IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. PWRD-2, No.

3, July 1987 725

Determination of Maximum Substation Grounding System Fault

Current Using Graphical Analysis

D. L. Garrett J. G. Myers S. G. Patel

Member Senior Member
Southern Company Services Georgia Power Company
Birmingham, Alabama Atlanta, Georgia

Introduction proximate value of grid current, as many ap-

proximations and assumptions were necessary to
The determination of the maximum current limit the number of curves. Obviously, some
to be used to design a safe grounding system cases may require a more accurate analysis.
has been receiving a lot of attention in re- This paper describes the range of system pa-
cent years. For years, most engineers used rameters used to develop the "split factor"
'the total substation bus ground fault current curves, and provides the resultant curves
to design the grounding system. A few engi- which can be used to approximate the maximum
neers may have taken into account the fact grid current.
that some of the ground fault current simply
circulates through the grid conductor between Parametric Analysis
its source and the fault point. Today, the
determination of the maximum grid current is When determining maximum substation grid
being scrutinized more closely. Computer current, the variation of certain parameters
analysis is being used to determine a more ac- in the connected electrical system network can
curate value for the maximum grid current, re- affect current distribution through the grid.
sulting in the design of more cost-effective, The following parameters were analyzed to de-
yet safe, grounding systems./l/ Another rea- termine which had the most significant effect
son for the need to more accurately determine on current flowing through the substation
the grid current is that the ever- increasing grounding grid:
fault current magnitudes are also increasing
the grid potential rise (GPR), making it dif-
ficult and expensive to protect communication 1. Substation grid resistance.
circuits. Many recent papers have described
methods for computing the actual fault current 2. Conductor size and type of transmission
flowing between the grounding system and sur- overhead ground wires and distribution
rounding earth./4-7, 12, 14, 17-19/ These feeder neutrals.
methods generally account for the effects of
the source(s) of fault current, as well as 3. Phase and neutral conductor configuration.
other ground fault current return paths (i.e.,
overhead ground wires, feeder neutrals, etc). 4. Number of overhead ground wires.
A recent EPRI Project developed the Sub- 5. Tower footing resistances of overhead
station Maximum Earth Current Computation pro- ground wires and feeder neutrals.
gram (SMECC)./2/ While this program
accurately computes the actual maximum ground 6. Conductor span length.
fault current flowing between the grounding
system and surrounding earth, it requires a 7. Soil resistivity.
considerable amount of input data. In many
cases, it is desirable to obtain an approxi- Using the SMECC computer program, the system
mate value of the maximum grid current for use network of Figure 1 was used to perform the
in the preliminary grounding system design parametric analysis.
stages, without having to collect and input
all the data required by a computer program
such as SMECC. In fact, in some cases, this
approximate value will suffice for designing
the grounding system. With this in mind, the
SMECC program was used to develop a set of
curves for use in determining an approximate
value for the maximum grid current. These
curves cover a wide range of conditions and
parameters typically found in a power system. Conductor
Configurations
The curves are intended to give only an ap-

Transmi ssion Distribution

86 T&D 596-1 A paper recommended and approved
by the IEEE Substations Committee of the IEEE Power
Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE/PES
1986 Transmission and Distribution Conference,
Anaheim, California, September 14 - 19, 1986.
Manuscript submitted March 20, 1986; made available
for printing June 20, 1986.
0885-8977/87/0700-0725$01.00O1987 IEEE
Line Feeder
Figure 1. System network configuration used
in the parametric analysis.
Previous analysis has indicated that the
grid resistance would have significant effect
on grid current and would influence the rela-
tive effect of the other parameters. Thus,
the parametric analysis was performed by con-
726

