundation; i.e., the required parameters. The initial calculations should be based on the measured resis- tivity, and the final system design must take into account the extreme moisture and temperature variations. Design Step 1: Calculating the Requirements with Conventional Rods From work performed by many experts, we know that the resistance of any grounding electrode R1 may be estimated from: Where:ρ = Soil resistivity in ohm-meters L = The electrode length in feet d = The electrode diameter in inches If the soil resistivity averaged 100 ohm-meters, then the resistance of one ¾-inch by 10- foot electrode to true earth would be found to be 0.321p or 32.1 ohms. Obviously, that is high and most likely not acceptable. The next step is to determine how many of these rods are required to achieve a given goal. Design Step 2: Calculating the Required Number of Rods Where:R1 = Resistance of one rod K = The Combining Factor = N = The Number of Rods Required (when they are properly deployed) actual design process. Since making an electrical connection to earth involves a connection be- tween a conductor and a semiconductor, it is not point-to-point contact but conductor-to-area contact. That is, making an electrical contact with earth requires a significant volume of that earth around the conductor to complete the connection. This can best be illustrated by considering the implications of the data presented by Figures 4 −= 1 96 ln 1915.1 1 d L L p R In English units N KR RN 1 =
- 6. Newage Energy 6 Distance from Rod (% of Length) PercentagechangeinResistance 20 40 60 80 100 20406080100 dR d Shells of resistance (around a vertical rod)
- 7. Newage Energy 7 and 5, which illustrate the result of measuring the change in resistance of equal segments of earth along any radial from a driven rod. Notice that the change in measured resistance decreases exponentially with distance from the road, as illustrated by Figure 4. Notice also that at about 1.1 times the length of the rod in earth, the change in resistance be- comes negligible. This indicates that its connection to earth is nearly complete. Actually, about 95% + 2% of the connection has been completed. From these data, we know that for every rod driven into earth, an interfacing hemisphere of that earth is required to complete the electrical connection. The diameter of that hemisphere is approximately 2.2 times the length of the rod (L) in earth, as illustrated by Figure 6. When more than one rod is required, they should be spaced no closer than 2.2 times the length of that rod in any direction. If multiple rods are driven too close together, those connections are con- sidered incomplete; because all rods do not have a complete interfacing hemisphere, and the effectiveness of those additional rods are reduced proportionately and, in reality, wasted. To illustrate, consider Figure 7. Using those data, if we assume that one 10-foot rod pro- vides a resistance to earth of 100 ohms, then 10 rods at 5-foot intervals reduces the resistance to about 28 ohms. At 10-foot intervals, it is about 18 ohms; and at 22-foot intervals (2.2 times their length), it is down to only about 8 ohms. There are the same number of rods, but properly spaced. One other factor of concern is length of the grounding electrode. It is common practice to keep extending the length of the electrode into the earth to lower its resistance. This practice is not recommended for most situations, as will become apparent from an evaluation of the data offered by Figure 8. An analysis of these data show that as the electrode is extended into the earth, the percent reduction in resistance to earth per unit length of rod becomes exponentially less with each increment of length. For example, to reduce the resistance of a 10-foot rod in a given soil to half the 10-foot value, it requires extending that rod to 100 feet in that same soil. Further, it is unusual for the soil to remain constant as a function of depth. Most often, re- sistivity increases with depth, compounding the problem. A reasonable conclusion from these data is this: Many short rods (six to ten feet in length) are usually more productive than a few long ones in achieving a given resistance to earth. Remember: the longer the rod, the greater the interfacing hemisphere diameter. NOTES: 1. Often one or a few very long rods are tried, and because of measurement errors, the user thinks he has achieved a low resistance when, in fact, he probably has not. 2. More often than not, grounding systems are subjected to transient phenomena where the di/dt can exceed 100 kA/microseconds. In these situations, the surge impedance is the important factor, not the DC resistance. Using short, large- diameter rods such as the Chem-Rod￢ is far more effective in reducing the surge impedance. Use of Ground Augmentation Fill (GAF) reduces the impedance further.
