1850

IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 9,No. 4,October 1994

A New Method and Instrument for Touch and Step Voltage Measurements
A. P. Sakis Meliopoulos Shashi Pate1 Fellow Senior Member School of Electrical & Computer Engineering Research Center Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Power Company Atlanta, Georgia 30332 Atlanta, Georgia 30302
Abstract This paper describes a new method and instrument for measuring touch and step voltages near a grounding system, for example in and around a substation. The hardware, software, and testing procedures are an extension of the smart ground multimeter, developed under EPRI sponsorship. The instrument injects a transient electric current between the ground under testing and an auxiliary ground, and it measures ground potential differences (GPDs) at up to six locations. The GPD measurements are processed with software which rejects external noise using correlation methods. Subsequently, statistical estimation methods are used to extract the touch or step voltages from the thousands of measurement points normalized with the system short circuit capability. Knowledge of the short circuit capability of the substation allows the quick measurement of the touch and step voltages.

G. J. Cokkinides Member Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engr University of South Carolina Columbia, South Carolina 29208

(2) The step voltage meter function of the Smart Ground Multimeter measures the actual step voltage at a substation as a function of the fault current. The measurement is performed at a user selected point anywhere above or near a grounding system. The measurement provides the actual step voltage per ampere of fault current. It requires as an input the fault current available at the location of the grounding system which is used to project the actual step voltage under fault conditions.

*. Description Of the MeasurementApproach

The method for measuring touch voltages requires that six probes be placed at six points, designated as 3B, 2B, lB, 3Y, 2Y, and lY, where touch voltages must be measured, as it is illustrated in Figure 1. The meter injects a transient electric current i(t) between the ground grid under test and a temporarily installed current retum electrode(as is shown in Figure 1) for a short period of time, typically 0.3 seconds. During this time, measurements of the injected electric current and of the transient ground potential differences are taken (locations 3B, 2B, lB, 3Y, 2Y, and 1Y shown in Figure 1). The ground potential differences are measurements of the voltage difference between the ground under test and points 3B, 2B, lB, 3Y, 2Y, and 1Y shown in Figure 1. For touch voltage measurements, the probes 3B, ZB, lB, 3Y, 2Y, and 1Y can be placed at any location where the touch voltage is to be measured. For step voltages, the six probes must be placed in the arrangement shown in Figure 2. The distance d is 3 feet or 1 meter. These measurements are processed by computer software to extract the touch or step voltages at any frequency of interest. Smart Ground Multimeter

1. Introduction
Several instruments are available for grounding measurements, for example ground impedance measurements, o i l resistivity measurements. Recently, a PC based and s instrument has been developed [7] which performs a number of ground measurement functions. These functions are listed in Table 1. This paper concentrates on the touch and step voltage functions of the meter which have been recently developed and tested. A brief description of these function is stated as follows:
Table 1. Present Functions of the Multimeter

Smart Ground

Substation Ground Impedance Meter Touch Voltage Meter Step Voltage Meter Tower Ground Resistance Meter Soil Resistivity Meter

'

0
PROBE ASSEMBLY

(1) The touch voltage meter function of the Smart Ground Multimeter measures the actual touch voltage at a substation as a function of the fault current. The measurement is performed at up to six points anywhere above or near a grounding system. The measurement provides the touch voltage per ampere of fault current. It requires as an input the fault current available at the location of the grounding system which is used to project the actual touch voltage under fault conditions.
A paper recommended and approved 9 4 WM 140-4 PWRD by the IEEE Substations Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE/PES 1994 Winter Meeting, New York, New York, January 30 February 3, 1994. Manuscript submitted August 2, 1993; made available for printing December 22, 1993.

Current Return Electrod

YELLOW VOLTAGE

/ f o

ground grid conductors

Figure 1 Standard Probe Arrangement for Touch Voltage Measurements

0885-8977/94/$04.00 0 1994 IEEE

*
Smart Ground Multimeter

1851
BLUEVOLTAGE

FNBEASSEMBLY

3 . 1 Extemal Hardware

-------

The external hardware consists of 6 voltage probes, 2 triplex shielded cables which COMect the 6 voltage probes to the smart ground multimeter, three probes which must be installed as a temporary current return electrode, a cable(red) connecting the temporarily installed electrode to the smart ground multimeter, a cableplack) connecting the ground system under test to the Smart Ground Multimeter, and a cable(green) which is the reference or safety ground and which must be connected to the ground under test. A schematic representation of the extemal hardware is shown in Figure 3.
3 . 2 The Current Module(SGM)

Source

and

Data

Acquisition

d = 1 meter

Figure 2. Standard Probe Arrangement for Step Voltage Measurements

A brief description of the smart ground multimeter hardware and software follows.

