Conference Proceedings 2015

June 8 to 11, 2015
San Diego - California

Safe Engineering Services & Technologies, Ltd.
(450) 622-5000 Toll free 1-800-668-3737
www.sestech.com
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. No part of any of the content of this document may be reproduced,
distributed, modified, or made available in any form by any photographic, electronic, digital, photostat, microfilm, or
other means, or incorporated into or used in any information storage and retrieval system, electronic or mechanical,
without the prior written permission of the copyright owner (SES) or the authors of the pages of the document to be
reproduced, distributed, modified, made available, incorporated into or used in any information storage and retrieval
system.
UGM 2015 –SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
IPRESIDENT’S ADDRESS
It is with great pleasure that I welcome you to the 25th annual CDEGS Users’ Group Conference,
hosted this year by Pacific Gas & Electric Company at the Bahia Resort Hotel, in beautiful San
Diego, California. With the largest user participation ever, this year’s conference promises to be
quite animated and I am looking forward to a good number of productive discussions related to
technical investigations carried out by SES and the Users’ Group members, as well as
discussions about the new and planned features of SES’s software packages. In addition to the
large number of users who are attending this year’s conference, there are yet more of our
colleagues who are not able to physically attend and I would like to acknowledge their presence,
in spirit, and their major contributions over the years to shape our technical community: this
Conference Proceedings is dedicated to you. Finally, our stronger-than-ever volleyball teams on
both sides of the net are eager to see how this year’s group measures up, on Monday and
Wednesday.
Last year, we presented the first prototype of a new interface for an existing computation
module, SESTralin, and you will see this year how it has evolved to become the new standard
input interface. We are also presenting two brand-new modules: SESThreshold, which computes
and illustrates the thresholds for selected quantities in specified zones, and SESeBundle, which
quickly and efficiently computes a single conductor equivalent to a bundle of conductors. After a
substantial theoretical and computational development effort, the CorrCAD module, first
announced last year, now has its first alpha release.
You will also see how our design effort has been greatly expanded and now includes almost all
SES modules. The enhanced interfaces and workflow are promising to greatly improve your
overall experience with the software and improve your productivity. In this area, we are looking
forward to hearing your comments and suggestions to ensure that these new additions and
enhancements meet your expectations in terms of capabilities, user-friendliness and
productivity.
While SES is pressing ahead with new modules, our core capabilities continue to expand. The
longest-running CDEGS module, MALT, has seen some additions this year, most notably the
inclusion of conductor coatings. Additionally, cable models in TRALIN now allow multiple
adjacent conductive and insulating layers. The HIFREQ module also continues its evolution and
now includes metallic plate models.
We are grateful to Mr. Laszlo Forgo and Pacific Gas & Electric Company for hosting this
conference, to Mr. Francisco Muñoz and Giancarlo Leone, this year’s Users’ Group
chairman and vice-chairman, and to Mr. Eric Wiesner and Mr. Vinod Simha, this year’s
secretary-treasurer and assistant secretary-treasurer, for their hard work. I would also like to
thank everyone present at this conference for making it such a valuable forum for the exchange
of knowledge and ideas on grounding, electromagnetic interference and CDEGS development.
On behalf of everyone, let me thank those users who have taken the time out of very busy
schedules to prepare presentations and articles for these Proceedings.
SES’s workforce has also increased to provide our growing community of users with top notch
support, while also continuing to improve and add new features to our software products. It is in
this respect that your feedback and suggestions are critically important to us. Whether as wish
list items or suggestions made during phone calls or within emails all year round, we use your
input to set our software development agenda.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page i

In closing, I would like to emphasize SES’s enduring gratitude to YOU, our legion of loyal users
who, year after year, have renewed your technical support from SES, thereby sustaining the
pioneering R&D efforts at SES that will ultimately benefit every user of SES software packages
and services.
Farid Paul Dawalibi
Page ii Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

ICHAIRMAN’S WELCOME
25th Annual CDEGS Users’ Group Conference
Bahia Resort Hotel

998 West Mission Bay Drive
San Diego, California, 92109, USA
June 8 to 11, 2015
Dear CDEGS Users’ Group Member:
On behalf of the Executive Committee and myself personally, it is a pleasure to welcome

you to the 2015 CDEGS Users’ Group Conference.
This year is especially exciting because we are celebrating the 25 th anniversary of the
group. An initiative that was put in motion back in 1991 by a small group of users that
worked hard to set up the foundations of the organization, and it has continued to grow
and improve since its formation.
This year’s conference is held at the Bahia Resort Hotel in the stunning Mission Bay in
San Diego. The CDEGS Users’ Group meeting is a unique event that provides the
opportunity to exchange technical knowledge, interact with other users and SES
representatives, and learn and develop new skills using the CDEGS software.
I am confident that you will realize the many benefits that come with attending this
meeting. You will be able to use it both as a forum for the exchange of knowledge and
innovative solutions, and as a resource for information in the fields of grounding and
electromagnetic interference analysis.
There is no doubt in my mind that your presence and participation will contribute with
many fresh and valuable ideas. You will have the opportunity for first-hand interaction
with SES representatives and convey to them your suggestions on the software, as well as
contribute to the wish list session.
This year’s agenda is packed with presentations and contributions from individual users
on a variety of interesting topics: soil modeling techniques, soil resistivity, lighting
protection, and many others. Additionally, SES members will present on the new software
developments and upgrades, as well as some interesting analyses and applications of the
program.
There will also be ample occasions to relax and socialize with other fellow attendees, see
old friends, and meet new ones in our Monday night Happy Hour. You are also invited to
join us in the annual Users vs. SES mini volleyball tourney on Monday and Wednesday
evenings. The icing on the cake will come courtesy of SES, as they invite the users and
their guests to a “SES Welcome Dinner” on Tuesday night.
Page iii
Due to the technical level of the presentations provided at the CDEGS Users’ Group
Conference, SES will provide attendees a certificate of participation and award the
equivalent of 2.5 CEU (Continuing Education Units) or 25 PDH (Professional
Development Hours) for your professional development.
Our thanks go to many people for helping make this conference a reality one more year.
In particular I would like to thank Mr. Laszlo Forgo of PG&E for his efforts in organizing
the hotel and conference preparations, and all the members of this year’s Executive
Committee to make this a success:
 Giancarlo Leone, Stanley Consultants (Vice-Chairman)

 Eric Wiesner, National Grid (Secretary-Treasurer)
 Vinod Simha , American Electric Power (Assistant Secretary-Treasurer)
On behalf of the entire CDEGS Users’ Group, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr.
Farid P. Dawalibi, founder of SES, and all the members of the SES family for their
invaluable support in making these meetings possible over the past 25 years.
I would also like to acknowledge all of those that have kindly volunteered their time and
effort to make this group a success, with special mention to Ernest Middleton, who
supported the group’s finances entirely on his own for many years, and has been assisting
the Treasurers in formally handing off the duties he had been performing until recently.
Last but not least, I want to thank all of you for considering the CDEGS Users’ Group
meeting and making it possible by your attendance. I look forward to meeting you in San
Diego for a truly rewarding week.
Francisco Muñoz Martin
Chairman, 25th CDEGS User’s Group Conference

Francisco.Munoz.Martin@xcelenergy.com
Page iv
Table of Contents
I President’s Address.................................................................................................................... i
I Chairman’s Welcome ............................................................................................................... iii
Part I: New Features .....................................................................
Improvements in SES Software ........................................................................................ I-1
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... I-1
2 Improvements in TRALIN ............................................................................................. I-1
3 Coated Conductors and Coated Metallic Plates in MALT ..............................................I-2
4 Modeling of Plate Structures in HIFREQ ..................................................................... I-4
5 SESeBundle – New Tool to Find an Equivalent Conductor for a Conductor Bundle ... I-4
6 SESThreshold – Safety Analysis with Multiple Safety Thresholds ............................... I-6
7 CorrCAD and its Applications ........................................................................................ I-7
8 Improvements in Right-of-Way, ROWCAD and Cross-Section ................................... I-8
9 SESEnviroPlus: Calculation of Ion Current Density Generated by HVDC Lines ......... I-9
10 SPLITS: Enhancements to Three-Phase Transformer Models ..................................... I-9
11 Improvements and New Features in SESImpedance .................................................. I-10
12 SESCAD – Plates, Coating, and More Plates ............................................................... I-11
13 Different Neutral/Shield Wires in FCDIST.................................................................. I-11
Improvements in SESCAD ................................................................................................II-1
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................II-1
2 Coated Conductors in MALT.........................................................................................II-1
3 Coated Metallic Plates in MALT................................................................................... II-4
4 Metallic Plates in HIFREQ ........................................................................................... II-5
5 Breaking Profiles and Reversing their Direction ......................................................... II-6
6 Ordering of Background Pictures ................................................................................ II-8
7 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... II-8
8 References .................................................................................................................... II-8
Improvements and New Features in SESImpedance ............................................... III-1
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ III-1
2 User Interface Changes ............................................................................................... III-2
3 Creation and Transformation of Parts ........................................................................ III-2
4 Specifying the Electrical Characteristics of Parts ....................................................... III-4
5 Rendering Modes for Parts ......................................................................................... III-4
6 Improvements to the Calculation Capabilities of SESImpedance .............................. III-6
7 Example (Stranded Conductors).................................................................................III-8
8 Conclusion and Future Developments .......................................................................III-11
9 References ..................................................................................................................III-11
Coated Metallic Plates in Horizontal Multilayer and Perfect Soil Models in MALT
.................................................................................................................................................IV-1
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................IV-1
2 Specification of Coating on Plates ................................................................................IV-1
3 Examples of Coated Metallic Plates in Horizontal Multilayer Soil Models ................ IV-4
4 Effect of the Coating Layer on the Distribution of the Electric Field and Potential near
A Coated Metallic Box in Air ............................................................................................ IV-19
5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... IV-22
Calculation of Ion Current Density Generated by HVDC Lines in SESEnviroPlus
.................................................................................................................................................. V-1
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. V-1
2 Theory of Corona Electric Field and the Calculation of Ion Current Density............... V-1
3 Using SESEnviroPlus to Calculate the Ion Current Density ........................................ V-2
4 Examples .......................................................................................................................V-5
5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... V-10
Enhancements to Three-Phase Transformer Models in Splits ...............................VI-1
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................VI-1
2 Zigzag Transformers in SPLITS ...................................................................................VI-1
3 Sequence Components of Winding Impedances in Transformers ........................... VI-16
4 Example Files ............................................................................................................ VI-24
5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. VI-24
6 References ................................................................................................................. VI-25
Progress Status on Future SES Module Interfaces ................................................. VII-1
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... VII-1
2 CDEGS Database ........................................................................................................ VII-1
3 Transformer Data Editor ........................................................................................... VII-2
4 Soil Resistivity Measurements Editor ........................................................................VII-6
5 Transient Analyzes in CDEGS ....................................................................................VII-8
6 Computation and Configuration Plot & Report Processor .......................................VII-11
7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ VII-12
8 References ................................................................................................................ VII-13
Improvements in ROWCAD .......................................................................................... VIII-1
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. VIII-1
2 A Complete System Configuration in ROWCAD ...................................................... VIII-1
3 Soil File Import from RESAP ................................................................................... VIII-3
4 Additional Conveniences.......................................................................................... VIII-3
5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ VIII-4
6 References ................................................................................................................ VIII-4
Improvements in SESCrossSection .............................................................................. IX-1
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ IX-1
2 New Configuration Modes .......................................................................................... IX-1
3 More Flexible Conductor Specification ....................................................................... IX-2
4 More interactive .......................................................................................................... IX-4
5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... IX-5
6 Reference ..................................................................................................................... IX-5
Improvements in SESTralin ............................................................................................. X-1
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. X-1
2 Improvements to SESTralin.......................................................................................... X-1
3 Conclusion and Future Plans ...................................................................................... X-11
4 References ................................................................................................................... X-11
Right-Of-Way Software Package Improvements ....................................................... XI-1
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ XI-1
2 Importing a Complete Right of Way System Network from RowCAD ....................... XI-1
3 Automatic Connection of Satellite Conductors to the Reference Conductor Based on
Line Length ......................................................................................................................... XI-2
4 Connection of Satellite Conductors to the Reference Conductor Applied only on Non-
Dummy or Non-Zero Impedance Regions or Sections ...................................................... XI-4
5 Current Interpolation on Multiple Phase to Ground Faults ....................................... XI-6
6 Automatic Monitor Faults per Tower ......................................................................... XI-7
7 Critical Arc Risk Distances to Pipelines Due to Phase to Ground Faults ................... XI-8
8 Soil Breakdown Risks to Pipelines Due to Phase to Ground Faults ......................... XI-10
9 More Options for Steady State and Fault Conditions in the “Advanced Plot” Screen .. XI-
11
10 Reorganization of the RowCAD Folder ................................................................. XI-13
11 Names of Ground Points at Terminal Energization Screens .................................... XI-13
12 References ................................................................................................................. XI-14
CorrCAD and its Applications ....................................................................................... XII-1
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... XII-1
2 Program Functionalities............................................................................................ XII-4
3 CorrCAD in Action Using Examples ........................................................................ XII-10
4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... XII-26
5 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. XII-26
6 References ............................................................................................................... XII-26
SESeBundle: Find an Equivalent Single Conductor Representing a Bundle of
Conductors ........................................................................................................................XIII-1
1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................XIII-1
2 Methodology............................................................................................................. XIII-2
3 Tool Features............................................................................................................ XIII-3
4 The Graphical User Interface ................................................................................... XIII-3
5 Working With Projects and Bundles ........................................................................ XIII-3
6 Examples and Validation ......................................................................................... XIII-7
7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... XIII-11
8 Reference ................................................................................................................. XIII-11
Introduction to SESThreshold ..................................................................................... XIV-1
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. XIV-1
2 Touch and Step Voltage Thresholds ......................................................................... XIV-1
3 Custom Zones ............................................................................................................ XIV-7
4 Results ...................................................................................................................... XIV-9
5 Example: Case with Five Zones ............................................................................... XIV-11
6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... XIV-12
7 References ............................................................................................................... XIV-12
Multi-Component Coaxial Cable in TRALIN .............................................................. XV-1
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... XV-1
2 Multi-Component Cables in SESTralin...................................................................... XV-2
3 Case Examples............................................................................................................ XV-3
4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. XV-11
5 References ................................................................................................................ XV-14
Coated Conductors in MALT......................................................................................... XVI-1
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. XVI-1
2 Specification of Coating on Conductors .................................................................... XVI-1
3 An Example Including Coated Conductors in a System Buried in a Horizontal
Multilayer Soil Model ...................................................................................................... XVI-3
4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................XVI-5
Progress on Implementing Simplified Multi-Region Soil Models in MALZ ....XVII-1
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................XVII-1
2 The Proposed Computation Methodology .............................................................. XVII-2
3 The Validation Methodology ................................................................................... XVII-3
4 Pipeline GPR and Touch Potential Results ............................................................. XVII-3
5 Soil Scalar Potential Results ................................................................................... XVII-6
6 Start of Multilayer Validation Efforts ..................................................................... XVII-9
7 Future Work ............................................................................................................ XVII-9
8 References ............................................................................................................. XVII-10
Part II: User Contributions ...........................................................
Grounding System Analysis By Means of Simulation & Measurement .......... XVIII-1
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... XVIII-1
2 Soil Resistivity Test Measurements .......................................................................XVIII-2
3 Fall of Potential Analysis........................................................................................XVIII-6
4 Current Split Analysis ...........................................................................................XVIII-11
5 Touch & Step Voltage Measurements .................................................................. XVIII-14
6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ XVIII-17
7 References ............................................................................................................ XVIII-18
Grounding System Design for A Large EHV Station with Different Soil Structures
.............................................................................................................................................. XIX-1
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. XIX-1
2 Fault Analysis ............................................................................................................ XIX-1
3 Case Study ................................................................................................................ XIX-4
4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... XIX-11
5 References ............................................................................................................... XIX-11
Envelope Plotting in HiFreq Using VBA Macro ........................................................ XX-1
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... XX-1
2 Objective..................................................................................................................... XX-1
3 Issues .......................................................................................................................... XX-1
4 Code Overview............................................................................................................ XX-2
5 Algorithm ................................................................................................................... XX-2
6 Additional Analysis .................................................................................................... XX-2
7 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. XX-2
Right-of-way modeling of joint power line and railway corridors: a case study
involving multiple modeling scenarios ...................................................................... XXI-1
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. XXI-1
2 Description of the system model.............................................................................. XXI-2
3 Methodology of the Analysis .................................................................................... XXI-4
4 Computation results and discussion ........................................................................ XXI-5
5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. XXI-11
6 References ............................................................................................................... XXI-12
Lightning Protection Design Case Study of a Chemical Factory, using SESShield
3D ...................................................................................................................................... XXII-1
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ XXII-1
2 Lightning Protection Study ..................................................................................... XXII-1
3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. XXII-13
4 References ............................................................................................................. XXII-13
Part III: SES Contributions ...........................................................
An Iterative Approach For Modeling Electrochemical Polarization With Non-
linear Boundary Conditions ...................................................................................... XXIII-1
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... XXIII-1
2 Numerical Method ................................................................................................ XXIII-2
3 Benchmark Problem ............................................................................................. XXIII-4
4 Numerical Examples ............................................................................................. XXIII-6
5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ XXIII-10
6 Acknowledgment .................................................................................................. XXIII-11
7 References ............................................................................................................ XXIII-11
Lightning Shielding Design Study for a Substation with Low Insulation Level
........................................................................................................................................... XXIV-1
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... XXIV-1
2 Data and Assumption ............................................................................................. XXIV-2
3 Design Approach .................................................................................................... XXIV-3
4 Lightning Protection Design .................................................................................. XXIV-4
5 Computation Results .............................................................................................. XXIV-7
6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. XXIV-8
7 Lightning Shielding Design Files ........................................................................... XXIV-9
8 References .............................................................................................................. XXIV-9
Accuracy Improvement in FFTSES ............................................................................ XXV-1
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. XXV-1
2 Computation Methodology ...................................................................................... XXV-1
3 Communication Tower Hit by a Lightning Strike ................................................... XXV-2
4 Bridge Hit by Lightning .......................................................................................... XXV-6
5 Interference of an HVDC Transmission Line onto a Pipeline ................................ XXV-9
6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. XXV-12
7 References .............................................................................................................. XXV-12
Treatment of Nonlinear Devices in the Frequency Domain .............................. XXVI-1
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... XXVI-1
2 Mathematical Model .............................................................................................. XXVI-2
3 Results .................................................................................................................... XXVI-6
4 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. XXVI-9
5 References ............................................................................................................ XXVI-10
Modeling Impedances Bonds in HIFREQ for the Mitigation of Railway Systems
.......................................................................................................................................... XXVII-1
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... XXVII-1
2 Impedance Bonds and Mitigation Measures ....................................................... XXVII-2
3 Modeling Impedance Bonds with HIFREQ ......................................................... XXVII-3
4 Computer Model Results.......................................................................................XXVII-5
5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... XXVII-12
Modeling Of Plate Structures in HIFREQ............................................................ XXVIII-1
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ XXVIII-1
2 Overview of Methodology ................................................................................... XXVIII-2
3 Limitations .......................................................................................................... XXVIII-3
4 Using Plates in HIFREQ ..................................................................................... XXVIII-4
5 Examples ............................................................................................................. XXVIII-6
6 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... XXVIII-20
7 References ......................................................................................................... XXVIII-20
Part IV: Recently Published Technical Articles .............................
Part I: New Features
IIMPROVEMENTS IN SES SOFTWARE
Simon Fortin
Safe Engineering Services & technologies ltd.
Email: info@sestech.com Web Site: www.sestech.com
1 Introduction
This article briefly describes the main improvements that were made to SES software since the
2014 CDEGS User’s Group Conference.
2 Improvements in TRALIN
2.1 Multi-Component Coaxial Cables
TRALIN can now model cables with any number of conducting and insulating coaxial
components. With this enhancement, the number of conducting components within a coaxial
cable is no longer limited to three (i.e. core, sheath and armor), even for coaxial cables that are
within a metallic enclosure. Taken together with the already included capability of modeling
multi-layer components, the recent improvement completes the capabilities of the TRALIN
module to model coaxial cables. An example of a four-component concentric cable is shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1: Geometrical and physical properties of four component concentric cable.

The article “Multi-Component Coaxial Cable in TRALIN” gives more details about this new
feature.
2.2 Improvements in SESTralin Interface

Significant improvements have been made in the SESTralin interface, which was presented last
year as a prototype. Many changes aimed at improving user productivity have been implemented
since then. Although the new interface is still released in beta form for testing purposes, the hope
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page I-1
PART I: NEW FEATURES
is to remove this label soon. Despite its unofficial status, new features are however already being
implemented in SESTralin that are not, and will not be, available in the classical CDEGS TRALIN
interface. Examples of this are the possibility of defining various types of Repetition Patterns and
also the newly introduced Multi-Component Coaxial Cable model. Here are the most important
highlights:
 Simpler and more intuitive data entry
 New configuration modes
 Ribbon and quick-access toolbar
 Induction panel
 Energization panel
 Impedance matrix
 Multi-component and multi-layer concentric cables
See the article “Improvements in SESTralin” for the details.
3 Coated Conductors and Coated Metallic Plates in MALT

The capability to model coated conductors and coated plates has been introduced in MALT. The
ability to model coated conductors has been available in MALZ and HIFREQ for many years. This
feature can be used to model realistic cases including coated pipes, rails partially or completely
buried in ballast, rods with ground enhancement material, etc. For MALZ, coated conductors can
also be used to model above ground conductors by representing them as perfectly coated
conductors and shifting them into the soil, near the earth surface, to achieve a very good
approximation.
The capability to model a dielectric coating layer on one or both sides of plates as well can be used
on metallic surfaces in practical applications in order to improve their surface properties, such as
corrosion resistance, appearance, adhesion, wetability, wear resistance, scratch resistance, etc.
Introduction of coated conductors and coated plates provides greater flexibility for modeling
realistic systems (such as those including wells, storage tanks, cars and trucks, flood gates,
building walls or foundations, etc.) and enhances the capabilities of the MALT module.
In SESCAD, coating types can be assigned to selected conductors in MALT in the same way as is
done for MALZ and HIFREQ: by checking the Coating Type box and selecting the coating type
number next to it in the Characteristics screen, as shown in Figure 2.
Page I-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

Figure 2: Specification of the coating type of selected conductors in SESCAD.
Coatings on metallic plates can be specified conveniently through the Plate Characteristics Editor
(shown in Figure 3) or in command mode. In MALT, the coating for a plate is completely specified
by its thickness and resistivity (or indirectly by defining the total leakage resistance or resistance
per unit area of the coating).
Figure 3: Plates characteristics editor screen.

The articles “Coated Conductors in MALT” and “Coated Metallic Plates in Horizontal Multilayer
and Perfect Soil Models in MALT” give more details.

4 Modeling of Plate Structures in HIFREQ

This year, a new feature is introduced in HIFREQ, namely the ability to model metallic plates.
This feature expands the applicability of HIFREQ to analyzing network configurations that
include continuous metallic surfaces, without the need to resort to a wire grid approximation of
such surfaces. Computation results are presented for several cases, including the electromagnetic
field around metallic vehicles under transmission lines (see Figure 4), the electromagnetic
analysis of a solid sphere at high and low frequencies, and electromagnetic interference (EMI)
around a metallic building in the vicinity of a telecommunication tower struck by lightning.
Validation of the results is made by comparing them with those obtained by their wire grid model
counterparts. A comparison with the exact analytical solution for the sphere case is also presented.
The investigation results show that the use of metallic plates to model a solid structure can
accurately simulate the distribution of induced surface currents, leading to a more accurate
computation of the resulting electromagnetic fields.
Figure 4: Example of HIFREQ simulation of tractor-trailer under transmission line. (a) - SESCAD plate
model. (b) - SESCAD wire grid model. (c)- Computed scalar potential magnitude (V) of plate model over
the observation surface. (d)- Computed scalar potential magnitude (V) of the wire grid model over the
observation surface.
See the article “Modeling of Plate Structures in HIFREQ” for the details.
5 SESeBundle – New Tool to Find an Equivalent Conductor

for a Conductor Bundle
The new SESeBundle program is a tool allows to represent a bundle of conductors by a single
equivalent conductor. This technique is useful, for example in the HIFREQ module, to reduce the

computational time required to analyze a system with several parallel conductors regularly
connected together.
The general features of SESeBundle are as follows:
 Very simple specification of input data, confined to a single screen.
 The program is able to handle symmetrical and asymmetrical bundles.
 Conductor data can be imported from the SES Conductor Database.
 A cross-section view of the conductor bundle to be analyzed is displayed, allowing for a
quick verification of the input data.
 Provides tabular computation results, computation reports and computation log info.
See the article “SESeBundle: Find an Equivalent Single Conductor Representing a Bundle of
Conductors” for more details.
Figure 5: Main screen of SESeBundle.

6 SESThreshold – Safety Analysis with Multiple Safety

Thresholds
SESThreshold is a new application that can perform a safety analysis involving several zones
where different safety thresholds are applicable. This could happen, for instance, as a result of the
presence of different surface covering materials in different zones.
Zones can be specified graphically as polygons. Different safety settings can be specified in each
zone, and this independently for touch and step voltages. The program can compute the relevant
safety threshold for each zone based on those safety settings. It is also possible to specify that
certain zones are to be excluded from the safety analysis. From those calculated thresholds, the
program can produce a Spot-2D plot showing the locations where the touch or step voltage
exceeds the threshold applicable at that location.
The article “Introduction to SESThreshold” gives more details about this new program.
Figure 6. Main screen of SESThreshold.

Figure 7. Plot of touch voltages produced by SESThreshold.
7 CorrCAD and its Applications

CorrCAD was introduced at last year’s CDEGS Users’ Group Conference, but was not made
available to the attendees because it was at its early stages of development. This year, CorrCAD is
essentially ready as an alpha release or, perhaps, an early beta release for testing by SES’ users, in
order to gather useful information and feedback for future development and enhancements.
CorrCAD, as the name suggests, has been developed to tackle a large variety of cathodic protection
analysis and design tasks and related issues on land and offshore. CorrCAD can predict the degree
of corrosion control provided by a system. Typical applications of CorrCAD include the modeling
of impressed cathodic current protection systems (ICCP) and use of sacrificial anodes in cathodic
protection systems.
Another application of CorrCAD is to estimate the effect of stray currents such as those produced
by HVDC electrodes or dc rail traction systems on the corrosion of buried metallic structures. It
can evaluate the corrosion status of the structure and help optimize the location and
characteristics of the corrosion protective system (such as ICCP) to minimize stray current
interference effects on protected structures such as pipelines. An example of the CorrCAD
interface is shown in Figure 8 .

Figure 8: CorrCAD interface.

The article “CorrCAD and its Applications” describes this new program in detail.
8 Improvements in Right-of-Way, ROWCAD and Cross-

Section
8.1 Right-of-Way
Since the last Users’ Group conference in 2014, there are several new features that have been
implemented in the Right-of-Way software package (ROW). Here are some major enhancements:
 Possibility to import a complete network from ROWCAD into ROW.
 Possibility to automatically connect satellite conductors to their reference conductor,
based on the line length, both in the circuit model (SPLITS) and in the conductive or
total interference model (MALZ).
 Possibility to simulate multiple phase-to-ground faults in the Monitor Fault module.
The current interpolation will be made on all faulted phases.
 It is now possible to calculate critical electric breakdown separation distances to avoid
an arc flashover.
See the article “Right-of-Way Software Package Improvements” for more details.
8.2 ROWCAD
Here are the highlights of the latest improvements in ROWCAD:
 It is now possible to specify an entire system configuration within ROWCAD, due to the
Cross-Section mode, Connect Satellite to Reference Conductor and Terminal
Energization features in ROWCAD.
 Soil model import from RESAP share file (F11).
 ROWCAD now provides a unit conversion option.
 Clearer subfolder naming convention.

The details are in the article “Improvements in ROWCAD”.
8.3 SESCrossSection
The SESCrossSection module is now reaching maturity, since its introduction in 2013. It has been
evolving hand-in-hand with the many modules that now use it: serving ROWCAD, CorrCAD,
SESTralin and SESeBundle, it is a flexible and consistent tool for the specification of cross
sections. The highlights are as follows:
 Various configuration modes are designed to prepare the data in the proper format for
each CDEGS module using the cross-section information: SESTralin, ROWCAD and new
CorrCAD.
 More flexible conductor specification and simplified cable specification interface.
 More interactive and user-friendly behavior.
Consult the article “Improvements in SESCrossSection” for more information.
9 SESEnviroPlus: Calculation of Ion Current Density

Generated by HVDC Lines
A new feature has been added to SESEnviroPlus for the calculation of the ion current density
formed by the moving space charges generated by corona on HVDC lines. The system can be
operated in monopolar, homopolar, bipolar, or in mixed mode. The sub-conductors in the system
are treated individually and the system can have conductors that are not under corona. Each
conductor bundle in the system can have a different corona onset gradient (or onset voltage). The
difference between the positive and negative corona onsets, the different mobilities of positive
and negative ions and the effects of ion recombination that occur in the bipolar corona case are
all considered in the calculations.
The article “Calculation of Ion Current Density Generated by HVDC Lines in SESEnviroPlus”
gives more details about this enhancement.
10 SPLITS: Enhancements to Three-Phase Transformer

Models
New features for three-phase transformers were added to the SPLITS computation module. Three
new types of three-phase transformer configurations are now available, namely the Grounding
Zigzag (see Figure 9), Star-Zigzag and Delta-Zigzag transformers. This feature is currently
available in CDEGS – Specify mode (Input Toolbox) for SPLITS. Also, in command-mode only,
the impedance matrix of three-phase transformers can now be computed based on their sequence
components, making it possible to model transformers with unequal zero sequence and positive
sequence impedances.

Figure 9: Example of creating a grounding zigzag transformer. (a) Primary; (b) Secondary.
See “Enhancements to Three-Phase Transformer Models in SPLITS” for the details.
11 Improvements and New Features in SESImpedance

Several new features have been implemented in the SESImpedance software package since the
last Users’ Group Conference in 2014. On the technical side, the most important addition is
automatic adaptive meshing, which results in better accuracy in the computed results. The user
interface of the program (see Figure 10) has also been improved, with some new CAD capabilities,
to allow you to quickly build the conductor to be analyzed.
Menus and Toolbars
Provides a new organization
and access to new rendering
modes.
Transformation Panel
Provides transformation
operations which can be
applied to a selected Part.
Figure 10: Enhancement to the main screen of SESImpedance.

The article “Improvements and New Features in SESImpedance” gives more details.

12 SESCAD – Plates, Coating, and More Plates

A few enhancements have been made to the SESCAD program since the 2014 CDEGS User’s
Group Meeting. The improvements focus mainly in providing support for some new technical
capabilities of the MALT and HIFREQ modules, namely:
 Specification of coatings on cylindrical conductors and on metallic plates in MALT.
 The possibility to define metallic plates as part of the conductor network in HIFREQ.
Also, it is now possible to break observation profiles graphically and to easily reverse their
direction.
The article “Improvements in SESCAD” gives some details about these enhancements.
Figure 11. The Plate Characteristics Editor screen for defining coatings on metallic plates in MALT.
13 Different Neutral/Shield Wires in FCDIST

The often requested capability to model neutral/shield wires with different characteristics along
the same terminal has been added to FCDIST. This makes it possible to model more accurately
the commonly encountered scenario where two different types of shield wires are installed on the
same transmission poles.
Each type of neutral/shield wires can consist of 1 or 2 individual wires, or of any number of wires
distributed along a circle. This last option allows for a good approximation of a concentric cable
sheath or armour. Any combination of neutral/shield wires is allowed, as long as the resulting
wires do not overlap with one another. For example, it is possible to specify two different sets of
neutrals as Concentric cable, one representing the sheath of a cable and the other its armour.
All neutral/shield wires specified in the same terminal are assumed to be regularly interconnected
together and to share the same pole grounds.
Note: This functionality is currently available only through the CDEGS interface – it is not
available in AutoGridPro or AutoGroundDesign.

Figure 12. Specification of multiple types of neutral/shield wires in FCDIST.

IIIMPROVEMENTS IN SESCAD
Simon Fortin
Safe Engineering Services & Technologies ltd.
Email: info@sestech.com, Web Site: www.sestech.com
Abstract
This article describes the enhancements made to the SESCAD program since the 2014 CDEGS User’s Group
Meeting.
1 Introduction
A few enhancements have been made to the SESCAD program since the 2014 CDEGS User’s
Group Meeting. The improvements focus mainly in providing support for some new technical
capabilities of the MALT and HIFREQ modules, namely:
 Specification of coatings on cylindrical conductors and on metallic plates in MALT.
 The possibility to define metallic plates as part of the conductor network in HIFREQ.
Also, it is now possible to break observation profiles graphically and to easily reverse their
direction.
This article gives some details about these enhancements.
2 Coated Conductors in MALT

The MALZ and HIFREQ modules have had the ability to model insulated (coated) conductors
for many years. In this version of the software, this capability was added to the MALT module
[1] and the necessary data can be specified in SESCAD.
IMPORTANT NOTE: This feature is not supported currently in CDEGS – Specify (Input
Toolbox) for MALT. When defining coating types in MALT, please use SESCAD directly
without passing through CDEGS – Specify.
In SESCAD, the specification of leaky coatings on conductors works in exactly the same way as
for MALZ and HIFREQ. A Coating-Type code can be assigned to selected conductors through
the Characteristics dialog (Figure 1). To do this, select the conductors to be coated, then click
Edit | Characteristics and select or type the desired code in the Coating Type box. Note that
only the Coating Type, Radius and Subdivision information can be specified in the
Characteristics screen for MALT since the MALT module considers conductors to be perfectly
conducting.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page II-1

Figure 1. The Coating Type code in the Characteristics dialog.

As usual, Coating-Type -1 identifies a “perfect” coating (more precisely, a very good coating),
i.e. a coating with a resistivity of 1010 ohm-m and a thickness of 1 mm. It is possible to define
coating types with different properties using the Define Coating Types dialog (Define |
Coating Types). The information to be specified (Figure 2) includes a measure of the leakage
resistance of the coating (either the resistivity of the insulating material or the total resistance,
resistance per unit length or resistance per unit area of the coating), a measure of its leakage
reactance and also the coating thickness. This is the same information that is specified for
coating types in MALZ and HIFREQ, allowing coating-types to be easily transferred between the
three modules. Note, however, that the information specified regarding the leakage reactance of
the coating is ignored by MALT, since MALT effectively operates in DC.
Figure 2. The Conductor Coating Types dialog for defining coating types.
For example, when importing a MALZ file into MALT, any coating types defined in the MALZ
can optionally be imported into MALT. The dialog File Import Options dialog (Figure 3) is
shown in that case to control what to do with the coating types defined in the imported file.
Page II-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.
Figure 3. The File Import Options dialog shown when importing files into MALT.
Other features related to coating types work exactly as in MALZ and HIFREQ. For example, the
Display Filter feature can now be used to display MALT conductors in different colors based
on their coating type (Figure 4). Also, the Quick Info tool (Figure 5) shows information about
the coating assigned to a conductor when hovering the mouse over that conductor.
Figure 4. The Filter Legend screen showing details for a Coating-Type filter.

Figure 5. Coating-type information in the Quick Info tool.
3 Coated Metallic Plates in MALT

The ability to specify a coating on metallic plates in MALT was introduced at the last CDEGS
User’s Group Meeting. This functionality was available only in uniform soils, and only in
command-mode version of the program. This year, this feature has been extended to work in
horizontally layered soils [2] and coating on plates can be specified in SESCAD.
Coatings on metallic plates can be defined in much the same way as for cylindrical conductors:
by assigning a coating type to the plate. The main difference with plates is that different coating
types can be specified on the two sides of a plate.
To assign a coating to a metallic plate, first select the plate and use Edit | Edit Object or create
a new plate using Insert | Metallic Plate. In the Create Object screen, click on Define
Coating. This brings the Plate Characteristics Editor screen (Figure 6). The coating type
assigned to the two sides of the plate can be defined in the Coating Type section. The two sides
of the plate are identified as the Right and Left sides. The right side of the plate lies in the
direction formed by applying the right-hand rule to the first three vertices of the plate. To help
distinguish the left and right sides of the plate, the Plate Characteristics Editor screen
displays the plate in a viewer, with the two sides in different colors. You can rotate the view of
the plate using the three sliders surrounding the viewer. You can also make the plate appear
thicker in the viewer using the Plate Thickness slider. Note that this does not modify the
physical thickness of the plate.
The properties of the coating types can be defined by clicking on the … button next to the Left
(Right) Side selection lists. They can also be edited directly from Define | Coating Types in
SESCAD. Not that those coating type definitions can be used for both plates and cylindrical
conductors.

Figure 6. The Plate Characteristics Editor screen for defining coatings on metallic plates in MALT.
4 Metallic Plates in HIFREQ

The capability to model metallic plates was added last year to the HIFREQ module and was
demonstrated at the last CDEGS User’s Group Meeting. In the previous version of HIFREQ,
plates had to be of rectangular shape, which limited the functionality available in SESCAD for
defining plates.
In this version of the software, HIFREQ can now handle plates of any shape. This allows for the
definition of complex three-dimensional surfaces made of plates. For examples, the commands
Insert | Disk / Ring, Insert | Spherical Surface, Insert | Cylinder / Cone, Insert |
Brick / Prism can now all general surfaces made of plates in HIFREQ. The surface generation
algorithms were also modified to guarantee that the edges of plates generated by those
commands match precisely, as required by HIFREQ to be able to calculate a smooth current
distribution along those surfaces

Figure 7. A sphere made of plates in the Create Spherical Surface dialog for HIFREQ.
5 Breaking Profiles and Reversing their Direction

5.1 Breaking Observation Profiles
Since conductor segmentation can be very important in MALT, MALZ and HIFREQ models,
various tools are available in SESCAD to break conductors. In particular, the Break mode of the
Power Tool can be used to break individual conductors at any location, specified by clicking in
the drawing.
In previous versions of the program, this tool could be used only on conductors. Now, it was
extended to work also for observation profiles. Breaking profiles can be useful, for instance, for
creating a small region without observation points in a large observation surface (see Figure 8).
This functionality is also available through the Node Editor ( ) pointer mode by double-
clicking on a profile while holding the Ctrl key pressed on the keyboard.
Note that breaking a profile that is part of a regular observation surface (obtained, for example,
with the Insert | Observation Surface or Volume command) destroys the observation
surface (since it can no longer be described with a regular pattern) and replaces it by an ordinary
group of profiles.

Figure 8. An observation surface with a small region cut out.
5.2 Reversing the Direction of Observation Profiles

The orientation of conductors can be important when interpreting results in MALZ and HIFREQ
since it determines the reference direction of current flow. It is especially important for
conductors that are connected to a current source in HIFREQ, since reversing the direction of an
energized conductor can lead to drastically different results.
The Flip mode of the Power Tool can be used to invert the direction of individual conductors
in HIFREQ. In previous versions of the program, this tool could only be used on conductors. In
this version, it was extended to work also for observation profiles. Reversing the direction of a
profile can be useful since many plots generated by the output processing programs (e.g.,
CDEGS – Examine) process the observation points along a profile from the beginning of the
profile to its end.
This functionality can be used in precisely the same way as for conductors: by clicking on the
profile to be reversed while in Flip mode of the Power Tool.

6 Ordering of Background Pictures

When several overlapping background pictures are inserted in a drawing, it can be useful to
control the order in which those pictures are drawn. This can now be controlled using the new
Order command of the Display menu. When one or more pictures are selected the options of
this menu (Bring Forward, Bring to Front, Send Backward, Send to Back) can be used
to manipulate the drawing order.
7 Conclusion
This article has described the main enhancements made to the SESCAD program since the 2014
CDEGS User’s Group Meeting. The enhancements mainly focus on the specification of data for
plates and of coatings on cylindrical conductors.
8 References
[1] P. Zhao, S. Fortin, and F. P. Dawalibi, "Coated Conductors in MALT," in CDEGS Users' Conference
Proceedings, San Diego, California, USA, 2015.
[2] P. Zhao, S. Fortin, and F. P. Dawalibi, "Coated Metallic Plates in Horizontal Multilayer and Perfect Soil
Models in MALT," in CDEGS Users' Conference Proceedings, San Diego, California, USA, 2015.

IIIIMPROVEMENTS AND NEW FEATURES IN

SESIMPEDANCE
Maryam Golshayan, Stéphane Baron, Said Touimer, Martin Deslongchamps and Simon Fortin
Abstract
This article describes in detail the new features implemented and the major improvements brought to the
SESImpedance software package since the last Users’ Group Conference in 2014.
1 Introduction
Several new features have been implemented in the SESImpedance software package since the
last Users’ Group Conference in 2014 [1]. On the technical side, the most important addition is
the capability of automatic adaptive meshing which results in better accuracy in the computed
results. The user interface of the program was also improved, with some new CAD capabilities to
allow you to quickly build the conductor to be analyzed.
The major enhancements are:
 Duplication pattern of objects in conjunction with translating, rotating and scaling
operations to facilitate creation of complex conductors.
 Extension of the Material Type table to include a new Color column, which can be used
to assign a color for each defined material. The assigned color will be used to display the
Parts in the Graphical Area under the new Material Display Mode.
 The Material Display Mode: Display objects in a color based on their assigned material
type to make it easy to identify Parts made of different materials.
 Solid and Transparent rendering modes for displaying Parts in the Graphical Area. This
can help manage overlapping Parts and their priority.
 Introduction of adaptive mesh refinement in the computation process to achieve a high
computation accuracy.
 Display of output mesh and current distribution in conductor using the SESSystemViewer
tool.
 Improvements to the Computation Results Panel to indicate the status of the
computations for the active project.
 Ability to open files through Drag and Drop.
This article describes these improvements and provides an example of how to use the program to
compute the internal impedance of a complex conductor.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page III-1

2 User Interface Changes

A few minor changes have been carried out since the last Users’ Group Conference regarding the
main screen:
1. The menu bar has been updated and re-organized.
2. The Transformation zone, which used to be activated at the bottom area of the
Properties panel by selecting a Part, has its own dedicated panel now, better reflecting
its role as an operation rather than a property.
3. New rendering modes have been added to SESImpedance, allowing you to display the
Parts in their assigned colors or based on the color assigned to their material type.
Menus and Toolbars
Provides a new organization
and access to new rendering
modes.
Transformation Panel
Provides transformation
operations which can be
applied to a selected Part.
Figure 1: Enhancements brought to the main screen.
3 Creation and Transformation of Parts

The manipulation and the creation of the Parts in the Graphical Area have been greatly improved
since the last CDEGS User’s Group Meeting. Basic CAD operations, such as replication according
to various patterns, can now be applied to a selected Part. This can allow you, for instance, to
quickly generate a stranded conductor. The geometric transformations and duplication
operations are now available in a new separate panel, Transformations Panel, which can be
displayed using View | Panels. The following introduces the new CAD capabilities offered by
SESImpedance in detail.
Page III-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

3.1 Duplication Tool

A Duplication Tool has been added in all three transformation operations tabs, as shown in Figure
2. The following section describes how the Duplication Tool works for each transformation
method.
3.1.1 Duplication Tool – Shifting Objects
Duplicate: When checked, Number of Duplicates duplicates of the selected objects are
created and the shift operation is applied repeatedly to each of these duplicates. The end result is
Number of Duplicates replicas of the original selected objects, equally spaced and separated
by the specified shift vector.
Number Of Duplicates: Number of times to duplicate the selected objects before applying the
shift. Ignored if Duplicate is not checked.
3.1.2 Duplication Tool – Rotating Objects
created and the rotation is applied repeatedly to each of these duplicates. The end result is
Number of Duplicates replicas of the original selected objects, rotated by the same angle with
respect to each other.
Number of Duplicates: Number of times to duplicate the selected objects before applying the
rotation. Ignored if Duplicate is not checked.
3.1.3 Duplication Tool – Scaling Objects
created and the scaling operation is applied repeatedly to each of these duplicates. The end result
is Number of Duplicates replicas of the original selected objects, scaled by the same factor with
respect to each other.
Number of Duplicates: Number of times to duplicate the selected objects before applying the
scaling. Ignored if Duplicate is not checked.
Duplicate Number of Duplicate

Informs that copies of the Defines the desired number of
selected Part must be produced. copies of the selected Part that
must be produced.
Figure 2: The Duplicate and Number of Duplicates settings in all three transformation
operations tabs.

4 Specifying the Electrical Characteristics of Parts

SESImpedance now allows you to assign colors to material types. Conductor Parts can optionally
be displayed using the color assigned to their material type, making it easy to identify Parts made
of different materials.
To assign a color to a material type (or change this color), simply go to the Material Type screen
to access the list of the material types available for the active project and select one you wish to
edit. Two default material types are automatically added to the material types list when a new
project is created. Those material types are greyed out and their characteristics (including their
color) cannot be edited. However, you can add a new material type by simply specifying its
characteristics or by copying an existing one and modifying its characteristics. By default, newly
added material types have the same characteristics as the default material, copper. Once a new
material is added, double-click each individual cell in the grid to specify the appropriate value for
each property, then validate your changes using the Enter key. Click on Save Changes and
Close to save your changes in the Material Types list and to continue modeling the conductor.
SESImpedance offers a database of common material types that can be imported in your active
project as shown in Figure 3. This SES-defined database can be easily accessed via the Material
Types screen using the Import from Database command. The list is not editable in the
Material Types Database screen, but once Material Types from the list are imported in the
active project then you can edit their characteristics and their assigned colors.
Color
Specifies the color to be used for
identifying the Parts according to
their assigned material type.
Figure 3: The new column Color in the Material Types table for assigning colors to material
types.
5 Rendering Modes for Parts

Different rendering modes can now be used to display the Parts in the Graphical Area. Those

modes are accessible either from the Parts Rendering Modes option of the View menu or the
toolbar.
 Solid ( from the toolbar): Use this rendering mode to display the Parts in solid colors.
 Transparent ( from the toolbar): Use this rendering mode for displaying the Parts
with 50% of transparency.
 Colors from Parts ( from the toolbar): Use this rendering mode to display the Parts
using their own assigned color.
 Colors from Material Type ( from the toolbar): Use this rendering mode to display
the Parts using the color associated to their material type.
The Solid and Transparent modes can be combined with either the Colors from Parts mode or
the Colors from Material Types mode. When Parts are overlapping, the Transparent mode
can be used to display the hidden Parts and the Solid mode can be used to display the Parts as
they are seen by the computation engine, since Parts drawn on top of other Parts are considered
to have higher priority and to determine the material properties in the overlap area.
Figure 4 illustrates a Sumitomo OPGW stranded conductor using the four rendering
combinations.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 4: Part Rendering Modes for the Sumitomo OPGW conductor a) displayed in
Transparent mode, b) displayed in Solid mode, c) displayed in both Transparent and assigned
material type colors from the predefined SES database, d) displayed in Solid and predefined
material type colors from the SES database.

6 Improvements to the Calculation Capabilities of

SESImpedance
This section gives a brief overview of the changes that were made to the computation engine and
for displaying the computation results and viewing the mesh model.
6.1 Adaptive Mesh Refinement

In SESImpedance, proper discretization of the geometry is of great importance because the
accuracy of the solution is directly related to the size and shape of the elements obtained in the
meshing process. In this version of SESImpedance, one of the main improvements carried-out in
the computation of the internal impedance is the introduction of adaptive mesh refinement.
The adaptive mesh refinement used in SESImpedance starts with a coarse mesh that does little
more than specify the problem geometry or the computational domain. Then, the initial mesh gets
refined and the program performs up to Number of Global Refinements refinement steps
where the mesh is improved based on an error estimate calculated using the solution obtained
with the previous mesh. The improvement consists in increasing the density of the mesh in
regions where the error estimate is largest. In the process, the number of elements in the mesh
increases by a factor equal to 1 + Refinement Factor / 100.
The refinement process stops when one of the following conditions is satisfied:
 The Number of Global Refinements is reached.
 The number of elements in the mesh reaches or exceeds the Maximum Number of
Elements.
 The values calculated for the internal resistance and the internal reactance at one
refinement step do not differ by more than Desired Solution Accuracy times the values
obtained in the previous refinement step.
The above error indicators and stopping criteria options have been added to SESImpedance in
the Computations Setup screen (Computations | Setup or from the toolbar) as shown in
Figure 5.
Figure 5: The Computations Setup parameters to control the meshing process in

SESImpedance.
In addition, a new parameter called Computation Domain Scaling Factor has been
introduced to allow you to control the size of the computation domain. The computational domain
is a circle obtained by scaling the Extent of the conductor by this number. By default, this value is
2.5.
6.2 Managing the Generated Output Files and Computation Results

The Computation Results panel provides a quick view of the main results; i.e. the Resistance,
the Reactance, the Equivalent Resistivity and Permeability and the radius of the Equivalent
Circular Conductor computed by the program according to the four different Equivalent
Radius Computation Methods described in [1].
Since the last User Group Meeting this panel has visually changed and now offers new tools for
managing the generated output files. It also provides further details about the status of the active
project.
Now, the summary of computation results is displayed whenever an output file (F09 file) exists
for the case. These computation results may or may not correspond to the input data, depending
on whether or not changes were made to the input data since the last time the computations were
run.
The Results Status zone (Figure 6) indicates the status of the computation results with respect
to the input data for the active project:
 Loaded: Indicates that the status of the computation results with respect to the input data
could not be determined.
 Up-To-Date: Indicates that the computation results are up-to-date with respect to the
input data.
 Out-of-Date: Indicates that the computation results are out-of-date with respect to the
input data.
Two additional zones have been added to the Computation Results panel for providing the
date and the time at which the output and the mesh files have been created.
The output file (with the "F09" extension) which contains all the input data, modeling (final mesh
topology after the refinements) and summary of the computational results and the final results
can be displayed in a separate screen thanks to the View Report button available in the Results
panel (or from the toolbar).
In addition to the main program output file, the mesh results file (with the prefix "MZ" and the
"F40" extension) which contains the mesh topology information in a format readable by the
SESSystemViewer tool can be directly displayed in SESSystemViewer through the
Computation Results panel by clicking on the View Mesh button (or from the toolbar).
Finally, the appearance of the Equivalent Radius Computation Method list (Figure 7) has
been changed and a small description as well as a self-explanatory illustration for each of the four
different methods for the Equivalent Radius Computation Methods has been included in
the menu.

Result Status
Indicates the current status
of the results related to the
active project.
Date Status
Indicates the date and the time
respectively the F09 (report file)
and the F40 file (mesh file) were
created.
View Mesh
Displays the computational
mesh related to the active
project in SESSystemViewer.
Figure 6: The current status of the computation results/output files of the active project is now
indicated in the Computation Results panel.
Equivalent Radius Computation
Method List
Lists the methods for different
Equivalent Circular Conductor analysis
with illustration and description.
Figure 7: The Equivalent Radius Computation Method list provides a small description as well as
a self-explanatory illustration for each of the four different for the Equivalent Radius
Computation Methods.
7 Example (Stranded Conductors)

This section shows how to analyze a stranded conductor using SESImpedance and highlights the
new features and improvements in the computation engine and the addition of the automatic
adaptive mesh refinement in the calculation process to achieve a high accuracy solution.
The fundamental step involved in this process is the creation of the 2-dimensional cross section
representation of the conductor. In general, a complete internal impedance analysis using
SESImpedance follows these steps:
 Creating the 2-dimensional representation of the conductor. This step is crucial as the
accuracy of the internal impedance of a conductor can be affected. The CAD functionalities
available in SESImpedance can assist you to represent as faithfully as possible the

conductor to analyze. One of the great strength of SESImpedance is that it allows you to
easily model complex and non-homogeneous structures such as OPGW conductors.
 Defining the material types and assign them to the Conductor Parts.
 Specifying the computation parameters. The selection of the computation parameters
essentially consists in specifying the computation frequency and, optionally, of the
parameters controlling the refinement algorithm.
Figure 8 illustrates the Sumitomo OPGW stranded conductor with aluminum irregular fiber
spacers and air holders. The Rotation operation combined with the duplicates tool facilitated the
creation of the strands and of the core section of the conductor. Each Part was assigned an
appropriate material type, as shown in Figure 9. (Figure 8 uses the Colors from Material Type
rendering mode to display the conductor). The SESImpedance files for this example are available
in the “UGC 2015\Example Files\Improvements and New Features in SESImpedance\
FM_OPGW Spacer CompleteHolders and Fiber.f05” from the SES Software conference
distribution.
Figure 8: SESImpedance geometry of the Sumitomo OPGW Conductor in Solid mode and
predefined material type colors.
Figure 9: Electrical characteristics of the material types used in the example.

When the computations are launched using default settings, SESImpedance will automatically
refine or discretize the geometry/mesh until the values calculated for the internal resistance and
the internal reactance do not differ by more than 1% times the values obtained in the previous
refinement step. Table 1 summarizes the calculated results for both resistance and reactance, for
the Extent Method option under the Equivalent Conductor Methods, for each refinement. Figure
10 shows the same information, in graphical form. It shows that, as the number of element
increases, the difference between the results in each refinement decreases.
More details such as the final mesh topology and the final set of results for all other Equivalent
Conductor Methods can be accessed in the output file (.F09) of the program. Figure 11
illustrates the final mesh generated by the program based on default settings, which requires 6573
elements in order to achieve 1% accuracy.
TABLE 1: MESH ADAPTIVITY ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Refinement Number of Number Resistance Reactance Error Error

Elements of Nodes (ohm/km) (ohm/km) Resistance Reactance
#
(%) (%)
1 1258 642 0.4878892 0.1097236 ---------- --------
2 1945 986 0.4884926 0.1164817 0.1236882 6.159166
3 2923 1475 0.4887643 0.1178206 5.56E-02 1.149461
4 4383 2205 0.4888881 0.1195124 2.53E-02 1.435886
5 6573 3300 0.488924 0.1196326 7.33E-03 0.100569
Resistance Reactance
0.14 7
0.12 6
0.1 5
Error %
Error %
0.08 4
0.06 3
0.04 2
0.02 1
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Number of Elements Number of Elements
(a) (b)
Figure 10: Convergence curves showing the errors calculated based on the results between each
refinement step and its previous value as a function of the number of elements for (a) resistance
and (b) reactance.

Figure 11: Triangular meshes created with the mesh generator of SESImpedance for a 1% target
accuracy, which results in 6573 elements.
8 Conclusion and Future Developments

This article has described in detail the new features and enhancements implemented in
SESImpedance since the 2014 Users Group Meeting. Some of the improvements have been made
to the CAD capabilities of the program in order to provide efficient tools to quickly create the
conductor to be analyzed. Significant enhancements were also made to the analytical capabilities
of the program by introducing the automatic mesh refinement in the process of discretization the
object to achieve a certain accuracy in the computed results.
9 References
[1]: S. Baron, M. Golshayan, S. Touimer, M. Deslongchamps, S. Fortin, “Improvements and New
Features in SESImpedance” in User's Group Meeting, Newport, Rhode Island, USA, 2014.
[2]: S. Baron, M. Golshayan, S. Touimer, H.F. Pinheiro, M. Deslongchamps, S. Fortin,
“SESImpedance: A New Program for the Calculation of the Internal Impedance of Conductors” in
User's Group Meeting, Lake Tahoe, California, USA, 2013.
[3]: H.F. Pinheiro, S. Touimer, S. Fortin, "SESImpedance: a New Software Package for Fully
Automated Evaluation of Impedance of Systems with Complex Geometry," in User's Group
Meeting, Rock Creek Resort, Montana, USA, 2012.
[4]: Yixin Yang and Simon Fortin, "Multilayer Metallic and Insulation Layers of Cable
Components in TRALIN," in User's Group Meeting, Montreal, Canada, 2010.
Body texts are fully justified, with indent as shown here. Please format your text only with the
styles provided in this template and avoid as much as possible creating your own styles or
formatting using the Font group (bold, italic, font size, etc.), unless no other option exists.
[5]: Alcan Cable – Division of Alcan Inc, "Bare Overhead Cable, Canadian Product Catalogue",
Properties for A1/S1A Conductors (ACSR) and A1 (ASC), Table 5, Page 8.

