Condition Assessment of Substation Ground Grids

Phase 1—Proof of Concept

1013910

13062416
13062416
Condition Assessment of Substation Ground Grids
Phase 1—Proof of Concept

1013910

Technical Update, March 2008

EPRI Project Manager

G. Gela

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 ▪ PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 ▪ USA
13062416800.313.3774 ▪ 650.855.2121 ▪ askepri@epri.com ▪ www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Magsoft Corporation
EPRI

This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of
continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY
are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Copyright © 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

13062416
 CITATIONS
This document was prepared by
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
110 8th Street
Troy, New York 12180-3590
Principal Investigator
M.V.K. Chari
J. Selvaggi
S. Salon

Magsoft Corporation
Address 2
City, State Zip
Principal Investigator
P. Wendling

EPRI-Lenox
115 East New Lenox Road
Lenox, MA 01240
Principal Investigator
G. Gela

This document describes research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Condition Assessment of Substation Ground Grids: Phase 1—Proof of Concept. EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: March 2008. 1013910.

13062416 iii
13062416
 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
This report describes the first stage of research to develop a simple and inexpensive method and
device to assess the integrity of substation grounding grids. The problem has been studied before
but there is not, to our knowledge, a reliable and inexpensive method or device to make a reliable
diagnosis. While the EPRI-developed Ground Grid Evaluator (commercially knows as the Smart
Ground Multimeter) can be used to provide valuable information, the equipment is considered to
be expensive and requires extensive high-level training and experience to collect reliable data
and interpret the results.

Results & Findings

The first phase of this research was a literature search, and a large amount of information on the
state-of-science in identifying degradation of substation ground grids was located. Several
methods have been considered and will be explored further. Ultrasonic, eddy current, ground
potential rise (GPR), and both low- and high-frequency electromagnetic methods to test the
integrity of the grounding grid and locate defects will be explored. This project found a
commercial program, INCA, which seems well adapted to finding the low and mid-range
frequency current distribution. The project also will continue development of a simple program
employing the Biot-Savart law for this purpose.
The project’s initial conclusions are that the electromagnetic methods look very promising, at
least in the cases where the location of the grid is known. Also, the project will limit this phase
of research to defects (breaks) in grid elements. If field trials confirm the feasibility and
practicality of the tested method(s), attention will be directed in the next phases of research to the
field problems listed in the survey responses, such as cracks or broken welds, and finally to the
decrease in conductor cross-section caused by corrosion.

Challenges & Objective(s)

Safety of personnel and proper performance of equipment in a high-voltage substation depends
on the performance and parameters of the grounding grid. A well-designed grid in good
condition should meet industry requirements such as those specified in Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Std 80 “IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding.”
Many large substations are more than 50 years old. During service, corrosion can deteriorate grid
components and degrade its integrity. A short circuit or direct lightning strike drives large
current through the grid. This current-caused potential increase depends on the grounding grid
resistance. Unfortunately, total or partial degradation of grid members increases grid impedance
and decreases its ability to carry fault currents. This issue is gaining importance in view of
increasing substation age and increasing fault currents in many substations and systems.

13062416 v
Applications, Values & Use
The researchers will continue to evaluate the promising methods from several viewpoints:
• Ability to detect and locate defects in substation ground grids
• Feasibility of implementation in actual substations that include incoming lines with shield
wires and possibly underground metallic structures in addition to the ground grid itself; all
these components may provide paths for currents that could disturb the assessment of grid
integrity
• Practicality of implementing the assessment method
• Economics of implementation in terms of such factors as equipment cost, crew size, required
time to perform the assessment, and equipment power requirements
If successful, the developed method and equipment will be commercialized.

EPRI Perspective
Safety impacts all segments of the electric power industry. Properly designed and maintained
substation grounding systems minimize electrical hazards to utility personnel and the public and
the possibility of mis-operation of substation equipment. Utilizing recognized industry experts,
EPRI has led a number of research projects related to substation grounding systems, including
development of the Substation Grounding Workstation and Guide and the Ground Grid
Evaluator (commercialized under the name Smart Ground Multimeter). This project addresses
the very important issue of assessing the integrity of substation ground grids that have seen many
years of continual operation and may have suffered unknown degradation. The objective of this
research is to develop new reliable and inexpensive method(s) and instrumentation that can be
easily deployed in the field and operated by technician-level personnel. No such equipment
exists at this time that would meet all needs of the electric power industry.

Approach
A number of approaches to the assessment of grid condition were considered, including those
used for underground (for example, water, oil, and sewer pipes) or inaccessible (nuclear plants)
pipe systems, and overhead transmission lines (for example, conductors, anchor rods, and
foundations). Methods used for pipe systems typically rely on access to the interior of the pipe
and, hence, are not applicable to underground substation grids consisting of small-diameter
stranded or solid conductors. Some methods used for overhead lines, such as acoustic methods or
the EMAT (Electro-Mechanical Acoustic Transducer) may hold promise; however, they would
need some or significant modification and adaptation to underground grids. In addition, a brief
survey was conducted of the funders of 2008 EPRI “base-funded” Project 30.018 (Ground Grid
Evaluation, Maintenance and Refurbishment) to learn what methods are in current use.

Keywords
Condition assessment of substation grounds
Grounding system impedance
Substation equipment grounding
Substation ground corrosion
Substation grounding systems

13062416 vi
 ABSTRACT
This report describes the first stage of research to develop a simple and inexpensive method and
device to assess the integrity of substation grounding grids. The problem has been studied before
but there is not, to our knowledge, a reliable and inexpensive method or device to make a reliable
diagnosis. While the EPRI-developed Ground Grid Evaluator (commercially knows as the Smart
Ground Multimeter or SGM) can be used to provide valuable information, the equipment is
considered to be expensive and requires extensive high-level training and experience to collect
reliable data and interpret the results. Hence, the objective of this research is not to develop a
device that reproduces all functions of the SGM, but to develop new reliable and inexpensive
method(s) and instrumentation that can be easily deployed in the field and operated by
technician-level personnel.
The report is divided into seven sections.
Section 1 briefly describes the technical problem and situations that are likely to be encountered
in substations.
Section 2 describes an initial literature search that will be completed in the near term. There has
been good work done on the subject, and we have found on the order of 100 relevant published
papers and reports.
Section 3 presents results of a brief survey of utilities to sample the industry’s experience with
vintage ground grids and methods of detecting defects. The survey consisted of seven questions
with sub-questions and was sent to approximately 80 members of EPRI TF 37H “Fault Current
Management and Substation Grounding” who are funders of the EPRI Project Set 37H by the
same name. Seven responses received by the time of publication of this Technical Update report
are summarized in this section. All responses are treated in a confidential manner and are
“sanitized” to remove the identity of the responder and the responding utility. Some responders
answered all questions, some did not. One responder provided additional documents; these
documents are not included in this report.
Section 4 describes some potential approaches that appear to be promising in detecting and
locating defects in substation ground grids. A number of methods were considered, including
those used for underground (for example, water, oil, and sewer pipes) or inaccessible (nuclear
plants) pipe systems, and overhead transmission lines (for example, conductors, anchor rods, and
foundations). The methods considered include the following:
• Current injection
• Acoustic guided waves
• Eddy current detection
• Resistance analog method for detecting defects in substation grounding
• Electro-mechanical acoustic transducer (EMAT)
• Electromagnetic technique
• Ground penetrating radar

13062416 vii
Section 5 contains a number of examples of magnetic field profiles for grids with different
current injection/collection scenarios and different faults or breaks in the grid. The analysis was
done with a code developed at RPI specifically for this project, and with the commercial package
INCA from Magsoft Corporation. The “proof of principle” is conducted in three logical steps.
First, assuming an ideal square symmetric grid (all elements have the same
resistance/impedance), current distributions are calculated for a square grid without defects and
for a grid with selected defects. The dc current excitation is used, and grid inductance and
capacitance are neglected. Although dc excitation is not considered the preferred approach since
dc in a ground grid may cause problems with large substation equipment and with control
instrumentations, these calculations provide valuable guidance regarding the expected range of
changes to the current distribution and to the locations of greatest changes within the grid when
defects are introduced. In the second step, the same grid is used to calculate magnetic field
signatures at a height of 200 mm above the grid. This step in the process demonstrates magnetic
field signatures of grids containing defects. In the third step, a rectangular grid is considered, ac
current excitation is used, and grid impedance is included. This step provides guidance regarding
sensitivity of the magnetic field to grid defects.
Section 6 summarizes the findings of this research to date and outlines general plans for future
work.
Section 7 contains references cited in the report and additional relevant papers.