3. Description of Smart Ground Multimeter Hardware

The Smart Ground Multimeter hardware, required for touch and step voltages, consist of the following major components: Extemal Hardware Current Source and Data Acquisition Module (SGM) Personal Computer

This module consists of power electronics which generate an electric current which switches polarity at randomly selected intervals. This current is circulated between the ground under test and the temporarily installed current return electrode, as it is illustrated in Figure 1or 3. A typical waveform of the injected current is illustrated in Figure 4. This waveform was obtained during a test at a Georgia Power Company substation. Note that the injected current is a randomly switching polarity current of about 15A. The meter has been designed to inject a maximum nominal current of about 30A. The electric current is generated from a 250 volt or 500 volt voltage source. The voltage source is computer selected to insure maximum current injection to the ground under test. The high value of the injected current ensures a high signal to noise ratio.

Injected Currant

Pest-

16.46

"1

These components are illustrated in Figure 3 and described in the following paragraphs.
Vdtage Pmbe Assemply B
Voltage Pmbe Assemply A

Triplex Shielded Cables

Figure 4. Typical Waveform of the Injected Electric Current

P. c.

+ Ill
C u m Return Electrode Gmunding System Under Test

A signal acquisition and control unit is included which collects data from the six voltage probes and one current probe, it conditions the data and sends the data to the personal computer to be stored in digital format for processing. Specifically, the signals from the six voltage probes and the current transformer first pass through the analog signal processing unit. This circuit provides the following functions: Protection of the personal computer electronicsagainst transients via proper MOV surge protectors Low pass filtering to prevent aliasing upon sampling

Figure 3. Illustration of the 'Smart' Ground Impedance Meter

1852
0

Appropriate amplification to optimize the use of the A/D converter dynamic range, via programmable gain amplifiers.
Optional attenuation of 60 Hz signals to reduce

4. Description of Smart Ground Multimeter Software

The smart ground multimeter software is installed in a personal computer which controls the measurement process, processes the data and displays the results. The user interface is fully graphic (GUI) and can be operated with a mouse or the F keys. The software consists of the following components:
1. The user interface 2. Measurement data collection algorithm 3. Error correction algorithm 4. Channel Calibration Algorithm 5. Probe Calibration Algorithm 6. Data Analysis Software

interference from nearby 60 Hz circuits Operations such as gain selection, calibration, and 60 Hz filter bypassing are controlled automatically by the computer. A block diagram of the voltage signal processing circuit is illustrated in Figure 5. The outputs of the signal acquisition and control channels are connected to the input of the A/D converter board which is installed inside the personal computer. The data acquisition board also has several digital lines which are used to select the gain, source voltage, etc.
An important feature of the smart ground multimeter

instrumentation is the ability to (a) measure the transfer function of the measurement channel and compensate for it during processing of the measurements (channel calibration) and (b) to measure the ground resistance of the voltage probes and the cable capacitance and compensate for it during measurements (probe calibration). The calibration circuitry is illustrated in Figure 5. Specifically, during the channel calibration, a known noise source is connected to the input of the channel, while the voltage probe is disconnected via the indicated relays, and the output is recorded. From these measurements the transfer function of the channel is computed. The probe calibration (measurement of the voltage probe resistance and cable capaatance) is performed by connecting a known noise source to the voltage probe assemblies while the channel is also connected to the voltage probes. The response i s measured. From this measurement, the admittance of the voltage probes and cable capacitance is extracted. The admittance is used in the probe error correction algorithm during measurements. The calibration and associated error correction algorithms ensure highly accurate and reliable measurements. In summary, the design of the Smart Ground Multimeter hardware ensures: Measurements with high signal to noise ratio A dynamic range of above 90 db Measurement accuracy

The user interface allows the user to perform the followmg functions: Inspect and modify measurement parameters Initiate Measurements Generate warning messages about improper use of the Smart Ground Multimeter Generate reports of intermediate and final results The data analysis software extracts the touch and step voltages from the measurements. The algorithm employed was developed after a careful analytical investigation of all factor affecting measurement of touch and step voltages, and subsequent field verification. The analytical investigation was performed using the EPRI SGA package and consisted of simulating a substation grounding system together with the probes of the Smart Ground Multimeter. A three dimensional plot of such a system is illustrated in Figure 6. The Figure shows a ground mat, four tower grounding systems, the six voltage probes of the Smart Ground Multimeter and the three current return electrodes of the Smart Ground Multimeter. The system was modeled as a multiground system. For this system electric faults were simulated by injecting an electric current into the ground mat and assuming that the current retum ground is located very far away from the substation. The tower grounds may or may not be connected to the ground mat. The operation of the Smart Ground Multimeter was simulated the injecting a current into the ground mat and assuming that the current retums through the three current retum electrodes. Again the tower grounds may or may not be connected to the ground mat.
30 f m u n d i w 5v.L.n P l o t S G S E V5.0 TITLE: Smarl Ciound Y u l t l u 1 . r I Touch Va1t.p.