IVCOATED METALLIC PLATES IN HORIZONTAL

MULTILAYER AND PERFECT SOIL MODELS IN MALT
Peter Zhao, Simon Fortin and Farid P. Dawalibi

1 Introduction
A few years ago, the ability to model metallic plates of arbitrary shape and orientation was
introduced in MALT. This provides greater flexibility for modeling realistic systems (such as
those including wells, storage tanks, cars and trucks, flood gates, building walls or foundations,
etc.) and enhances the capabilities of MALT module. Last year, the capability to model a
dielectric coating layer on one or both sides of plates was introduced. Coating layers are quite
often used on metallic surfaces in practical applications in order to improve their surface
properties, such as corrosion resistance, appearance, adhesion, wetability, wear resistance,
scratch resistance, etc. The effect of the coating layer on the grounding resistance, the potential
and electric field around coated plates has been successfully demonstrated in MALT.
However, the approach introduced last year was only applicable in uniform soils, and could only
be used with the command-mode version of MALT. In this version of the software, the approach
used to represent coatings on plates has been extended to plates located in a horizontal
multilayer soil and to plates located in the air (with the “perfect” soil model). Moreover, coatings
on plates can now be specified using SESCAD and CDEGS – Specify (Input Toolbox).
This article demonstrates the behavior of systems including coated plates located in horizontal
multilayer and perfect soil models. Typical examples are selected to verify the approach in these
soil models.
2 Specification of Coating on Plates

Coatings on metallic plates can be specified conveniently through the Plate Characteristics
Editor (shown in Figure 1) or in command mode. In MALT, coating for a plate is completely
specified by its thickness and resistivity (or indirectly by defining the total leakage resistance or
resistance per-unit area of the coating). The properties of the coating can be different on the two
sides (left and right) of the plate. Accordingly, two different sets of coating properties can be
defined for a given plate. Note that with this setup, it is possible to leave one side of a plate bare
while the other side is coated.
The definition of the left and right sides of a plate is based on the right-hand rule: the direction
of the left side of the plate is obtained by applying the right-hand rule to the first three vertices
of the plate.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page IV-1

Figure 1: Plate Characteristics Editor.
The Plate Characteristics Editor allows you to define the characteristics of the coating for
the currently selected plate. The Plate Characteristics Editor screen is divided into two main
sections: a data section on the left and a display section on the right.
The data section on the left side of the screen shows the coordinates of the plate whose coating
specification is currently being edited. The Coating Type section above the coordinate data
grid is where the coating information is specified. A coating can be defined independently for
the left and right sides of the plate by selecting the desired coating type from the available list or
by clicking on the adjoining … button to load the Coating Types screen (shown in Figure 2),
familiar from MALZ and HIFREQ. The data used to specify a coating type in MALT is the same
as for MALZ and HIFREQ, although MALT ignores the permittivity and permeability of the
coating in its calculations.
Figure 2: Coating Types screen.
Page IV-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

The display section on the right side of the screen shows a 3D view of the plate whose coating
specification is currently being edited. The view can be rotated by adjusting the three slider bars
(Rotate Along X Axis, Rotate Along Y Axis and Rotate Along Z Axis) surrounding the
picture. The two sides of the plate are displayed in different colors (red for the left side and
green for the right side) to help distinguish them more easily. Since metallic plates are typically
very thin compared to their overall dimensions, a slider is provided to modify the thickness of
the plate as displayed in the viewer. Note that changes to the thickness of a plate through this
slider only affects the appearance of the plate in the viewer: it doesn’t modify the physical
thickness of the plate.
In command mode, the specification of the properties of the coating is done through the new
COATING-TYPE command. This command is identical to that used in the MALZ and HIFREQ
modules, making it easy to transfer coating data between those programs. The coating is then
assigned to the left side (right side) of the plate by specifying the relevant coating-type code on
the LEFT-COATING (RIGHT-COATING) commands under the ATRIBUTE command for each
plate. This way of proceeding makes it easy to reuse the same coating properties for different
plates.
An example of MALT file including coated plates is shown below.
MALT
……
CHARACTERISTICS
COATING-TYPE,DEFAULT,10000.,0.0004,1.0,1.0,Type 1
COATING-TYPE,,1E+10,0.00656168,12,2,Type 2
RESISTIVE-PART,RESISTIVITY,100,60
COATING-TYPE,,10000.,0.0004,1.0,1.0,Type 3
RESISTIVE-PART,AREARESISTANCE,100,60
……
NETWORK
MAIN-GROUND
……
PLATE,RECTANGULAR,-0.5,-50,210,-0.5,-50,10,-
0.5,50,10,,,,.01,400,,0
ATTRIBUTE,Left 1,20,20,,
LEFT-COATING,1
RIGHT-COATING,2
……
RETURN-GROUN
……
PLATE,RECTANGULAR,0.5,-50,210,0.5,-50,10,0.5,50,10,,,,.01,400,,0
ATTRIBUTE,Right 1,20,20,,
LEFT-COATING,3
RIGHT-COATING,1
……
ENDPROGRAM

3 Examples of Coated Metallic Plates in Horizontal Multilayer

Soil Models
3.1 Virtually Coated Plates and Closed Metallic Box
As a first basic validation, the coated plate model is verified for various metallic structures
consisting of plates with “virtual” coating layers, for which the resistivity of the coating is that
same as that of the surrounding soil. In the examples, the modeled plates are all within one layer
in the defined horizontal multilayer soil models. The calculated potential and electric field are
compared with that without the “virtual” coating layers. The plates have a size of 100 m by
100 m and a thickness of 0.02 m. Some of the examples consider a cubic box, constructed out of
six plates of this kind. The plate or box is energized with a 100 A current and buried in the third
layer of the three-layer soil model shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1: DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SOIL TYPE
Soil Layers Thickness (m) Soil Resistivity (Ωm)
1 (Top) 2 100
2 (Middle) 3 1500
3 (Bottom) Semi-infinity. 800
The detailed location of the plate or box is described in Table 2 for each examined case, along
with the location of the observation profiles for those cases. In all cases, the thickness and
resistivity of the coating layer is 0.0001 m and 800 Ωm, respectively.
TABLE 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELED SYSTEMS CONSISTING OF PLATES WITH AND WITHOUT A VIRTUAL
COATING LAYER
Metallic
Location of Plate or Box Defined Profiles
Structure
Centered at (0 m, 0 m, 10 m) Horizontal profiles are defined from (-100,

Horizontal Plate and aligned with the X and Y 0, z) to (100, 0, z) with z=0, 1, 2, 3, 5 and
axes. 15.0 m respectively.
Centered at (0 m, 0 m, 60 m) Horizontal profiles are defined from (1, -

Vertical Plate and aligned with the X and Z 100, z) to (1, 100, z) with z=0, 1, 2, 3, 20,
axes. 60, 80, and 120 m, respectively.
The above vertical plate is Horizontal profiles are defined from (1, -
Slanted Plate rotated 15 degrees counter- 100, z) to (1, 100, z) with z=0, 1, 2, 3, 10,
clockwise about the X axis. 20, 50, 100 and 130 m, respectively.
Closed Metallic Box Aligned with the X, Y and Z Horizontal profiles are defined from (-100,
axes. The top of the box is at 0, z) to (100, 0, z) with z=0, 1, 2, 3, 15, 50,

Z = 10 m. 80 and 120 m, respectively.
Metallic structures differing only by the presence or absence of such a virtual coating layer
should have the same resistance and should generate the same potential and electric field. TABLE
3 lists the calculated resistance of various metallic structures with and without virtual coating
layers. The calculated potential and electric field along the profiles listed in Table 2 are shown in
Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively. The results show that the resistance of the systems made of
coated plates, and the potential and electric field generated by those systems are nearly identical
to those obtained for the corresponding systems made of bare plates. In TABLE 3, the calculated
resistance for the metallic structures with the virtual coating layer is slightly smaller than that
for the bare ones.
TABLE 3: RESISTANCE OF VARIOUS METALLIC STRUCTURES WITH AND WITHOUT A VIRTUAL COATING LAYER
Calculated Resistance (Ω)

Metallic
Structure
Bare Both-Sides Coated One-Side Coated or Mixed Coating
Horizontal Left-Side Coated: 2.616

2.642 2.617
Plate Right-Side Coated: 2.616
Left-Side Coated: 2.205

Vertical Plate 2.209 2.203
Right-Side Coated: 2.205
Left-Side Coated: 2.202

Slanted Plate 2.206 2.202
Right-Side Coated: 2.202
Inside Coated: 1.362
Closed Outside Coated: 1.361

1.363 1.361
Metallic Box Partial Inside Coated: 1.362
Partial Outside Coated: 1.362
a. Bare horizontal plate b. Horizontal plate with both sides coated

c. Bare vertical plate d. Vertical plate with both-sides coated
e. Bare slanted plate f. Slanted plate with both sides coated
g. Bare metallic box h. Metallic box with both sides coated
Figure 3: Comparison of the potential generated by various metallic structures with and without a virtual
coating layer on the plates in the structures.

a. Bare horizontal plate b. Horizontal plate with both sides coated
c. Bare vertical plate d. Vertical plate with both sides coated
e. Bare slanted plate f. Slanted plate with both sides coated

g. Bare metallic box h. Metallic box with both sides coated
Figure 4: Comparison of the electric field generated by various metallic structures with and without a
virtual coating layer on the plates in the structures.
3.2 Comparison between Coated Plates and Closed Box in Virtual

Horizontal Multilayer Soil and in the Corresponding Uniform Soil
The approach used to represent coated plates in a uniform soil has been thoroughly tested and
verified. Then by comparing the results of coated plates in a virtual horizontal multilayer soil
model (where all layers have the same resistivity) with that in the corresponding uniform soil
model is another way to verify the solution. In the examples, the resistivity of each layer of the
three-layer soil model of Section 3.1 has been changed to 100 Ωm.
For the metallic box, the side length of the cubic box in Section 3.1 is decreased to 20 m, keeping
the top surface of the box at Z=10 m. The calculated resistance of the metallic box and plates for
different coating layers and coating modes in the virtual horizontal 3-layer soil model and the
corresponding uniform soil model are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively. The
results in Table 4 and Table 5 for the modeled metallic boxes and plates in the virtual three-layer
soil model are quite close to those obtained in the uniform soil model, as expected.
TABLE 4: RESISTANCE OF CLOSED METALLIC BOX WITH DIFFERENT COATING LAYERS IN THE VIRTUAL
HORIZONTAL 3-LAYER SOIL MODEL AND THE CORRESPONDING UNIFORM SOIL MODEL

Coating Bare and Coated
Inner Coated Outer Coated Both-Sides Coated
Type Faces at Outside
Uniform 3-layer Uniform 3-layer Uniform 3-layer Uniform 3-layer
ρC=1E5 Ωm
0.7962 0.7612 0.8009 0.7954 0.8009 0.7955 0.7990 0.7938
t=0.0001 m
ρC=1E5 Ωm
0.7962 0.7913 0.8413 0.8330 0.8414 0.8332 0.8211 0.8175
t=0.001 m
ρC=1E6 Ωm
0.7962 0.7613 0.8414 0.8330 0.8414 0.8331 0.8212 0.8156
t=0.0001 m
ρC=1E6 Ωm
0.7963 0.7923 1.213 1.177 1.214 1.177 0.9447 0.9360
t=0.001 m
ρC=1E7 Ωm
0.7963 0.7924 1.213 1.183 1.214 1.182 0.9448 0.9373
t=0.0001 m

ρC=1E7 Ωm
0.8036 0.8036 4.505 4.505 4.541 4.446 1.130 1.116
t=0.001 m
ρC=1E8 Ωm
0.7962 0.8057 4.535 5.011 4.527 5.043 1.130 1.121
t=0.0001 m
Bare 0.7967/0.7968
TABLE 5: RESISTANCE OF VARIOUS COATED METALLIC PLATES IN THE VIRTUAL THREE-LAYER SOIL MODEL AND
THE CORRESPONDING UNIFORM SOIL MODEL
Coating Layer Horizontal Plate Vertical Plate Slanted Plate
3-layer Uniform 3-layer Uniform 3-layer Uniform
ρ=1E5 Ωm
0.3618 0.3712 0.2880 0.2895 0.2876 0.2887
t=0.0001 m
ρ=1E5 Ωm
0.3693 0.3793 0.2943 0.2957 0.2938 0.2949
t=0.001 m
ρ=1E6 Ωm
0.3693 0.3793 0.2942 0.2957 0.2939 0.2949
t=0.0001 m
ρ=1E6 Ωm
0.4291 0.4445 0.3465 0.3480 0.3461 0.3472
t=0.001 m
ρ=1E7 Ωm
0.4291 0.4445 0.3463 0.3480 0.3463 0.3473
t=0.0001 m
ρ=1E7 Ωm
0.9021 0.9389 0.8036 0.8053 0.8034 0.8046
t=0.001 m
ρ=1E8 Ωm
0.9015 0.9388 0.8025 0.8053 0.8046 0.8052
t=0.0001 m
Bare 0.3706 0.3703 0.2885 0.2888 0.2878 0.2881
3.3 Effect of the Coating Layer on the Potential and Electric Field
Generated by a Coated Closed Metallic Box
In MALT, the metallic part of plates is assumed to have zero resistivity. Furthermore, all
electrodes (i.e., Main, Return or Buried) are assumed to be equipotential. By Gauss’ law, it
follows that for a closed metallic box defined in a single electrode, the potential everywhere
inside the box should be equal to the GPR of the box and the electric field should vanish
everywhere inside the box. For such a box, current can only leak from the outside of the metallic
walls.
In previous versions of MALT, this effect has already been demonstrated for a bare, closed
metallic box in uniform, horizontal multilayer and perfect soil models, and for coated (or
partially coated) boxes in a uniform soil model. It should also occur for a coated (or partially
coated) closed metallic box, regardless of whether the coating is inside, outside or on both sides
of the metallic walls (plates) in horizontal multilayer soil models. In addition, the potential
along profiles approaching the coated surface from outside should have an obvious jump
through the coating layer due to the high resistivity of the coating layer. All these expectations
can be used to validate the new coating feature of MALT in horizontal multilayer soil models.
In the examples, the modeled box is as described in Section 3.1, as shown in Figure 5. The box is
held at 50 kV and buried in the bottom layer of the three-layer soil model described in Section
3.1, except that the resistivity of the bottom soil layer has been changed to 50 Ωm. Unless
otherwise specified, the thickness and resistivity of the coating layer are 0.0001 m and 1E7 Ωm,
respectively. 18 horizontal profiles are defined from (-150, 0, z) to (150, 0, z) with z=15, 20, 25,
30, …, 100 m, respectively.

(a) Front view (b) Perspective view
Figure 5: The metallic box and horizontal profiles.
3.3.1 Bare Closed Metallic Box
The potential and electric field generated by a bare closed metallic box along the defined profiles
are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively. This provides reference values against which
the results calculated for coated metallic boxes can be compared.
Figure 6: Potential along horizontal profiles due to a bare metallic box.

Figure 7: Resultant total electric field along horizontal profiles due to a bare metallic box.
3.3.2 Closed Metallic Box with Both-Sides Coated
For a closed metallic box with both-sides coated, the calculated potential and electric field along
the same profiles are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively.
Single-Electrode/Scalar Potentials LEGEND
(xE+03)
60
Profile Number 1.
Profile Number 2.
Profile Number 3.
Profile Number 4.
45
Profile Number 5.
Profile Number 6.
Profile Number 7.
Profile Number 8.
Profile Number 9.
30
Profile Number 10.
Potential Profile Magnitude (Volts)
Profile Number 11.

Profile Number 12.
Profile Number 13.
Profile Number 14.
15
Profile Number 15.
Profile Number 16.
Profile Number 17.
Profile Number 18.
0
0 100 200 300 Closed Box-Main
Distance from Origin of Profile (m)
Figure 8: Potential along horizontal profiles due to a metallic box coated on both sides.

Electric Fields / Resultant (Total) LEGEND
600
Profile Number 1.
Profile Number 2.
Profile Number 3.
Profile Number 4.
450
Profile Number 5.
Profile Number 6.
Profile Number 7.
Profile Number 8.
Profile Number 9.
300
Profile Number 10.
Profile Number 11.
Profile Number 12.
Profile Number 13.
Electric Field Total (V/M)
Profile Number 14.

150
Profile Number 15.
Profile Number 16.
Profile Number 17.
Profile Number 18.
0
0 100 200 300
Closed Box-Main
Figure 9: Resultant total electric field along horizontal profiles due to a metallic box coated on both sides.
As for a coated box in a uniform soil model, the following behavior can be observed in those
results:
 Outside the box, the potential decreases with the distance from the box in a similar
manner as for the bare box. However, the values are lower than those for the bare box
due to the effect of the coating.
 The potential jumps at locations where the profiles cross the walls of the box, due to the
potential drop through the coating.
 Inside the box, the potential is almost constant and equal to the GPR of the metallic box,
as is the case for a bare box. (Recall that both boxes are energized with voltage
energizations).
 Inside the box, the electric field strength is very small, except at locations that are quite
close to the walls of the box. This is similar to what is observed for a bare box. The
electric field at the outside surface of the walls is much larger than that at the inside
surface, meaning that the leakage current (which is equal to the ratio of the electric field
to the soil resistivity) is almost completely through the outside surfaces of the box.
 At locations outside the box, the electric field strength decreases with the distance from
the box in a similar manner as for a bare box, but is lower due to the effect of the coating.
3.3.3 Closed Metallic Box Coated only on the Outside
For a closed metallic box coated only on the outside, the calculated potential and electric field
are shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11, respectively. The results are essentially the same as those
shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9 for the metallic box coated on both sides. This means that the
inner coating doesn’t affect the performance of the box, due to the shielding effect of the metallic
walls.


(xE+03)
60
Profile Number 1.
Profile Number 2.
Profile Number 3.
Profile Number 4.
45
Profile Number 5.
Profile Number 6.
Profile Number 7.
Profile Number 8.
Profile Number 9.
30
Profile Number 10.
Profile Number 11.

Profile Number 12.
Profile Number 13.
Profile Number 14.
15 Profile Number 15.
Profile Number 16.
Profile Number 17.
Profile Number 18.
0
Figure 10: Potential along horizontal profiles due to a metallic box coated only on the outside.
600
Profile Number 1.
Profile Number 2.
Profile Number 3.
Profile Number 4.
450
Profile Number 5.
Profile Number 6.
Profile Number 7.
Profile Number 8.
Profile Number 9.
300
Profile Number 10.
Profile Number 11.
Profile Number 12.
Profile Number 13.
Profile Number 14.

150
Profile Number 15.
Profile Number 16.
Profile Number 17.
Profile Number 18.
0
0 100 200 300
Closed Box-Main
Figure 11: Resultant total electric field along horizontal profiles due to a metallic box coated only on the
outside.
3.3.4 Closed Metallic Box Coated only on the Inside
For a closed metallic box coated only on the inside, the calculated potential and electric field are
shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13, respectively. The results are essentially the same as those
shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 for the bare metallic box. This again proves that the effect of the
inner coating can be ignored due to the shielding effect from the metallic walls.


(xE+03)
60
Profile Number 1.
Profile Number 2.
Profile Number 3.
Profile Number 4.
45
Profile Number 5.
Profile Number 6.
Profile Number 7.
Profile Number 8.
Profile Number 9.
30
Potential Profile Magnitude (Volts) Profile Number 10.
Profile Number 11.
Profile Number 12.
Profile Number 13.
Profile Number 14.
15
Profile Number 15.
Profile Number 16.
Profile Number 17.
Profile Number 18.
0
Figure 12: Potential along horizontal profiles due to a metallic box coated only on the inside.
600
Profile Number 1.
Profile Number 2.
Profile Number 3.
Profile Number 4.
450
Profile Number 5.
Profile Number 6.
Profile Number 7.
Profile Number 8.
Profile Number 9.
300
Profile Number 10.
Profile Number 11.
Profile Number 12.
Profile Number 13.
Profile Number 14.

150
Profile Number 15.
Profile Number 16.
Profile Number 17.
Profile Number 18.
0
0 100 200 300
Closed Box-Main
Figure 13: Resultant total electric field along horizontal profiles due to a metallic box coated only on the
inside.
3.3.5 Closed Metallic Box with Bare and Coated Outside Faces
In this example, the metallic walls of the box shown in Figure 5 are coated inside on the ‘Bottom’
(P6) and ‘Left’ (P3) faces, outside on the ‘Right’ (P4) face and on both-sides on the ‘Back’ (P2),
‘Front’ (P1) and ‘Top’ (P5) faces, respectively.


(xE+03)
60
Profile Number 1.
Profile Number 2.
Profile Number 3.
Profile Number 4.
Profile Number 6.
Profile Number 7.
Profile Number 8.
Profile Number 9.
30
Profile Number 10.
Profile Number 11.

Profile Number 12.
Profile Number 13.
Profile Number 14.
15
Profile Number 15.
Profile Number 16.
Profile Number 17.
Profile Number 18.
0
Figure 14: Potential along horizontal profiles due to a metallic box with mixed coating.
Profile Number 1.
Profile Number 2.
600
Profile Number 3.
Profile Number 4.
Profile Number 5.
Profile Number 6.
Profile Number 8.
Profile Number 9.
Profile Number 10.
Profile Number 12.
Profile Number 13.
Profile Number 14.

Profile Number 15.
150
Profile Number 16.
Profile Number 17.
Profile Number 18.
0
0 100 200 300
Closed Box-Main
Figure 15: Resultant total electric field along horizontal profiles due to a metallic box with mixed coating.
The calculated potential and electric field are shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15, respectively. For
this type of coated box, the following observations can be made.
 For all faces, the electric field on the outside surface is much larger than that on the inner
surface, whether or not the outside of the face is coated. This means that the leakage
current outside the box is much larger than that inside.
 The leakage current from the bare outside surfaces is much larger than that from the
coated outside surfaces.

 The electric field inside the box is very small everywhere, except at locations which are
quite close to the walls, as for a bare box. At locations outside the box, the electric field
strength decreases with increasing distance from the box.
 The potential inside the box is almost constant and equal to the GPR of the metallic box.
 The potential jumps at locations where the profiles cross a face of the box that is coated
on the outside, but not when crossing a face whose outside surface is bare.
 At locations outside the box, the potential decreases with increasing distance from the
box, whether leaving a coated surface or a bare surface.
3.4 Effect of a Coating Layer on the Resistance of a Plate or Closed

Metallic Box
The effect of a coating layer can be demonstrated by the variation of the resistance of a metallic
box when the resistivity and/or the thickness of the coating layer changes. The calculated
resistance of the metallic box and plates for different coating layers and coating modes is
summarized in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively.
From Table 4 and Table 5, the following observations can be made:
 The presence of a coating layer on the inner surface of the box does not affect its
resistance. If the outer surfaces of the box are bare, the resistance of metallic box keeps
the same value as that of a bare metallic box, regardless of the presence of a coating on
the inner surface of the plate.
 The coating layer on the outer surface plays an important role on the resistance for the
box and plates.
 The resistance of the metallic box increases with the resistivity and/or the thickness of
the coating layer on the outer surface for the box and plates.
 For all tested cases, the resistance of the metallic box or plates is a function of only the
product of the thickness and the resistivity of the coating layer on the outer surface (no
matter if the outside surface is totally or partially coated). The reason is that, once this
value is fixed, the potential drop through the coating layer is almost always the same. In
other words, the effective leakage resistance of the coating layer remains the same under
those circumstances.
3.5 Effect of a Coating Layer on the Potential and Electric Field within
Vertical Parallel Plates
The electric field and potential between two parallel plates at locations that are not too close to
the edges of the plates can be obtained analytically. Consider two parallel vertical plates buried
in the three-layer soil model described in Section 3.1 except that the resistivity of the bottom soil
layer has been changed to 100 Ωm. The plates are parallel to the Y axis of the coordinate system
and have a width of 100 m and a height of 200 m. They are centered along the X axis. The top of
the plates is at Z = 1 m. The two plates are separated by 20 m. The plate to the left of the system
is at X = -10 and is held at 10 kV; the plate to the right of the system is held at -10 kV. The
thickness of the plates is 0.01 m. 28 horizontal profiles are defined from (-30, 0, z) to (30, 0, z)
at depths of 20 m, 26 m, …, 182 m in the soil. The thickness and resistivity of the coating layer
are 0.0001 m and 1E7 Ωm, respectively. Four cases are considered in this example: both plates

bare, both plates coated on their inner sides only, only the ‘Left’ plate coated on its right side,
and only the ‘Right’ plate coated on its left side. For parallel plates this large compared to their
separation distance, the current leaking from the ‘Left’ plate should flow perpendicularly to the
‘Right’ plate between the two plates (in the area not too close to the edges of the plates), no
matter whether the surfaces are coated or not. Therefore, the potential drop along the path
followed by the current through the coating layer (if it exists) and in the soil can be calculated in
theory based on the size of the gap between the two plates, the resistivity and thickness of the
coating layer and the resistivity of the soil in the layer where the current path is located. The
estimated potential drop and electric field are shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6: ESTIMATED POTENTIAL DROP AND ELECTRIC FIELD ALONG THE CURRENT PATH BETWEEN THE TWO
PLATES
Coated
Potential Drop and/or Electric Field
Mode on
Plate Coating layer on the right Coating layer on the left side
Soil gap
Surface side of ‘Left’ plate of ‘Right’ plate
Potential drop: 20 kV
Bare ─ Electric field: ─
20 kV/20 m =1 kV/m
Potential drop: Potential drop: Potential drop:
Coated on 20 𝑘𝑉 ∗ (10−4 𝑚 ∗ 107 Ω𝑚) 20 kV-5 kV *2=10 kV 20 𝑘𝑉 ∗ (10−4 𝑚 ∗ 107 Ω𝑚)
the insides 2(10−4 𝑚 ∗ 107 Ω𝑚) + (20 𝑚 ∗ 100 Ω𝑚) Electric field: 2(10 𝑚 ∗ 107 Ω𝑚) + (20 𝑚 ∗ 100 Ω𝑚)
−4
= 5 𝑘𝑉 10 kV/20 m =0.5 kV/m = 5 𝑘𝑉

Coated on
the right Potential drop: Potential drop:
side of 20 𝑘𝑉 ∗ (10−4 𝑚 ∗ 107 Ω𝑚) 20 kV-6.667 kV =13.333 kV
─
‘Left’ (10−4 𝑚 ∗ 107 Ω𝑚) + (20 𝑚 ∗ 100 Ω𝑚) Electric field:
13.333 kV/20 m =0.667 kV/m
vertical = 6.667 𝑘𝑉
plate only
Coated on Potential drop:
20 kV-6.667 kV =13.333 kV Potential drop:
the left side
Electric field: 20 𝑘𝑉 ∗ (10−4 𝑚 ∗ 107 Ω𝑚)
of ‘Right’ ─ 13.333 kV/20 m =0.667 kV/m (10 𝑚 ∗ 107 Ω𝑚) + (20 𝑚 ∗ 100 Ω𝑚)
−4
vertical = 6.667 𝑘𝑉
plate only
The calculated potential and electric field along the horizontal profiles are shown in Figure 16
and Figure 17, respectively. From Figure 16, it can be seen that a “staircase type” potential drop
appears through the coating layers and that the potential changes linearly outside the coating
layers within the two plates, as also occurs for the case with bare vertical plates. In Figure 17, the
results show that the electric field is uniformly distributed between the two plates (outside the
coating layer if applicable), whether the plates are coated or not. The magnitude of the electric
field drops from 1 kV/m for the bare case to around 0.5 kV/m for the case where both inner
faces are coated, and to around 667 V/m when only one of the inner faces is coated, as analyzed
in Table 6. The calculated results agree very well with the analytical expectations.

Multiple-Electrode/Scalar Potentials [ID:Vertical-Plates-MAIN] (xE+03)

Multiple-Electrode/Scalar Potentials [ID:Vertical-Plates-MAIN]
10000
15
5000

5
0
-5
-5000
-10000
162
-15
162
130
130
97.2
97.2
64.8
Dis 64.8
tan 32.4 Dis
ce tan 32.4
(m 0 ce
) (m 0
0 15 30 45 60 )
0 15 30 45 60
a. Bare vertical plates b. Vertical plates coated on the inside
(xE+03) (xE+03)
Multiple-Electrode/Scalar Potentials [ID:Vertical-Plates-MAIN] Multiple-Electrode/Scalar Potentials [ID:Vertical-Plates-MAIN]
10 15
5 10
0 5
-5 0
-10 -5
-15 -10
162 162
130 130
97.2 97.2
64.8 64.8
Dis Dis
tan 32.4 tan 32.4
ce ce
( m) 0 (m 0
0 15 30 45 60 ) 0 15 30 45 60
Distance from Origin of Profile (m) Distance from Origin of Profile (m)
c. Coating on the right side of ‘Left’ vertical plate d. Coating on the left side of ‘Right’ vertical plate
only only
Figure 16: Potential along horizontal profiles due to parallel vertical plates.

Electric Fields / Resultant (Total) [ID:Vertical-Plates-MAIN] Electric Fields / Resultant (Total) [ID:Vertical-Plates-MAIN]
1500 600
450
1000
300

500
150
0 0
162
162
130 130
97.2 97.2
64.8
64.8
Dis Dis
tan 32.4 tan 32.4
ce ce
(m 0 ( m) 0
) 0 15 30 45 60
0 15 30 45 60
a. Bare vertical plates b. Vertical plates coated on the inside
Electric Fields / Resultant (Total) [ID:Vertical-Plates-MAIN] Electric Fields / Resultant (Total) [ID:Vertical-Plates-MAIN]
600 600
450 450
300 300
150 150
0 0
162 162
130 130
97.2 97.2
64.8 64.8
Dis Dis
t an 32.4 tan 32.4
ce ce
(m 0 (m 0
) ) 0 15 30 45 60
0 15 30 45 60
c. Coating on the right side of ‘Left’ vertical plate d. Coating on the left side of ‘Right’ vertical plate
only only
Figure 17: Resultant total electric field along horizontal profiles due to parallel vertical plates.
4 Effect of the Coating Layer on the Distribution of the

Electric Field and Potential near A Coated Metallic Box in
Air
For coated plates in air (Perfect soil model in MALT), due to the high resistivity of air, the effect
of the coating layer on the distribution of the potential and electric field is not as obvious as that
in the soil, especially when the resistivity of the coating layer is equal to or smaller than that of
the air. However, if the resistivity of the coating layer is much higher than that of the air by
several orders of magnitude (as could happen, for instance, due to a high moisture content in

the air), the effect of the coating layer on the potential and electric field can be important. Here,
the results of the calculated potential and electric field are summarized for a metallic box in air
without or with different coating layers outside the box, for different energization modes. The
box defined in Section 3.1 has been moved to the air and its bottom surface is at an elevation of
1 m. The resistivity of the air is set to 1E10 Ωm.
4.1 Box in an Environment with Vertical External Electric Field
The box is kept at 0 V under a vertical external electric field at the level of 10000 V/m. The
potential and electric field along the horizontal profiles passing through the box are shown in
Figure 18 and Figure 19, respectively.
a. Bare box b. Coated box-ρ=1e3 Ωm-t=0.0001 m
c. Coated box-ρ=1e9 Ωm -t=0.001 m d. Coated box-ρ=1e14 Ωm -t=0.001 m
e. Coated box-ρ=1e15 Ωm -t=0.001 m f. Coated box-ρ=1e16 Ωm -t=0.001 m
Figure 18: Variation of the potential along horizontal profiles due to the presence of a coating layer
outside a metallic box under an external electric field.

a. Bare box b. Coated box-ρ=1e3 Ωm -t=0.0001 m
c. Coated box-ρ=1e9 Ωm -t=0.001 m d. Coated box-ρ=1e14 Ωm -t=0.001 m
e. Coated box-ρ=1e15 Ωm -t=0.001 m f. Coated box-ρ=1e16 Ωm -t=0.001 m
Figure 19: Variation of the electric field along horizontal profiles due to the presence of a coating layer
outside a metallic box under an external electric field.
The results displayed in Figure 18 and Figure 19 are summarized below:
 Within the metallic box, the potential is zero if the observation points are not too close to
the inner wall of the metallic box.
 For observation points outside the metallic box, the effect of the coating layer on the
potential is quite small when the resistivity of the coating layer is equal to or smaller than
the resistivity of the air. Along the horizontal profiles passing through the box, the
potential increases with the displacement from the wall of the box and approaches to the
limit contributed by the external electric field only. When the resistivity of the coating
layer is larger than the resistivity of the air, the potential near the metallic box increases
with the resistivity of the coating layer.

 Within the metallic box, the electric field is zero if the observation points are not too
close to the inner wall of the metallic box.
 For observation points outside the metallic box, generally speaking, the electric field
strength goes down if the original value is high, and goes up if the original value is low
when the observation point moves away from the wall of the box. Based on this trend,
the electric field strength will tend to reach the external electric field strength value when
the observation point moves far from the box.
 The effect of the coating layer on the electric field is quite small when the resistivity of
the coating layer is equal to or smaller than the resistivity of the air. However, when the
resistivity of the coating layer is larger than the resistivity of the air, the effect of the
coating layer on the electric field is obvious. When the resistivity of the coating layer
increases, the electric field decreases faster if the original value is high and increases
faster if the original value is low.
5 Conclusions
This article introduced the newly added capability of MALT to account for the presence of a
coating layer on metallic plates buried in horizontal multilayer soils or in air (perfect soil
model). The effect of a coating layer on the resistance of plates as well as on the potential and
electric field generated by those plates was demonstrated using several examples. The calculated
results agree very well with the analytical expectations for typical systems, proving the
soundness of the methodology used to account for the effect of coating layers on plates.

VCALCULATION OF ION CURRENT DENSITY GENERATED

BY HVDC LINES IN SESENVIROPLUS

Abstract
A new feature has been added in SESEnviroPlus to calculate the ion current density formed by the moving space
charges generated by corona on HVDC lines. The system can be operated in mono-polar, homo-polar, bipolar
mode, or in mixed mode. The sub-conductors in the system are treated individually and the system can have
conductors that are not under corona. Each conductor bundle in the system can have a different corona onset
gradient (or onset voltage). The difference between the positive and negative corona onsets, the different
mobilities of positive and negative ions and the effects of ion recombination that occur in the bipolar corona case
are all considered in the calculations.
1 Introduction
When the operating voltage of transmission lines reaches or exceeds the corona onset voltage
(more precisely, when the electrostatic gradient on the surface of conductors reaches or exceeds
the corona onset gradient), corona occurs on the surface of those conductors. This is a common
phenomenon in HVAC and HVDC transmission lines. During the corona process, a large
number of positive and/or negative ions are generated around the conductors in the system. For
HVAC lines, these ions are confined in a local area around the conductors due to the regular
reversal of the polarity of the electric field that occurs for AC. However, for HVDC lines, the
situation is quite different in which these ions will be drifted from the corona conductors to a far
place along the electric field lines and eventually reach the ground, neutral wires or conductors
of opposite polarity. The presence of the ions of like polarity under a conductor has the effect of
increasing the electric field, while that of opposite polarity ions decreases the electric field. Thus
the electric field intensity and distribution depend on the density of the ions in space and on
their distribution. The ion current density formed by these ions not only reflects the space
charge density but also predicts the level of charge collected by the livestock or other objects
under HVDC lines, which in turn indicates potential nuisance and safety issues. The ion current
density is therefore an important factor to consider when evaluating the electromagnetic
environmental conditions of HVDC lines.
2 Theory of Corona Electric Field and the Calculation of Ion

Current Density
The space charge density, the ion current density and the total electric field strength around
bipolar or mixed mode HVDC transmission lines are described by the following coupled
equations.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page V-1


  E  (   ) /  . (1)
 
J   k   E  D   . (2)

  J    Ri     / qe . (3)
  
J  J  J . (4)

 J  0. (5)

E   . (6)
Equations (1)-(6) are, respectively, Poisson’s equation, the definition of the positive and negative

current density vectors J  , the continuity condition for the positive and negative current
 
densities J  , the definition of the total current density vector J , the continuity condition for the

total current density J , and the definition of the electric field in terms of the potential. The
variables   and   are the positive and negative space-charge density values. The coefficients
k  and k  are the mobilities of the positive and negative ions. They represent the speed reached
by an ion under the influence of an applied electric field of unit strength. D and D are the
diffusion coefficients of the positive and negative ions, Ri is the ion recombination coefficient in
the air, and qe is the electron charge. Finally,  is the permittivity of air.

By solving the coupled equations (1) - (6), the total ion current density J and the positive and

negative ion current densities J  can be obtained for bipolar or mixed mode HVDC lines.
In the mono-polar and homo-polar cases, the equations describing the space charge density, the
ion current density and the total electric field simplify to

 E   / . (7)
 
J  kE . (8)

 J  0. (9)
The exact solution of those equations is extremely difficult due to their nonlinear nature. In
SESEnviroPlus, an iterative method has been developed to solve the above equations for HVDC
transmission line systems, accounting for the presence of space charge. With this method, the
calculated ion current densities for typical mono-polar, homo-polar, bipolar and mixed mode
(homo-polar + bipolar) HVDC lines are illustrated in this article. The calculation accounts for
the different corona onset gradient of the positive and negative energized conductors (in bipolar
systems) due to the polarity effect, and for ion recombination in the bipolar zone. Also, the
positive and negative ions can possess different mobilities.
Page V-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

3 Using SESEnviroPlus to Calculate the Ion Current Density

With the new version of SESEnviroPlus, the ion current density is calculated the moment space-
charge effects are included in the calculation of the DC electric field. You can request that the
effects of space-charge be included in the calculations by checking the Space-Charge box in
the Electromagnetic Fields panel (as shown in Figure 1). This screen is also used to specify
the Corona Onset Voltage (or Corona Onset Gradient) for each circuit. This is done in the
Phase Voltages and Currents data grid.
The various parameters that affect the ion current density (such as the ion mobilities and
recombination coefficient) can be specified in the Physical Parameters – Space Charge
screen (Figure 2), which can be reached by clicking on the … button next to the Space-Charge
check-box. These parameters should rarely need to be modified. Note that this screen can also
be used to select between two different ways of specifying the point at which the conductors
enter into corona: either when they reach a certain voltage (Corona Onset Voltage) or when
the electric gradient at their surface reaches a certain value (Corona Onset Gradient).
Since the ion current density is taken into account only in calculations for HVDC lines, you
should normally specify DC voltages on some conductors. This is illustrated in Figure 3. Note
that conductors for which no DC voltage has been specified are considered to be at zero DC
potential, even if they are energized with some AC voltage.
Figure 1: Space-charge selection.

Figure 2: Corona physical parameters.
Figure 3: Phase energization.

The calculated ion current density along defined linear profiles can be plotted using the
SESEnviroPlot Graphical Display Tool, as shown in Figure 4. The following four calculated
items can be plotted.
 Resultant of the DC Ion Current Density.
 Angle of the DC Ion Current Density to the Horizontal Axis.
 Horizontal Component of the DC Ion Current Density.
 Vertical Component of the DC Ion Current Density.
Figure 4: Plots available for the calculated ion current density.
4 Examples
4.1 One-pole Mono-polar Configuration
Figure 5 shows a one-pole configuration, without any neutral wire. The bundle consists of four
sub-conductors with a diameter of 30.5 mm. The bundle radius is 323 mm, and the angle that
the first sub-conductors makes with the horizontal is zero degree. The line voltage is +600 kV
and the corona onset gradient is 1492 kV/m. The positive ion mobility is 0.00014 m2/(V∙s).The
resultant of ion current density and angle of the ion current density vector to the horizontal axis
calculated using SESEnviroPlus along a linear profile going from (-30 m, 2 m) to (30 m, 2 m)
above the earth surface are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7.
Figure 5: One pole configuration.

Figure 6: Resultant of the ion current density at 2 m above the earth surface for a one-pole
configuration.
Figure 7: Angle of the ion current density to the horizontal axis at 2 m above the earth surface for a
one-pole configuration.
4.2 Two-pole Bipolar Configuration
The system consists of a two-pole bipolar HVDC transmission line, which has two 4×30.5 mm
conductor bundle with zero degree starting angle. The bundle radius is 323 mm. The height and

spacing of the poles are 13 m and 13.2 m, respectively. The corona onset voltage is 288 kV. In the
calculations, the positive and negative ion mobilities and the ion recombination coefficient are
0.00014 m2/(V∙s), 0.00018 m2/(V∙s) and (2.2E-12 m3/s), respectively. The calculated resultant
of ion current densities and its vertical and horizontal components along the horizontal profile
from (-50 m, 1 m) to (50 m, 1 m) are shown in Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11, respectively, for
line voltages of ±600 kV (the right pole is at 600 kV and the left pole is at -600 kV).
Figure 8: Two-pole configuration system.
Figure 9: Resultant of the ion current density at 1 m above the earth surface for a two-pole bipolar
configuration.

Figure 10: Vertical component of the ion current density at 1 m above the earth surface for a two-
pole bipolar configuration.
Figure 11: Horizontal component of the ion current density at 1 m above the earth surface for a
two-pole bipolar configuration.
Figure 9 shows that the magnitude of ion current density under the negative pole (at the left) is
higher than that at the same position under the positive pole (at the right) due to the higher
negative ion mobility. Figure 10 demonstrates that under the positive pole (at the right) the

vertical component of the net ion current density points downward while under the negative
pole (at the left) it points upwards.
4.3 Three-pole Homo-polar Configuration
Figure 12 shows a three-pole homo-polar system which consists of three identical 4×29.2 mm
bundles with starting angle of 45 degrees located at P1 (-15 m, 18 m), P2 (0 m, 18 m) and P3
(15 m, 18 m). The bundle radius is 212.1 mm. The operating voltage is 750 kV and the corona
onset voltage is 600 kV. The default ion mobilities (a positive ion mobility of 0.00013 m2/(V∙s)
and a negative ion mobility of 0.00017 m2/(V∙s)) and ion recombination coefficient (2.2E-
12 m3/s) have been selected in the calculations. The calculated resultant of the ion current
density vector on the earth surface is shown in Figure 13.
Figure 12: Equally spaced three-pole configuration.
Figure 13: Resultant of the ion current density on the earth surface for an equally spaced three-
pole configuration in homo-polar mode operation.
4.4 Three-pole Mixed Mode (Bipolar + Mono-polar) Configuration
For this example, the system shown in Figure 12 has been modified from homo-polar mode into
mixed mode, in which the operating voltage of the left pole has been changed to -750 kV. Then
the left and central poles operate in bipolar mode while the right pole is working in mono-polar
mode. The remaining parameters are kept same as in the last section. The calculated resultant of
the ion current density vector at the earth surface from (-50 m, 0 m) to (50 m, 0 m) is shown in
Figure 14.
Figure 14: Resultant of the ion current density on the earth surface for an equally spaced three-
pole configuration in mixed mode operation.
5 Conclusion
This article described the new capability of the SESEnviroPlus program to calculate the ion
current density formed by the movement of space charges due to corona discharge on HVDC
lines. The typical examples in this article demonstrate the general features of ion current density
in the space, especially near or on the earth surface, for different operation modes of HVDC
lines.

VIENHANCEMENTS TO THREE-PHASE TRANSFORMER

MODELS IN SPLITS
Marjan Mehrabi, Mark Boisjoli and Simon Fortin

Email: ugm@sestech.com, Web Site: www.sestech.com
Abstract
New features regarding three-phase transformers were added to the SPLITS computational module. Three new
types of three-phase transformer configurations are now available, namely the Grounding Zigzag, Star-Zigzag and
Delta-Zigzag transformers. This feature is currently available in CDEGS – Specify (Input Toolbox) for SPLITS>
Also, in command-mode only, the impedance matrix of three-phase transformers can now be computed based on
their sequence components, making it possible to model transformers with unequal zero sequence and positive
sequence impedances.
1 Introduction
Zigzag transformers are particularly useful to create a neutral connection that offers a low
impedance to zero sequence currents while maintaining a large impedance to positive and
negative sequence currents. This type of transformer, which has been requested for many years,
has now been added to SPLITS. Three types of zigzag transformer configurations are now
available, namely the Grounding Zigzag, Star-Zigzag and Delta-Zigzag transformers.
Also, in previous versions of SPLITS, the impedance matrix of three-phase transformers was
computed under the assumption of identical sequence component impedances for the
transformer windings. However, for some transformer constructions, such as core type, the zero
sequence component of the winding impedances may not be equal to their positive sequence
component due to the presence of a small percentage of leakage flux outside of the core. For this
reason, the possibility of specifying the sequence components of current, impedance and power
loss (or of the winding impedance matrix) as input data has been added in the command-mode
version of SPLITS and will be added shortly in the user interface for all types of three-phase
transformer.
These new features are explained in detail in the remaining sections of this article.
2 Zigzag Transformers in SPLITS

This section introduces the relevant interfaces and commands for the new Zigzag transformers
added to SPLITS.
2.1 Grounding Zigzag

Grounding zigzag transformers are generally utilized to create a neutral connection in a three-
phase system. Zigzag or interconnected star connections have six identical windings. To create
this type of transformer in CDEGS – Specify for SPLITS, the primary and secondary should be
selected as ZigZag in the SPLITS – System (Three-Phase Transformer) screen, as shown
in Figures 1, and the same values should normally be specified for the characteristics (such as
voltage and impedances) of both windings.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page VI-1

(a)
Page VI-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

(b)
Figure 1: Creating a Grounding Zigzag transformer. (a) Primary; (b) Secondary.
In command-mode, the qualifier selections indicated in the example shown in Figure 2 should be
performed in the SPLITS input file:
Figure 2: Commands for a Grounding Zigzag Transformer

To test the accuracy of the new Grounding ZigZag transformer model in SPLITS, the following
example was examined. The example defines a grounding zigzag transformer with a turns ratio of
unity, energized by a source voltage set to the sum of a balanced positive and negative sequence
of 100 kV and a zero sequence component of 20 kV. The grounding impedance (at the Central
Site) is set to 18 Ω.
The GRSplits-3D view of the model, including the grounding zigzag transformer, is shown in
Figure 3.
Figure 3: Grounding Zigzag Transformer Schematics in SPLITS
The expected neutral current for this model is:
𝑉0 20 𝑘𝑉
𝐼𝑁𝑒𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙 = = = 1111.1 𝐴. (1)
𝑍𝐺 18 Ω
As shown in Figure 4, the neutral current obtained from SPLITS is the same as that from Equation
(1).

Figure 4: Neutral Current of Grounding Zigzag in SPLITS
2.2 Star – Zigzag and Delta – Zigzag

To create a Star - ZigZag transformer in CDEGS – Specify for SPLITS, the primary should be
selected as Star and the secondary and tertiary should be selected as ZigZag in the SPLITS –
System (Three-Phase Transformer), as shown in Figures 5. Again, the same characteristics
should normally be specified for the secondary and tertiary windings.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 5: Creating a Star-Zigzag Transformer. (a) Primary; (b) Secondary; (c) Tertiary.
Similarly, to create a Delta-Zigzag transformer in CDEGS – Specify for SPLITS, the primary
should be selected as Delta and the secondary and tertiary should be selected as ZigZag, , as
shown in Figure 6. Once more, the characteristics of the secondary and tertiary windings should
normally be identical.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 6: Creating a Delta-Zigzag Transformer. (a) Primary; (b) Secondary; (c) Tertiary.
To corresponding commands to use Star –Zigzag and Delta -Zigzag transformers in command-
mode are shown in Figures 7 and 8:

Figure 7: Commands for a Star – Zigzag Transformer
Figure 8: Commands for a Delta – Zigzag Transformer

To test the accuracy of the new Star - ZigZag and Delta - ZigZag transformer models in SPLITS,
the following examples were examined.
The first example, shown in Figure 9, defines a Star-Zigzag transformer with a turns ratio of unity,
energized with a primary phase voltage of 100 kV. A load with the impedance of 100 Ω is defined
on the secondary winding. Therefore the voltage on the secondary and the current in the primary
and secondary windings should be as follows:
𝑉𝑆,𝐿𝐿 = √3 × 𝑁 × 𝑉𝑃,𝐿𝐿 = 173.20 𝑘𝑉
𝑉𝑆,𝐿𝐿 173.2 𝑘𝑉
𝐼𝑆 = = = 1732.05 𝐴 (2)
𝑍𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 100 Ω
𝐼𝑃 = √3 × 𝑁 × 𝐼𝑆 = 3000 𝐴.

Figure 9: Star – Zigzag Transformer Schematics in SPLITS

As shown in Figure 10, the primary and secondary currents obtained with SPLITS are the same
as those obtained above.
Figure 10: Primary and Secondary Currents of Star-Zigzag in SPLITS

The second example, shown in Figure 11, is a delta-zigzag transformer with a turns ratio of unity.
The primary line voltage is 100 kV and a 100 Ω load impedance defined on the secondary winding.
Therefore the voltage on the secondary and the current of the primary and secondary winding
should be as follows:
𝑉𝑆,𝐿𝐿 = 3 × 𝑁 × 𝑉𝑃,𝐿𝐿 = 300 𝑘𝑉
𝑉𝑆,𝐿𝐿 300 𝑘𝑉
𝐼𝑆 = = = 3000 𝐴 (3)
𝑍𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 100 Ω
3×𝑁×𝐼𝑆
𝐼𝑃 = = 5196.15 𝐴.
√3
As shown in Figure 12, the primary and secondary currents obtained from SPLITS are the same
as those obtained from Equation (3).

Figure 11: Delta – Zigzag Transformer Schematics in SPLITS

Figure 12: Primary and Secondary Currents of Delta-Zigzag by SPLITS
3 Sequence Components of Winding Impedances in

Transformers
It is now possible to specify the sequence components of transformer parameters with the option
of non-identical positive-sequence and zero-sequence components for all three-phase
transformer configurations, including two winding and three winding transformers. This is an
important enhancement that allows exact modeling of the core type transformers that are
widespread in high voltage applications, like distribution transformers and power transformers.
For the time being, this type of transformer impedances can only be specified in command-mode,
by manually modifying the SPLITS input file (F05 file). An example is shown in Figure 13. In this
example, for the sake of simplicity, only the leakage impedances are assumed to have unequal
positive and zero sequence components. However, it is possible to define unequal positive and
zero sequence components for the other parameters such as excitation current and power losses
as well as impedances. The values highlighted in green in the CHARACTERIST command
represent the positive-sequence components of the leakage impedances and also act as default
values for the zero-sequence impedance values. The values highlighted yellow in the
ZEROSEQUENCE command represent the zero-sequence components of the leakage
impedances.

Figure 13: Commands for a Typical Three-Phase Transformer with Unequal Zero-Sequence and
Positive-Sequence Impedances
Note that the zero-sequence impedances can be defined by specifying either suitable short-circuit
and open-circuit test data (as is done in the above example) or by providing those impedances
directly. In the following section, the general theory of transformers with unequal positive-
sequence and zero-sequence impedances is presented, for both two winding and three winding
three-phase transformers. Then, some SPLITS examples involving transformers with different
positive and zero-sequence parameters are described.
3.1 Two Winding Three-Phase Transformer Impedance Matrix

The relationship between voltage and current in a two winding three-phase transformer is given
by the following equation:
[𝑉𝑖 ]6×1 = [𝑍𝑖𝑗 ] × [𝐼𝑖 ]6×1 . (4)

6×6
In this equation, 𝑉𝑖 , and 𝐼𝑖 represent respectively the potential and current of each phase of the
primary and secondary windings. The diagonal elements of the impedance matrix, 𝑍𝑖𝑖 represent
the self-impedances of the winding corresponding to phase 𝑖 and the off-diagonal elements, 𝑍𝑖𝑗
represent the mutual-impedance between the windings corresponding to phases 𝑖 and 𝑗. Since the
system is balanced, the impedance matrix is symmetrical, i.e. the upper triangular elements are
identical to the lower triangular elements.
The elements of the matrix are can be computed using the measured short-circuit and open circuit
parameters. These parameters, known as test data, are as follows:
TABLE 1: TEST DATA OF TWO WINDING THREE PHASE TRANSFORMER
Test Data Description
𝑉𝑃 𝐿𝐿 , 𝑉𝑆 𝐿𝐿 Primary and secondary nominal line voltages, in V.
𝑆𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒 Power rating of transformer, in MVA.

𝑍1 𝑃𝑆 , 𝑍0 𝑃𝑆 Positive and zero sequence leakage impedances, in p.u.
Positive and zero sequence components of the excitation current, in % of

𝐼1 0 , 𝐼0 0
the nominal current.
𝑃1 𝑂 , 𝑃0 𝑂 Positive and zero sequence components of the no-load power loss, in W.
Positive and zero sequence components of the short-circuit power loss,

𝑃1 𝑆 , 𝑃0 𝑆
in W.
From the open-circuit test data, the absolute values of the positive sequence components of the
primary self-impedance are computed as shown below:
𝑉𝑃 𝐿𝐿
|𝑍1,11 | =
𝐼1 𝑂 × 𝐼𝑅 (5)
𝑉
|𝐼1,11 | = 𝑍𝑃 𝐿𝐿 .
1,11
where, 𝐼𝑅 is the primary rated current. Then, from the no-load power loss, the resistive and
inductive parts of the impedance can be obtained:
𝑃1 𝑂
𝑅1,11 =
3 × |𝐼1,11 |
(6)
𝑋1,11 = √|𝑍 21,11 | − 𝑅 21,11
𝑍1,11 = 𝑅1,11 + 𝑗𝑋1,11.
The secondary self-impedance is computed as follows:
2
𝑍1,22 = 𝑛12 × 𝑍1,11. (7)
where, 𝑛12 is the voltage ratio of the primary to the secondary winding. The resistive and inductive
parts of 𝑍1,22 are obtained from Equations (5) and (6) using the parameters corresponding to the
secondary winding. The zero sequence components of the self-impedances are computed in a
similar manner to what was explained so far for the positive sequence components.
The positive and zero sequence components of the mutual-impedances are obtained from the
short-circuit test data. The following equations present the relevant calculations for the positive
sequence components:
𝑉1 = 𝑍1 𝑃𝑆 × 𝑉𝑃 𝐿𝐿
𝑆𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒
𝐼1 =
3 × 𝑉𝑃 𝐿𝐿
𝑉1
|𝑍1,𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 | =
𝐼1
𝑃1,𝑆 (8)
𝑅1,𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 =
3 × 𝐼12
𝑋1,𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 = √|𝑍 21,𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 | − 𝑅 21,𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡

𝑍1,𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 = 𝑅1,𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 + 𝑗𝑋1,𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡
𝑍1,12 = 𝑛12 √𝑍1,11 (𝑍1,11 − 𝑍1,𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 ).
Therefore, the per phase sequence components of the impedance matrix of a two winding
transformer is as follows:
𝑍1,11 𝑍1,12 𝑍0,11 𝑍0,12

[
𝑍1,21
],[
𝑍1,22 𝑍0,21 𝑍0,22
]. (9)
For a three-phase transformer, each element of the 2 x 2 matrix of Equation (9) is extended to a
3 x 3 sub-matrix:
𝑍𝑆 𝑍𝑀 𝑍𝑀
[𝑍𝑀 𝑍𝑆 𝑍𝑀 ]. (10)
𝑍𝑀 𝑍𝑀 𝑍𝑆
So that:
1
𝑍𝑆 = (𝑍0 + 2𝑍1 )
3
1 (11)
𝑍𝑀 = (𝑍0 − 𝑍1 ).
3
Finally, the 6 x 6 impedance matrix that was introduced in Equation (4) is constructed.
3.2 Three Winding Three-Phase Transformer Impedance Matrix

Similar to Section 4.1, the relationship between voltage and current in a three winding three-phase
transformer is as shown below:
[𝑉𝑖 ]9×1 = [𝑍𝑖𝑗 ]

9×9
× [𝐼𝑖 ]9×1 . (12)
The positive and zero sequence components of the self and mutual impedances for the three
windings are obtained from the relevant test data of the three winding three-phase transformer,
similar to Table (1). The positive sequence components of the impedance matrix elements are
shown below:
2
𝑍1,22 = 𝑛12 𝑍1,11
2
𝑍1,33 = 𝑛13 𝑍1,11
𝑍1,12 = 𝑛12 √𝑍1,11 (𝑍1,11 − 𝑍1,𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 12 )

(13)
𝑍1,13 = 𝑛13 √𝑍1,11 (𝑍1,11 − 𝑍1,𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 13 )
𝑍1,23 = 𝑛23 √𝑍1,11 (𝑍1,11 − 𝑍1,𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 23 ).

Then, the 3 x 3 matrices for each positive and zero sequences are:
𝑍1,11 𝑍1,12 𝑍1,13 𝑍0,11 𝑍0,12 𝑍0,13
[𝑍1,21 𝑍1,22 𝑍1,23 ] , [𝑍0,21 𝑍0,22 𝑍0,23 ]. (14)
𝑍1,31 𝑍1,32 𝑍1,33 𝑍0,31 𝑍0,32 𝑍0,33
The elements of the matrices in Equation (14) are 3 x 3 matrices of the form given by Equation
(10), forming the final 9 x 9 matrix that was introduced in Equation (12).
3.2 Examples of YD and YYD Configurations

Two winding and three winding three-phase transformers with various characteristics (indicated
in Tables 2 and 3) were modeled in the command mode version of SPLITS.
TABLE 2: TWO WINDING THREE PHASE TRANSFORMERS CHARACTERISTICS
Configuration 𝑺𝑩𝒂𝒔𝒆 (𝑴𝑽𝑨) 𝑽𝑷 𝑳𝑳 (𝒌𝑽) 𝑽𝑺 𝑳𝑳 (𝒌𝑽) 𝒁𝟏 (%) 𝒁𝟎 (%)
1 100 345 161 10 5
2 180 350 150 20 18
3 240 400 200 30 22
4 300 450 250 40 45
5 600 500 300 50 49
6 900 550 350 60 40
7 1000 600 400 70 75
TABLE 3: THREE WINDING THREE PHASE TRANSFORMERS CHARACTERISTICS
Configuration 𝑺𝑩𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝑽𝑷 𝑳𝑳 𝑽𝑺 𝑳𝑳 𝑽𝑻 𝑳𝑳 𝒁𝟏,𝑷𝑺 𝒁𝟎,𝑷𝑺 𝒁𝟏,𝑷𝑻 𝒁𝟎,𝑷𝑻 𝒁𝟏,𝑺𝑻 𝒁𝟎,𝑺𝑻

(𝑴𝑽𝑨) (𝒌𝑽) (𝒌𝑽) (𝒌𝑽) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
1 100 345 161 13.8 10 5 8 5 4 3
2 180 350 150 20 20 18 20 9 7.5 21
3 240 400 200 30 30 22 30 18 18 25
4 300 450 250 40 40 45 50 24 28 32
5 600 500 300 50 50 49 25 12 15 24
6 900 550 350 60 60 40 70 32 35 75
7 1000 600 400 70 70 75 55 37 22 60

A single-phase-to-ground fault scenario was modeled in SPLITS for each transformer

configuration and the results for the current on the primary, secondary and tertiary (if applicable)
were compared to those obtained from analytical solutions. Figures 14 and 15 indicate the results
for the configurations given in Table 2 and Figures 16 and 17 indicate the results for the
configurations given in Table 3. In all cases, the fault was modeled on phase A of the secondary
winding.
Figure 14: Currents for Two Winding Three-Phase Transformers of Table 2 under Single-Phase-
to-Ground Scenario. (a): IP Current (A), Current on Primary; (b): IS Current (A), Current on
Secondary.

Figure 15: Difference between SPLITS and Analytical Solution for the Results Indicated in Figure 14. (a)
IP Difference (%), Difference between the Primary Currents; (b) Difference between the Secondary
Current.

Figure 16: Currents for Three Winding Three-Phase Transformers of Table 3 Under Single-Phase-to-
Ground Fault Scenario (a) Phase A of Primary; (b) Phase B of Primary; (C) Phase A of Secondary; (d)
Circulating Current on Tertiary.

Figure 17: Difference between SPLITS and Analytical Solution for the Results Indicated in Figure 16. (a)
IPA Difference (%), Difference for the Current on Phase A of the Primary; (b) IPB Difference (%),
Difference for the Current on Phase B of the Primary; (c) ISA Difference (%),Difference for the Current on
Phase A of the Secondary; (d) IT Difference (%),Difference for the Circulating Currents on Tertiary.
The results show a very good agreement between SPLITS and the analytical solutions, with the
error between these two approaches being smaller than 1%.
4 Example Files
All examples mentioned in this article and more tests are available in the following location: “UGC
2015\Example Files\THREE-PHASE TRANSFORMER MODELS IN SPLITS.
5 Conclusion
In this article, several new features for the three-phase transformer models in SPLITS were
introduced. Three new types of three-phase transformers (grounding zigzag, star-zigzag and
delta-zigzag) are now available. Moreover, transformers with non-identical positive and zero
sequence components for their electrical parameters can now be modeled in the command mode
version of SPLITS. This improvement will be accessible in the Transformer Editor component
that will be used to specify transformer data in SPLITS. This component is currently under
development.

6 References
[1] Jinxi Ma, Computing Transformer Impedances from Open and Short Circuit Test Data for Three-
Phase YYD Non-Auto-Transformers, SES Internal Document.
[2] René Gagné, Simon Fortin and Said Aliouane, Creating Transformers from Scratch in SPLITS, UGM
2014, Newport, Rhode Island

VIIPROGRESS STATUS ON
FUTURE SES MODULE INTERFACES
SES R&D and Software Development Team

1 Introduction
SES has been extremely busy this past two years, launching programming efforts on all fronts of
its comprehensive software suite, revamping venerable but outdated interfaces and creating
completely new ones in order to rejuvenate its state-of-the-art software by using the latest
available technology. SES is also simplifying and speeding the data input, making it more
intuitive, visually appealing and flexible along with improved error-checking mechanisms and
smart features that can handle even atypical cases.
As this effort is significant both in terms of manpower and financial resources it is
understandable that there are actually only a few new software packages that are mature enough
such that they can be released at this time in Beta version for our users to try and give their
feedback to SES. Still, SES wanted to give its users a glimpse of what is to come and present the
new generation of software prototypes currently in progress. In the following sections, new and
updated interfaces that are being developed for the CDEGS Library Database, the Transformer
editor, the resistivity analysis software package (RESAP), the Transient Analysis tools, and the
Output Toolbox are revealed here for the first time.
2 CDEGS Database
The new CDEGS Database (SESDatabase) is an enhancement to the already existing and
popular SES Conductor Database. In addition to the conductor’s library, the SESDatabase will
progressively include several other new libraries, such as a cable library, a structure library, a
material library, a transformer library, etc.
This module will be equipped with a 3D viewer to clearly identify the selected object, as well as a
property panel that will detail its physical and electrical characteristics. A smart search tools and
categorizing functions to narrow down the list of available objects will be available to help users
find what they are looking for in a systematic and straightforward manner. Figure 1 gives an
overview of early ideas for the feel and look of the interface and the search tools. Please note that
some of the screens shown here are basic ones (quick templates) and not the final ones that
would correspond more to what you see in ROWCAD screens.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page VII-1

Figure 1: Development of a graphical user interface for the CDEGS database.

The SESDatabase is designed to be used as a stand-alone independent program or to be called
from many of CDEGS’ modules in which exchanging data with a database is of interest, such as
SESCAD, HIFREQ, MALZ, MALT, FCDIST, TRALIN, SPLITS, Right-of-Way, SESImpedance,
etc.
All users are invited to send their non-proprietary data for inclusion in SES databases
permanently if they wish so.
3 Transformer Data Editor

The new user interface for the Transformer Data Editor (TDE) will be a unified editor to create
and edit power transformers in three computation modules of SES software: SPLITS, ROW and
HIFREQ. This graphical interface will be a self-explanatory multi-selection data editor that
enables users to create a transformer with any type of existing input parameters and
characteristics. The interface will vary slightly in term of some features exposed below,
depending on the calling module.
3.1 TDE Main Window

Figure 2 indicates the main window of the TDE interface. It will include the following panels:
a) Ribbon;
b) Item List;
c) Transformer Specification;
d) Transformer Mapping;
e) Remaining Issues List.
Page VII-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

The Ribbon will provide tools to edit the information of other panels, e.g. to quickly select the
desired type of transformer, add/remove/import/export a transformer that will appear on the
Item List panel, set the program’s properties and access help.
The Remaining Issues List will report Errors, Warnings and Messages. Tasks will also be defined
to indicate, for example, that there are still blank data grids that are required to be filled up.
The Transformer Specification and Transformer Mapping panels hold the core data and will be
explained with more details in the following sections.
Figure 2: Main window of the TDE interface.

3.1.1 Transformer Specification Panel
This panel will allow specifying the transformer characteristics: its name, its number of phases
(Single-Phase or Three-Phase) and the winding connections types. Figure 3 shows the existing
types for each Phase Number.
(a)

(b)
Figure 3: Single and Three-Phase Transformers. (a) Existing connection types for Single-Phase
Transformers. (b) Existing connection types for Three-Phase Transformers.
3.1.1.1 Data Type

Five possible Data Types will exist in this interface to specify the transformer in the
Characteristics tab:
a) Ideal: Only the turn ratios and the phase shift of each winding needs to be specified;
b) Lossless: The power rating and the rated voltage of each winding as well as the positive
and zero sequence components of the leakage impedances can be specified;
c) Test Data: In addition to the Lossless type, the core and winding loss parameters can be
specified in a Performance section, based on the Full-Load Power Loss or on the X/R
Ratio;
d) Impedance Matrix (Circuit Data): The positive and zero sequence components of the self
and mutual reactance and resistance for the windings can be specified;
e) Equivalent Circuit Data: A circuit diagram of the transformer can be used for the
specification.
Selecting any of these items will yield a different data editor in the Characteristics tab, as shown
in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Characteristics screen for different Data Types. Top left: Ideal. Top right: Lossless. Middle left:
Test Data with winding performance as Full-Load Power Loss. Middle right: Test Data with winding
performance as X/R ratio. Bottom left: Impedance Matrix. Bottom right: Circuit Data.
3.1.1.2 Grounding Tab

Different options will be available for grounding the transformers (no grounding, solid
grounding or through impedances). These will depend on the transformer type and also on

which of the HIFREQ or SPLITS/ROW modules is used. Figure 5 shows the different grounding
modes that are planned.
Figure 5: Grounding tab in SPLITS/ROW (left) and HIFREQ (right).

3.1.2 Transformer Mapping Panel
Locating the transformer in the model and connecting its terminals to bus/phase numbers
(SPLITS/ROW) or conductors (HIFREQ) will be done in a much more intuitive and visual way
than before. Figure 6 gives an overview of what this specification will look like.
Figure 6: Transformer Mapping in SPLITS/ROW (left) and HIFREQ (right).
4 Soil Resistivity Measurements Editor

Correctly interpreting soil resistivity measurements is an important step for any grounding
study and is accomplished using SES’s well-known RESAP computation module. This program
automatically searches for the optimized parameter values that best describe a soil’s electrical
structure as measured by any type of 4-pin surface measurements, namely the thickness and
resistivity of the various soil layers. Several numerical techniques are available to obtain the
best fit between measured results and computed results based on the proposed equivalent earth
model. The choice is made by the user who also has control on various parameters controlling
the algorithms.

4.1 Objectives
A proper soil resistivity analysis being one of the pillars of a sound grounding study, we want the
successor to the RESAP interface to expose better and make more accessible the different tools
that are already available such as to encourage the user to take full advantage of the soil data
and come up with different soil models that will ensure a conservative study. The objective of the
project is to develop a simple-to-use common Soil Resistivity Measurements Editor module that
will be reused in any SES application/module that will need an interpretation of a soil structure
directly from resistivity measurements performed in the field. These modules are currently
CDEGS’s RESAP, AutoGridPro (AGP) and AutoGroundDesign (AGD), but we could imagine that
the Soil Resistivity Measurements Editor be eventually called from the Soil Editor module as
well, which will be found in a larger array of other software modules, like MALT, MALZ,
HIFREQ, ROWCAD, etc.
4.2 What to expect?

4.2.1 Enhanced Workflow
One of the primary motivations is to reduce the amount of switching between the different input
screens and between the different Specify/Compute/Examine sessions. Since a RESAP analysis
is an iterative process that can be automated to some extent, but that also requires judgment
from the user in the selection of some of the analysis parameters, we find it interesting to
combine the input and output screens to make the experience more dynamic. The interface, a
prototype of which is shown in Figure 7, will be laid out such as to suggest a natural workflow
and promote good working habits for correctly interpreting soil data.
Figure 7: View of the prototype for the future RESAP interface. Inputs and outputs coexist in the same
window to make the iteration process more dynamic.