13062416 viii
 CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION, PROBLEM STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVE ...........................................1-1

2 GROUNDING GRID ANALYSIS LITERATURE SEARCH.....................................................2-1

3 SURVEY OF UTILITY METHODS FOR GROUND GRID INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT ........3-1

Question 1: What is the typical age of you substation grids?...............................................3-1
Response A:...................................................................................................................3-1
Response B:...................................................................................................................3-1
Response C: ..................................................................................................................3-1
Response D: ..................................................................................................................3-2
Response E:...................................................................................................................3-2
Response F:...................................................................................................................3-2
Response G: ..................................................................................................................3-2
Question 2: Do you inspect the ground grids and/or assess their condition? If so, how
often? When were the grids last inspected? . ....................................................................3-2
Response A:...................................................................................................................3-2
Response B:...................................................................................................................3-2
Response C: ..................................................................................................................3-3
Response D: ..................................................................................................................3-3
Response E:...................................................................................................................3-3
Response F:...................................................................................................................3-3
Response G: ..................................................................................................................3-3
Question 3: What methods were used to inspect/assess the condition of ground grids?
Please describe the method(s) and list instrument(s) used. ................................................3-4
Response A:...................................................................................................................3-4
Response B:...................................................................................................................3-4
Response C: ..................................................................................................................3-4
Response D: ..................................................................................................................3-4
Response E:...................................................................................................................3-5
Response F:...................................................................................................................3-5
Response G: ..................................................................................................................3-5
Question 4: What were your findings? Please describe your findings and, when
available/possible, please provide reports or other documentation. All information will be
treated in a strictly confidential manner................................................................................3-5
Response A:...................................................................................................................3-5
Response B:...................................................................................................................3-6
Response C: ..................................................................................................................3-6
Response D: ..................................................................................................................3-6
Response E:...................................................................................................................3-6
Response F:...................................................................................................................3-6

13062416 ix
 Response G: ..................................................................................................................3-6
Question 5: How would rate the various methods in terms of..............................................3-7
(a) success in finding defects,..............................................................................................3-7
(b) ease of use, ....................................................................................................................3-7
(c) your confidence in the findings, relative cost of using the method..................................3-7
Response A:...................................................................................................................3-7
Response B:...................................................................................................................3-7
Response C: ..................................................................................................................3-7
Response D: ..................................................................................................................3-7
Response E:...................................................................................................................3-8
Response F:...................................................................................................................3-8
Response G: ..................................................................................................................3-8
Question 6: How severe was the damage, if any, that each method indicated?..................3-8
Response A:...................................................................................................................3-8
Response B:...................................................................................................................3-8
Response C: ..................................................................................................................3-8
Response D: ..................................................................................................................3-8
Response E:...................................................................................................................3-9
Response F:...................................................................................................................3-9
Response G: ..................................................................................................................3-9
Question 7: What actions, if any, were taken to repair damaged grids?..............................3-9
Response A:...................................................................................................................3-9
Response B:...................................................................................................................3-9
Response C: ..................................................................................................................3-9
Response D: ..................................................................................................................3-9
Response E:...................................................................................................................3-9
Response F:...................................................................................................................3-9
Response G: ..................................................................................................................3-9

4 SOME PROMISSING APPROACHES ...................................................................................4-1

Current Injection Method......................................................................................................4-2
Acoustic Guided Waves .......................................................................................................4-6
Eddy Current Detection........................................................................................................4-6
Dc Resistance Analog Method for Detecting Defects in Substation Grounding...................4-7
Some Benefits and Limitations.......................................................................................4-7
Theory and Mathematics................................................................................................4-8
Electro-Mechanical Acoustic Transducer (EMAT) .............................................................4-11
Ground Penetrating Radar .................................................................................................4-12

13062416 x
5 ELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNIQUE – EXAMPLE OF CALCULATED RESULTS...............5-1
Square 4 x 4 Grid .................................................................................................................5-1
Case A1: 4 x 4 Grid with no Defects ..............................................................................5-3
Case A2: Square 4 x 4 Grid with 3 Defects....................................................................5-5
Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid .........................................................................................................5-8
Case B1: Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, no Defects ................................................................5-9
Case B2: Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, 1 Defect in the Center of the Grid.............................5-9
Case B3: Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, 3 Defects in the Grid...............................................5-10
Case B4: Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, no Defects, Different Current Injection/Collection
Locations......................................................................................................................5-11
Case B5: Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, 3 Defects, Different Current Injection/Collection
Locations......................................................................................................................5-12

6 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND FUTURE WORK .................................................................6-1

7 REFERENCES AND ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................7-1

Additional Bibliography.........................................................................................................7-2

13062416 xi
13062416
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1 Different Parallel Paths in the Grid ...........................................................................4-1
Figure 4-2 Intact or Healthy Grid with Current Source. ..............................................................4-3
Figure 4-3 Pigtail from the Underground Grid to a Substation Structure, which Allows
connection of Measuring Instrumentation. .............................................................................4-3
Figure 4-4 Grid Excited with Source and an Open Conductor ...................................................4-4
Figure 4-5 Grid Excited but with a conductor completely detached. ..........................................4-5
Figure 4-6 Schematic of a Welded joint (left) and a Broken Weld (right) ...................................4-6
Figure 4-7 Schematic of the Excitation Problem........................................................................4-7
Figure 4-8 Early Version of EMAT Installed on an Energized Conductor at the EPRI-Lenox
Laboratory ............................................................................................................................4-11
Figure 5-1 Sample Ground Grid Used for Calculations of Case A1 (4 x 4 Grid) with the RPI
Computer Program. ...............................................................................................................5-2
Figure 5-2 Calculated Currents for Case A1 (4 x 4 Grid, no Defects) as Percentage of the
Injected Current. ....................................................................................................................5-3
Figure 5-3 Another Representation of Calculated Current Values (Percentages) in the Grid
Branches for Case A1 (4 x 4 Grid, no Defects)..........................................................................5-4
Figure 5-4 Calculated Magnetic Field Pattern for Case A1 (4 x 4 Grid, no Defects)..................5-5
Figure 5-5 Calculated Currents for Case A2 (4 x 4 Grid, 3 Defects) as Percentage of the
Injected Current. ....................................................................................................................5-6
Figure 5-6 Another Representation of Calculated Current Values (Percentages) in the Grid
Branches for Case A2 (4 x 4 Grid, 3 Defects)........................................................................5-7
Figure 5-7 Calculated Magnetic Field Pattern for Case A2 (4 x 4 Grid, 3 Defects)....................5-8
Figure 5-8 Calculated Magnetic Field Pattern for Case B1 (Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid,
no Defects).............................................................................................................................5-9
Figure 5-9 Calculated Magnetic Field Pattern for Case B2 (Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, 1
Defect in the Center of the Grid) ..........................................................................................5-10
Figure 5-10 Calculated Magnetic Field Pattern for Case B3 (Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, 3
Defects in the Grid) ..............................................................................................................5-11
Figure 5-11 Calculated Magnetic Field Pattern for Case B4 (Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid,
no Defects, Different Current Injection/Collection Locations)...............................................5-12
Figure 5-12 Calculated Magnetic Field Pattern for Case B5 (Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid,
3 Defects, Different Current Injection/Collection Locations).................................................5-13

13062416 xiii
13062416
1
INTRODUCTION, PROBLEM STATEMENT AND
OBJECTIVE

The safety of personnel and proper performance of equipment in a high voltage substation
depends on the performance and parameters of the grounding grid. A grid that is well-designed
and is in good condition should meet industry requirements such as those specified in IEEE Std
80 “IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding”.
Many large substations are more than 50 years old. During the long years of service corrosion
can deteriorate the grid and degrade its integrity. A short circuit or direct lighting stroke drives
large current through the grid. This current-caused potential increase depends on the grounding
grid resistance. Unfortunately, total or partial degradation of grid members increases the
impedance of the grid and decreases its ability to carry fault currents. This issue is gaining
importance in view of increasing age of the substations and increasing fault currents in many
substations and systems.
Typically the grounding grid consists of copper or iron conductors buried about 3 to 6 ft (or
more) deep under the substation surface. All substation equipment is connected to the grid. For
better performance, addition rods are driven vertically into the ground to provide low inductance
path for lightning currents. These rods are also connected to the grid.
The objective of this research is to develop a method and – if shown to be feasible and practical -
develop instrumentation to assess the integrity of the grounding grids in a substation. The
problem has been studied before but there is not, to our knowledge, a reliable and inexpensive
methods or device to make a reliable diagnosis. While the EPRI-developed Ground Grid
Evaluator (commercially knows as the “Smart Ground Multimeter” or “SGM”) can be used to
provide valuable information, the equipment is considered to be expensive and requires
extensive high-level training and experience to collect reliable data and interpret the results.
Hence, the objective of this research is not to develop a device that reproduces all functions of
the SGM, but to develop new reliable and inexpensive method(s) and instrumentation that can be
easily deployed in the field and operated by technician-level personnel.
The problem may be divided into three possibly overlapping cases as follows:
• For new constructions, we will be able to accurately specify the material and location of the
grid and be assured that all connections are good at the construction stage. We can take
measurements to obtain the “as constructed” signature that can be used a reference for later
comparisons. Subsequent measurements that show deviations from this initial signature will
indicate that some change has taken place in the grid integrity and we must then determine
what that change is and where the problem has occurred.