Probe
ibration

T
Fmm

Y...urlmi.

-Lil E 7

n
Eledmde

Tower Grounds

Figure 5. Functional Block Diagram of a Single Channel of the Signal Acquisition and Control Module

Figure 6. Three Dimensional Plot of a Typical Configuration Used in the Analytical Investigation

1853

This investigation revealed that the two most important parameters which affect touch and step voltage measurements are: 1. Proximity of the Current Return Electrode 2 . Number of tower grounds connected to the ground mat or specifically total impedance of other grounds connected to the ground mat. As an example of typical results of this investigation, Table 1 lists the computed touch voltages under four scenarios. The first scenario designated as simulation of system fault and neutrals/shields disconnected corresponds to the usual definition of touch voltage (see for example IEEE Std 80). The current is injected into the ground mat (and it is assumed to retum from another ground at a remote location) and the effects of other nearby grounds are neglected. In the second scenario, designated as simulation of system fault and neutrals/shields connected is similar to the first except that the effect of the nearby tower grounds are accounted for. Note a slight decrease of touch voltage as a percent of ground potential rise. The other two scenarios designated as simulation of smart ground Multimeter account for the current retum electrode proximity. The values in Table 1 have been computed assuming the current retum electrode to be placed 400 feet from the center of the ground mat. Note in this case about 20% increase of touch voltage due to current retum electrode proximity. On the other hand the effect of nearby grounds is relatively small about 6% for the cases in Table 1. The effect of the current return electrode proximity was investigated by simulating many configurations with the current return electrode at different distances from the grounding system and computing the touch voltage as a percentage of ground potential rise. As an example, Table 2 presents a sample of results of this investigation. The example system consists of a 200'x 200'ground mat with 50'x 50'meshes. The current retum electrode is placed at different distances from the ground mat center. Note that the value 28.92% is the true value of the touch voltage. Note that if the current retum electrode is placed 400 feet from the ground mat center, the mesh voltage will increase by 23%. Based on these results, which were verified in the field, the following has been implemented. The smart ground meter, computes the effect of the current retum electrode proximity and subtracts it from the actual measurement. In addition, it is recommended that the current return electrode be placed at least two times the diagonal length of the ground from the ground center. Table 1. Computed Touch Voltages Under Several Scenarios (in percent of ground potential rise)

Table 2. Effects of Current Retum Electrode Proximity on Touch Voltage Measurements

I&
00

900

600

400

300

200

5. Field Verification
The smart ground multimeter has been extensively tested in the laboratory and in the field. In April 21, 1993 a set of comprehensive field tests were performed at Georgia Power Company's Texas Valley Substation. The Texas Valley Substation is a 115kV/12kV located in North Georgia near Rome. This substation has been used for grounding related research by Georgia Power since 1981[2]. All the neutrals and shield wires in this substation are connected to a common point. A switch is used to connect or disconnect this common point to the station ground mat. In this way, the static/neutrak can be connected or disconnected from the ground mat via a switch. In addition, the 115kV line between Sommerville and Texas Valley can be deenergized. When deenergized, one of the phase conductors is used to inject a current into the Texas Valley ground mat from the Sommerville Substation located many miles away. The method has been coined the current injection(C1) method and it is described in [ 2 ] .The injected current is about 157A. In April 21, 1993 measurements were performed of touch and step voltages using the Smart Ground Multimeter & the current injection method. The measurements were performed at 30 points along a line near the center of the station and at another 24 points along a line near the northwest corner of the station. The location of these lines with respect to the station are shown in Figure 7. Measurements were made with the static wires connected and disconnected. A typical report of the Smart Ground Multimeter is shown in Figure 8. The same measurements were made (the same day) using the current injection method[2]. A comparison of all results is shown in Figure 9,10,11,and 12. The Figures are self explanatory. Note that both methods give comparative results. The measured touch voltages were also compared to computed values with EPRI's SGA program (81. First soil resistivity measurements were taken with the wenner method. For this purpose two locations (A and B) were selected near the substation. At each location, 36 measurements were obtained with spacing ranging from 2 feet to 90 feet. These measurements were processed with the program SOMIP [8]to establish the proper soil resistivity model. Using the soil resistivity model, the ground resistance was computed using the . Note that program SGSYS. The results are tabulated in Table 3 the program SOMIP provides expected errors vs. confidence level. The soil resistivity measurements from location B provide soil model parameters with very high expected errors. The soil