4.2.2 More Accessible Help and Guidance

As for most of the other new SES applications, a ribbon will be added to give easy access to
standard help and tutorial documents, but also to papers related to the topic of soil
measurements and their interpretation.
An Issues List, which has now become a familiar diagnosis tool, will also be integrated. It will
guide users through the interface by defining tasks that remain to be accomplished (an example
being the need to enter data for at least 5 points before the analysis can be run). It will also flag
data input errors such as negative values of resistance or resistivity, etc.
4.2.3 New Features
More than just an interface update, the new program will be a platform to develop a host of new
features.
 Printable and importable datasheets will be made available from the application, which
will help the user first obtain and record reliable data from the field, if he is not in a
position to bring the software with him while performing the measurements, and then
easily transfer the data back to the application with minimal manipulations to be
performed.
 The data visualizer (graphs) will be made interactive, providing a whole new means of
guiding the algorithms and finding new families of solutions to the minimization
problem that RESAP solves.
 New tools are being developed to help combine low-contrast layers and achieve soil
structures with minimal layering that still represent adequately the data.
 Multiple analysis runs on the same data will be able to coexisting side-by-side, making it
easier to compare the analysis results and select the preferred ones or use them as the
basis for the next iteration run.
5 Transient Analyzes in CDEGS

A transient problem analyzed in CDEGS is first performed in the frequency domain and then an
Inverse Fourier Transform is applied to the superposition of the frequency domain computation
results modulated by the amplitude of the surge current in order to obtain results in the time
domain. The HIFREQ (or MALZ) network is modeled in SESCAD whereas the transient input
signal is defined in FFTSES. During the computation, FFTSES determines for which frequencies
the network model should be computed. This whole operation can be performed manually by
running HIFREQ (or MALZ) and FFTSES successively, until the necessary number of
frequencies is determined such that the error on the output signal is negligible. On the other
hand, the AutoTransient tool can be used instead, to do this whole iterative process
automatically. However, even when using this last option, there are a number of issues that need
to be addressed. For example, the network model and the input signal have to be defined with
two different software modules, i.e. HIFREQ (or MALZ) and FFTSES. Also, the integration of
the Inverse-FFT database management tools could be improved, etc.
Requests were made to SES over the years to provide an improved tool to carry out transient
studies. Based on those comments and wishes, SES has decided to develop a new integrated tool
called SESTransient. This new application is actually an upgrade of AutoTransient. It will be
standalone, which means that the user will be able to open and modify the FFTSES and the
network files directly in the interface, without having to define them in different programs. The
features of this new program are briefly presented in Section 5.2. Before that, a revamped
version of FFTSES is also proposed in the following section.
5.1 FFTSES
The improved FFTSES module is currently under development. The major improvement is the
new user interface (UI), which will be more intuitive, more convenient, more flexible to use and
moreover, enhanced features will be available. Enhancements of the new FFTSES module are:
 Real time computation of the input signal frequency spectrum;

 Import of arbitrary transient signals in different file formats;
 Export of the computed transient signals under different file formats;
 Addition of signal windowing functions and/or transition functions to input signals.
A screenshot of the FFTSES UI is shown in Figure 8. This figure shows how the user can define a
Single RLC input signal. Most of the parameter definition and features available in the existing
FFTSES program will be kept. A novelty is the input signal frequency spectrum plot (magnitude
and phase) shown in real time, as seen in the graphs at the right of the UI in Figure 8.
Figure 8: New FFTSES user interface.
5.2 SESTransient
SESTransient is the next generation of AutoTransient. This standalone application will be able
to link a FFTSES template file, that describes the input signal (e.g., the lightning surge), to a
network file that defines the conductor network and the quantities to be computed, as is
currently the case with AutoTransient. However, it will be possible to define both files
completely in the SESTransient new program. As a matter of fact, the user will be able to
perform a transient analysis completely within this new application without even knowing that
different input files are generated. Furthermore, the program will have the following new
features:
 In addition to using the MALZ and HIFREQ computation engines for the analysis, it will
also be possible to study a transient problem by using the ROW
(TRALIN/SPLITS/MALZ) module;
 The user will be able to model scenarios with multiple energization sources;
 It will be possible to model nonlinear devices (e.g. surge arresters) in the networks [1];
 It will be possible to carry out the study considering frequency dependent soil structures.
The SESTransient UI will look like a frame in which the FFTSES (see Figure 8) and the network
modules will be embedded. As an illustrating example, Figure 9 shows a prototype of the
application in which a SESCAD window is opened. Following this, a system network can be
defined in the program.
Viewing the results will also be much simpler. The application will call the Computation and
Configuration Plots module such that the user can see the results in the SESTransient window.
Moreover, it will be possible to request any quantity (touch voltage, GPR, etc.) to display the
results once the run is completed, without rebuilding the computation database and applying
the Inverse-FFT to the selected quantity, as it is currently the case with AutoTransient. An
example of how the results will be presented to the user is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 9: The SESTransient prototype. In this example, the Network screen is selected in the left menu,
leading to the opening of a SESCAD window in which the network is defined.

Figure 10: An example of how the results will be presented in SESTransient.
6 Computation and Configuration Plot & Report Processor

The new and easy-to-use Configuration and Computation Plot and Report (CCPR) processor is
currently under development to facilitate plotting and reporting for all CDEGS computation
modules and software packages. The development team tried to take into account most of the
users’ wishes from previous Users Group meetings which were not addressed before and much
more.
The new CCPR module will offer a wide variety of plots, graphs and reports via a flexible and
interactive interface where the selection of the different quantities to plot and their associated
options will be simplified. The new module will support all the functions of the current CDEGS
plotting and reporting engine, with the possibility of customizing the display to suit the user’s
needs. Plot customization, navigation, saving and exporting will be included. A new module,
SESThreshold [2], will allow specifying different plotting thresholds for different zones, for
example for the safety evaluation.
The new module will be intuitive, interactive and flexible. It will be able to do charts, 2D spot
plots and full 3D plots. It will also be able to show input data alongside results to better
contextualize results, and also allow for quick edits and changes to adjust the models and rerun
cases quickly and efficiently.
The indispensable plotting macros will continue to be available and will be easier to record,
combine, edit and manage. A library system will be implemented that will make it easier to
regroup plots together. Options to compare plots side-by-side or in superposition are also in the
works.
Figure 11 below shows a possible rendition of the new CCPR module.
Figure 11: Possible appearance for the Configuration and Computation Plot and Report Module.
7 Conclusion
As always, SES is committed to provide the best quality software to its clients. This commitment
translates this year, amongst other things, into a major programming effort to enhance and
rejuvenate SES software interfaces for its trusted computation modules. Some of the new
programs are already available as stable versions, others have been made available as Beta
versions, while others are not yet advanced enough to be released, as is the case for the
SESDatabase, the Transformer Editor, the Soil Resistivity Measurements Editor, the Transient
Analysis tools, and the Computation and Configuration Plot & Report Processor projects
presented here.
It is important for SES to present the work currently in progress in order to keep you informed
of what is to come and also to give you an opportunity to provide your feedback and comments
at an early stage of SES software development.
Stay tuned as development is picking up momentum; we trust that our users will enjoy the new
generation of interfaces and the new features they will bring. We do also have even more
projects on the table, now at an embryonic stage, which were not revealed here...
But that’s for another year.

8 References
[1] S. Franiatte, S. Fortin, J.-M. Lina, M.-A. Joyal and F. P. Dawalibi, "Treatment of Nonlinear Devices in
the Frequency Domain," in CDEGS Users' Conference Proceedings, San Diego, California, USA, 2015.
[2] A. Choubey, M. Deslongchamps, S. Fortin, A. Hajiaboli, S. Lefebvre, Z. Luo, N. Mitskevitch, R. D.

Southey and F. P. Dawalibi, "Introduction to SESThreshold," in CDEGS Users' Conference

VIIIIMPROVEMENTS IN ROWCAD
Maxime Daigle, Eric Dawalibi, Luis Valcárcel, Christian J. Voyer

1 Introduction
This past year has been marked by an increased demand on the Right-of-Way Pro/ROWCAD
software package. Consequently, we pursue its development such as to make it always easier for
new users to learn how to use it for producing high-level interference studies, and for existing
users to perform them even faster. This article presents the latest improvements that were
developed for the ROWCAD interface.
2 A Complete System Configuration in ROWCAD

Thanks to the Cross Section mode and the addition of the Connect Satellite to Reference
Conductor and Terminal Energizations in ROWCAD, it is now possible to specify an entire
system configuration from ROWCAD, as long as no central site connections or transformers are
needed. The system configuration can be imported into the Right-of-Way program in a single
action, saving the user not only time, but reducing the likelihood of inserting errors when
performing minor (or even major) network adjustments.
2.1 Cross-Section Mode: Now the Default Choice

The Beta release of the Cross-Section mode has demonstrated that Right-of-Way systems can be
defined much faster and much more intuitively, and clearly, than previously. Its success prompted
us to now make this specification mode the default option when creating new systems. It is also
now stable enough, having been used in various projects and trainings, for us to remove the Beta
flag and make this a fully supported feature.
2.2 Connect Satellite to Reference Conductor

In the Paths panel, for each path, you can choose to connect all conductors in a path based either
on the number of sections separating each connection (Mitigated Pipe1 in Figure 1), or based on
a separation distance, a feature newly available in the Right-of-Way program [1] (Mitigated Pipe2
in Figure 1). Simply check the checkbox under the Options column and specify via the available
drop box either Regions or Length and enter the desired number of sections/separation
distance.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page VIII-1

Figure 1: Paths panel showing the new Connect Conductors options.
2.3 Terminal Energizations

The familiar Right-of-Way Terminal Energization screen is now incorporated into ROWCAD. To
access it, an energization button in the Terminals tab has been added for each terminal (Figure
2).
Figure 2: Access to the Terminal Energization screen is granted through the Terminals panel.
The terminal energizations are defined in the well-known manner. The screen has been enhanced
to improve the user experience and reduce potential errors. Fields that are not relevant for a given
Energization Status will be displayed as such.
Figure 3 demonstrates the various features of the new energization screen. A new Open option is
available. The voltages, currents and source impedances can all be individually specified in either
Polar or Cartesian notation by clicking on the or symbol directly in the table for the
desired format. An added flexibility is that you can specify a mixture of Polar and Cartesian data
formats for different quantities of a phase.
Page VIII-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

Figure 3: The new Terminal Energization panel.
3 Soil File Import from RESAP

ROWCAD now allows to directly import RESAP fit results via the RESAP share file, SF_jobID.f11.
You can now point to this file when specifying the soil structure of an existing soil type, instead of
having to specify the soil structure in an intermediate MALZ file.
A yet more powerful feature is the ability to import multiple SF_*.f11 files in one action by clicking
on the Import button in the soil definition panel. The dialog that appears allows you to make
multiple selections, and the necessary soil types will be automatically created.
As before, an informative tooltip appears when the mouse is hovered above the link to the soil file,
providing a description of the soil structure it defines.
4 Additional Conveniences
4.1 Units Conversion
ROWCAD now allows you to change not only the unit labels, but also perform a unit conversion
if needed (Figure 4).
Figure 4: System units change pop-up message and conversion options.
4.2 Clearer Subfolder Naming Convention

A ROWCAD system in Cross Section mode produces two subfolders, for cross section and phase
leakage definitions, that now include the job ID specified for the RC_jobID.f05 file (Figure 5).
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page VIII-3
Figure 5: Folders related to a given ROWCAD project are now clearly identified as such with the project’s
job ID.
This new naming convention allows you to have multiple ROWCAD projects in the same folder
and keep the cross sections, phase leakage definitions and outputs clearly separated.
In addition, inside the CrossSectionDefinition folder, only the cross sections used by the
ROWCAD model are listed. If cross sections are deleted from the ROWCAD project, they will be
stored in a Backup folder in the CrossSectionDefinition.
All ROWCAD projects previously created will still load properly, though once saved, they will
follow this new folder naming convention.
5 Conclusion
This year’s improvements address some of the most demanded features for ROWCAD, namely
the direct import of soil files and a single-step import into Right-of-Way. At the same time, an
important milestone was set by removing the Beta flag on the Cross-Section specification mode
and by introducing the Connect Conductors feature and Energization screen: a complete basic
system can be specified entirely in ROWCAD, with no additional data requiring to be inputted in
Right-of-Way’s Build System Configuration module. Only a few more advanced or rarely used
items still have no available input in ROWCAD, but these will be included in a relatively near
future. For instance, as soon as the Transformer Data Editor [2] currently under development
will be ready, it will be included into ROWCAD.
6 References
[1] Y. Li, "Right-Of-Way Software Package Improvements," in CDEGS Users' Conference Proceedings,
San Diego, California, USA, 2015.
[2] SES, "Progress Status on Future SES Module Interfaces," in CDEGS Users' Conference Proceedings,
San Diego, California, USA, 2015.
Page VIII-4 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

IXIMPROVEMENTS IN SESCROSSSECTION
Michel Chami, Maxime Daigle, Eric Dawalibi, Stéphane Franiatte, Greg Noel,
Luis Valcárcel and Christian J. Voyer
Email: info@email.com, Web Site: http://www.sestech.com/
1 Introduction
The SESCrossSection module is now reaching maturity since its introduction in 2013. It has been
evolving hand-in-hand with the many modules that now use it, and between ROWCAD, CorrCAD
[1], SESTralin [2] and SESeBundle [3], it is a flexible and consistent tool for the specification of
cross sections.
This article presents the general and module-specific improvements incorporated in the last year.
2 New Configuration Modes

The main objective of revamping the interface of our software, and the creation of light reusable
modules such as SESCrossSection is to simplify data input and workflow in order to improve user
experience. As part of this endeavour, SESCrossSection plays a pivotal role as a data input hub for
all cross-section specifications. The different configuration modes are designed to prepare the
data in the proper format for each CDEGS module using cross-section information: SESTralin,
ROWCAD and the new CorrCAD.
Cross-sections can be prepared in the proper configuration mode (as shown in Figure 1) as a
separate task using the standalone SESCrossSection (from the Tools folder) and be subsequently
imported in the appropriate module when needed. Another option is to call an embedded version
directly from another module, SESTralin, ROWCAD or CorrCAD, in which case the configuration
mode is already set.
Figure 1: Selecting from the various available configuration modes in SESCrossSection.

When the configuration mode changes, the behavior of the application remains consistent, while
fields or options not appropriate for a given configuration mode are blocked thereby avoiding
potential errors.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page IX-1

3 More Flexible Conductor Specification

You can now specify conductor and insulation dimensions using either inner and outer radii or
just the thickness of layers as shown in Figure 2. For coatings, a drop down option has also been
added, allowing you to specify either Resistivity, Unit Length Resistance, or Unit Area Resistance.
Figure 2: New conductor specification interface showing the option to specify a conductive or insulating
layer thickness or inner and outer radii. The coating characteristics now accept Unit Area and Unit Length
resistances to be specified.
Concentric cables and pipe-type cables inevitably require a large amount of information to be
inputted. In order to keep this task as simple as possible, the cable specification interface has been
simplified to focus on only one conductor/insulation layer at a time with arrows to navigate
between them, which greatly lightens the view and, like coated conductors, you can specify either
the successive outer radii of each layer, or enter layer thickness, as shown in Figure 3Figure 3.
Page IX-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

Figure 3: Simplified cable specification interface. The arrows allow you to navigate between the various
layers to be specified. You can enter either a layer thickness or an outer radius (upon asserting the value
all other fields will be automatically updated).
The phase list is now also more flexible. You can control the position of a phase in the phase list
and the phase number independently, as shown in Figure 4. The phase number can now be
directly edited in the list without changing the display order of the phases, and the order of the
list can be changed without changing the phase numbering.
Figure 4: The phase number and phase position in the phase list are now independent. By clicking on the
phase number, you can edit the number with the keyboard.
Depending on the Configuration Mode, the program will flag an error if a gap in the phase
numbering is present and not allowed (in Right-of-Way mode for example).
An Eliminate Conductor entry has been added in the phase assignment list, for the relevant
Configuration Modes. It is permanently present at the end of the list, as shown in Figure 5, and
reflects the standard phase 0 assignment.
Figure 5: The Eliminate Conductor option, basically a phase 0 assignment, has been added to the
phase assignment list.
4 More interactive
Various improvements to the warnings, tasks and errors messages were introduced to help locate
the source of the problem by making them more explicit (Figure 6). The drag-and-drop
functionality has also been added.
Figure 6: Issues list showing new and more targeted messages.
The SESCrossSection module now also allows you not only to change the units labels, but also
perform a conversion if needed. Upon changing the system of units, you will see the message
shown in Figure 7, and can decide to perform the conversion or not.
Page IX-4 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

Figure 7: Units conversion option screen. You can choose to perform a units conversion rather than only
changing the units labels.
5 Conclusion
This year’s improvements in SESCrossSection continue to improve the user experience, and
allows the module to be applicable to more and more modules. Looking to the future, many of
SESCrossSection’s added features will be driven by the modules in which it will be incorporated,
and the addition of design features that are geared towards simplifying the data input process
given the broad variety of ways in which engineers are provided network configurations.
6 Reference
[1] Y. Li, M. Chami, Q. Han, E. Dawalibi, L. Feng, M. Zhang, C. Cheng, S. Baron, J. Xie, H. Bi, S. Fortin,
F. P. Dawalibi and D. Mankar, "CorrCAD and its Applications," in CDEGS Users' Conference
[2] M. Chami, M. Daigle, E. Dawalibi, S. Franiatte, G. Noel, M. Siahrang, L. Valcárcel and C. J. Voyer,
"Improvements in SESTralin," in CDEGS Users' Conference Proceedings, San Diego, California,
USA, 2015.
[3] C. Cheng, E. Dawalibi, S. Franiatte, J. Liu, O. Ramos-Leaños and Y. Yang, "SESeBundle: Find an
Equivalent Single Conductor Representing a Bundle of Conductors," in CDEGS Users' Conference

UGM 2015 – SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
XIMPROVEMENTS IN SESTRALIN
Michel Chami, Maxime Daigle, Eric Dawalibi, Stéphane Franiatte, Greg Noel, Majid Siahrang,
Luis Valcárcel and Christian J. Voyer
Abstract
This article presents improvements made in the new SESTralin interface, which was presented last year as a prototype.
Many changes aimed at improving user productivity were implemented since then. Although the new interface is still
released in Beta form for testing purposes, the hopes are to remove this label soon. Despite its unofficial status, new
features are however already being implemented in SESTralin that are not, and will not be, available in the classical
CDEGS TRALIN interface. Examples of this are the possibility of defining various types of Repetition Patterns and also
the newly supported Multi-Component Coaxial Cable model.
1 Introduction
Many changes to the new SESTralin (note the new name) were implemented in the last year after
unveiling this new interface at the 2014 Users’ Group Meeting in Newport, Rhode Island [1]. As with
all the new SES modules under development, these changes are not merely cosmetic in nature, but are
aimed at improving user productivity through a logical data input flow, a streamlined interface and a
smarter error detection and correction mechanism.
2 Improvements to SESTralin
2.1 Simpler and More Intuitive Data Input
SESTralin is a very powerful tool which can perform several functions. Its main purpose is to
accurately calculate self and mutual impedances, but it also has the capability to compute sequence
components, electric and magnetic induction on an exposed line and transmission line environmental
parameters such as electromagnetic fields, it can thus require a non-negligible amount of input data.
In order to avoid overwhelming the user by crowding the display, data input has been separated into
four panels, as shown in Figure 1.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page X-1

a)
b)
Page X-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

c)
d)
Figure 1: The four data input panels: a) Soil Model, b) Cross Section, c) Induction and d) Energization.
The panels have been ordered to reflect a natural and logical workflow: soil definition, cross-section
layout and conductor characteristics, all the information pertaining to electric and magnetic induction,
and finally energization and fields calculations. By default, tabs allow a quick navigation between these
panels, but the user has full liberty to rearrange his workspace and dock panels in different
configurations. There is always the possibility to revert to the default configuration, but the software

will also keep the users last saved configuration. In addition to the warning and error messages found
in the now well-known Issues List, conflicting data is also flagged in red directly where it can be
corrected and a tooltip message explains the nature of the conflict or error, making the localization
and correction of erroneous data simpler and faster, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Error or conflicting data is flagged directly where it can be corrected, with a tooltip explanation
indicating what corrective action is required.
To further assist the user in his cross-section definition, a viewer where the conductors’ positions are
displayed is always apparent, as can be seen in Figure 3. This is a major improvement over former
versions where several clicks were needed to get to a very limited display of the designed cross-section,
only showing the neutrals or the phase conductors at a time when in Circuit mode. This new viewer
is dynamic and it is possible to zoom in on a selected component to examine its positioning, a
particularly useful feature when modeling the inner cables of pipe-type cables. The feature is also
present, as shown in Figure 4, in a mini window for the complex phase assignment of concentric cables
or pipe-type cables. In this case, the layer being currently edited is highlighted to reduce the risk of
confusion.
Figure 3: Cross-section display from the new SESTralin (right) compared to the classic version equivalent
(left).

Figure 4: The viewer highlights the phase being edited during complex phase assignment for cables and pipe-
type cables.
2.2 New Configuration Modes

One of the prerequisites for our new generation of modules is that they should be fully compatible with
input files generated by former versions of our software suite. Therefore, the new SESTralin supports
the three different input modes: Single, Circuit and Group, selectable from the Cross-Section
ribbon tab (see Figure 5). Unlike the previous TRALIN version, the interface and data input are very
similar from one mode to another, so a user will not find himself lost when using another mode for the
first time. The only difference in the interface appearance is that an additional column for the
associated circuit is present when in the Circuit mode.
Figure 5: Mode selection in SESTralin.
2.3 Ribbon and Quick-Access Toolbar

Like all new SES applications for the CDEGS software suite, the new version of SESTralin is
equipped with a ribbon, a feature most users instinctively know how to use because of its ubiquitous
presence in the most widespread software. Four different versions of the ribbon are available based on
the selected tab in the upper portion of the software window: Home, Options, Help and Cross-
Section, as shown in Figure 6. In the Home ribbon, the user can add or remove computational
frequencies, request additional computations, such as Bundle Reduction, Sequence
Components, Induction levels and Environmental parameters. The button Compute is present
on this ribbon as well. The Options ribbon deals with customization of the interface with options to
select the display language, the font size of the interface as well as options related to panel visibility. A
quick way to return to the default layout is also present and can be especially useful when the user has
customized his workspace to the point where he hid panels. The Help ribbon presents many
interesting and useful features related to supporting the user complete his model correctly. He will
have access to examples, targeted How To… documents, video tutorials when available, the frequently
asked questions database, and shortcuts to resources available on the SES website. Moreover, should
the user not find answers to a particular question, a new option to send directly the project files to SES
support will be made available, which will ensure the support staff has all the required information to
process the help request efficiently. Finally, the Cross-Section ribbon provides the opportunity to
change the configuration mode, to review the system phases and the component types. It is also
possible to edit the component types by calling the embedded Cross-Section module by using the Edit
button once a component type is selected. Additionally, a quick-access toolbar is available outside of
the ribbon at all times to rapidly save or start the computation; it can be placed above or under the
ribbon (see Figure 7).
Figure 6: The four different ribbon iterations (starting from the top): Home, Options, Help and Cross-
Section.
Figure 7 : The quick-access toolbar can be placed above or below the ribbon.
The application backstage was greatly improved as well. The Project Info View (Figure 8) is the first
view presented to the user when the application launches. It contains all the information the user
needs to input before starting to work on a project. The Open View (Figure 9) allows the user to quickly
access important SES directories, as well as his recent documents and folders.
Figure 8 : The ribbon backstage Project Info view.

Figure 9 : The ribbon backstage Open Views.

2.4 Induction Panel

The new induction panel shown in Figure 10 was created to clarify the data input required to perform
induction studies. In the previous TRALIN version, the induction input data was specified in two
separate tables for electric and magnetic induction, respectively. This led to confusion where the user
was not certain which fields were required. With the new panel, all the conductors declared are listed;
the energization can be specified in the standard arrangement used throughout the CDEGS software
suite, in polar or Cartesian format. Depending on the type of induction requested (magnetic, electric
or both), the software will use only part or all the entered data. The conductors, whether they are
energized or induced, are now identified by their name instead of numbers, which will help reduce
confusion and errors. Finally, the induction diagrams showing the principles of magnetic and electric
induction, present in the former version, are still available and can be called using an expander button.
Figure 10: The new interface of the Induction panel.
2.5 Energization panel

When the TRALIN model is built in Circuit mode, it is possible to compute several environmental
parameters directly instead of using the separate SESEnviroPlus module. The quantities that can be
calculated this way are the magnetic field, the electric field and the scalar potentials. Energization is
specified (Figure 11) using a reference voltage which represents either the phase-to-phase or the phase-
to-neutral potential difference. A collapsible panel allows to select the number of sides for the
polygonal approximation of the circular cross-section of conductors, this number must be between 3
and 197. Once the number of sides is selected, the strip to be labelled as #1 can be selected by specifying
the angle α it describes with the Y axis. The other strip numbers will be incremented counterclockwise
starting from this first strip. Another collapsible panel was designed to define the different observation
points and profiles necessary for the various electromagnetic fields computations. Three tabs allow to
navigate between individual points, linear profiles or the conductor surfaces, the latter making
observation of the electric field on a conductor surface possible. These three tabs are each provided
with a schematic representation of the point/profile/surface definition. For complex systems involving
numerous circuits and phases, the main energization table can be expanded to fill the whole panel
space.

Figure 11: The Energization panel.
2.6 Impedance Matrix

Instead of requiring a distinct Examine session, the results from the TRALIN computation are
displayed within the main interface, making it easy to correlate the input specifications with the
obtained results. Previously, the .F27 file was displayed as is. Now it is parsed and its content
formatted into impedance matrices that can be copied for use in other programs (Figure 12).
Figure 12: The impedance values in the Computation Results Panel.

At present, only the Self and Mutual impedances are displayed, but results from the Induction and
Energization computations will also be obtainable from this panel in the future.
2.7 Multi-Component and Multi-Layer Concentric Cables

The graphical user interface of the SESTralin module now supports the modeling of multi-
component and multi-layer concentric cables (either as a single cable or as a group of concentric cables

inside a metallic enclosure). Figure 13 shows the Cable Type Editor window through which the number
of cable components and layers can be defined, as well as their geometrical and physical properties.
The technical aspects of this new feature are described in [2].
Figure 13: The Cable Type Editor window in SESTralin.
3 Conclusion and Future Plans

Thanks to continued development, SESTralin is no longer at the stage of prototype, as was the case
when it was first introduced last year. Although the new interface is still released in Beta form for
testing purposes, the hopes are to remove this label soon. Indeed, a little more testing is required
before we can confidently make SESTralin the official input method for the trusted TRALIN
computation module. Despite its, as yet, unofficial status, new features are however already being
implemented in SESTralin that are not, and will not be, available in the classical CDEGS TRALIN
interface. Examples of this are the possibility of defining various types of Repetition Patterns and also
the newly supported Multi-Component Coaxial Cable model.
The input side of things being mostly taken care of now, as well as the Computation session by having
a Computation Trace panel expose the progress of the calculations, the plans now are to go beyond
the capabilities of the previous TRALIN Examine session interface by presenting results for the
Induction and Energization computations directly within the main interface, as is done for the
impedance matrix, without the need for launching a separate session or program, or for fetching the
results manually from the F09 file. Another objective will be to use the SESSoilModelEditor, once
it is ready, to specify the soil structure, in the same way that the cross-section specification makes
heavy reuse of the core elements of the SESCrossSection module. Similarly, related modules will
also be linked, like the new SESeBundle tool [3]. Finally, extensive documentation is to follow soon:
new How To… documents will be written and new video tutorials will be created to populate the Help
tab of the ribbon.
4 References
[1] M. Chami, E. Dawalibi, S. Franiatte, G. Noel, L. Valcárcel and C. J. Voyer, "A New Interface for TRALIN,"
in CDEGS Users' Conference Proceedings, Newport, Rhode Island, USA, 2014.
[2] M. Siahrang, S. Fortin, Y. Yang, E. Dawalibi, S. Franiatte and F. Dawalibi, "Multi-Component Coaxial
Cable Model in TRALIN," in CDEGS Users' Conference Proceedings, San Diego, California, USA, 2015.

[3] C. Cheng, E. Dawalibi, S. Franiatte, J. Liu, O. Ramos-Leaños and Y. Yang, "SESeBundle: Find an
Equivalent Single Conductor Representing a Bundle of Conductors," in CDEGS Users' Conference

XIRIGHT-OF-WAY SOFTWARE PACKAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Yexu Li
Safe Engineering Services and Technologies ltd.

1 Introduction
Since the last Users’ Group conference in 2014, there are several new features that have been
implemented in the Right-of-Way software package (ROW). The major enhancements are:
 It is now possible to import RowCAD project output files of a complete network into
ROW directly, without any further data definition in ROW.
 It is possible to connect automatically satellite conductors to their reference conductor
based on the line length, in addition to the sections, both in the circuit model (SPLITS)
and in the conductive or total interference model (MALZ).
 It is possible to simulate multiple phase-to-ground faults In the Monitor Fault module.
The current interpolation will be made on all faulted phases. The fault current
contributions from all terminals and all phases can be displayed for all fault locations,
allowing users to verify that the fault current interpolation was made correctly before
starting the computations.
 Fault locations can be specified based on towers in addition to sections in the Monitor
Fault module.
 Several new plot options have been added for steady state and fault conditions in the
Advanced Plot module.
 It is now possible to calculate critical electric breakdown separation distances to avoid an
arc flashover using Sunde equations based on powerline fault currents and soil resistivity
values measured along the right of way.
 The maximum ground potential difference (GPD) envelope between the exposed line and
the nearest tower can be computed under fault conditions. Therefore, it is possible to
estimate the critical flashover distance due to the soil breakdown under fault conditions.
 The naming conventions RowCAD for importing projects in RowCAD have been revised
in order to have multiple RowCAD projects under the same folder without mixing the
data between the projects.
 The connections between the satellite conductors and the reference conductors are only
made on the non-dummy terminal sections in the Total Interference module.
 A name can be defined for a ground point in the Terminal Energization screen.
2 Importing a Complete Right of Way System Network from

RowCAD
The classical method for building a right of way network in the ROW program is to go through a
series of tabular interfaces where the coordinates of all paths that are present in the right of way
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XI-1

must be entered. RowCAD, a software package that describes a right of way network in a user-
friendly graphical interface, has been introduced since a few years.
The integration of ROW with RowCAD and other SES Software modules is a continuous effort.
For the first time this year a complete right of way network can now be defined through the
RowCAD interface. It is now possible to directly import the complete network generated by
RowCAD including terminal energizations and satellite connections into ROW. A complete right
of way network can be defined in RowCAD (i.e., cross sections, phase leakages, line coordinates,
terminal energizations, etc.) and then imported into ROW without the need to define additional
data in ROW. On the other hand, you can always modify or continue to define additional data
after it is imported in ROW, if the RowCAD network data that was imported is incomplete or
needs to be changed. As before, you can also import any block of data (e.g., Cross Sections,
Attribute Sets, Terminal Regions, etc.) into ROW without affecting other data.
A new option has been added in the Import… screen that allows importing an entire RowCAD
network data after erasing all existing data.
Finally, the Cross-Section import mode becomes the default import option in the new ROW.
3 Automatic Connection of Satellite Conductors to the

Reference Conductor Based on Line Length
Previously, ROW allowed you to quickly connect satellite conductors to their reference
conductor at regular sections intervals. Now ROW offers the option to connect satellite
conductors to their reference conductor at regular section or line length intervals, both in the
Page XI-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

circuit (SPLITS) and conductive (MALZ) interference models. One of the main applications of
this feature is to provide a flexible way to connect mitigation wires to the reference line (i.e.,
exposed line) at regular intervals in order to model DC decoupler locations more accurately.
Currently, for a RowCAD project that has the “Force Region Cuts at Tower Locations”
option turned on, a region cut will be made at each tower for each power line path. As a result,
the length of a region can be difficult to estimate for a project that includes multiple power lines.
The existing option allowing connections at regular section intervals may not able to model
connections at regular length intervals if sections have irregular lengths. In this case, modeling a
mitigation wire connected to its reference conductor (e.g., exposed line) accurately at regular
spacing requires the following tasks:
 Select Create Circuit to generate the original circuit SPLITS file, i.e.,
SP_ScenarioName_0.f05, without any connections;
 Apply “Mutual Data Modifications - Insert/Replace Connection Impedance”
in the Modify Circuit module to connect the mitigation wire to its reference line at the
sections that match the correct spacing request manually. A new SPLITS circuit is
created, for example, a new file, SP_ScenarioName_1.F05;
 Process SP_ScenarioName_1.F05 for steady state conditions. The induced potentials on
the exposed line are obtained;
 Create a MALZ template file in the Total Interference module that contains the
physical bonding conductors between the exposed line and the mitigation wire at the
right locations. This MALZ template file is then imported into the MALZ total
interference model files when they are created by ROW.
The Connect the satellite conductor(s) to the reference conductor… function can now
be based on a “Span” length or a specific “Length”. If the “Length” option is selected in the
Define Main/Principal Path screen (which can be accessed using Define Cross-Section in
the Build Network System screen), ROW will carry out all the tasks described above
automatically. For example, the following screen requests ROW to connect the mitigation wire
(Phase #6) to the exposed line (Phase #3) every 300 m. ROW will automatically connect the
mitigation wire conductor to the exposed line at sections that meet the 300 m spacing between
the connections in both the SPLITS circuit and the total interference MALZ models.
More precisely, the program will:
 Automatically call the Modify Circuit module immediately after the circuit is created
with the Create Circuit module to connect the exposed line and the mitigation wire
with a very small connection impedance (i.e., 0.0001 +0.0j ohms) between Phase #3 (the
exposed line) and Phase #6 (the mitigation wire) at the sections that satisfy the defined
spacing interval (e.g., every 300 m) in the original SPLITS circuit file.
 Automatically connect the exposed line and the mitigation wire physically in the Total
Interference MALZ file with an insulated conductor at the defined spacing interval
when a MALZ file is created in the Total Interference module. There is no need to
create and import a MALZ template file that contains the connection conductors at the
expected locations.

4 Connection of Satellite Conductors to the Reference

Conductor Applied only on Non-Dummy or Non-Zero
Impedance Regions or Sections
Previously, when connections of satellites to their reference conductor were requested, the
connections would be made throughout the entire right of way network at the defined interval,
whether the reference conductor or satellite conductor did exist or not.
When a connection is made for a section where either the reference conductor or the satellite
conductor does not exist (i.e., it is a dummy conductor or zero-impedance short circuit), two
unexpected things can happen:
1) In the SPLITS circuit model, such unnecessary connections may introduce incorrect
paths for the current to flow in the circuit, possibly resulting in invalid computation
results. For example, a grounding impedance can be assigned to a dummy mitigation
wire section. In most cases, this impedance has no effect on the computations because
the mitigation wire is declared as dummy. When a connection is made between the
exposed line and the (dummy) mitigation wire, however, current can unexpectedly flow
from the exposed line to this specified mitigation wire grounding impedance even if the
mitigation wire is a dummy line. Another example is that, if a mitigation wire or exposed
line is short circuited between two portions, circuiting current can unexpectedly flow
between one point to another, resulting in unexpected induced potentials on the exposed
line.
2) In the conductive total interference model, an unnecessary connection conductor is
added at the location between the two conductors where one of the target conductors
does not even exist. This can make the MALZ model unnecessarily large and increase the
computation time. The situation can even become serious if it occurs over a large portion
of the right of way, in which case the model can become too large to process.

Last year, ROW was improved regarding this issue by generating connections only at sections
where both conductors exist at the requested interval locations. However, dummy out sections
or regions were accounted for only when the sections or regions were explicitly dummied in the
SPLITS section blocks definition (or automatically defined as dummy if a line does not exist in a
region in RowCAD). However, when a phase was defined as DUMMY in the Terminal
Energizations screen, the entire phase line was dummied out for the entire terminal and the
dummy sections were not recognized anymore. In the new version of ROW, connections will not
be made as long as a section or region is dummied out regardless of how the specification is
made (by section, by region or as a global dummy terminal energization). This applies to both
the circuit SPLITS model and the total interference (or conductive) MALZ model. Furthermore,
connections will not be made on any zero-impedance short circuit sections.

5 Current Interpolation on Multiple Phase to Ground Faults

The Monitor Fault module in ROW can compute the fault current contributed by different
system terminals to a fault at any location, provided that those fault currents are specified for a
few “known” locations. This calculation proceeds by interpolation.
In previous versions of ROW, this feature was restricted to single phase to ground faults only. In
the new version, this option was generalized to handle multiple (two or three) phase to ground
faults.
Two interpolation methods are available:
- Linear Interpolation:
𝑋
𝐼𝑋 = 𝐼𝑆 + (𝐼𝐸 − 𝐼𝑆 )
𝐿
- Thevenin Equivalent Impedance:
1 1 1 1 𝑋
= +( − )
𝐼𝑋 𝐼𝑆 𝐼𝐸 𝐼𝑆 𝐿
Where 𝐼𝑆 is the current at the first known location (assumed to be the closest to the terminal)
and 𝐼𝐸 is the current at the second known location (assumed to be the furthest from the
terminal). The distance between the first known location and the target fault location to be
investigated is 𝑋 (note that 𝑋 is negative if it is located before the first known fault location). The
distance between the two known fault locations is denoted by 𝐿.
Notes:
 ROW can interpolate the current on any number of phases, including non-faulted
phases. For a faulted phase, the interpolation is made as described above. For a non-
faulted phase, the interpolation is also computed based on the above formula, but the
current is specified as a load current energization instead of a fault current energization.
 Non-Faulted Phase: The reference direction for the definition of the current in the
“Fault Currents” screen is from the Terminal to the Central Site (as in the Energization

screen for steady state conditions). For a non-faulted phase, the current defined in the
terminals should therefore be 180° out of phase.
 If the target fault location is outside the known fault locations, an extrapolation instead
of an interpolation is needed for the higher contribution side. The extrapolation is based
on the linear function even when the Thevenin Equivalent Impedance interpolation
method is specified.
 Another application of this new feature is to define the “Monitor Faults” option along a
power line path that is associated with multiple phase numbers. For example, a path is
made with two power lines that connect at a substation. The two power lines are defined
with different phase number sets. It is now possible to apply the “Monitor Fault” option
along the path that includes two power lines since the program is able to interpolate
currents on multiple phase numbers.
6 Automatic Monitor Faults per Tower

Previously, ROW was able to quickly model faults at regular section intervals. When a RowCAD
project requested a “Force Region Cuts at Tower Locations” and “Create Region Cuts at
Intersections of Paths”, a region cut will be made along each tower for each power line path
and each intersection of paths. As a result a cut does not necessarily represent a tower for each
individual power line. Consequently, for those regions or sections that do not have tower
grounds, a fault shouldn’t be made unnecessarily at those locations. Now ROW offers the option
to monitor faults at regular section or actual tower intervals. When faults are requested at
regular tower intervals, ROW will account for real towers but will skip a region or section that
does not have a real tower ground (a tower is defined as any shunt impedance smaller than the
specified threshold value (e.g., 50 ohms) for the “Reference” phase.

7 Critical Arc Risk Distances to Pipelines Due to Phase to

Ground Faults
If an exposed line is in proximity to a tower ground of a faulted power line structure, there is a
risk of an electric arc developing from the power line grounding structure to the exposed line
which could result in damages to the exposed line or its coating.
Shield wires on a power line protect the phase conductors from lightning strikes and when a
fault does occur at a tower, the shield wire distributes the fault current to adjacent towers,
reducing the amount of fault current discharging at the faulted tower. This means that the
potential rise of the faulted tower would be less than if the entire fault current passed to ground
at a single tower, thereby also reducing the arcing distance. If there are no shield wires then all
of the fault current enters the earth at the faulted tower which produces a greater potential rise
at the tower and a greater arcing risk. This is generally the worst case.
A huge volume of research has taken place in the area of structures exposed to 60 Hz faults and
to lightning strikes. However, there is still disagreement among researchers on how to
determine the critical soil breakdown distance for electric arcs (flashovers) caused by power line
faults and lightning strikes on the tower.
Sunde1 has developed equations (1 and 2 below) to calculate the critical separation distance (r)
to avoid a lightning arc, based on the lightning fault current and soil resistivity as follows:
1) Distance at which soil ionization may occur for soils with a resistivity 𝜌 ≤ 100 𝑜ℎ𝑚 − 𝑚:

Arc distance = 0.08 * √𝐼 ∗ 𝜌 (1)

2) Distance that soil ionization may occur for soils with a resistivity 𝜌 ≥ 1000 𝑜ℎ𝑚 − 𝑚:
Arc distance = 0.047 * √𝐼 ∗ 𝜌 (2)

Where 𝜌 is the soil resistivity in ohm-m, I is the injected current (lightning or fault current) in
kA.
The Sunde equations originally are related to arcing due to lightning, hence the current in the
formula is the lightning current. For example, the lightning current is less than 100 kA.
Considering this as a worst case, the calculated critical separation distances for a 100 ohm-m
soil and 1000 ohm-m soil are 8 m and 14.8 m, respectively. Since Equation 1 produces a larger
critical distance than Equation 2 does, it is recommended that Equation 1 be used for a soil
resistivity between 100 ohm-m and 1000 ohm-m, to determine a conservative critical separation
distance for preventing a lightning arc.
For 60Hz power line fault currents, these two equations can also be used to calculate the arc
critical distance.
An automatic procedure to calculate the critical separation distance to generate an arc under
fault conditions has been developed and integrated in the new version of ROW. The maximum
tower injected current at each fault location is computed at each soil region. The soil resistivity
at each tower location is obtained at the tower foundation depth (the maximum soil resistivity is
selected if the tower grounding conductors crosses more than one soil layer). After processing
the SPLITS model under fault conditions, the maximum tower injected current envelope is
obtained first. Then, the critical arcing risk separation distance is calculated based on Sunde’s
Equations 1 and 2, depending on the value of the target tower local soil resistivity. Finally, the
critical arcing risk separation distance envelope is provided.
In the future, the exposed line separation distance to the tower will be provided along the entire
corridor. Then, the locations where the exposed line exhibits an arcing risk can be identified
easily and a graph for these arcing risk locations will be provided.

8 Soil Breakdown Risks to Pipelines Due to Phase to Ground

Faults
Dielectric breakdown occurs when a charge builds up or a discharge current exceeds the
electrical limit or dielectric strength of a material. When the dielectric material (air, soil, etc.) is
subject to a voltage (electric field strength), the electric stress is applied to the outer bound
electron atom orbit. When the electric field stress reaches the breakdown strength, some of the
electrons are promoted to the conduction band and get accelerated rapidly, colliding with other
atoms, releasing more electrons until an "avalanche" like effect occurs which leads to a dielectric
breakdown in the form of an electric arc discharge.
In standard conditions at atmospheric pressure, gases serve as an excellent insulator, requiring

the application of a significant voltage before breaking down. The dielectric breakdown occurs in
dry air when the electric field strength is about Emax = 3 kV/mm. The exact value varies with
the shape and size of the electrodes and increases with the pressure of the air and decreases with
its humidity. In wet air, the sparking voltage (electric field) is assumed to be about 1 kV/mm.
Soil can also generate a dielectric breakdown, arcing or spark discharge. The soil dielectric
breakdown voltage is lower than the air, but is a more complex phenomenon, and thus involves
a greater electrical breakdown voltage range. A value on the order of 0.3 to 0.5 kV/cm is a
conservative value for wet soils. Table 1 shows some experimental values for air and soil
breakdown voltages.
TABLE I. AIR AND SOIL BREAKDOWN VOLTAGES
Dry Air Wet Air Wet Soil Dry Rock

> 3 kV/mm > 1 kV/mm > 0.3 - 0.5 kV/cm >1 - 3 kV/cm

If an exposed line is in proximity to the grounding of a faulted power line structure, there is a
risk of soil breakdown if the ground potential difference (GPD) between the metal of the exposed
line and tower foundation exceeds the soil breakdown voltage. Consequently, it could result in
damages to the exposed line or its coating.
In order to evaluate the possibility to create soil breakdown from phase-to-ground faults, an
automatic procedure to calculate the maximum envelope of the ground potential difference
(GPD) between the exposed line and the towers under fault conditions has been developed and
integrated in the new version of ROW. The procedure yields the envelope (curve of the maxima)
of the GPD for all faults. This envelope can be plotted if desired.
In the future, the pipe separation distance to the tower will be provided along the entire
corridor. A soil breakdown value can be entered by the user. Then, the locations that the soil
breakdown can occur can be identified and a graph for possible soil breakdown locations will be
provided.
9 More Options for Steady State and Fault Conditions in the

“Advanced Plot” Screen
In previous versions of ROW a number of options were offered to report computation results in
Excel format under steady state and fault conditions. This ability has been extended to provide

more results from steady state and fault condition runs. Furthermore, two envelope plots are
offered to evaluate flashover locations under fault currents.
Three additional plot options for steady state conditions are now available:
 Section Currents
 Shunt Currents
 EMF (Electromagnetic Force) per Unit Length
Three additional options for fault conditions are now available:
 Inductive (SPLITS) Shunt Current per Section

 Risk Distance for Arc (based on Sunde equations)
 Conductive or Total (MALZ) GPD (Ground Potential Difference) to Towers

10 Reorganization of the RowCAD Folder

An improvement regarding the project file organization involves a change of the RowCAD files
naming convention. As you may know, when a RowCAD project is imported in a ROW project,
the RowCAD input files (RC_JobID.F05 & RC_JobID.XML), including its subfolders such as
“.\CrossSectionDefinition\” and “.\PhaseLeakageDefinition\” etc., are copied and renamed to
the ROW project folder from the original RowCAD project folder. For example:
With the new version of ROW, the RowCAD files and its subfolders will be renamed to include
the scenario name. For example:

One of the advantages for the new file name convention is that the RowCAD files and subfolders
won’t be mixed up if there are multiple ROW projects in the same folder.
The new ROW will maintain full compatibility with old ROW projects containing RowCAD files.
In other words, ROW will automatically convert the file and folder names generated by an older
version of ROW to comply with the new conventions when the old project is imported into
ROW.
11 Names of Ground Points at Terminal Energization Screens

The circuit SPLITS model allows the specification of several independent ground impedances at
each terminal. The different busses of a terminal can be connected to any of the grounds defined
for that terminal. This can greatly simplify the input data specification for complicated circuit
models with complex connection scenarios. Several different earth impedances can be specified
for a terminal. This way a single terminal can be used to represent several substations or
generating stations or exposed line terminating grounding systems.
A name field has been added to better identify those different grounding locations. Furthermore,
the Circuit Number has been renamed Grounding Point for a better description of this
feature.

12 References
[1] E.M. Sunde, Earth Conduction Effects, (New York, NY, Dover Publications, 1968,), pp 296-298.

XIICORRCAD AND ITS APPLICATIONS
Yexu Li, Michel Chami, Qingyi Han, Eric Dawalibi, Liqian Feng, Mandy Zhang, Cathy Cheng,
Stéphane Baron, John Xie, Hui Bi, Simon Fortin and Farid P. Dawalibi
and SES-China
Deepak Mankar
FLUOR, Principal Design Engineer, deepak.mankar@fluor.com
1 Introduction
CorrCAD is the latest addition to SES’ powerful software packages aimed at solving practical
scientific and engineering problems realistically and accurately. CorrCAD as the name suggests,
has been developed to tackle a large variety of cathodic protection design tasks and related
issues on land and offshore. CorrCAD can also predict the degree of corrosion control provided
by a system. Typical application of CorrCAD for corrosion control includes impressed cathodic
current protection systems (ICCP) and use of sacrificial anodes in anodic protection systems,
where anodic current is impressed on corroding material to enforce passivation.
Another application of CorrCAD is to estimate the effect of stray currents such as those
produced by HVDC electrodes or dc rail traction systems on the corrosion of buried metallic
structures. It can evaluate the corrosion status of the structure and help optimize the location
and characteristics of the corrosion protective system (such as ICCP) to minimize stray current
interference effects on protected structures such as pipelines.
CorrCAD was introduced at last year’s CDEGS Users’ Group Conference [1] but was not made
available to the attendees because it was at its early stages of development. This year, CorrCAD
is essentially ready as an Alpha release or perhaps, an early Beta release for testing by SES’ users
in order to gather useful information and feedback for future development and enhancements.
The CAD based graphical user interface offers a complete and simple solution for defining
complex networks accurately, displaying and editing the protected structures and their
protection systems, computing and examining the results. CorrCAD uses the MALZ or HIFREQ
computation module as the main engines to carry out the computations. Furthermore, a new
computation module that accounts for the polarization electrochemical process based on
polarization curves or equivalent polarization parameters was developed to carry out the
required iterative process until convergence is achieved. CorrCAD displays in 2D or 3D the
results obtained from the simulations.
This article describes the CorrCAD software package in its current state of development,
presents its capabilities and provides examples of how to use it to calculate the corrosion state of
the analyzed system and to design the required protective system.
Note that CorrCAD is still under intensive development and the functionalities presented in this
article, as well as the appearance of some screens, may change before its official release.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XII-1

1.1 Technical Overview and Methodology

When a metal or metal alloy is immersed in an electrolyte made of a conducting liquid of
sufficient oxidizing power, such as moist soil, it will corrode according to a well-defined
electrochemical mechanism. This process involves two simultaneous and complementary
reactions: at anodic areas, metal ions dissipate into the adjacent solution and in so doing, leave a
surplus of electrons at the corroded metal surface. The excess electrons will flow to nearby
locations designated as cathodic areas where they will be consumed by oxidizing species from
the corrosive liquid. An example of iron dissolving in an acidic solution is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 : Corrosion process.

An electrode potential difference develops between the two anodic and cathodic areas.
Typically, it is customary to define the electromotive force of a cell built of two electrodes as
follows:
- On one side is the standard hydrogen electrode, and

- On the other side is the electrode the potential of which is being defined.
By convention:
ECell = ECathode − EAnode
The cell with the standard reference hydrogen electrode has its potential set to 0 by convention.
Therefore:
ECell = EReference − 0 = EMetal Electrode
The metal electrode potential is measured in volts (V) and is referred to as the electrochemical
potential series of the metal electrode.
Polarization potential is the potential difference between both sides of the interface in contact
with the electrons and ions. When current flows in or out of the metal, it will cause a change in
polarization potential. This process is named polarization. Polarization is a deviation of the
electrochemical process from a current exchange equilibrium state to a state where a net electric
current passes through the galvanic cell. Polarization may occur either at the cathode (cathodic
Page XII-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

polarization) or at the anode (anodic polarization). There are three types of polarization namely,
Concentration Polarization, Resistance Polarization and Activation Polarization. The
resistance polarization refers to the potential drop due to either the high resistivity of the
electrolyte surrounding the electrode or an insulation effect of the film on the electrode surface
formed by the reaction products. The polarization resistance is defined by the following
equation:
ΔE
𝑅𝑝 = ( )
Δi Δ𝐸→0
Where ΔE is a variation of the applied potential around the corrosion potential and Δi is the
resulting polarization current [2]. Thus, the polarization resistance is the ratio of the applied
potential and the resulting current response. In general, polarization potential and current
density is a non-linear relationship that is better described by experimental polarization curves.
The MALZ and HIFREQ computation modules don’t consider polarization effects, i.e., the
computation module doesn’t consider the polarization resistance. The calculated coating stress
voltage is the voltage drop across the coating material. The stress voltage is the potential
difference between the metal potential and soil potential at the reference point, and it does not
include the polarization potential. The potential drop across the coating and the soil potential
drop to remote soil are both considered as IR drop that should be eliminated from the cathodic
protection effectiveness evaluation. The real effectiveness measure of the CP or direct
characterization of stray current interference level is the polarization potential. That being said,
MALZ or HIFREQ:
1) Does not account for the polarization resistance in the computation;
2) Does not provide the polarization potential that is the most significant value for
corrosion evaluation effectiveness.
CorrCAD offers the possibility to determine the corrosion effectiveness considering
experimental polarization data such as polarization curves. When there is a good coating on the
pipe, CorrCAD computes the current density by using the provided coated steel polarization
curve, then eliminates the effects of IR drop, so that the coating protection current density and
corresponding over-potential are accurately obtained [3].
The CorrCAD software package capabilities are summarized as follows:
 It accurately models large metallic ground networks in complex soil structures such as
horizontally and vertically layered soils with, optionally, embedded finite volumes of soils
having arbitrary resistivities without the need to use time-consuming finite element based
solutions. Presently, although CorrCAD applies one soil model to the entire system, soil
effect variations are accounted for by allowing arbitrary coating characteristics along the
length of the modeled metallic structures.
 It computes leakage currents, earth potentials, electric fields and magnetic fields associated
with a buried network of metallic conductors or structures and can be applied to a large
range of frequencies, in addition to DC.
 It accounts for the attenuation along conductors and determines potential drops from one
part of a system to another as well as transfer voltages to other buried structures. This makes
it possible to compute accurately potentials throughout the lengths of pipelines. The
presence of lumped impedances (resistors, capacitors and inductances) can be taken into
account as well.

 It models coated pipes, each with different coating characteristics (i.e., coating resistivity,
permittivity and thickness), if desired. Thus, buried pipes can be accurately represented.
 Finally it accounts for the polarization electrochemical potential, which is the most
significant indicator of the cathodic protection effectiveness and the adequacy of the
mitigation methods deployed to minimize the effects of stray current interference.
2 Program Functionalities
CorrCAD provides appropriate windows and panels in its CAD user interface that simplify and
reduce the time needed to specify the parameters of the system to be analyzed. Pertinent
feedback information is contained in some panels to alert users about errors, warnings or users’
required actions in order to complete certain important tasks. These panels provide quick access
to the tasks requiring user’s actions or changes. The following section describes in details some
of those panels and provides an overview of the main capabilities offered by CorrCAD.
2.1 The Desktop CAD Interface

The CorrCAD desktop allows you to import or define metallic structure path coordinates in
graphical or tabular form using various standard formats, such Excel CVS, MALT, MALZ and
HIFREQ SICL files. Appropriate names and colors can be specified to each path. The paths can
be imported from a pre-defined file created in SESCAD. Figure 2 shows that a Polyline can be
defined either graphically, importing it from a file or by simply specifying its coordinates in a
tabular way.
Assign color
to each line.
Access the line
coordinates in
tabular form.
Define a line
graphically.
Figure 2: Define a path.
2.2 Multiple Energizations

Appropriate energization of a network of metallic structures is essential when performing
corrosion protection studies. CorrCAD provides the ability to energize the system at defined
intervals or arbitrary locations. This capability provides an easy way to compute pipe-to-soil
potentials (this simulates the CP “on” readings in the field) along pipelines and similar

structures and to verify whether pipe-to-soil potentials do not attenuate to inadequate levels far
from the rectifiers and that pipe-to-soil potentials are not excessive at current feed locations (i.e.,
rectifiers). Figure 3 shows two possible ways to define and apply energizations along a Polyline
in CorrCAD: graphically via the Energization Location Definition tool and using the
Polyline Coordinate Editor screen.
Energization is defined
graphically for the
Anode Bed: 5A
Energization is defined for

the pipe in tabular form at
the CP location: -5 A
Figure 3: Define Energization.
2.3 Anode Performance in Complex Soil Models

CorrCAD provides detailed information on the performance of individual sacrificial anodes,
such as anode consumption rate, life expectancy and remaining life (Figure 4). Furthermore,
detailed analysis of anode beds is available. All analyses can be carried out for multi-layered and
arbitrary soil models and a soil model can be easily imported either from a RESAP output file, a
MALZ or MALT input file, or simply defined in the Soil Definition panel for a uniform soil
model.
A 30 lb. anode bed life expectancy is about

110 year (over 20 years)
- Utilization: 85%
- Consumption: 26 lb./amp-year
- Required Current Output: 9 mA
Figure 4: Life Expectancy Calculator screen quickly evaluates the performance of individual sacrificial
anodes.
CorrCAD allows the insertion of pre-built typical Anode Beds in the system to be analyzed (see
Figure 5). A collection of Anode Beds are available with CorrCAD in MALZ format and hence can
be easily edited in SESCAD if necessary.

Collection of anode beds.
Figure 5: Collection of Anode Beds are available in CorrCAD and can be inserted in the system to be
analyzed.
2.4 Electric Circuits and Arbitrary Connections

Electrical connections and attenuation along such connections can have a significant impact on
the effectiveness of the CP system. Therefore a comprehensive dedicated definition panel is
available to conveniently define all the return path connections and resistances. Furthermore,
interconnections can be specified between pipelines at arbitrary connections.
Define connection graphically.
Define connection in
tabular form.
Access to connection tool page
Figure 6: Connections between Polylines are defined in the Connection Definitions panel.
2.5 Native Potential vs Copper Sulfate Electrode or Standard Hydrogen

Electrode
Native (Galvanic Series) potentials can be easily modeled in CorrCAD to account for the metal
natural potential with respect to soil. In the present version, values measured with respect to
Copper Sulfate Electrodes (CSE) and Standard Hydrogen Electrodes (SHE) can be defined for
convenience. Polarization effects representing the behavior of both metallic structures and
anodes can be considered, if available.

Mapping electrical potential

series & polarization curve
graphically.
Mapping electrical
potential series &
polarization curve.
Access to electrical potential series

mapping & polarization screens.
Figure 7: Native Potentials can be added to the system to be analyzed to account for the metal natural
potential with respect to soil.
2.6 Polarization
Polarization curves for each individual electrochemical reaction, cathodic and anodic reactions
and polarization can be optionally accounted in the computations and displayed.
CorrCAD provides a digitization tool, named SESCurveFit ((a) Digitization process.
), which can digitize polarization curves in standard image formats in order to obtain the
polarization curve parameters needed for performing a complete corrosion analysis
according to the type of function selected. For instance, in case of a Butler-Volmer-like
function, the parameters are:
 Icorr: the corrosion current, corresponding to the half-cell current when the
applied potential is Ecorr;
 Ecorr: the Corrosion potential, is the applied potential when the net current is
zero;
 ba: the Tafel slope for the anode in natural logarithmic scale. It is a positive
value;
 bc: the Tafel slope for the cathode in natural logarithmic scale. It is a positive
value.
Presently, the available functions are:
1 Butler-volmer;
2 Concentration Butler-volmer;
3 Polynomial;
4 Lockup.

Sampling the polarization

Anode data.
Sampling the polarization

Cathode data.
(a) Digitization process.
Fitted curve vs digitized data.
Obtained the polarization

curve parameters: icorr,
Ecorr, ba, bc.
(b) Digitized curve.

Figure 8: The SESCurveFit tool is used to obtain the polarization parameters needed for performing a
complete corrosion analysis.

Figure 9: Calculated parameters of the polarization curve obtained from the digitized data.
2.7 Comprehensive Outputs Display Tools

The relevant computed values are displayed in a separated screen (Figure 10) once the requested
computations are completed. In addition, CorrCAD indicates the polarization curve fitting
results, the polarization computation process such as the number of iterations required to
complete the polarization computation, the step errors (RMSD %), the conductor over-
potentials, as well as the final detailed numerical results. Most of the results can be
exported to an Excel CSV file format.
Figure 10: The main computation results are displayed in the Results screen once the requested
computations are completed.

3 CorrCAD in Action Using Examples

This section describes two typical corrosion analysis examples and shows how to design a
cathodic protection system for pipelines using CorrCAD. This section also highlights the
improvements and the new features that were implemented as described in the previous section.
3.1 Case #1: Design ICCP (Impressed Cathodic Current Protection

System for a Pipeline
For an impressed current system, the main design objective is to verify that the polarization
potentials satisfy the minimum protection criteria, i.e., below -0.85 V polarized potential
referenced to a copper sulfate electrode (CSE).
In an impressed CP system, a DC current is injected by a rectifier between the protected pipeline
and a deep anode bed. The negative end of the rectifier is connected to the pipeline being
protected.
3.1.1 System Description:
- Pipeline Length: 50km (Xstart = -25000 m, Xend = 25000 m);

- Pipeline Coating Resistance: 5000 ohm-m2;
- Pipeline Coating Thickness: 1 mm;
- Pipeline Outer Radius: 0.2286 m;
- Pipeline Wall Thickness: 0.635 cm;
- Pipeline Relative Resistivity (to copper): 10;
- Pipeline Relative Permeability (to air): 300;
- Pipeline Burial Depth: 1 m;
- Cathodic protection current impressed system: CPS1, CPS2, CPS3 are installed at the
pipeline start, middle and end point, i.e., they are evenly replaced at x=-25000, 0,
25000, with 3 A for each CPS;
- Soil: Two-layer soil model as shown in Table 1:
TABLE 1: SOIL MODEL STRUCTURE
Layer Resistivity (ohm-m) Thickness (m)
Top 500 20
Bottom 10 infinite
3.1.2 Computed Quantities:

1. Coating stress voltage along the pipeline, which simulates CP “ON” pipe-to-soil reading;
2. Polarized potential along the pipeline, which simulates CP “OFF” pipe-to-soil reading.
3.1.3 Build the Network Model in CorrCAD

The following describes the key modeling steps in CorrCAD. The model can be found in the
“..\Users_2015\Example Files\CorrCAD\Applications\CP Design\CC_CPDesign.f05” from the
SES Software conference distribution.
1. Pipe Polyline Definition: Import from standard file formats such as MALZ or HIFREQ
SICL files or specify directly the coordinates. Assign a name and a specific color for the
pipeline.

Define pipeline
coordinates.
Import polyline from MALZ/HIFREQ

F05 file.
Click here to access the Polyline

Definition page.
Figure 11: Definition of the studied pipeline.
2. Pipeline Cross-Section: Define the pipeline and coating material characteristics.
Define pipeline
characteristics & location.
Figure 12: Pipeline and its coating material characteristics definition.

3. Rectifier Anode Bed Definition (Entity Page): Define the Anode beds and
computation Observation Points. An Anode bed structure can be pre-defined in a MALZ file
or can be imported from the provided collections, and then is inserted at any locations along
the pipelines.
The Anode beds are buried 60 meter deep. A conductor with end coordinates of (0, 0, 60)
and (0, 0, 100) is specified in SESCAD to represent the deep anode while an insulated
conductor with end coordinates of (0, 0, 2) and (0, 0, 60) is defined to represent the cable
connecting the rectifier to the anode. The Anode Bed used in this study can be found in the

“..\UGC 2015\Example Files\CorrCAD\MZ_AnodeBed.f05” from the SES Software

conference distribution.
Import the MALZ anode bed model, and specify the three locations where the CP system is
installed, i.e., at (-25000, -210, 2), (0, -210, 2), and (25000, -210, 2).
Import anode bed.
Define anode bed locations.
Figure 13: Definition of the cathodic protection system which must be installed along the studied pipeline.
4. Energization: The Anode bed is energized by injecting +3 A, while the pipeline is energized
by collecting –3 A. The program will ensure that CP current flows along the desired path,
properly representing the operation of the rectifier.
Define anode bed

energization: 3 A
Define pipeline enerizgation: -3 A
Figure 14: Energization of the studied pipeline and of the cathodic protection system.

5. Define soil characteristics
2. Define soil characteristics by

- Importing from a MALZ F05;
- Importing from a RESAP F11;
- Specify data in the interface.
1. Access Soil Definition page
Figure 15: Definition of the soil model.
6. Define computation (observation) points

Computation Observation Points can be easily defined in this module using the Polyline
Operation Tool. In this case, pipe-to-soil potentials along the pipelines are obtained by
placing Observation Point profiles along the pipeline, near the surface of the pipelines.
Define observation points
Figure 16: The observation points are created close enough to the studied pipeline for computing pipe-to-
soil potentials along the pipeline.
7. Specify a “galvanic (working) potential” for the steel: This value is typically in the
range of -0.55 V to -0.65 V (-0.65 V is used in this study). This is the pipe-to-soil DC
potential measured with respect to a copper-copper sulfate electrode, in the absence of CP

current, stray currents and galvanic coupling to dissimilar metals. Note that it is important
to specify the working potential as a negative value.
2. Click here to access the Native Potential and Electrical

Series Mapping Definition page
1. Access Electrical Series Mapping Definition

page
Figure 17: Galvanic (working) potential is imported from CorrCAD standard tables or specified directly.
8. Define polarization parameters or related curve: In this example the polarization
curve parameters (Bulter-Vomer: icorr, Ecorr, ba, bc) are assumed to be already known.
They are entered in the program directly:
Figure 18: The parameters of the polarization curve are given and are directly specified in the
Polarization Curve Properties screen.
9. Compute (Process):
- Computation: This option carries out the computations without polarization.
CorrCAD will create a MALZ input model file (type F05), and will launch it automatically
to perform the necessary computations.