13062416 1-1
• In the case of an old substation that has good records from the construction stage, we have a
reasonably good picture of what was placed underground. We do not know if the condition
of the grid has degraded over time, but at least we know where the grid elements should be
found through such methods as magnetic field measurements.
• Finally, if we are dealing with old construction and the construction plans are not available or
are not accurate, we face the challenge of not only poor description of the grid, but also lack
of information on its design parameters. In this – the most difficult case - our method must be
capable of locating unknown underground structures in sufficient detail to locate defects and
to suggest remedial action.

13062416 1-2
2
GROUNDING GRID ANALYSIS LITERATURE SEARCH

A number of methods for detecting breaks in a substation’s grounding grid have recently been
researched [1-3]. A number of other articles [4-7] detail the more important aspects which may
effect the accurate detection of such breaks in the grid. These include topics such as the effect of
ground resistance on measurement, the electrical equipment in close proximity to the grounding
grid, the depth of the grid and many others.
One method [1] which shows promise uses harmonic currents which are fed into the grid. These
harmonic currents would be fed into the grid at any point(s) which is(are) easily accessible such
as the grounding rods. The method considers a frequency range up to 1MHz and a ten-layer soil
model. The grid is modeled as an unequal voltage grid and the Method of Moments (MoM) [8] is
then applied for solving for the surface potential difference between the two ends of a conductor
segment. A more detailed description is illustrated in [1]. Another method [2] is developed for
detecting corrosion in non-copper grids. However, the approach taken by the authors [2] may
indeed hold some promise for detected a grid break at points which are Cadwelded. These
include points where the ground rods are attached to the grid as well as at node points on the
grounding grid. This method relies upon resistance measurements. Once again, the details are
found in [2]. One other method which looks reasonable is found in [3]. This paper discusses test
methods for predicting corrosion rates for substation grounding grids. This corrosion appears to
be a problem when dissimilar metals such as copper, tin, zinc and steel are used in the grounding
system. We believe that corrosion, based upon our discussion with substation designers, poses a
much smaller risk if only copper is used. However, actual breaks at Cadwelded points may pose
a greater risk. This needs to be more fully investigated.
It is also important to understand how the earth may/will complicate the mathematical analysis
and measurements. Recently, some models which show promise have been developed by Li et al
[9]. They model a multilayer earth. Their method can be used in conjunction with the techniques
developed by Zhang et al [1] and Hu et al [2] in order to build a more complete model for
analyzing breaks in the grounding grid.
Since the grounding grid is one of the more important components in the substation for insuring
safety of both equipment and personnel, it is important to have the most complete analysis of the
grid. For example, if the harmonic current technique, discussed above, is employed, the mutual
inductance of the grid segments will become an issue as the frequency is increased. This has
been analyzed in Zhang et al [10].
Other methods that do not require injection of currents into the grid are also reviewed, including
Acoustic Guided Waves [11, 12], Eddy Current Detection [13], EMAT (Electro-Mechanical
Acoustic Transducer) [14, 15], and GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar) [16, 17], are also reviewed.
These methods will be evaluated in more detail for detecting and locating defects in the
grounding grid.

13062416 2-1
13062416
3
SURVEY OF UTILITY METHODS FOR GROUND GRID
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT

A brief survey was conducted to sample the industry’s experience with vintage ground grids and
methods of detecting defects. The survey was sent to approximately 80 members of EPRI TF
37H “Fault Current Management and Substation Grounding” who are funders of the EPRI
Project Set 37H by the same name. Seven responses received by the time of publication of this
Technical Update report are summarized in this section. All responses are treated in a
confidential manner and are “sanitized” to remove the identity of the responder and the
responding utility.
The survey consisted of seven questions with sub-questions. Some responders answered all
questions, some did not. One responder provided additional documents; these documents are not
included in this report.

Question 1: What is the typical age of you substation grids?

Response A:
Age Less 10 - 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 50 More than Don’t
than 10 year years years years 50 years know
years
Number of 68 60 37 22 4
stations
Voltage 69-161kV 69- 69-161kV 69-161kV 69-161kV
161kV

Response B:
We have approximately 350 substations, ranging in age from around 70 years old to new ones
built last year. Our system includes 500 kV, 230 kV, 115 kV, and 69 kV.

Response C:
Age Less 10 - 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 50 More than Don’t
than 10 year years years years 50 years know
years
Number of 8 11 7 10 3 1 2
stations
Voltage(kV) 115/12 115/12 115/12 115/12 35/12 35/12
35/12 35/12 35/12 35/12 161/115
345/115 345/115

13062416 3-1
Response D:
Age Less 10 - 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 50 More than Don’t
than 10 year years years years 50 years know
years
Number of 8 11 7 10 3 1 2
stations
Voltage(kV) 115/12 115/12 115/12 115/12 35/12 35/12
35/12 35/12 35/12 35/12 161/115
345/115 345/115

Response E:
Company has hundreds of grids of all these age ranges. Transmission voltages are 46, 115, 230
and 500kV.

Response F:
Age Less than 10 - 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 50 More Don’t
10 years year years years years than 50 know
years
Number of 10% (~50) 10% (~50) 6% (~30) 50% 12% 12%
stations (~250) (~60) (~60)
Voltage 69 – 345 kV 69 – 345 kV 69 – 345 kV 69 – 345 69 – 345 69 – 345
kV kV kV

Response G:
Age Less than 10 - 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 50 More than Don’t
10 years year years years years 50 years know
Number of
76 108 96 323 424 741 24
stations
Voltage

Question 2: Do you inspect the ground grids and/or assess their condition? If so,
how often? When were the grids last inspected? .

Response A:
No structured inspection program in use

Response B:
We don’t inspect our ground grids on a regular basis. However we re-test the ‘grid-resistance to-
remote-earth’ and ‘surfacing rock resistivity’ of each substation approximately every 10-12
years.

13062416 3-2
Response C:
Age Less 10 - 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 50 More Don’t
than 10 year years years years than 50 know
years years
How often X
Last X
inspection/assessment

Response D:
Practices vary somewhat, but generally only test when: problems have occurred (lightning, etc.);
excavation has taken place that might have damaged grid; one nuclear plant has test requirements
every 5 years (started testing in 1991)

Response E:
Age Less 10 - 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 50 More Don’t
than 10 year years years years than 50 know
years years
How often
Last SEE 3
inspection/assessment BELOW

Response F:
Ground grids are inspected on a project basis. Grid analyses are performed using computer
models based on drawings and the assumption that the drawings correctly reflect what’s in the
ground.

Age Less 10 - 20 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 50 More Don’t

than 10 year years years years than 50 know
years years
How often Project Project Project Project Project Project
Basis Basis Basis Basis Basis Basis
Last
inspection/assessment

Response G:
Our utility does not inspect the buried grid on a scheduled basis. We only inspect or perform
testing if a problem indicates a need. Problems triggering an inspection would include: 1.
Evidence of arcing in ground or on connections/fence/conduits etc, 2. Evidence of holes blown in
the ground, 3. Failure of communication circuits.
All above-grade connections to steel, equipment, fence, switch handles etc are inspected on a
routine basis.

13062416 3-3
Question 3: What methods were used to inspect/assess the condition of ground
grids? Please describe the method(s) and list instrument(s) used.

Response A:
Excavation of fill is done to make visual inspections of copper grid. Inspections are not a
scheduled task. They only occur when construction upgrade projects required a grid connection.
Then, only that affected grid area is checked.

Response B:
If deficiencies are suspected, or observed during excavation, we perform a ‘Grid Integrity Test’
which consists of injecting a test current into the grid to verify continuity of the equipment
ground risers. High resistance or open connections are flagged and excavated for inspection and
repair. Any bad or missing connections found during new equipment installation are fixed
immediately.
The only other method we have used is to excavate a suspected area. We don’t do this unless
multiple problems have been visually observed. This would normally only happen during the
addition of new equipment.

Response C:
We do not have a testing program for ground grids. We have made visual inspections of the
above ground connections and condition of the above ground conductor over the years. This is
to see if the bolted connection appears tight and if the associated connector on the conductor is
tight or shows any signs of corrosion.
Engineering has made assessments of the ground grid when major upgrades are made at a
substation site - mainly to see if it meets current design for conductor size, spacing and ground
rod spacing. In some cases a new grid has been installed in an existing substation. This
assessment is done by reviewing substation drawings.
In a few projects where parts of the ground grid have been exposed we find little corrosion.
However we have found the conductor of thermo welded connections can break at the weld if the
conductor is hit by heavy equipment such as a back hoe. This is due to tempering of the copper
around the welded joint.
We would be very interested in learning how others assess their ground grids and the type of
equipment they use for testing and their findings as outlined in the remaining questions. Also we
would be interested to learn what types of conductor is used, type of underground connection is
used (welded or mechanical) and what types of problems they have found with the different
types of wire/connections.

