CDEGS versus WinIGS: Soil Modelling Applications

S. D. Buba, W. F. Wan Ahmad, M. Z. A. Ab Kadir, C. Gomes, J. Jasni1

M. Osman2
1. Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.
2. Department of Electrical Power Engineering
College of Engineering
Universiti Tenaga Nasional
43000 Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia.

Abstract
It is a well-known fact that the resistance of an earth electrode system which could be as
complex as an earth grid or lightning protection earthing system or single electrode system
largely depends on the site specific soil resistivity. Therefore, to establish an effective earth
electrode system with sufficiently low resistance, an accurate measurement to obtain soil
resistivity data must be done at the site and interpreted correctly. This paper compares the
performances of two softwares typically used to develop such soil model, i.e. CDEGS and
WinIGS. Soil resistivity data was collected at two sites where distribution substations are to be
installed which was used as input to both CDEGS and WinIGS to determine the soil models.
Results from the two softwares indicated that the soils at the two sites had the same number of
layers but with slightly differing soil resistivity values.

Introduction
In every electrical installation, adequate earthing is considered to have utmost importance
particularly, the earthing of high-voltage substations in order to protect people and equipment in
the event of an electrical fault. Well designed earthing systems ensure correct operation and
performance of the power system and safety of personnel. It is desirable that the substation
earthing provides a near zero resistance to remote earth. The prevailing practice of most utilities
is to install earth grid comprising of horizontal earth electrodes (buried bare copper conductors)
supplemented by a number of vertical earth rods connected to the grid, and by a number of
equipment grounding mats and cable interconnections. The earthing grid then provides a
common earth for electrical equipment and all metallic structures at the station [1].
The main objective of earthing electrical systems is to provide a suitably low resistance
connection to the earth electrode system such as a substation or other earthed facility where low
resistance is required to limit the earth potential rise (EPR) of a substation from the potential of
the surrounding environment. This EPR must be limited to an extent that there is no danger to
person or livestock standing on the ground but touching, for example, the substation fence. In
order to ensure that the EPR, touch and step voltages are within safety limits, an accurate soil
model is needed to ensure that the resistance of the earthing grid through the soil is sufficiently
low. The soil model is obtained after performing soil resistivity measurement at the proposed
substation location [2], and typically using softwares, such as CDEGS and WinIGS.
Soil resistivity is technically referred to as the resistance of the soil to the passage of
electric current. Soils with low resistivity are generally assumed to consist of abundance of
highly mobile ions that are capable of conducting electric current and thus offer low resistance to
the flow of current. On the other hand, soils with high resistivity typically lack an abundance of
mobile ions and are less able to conduct electric current [3-4]. Considering semiconductor
resistivity models and descriptions, resistivity depends on both the number and mobility of free
charge carriers. In a typical soil model, the number of mobile ions is primarily dependent on the
number and type of water-soluble compounds available in the soil, and the amount of moisture
present in the soil. The mobility of the ions is therefore governed by a combination of soil
moisture, soil grain size, temperature, and soil compaction, as well as the surface
electrochemistry of the soil grains [3].

Soil resistivity data has extensive applications in civil engineering, electrical engineering,
geology and archaeology to mention but a few. In electrical engineering, soil resistivity data are
useful for locating the best depth for installing low resistance earth electrode system and are very
necessary when new electrical facilities such as generating stations, substations, transmission
line towers, telephone exchange and mobile communication base transceiver station are being
constructed. In addition, soil resistivity data is used to indicate the expected degree of corrosion
in underground pipelines for water, oil and gas, which facilitates the installation of cathodic
protection systems [4]. The purpose of soil resistivity measurement is to obtain a set of data
which may be interpreted to yield an equivalent soil model to facilitate the design of an earthing
system. Note that, when defining the electrical properties of a portion of the soil, a distinction
between the geoelectric and geologic model is necessary. In the geoelectric model the boundaries
between layers are determined by changes in resistivity which primarily depends upon water and
chemical content, and the soil texture, while the geologic model on the other hand is based upon
such criteria as fossils and texture, may contain several geoelectric sections [4].
There are several techniques by which soil resistivity or subsurface soil information could
be obtained, some of the common techniques includes, self-potential (SP), four-electrode probe
method, vertical electrical sounding (VES), electrical profiling (EP) and non-contact
electromagnetic profiling principles such as the ground penetrating radar (GPR). VES and EP
techniques measure electrical resistivity or conductivity of soil to any depth when a constant
electrical field is artificially created on the surface. VES and EP techniques as well as other
laboratory techniques of measuring electrical resistivity in soil samples are based on fourelectrode method, but vary considerably in electrode array lengths and arrangements, which
make the methods very suitable for different applications. The VES, EP, and SP techniques
evaluate parameters of the stationary electrical fields in soils. All the techniques based on
stationary electrical fields require inserting electrodes into the soil surface, therefore,
measurements using these principles could be made only in the fields, rural areas, or in the
laboratory in soil samples. EM, NEP, and GPR on the other hand introduce electromagnetic
waves of different frequencies into the soil. The EM, NEP, and GPR evaluate properties of the
non-stationary electromagnetic fields in soils, they are mobile as they do not require a physical
contact with the soil surface and can measure electrical resistivity or conductivity in soils
covered with firm pavement [5-7]. Airborne resistivity mapping was also reported in [8].
4