- Computation with Polarization: This option carries out the computations with
polarization. CorrCAD will create the initial MALZ input model file (type F05) with the
initial working potential (defined as Natural Potential) and will run MALZ iteratively
with the electrochemical over-potentials as determined from the polarization curve as
new working potentials at each iteration until one of the termination criteria are reached.
A total of 4 iterations is required in this example.
10. Examine the results.

1) Touch or coating stress voltages along the pipeline which simulate CP “ON”
pipe-to-soil readings. Are used to assess the corrosion state. A more appropriate
description will be displayed in future versions of the software package.
Conductor Data/Metal GPR/Nearest Conductor LEGEND
2.0
Profile Number 1.
GPR of Conductor Metal <Magnitude> [Near] (Volts)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 15000 30000 45000 [ID:CPDesign @ f=0.0000 Hz ]
Figure 19: Touch voltages along the pipeline.

2) Polarized potentials along the pipeline, which simulates CP “OFF” pipe-to-soil
reading: Below -0.85V!
Figure 20: Polarized potential along the pipeline.

3.2 Case #2: Estimation of the Effects of HVDC Electrode Stray Currents
on the Corrosion of Buried Pipeline
HVDC systems may operate in such a manner that continuous (normal operation) or periodic
(monopolar operation) direct current follows an earth path between HVDC system terminals.
During such operations, a portion of the DC current that is flowing between the two HVDC
electrodes is captured by the pipelines and associated grounding systems located in zones where
the earth potentials are high and are discharged back to soil at locations where the earth
potentials are lower.
More precisely, a pipeline may collect, conduct, or discharge a portion of this current depending
on the location of the pipeline and the polarity of the HVDC ground electrode. When the
electrode near the pipeline is operating in positive mode, the current from the electrode is
collected by the pipeline in the region located in the vicinity of the electrode. The current is then
discharged from the pipeline at locations remote from the electrode; resulting in corrosion at
these points. When the HVDC electrode near the pipeline is operating in negative mode, the
current is discharged from the pipeline in the vicinity of the electrode and collected in the area
far from the electrode. In this case, corrosion occurs near the electrode. In addition, coating
damage due to disbonding can also occur if the pipeline is polarized negatively beyond a safe
level as a result of excessive current collection. Figure 21 illustrates this DC interference
mechanism due to the operation of an HVDC electrode.
Figure 21: Mechanism of HVDC electrode interference.
3.2.1 System Description

The system under study consists of three 609.5 mm diameter pipelines and the three nearby
HVDC ground electrodes that were under different operation modes, is shown in Figure 22

Figure 22: Top view of the studied network.

The studied pipeline covers a distance of over 270 km (the thick portion in Figure 21). The
closest point of the pipeline is about 7 km away from the HVDC electrode operating in monpolar
mode. The soil was measured and analyzed and was found to have a four-layer structure as
shown in Table 2. The injected current into the monpolar HVDC ground electrode is 3,232 A
while the unbalanced currents into the soil for the other two electrodes that are under normal
operation are 61 A and 18 A, respectively. The pipeline coating resistance is assumed to be
100,000 ohm-m2.
TABLE 2: EXISTING SOIL MODEL STRUCTURE
Depth (m) Resistivity(ohm-m)

0~2.5 40
2~5 200
5~20 100
>20 6500
3.2.2 Computer Model

The following steps are necessary to build the complete model in CorrCAD. The model is
available in the “..\Users_2015\Example Files\CorrCAD\Applications\HVDC Pipeline DC
Interference\CC_HVDC Pipe.f05” from the SES Software conference distribution.
1. Prepare the 3 pipelines in three independent MALZ F05 files. There is an

insulating joint (IJ) between the pipelines.
2. Import the 3 MALZ files into CorrCAD: Pipe 1a, Pipe 1b and Pipe 2 in Figure 23.

Drag the MALZ/HIFREQ F05 files into

the working space to import the
polylines.
Accessing the
Polyline Page.
Figure 23: The studied pipelines are prepared in SESCAD and imported in CorrCAD.
3. Define pipeline characteristics:
3. Assign Cross-Section
Graphically or in tabular.
1. Access Cross-section page.

2. Define the pipe:

- Inner radius
- Outer Radius
- Relative Resistivity;
- Relative Permeability;
- Coating Resistance;
- Coating Thickness.
Figure 24: Cross-sections are defined for the three studied pipelines using the SESCrossSection tool.
4. Prepare the 3 HVDC electrode grounding systems in a separate MALZ F05 file
for each electrode. Specify the characteristics. For simplicity, we assume that all are made
of copper. Furthermore, make sure that the electrode ground is centered at (0, 0).
5. Define a HVDC electrode as an Entity:
3. Define the HVDC
locations by entering
their coordinates.
2. Import the prepared 4. Display

HVDC MALZ F05. HVDC
locations.
1. Access the Entity page:

Select “Custom Entity”.
Figure 25: Three HVDC electrode entities are created and positioned at strategic places along the
pipelines.

6. Energize each HVDC Electrode:
3. Assign Energization
graphically.
2. Define ernergization for each HVDC

electrode:
4. Display HVDC
- 3232 A (or 64A) for Electrode 1
energization.
- 61 A for Electrode 2
- 18 A for Electrode 3
1. Access Energization page.
(a) Steps 1 to 4.
6. Assign Energization in Entity table.
5. Access Entity page
(b) Steps 5 to 6.
Figure 26: The energizations are defined and applied to the HVDC electrode entities.

7. Define soil characteristics:
2. Define soil characteristics by

- Importing from a MALZ F05;
- Importing from a RESAP F11;
- Specifying in the interface
1. Access Soil Definition page.
Figure 27: A soil model is created with SESCAD files imported in CorrCAD.
8. Define Polarization:
2. Digitizing the polarization

curve.
3. Assign the polarization
graphically or in tabular.
1. Access Electrical Series Mapping page.
(a) Define Polarization.

(b) Polarization Curve Sampling.
(c) Polarization Curve Fitting.

Figure 28: Digitizing & fitting the polarization curve.
9. Compute: Select Compute/Computation with Polarization (64 A energization for HVDC

electrode #1)
Figure 29: The Over-potential vs Current values are reported in the Results screen.
3.2.3 Results and Discussions

The pipe-to-soil potentials at various locations along the pipeline were measured when HVDC
#1 is under monopolar operation (3232 A injected current). The results of the measured and
computer simulations are shown in Figure 30. As it can be seen, the computed results (blue
curve and the measured results (orange dots), agree with each other very well. The conductive
coupling between the HVDC electrodes and pipeline results in soil currents collected then
discharged by the pipeline.
The curve shown in Figure 28 (b) (Ecorr = 550 mV) was used as the polarization curve. Figure
29 presents the over-potentials along the pipeline as computed by CorrCAD when HVDC #1 is
under normal operation (i.e., 64 A imbalanced current).
Figure 30: Computed and measured DC interference levels.

Leakage current density, pipe-to-soil potential, electric field gradient outside the pipe and
current density across a 1 cm2 holiday are important quantities when a pipeline is assessed for
its corrosion activity status. The resulting pipeline leakage current density is displayed in Figure
33. This figure shows that when the monopolar operation electrode is positive, some current
tends to be collected by the pipeline at points near the electrode. This current is carried away
towards both ends of the pipeline, where it is discharged progressively.
The pipe-to-soil potentials and the electric field gradient outside the pipe are plotted in Figure
34. Clearly, corrosion occurs seriously along most, if not the entire length of the pipeline, if no
mitigation is applied or if the cathodic protection system is not adjusted accordingly.
Furthermore, coating disbanding may occur at the south end locations because pipe-to-soil
potentials remain below the –1.5 V limit. The maximum electric field gradient is about 93.7
mV/m.
The current density in coating defects (referred to as holidays) is one of the key parameters used
to evaluate the corrosion rate. The calculation of coating potential from the coating impedance
and radial leakage current density, indicates that the holiday current can be estimated fairly
accurately along the entire pipeline based on the coating stress voltage, assuming that there are
enough grounds along the pipeline length (including its imperfect coating) to establish the
external pipeline potential (which is the case in our model). In this case, a small holiday
introduces only a small perturbation to the external potential. The holiday current is then
estimated as the ratio of the “coating potential difference” (or coating stress voltage) to the
product of the holiday resistance by the holiday base area. The holiday current through a 1 cm2
defect is shown in Figure 35. The maximum current through such defect is 14.61 mA.
Consequently, for a 1 cm2 small defect occurring anywhere along pipeline perforation time may
occur in about 39 days! This estimate is based on the knowledge that each ampere of current
discharging continuously from one location on a ferrous structure remove approximately 9.1 kg
of iron in a year’s time. Since the pipe wall thickness is 1.84 cm, in the absence of any mitigation
measures and cathodic protection system, the pipeline fast perforation time is about 39 days!

Figure 33: Leakage current along the pipeline.

Electric Fields/Resultant (Total) Field LEGEN
Conductor Data/Coating Stress Voltage/Nearest Conductor 0.100

LEGEND
200 Profile Numb

Profile Number 1.
Coating Stress Voltage <Real Part> [Near] (Volts)
100
0.050
Electric Field Total Magn. (V/M)
-100 0.000
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
0 100000 200000 300000 [ID: @ f=0.0001 Hz ] [ID: @ f=0.0001 Hz ]
Figure 34: Pipe-to-soil potential and electric field outside the pipe.

16
14
12
Leakage Current (mA)

10
8
6
4
2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance along the pipeline starting from the north (km)
Figure 35: Leakage current along the pipeline through a one 1 cm2 holiday.
4 Conclusion
CorrCAD is a new software package which is being developed for Cathodic Protection system
design and corrosion evaluation. CorrCAD uses the MALZ or HIFREQ computation modules as
its main computation engine, with a new simple fixed point iteration computation module
allowing CorrCAD to accurately calculate the polarization potential across the metal-electrolyte
interface.
The program is currently available as an Alpha for testing. A beta version will be produced in the
very near future. This new software package with its CAD based interface allows easy and
intuitive specifications of the geometry and the electrical characteristics of various metallic
networks with instantaneous visualizations of the network and related computation results.
Realistic corrosion cases can be easily analyzed, demonstrating that CorrCAD can be used for
practical projects. This article presented an overview of CorrCAD and described two practical
examples.
5 Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Mr. Mahinder Singh for his constructive discussions and suggestions
during the course of the program development. Sincere thanks also go to Mr. Laszlo Forgo for
his encouragements and for providing some of the anode bed data materials.
6 References
[1] Farid P. Dawalibi, Yexu Li, Simon Fortin, Eric Dawalibi, Liqian Feng, Man Zhang, Luis Valcárcel,
“CorrCAD: a New Software Package for Full 3D Virtual Prototypes of Cathodic Protection Systems”, SES
UGC 2014, Newport, Rhode Island, USA.
[2] Antoine Clement, S. Lauraens, G. Arliguie, D. Deby, "Numerical study of linear polarization resistance
technique applied to reinforced concrete for corrosion assessment", European Journal Of
Environmental and Civil Engineering, 2012.
[3] Qingyi Han, Yexu Li, Farid Dawalibi and Simon Fortin, "An Iterative Approach For Modeling
Electrochemical Polarization With Non-linear Boundary Condition", SES UGC 2015, San Diego, USA.

XIIISESEBUNDLE: FIND AN EQUIVALENT SINGLE

CONDUCTOR REPRESENTING A BUNDLE OF
CONDUCTORS
Carleen Cheng, Eric Dawalibi, Stéphane Franiatte, Jie Liu, Octavio Ramos-Leaños
and Yixin Yang
Abstract
This article introduces a new tool called SESeBundle. The new tool allows to represent a bundle of conductors by
a single equivalent conductor. This technique is useful, for example in the HIFREQ module, to reduce the
computational time required to analyze a system with several parallel conductors regularly connected together.
The validity of this “equivalent conductor” approach is demonstrated using an interference study of a pipeline in
the HIFREQ module. Speed up factors for different lengths of transmission lines and different numbers of sub-
conductors replaced by an equivalent conductor are also presented.
1 Introduction
To increase the capacity of high voltage transmission lines, it is common practice to use more
than one conductor per phase, as shown in Figure 1. This is known as conductor bundling.
Bundling of conductors in transmission lines helps lessen the effect of the two major
phenomena that exist in high voltage lines, especially at voltage levels of 220 kV and above,
namely the corona effect and the skin effect.
Figure 1: Bundling of conductors in a transmission line.

To model a bundle of conductors, you could in principle model each conductor independently,
although you would have too many buses/segments and sometimes you might quickly exceed
reasonable limits in terms of memory usage. In many cases, it is possible to use a simplified
model for the bundle and therefore reduce memory usage and increase computational
performance.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XIII-1

The effects of separate conductors in the bundle over the computed electromagnetic fields
should be quite negligible for computation points located a few bundle diameters away from the
bundle. If you are interested in computing the fields at points that are not too close to the
bundle, you can represent the entire bundle by a single conductor.
The SESeBundle tool is useful to find the characteristics of an equivalent single conductor that
represents accurately a bundle of conductors, as far as their series impedance is concerned. This
can help when modeling several types of conductors, such as: bundled phase conductors,
regularly interconnected shield wires, rails, or a pipeline and its mitigation wires (when the
coating of the pipeline is sufficiently good). This new utility is particularly useful to simplify
models in modules, such as HIFREQ, where reducing the number of conductors is important to
keep the computational time low.
Figure 2. Phase bundle, Transmission lines.
2 Methodology
The objective of SESeBundle is to find the radius 𝒓 , relative resistivity 𝝆𝒓 and relative
permeability 𝝁𝒓 of an equivalent single conductor that accurately replaces a bundle of
conductors in the sense that the equivalent conductor and the actual bundle yield the same
series impedance. First, the TRALIN module is used to compute the total impedance of the
bundle and the internal impedance of the individual conductors in the bundle. Then, the
external impedance of the bundle can be calculated. A single conductor of a certain radius can
then be found that has the same external impedance, internal resistance and internal reactance
as the bundle, although its equivalent resistivity and permeability will generally be different
than those of the conductors in the bundle.
SESeBundle carries out the following computation steps:
(1) Use the TRALIN module to compute the total impedance of the bundle and the internal
impedances of all sub-conductors in the bundle.
(2) Calculate the internal resistance, and the internal and external reactance of the bundle.
(3) Use the external reactance to derive the radius of the equivalent single conductor; then
use the internal resistance to calculate the equivalent resistivity and use the internal
reactance to determine the equivalent permeability.
(4) The equivalent radius computed above is purely due to the external reactance of the
bundle. In electrical systems, only the total impedance matters in the determination of
the longitudinal current distribution. This leaves the freedom to define the equivalent
radius differently. This can be useful, for instance, to achieve a specific leakage
impedance for the equivalent conductor. When this is done, the resistivity and
permeability of the equivalent conductor are adjusted to maintain the total impedance
the same.
(5) Since the impedance is calculated at a certain frequency, the equivalent parameters are
also calculated at that frequency. However, the resistivity and permeability needed in
Page XIII-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

HIFREQ are basic DC values that can be used at multiple frequencies. To compensate,
the parameters computed above are adjusted to values at zero frequency.
3 Tool Features
The general features of SESeBundle are as follows:
 Very simple specification of input data, confined to a single screen.
 The program is able to handle symmetrical and asymmetrical bundles.
 Conductor data can be imported from the SES Conductor Database.
 A cross-section view of the conductor bundle to be analyzed is displayed, allowing for a
quick verification of the input data.
 Provides tabular computation results, computation reports and computation log info.
4 The Graphical User Interface

SESeBundle is a standalone application. The input parameters are saved in a text files with the
prefix “XS” and the extension “F05” (XS_JobID.F05) file, and can be reloaded into the
application for modification at any time. The computation results are stored in an RTF (Rich
Text Format) file which can be inserted directly inside a Word (or equivalent) document.
The main window of SESeBundle is shown in Figure 3. The main components are:
(1) The Ribbon is used to categorize and give access to the available functions.
(2) A Bundle Definition Panel to construct the bundle and to define the conductor type.
This panel is almost the same as that available in SESCrossSection [1].
(3) A Bundle Viewer to display a cross-section view of the bundle.
(4) An Input Issues List Panel to list all the errors, tasks, warnings and messages
regarding the input data.
(5) A Computation Panel that displays computation results i.e. the radius, resistivity and
permeability of the equivalent conductor, and allows you to export the results.
(6) A Status Bar that displays the current working directory and a list of input issues.
5 Working With Projects and Bundles

5.1 Opening and Closing a Project
5.1.1 Creating a New Project
A new blank project based on the default units can be created by selecting the New command
from the Project menu (shortcut key CTRL+N).

Figure 3: The main window of SESeBundle application.

5.1.2 Opening an Existing Project
Select Project | Open or use the shortcut key CTRL+O to open an existing SESeBundle file.
SESeBundle’s input file follows the standard SES naming convention: XS_JobID.F05, where
XS is a two-letter abbreviation identifying SESCrossSection and SESeBundle. The JobID
consists of a string of characters and numbers that is used to label all the files produced during a
given run.
5.2 Creating and Editing Conductors and Bundles

Two different modes are available in SESeBundle to create a bundle: Simple and Advanced.
5.2.1 Bundle Simple Specification Mode
If the Simple Specification Mode is selected, the bundle geometry is restricted to the most
commonly used shapes. The geometrical and physical characteristics of the bundle are defined
in the Conductor Characteristics and Bundle Details sections.
5.2.2 Conductor Characteristics
The Conductor Characteristics section, allows you to define the physical and electrical
characteristics of the conductors composing the bundle. Figure 4 shows that the conductor data
can be imported from the SES Conductor Database or can be specified directly.

Figure 4: Conductor characteristics window.

5.2.3 Bundle Details
The Bundle Details section, allows you to define the geometrical characteristics of the bundle.
The bundle can have different patterns and can be composed by any number of conductors. The
Pattern Type can be circular (round shaped), linear (line shaped) or stranded. When the
Pattern Type is selected as circular, the Bundle Details window looks as in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Bundle Details, circular pattern window.

5.2.4 Typical Patterns Available in SESeBundle

In SESeBundle, there are three built-in patterns in Pattern Type drop down list available in
Simple mode. In Advanced mode, a general pattern can be specified, and even more
complicated patterns could be built by replicating simple patterns.
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 6: Typical patterns available in SESeBundle:
(a) Circular, (b) Linear, (c) Stranded and (d) General.
5.2.5 Bundle Advanced Specification Mode

The Advanced Specification Mode feature allows you to specify a bundle of arbitrary shape.
Figure 7: Advanced Specification Mode window.

In this case the bundle definition window is composed of two main sections: the Component
Type list and the Location section. The Component Type list that allows to specify the
physical and electrical characteristics of each component through the Conductor
Characteristics section and the number and related geometrical disposition of the sub-
conductors, if any, in each component by means of the Bundle Details section. The Location

section allows to specify the geometrical location and to select the type of each component inside
the bundle.
5.3 Importing Data

Conductor data can be imported from the SES conductor database by clicking on the DB
Import button in the Conductor Characteristics section. Select the desired conductor type
and then click Export to transfer the relevant conductor data in the corresponding areas in
SESeBundle.
6 Examples and Validation

The examples in this section demonstrate that the equivalent single conductor calculated with
SESeBundle can accurately replace bundled conductors for the computation of the current
distribution and induction effects in interference studies. Considerable time can be saved when
using this technique for middle and large scale transmission systems.
6.1 Description of the Bundled Conductors

The transmission line used in this example has three phase wires and two shield wires. The
phase wires are 1 m x 1 m quad bundles of four sub-conductors, the radius of each sub-
conductor in the bundle is 5 mm, as shown in Figure 8. The height of the phase conductors are of
25 m and the height of the neutral wires is 30 m.
6.2 Validation in HIFREQ

The input files for this case are in the folder “\Example Files\SESeBundle\Validation in
HIFREQ\”.
The validation is done by comparing the induced potential on a buried pipeline that runs along
the transmission line when the phases are modeled as bundles and as equivalent single
conductors calculated with SESeBundle. Both steady-state and fault conditions with voltage and
current energizations are modeled.
Figure 8: Configuration 0f phase bundle and pipeline.

6.2.1 Steady-State Conditions Validation
In steady-state condition, two types of the energizations are considered. When the system is
energized with known currents, in this case, the cross section of the phase wires is irrelevant to

the interference onto the pipeline since the phase wires are far from the pipeline. The actual
bundle can be replaced by an equivalent single conductor. Since this is the expected result, there
is no need to show the computation plots.
In the voltage energization case, the phase current will be affected by the phase conductor
impedances. The induced voltage on the pipeline will be affected as well.
In the example, 1 km of the transmission line is modeled along a buried steel pipeline with an
outer radius of 50 mm and wall thickness of 10 mm. The pipeline without coating is buried at a
depth of 2.5 m. The transmission line is energized at one end by a balanced 100 kV phase-to-
ground three-phase voltage source while the other end is grounded through a 1 ohm impedance.
Figure 9 shows the induced potential along the pipeline for both phase wires: Bundle and
Equivalent. It can be seen that the results of the actual bundle, in green, and the equivalent
conductor computed by SESeBundle, in red, are almost identical. The figure also shows, for
reference purposes, the results for some other sizes of phase-wire equivalents. Only the
SESeBundle equivalent renders an accurate result. Different types of phase wires labeled in the
legend are as follows:
 Actual Bundle: all four conductors per phase are considered in the simulation.
 SESeBundle: phase conductors are replaced by a single conductor with parameters as
computed by SESeBundle.
 Radius=1 mm: phase conductors are simply replaced by a 1 mm radius conductor.
 Sub-conductor Size: only one sub-conductor is used to replace the bundle
(radius = 5 mm).
 Bundle Size: phase wires are replaced by a conductor with a radius equal to the bundle
radius (0.7071 m).
Figure 9: Induced potential along the pipeline under steady-state conditions.

6.2.2 Fault-Conditions Validation
Under fault conditions, in order to model a certain number of towers, the length of the modeled
transmission line is increased to 10 km and the length of the parallel pipeline is increased to 6
km.

In the voltage energization case, the current in both the faulted phase and the healthy phases
will be affected by the phase conductor impedances. The induced voltage on the pipeline will be
affected as well.
Figure 10 shows the induced potential along the pipeline for different phase wires during the
fault. It can be seen that the results of the actual bundle, in dashed green, and the equivalent
conductor computed by SESeBundle, in dashed red, are identical. As was the case under steady-
state conditions, the results for other types of phase wires are quite different from those
obtained with the actual conductor bundle.
Figure 10: Induced potential along the pipeline under fault conditions.
6.3 Using SESeBundle

Input files: \Example Files\SESeBundle\Bundle
A brief example to help you get acquainted with SESeBundle is available in the online help of the
program under SESeBundle Examples -> Scenarios ->Four Conductors Bundle.
6.4 Speed Up Factors of Computation Time

Input files: \Example Files\SESeBundle\Speed Up Factors
Use of SESeBundle can help reduce the computational time required in some CDEGS modules
such as HIFREQ, where the computational time is highly dependent on the number of
conductor segments and independent of the conductor radii. In this section, the speed up factors
for the computation time obtained when using equivalent conductors are presented in two
examples.
In the first example, a three-phase transmission line with a four-conductor bundle per phase is
simulated for different lengths ranging from 1 to 20 km. Figure 11 shows the speed up factor if
each case is replaced with one single equivalent conductor.
In Figure 11, it can be seen that as the line length increases the speed up factor increases in a
linear fashion. For this particular example, the computation saving can be almost 60 times by
using an equivalent conductor to replace the actual bundle for a 20 km long transmission line.

Figure 11: Computational speed up factor as a function of line length.

As the second example, a three-phase transmission line is simulated in 6 scenarios, each
scenario models one of 6 different phase bundles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 sub-conductors per phase.
Since the computational time in HIFREQ is independent of conductor radii and all bundle cases
can be further represented by one equivalent conductor, the case with only one sub-conductor is
taken as the comparison parameter. The computational time ratio for running each case is
plotted in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Computational time speed up factor as a function of number of conductors per phase.
Figure 12 shows that the computational time grows in a power fashion as the number of sub-
conductors increases. For this case, computational time savings can be as high as 22 times for a
bundle with 8 sub-conductors. Thus, having the capability of representing a bundle of
conductors by a single conductor, SESeBundle can be of great help when it comes to
computational efficiency.

7 Conclusion
This article has introduced the new SESeBundle program and showed how to use it. Examples
have been used to show the importance of this tool for SES programs and modules such as the
HIFREQ module where the number of components can have a great impact on the
computational time. It has also been shown that the equivalent conductors yield the same
computation results as those obtained when the actual bundles are used. SESeBundle is a
valuable tool for medium and larger systems where bundled conductors are involved when
computation efficiency is a concern.
8 Reference
[1] E. Dawalibi, L. Valcárcel, C. Voyer, M. Deslongchamps, Y. Li, S. Fortin and F. Dawalibi,
Cross-Section Module, User's Manual, SES, 2013.

XIVINTRODUCTION TO SESTHRESHOLD
Aditya Choubey, Martin Deslongchamps, Simon Fortin, Amir Hajiaboli, Sylvie Lefebvre,
Zhiqiong Luo, Nina Mitskevitch, Robert D. Southey and Farid P. Dawalibi
1 Introduction
SESThreshold is a standalone application for computing the threshold limits and plotting the
calculated values in different specified zones. Once established, it will replace the Safety module
which is currently accessible through CDEGS-Examine. Unlike the Safety module which reports
the safety limits for both touch and step voltages in one shot, SESThreshold has separated these
two quantities so that there is leverage of analyzing each quantity on its own. In other words, all
of the regions of interests (zones) and their threshold specifications are defined based on the
selected quantity.
A breakthrough feature in SESThreshold is its ability to allow designing of zones and being able
to perform analysis of the same quantity across multiple zones. The drawing of the zones is left
entirely up to the user having the grid and the profiles in the background as reference. For
example, the zones may be drawn in accordance to the variations in soil; but other influences, like
respecting special boundary conditions may also play a part in how the zones may be used.
Another convenient feature is the possibility of excluding regions from the computations
altogether; the program identifies such zones as Ignored zones. The threshold values of Touch or
Step voltages are tabulated once computed and subsequently a 2-D spot plot of the quantity is
generated.
The program calculates the thresholds (maximum allowable safe voltages) of defined zones for
the specified quantities of touch and step voltages. The computed thresholds are tabulated directly
in the application in order to visually identify the thresholds of each zone. The generated 2-D spot
plots use the same thresholds table to show the zone boundaries over the grid and surrounding
area. Further use of the gradation of colors easily allows to visually identify the safe and unsafe
regions.
SESThreshold is coupled with the Zone Editor application, allowing for custom zones to be drawn
directly over the grid and in the surrounding area. The Zone Editor offers its viewer services within
SESThreshold so that threshold specifications can be visually identified.
The application has been designed for scalability from the ground up in order to support
thresholds of additional quantities in the future (e.g., electric field, magnetic field).
2 Touch and Step Voltage Thresholds

The SESThreshold module allows now to compute the touch and step safety limits corresponding
to different zones, all this within a convenient stand-alone mode. Therefore, the module can be
accessed independently from the Tools subfolder of the SESSoftware 15.2.5196 menu (Figure
1).
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XIV-1
Figure 1: Accessing the SESThreshold module.
When the SESThreshold module is started, it is possible to either load an existing threshold input
file or start a new definition of all the parameters and zones needed to compute the desired
thresholds (Figure 2).
Figure 2: SESThreshold’s opening window. A new case can be started or an existing file can be loaded.
Page XIV-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

Once a file is loaded or a new case is started, the main window of SESThreshold appears (Figure
3). The information is grouped in six different window components:
1. Threshold Editor for: Selection of the concerned threshold quantity.
2. Zone Viewer: Allows the selection of a given zone in order to define the specifications
related to the threshold that will be used in that zone. The default (background) zone
is always displayed; other zones can be created within Zone Editor (c.f. Define
Custom Zones… button).
3. Specifications: the parameters needed for the calculation, or direct specification, of
the concerned threshold for the selected zone. The zone threshold can also be ignored.
4. Results: Threshold summary results for all zones of the selected quantity.
5. Remaining Issues List: Remaining Tasks, Errors and Warnings list.
When a new case is started, one needs to select the quantity (Touch or Step) for which the zones
and threshold specifications will apply. The referred quantity can be selected with the Threshold
Editor for drop-down menu (item 1 of Figure 3). Now, if a single threshold is expected to be valid
for the entire area (as for example, when no crushed rocks are installed in a valve station), the
specifications for the threshold can be entered directly and will apply to the entire background
zone (default zone).
Figure 3: SESThreshold main window.

In the Specifications panel, one can see the selected zone and how the threshold is supposed to
be handled for this zone (Computed, User-Defined or Ignored):
Figure 4: Specifications panel: selected zone and choices for the handling of the threshold in this zone.
When the threshold needs to be computed, the user can select the relevant standard among those
proposed in the Standard drop-down list:
Figure 5: Specifications panel: available official standards. The user-defined standard allows freedom for
the definition of the parameters.

In addition to the official North American, European and International standards, a user-defined
standard is proposed in order to allow the definition of parameters outside of the restricted
guidelines of the proposed official standards. For example, this may allow in some cases to adapt
the parameters of a proposed standard to the particularities of another one, not yet offered. Note
that, except for ANSI/IEEEi80-2000 [1], the options for the others standards are still under
development. Therefore the UGM beta version allows the computation of the safety thresholds for
the ANSI/IEEEi80-2000 standard only (an error appears in the issued list when any other
standard is selected). This will soon be removed as the implementation of the other standards is
progressing.
Once the standard is selected, the specification of the parameters for the computation of the
threshold limit can begin. The specifications can be entered by topics, as offered by the three
following tabs:
1. Network Data: All data related to the network system (frequency, shock or fault
duration, decrement factor).
Figure 6: Specifications panel: Network data tab.

2. Site Data: All data relevant to the computation of the foot resistance or the use of extra
resistances for the selected zone (insulating surface layer resistivity and thickness,
resistivity of soil beneath, shoe and glove resistances).
Figure 7: Specifications panel: Site data tab.
3. Human Data: All data related to the current threshold and body resistance.
Figure 8: Specifications panel: Human data tab.

Once the specifications are entered for the selected quantity (here, the touch voltage limit in our
example), one can select another quantity (e.g. step voltage limit) and define different
specifications or use the same specifications (this latter task will soon be facilitated by a Copy
button in the ribbon).
If no zones, other than the background zone, are needed, the threshold limits can be computed by
pressing the Compute button in the ribbon when all issues and tasks are resolved. If more zones
are required, the next section describes briefly how to create and use any additional zone.
3 Custom Zones
Additional zones are often needed, for example to get and use the appropriate safety thresholds
when crushed rocks are present in a given area with native soil everywhere else. In such cases,
zones can be created with the ZoneEditor tool. This tool, offered soon in a standalone version, can
be called directly from SESThreshold by pressing the Define Custom Zones… button (Figure
9).
Figure 9: Defining custom zones by calling Zone Editor.

When called within the SESThreshold module, Zone Editor will detect automatically the quantity
for which the zones are to be created (here, the touch voltage). When called in standalone mode,
this quantity will need to be selected prior to creating the zones.
Now, to create new zones, the drawing tool Polygon can always be used because of its great
versatility (Figure 10). The Rectangle and Ellipse options will be offered in a next version to
allow the quick drawing of regular shaped areas.

Figure 10: Zone Editor: Drawing of a zone with the Polygon tool.
Once created, the name and color of the zone can be modified and the vertices can be edited
through the Vertices Editor. Other zones can be created the same way. To toggle between the
zones, the zone selection mode must be activated either by going through the ribbon or by right-
clicking anywhere in the window (Figure 11):
Figure 11: Zone Editor: Activation of the Zone Selection mode.

It must be noted that the creation of the zones can be eased considerably when conductors and
profiles are available for the system under study. In such case, those can be displayed in the
background of Zone Editor in order to provide some drawing benchmarks.
To get the profiles and network conductors in Zone Editor, a valid MALT, MALZ or HIFREQ
database file (.f21) must exist in the working folder, with the same filename (JobID) than the
SESThreshold input file. The presence of the database files are detected by SESThreshold, as
shown under the first option of the Project menu ribbon (Figure 12). Once a valid .f21 file is
selected (in the example, MALZ) the Issues List error message disappear and the computation is
allowed if no other errors are present.
Figure 12: SESThreshold: List of detected network computation database files (.f21) and link status.
Once the zones of the selected quantity (here, touch) have been drawn in Zone Editor with the
help of the displayed profiles and conductors, we must come back to SESThreshold and assign the
threshold specifications for each zone. Simply select the desired zone in order to display and
modify the specifications.
4 Results
Once the zones have been drawn for the regions of interest and the design has been completed
with the specifications entered satisfactorily for each zone, the thresholds can be computed,

followed by the accompanying 2-D spot plots. The computations and plots are done for each touch
and step quantity that has been defined in the design.
4.1 Computation of Thresholds

For all zones whose thresholds have been requested for computation (i.e., set as Computed),
SESThreshold compiles their specifications and tabulates the computed thresholds along with
those that were set as User-Defined and Ignored. The table can be found in the default bottom-
left corner of the SESThreshold application window, in the panel labeled Results (c.f. Figure 3).
4.2 Plotting
The 2-D spot plots are generated for the quantities (touch and step) that has been defined in the
active SESThreshold project. SESThreshold generates a regular 2-D spot plot with the following
additional features (see illustration in Figure 13 below):
 Zone boundaries are shown with dashed lines. Color of each zone boundary line is defined
by the zone color used in SESThreshold zone specification interface.
 The Ignored zones are shown with gray shade in the plot area.
 Table above the graph shows threshold value, status and the boundary line color for each
zone.
 In the legend the Minimum Threshold value corresponds to the minimum value among all
specified thresholds. If, however, the minimum computed value exceeds the minimum
threshold then it is displayed in the legend as the Minimum Value.
 By default the data range between the Maximum and the Minimum Values in the plot
legend is divided into the ten equal sub-ranges, each defined with unique color.
Figure 13: New Spot-2D plot features.

5 Example: Case with Five Zones

Configuration of zones with different thresholds in this example is similar to that depicted in
Figure 13. The Zonei1 in Figure 13 represents an actual grounding system area. Figure 14 shows
distribution of touch voltages over the grounding system when the multiple safety thresholds for
different zones are taken into account.
The Default zone in this example contains all observation points covering the grounding system.
The observations points are extended 3.3 ft outside the grounding system periphery. The Zone 1
encompasses the actual area of the grounding system. It is assumed that there is a 1000iohm-m
crushed rock layer is installed over the grid area and the safety threshold for Zone 1 is 271.9 V.
There is no crushed rock layer installed outside the grounding system periphery, therefore, the
safety threshold for the Default zone (131.0 V) is computed with the native soil only (50 ohm-m
uniform resistivity). The actual extent of the Default zone in this case represents just a 3.3 ft wide
strip outside the grid periphery (see the green strip shown in Figure 13). Zones 2 and 4 are
specified on top of Zone 1 and represent so-called Ignored zones where touch voltages are not a
concern. It is assumed that there is no exposed metallic structures or equipment to touch in those
zones. Zones 3 and 5 represent buildings with a floor made of concrete and rebar. Safety
thresholds for Zones 3 and 5 (198.1 V) are computed based on the resistivity of concrete.
Therefore, Figure 14 shows the touch voltages for all above-mentioned zones for 3 different values
of safety thresholds.
Figure 14: Touch voltages plot for the case with five zones.

6 Conclusion
Safety thresholds for touch and step voltages strongly depend on the resistivity of native soil and
presence or absence of the insulating soil material. Using at least two safety thresholds is very
typical for the analysis of the performance of a grounding system. The reasons for a larger number
of safety thresholds can be related to different scenarios, such as crushed rocks not covering the
entire area of interest, presence of different soil materials inside the site, presence of buildings
with concrete floor, presence of transformer pads, etc.
SESThreshold allows to create geometrical zones that represent areas with different safety
thresholds and computes the safety threshold value for each zone. It generates a spot 2-D plot that
displays the network computation results of the investigated quantity, with respect to the
thresholds of all selected zones in one single graph, saving therefore a lot of extra work.
In a near future, SESThreshold will offer even more possibilities by allowing to compute and use
the thresholds of other quantities, such as the electric and magnetic fields.
7 References
[1] IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, IEEE Standard 80-2000, The Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., January 2000.

XVMULTI-COMPONENT COAXIAL CABLE IN TRALIN
Majid Siahrang, Simon Fortin, Yixin Yang, Eric Dawalibi,

Stéphane Franiatte and Farid P. Dawalibi
Abstract
This article describes an improvement in the modeling of coaxial cables in TRALIN which enables the program to
model cables with any number of conducting and insulating coaxial components. With this enhancement, the
number of conducting components within a coaxial cable is no longer limited to three (i.e. core, sheath and amour),
even for coaxial cables that are within a metallic enclosure. Taken together with the already included capability of
modeling multi-layer components, the recent improvement completes the capabilities of the TRALIN module to
model coaxial cables.
1 Introduction
Coaxial cables, in particular in power applications, consist of several concentric components with
different functionalities. Typically, cables have three main conducting components, i.e. core,
sheath and armour. Prior to the enhancement introduced in this article, coaxial cables in TRALIN
were able to account for up to precisely those three conducting components. Recently the
capability of considering conducting and insulating components composed of different concentric
layers has been added to the cable model in TRALIN [1]. However, the maximum number of the
conducting components in a concentric cable was still three.
In practice, cables may have extra conducting screens, shield and armour layers and therefore the
number of conducting components in a coaxial cable can be larger than three. In addition, in some
applications it may be of interest to explicitly consider the semiconducting layers of cables as cable
components.
This article describes the latest improvement in modeling coaxial cables in TRALIN which enables
the program to consider coaxial cables with an arbitrary number of conducting components. It
also briefly describes how to specify the data for such cables in the new SESTralin user-interface
program.
Thanks to this new enhancement, which is based on the expansion of the formulation for
computing the internal impedances and potential coefficients of concentric cables composed of
three metallic components [2], TRALIN can handle cables with multiple coaxial components, each
of which can consist of multiple layers, as shown in Figure 1.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XV-1

Figure 1: General case of concentric cables that can be modeled in TRALIN.
2 Multi-Component Cables in SESTralin

The new SESTralin graphical user interface module supports the specification of multi-
component and multi-layer concentric cables (either as single cables or as a group of concentric
cables inside a metallic enclosure). Figure 2 describes the Cable Type Creator screen through
which the number of cable components and layers as well as their geometrical and physical
properties can be defined in the SESTralin program. SESTralin automatically generates the
commands required to define multi-components cables in accordance with the TRALIN
command structures presented in Appendix A of this article.
Page XV-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

Figure 2: Cable Type Creator screen of SESTralin which supports defining multi-component cables.
3 Case Examples
3.1 Four-component concentric cable
This section demonstrates how to model the cable shown in Figure 3, which consists of four
metallic components, as a four-component concentric cable. The geometrical and physical
properties of the conducting and insulating layers of the cable are shown in Figure 3. The central
axis of the cable is assumed to be at 1 meter above the ground and the soil structure is considered
to be a uniform medium with a resistivity of 100 Ω-m.
Figure 3: Geometrical and physical properties of case example of four-component concentric cable.

As shown in Figure 4, cables (concentric or multiple cables inside metallic enclosures) are
modeled in TRALIN under the Group Mode computation option.
Figure 4: Selecting a computation mode in the Project Info screen of SESTralin.
The coordinates of the central axis of the cable, the cable name and the cable type are defined in
the Cross Section panel of SESTralin. The cable type is defined by selecting a Component-
Type. As shown in Figure 5, three are three options to define a Component-Type:
 Conductor: to define bare and coated conductors.
 Cable: to define concentric cables with arbitrary numbers of conducting and insulating
layers.
 Pipe-Type Cable: to define a set of concentric cables which can be surrounded by a
metallic enclosure.
As shown in Figure 5, the four-component cable is defined as a Cable component-type.

Figure 5: Cables are defined in Cross Section panel.
Figure 6, shows the Cable Type Creator screen, which pops up after selecting Cable as the
Component-Type. As explained in Figure 2, the number of components and layers as well as
the geometrical and physical properties of each layer of the cable are defined in this screen.
Note that a phase number should be assigned to every defined conducting component in TRALIN.
Components sharing the same phase number are considered to be regularly interconnected and
are bundled into a single equivalent conductor. In this example, we assume that the three
outermost conducting components of the cable, i.e. the two sheaths and the armour, are
interconnected. Therefore, as shown in Figure 7, the cable core is assigned to Phase#1 while the
other three conducting components constitute Phase#2.
The properties of the soil model are specified in the Soil Model tab. By default, a uniform
medium with a resistivity of 100 Ω-m is assumed as the soil structure in SESTralin, which is
adequate for this example.
Once the data specification for the Cross Section panel is complete, the TRALIN model is ready
to be submitted to the TRALIN computation engine through the Compute button (in the Home
tab on the ribbon, as shown in Figure 7).

Figure 6: Geometrical and physical properties of four-component cable as defined in Cable Type
Creator screen.
Figure 7: Assigning phase numbers to conducting components through the Phase Assignment screen of
SESTralin.

When the computation process is completed, the elements of the computed phase-based
impedance matrix of the system are automatically listed in the Computation Results panel as
shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Computed impedance matrix as shown in the Computation Results panel of SESTralin.
All the computed results, including component-based and phase-based impedance and
admittance matrices, are reported in the TRALIN output file (file with the “F09” extension).
As a verification, this four-component concentric cable can be alternatively modeled as a three-
component cable inside a metallic enclosure. This way the metallic enclosure is used to model the
fourth component. The geometry and physics of the problem are adjusted to be exactly the same,
so both approaches should yield the same results.
A selected set of computation results obtained using those two approaches to model the four-
component cable studied in the example are shown in Appendix B. It is observed that modeling
the four-component cable as a three-component cable centered inside a metallic enclosure yields
the same results as modeling the cable as a coaxial four-component cable.
The RALIN files to model the studied four-component cable (with both approaches) are available
in the following subfolder of the SES Software conference distribution:
UGC 2015\Example Files\Multi-component coaxial cable in Tralin\Four-Component-
Concentric-Cable

Appendix C shows the command structure of the input file to model the studied cable as a four-
component cable.
3.2 Four-component multi-layer cables with metallic enclosure

As a second example to demonstrate the new TRALIN feature to model multi-component cables,
in this section we consider modeling a set of three identical concentric cables inside a metallic
enclosure. Figure 9 shows the geometrical and physical properties of the studied cable.
Figure 9: Geometrical and physical properties of example of multi-component multi-layer cables in

metallic enclosure.

Each cable inside the enclosure has four conducting components and the first conducting and
insulating components of the cables each consist of two layers. Therefore, this case example
represents modeling a case of multi-component multi-layer cables inside a metallic enclosure.
To model such cables, Pipe-Type Cable should be the Component-Type of choice in the
Cross Section panel of SESTralin. As shown in Figure 11, the characteristics of the cables and
enclosure are defined in the Pipe Type Cable Creator screen of SESTralin.
Figure 11: Defining geometrical and physical properties of cable in Pipe Type Cable Creator screen.
Since all the three cables inside the enclosure are exactly identical, after defining the first cable
the other two can be copied or replicated from the first one. This can be done using the duplicate
and replication functions of the Pipe Type Cable Creator screen.
In this example, we assume that the three outermost conducting components of each cable, i.e.
the two sheaths and the armour, and the metallic enclosure are bundled. Therefore, as shown in
Figure 12, the cores of the cable are assigned to phase numbers 1 to 3 and the other conducting
components constitute the fourth phase.

Figure 12: Phase allocation to conducting components in Phase Assignment screen of SESTralin.
By default, a uniform medium with a resistivity of 100 Ω-m is assumed as the soil structure in
SESTralin. Therefore, when the data specification in the Cross Section panel is complete, the
TRALIN model is ready to be submitted to the TRALIN computation engine through the
Compute button (in the Home tab on the ribbon as shown, in Figure 13).
When the computation process is completed, the elements of the computed phase-based
impedance matrix of the system are automatically listed in the Computation Results panel, as
shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13: Computed impedance matrix as shown in the Computation Results panel of SESTralin.
The TRALIN files to model the studied four-component cable (with both approaches) are
available at the following subfolder of the SES Software conference distribution:
UGC 2015\Example Files\Multi-component coaxial cable in Tralin\Multi-Component-Multi-
Layer-Cable-with-Enclosure
4 Conclusion
A new feature for modeling multi-component coaxial cables in TRALIN was introduced in this
article. Through two case examples, it was shown how to model concentric cables consisting of
more than three conducting components in SESTralin. The functionality of the new feature was
validated against results obtained by modeling a four-component coaxial cable as a three-
component cable inside a cable enclosure.

Appendix A
General Command Structure to Define Multi-Component Cables
in TRALIN
GROUP Name, Ycoord, Zcoord
CABLE Name, Radius_Insul, Angle, Distance
COMPONENT Index, Name, Nphase, Radius_Outer, Radius_Inner, Rel_Resist, Rel_Permea,
Rel_Conduct_Insul, Rel_Permit_Insul
METAL Index, Rel_Resist, Rel_Permea, Inner_Radius
INSULATION Index,Resistivity, Thick, Rel_Permit, Rel_Permea
COMPONENT Index, Nphase, Radius_Outer, Radius_Inner, Rel_Resist, Rel_Permea,
INSULATION Index, Thick, Rel_Permit, Rel_Permea
COMPONENT Index, Name, Nphase, Radius_Outer, Radius_Inner, Rel_Resist, Rel_Permea,
INSULATION Index, Resistivity, Thick, Rel_Permit, Rel_Permea
PIPE Radius_Insul, Conduct_Interior, Rel_Permea_Interior, Rel_Permit_Interior
WALL Name, Nphase, Radius_Outer, Radius_Inner, Rel_Resist, Rel_Permea,

Appendix B
Computed Matrices for Case Example of Section 3.1

Appendix C
Command Structure to Define TRALIN input file for Case
Example of Section 3.1
5 References
[1]. Yixin Yang and Simon Fortin “Multilayer Metallic and Insulation Layers of Cable Components in
TRALIN”, CDEGS’ Users Group Conference, Montreal, Canada, 2010.
[2]. A. Ametani “A General Formulation of Impedance and Admittance of Cables”, IEEE
Transaction on Power Apparatus and Systems, V. PAS-99, Pages 902-910.

XVICOATED CONDUCTORS IN MALT

1 Introduction
The capability to model coated conductors has been available in MALZ and HIFREQ for many
years. This feature can be used to model realistic cases including coated pipes, rails partially or
completely buried in ballast, rods with ground enhancement material, etc. For MALZ, coated
conductors can also be used to model above ground conductors by representing them as
perfectly coated conductors and shifting them into the soil, near the earth surface, to achieve a
very good approximation. In this version of the software, this feature was introduced in MALT.
This feature, combined with the new ability of MALT to model partially or completely coated
plates will greatly improve its range of applications.
2 Specification of Coating on Conductors

In SESCAD, coating types can be assigned to selected conductors in MALT in the same way as is
done for MALZ and HIFREQ: by checking the Coating Type box and selecting the coating type
number next to it in the Characteristics screen, as shown in Figure 1. Coating types can be
specified or edited in the System (Characteristics) Conductor Coating Types screen
(Figure 2), which can be reached by clicking the … button at the end of this row.
Figure 1: Specification of the coating type of selected conductors in SESCAD.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XVI-1

PART I: NEW FEATURES OR PART II: USER CONTRIBUTIONS OR PART III: SES CONTRIBUTIONS
Figure 2: Definition of coating types in the System (Characteristics) Conductor Coating

Types screen.
The data needed to specify coating types are the same in MALT as in MALZ and HIFREQ, but in
MALT, only the thickness of the coating layer and the properties of the resistive part of the
coating material are used to determine the effect of the coating on conductors (including on the
surfaces of plates): the remaining parameters are ignored
Those of you who like to edit input (F05) files manually should note that the Coating-Type code
is the last (12th) variable on the CONDUCTOR command in MALT.
A sample MALT input file including coating types and coated conductors is shown below.
MALT
……
CHARACTERISTICS
COATING-TYPE,DEFAULT,10000.,0.0004,1.0,1.0,Type 1
COATING-TYPE,,1E+10,0.00656168,12,2,Type 2
RESISTIVE-PART,RESISTIVITY,100,60
RESISTIVE-PART,AREARESISTANCE,100,60
RESISTIVE-PART,LENGTHRESISTANCE,200,60
……
NETWORK
MAIN-GROUND
ENERGIZATION, CURRENT, 100

CONDUCTOR,-50,-40,.5,50,-40,.5,.0067056, 1,,0,,4
CONDUCTOR,-50,-30,.5,50,-30,.5,.0067056, 1,,0,,3
CONDUCTOR,-50,-20,.5,50,-20,.5,.0067056, 1,,0,,2
CONDUCTOR,-50,-10,.5,50,-10,.5,.0067056, 1,,0,,1
CONDUCTOR,-50,0,.5,50,0,.5,.0067056, 1,,0
RETURN-GROUN
ENERGIZATION, Voltage, -23.818

CONDUCTOR,196.6,-30,.5,296.6,-30,.5,.0067056, 1,,0,,3
Page XVI-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.
CONDUCTOR,196.6,-20,.5,296.6,-20,.5,.0067056, 1,,0,,2
CONDUCTOR,196.6,-10,.5,296.6,-10,.5,.0067056, 1,,0,,1
CONDUCTOR,196.6,0,.5,296.6,0,.5,.0067056, 1,,0
……
BURIED-STRUC
ENERGIZATION, Voltage, 87.0509

CONDUCTOR,-203.0,-40.4,.5,-103.0,-40.4,.5,.0067056, 1,,0,,1
CONDUCTOR,-203.0,-30.4,.5,-103.0,-30.4,.5,.0067056, 1,,0,,2
CONDUCTOR,-203.0,-20.4,.5,-103.0,-20.4,.5,.0067056, 1,,0,,3
CONDUCTOR,-203.0,9.5,.5,-103.0,9.5,.5,.0067056, 1,,-1
……
ENDPROGRAM
3 An Example Including Coated Conductors in a System

Buried in a Horizontal Multilayer Soil Model
Figure 3 shows an example including a coated pipe with a radius of 0.1 m at a depth of 0.5 m in a
three-layer soil model. The pipe is connected to a foundation grid at one of its extremities and
passes near a substation grid (51 m X 51 m) at the other end. Both grids are at a depth of 0.5 m.
The radius of the conductors in both grids is 0.0067 m. The grid in the substation has 25 rods
with a radius of 0.0058 m and a length of 10 m. The thickness of the top and middle layers in
the three-layer soil model is 5 and 8 m, respectively. The soil resistivity from the top layer to the
bottom layer is 10, 2000 and 500 Ωm, respectively. Three linear profiles are defined on the
earth surface along the pipe. One is just above the pipe and the other two are shifted 1 m away
from the center profile on both sides. The thickness and the resistivity of the coating layer on the
pipe surface are 0.001 m and 1E7 Ωm, respectively. The fault current injected in the substation
grid is 1,000 A.
Figure 3: System including a coated pipe.

In order to show the effect of the coating layer on the pipe surface, the same system without the
coating layer on the pipe is also modelled in MALT. Both scenarios are also modelled with
perfect conductors in MALZ at 0 Hz, for verification purposes. The calculated GPR on the main
grid at the substation and on the pipe is listed in Table 1. The calculated potential and touch

PART I: NEW FEATURES OR PART II: USER CONTRIBUTIONS OR PART III: SES CONTRIBUTIONS
voltage along the defined profiles on the earth surface are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5,
respectively.
TABLE 1: CALCULATED GPR ON THE MAIN GRID AND PIPE
GPR on the MAIN Grid (V) GPR on the Pipe (V)

Models
MALT MALZ MALT MALZ
With Bare pipe 721.291 721.9 592.204 592.7
With Coated pipe 789.1 789.6 438.66 439.1
a. System with a bare pipe in MALT b. System with a bare pipe in MALZ
c. System with a coated pipe in MALT d. System with a coated pipe in MALZ
Figure 4: Calculated potential along the defined profiles on the earth surface.
Page XVI-4 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

a. System with a bare pipe in MALT b. System with a bare pipe in MALZ
c. System with a coated pipe in MALT d. System with a coated pipe in MALZ
Figure 5: Calculated touch voltage along the defined profiles on the earth surface.
From Table 1, Figure 4 and Figure 5, it can be seen that the calculated GPR on the MAIN grid
and on the pipe as well as the potential and touch voltages along the defined profiles agree very
well between MALT and MALZ. It also shows that the presence of the high resistivity coating
layer on the pipe causes the GPR of the pipe to decrease and the GPR of the nearby electrode
(here, the MAIN) to increase. The potential along the defined profiles on the earth surface also
increases in the presence of a pipe coating. These effects result in a significant increase (about 10
times) of the touch voltage along these profiles.
4 Conclusion
The ability to model coated conductors has been added in MALT, for all the available soil
models. An example showing the effect of a high resistivity coating layer on conductors was
presented, and showed a significant increase in the touch voltage to the coated pipe compared to
a similar case with a bare pipe.

XVIIPROGRESS ON IMPLEMENTING SIMPLIFIED MULTI-

REGION SOIL MODELS IN MALZ
Maxime Daigle, Farid P. Dawalibi, Rachid El Hani, Simon Fortin, Christian Voyer
Email: info@sestech.com Web Site: http://www.sestech.com/
Abstract
When conductor networks reach a certain size, multiple, multi-layer soil models for various portions of the system
become relevant. While work has begun on a complete solution to this problem, it is still some ways away from
being completed. We present here preliminary results on a simplified multi-region solution in MALZ, which could
improve the accuracy of results and be ready for usage sooner.
1 Introduction
Many complex grounding systems consist of a network of conductors which cannot be assumed
to be in a single of the soil models currently available in MALT, MALZ or HIFREQ. Windfarms,
for example, include many turbine footings in different multilayer soils, interconnected by
insulated cables. It is now common for studies of electromagnetic interference in joint-use
corridors to stretch well over one hundred miles and it is essential for such models to correctly
take into account variations in soil structures along the corridor to properly compute leakage
impedances and through earth coupling between buried metallic structures.
While solutions exist for a rather large variety of different soils (for example, all the different soil
models available in MALT, MALZ and HIFREQ) these same solutions cannot be used to treat
multiple regions. In principle one has the option of using finite volumes, but in practice the
resources required are prohibitive. A complete solution to this theoretical problem is quite
challenging, and while work has begun on a technique that uses a Boundary-Element Method to
handle the boundary conditions between the different regions [1] (for use in MALT and MALZ,
but not HIFREQ), it is still far from being included in the software.
There are some workarounds to the current limitation in MALT, MALZ and HIFREQ to a single
soil model. With the clever use of lumped impedances the effect of remote grounds can be
included, though these need to be calculated in separate models. For long joint-use corridors, the
Right-of-Way module can add a leakage correction to a conductor by way of a connection to
remote earth through a specified lead impedance. If the configuration or characteristics of the
conductor changes for a given phase along the corridor though, the leakage impedance correction
cannot be based on the SPLITS model. Right-0f-Way needs to recompute the leakage correction
at the time of the MALZ total interference file generation, which can take substantial computation
time. Moreover, studying objects like pipeline valve stations for faults that are not in the same soil
as the fault location remains problematic. A multi-region soil computation capability is still
needed.
A simplified approach that consists of enhancing the MALZ module to allow the specification of
multiple soil regions, and performing many of the required computations, though short of a full
solution, has been considered for some time. This paper presents the very promising preliminary
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XVII-1

results of the implementation of the simplified model, which could be a substantial improvement
to the current methodology.
2 The Proposed Computation Methodology

In the presence of a multi-layer soil, a conductor’s leakage impedance will be influenced by all
layers. Likewise, when computing the influence of leakage current from one conductor on
another, whether both are in the same soil layer or not, all soil layers will have an influence on the
result.
While solving the horizontal multi-layered multi-region model exactly is not yet within our grasp,
a simplified model has been proposed. The simplification consists of performing the calculation
of the leakage current for a given conductor segment assuming that only the horizontally multi-
layered soil in which that conductor sits exists, and that the contributions from one soil region to
another soil region are determined by the source soil only; namely, we simply ignore all other
soils. Consider a standard case of a long, buried conductor crossing several soil regions, sketched
in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Standard case of long conductor that crosses three horizontally layered soil regions.
The contribution from a conductor segment located in soil Region 3 to the potential at a point in
soil Region 1 is influenced by Regions 1 and 3 but also by Region 2. In this simplified model, we
ignore that influence. The contribution from a conductor segment in soil Region 3 at a point in
soil Region 1 will be computed as if only the soil in their respective regions existed.
The simplification basically assumes that the local contributions will dominate, and consequently,
that the approximate portion of the calculation is not substantial enough to have a large influence
on the results. This is quite reasonable for cases where the boundary area between different soil
regions is not of particular interest, for example electrodes separated by a large enough distance
that independent sets of resistivity measurements are used to determine the local soil models, or
joint use corridors that consist of soil changes along the corridor such that only small portions of
the model straddle the soil boundary and do so orthogonally, minimizing the cross-boundary
conductive coupling.
The major advantages of this methodology are that it will be easier to implement than the more
complete numerical solution described above and it will not be more costly in computation
resources (memory or time). While a complete solution is naturally more desirable, this simpler
method opens up key modeling possibilities for more detailed studies and has the added benefit
of being easier to use than the current best practices.
Page XVII-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

3 The Validation Methodology

Naturally, given that we are well aware that the method is not exact, validating the approximation
is essential. For practical purposes, the best place to start is to test a multi-region soil in which
each region has uniform soil resistivity, and therefore identical to a vertically layered soil. The
MALZ module is already outfitted with a complete solution for the vertically layered soil, and
therefore can be used as benchmark.
In order to easily generate a large number of test cases, the Right-of-Way module was used. Right-
of-Way can automatically generate an arbitrary number of fault simulations in MALZ that consist
of tower injection currents or GPRs along a buried conductor.
The base model used to validate the proposed methodology is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Base model used for validation. The line marked with stars represents the faulted transmission
line. The modeled pipeline is in the joint-use corridor for 10 km, veers orthogonally away from the
transmission line at both ends and continues for 10 km. The colored lines illustrate changing soil
resistivities.
As illustrated in Figure 2, the model consists of 67 equal-length (300 m) regions with soil
resistivities alternating between 100 and 5000 Ω ⋅ 𝑚. The pipeline is placed 10 m from the
transmission line, and they are parallel for 10 km. The towers were assumed to have 10 cm radius,
3 m grounds.
The MALZ total interference models were created for four different fault locations. Right-of-Way
currently does not support vertical multi-layer soils, so the files were first created, then the models
were edited to include vertical soil models as supported by MALZ.
The case model was purposely chosen to be as demanding on the simulation as possible: high
resistivity contrast and very narrow soil regions, combined with a relentless alternation. The goal
is to push the current methodology to its breaking point and see if the proposed method is more
robust.
4 Pipeline GPR and Touch Potential Results

The pipeline GPR and Touch potentials were computed in three types of MALZ models: complete
vertical soil model, the simplified multi-region soil method and a uniform soil model with lead
impedance corrections. In addition, the effects of selecting GPR or Current energization for the

tower footings was explored as early tests appeared to show different results depending on the
energization type chosen.
4.1 Bare pipe

The effects of changing soil resistivities along a joint-use corridor will be most drastic for a bare
conductor. We therefore begin with a bare pipe. Figure 3 shows the conductor GPR results for the
four fault locations studied.
Figure 3: Bare pipeline GPR results for the four fault locations analyzed. We see the simplified multi-
region MALZ computation agrees well with the exact result.
An important confirmation of our method is that the Current and GPR energizations yield
identical results, as they should. An important ingredient for this high quality match is that if the
soil regions are narrow, the impedances of towers need to be computed taking into account the
vertical soil boundaries. A separate study currently being conducted by SES has the goal of
establish a quantifiable threshold at which such interactions become important, though
preliminary results indicate that standard cases do not suffer from this problem.
The results also show that the simplified multi-region MALZ models agree quite well with the
exact vertical soil solution, and indeed perform better than the current state-of-the-art
methodology of leakage current corrections. The contrast is all the more evident for a fault in high
resistivity soil.
Figure 4 shows the results for touch potentials on the pipe. Again, the simplified multi-region
MALZ model performs quite well. The biggest contrast is also found when the fault location is in
high-resistivity soil.

Figure 4: Bare pipe touch voltage results for various fault locations. Again, the simplified multi-region
MALZ computation agrees well with the exact result.
4.2 Coated Pipe

We performed the same set of simulations for a coated pipe. Given that there is an important
contribution from the coating to the results, and we expect that this example perform equally well
or better than the bare conductor model.
The GPR results are shown in Figure 5, and the touch potential results are shown in Figure 6.
We see that the simplified multi-region models perform even better than for the bare pipe models.
While the leakage current correction model does better under these circumstances, the simplified
multi-region soil still out-performs it.

Figure 5: Coated pipeline GPR results for the four fault locations analyzed. We see that the simplified
multi-region MALZ computation agrees well with the exact result, and that the agreement is better than
for a bare pipe.
Figure 6: Coated pipe touch voltage results for various fault locations. Again, the simplified multi-region
MALZ computation agrees well with the exact result, and the agreement is better than for a bare pipe.
These results are quite promising, and if further tests are as successful, we could provide a more
accurate methodology for handling multi-region soils.
5 Soil Scalar Potential Results

In the examples above, the scalar potential at a given location is dominated by the leakage current
from conductors in the vicinity of that location. We do not expect as good a performance of the
scalar potential far from conductors and across region boundaries, but if we can characterize well
enough the influence of the soil boundary and resistivity contrast, we can account for the change,

again, without having to find the exact solution to the multi-region soil problem. In order to do
so, we consider three source arrangements near a soil-region boundary, sketched in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Various scenarios studied to determine whether the scalar potential could be simply computed
for a source more distant, and perhaps in a different soil region. The source is represented as a solid black
line, or a circle in the case of vertical source. The red dashed line represents the potential profile used to
report results. The black dashed line represents the soil boundary.
In this portion of the study we define an error function in order to quantify the difference between
the values computed in the full vertical soil solution and the uniform soil assumption:
𝑉𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑡 (𝑥, 𝑦) − 𝑉𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑓 (𝑥, 𝑦)
𝐸𝑟(𝑥, 𝑦) =
𝑉𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑡 (𝑥, 𝑦)
where 𝑉𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑡 (𝑥, 𝑦) is the scalar potential obtained with the exact solution and 𝑉𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑓 (𝑥, 𝑦) is the
scalar potential obtained from a uniform resistivity soil model.
We also define the coefficient 𝐾 that characterises the contrast in resistivity between the two
regions (𝜌1 and 𝜌2 are the soil resistivities defined in Figure 7):
𝜌2 − 𝜌1
𝐾=
𝜌2 + 𝜌1
We also define a scaled distance factor 𝜒, where 𝑥 is the distance along the profile and 𝑑 is defined
in Figure 7.
𝑥
𝜒=
𝑑
5.1 Vertical and Horizontal Source

In Figure 8 we can see that the error function follows a very consistent pattern.