Response D:
Method 1: use 300A Multi-Amp Ground Tester. Circulate ac current between ground risers
(often keep one riser as common reference point). Monitor voltage drop between points,
subtracting out cable test lead voltage drop. One rule of thumb is to compare voltage drops for
similar distances to remote test point – high comparative voltage indicates a problem. Another
rule of thumb is to allow 1.5V per 100ft between points when injecting 300A. Occasionally, a

13062416 3-4
cable tracer that follows the magnetic field is used to trace the flow of current through the grid
between points, but is often hard to distinguish the difference between the test current and the
current in nearby power cables or overhead conductors.
Method 2: use 30A Ohmcheck cable concentric neutral tester. This is similar to method 1,
except it injects a much smaller current. This was developed to test the condition of buried
cables with bare concentric neutrals, but we adopted it for substation ground grid testing because
it is much more portable and easier to use. Generally, this test is a go/no go test – if it passes
current into the risers, the risers are assumed good. The relative voltage drop is also compared to
detect problems with the grid.

Response E:
LARGO test set (instrument made in house) using Fall of potential usually with overhead ground
wires connected. Test made initially and after significant modifications to station.
Point to point continuity checks. 12V battery, long leads, and multimeter. Made every twelve
years.

Response F:
Grounds grids are inspected by either:
Excavation for physical estimate
Point-to-point continuity test done using a digital multimeter
Note: A couple of our ground grids were assessed in the past by other methods; however, there
was no way to properly interpret the results to determine what they indicated about the ground
grid (whether it was in good condition, corrosion had occurred, there were broken conductors or
connections, etc.)

Response G:
We perform a visual inspection of above grade components. If problems are suspected, we
perform a point-to-point resistance test using a 100 DC micro-ohmmeter. This is performed for
new construction or if problems develop as mentioned in number 2 above.
For new stations we also perform a fall of potential test either using a test instrument like an
earth Megger or using the SGM Smartmeter.

Question 4: What were your findings? Please describe your findings and, when
available/possible, please provide reports or other documentation. All
information will be treated in a strictly confidential manner.

Response A:
In most cases, the copper conductor is in good condition. Older stations have underground
bolted connections to bond the grid conductors and electrodes together. The bolted connectors
were found to be eroded significantly due to galvanic corrosion which created a loose bonding
condition between grid conductors. Exothermic welded connections have been used by many

13062416 3-5
years now and their integrity and condition remain high as long as the connection was properly
done.
Ground rods have been found severely corroded also. The length of an excavated rod is
sometimes much less than the original length installed due to galvanic corrosion.

Response B:
We have on occasion observed deficiencies in the buried ground grid connections. Examples
are: missing connections to ground rods, missing connections between grid conductors, etc.

Response C:
No findings to report

Response D:
Though the grid is always the first suspect when lightning problems have occurred, we generally
do not find many problems with the main grid, even for very old substations. What we often find
is risers that were never connected to the grid in the first place (QC on contractors), separate
isolated grounding systems that should have been bonded but were never shown to be bonded on
design drawings, and an occasional bad connection. I have yet to find anything that showed
reduced conductor size from general corrosion. The one case that did show general corrosion
was discovered by visual inspection after some arrester failures (caused by coal pile sulfur run-
off).

Response E:
Fall of Potential - All substations were under 1 ohm. When multiplied by the MERC, the GPR
sometimes would exceed our value of 4KV. 4KV was the old limit due to the old phone
protection circuits used. Is 4KV the correct value to still use? Fiber optic isolation can give up
to 50KV protection. Is this test telling us the true condition of our ground mat? Can it tell
corrosion in underground conductors?
With the Point to point test, we do find structures that have become detached from grid, or
improperly grounded.

Response F:
N/A

Response G:
The number 1 ranked problem is copper theft. Missing grounds are usually found during a
routine monthly substation inspection.
We frequently have problems with buried 4/0 conductors working their way to the surface
creating a tripping hazard for workers.

13062416 3-6
Question 5: How would rate the various methods in terms of

(a) success in finding defects,

(b) ease of use,

(c) your confidence in the findings, relative cost of using the method.

Response A:
Excavations are a direct visual indication of a problem, but they are costly in terms of labor and
equipment. It is reasonable to assess a station’s overall grid connection integrity based on the
findings that follow an excavation in a specific grid location.

Response B:
Excavation and visual inspection:
a) Visual observation is of course very successful at finding defects
b) Excavation is extremely labor intensive and time consuming
c) High confidence in findings, but very expensive
Grid integrity test:
a) The ‘grid integrity test’ is successful at locating completely missing connections, but doesn’t
accurately indicate connections that may be ‘poor’ or ‘barely adequate’. It only indicates
continuity, so even if a connection consists of a single strand, it would be interpreted as good.
b) Fairly time consuming, but can be done relatively easily.
c) Lower confidence, but reasonably cost effective.

Response C:
No findings to report

Response D:
a) success rate is relatively good for finding MAJOR defects in grid, but not for ground rods.
b) 300A Multi-Amp tester is over 400lbs and you use 2/0 welding cable for test leads so it is all
very heavy and difficult to use. It also draws a lot of current at 230V ac, so finding a place to
plug it in is difficult. The 30A Ohmcheck is much smaller and easier to use and runs off 115V
ac.
c) a large substation might take several days with a 2-3 person crew. Confidence in finding
MAJOR problems is pretty good, but minor problems or general corrosion is extremely small
confidence.

13062416 3-7
Response E:
Fall of potential:
a) no success
b) not easy to use. heavy spools, several pieces of equipment
c) confident that the results found are accurate. But what use are they?
Point to Point:
a) some success
b) easy to use
c) confident in findings, cheap cost

Response F:
Our company has a great interest in the development of a new method or summary of current
methods to assess the condition of ground grids to fill the void that seems to exist across the
industry for assessing existing ground grids. We’d like to see an industry paper/standard
published on what method(s) is (are) acceptable and how to interpret any results from these
methods.

Response G:
N/A

Question 6: How severe was the damage, if any, that each method indicated?

Response A:
some locations, bolted connections were found severely eroded and ground rods much shorter
than original length installed. Loose grid connections were the result. Only an excavation
method was used.

Response B:
At one of our substations, the excavated copper ground grid was found to be severely corroded.
This is allegedly due to stray DC from the plant next door.
Otherwise, the problems have consisted of missing or inadequate grid connections.

Response C:
No findings to report

Response D:
See above

13062416 3-8
Response E:
Fall of Potential - no problems found
Point to Point - usually find complete separation from ground mat, or improperly grounded.
Find loose connections.

Response F:
N/A

Response G:
N/A

Question 7: What actions, if any, were taken to repair damaged grids?

Response A:
Only the bolted connections that were uncovered during construction upgrade projects were
placed with exothermic welded connections. All new ground grid connections are now
exothermic welded.

Response B:
The entire corroded ground grid is being replaced, and a Corrosion Protection system will be
installed.
At the other substations, any missing or bad connections were fixed.

Response C:
No findings to report

Response D:
Crew would dig up bad connection or broken grid conductor and repair.

Response E:
Reconnected to grid. Properly grounded. Tighten connections

Response F:
N/A

Response G:
Missing conductors are replaced using 4/0 copper with cadweld connections.
If a point-to-point resistance test is excessive, it is more economical to install a new conductor
and abandon the faulty one. As a result, bad connections are not usually excavated for inspection.

13062416 3-9
13062416
4
SOME PROMISSING APPROACHES

Substation ground grids are buried in conducting earth whose electrical conductivity, while not
high is quite variable depending on the type of soil or fill, moisture content, presence of other
metallic objects and other factors. The grid is also solidly connected to ground rods that are
typically driven into the ground far enough to reach the water table. There are also ground
connections made to the substation equipment and shield wires of incoming lines that provide
paths for current flow. Schematic representation of a sample ground grid is shown in Figure 4-1.
Any promising method for assessment of the condition of a ground grid must provide definite
unambiguous results in this complicated environment.

Substation Equipment

Accessible Connections

Grounding Grid

Layers of Earth

Grounding Rods

Figure 4-1
Different Parallel Paths in the Grid

13062416 4-1
A number of approaches to the assessment of grid condition were considered, including those
used for underground (water, oil, sewer pipes, etc.) or inaccessible (nuclear plants) pipe systems,
and overhead transmission lines (conductors, anchor rods, foundations, etc.). Methods used for
pipe systems typically rely on access to the interior of the pipe, and hence are not applicable to
underground substation grids consisting of small-diameter stranded or solid conductors. Some
methods used for overhead lines, such as acoustic methods or the EMAT (Electro-Mechanical
Acoustic Transducer) may hold promise, however, they would need some or significant
modification and adaptation to underground grids. Review of methods used in other industries
will continue.
This Section describes methods that at this time appear to be promising for condition assessment
of underground substation grid. The methods are:
• Current injection
• Acoustic guided waves
• Eddy current detection
• Resistance analog method for detecting defects in substation grounding:
• Electro-mechanical acoustic transducer (EMAT)
• Electromagnetic technique
• Ground penetrating radar

Current Injection Method

One obvious way of interrogating the grid is to excite it with current injected at various points in
the grid. One injection configuration is shown in Figure 4-2 where we inject a current in one
corner of a rectangular 5 x 4 grid (i.e., grid consisting of 20 meshes). The current can be dc or ac.
For simplicity of discussion, we first consider dc current.
In an actual substation grid, there are normally several access points (for example, the pigtails
from the grid to metallic structures in the substation, as shown in Figure 4-3), and therefore it is
possible to set up a number of different current distributions that will be more or less sensitive to
defects at different locations in the grid. As mentioned earlier, at this stage of research we are
concentrating on breaks in continuity of grid members.