currently varying the grid resistance (from resistance. At 10.0 ohms grid resistance, the
0.1 ohm to 10 ohms) and one of the other pa- percent grid current ranged from 8.94% to
rameters. For each parametric analysis, the 8.98%.
maximum grid current was expressed as a per-
centage of the total substation bus ground Table 2
fault current.
Effects of Conductor Configuration
The effects of varying the conductor size Grid Current/Total Fault
and type of overhead ground wires and feeder Current (%)
Grid Resistance (ohms)
neutrals on grid current were studied in two Configuration 0.1 10.0
parts. In part 1, using a typical feeder neu- 10.64
86.87
tral of of 4/0 ACSR, the overhead ground wire D
(OHGW) was varied for conductor sizes and
types typical of transmission overhead ground
wires. As shown in Table 1, the percent grid
current ranged from 91.04% for a 3/8 HSS OHGW
at 0.1 ohm grid resistance, to 75.97% for a V1., 87 .27 10.74
7#8 CW OHGW at the same grid resistance. At
10.0 ohms grid resistance, the percent grid
current ranged from 12.06% for 3/8 HSS, to
8.19% for 7#8 CW. The range of conductor size
and type between 3/8 HSS and 7#8 CW is wide,
and the typical conductor currently used for a V2,i 87 .44 10.76
transmission line OHGW is usually in the range
of 3/8 HSS to 7#8 ALW.
Table 1
Effects of Overhead Ground Wire or Feeder Neutral
Conductor Size and Type Hil 81.47 8.94

Grid Current/Total Fault Current (%)

Wire Grid Resistance (ohms) 12
Size Type 1.0 10.0 I

3 /8 HSS 91.04 58.32 12.06

1/2 HSS 86.87 53.79 10.64 8.98
5/8 HSS 82.39 49.87 9.56 H2 81.76
3#8 ALW 91.30 57.89 11 .92
346 ALW 88.55 54.71 10.93
7410 ALW 88. 98 55.27 11.08
7*8 ALW 84. 88 51.34 9.94
3#8 CW 86.58 52.79 10.32 nil,,
3#6 CW 80.89 47.96 9.03
7#10 CW 82.48 49.24 9.40
7#8 44.38 8.19
ACWR
ACSR
75.97
76.14 44.53 8.19
9.41 Next, tower footing resistance (RTFR) for
#4 ACSR 8 2.55 49.34
0000 ACSR 62.43 35.46 6.28 transmission overhead ground wires and dis-
336 ACSR 57.41 32.35
31.58
5.59
5 .45
tribution feeder neutrals were analyzed. As
477
795
ACSR 56.16
54 .84 30.80 5.31 shown in Table 3, the percent grid current
ranged from 84.75% for RTFR = 12.5 ohms and
grid resistance of 0.1 ohm, to 90.27% for RTFR
HSS = High Strength Steel, ALW = Alumonweld,
NOTE:
CW = Copperweld, ACSR = Aluminum Cable Steel - 200 ohms. At 10.0 ohms grid resistance, the
Reinforced percent grid current ranged from 7.95% for
12.5 ohms RTFR to 21.94% for of 200 ohms RTFR.
In part 2, again using a typical feeder Typically, the tower footing resistances of
neutral of 4/0 ACSR, the overhead ground wire transmission lines are 25 ohms or less, while
was varied for conductor sizes and types typi- RTFR for distribution feeders may be consider-
cal of distribution feeder neutrals. The per- ably higher. Thus, RTFR ranging from 12.5 to
cent grid current in Table 1 ranged from 50.0 ohms is representative of well-grounded
82.55% for #4 ACSR at 0.1 ohm grid resistance, OHGW and feeder neutrals, while RTFR ranging
to 54.84% for 795 ACSR. At 10.0 ohms grid re- from 100 to 200 ohms represents poorly
sistance, the percent grid current ranged from grounded OHGW and feeder neutrals.
9.41% for #4 ACSR, to 5.31% for 795 ACSR. The Table 3
size and type of feeder neutrals vary widely
and the range indicated above is represen- Effects of Tower Footing Resistance (RTFR)
tative of the typical range used today. Grid Current/Total Fault Current (%)
Grid Resistance (ohms)
Conductor configuration and number of RTFR 0.1 1.0 10.0
overhead ground wires were analyzed concur- 12.5 84.75 46.14 7.95
rently because the phase and neutral conductor 25 86.87 53.79 10.64
14.12
configuration also determines the number of 50
100
88.40
89.56
60.99
67.10 18.04
overhead ground wires. As shown in Table 2, 200 90.27 71.79 21.94
various conductor configurations having only
one overhead ground wire gave percent grid
currents ranging from 86.87% to 87.44% at 0.1 The effects of conductor span length
ohm grid resistance. For a grid resistance of (i.e., distance between tower ground resist-
10.0 ohms, the percent grid current ranged ances), on grid current were also analyzed.
from 10.64% to 10.76%. Various combinations of span lengths for the
transmission line and distribution feeder were
Conductor configurations having two over- analyzed. As shown in Table 4, for distrib-
head ground wires gave percent grid currents ution feeder spans of 60.99 m and a grid re-
ranging from 81.47% to 81.76% at 0.1 ohm grid sistance of 10.0 ohms, the grid current ranged
 727

