## 4 Results
### Results of GR Calculations and Measurements  
The GR of each implemented design was measured using the fall-of-potential (see Figure 7a) and clamp-on or stakeless (see Figure 7b) methods. The latter was applied to compare the readings obtained using the former. The GR values assessed using the fall-of-potential (FOP) method were recorded for subsequent analysis. Table 3 outlines the calculated and measured GR values of the GSs implemented in soil 1 (S1), for which the resistivity was 24 \(\Omega\)-m. The premixed LRM (P) was used in this soil. Table 4 outlines the calculated and measured GR values of the GSs implemented in soil 2 (S2), for which the resistivity was 35 \(\Omega\)-m. The dry LRM (D) was used in this soil. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Configuration** \\ **Code** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Calculated Grounding Resistance**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Measured Grounding Resistance**} \\  & **Resistance** & **Fall-of-Potential Method** & **Clamp-on Method** \\  & **(\(\Omega\))** & **(\(\Omega\))** & **(\(\Omega\))** \\ \hline
1R & 12.31 & 12.40 & 13.27 \\ \hline
2 RP & 6.24 & 6.84 & 8.01 \\ \hline
3 RP & 4.13 & 5.06 & 6.48 \\ \hline
3 RT & 3.67 & 4.80 & 6.07 \\ \hline
1 LRMR P & — & 7.06 & 7.81 \\ \hline
2 LRMRP P & — & 5.03 & 5.56 \\ \hline
3 LRMRP P & — & 3.82 & 4.47 \\ \hline
3 LRMRT P & — & 3.80 & 4.44 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: GR calculations and measurements in S1. Figure 7: Grounding resistance (GR) measurements. (**a**) FOP method; (**b**) Clamp-on method. Table 5 outlines the calculated and measured GR values of the GSs implemented in soil 3 (S3), for which the resistivity was 153 \(\Omega\)-m. The premixed LRM (P) was used in this soil. Table 6 outlines the calculated and measured GR values of the GSs implemented in soil 4 (S4), for which the resistivity was 159 \(\Omega\)-m. The dry LRM (D) was used in this soil. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Configuration**} & **Calculated Grounding** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Measured Grounding Resistance**} \\
**Code** & **Resistance** & **Fall-of-Potential Method** & **Clamp-on Method** \\  & **(\(\Omega\))** & **(\(\Omega\))** & **(\(\Omega\))** \\ \hline
1R & 81.57 & 93.80 & 93.40 \\ \hline
2 RP & 41.33 & 37.98 & 32.90 \\ \hline
3 RP & 27.38 & 25.04 & 25.70 \\ \hline
3 RT & 24.32 & 21.93 & 22.50 \\ \hline
1 LRMR D & — & 62.60 & 44.70 \\ \hline
2 LRMRP D & — & 24.18 & 18.86 \\ \hline
3 LRMRP D & — & 17.92 & 17.39 \\ \hline
3 LRMRT D & — & 16.50 & 17.82 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: GR calculations and measurements in S4. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Configuration**} & **Calculated Grounding** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Measured Grounding Resistance**} \\
**Code** & **Resistance** & **Fall-of-Potential Method** & **Clamp-on Method** \\  & **(\(\Omega\))** & **(\(\Omega\))** & **(\(\Omega\))** \\ \hline
1R & 77.96 & 24.03 & 19.59 \\ \hline
2 RP & 9.10 & 9.13 & 9.70 \\ \hline
3 RP & 6.03 & 5.81 & 6.60 \\ \hline
3 RT & 5.35 & 5.50 & 6.63 \\ \hline
1 LRMR D & — & 15.46 & 15.78 \\ \hline
2 LRMRP D & — & 7.85 & 8.54 \\ \hline
3 LRMRP D & — & 5.72 & 6.22 \\ \hline
3 LRMRT D & — & 5.42 & 6.22 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: GR calculations and measurements in S2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Configuration**} & **Calculated Grounding** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Measured Grounding Resistance**} \\
**Code** & **Resistance** & **Fall-of-Potential Method** & **Clamp-on Method** \\  & **(\(\Omega\))** & **(\(\Omega\))** & **(\(\Omega\))** \\ \hline
1R & 77.98 & 72.60 & 66.10 \\ \hline
2 RP & 39.51 & 36.42 & 35.80 \\ \hline
3 RP & 26.18 & 26.00 & 26.20 \\ \hline
3 RT & 23.25 & 22.50 & 22.10 \\ \hline
1 LRMR  
Figure 11: GR vs. 3 RT resistivity. Figure 12: GR vs. 6 RR resistivity. Figure 10: GR vs. 3 RP resistivity.