13062416 4-2
 Remove Current

Inject Current

Figure 4-2
Intact or Healthy Grid with Current Source.

Figure 4-3
Pigtail from the Underground Grid to a Substation Structure, which Allows connection of
Measuring Instrumentation.

13062416 4-3
Injecting dc current into the grid will allow us to measure the resistance, magnetic field and
possibly ground potential. Different excitation patterns will produce different current
distributions and therefore different impedance and magnetic fields will result. If we have a
break in one of the grid elements, as shown in Figure 4-4, then the current pattern will be altered
(i.e., there will be no current in this branch of the grid), the resistance of the grid will change
(increase), the magnetic field pattern at the surface will change, as will also the ground potential.
This can be used to find the defective element. Some calculated examples of the magnetic field
patterns produced with injected dc and ac current are given later in the report.

Remove Current

Inject Current
Conductor Broken

Figure 4-4
Grid Excited with Source and an Open Conductor

Different excitation patterns will be more or less sensitive to a particular defect location in the
grid and the results can be worked out ahead of the test.
Next, when ac current is injected into the grid, both inductance and capacitance of the system
must be considered. The frequency must be high enough so that the displacement (capacitive)
current of the grid is significant. It is expected that the frequency will probably need to be in the
range of 100 kHz to 100 MHz. When high frequency current is injected (in the MHz range), the
grid will act like an antenna and we should be able to see the broken conductor as a radiating
element. The difference between the field pattern for the high frequency and dc (or low
frequency) can possibly be used to identify and locate the defective grid member.
In Figure 4-5, we see the same grid as in Figure 4-3 but with the grid element disconnected from
grid nodes at both ends. In this case, neither dc (or low-frequency) current nor significant high-
frequency current will flow in the defective element (there may be a very small induced current
at high frequency). In this case we do not expect to be able to find the defect based on the
magnetic field pattern. Other methods, such as the eddy current method, may need to be used to
find and locate this type of defect.

13062416 4-4
 Remove Current

Inject Current
Conductor Disconnected

Figure 4-5
Grid Excited but with a conductor completely detached.

Another type of defect, shown in Figure 4-6, is poor or absent connection between the grid
elements as they cross over at grid nodes. The grid cables are normally welded at the nodes, as
shown in Figure 4-6. This welded connection between crossing elements will affect the current
distribution and therefore the signature magnetic field. If this electrical connection is broken the
current distribution will be altered, yet there will be no open or disconnected element. The eddy
current method may not be able to detect this defect though the impedance and the fields will
change. It may be that high frequency methods can identify and locate this type of defect.
Detecting this type of defect is more difficult than broken grid elements and will not be
considered at this stage of research.

13062416 4-5
 Welded Joint Broken Weld

Figure 4-6
Schematic of a Welded joint (left) and a Broken Weld (right)

Acoustic Guided Waves

There are three types of guided-waves, longitudinal (L), torsional (T), and flexural (F). The L-
waves are displaced in both the axial and radial direction (along the radius of the cable) [11, 12].
When launching an acoustic wave in the underground grid, we will obtain a reflection from any
discontinuity we encounter. This would mean at every weld junction, connection or break in the
grid. We will also see a reflected signal from a partial break. There will likely be a large
dispersion and attenuation in the case of an underground grid which may make this technique
less suitable. However, it has the advantage that no current injection into the grid is needed, and
the instrumentation is less likely to be affected by ambient fields and interference in a substation.

Eddy Current Detection

We will investigate eddy current methods [13] to locate the underground grid and see if we can
diagnose the grid. In the eddy current detection method, one coil is used as a high frequency
source. A pick-up coil (which might be the same as the source coil) is used to measure the flux
density magnitude and phase or the current magnitude and phase. As the exciting coil passes
over a conducting material, eddy currents are induced which have a characteristic magnitude and
phase signature. This depends on the material and the geometry. The apparent inductance of the
exciting coil is lower as the coil approaches the conducting medium. The signal can be
calibrated to find the size and shape of defects in the material. The eddy current method might
be used to find the underground grid in cases where we have no plans and must find the location
of the cables. We will also investigate the possibility of using the eddy current probes to look for
cracks or breaks in the grid. The challenge here is that the diameter of the wire is relatively
small and the depth may be several feet, so that the sensor is far from the grid. The method has
been used successfully in cases where the sensor is close to object being scanned. We will have
to investigate the sensitivity which can be done in software.

13062416 4-6
Dc Resistance Analog Method for Detecting Defects in Substation Grounding
The resistive analog method has found innumerable applications in geophysical prospecting,
under-ground water source mapping, mineral exploration and others. It is a simple method using
a dc source for applying a voltage or injecting current in the grounding network, and measuring
magnetic fields on a plane slightly above the grounding network. A defect such as a crack in
grounding rods, or even detachment at a node can be detected by a change in the magnetic field
measured on the plane above, provided it is a complete detachment of rods at a node, and not
merely lifting of one layer of rods above the other at right angles to the first at any given node.
This is illustrated in Figure 4-7.

Figure 4-7
Schematic of the Excitation Problem

The general steps in this procedure are::

1. Develop Z-bus or Y-bus matrices for the substation grid using the Kron’s network
analysis techniques.
2. Determine the magnetic field a short distance above on a plane parallel to the grounding
network by analytical (Biot-Savart law) or numerical methods. Numerical methods are
needed for realistic substation grids.
Some Benefits and Limitations
The dc resistance analog technique provides an easy method of evaluating the magnetic fields at
any point in the plane above the grounding network. Problems confronted in eddy current and
high frequency methods due to induced currents in neighboring structures are completely
avoided in this dc technique. However, it remains to be seen whether this method will perform
satisfactorily in an actual substation.

13062416 4-7
Theory and Mathematics
The Kron’s method is described briefly next.
Step 1: Derive a connection matrix [C] relating branch currents to loop currents in the grounding
network so that [ I ] = [C ][i ] .
Step 2: Develop an automated software to model the grounding network and determine the
coordinates and resistances of the respective components.
Step 3: Modify the primitive matrix of resistances by Kron’s transformation to yield the new
resistance matrix such that [ Z '] = [C ] [ Z ][C ] , and the forcing function given by [V '] = [C ] [V ] .
T T

Step 4: Solve the matrix equation [V '] = [ Z '][i ] and obtain the loop currents [i]. Substituting [i]
in step 1, we obtain the branch currents [I].
Step 5: Utilizing the branch currents of the network and the coordinates of the respective
branches and the coordinates of any observation point on the plane above the grounding network,
we can evaluate the magnetic field at the particular observation point chosen.
Thus, we can map the entire magnetic field over the plane above the grid network.

Biot-Savart Law Development:

1
H= ∫ J × ∇ ( r )dv Equation 4-1

In Cartesian coordinates

1 ⎡∂ 1 ∂ 1 ∂ 1 ⎤
4π ∫ x
H = H xi + H y j + Hz k = ( J i + J y j + Jz k ) × ⎢ ∂x ( r )i + ∂y ( r ) j + ∂z ( r ) k ⎥ dxdydz
⎣ ⎦

Equation 4-2

1 ⎧⎡ ∂ ⎛ 1⎞ ∂ ⎛ 1⎞ ⎤ ⎡ ∂ ⎛ 1⎞ ∂ ⎛ 1⎞ ⎤ ⎡ ∂ ⎛ 1⎞ ∂ ⎛ 1⎞ ⎤ ⎫
∫ ⎨ ⎢ J y ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ − J z ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ ⎥ i + ⎢ J z
4π ⎩ ⎣ ∂z r ∂y r ⎦ ⎣ ∂x ⎝ r ⎠
⎜ ⎟ − Jx ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ j + ⎢ Jx
∂z ⎝ r ⎠ ⎦
⎜ ⎟ − Jy
⎣ ∂y ⎝ r ⎠
⎜ ⎟ k ⎬ dxdydz
∂x ⎝ r ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎭

Equation 4-3

Transposing equation (3) in terms of currents in place of current densities, we have