Figure 8: Plots of the error function for various values of 𝐾, in the case of a vertical source.
Through successive efforts to normalize the various patterns, we found that the error function can
be written as:
1+𝐾𝐾 × 𝐸𝑟
𝑓(𝜒) = √
1+𝐾
After normalizing the error functions with the above factor, we obtain the curves shown in Figure
9.
Figure 9: Plots of the normalized error functions, in the case of a vertical source.
An identical result was obtained for a horizontal source parallel to the soil region boundary.
5.2 Perpendicular Source

The error function for a horizontal source running perpendicular to the soil boundary behaves
even more simply that the cases shown above, as shown in Figure 10. The error function is
basically flat, except at the soil region boundary.
Figure 10: Plots of the error function for various values of 𝐾, in the case of a source perpendicular to the
soil region boundary.

Figure 11: Plots of the normalized error functions, in the case of a source perpendicular to the soil region
boundary.
The normalization of the error function yields a simple relationship between the exact solution
and the uniform soil results:
𝐾
𝑉𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑡 = 𝑉𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑓
1+𝐾
6 Start of Multilayer Validation Efforts

While the above results are encouraging, a multilayer validation is important since uniform
resistivity soil regions will exhibit significantly simpler behaviour than a realistic, multilayer case.
Our first attempts at Finite Soil Volume use for multilayer validation are challenging because it is
difficult to define a soil volume large enough to be comparable with the simplified multi-region
soil solution. Indeed, the difficulties described in the introduction of this paper are certainly
present in our validation models: the computation resources required with our first attempts are
prohibitive.
Either a more novel use of Finite Volumes will need to be found, or multilayer validation will have
to come from some other source.
7 Future Work
While the results shown here are quite promising, there are still important steps remaining before
this methodology can be used for actual project work.
First, the method should also work quite well for grounding models. These need to be validated
as well. Second, while intuitively the method should work better than the leakage correction
method in multi-layer soil, a validation would provide a strong argument to change the current
best practices.
Even though the results are quite good already, correction terms for cross-boundary contributions
could be easily included to improve the match yet further. These corrections could also help for
conductors at a region boundary, since these are likely to be problematic still.
Finally, this method could also be of value in HIFREQ, for which there is no full solution proposed
at this time.

8 References
[1] Simon Fortin, "Lateral Variation of Soil Resistivity – The Multi-Region Soil" Houston, Texas, USA,
2006.

Part II: User Contributions
XVIIIGROUNDING SYSTEM ANALYSIS BY MEANS OF

SIMULATION & MEASUREMENT
Glen Kulak, P.Eng.

Stantec Consulting Ltd.
222-4000 4th Street SE
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Email: glen.kulak@stantec.com, Web Site: www.stantec.com
1 Introduction
Grounding system tests verify the effectiveness of the construction and simulation of a grounding
system. Interpretation of field test measurements can be confirmed with simulations performed
by CDEGS software. The basis for preparing a grounding system simulation is an accurate soil
resistivity test (SRT) measurement. Measured results are entered into a CDEGS program called
RESAP for determining the type of multi-layer soil resistivity possible for use in a simulation
model. A couple of CDEGS software programs (MALZ or HIFREQ) could be used for simulating
worst case step and touch voltages over specified areas within and surrounding a grounding
system to assess whether respective step and touch voltages are within acceptable voltage
thresholds according to IEEE 80-2000 [1]. Current split simulations are possible with programs
such as SPLITS or HIFREQ to assist in predicting the amount of earth current dissipated into a
grounding system during single line to ground faults anywhere on the transmission or distribution
network. After construction is complete, it is common to perform a fall of potential field test
measurement. It is also possible that step and touch voltage measurements be completed within
and around areas of the grounding system, and is recommended.
This paper focuses on the measurements of soil resistivity, fall of potential, step and touch voltage
as well as current split by using dedicated OMICRON equipment. An overview of theoretical
considerations for field test measurements are provided, along with actual case study examples
to illustrate how OMICRON test equipment along with CDEGS simulation software may be used
to assist in various aspects of grounding system analysis in terms of soil resistivity, fall of
potential, step and touch voltage, and current split. The paper identifies items during
measurement and analysis which are relatively simple when using the measurement and
simulation software tools, as well as identifies certain challenges which may exist if tests are not
planned effectively and therefore identify some pitfalls and lessons learned when performing
certain field test measurements.
The topic of soil resistivity test measurements and analysis are covered in Section 2. Fall of
potential test measurements and analysis are covered in Section 3. Current split measurements
by circulating current through a transmission line phase conductors are presented in Section 4.
During the last Section 5 of the paper, the focus will be primarily on touch voltage measurements
and analysis.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XVIII-1

PART II: USER CONTRIBUTIONS
2 Soil Resistivity Test Measurements

Completing an effective soil resistivity test measurement requires preparing a detailed SRT test
plan. Outside of what is covered in test measurement standards such as IEEE Std. 81-2012 [2],
the following lists some additional practical considerations which typically get addressed during
a test measurement specification for soil resistivity.
1. Understanding the test equipment used in the field. Knowing some of the test equipment
details such as output frequency will help to understand how to direct field crews in setting
up a measurement (i.e. test lead separation between current and potential test leads –
more on this later).
2. Understanding what is under the ground. Obtaining information which shows known
buried pipelines and U/G utilities will help to identify where to complete an SRT test to
minimize the influence of such buried structures.
3. Know how large the substation grounding system is expected to be. This will help to
identify the maximum spacing, and what spacing intervals should be used in Greenfield
substation design cases.
4. Provide contact information for field testing technologists to directly contact the engineer
responsible for analyzing the results of the field test measurements in case they have any
questions or need to make a judgment call. In this case the field crew will be assured that
a judgment call is supported by the engineer responsible for analyzing the measurement,
and both parties will learn more about measurement challenges and how to best approach
dealing with them.
A keen field testing technologist may request some clarification on an SRT test plan if the
separation distance between the current injection test leads and the potential measurement test
leads is not provided. In such a case, it is useful to use a CDEGS software program HIFREQ to
predict at what spacing test lead coupling may affect your field test measurements. The following
graphs represent simulations prepared in HIFREQ for various frequencies (0.5Hz, 128Hz, and
150Hz) with test lead separation distances which vary from (1m, 5m, 10m, 25m, and 50m) for a
uniform soil resistivity of 100m.
Figure 1 represents simulated soil resistivity measurements with 0.5Hz frequency. Results
indicate that for Wenner 4-pin method spacing values up to 300m, there is no noticeable
difference in measured values for each of the separation distances between current and potential
leads.
Page XVIII-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

0.5Hz, Various Separation, 100 Ohm*m Uniform Soil, Calc Imp [Z] vs Spacing [S]
1
Impedance, "Z" [ohms]
50m SEP SRT

25m SEP SRT
0.1 10m SEP SRT
5m SEP SRT
1m SEP SRT
0.01
10 100
Spacing "S" [m]
Figure 1: HIFREQ SRT Test Simulation, 0.5Hz, 100m Uniform Soil, Calculated Impedance vs Spacing.
128Hz, Various Separation, 100 Ohm*m Uniform Soil, Calc Imp [Z] vs Spacing [S]
1
50m SEP SRT

25m SEP SRT
0.1 10m SEP SRT

5m SEP SRT
1m SEP SRT
0.01
10 100
Spacing "S" [m]
Figure 2: HIFREQ SRT Test Simulation, 128Hz, 100m Uniform Soil, Calculated Impedance vs Spacing.
Figure 2 represents simulated soil resistivity test measurements with 128Hz frequency. In
general, any time separation distances exceed 80m or so, measurement errors are possible due to
lead coupling. The magnitude of the measurement error increases as the separation distance
between current and potential test leads decrease.

150Hz, Various Separation, 100 Ohm*m Uniform Soil, Calc Imp [Z] vs Spacing [S]
1
50m SEP SRT

25m SEP SRT
0.1 10m SEP SRT

5m SEP SRT
1m SEP SRT
0.01
10 100
Spacing "S" [m]
Figure 3: HIFREQ SRT Test Simulation, 150Hz, 100m Uniform Soil, Calculated Impedance vs Spacing.
Figure 3 represents simulated soil resistivity test measurements with 150Hz frequency. At this
frequency, any time separation distances exceed 75m or so, measurement errors may exist due to
lead coupling as well. Once again, the magnitude of the measurement error increases as the
separation distance between current and potential test leads decrease.
These simulation results with HIFREQ allow engineers to prepare appropriate test procedures
specific to the type of measurement equipment which is expected to be used. However, engineers
may not know what type of field test equipment is used. In such situations, they would need to
make a judgment call on how to specify a field test. If the soil resistivity is predictable for an area
in which field test measurements are completed, engineers could easily identify with HIFREQ
when lead coupling errors could affect measurements, then adjust their test plans accordingly.
In situations where HIFREQ simulation software is not available, a test lead coupling error
assessment is still possible by field test measurement. Completing a frequency sweep type
measurement at each of the spacing distances specified in the test plan will assist in detecting test
lead coupling by monitoring the point where the larger frequency measurements start to deviate
from all the other frequency measurements. OMICRON test equipment is simple to program and
capable of measuring a frequency range of (15Hz up to 400Hz) for up to six frequency selections.
Field crews are capable of monitoring the measurement behavior of all selected frequencies to
detect when lead coupling may start to introduce measurement errors. It is then possible that
field crews could react by increasing the separation distance between the current test lead and
potential test leads or just leave it up to the engineers to deal with. The latter option is not really
a poor decision, since the data automatically recorded by OMICRON test equipment allows
engineers enough information to minimize the effects of the test lead coupling errors measured.

With OMICRON test equipment, field test measurements are easily converted into EXCEL
spreadsheet files where results could be broken down into R+jX ohm values and analyzed.
OMICRON soil resistivity test data allows engineers an opportunity to evaluate the measured
impedance [Z,ohms], measured resistance [R, ohms] and the measured reactance [X, ohms] for
all spacing values at all frequency’s measured. This information is useful for engineers during soil
model analysis as it allows them the opportunity to make decisions on how best to eliminate the
effects of test lead coupling by using the [R, ohms] values only. It also allows engineers an
opportunity to report test results to clients explaining that for a particular separation distance
between the current injection test lead and potential measurement test lead, according to soil
conditions measured at their substation, test lead coupling errors were experienced starting at a
certain Wenner 4-pin spacing distance.
The following Figure 4 illustrates an example of field test measurements completed for a
Greenfield substation to be built in southern Alberta.
SRT130 - EW Measured Apparent Resistivity

80
70
Apparent Resistivity [ohm-m]
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Spacing [m]
15Hz-EW 40Hz-EW 80Hz-EW 128Hz-EW 150Hz-EW
Figure 4: Measured Apparent Resistivity [m] vs Spacing
Soil model analysis for this particular substation identified some observations worth noting. The
graphed results above indicate that at approximately 80m, the effect of test lead coupling starts
to exist for the higher frequency measurements. In the Alberta prairie region, it is common to
experience some form of test lead coupling errors at higher test frequencies at Wenner 4-pin
spacing measurements that exceed approximately 75m or so, depending on the separation
distance of the test leads. It can also be shown that the 15Hz frequency portion of the
measurement calculated a higher apparent resistivity value in comparison to all other frequency
components. This observation contradicts the theory previously shown in Figure 2 or 3 in the fact
that the 15Hz frequency measurements at shorter spacing’s should match with the other test
frequencies. The purpose of illustrating this example is to identify what was experienced when
operating OMICRON test equipment at its lowest possible frequency range. As a result, we
recommend soil resistivity measurement specifications using OMICRON test equipment with
frequencies in the range of (25Hz, 40Hz, 80Hz, 95Hz, 128Hz, and 150Hz) values. Our success at
using this range of frequencies in comparison with how results would theoretically be calculated
is much better. The rationale for the frequency selections are:
25Hz / 95Hz, they are 35Hz below and above 60Hz power frequency – which allows
interpolation of a 60Hz measurement if needed.
40Hz / 80Hz, these are 20Hz below and above 60Hz power frequency, which matches a
set of frequencies recommended by OMICRON for fall of potential test
measurements, and adopted for soil resistivity test measurements. Interpolation
for a 60Hz power frequency measurement is also possible and may be verified
with the previous frequency combination if needed.
128Hz, matches a default frequency measurement for field test equipment built by AEMC.
150Hz, matches a default frequency measurement for field test equipment built by
MEGGER.
Considerations for minimizing the effects of test lead coupling are worth investigating. One
option includes using the measured resistive component [R, ohms] thus avoiding the frequency
dependent reactive portion of the measurement altogether. Another option includes using a lower
frequency measurement value which just minimizes the error in comparison with higher
frequency measurement values. If the measurement errors are not accounted for, it is possible
that it may affect the bottom resistivity layer by increasing it to a value higher than what actually
may exist. In this case study, the 40Hz test measurement was used since the resulting grounding
design met with the overall design criteria using what was considered a conservative soil model
design.
The case study / example considered in this paper focus on SRT test measurement for Greenfield
substation. However, there are references from past CDEGS User’s Group Meeting’s which
indicate procedures which can be used to help eliminate the effects of buried metallic structures
[3] which exist in areas where SRT test measurements were completed. In some cases, difficult
physical constraints for testing options may require that these procedures be considered. Since
the OMICRON test equipment produces a sinusoidal waveform, and CDEGS software would use
the same waveform for its calculations in HIFREQ. Using both tools for grounding system analysis
provides engineers with some level of confidence that the simulation software may accurately
simulate/predict what OMICRON’s performance capability might be for simple or challenging
measurement scenarios.
3 Fall of Potential Analysis

After construction is complete on a grounding system, it is typical to have measurements taken in
order to confirm that the performance of the grounding system matches or exceeds design
expectations. A fall of potential test measurement is one of the more recognized industry accepted
options available. It is recommended that the engineer responsible for analyzing the fall of
potential test measurements be responsible for setting up the fall of potential test plan. Apart
from details found in IEEE 81-2012 [2], the following items list some additional considerations
when specifying details for a fall of potential field test.
1. Available land for completing a test. There is commercially available software which is
simple to use for satellite or aerial photos which may be useful in evaluating what kind
of land is available for completing a test. To avoid test lead coupling errors, a 90 degree
fall of potential profile measurement could be considered. However, when conditions
are such that a 0 degree measurement is required, it is worthwhile understanding what
degree of error is possible due to test lead coupling at various test lead separation
distances.
2. Understanding what is buried under the ground. Obtaining information to understand
what underground utilities exist in an area considered for fall of potential test
measurements. It is always a good idea to avoid test measurements parallel to U/G
pipelines and any other utilities if possible.
3. Plan the test to be completed as far as practically possible. General guidelines from IEEE
81-2012 [2] for fall of potential tests indicate it to be acceptable to locate remote ground
grid five times the maximum extent of the grounding system under test.
4. Provide contact information to field testing technologists for the engineer responsible
for analyzing field test measurements in case they require assistance in making a
judgment call or even address any questions.
In situations where a zero degree fall of potential field test measurement is specified, it is
important to ensure that field testing technologists are provided enough details to complete the
test measurement, especially test lead separation distance between current injection and potential
measurement test leads. To help understand what levels of test lead coupling might exist at
various test lead separation distances, engineers can use HIFREQ to simulate a number of
scenarios. Theoretical simulations based on 100m uniform soil on a 100m x 100m substation
ground grid are illustrated in the following graphs. The zero degree fall of potential simulation is
prepared for a distance of 900m (which exceeds IEEE 81-2012 [2] recommendation at 5 times the
maximum extent of the ground grid). The simulations include various separation distances
between remote current injection test leads and potential measurement test leads of 1m, 5m, 10m,
25m, and 50m at frequencies of 0.5Hz, 128Hz, and 150Hz. The following Figures 5, 6, and 7
identify theoretical simulations with test current frequencies of 0.5Hz, 128Hz, and 150Hz
respectively.
Theoretical results using a 0.5Hz test frequency in Figure 5 indicate that test lead separation
between an injected current test lead and a potential measurement test lead does not affect the
overall measurement by way of introducing lead coupling measurement errors. The HIFREQ
simulations at various test lead separation distances are set up to account for actual test lead
placement, and is capable of calculating the expected test lead coupling error. The MALZ
simulation only accounts for conductive interference effects of the test current in the soil, and
therefore cannot account for any above ground inductive interference effects between the current
injection test leads and the potential measurement test leads. It is clear that all simulations match
with each other when a low frequency such as 0.5Hz is simulated.

Theoretical FOP, 0.5Hz Test Current

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
Impedance (ohms)
HI_FOP_50m SEP
1.2
HI_FOP_25m SEP
1
HI_FOP_10m SEP
0.8
HI_FOP_5m SEP
0.6
HI_FOP_1m SEP
0.4
MZ_FOP
0.2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance (m)
Figure 5: HIFREQ FOP Test Simulation, 0.5Hz, 100 m Uniform Soil, Impedance vs Distance
Simulation results for a 128Hz test frequency illustrated in Figure 6 identify that actual
measurements are affected by a certain degree of lead coupling which is dependent on the
separation distance between the current injection test leads and the potential measurement test
leads. HIFREQ simulations are clear, as the test lead separation distance increases test lead
coupling effects are reduced. The MALZ simulation represents a 128Hz measurement with no
lead coupling. Engineers who are required to analyze field test measurement data benefit with
HIFREQ software, as it allows them to account for measurements which include lead coupling
interference. It may not be practically possible to perform a fall of potential test measurement
with large enough spacing between test leads to avoid lead coupling in areas which contain
relatively low soil resistivity.

Theoretical FOP, 128Hz Test Current

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
Impedance (ohms)
HI_FOP_50m SEP
1.2
HI_FOP_25m SEP
1
HI_FOP_10m SEP
0.8
HI_FOP_5m SEP
0.6
HI_FOP_1m SEP
0.4
MZ_FOP
0.2
0
0 200 400 600 800
Distance (m)
Figure 6: HIFREQ FOP Test Simulation, 128Hz, 100 m Uniform Soil, Impedance vs Distance
Theoretical FOP, 150Hz Test Current

2
1.8
1.6
Impedance (ohms)
1.4 HI_FOP_50m SEP

1.2 HI_FOP_25m SEP
1
HI_FOP_10m SEP
0.8
0.6 HI_FOP_5m SEP
0.4 HI_FOP_1m SEP

0.2 MZ_FOP
0
0 200 400 600 800
Distance (m)
Figure 7: HIFREQ FOP Test Simulation, 150Hz, 100 m Uniform Soil, Impedance vs Distance
Calculations for a zero degree fall of potential measurement with a 150Hz test frequency are
similar to that discussed previously for 128Hz. The degree of lead coupling is larger at a higher
frequency, and therefore affects the shape of the curve even more.
In the case of simulated results shown in Figure 7, it is important to note that it may be asserted
that for zero degree fall of potential measurement completed at 150Hz, the curve does not flatten
out. It could be concluded that the test distance is not far enough away. But in the case of the
theoretical simulation calculations for 150Hz frequency, the test distance exceeds IEEE 81-2012
[2] recommendations to complete a measurement at five times the maximum extent of the
grounding system. However, if insufficient test lead separation distances are used by field testing
technologists, this type of measured result is possible. It is therefore recommended that test
specifications indicate the separation distances, or that field technologists report the actual test
lead separation distance to provide data to assist with test measurement interpretation using
HIFREQ software which may also account for the interference conditions experienced during test
measurements.
Completing fall of potential test measurements with the OMICRON test equipment provides some
advantages over other commercially available grounding measurement test equipment. One
advantage is that the test equipment is capable of high current test injections on the order of amps
rather than milliamps. Measured results are provided in a R+jX format over a range of user
defined frequencies to aid engineers with additional measurement details which may be useful for
validating simulation models based on field test measurement results.
The following case example illustrates a fall of potential field test measurement with frequencies
ranging between 40Hz, 80Hz, and 150Hz. The substation ground grid measured was
interconnected to an industrial facility, which essentially creates a larger grounding system (on
the order of 700m). The fall of potential measurements were completed to a distance of 365m.
Refer to Figure 8 for fall of potential validation results with HIFREQ software.
The measurement illustrated in Figure 8 does not meet with IEEE 81-2012 [2] standards, since
the test distance was limited to 365m rather than 3500m (5 x 700m). In cases where physical
constraints limit a field test measurement to a non-standard test measurement distance, it is
important that the measurement be referred to as a fall of potential measurement rather than a
ground grid resistance test. For example, the 62% rule of thumb criteria is often used in
association with field test measurements. According to measured results in Figure 8, this would
suggest that the grounding system has an impedance of approximately 0.1 by interpolating
between the 40Hz and 80Hz measurements at 226m. After validating the simulation model using
three separate frequencies, the actual calculated grounding system impedance is 0.27.
The fall of potential measurement in Figure 8 was completed at a small angle toward the remote
ground grid rather than at a zero degree angle. The curve shape of the measurement shows
similarities in what might be expected for a zero degree measurement with the exception of having
a sharp increase at the very end once the remote ground grid is approached.

FOP - Validation Results

0.300
0.250
0.200
Impedance (ohms)
Meas_Z_40Hz
Meas_Z_80Hz
0.150
Meas_Z_150Hz
HI_FOP_Z_40Hz
0.100
HI_FOP_Z_80Hz
0.050 HI_FOP_Z_150Hz
0.000
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0
Distance (m)
Figure 8: FOP Validation, HIFREQ software, OMICRON Test Equipment
In this particular case, circulating 5A of test current for a fall of potential measurement, and
measuring results at multiple frequencies with OMICRON test equipment allows engineers with
the proper analysis tools such as HIFREQ to prepare models with some level of confidence
knowing it matches reasonably close to what is measured in the field.
4 Current Split Analysis

In some instances, an opportunity might be available for measuring the current split within a
grounding system after construction is complete or during regularly scheduled maintenance on
the transmission line. A current split measurement is completed by circulating a test current at
the near end of a transmission line, through the phase conductors which are grounded at the
remote end. Measuring the component of test current which circulates back through the overhead
shield wires at the near end substation provides engineers with a measured current split factor.
It is worthwhile confirming the measured current split with calculations using methods available
in CDEGS software such as FCDIST, SPLITS, or even HIFREQ.
From our experience, field test measurements which include a current split test measurement are
not typically required by a vast majority of our clients. This may be due largely to the fact that it
is common for Alberta substations to have overhead shield wires on transmission lines isolated
from the substation ground grid, or the difficulty in obtaining transmission line outages, or the
lack of requirements for utilities to conduct this measurement as part of substation maintenance.
Any one or all these factors contribute to the lack of field testing completed for current split
measurements. Therefore the case study selected is based on a single opportunity where
circulating test current through transmission line phase conductors could be completed. As a
result, the case study will focus on what was done, as well as identify anything else which could be

considered to improve the overall quality of the measurement and subsequent simulation
modeling.
The case study focuses on a substation built to interconnect a wind farm. With local utility
approval, arrangements were made to utilize their transmission line for circulating test current
through the phase conductors that were grounded at the remote end of the line. Current split
measurements at that time with OMICRON test equipment included a clip on ammeter. However
it would be recommended that a Rogowski coil be used to improve the accuracy of the
measurements to include phase angles. The test measurement connection for a current split
measurement is shown in Figure 9. The CPC100 drives a separate coupling unit/current booster
labelled as CP CU1. The grounding box labelled CP GB1, contains individual surge arrestors to
provide overvoltage protection for the test equipment in case the phase conductors inadvertently
rise to a voltage level for equipment as well as operating personnel protection.
Figure 9: Current Split Test Measurement Setup, OMICRON Test Equipment
With the phase conductors grounded at the remote end and confirmation that overhead shield
wires were terminated to their respective substation grounds at both ends, a 10A test current was
circulated through each of the 3 phase conductors according to Figure 9. The measured currents
are documented in Tables 1 and 2 for two different substation grounding system configurations.
TABLE 1: CURRENT SPLIT MEASUREMENT #1 – TX LINE ONLY
Location Measured [A] SPLITS [A] HIFREQ [A]
Output Current 10A 10A180 10A180
OHSW @ Sub 8A 7.5A-0.622 7.6A-4.8
Sub, IEARTH N/A 2.51A2 2.51A14.69
Results in Table 1 are based on the substation ground grid interconnected directly to the
transmission line overhead shield wire. It was found that 80% of the injected test current
returned back to the substation via the transmission line overhead shield wire through field test

measurements. Simulation models with SPLITS and HIFREQ correlate reasonably well with field
test measurements as SPLITS reports a 75% current split and HIFREQ reports a 76% current split.
Despite not measuring the angles, it can still be concluded that the transmission line model is
slightly more conservative as it has less current returning on the overhead shield wire compared
to measured results.
TABLE 2: CURRENT SPLIT MEASUREMENT #2 – TX LINE & COLLECTOR FEEDER 2
Location Measured [A] HIFREQ [A]
Output Current 10A 10A180
OHSW @ Sub 4.75A 3.6A12
Collector Feeder Ground System 4.75A 5.9A-10.9
Sub, IEARTH N/A 0.78A-151.8
The wind farm substation ground grid design included interconnections to each individual wind
turbine generator ground grid throughout the wind farm. At the time current split tests were
completed on site, one collector system feeder was available to have its ground system included
in the current split measurement. Results reported in Table 2 represent current split
measurements when the substation ground grid is interconnected to the transmission line
overhead shield wire as well as to a wind farm collector system / wind turbine generator ground
grids. The results indicate that the current split factor reduced to a measured value of 47.5%,
while calculations using HIFREQ indicate it to be approximately 36%. Since HIFREQ and SPLITS
performed reasonably close in the previous ground system configuration, a simulation with
SPLITS was not used when the collector system ground was interconnected due to the complexity
of the collector system ground grid consisting of overhead distribution type lines, underground
cable and wind turbine generator ground grids. Once again, the overall simulation results indicate
that the simulations are more conservative than the measurements, and are close enough in
performance to provide reasonable approximations on how well the wind farm grounding system
performs.
Overall, the current split measurements performed at the wind farm was useful for confirming
the grounding system model performance with respect to the substation. For larger complex
grounding systems such as a wind farm, it would be worthwhile to include current measurements
throughout the wind farm collector system ground as well. In this case, since the collector system
design consisted of a combination of overhead distribution type lines with underground cables
interconnecting rows of wind turbine generators at riser poles, it would have been useful to
measure current at each of the riser poles. This would helpful to understand how much current
is dissipated in each row / portion of the wind farm ground system to compare with an overall
wind farm grounding system model.

5 Touch & Step Voltage Measurements

Requests by clients to complete step and touch voltage measurements are not common compared
to performing a fall of potential type test measurement. As a result, gaining expertise in
completing these types of measurements may be limited. This portion of the report is dedicated
to identifying one of the methods available for completing step and touch voltage measurements
and identifying some of the simulation strategies used to correlate with measured results.
Learnings along the way will be discussed, as well as things to consider the next time an
opportunity arises for completing a touch and step voltage measurement.
There are a couple of methods available for completing touch voltage measurements, one with a
test pin, and the other with actual foot plates. A theoretical performance evaluation was
completed for each method, where a 6mm test pin inserted 10cm into the ground was compared
with a 15cm x 15cm plate using HIFREQ software (note that this dimension is very close with a
plate dimension used in a previous UGM paper from 2010 [4]). An energized conductor at 3000V
GPR was placed 0.5m into the ground 1m away from the test pin or center of the plate. Two soil
models were evaluated one being a 100m uniform soil, while the other being a horizontal
multilayered soil with 1000m top layer(5mm) with subsequent layers and thicknesses as
follows 900m (5mm), 800m (5mm), 700m (5mm), 600m (10mm), 500m (50mm),
400m (50mm), 300m (100mm), 200m (100mm), and the bottom layer at 100m (INF).
The simulation results are shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3: PIN VS PLATE TOUCH VOLTAGE SIMULATION, HIFREQ
Soil Type Pin Model, VT [V] Plate Model, VT [V]
Uniform 1612V 1610V
Multi-Layer 1640V 1638V
Theoretical calculation results in Table 3 indicate a reasonably close comparison in theory

between each of the models.
Test equipment from OMICRON is available for completing touch and step voltage
measurements. A measurement guide from OMICRON [5] describes the use of a plate method or
pin method. The plate method utilizes a 200cm2 foot plate at the bottom of a water can which
when filled is 25kg. For touch voltages, two water cans 0.5m apart, and 1m away from test object
is suggested. If soil is dry, it is recommended to moisten with salty water. The measurement is
completed with an FFT voltmeter which may be tuned to a specific frequency which matches the
output of the current injection. Voltage measurements based on the voltmeter input impedance
are possible, or alternatively the measurement circuit could be loaded with a 1000 body
resistance and/or foot resistance depending on what is desired. For touch voltages, we have
typically started measurements with no resistances included, depending on the magnitude
measured; a body resistance may be added to gain an additional perspective when the
measurement circuit is loaded with a 1000 resistance.

The case study example discussed identifies the touch voltages measured at a wind farm
substation, as well as around the outside base of the wind turbine generator towers at various
locations throughout the interconnected collector system feeder. Simulations with HIFREQ
software were based on models that were built in stages with various levels of validation (start by
validating according to fall of potential test measurement results, then validated with current split
measurements). As shown in the current split section, the simulation places more current in the
collector system compared to the magnitude measured in the field (which is more conservative).
The simulation results for measurements and simulations for touch voltages measured around
the outside fence of the wind farm are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4: SUBSTATION TOUCH VOLTAGE SIMULATIONS-HIFREQ VS PLATE MEASUREMENT METHOD
Sub Locations HIFREQ Measured % Error
Sub Fence #1 354.7 20.5 1630.4%
Sub Fence #2 89.0 23.5 278.8%
Sub Fence #3 342.1 46 643.7%
Sub Fence #4 84.3 37 128.0%
Sub Fence #5 286.3 16.5 1635.1%
Sub Fence #6 81.4 21.5 278.8%
Sub Fence #7 324.2 9 3502.7%
Sub Fence #8 153.0 28 446.3%
Sub Fence #9 155.7 22.5 592.2%
Results for substation simulations in comparison with measured results around the substation
fence in Table 4 indicate that more effort needs to be completed to account for the measurement
method used with the water can plates for touch voltages. In particular, an assessment for the
contact resistance of the plates needs to be further investigated.
The results for simulations calculated around wind turbine generator tower foundations with
respect to measurements are shown in Table 5. All simulated results are higher than what was
measured.
TABLE 5: WIND TURBINE TOUCH VOLTAGE SIMULATIONS HIFREQ VS PLATE MEASUREMENT METHOD
WTG Locations HIFREQ Measured % Error

D1 528.9 203.5 159.9%
D2 397.8 52.5 657.6%
D3 542.3 21 2482.5%
D4 474.2 13 3548.0%
E1 286.8 15 1811.8%
E2 407.5 126 223.4%
F1 291.4 55.5 425.0%
F2 224.6 3 7388.2%
F6 194.2 32 507.0%
F7 205.0 2.5 8098.4%
F8 219.6 13.5 1526.4%
F9 290.3 218.5 32.9%
Until faced with the challenge to verify touch voltage measurements with simulations, it is often
difficult to predict exactly how to complete a touch voltage measurement. Items which are useful
for consideration when completing touch voltage field test measurements include:
a. Understanding the difference in measurement values between a plate method and a test
pin method. Theory suggests they should be the same; however this is based on having
excellent contact pressure / resistance for the plates. Does this really exist during a field
test measurement?
b. Identifying possible current measurement points throughout a complex grounding
system such as a wind farm is essential. Simple current measurements could have been
completed at each of the riser pole ground conductor downleads, quite possibly at each
of the WTG towers for ground conductor entering and leaving to gain an appreciation
for what each WTG tower foundation could be dissipating for earth current.
c. Might be worthwhile recording the moisture content of the earth in order to qualify the
test measurements which may be completed during maintenance tests in the future.
d. Depending on what level of soil resistivity tests are completed for each grounding
project, there may be value in completing a shallow depth resistivity test to help
understand what the top layer soil conditions might be experiencing at the time touch
voltage measurements were completed.
The overall summary of the touch voltage section is intended to identify possible issues when
being tasked with completing touch voltage measurements for the first time. This section is
intended to spark some debate on what methods work better for completing touch voltage
measurements when it is intended to be validated through simulation afterwards. The
information presented in this paper will be useful to help anyone plan for touch voltage
measurements in simple or complex grounding systems like a wind farm.
6 Conclusion
The aspects of this paper identify a number of tests which may be performed on a grounding
system, along with the simulations which accompany these tests to verify measured results.
Focus was placed on how OMICRON equipment can be useful for SRT, FOP measurements as
well as using for current split, step and touch voltage measurements. Practical aspects of
completing field test measurements and how it gets incorporated in model simulations with case
studies were presented. Challenges in validating touch voltage measurements with foot plate
electrodes are identified, along with considerations for improving the way in which touch
voltage measurements could be completed are identified to engage other grounding engineers in
discussion on what methods might work the best if the result of measurements are to validate by
simulation.

7 References
[1] IEEE Std 80-2000, “IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding”. Approved 30
January 2000.
[2] IEEE Std 81-2012, “IEEE Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground Impedance, and
Earth Surface Potentials of a Grounding System.” Approved 28 December 2012.
[3] Safe Engineering Services, “When the Ground Is Not What It Seems: Correcting Soil
Resistivity Measurements for Distortions Introduced by Nearby Bare Buried Metallic
Structures.” 2010 UGM Conference Proceedings.
[4] Safe Engineering Services, “A Realistic and Accurate Model For Calculating Foot Resistance
Above Grounding Systems Buried In Layered Earth.” 2010 UGM Conference Proceedings.
[5] OMICRON, CP CU1 Reference Manual”. Article NumberVESD0671, Manual Version:

CPCU1.AE.5, 2010.

XIXGROUNDING SYSTEM DESIGN FOR A LARGE EHV

STATION WITH DIFFERENT SOIL STRUCTURES
Xuan Wu, Vinod Simha, and Ronald J. Wellman

Station Engineering Design Standards
American Electric Power
700 Morrison Rd
Gahanna, OH
Email: xwu@aep.com, vsimha@aep.com, and rjwellman@aep.com
Abstract
This paper describes AEP’s challenging ground grid design experience that involves a large Extra High Voltage
(EHV) Station C with multiple separate yards and having different soil structures in each yard. Multiple injection
and ejection points were used to model station fault currents, shield wire currents and circulating transformer
neutral currents. EHV Station C has three yards with five station voltage classes (765, 500, 345, 138, 69kV), nine
auto-transformers requiring 23 current injection points, and six different station bus fault locations. In the current
RESAP module, there are no options to model multiple station sites in close proximity with each having different
soil structures. As a result, multiple scenarios were simulated to accommodate the different soil structures at six
fault locations to arrive at an engineering judgment of the worst-case scenario. In the future, an option in RESAP
to simulate different soil structures will enable a more accurate analysis, and reduce the study time for a complex
EHV Station ground grid design with different soil structures.
Abbreviations and Acronyms

AEP – American Electric Power, EHV - Extra High Voltage, ASPEN - Advanced Systems for Power
Engineering, CDEGS – Current Distribution Electromagnetic Fields, Grounding and Soil
Structure Analysis, (3I0) - Total fault current, (Ig) - Current flowing into the grid, (In) - Current
flowing into the shield wires from the ground grid, (Icir) - Circulating current returning to the
neutral of the local transformer from the fault location, 1LG – Single line-to-ground fault
condition, SES - Safe Engineering Services & Technologies.
1 Introduction
This paper describes how to design a safe ground grid for EHV stations where differences in close
proximity soil structures present a challenge in modeling using RESAP. Multiple simulations were
made to arrive at an engineering judgment on the worst case scenario. Including an option in the
RESAP module to simulate different soil structures in close proximity would reduce the number
of simulations, study time, and enable an accurate modeling of existing site conditions. The touch
and step potential values are compared to the threshold limits calculated as per IEEE-80 [1] in
CDEGS software. If the actual touch and step potential values are less than the threshold limits,
then the IEEE-80 requirements are satisfied and no additional ground grid conductors are
required.
2 Fault Analysis
The fault analysis is an important part of a grounding study which determines both the worst case
ground fault value, location, circulation current and clearing time.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XIX-1
2.1 Ground Fault Categories

There are two fault categories that cause fault currents flowing to the ground –single line-to-
ground fault and double line-to-ground fault. Applying the symmetrical components (zero-,
positive-, negative-sequence networks), the fault analysis problem for grounding is simplified
with considering the zero-sequence current (I0) only. The I0 is the current flowing to the ground
that causes the step and touch potentials.
2.2 Ground Fault Locations

The fault locations are always chosen on the high-side or low-side buses. This is because the bus
is connected with all the incoming lines/feeders and transformer banks from high-side or low
side. Hence, the fault current is higher when the fault occurs on a bus. However, it is hard to
determine which bus would be the worst-case scenario [2]. In AEP, the fault locations based on
all buses are analyzed except for distribution voltage class buses (34.5 kV and below). In AEP EHV
Station C, there are five different voltage buses - 765kV, 500kV, 345kV, 138kV and 69kV.
2.3 Ground Fault Components

The basis of ground fault analysis is all the ground fault currents constituting the (3I0) return to
their sources through earth or metallic paths. The transformer connection will play a significant
role to the fault current distribution. For example, if the fault occurs on the low-side (Y-
connection) of a small distribution station, which means the entire fault current will flow back to
the transformer neutral through the ground conductors. In other words, only transformer neutral
circulating current (Icir) exists in this case.
In AEP’s EHV stations, auto-transformer banks are often used. As a result, there are three
components for the total fault grounding current (3I0), which are ground grid current returning
to remote sources via earth (Ig), neutral/shield wire current returning to remote sources (In), and
transformer neutral circulating current (Icir). The first two components could be merged as the
remote contribution to fault current and the last one is the local contribution to fault current. The
above explanation is presented in Fig. 1.
Page XIX-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

Figure 1: Explanation of fault current split in EHV Station
2.4 Fault Analysis Tools and Applications

In AEP, ASPEN One Liner is used for fault analysis. For grounding studies, faults on specific buses
are simulated. As an example, the following image shows an ASPEN analysis of AEP Station C.
Information such as 3I0, Icir, and X/R ratio can be acquired from ASPEN.
Figure 2: Example of an ASPEN result window

However, In currents are calculated utilizing the FCDIST module developed by SES. An example
input window of FCDIST is shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 3: Example of a FCDIST input window

With the correct input data and simulation following the FCDIST manual [3], the output file will
show the In in Fig. 4.
Figure 4: Example of a FCDIST output file

Thereby, the neutral current from the AEP Station C to each specific terminal station is calculated
as shown in Fig. 4.
3 Case Study
3.1 Case Introduction
AEP Station C is a 765/500/345/138/69 kV EHV station. It consists of three yards, which are the
345 kV yard that includes 69 kV, 138 kV and 345 kV buses and equipment, the 500 kV yard, and
the 765 kV yard. Both the 345 kV and 765 kV yards have existing ground grids, while the 500 kV
yard will have the new ground grid. Each of the three yards is tied with the other through one or
two underground conductors.
It is important to find a starting point to the grounding study and optimization. Since all the three
yards of Station C are not new, the existing ground grids and a minimum amount of ground
conductors in the expansion area of the yards are used for the initial simulation. The grid
conductors in the expansion areas provide runs for structural and equipment ground
attachments. The ground grid layout for the initial simulation is shown in Fig. 5 and the 345 kV
yard is illustrated with current injection locations in Fig. 6.
Figure 5: Initial Total Ground Grids Layout

Figure 6: 345 kV Yard Ground Grid Layout Current Injections

As marked in Fig. 6, “FL”, “Xfmer”, and “SW” represent selected fault location, transformer bank
location and shield wire structure location respectively.
Figure 7: Soil Parameters of Three yards

From Fig. 7, the 765 kV yard has the worst soil structure with larger resistivity, while the 345 kV
yard has the best soil structure among the three yards.

3.2 Strategy for Choosing Maximum Calculated Touch Potentials

In the MALZ module, there can be only one soil model being applied in the touch & step potential
calculations. For larger EHV stations with auto-transformers, it is necessary to use multiple
injection points in order to improve the accuracy and most likely reduce the required amount of
copper. For Station C with different proximity soil structures, it is not accurate to use one soil
model from RESAP. As a result, a time consuming trial and error method requiring several
simulations containing combinations of soil model and fault locations is required to arrive at an
engineering judgment of the worst case touch potential scenario.
In the Station C grounding study, there are three different soil structures and six selected fault
locations, which mean there are eighteen cases in total. In other words, each yard soil model will
be expanded artificially to cover all three yards, and six fault locations are to be simulated.
The maximum calculated touch potentials at various yards for each case are shown in Table I.
TABLE 1: MAXIMUM TOUCH POTENTIALS AFTER INITIAL SIMULATION
Soil Structure
345kV-Yard 500kV-Yard 765kV-Yard
Soil Structure Soil Structure Soil Structure
Fault Location
184 288 317

69kV Bus1
(345kV-Yard) (345kV-Yard) (345kV-Yard)
263 457 509

69kV Bus2
363 1426 1172

138kV Bus
557 1017 1638

345kV Bus
370 1027 1347

500kV Bus
287 847 1122

765kV Bus
As found from Table I, the worst touch potential is always occurring in the same yard with the
fault location. It is reasonable because the highest GPR occurs at the fault location. The edge of
the faulted yard is always closer to the fault location than the other un-faulted yards, which means
the GPRs of the faulted yard edge are larger than the un-faulted yard edges. As a result, the faulted
yard is the focus, and the corresponding soil model is used for the ground grid design. It will be
inaccurate for touch potential calculations in the faulted yard if a different yard soil model is used.
This conclusion was reached after verification from 18 simulations, of which only 6 simulations
were valid. Thereby, Table I will be reduced to Table II below.
TABLE 1: MAX. TOUCH POTENTIALS FOR THE SIX SIMULATIONS

69kV 69kV 138kV 345kV 500kV 765kV

Fault Location
Bus1 Bus2 Bus Bus Bus Bus
Touch Potential 184 263 363 557 1027 1122
Because all the 69 kV, 138 kV and 345 kV buses are located in the 345 kV yard, the maximum
calculated touch potential of the 345 kV yard is 557 V while the values of 1027 V and 1122 V are
for 500 kV and 765 kV yards, respectively. However, the allowable touch potential thresholds are
806 V, 863 V and 934 V.
The next step is to separate the work into three parts, which are adding ground conductors/rods
to the initial grounding systems of all the three yards, respectively.
3.3 AEP Proposed Grounding Study Flowchart & Process
Figure 8: Flowchart of AEP Grounding Study

1. Enter and simulate soil resistance measurements using RESAP for different soil models.
2. Create or import a ground grid in SESCAD with selected soil model and use 1-Amp injection point
at the selected fault location to calculate the ground impedance.

3. Take the ground impedance, remote contribution line currents from ASPEN, T-Line information
(number and average length of spans, tower footing resistance, circuit configurations, and shield
wire materials) into FCDIST, and then simulate it to get the values of In.
4. Use 3I0, In and Icir as the injection currents at the specific locations in the MALZ module, which
means there will be multiple injection points. Typically, 3I0 should be injected into the ground
grid, while In and Icir are ejected from the grid to the neutral/shield wires or the transformer banks.
5. Place a surface profile above the ground grid and calculate the touch and step potential of each
profile point.
6. Calculate the allowable touch and step potentials with X/R ratio, clearing time and surface
material parameters, and compare the calculated values with the allowable values.
a) If the calculated touch potential is lower than the allowable one, it is suggested to delete some
ground conductors.
b) If the calculated touch potential is larger than the allowable one, it is necessary to add some
ground conductors near the high-potential areas for the mitigation.
3.4 Case Grounding Study Results

After the efforts of part B and C, the simulation and re-design are implemented separately
according to the maximum touch potentials of
1) Fault occurring at 345 kV bus and using 345 kV yard soil structure;
2) Fault occurring at 500 kV bus and using 500 kV yard soil structure;
3) Fault occurring at 765 kV bus and using 765 kV yard soil structure.
As a result, the touch potential plots of the above three cases are shown in Fig. 9, Fig. 10 and Fig. 11
respectively.
Scalar Potentials/Touch Voltages/Worst Spherical [ID:Cloverdale_345kV @ f=60.0000 Hz ]
LEGEND
2000 Maximum Value : 587.713
Minimum Value : 0.601
587.71
1000 529.00
470.29
411.58
Y AXIS (FEET)
0 352.87
294.16
235.45
-1000 176.73
118.02
59.31
-2000
-1750 -750 250 1250
X AXIS (FEET)
Touch Voltage Magn. (Volts) [Wors]
Figure 9: Touch potential plot for the final 345 kV grid layout

LEGEND
694.40
1000 627.98
561.55
495.13
Y AXIS (FEET)
0 428.71
362.29
295.86
-1000 229.44
163.02
96.60
-2000
-1750 -750 250 1250
X AXIS (FEET)
LEGEND
894.95
1000 806.20
717.45
628.69
Y AXIS (FEET)
0 539.94
451.19
362.44
-1000 273.69
184.94
96.19
-2000
-1750 -750 250 1250
X AXIS (FEET)
In above all the three figures, the maximum touch potentials are occurred at their selected soil
structure yards, which are consistent with the findings of this paper. The values of corresponding
maximum touch potentials are 558 V, 694 V and 895 V, respectively, and the corresponding

thresholds are 806 V, 863 V and 934 V The finalized design for the ground grids in all the three-
yard grounding systems is acceptable, because all the maximum values are lesser than the
allowable threshold. With comparison between Fig. 5 and Fig. 9, there are very few additions to
the 345 kV yard and 765 kV yard. It means only the required ground conductors are used as the
finalized design. Hence, achieving an optimized and safe ground grid.
4 Conclusion
This paper models the ground grid for an EHV station with different soil structures. After multiple
simulations it was found that the largest touch potential, which is the key criteria in modeling as
accurately as possible, is always occurring in the faulted yard. Hence, it is necessary to model all
the fault locations. Thereby, the number of simulations is limited to the number of the fault
locations, and each fault-location case should use its corresponding faulted yard soil structure for
accuracy. The authors make the best utilization of the existing capabilities of RESAP, MALZ
modules in modeling and suggest an upgraded option in RESAP that has the capability to model
different soil structures in close proximity. This would reduce the number of simulations, study
time, and enable an even more accurate modeling of existing site conditions.
5 References
[1] IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, IEEE Std. 80-2000.
[2] J. Ma and F. P. Dawalibi, "Modern computational methods for the design and analysis of power
system grounding," in Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference on Power System Technology,
vol. 1, Aug. 1998, pp. 122-126.
[3] CDEGS Software Package, Safe Engineering Services & technologies ltd., Montreal, Quebec,
Canad, November 2002. reference

XXENVELOPE PLOTTING IN HIFREQ USING VBA MACRO
Umar Junaid
Corrpro Canada Inc.

11405 - 163 Street NW | Edmonton, AB T5M 3Y3
Email: umar.junaid@corrpro.ca, Web Site: www.corrpro.ca
Abstract
This paper outlines the algorithm used to write a VBA macro that creates envelope plots of touch potential voltages
in HiFreq. It also allows additional analysis to be completed on the data. The maximum voltage file can be used to
determine the power line towers that have the most interference effect on the system. The remaining towers can be
eliminated from the post-mitigation application runs in order to reduce the time required to conduct the analysis.
1 Introduction
Large number of requests for AC interference analysis comes from the pipeline industry to
conduct touch potential, step potential and AC corrosion risk analysis. This includes analyzing the
induction effects from one or more power lines on one or more pipeline system. Power line faults
create touch and step potential hazards on the pipeline system. In the case of large gathering
system of pipelines, HiFreq is more commonly used to conduct these analyses. Envelope plotting,
though present in Right of Way, has not been introduced in HiFreq. As the systems increase in
size, fault analysis on more power line towers needs to be completed. Envelope plotting becomes
critical in these time sensitive projects, as it is much easier to analyze one resulting plot rather
than a plot for every tower. Mitigation of these touch and step potentials is an iterative process in
order to make sure it is a realistic and cost optimized solution. It would be very time consuming
to view touch potential plots for every tower fault for each iteration. Envelope plotting also creates
a way to concisely present the results to a client.
Microsoft Excel was used for this process as it allowed for additional functionality and analysis
beyond the CDEGS module. VBA controls were required in order to automate the process and to
interact with the CDEGS modules. It also enabled code formatting to be automated to complete
conversions between different file types.
2 Objective
This document aims to highlight the coding algorithm required to program a macro that will
enable the user to plot an envelope plot of the touch potential voltages. This effort can be
expanded, as required, to plot for additional computational variables. It is the author’s hope that
this functionality will be added as a default to the newer iteration of the software.
3 Issues
Touch potentials is a calculation done by the program. F21 files do not contain touch potentials
that can be copied directly. Values directly available in the F21 files are Scalar Potentials. In order
to create an envelope plot of the pipeline system, Scalar Potential values in the F21 files need to
be replaced by the Touch Potential values.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XX-1
Another issue is of code formatting. Majority of the macro is programmed to make sure the ASCII
file converts properly to an F21 file to be plotted.
This process is destructive to the original first tower file. The maximum touch potential values get
loaded into the first tower file. Do not operate the macro on the original run files.
4 Code Overview
The macro first creates a BTF file for the SESBatch. The SESBatch then automatically extracts
touch potentials for each tower file. The touch potential magnitude values are then copied over to
an excel document where maximum potential values are obtained at each observation point.
These maximum values are copied over to the Scalar Potential values in an ASCII file for one of
the towers. The ASCII file is converted back to F21 and a spot 2D graph is generated.
5 Algorithm
The algorithm used to create the macro is identified below.
1. Rename towers files in each folder to be sequential.
2. Convert F21 to ASCII file for the first tower.
3. The program will create a BTF file to be imported into SESBatch.
4. Run SESBatch to extract touch potential values for each tower.
5. Once all the touch potential CSV files have been extracted, continue with the program.
6. The program will create an excel document with the touch potential magnitude values for each
tower and calculates the maximum value at each observation point.
7. The program then goes through each maximum value and converts it to eight significant
digits.
8. The ASCII file is opened and the program searches for the location of the Scalar Potential
values.
9. For each observation point, the scalar magnitude value is replaced with the maximum touch
magnitude value.
10. The user then converts the ASCII file to an F21 file.
11. The F21 file is used to plot a Spot 2D plot of the Scalar Potential values.
6 Additional Analysis
Additional analysis beyond envelope plotting can be completed on the intermediate files that are
generated by the program. The Maximum Voltages file contains the touch potential magnitude
for each tower. Using Excel formulas, it can be determined which towers are creating the
maximum values on the system. The towers that are not contributing to the maximum touch
values can then be eliminated from the mitigation run. For large systems, this translates to a
significant time saving method.
7 Conclusion
Envelope plotting is an extremely useful function in the Right of Way module. The macro outlined
in this paper aims to mimic the envelope plotting function of Right of Way in the HiFreq module.
Page XX-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently this is a workaround method, however, this would be a very useful feature if it can be
included as a default in the program.
AC interference analysis of large gathering system of pipelines requires modelling in the HiFreq
module. Analyzing one envelope plot of the system is a very convenient and concise way to present
the results to the clients.
In addition to creating an envelope plot, the macro creates intermediate files that allow for further
analysis to be completed. These additional analyses can result in significant time saving
approaches.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XX-3

XXIRIGHT-OF-WAY MODELING OF JOINT POWER LINE AND

RAILWAY CORRIDORS: A CASE STUDY INVOLVING
MULTIPLE MODELING SCENARIOS
Joey G. Gallant
Corrpro Canada
1697 Brunswick Street
Halifax, NS, Canada
Email: Joey.Gallant@corrpro.ca, Web Site: www.corrpro.ca
Abstract
While less common than pipeline-power line interference studies, railway electrical interference modeling has
emerged as a practical means of avoiding costly power line re-routing due to railway safety and/or operational
concerns. It can be shown that, through careful consideration of Right-of-Way input parameters, one can create a
realistic model of a railway track circuit. From the created model, various scenarios can be investigated to take into
account the dynamic nature of such a system. The presented work investigates the development and analysis of AC
interference effects on real world railway track circuits under various contingency scenarios including an occupied
track condition, future build-out of additional rail, and abnormal loading of the subject transmission line. A
detailed study of the model indicates there are two scenarios wherein agreed upon safety criteria are not met.
Mitigation is proposed in the form of optimal proposed routing selection along with adherence to outlined railway
maintenance best practices.
1 Introduction
A railway paralleling overhead transmission or distribution lines can be subject to significant
levels of induced, conducted, and/or capacitive coupling. This AC interference can result in shock
hazards and damage to railway signaling equipment necessary to allow for the safe movement of
trains.
The mechanisms and effects of AC interference on railways have been the subject of numerous
studies and are well understood [1] [2] [3] [4]. In addition, industry best practices exist for
studying, and mitigating effects of AC interference on railways [5]. Despite this, there remains
considerable debate amongst industry professionals as to what constitutes realistic yet still
conservative modelling scenarios. Modelling scenarios may include:
1. Power line loading under normal and abnormal (fault and/or double circuit line operating
with only one circuit) conditions
2. Occupied track condition
3. Future build-out of additional track
4. Alternate power line routing
5. Failed insulating joints
6. Track surge arrestor firing
7. Variation of ballast resistivity
8. Rolling Track Condition
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XXI-1

This paper presents a case study wherein, scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4 were considered. These scenarios
were chosen carefully in consultation with all stakeholders and in consideration of all available
information in an effort to produce a conservative yet realistic model. Results from these scenarios
were then used to determine an appropriate course of action to allow for the acceptable co-
existence of the studied power and rail infrastructure.
2 Description of the system model

A new utility 138 kV double-circuit electric power line was planned to share a route which would
parallel and cross existing railway tracks in western Canada. As part of the commissioned study,
two initial routes were considered. Both Transmission Line Route Option No. 1 and Route Option
No2. (hereafter referred to as TL-RO1 and TL-RO2 respectively) include a track crossing marking
the beginning of a close parallelism at the western most edge of the study region. From there, TL-
RO1 and TL-RO2 diverge with TL-RO1 continuing east and TL-RO2 turning south and making
another railway crossing before continuing east. Finally, TL-RO2 makes another track crossing at
the eastern edge of the studied area before merging again with TLRO1 to form a common route
headed north as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Plan view of the right-of-way
The area of study contains numerous track paths as shown in Figure 1. Results are produced for
an existing track, a proposed track and a hypothetical Northern Boundary Track (set to the
northern most edge of the rail company right-of-way). Side tracks are included in the model for
completeness, however, interference levels for these track sections are not graphically depicted in
this paper.
Page XXI-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

The applicable design limits used for this case study are based on the safety criteria provided by
the EPRI Handbook and IEEE Standard 80-2000 [6]. In accordance with these sources, the safety
and equipment tolerance criteria used for this study are as follows.
- Rail-t0-ground voltage: < 50 V

- Voltage across insulating joints: < 50 V
- Rail-to-rail voltage: < 5 V
- Fault state rail-to-ground voltage: < 821.6 V (using a 3000 Ωm ballast resistivity, 50kg
assumed body weight and total fault clearing time of 30 cycles)1
2.1 Key Model Input Parameters

Key model input parameters are listed below. Due to the complexity of the model, not all track
and power line details are shown. The items outlined below, however, should give the reader a
sense for the input variables which have the greatest impact on model results.
The data and characteristics used in the simulations are as follows:

- Circuit A - Maximum load current (south side of tower structure running west to east): 1.9
kA per phase
- Circuit B - Maximum load current (north side of tower structure running west to east):
0.625 kA per phase
- Phase wires: Circuit A - ACSR Falcon, Circuit B – ACSR Partridge
- Shield wire: OPGW-C 6x AL-Clad Steel equivalent
- Soil resistivity: Top layer -> 51.87 Ω m for 2.06 m, Bottom layer -> 21.46 Ω m
- Ballast resistance: 100 Ω ∙kf
- Rail weight: 136 lbs
- Insulated joint (IJ) resistance: 750 Ω for intact joints (0.001 Ω for shorted joints)
- Narrow Band (NB) 60Hz shunt impedance: 200 Ω
Power line fault levels were provided at 10% intervals with respect to total line length from
substation #2 to substation #1. Fault levels are subsequently calculated via Right-of-Way (ROW)
Monitor Fault linear interpolation at all tower locations within the studied area. For this case
study, only single line-to-ground (SLG) faults were considered. These fault levels are presented in
Figure 2.
1 Note that this calculated value also incorporates a decrement factor of 1.052

Figure 2: Single line-to-ground Fault currents on the proposed 138kV line as a function of fault location
Each of the studied tracks has IJs throughout the common corridor. Some of the IJ locations are
at common locations amongst the three studied tracks while others are not. For brevity, these
locations are not outlined in detail within this paper. Instead, a discussion of voltage peaks in
Section 4 shall provide insights as to their approximate locations.
3 Methodology of the Analysis

A key step in the modelling process involved building a simplified equivalent model of the rails
and ballast for input into ROW. Procedures for building these models have been studied
thoroughly by others [7]. One such procedure involving the MALZ grounding analysis CDEGS
module was used to determine an equivalent conductor coating to simulate the electrical effects
of the ballast layer. The coating was then applied to an equivalent surface area metallic conductor
from the ROW database to complete the inductive analysis.
A total of four different transmission line loading scenarios were modelled for this study. These
scenario types are described below.
1. Normal Loading: All modeled circuits, in this scenario, are operating at their maximum
normal operating loads.

2. Circuit B Down: Circuit B is assumed to be down with Circuit A continuing to operate with
its maximum normal operating load.
3. Circuit A Fault: A bolted single line-to-ground fault is created on Circuit A.
4. Circuit B Fault: A bolted single line-to-ground fault is created on Circuit B.
Furthermore, scenarios 1 and 2 were modelled under one of two track conditions (occupied or
unoccupied) while scenarios 3 and 4 were modeled under only an unoccupied track condition.
Each of these 10 conditions must be examined for 2 separate transmission line routes, creating a
total of 20 separate modelling scenarios.
The occupied track condition was chosen carefully to simulate a situation wherein the longest
possible train could reasonably be expected to remain idle in a region of close parallelism for a
non-negligible length of time. To further simulate a worst case condition, the chosen train location
created an electrical short across the largest number of insulating joints resulting in the longest
continuous run of track parallel to the proposed 138kV line.
4 Computation results and discussion

The results shown in the following sections are the most representative ones and most relevant to
recommendations. The results shown in Sections 4.2 through 4.4 are picked out of a total of 20
scenarios for three tracks as described in Section 3.
4.1 Soil Resistivity

Soil Resistivity measurements were completed using the 4-pin Wenner test method at an
accessible location within the area of study. Data gathered from field soil testing was entered into
the CDEGS RESAP module in order to calculate equivalent soil layers for the model. Figure 3
shows the output of the RESAP simulation.

Figure 3: RESAP soil analysis output
4.2 Steady State Loading Conditions

The steady state contingency loading (Circuit B down) produces the highest steady state
interference voltages on the studied tracks. Under this condition, Figure 4 and Figure 5 show that
the rail-to-ground potentials do not exceed the tolerable limit of 50V.
Aside from the beginnings and endings of tracks, beginnings and endings of parallelism, and track
crossings, sharp voltage peaks are the result of insulating joints segmenting the track throughout
the corridor. As a conservative assumption, the voltage across insulating joints is taken as the
addition of the voltage magnitude on both sides of each IJ. Based on this, it can be seen from
Figure 4 and Figure 5 that these voltages also do not exceed the tolerable limit of 50V.
Rail-to-rail voltages, while not depicted by Figure 4 and Figure 5 were predicted to be well below
the tolerable voltage limit of 5V.

Figure 4: TL-RO1 – All Tracks – Circuit B Down – Unoccupied Tracks
Figure 5: TL-RO2 – All Tracks – Circuit B Down – Unoccupied Tracks

4.3 Occupied Track Conditions

As a worst case, the longest conceivable train was assumed to lie just west of MP 140.56 to
approximately 150m east of MP 138.7. Out of the tracks simulated, the Northern Boundary Track
under contingency loading saw the highest steady state interference potentials. As shown in
Figure 6, there exists locations wherein both rail-to-ground voltages and voltages across
insulating joints are predicted to be above tolerable limits. Finally, predicted rail-to-rail voltages,
although not depicted in this figure, remain below tolerable limits.
Out of the results for both routes, it is clear that TL-RO2 presents lower (but still unacceptable)
human safety risks.
Figure 6: Northern Boundary Track – Circuit B Down – Occupied Track
4.4 Fault Conditions

Throughout the studied area, faults were modeled at each transmission line structure with the
faulted phase chosen for each circuit being that with the closest overall offset distance to the
studied rail system.
Fault interference voltage envelopes were created using the monitor fault function of ROW. As a
conservative assumption, touch voltage was taken as the total induced Ground Potential Rise
(GPR) of the subjected tracks under fault conditions. Due to the relative distance of transmission
line towers from the studied tracks as well as the high track ballast resistance used in the model,
conductive influence was not examined in depth.
It is clear from the fault state results shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8 that TL-RO1 presents the
lower risk to personnel safety in most of the studied areas. Notably, faults with TL-RO1 do not
produce as large of a predicted voltage spike at MP 136.52 where TL-RO2 has a track crossing.
Figure 7: TL-RO1 - All Tracks – Circuit A Fault – Unoccupied Track

Figure 8: TL-RO2 - All Tracks – Circuit A Fault – Unoccupied Track
4.5 Results Summary and Mitigation Recommendations

Table 1 summarizes outcomes considering each of the power line and track conditions discussed.
At a high level, it is clear that there are two scenarios (one for each transmission line route)
wherein voltages exceed the tolerable limits outlined. When Circuit B is down (reducing the phase
cancellation effect between circuits) and the Northern Boundary Track is occupied, voltages (rail-
to-ground and across IJs) in excess of 60 V and 55 V are predicted with TL-RO1 and TL-RO2
respectively. As well, TL-RO2 results in predicted fault state voltages just under the tolerable limit.

