Perta Samtan Gas Field Extraction Plant Prabumulih

(1)

Print ISSN 2777-0168| Online ISSN 2777-0141| DOI prefix: 10.53893 https://journal.gpp.or.id/index.php/ijrvocas/index

66

Earthing Resistance and Poldzolic Soil Resistivity at PT.

Perta Samtan Gas Field Extraction Plant Prabumulih

Dian Eka Putra

^*

, Falupi Kurniawan, Rahmawan Sinaga, M. Khoirur Rozikin, Fajar Imam Alhidayah, Yudha Pradhana Adhi Negara & Muhammad Almuchlis

Electrical Engineering Faculty of Engineering, Palembang University, Indonesia.

Email address:

[email protected]

*Corresponding author

To cite this article:

Putra, D. E. ., Kurniawan, F. ., Rahmawan Sinaga, R. S., M. Khoirur Rozikin, M. K. R., Fajar Imam Alhidayah, F. I. A., Negara, Y. P. A. ., & Almuchlis, M. . (2022). Earthing Resistance and Poldzolic Soil Resistivity at PT. Perta Samtan Gas Field Extraction Plant Prabumulih . International Journal of Research in Vocational Studies (IJRVOCAS), 2(3), 66–70. https://doi.org/10.53893/ijrvocas.v2i3.116

Received: November 29, 2022; Accepted: December 12, 2022; Published: December 27, 2022

Abstrac:

It is important to undertake research at the location of PT. Perta Samtan Gas Field Extraction Plant Prabumulih with Podzolik soil type (yellow gravel clay) and analysis in order to prevent work accidents and the risk of fire caused by leakage current at the gas processing extraction installation. Direct measurement of soil resistance value is used as the basis for t he methodology, which is followed by literature study as background information and technical comprehension of experimental research. The outcomes of the research study are then compared using Comsol simulation with the computational method of computational finite element analysis of the resulting resistance. According to the data, the resistivity of the podzolic soil was 214.4 Ωm, while the Comsol simulation yielded a resistance value per meter of 209.1 Ω and 196.7Ω, respectively. The Comsol simulation demonstrates that, in order to obtain a ground resistance value of 1 ohm on a Single rod system with Fe material, it is necessary to optimize the depth of the grounding electrode, which can range from 3 meters to 1053 meters d. In the simulation, the results of soil resistance measurements and the Comsol Multiphysics application are obtained, and the difference is calculated with a percentage error of 1.62%.

Keywords:

Grounding Resistance, Ground Resistance, Rod Electrode, Comsol Multiphysic

1. Introduction

It goes without saying that a large factory and a tall structure made of steel must have a grounding installation, where the grounding system is a crucial component of the building's structure and its electrical installation equipment[1]. These structures must also use a safety system. high security, including safeguards against people, isolation of metal equipment from the environment and living things in case of disturbance [2]. Electrical equipment must be protected from abnormal circumstances, such as exposure to overvoltage or

leakage current, using a security system[3]-[4]. The grounding system is designed to transmit electric current to earth under normal conditions and fault conditions [5], without exceeding the operating limits of the equipment or affecting the company's operational continuity processes. Even though the system design has been set as reliable as possible, in the grounding process unavoidable disturbances can occur [5], such as the occurrence of insulation leaks in the Grounding system which causes some systems to trip [3]. The amount of

(2)

corrosiveness (pH and resistivity) has a significant effect in variations in the resistance value in the grounding system, which are induced by chemical and physical changes [6]. Poor power or a decline in the quality of equipment components can lead to noise in instrumentation equipmen [7]. The possibility of fire and explosion due to a short circuit resulting from high current that cannot be directed to the grounding system is among the most serious risks [8]. Therefore, revisions and modifications to the design must come after review, analysis, and re-measurement simulations[9]. This is done to ensure that the grounding system's resistance value is always low in accordance with the guidelines established by a PUIL 2000 and PUIL 2011 company[10], IEEE spec. 80 - 2013. 2011's General & Electrical 2012 IEEE Std 81.[11]

Measurements and grounding analysis results were compared using Comsol Multiphysic 5.6 software to ascertain the value of resistance and evaluation materials for the grounding of iron rods at depths of 100, 125, 150, 175 and 200 cm at PT. Perta Samtan Gas Field Prabumulih. The final goal is to prevent work-related accidents caused by contact voltage as well as fire and property damage caused by a subpar grounding system at PT. Perta Samtan Gas Field Prabumulih.