Simulation of System Fault

Neutrals /shields
Neutrals /shields

Simulation of Smart Ground Multimeter

Neutrals /Shields
Neutrals

/Shields

P*z
P*3

29.38 30.09 30.49

27.44 28.13
28.51

35.71 36.62 37.06

37.81 38.86 39.47

1854

model obtained with the program SOMIP by combining the measurements from locations A and B (A+B) are also given for comparative purposes. As an additional check point the ground resistance was measured (the same day) and found to be 0.565 ohms. Note that the soil resistivity measurements at locatiion A are in conformance with the measured ground resistance.
T. * .

Valley S"b.tat1.a"

Ten1 SusLem
56SV5 V5 0

4,

3 - b N

For each one of the soil models, the touch voltages, at the same locations indicated in Figure 7, were computed using the program SGSYS and assuming a current injection of 157 amperes into the ground grid. The computed maximum and minimum touch voltage were superimposed on those measured with the smart ground multimeter and the current injection method. Figure 13 illustrates these results for a specific case using the soil model obtained at location A and Figure 14 illustrates similar results for the same case using the soil model obtained from both locations A and B. The results indicate that the computer models are conservative as compared to measured values.

-108.

-72
l o p VI."

-36

36

72

108

x-hiis ( f e d )

x-*

Pl."s

Locetbn of Measurements

Figure 7. Ground Mat at the Texas Valley Substation

Touch Voltage Report
Casename: CN1318-C

3 ul

2.0-

a, m

q
2
1.00.0

,
25

,
30

10 15 20 Locationlndex

Figure 9. Measured Touch Voltages Near the Center of the Ground Mat at Texas Valley Substation with the SGM and the Current Injection (Cl) Method. Neutral Wires Connected.

f
r
c

20.0 15.0

E
0 5
U

10.0

g
ul e 0

a,

r. = m

5.0

0 . 0
5 10 15 20 Location Index 25 30

Figure IO. Measured Touch Voltages Near the Center of the Ground Mat at Texas Valley Substation with the SGM and the Current Injection (CI) Method. Neutral Wires Disconnected.

1855
32.0.

3 0 . 0

1
2 s

25.0

20.0

3
?? a
Y

15.0

s g)
s s
I -

m 5 >
L

10.0

0 . 0

10 15 20 Location Index

25

30

Figure 1 1 . Measured Touch Voltages Near the North West Comer of the Ground Mat at Texas Valley Substation with the SGM and the Current Injection (Cl) Method. Neutral Wires Connected.

10

"i
Lo

15 20 25 Location Index +

30

Figure 13. Computed and Measured Touch Voltages Near the Center of the Ground Mat at Texas Valley Substation. Soil Model A.
6 0 . 4

20.

>

0 . 0
5

10 15 20 Location Index

25

30
I

10

Figure 12. Measured Touch Voltages Near the North West Comer of the Ground Mat at Texas Valley Substation with the SGM and the Current Injection (Cl) Method. Neutral Wires Disconnected.

15 20 Locatlonlndex

25

30

Figure 14. Computed and Measured Touch Voltages Near the Center of the Ground Mat at Texas Valley Substation. Soil Model A+B.

1856
from the National Technical University of Athens, Greece, in 1972;the M.S.E.E. and Ph.D. degrees from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1974 and 1976, respectively. In 1971, he worked for Westem Electric in Atlanta, Georgia. In 1976, he joined the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, where he is presently a professor. He is active in teaching and research in the general areas of modeling, analysis, and control of power systems. He has made significant contributions to power system grounding, harmonics, and reliability assessment of power systems. He is the author of the books, Power Systems Grounding and Transients, Marcel Dekker, June 1988, Ligthning and Overvoltage Protection, Section 27, Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, McGraw Hill, 1993, and the monograph, Numerical Solution Methods of Algebraic Equations, EPRI monograph series. Dr. Meliopoulos is a member of the Hellenic Society of Professional Engineering and the Sigma Xi. Shashi Patel (M '70, SM '84) was bom in Fiji Islands in 1943. He received the B.S.E.E. degree from M.S. University of Baroda, India in 1965 and M.S.E.E. degree from Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia in 1976. From 1965 to 1967 he was with Gujarat Electricity Board, India, in charge of a district office. He worked as a Power System Engineer at BPA, Portland, Oregon during the summer of 1969. Since 1970, he has been employed by Georgia Power Company. He is presently a Staff Services Engineer in Georgia Power Research Center, Forest Park, Georgia. He has been actively involved in IEEE/PES Substation Committee since 1978. His other areas of interest include HV testing, switchgears, induced voltages, grounding and corrosion. He is registered Professional Engineer in the state of Georgia.

