Introduction

In earthing studies, one of the most important steps to undertake is to calculated the fault current actually injected into the ground grid vs fault current that will return via metallic paths such as cable sheaths, as it is only the ground grid injection that causes an EPR and associated touch and step voltages.

What does this mean? Going back to basics, when a phase earth fault occurs, to complete the circuit the fault current has to return to the upstream neutral point. Some fault returns through metallic paths (cable sheaths, conductors, steel work etc.) and some returns though the mass of the ground, the current flowing through the earthing grid, will cause a voltage drop across the earthing system, which is known, in earthing terms, as the Earth Potential Rise (EPR) – if you follow North American practice – it is known as GPR. The EPR will persist until the upstream protection operates.


Article content

Fault current analysis is essential for designing safe and effective power systems, especially in the context of earth faults where the return current flows through the ground or neutral path. Accurately determining earth fault currents is critical for ensuring that protective devices operate correctly and for assessing safety risks such as touch and step voltages. If this is over-estimated, the EPR will be higher than expected, and the system may be unsafe, if it is under-estimated then the system will be safe, but more expensive and complex than necessary.

In UK distribution networks, two main approaches are commonly used to calculate earth fault currents:

We compare these two methods with a focus on how each handles earth return current paths, highlighting the compromise in accuracy, complexity, and practicality.


Article content

ENA S34 Methodology: Simplified Earth Return Fault Estimation

ENA Engineering Recommendation S34 provides formulas for calculating earth fault current contributions in HV distribution systems. It is particularly focused on 11kV and 33kV single-phase-to-earth faults, which are the most common fault type in many distribution networks. There are a few models for 132kV cables, but these are somewhat limited. It also has some simplified formula for 132, 275 and 400kV OHL tower lines, which are useful approximations.

Pros:

Cons:

Detailed Modelling: Accurate Representation of Earth Return Paths

Detailed modelling of earth fault currents involves creating an electrical model of the earth return path using tools such as PSCAD or CDEGS for earthing system analysis. CDEGS has two specific modules for this known as TRALIN and SPLITS, these are powerful tools – but not the easiest to use. In many times it is easier and simpler to create a model in PSCAD.

Pros:

Cons:

Summary

Ground return fault current calculations are crucial for designing safe and compliant earthing systems. The ENA S34 method provides a quick and conservative approach that is suitable for many typical applications. However, for more complex systems, especially those with multiple return paths, parallel earth conductors, or critical safety requirements detailed modelling offers the precision and flexibility needed to capture more realistic behaviour. For most projects, a common approach is recommended:

  1. Look at the site configuration and earth return path possibilities to determine if the more simplified S34 approach will work.
  2. Start with ENA S34 to screen worst-case conditions and guide early decisions. If the calculations result in good outcomes, there is no need to go into more detailed analysis.
  3. If necessary or if the site configuration is complex, follow up with detailed modelling where higher accuracy is needed for earthing design and safety assessments.

To discuss your project requirements please get in touch