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR 138KV ROUTE OPTION 1 AND ROUTE OPTION 2
Power Line Tracks Occupied Tracks with Unacceptable Voltage Levels

Condition
Normal Loading None None

Normal Loading Proposed Track None
Normal Loading Existing Track None
Normal Loading Northern Boundary None
Track
Circuit B Down None None
Circuit B Down Proposed Track None
Circuit B Down Existing Track None
Circuit B Down Northern Boundary Northern Boundary Track
Track
Fault Circuit A None None
Fault Circuit B None None
Due to the hypothetical nature of the Northern Boundary Track, the heightened voltages
discussed could be easily mitigated to below tolerable limits through further study and detailed
track circuit layout recommendations should such a track be proposed at some time in the future.
Due to the low likelihood of this scenario, a detailed examination of mitigation options for this
case was not conducted.
Of paramount importance is the mitigation of heightened voltages on existing tracks and

proposed tracks. In this regard, while both routes are technically acceptable from a personnel
safety perspective, it is clear that TL-RO1 is desirable due to lower overall fault state touch
voltages.
With regards to equipment protection, while rail-to-rail voltages in all scenarios were found to be
below the tolerable limit of 5V, it is highly likely that an issue would arise should there be an
insulating joint failure. To mitigate this risk, more frequent IJ inspections were proposed to
identify and fix IJs at the first sign of degradation.
5 Conclusions
The electromagnetic compatibility of power lines and a neighboring railway system has been
evaluated under various power line loading and railway track conditions. Through careful
consideration of Right-of-Way input parameters, a realistic model of multiple railway track

circuits was created. A detailed study of the model indicates two scenarios wherein agreed upon
safety criteria are not met. Mitigation is proposed in the form of optimal routing selection along
with adherence to proactive railway maintenance best practices.
6 References
[1] J. Liu, F. Dawalibi and J. Ma, "Effective Mitigation Designs for Pipelines and Railways Paralleling
with the Power Lines," Safe Engineering Services & Technologies ltd.
[2] J. Liu et al, "Electromagnetic Interference of Transmission Lines on Nearby Railways Taking into
Considerations of Track Equipment," Safe Engineering Technical Services & Technologies ltd.
[3] F. Dawalibi, J. Ma and J. Liu, "Electromagnetic Interference of Transmission Lines on Nearby

Railways Accounting for the Rail Track Arresters," Safe Engineering Services & Technologies ltd.
[4] F. Dawalibi and R. Raymond, "Electromagnetic Compatibility Analysis of Power Line and Railway
Sharing the Same Right-of-Way Corridor: A Practical Case Study," IEEE Computer Society, Laval,
2010.
[5] B. Cramer et al, "Power System and Railroad Electromagnetic Compatibility Handbook," Electric
Power Research Institute, Washington, 2006.
[6] IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, IEEE Standard 80-2000, IEEE, 2000.
[7] L. Valcarcel, S. Lefebvre and F. Dawalibi, "A Simplified Method for Computing Equivalent
Parameters for Rail Ballast Resistance in Inductive and Conductive Models," Safe Engineering
Services & Technologies ltd., Laval.

XXIILIGHTNING PROTECTION DESIGN CASE STUDY OF A

CHEMICAL FACTORY, USING SESSHIELD 3D
Robert Knott
EdifERA
Ty Canol, Clun Avenue
Pontyclun, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Wales, UK
Email: robert.knott@edifera.com, Web Site: www.edifgroup.com
1 Introduction
At the beginning of 2015, EdifERA were contracted by a leading chemical manufacturer to conduct
a lightning protection survey of their main UK factory. No client or site names are included in this
paper to maintain client confidentiality. The request for the survey was generated through a due
diligence process, following a recent change of company ownership, and the necessity for
compliance with the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE). As part of the lightning protection
study, a site visual inspection, lightning protection risk assessment and design was conducted in
accordance with British Standard EN 62305 (IEC 62305) [1].
This paper presents a case study for the modelling and design of a lightning protection system
(LPS) for the chemical factory using SESShield 3D, and the challenges experienced through the
design process.
2 Lightning Protection Study

2.1 Visual Inspection
An inspection of the buildings and structures within the chemical factory was conducted to
determine whether any structural or electrical system lightning protection measures existed and
assess the structural internal and external characteristics. The information gathered during this
activity was used for the input parameters of the risk assessment in accordance with BS EN 62305
[1].
During the visual survey, the site was found to be comprised of three buildings; the main building,
building 2 and building 3.
The main function of the site is the manufacture of protective coatings utilizing various solid and
liquid chemicals. During the visual inspection of the chemical factory, the main building was
found to house significant quantities of flammable and hazardous solid and liquid substances.
These conditions present a considerable hazard to those working within and outside of the
building during a lightning event and as such, were analyzed as part of the risk assessment
process.
It was observed during the inspection that buildings 2 and 3 were utilised as small workshops and
as such, would present a much lower risk to loss of human life (R1) and loss of service to the public
(R2), than the main building.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XXII-1

2.2 Risk Assessment

2.2.1 Risk Assessment Methodology
The IEC / BS EN 62305 Part 2 standard [1] sets out the procedure to evaluate the susceptibility
of a building or structure, during lightning conditions, against loss of human life (L 1), loss of
service to the public (L2), loss of cultural heritage (L3) and loss of economic value (L4). The risks
associated with the losses described are numbered R1 – R4. A tolerable level for each of the risk
factors is given within the standard [1] and should the level be exceeded; a method is given to
select suitable measures to reduce the risk value below tolerable limits.
Typical reduction measures include the installation of a formal structural lightning protection
system (LPS) and / or surge protection devices (SPDs), specified to a lightning protection level
between 1 and 4. A lightning protection system specified to LPL 1 is considered to be the most
effective measure against lightning; where the probability that maximum lightning current value
will be exceeded for an LPL 1 system is 1%.
2.2.2 Risk Assessment Results
EdifERA were advised by the client that only the risks associated with loss of human life (R1) and
loss of service to the public (R2), due to direct and indirect lightning strikes, were required to be
calculated. The results of the risk assessment study, in accordance with BS EN 62305 Part 2 [1]
are shown in Table 1.
EdifERA were also requested to provide additional calculated risk values for the impact on the
surrounding environment and people, located outside of the site, should a lightning strike damage
the main building. The results of the calculations are also shown in the Table below.
TABLE 1: CALCULATED RISKS FOR THE MAIN BUILDING
Risk Components Tolerable Risk
Building
R1 R2 Levels
Main Building 1.59x10 -03 2.24x10-04
Main Building with additional
losses to surrounding 1.42x10-02 2.24x10-04 R1 - 1 x 10-5
environment / people R2 - 1 x 10-4
Building 2 1.89x10-08 N / A*
Building 3 2.25x10-08 N / A*
* Damage to this structure, caused by the effects of lightning, was not considered to cause a loss
of service to the client.
The calculated risk for loss of human life (R1) for Buildings 2 and 3 were below tolerable risk levels,
as shown in Table 1, and therefore required no further lightning protection measures.
From Table 1, the risk components R1 and R2 for the main building structure, with and without
additional losses, were above the tolerable risk levels, specified in BS EN 62305 [1]. In order to
reduce the risks to acceptable levels, protection measures were required and the following design
for the building was determined:
 Install a Class I lightning protection system (LPS).

 Install a Type A earth termination system.*
Page XXII-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

 Install coordinated SPD protection on internal power, data signaling and telecoms systems
in internal areas of the building.
* It should be noted that IEC / BS EN62305 defines two types of earthing system arrangements,
termed A and B. A Type A earth termination system comprises of horizontal or vertical earth
electrodes, installed in the surrounding area of the building and connected to each down-
conductor component of the structural LPS. Buried earth conductor is not connected between
each earth electrode in this type of arrangement. Where in comparison, the Type B earth
termination system is a buried ring conductor, installed in the area immediately surrounding the
building, and forms a closed loop.
The reduction of the total risks, for the main building, offered through implementation of the
design option above, is listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2: REDUCED CALCULATED RISKS FOR THE MAIN BUILDING
Risk Components
Building
R1 R2
Main Building 2.71x10-05 2.05 x10-06
Main Building with additional losses to surrounding
2.76x10-04 2.02x10-06
environment / people
From Table 2, it has been shown that even with the addition of the most efficient lightning
protection measures; the risks for R1 are still not below the tolerable risk levels specified by BS EN
62305. However, where no additional losses have been calculated, the risks are only marginally
exceeded. The high risk levels could be attributed to the large collection area of the building and
the high risk of explosion / fire due to the storage of the hazardous chemicals. It should be noted
however, that whilst the risks were found to be above tolerable levels, the risk of loss of human
life is approximately 1 in 37000 years, with no additional losses calculated. This likelihood is
increased to approximately 1 in 3600 years, with the introduction of the additional losses.
Following discussion with long serving employees at the site, Edif ERA were advised that there
have been no known instances of lightning strikes to buildings within the site. It was therefore
considered that risk of the loss of life due to a lightning strike to or near the main building would
be considerably low for the lifecycle of the building / site.
Further practical measures, to reduce the risks associated with the loss of life during lightning
conditions, were also advised to the client and these included the following:
 Installation of a lightning / thunderstorm warning system.

 Removal of persons from external areas of the site and to take refuge inside the
buildings.
 Creation of risk assessment and method statement documents for activities conducted
outside and within the site boundary, to account for the risks associated with lightning
conditions.
2.3 Model Construction

The main building is constructed of different materials, heights and architecture which require
modelling in the CDEGS SESShield 3D program. The key features of the building, which affect the
exposure to lightning strikes, are as follows:
 Large proportion of the building is constructed of brick walls and corrugated tile roofs
 Small sections of the building have naturally protecting steel sheet walls and roofing in
compliance with BS EN 62305 [1]
 There are two towers attached to the building, of 35m and 27m in height. The first is
constructed of insulating material and the second is comprised of naturally protecting
steel sheet walls and roofing in compliance with BS EN 62305 [1]
 The main section of the building varies in height and is between 7m and 25m high.
 Small sections of the building have pitched roofs
 Two metallic flagpoles are installed on two areas of the building and are considered
naturally protecting in accordance with BS EN 62305 [1]
 Metallic handrails are installed on one area of the building and are considered naturally
protecting in accordance with BS EN 62305 [1]
The main building model was constructed using SESShield 3D and structural drawings provided
by the client. The developed model is shown in Figure 1 below.

Metallic flagpoles
Metallic handrails
Figure 1: SESShield 3D model for the main building

2.3.1 Analysis results of building without protection measures

The SESShield 3D model of the main building was simulated using the rolling sphere method and
a strike distance of 20m, in accordance with BS EN62305 [1]. The results of the simulation are
shown in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2: SESShield 3D simulation results for the main building without protection measures
From Figure 2, the simulation of the main building highlights that unprotected zones (red
surfaces) existed on many areas of the building. The green surfaces indicate the protected areas
of the building provided by the natural air termination components, which will safely intercept a
direct strike under lightning conditions. As such, the formal lightning protection measures were
required to be incorporated, with the naturally protecting components, to ensure safe dispersion
of lightning current in the event of a direct lightning strike.
It should be noted that the area, circled in yellow in Figure 2, does not require to be protected
from potential direct lightning strikes. In accordance with BS EN 62305 [1], due to the low
frequency of direct strikes to walls of buildings less than 60m in height, protection of this area did
not need to be considered.
2.4 Lightning Protection System Design

From Section 2.2, a Class I* structural lightning protection system was required for the main
building. To ensure the requirements of BS EN62305 are met, the following components were
required to be installed on the main building:-
 Air termination copper rods, 2.4m long with a cross sectional area of 50mm2.
 Roof interconnecting copper tape, with a cross sectional area of 50mm2.
 Down-conductor copper tape, with a cross sectional area of 50mm2 and spaced every
10m down the vertical sides of the building.
 Buried bare 5m long, 15mm2 diameter earth rods, installed at each down-conductor
location where it terminates at ground level.

 Equipotential bonding of the building’s structural support steelwork to the lightning

protection and earth termination systems.
* The class of LPS is directly related to the lightning protection level determined through risk
assessment, as described in Section 2.2. It is characterized by specific factors such as lightning
current parameters, rolling sphere radius and typical distances between down-conductors. In this
particular case, the Class I LPS is the most efficient structural measure to intercept direct lightning
flashes to the building.
Within the SESShield 3D model for the main building, the 2.4m long air termination rods, roof
interconnecting copper tapes and the down-conductor copper tapes were added to the structure
to complement the naturally protecting elements of the building. The final lightning protection
system model for the main building is shown in Figures 3 and 4.

Air termination rods
Down-conductor tape
Figure 3: SESShield 3D model for main building LPS final design (view looking north)

Air termination rods
Roof conductor
Figure 4: SESShield 3D model for main building LPS final design (view looking south)

2.4.1 Analysis Results

The SESShield 3D model of the main building, with included lightning protection system, was
again simulated using the rolling sphere method and a strike distance of 20m, in accordance with
BS EN 62305 [1]. The results of the simulation are shown in Figures 5 and 6 below.
The results of the simulation show that, with the inclusion of the formal lightning protection
measures, as a complement to the naturally protecting components, the building is now in a
‘protected state’. To achieve this, fifty-two 2.4m long air termination rods were required to be
carefully positioned within the model, in addition to the other LPS components detailed in Section
2.3.
As previously described in Section 2.2.1, the areas highlighted in yellow in Figures 5 and 6 do not
need further attention, as the frequency of direct lightning strikes to these regions of the building
are considered negligible in accordance with BS EN 62305 [1].
Figure 5: SESShield 3D simulation results for the main building with protection measures

Figure 6: SESShield 3D simulation results for the main building with protection measures
2.5 Difficulties in analysis

During the process of design, difficulties were encountered with the analysis of the simulation
results; where conflicts of the protection state appeared between the 3D view and the report
scenario. Once simulated, the 3D view illustrated that the green spheres of protection
encompassed the building and as such, demonstrated the installed LPS adequately intercepted
direct lightning strikes for a rolling sphere radius of 20m. The 3D view output is shown in Figure
7. However, the results of the 3D view conflicted with that shown in the report scenario; where
the building was determined to be in a ‘non protected state’ and required further protection
measures for 7 models, as shown in Figure 8. Following consultation with SES, it was determined
that the difference in results was due to the program generating invalid interception surfaces, for
the pitched roof objects within the model. Additionally, the characteristics that had been applied
to the pitched roofs also assisted in the invalid generation of interception surfaces and lead to the
program providing inappropriate information for the unprotected objects.
It is worth noting that at the time of commencing the study, release version 14.3.84.0 was used
for the development of the SESShield 3D model. However, during the simulation analysis stages
of the study, SES advised that release version 15.1.3950.0 of SESShield 3D was available and
following installation of the updated software; the invalid interception surface issue was resolved.

Figure 7: SESShield 3D simulation results using release version 14.3.84.0
Figure 8: SESShield 3D report scenario results using release version 14.3.84.0

3 Conclusion
A risk assessment of the buildings and structures within the chemical factory was conducted in
accordance with BS EN 62305 [1]. The total calculated risks for each building, except for the main
building, were below the tolerable risk levels of BS EN 62305. Therefore no formal lightning
protection measures were required for Buildings 2 and 3.
The calculated risks, R1 and R2, for the chemical factory main building structure, with and without
additional losses, were above tolerable risk levels. As such, lightning protection measures were
required to reduce the risks to acceptable values which included the following:
 Install a Class I lightning protection system (LPS).

 Install a Type A earth termination system.
 Install coordinated SPD protection on internal power and telecoms systems in internal
areas of the building.
The main building was modelled and simulated within SESShield 3D. A structural lightning
protection system was developed, which included the installation of fifty-two 2.4m long air
termination rods, roof interconnecting copper tape and down conductor copper tape, to
complement the naturally protected components of the building.
During the process of design, difficulties were experienced with the analysis of the simulation
results; where conflicts of the protection state appeared between the 3D view and the report
scenario. It was determined that the difference in results was due to the program generating
invalid interception surfaces, for the pitched roof objects within the model. Additionally, the
characteristics that had been applied to the pitched roofs also assisted in the invalid generation of
interception surfaces and lead to the program providing inappropriate information for the
unprotected objects. The conflict was resolved through installation of release version 15.1.3950.0
of SESShield 3D, however SES advised that the issue would be investigated further.
4 References
[1] BS EN 62303 Parts 1 – 4, Protection Against Lightning, British Standards, 2011, 2012.
[2] SESShield 3D Software, Safe Engineering Services & Technologies Ltd, Release versions 14.3.84.0
and 15.1.3950.0.

Part III: SES Contributions
XXIIIAN ITERATIVE APPROACH FOR MODELING

ELECTROCHEMICAL POLARIZATION WITH NON-LINEAR
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Qingyi Han, Yexu Li, Simon Fortin and Farid P. Dawalibi

Email: info@email.com, Web Site: http://www.sestech.com/
Abstract
This paper introduces an iterative approach using CDEGS’ electromagnetic fields computation capability to model
electrochemical problems with non-linear boundary conditions. The integration of the electrical current
distribution computation realized by MALZ and the iterative algorithm involving polarization curves is
implemented in the actual version of the CorrCAD software package. The software is first used to solve a well-known
benchmark test problem and is evaluated using the benchmark analytical expression. Then, a simplified realistic
cathodic protection system is presented. The computation results are compared with the industry standard BEASY
software package. It is shown that the proposed iterative approach accurately computes the electrochemical
potential. This approach constitutes the first step of the CorrCAD development effort and the progress achieved so
far is of significant importance for the future development of the CorrCAD software package.
Introduction
Corrosion is the breakdown of metals through electrochemical processes within their
environment. It is a result of dissolution of material due to oxidizing reactions, liberating electrons
and forming positive ions transported into the electrolyte, leading to material loss. The current-
potential relationship governing this electrochemical process termed polarization is non-linear.
This relationship is often represented by the polarization curve which is an experimentally
determined function. There are a number of factors that can contribute to the characteristics of
the polarization curve within a system from material factors (e.g. material, geometry) to
environmental factors (e.g. composition of electrolyte) [1].
Cathodic protection (CP) systems, especially the impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP)
systems, are widely applied techniques to protect structures from corroding in the corrosion
industry. In practice, an electrode acting as an anode is connected to the structure metal and
diffuse sufficient current into the soil nearby the structure to protect it by making the latter to
operate as a cathode. The goal of the CP design is to lower the structure’s cathodic potential to its
protection level where the corrosion rate is considered insignificant. These protection levels are
referred to as the cathodic protection criteria established by international standards such as
NACE [2]. Given the scale and the complexity of the pipeline network structure, mathematical
and numerical modellings of CP systems are considered effective and cost efficient for CP design,
aiming to distribute the protection current in an optimal and correct manner to ensure that the
whole structure complies with the protection criteria. However, the non-linearity of the boundary
conditions along with the spread of the pipeline network constitute the main setbacks for the
development of the numerical solutions.
CorrCAD integrates the computation power of CDEGS including its capability to calculate
conductor currents of large pipeline networks and the resolution of the non-linear electrochemical
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XXIII-1
PART III: SES CONTRIBUTIONS
boundary conditions using the fixed point iteration approach. CDEGS computation modules such
as MALZ and HIFREQ are the main engines that calculate conductor currents and
electromagnetic fields in an arbitrary network. The proposed iterative approach consists of a
series of successive calculations realized by CDEGS computation modules and whereby the
electrochemical layer is modeled such as to find the potential-current values satisfying both the
linear model based computations and the non-linear conditions of the physical electrochemical
layer defined by polarization curves.
This paper describes the iterative approach for solving corrosion problems while accounting for
polarization, presents modeling examples and compares the results to previously established ones
in order to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed iterative approach.
Numerical Method
2.1 Electrochemical Polarization
When a reduction and oxidation (redox) reaction takes place, a potential difference between the
metal surface and electrolyte forms, called polarization. Kinetically speaking, polarization is the
change in the standard half-cell potential caused by a net surface reaction rate across the metal-
electrolyte interface. Cathodic polarization means that electrons are supplied to the metal surface
where they build up a negative potential at the metal interface with the electrolyte (soil). Therefore
it is negative by definition. Anodic polarization is the opposite process [3].
In the mixed potential theory, when two half-cell reactions occur simultaneously on a metal
surface, both of which will change the potentials to an intermediate value, called the corrosion
potential (also called open-circuit potential or rest potential) in the absence of external electric
interference. At the corrosion potential the cathodic and anodic reaction rates are equal since the
sum of anodic oxidation currents must equal the sum of cathodic reduction currents. Under this
theory, a Butler-Volmer like equation can be used to express the electrochemical properties of the
metal regarding a given environment considering that the electrode is dominated by
electrochemical kinetics (the electrode is not mass transfer controlled) [4]:
𝐸−𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟 𝐸−𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟
𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟 [𝑒 𝑏𝑎 − 𝑒 𝑏𝑐 ] (1)
Where 𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑡 is the electrode net current, 𝐸 is the applied potential (also called the metal to earth
potential or overpotential), 𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟 is the corrosion current, 𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟 is the corrosion potential, 𝑏𝑎 and
𝑏𝑐 are the Tafel slopes in natural logarithmic scale for the anode and cathode respectively. 𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟 ,
𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟 , 𝑏𝑎 and 𝑏𝑐 are experimentally determined parameters. The curve corresponding to this
equation is one form of the polarization curves.
It can be noted that this equation raises a non-linear boundary condition on the electrode. When
the electrode’s electrochemical process is under study, an iterative process should be considered
due to this non-linear nature.
2.2 Iterative Technique

The computation modules of CDEGS such as MALZ and HIFREQ don’t have the ability to
compute problems with non-linear boundary conditions. Previously, the electrochemical problem
was tackled by using a fixed potential drop across the metal-electrolyte interface, termed working
potential. In case of ICCP system, this approach can provide the results of metal-to-soil potential
Page XXIII-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

including coating stress and soil voltage drop (i.e., IR drop) accurately enough to represent the
“ON” reading. However, it cannot be applied in case where accurate computation of
electrochemical overpotentials is required to model the “OFF” reading used for the application of
corrosion standards for the evaluation of CP systems and its designs.
The resolution of CP problems using numerical approaches such as simple fixed point iteration
has been achieved by engineers and researchers [5]. It starts with an initial value of either
potential or current and solves linear boundary conditions at each iteration. The polarization
curve (non-linear boundary condition) is used during the iterative process to compute the new
entry - potential or current - for the next iteration. The iteration is stopped until the difference of
two successive steps is smaller than a specified tolerance threshold or the maximum number of
iterations is reached.
2.3 Numerical Application

The main objective of the modeling tool is to determine the distribution of electric potential,
electric field, and current in the electrolyte, the anodes performance and the protection provided
to the pipeline. This provides CP engineers with information to assess the level of protection of
the pipeline against corrosion. This requires precise modeling of the pipeline structure and its
environment. The new approach introduced in CorrCAD program offers the possibility to
construct and simulate such systems. The design conceptual steps consist of:
 Defining pipelines characteristics including their structure and cross-sections which are
to be included in the simulation in terms of pipe resistivity, permeability, outer and inner
radius, etc. The coating materials can also be specified, in terms of coating thickness,
resistivity and permeability. In this paper, we only focus on bare pipes (without coating).
 Defining the impressed current system, i.e., such as anode beds and rectifier currents.
 Defining the soil model. Arbitrary soil structures such as uniform, horizontally or
vertically layered (any number of layers) and localized inhomogeneities (finite volumes of
soils) are available.
Once the system to study is defined, the necessary computations are carried out. The pipe is
segmented into short sections. The program computes the leakage current of each segment by
taking into consideration the characteristics of the whole system using the MALZ module in
CDEGS as the computation kernel.
The iteration process is realized with the help of the working potential in conductor
characteristics as the iterative entry representing the electrochemical overpotential. The
computation flow of the program is shown in Figure 1.

Initial Working Potential
Leakage Intermediate
Current Overpotential
Linear Polarization Yes
Stop Criteria Final
Computation (Malz) Curve Overpotential
No
Refresh
New Working Potential Working Potential
Figure 1: Work flow of the simple fixed point iteration used in CorrCAD.
Benchmark Problem
The objective of this section is to validate the aforementioned iterative method using a simple
example which is a well-established benchmark problem for numerical corrosion study. It consists
of two dissimilar metals, each of which is modeled based on the half-cell theory. The problem is
defined in previous studies by Laplace equation within the medium and Neumann conditions for
the boundaries [5]. The analytical expression of the electric potential for such problems is
available in the literature [6] and this problem has been used to evaluate other commercial
corrosion software packages [7].
The electrolyte is defined in a rectangular region. The anode and cathode are at the bottom of the
electrolyte and have the same widths 𝑜𝑎 = 𝑎𝑐 = 1 (Figure 2 A). The cathode and anode are
considered to have linear polarization functions under this circumstance with equal and unitary
slopes 𝐿𝐶 = 𝐿𝐴 = 1 (Figure 2 B). Their polarization functions are:
𝛷−1
𝛷𝑛 = 0 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 𝑎, 𝑦 = 0
𝐿𝐴
𝛷 (2)
𝛷𝑛 = 𝑎 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 𝑐, 𝑦 = 0
𝐿𝐶
Where 𝛷𝑛 = 𝜕𝛷/𝜕𝑛 and 𝛷 is the overpotential (V) across the metal-electrolyte interface.
A B
b Φn=0
Φ
1
LA=1
ΔΦ=0 Φn=0
Φn=0
LC=1
Anode Cathode
0 c 0
a Φn
Figure 2: Benchmark problem configuration and boundary conditions.

To model this problem reliably as described in the literature, we use 3 vertical soil layers in MALZ.
The middle layer (electrolyte) has an electric resistivity of 1 Ω·m. The electrodes are located in the
electrolyte and placed as close as possible to the soil surface. The outer layers have an electric
resistivity of 10,000 Ω·m in order to confine the electric currents inside the electrolyte. The
electrodes are composed of 100 conductor segments with a surface of 1 m² each (conductor outer
radius r=0.0159 m). The first 50 segments are set to be the anodic section and the remaining
segments are set to be the cathodic section. The initial overpotentials (working potential in
CorrCAD) for the anodic and cathodic sections are set to 1 V and 0 V respectively.
Anode Cathode
Figure 3: Benchmark model using SESCAD.
1.2
Analytical
1 Without polarization (Malz)
With polarization (CorrCAD)
0.8
POTENTIAL (V)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
NORMALIZED LENGTH
Figure 4: Benchmark problem results.

One can notice that the electrochemical potentials using linear boundary conditions (without
polarization) are the initial potential values (initial working potentials), which is very different
from the results of the analytical expression. The proposed iterative approach, on the other hand,
gives very similar results to that of the analytical expression as shown in Figure 4. There is a
relatively more pronounced difference towards the anode-cathode junction. This may be caused
by the structural differences between the analytical and the CorrCAD models. Increasing the
number of segments can partially decrease this discrepancy but cannot suppress it.
Numerical Examples
This section describes the analyses of an ICCP system using the proposed approach and a
commercial corrosion software package (BEASY) to evaluate the results. Two models are studied:
a low-current requirement model and a high-current requirement model.
4.1 Polarization Curve

In the absence of concentration polarization (limiting current due to reduced transportation of
oxygen to the metal surface), the polarization function defining the net current-potential
relationship is defined by 4 parameters in Equation 1 obtained by fitting the theoretical function
to the experimental polarization curve. This fitting process is realized using the least square
method by minimising the differences between the experimental data and the fitted data. The
fitted parameters for the two models are shown in Table 1 and the original and fitted curves are
shown in Figure 5.
TABLE 1: FITTED POLARIZATION CURVE PARAMETERS TO BUTLER-VOLMER EQUATION.
Parameters High-current requirement low-current requirement
𝑖𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟 (AMP) 0.063681 0.00699
𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑟 (V) -0.64158 -0.64158
𝑏𝑎 (V/E) 0.216213 0.212504
𝑏𝑐 (V/E) -0.2013 -0.20073

-0.5
-0.6
Potential (V) vs CSE -0.7
-0.8
-0.9
-1
High-current Samples
-1.1
High-current Fits
Low-current Samples
-1.2
Low-current Fits
-1.3
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Log i (Amp/m^2)
Figure 5: The samples of experimental polarizations curves and the fitted values.
4.2 Model
The structure used is a cathodically protected bare steel pipe (without coating) buried in soil. The
pipe is 1 km long and is protected by an ICCP system whose anode bed is a vertical rod located at
one end of the pipe. The ICCP system is assumed to provide a constant output current of 100 A
and 2 A for the high-current and low-current conditions respectively. The layout of the model is
shown in Figure 6. The soil is considered uniform throughout the whole system, with 50 Ω·m and
2 Ω·m for the two conditions. More detailed information on the structure is listed in Table 2.
Please note that this structure is a replica of the one described in a paper published in the
literature which compares the results of an ICCP system using CDEGS with linear boundary
conditions and the BEASY software package ones [9]. The structure used in this paper is
constructed to reproduce the results using CDEGS as close as possible, however, the exact layout
of the structure is not known and therefore, the results obtained in this paper may be different
from the one published in the literature.
Anode y
25 m
Rectifier x
Steel Pipe
1 km
Figure 6: The layout of the ICCP and the pipe.

TABLE 2 : MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PIPE, ICCP LAYOUT AND THE ENVIRONMENT USED IN THE SIMULATION.
Characteristics High-current Low-current requirement

requirement
Pipe length 1 KM
Axial Pipe resistance 8.24E-2 Ω/KM
Pipe Radius 0.12 M
Pipe Depth 1.5 M
Anode Length 1.5 M
Anode Output Current 100 A 20 A
Soil resistivity 50 Ω·M 2 Ω·M
4.3 Results and Discussions

4.3.1 High-current requirement
Under the high-current requirement condition (anode output is 100 A), the leakage current
densities computed using BEASY and CorrCAD are identical (Figure 7). There is a slight difference
between the pipe-GPR (Figure 8), which might be caused by the structural difference between the
models used in these two software packages. The results are however, still similar. Moreover, it is
mentioned in the literature that the GPRs don’t exhibit a significant change when considering the
electrochemical layer due to the low polarization resistance, which is in line with the results here
[9].
0.6
Beasy
CURRENT DENSITY (AMP/M²)
0.5 Without polarization (Malz)

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850 950
DISTANCE (M)
Figure 7: Current density for high-current requirement.

12
Beasy
Without polarization (Malz)
11 With polarization (CorrCAD)
POTENTIAL (V)
10
7
50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850 950
DISTANCE (M)
Figure 8: Pipe GPR for high-current requirement.
-0.6
-0.7
POTENTIAL (V)
-0.8
-0.9
Beasy
-1
-1.1
50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850 950
DISTANCE (M)
Figure 9: Overpotential for high-current requirement.
The overpotential (pipe potential to soil) calculated using the linear computation method (without
taking into consideration the electrochemical non-linear boundary conditions) is the corrosion
potential (-0.64158 V). This is very different from the results obtained using the iterative
approach, even though the current distributions are somewhat similar. By considering the
polarization conditions, the iterative approach provides almost identical results as the BEASY’s
ones (Figure 9).
4.3.2 Low-current requirement

Under the low-current requirement condition (anode output is 20 A), the leakage current density
distributions, the pipe GPRs and the overpotentials are shown in Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure
12 respectively. By considering the polarization, all three quantities have improved values which
are very close to the results obtained using the BEASY software package. Similarly to the high-
current requirement condition, the overpotential (pipe potential to soil) calculated using linear
computation method is again the corrosion potential (-0.64158 V) and the iterative approach gives
very similar results as the BEASY’s computation results for the overpotential (Figure 12).

0.2
Beasy
CURRENT DENSITY (AMP/M²)

0.1
0
50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850 950
DISTANCE (M)
Figure 10: Current density for low-current requirement.
1.5 Beasy
POTENTIAL (V)
0.5
50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850 950
DISTANCE (M)
Figure 11: Pipe GPR for low-current requirement.
-0.7
POTENTIAL (V)
-0.9
-1.1 Beasy
-1.3
50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850 950
DISTANCE (M)
Figure 12: Overpotential for low-current requirement.
Conclusion
The proposed iterative approach combining the CDEGS’s software package computation module
MALZ and a simple fixed point iteration technique that calculates accurately the polarization
potential across the pipe-electrolyte interface, is a valuable method to evaluate the effectiveness

of the CP system design. Basic theoretical and practical models are constructed and studied,
demonstrating that the proposed algorithm can be applied to systems with non-linear polarization
boundary conditions, opening up a new avenue for the numerical simulation of corrosion studies
in the CDEGS suite of software packages.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank Dr. Yanxia Du for her constructive discussions and suggestions to this
research effort.
References
[1] E. McCafferty, Introduction to Corrosion Science, Springer Science & Business Media, 2010
[2] A. W. Peabody, Peabody's Control of Pipeline Corrosion, National Association of Corrosion
Engineers, 2001
[3] Nestor Perez, Electrochemistry and Corrosion Science, Springer Science & Business Media,
2007
[4] John O'M. Bockris, Amulya K.N. Reddy, Maria E. Gamboa-Aldeco, Modern Electrochemistry
2A: Fundamentals of Electrodics - Modern Electrochemistry, Springer Science & Business
Media, 2007
[5] Sun, W. "Relaxation iterative algorithms for solving cathodic protection systems with non‐
linear polarization curves." International journal for numerical methods in engineering 55.4
(2002): 401-412.
[6] Waber, James T. and Fagan, Bertha, Mathematical Studies on Galvanic Corrosion IV:
Influence of Electrolyte Thickness on the Potential and Current Distributions over Coplanar
Electrodes Using Polarization Parameters, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 103(1), pp
64-72, 1956
[7] CHUANG, JM, NG ZAMANI, and CC HSIUNG. 1987. "Some Computational Aspects of Bem
Simulation of Cathodic Protection Systems." Applied Mathematical Modelling 11(5): 371-379.
[8] Jia, J. X., et al. "Evaluation of the BEASY program using linear and piecewise linear
approaches for the boundary conditions." Materials and Corrosion 55.11 (2004): 845-852.
[9] 杜艳霞，“高压直流输电系统对埋地金属管道直流干扰及防护措施研究”，中国北京科技大学
腐蚀与防护中心，2013 年 CDEGS 中国用户年会，2013 年 12 月，中国海南三亚

XXIVLIGHTNING SHIELDING DESIGN STUDY FOR A

SUBSTATION WITH LOW INSULATION LEVEL
Stéphane Baron, Sylvie Lefebvre, John Xie, Sharon Tee and Simon Fortin
Abstract
This article shows how a lightning shielding study of a 115 kV substation with low insulation levels can easily be
achieved with effective protection techniques. The shielding study is carried out using the SESShield-3D software
package [5] based on Mousa’s Electrogeometric Model (Mousa-EGM) as defined in IEEE-998-2012 [1], with a strike
radius calculated from the transformer’s Basic Impulse Level. Possible techniques to minimize the number of
lightning masts and shield wires to be installed and still able to achieve and effective protection of the site are
discussed in this article.
1 Introduction
Sensitive equipment in substations and other electrical installations needs to be protected against
possible lightning strikes. This is normally done by installing dedicated lightning masts and shield
wires to intercept the lightning current and divert it to the grounding grid of the installation before
this current can reach the equipment to be protected.
Masts and shield wires can only protect equipment located within a certain distance of the masts
or shield wires. This defines a zone of protection around each mast or shield wire. Empirical
observations carried out over several decades show that the size of the zone of protection centered
on a mast or shield wire (also known as the Rolling Sphere radius) is an increasing function of
the lightning current: the larger the lightning current, the larger the zone of protection provided
by each lightning mast or shield wire. This means, however, that when an electrical installation
needs to be protected against lightning of relatively low intensity, as happens for substations with
low insulation levels, the rolling sphere radius can be very small, requiring the installation of a
very large number of masts and/or shield wires to achieve an adequate protection of the entire
installation – which can be prohibitively expensive.
This article describes and illustrates the process of designing a lightning shielding system for a
115 kV substation with low insulation levels and suggests possible techniques to minimize the
number of lightning masts and shield wires to be installed in order to achieve an effective
protection of the site.
This particular substation covers a 75 x 80 m2 area and provides a good example where existing
equipment and transmission pole structures have to be upgraded or changed, thus raising new
issues for lightning protection inside the substation. The objective is to carry out an analysis that
will provide a safe, reliable and cost-efficient shielding protection system for the sensitive
equipment (transformers and phase conductors) at the site.
The SESShield-3D software package is used to carry out the calculations and the design of the
shielding system for the substation example of this article. This package applies the principles of
the Electrogeometric Model (EGM) to create a lightning interception surface for each object,
where the surface corresponds to the loci of the centers of the rolling spheres normally used in the
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XXIV-1

Rolling Sphere Method (RSM). This concept is fully described in references [2], [3] and [5] (for
the two dimensional case).
2 Data and Assumption

The shielding design is carried out in accordance with the EGM and associated Rolling Sphere
Method (RSM) with a strike radius determined by the transformers’ Basic Impulse Level (BIL).
For the purpose of this article, the studied substation has two distinct voltage levels (Figure 1):
- Zone #1: This zone contains two transformers (115 kV/13 kV) and the applicable BIL,
determined from the characteristics of Transformer#03 and Transformer #06 is 110 kV.
- Zone #2: This zone contains four transformers (115 kV/23 kV) and the applicable BIL,
determined from the characteristics of Transformer#01, Transformer#02,
Transformer#04 and Transformer #05 is 150 kV.
Hence, the substation defines two zones where a specific stroke current prevails. The stroke
current in each zone is determined by the BIL of the transformers and Surge Impedance (SI) that
takes over when a lightning strike occurs in a given zone of the substation. The delimitation of
zones #1 and #2 is presented in Figure 1. Table 1 lists the data used for the studied substation
including the striking distance calculated from Mousa’s Electrogeometric Model (Mousa-EGM)
[1] for each group of phase conductors and the characteristics of the phase conductors.
TABLE 1: DATA FOR THE STUDIED SUBSTATION
Zone # Phase Conductor Height (m) Diameter (mm) Striking

Type Distance
1 A 6.7 88.8 6.4
1 B 14.0 228 6.55
2 C 9.8 / 5.3 / 4.1 25.4 6.65 / 7.08 / 7.3
The striking radius of 6.4 m for the 115 kV / 13 kV zone (Zone #1) and 6.65 m for the 115 kV/23
kV zone (Zone #2) are the lowest in their respective zones and can be used as conservative criteria
for the design of the lightning protection system. Indeed, any stroke with a peak current exceeding
the lowest harmful values of 710 A and 750 A respectively should be captured by such a lightning
protection system.
Although this is not the purpose of this article, a careful study of the two zones using the
corresponding criteria can be performed in order to get a cost-effective design. In the context of
the studied substation, the smallest sphere radius for the entire substation is used and leads to a
conservative and safe design, as shown in the remainder of this article.
Page XXIV-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

Figure 1: The studied substation, with two distinct voltage levels.
3 Design Approach
The shielding design in Zone #1 is based on a strike radius of 6.4 m, which is expected to intercept
approximately 100% of lightning flashes that deliver a peak return-stroke current exceeding 710
A. Shielding systems are designed to avoid any direct transfer of current to the structures and
equipment they are protecting, either by direct conduction or by flashover. It must however be
kept in mind that a voltage rise may occur at the equipment’s grounding points since the lightning
protection system is expected to be connected to the grounding grid.
In order to avoid flashovers, a minimum clearance is maintained between the system of protection
(lightning masts and shield wires) and vulnerable equipment such as transformers.
A lightning shielding analysis normally involves the following steps:
1. Identifying the equipment, facilities, etc. that require protection against
lightning: This step is usually based on drawings. The drawings should provide an
elevation view of the structures and equipment as well as their dimensions. Identify the
equipment and structures that require protection and those that will act as shielding
objects.

2. Creating 3D models of objects that require protection: Build the models

including all substation structures and equipment that were identified in Step #1. This step
is crucial and must be done as thoroughly as possible.
3. Selecting the analysis method: The selection of the method can be based on the type
of system that requires protection (structure, substation or transmission line) and the
standard to be applied. For the purpose of this article, the RSM has been applied for which
the size of the rolling sphere has been calculated based on Mousa-EGM [1]. The most
conservative rolling sphere radius was used for the analysis, i.e. the smallest calculated
sphere radius for the various combinations of insulation levels and surge impedances in
the substation.
4. Optimizing the protection system: In this last step, the geometrical characteristics
of the system of protection are adjusted in order to reduce the number of lightning capture
devices. For the substation studied in this article, one technique used to optimize the
shielding system consists in using the existing supporting structures and shield wires
whenever possible to reduce the required number of lightning masts. Another technique
consists in installing lightning rods on top of existing tall structures to take advantage of
their height to increase the size of the protection zone.
4 Lightning Protection Design

The structures and substation equipment were modelled using consolidated section blocks in the
SESShield-3D software package. In general, to do this you need to identify the dimensions of the
structures and equipment requiring protection and of the structures considered to constitute
shielding objects, such as the metallic gantry structures. Figure 2 shows the computer model of
the substation and indicates the height of the structures requiring protection (shown in red) and
the height of those providing protection (labeled in blue).
A key task in the design study is therefore the creation of 3-dimensional models of aboveground
structures and equipment to be protected from lightning strikes, along with intentional and non-
intentional shielding structures (e.g., structural steel, shield wires, lightning masts and air
terminals).
Once the models are established, the lightning shielding system can be designed to protect each
area within the substation. For the substation studied in this article, the most efficient design for
the area covered by the substation was achieved using strategically-placed tall masts with shield
wires suspended between the masts.

Figure 2: Plan view of the computer model created for the design of a lightning shielding system of the
substation under study.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 provide perspective views of the modeled substation and the lightning
shielding system respectively. This latter was designed to protect equipment and structures
located within the volumes illustrated in Figure 2 against direct strikes initiated from a distance
of 6.4 m or more.

Figure 3: Perspective view of the computer model; the vulnerable structures are unprotected.
Figure 4: Perspective view of the computer model with the lightning shielding system.
Figure 5 provides a plan view of the shielding system along with the computer model of the
substation; the corresponding protected volumes are displayed as orange and purple shaded
areas. The 8 lightning masts are shown as dark green circles with a dot in the center; the 20 shield
wires are shown as heavy red lines.
Simulations with SESShield-3D show that the lightning masts should have a height of 10.0 m and
15.5 m for Zone #1 and Zone #2 respectively in order to provide adequate protection for these two
zones (Figure 1). The shield wires must have a height of 10.0 m and 15.5 m for a sufficient coverage
of Zone #1 and #2 respectively.

Figure 5: Designed shielding system for the substation under study.
5 Computation Results
In conformity with the Mousa-EGM/RSM method described in [1], SESShield-3D performs its
calculations by first generating a 3-dimensional surface corresponding to all possible positions of
the center of a rolling sphere, with a radius of 6.4 m, whose surface is in contact with a vulnerable
structure to be shielded.
Next, the software generates a 3-dimensional surface corresponding to all positions of the center
of a similar sphere that is in contact with the shielding structures.
A 3-dimensional hidden surface algorithm is then used to determine which surfaces, generated
by vulnerable structures and equipment, protrude outside surfaces generated by shielding
structures and passive equipment. These protruding surfaces represent the locations where a
lightning strike can originate and hit a vulnerable structure or piece of equipment (such as a
transformer) due to inadequate shielding.
By adjusting the positions of the lightning masts and the shield wires until surfaces associated
with vulnerable structures or equipment are no longer visible, a satisfactory shielding system is
achieved. Figure 6 shows the interception volumes of the shielding system, which strategically
positioned, cover the interception volumes belonging to the vulnerable equipment (transformers
and phase conductors).

Gridlines Spacing (5x5 m)
Figure 6: Performance of the shielding design. The light blue area shows the shielding system interception
volumes for a striking distance of 6.4 m, which completely covers the collection volumes belonging to the
vulnerable equipment (transformers and phase conductors). The remaining red area corresponds to a
building that was not intended to be protected.
6 Conclusion
The design and optimization process of a lightning protection system for a substation with a low
insulation level was presented in this article. The Mousa-EGM/RSM method, described in IEEE
998 [1], has been applied with a sphere radius of 6.4 m, which represents the most conservative
radius.
A cost-effective design has been achieved by using as much as possible lightning rods mounted on
existing structures as well as shield wires positioned on grounded structures; this in order to
minimize the number of lightning masts.

Finally, a complete procedure was described in this article allows the design an efficient shielding
system for a substation with a low insulation level in four steps.
7 Lightning Shielding Design Files

The computer model of the lightning shielding system as well as the initial substation model can
be loaded in SESShield-3D from the SES Software conference distribution:
- Initial substation model: UGC 2015\Example Files\Lightning Shielding Design Study
Substation Low Insulation Level\SD_Lightning Shielding Substation with Low Insulation
Level - Initial Model.F05.
- Lightning shielding system: UGC 2015\Example Files\Lightning Shielding Design Study
Substation Low Insulation Level\SD_Lightning Shielding Substation with Low Insulation
Level - Rolling Sphere Analysis.F05.
Those computer models are also available in DXF format:
- Initial substation model: UGC 2015\Example Files\Lightning Shielding Design Study
Substation Low Insulation Level\Lightning Shielding Substation with Low Insulation
Level - Initial Model.DXF.
- Lightning shielding system: UGC 2015\Example Files\Lightning Shielding Design Study
Substation Low Insulation Level\ Lightning Shielding Substation with Low Insulation
Level - Shielding System.DXF.
8 References
[1]: IEEE Std. 998-2012, “IEEE Guide for Direct Lightning Stroke Shielding of Substations”.
[2] Qizhang Xie et al., “Rolling sphere method using 3D Graphics approach” Power and Energy
Engineering Conference, 2009. APPEEC 2009.
[3] S. Baron et al., “Shielding Design Study for a Large Plant Using a 3-D Graphics-Based
Lightning Interception Surface Rendering and Intersection Method”, ICLP 2012-Vienna.
[4]: Qizhang Xie et al.; “Shielding Failure Evaluation by Collection Surface”, ICLP 2014-Shanghai.
[5]: Safe Engineering Services and Technologies ltd. Website:
www.sestech.com/Products/Brochures/SESShield-3D.pdf

XXVACCURACY IMPROVEMENT IN FFTSES
Octavio Ramos-Leaños, Simon Fortin, Yexu Li, Marc-André Joyal

Abstract
This article introduces a work in progress to improve the FFTSES tool of the MultiFields package to compute
transient surges. The main goal is to increase the accuracy of obtained results while preserving the computational
cost. Several practical examples of electromagnetic transient calculations of linear systems are presented. Time
Domain solutions obtained with the existing optimized algorithm and a new algorithm that is currently being tested
are compared against the solution computed when all frequency samples are included in the study. Such
comparisons reveal that the new algorithm can improve the results substantially while keeping the computational
time at a minimum.
1 Introduction
When performing a transient analysis using the FFTSES program of the MultiFields package, the
final Time Domain (TD) response is an approximation computed with a minimum number of
frequency samples selected, in part, according to the specified Sampling Method. Currently the
Optimized method is the default algorithm used in FFTSES. This method proposes frequency
samples based on the shape of the input surge. However, this algorithm may not account for the
fact that low frequency samples are typically more important to the TD response than higher
frequencies. As such, it tends to suggest too many high frequencies, leading to a less accurate
response.
A modification to the linear algorithm called Modified Linear is currently being tested in
FFTSES. This Modified Linear algorithm introduces an extra number of frequency samples
placed in the low frequency region to improve the final TD solution, delivering more accurate
results. In order to test this algorithm several practical examples are used. For each of these
examples, the Optimized and the Modified Linear algorithms are assessed against the answer
obtained when the full set of frequencies is used to carry out the analysis.
2 Computation Methodology
The method used by FFTSES to obtain potentials, currents, or electromagnetic fields in the TD is
by means of the Fast Fourier Transform. For instance, the above mentioned quantities can be
expressed in the TD by [1]:
∞
1
𝑥(𝑡) = ∫ 𝑋(𝜔)𝑒 𝑗𝜔𝑡 𝑑𝜔 (1)
2𝜋
−∞
whereas TD signals in the Frequency Domain (FD) are given by:

∞
𝑋(𝜔) = ∫ 𝑥(𝑡)𝑒 −𝑗𝜔𝑡 𝑑𝜔 (2)

−∞
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XXV-1

where 𝑥(𝑡) may stand for the scalar potential 𝑣(𝑡), the current 𝑖(𝑡), the electric field 𝑒(𝑡), or the
magnetic field ℎ(𝑡). Note that upper case letters represent the FD counterpart of TD variables
represented by lower case letters.
The response of the system is generated by a unit current energization. The computation of the
Frequency Domain response is done by HIFREQ, while the forward and inverse Fourier
Transforms are carried out by FFTSES. One attractive feature of FFTSES is its capability to
compute the TD response from its corresponding FD response using a relatively small number of
frequencies, obtained based on the frequency domain response of the system. The final answer is
obtained in an iterative process outlined as follows [1], [2]:
1. Frequency decomposition of the transient input signal.
2. Recommendation of computation frequencies based on the input signal spectrum.
3. Computation of the system response in the FD.
4. Computation of the TD response and recommendation of more frequency samples
according to system FD response.
5. If more computation frequencies are suggested at step 4, repeat steps 3 and 4. Otherwise,
stop the process.
In the next three sections, three practical cases are presented. Their solution is first obtained using
the recommended frequencies by the Optimized and the Modified Linear algorithms and then
the whole set of frequencies is used to obtain a comparison parameter by computing the relative
error between the full frequency response, the Optimized algorithm and the Modified Linear
algorithm.
3 Communication Tower Hit by a Lightning Strike

3.1 Introduction
The case of a communication tower hit by a lightning strike introduced in [1], [2] is used and
modified here to present a simplified case scenario. The system configuration consists of a 50 m
high communication tower connected to a simple grounding system. The tower structure is
approximated by a 10 mm radius steel rod and the grounding system by copper conductors with
a 6 mm radius. The grounding system consists of the bottom part of the tower, three vertical
ground rods with a 3 m depth and a 30 m horizontal conductor buried at a depth of 1 m which is
used to connect the leg of the tower to the three vertical ground rods. A uniform soil with a 100
Ω-m resistivity, relative permittivity of 1 and relative permeability of 1 is assumed. Figure 1
presents the system configuration.
The surge current considered for this study is defined by the following double exponential type
function whose waveform is presented in Figure 2:
𝑖(𝑡) = 𝑖1 (𝑒 −𝛼𝑡 − 𝑒 −𝛽𝑡 ) + 𝑖2 (𝑒 −𝛾𝑡 − 𝑒 −𝛿𝑡 ) (3)
where 𝑖1 = 11 kA, 𝑖2 =115 A, 𝛼=40 kHz, 𝛽=3 MHz, 𝛾=100 kHz and 𝛿=22.2 kHz. This surge reaches
its maximum value of 10.227 kA at a time of 1.44 ms. Thus, the time step can be selected as one
tenth of the surge rise time [2].
1.44𝜇𝑠
Δ𝑡 = = 0.144 𝜇𝑠 (4)
10
Page XXV-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

The required number of samples 𝑁 to obtain the wanted resolution can be computed from
expression (5) which for an observation time T of 100 ms results in 694 samples [4].
𝑇
𝑁= (5)
Δ𝑡
Given that the Fast Fourier Transform performs better with a number of samples which is a power
of 2 and that FFTSES only works with such numbers of samples, 1,024 samples have been selected
to perform the analysis, which results in Δ𝑡=0.0977 ms. This time step satisfies the sampling
theorem given in (6) and results in a final maximum observation frequency 𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 of 5.12 MHz [3],
[4].
1
Δ𝑡 < (6)
2𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥
The frequency step Δ𝐹 can be calculated as [3], [4],
1
Δ𝐹 = (8)
𝑇
resulting in a frequency step of 10 kHz.
50m
-1m
-3m
7m 7m
30m
Figure 1: Communication tower model and its grounding system configuration.

Current (A)
Time (s)
Figure 2: Current waveform injected into the communication tower by the lightning surge.

3.2 Assessment of the Modified Linear Algorithm

For this case, the Optimized algorithm proposes the initial 14 frequency samples shown in Table
1 and the Modified Linear algorithm proposes the 35 frequency samples, 30 linearly spaced
and 5 in the low frequency range, shown in Table 1. With these initial values, the final TD response
of the system is computed using a total of 84 frequency samples for the Optimized algorithm
and 77 samples for the Modified Linear algorithm. These answers are further compared against
the TD response obtained when all 1,024 frequency samples are used to perform the analysis.
In this study the surge current is applied at the top of the tower as shown in Figure 1 and the scalar
potential is measured at the base of the tower. Figure 3 presents a superposition of the three
results and a close up, where the full frequency response is presented in blue, the answer obtained
with the Optimized algorithm is presented in green and is denoted as original and the answer
obtained with the Modified Linear algorithm is presented in red. The transient response is
characterized by a dominant frequency of 1.45 MHz which corresponds to the resonant frequency
of the tower (50 m is almost 1/4 of the wavelength in air at 1.45 MHz), an attenuation time of
10 ms, and a maximum value of 200.4 kV. The maximum relative error between these solutions is
0.75% for the Optimized algorithm and of 0.54% for the Linear Modified algorithm as shown
in Figure 4 where the relative error between the full frequency response and that obtained with
the Optimized algorithm is presented in blue and the relative error between the full frequency
response and the Modified Linear algorithm is presented in green.
3.3 Comments
The results show that for both algorithms the final TD response is very accurate with a relative
error smaller than 1%. It is important to notice that although the initial number of frequency
samples for the Modified Linear algorithm is larger than that used by the Optimized
algorithm, the final TD response is obtained with a smaller number of frequency samples
indicating that the accuracy of the final response does not depend only on the number of
frequency samples used for its computation but also on the appropriate selection of frequencies.
Figure 3: Communication tower case, comparison of TD response obtained with: whole

frequency set, Optimized and Modified Linear algorithms. Insert, close up.

Figure 4: Communication tower case, relative error for the Optimized and the Modified
Linear algorithms.
TABLE 1: INITIAL FREQUENCY SAMPLES USED FOR COMMUNICATION TOWER CASE.
Initial number of
Initial number of samples
samples
Sample Sample
No. No.
Modified Modified linear
Optimized
linear
1 0 Hz 0 Hz 19 2.38 MHz
2 10 kHz 10 kHz 20 2.55 MHz
3 20 kHz 20 kHz 21 2.72 MHz
4 30 kHz 40 kHz 22 2.89 MHz
5 100 kHz 80 kHz 23 3.06 MHz
6 170 kHz 170 kHz 24 3.23 MHz
7 730 kHz 340 kHz 25 3.4 MHz
8 1.46 MHz 510 kHz 26 3.57 MHz
9 2.19 MHz 680 kHz 27 3.74 MHz
10 29.2 MHz 850 kHz 28 3.91 MHz
11 36.5 MHz 1.02 MHz 29 4.08 MHz
12 4.38 MHz 1.19 MHz 30 4.25 MHz
13 5.11 MHz 1.36 MHz 31 4.42 MHz
14 5.12 Mhz 1.53 MHz 32 4.59 MHz
15 - 1.7 MHz 33 4.76 MHz
16 - 1.87 MHz 34 4.93 MHz
17 - 2.04 MHz 35 5.12 MHz
18 - 2.21 MHz

4 Bridge Hit by Lightning

4.1 Introduction
The simplified bridge section and grounding system model shown in Figure 5 is used to present a
practical case. The bridge structure is made of 6.7 mm radius steel conductors and the grounding
system of copper conductors with a 6 mm radius. The bridge length is 1,426 m, its tensile column
has a height of 161 m, its height to ground is 67 m and its width is 33.5 m. The grounding system
consists of the bridge foundations, which are basically two 25 x 32 m columns with 12 vertical
conductors each, buried 40 m into the ground. A uniform soil with a 62 Ω-m resistivity, relative
permittivity of 1 and relative permeability of 1 is assumed.
The lightning surge current considered for this study is defined by the following double
exponential type function whose waveform is presented in Figure 6:
𝑖(𝑡) = 𝑖1 (𝑒 −𝛼𝑡 − 𝑒 −𝛽𝑡 ) (9)
where 𝑖1 =73.3314 kA, 𝛼=53.799 kHz and 𝛽=499.45 kHz. This surge reaches its maximum value
of 50 kA at a time of 5 ms. Thus, the time step to perform the analysis can be selected as one tenth
of the surge rise time Δ𝑡 = 0.5 ms.
Figure 5: Simplified bridge model and its grounding system.
Figure 6: Current waveform injected into the bridge by the lightning surge.
From (5) the required number of samples for an observation time T of 150 ms is calculated as 𝑁 =
300 and further selected as 𝑁 = 512, resulting in a time step of Δ𝑡 = 0.293 ms. This time step
satisfies the sampling theorem and results in a final maximum frequency 𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 of 1.7 MHz with a
frequency step of 6.667 kHz.

In this example, the Optimized algorithm proposes the initial 17 frequency samples shown in
Table 2 and the Modified Linear algorithm proposes the 35 frequency samples, 30 linearly
spaced and 5 in the low frequency range, shown in Table 2 as well. With these initial values, the
final TD response of the system is computed using a total of 115 samples for the optimized
algorithm and 111 samples for the modified linear algorithm. The computed responses are further
assessed against the TD response obtained when all 512 frequency samples are used to perform
the solution computation.
Figure 7 presents a superposition of the three results, where the full frequency response is
presented in blue, the answer obtained with the Optimized algorithm is presented in green and
is denoted as original and the answer obtained with the Modified Linear algorithm is presented
in red. The transient response is characterized by a dominant frequency of 94.645 kHz, an
attenuation time of at least 200 ms and a maximum value of 130 kV. The maximum relative error
between these solutions is 15.1% for the Optimized algorithm and 1.6% for the Modified
Linear algorithm, as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 7: Bridge case, comparison of TD response obtained with: whole frequency set,
Optimized and Modified Linear algorithms.

Figure 8: Bridge case, relative error for the Optimized and the Modified Linear algorithms.
TABLE 2: INITIAL FREQUENCY SAMPLES USED FOR BRIDGE CASE.
Initial number of
Initial number of samples
samples
Sample Sample
No. No.
Modified Modified linear
Optimized
linear
1 0 Hz 0 Hz 19 806.67 kHz
2 6.67 kHz 6.67 kHz 20 866.67 kHz
3 13.33 kHz 13.33 kHz 21 926.67 kHz
4 20.00 kHz 26.66 kHz 22 986.67 kHz
5 26.66 kHz 53.33 kHz 23 1.0467 MHz
6 33.33 kHz 106.67 kHz 24 1.1067 MHz
7 40.00 kHz 160.00 kHz 25 1.1667 MHz
8 46.66 kHz 213.33 kHz 26 1.2267 MHz
9 53.33 kHz 266.66 kHz 27 1.2867 MHz
10 240.0 kHz 320.00 kHz 28 1.3467 MHz
11 480.0 kHz 373.33 kHz 29 1.4067 MHz
12 720.0 kHz 426.67 kHz 30 1.4667 MHz
13 960.0 kHz 480.00 kHz 31 1.5267 MHz
14 1.200 MHz 533.33 kHz 32 1.5867 MHz
15 1.440 MHz 586.67 kHz 33 1.6467 MHz
16 1.680 MHz 640.00 kHz 34 1.7067 MHz
17 1.7067 MHz 693.33 kHz
18 - 746.67 kHz

4.3 Comments
The results obtained with the Modified Linear algorithm present a very important gain in
accuracy while the number of frequency samples used to perform the analysis is almost the same.
These results confirm what was seen in the last example, i.e. a better selection of frequencies
results in higher accuracy.
5 Interference of an HVDC Transmission Line onto a Pipeline

5.1 Introduction
As a last example, consider a transmission line that runs along a pipeline, as shown in Figure 9.
The transmission line is an HVDC line whose phase conductors are placed at an average height of
29 m above the earth and whose shield wires are placed at a height of 50 m. The distance between
the phase conductors is 22 m, and the distance between the shield wires is 29 m. The modeled
HVDC line comprises 17 sections with a uniform span length of 464 m and runs along the pipeline
for a distance of 2,467 m. The distance from the tower center to the pipeline center is 20.87 m.
The tower grounding systems are modeled as shown in Figure 9c. The pipeline is buried at a depth
of 1.5 m. A uniform soil with a 100 Ω-m resistivity, relative permittivity of 1 and relative
permeability of 1 is assumed.
The input surge considered for this study was taken from measurements and presents the
waveform shown in Figure 10. The maximum frequency component of this surge is 2.667 kHz.
Thus, according to (6) Δ𝑡 is selected as 150 µs. For an observation time of 51 ms, this results in
340 samples. However, given that the number of measured points which define the surge signal
is 21,023, the number of samples must be selected as 𝑁 = 215 = 32,678 samples.
a) b)
c)
Figure 9: Transmission line and pipeline case, a) general set up, b) close up to transmission line
running along the pipe line, c) fault location and observation points.
Figure 10: Measured surge waveform used for transmission line and pipeline case.

In this case the Optimized algorithm proposes 30 linearly spaced initial frequency samples.
These samples are given in Table 3 and the Modified Linear algorithm proposes 35 frequency
samples, 30 linearly spaced and 5 in the low frequency range, shown in Table 3 as well. With these
initial samples the final TD response of the system is computed using a total of 241 samples for
the Optimized algorithm and 294 samples for the Modified Linear algorithm. The computed
responses are further assessed against the TD response obtained when all 32,768 frequency
samples are used for the computations.
Figure 11 presents a superposition of the three results, where the full frequency response is
presented in blue, the answer obtained with the Optimized algorithm is presented in green and
is denoted as original and the answer obtained with the Modified Linear algorithm is presented
in red. The maximum relative error is 1.50% for the Optimized algorithm and 0.4% for the
Modified Linear algorithm as shown in Figure 12, where relative errors are plotted in blue and
green respectively.
Figure 11: Transmission line and pipeline case, comparison of TD response obtained with: whole
frequency set, Optimized and Modified Linear algorithms.
Figure 12: Transmission line and pipeline case, relative error for the Optimized and the
Modified Linear algorithms.
TABLE 3: INITIAL FREQUENCY SAMPLES USED FOR TRANSMISSION LINE CASE.
Initial number of samples Initial number of samples

Sample Sample
No. Modified No. Optimized Modified linear
Optimized
linear
1 0 Hz 0 Hz 19 199.230 kHz 149.751 kHz
2 11.068 kHz 19.59 Hz 20 210.298 kHz 160.447 kHz
3 22.136 kHz 39.18 Hz 21 221.367 kHz 171.144 kHz
4 33.205 kHz 78.36 Hz 22 232.435 kHz 181.840 kHz
5 44.273 kHz 156.72 Hz 23 243.503 kHz 192.537 kHz
6 55.341 kHz 10.696 kHz 24 254.572 kHz 203.233 kHz
7 66.410 kHz 21.393 kHz 25 265.640 kHz 213.930 kHz
8 77.478 kHz 32.089 kHz 26 276.708 kHz 224.626 kHz
9 88.546 kHz 42.785 kHz 27 287.777 kHz 235.323 kHz
10 99.615 kHz 53.482 kHz 28 298.845 kHz 246.019 kHz
11 110.683 kHz 64.178 kHz 29 309.913 kHz 256.716 kHz
12 121.751 kHz 74.875 kHz 30 320.973 kHz 267.412 kHz
13 132.820 kHz 85.571 kHz 31 - 278.109 kHz
14 2.280 kHz
143.888 kHz 96.268 kHz 32 - 288.825 kHz
15 154.956 kHz 106.965 kHz 33 - 299.541 kHz
16 166.025 kHz 117.661 kHz 34 - 310.257 kHz
17 177.093 kHz 128.358 kHz 35 - 320.973 kHz
18 188.161 kHz 139.054 kHz

5.3 Comments
In this case, both algorithms result in good answers with less than 2% error. However, it appears
that the inclusion of initial low frequency samples allows FFTSES to better recommend the
computation frequencies over the iteration process. In this particular case, usage of the Modified
Linear algorithm does not result in a lower number of computation frequencies but it does result
in a higher accuracy when compared against the Optimized algorithm.
6 Conclusion
This article discussed a new algorithm to recommend the initial computation frequencies in
FFTSES that is currently being investigated. In the cases examined so far, this new algorithm
increases substantially the accuracy of the final Time Domain response while keeping at a
minimum the number of computation frequencies. A few examples demonstrating the
effectiveness of the new algorithm were presented. The examples also illustrated how to use the
Sampling Theorem to determine a suitable “Number of Samples” to perform a transient analysis.
Further research regarding this subject is currently ongoing. This new algorithm is expected to be
implemented in FFTSES in the near future.
7 References
[1] F. P. Dawalibi, W. Ruan and S. Fortin, "Lightning Transient Response of Communication Towers and
Associated Grounding Networks," in International Conference in Electromagnetic Compatibility,
Kuala Lumpur, 1995.
[2] SES Technologies , "How To Engineering Guide-Lightning Transient Study of a Communication

Tower," SES Technologies, Laval, 2012.
[3] P. Moreno and A. Ramirez, "Implementation of the Numerical Laplace Transform: A Review," IEEE,
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2599-2609, 2008.
[4] J. L. Naredo, J. Mahseredjian, I. Kocar, J. A. Gutierrez-Robles and J. A. Martinez-Velasco,

"Frequency Domain Aspects of Electromagnetic Transient Analysis of Power Systems," in
Electromagnetic Transient Analysis of Power Systems, New Delhi, Wiley-IEEE, 2014, pp. 39-66.
[5] P. Gomez and F. Uribe, "The Numerical Laplace Transform: An Accurate Technique for Analyzing
Electromagnetic Transients on Power System Diveces," Elsevier, Electrical Power and Energy
Systems, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 116-123, 2009.
[6] J. G. Proakis and D. G. Manolakis, Digital signal processing, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2007.