6. Summary
A new unction of the Smart Ground Multimeter has been developed and successfully tested in the field against a well established and accepted method. This function provides measurements of touch and step voltages for a specific fault current level. The advantages of the new instrument are (a) ease of performing the measurements, and (b) accuracy of results by means of error correction algorithms and compensation for the effects of the current retum electrode and other grounds which may be connected to the ground mat. To our knowledge this is the first device of its kind. The instrument can be used to investigate and measure the maximum touch or step voltage in a substation.
Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the financial support from EPRI and in developing the touch and step voltage function of the smart ground multimeter.

References
1. "A Manual on Ground Resistance Testing," James G. Biddle 1952. Company, Publication No. 25-J,

2 . S.G. Patel, "Field Measurements at Texas Valley Substation," December 1981. Final Report on EPRI, RP-1494-2, 3 . I.D. Lu and R.M. Shier, "Application of a Digital Signal Analyzer to the Measurement of Power System Ground Impedances," IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and ,pp. 1918-1922, April 1981. Systems, vol. PAS-100, no. 4 4. IEEE Std. 81, "IEEE Recommended Guide for Measuring Ground Resistance and Potential Gradients in the Earth," 1962. 5. ANSI/IEEE Std. 80,"IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding" 1986. 6. P.H. Reynolds, D.S. Ironside, A.H. Silcocks, and J.B. Williams, "A New Instrument for Measuring Ground Impedances," presented at the IEEE PES Winter Meeting, February 1979. New York, New York, Paper A 79 080-3,

George Cokkinides (M '85)was bom in Athens, Greece, in

1955. He obtained the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees at the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1978, 1980, and 1985, respectively. From 1983 to 1985,he was a research engineering at the Georgia Tech Research Institute. Since 1985,he has been with the University of South Carolina where he is presently an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering. His research interests include power system modeling and simulation, power electronics applications, power system harmonics, and measurement instrumentation. Dr. Cokkinides is a member of the IEEE/PES and the Sigma Xi.

7 . A.P. Meliopoulos, G. Cokkinides, H. Abdallah, S. Duong, and S. Patel, "A PC Based Ground Impedance Measurement Instrument," IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol 8, No. 3 ,July 1993.
, Computer 8. AP. Meliopoulos, "SGA Users Manual, Vol. 3 . 0 , " and "SGA Users Manual, Vol. 1, Model SGSYS Version 5 Computer Model SOMIP Version 2.0," EPRI Report, 1992.

Biographies
A. P. Sakis Meliopoulos (M '76,SM '83,F '93) was bom in Katerini, Greece, in 1949.He received the M.E. and E.E. diploma

1857

Discussion Jacques Fortin (Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, Quebec, Canada): The authors have published a welcome paper for engineers having to certify the security of persons in the vicinity of power installations. In one of our measurement techniques, based on the Fall-of-Potential method, test current may be varied in the range of 0.1 to 20A, depending on the circuit used to perform the grounding test and of course on the purpose. A single frequency (50-55 to 65-70 Hz) is applied because of practical advantages. Depending on the case, the test current is circulated through a communication cable pair, a drop wire lying on the soil or a de-energized power line.

Depending on the case, the folliwng measurements are performed. 1. ground current distribution on: -overhead wires and counterpoises connected to power lines; -neutral conductors connected to distribution lines; -communication cables shields; -ground connections to neutral point of Y connected transformers; -other ground conductors or metallic structures; 2. touch and step voltages inside and outside the substation up to 1 km away (aerial pothead, tower, fence, private installation, etc.); 3. potential profile up to a certain point (k 1 km). The extrapolation ( s 15%) of the curve gives the impedance to remote earth.

impedance. A comparison of results with figures 9 to 14 of the present paper and with figure 7 of the authors reference [7] would be self speaking. Again real correction factors should be given. More results and comparisons are needed to attain confidence in the proposed method based on GPD. Specifically the real correctionfactor should be determined on the field test site for a wide variety of distances to current probe (100 m to 10 km and more) and for a wide variety of soil resistivities (100 0 m to 10 000 Cl m). Current distribution is also affected by the position of the current electrode when in proximity, which in turn affects touch voltage near substation and elsewhere. We have developed new methods to measure the ground impedance of a line and the ground resistance of a single tower in presence of overhead ground wires and counterpoises. No corrections are needed. It could be interesting to compare all those methods at the same site. The authors have presented a new method which needs more field testing to allow comparison with long current injection circuit for a large variety of external conditions. If the authors method were to be validated, it would represent a new method overcoming some practical problems of the Fall-of-Potential method. If not, it should be possible to use the SGM to apply the Fall-of-Potential method.