from 7.50% for transmission spans of 80.47 m, tribution. Although not explicitly modelled,
to 10.64% for transmission span lengths of a variation of the soil resistivity is implied
482.8 m. For a transmission span length of in the variation of the grid and tower footing
482.8 m and a grid resistance of 10.0 ohms, resistances. All other parameters were based
the percent grid resistance ranged from 9.26% on typical data and/or choices which would
for a distribution feeder span length of 60.99 minimize the error introduced by not varying
m to 16.06% for a distribution feeder span of each paramater. Table 6 shows the assumed
321.87 m. For the same combinations of trans- values for the parameters not explicitly
mission line and distribution feeder span varied in the graphical analysis.
lengths and a grid resistance of 0.1 ohm, the
effect on the grid current was negligible. Table 6

Table 4 Parameters Held Constant for Graphical Analysis

Parameter Trans. Line Dist. Line
Effects of Span Lengths Neutral or Size - 7#10 336
(Distance Between Tower Grounds) Ground Wire Type - Alumoweld ACSR
Grid Current/Total Fault Size 336 1/0
Current (%) Phase Cond. -
Span Length (m) Type - ACSR ACSR
Transmission Distribution Grid Resistance (ohms)
Line Feeder 0.1 1.0 10.0
Number of
84.22 44.53 7.50 Neutral Cond. -
80.47 60.99 Per Line
482.80 60.99 86.03 50.29 9.26
160.93 60.99 86.87 53.79 10.64 Vertical Delta
321.87 87.11 55.28 11.43 Configuration -
80.47 (see Figure 1)
482.80 321.87 89.05 64.37 16.06
Soil
Resistivity 100lQ -m 100 Q -m
Finally, soil resistivity was analyzed for Span Length for
its effect on grid current. Table 5 shows Figures 153.4 m 121.92 m
N/A
Figures 243.84 m
percent grid current varying from 87.90% for a
.soil resistivity of 10 ohm- meters to 85.75%
for 1000 ohm-meters, at a grid resistance of
0.1 ohms. At 10.0 ohms grid resistance, the The configurations used for all trans-
percent grid current varied from 10.50% at 10 mission lines and distribution feeder are
ohm-meters to 10.81% at 1000 ohm-meters soil shown in Figure 1. The source impedances were
resistivity. chosen so that the fault currents were typical
of those found in most power systems. This
Table 5 was important in order to obtain a reasonably
accurate effect of mutual coupling between the
Effects of Soil Resistivity phase and neutral conductors.
Grid Current/Total Fault Current (%)

Soil Grid Resistance (ohms) A random survey of typical substations

Resistivity 0.1 1.0
10 87.90 53.70
53.79
100
1000
86.87
85.75 53.79
Based on the results of
analysis, the network parameters that have the
most significant impact on grid current are
substation grid resistance and tower footing
resistance. Soil resistivity appears to have
negligible effect on grid current. This is
somewhat misleading, however, as it would af-
fect the grid resistance and tower footing re-
sistances. Conductor configuration, the
number of overhead ground wires per line and
conductor span length have less impact on de-
termining grid current. Although the percent
grid current varies over a wide range for the
conductors shown in Table 1, for conductors
typically used for overhead ground wires and
for those typically used for feeder neutrals,
the effect on the grid current is negligible.
For all parameters studied, the effect on grid
current increases as the grid resistance in-
creases.
Systems Studied in Graphical Analyis
Based on the parametric analysis described
above, the following parameters were varied in
the cases run to produce the split factor
curves: (1) grounding system resistance, (2)
number of transmission lines (with grounded
overhead ground wires), (3) number of distrib-
ution feeders (with grounded neutral wires),
(4) tower or pole ground resistance, and (5)
percent remote versus local fault current con-
10.0
showed that when a local source of ground
10.50
10 .64
fault existed (i.e., autotransformer,
10.81 grounded-wye transformer, etc.), the local
versus remote zero-sequence fault current con-
tributions ranged from approximately 45%
the parametric local-55% remote to 80% local-20% remote.
Thus, cases were run for three categories of
remote versus local fault current contrib-
utions: (1) 100% remote-0% local, (2) 50%
remote-50% local, and (3) 25% remote-75% lo-
cal. Category (1) is typical of distribution
substations involving a number of transmission
lines terminating at a delta-grounded wye
transformer, with some number of distribution
feeders. Categories (2) and (3) are typical
of transmission substations or generating
plants involving autotransformers and/or gen-
erator step-up transformers.
The initial intent was to plot the results
as curves of grid current/total fault current,
where the total fault current was that for the
case resulting in the maximum grid current.
During the analysis, however, it was realized
that this would require prior knowledge of the
worst case location and fault current magni-
tude. Furthermore, it was discovered that for
some cases the fault location resulting in the
maximum grid current depended on the number of
lines at the substation. This would have re-
sulted in discontinuities in the curves where
the fault location changed. A parameter which
is easily obtainable by the designer is the
total substation bus ground fault current,
which remains constant regardless of which
fault location results in the maximum grid
current. Thus, all results were plotted based
728