Soil resistivity measurement is normally conducted using these three methods namely,
Wenner, Schlumberger and Driven rod methods. Many factors influence the selection of a
particular method, but normally, maximum probe depths, lengths of cables required, efficiency
of the measuring technique, cost which is usually determined by duration and the size of the
survey crew and ease of interpretation of the data are the main factors that are considered when
selecting a particular test method [5]. In the Wenner method, all four electrodes are moved for
each test with the spacing between each adjacent pair remaining the same. Wenner method is the
most efficient in terms of the ratio of received voltage per unit of transmitted current. In the
Schlumberger method, the potential electrodes remain stationary while the current electrodes are
moved for a series of measurements. The driven rod method, (three pin or Fall-of-Potential
method) is normally suitable for use in circumstances such as transmission line tower earthing,
or areas of difficult terrain, because of the shallow penetration that can be achieved in practical
situations, the local measurement area, and the inaccuracies encountered in two layer soil
conditions. In all the three methods, the depth of penetration of the electrodes has been
recommended to be less than 5% of the separation distance to ensure that the approximation of
point sources, required by the simplified formula remains valid [9-10]. The apparent soil
resistivity values could be calculated for any probe spacing using Equations (1) and (2) for
Wenner and Schlumberger methods and Equation (3) for driven rod method.

a 2aR m

(1)

Where, a is the apparent soil resistivity in (-m), a is the probe spacing in (m), R is the
resistance reading in () displayed by the measuring instrument and is constant equal to
3.142.
L2 R
a
m
(2)
2l
Where, a is the apparent resistivity in (-m), l is the distance from centre line to inner probes
(m), L is the distance from centre line to inner probes (m), R is the resistance reading displayed
by the measurement () and is a constant equal to 3.142.
2lR
a
m
(3)
8l
ln
d
Where, a is the apparent resistivity in (-m), l is the length of driven rod in contact with the
soil (m), d is the driven rod diameter (m), R is the measured value of resistance displayed by the
instrument () and is a constant equal to 3.142.

Soil resistivity measurements are often performed using suitable measuring instruments
such as Megger Earth Tester DET3TC, Fluke 1631 Geo Earth Tester, and Kyoritsu Earth Testers
etc. In principle, soil resistivity measurement is performed using any of these instruments by
injecting electric current into the soil through two outer current probes and the resulting voltage
between the two inner potential probes is measured and displayed. The probes (stakes) are
normally arranged at equal distances and along the same straight line. When the adjacent spacing
between the current and potential probes is small, the measured soil resistivity is indicative of
local surface soil characteristics. On the other hand, when the probe spacing is large, the
measured soil resistivity is indicative of the soil characteristics at the extent of the depth. In
principle, soil resistivity measurements are made using spacing (between adjacent current and
potential probes) that are, at least, on the same order as the maximum size of the earthing
system(s) under study.
The results of soil resistivity measurement in its raw form does not carry much
information without interpretation, thus, it is imperative to interpret the results to obtain
meaningful information. IEEE Std. 80-2000 [11] has recommended some equations for
averaging all the values which represent the measured apparent resistivity data obtained at
different probe spacing and the total number of measurements prior to interpretation. The
methods used for interpreting the results of soil resistivity measurements are basically grouped
into empirical, analytical and computer based techniques. Empirical methods are typically
developed through a combination of interpolation and field measurements. The earliest method
of interpretation of soil resistivity field data is a graphical method used to approximate a twolayer soil model based on the interpretation of a series of curves commonly called the Sunde
curves which allow for a rough approximation of the soil model parameters without the use of a
computer or sophisticated equations. However, Sundes curve was found to be in accurate as it
relied on the visual interpolation of the curves to determine the soil model parameters [12].
Several other methods for interpretation of soil resistivity data has been reported in
literature. A practical method for the interpretation of driven rod test results that relies upon
simple hand calculations based on the semi-empirical expressions for the resistance of a rod in
two layer soils was reported in [13]. The interpretation of resistivity sounding measurements in
N-layer soil using electrostatic images method was proposed in [14]. Also in [15-18] a new
method was proposed by deriving the theoretical equations for calculation of apparent resistivity
6