Manuscript received February 15, 1994.

All measurements are referred to the test curtent by a standard two channel F I T instrument. Calibration factors for amplitude and phase are verified and entered in the instrument. A simple computer program interpolates measurements at 60 Hz. Analysis of results can then be performed. Our field experience shows that current electrode distance to the multi grounded system under test affects particularly touch voltage measurements by a factor of 1 to 4 inside or close to the substation. This factor is dependent on the distance to the current electrode and on the soil resistivity between current electrodes (100 10OOO Cl * m). A factor of 1.2 or greater, to us is unacceptable. The correction in such a case would appear closer to a mathematical algorithm than a field test measurement. Could the authors give the following factors concerning results shown in figures 9 to 14 for eachprobe: real correction factor =

F. P. DAWALIBI, Safe Engineering Services & technologies Itd., Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3M 164. The authors have deployed considerable hardware and software resources to design their Smart Ground Multimeter. It is however regrettable to note that they have not carried out a similar effort with respect to the fundamental grounding principles on which the meter should have been based. This meter has been designed with implicit assumptions, the most noticeable of which are:
Homogeneous and isotropic uniform soils or twolayer horizontal soils. No significant localized soil heterogeneities or perturbations are to be expected. No extensive metallic structure (such as water lines, pipelines, buried tanks, etc.) are present in the soil. The grounding, network has a reasonable regular shape easily identifiable by the operator who must define its skeleton a n w r center.

m at 60Hz) 157 Vti/I (from F

Vti (from CI method)

What are the corresponding factors applied by the SGM? Did authors use the de-energized line to circulate the SGM test current to remote earth? If that is possible, assuming adequate protection, the Fall-of-Potential method could be performed to measure touch voltage and

As stated by the authors, this multimeter is an extension of their original Smart Ground Multimeter. Consequently, it l l the deficiencies which I identified and is still plagued by a discussed more than a year ago (see discussion and closure of Reference 7 of the authors paper). The authors eluded most of the points I raised by concentrating their closure on

1858

details which did not address the questions and criticisms raised. This time, I am including a discussion of a few basic points for the benefit of the readers who should clearly undestand my reservations conceming the multimeter before deciding to use it:
1. The authors state in the paper that ' I . . . . the algorithm employed was developed after a careful analytical investigation of all factors.... The analytical investigation was performed using the EPRI SGA package...". This software package handles uniform or two-layer horizontal homogeneous soils. Consequently, the multimeter may be severely handicapped by the lack of a wider soil structure perspective. The use of a different software package, such as CDEGS which can handle multilayer horizontal and vertical soils as well as layered hemispherical heterogeneities, would have been a significant asset in further expanding the knowledge of the multimeter. But this still would not be enough, as evidenced by a quick investigation of the geophysics literature. Soil structure may change abruptly or gradually from one point to another particularly if backfill is used to level a substation's surface. Layers are not always parallel or perpendicular to the soil surface and often change from one location to another gradually if not suddenly. Consequently, the multimeter is at best performing accurately only at sites where the soil can be reasonably approximated by a two-layer horizontal type. What about substations built in arbitrarily multilayered wavy soils, or worse, near the seashore, a deep valley, an open mine pit or a geological fault? It is certainly indispensable to examine cases in complex soil structures to enhance the credibility of the Smart Ground Multimeter and help the authors refine and further validate their approach. The discusser is willing to assist in this endeavour as long as there is a possibility that the equipment will behave as hoped in the most complicated soil structures which can be modelled by the most advanced software packages.

customers in order to prevent widespread use of the multimeter at sites which are clearly outside the range of the multimeter. This is important, particularly if the shape of the grounding network is complicated and does not present a clearly identifiable center.

3. There is also another serious problem with respect to Ke. The authors assumed that Ke is constant throughout the area covered by the test and that it is the same at the measured ground and at the retum electrode, as evidenced by their Equation 5 of Reference [7].It is simple to show that this is not the case, even if the soil is a perfect multilayer type, because Ke will change depending on whether or not the ground rod is in contact with the lower layers and the actual length of the portion of rod penetrating the deeper layers!