on the ratio of the maximum grid current (IG) pute the ratio of local versus remote contrib-
to the total substation bus ground fault cur- utions for a fault at each voltage level and
rent (i.e., IT). use the case that results in the highest re-
mote or local fault current in amperes.
Using the Graphs
100.0

Using a conventional short-circuit pro-

gram, compute the total 3I, (3Io=,T) at the
substation. For distribution substations, 50. 0
compute only the high-side bus fault. For
substations with both remote and local sources
of zero-sequence fault current, compute the
100O
.r-i rrrri

A
50.0 5.180

5.0
_

i[
Sl

100% REMIOTE CONTRIBUTION

1tlg

I'-t4t
OLOCAL CONTRIBUTION j4t
A TOIER FOOTING RESISTANCE: '/4
10.0 . B TRANSM4ISSION -150.
FEEDER - 25n /6
IA/B A - TRANSMISSION LINES /8
a/8 - FEEDER LINES
/10
1/2
5.0 . 2/2 1.0

0.1 0.5 1.D

1/4 R9 GRID RESISTANCE (O
2/4

2/6 Figure 4. Percent grid current versus

2/8 substation grid resistance.

100.0
1.0
).5 1.0
Rg - GRID RESISTANCE ( n)
50.0
Figure 2. Percent grid current versus
substation grid resistance.
100.0 .
S

iF
50.0
10.0
A J/4
B XA /6
Ut /8
i/10
1/2
2/2 g
1/4 o

10.0 2/4. o
I TRA INSISSION 1001ja:
FEEDER 200
2/6
A/B A - # TRANSIRISSION LINES
2/8 -ll B - II FEEDER LIN4ES .i,i,i

5.0
1.0
O 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
R - GRID RESISTANCE (i)

Figure 5. Percent grid current versus

substation grid resistance.

l1;L
1l1
IV A
L For
Next,
distribution substations or
determine the appropriate
transmission
graph.

u.5 1.0 5.0 10.0 substations involving only remote sources of

- GRID RESISTANCE ( n)
R1
zero-sequence fault current, use Figures 2-9.
For substations with approximately 50% local
Figure 3. Percent grid current viersus and 50% remote contributions of zero-sequence
substation grid resistiance. fault current, use Figure 10 or 11. For sub-
stations with approximately 75% local and 25%
remote contributions of zero sequence fault
ratio of local versus remote faulLt current current, use Figure 12 or 13. Choose the fig-
contributions. If a transmission s;ubstation ure which contains a curve for the number of
with both remote and local sources involves transmission lines and/or distribution feeders
more than one transmission voltage leNvel, com- at the substation. Also, choose between the
 729

figures for 15 ohm transmission line RTFR and

100.0- l
25 ohm distribution line RTFR or 100 ohm/200
ohm transmission line and distribution line
RTFR. 50.0 _

100.0

50.0

10.0
A
B
C.0
A
10.0
B
/2
3/4
t_7 5 |A/B 1/6
3/8
3/10
5.0o 1001
CONTRIBUTION
REMOTE CONIRIBUTION 1.0 X11
e 01 FOOSTINGRESISTANCE:
!TWER
LOCAL