XXVITREATMENT OF NONLINEAR DEVICES IN THE

FREQUENCY DOMAIN
Stéphane Franiatte(1,2), Simon Fortin(1), Jean-Marc Lina(2), Marc-André Joyal(1)

and Farid P. Dawalibi(1)
(1) Safe Engineering Services & Technologies ltd. (2) École de Technologie Supérieure
3055 blvd des Oiseaux 1100 Notre-Dame Ouest
Laval, Québec, Canada Montréal, Québec, Canada
Email: info@sestech.com, Web Site: www.sestech.com Web Site: www.etsmtl.ca
Abstract
A few years ago, a new technique to model nonlinear elements in the frequency domain was developed and applied
to study the deployment of surge arresters on distribution lines for analysis of insulation failure due to lightning.
One of the difficulty encountered at that time was related to the method used to solve the network. The optimization
algorithm used sometimes failed to converge and required the user to frequently update some parameters to
eventually find a solution. To address these issues, the work presented here proposes to use the Simulated
Annealing method (SA), a stochastic derivative-free global optimization algorithm. Although in early development
stage, solutions have been found for networks containing 5 arresters and more, with realistic physical parameters.
1 Introduction
A few years ago SES proposed [1] an alternative approach to study the lightning performance of
surge arresters, which are nonlinear devices, directly in the frequency domain. Once the responses
(voltage and current) of the network including surge arresters were computed, the voltage and
current through the surge arresters in the time domain were obtained using the inverse Fourier
transform. The advantage of this approach is that the frequency dependencies of the conductors
are fully taken into account.
In [1], to resolve a system containing nonlinear elements, equations representing a self-
consistency condition on the currents through the arresters were devised. These equations can be
solved iteratively. In that purpose, the authors have found the classical Newton-Raphson method
to be impractical, because of the large number of variables involved. The Fixed-Point method was
used instead, updating the current at each iteration with a step controlled by the actual error in
voltage and a few other user-defined parameters. The method worked well for purely resistive
network, but often failed to converge when inductive and capacitive components were added.
Moreover, the Fixed-Point method required to have its parameters periodically updated by the
user, who was in fact guiding the convergence.
To address these issues, the present work proposes an automated method for finding solutions of
nonlinear systems of equations through stochastic global optimization. The original problem as
stated in [1] (nonlinear equations system solving) is transformed into a global optimization one
by synthesizing an objective function whose global minimum, if it exists, is also a solution to the
original system. The global optimization task is carried out by the stochastic method known as
Simulated Annealing (SA).
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XXVI-1

2 Mathematical Model
2.1 Model of Nonlinear and Time-Varying Elements
Elements of electric networks are nonlinear if their physical parameters 𝑅, 𝐿 or 𝐶 are not constant
but depend on either currents flowing through or voltage drop across them.
Let 𝑁 be an electric network that consists of a linear system, in which a nonlinear device is
inserted. The compensation method can be used to solve 𝑁. This method is directly related to the
Thévenin theorem concerning representation of selected fragments of electric network by
equivalent voltage source and the source impedance. Figure 1 below presents the method for a
network containing one nonlinear element [2].
Figure 1: Compensation method. a) Linear network without the nonlinear element. b) The equivalent
circuit.
The linear part of the network is transformed into the equivalent circuit according to the Thévenin
theorem. The equations describing the equivalent network are easily derived:
𝑣𝐴 (𝑡) = 𝑣0 (𝑡) − 𝑅𝑇 ∙ 𝑖𝐴 (𝑡) (1)
𝑣0 (𝑡) (2)
𝑖𝐴 (𝑡) =
𝑅𝑇 + 𝑅𝐴
The nonlinear elements are described using equations that relate 𝑖𝐴 (𝑡) to 𝑣𝐴 (𝑡):
𝑣𝐴 (𝑡) = 𝑔(𝑖𝐴 (𝑡), 𝑡) (3)
𝑖𝐴 (𝑡) = ℎ(𝑣𝐴 (𝑡), 𝑡) (4)
Where 𝑔 and ℎ are nonlinear functions of 𝑖𝐴 and 𝑣𝐴 , respectively. In order to solve equations (1)
and (2), the parameters of the Thévenin equivalent circuit, namely 𝑣0 (𝑡), the open circuit voltage
of the network, and 𝑅𝑇 , the Thévenin impedance of the network without the nonlinear branch,
must be determined first. Then, equations (1) and (3) are solved for 𝑖𝐴 (𝑡), simultaneously.
Page XXVI-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

Usually [2], in the time domain for a circuit containing only one nonlinear element, this task is
carried out using the Newton-Raphson algorithm. However, for a network in the frequency
domain containing more than a few nonlinear elements, things must be done differently, as
detailed in the following sections.
2.2 Representation in the Frequency Domain

For a network 𝑁 containing 𝑛 nonlinear elements, the voltage and current across the 𝑖 𝑡ℎ nonlinear
element in the frequency domain can, from equations (1) and (2), be respectively expressed with
the following equations:
𝑛
𝑗
𝑉𝐴𝑖 (𝜔) = 𝑉0𝑖 (𝜔) − ∑ 𝑍𝑖𝑗 (𝜔)𝐼𝐴 (𝜔) (5)
𝑗=1
𝑛
𝑗 𝑗
𝐼𝐴𝑖 (𝜔) = ∑ 𝑌𝑖𝑗 (𝜔)[𝑉0 (𝜔) − 𝑉𝐴 (𝜔)] (6)
𝑗=1
A self-consistency equation can be derived by combining the linear equation (6) with the
nonlinear element’s equation (3):
𝑛
𝐼𝐴𝑖 (𝜔) − ∑ 𝑌𝑖𝑗 (𝜔) [𝑉0 (𝜔) −  [𝑔(𝑖𝐴 (𝑡))]] = 0

𝑗 𝑗
(7)
𝑗=1
Equation (7) represents a self-consistency condition on the current through the nonlinear
elements, and can be solved iteratively. A suitable parameterization of 𝑖𝐴𝑖 as a function of time
must first be obtained, then the parameters are adjusted to satisfy equation (7).
Considering the set of 𝑛 nonlinear elements in 𝑁, a system of nonlinear equations is constituted.
The nonlinear equations system solving task is transformed into an optimization problem by
synthesizing objective functions whose global minima, if they exist, are also solutions to the
original system.
2.1 Nonlinear Equations System Solving

Conventional gradient or derivatives based methods are impractical for solving such a system, for
two reasons. First, the number of variables involved in the equations can be very large, depending
on the number of nonlinear elements and the sampling rate. The Newton-Raphson algorithm, for
instance, requires the computation of the inverse of a Jacobian matrix at each iteration, a matrix
whose size reaches 20,000 elements in the example of section 3. Then, considering the cubic time
complexity of matrix inversion, the Newton-Raphson method is ruled out as impractical. Second,
gradient or derivative methods are convex optimization methods; their usage implies that the
search space shape is assumed to be convex. This assumption cannot be made with absolute
confidence for the considered problem; the search space might contain local minima where
convex optimization methods could get stuck.
Derivative-free global optimization algorithms can be divided into two classes [3]: deterministic
and stochastic methods. In stochastic methods, the minimization process depends partly on
probabilistic events, whereas in deterministic methods no probabilistic information is used.

Deterministic methods find the global minimum only after an exhaustive search over the solution
space, and there is no guarantee of success. Stochastic methods on the other hand are
asymptotically successful with probability 1, and are therefore considered as more efficient.
Among these stochastic technics, the Simulated Annealing (SA) method was chosen to solve the
problem stated above.
2.2 The Simulated Annealing Algorithm

2.2.1 Algorithm Description
Simulated Annealing is a stochastic metaheuristic proposed by Kirkpatrick et al. in 1983 [4], for
finding the global minimum of an objective function that may possess several local minima, in a
large search space.
SA is based on an analogy between optimization and statistical physics, and in particular on the
notion of slow cooling for finding minimal energy configurations. The notion of slow cooling is
implemented in the SA algorithm as a slow decrease in the probability of accepting higher energy
solution as it explores the search space. As the temperature decreases, a relaxation operation
iteratively finds the equilibrium solution at the new temperature using the final configuration of
the system at the previous temperature as a starting point [3].
The basic elements of SA are the following [5]:
1. A set 𝑆, the search space.
2. A real-valued cost function 𝐽 defined on 𝑆.
3. An initial configuration 𝑥(0) ∈ 𝑆; for 𝑛 nonlinear elements, the configuration is noted 𝑋.
4. A nonincreasing function 𝑇: 𝑘 → (0, ∞), called the cooling schedule, where 𝑘 is the SA
iteration variable.
5. A probabilistic generator function 𝑃, which, from the configuration 𝑥(𝑘) ∈ 𝑆, will generate
a candidate solution for the configuration 𝑥(𝑘 + 1) ∈ 𝑆.
6. A probabilistic acceptance function 𝐴, based on Boltzmann statistics [6].

2.2.2 Simulated Annealing Implementation

To solve Eq. (7), functions 𝑃, 𝐽, 𝐴 and 𝑇 were defined as follow.
 The probabilistic generator function 𝑃, for the 𝑖 𝑡ℎ nonlinear element:
𝑃(𝑥𝑖 (𝑘)) = 𝑥𝑖 (𝑘) + ∆𝑖𝑘+1 (8)
Where 𝑘 is the SA iteration variable.

Then, the stochastic variation added to the configuration at each iteration 𝑘:
𝛿𝑣
∆𝑖𝑘+1 = 𝑀𝑖𝑛(𝜆𝑣 ∙ 𝑥𝑖 (𝑘) ,𝜆 𝛿 ,∆ )
𝑣 𝑖 𝑖 𝑀𝐴𝑋 (9)
Where:
𝜏
𝜆𝑣 , 𝜆𝑖 ~ 𝑁(𝜆𝑘−1 , )
log(𝑘) (10)
In the surge arrester case (section 3.1), 𝑥𝑖 (𝑘) is defined as the current 𝑖 flowing through an
MOV arrester:
𝑥𝑖 (𝑘) = 𝑖𝑘,𝑖 (𝑡) = ℎ(𝑣𝑘,𝑖 (𝑡), 𝑡)
 The weighted cost function 𝐽:

𝑛
1 𝑘 2
𝐽(𝑋𝑘 ) = ∑ 𝛾𝑗 ∙ (𝛿𝐼,𝑗 ) (11)
𝑛
𝑗=1
Where 𝛾𝑗 is the weight applied to the 𝑗 𝑡ℎ nonlinear element. 𝛾 ∈ ]0, 1].
 The probabilistic acceptance function 𝐴:

1 𝑖𝑓 𝐽(𝑋𝑘+1 ) < 𝐽(𝑋𝑘 ) (12)
𝐴(𝑋𝑘 , 𝑋𝑘+1 , 𝑇) = { 𝐽(𝑋𝑘+1 )−𝐽(𝑋𝑘 )⁄
𝑒 𝑇 , 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
 The cooling schedule 𝑇:

𝑇𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡. (13)
𝑇(𝑘) =
log(𝑘 + 1)

3 Results
3.1 Application to Surge Arrester Lightning Performance Analysis
In this application, the nonlinear element is represented by a gapless metal oxyde varistor (MOV).
The MOV nonlinear V-I relationship, corresponding to equation (4), is expressed by the following
equation [7]:

 v 
𝑖 = ℎ(𝑣) = 𝛽𝑣 = i0 
𝛼  (14)
 v0 
In Eq. (14), 𝛽 and  can be different for different arresters. The coefficient  will sometimes be
referred to as squareness. Typical values for  lie between 2 and 75. Figure 2 displays the V-I
characteristic of a typical MOV arrester for several 𝛼 values, with 𝐼0 = 700 𝐴 and 𝑉0 = 15 000 V.
Figure 2: Typical MOV arrester V-I characteristic for different 𝛼 values.

The lightning surge is modeled as an ideal current source, whose wave shape is a double
exponential given by:
𝑖(𝑡) = 𝑖𝑚 (𝑒 −𝑎𝑡 − 𝑒 −𝑏𝑡 ) (15)

3.1.1 The Ladder Circuit Model

The circuit under study is a simple ladder network, containing several coupled arresters. The
circuit consists of an upper and a lower branch, made of 𝑛 identical sections. Each section contains
a single MOV surge arrester, associated with upper and lower resistances, inductances and
capacitances. Although not a realistic network, the ladder network is still close enough to reality
to hold significant results.
In the example below, the waveform of the lightning surge is characterized by a 1,2/20 μs wave,
with a peak magnitude of 25 kA. Equation (15) parameters are set to have a surge signal that
decays toward zero at about 150 μs. Using SA, solutions were found for nonlinearity constant 𝛼
values ranging from 2 to 25, without any user intervention. Figures 3 to 5 display results obtained
for 𝑛 = 5 and 𝛼 = 15.
Figure 3: MOV Current solution curves (𝛼 = 15, 5 MOV arresters).
Figure 4: MOV Voltage solution curves (𝛼 = 15, 5 MOV arresters).

Figure 5: Solution candidates error evolution until convergence (𝛼 = 15, 5 MOV arresters).
3.1.2 Realistic Simulation
The case presented here is the same as the one that was presented in [1]. The HIFREQ and
FFTSES engineering modules of the CDEGS software package are used to perform the
computations. The HIFREQ module is used to compute the currents and GPR throughout the
conductor network in the frequency domain, while the FFTSES module is used for the Fourier
transform. The Simulated Annealing approach to solve Eq. (7) is programmed in Matlab.
As it was done in [1], we study the case in which lightning strikes Phase C in the mid-span between
Poles #4 and #5. As shown in Fig. 6, it is expected that Phases C and A are more susceptible to
lightning strikes, as compared with Phase B, simply because of their positions. To reduce
computation time, we have modeled only Phase C in the study, since the transient behaviour is
dominated by this phase during the lightning strike. The voltages across the surge arresters as a
result of a lightning strike on Phase C are obtained by computing the ground potential rise (GPR)
on the phase conductor and neutral wire.
Figure 6: Seven distribution poles modeled.

Using the SA algorithm detailed in Section 2.2, solutions were found for values of 𝛼 ranging from
2 to 25. Processing time has been found to increase less than expected for higher values of 𝛼, and
remained reasonable (around 60 seconds for the example above). Due to the stochastic nature of
the SA algorithm, the processing time is non-deterministic and vary even when using the same
initial solution guess. The possibility to converge to a solution without any human intervention
however outweigh the disadvantage. Figure 7 below displays the current across the 5 arresters
installed on the line (Figure 6).
Figure 7: MOV Current solution curves (𝛼 = 15, 5 MOV arresters).
4 Conclusion
A difficulty encountered in [1] was related to the method used to find a solution to the self-
consistency equation (7). The optimization algorithm used to solve the system often failed to
converge for high values of the nonlinearity constant 𝛼, and required the user to frequently update
the algorithm parameters to eventually find a solution, even for lesser values of 𝛼. A new approach
based on the Simulated Annealing metaheuristic was presented in this article. Although in early
development stages, the algorithm is promising; solutions have been found for networks
containing 5 arresters and more, with realistic values of 𝛼 and no human intervention during the
convergence process.

5 References
[1] S. Fortin, W. Ruan, F. P. Dawalibi, and J. Ma, "Optimum and Economical Deployment
Method of Surge Arresters on Distribution Lines for Insulation Failure due to Lightning -
An Electromagnetic Field Computation Analysis."
[2] J. C. Das, Transients in Electrical Systems, 2010.
[3] A. Dekkers and E. Aarts, "Global optimization and simulated annealing," Mathematical
Programming, vol. 50, pp. 367-393, 1991.
[4] S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, "Optimization by Simulated Annealing,"
Science, vol. 220, pp. 671-680, 1983.
[5] D. Bertsimas and J. Tsitsiklis, "Simulated Annealing," Statistical Science, vol. 8, pp. 10-
15, 1993.
[6] N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, "Equation
of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines," The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol.
21, pp. 1087-1092, 1953.
[7] S. A. Ali, "Design of Lightning Arresters for Electrical Power Systems Protection," Power
Engineering and Electrical Engineering, vol. 11, pp. 433-442, 2013.

XXVIIMODELING IMPEDANCES BONDS IN HIFREQ FOR THE

MITIGATION OF RAILWAY SYSTEMS
Ali Aghabarati, Yexu Li, Robert D. Southey and Farid P. Dawalibi

Email: info@sestech.com, Web Site: http://www.sestech.com/
Abstract
High induced voltages on rails in joint-use corridors with transmission lines can cause problems to equipment
and threaten people safety at exposed locations. Impedance bonds are often used to reduce excessive interference
levels including rail-to-rail voltages that may upset or disable signaling equipment by allowing rail tracks to be
connected safely to various mitigation systems typically used on railways. This study describes and demonstrates
the applicability of using impedance bonds for that purpose and illustrates the approach of modeling these
components using the HIFREQ computation module. An appropriate transformer arrangement for representing
the circuit functionality of an impedance bond is provided and examples along with numerical results are
presented to illustrate the performance of impedance bonds for electromagnetic interference (EMI) studies on
rail tracks.
1 Introduction
When a railroad shares a corridor with electric power lines, its tracks are subjected to
electromagnetic interference (mainly inductive and conductive) which results in a longitudinal
electromotive force (emf) along the rails and raise rails and soil potentials. This emf builds up
along the track until a discontinuity in the characteristics or geometry of the system occurs, such
as a change in separation distance between the railroad and electric line or the presence of
insulated joints along the rails. In the vicinity of such locations, rail to soil voltage peaks occur
which may represent a safety hazard, and may pose a threat to the proper operation of the track-
connected equipment. One way to mitigate such interference levels is to use impedance bonds at
existing or newly inserted insulated joints along the electrified rail tracks in order to connect the
rails to appropriate mitigation systems. Their presence essentially establishes a very small
impedance to common mode voltage applied across the joint and a relatively large impedance to
the differential mode railroad signals applied between the rails. As illustrated in Figure 1, the
impedance bonds consist of a pair of center-tapped coils, each connected rail-to-rail on one side
of the insulated joint, with the center points of the coils bonded together and optionally
grounded or connected to mitigation wires. The objective of this technical article is to illustrate
how to model impedance bonds with the HIFREQ computation module and demonstrate their
effectiveness in providing a low impedance connection path to mitigation wires without
degrading railway signaling.
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XXVII-1

2 Impedance Bonds and Mitigation Measures

Figure 1 shows an illustration of rail tracks equipped with insulated joints adjacent to a high
voltage transmission line. As it can be explained by inspecting the equivalent circuit of the
impedance bond unit, the objective of placing an impedance bond between the tracks is to
provide a short circuit for the common mode interference (from the high voltage line) across the
insulated joint, while maintaining an open circuit for differential mode signals required for
railway traffic signaling purposes.
Figure 1 - Illustration of impedance bonds installation along railway tracks.

Figure 2 describes the equivalent circuit of the impedance bond portion located on each side of
the insulated joint which consists of two tightly coupled inductors with a center common tap.
The inductors have a high mutual coupling factor (𝑀 ≃ 𝐿). If necessary, the center common tap
(neutral point) can be connected to a low resistance grounding network or mitigation wires with
a ground resistance 𝑅𝑔 . The circuit exhibits large impedance between adjacent rails located
between the pair of insulated joints located at the ends of the rail tracks in order to maintain an
open-circuit state between the tracks in the absence of train rolling stock as required by the
signaling circuit (Equation 1). On the other hand, the impedance between the rail tracks and the
neutral points of the impedance bond (center taps) will be small allowing currents caused by
inductive interference to flow easily via the neutral points and across the joints if the impedance
bond center taps are connected (Equation 2).
Figure 2: Equivalent circuit of one side of an impedance bond.
Page XXVII-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

𝑍𝑟𝑟 = 𝒿𝜔𝐿 + 𝒿𝜔𝑀 + 𝒿𝜔𝐿 + 𝒿𝜔𝑀 = 2𝒿𝜔(𝐿 + 𝑀) High for differential mode (1)
1 1
𝑍𝑟𝑛 = (𝒿𝜔𝐿 − 𝒿𝜔𝑀) + 𝑅𝑔 = 𝒿𝜔(𝐿 − 𝑀) + 𝑅𝑔
2 2
Low for common mode (2)
3 Modeling Impedance Bonds with HIFREQ

Figure 3(a) shows a SESCAD view of a simple insulated joint prior to modeling any impedance
bond for the mitigation. A few considerations are involved in appropriate modeling of railway
systems, such as taking into account the characteristic of rails, rail-to-rail interaction or rails-to-
ground interaction through the ballast material. These aspects are well explained in references
[1-3] where it is shown how the rails can be modeled as equivalent cylindrical conductors and
how the effects of ballast material can be modeled as a coating for more accurate models. In this
study we are mainly concerned with the performance of equivalent circuits for emulating the
electromagnetic behavior of the impedance bonds and illustrating the differences between
mitigated and unmitigated railway systems.
Two approaches are considered here for representing the impedance bonds. They are shown in
Figures 3(b) and 3(c). In the first approach, two inductor coils connected in series (i.e., two
series reactances in the circuit) are used to represent the connections between each rail and the
center tap of the impedance bond. This model, as will be seen by inspecting the numerical
results, will result in a degraded impedance bond, because the strong mutual coupling between
the coils is not accounted for.
The second approach that emulates adequately the functionalities of the impedance bond is to
insert a single phase, two-winding transformer on each side of the insulated joints. The negative
(or positive) ends of the transformer primary and secondary windings are connected together in
order to form the center tap of one side of the impedance bond. The single-phase, two-winding
transformer voltage ratio is 1.0. In this way, mutual coupling between the coils is included and,
as indicated by Equations 1 and 2, a low common mode impedance value will prevail, while a
high impedance will appear between rails in order to insure a quasi-open circuit for the
differential mode operations. The transformer arrangement is shown in Figure 3(c). As shown in
the Figure, the P2 terminal of each transformer is connected to the S1 terminal, which results in
a three-port network with two coupled inductors.

(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3: Modeling of an impedance bond. (a)-Insulated joints location prior to modeling of
impedance bond (b)- Inductor elements representing an impedance bond (c)- Single-phase, two-
winding transformer arrangement representing an impedance bond.

4 Computer Model Results

This section uses two examples in order to illustrate and examine the operation of impedance
bonds along railway tracks.
In our first experiment, a portion of a railway track is examined in order to illustrate the
performance of impedance bonds during two modes of operation, namely a common mode and
a differential mode. Figure 4 shows the computer models and related results.
The railway consists of two identical tracks, about 26m long and spaced 1.5 m apart. The tracks
are modeled using conductors with a relative resistivity of 12 (with respect to copper) and a
relative permeability (with respect to free space) of 160. The impedance bonds are placed at the
center of the tracks. The insulated joints are modeled by short conductors with a rather low
resistance of 75 Ohms to emulate contaminated insulated joints. All the conducting metallic
parts of the railway tracks are coated to represent the ballast contact resistance. This equivalent
ballast coating resistivity is 76,215 ohm-m. In order to model the situations of a common mode
and differential mode energization on the rail, A 1 amp current is pushed along the rails. The
common mode current is applied to one end of the rail in order to emulate the case whereby
longitudinal current flow along the rails due to a ground potential rise on the rail tracks located
on the other side the modeled region. The differential mode current is applied between the two
rails at the beginning of modeled region. The common mode signal is shown in Figures 4(a),
4(b), 4(c) and 4(d) and the differential mode signal is shown in Figures 5(a), 5(b), 5(c) and 5(d).
From Figure 4 and Figure 5 computation results, one can conclude the following.
1. Impedance bonds provide a low impedance path between rails for common mode
currents and voltages and a low impedance path to eventual grounds or mitigation wires
connected to the center point of the impedance bonds (Figures 4(a), 4(b), 5(a) and 5(b)).
2. In the absence of a suitable mitigation system providing a low ground impedance path,
currents caused by exposed rail tracks subjected to high induced GPR that have to
dissipate along the rails that are not under the influence of EMI maintain the rails at a
high potentially unsafe GPR (Figure 4(a) and Figure 5(a)).
3. In the presence of a suitable mitigation system providing a low ground impedance path,
currents caused by exposed rail tracks subjected to high induced GPR that have to
dissipate along the rails that are not under the influence of EMI can discharge safely in
the mitigation system without raising significantly rails’ GPR (Figure 4(b) and Figure
5(b)).
4. There is a small difference between the inductor and transformer models as far as
common mode operation is concerned. However, a fundamental difference exists when
differential mode operation is considered compared to the common mode operation.
This difference will become more evident with the higher frequencies currents and tuned
impedance bonds as used in railway signaling.

(a) Transformer model in common mode operation with no grounding.
(b) Transformer model in common mode operation with grounding.
(c) Transformer model in differential mode operation with no grounding.
(d) Transformer model in differential mode operation with grounding.

Figure 4: Transformer model. (a) Common mode operation with no grounding (b) Common mode
operation with grounding (c) Differential mode operation with no grounding (d) Differential mode
operation with grounding.

(a) Inductor model in common mode operation with no grounding.
(b) Inductor model in common mode operation with grounding.
(c) Inductor model in differential mode operation with no grounding.
(d) Inductor model in differential mode operation with grounding.
Figure 5: Inductor model. (a) Common mode operation with no grounding (b) Common mode operation
with grounding (c) Differential mode operation with no grounding (d) Differential mode operation with
grounding.

Figure 6 shows a simple railway system in proximity to a three-phase transmission line

generating mainly inductive interference during steady-state conditions (i.e., negligible
conductive interference effects). The transmission line carries 1,000A on each phase conductor
which consists of 1564 kcmil 36/7 ACSR wires. The phase conductors are at a height of 12.5 m
above the ground and there are no shield wires. The railway consists of two identical tracks, each
9 km long and spaced 1.5m apart. The tracks are modeled using the same type of conductors as
in the previous example.
Two sets of insulated joints are present at locations labelled as IJ1 and IJ2 as shown in Figure 6.
They are modeled by short conductors with a rather low load resistance of 75 Ohms to emulated
contaminated insulating joints. All the conducting metallic parts of the railway tracks are coated
to represent the ballast contact resistance. This equivalent ballast coating resistivity is 76,215
ohm-m. The soil resistivity is 100 ohm-m. The computer model related to this example was run
using the HIFREQ computation module.
Figure 6: Sketch of the simple railway and transmission line network that is modeled.
Figure 7(a) shows the plot of rail potentials as a function of distance along the railway without
the impedance bond. The rail potential rise is low on the left side of the system due to weaker
induced voltages at that location while these potentials are significantly higher on the right side
of IJ1 as the induced potential has reached a maximum on the right-hand side of IJ1. It
illustrates that more significant potentials are induced by the power line on the right side and
voltage peaks occur across both sides of IJ1. Another voltage peak also occurs across IJ2, where
the voltage between rail and soil (touch voltage) jumps to a maximum of about 28 volts. The
potential then drops rapidly from its high value on the right of IJ2 to reach a rather low value at
the end of the curve.
The variations of the rail potential in this model demonstrate that voltages of approximately 25
to 30 volts occur across the IJ1 and IJ2 insulated joints and from rails to soil, respectively. This
may prevent some of the railway equipment to operate properly. In addition, such voltages are
above steady-state safety limits.

We now examine the effects of adding impedance bonds using the two approaches described in
section 3. Figures 7(b) and 7(c) present the rail potential when the railway system is equipped
with impedance bonds using simple inductors or transformers, respectively. Clearly, voltages
across insulated joints decrease significantly at the expense of touch voltages between rails and
soil which exceed 30 V at one end of the tracks and reach 40 V at the other end. In the case of
the inductors model, the voltage across the insulated joint gaps decreases to approximately 0.2
and 3.5 volts at IJ1 and IJ2, respectively. On the other hand, these voltages are less than 1 volt
when the transformer arrangement model is used. The potential rise along each rail is a smooth
curve with a negligible discontinuity at IJ1 and IJ2.
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 7: Rail potential rise (touch voltage between rail and soil) as a function of position along the
railway track (a) Model with no impedance bonds (b) Inductive elements (inductor coils) model
representing the impedance bonds (c) Transformers equivalent model representing for the impedance
bonds.
Figures 8 and 9 illustrate what happens on the rail tracks with and without the impedance
bonds. The figures show the potential rise (GPR) of rail conductors at both insulated joints. The
results are also compared in Table 1. It is clear that the voltage across the insulated joints
becomes very small for the impedance bond modeled using transformers with almost perfect
mutual coupling between the primary and secondary windings.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 8: Rail potential rise (touch voltage between rail and soil) along the railway tracks at IJ1.
(a) Model with no impedance bonds.
(b) Inductive elements (inductor coils) model representing the impedance bonds.
(c) Transformers equivalent model representing for the impedance bonds.

(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 9: Rail potential rise (touch voltage between rail and soil) along the railway tracks at IJ2.
(a) Model with no impedance bonds.
(b) Inductive elements (inductor coils) model representing the impedance bonds.
(c) Transformers equivalent model representing for the impedance bonds.
TABLE 1 - COMPARISON OF RAIL POTENTIALS WITH AND WITHOUT IMPEDANCE BOND MODELS
Without
Mitigation With Mitigation With
Insulation Joint Impedance
Inductor Coils Transformers
Bonds
IJ1 22.9 & 22.7 0.1 & 0.4 0.6 & 0.9
IJ2 23.9 & 23.7 3.5 & 3.2 0.4 & 0.7

5 Conclusion
The methods described in this paper use inductors and transformers to model impedance bonds
in the HIFREQ computation module. The transformer models emulate successfully impedance
bonds while inductors represent a good approximation of the impedance bonds. It is shown that
rail potentials and voltages across the insulated joints of a typical railway system decrease
considerably when impedance bonds are used along the railway tracks.

XXVIIIMODELING OF PLATE STRUCTURES IN HIFREQ
Ali Aghabarati, Rouzbeh Moini, Simon Fortin, Peter Zhao and Farid P. Dawalibi
Abstract
In this work, a new feature of HIFREQ is presented, namely the ability to model metallic plates. This feature
expands the applicability of HIFREQ for analyzing network configurations that include continuous metallic
surfaces, without the need to resort to a wire grid approximation of such surfaces. Computation results are
presented for several cases, including the electromagnetic field around metallic vehicles under transmission lines,
the electromagnetic analysis of a solid sphere at high and low frequencies, and electromagnetic interference (EMI)
around a metallic building in proximity of a telecommunication tower hit by lightning. Validation of the results is
made by comparing them with those obtained by their wire grid model counterpart. A comparison with the exact
analytical solution for the sphere case is also presented. The investigation results show that the use of metallic
plates to model a solid structure can simulate accurately the distribution of induced surface currents, leading a
more accurate computation of the resulting electromagnetic fields.
1 Introduction
Metallic plates (or thin metallic sheets) are often employed to form objects of various kinds, many
of which (transformer tanks, cars, electronic cabinets, …) can be present in substations and other
environments subject to electromagnetic interference. As such, it is important to quantify the
behavior of metallic plates in those environments.
In programs like MALT, MALZ, and HIFREQ that allow for the modeling of conductor wires,
metallic plates are often represented as wire grids. This approach has been successfully used and
has been shown to give satisfactory results for a wide range of problems. However, proper usage
of this technique requires experimenting with the density and size of wires in the mesh in order
to find a model that is truly equivalent to a plate. This can be difficult to do, particularly at higher
frequencies and when near-field quantities are desired.
Several years ago, a model for a metallic plate was introduced in the MALT program. However,
the approach used in MALT is restricted to equipotential electrodes, which limits its applicability.
In particular, currents flowing within the plates cannot be calculated using the MALT approach.
In this version of the software, a model for a thin metallic plate was added to the HIFREQ
program. The model accounts for currents flowing within plates and for the leakage current
flowing out of the plates into the environment. As usual in HIFREQ, the current distribution in
the plates and the electromagnetic fields generated by the plates can be calculated at frequencies
ranging from DC to hundreds of MHz. The calculations account for the internal impedance of the
plates. Systems can include both cylindrical conductors (wires) and plates; the electromagnetic
interactions between plates and wires are fully accounted for.
This article describes this new feature in detail and shows how to use it. It also presents some
examples modeled with metallic plates in HIFREQ. In Section 2, the description of the boundary
integral problem for the considered configuration of wires and conducting plates is given. Section
3 describes some of the limitations that currently exist when using plates in HIFREQ. The
SESCAD features related to modeling plates are described in Section 4 and the numerical results
obtained are given in Section 5, illustrating the calculation of current densities and radiated
Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page XXVIII-1

electromagnetic field quantities (scalar potential and electric field). Concluding remarks are given
in Section 6.
2 Overview of Methodology
As shown in Figure 1, metallic plates in HIFREQ are defined as planar quadrilateral surfaces. The
network can consist of an arbitrary number of plates and cylindrical wire conductors. Plates are
not restricted to have a rectangular shape: any convex quadrilateral is acceptable. They can have
any resistivity and permeability. The main restriction applying to plates is that they should be
thin, meaning that their thickness should be small compared to the size of the plate (as measured
by their shortest diagonal).
Figure 1: The configuration of surface-wire network immersed in multi-layered soil medium.
The approach used to account for the presence of plates in the network is similar to that used for
wires, generalized to accommodate the two-dimensional nature of current flow in metallic plates.
First, plates are subdivided into smaller planar elements called patches. Figure 2 (a) shows a
patch, with corners at 𝐴⃗, 𝐵
⃗⃗, 𝐶⃗ and 𝐷
⃗⃗. Each patch must be located entirely into one layer of the soil
model.
The variation of the current flowing inside a patch is assumed to be of bilinear form, and is
parameterized in terms of the current flowing into the patch across its four edges. With this
assumed form for the current distribution, the current flowing into the patch through each edge
of the patch is constant along that edge. These values of the normal edge currents for each patch
constitute the unknowns of the problem. By current conservation, the leakage current of a patch
is the sum of those four edge currents.
These unknowns are not all independent: to make sure that the current distribution varies
smoothly in the plate, two different patches joined at a common edge are forced to have the same
current at that edge. This implies that plates must be subdivided in such a way that any two
patches either do not contact one another or join perfectly along one edge.
Page XXVIII-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

(a) (b)
Figure 2: One patch of a plate, (a) - Showing the reference direction for unknown edge currents. (b)-
Showing the integration path connecting the center of two connected patches.
The unknown edge currents are determined by enforcing that the voltage drop Δ𝑉 along the path
connecting the center of two connected patches and passing through the center of their common
edge satisfy Ohm’s Law:
𝛥𝑉 = 𝑍𝐽 (1)
where 𝑍 is the internal impedance of the patch (which is a function of the resistivity, permeability,
and thickness of the patch) and 𝐽 is the linear current density flowing across the edge.
The energization of the network in the presence of plates can be carried out in the same way as
when no plates are present, i.e. by specifying current, voltage, or potential sources on wires which
then induce currents on the plates. It is also possible to energize any patch on a plate directly with
a current injection. Yet another way consists in energizing the network through an externally
applied electric or magnetic field, in the form of a static field or of a plane-wave.
3 Limitations
This feature is still under development and some limitations apply that will be removed shortly.
Figure 3 illustrates examples of invalid networks with respect to the current limitations. The most
important aspects to keep in mind when using plates in HIFREQ are as follows.
 Currently, plates cannot intersect wires (Case A).
 Plates cannot intersect one another except at their edges, i.e. plate contacts in the form of
a tee or a cross are not allowed (Case B).
 As mentioned before, plates must be subdivided in such a way that the edges of different
patches either do not contact one another or match perfectly (Case C).
 Plates can be specified in soils of at most two layers, and must be entirely within one soil
layer.
In addition, plates cannot overlap each other or with wires. (Case D)
(A) (B) (C) (D)

Figure 3: Illustrative examples of invalid networks made of plates.
From the point of view of visualization of computation results, the current flowing in the plate
patches and the GPR of those patches are available in the program’s output file (F09 file) but
cannot be plotted yet.

4 Using Plates in HIFREQ

This section describes the SESCAD features related to modeling plates in HIFREQ. Using
SESCAD, individual metallic plates can be easily inserted from the command Insert | Metallic
Plate. This launches the following Edit Object screen related to creating and editing metallic
plates inside the model.
Figure 4: Edit Object Dialog for creating and editing plates in SESCAD.
The Edit Object screen allows to specify all the data related to a plate such as: Plate Name,
Plate Shape (rectangle, parallelogram, or general quadrilateral), Thickness of the plate,
Relative Resistivity (with respect to annealed copper) of the metallic material of the plate,
Relative Permeability (with respect to vacuum) of the metallic material of the plate, the
Cartesian Coordinates of the four vertices (A, B, C, and D) of the plate, desired number of
Total Subdivisions (or surface patches) for the plate, and also the ratio of the size of consecutive
patches along the plate edges (Compression Factor).
The Advanced Subdivision feature can also be used to define more detailed plate subdivision
settings to be applied for any specific plate. When detailed subdivision settings along AB and BC
sides are specified, the Total Subdivision specified in the Edit Object screen will be ignored.
The specified vertices of a plate should follow each other either in a counterclockwise or clockwise
manner. In order to see the specified order for the vertices of a plate, the View | Orientation |
Show Orientation of Plates command can be used.
In addition to simple plate objects, metallic plate representations of common geometrical object
such as spherical, conical, or cylindrical surfaces, disks, and bricks (or prism) can also be created
in SESCAD by specifying a few parameters in the corresponding dialogs. For example, The Create
Conical Surface dialog (Insert | Cylinder / Cone…) allows to create a model for the surface
of a cylinder, a cone or a general portion of conical surface in terms of metallic plates (See Figure
5). As shown below, the user can select Plates instead of Conductors as the type of object to be
used when generating the surface of such objects. Similarly, solid objects representing other types
of common geometries can be specified under the dialogs of Insert | Disk / Ring…, Insert |
Spherical Surface…, and Insert | Brick / Prism….

Figure 5: Dialog for creating conical surfaces in SESCAD using metallic plates.
Using the above mentioned tools, a wide range of network of plates representing solid surface
structures can be generated. When several plates are defined in a model, the View | Labeling |
Show Plate Numbers command shows the plate numbers assigned to each one.
Once the network is created, the attributes (including the subdivision settings) for a selected
group of plates can be modified using the Edit | Edit Plate Attributes… command. This dialog
is also useful for specifying the number of patches or subdivisions for the plates based on a total
number of patches on all plates, a total number of patches on each plate or the maximum patch
area allowed.
Figure 6: Dialog for editing attributes of plates in SESCAD.

When the input file corresponding to the network of plates and wires is submitted to the HIFREQ
computation engine, the program first examines the geometry of problem and validates the
connectivity of all the plates defined in the model. Then, in case of any predefined detected
structural ambiguities for the network of wires and plates, like unsupported configurations,
inappropriate connections, and unsupported junctions, an ERROR or WARNING message for the
network will appear in the output file. At completion, the output file of HIFREQ contains all the
information regarding the plate structures, such as node coordinates, applied subdivision along
each side of the plates, necessary adjustments applied to build a proper subdivision for the plates
in the network, and also the computed longitudinal and leakage current distributions for each
patch. As usual, the scalar potentials and the electromagnetic fields requested at specified
observation points are also reported in the output file, computed from the contribution of wire
and surface currents simultaneously.

5 Examples
This section presents some examples involving metallic plates that were modeled using HIFREQ.
5.1 Vehicles under Transmission Lines
The first example is that of a car located under a 3-phase transmission line next to a fence
structure. The objective is to examine the level of electromagnetic fields around and inside the
vehicle. Figure 7 illustrates the problem being modeled. The 3-Phase transmission line carries
430 A (balanced) and the phase conductors (1564 kcmil 36/7 ACSR) are at a height of 20 m above
the ground. Under the high voltage line, there is a 200 m fence, located at the middle of the
transmission line, and a simplified model of a car, located 25 m away from the fence. Only 700 m
of the transmission line is considered on either side of the structures located above the soil, which
is considered sufficient for an accurate calculation of the electromagnetic fields for this
configuration [3].
The fence is modeled by steel conductors with inner and outer radius of 1 cm and 2 cm,
respectively. The metallic body of the vehicle is modeled by an ensemble of twelve quadrilateral
and rectangular plates. The bottom of the car is located at 0.4 m above the ground. The car has
two windows, as shown in Figure 7. The length, width and height of the car model are 5 m, 2 m
and 2 m respectively. A relative resistivity of 1 and relative permeability of 1 is considered for all
conducting plates. We also assume that the soil under the fence and car is uniform, with a
resistivity of 100 ohm-m, a relative permittivity of 1 and a relative permeability of 1. The
transmission line is modeled using appropriate current sources at one end and potential (GPR)
sources at the other end.
Figure 7: Overview of 525 KV transmission line, fence and car structures.

Figures 8-(b) and 8-(c) show respectively the magnitude of electric field and of the scalar potential
over an observation surface that passes through the car, as shown in Figure 8-(a). The computed
values are stronger for the regions above the hood, because of the perturbations caused by the
presence of the metallic surface. In contrast, the field strength decreases for the interior regions.
The level of electric field which is penetrating inside the metallic body through the windows is
about 9 times lower compared with the regions with maximum intensity.
For comparison purposes, the same simulation was performed with a wire grid model of the car
(See Figure 9-(a)). Results are obtained again for the electric field and scalar potential over the
same observation surface. The model and the computation results are shown in Figure 9. It should
be noted that the same discretization pattern is used for the mesh version of the car as was used
for the plate version. Comparing Figure 8-(b) to Figure 9-(b) and Figure 8-(c) to Figure 9-(c), the
behavior of the fields’ variation in both models are in agreement.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 8: HIFREQ Simulation of a car modeled by metallic plates under a transmission line. (a)- SESCAD
view of the metallic plate model and selected observation surface, (b)- Computed electric field total
magnitude (V/m) over the observation surface, (c)- Computed scalar potential magnitude (V) over the

(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 9: HIFREQ Simulation of a car modeled by a wire grid under a transmission line. (a)- SESCAD view of
the wire grid model and selected observation surface, (b)- Computed electric field total magnitude (V/m) over
the observation surface, (c)- Computed scalar potential magnitude (V) over the observation surface.

Despite the similarity of the corresponding results, a perceptible difference can be detected by
focusing on the calculated values along two linear profiles located at the center and at the edge of
the observation surface. The computation results are shown in Figure 10 and 11 for the plate and
wire grid models. Comparing the results, the plate model solutions are seen to have consistently
lower electric field values inside the vehicle in spite of employing exactly the same discretization.
For observation points closer to the body of vehicle, the calculations show that both models are of
comparable magnitude, however anomalies occur for the wire grid at closer distances. The results
show that near field calculations for the wire grid model are not as smooth as those obtained using
the plate model. A wire grid model with increased grid density can provide better agreement with
the plate model, at the expense of a greater amount of computation resources.
This comparison also demonstrates the better capability of the metallic plate model for the
blockage of energy and for lowering the interference levels from the transmission line. In other
words, the plate configuration can provide a more realistic model to examine more accurately the
electromagnetic effects of transmission lines around metallic objects such as cars.
(a) (b)
Figure 10: Comparison of the wire grid and plate model over a profile passing through the center of the geometry.
(a)- Computed electric field, (b) - Computed scalar potential.
(a) (b)
Figure 11: Comparison of the wire grid and plate models over a profile passing through the side of the geometry.
(a)- Computed electric field, (b) - Computed scalar potential.

Another example is that of a large tractor-trailer located under a transmission line, where
electrostatic effects are investigated. The vehicle has dimensions of 20 m length, 4 m height and
2.6 m width, representing a metallic structure with a large effective surface area. When parked
under an overhead transmission line, electric coupling from the energized conductors induces
voltages on the vehicles’ surface. Since the metallic body is insulated from the ground by rubber
tires, any (hand) contact can provide a path for short circuit current to the ground and cause an
electric shock. The guidelines established by the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) indicate
that for a harmless electric discharge, the current due to electrostatic effects should be limited to
5 mA.
Figure 12 shows an overview of the problem modeled in this example. The nominal voltage of the
3 phase transmission line is again 525 kV line-to-line. The conductors of the power line are placed
vertically, at a distance of 5 m from each other. The height of the lowest conductor is 9 m above
the ground, which has a resistivity of 100 ohm-m. As shown in Figure 12, the vehicle is oriented
perpendicular to the overhead transmission line.
Figure 13-(a) and 13-(b) depict the SESCAD plate and wire grid models used to represent the
tractor-trailer. The plate model contains 63 metallic plates, which are subdivided into a total of
500 patches. The path for the short circuit current of the grounded vehicle is modeled by a narrow
plate connecting the metallic body to the soil. The wire grid model is represented by
approximately the same number of unknowns as the plate model. The goal is to compute and
compare the level of current in the connection to the ground for each model, and also to illustrate
the variation of the electromagnetic field around the vehicle. This allows distinguishing the
differences in both approaches, and also determining the safety of the drivers touching the vehicle
with respect to the 5 milliamperes short circuit current rule.
Figure 12: Overview of the tractor-trailer vehicle parked under 525 kV transmission line.
Figure 13-(c) to 13-(f) show the scalar potential and electric field magnitude over a vertical plane
across the body of the vehicle. The field strength are higher around the energized conductors and
decrease for the area around the grounded truck. The electric field magnitude on the top surface

reaches a maximum of about 20 kV/m and all the surfaces of the grounded plate model vehicle
are at an equal potential of around 0.37 volts.
Table 1 summarizes the computation results for the open circuit voltage of the vehicle’s surface
without grounding and the values obtained for the voltage and short circuit current after
grounding the metallic structure. For the case that the body of the tractor-trailer is not grounded,
the open circuit voltage on the surfaces of the plate model and wire grid models are about 5395
volts and 6023 volts respectively. Analyzing the results for the currents induced on the connecting
segment of the grounded case indicates that the vehicle short circuit current is approximately 3.76
mA and 3.51 mA for the plate and wire grid models. They are both below the 5 mA safety threshold.
In spite of the similarities observed in the variation of the field quantities for these two models,
the differences in the short circuit current indicates that the values obtained by the selected wire
model of the vehicle is underestimated compared to the actual current that is induced over the
continuous metallic surfaces model.
TABLE 1- COMPARISON OF HIFREQ PLATE AND WIRE GRID MODELS FOR THE TRACTOR-
TRAILER UNDER THE TRANSMISSION LINE EXAMPLE.
HIFREQ Methodology Plate Model Wire Grid Model
Open circuit voltage on the surfaces

5395 volts 6023 volts
without grounding
Short circuit voltage on the surfaces

0.37 volts 0.68 volts
with grounding
Short circuit current for grounded

3.76 mA 3.51 mA
vehicle

(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Figure 13: The tractor-trailer vehicle parked under 525 kV transmission line. (a) - SESCAD plate model.
(b) - SESCAD wire grid model. (c)- Computed scalar potential magnitude (V) of plate model over the
observation surface. (d)- Computed scalar potential magnitude (V) of the wire grid model over the
observation surface. (e)- Computed electric field total magnitude (V/m) of the plate model over the
observation surface. (f)- Computed electric field total magnitude (V/m) of the wire grid model over the

5.2 Electromagnetic Analysis of a Solid Sphere at High and Low Frequencies

This example considers a solid sphere in free space, at high and low frequencies.
For the high frequency analysis, the electromagnetic scattering problem of a plane wave from the
solid metallic sphere in an infinite medium is considered. The radius of the sphere is 1 m and the
frequency of the applied electric field is 300 MHz. The geometry of the sphere, centered at the
origin, is shown in Figure 14. At the equator, the size of the patches is around 0.15 m and near the
pole the patches are smaller in accordance with the geometry. In addition to the model with plates,
a similar wire grid model is also obtained using conductors (radius=6.7 mm) placed at the location
of edges of the plates. The energization field is a plane wave with an amplitude of 1 V/m, polarized
in the y direction and traveling in the z direction.
For this problem, there exists an exact analytical solution to compute the radiated electric field
around the sphere due to induced currents on the surface of sphere [4]. Therefore, the radiation
characteristics of the currents obtained from the plate simulation and the wire grid simulation
can be compared with the exact results (analytical Mie-series solution [4]) in order to verify the
accuracy of the methods.
For the sake of accurate computations, 420 quadrilateral surfaces are used to represent the
spherical surface, as shown in Figure 14. A total number of 3360 unknowns is generated for the
plate configuration. The wire grid geometry contains 3368 unknowns.
Figure 14: SESCAD view of the perfectly conducting sphere using 420 quadrilateral plates.

The total electric field computed for the plate and wire-grid models across an observation surface
containing the propagation vector is shown in Figures 15-(a) and 15-(b). The variations of the
electric field reveal significant distortions caused by the presence of metallic bodies in the wave-
fronts of the applied plane-wave. In addition, differences are distinguishable at high frequencies
between the electric fields obtained by the plate and wire-grid models, particularly for the regions
closer to the sphere or inside the sphere. The amplitude of the electric field is at its lowest level
for the plate model, and the solid sphere is providing more effective blockage of the energy for the
shadow regions (the zone in the back of the sphere). In contrast, the high frequency
electromagnetic fields are penetrating through the wire grid and stronger field quantities can be
observed inside and in the back of the wire grid model. The pattern also indicates that the fields
obtained in the far region from the two models are in close agreement.
In order to better distinguish the differences for this problem, the electric fields radiated by the
induced current of both models are obtained along a profile around the sphere (2000 points along
the z axis from z=1 to z=10). The results are depicted in Figure 16. The analytical solution is also
used here as a reference solution. As observed, field quantities computed by the HIFREQ plate
model is in very good agreement with the analytical solution.
(a) (b)
Figure 15: Illustration of the magnitude of the total electric field around the perfectly conducting sphere in presence
of a plane wave illumination at 300MHz. (a)- Plate model; (b)- Wire grid model.

Figure 16: Comparison of magnitude of scattered electric field for the induced current on the perfectly
conducting sphere with wire grid model, plate model and the exact analytical solution (Mie-series).
For low frequency analysis, the problem of a static and uniform electric field perturbed by the
presence of the solid metallic sphere is investigated. For this purpose, a primary electric field with
uniform amplitude 𝐸0 in the 𝑦 direction is simulated in HIFREQ by an extremely low frequency
plane-wave excitation (0.001 Hz). The spatial variation of the distorted field around the
suspended sphere are then investigated. The described electromagnetic problem can be solved
analytically using the boundary condition for the scalar potential. Therefore, the electric field
intensity can be written as [5]:
𝑎 3 𝑎 3
𝑬 = 𝐸0 [1 + 2 ( ) ] 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜃) 𝒂𝒓 − 𝐸0 [1 − ( ) ] 𝑠𝑖𝑛⁡(𝜃)𝒂𝜽 (2)
𝑟 𝑟
where 𝑎⁡ is the radius of sphere, 𝑟 is the distance to the center and 𝜃 is the angle between the
observation point and the pole of the sphere (see reference [5] for detailed information about the
geometry and steps of the analytical solution).
Figure 17-a shows the electric field in the x-y plane computed by the HIFREQ plate model. It can
be seen that the electric field intensity vector is normal to the surface of the sphere and the
maximum strength accrues at the top and bottom poles of the sphere. A plot of electric field
strength at 𝑟 = 𝑎⁡around the sphere is shown in Figure 17-b. The graph contains the results
obtained by the plate model, the wire grid model and the exact analytical solution based on
equation (2), which reduces to 𝐄 = 3E0 cos(θ) 𝐚𝐫 in this case. The comparison dealing with the
near field calculations around the sphere demonstrates an excellent agreement between the plate
model and the reference solution. As is clearly seen in this figure, despite using similar
subdivision, the curve for the plate model (obtained by integration over surface patches) is
smoother and more accurate than the wire grid approximation.

(a)
(b)
Figure 17: Variations of electric field around metallic sphere suspended in uniform field. (a)- Electric
field over an observation surface obtained by plate model. (b)- Electric field around the sphere obtained
by plate model, wire grid model and exact analytical solution.

5.3 Building in the Vicinity of a Telecommunication Tower Hit by Lightning

The last example is devoted to the electromagnetic fields computation inside a building located in
the vicinity of a 50 m high telecommunication tower hit by lightning. The tower structure is the
one described in the engineering How To manual “Lightning Transient Study of a Communication
Tower” and is connected to a simple grounding system [6]. The primary focus here is to study the
effects of lightning in the neighborhood of the tower. As shown in Figure 18, a metallic building is
considered in proximity of the tower. The enclosure has dimensions of 7 m by 8 m by 13 m, and
its structure is modeled entirely using metallic plates. The building is assumed to have a few
windows, through which the electromagnetic field may penetrate and potentially damage the
equipment inside the building. The objective is to examine the level of disturbance inside the
structure resulting from the transient electromagnetic fields generated by the struck tower.
Figure 18: SESCAD view of the metallic enclosure in the vicinity of telecommunication tower hit by
lightning.
First, the electromagnetic fields are obtained at a single frequency (6.8 MHz). In order to examine
the field strength, a profile is defined covering the regions outside and inside the building as
shown in Figure 18. An observation surface is also considered in the interior of the building at a
0.5 m distance away from the window. Figures 19-(a) to 19-(d) show the computed fields over the
profile and surface. The computation results indicate a reduction of the electric field strength and
of the scalar potential level inside the building.

(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 19: Computed fields for the profiles placed around the telecommunication tower hit by a lightning at
frequency 6.8MHz. (a) - Computed electric field over the line profile; (b) - Computed scalar potential over the
line; (c) - Computed electric field over the surface; (d) - Computed scalar potential over the surface.
Next, a typical surge current is injected at the top of the tower in order to model the tower hit by
lightning. The time variation of this current is represented by the sum of two double exponential
functions as follows:
𝐼(𝑡) = 9000(𝑒 −40000𝑡 − 𝑒 −30000𝑡 ) + 115(𝑒 −10000𝑡 − 𝑒 −22200𝑡 ) (3)
The transient waveform and its spectrum, determined by the forward FFT, are shown in Figure
20. It is characterized by a rise time of 1.44⁡𝜇𝑠 and a half-value time of 24⁡𝜇𝑠. Simulation results
are obtained at 512 frequency samples (generated by FFTSES Forward operation) and extracted
by the database management feature of FFTSES for the inverse FFT operations. In this study, we
examined the electric field at two observations points of the line profile, one close to the base of
the tower and the other one inside the building.

(a) (b)
Figure 20: Time domain and frequency domain representation of input lightning signal.
Figure 21-(a) and 21-(b) show the magnitude of the modulated response for the exterior and
interior observation points. As expected, the magnitude of the response for the exterior point is
much larger than for the interior point. Figure 21-(c) and 21-(d) show the time domain response
of the electric fields over the time window ranging from 0 to 40⁡𝜇𝑠. They also exhibit reduced level
of interference inside the building.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 21: Electric field response to the lightning surge at two observation points around the tower. (a)-
Modulated spectrum for the observation point at the base of the tower; (b)- Modulated spectrum for the
observation point inside the building. (c)-Time domain response at the base of the tower; (d)- Time domain
response inside the building.

6 Conclusion
In this article, the new capability of HIFREQ to model metallic plates was presented. This new
feature allows the electromagnetic analysis of complex structures including a mix of wire
conductors and continuous metallic surfaces. The required theoretical formulation was briefly
outlined. The results presented for a car and a truck under a transmission line, a metallic sphere,
and a building in proximity of a telecommunication tower struck by lightning demonstrate a
noticeable improvement in the accuracy of the solution obtained by the plate model compared to
the commonly used wire grid model.
7 References
[1] Gibson, Walton C. "The method of moments in electromagnetics". CRC press, 2014.
[2] Selby, Alan, and F. Dawalibi. "Determination of current distribution in energized conductors for the
computation of electromagnetic fields." Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on 9, no. 2 (1994), 1069-
1078.
[3] SES Technologies, “Electromagnetic Fields Under a Transmission Line and Induced Currents in a
Fence," How To Engineering Guide, SES Technologies, Quebec, Montreal.
[4] Balanis, Constantine A. "Advanced engineering electromagnetics". John Wiley & Sons, 1989.
[5] Demetrius T. Paris and F. Kenneth Hurd "Basic electromagnetic theory", McGraw-Hill, 1969.
[6] SES Technologies, "Lightning Transient Study of a Communication Tower," How To Engineering
Guide, SES Technologies, Quebec, Montreal, 2012.