standard curves of horizontally multi-layered models, stating that, for known soil parameters, the
apparent resistivity distribution could be computed efficiently using the proposed method.
A statistical method and a computer program for interpreting soil measurement data obtained
from four pin or three pin measurements was presented in [19]. Also, a simple analytical
formula was derived for the Sunde curves in [20] by generating an infinite series of multiple
images in two-layer soil and replaced by their asymptotes which was used to determine a twolayer soil model through numerical optimization. However, due to inaccuracies associated with
empirical and analytical methods, the use of computer programs such as CDEGS and WinIGS
for soil resistivity data interpretation and modelling have gained popularity in recent times and
are used in this study.

Brief Description of Softwares

The program WinIGS is an analysis/design tool for grounding system design, multiphase power
system analysis, induced/transferred voltages, etc. With regard to grounding system design, it
enables design of typical power system substation grounding, overhead line tower/pole
grounding and any other grounding systems. The program WinIGS supports the IEEE Standard
80 safety criteria as well as the IEC criteria for grounding system safety. A number of other
specialized studies can be performed with the program WinIGS [21].
The CDEGS software package (Current Distribution, Electromagnetic Fields, Grounding
and Soil Structure Analysis) is a versatile set of integrated engineering tool designed to analyse
problems involving earthing, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic interference including
AC/DC interference mitigation studies and various aspects of cathodic protection. CDEGS
software computes conductor currents and electromagnetic fields generated by an arbitrary
network of energized conductors above or below ground for normal fault, lightning and transient
conditions. In this paper, the MultiGround package comprising of RESAP, MALT and FCDIST
modules which are specialized for low frequency earthing analysis and design was used.
Methodology
Two sites for installation of distribution substations were identified in Universiti Putra Malaysia
(UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. Site 1 occupies a land of size of 12m x 12m and located
near the Surau at College 12 in UPM, while Site 2 occupies a land size of 15m x 15m and
7

located adjacent to the Canteen at Faculty of Engineering, UPM. Soil resistivity measurement
was conducted at the two sites using a Megger Earth Tester according to Wenner method. The
measurement traverse followed the four sides of a rectangle and a diagonal for each probe
spacing. The field data from the measurement traverse was initially averaged using Equation (4)
yielding Tables 1a and 2a which was used as input to the RESAP module of CDEGS software.
The same data was also used as input to WinIGS software. The soil models produced by the two
softwares were then compared for similarity and difference.

1 2 ....1

(4)

Ni

Results and Discussion

Table 1a lists the soil resistivity field data collected at Site 1 which served as input to both
CDEGS and WinIGS softwares. Table 1b depicts the soil model developed by RESAP module of
CDEGS. It indicates that the soil structure at Site 1 consists of two layers. Layer 1 being the top
soil layer has a resistivity of 2231.9-m and a thickness of 1.11m, while the second layer, i.e.
bottom layer has a resistivity of 752.4-m and infinite thickness. For earthing purposes, the
earth grid would normally be installed within the bottom layer to take advantage of lower
resistivity and also to allow for installation of vertical earth rods.
Table 1a, Average of measured soil resistivity field data Site 1
Probe Spacing Average Apparent Average Apparent
(m)
Resistance ()
Resistivity (-m)
1.0
308.6
1,938
2.0
110.2
1,384
3.0
52.8
995
4.0
33.6
844
5.0
32.0
1,005
6.0
20.0
754
Table 1b, Soil structure/model developed by RESAP Site 1
Layer Number Resistivity (-m) Thickness (m)
1
2231.913
1.113013
2
752.4407
infinite

Figure 1 shows the soil model developed by WinIGS which indicates that the soil structure at
Site 1 consists of two layers. The upper layer soil has a resistivity of 2279.1-m and a thickness
of 3.5ft, while the second layer, i.e. bottom layer has a resistivity of 770.3-m and infinite
8

thickness. Comparing the performance of CDEGS and WinIGS, it could be observed that the
resistivity of the top soil layer is lower in CDEGS and higher in WinIGS indicating a difference
of 47.2-m which may not be neglected. Considering the second soil layer, converse is the case,
the resistivity of the bottom layer is higher in WinIGS than CDEGS with a difference of
approximately 18-m which may be neglected. Figure 2 illustrates the model fit for Site 1.
Wenner Method Soil Parameters