TRANSMISSION *1
15.11
5/4 5.0 10.0

FEEDER -
2511 T" 5/6
A/B A - TRANSMISSION LINES

1
6/8
- IFEEDERLINES
6/10 Figure 8. Percent grid current versus
substation grid resistance.
0.5 .0 5.0
RG - GRID RESISTANCE (i;)
100.0

Figure 6. Percent grid current versus

substation grid resistance. 50.0

100.0

;z

50.0 a:
g
B

A -'-

10.0

,,

E 1g B/2 4
5.0

10.0 6/0
cc
/10
6/2
6/4
6/6
'5.0 t 6/8
6/10
-1-ft0101

1.0
TOI

R9 - GR1D RESISTANCE (}
AIE

Figure 9. Percent grid current versus

1.0 substation grid resistance.
Ra 02ID RESISTMCE ( i2 )
Examples
Figure 7. Percent grid current versus
substation grid resistance. To illustrate the use of the curve, con-
sider the example shown in Figure 14. Assume
that the conventional symmetrical component
fault analysis results in a 115kV bus fault of
Finally, using the appropriate curve and 9251 amperes. The system in question has two
the substation grounding system resistance, transmission lines with RTFR=15 ohms and three
determine the percent IG/IT. Then, the grid feeders with RTFR=25 ohms. The substation
current is determined by multiplying this fac- grounding system resistance is 1.0 ohm. Fig-
tor by the total substation fault current, or ure 2 shows curves for two lines/two feeders
and two lines/four feeders. Thus, interpo-
IG = 3Io (IG/IT) (1) lation will be necessary for this example.
From Figure 2, we see that the approximate
The GPR is then computed as percent is IG is (25+35)/2 or 30%. The maxi-
mum grid is, then,
GPR =
IG * RG (2) 9251 (0.30) = 2775.3 amperes
730

This compares favorably with the value of 2515

amperes determined using SMECC and the actual
system parameters.

50 R0l
It should be noted that
the use of current division results in a com-
puted GPR of only 2775.3*1.0 = 2775.3 volts,
instead of 9251 volts computed using the total
fault current.

O0A -IN

TRAN.4SSON

8lll,lj:,lliQ
501 1 AL COTIBTO
150

l,i, ,,:

Figure 10. Percent grid current versus

100.0

50.0
substation grid resistance.
l il,l0yilj, i]'
16/0
/0
cause the average tower footing resistance is
75 ohms for transmission lines and 150 ohms
for distribution feeders, Figure 11 was used.
50.0

10.0

5.0

1.0

0n
I r
-

O.
I
1X00 REMOTE COTRIBUTION
750 LOCAL
TOWER FOOTING
A/B AAX I

7
CONTRIBUJTION
TRANSMISSION
AESISTANCE.
1fk
TRANSMISSION
FEEDER LINES

:!Tl `il: i.,

Figure 12. Percent grid current versus

100.0
substation grid resistance.

ft
LINES

li.

0.5
Rg

. .....
....
-
STI+{!F-1H.t
t.,',!:,1, r!
|i"
1,

6'.
!t,,ilj,
,'
114fl1:,41 'I

GRID RESISTANC

Si
,,

1l'}';z0l'1 1'II
fl

1.0
i,
I,
1'

(l)
:,

H
"

v1,q,i
'
'.'N
K

5.0
IW

I
lA
i B
I

2/0

4/0

6/0

100/0
i,Ns,.,}. 1o0/

10.0
14/0
16/0

1._I f"111 II,}zt::: 1 11.1ii I 2/ 0

10.0

11/0
25% REMOTE CONTRIAUITON ,
5.0
750 LODCAL CONTRIBO0TION O/
TOWER FOOTING RESISTANCE.
I TRANSMISSION -100, 12
A/B A TRAO4SMISSION LINES
A - I FEEDER LINES
S4

local faul~~t curt Icotrbtos In hi

A SAID RESISTAN4CE 0

1.0
Figure 13. Percent grid current versus
substation grid resistance.
Figure 11. Percent grid current versus Figure 11 was the closest available curve
substation grid resistance. which included the effects of both remote and
local fault current contributions. In this
Next, consider the more complex example case, the four feeder neutrals are assumed to
of Figure 15, which contains both remote and have the same effect as transmission line
local sources of zero-sequence fault current. overhead ground wires on the ground fault cur-
Assume that a conventional fault analysis re- rent division. Thus, for a grid resistance of
sults in a total 230kV bus ground fault cur- 5.0 ohms the appropriate curve gives IG/IT =
rent of 9183.5A, with 7162.5 amperes 15%. Then,
contributed by remote sources and 2035.1 am- IG = (9183.5)(0.15) = 1378 amperes.
peres contributed by the local source (trans- This compares with the value of 1220.0 amperes
former). Because the ratio of remote vs local determined using SMECC and the actual system
fault current contribution is 78/22, and be- parameters.