13062416 4-8
 1 ⎧ ∂ ⎛ 1⎞ ∂ ⎛ 1⎞ ⎫
H xi = ∫ ⎨ I y ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ dy − I z ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ dz ⎬ i
4π ⎩ ∂z r ∂y r ⎭
1 ⎧ ∂ ⎛ 1⎞ ∂ ⎛ 1⎞ ⎫
Hy j = ∫ ⎨ I z ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ dz − I x ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ dx ⎬ j
4π ⎩ ∂x r ∂z r ⎭
1 ⎧ ∂ ⎛ 1⎞ ∂ ⎛ 1⎞ ⎫
Hz k = ∫ ⎨ I x ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ dx − I y ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ dy ⎬ k
4π ⎩ ∂y r ∂x r ⎭ Equation 4-4

where r = ( x '− x) 2 + ( y '− y ) 2 + ( z '− z ) 2 Equation 4-5

∂ ⎛1⎞ ( x '− x)
=
∂ x ⎜⎝ r ⎟⎠ 3

{( x '− x) 2
+ ( y '− y ) + ( z '− z )
2
}
2 2

∂ ⎛1⎞ ( y '− y )
=
∂ y ⎜⎝ r ⎟⎠ 3
Equation 4-6
{( x '− x) 2
+ ( y '− y ) + ( z '− z )
2
}
2 2

∂ ⎛1⎞ ( z '− z )
=
∂ z ⎜⎝ r ⎟⎠ 3

{( x '− x) 2
+ ( y '− y ) 2 + ( z '− z ) 2 } 2

Integrations:

1 y2 ∂ ⎛1⎞ 1 y2 I y ( z '− z )dy

I1 =
4π ∫ Iy ⎜ ⎟dy =
∂z⎝r⎠ 4π ∫ 3
Equation 4-7
{( x '− x) }
y1 y1
2
+ ( y '− y ) + ( z '− z )
2 2 2

− I y ( z'− z )( y '− y )
=
y2

4π {( x '− x ) + ( z'− z) } y1
2 2
( x ' − x ) + ( y '− y ) + ( z '− z )
2 2 2

− I y ( z '− z ) ⎡ ( y '− y 2 ) ( y '− y1 ) ⎤

= ⎢ − ⎥
4π {( x '− x ) + ( z'− z) } ⎢⎣ ( x '− x ) 2 + ( y '− y2 ) 2 + ( z '− z) 2
2 2
( x '− x ) 2 + ( y '− y1 ) 2 + ( z '− z) 2 ⎥⎦

Equation 4-8

Similarly
− I z ( y '− y ) ⎡ ( z '− z 2 ) ( z '− z1 ) ⎤
I2 = ⎢ − ⎥
4π { ( x '− x ) + ( y '− y ) } ⎢⎣ ( x '− x ) 2 + ( y '− y ) 2 + ( z'− z2 ) 2
2 2
( x '− x ) 2 + ( y '− y ) 2 + ( z'− z1 ) 2 ⎥⎦

Equation 4-9

B x = μo ( I 1 − I 2 ) Equation 4-10

13062416 4-9
 − I z ( x '− x ) ⎡ ( z '− z 2 ) ( z '− z1 ) ⎤
I3 = ⎢ − ⎥
4π { ( x '− x ) + ( y '− y ) } ⎢⎣ ( x '− x ) 2 + ( y '− y ) 2 + ( z'− z2 ) 2
2 2
( x '− x ) 2 + ( y '− y) 2 + ( z'− z1 ) 2 ⎥⎦

Equation 4-11

− I x ( z '− z ) ⎡ ( x '− x 2 ) ( x '− x1 ) ⎤

I4 = ⎢ − ⎥
4π { ( y '− y ) + ( z '− z ) } ⎢⎣ ( x '− x 2 ) + ( y '− y ) 2 + ( z'− z) 2
2 2 2
( x '− x1 ) 2 + ( y '− y ) 2 + ( z'− z ) 2 ⎥⎦

Equation 4-12

B y = μo ( I 3 − I 4 )
Equation 4-13

− I x ( y '− y ) ⎡ ( x '− x 2 ) ( x '− x1 ) ⎤

I5 = ⎢ − ⎥
4π { ( y '− y ) + ( z '− z) } ⎢⎣ ( x '− x 2 ) + ( y '− y ) 2 + ( z'− z) 2
2 2 2
( x '− x1 ) 2 + ( y '− y ) 2 + ( z '− z ) 2 ⎥⎦

Equation 4-14

− I y ( x '− x ) ⎡ ( y '− y 2 ) ( y '− y1 ) ⎤

I6 = ⎢ − ⎥
4π {( x '− x ) + ( z '− z ) } ⎢⎣ ( x '− x ) 2 + ( y '− y 2 ) 2 + ( z'− z) 2
2 2
( x '− x ) 2 + ( y '− y1 ) 2 + ( z'− z) 2 ⎥⎦

Equation 4-15

Bz = μ o ( I 5 − I 6 ) Equation 4-16

Example: x1 = -100 m; x2 = 100 m; (y’-y) = 1 m; (z’-z) = 0 m; Ix = 1000 A; Iy = Iz = 0 A

− 4π × 10 − 7 × 1000 × 1 ⎡⎢ (0 − 100) (0 + 100) ⎤

⎥
Bz = I 5 = −
4π {12 + 0} ⎢ {100 2
+ 12 + 0} {100 + 1 + 0} ⎥⎦
2 2
⎣
−4
= 2 × 10

Equation 4-17

In Equation 4-17, the magnetic flux density (magnetic field), Bz, is in Tesla (T). Recalling that 1
Tesla = 1 x 104 Gauss, the calculated value of Bz is 2 Gauss (G) for injected current of 1000 A.
Since the problem is mathematically linear, injected current of 100 A would theoretically
produce field level of 200 mG, which appears to be quite reasonable and measurable using
commercially available hand-held magnetic field meters (single-axis or three-axis).

13062416 4-10
Electro-Mechanical Acoustic Transducer (EMAT)
A promising technology for NDE of anchor rods is EMAT (Electro-Mechanical Acoustic
Transducer) [14, 15]. The EMAT technology, currently under development by EPRI, uses non-
coupled acoustic wave propagation technology to assess the condition of the steel anchor rod.
EMAT uses a torsional T wave to inject its energy into the member as shown in Figure 4-8. As
the returning signals are processed, the neural analysis capabilities of the system compare a test
specimen’s acoustic signature to known signatures of good and bad anchor rods and recommend
a conditional assessment of the anchor rod’s corrosion level. EMAT technology has been applied
successfully in several other applications for Overhead Transmission asset assessment. Initially it
was developed to inspect stranded grounding cables connecting the ground grid in substations to
the equipment. The assessment was designed to assess the amount of corrosion in the strands and
the effectiveness of the ground leads. The next application was directed to the assessment of
overhead conductors. EMAT is attached to overhead conductors and used to detect broken
strands under suspension clamp and armor rod assemblies without removing the rods or clamp.
EMAT is also used to determine if the significant core strand corrosion is present. Associated
with the qualitative measurements made by the EMAT system, a neural recognition system runs
in the background, being trained to associate specific instrumentation signals to calibrated visual
and measured corrosion results. As the neural system becomes more knowledgeable, its accuracy
in predicting the condition state of the anchor rod or component is enhanced. The EMAT
systems have been adapted to successfully assess the in-service condition of conductors and will
go to trials in 2008 as part of the EPRI P35A Project Set for the inspection and assessment of in-
service steel poles.
An EMAT unit will be brought to a substation to determine the feasibility of this method for
assessment of the condition of underground grids.

Figure 4-8
Early Version of EMAT Installed on an Energized Conductor at the EPRI-Lenox Laboratory

13062416 4-11
Ground Penetrating Radar
The GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar) was developed with EPRI sponsorship to detect and locate
underground pipes and leaks from underground HPFF (high-pressure-fluid-filled) cables [16,
17]. It has since been used in many other applications, and will be considered for field trials in
this project. In detecting ground grid elements and defects in grids, the main concerns include
the achievable resolution, the cost of the equipment, and the required skill in interpreting data
obtained from field measurements.

13062416 4-12
5
ELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNIQUE – EXAMPLE OF
CALCULATED RESULTS

This Section contains examples of calculated magnetic field produced by healthy and defective
grids. It serves as a conceptual “proof of principle” of the method and provides guidance as to
the sensitivity of the magnetic field to defects. Only discontinuities in grid members are
considered at this time.
The “proof of principle” is conducted in three logical steps. First, assuming an ideal square
symmetric grid (i.e., all elements have the same resistance/impedance), the current distributions
are calculated for a square grid without defects, and for a grid with selected defects. The dc
current excitation is used and grid inductance and capacitance are neglected. Although dc
excitation is not considered the preferred approach since dc in a ground grid may cause problems
with large substation equipment and with control instrumentations, these calculations provide
valuable guidance regarding the expected range of changes to the current distribution, and the
locations of greatest changes within the grid when defects are introduced.
In the second, the same grid is used to calculate magnetic field signatures at a height of 200 mm
above the grid. This step in the process demonstrates magnetic field signatures of grids
containing defects. Dc current is sued for these calculations.
In the third step, a rectangular grid is considered, ac current excitation is used, and grid
impedance is included. This step provides guidance regarding the sensitivity of the magnetic
field to grid defects.
Calculations were performed using a computer program developed at RPI specifically for this
project and also INCA, a commercial package by Magsoft Corporation.
Using the RPI code, we compute the dc current distribution and then the magnetic field at a
number of specified points. The program uses loop currents to find the current distribution in the
mesh and then adds the loop currents to find the branch currents. In this case, the inductance is
not included so we have a static field as opposed to the INCA results which includes inductive
coupling.