Measurement research was done on PT. Perta Samtan Gas Field Extraction Plant Prabumulih industrial land using Podzolic soil (yellow gravel clay). Direct measurements of soil resistance values are used as the basis for the research methodology, which is then followed by a literature review to provide background information and a technical understanding of the experimental research. Finally, the research study's findings are compared using COMSOL simulation and the computational technique of computational finite element analysis to determine the resistance that results.

In order to accomplish this, PT. Perta Samtan Gas Field Prabumulih employs preventive maintenance and corrective maintenance methods, as well as recurring evaluations and simulations of the application of the grounding system or grounding work

2. Reasearch Method

By studying and investigating resistant tilapia, this study is a sort of experimental research. At the PT. Perta Samtan Gas Field in Prabumulih, this experimental study was carried out by measuring the pH, soil resistance, and resistivity. The research process used the 3 point method [12] with round iron rod electrodes then planted at a certain depth in order to produce the lowest comparative resistance value of the three rod materials. The study measured grounding resistance using an Eart Tester at 1 sample point with the same type of soil, namely Podzolik (Pebbled Yellow Clay). where IEEE Standard 80-2013 permits acceptable grounding resistance limits to be lower than 1 Ohm. Then, utilizing COMSOL and computational finite element analysis, the simulation method was used to compare the research study's findings[13].

Table 1. Size Detail Material Material rod

Description Measure

Lengthy Diameter Quantity Material Type

200 cm 8 mm 4 pcs

Fe round (behel)

The results of measuring pH, resistance value and rod length were used to calculate the resistivity value using the Driven Rod Method[14], on Podzolic soil types (Graveled yellow clay)[4], following table of measurement results :

The earth resistance formula for a single rod electrode [15]- [11]:

𝑅 =

^𝜌

2.𝜋.𝐿

{𝑙𝑛

^4.𝐿

𝑎

− 1}

(1)

𝜌 =

^{2𝜋𝐿.𝑅}

[[𝑖𝑛^4𝐿

𝑎]−1] (2)

Where R is the ground resistance for a single rod (Ω), then is the soil resistivity (Ω-m), L is the electrode length (m) and a is the electrode diameter (m).

Figure 1. Measurement Grounding Resistance

Figure 2. Measurement Soil Resistivity

(3)

The measurement and computation of the degree of soil acidity impacts the value of the soil type resistance, according to the findings of table 2. Small or clay soil particles with a condition long enough to hold water characterize soil with a high degree of soil acidity (pH 6), which causes the acidity level to become high (acid) at a relatively shallow depth. In contrast, soils with a low acidity level (pH > 6) have constituent particles made of stone grains with air spaces, allowing groundwater saturation and a high soil pH to be detected at a sufficient depth. According to measurement and study data, soil resistivity and pH are inversely related; the larger the soil's acidity (pH), the lower the produced resistivity, and the rod material utilized also has a significant impact in the passage of electric charge, were identified

Table 2. Table of Measurement Results and Calculation of Soil Resistance Rod Fe (Behel) Measurement Calculation

No. L (cm) p H

R 1405 A (Ω)

ETCR 3200C R (Ω)

𝛒 (Ω𝐦)

R 1405 A

𝛒 (Ω)

ETCR 3200C

1 100 6.0 196.7 201.7 209.1 214.4

2 125 6.0 175.7 187.5 224.9 240.1

3 150 6.0 147.7 151.9 220.4 226.6

4 175 6.0 135.8 145.2 230.8 246.7

5 200 6.0 123.7 131.8 235.8 250.8

To get a resistance value that matches the standard rod < 1 Ohm, optimization will be carried out by increasing the depth of the rod (L). In the process of this research, the data on the grounding system is carried out by planting a depth of 1 meter and the diameter of the electrode rod (rod) is 0.8 cm so that a (radius of the rod) = 0.004 meters.