115kV
A rameters.
cY-f
1 in designing substation grounding systems was
_- 12.47kV
Figure 14. System configuration for
Example 1.
Figure 15. System configuration for
Example 2.
Conclusions
In addition to the observations made in
the parametric analysis, three significant ob-
servations were made during the split factor
analysis:
1. The first, and most obvious observation is
that the system and conductor parameters
have more influence on the split factor
IG/IT for higher grid resistances. For
very small grid resistances, most of the
ground fault current not circulating
through the grid to a local source returns
to its source through the grounding system
regardless of how many alternate ground
return paths exist.
2. An unexpected observation was that, in
some cases, the fault location resulting
in the maximum grid current changed from
being a line fault to a substation bus
fault. This was apparently due, in large
part, to the effect of current which is
mutually induced in the alternate ground
return path from fault current flowing in
the phase conductor of the faulted line.
3. Finally, for the range of grid resistances
studied, the substation grid resistance
had negligible effect on the total ground
fault current. It is expected that this
observation might not hold true for lower
voltage levels where a specific resistance
value would be a more significant portion
731
of the total equivalent fault impedance.
Summary
A parametric analysis was performed on the
parameters affecting ground fault current di-
vision in order to determine the critical pa-
Then, a method of graphically
determining the maximum grid current for use
developed. The curves were based on results
using the SMECC program developed for EPRI.
The graphical analysis is not intended as an
accurate replacement for computer program
analysis (such as SMECC), but rather it is in-
tended as a means for quickly determining a
reasonable approximation of the maximum grid
current for the preliminary grounding system
design. In some cases, the graphical analysis
will result in sufficient accuracy to make
more exact analysis unnecessary.
Due to observations made during the anal-
.ysis, further work appears to be needed to
quantify the effect of mutual coupling on the
ground fault current division. In addition,
although not explicitly observed in this
study, the effects of multiple voltage levels
would appear to warrant further study.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their appre-
ciation to Mr. Davis E. Parr of Georgia Power
for his assistance in developing the graphical
analysis. They are also grateful for the work
done by Dr. A. P. Meliopoulos of the Georgia
Institute of Technology for developing the
SMECC computer program for EPRI.
References
1. IEEE Standard 80-1986, IEEE Guide for
Safety in Substation Grounding by Insti-
tute of Electrical and Electronic Engi-
neers, Inc., New York, 1986.
2. "Analysis Techniques for Power Substation
Grounding Systems," EPRI Final
Report
EL-2682, Vol. 1, October 1982.
3. "Transmission Line Grounding," EPRI Final
Report EL-2699, Vol. 1, October 1982.
4. S. A. Sebo, "Zero-Sequence Current Dis-
tribution Along Transmission Lines," IEEE
Transaction Power Apparatus and Systems,
Vol. PAS-88, pp. 910-919, June 1969.
5. F. Dawalibi, "Ground Fault Current Dis-
tribution Between Soil and Neutral Conduc-
tors," IEEE Transactions Power Apparatus
and System, Vol. PAS-99, No. 2, pp.
452-461, March/April 1980.
6. F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar and D. Bensted,
"Soil Effects on Ground Fault Currents,"
IEEE Transactions Power Apparatus and Sys-
tems, Vol. PAS-100, pp. 3442, July 1982.
7. F. Dawalibi and D. Mukhedkar, "Ground
Fault Current Distribution in Power
Systems-The Necessary Link", paper A77
754-5 presented at the IEEE Summer Power
Meeting, Mexico City, 1977.
732
8. R. Rudenberg, "Grounding Principles and
Practices-i, Fundamental Considerations on
Grounding Currents", Electrical Engineer-
ing, Vol. 64/No. 1, pp. 1-13, January
1945.
9. P. G. Laurent, "Les Bases Generales de la