4. Finally, the use of six potential probes and associated

leads simultaneously can be an extreme nuisance to a team of three people or less and quite exhausting. This fact alone can be quite detrimental to the successful use of a piece of equipment in the field. The simplicity of using a suitable moving probe associated with a continuous data acquisition system is by far more appealing if one wishes to survey touch voltages within a substation. This is perhaps what needs to be done once the decision to measure touch voltages at substations has been taken. In this case, it is important to measure as many points as possible for a credible assessment of the safety status. Measurement of step voltages in a substation is unnecessary if touch voltages are measured.

2. In their closure of the discussions pertaining to their previous paper [7],the authors stated that the factor "ke is nearly constant for the area of application of the voltage probes..." What does "nearly" mean? To demonstrate their point, they provided a series of curves calculated based on a two-layer soil! This is not an acceptable scientific proof. Besides, some of their curves varied by more than 20% from the edge of the grid to 100 feet away, despite the fact that soil structure was assumed to be the same while moving along the profile. Therefore, gradual variations of soil layer thicknesses and resistivities and the presence of heterogeneities may very well change the value of Ke dramatically. There are no ways to prove this in a satisfactory fashion with a software package limited to two-layer soils. The authors must be courageous and admit this to their present and future potential

In summary, the problem with the Smart Ground Multimeter is that it is not smart enough to do the job for every type of site and associated soil structure. Given this shortcoming, it is preferable to carry out the measurements in a neutral fashion, i.e., without any "corrections", "bad data rejection", and similar interventions and let the engineer interpret the results based on his knowledge of the problem. One or several long fall-of-potential traverses coupled with a reasonable sample of potential measurements inside and outside the substations using suitable selective voltmeters and/or modem spectrum analyzers, can reveal to the eyes of an experienced engineer much more information than a collection of "conditioned' curves and data carried out by unsuspicious operators relying on the smartness of a sophisticated piece of equipment. Measurement is the ultimate design verification step in any engineering project. It is intended to provide an estimate of the differences which exist between computed values based on some approximate model and the real world, which may often include hidden or unknown elements. It is the responsibility of the authors to address these weaknesses of their Smart Ground Multimeter and

then convince the scientific community that their approach is technically sound Manuscript received February 22, 1994.

1859 paper). It will be rather confusing to the readers if we address for example the k, factor again here in view of the fact that the factor k , is not relevant to the touch voltage h i s paper. For this reason we measurements, the subject of t refer Mr. Dawalibi and interested readers to the closure of our previous paper.

A. P. SAKIS MELIOPOULOS, S. PATEL (Georgia Power Company), and G. J. COKKINIDES (University of South Carolina): The authors would like to thank the discussors for giving us the opportunity to comment on this new method and emphasize some key points. We are grateful that Mr Jacques Fortin has shared his experience and provided independent verification that the current retum electrocde distance affects particularly the touch voltage measurements inside or close to the substation. He reports that he has observed errors as high as 300%(factors of 1to 4). He suggests that an error of 20% or higher (factor of 1.20) is unacceptable and should be corrected with mathematical algorithm. We totally agree. The Smart Ground Multimeter does exaclty that. It is an integrated system of hardware and software which correct the measurement error by a mathematical algorithm which requires as inputs the approximate size of the grounding system and the distance of the current electrode. More sophisticated algorithms can be applied if necessary.

Here, we will address issues relative to touch voltage measurements only. First, we would like to address his it is preferable to carry the measurements in a statement
I...

neutral fashion, i.e. without any corrections, "bad data rejection", and similar interventions This statement ignores the
...I.

fundamental behaviour of grounding systems, which our paper brought into focus and Mr. Fortin's discussion has amplified: 'current electrode distance affects particularly touch voltage measurements by a factor of 1 to 4'. Experienced engineers with t h i s type of measurements would agree with Mr. Fortin and ourselves that these errors must be corrected. Our paper offers a practical method and instrument for this purpose. For the benefit of our readers, we emphasize that touch voltage measurements with practical lengths of current retum electrodes are subject to large errors. These errors are independent of the quality of the hardware. It is our belief that the only practical way to correct for these errors is by software. Mr. Fortin's discussion also suggets correction with a mathematical algorithm. Mr Dawalibi states that measurements of step voltages are unnecessary if touch voltages are measured. This statement is regretably false: it is possible, for specific ground grids, step voltages may exceed allowable levels while touch voltages are within limits. For the benefit of our readers, we present a simple case where step voltages exceed limits while touch voltages are within limits: Consider an 8x8 mesh ground grid, 10 feet spacing between parallel ground conductors, buried 1.5 feet in a two layer soil (upper soil resistivity = 200 ohm.meters, lower soil resistivity = 1000 ohm.meters, and upper soil thickness of 6 feet). The maximum earth current is 415 Amperes (current flowing into soil from grid, under worst fault conditions). Consider the usual case where a 4 inch layer of 3000 ohm.meter crushed rock covers the substation and extends 3 feet outside the fence. The fence is located 3 feet inside the perimeter of the ground grid and it is bonded to the ground grid. For a 0.5 second fault duration, the permissible touch and step voltages are: Inside the Substation and up to 3 Feet from Fence (crushed rock):