Square 4 x 4 Grid
These calculations were performed using the RPI code.
The example shown in Figure 5-1 is for a regular 4 x 4 grid consisting of 40 grid branches plus
an input and an output branch. The branch numbers are shown in the yellow rectangles. A dc
current is injected at the lower left-hand corner of the grid and collected at the upper right-hand
corner. As mentioned above, dc excitation is not considered the preferred approach since dc in a
ground grid may cause problems with large substation equipment and with control
instrumentations. This example, however, provides valuable guidance regarding the expected

13062416 5-1
range of changes to the current distribution, and the locations of greatest changes within the grid
when defects are introduced.
For illustrative purposes, each branch has 1 Ohm of resistance. The current distribution in the
grid branches is calculated and then the magnetic field at any location is computed using the
Biot-Savart equations listed in the previous Section.

42

38 39 40 41

37
33 34 35 36

30 32
2 31

28
26
24 25 27

20
21 22 23

18 19
15 16 17

11 12 13 14

6 7 10
8 9

2 3 4 5

Figure 5-1
Sample Ground Grid Used for Calculations of Case A1 (4 x 4 Grid) with the RPI Computer
Program.

13062416 5-2
Case A1: 4 x 4 Grid with no Defects
Figure 5-2 shows the calculated currents, expressed as percentage of the injected current. Each
yellow rectangle contains the branch number followed by the forward slash (/) and the
percentage current value in that branch. Since the grid contains no defects and all branches have
the same resistance, the calculated current values show, as expected, perfect symmetry about the
lower-left-to-upper-right diagonal, and also alone the upper-left-to-lower-right diagonal. Since
any defect in the grid will disturb this symmetry, this indicates, at least theoretically, that defects
can be detected.

42/100

38/9 39/18 40/30 41/50

37/50
33/9 34/9 35/11 36/20

30/16 32/20
29/9 31/20

28/30
26/16
24/18 25/16 27/20

20/11
21/16 22/16 23/11

18/16 19/18
15/30 16/20 17/16

11/20 12/20 13/16 14/9

6/50 7/20 10/9

8/11 9/9

2/50 3/30 4/18 5/9

1/100

Figure 5-2
Calculated Currents for Case A1 (4 x 4 Grid, no Defects) as Percentage of the Injected Current.

13062416 5-3
Figure 5-3 shows an x-y plot of the calculated current values (percentages) as function of branch
number. The displays in Figures 5-2 and 5-3 are useful in visualizing the current patterns and
detecting defects.

Currents in the grounding grid branches - no defects

100

90

80

70
% of input current

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Grid branch number

Figure 5-3
Another Representation of Calculated Current Values (Percentages) in the Grid Branches for Case
A1 (4 x 4 Grid, no Defects)

The resulting calculated pattern of the magnetic field is shown in Figure 5-3 for this example.
Dc current is used in this example.
As mentioned above, this example demonstrates magnetic field signatures of grids without
defects and, in the next example, grids containing defects. It should also be noted that the
injected current value and the calculated field values are of no importance at this point, since the
problem is scalable, i.e., the field is proportional to the injected current.

13062416 5-4
 Z

X Y
Induction Field
3.6000x10-07
3.4000x10-07
3.2000x10-07
3.0000x10-07
2.8000x10-07
2.6000x10-07
2.4000x10-07
2.2000x10-07
0.3
0.2 2.0000x10-07
0.1

z
-2 -2 1.8000x10-07
1.6000x10-07
-1 -1
1.4000x10-07
y
0 0 1.2000x10-07
x
1 1
1.0000x10-07
8.0000x10-08
2 2 6.0000x10-08
4.0000x10-08

Figure 5-4
Calculated Magnetic Field Pattern for Case A1 (4 x 4 Grid, no Defects)

Case A2: Square 4 x 4 Grid with 3 Defects

The three defects in this case are shown by red X marks in Figure 5-5, which also includes the
calculated percentage current values. The defects are discontinuities (breaks) in the branches.
As expected, symmetry is lost and the current distribution is distorted significantly. The degree
of distortion depends on the location and number of defects (breaks).
Figure 5-6 shows the x-y plot of the calculated current values (percentages) as function of branch
number. The distortion of the current distribution is very evident.
The resulting calculated pattern of the magnetic field is shown in Figure 5-7 for this example.
Comparing Figures 5-4 and 5-7, the distortion of the magnetic field pattern is clearly visible.

13062416 5-5
 42/100

38/11 39/21 40/32 41/51

37/49
33/11 34/10 35/11 36/19

30/20 32/22
29/11 31/24

28/27
26/15
24/22 25/19 27/18

20/14
21/23 22/21 23/13

18/10 19/13
15/36 16/27 17/13

11/23 12/37 13/24 14/10

6/59 7/41 10/3

8/0 9/3

2/41 3/0 4/0 5/3

1/100

Figure 5-5
Calculated Currents for Case A2 (4 x 4 Grid, 3 Defects) as Percentage of the Injected Current.

13062416 5-6
 Currents in the grounding grid branches - grid with 3 defects

100

90

80

70
current in amps

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Grid branch number

Figure 5-6
Another Representation of Calculated Current Values (Percentages) in the Grid Branches for Case
A2 (4 x 4 Grid, 3 Defects)

13062416 5-7
 Z

X Y
Induction Field
3.4000x10-07
3.2000x10-07
3.0000x10-07
2.8000x10-07
2.6000x10-07
2.4000x10-07
2.2000x10-07
0.3
0.2
0.1
2.0000x10-07

z
-2 -2 1.8000x10-07
-1 -1
1.6000x10-07
1.4000x10-07
y
0 0
x 1.2000x10-07
1 1 1.0000x10-07
8.0000x10-08
2 2 6.0000x10-08
4.0000x10-08

Figure 5-7
Calculated Magnetic Field Pattern for Case A2 (4 x 4 Grid, 3 Defects)

Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid
Calculations for this case were done using INCA, a commercial package by Magsoft
Corporation. The INCA program includes calculation of inductances of grid branches and forms
the resistance and inductance matrices. The current in this case is 60 Hertz and the skin effect in
the grid cables (branches) is accounted for. The program can handle other frequency values. The
capacitive effects are not included. This step in the “proof of principle” process provides
guidance regarding the sensitivity of the magnetic field to grid defects.
Field values were calculated at a height of 200 mm above the grid. High field values are
indicated in yellow and low field values are in blue.
It should be noted that high field values (yellow color) correspond to the high current values in
the brunches, while low field values (blue) correspond to low current values. We can see the grid
and the symmetry looks correct. Also, for each mesh, the highest field is above the conductor
and lowest field in the middle of the mech. This can be used to locate the grid members that
carry currents.

13062416 5-8
Case B1: Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, no Defects
Figure 5-8 shows the magnetic field pattern calculated for the rectangular 4 x 5 grid with no
defects. The current injection/collection locations are indicated with arrows. Although the grid is
rectangular (not square), diagonal symmetries are expected and are clearly visible in Figure 5-8.

Figure 5-8
Calculated Magnetic Field Pattern for Case B1 (Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, no Defects)

Case B2: Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, 1 Defect in the Center of the Grid

Figure 5-9 shows the magnetic field pattern calculated for the rectangular 4 x 5 grid with 1 defect
at the center of the grid. The current injection/collection locations are the same as in Case B1.
Although diagonal symmetries are visible in Figure 5-9 because the grid is symmetric (the defect
is in the center of the grid), the field pattern differs from the “no defect” case of Figure 5-8, and
can, at least theoretically, be used to indicate the presence of the defect and its location. The
collation of the defect (break or discontinuity in the branch) is indicated by the enlarged low field
(blue) region.

13062416 5-9
Figure 5-9
Calculated Magnetic Field Pattern for Case B2 (Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, 1 Defect in the Center of
the Grid)

Case B3: Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, 3 Defects in the Grid

Figure 5-10 shows the magnetic field pattern calculated for the rectangular 4 x 5 grid with 3
defects in the grid. The current injection/collection locations are the same as in Case B1.
Symmetries are clearly destroyed and the large low-field (blue) regions indicate the locations of
the defects.

13062416 5-10
Figure 5-10
Calculated Magnetic Field Pattern for Case B3 (Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, 3 Defects in the Grid)

Case B4: Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, no Defects, Different Current Injection/Collection

Locations
Figure 5-11 shows the magnetic field pattern calculated for the rectangular 4 x 5 grid with no
defects in the grid, but with different current injection/collection locations than in the previous
cases. Symmetries observed previously are not present because of the unsymmetrical
injection/collection locations of current. In this case, however, it is not easy to decide whether or
not low field (blue) regions should be interpreted as locations of defects, since the current flow
pattern is distorted by the unsymmetrical injection/collection locations.