Technique des Mises a la Terre Dans les
Installations Electriques", Blltn. de la
Societe Francaise des Electriciens, Vol.
1, Ser. 7, pp. 368-402, July 1951; (Eng-
lish translation available in Appendix
9.2).
10. Reinhold Rudenberg, "Distribution of
Short-Circuit Currents in Ground",
11. "Computation of Zero-Sequence Impedances
of Power Lines and Cables Engineering Re-
port No. 37," Joint Subcommittee on Devel-
opment and Research of EEI and Bell
Telephone System, July 22, 1936.
12. Luke Yu, "Determination of Induced Cur-
rents and Voltages in Earth Wires During
Faults," Proceeding of IEEE, Vol. 120, No.
6, June 1973, pp. 689-692.
13. J. E. Clem, "Reactance of Transmission
Lines With Ground Return," AIEE Trans-
actions Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol.
50, pp. 901-918, September 1931.
14. C. F. DeSieno, P. P. Marchenko and G. S.
Nassell, "General Equations for Fault Cur-
rents in Transmission Line Ground Wires,"
IEEE Transactions Power Apparatus and
tems, Vol. PAS-89, pp. 1891-1900,
November/December 1970.
15. "Currents in Earth Wires at the Top of
Pylons and Their Effect on the Potentials
of the Pylons and Stations in the Neigh-
borhood of a Point of Short-Circuit to
Earth," Contribution No. 78, CCITT, Study
Group V, November 1963.
16. J. R. Carson, "Wave Propagation in Over-
head Wires with Ground Return," Bell Sys-
tem Technical Journal, Vol. 5, 1926.
17. J. Endrenyi, "Analysis of Transmission
Tower Potentials During Ground Faults,"
IEEE Transactions Power aratus and
tems, Vol. PAS-86, pp. 1274-1283, October
1967.
18. J. Endrenyi, "Fault Current Analysis for
Substation Grounding Design," Ontario
Hydro Research Quarterly, 2nd Quarter,
1967.
19. R. Verma and D. Mukhedkar, "Ground Fault
Current Distribution in Substation, Towers
and Ground Wire," IEEE Transactions Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-98, pp.
724-730, May/June 1979.
SHASHI G. PATEL (SM'84) was born in Varoka
Ba, Fiji Islands on March 12, 1943. He re-
ceived the B. S. degree in Electrical Engi-
neering from M. S. University of Baroda,
India and M. S. degree in Electrical Engineer-
ing from Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, Georgia in 1965 and 1975, respec-
tively.
From 1965 1967 he was with Gujarat Elec-
to
tricity Board, India as Deputy Engineer. He
was employed as Power System Engineer by
Bonneville Power Administration, Portland,
Oregon during summer of 1969. Since 1970, he
has been employed by Georgia Power Company and
is presently a staff service engineer.
Mr. Patel is a senior member of IEEE Power En-
gineering Society. He is also a member of Eta
Kappa Nu. He is presently serving actively in
several grounding related working groups of
IEEE Substation Committee. He is a registered
Professional Engineer in the state of Georgia.
JENNIFER G. MYERS Was born in Muncie,
Indiana, on October 28, 1958. She received an
A. S. degree in Electrical Engineering Tech-
nology from Murray State University in Murray,
Kentucky in 1979. She is currently attending
the University of Alabama in Birmingham work-
ing toward a B. S. degree in Electrical Engi-
neering.
Mrs. Meyers joined Southern Company Services
in 1979 as a technical aide in the System
Planning Department. She is presently em-
ployed as an assistant engineering analyst in
the Transmission Systems Applications Section
of the Electrical Design Technical Services
Department.
DAVID LANE GARRETT (S'75-M'76) was born in
Birmingham, Alabama on January 10, 1954. He
received the B. S. and M. S. degrees in Engi-
neering from the University of Alabama in
Birmingham (UAB) in 1976 and 1978, respec-
tively.
In 1974 he joined Southern Company Services as
a co-operative education student and as an en-
gineer in 1976. He is presently a senior en-
gineer in the Transmission Systems
Applications Section of the Electrical Design
Technical Services Department.
Mr. Garrett is a registered Professional Engi-
neer in the State of Alabama and is presently
secretary of the IEEE Working Group to revise
the Guide for Safety in A-C Substations
(IEEE-80).