To get the value of as per IEEE std. 80-2013, it is necessary to do optimization by calculating and analyzing by changing the depth on different soils. The following table results of calculations and analysis (Data is taken based on the lowest value of each material).

Table 3. Optimization table by changing the depth of the Single Rod grounding electrode on Podzolic Soil Type

pH 𝝆 (Ω) L (m) Rrod (Ω)

6.0 209.1 403 0.98

5.5 383.7 780 0.98

5.5 505.9 1053 0.98

Following the analysis and calculation of the research's findings, Comsol Multiphysics 5.6's Calculating Rod Resistance tool is used to compare the results. Specify the material characteristics when designing the electrodes. Using the simulation, an electrical current profile will be generated.

electrical curve profile. Where the author restricts the data from the direct measurement of the smallest resistance (kyoritsu digital) on the Rod Lapis Fe Brace material to execute a comparative value during the Comsol Multiphysics 5.6 simulation procedure.

Table 4. measurement and simulation results L

(cm) pH R 1405 A (Ω) ECTR

3200 C (Ω)

Comsol Multiphysics

(Ω) 100

125 150 175 200

6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

196.7 175.7 147.7 135.8 123.7

201.7 187.5 151.9 145.2 131.8

209.1 178.6 150.1 138.0 125.7

Figure 3. Earth Resistance Comparison

Figure 4. Simulation of Comsol at a Depth of 100 cm

100 120 140 160 180 200

120 140 160 180 200 220

Ω-Ohm

Depth (L) (cm) R 1405 A ECTR 3200 C Comsol Multiphysics

100 120 140 160 180 200

120 140 160 180 200 220

Ω-Ohm

100 120 140 160 180 200

120 140 160 180 200 220

Ω-Ohm

(4)

Based on the analysis table for Rod Lapis Fe Behel L = 100 cm between the results of direct measurements and the Comsol Multiphysics simulation, the percentage error is 1.62%, L = 125 cm is 1.65%, L = 150 cm is 1.62%, L = 175 cm is 1.62% , and L = 200 cm by 1.61%. then based on the

graphic simulation of Comsol Multiphysics for the electric potential, the largest voltage is at a depth of L = 200 cm, as indicated by the condition of the yellow soil, the electric potential is close to 10 and the smallest is at a depth of L = 100 cm.

4. Conclusion

Based on the measurement results, it can be concluded that the effect of soil acidity (pH) on soil resistivity (ρ) is that the higher the soil acidity level, the greater the resistivity (ρ) produced. The greatest resistance value from the measurement is at a low depth of 196.7 using a digital kyoritsu measuring instrument R 1405 A and 201.7 using an ECTR 2000 C measuring instrument, while through the Comsol Multiphysics application the resulting ground resistance value is 209.1 Ω. In the software analysis system there is a difference between the Comsol Multiphysics application and direct measurements where the average difference is 1.62% this occurs because the soil resistivity contained in the Comsol Multiphysics application cannot represent the actual value in the field, where the main factors are temperature, temperature and humidity. soil at the time of data collection. In the software analysis system there is a difference between the Comsol Multiphysics application and direct measurements where the average difference is 1.62% this occurs because the soil resistivity contained in the Comsol Multiphysics application cannot represent the actual value in the field, where the main factors are temperature, temperature and humidity. soil at the time of data collection

Acknowledgements

The author would also like to thank various parties who have helped to complete this research;

1. Palembang University as a research campus, 2018/2022 research teams who have helped and supported this research.

2. Strong Team colleagues in various campus research and learning organizations.

References

[1] M. Adnan, Z. Abdul-Malek, N. S. M. Din, M. I.

