In this blog, I’m going under to hood, so to speak. Comparing CDEGS with XGSLab to show you some real-world examples where CDEGS and XGSLab give almost identical results.
Therefore, in all of these examples, we have completed and verified the earthing design for these sites and found good agreement between the modelled results and the post-installation measurements. On this basis, we can say that XGSLab matches CDEGS for accuracy, and both tools have good agreement with the real-world measurements.

Comparing CDEGS With XGSLab - General Introduction
As a result, the 3 examples presented compare results from CDEGS HIFREQ against results from XGSA_FD. These are the high-end packages, offering the best agreement with the real world, particularly in low soil resistivity situations, such as those in example 2. So, for each example, we give an outline of the project and then present the EPR at the point of fault, together with the EPR contour plot provided by each tool.
For consistency, the same soil models are used for both tools, generated using CDEGS RESAP. A future blog will look at the comparison between CDEGS RESAP and XGS SRA (Soil Resistivity Analyser)
Example 1 - Wind Turbine Project
Soil Model
XGSA_FD
CDEGS HIFREQ
Comparison
Example 2 - 33kV Substation
Soil Model
XGSA_FD
N/A
CDEGS HIFREQ
N/A
Comparison
Example 3 - Waste Site
This is energy from a waste site located near London. There are 2 generators located on-site, each with a dedicated grid connection, with the point of connection on an isolated earth electrode. This model simulates an earth fault in the larger building.
Soil Model
XGSA_FD
N/A
CDEGS HIFREQ
N/A