- 8. Newage Energy 8 Dealing With High Soil Resistivity (Soil Conditioning) Soil resistivity is a function of several factors. These include the type of soil, moisture content, temperature, mineral content, granularity, and compactness. Usually, moisture and mineral content are the only factors that can be influenced by any practical control concept. Figures 2, 3, and 9 illustrate the influences of moisture, temperature, and mineral content, respectively. Controlling tempera- ture is usually not practical, but reducing sensitivity to temperature is. Moisture can be controlled where required, but the mineral content has the most dramatic influence, as illustrated by Figure 9. The higher mineral content also reduces soil sensitivity to moisture content. It is, therefore, obvious that increasing the mineral content is the first step to be considered in soil conditioning. Soil conditioning is the process of adding the right amount of metallic salt into the soil— uniformly—to achieve the required conductivity. Various methods have been attempted to accomplish this objective. In Table 2, the results of some examples are contrasted and compared with a conventional ¾-inch by 10-foot conventional rod in five different soils. The top line is the conventional rod alone; the second and third lines involve a conventional rod in soil that was hand mixed with salt (NaCl) and measured after one and three years. The fourth is a two-inch diameter copper tube filled with NaCl, provided with air breathing holes at the top and leach- ing holes at the base. It extracts moisture from the air (if it has any) and forms a saturated solution of the metallic salts which are leached out as the solution is formed. In dry areas where conditioning is needed the most, it is about as effec- tive as the equivalent length of empty two-inch pipe. In 1984, LEC in the USA introduced the Chem-Rod to the marketplace. Its design results in a more uniform distribution of the metallic salts throughout the electrode interfacing hemisphere. It absorbs moisture from the soil and air and leaches the metallic salts out at all levels, conditioning most of the interfacing hemisphere and using the available soil moisture. The metallic salts are selected on the basis of ap- plication and location. From the Table 2 data, two factors are evident: 1. The Chem-Rod￢ provides a much lower resistance to earth than any other option available. 2. That resistance is much more stable; it varied by only 40%, while the other options varied from 200 to 250%. NOTE: The Chem-Rod￢ resistance is dependent on the conditioning process. When the metallic salts migrate slowly through the soil, it may take up to six months for the process to stabilize at the lower resistance.
- 9. Newage Energy 9 As indicated by the formerly referenced, if there is too little moisture in the interfacing hemisphere for any electrode, the resistance will be proportionately higher, to the point where the connection is virtually non-existent. If the connection is needed and little or no moisture is present, moisture must be provided. This can be accomplished by using a local water source for automatic water injection and control . Assessing the Results Finally, it is essential that the end results are measured correctly. All too often, it has been assumed that a single measurement may be made from one point of a grounding system, regardless of its size, using the components that the manufacturer provides with his tester. In fact, that is seldom correct. The instrument usually is supplied with the compo- nents to test one or two rods only, provided the rods are not too long. For long rods and large grounding systems, it is necessary to move out away from the site a significant distance, sometimes up to one or more kilometers. The Fall-of-Potential measurement technique is the most common and the most accurate technique available today, if it is im- plemented properly.
- 10. Newage Energy 10
- 11. Newage Energy 11
- 12. Newage Energy 12 SOIL RESISTIVITIES (Approximate Ohm/Meters) Description Median Minimum Maximum Topsoil, loam 26 1 50 Inorganic clays of high plasticity 33 10 55 Fills – ashes, cinders, brine wastes 38 6 70 Gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays 43 25 60 Slates, shales 55 10 100 Silty or clayey fine sands with slight plasticity 55 30 80 Clayey sands, poorly graded sand-clay mixtures 125 50 200 Fine sandy or silty clays, silty clays, lean clays 190 80 300 Decomposed gneisses 275 50 500 Silty sands, poorly graded sand-silt mixtures 300 100 500 Clayey gravel, poorly graded gravel, sand-clay mixture 300 200 400 Well graded gravel, gravel-sand mixtures 800 600 1,000 Granites, basalts, etc. 1,000 --- --- Sandstone 1,010 20 2,000 Poorly graded gravel, gravel-sand mixtures 1,750 1,000 2,500 Gravel, sand, stones, little clay or loam 2,585 590 4,580 Surface limestone 5,050 100 10,000 Notes: 1. Low-resistivity soils are highly influenced by the presence of moisture. 2. Low-resistivity soils are more corrosive than high-resistivity soils.
- 13. Newage Energy 13 SOIL ENHANCEMENT OPTIONS 1. Conductive Concrete 30 to 90 ohm-meters Subject to ice and corrosive effects 2. Bentonite 2.5 ohm-meters Highly variable with respect to moisture (300%) 3. Carbon-Based Backfill Materials 0.1 to 0.5 ohm-meters Water-retention capability inferior to clays 4. Clay-Based Backfill Materials (GAF) 0.2 to 0.8 ohm-meters depending on moisture content High water-retention capability
- 14. Newage Energy 14 GROUNDING RESISTANCE OF VARIOUS ELECTRODES GROUNDING ELECTRODE MEASURED SOIL RESISTIVITY (OHM-METER) ELECTRODE RESISTANCE (OHMS) VARIATION OVER A YEAR Copper-Clad 9 7.2 Rod 62 22 (3/4”x10’) 270 65 3.7K 430 30K 10K 2.5 Rod in Manually 9 2.3 Salted Soil - 62 18 First Year 270 44 3.7K 350 30K 1.5K 2.0 Rod in Manually 9 5 Salted Soil - 62 30 Third Year 270 80 3.7K 400 30K 3K 2.0