Jambak, Z. Nawawi, and M. A. B. Sidik, “Effects of lightning impulse front time on substation grounding system performance,” Indones. J. Electr. Eng. Comput.

Sci., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 569–574, 2020, doi:

10.11591/ijeecs.v20.i2.pp569-574.

[2] Z. Guo et al., “A study on the response characteristics of adjacent grounding grids under artificially triggered lightning strokes,” Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 197,

(5)

10.1016/j.epsr.2021.107304.

[3] R. Batista, P. E. B. B. Louro, and J. O. S. Paulino,

“Lightning performance of a critical path from a 230- kV transmission line with grounding composed by deep vertical electrodes,” Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol.

195, no. March, p. 107165, 2021, doi:

10.1016/j.epsr.2021.107165.

[4] D. E. Putra, “Pemanfaatan Drainase (Saluran) Air Bekas Limbah Rumah Tangga sebagai Solusi untuk Penurunan Resistansi Pentanahan (Grounding),” Sci.

Phys. Educ. J., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 56–61, 2021, doi:

10.31539/spej.v4i2.2274.

[5] M. Camara, F. Atalar, and A. E. Yılmaz, “A new grounding cake to improve the safety performance of grounding systems,” J. Electrostat., vol. 108, no.

October, p. 103521, 2020, doi:

10.1016/j.elstat.2020.103521.

[6] X. Wu, J. Xu, W. Ke, S. Xu, B. Feng, and B. Hu,

“Effects of pH value on corrosion behavior of thermal- sprayed Al-Si coated Q235 steel in simulated soil solutions,” J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2014, doi:

10.1007/s11665-014-0971-2.

[7] A. W. A. Ali, N. N. Ahmad, and N. M. Nor, “Effects of impulse polarity on grounding systems,” 7th IEEE Int. Conf. High Volt. Eng. Appl. ICHVE 2020 - Proc.,

no. December, 2020, doi:

10.1109/ICHVE49031.2020.9279482.

[8] N. Permal, M. Osman, A. M. Ariffin, and M. Z. A. Ab Kadir, “The impact of substation grounding grid design parameters in non-homogenous soil to the grid safety threshold parameters,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp.

37497–37509, 2021, doi:

10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3063018.

[9] H. Hu, M. Fang, F. Hu, S. Zeng, and X. Deng, “A new design of substation grounding based on electrolytic cathodic protection and on transfer corrosion current,”

Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 195, no. November 2019, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.epsr.2021.107174.

[10] B. S. Nasional, “Persyaratan Umum Instalasi Listrik 2011 ( PUIL 2011 ) Amandemen 1, 4, 5, 6,” DirJen Ketenagalistrikan, vol. 2011, no. Puil, 2011.

[11] M. Rajagukguk, “Studi Pengaruh Jenis Tanah dan Kedalaman Pembumian Driven Rod terhadap Resistansi Jenis Tanah,” Jur. Tek. Elektro, Fak. Tek.

[12] IEEE Std 81, IEEE Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground Impedance, and Earth Surface Potentials of a Grounding System, vol. 2012, no.

December. 2012.

[13] T. R. Ayodele, A. S. O. Ogunjuyigbe, and O. E.

Oyewole, “Comparative assessment of the effect of earthing grid configurations on the earthing system using IEEE and Finite Element Methods,” Eng. Sci.

Technol. an Int. J., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 970–983, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jestch.2018.07.003.

[14] V. P. Androvitsaneas, I. F. Gonos, and I. A.

Stathopulos, “Research and applications of ground enhancing compounds in grounding systems,” IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 11, no. 13, pp. 3195–

3201, 2017, doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2017.0233.

[15] D. E. ; Putra and Iswadi, “Pengaruh Pembebanan Terhadap Nilai Resistansi Pentanahan Pada Transformator 250 KVA Gardu BA 0005 PT. PLN (Persero) UP3 Bengkulu ULP Teluk Segara - Bengkulu,” J. SURYA ENERGY, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 31–

42, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.32502/jse.v5i1.2767.