13062416 5-11
Figure 5-11
Calculated Magnetic Field Pattern for Case B4 (Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, no Defects, Different
Current Injection/Collection Locations)

Case B5: Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, 3 Defects, Different Current Injection/Collection

Locations
Figure 5-12 shows the magnetic field pattern calculated for the rectangular 4 x 5 grid with 3
defects in the grid, as indicated by red ellipses in Figure 5-12. The current injection/collection
locations are the same as in Case B4. Symmetries observed previously are not present because
of the unsymmetrical injection/collection locations of current, and because of the presence of
defects. Comparing Figures 5-12 and 5-11, it is still possible to detect most of the defects (2 out
of 3) and to identify their locations in the grid. The presence and location of the third defect (in
the upper half of the Figure 5-12) is not easily detectable.
This example suggests that several sets of field measurements may be needed for reasonable
identification of defects in substation ground grids.

13062416 5-12
Figure 5-12
Calculated Magnetic Field Pattern for Case B5 (Rectangular 4 x 5 Grid, 3 Defects, Different Current
Injection/Collection Locations)

13062416 5-13
13062416
6
SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND FUTURE WORK

This report describes the first stage of research to develop a simple and inexpensive method and
device to assess the integrity of substation grounding grids. The problem has been studied before
but there is not, to our knowledge, a reliable and inexpensive methods or device to make a
reliable diagnosis. While the EPRI-developed Ground Grid Evaluator (commercially knows as
the “Smart Ground Multimeter” or “SGM”) can be used to provide valuable information, the
equipment is considered to be expensive and requires extensive high-level training and
experience to collect reliable data and interpret the results. Hence, the objective of this research
is not to develop a device that reproduces all functions of the SGM, but to develop new reliable
and inexpensive method(s) and instrumentation that can be easily deployed in the field and
operated by technician-level personnel.
In the first phase of this research we conducted a literature search and located a large amount of
information on the state-of-science in identifying degradation of substation ground grids. The
problem has been studied before but there is not, to our knowledge, a good way to make a
reliable diagnosis. Several methods have been considered and will be explored further. We will
explore ultrasonic, eddy current, GPR and both low and high frequency electromagnetic methods
to test the integrity of the grounding grid and locate defects. We have found a commercial
program, INCA, which seems well adapted to finding the low and mid-range frequency current
distribution. We will also continue the development of a simple program employing the Biot-
Savart law for this purpose.
Our initial conclusions are that the electromagnetic methods look very promising, as least in the
cases where we know the location of the grid. Also, we will limit this phase of research to
defects (breaks) in grid elements. If field trials confirm the feasibility and practicality of the
tested method(s), attention will be directed in the next phases of research to the field problems
listed in the survey responses, such as cracks or broken welds, and finally to the decrease in
conductor cross-section caused by corrosion.

13062416 6-1
13062416
7
REFERENCES AND ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

3. Zhang B., Zhao Z., Cui X., and Li L. “Diagnosis of Breaks in Substation’s Grounding
Grid by Using the Electromagnetic Method.” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 473-
476, March 2002.
4. Hu J., Zeng R., Sun W., and Yao J., “Novel Method of Corrosion Diagnosis for
Grounding Grid,” Power System Technology, Vol. 3, pp 1365-1370, 2000.
5. Lawson V.R. “Problems and Detection of Line Anchor and Substation Ground Grid
Corrosion, ” IEEE Trans. Industry App., Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 25-32, Jan./Feb.1988.
6. Yuan J., Yang H., L. Zhang, Cui X., and Ma X., “Simulation of substation grounding
grids with unequal-potential,” IEEE Trans. Magn., Vol. 36, pp. 1468–1471, July 2000.
7. Dawalibi F. P., “Electromagnetic fields generated by overhead and buried short
conductors Part 2—Ground conductor,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. PWRD-1, pp.
112–119, Oct. 1986.
8. L. Grcev L., and Dawalibi F., “An electromagnetic model for transients in grounding
systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 5, pp. 1773–1781, Nov. 1990.
9. Otero A. F., Cidras J., and del Alamo J. L., “Frequency-dependent grounding system
calculation by means of a conventional nodal analysis technique,” IEEE Trans. Power
Delivery, Vol. 14, pp. 873–878, July 1999.
10. Harrington R. F., Field Computation by Moment Methods. New York: Macmillan, 1968.
11. Li Z., Chen W., Fan J. and Lu J., “A novel mathematical modeling of grounding system
buried in multilayer Earth,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 1267-1272,
July 2006.
12. Zhang B., Cui X., Li C. and Zhao Z., “Computation in Electromagnetics,” The Fourth
International Conference on (Ref. No. 2002/063)2002. CEM 2002. Vol. No. 8-11 April
2002.
13. Torsional Guided Wave Examination of Buried Piping, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2002.
1006308.
14. Feasibility of Guided Wave Inspection of Electrical Cable. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005.
1010209.
15. Eddy Current NDE System for On-Site Inspection, EPRI, Charlotte, NC: 2005. 1005025.
16. A Prototype EMAT System for Inspection of Steam Generator Tubing, EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 1983. NP-2836
17. Evaluation of EMAT Technology for Reactor Piping Examination. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
2005. 1011609.
18. Feasibility of Ground-Penetrating Radar for Use at Manufactured Gas Plant Sites, EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 1994. TR-104495
19. Simplified Leak Detection System for HPFF Cable Systems: Evaluation of Novel Leak
Detection Technologies, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA; 2004. 1009809

13062416 7-1
Additional Bibliography
1. J. P. Nelson and W. K. Holm, “A Cathodically Protected Electrical Substation Ground
Grid,” IEEE Trans. Ind. App. Vol. LA-21, No. 2, pp 357-361, March/April 1985.
2. S. G. Patel, “A Complete Field Analysis of Substation Ground Grid by Applying
Continuous Low Voltage Fault,” IEEE Trans. Power. App. Sys. Vol. PAS-104, No. 8,
August 1985.
3. H. Yang, “A mathematical model for numerical calculation of substation grounding grids
in time-varying field,” Electromagnetic Compatibility, EMC-Zurich, 17th International
Symposium, pp.192- 195, Feb., 2006.
4. J. A. Güemes-Alonso,, F. E. Hernando-Fernández,, F. Rodríguez-Bona, and J. M. Ruiz-
Moll, “A Practical Approach for Determining the Ground Resistance of Grounding
Grids,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 21, No. 3, pp 1261-1266, July 2006.
5. A.V. Machias, E. N. Dialynas, and C. A. Protopapas, “An expert system approach to
designing and testing substation grounding grids,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 4, No.
1, pp 234-240, July 1989.
6. J. Nahman and I. Paunovic, “Effects of the Local Soil Nonuniformity Upon Performances
of Ground Grids,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 22, No. 4, pp 2180-2184, Oct. 2007.
7. H. Motoyama, “Electromagnetic Transient Response of Buried Bare Wire and Ground
Grid,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., Vol. 22, No. 3, pp 1673-1679, July 2007.
8. T. Baldwin, F. Renovich, Jr., L. F. Saunders, and D. Lubkeman, “Fault Locating in
Ungrounded and High-Resistance Grounded Systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. App. Vol. 37,
No. 4, pp 1152-1159, July/August 2001.
9. M. Abdel-Salam, S. Abdel-Sattar, A. Ibrahim, and M. Nayel, “Magnetic field distribution
around a current-carrying conductor above a two-layer ground,” Electric Power Systems
Research Vol. 58, pp. 197-203, 2001.
10. L. Huang and D. G. Kasten, “Modeling of ground grid and metallic structure currents in
high voltage a.c. substations for the computation of electromagnetic fields,” Electric
Power Systems Research Vol. 59, pp. 31-37, 2001.

13062416 7-2
13062416
Export Control Restrictions The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with
granted with the specific understanding and major locations in Palo Alto, California; Charlotte,
requirement that responsibility for ensuring full North Carolina; and Knoxville, Tennessee, was
compliance with all applicable U.S. and foreign export established in 1973 as an independent, nonprofit
laws and regulations is being undertaken by you and center for public interest energy and environmental
your company. This includes an obligation to ensure research. EPRI brings together members, participants,
that any individual receiving access hereunder who is the Institute's scientists and engineers, and other
not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is leading experts to work collaboratively on solutions to
permitted access under applicable U.S. and foreign the challenges of electric power. These solutions span
export laws and regulations. In the event you are nearly every area of electricity generation, delivery,
uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully and use, including health, safety, and environment.
obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you EPRI's members represent over 90% of the electricity
acknowledge that it is your obligation to consult with generated in the United States. International
your company’s legal counsel to determine whether participation represents nearly 15% of EPRI's total
this access is lawful. Although EPRI may make research, development, and demonstration program.
available on a case-by-case basis an informal
assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity
for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and your
company acknowledge that this assessment is solely
for informational purposes and not for reliance
purposes. You and your company acknowledge that it
is still the obligation of you and your company to make
your own assessment of the applicable U.S. export
classification and ensure compliance accordingly. You
and your company understand and acknowledge your
obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the
appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use
of EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in
violation of applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or
regulations.

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING
THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the
Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America 1013910

Electric Power Research Institute

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 • USA
13062416800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com