Close

Case Name DETERMINATION-OF-SOIL-MODEL-FOR-SITE-1

Description
Grounding System / Geometric Model
Exp. Value

Tolerance

Upper Soil Resistivity

2279.1

635.6

Ohm Meters

Lower Soil Resistivity

770.3

127.2

Ohm Meters

3.5

1.0

At Confidence Level

90.0

Results are valid to depth of

29.5

Feet

Soil Resistivity Model

Upper Layer Thickness

Conf:

Error:

Conf:

Error:

Feet

Conf:

Error:

Program WinIGS - Form SOIL_RA

Figure 1 Soil parameters for Site 1using WinIGS

Close

Wenner Method Model Fit Report

File:
Description: Grounding System / Geometric Model
Soil Resistivity Model

Plot Cursors

Upper Soil Resistivity

2279.1

Ohm Meters

Separation Distance

Lower Soil Resistivity

770.3

Ohm Meters

Measured

Feet

Computed

Upper Layer Thickness

3.5

X Scale
Linear
Log

Program W inIGS - Form SOIL_RB

Figure 2 Soil model developed by WinIGS

Table 2a depicts the soil resistivity field data collected at Site 2 also used as input to CDEGS and
WinIGS softwares. The soil model developed by CDEGS is listed in Table 2b which reveals that
the soil structure also consist of two layers. The top layer i.e. the first layer has a resistivity of
60.4-m with a thickness of 0.55m, while the second layer, i.e. the bottom layer has a resistivity
of approximately 42-m. Although, Site 2 has obviously low soil resistivity, it is recommended
that earth grid should be installed within the second layer to benefit from the lower value of
resistivity.
Table 2a, Average measured soil resistivity field data Site 2
Probe Spacing Average Apparent Average Apparent
(m)
Resistance ()
Resistivity (-m)
1.0
8.5
53.4
2.0
3.2
40.2
3.0
2.3
43.3
4.0
1.8
45.2
5.0
1.6
50.2
6.0
1.0
38.0
7.0
1.0
44.0
Table 2b, Soil structure/model developed by RESAP Site 2
Layer Number Resistivity (-m) Thickness (m)
1
60.43904
0.5563730
2
41.95911
infinite

Figure 3 illustrates the soil parameters produced by WinIGS indicating that the soil structure at
Site 2 comprise of two layers. The upper layer has a resistivity of 79.7-m and a thickness of
1.2ft, while the lower layer has a resistivity 42.8-m and infinite thickness. Comparing CDEGS
and WinIGS with regard to Site 2, it could be observed that upper layer resistivity in Table 2b is
lower than the upper layer resistivity in Figure 3 with a difference of 19.3-m, however, the
resistivity of the lower soil layer is almost the same where approximately 42-m was recorded
from CDEGS and 42.8-m from WinIGS. Figure 4 shows the model fit for Site 2 which
indicates the accuracy of the measured resistivity data.

10

Wenner Method Soil Parameters

Close

Case Name DETERMINATION-OF-SOIL-MODEL-FOR-SITE-2

Description
Grounding System / Geometric Model
Exp. Value

Tolerance

Upper Soil Resistivity

79.7

54.1

Ohm Meters

Lower Soil Resistivity

42.8

4.8

Ohm Meters

Soil Resistivity Model

Upper Layer Thickness

Conf:

Error:

Feet

1.2
At Confidence Level

90.0

Results are valid to depth of

34.4

Feet

Conf:

Error:

Conf:

Error:

Program WinIGS - Form SOIL_RA

Figure 3 Soil parameters for Site 2 using WinIGS

Close

Wenner Method Model Fit Report

File:
Description: Grounding System / Geometric Model
Soil Resistivity Model

Plot Cursors

Upper Soil Resistivity

79.7

Ohm Meters

Separation Distance

Lower Soil Resistivity

42.8

Ohm Meters

Measured

Upper Layer Thickness

1.2

Feet

Computed

X Scale
Linear
Log

Program W inIGS - Form SOIL_RB

Figure 4 Soil model fit using WinIGS

Apart from the output functions, there are other features of the two softwares that could be
compared. CDEGS software has enjoyed a popular usage by electricity utility companies and
academic institutions in Malaysia but the WinIGS software is rarely mentioned despite its
potentials. In terms of cost, CDEGS is very expensive but consists of many packages where
customers have a choice based on their budgets, unfortunately, the cost of WinIGS could not be
obtained for comparison. Considering the ease of usage, CDEGS consists of modules within
packages and each module could be accessed directly from the desktop but, WinIGS is an
11