Information requested by Mr Fortin is provided below. The correction factors applied by the SGM for the measurements at the Texas Valley substation ranged from 1.08 to 1.92. The real correction factor, as defined by Mr Fortin, can be read from Figures 9, 10,11, and 12 as the ratio of the solid line (SGM data) to the dotted line (CI method). We did not use the de-energized line as the current retum system for the SGM measurements. We agree with Mr. Fortin, it would have been a valuable test to use the de-energized line as the current retum system for the SGM. Mr. Fortin suggests a comparison of the results with Figure 7 of reference Specifically, Figure 7 of reference [7] shows measurements of the ground grid impedance with the static/neutrals connected/disconnected. The grid resistance is 0.56 when the static/neutrals are disconnected. This measurement is in close agreement with the computed value of 0.584 ohms, using the soil model A (see Table 3). Note also that in Figure 13, the touch voltage measurements with the SGM are in agreement with the computed touch voltages using the soil model A (see curve MIN in Figure 13). This agreement suggests that the soil model of the Texas Valley Substation is the one provided by the soil resistivity measurements at location A (model A). We agree that more results and comparisons are needed to attain confidence in the proposed method and instrument. We are planning many more tests and comparisons and we will report the conclusions in subsequent papers. Mr. Dawalibi's discussion is in large part irrelevant to touch voltage measurements and the proposed method and instrument. Specifically, most of his comments are relative to the ground impedance meter function of the Smart Ground Multimeter, for example, the k, factor, etc. These issues have been addressed and fully explained in the closure of our previous paper (reference [7] of the present

[A.

Outside Substation at Least 3 Feet from Fence (native soil):

Vtoudr,permissible = 215 volts

For above system, the following are computed: Maximum Touch Voltage = 551 volts. It occurs at the comer of the substation for someone standing 3 feet from the substation fence and touching the fence. Applicable permissible touch voltage is 573 volts.

1860

Maximum Step Voltage = 392 volts. It occurs about 6.5 feet from the corner of the station fence. Applicable permissible step voltage is 368 volts. Note that the step voltage is over the limit, while the touch voltage is below the limit. Above computations were performed with our analysis program (El" program) and we expect that they can be verified with a number of other programs. In above case, and many other similar cases, measurement of step voltages is necessary. Another minor point that we would like to make is that Mr. the use of six potential probes and Dawalibi's belief that
I...

for the range of current probe locations (325to 1660 feet), the Smart Ground Multimeter provides measurements which are practically constant (20% excursion), while the measurements with the Ground tester show an excursion of 85 percent. The figure illustrate the superiority of the SGM as compared to other meters or measurements without correction. The small variability of the SGM measurements is attributed to the presence of distribution poles near the location of the current retum electrode. The advantage of the SGM approach is that corrections for the proximity of the distribution pole ground or other grounds can be integrated into the SGM system.
. . - .- Ground Tester

associated leads simultaneously can be an extreme nuisance to a team of three people or less and quite exhausting is amusing.
...I

One person is enough to operate the smart ground multimeter and it takes less than 5 minutes to move six probes from one location to another. The meter performs touch voltage measurements simultaneously at six locations, thus minimizing the overall testing time. The users of the Smart Ground Multimeter will totally disagree with Mr Dawalibi's statement.

2.0

SGM

I n summary, touch and step voltage measurements with

conventional methods may have unacceptably large errors. This fact has been brought into focus by our paper and amplified by Mr. Fortin's discussion. These large errors must be corrected with software or other means. The new method and istrument does just that: it combines hardware and software for the direct measurement of touch and step voltages and uses error correction methods via software. The central requirement of a touch and step voltage meter is to provide the same measurement independent of the position of the current probe. To illustrate t h i s point, we have performed touch voltage measurements at a specific substation using the Smart Ground Multimeter and the a s Ground tester, while the current probe location w variable. The results are illustrated in Figure 1. Note that

500

1000

1500

2000

Distance of Current Return Electrode from Grid Center (feet)

> -

Figure 1. Touch Voltage Measurements vs Current Probe Location

Manuscript received May 9.1994.