integrated software in which access to soil resistivity platform could only be gained by invoking
the substation grounding tool. WinIGS software have excellent features with regard to output
features for soil resistivity as it adequately takes care of bad data, it also shows the degree of
confidence for soil models, tolerance level and the depth at which the results are valid as
indicated in Figures (1) to (4), these features are not provided by CDEGS results as far as I
know, however the percentage discrepancy between measured and calculated values of soil
resistivity is indicated. In summary, the soil models developed by CDEGS and WinIGS are
closely related and may be considered to be almost the same within the limits of instrument and
simulation errors.
Conclusion
The performance of CDEGS and WinIGS softwares for soil modeling has been presented
considering the result produced by each software. Other issues such as cost, user friendliness,
popularity and unique features were also compared. It was found that there was no much
difference in the values of soil resistivity for bottom (lower soil layers) for both Sites 1 and 2
from the results produced by CDEGS and WinIGS, however, there was variation of soil
resistivity for the top soil (upper soil layer) in both cases but not extreme in value. Therefore, it
could be concluded that any of the two softwares is recommended for soil modeling applications.

12

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]

G. Gilbert, High Voltage Grounding Systems, PhD Dissertation, University of Waterloo,

Ontario, Canada, 2011.
G. Gilbert, Soil Modelling Techniques, International Journal of Materials Science and
Applications, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012.
Clark, A. J. Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology, new ed. B. T.
Batsford, London, 1996.
Klein, K., and J. C. Santamarina, Electrical Conductivity in Soils: Underlying
Phenomena. Journal of Environmental Engineering Geophysics 8(4) 2003, 263273.
L. Somers, Resistivity survey, Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North
American Perspective, pp. 109130, 2006.
Getting Down to Earth: A Practical Guide to Measuring Earth Resistance, Megger, 2010.
O. F. Murad, Obtaining Chemical Properties Through Soil Electrical Resistivity, Journal
of Civil Engineering Research, Vol. 2 (6), 2012.
A. Becker, Airborne Resistivity Mapping, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and
Propagation, Vol. 36, NO. 4, April, 1988.
Earthing Techniques, Lightning and Surge Technologies, www.lightningman.com.au
F. Chitea, Acquisition of electrical resistivity data. Application to soil moisture content,
Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 12, EGU2010-12804, 2010, EGU General
Assembly 2010.
IEEE Standard 80:2000, Recommended Practice for Grounding AC power Substation,
ANSI, 2000.
A. Samoulian, I. Cousin, A. Tabbagh, A. Bruand, and G. Richard, Electrical Resistivity
Survey in Soil Science: a Review, Soil and Tillage Research, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 173
193, Sep. 2005.
A. Neal, Ground Penetrating Radar and its use in Sedimentology: Principles,
Problems and Progress, Earths Science Reviews, 66, 261-330, 2004.
I. F. Gonos, A. X. Moronis, and I. A. Stathopulos, Variation of Soil Resistivity and
Ground Resistance During the Year, 28th International Conference on Lightning
Protection, ICLP 2006 Kanazawa, Japan.
J. Nahman, and D. Salamon, Practical Method for Interpretation of Earth Resistivity Data
Obtained from Driven Rod Tests, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 3, No. 4,
October 1988.
P. J. Lagace, J. Fortin, and E. D. Crainic, Interpretation of Resistivity Sounding
Measurements in N-Layer Soil Using Electrostatic Images, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, Vol. 11, No. 3, July 1996.
P. J. Lagace, M. H. Vuong, M. Lefebvre, and J. Fortin, Multilayer Resistivity
Interpretation and Error Estimation Using Electrostatic Images, IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, Vol. 21. No. 4, October 2006.
P. J. Lagace, and M. H Vuong, Graphical User Interface for Interpreting and Validating
Soil Resistivity Measurements, IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics,
9-13 July 2006, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
S. H. Slaoui, S. Georges, P. J. Lagace and X. D. Do, Fast Processing of Resistivity
Sounding Measurement in N-Layer Soil, Power Engineering Summer Meeting, 15-19
July 2001, Vancouver, BC.
13

[20]
[21]
[22]

A. P. Meliopolous, A. D. Papalexopoulos, Interpretation of Soil Resistivity

Measurements: Experience with the Model SOMIP, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, Vol.1, No. 4, October 1986.
G. Gilbert, Y. L. Chow, D. E. Bouchard, and M. M. Salama, Soil Model Determination
Using Asymptotic Approximations to Sundes Curve, IEEE PES Transmission and
Distribution Conference and Exposition, 19-22 April 2010, New Orleans, LA, USA.
A. P. S. Meliopolous, Windows Based Integrated Grounding System Design Program:
Application Guide, 2011.

14