Part IV: Recently Published Technical Articles
2014 International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), Shanghai, China
Transferred Transient Voltages on the Nearby

Facilities When a Lightning Stroke Hit Bridge
Yexu Li, Farid Dawalibi and Simon Fortin Zhigang Wang, Lan Wu and Yuyue Liu
Safe Engineering Services & Technologies Ltd. Hunan Lightning Protection Centre
3055 Blvd. Des Oiseaux, Laval, Québec, Canada, H7L 6E8 Tel.: 13755010292; Web: http://www.hnqx.gov.cn
Tel.: 01 (450) 622-5000; Fax: 01 (450) 622-5053; 52523218@qq.com, 81101119@qq.com
Web: www.sestech.com Email: yexu.li@sestech.com
Abstract—The transient behavior of a bridge subjected to a available addressing the issues of transferred transient ground
lightning strike and the transferred transient potentials on potential rises (TTGPRs) and touch and step voltages to nearby
nearby facilities, such as pipelines, is investigated using the facilities, such as pipelines and railway tracks. Furthermore,
electromagnetic field theory approach. The article focuses on the accurate predictions of lightning transient currents and voltages
safety around the bridge area during lightning strikes on the are essential to any lightning shielding protection and
bridge. Step and touch voltages are computed as well as the mitigation design of a large system structure and neighboring
dissipated energy though human body. Dielectric breakdown and facilities.
human safety concerns under transient phenomena is discussed
briefly. Different quantities, effects and scenarios are studied. The objective of this article is to fill in some gaps on this
Different waveforms with various peak values of current surges subject. The article focuses on some basic issues and public
are examined. The paper demonstrates the importance of common concerns regarding lightning’s electromagnetic
accurately representing the bridge and lightning current wave on impact on nearby facilities, using the software package
the analysis of the transient response to the lightning strike. Time MultiFields of CDEGS [25] dedicated to such problems to
domain results are presented as static 2D and 3D plots. perform appropriate studies on transferred transient voltages
when lightning hits a tall and long metallic bridge. The
Keywords- transferred transient potentials; Forward Fourier computation method accounts for both the buried and
Transformation; Invert Forward Fourier Transform; touch and
aboveground metallic components of the system energized by a
step voltages; dielectric breakdown.
lightning strike. The computer model considers the
electromagnetic interactions between all elements and supports
I. INTRODUCTION multilayer soils with arbitrary characteristics. A field theory
Due to the rapid growth of China’s economy, tall buildings approach is used to solve Maxwell’s electromagnetic field
and large metallic structures such as extensive metallic bridges equations. The field theory approach used in the computation
have been built everywhere in China. Lightning is one of the module is an extension to power frequencies of the Moment
most spectacular natural phenomena and one of the most feared Method used in antenna theory. The transient problem is first
and destructive events because of its relatively high occurrence solved by a frequency domain formulation. The time domain
frequency compared to other natural phenomena. Tall response is then obtained by application of an Inverse Fourier
structures that are connected to an extensive network of Transformation [1, 3-4, 11-24].
aboveground and buried bare metallic structures are an
attractive target to lightning strikes. When large structures are II. SYSTEM NETWORK UNDER STUDY
hit by a lighting strike, very fast large transient voltage stresses
The overall system under study is shown in Fig. 1 and its
occur on conductors and equipment inside the structure and on
computer model is illustrated in Fig. 2. The bridge is 33.5 m
nearby facilities endangering people and valuable assets. In a
wide and 2394 m long. It consists of a total of 117 pairs of
general sense, any insulating gap between an energized and a
slings, spaced 16.8 m apart. The bridge is essentially made of
grounded metallic component may become a path for electrical
steel conductors. Two towers located at each end of the bridge
arcs due to the electric breakdown of the gap and associated
support the bridge. The towers are about 204 m tall.
non conducting supporting structures. This may lead to
immediate fires and other damages or progressive There are four major facilities in the vicinity of the bridge,
deteriorations and outages. In particular, surge limiters can be namely a small factory, an oil depot, oil & gas pipelines and a
destroyed; electronic equipment can be damaged; and touch chemical plant.
and step voltages can threaten the safety of personnel who is
touching or simply standing near the conductors energized by The soil measurements were performed at either side of the
the lightning strike. bridge. For the simplicity, the average soil resistivities of 16.7
ohm-m and 61.13 ohm-m were used for the analysis at each
While there is a large volume of publications addressing the side, respectively. Soil structure characteristics frequency
issues [2-10] of lightning protection and shielding design, and dependence is not considered during the course of the study.
the accurate prediction of the transient stress voltages imposed Non-linear effects, such as ionization of the soil, if applicable,
on the conductors that are electrically connected to the have been neglected. However, it should be emphasized that
conductor hit by lightning, it appears that there is no literature the program tool (CDEGS) is capable to deal with
multilayered/stratified soil structures as well as take into frequency domain for a single harmonic unit current. Then, the
account the soil characteristics frequency dependence. These superposition of the frequency domain computation modulated
will be the subjects of a future paper. by the amplitude of the lightning current Invert Forward
Fourier Transform (IFFT) is applied in order to obtain the final
When lightning strikes the top of the bridge tower, the earth system lightning response.
potentials and electromagnetic fields at a large number of
observation points located within and around the entire bridge The bridge tower top is assumed to be struck by a lightning
area are computed for different scenarios. 3-D perspective plots current. The lightning strike is modelled by injecting a current
of the transient earth surface potentials are presented. surge at the top of the bridge tower. The direct lightning strike
Furthermore, transferred transient potentials, stress voltages to i(t) is simulated by the following typical lightning waveforms
the four nearby facilities are computed and presented as a recorded in China during lightning events. Such waveforms are
function of time. Consequently, the safety status at the four characterized by their peak value, front time and time to half
facility areas has been evaluated. value. The three different waveforms are: (a) 270 kA and
10/350 s rise time; (b) 270 kA and 8/20 s rise time; and (c)
270 kA and 1.2/50 s rise time. Lightning currents having a
maximum peak value of 270 kA, 50 kA and 9.1 kA for each
waveform have also been considered.
Figure 1. Top view of system under study Figure 3. Lightning surge frequency spectrum
Figure 2. Computer model of system under study

Figure 4. Frequency responses
III. LIGHTNING WAVEFORMS AND COMPUTATION The transient problem is first solved by a frequency domain
METHODOLOGY formulation. Then, an Inverse Fourier Transform is applied to
the superposition of the frequency domain computation results
A total of about 110 frequencies ranging from 0 Hz to modulated by the amplitude of the fault current in order to
about 2 MHz were selected from the discrete Forward Fourier obtain the final pipeline interference level in the time domain.
Transform (FFT) to adequately represent the lightning surge in The computation of the electromagnetic fields, currents,
the frequency domain. The computation is performed in the potentials and voltages on the bridge and in the nearby area are
performed in the frequency domain, for each frequency as breakdown voltage is lower than the air, but is a more complex
component contained in the surge signal as illustrated in Figure phenomenon, and thus involves a greater electrical breakdown
3. The computations are carried out using a field theory voltage range. In general, 0.3 - 0.5 kV/cm is a conservative
approach to solve Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations. value for wet soils. Table 1 shows some experimental values
Figure 4 shows the typical responses (real part only) of various for air and soil breakdown voltages.
quantities such as earth potential, earth electric field, earth
magnetic field and conductor GPR. Figure 5 presents the TABLE I. AIR AND SOIL BREAKDOWN VOLTAGES
response in time domain. Dry Air Wet Air Wet Soil Dry Rock
> 3 kV/mm > 1 kV/mm > 0.3 - 0.5 kV/cm >1 - 3 kV/cm
These values allow us to calculate the minimum distance

between two close conductors subject to very high potential
differences that will not result in arcing, which is one of the
concerns examined here.
Another concern involves shock hazards associated with a
person touching an energized conductor. A safe limit for
transient shocks can be estimated by using Dalziel’s energy
relationship for impulse current shocks:
In the above expression, Rb is the resistance of the human

body. The body resistance is typically set to 500 ohms per IEC
[9, 10] for high frequency conditions. Based on Dalziel’s work
[26], Table 2 can be derived.
TABLE II. DALZIEL’S MINIMUM ENERGY CRITERION
Minimum Fibrillation Energy, Joules
Body Resistance > 500 ohm 1000 ohms
Figure 5. Time-domain responses Impulse 27 54
In this study, the energy in joules (J) dissipated in the

IV. AIR BREAKDOWN VOLTAGES AND SAFETY LIMITS human body when a person is touching a conductor energized
by a transient current is estimated using the following
Dielectric breakdown occurs when a charge builds up or a expression:
discharge current exceeds the electrical limit or dielectric
strength of a material. When the dielectric material (air, soil,
etc.) is applied by a voltage (electric field strength), the stress
field is applied to the outer bound electron atom orbit. When
the electric field stress reaches the breakdown strength, some Where iB and vC are the body current and the stress (touch
of the electrons are promoted to the conduction band and gets or step) voltage, respectively, T is the duration of the signal,
accelerated rapidly, colliding with other atoms, releasing more and RB and RF are the body resistance and the foot resistance,
electrons, generating "avalanche" effect, resulting in dielectric respectively. For simplicity, we use RB = 500 Ω and RF =
breakdown. Under such high voltage stresses, electrical 1.5*ρS where ρS is the resistivity of the surface soil layer which
breakdown, an arcing spark discharge may occur. is 61 Ω-m. Therefore, RF = 92 Ω was used.
In standard conditions at atmospheric pressure, gases serve V. COMPUTATION RESULTS & ANALYSIS
as an excellent insulator, requiring the application of a
significant voltage before breaking down. The dielectric The following are brief examples of some salient
breakdown occurs in dry air when the electric field strength is computation results. When lightning strikes the tower of the
about: bridge, the transient scalar potential, step voltage, electric field
and magnetic field located on the earth surface over the entire
Emax = 3x106 V/m area oscillate. The huge volume of computation results under
The exact value varies with the shape and size of the various lightning surges and difference safety concern areas
electrodes and increases with the pressure of the air and restricts the focus of this article to the maximum values of the
decreases with its humidity. In wet air, the sparking voltage is touch step voltages, the electric fields and scalar potentials on
assumed to be about 1 kV/mm. Soil can also generate a the earth surface at the four facility area, when a lighting hits
dielectric breakdown, arcing or spark discharge. Soil dielectric the top of the bridge to illustrate the surge response of the
system. For example, Figure 6 shows the maximum responses
for the observation area beneath the bridge when a lightning
hits the bridge. Touch and step voltages, electric fields and
ground potential rises are computed at the four facility areas
(see Figures 7-10 for typical maximum responses). The energy
dissipated into the human body (WB) when a person touches
an energized conductor while standing on the earth surface has
also been computed. This energy is used for evaluating human
shock hazards associated with a transient phenomenon. Table 3
presents the maximum energy into human body in the four
facility areas when a lightning surge hits the top of the bridge.
The maximum electric fields and soil potentials that result
during the lightning strike are shown in Tables 4 and 5. The
following conclusions can be drawn from the computation
results:
1 When lightning strikes the bridge, the transient scalar
potential, touch and step voltages, electric field and
magnetic field at the nearby facility oscillate. Such
oscillations result in large transient electromagnetic fields
in the initial period after lightning strikes. The oscillations
no longer exist if one assumes that the strike occurs
directly at the base of the bridge or any ground structures
in the facilities.
2 The energy through the human body under different Figure 7. Maximum touch, step voltage, electric field and earth ground
lightning surges are computed and the results show that the potential rise at the small factory as a function of time
value is far less than Dalziel transient current wave
(lightning) energy of 27 joules personal safety reference
value. Consequently, when lightning hits the bridge, all
four concerned regions are safe as far human safety
concerns.
3 The maximum electric field strength is 3.1 kV/m, which is
much smaller than the reference value of soil electrical
breakdown that may cause an arc or a flashover. However,
it should be noted that the electrostatic field can only be a
reference value for the arc discharge, but cannot be used as
an absolute assessment criterion for a spark discharge or
flashover.
Scalar Potentials [Maximum] Electric Field Resultant [Maximum]
Magnetic Field Resultant [Maximum]

Figure 8. Maximum touch, step voltage, electric field and earth ground
potential rise at the oil depot as a function of time
Figure 6. Maximum soil potential, electric and magnetic field under the
bridge
TABLE IV. MAXIMUM ELECTRIC FIELD STRENGTH (V/M)
Lightning Waveform (peak value of 270 kA)
Location 8/20s 10/350 s 1.2/50s
Small Factory 842 750 3100
Oil Depot 113 92 430
Pipelines 118 79 500
Chemical Factory 109 86 402
TABLE V. MAXIMUM SOIL POTENTIAL (KV)

Lightning Waveform (peak value of 270 kA)
Location 8/20s 10/350 s 1.2/50s
Small Factory 101 85 270
Oil Depot 49 40 125
Pipelines 64 43 126
Chemical Factory 53 35 111
The maximum soil potentials are computed in the area of

interest under different lightning strikes (Table 5). Generally
speaking, stress voltages or currents on sensitive equipment
Figure 9. Maximum touch, step voltage, electric field and earth ground and devices could be examined accurately using this approach.
potential rise at the gas pipeline as a function of time If necessary, proper grounding systems, cable routings,
topological zoning and shielding are designed to help reducing
or preventing sources of disturbance from interfering with the
operation of electrical equipment.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The transient behavior of a bridge subjected to a lightning
strike and the transferred transient potentials on nearby
facilities, such as pipelines, have been investigated using the
electromagnetic field theory approach. Different quantities,
effects and scenarios were studied. Three different waveforms
with various peak values of current surges have been examined.
The main focus of this article is safety around the bridge
area during lightning strikes on the bridge. Step and touch
voltages were computed as well as the dissipated energy
though human body. Dielectric breakdown and human safety
concerns under transient phenomena were discussed briefly.
Briefly stated, it was found that no hazards to people and
equipment exist in the four investigated areas even with high
peak currents and fast lightning surges.
The importance of accurately representing the bridge and
Figure 10. Maximum touch, step voltage, electric field and earth ground lightning current wave on the analysis of the transient response
potential rise at the chemical factory as a function of time to the lightning strike is demonstrated. Time domain results are
presented as static 2D and 3D plots.
TABLE III. ENERGY DISSIPATED INTO THE HUMAN BODY (J)
Lightning Waveform (peak value of 270 kA) VII. REFERENCES
Location 8/20s 10/350 s 1.2/50s [1] F. P. Dawalibi, S. Fortin and Y. Li, “Transient Response of Shielded
Substations Hit Directly by a Lightning Strike”, The 18th Conference of
Small Factory 0.4 0.33 4.08 the Electric Power Supply Industry (CEPSI), Taipei, Taiwan, October
Oil Depot 0.18 0.23 0.99 25-28, 2010.
[2] M.A. Uman, “The Art and Science of Lightning Protection”, Book,
Pipelines 0.13 0.10 0.87
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2008.
Chemical Factory 0.04 0.04 0.39 [3] L. Grcev and F. Dawalibi, An Electromagnetic Model for Transients in
Grounding Systems”, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. PWRD -5,
No. 4, October 1990
[4] W. Xiong and F. Dawalibi, “Transient Performance of Substation Compatibility, ICEMC ‘95 KUL, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, April 11-13,
Grounding Systems Subjected to Lightning and Similar Surge Currents”, 1995 pp. 95-102.
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 9, July 1994. [17] S. Fortin, F. P. Dawalibi, and J. Ma, "Computation of Induced
[5] S. Visacro, “A comprehensive approach to the grounding response to Voltages on Electric Distribution Lines Due to an Indirect Lightning
lightning currents,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 22, no. 1, Jan., 2007. Strike, "Proceedings of the 13th International Wroclaw Symposium and
[6] Shunchao Wang, Jinliang He, Bo Zhang, Shuiming Chen, Zhanqing Exhibition on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Wroclaw, Poland, June
Yu, “Numerical Electromagnetic Analysis of Lightning Protection 25-28, 1996, pp. 471-475.
System over Lossy Ground”, 2008 Asia-Pacific Sympsoium on [18] S. Nikolovski and S. Fortin, "Frequency Domain Analysis of 110/35
Electromagnetic Compatibility & 19th International Zurich Symposium kV Transformer Station Grounding System Subject to Lightning Strike,"
on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 19–22 May 2008, Singapore. Proceedings of the IEEE PowerTech '99 Conference, Budapest,
[7] Leonid Grcev, “Modeling of Grounding Electrodes Under Lightning Hungary, August 29 - September 2, 1999.
Currents”, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. [19] W. Ruan, J. Ma, S. Fortin, F. P. Dawalibi, and E. J. Middleton,
51, No. 3, August 2009 "Optimum and Economical Deployment Method of Surge Arresters on
[8] F. Menter and L. Grcev, “EMTP-Based Model for Grounding System Distribution Lines for Insulation Failure Due to Lightning - An
Analysis”, IEEE Transachons on Power Delivery, Vol. 9, October 1994. Electromagnetic Field Computation Analysis, "Proceedings of the 2001
International Conference on Power Systems (ICPS'2001), Wuhan, P.R.
[9] Y. Liu, M. Zitnik, and R. Thottappillil, “An improved transmission- China, September 20-24, 2001.
line model of grounding system,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.,
vol. 43, no. 3, Aug. 2001. [20] S. Nikolovski, H. Glavas, and S. Fortin, "Simulation and Analysis of a
Lightning Strike to GSM Base Transmission Station Tower,"
[10] Y. Li, F. P. Dawalibi, S. Fortin and J. Ma."Automated Time-Domain EMC EUROPE 2002 Symposium, Sorrento, Italy, Sept. 9-13, 2002.
Analysis of Transmission and Distribution Networks Using Circuit
Models". The 17th Conference of the Electric Power Supply Industry [21] W. Ruan, R. D. Southey, and F. P. Dawalibi, "Application of the
(CEPSI), Macau, October 27 - 31, 2008. Electromagnetic Field Method to Study a Communication Satellite Site
Damaged by Lightning, "EMC 2002, Beijing, May 21-24, 2002.
[11] W. Xiong, F. P. Dawalibi, and A. Selby, "Frequency Response of
Substation Ground Systems Subject to Lightning Strikes," CIGRÉ [22] S. Nikolovski and S. Fortin, "Frequency Domain Analysis of 110/35
Symposium on Power System Electromagnetic Compatibility, Lausanne, kV Transformer Station Grounding System Subject to Lightning Strike,"
Switzerland, No. 100-06, October 1993. Proceedings of the IEEE PowerTech '99 Conference, Budapest,
Hungary, August 29 - September 2, 1999.
[12] F. Dawalibi, “Electromagnetic fields generated by overhead and buried
short conductors, part I - single conductor,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., [23] F. P. Dawalibi, W. Ruan, S. Fortin, J. Ma, and W. K. Daily,
vol. PWRD-1, no. 4, Oct. 1986. "Computation of Power Line Structure Surge Impedances Using the
Electromagnetic Field Method" Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE/PES
[13] F. Dawalibi, “Electromagnetic fields generated by overhead and buried Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, Oct.
short conductors, part II- ground networks,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., 28 - Nov. 2, 2001.
vol. PWRD-1, no. 4, Oct. 1986.
[24] W. Ruan, R. Southey, S. Tee and F. Dawalibi, “A Parametric Analysis
[14] A. Selby and F. Dawalibi, “Electromagnetic fields of energized of Power Line Structure Response to Lightning Strikes”, The 18th
conductors,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 8, no. 3, Jul., 1993.
Conference of the Electric Power Supply Industry (CEPSI), October 24-
[15] S. Fortin, Y. Yang, J. Ma and F. P. Dawalibi, "Electromagnetic Fields 28, 2010 Taipei International Convention Center, Taipei, Taiwan。
of Energized Conductors in Multilayer Medium with Recursive [25] CDEGS Software Package, Safe Engineering Services & technologies
Methodology"Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference ltd., Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Version 14, 2011.
(APPEEC 2009), Wuhan, China, March 28 - 31, 2009.
[26] Charles, F. Dalziel, “A Study of the Hazards of Impluse Currents”,
[16] F. P. Dawalibi, W. Ruan, and S. Fortin, “Lightning Transient AIEE October, 1953.
Response of Communication Towers and Associated Grounding
Networks,” Proceedings of International Conference on Electromagnetic
Shielding Failure Evaluation by Collection Surface
Qizhang Xie, Stéphane Baron, Sylvie Lefebvre, Simon Fortin, and Farid P. Dawalibi
3055 Blvd. Des Oiseaux, Laval, Québec, Canada, H7L 6E8
Info@sestech.com
Abstract—A new lightning shielding failure evaluation method shielding failure rate of lightning protection
based on an electro-geometric method aided by 3D graphics
technology is introduced. The approach is based on the method systems. The technique applies to structures or
of collection surfaces. By using the collection surface of protected substations of any shape, and can use different
equipment instead of the unprotected area, empty areas where striking distances to horizontal and vertical objects.
no equipment is to be protected are eliminated from contributing
to the failure rate. Shielding devices and protected equipment are The method is based on an electro-geometric
considered equally as targets for lightning when generating method aided by 3D graphics technology.
collection surfaces. The collection surfaces are projected to a 2D Collection surfaces are generated for both shielding
bitmap, using different colours to represent protected and
unprotected areas. An integral is performed on the amplitude of devices and protected equipment; the portions of
the stroke current (weighted by the probability distribution of the collection surfaces of equipment that are not
this amplitude) to account for the dependency of the shape and covered by the collection surface of a shielding
size of the unprotected surface on the stroke current. The
technique applies to structures or substations of any shape, and device are considered exposed to lightning, and are
can use different striking distances to horizontal and vertical tallied up in the shielding failure rate. By using the
objects. The example 69 kV substation described in IEEE collection surface of protected equipment instead of
Standard 998 is used to demonstrate usage of this method.
that of the unprotected area, empty areas where no
I. INTRODUCTION equipment is to be protected are eliminated from
The calculation of the probability of shielding contributing to the failure rate.
failure helps engineers evaluate the effectiveness of The collection surfaces are projected to a 2D
a lightning protection scheme against direct bitmap, using different colours to represent
lightning strikes. In some cases, the system may not protected and unprotected areas. This projection is
be fully protected against direct lightning strikes for carried out using standard capabilities of 3D
technical or economic reasons. In such cases, the graphics cards, and can be done very efficiently. An
designer has to determine the risk level to which the integral is performed on the amplitude of the stroke
installation is exposed, based on acceptable safety current (weighted by the probability distribution of
and reliability requirements. A calculation of the this amplitude) to account for the dependency of the
probability of shielding failure is an important step shape and size of the unprotected surface on the
in this determination. stroke current.
In general, the shielding failure rate of a given The following sections give more details on this
installation is a function of the preponderance of method. The example 69 kV substation described in
lightning at the location of the installation – which IEEE Standard 998 is then used to demonstrate
is obtained empirically – and of the surface area of usage of the method.
the installation where equipment is exposed to II. CALCULATION OF SHIELDING FAILURE RATE
lightning. This last quantity is a complicated
The average number of lightning strokes per unit
function of the geometry of the equipment and of
area per unit time at a particular location is defined
the shielding devices at the site, and varies as a
as the Ground Flash Density (GFD). The GFD is
function of the magnitude of the stroke current. Its
roughly proportional to the keraunic level at the
computation is the most difficult part in the
location; it is calculated using [1]
determination of the shielding failure rate, and is
often the object of coarse approximations. (1)
This article describes an approach based on the where is the number of flashes to earth per
method of collection surfaces to compute the square kilometre per year and is the average
annual keraunic level, in thunderstorm days per The upper bound of the integral can be restricted
year. to the stroke current for which the system is
The number of flashes in a given area is fully protected (which is determined by the
calculated using characteristics of the protection system), while the
(2) lower bound can be restricted to the stroke current
that the system can withstand without damages,
where is the area in square kilometres. which is usually is defined by the equipment BIL. If
Not all the flashes are contributing to shielding a value for cannot be found (meaning that the
failure: only those for which the stroke current system can never be fully protected for any stroke
exceeds the equipment withstand current will cause current value), the upper bound of the integral is set
damage. The probability that a certain peak current to a sufficiently large value, so that the
will be exceeded in any stroke is calculated using contributions to the shielding failure rate of stroke
the following equation [1]: currents larger than this value can be safely ignored.
( ) If the variation of the unprotected area ( ) for
(3)
( ) can be neglected, the equation can be
simplified as
where ( ) is the probability that the peak
current in any stroke will exceed and I is the ( ( ) ( )) ( ) (5)
specified crest current of the stroke in kilo-amperes. Usually, the size of the protected area increases
Fig.1. is a plot of (3). (and that of the unprotected area decreases) as
increases, in which case this approximation is
conservative.
The following figure, adapted from Figure 27 of
IEEE standard 998 [1], illustrates the situation for
this case. S0, S, and S1 are striking distances
corresponding to stroke currents , and . From
part (b) of the figure, it is clear that the equipment
is not protected for stroke currents inferior to . In
part (a) of the figure, the unprotected area at
elevation for stroke currents between and
Figure 1. Probability of first negative return stroke peak current exceeding is the shaded area between the inner green circle
abscissa for strokes to flat ground [1]
and the red circle.
The shielding failure rate of a partially In the more general case where ( ) varies
protected system is defined as the number of flashes substantially as a function of , the general formula
terminating inside the unprotected area of the shown in (4) must be used. This requires a
system which will cause equipment damage and calculation of the unprotected surface area as a
failure, within a given period of time (generally one function of stroke current.
year). It is given by: Note that the approach outlined above adds all
lightning flashes that strike in the unprotected area,
∫ ( ) ( ) (4)
whether they actually cause any damages or not. In
where ( ) is the unprotected area for a given reality, lightning will only cause damage when it
stroke current , is the ground flash density and actually strikes equipment. So the unprotected area
( ) is the probability that the peak current in any used to calculate the failure rate should only include
stroke will exceed . The quantity ( ) those areas which will actually cause equipment
appearing in the integrand represents the probability damage.
that the peak current in any stroke will lie between
and .
curve represents the collection surface of all shielding objects. The blue curve
is the locus of the rolling sphere’s center defined by the object to be protected.
According to the electro-geometric model, an

object is considered to be struck by lightning if a
downward leader intercepts the collection surface
of the object.
To determine if a lightning shielding system fully
protects all equipment at a site, collection surfaces
are generated for each of the objects at the site,
including both the objects to be protected and those
part of the protection system. If any collection
surface corresponding to equipment to be protected
protrudes outside any surface corresponding to the
protection devices (mast, shield-wire, down
conductor), then the system is not fully protected.
Moreover, the surface area of this exposed surface
is a direct measure of ( ) for a given stroke
current .
Fig. 4 uses two masts and a building to further
illustrate the concepts behind the collection surface
method.
Figure 2 Unprotected area of shield mast for stroke currents , , and
III. CALCULATION OF UNPROTECTED AREA USING

COLLECTION SURFACE
In this article, the unprotected area used in
equation (4) is calculated using a collection surface
method. The collection surface is the loci of the
centers of the sphere used in rolling sphere method,
as illustrated in Fig. 3 [5].
Figure 4 Collection Surface Method. a.) 3D model of a building and two

masts. b.) Collection surface of the building. c.) Collection surface of both
Figure 3 Collection surface method. The heavy black curves represent the masts. Collection surface of the building is not displayed. d.) 3D view of
loci of the rolling sphere’s centre defined by the shielding objects. The orange collection surface of masts and building. e.) Top transparent view of
collection surface of both masts and building. Building is not protected. f.)
Top transparent view of collection surface of both masts and building with
different stroke current. The unprotected surface is smaller than in e.).
Fig. 4.b shows the collection surface of a single

building. When a downward leader touches the
surface, the building is struck by lightning. This
collection surface is independent of other objects in
the system. Fig. 4.c shows a collection surface for
the two masts in the system. Fig. 4.d shows the
collection surface of both masts and the building.
Fig. 4.e shows a top view of the collection surface
of both masts and the building; the collection
surface of the mast is not covering the collection
surface of the building, and the building is not
Figure 5 3D model of 69KV substation
protected. Fig. 4.f shows a top view of the
collection surfaces corresponding to a different
stroke current; the building is not protected, but the
unprotected surface is smaller than in Fig 4.e.
Using this technique, it is possible to calculate the
exposed surface area for any lightning current level,
including only the areas where damage can occur.
This method is implemented in the SESShield-3D
software package [4]. The implementation relies on
the multicore capabilities of modern graphics cards
to find the protected areas and calculate their
Figure 6 3D front view of 3D model of 69KV substation
surface area, resulting in a very efficient calculation
of the shielding failure rate. For the calculations, the keraunic level is
assumed to be 90 annual thunderstorm days. Using
IV. EXAMPLE APPLICATION
(1), the Ground flash density is:
As an example of the calculation method, the 69
kV substation described in IEEE standard 998 [1] is
analysed in this section. For this example, the calculated stroke current
A SESShield-3D model of the substation and its corresponding the equipment BIL (350 kV) is
equipment was built based on the drawing provided
kA. This is used as the lower bound of
in the standard. Fig. 5 shows the 3D model of the the integral for the evaluation of the shielding
substation. Note that for demonstration purposes, failure rate. The integral was discretised using a
the 3 masts are placed 10 meters further away from step length of 1 kA and a maximum stroke current
the transformers.
kA. The striking distance is computed
using the Mousa method [1], with for busses
and the earth surface and for masts.
Based on the stroke current and the striking
distance formula, the software package creates
collection surfaces for each object including the
earth.
The result is displayed in Fig. 7. Fig 7.a
corresponds to a stroke current of 2.57 kA, Fig. 7.b
to a stroke current of 3.57 kA, Fig. 7.c to a stroke
current of 4.57 kA, and Fig. 7.d to a stroke current
of 5.57 kA.
In the figure, colour coding is used to identify the methods based on the concept of “unprotected area”
different collection surfaces. The collection surface that are presented in IEEE Standard 998. The
of the earth is displayed in grey, that of the method can be restricted to shielding failures that
shielding objects in green, and that of objects to be result in equipment damage and can be applied to
protected in red. mixed protection systems including masts and
The red surfaces in Fig. 7 are not covered by shield wires. The method can take advantage of the
green or grey colour, therefore, the system is not multicore capabilities of modern graphics cards to
fully protected for the corresponding stroke currents. efficiently compute the shielding failure rate of
installations of arbitrary complexity.
An example of the use of this method, as
implemented in the SESShield-3D software
package, was presented.
REFERENCES
[1] IEEE Std. 998-2012, “IEEE Guide for Direct Lightning Stroke
Shielding of Substations”
[2] Anderson, J.G., Chapter 12 of Transmission Line Reference Book 345K
and Above, 2nd Ed. Electric Power Research Institute, 1987
[3] F. D’Alessandro, J.R. Gumley, “ A “Collection Volume Method” for
the placement of air terminals for the protection of structures against
lightning,” Journal of Electrostatics 50(2001) 279-302
[4] Safe Engineering Service & technologies ltd. Website. Available:
http://www.sestech.com/Products/SoftPackages/CDEGS.htm
[5] Qizhang Xie et al., “Rolling sphere method using 3D Graphics
approach” Power and Energy Engineering Conference, 2009. APPEEC
2009.
[6] Z. A. Hartono, I. Robiah, “The collection surface concept as a reliable
method for predicting the lightning strike location.”, 25 th International
Conference on Lightning Protection, pp. 328-333, 2000
Figure 7 collection surface for different stroke currents
The following table lists the steps used to

calculate the probability of shielding failure; for
each step, the indicated number of failures includes
only those due to stroke currents falling in the
indicated current range.
TABLE I
SHIELDING FAILURE RATE STEPS
Current range Unprotected Number of Failures

(kA) area ( ) (failures/year)
2.57 – 3.57 273
3.57 – 4.57 59
4.57 – 5.57 12
5.57 – 6.57 0 0
The total number of failures is the sum over all

the ranges: .
V. CONCLUSIONS
A graphical method to evaluate the shielding
failure rate of a lightning protection system was
described. The method, which is based on 3D
collection surfaces, builds on and improves the
14CP15
Advanced AC Interference Modeling Techniques
Himanshu Negi
Safe Engineering Services & tech (I) Pvt. Ltd.
C-25, Second Floor, Annexe Tower, Stellar IT Park, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
Email: Himanshu.negi@sestech.in
Soam P. Upadhyay,
Priyanka Kediyal,
Safe Engineering Services & tech (I) Pvt. Ltd.
C-25, Second Floor, Annexe Tower, Stellar IT Park, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
Email: Soam.upadhyay@sestech.in
Farid Paul Dawalibi,

Sharon Tee
3055 Blvd. Des Oiseaux, Laval, Québec, Canada, H7L 6E8
Email: info@sestech.com
ABSTRACT
Electromagnetic interference caused by electric transmission and distribution lines on
neighboring metallic utilities such as oil, gas and water pipelines, railways and telecommunication
cables has been a serious concern for personal safety and equipment integrity as well as a
challenge for professionals in charge of mitigating those hazards. Furthermore, these issues have
been either neglected or studied using unrealistic simplified methods in most emerging industrial
countries until recently. Such simplified methods are based on empirical formula or simplistic
assumptions that introduce intolerable errors in the results. This paper discusses three computation
methods that progressively approach realistic conditions, namely a quick estimation method, a
circuit based method and an exact full electromagnetic field based method. The first quick
estimation method assumes a uniform soil and models the transmission line towers as a simple
hemispherical electrode. The second method is based on a hybrid quasi-static electromagnetic field
method coupled to a circuit approach that can accommodate easily soil characteristics variations
NIGIS * CORCON 2014 * Nov 12 – 15, 2014 * Mumbai

throughout the entire length of the corridor under study. The third method is an exact solution of
Maxwell’s equations for arbitrary network of aboveground and buried conductors in the presence of
a multilayer soil that can change along the right-of-way. A relatively simple example is described in
order to illustrate each method limitations, effectiveness, advantages and disadvantages.
Keywords: EMI; electromagnetic interference; pipeline corrosion; induction; conduction; grounding; uniform
soil, multilayer soil
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, a number of technical achievements have led to the construction of ultra-
high voltage power system networks carrying huge energy to meet the demand of developing
economies and emerging population across the globe. This phenomenal electric energy demand
growth, coupled with increasingly crowded joint-use corridors where adjacent metallic utilities such
as oil, gas and water pipelines, railways and telecommunication cables are sometimes literally a few
meters away from the edge of the transmission lines right-of-way, pose significant threats to the
safety of people that may come in contact with the adjacent utilities as well as the integrity of these
utilities. In this paper we will focus our attention to the electromagnetic interference issues that high
voltages lines impose on neighboring pipelines. The issues and concerns are as follows:
 Electrical shock hazards for people touching the exposed metallic utilities or metallic
structures connected to them or simply standing near them. Such shock hazards are
a concern during normal and fault conditions on the transmission lines.
 Damages to the coating due to excessive coating stress voltages during ground fault
conditions on the transmission lines.
 Accelerated corrosion due to excessive ac leakage currents from pipeline defects
(holidays), i.e., ac enhanced corrosion activities which is a concern during normal
conditions on the transmission lines only.
In summary, the following minimum requirements should be met for pipelines:
Normal Operating Conditions
 Touch Voltages < 15 V at appurtenances and < 50 V along inaccessible portions of
the pipeline.
 Maximum pipeline leakage current due to AC induction and conduction must not
exceed 20 A/m2 through a 1 cm2 holiday in order to limit AC enhanced corrosion.
Fault Conditions
 Safety during faults: ANSI/IEEE Std. 80 or IEC 479 safe limits.
 Coating Stress Voltage < 1 – 5 kV depending on pipeline coating type.
All issues are typically the result of excessive induced voltages and currents on the pipe that
exceed the tolerable values as specified by various national and international standards [1-4]. In
order to comply with the safe limits given in the standards and implement a reliable and cost-
effective mitigation solution to possible excessive interference levels, it is crucial to perform an
electromagnetic interference analysis at a very early planning stage of the project in order to avoid
costly accidents and remedial measures once construction is completed. A brief list of the
necessary tasks required to carry out an accurate and realistic EMI analysis is given hereafter.
1. Carry out systematic resistivity measurements at regular location intervals
along the right-of-way (typically every kilometer) in order to determine with
reasonable certainty the nature of the soil at those locations because, as will
be shown in this paper, soil structure has a major impact on the interference
levels.

2. Model the transmission lines including shield wires, tower structures,
substations’ grounds, etc. as realistically as possible because the
configuration of such structures have a significant influence on the
interference levels.
3. Model the pipelines, valve and test stations, anode beds and sacrificial
anodes as realistically as possible as the amount of energy captured by such
exposed metallic structures are heavily dependent on their shapes and
proximity to energized entities.
4. If necessary, develop mitigation strategies consisting of dedicated gradient
control grids, additional grounds and mitigation wires where appropriate.
In general, the electromagnetic interference level depends on the separation distance
between the power lines and pipeline, coating characteristics of the pipeline, soil structure types
along the pipeline and transmission line routes, characteristics and relative position of the power
lines and pipelines and over the route length over which they are sharing same corridor [5-8].
COMPUTATION METHODS
This paper discusses the following three computational methods to calculate AC interference
on neighboring exposed utilities using a rather simple but typical right-of-Way network to illustrate
the importance of soil structure on the EMI levels. The effectiveness, limitations, advantages and
disadvantages of each method are described here.
1. Quick Estimation Method
This simplified analysis method (SESTLC [8]) provides fast estimates of the inductive,
conductive and total interference levels on a metallic utility path such as pipelines or railways
that run parallel to the electric power lines. This method considers the transmission line
towers as simple hemispherical electrodes located along the transmission line. A major
unrealistic assumption of this method is the assumption that the soil is uniform throughout
the corridor under study. It is not recommended for detailed or final studies and mitigation
designs.
2. Hybrid Circuit and Conductive Based Method
This flexible, accurate and relatively method uses hybrid circuit theory and frequency
based grounding analysis to carry out detailed designs involving complex right-of-
way network configurations (Right-Of-Way Pro [8]). It can accommodate various soil
structure models and characteristics throughout the entire length of the corridor
under study. It can rapidly model a corridor in which multiple energized and de-
energized power line circuits and other utilities run alongside one another, at varying
separation distances, for hundreds of miles. The computation time is much lower
than the electromagnetic field based method described next.
3. Electromagnetic Field Based Method
This electromagnetic field based method solves Maxwell’s equations directly and
models the complete conductor network in the presence of a multilayer soil in three-
dimensional space. It accommodates angled conductors without making any
approximations (MultiFields [8]). The inductive, capacitive and conductive
interference effects between all the elements in the network are simultaneously
taken into account. Therefore, this approach calculates the total interference level
accurately. However, computation times can be considerably higher compared to the
above circuit based methods.
SYSTEM CONFIGURATION

A 220 kV overhead transmission line shares a common corridor with a pipeline having a total
length of 40 km. Figure 1 shows a plan view of the Right-of-Way network. The transmission line
consists of ACSR Zebra phase wires, and one OPGW 24 Core shield wire arranged in a delta
configuration. The transmission line tower structures consist of four-legged lattice towers along 9 km
of close parallelism with the transmission line and steel cylindrical poles (purple line in the figure) for
the remaining portion of the transmission line corridor. The transmission line span length is 150.37
m. The 30 inch steel pipeline has a coating leakage resistance of 100,000 Ωm2 and is buried at a
depth of 1.5 m. The transmission line pole buried portion is 12.2 m. The lattice towers buried portion
is as shown in the figure insertion.
3m
Tower
Structures
Figure 1: Transmission Line Right-of-Way Plan View and Transmission Line Cross Section
UNIFORM SOIL MODEL RESULTS

In this case the soil is assumed to be a uniform infinite half-space layer of 100 Ω-m resistivity
throughout the entire transmission line corridor. Normal and fault conditions on the transmission line
are considered.
1. Normal Conditions
During normal conditions, an average current load of about 958 A is flowing from Substation
1 to Substation 2 under balanced voltage sources at the feeding. More precisely, due to the
geometrical configuration of the line the phase currents are 959A -82, 967A 37, 948A 158
respectively with a shield wire current of 35.4A 161. The main results are summarized in Table 1.
The pipeline metal ground potential with respect to remote soil (GPR) is shown in Figure 2 for all
three methods. The figure shows a peak at the pipeline crossing and at the locations where the
pipeline veers away abruptly from the transmission line. The quick estimation method shows a
slightly optimistic GPR value at pipeline locations away from the transmission line. Note that the
absence of significant conduction effects from the transmission line structures (modelled as
hemispherical electrodes) near the pipeline are responsible for this discrepancy because the
pipeline does not pick up from the soil enough tower currents (due to the phase currents unbalance)
that are discharged remotely causing this lift effect which is present in the more sophisticated
computation models. This was confirmed by computing the inductive only effects in the hybrid circuit
model and by comparing the results to the simplified quick estimation model.
Table 1: Maximum Pipeline Voltages during Normal Conditions

Hybrid Circuit
Quick Estimation EMF Based
Reference Item Based
Method Method
Method
Pipeline Metal GPR (V) 22.37 22.80 22.10
Coating Stress Voltage
22.30 22.40 22.30
(V)
Pipeline Touch Voltage
22.75 22.43
(V)
Figure 2: Pipeline Metal GPR during Normal Conditions
2. Fault Conditions
A phase A to ground fault is assumed to occur at the transmission structure near the location
where the pipeline crosses the transmission line path. In this case, the total current contributions
from Substation 1 are 7,987A -77, 1,315A -20, 806A -123 for Phases A, B and C
respectively. The total current contributions from Substation 2 are 6,041A -76, 1,324A 160,
805A 55 for Phases A, B and C respectively. The main results are summarized in Table 2. The
pipeline metal ground potential with respect to remote soil (GPR) is shown in Figure 3 for all three
methods. All three methods agree reasonably well in the zone where the pipeline and transmission
line are close. We notice again that the quick estimation method diverges from the more accurate
results at the pipe locations that are far from the transmission line.
Table 2: Maximum Pipeline Voltages during Fault Conditions
Hybrid Circuit
Quick Estimation EMF Based
Method Method
Method
Pipeline Metal GPR 3,787.8 3,889.2 3,820
Coating Stress Voltage 4,361.0 4,379 4,347
Pipeline Touch Voltage 4,537.8 4,536
Figure 3: Pipeline Metal GPR at Fault Condition

MULTILAYER SOIL MODEL RESULTS
As already mentioned, soil structure model and characteristics can have a significant effect
on the interference levels that are impossible to predict using a uniform soil model. This is
particularly true if there are power line structures close to the exposed utilities. Although two-layer

soil models represent less than 20% of the soil models that are typically encountered on earth, we
will focus the rest of this paper on two limiting two-layer soil cases for simplicity and expediency. In
this section, we will repeat the analyses that were carried out for the uniform soil. Table 3 describes
the two extreme two-layer soil models that were selected.
Table 3: Two Layer Soil Model
Soil Model 1 Soil Model 2
Low Over High Soil Model High Over Low Soil Model
Layer Resistivity (Ω-m) Thickness (m) Resistivity (Ω-m) Thickness (m)
Top 100 15 25,000 15
Bottom 25,000 Infinite 100 Infinite
Soil Model 1 (Low Over High Soil Model)

The case of a low over high soil model is examined next during normal and fault conditions.
The normal conditions interference results are shown in Table 4 and in Figure 4. No results
are available for the quick estimation method since it does not support layered soil models.
Surprisingly, noticeable differences exist between the two accurate methods described here.
Obviously, one of the results is not accurate.
Hybrid Circuit
EMF Based
Method
Method
Pipeline Metal GPR (V) 39.2 32.7
Coating Stress Voltage 34.1 27.9
(V)
Pipeline Touch Voltage 35.0 29
(V)
In fact, detailed investigations of the computation results reveal that the main reason for the
discrepancy is the use of a tower structure ground resistance value based on an isolated tower
structure in the hybrid circuit model (7.3 ohms and 9.9 ohms for the lattice and single pole tower
structures respectively). The coupling between a tower and its neighboring tower structures carrying
similar currents is so strong due to the highly conductive top layer of this soil model [9], that the
tower exhibits much higher apparent ground resistances that can be several times larger than its
isolated value. This effect is inherently accounted for by the EMF based method but is only partially
accounted for in the hybrid method, i.e., it is only accounted for in the conductive model but not in
the circuit model that computes the inductive coupling component. Indeed, if this coupling effect is
accounted for iteratively in the hybrid circuit model, the results will progressively converge to the
EMF based method.
Figure 4: Pipeline Metal GPR and Touch Voltage during Normal Conditions

2. Fault Conditions
The fault conditions interference results are shown in Table 5 and in Figure 5. As in the case
of normal conditions, significant differences exist between both methods for the pipeline GPR.
However, coating stress and touch voltages are amazingly close considering the great differences in
pipeline GPR values. This situation is due to opposite trends in the pipeline GPR values and soil
surface potentials in the vicinity of the pipeline which are higher in the EMF model compared to the
hybrid circuit model (results are not shown here due to paper space limitation).
Hybrid Circuit
EMF Based
Method
Method
Pipeline Metal GPR (V) 4,781.6 7,449.8
Coating Stress Voltage 10,476.8 11,604.0
(V)
Pipeline Touch Voltage 10,848.9 11,703.4
(V)
Figure 5: Pipeline Metal GPR and Touch Voltage during Fault Conditions
Soil Model 2 (High Over Low Soil Model)
The case of a high over low soil model is examined in this section for both normal and fault
conditions.
The normal conditions interference results are shown in Table 6 and in Figure 6. No results
are available for the quick estimation method since it does not support layered soil models. Here the
differences are moderate between the two accurate methods described here.
Hybrid Circuit
EMF Based
Method
Method
Coating Stress Voltage
16.1 16.7
(V)
Pipeline Touch Voltage
15.6 17.9
(V)
Detailed investigations of the computation results reveal that coupling between the towers is
negligible. Furthermore, conductive interference is also negligible and can be ignored. In fact, the
main reasons for the differences between the results are due to marginally different but opposite
trends in the pipeline GPR and soil potentials. While the differences in the soil potentials or pipeline
GPR in the region of high exposure are less than 10%, the opposite trends result in differences on
the order of 20%. This is why, coating stress and touch voltage differences are within 20% as well.
Figure 6: Pipeline Metal GPR and Touch Voltage during Normal Conditions
2. Fault Conditions
The fault conditions interference results are shown in Table 7 and in Figure 7. As in the case
of normal conditions, marginal differences exist between both methods for the pipeline GPR in the
region of strong exposure, even for coating stress voltages and touch voltages. Note the rapid value
changes for touch voltages due to the conductive component of the interference effects during fault
conditions.
Hybrid Circuit
EMF Based
Method
Method
Coating Stress Voltage 1794.4 1855.8
(V)
Pipeline Touch Voltage 1855.7 2041.5
(V)
Figure 7: Pipeline Metal GPR and Touch Voltage during Fault Conditions
CONCLUSIONS
Electromagnetic interference caused by electric transmission and distribution lines on
neighboring metallic utilities is a serious concern for personal safety and equipment integrity as well
as a challenge for professionals in charge of mitigating those hazards. This paper has discussed
three computation methods that progressively approach realistic conditions, namely a quick
estimation method, a circuit based method and an exact full electromagnetic field based method. A
relatively simple example is described in order to illustrate each method limitations, effectiveness,
advantages and disadvantages. It is shown that uniform soil models cannot be used to predict
realistic interference effects on exposed pipelines.

Furthermore, it is shown that for soils with shallow depth soil resistivities much lower that the deeper
layers, noticeable differences exist between the two accurate methods described in the paper.
Detailed investigations revealed that the main reason for the discrepancy is the use of a tower
structure ground resistance value based on an isolated tower structure in the hybrid circuit model.
The coupling between tower structures carrying similar currents is so strong due to the highly
conductive top layer of this soil model that towers exhibit much higher apparent ground resistances
that can be several times larger than their isolated values. This effect is inherently accounted for by
the EMF based method but is only partially accounted for in the hybrid method, i.e., it is only
accounted for in the conductive model but not in the circuit model that computes the inductive
coupling component.
Finally, for soils with shallow depth layers with high resistivities over relatively low resistivity layers
coupling between the towers is negligible resulting in low conductive interference from tower
structures. Moderate differences exist between the two accurate methods described in the paper
due to marginally different but opposite trends in the pipeline GPR and soil potentials.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Safe Engineering Services & technologies ltd. for the financial
support and facilities provided during this research effort.
REFERENCES
1. Mitigation of Alternating Current and Lightning Effects on Metallic Structures and Corrosion
Control Systems, NACE Standard RP0177-2014.
2. Principles and Practices of Electrical Coordination between Pipelines and Electric Supply
Lines, CAN/CSA-C22.3 No. 6-M91.
3. IEEE Standard 80 (2000 or latest revision, 2013), “Guide for Safety in AC Substation
Grounding”.
4. IEC Technical Specification 60479-1, Edition 4.0 2005-07, Effects of Current on Human
Beings and Livestock – Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
5. J. Liu and F. P. Dawalibi "Analysis and Mitigation for Pipeline Safety and Integrity near
Electrical Power Systems" The International Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE
2011), Hong Kong, July 10 - 14, 2011.
6. F. P. Dawalibi, J. Ma, and Y. Li, “Mechanisms of Electromagnetic Interference between
Electrical Networks and Neighboring Metallic Utilities,” American Power Conference,
Chicago, USA, April 1999.
7. F. P. Dawalibi, Y. Li, R. Southey, and J. Ma, “On the Mechanisms of Electromagnetic
Interference between Electrical Power Systems and Neighboring Pipelines,” Corrosion/2001
NACE International Conference, Florida, USA, March
8. CDEGS Suite of Software Packages, Safe Engineering Services 2014, www.sestech.com.
9. S. Tee and F. P. Dawalibi, "Feasibility of electrical separation of proximate grounding
systems as a function of soil structure, "Proceedings of the Third IASTED International
Conference on Power and Energy Systems, Euro PES 2003, Marbella, Spain, Sept. 3-5,
2003, pp. 690-694.

Realistic and Accurate Model for Analyzing Substation
Grounding Systems Buried in Various Backfill Material
Jie Liu, Farid Paul Dawalibi, Nina Mitskevitch, Marc-André Joyal and Sharon Tee
Laval, Canada
info@sestech.com
Abstract—The design of a substation grounding system that is conductor is subdivided into small conductor segments. Each
surrounded by a number of backfill material (finite volumes of patch is assumed to have a uniform charge distribution. Then
soil) with distinct resistivity values, such as a thin surface layer the method of images is applied to all interface patches, taking
of crushed rock and paved surfaces is particularly complicated. into account the presence of the surface of the earth. The
The effects of such arbitrary finite volumes of backfill material charge distribution in the system is determined by numerically
and heterogeneous soil have been studied in this paper. The solving integral equations with appropriate boundary
numerical solution of a boundary element based method and the conditions on each surface element of the finite volume
exact analytical solution for a hemispheroidal soil model are interfaces and on the conductor segments. Finally, the earth
used in this study. Computation results for a realistic case are
potentials at any point can be computed by considering the
presented by comparing several approaches. The analysis
demonstrates that it is necessary to model such arbitrary
contributions from all the charges on the conductor segments
volumes accurately in order to determine the grid GPR, touch and on the finite volume soil interfaces. In order to obtain
and step voltages realistically and to avoid unsafe or costly reliable and stable computation results, the adaptive
designs. subdivision technique of the faces of a soil volume is used to
obtain an accurate and efficient patch distribution [4-5].
Index Terms—Electrical safety; ground potential rise (GPR);
III. EFFECT OF THIN SURFACE LAYER OF CRUSHED ROCK
heterogeneous finite soil volumes; backfill material; touch and
step voltages; substation grounding. In a grounding design, a thin layer (0.08–0.15 m or 3–6
inches) of high resistivity material, such as crushed rock or
I. INTRODUCTION asphalt, is often installed on the earth’s surface above the
The analysis methods of grounding systems in non- ground grid for various practical reasons. As a consequence,
uniform soil have improved in the past few years. Accurate the contact resistance between the soil and the feet of persons
designs of a grounding system require a realistic increases in the substation [9]. A typical soil structure is
representation of the surrounding medium or soil. The design shown in Fig. 1. If the resistivity of the surface crushed rock is
of a substation grounding system that is surrounded by a significantly higher than the native soil, very little of the grid
number of backfill material (finite volumes of soil) with current will travel upward into the surface layer. The current
distinct resistivity values, such as a thin surface layer of distribution of a grounding grid is rarely affected and the
crushed rock, temporary access roads, parking lots and potentials computed at earth’s surface are almost the same as
temporary storage areas is particularly complicated. The the potentials at the surface layer of the high resistivity surface
resistivities of these finite volume soil materials are quite material. Therefore, there is no need to model the crushed rock
different from that of the surrounding native soil [1-8]. in the potential computation. The effect of the thin surface
layer of high resistivity surface material is only considered in
In this paper, the effects of such arbitrary finite volumes of the computation of the contact foot resistance for safe touch
heterogeneous soil and backfill material have been studied in and step voltage limits. However, if the resistivity of the
detail in order to obtain a realistic and accurate model of a surface material is comparable or lower than the native soil
grounding system. resistivity, a significant portion of the grid current will travel
upward into the thin surface layer. Hence, a surface layer of
II. HETEROGENEOUS SOIL VOLUMES APPROACH
low resistivity crushed rock like the one studied here can
In theory, the electric field generated by a grounding change the current distribution of a grounding grid. Therefore,
system located in a soil with finite heterogeneities is caused by it is necessary to model the surface crushed rock and compute
current charges located on the finite volume interface of the earth surface potentials accurately. The effect of this thin layer
soil and on the surface of the ground conductors. The method of low resistivity surface crushed rock can be approximated by
employed in this analysis is the boundary element method. using a multilayer soil model [10]. The crushed rock can be
This method subdivides the surface of each trapezoidal approximately modeled as an extensive layer on top of the
volume into small elements (patches). Similarly, a ground native soil. However, in reality it is a localized area of soil
This work was supported by Safe Engineering Services & technologies ltd.
978-1-4799-7537-2/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE

within the substation and as such, it should be correctly
modeled as a finite volume of heterogeneous soil.
Figure 3. Hemispheroidal surface crushed rock above the grounding grid.
B. Computation Results
Figure 1. Thin layer of surface crushed rock above the grounding grid. The resulting grid GPR, touch and step voltages for the
four aforementioned models are shown in Table I. The earth
A. Case Description and Computer Models surface potentials are shown in Figs. 4 to 7. The errors for
The grounding system in this case study is shown in Fig. 2. each model are computed as the percent difference between
The grounding system consists of 4/0 copper AWG the quantities (GPR, touch voltage and step voltage) computed
conductors, 100 m × 100 m, buried 0.5 m below earth’s for each model and the values obtained in Model No. 1 (with
surface. The grid has 11 by 11 orthogonal conductors and has the surface crushed rock modeled as a finite volume of
a progressively smaller mesh size when moving away from heterogeneous soil within the substation on top of the native
the center of the substation. Due to symmetry, computation soil).
observation points can be placed over a ¼ area of the grid, as TABLE I. GPR, WORST TOUCH AND STEP VOLTAGES
shown in Fig. 2, 10 m from the lower left corner of the grid. A
current of 1,000 A is injected into the grounding grid. The No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4
substation site native soil is assumed to be uniform with a high GPR (V) 32,032 32,392 31,391 31,934
resistivity of 7,000 ohm-m. The surface material is crushed
rock with a wet resistivity of 1,000 ohm-m and a thickness of GPR Error (%) 0 1.1 -2.0 -0.3
0.1524 m (6 inches) as shown in Fig. 1. Touch Voltage (V) 5,889 5,209 6,116 6,279
Touch Voltage Error (%) 0 -11.6 3.9 6.6
Step Voltage (V) 2,223 2,929 1,555 1,593
Step Voltage Error (%) 0 31.7 -30.0 -28.3
As can be seen, the differences of grid GPR values are

negligible. However, the GPR of the grid is overestimated
when the surface crushed rock is not modeled and the GPR of
the grid is underestimated when the surface crushed rock is
modeled as an extensive layer.
The worst touch voltage is underestimated by 11.6% when
Figure 2. Plan view of grounding system. the surface crushed rock is not modeled, while the worst touch
voltage is overestimated by 3.9% when the surface crushed
The following four models were analyzed: rock is modeled as an extensive layer. The reason is that the
overall earth surface potentials are high when the surface
• No. 1: The grid is buried in the native soil and the crushed rock is not modeled (Model 2). The earth surface
surface crushed rock is modeled as a finite volume of potentials at the corner of the grid (starting from 10 m along
heterogeneous soil within the substation on top of the the X-axis) vary from 27,183 V to 32,068 V, which are close
native soil. to the grid GPR of 32,392 V in Model 2, as shown in Fig. 5.
• No. 2: The grid is buried in the native soil and the When the surface crushed rock is modeled as an extensive
surface crushed rock is not modeled, i.e., it is ignored. layer (Model 3), it brings the remote (zero) low potential
• No. 3: The grid is buried in the native soil and the closer to the edge of the grid and thus the overall earth surface
surface crushed rock is modeled as an extensive potential is much lower than the grid GPR of 31,391 V, as
(infinitely long and wide) thin layer on top of the shown in Fig. 6. The corner in particular has the lowest earth
native soil. surface potential of only 25,274 V. In the case where the
surface crushed rock is modeled as a finite volume of
• No. 4: The grid is buried in the native soil and the heterogeneous soil (Model 1), the earth surface potentials are
surface crushed rock is modeled as an oblate accurately computed and the effect of the surface crushed rock
hemispheroidal soil on top of the native soil as shown is correctly accounted for, as shown in Fig. 4. The earth
in Fig. 3. Note that the hemispheroidal soil extends surface potentials at the corner of the grid vary from 26,143V
outside of the substation to cover the edges of the grid. to 31,038 V. When the surface crushed rock is modeled as a
hemispheroidal soil (Model 4), the earth surface potentials at 31
the corner vary between 25,655 V to 30,623 V, as shown in So
Fig. 7. This is due to the extremely thin surface of crushed il
rock around the corner of the grid and extra circular Su 27
rfa
surrounding of surface crushed rock outside of the grid. The ce
overall touch voltages are similar to the case of a finite volume Po
23
model but are slightly higher at the edge. te

nti 19
Figs. 4 to 7 clearly show that the earth surface potentials al

(K
drop sharply resulting in an overestimated step voltage when V)
the surface crushed rock is not modeled. However, the step
15
0 12 24 36 48 60
voltage is underestimated, when the surface crushed rock is Distance along Profile
modeled as an extensive layer or as a hemispheroidal soil.
Figure 7. Potentials - Surface crushed rock modelled as a hemispheroidal
So 31
soil (Model 4).
il
Su IV. EFFECT OF ACCESS ZONE SURFACES
rfa 27
The construction of a high voltage substation usually
ce
Po consists of several phases. Because of this, the surface crushed
te 23 rock might not be installed throughout the substation area at
nti one time. Additionally, surfaces such as access roads, parking
al
(K
19 lots, access to oil containment ponds, and construction
V) laydown areas will be filled with finer traffic gravel and
15 limestone layers other than the crushed rock. In this situation,
the effects of different surface layers should be taken into
0 12 24 36 48 60
Distance along Profile

account in order to evaluate the grounding system accurately.
Figure 4. Potentials - Surface crushed rock as a finite volume soil (Model
1). A. Case Description and Computer Models
The grounding system in this example is the same as the
31
Soil Surface Potential (KV)
one described previously except that the 11 conductors are
equally spaced. The grounding system, temporary road,
27 parking and storage area are shown in Fig. 8.
23
19
15
0 12 24 36 48 60
Figure 5. Potentials - Surface crushed rock is not modeled (Model 2).
31
So
il
Su
Figure 8. Temporary road, parking and storarge area within the substation.
27
rf The soil around the temporary road and storage area is

ac
e 23
different from the rest of the soil in the substation site. The
Po cross section of the road, storage area and the substation soil is
te
19
shown in Fig. 9. The resistivity of the native soil in the
nt
ial
substation is 60 ohm-m. The substation soil has a 3,000 ohm-
m crushed rock with a thickness of 0.15 m over a clay layer of
15
0 12 24 36 48 60 0.3 m with a resistivity of 1,000 ohm-m. In the model, a
volume of 0.15 m is placed over the crushed rock layer to
Figure 6. Potentials - Surface crushed rock modelled as an extensive layer represent the air and is assigned a very high resistivity value to
(Model 3). insure that negligible currents flow in this volume and
Note that the computation of worst touch voltages depends therefore represent accurately the impact of air on the system.
The temporary road and storage area have been modeled as a
on many factors other than the soil structure. For example, the
120 ohm-m traffic gravel layer with a of thickness of 0.15 cm
size of the mesh and the resistivity and thickness of each soil
over a 200 ohm-m limestone sub base soil that is 0.45 m thick.
layer will affect the results when the native soil has a
horizontal multiplayer configuration [10]. Depending on The resistivities and thicknesses of the native soil, the
which model is chosen, the worst touch voltages can be backfill material, the road and parking and storage area
underestimated or overestimated in different scenarios. material are shown in Tables II and III.
V. EFFECT OF CONCRETE FLOORS OF GIS BUILDING
A. Case Description and Computer Models
There are some situations where the safety evaluation has
to be examined inside the building. One typical example is
depicted in Figs. 11 and 12.
Figure 9. Cross section of road and parking and storage area.

TABLE II. SOIL MODEL OF THE SUBSTATION
Layer Resistivity (Ω-m) Thickness (m)
Top (air) Very High 0.15
Middle 1 (crushed rock) 3000 0.15
Middle 2 (clay) 1000 0.3
Native Soil 60 Infinite
TABLE III. SOIL MODEL OF THE ROAD AND PARKING/STORAGE AREA Figure 11. Grounding system of GIS substation.
Layer Resistivity (Ω-m) Thickness (m)

Top (traffic gravel) 120 0.15
Middle (limestone sub base) 200 0.45
Native Soil 60 Infinite
For comparison purposes, a model with the native soil only

has been carried out as well.
The grid GPR and touch voltages corresponding to the Figure 12. Cross section configuration of the GIS building.
detailed finite volume soil and uniform native soil models are The building has GIS equipment on the second floor. The
shown in Table IV. It can be seen that the grid GPR obtained building includes structural steel and reinforced concrete.
using the finite volume soil model is slightly lower than that Touch and step voltages inside the building may be an issue
obtained using the uniform soil model. Touch voltages are since concrete cannot to be considered as an insulating
computed along the observation profile which crosses through
material. Unless it is treated with special chemicals, concrete
the temporary road, parking and storage area from left to right,
will absorb water from its surroundings or during normal
as shown in Fig. 8. Fig. 10 illustrates the computed touch
voltages. As expected, the low resistivity finite volumes raise maintenance and become substantially conductive. Therefore,
the potential and therefore reduce the touch voltages where it it is important to compute touch and step voltages and
is present. It can be seen that the touch voltages computed determine if there is a safety concern.
using the native uniform soil model are about 13% higher than
those computed using a finite volume soil model. In this model, the earth surface is specified as the surface
of the second floor where the GIS is located. An air layer of
TABLE IV. COMPUTATION RESULTS OF GPRS AND TOUCH VOLTAGES 2.3 m is modeled first to represent the air gap between the
Finite Volume Soil Model Native Soil Only
second floor and first floor. A relatively high resistivity value
is used for this air layer (it must be large compared with the
GPR (V) 2,793.1 2,860.3 resistivity of the concrete floor above and the earth below).
Touch Voltage
203.5 230.2 Beneath that is the native soil with a resistivity of 1,000 ohm-
at Point A (V) m. The concrete floors and the walls are assumed to be made
of a 30 ohm-m soil material, 0.6 m and 0.3 m thick
respectively. All floors and walls of the building have been
modeled as finite volumes. A finite volume of air can also be
modeled to represent the air gap between the first floor and the
basement although this is not necessary because the soil
within the basement floor is within an equipotential cage of
rebars. The grounding system is the same as the one described
in Fig. 8. A fault current of 10,000 amps is injected into the
grounding grid.
The computed GPR of the grid is 45,690 V. The surface
Figure 10. Touch voltages along the observation profile. potentials and touch voltages are computed over the three
floors of GIS building and the potentials and touch voltages VI. EFFECT OF WATER POND AND WET SOIL
along one profile crossing from left to right on three floors are Another interesting example of safety evaluations is the
plotted as shown in Figs. 13 and 14. Due to the low resistivity analysis of a grounding grid where a portion of the substation
of the concrete floors, the surface potentials are substantially area exhibits a small water pond or wet soil area. This
high and the touch voltages are lower on the concrete floors localized small low resistivity heterogeneity volume may have
than elsewhere outside the building. In this way, the touch a major influence on earth potentials, touch and step voltages
voltages can be determined accurately and thus overestimating at points within or near the heterogeneous soil volume.
safety concerns that lead to expensive mitigation measures can
be avoided. For comparison purposes, a model with a A. Case Description and Computer Models
multilayer soil has been studied as shown in Fig.15. A typical case is depicted in Figs. 16 and 17. The
grounding system is the same as the one depicted in Fig. 8.
Figure 16. Cross section of the grid with a water pomd or wet soil area.
A water pond or wet soil area with a resistivity of 10 ohm-

m is situated at the center of the grid. The resistivity of the
native soil in the substation is 1,000 ohm-m. We assume that
Figure 13. Potentials along the observation profile for all three floors. a current of 1,000 A is injected into the grounding grid. The
computation results are presented by comparing the following
three approaches:
• No. 1: The grid is buried in the native soil and the
water pond is modeled as an oblate hemispheroidal soil
immersed in the center of the native soil with radius of 15
m and depth of 0.4 m as shown in Fig. 17. This is an
analytical solution method.
• No. 2: The grid is buried in the native soil and the
water pond is modeled as a square finite volume 15 m by
15 m heterogeneous soil with a depth of 0.4 m immersed
in the center of the native soil as shown in Fig. 17 as well.
This is a numerical analysis method.
Figure 14. Touch voltages along the observation profile for all three floors. • No. 3: The grid is buried in the native soil and the
water pond is not modeled, i.e., it is ignored.
Figure 15. Cross section of the GIS building - multilayer model.
The top concrete floor only and all three concrete floors
have been modeled as extensive layers consisting of low
resistivity. It is important to point out that the multilayer
Figure 17. Plan view of the grid with water pond/wet soil.
model is a rough approximation of the reality. The GPR of the
grid is significantly reduced to 27,330 V when all three B. Computation Results
concrete floors are modeled and the GPR of the grid is The computation results of the grid GPR for the above
reduced to 41,170 V if only the top floor is modeled. This last three models are shown in the Table V.
model provides a better approximation. The touch voltages
can vary from 100 V to 500 V around the corner mesh area of TABLE V. COMPUTATION RESULTS OF GRID GPRS
the top floor. It is clear that the multilayer model cannot be No. 1 No. 2 No. 3
used in this type of grounding studies. The computation results
are either underestimated or overestimated. GPR (V) 3,707 3,704 3,711
As can be seen, the differences of grid GPR values are heterogeneous soil volume approach can be directly applied in
negligible, though the GPR of the grid is overestimated when similar practical applications to model heterogeneities close to
the water pond is not modeled. However, the computation lake and sea areas for example.
results have revealed a large fluctuation in the touch voltages,
step voltages, and earth surface potentials over the water pond VII. CONCLUTIONS
zone as shown in Figs. 18 to 20. The design of a substation grounding system that is
surrounded by a backfill material (finite volumes of soil) with
arbitrary resistivity values, such as thin layer of surface
crushed rock, temporary roads and storage areas, is
particularly complicated. The effects of such arbitrary finite
volumes of heterogeneous soil and backfill material have been
studied in this paper. The numerical solution of a boundary
element based method and the exact analytical solution for a
hemispheroidal soil model are used in the study. Computation
results for a realistic case are presented by comparing several
approaches. The analysis demonstrates that it is necessary to
model such arbitrary volumes accurately in order to determine
Figure 18. Touch voltages around the center zone. the grid GPR, touch and step voltages realistically and to
avoid unsafe or costly designs. These studies show how
modern simulation approaches can be used to analyze
complex grounding issues and produce accurate results. There
is a wide range of practical grounding system scenarios which
can be studied by using these advanced analysis methods.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Ma and F.P. Dawalibi, “Analysis of grounding systems in soils with
finite volumes of different resistivities,” IEEE/PES Transactions on
PWRD, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 596-602, April 2002.
[2] J. Ma, N. Mitskevitch, and F.P. Dawalibi, “Performance evaluation of
Figure 19. Step voltages around the center zone. grounding systems in soils with finite volumes of different
resistivities,” in Proc. The 62nd Annual Meeting of the American
Power Conference, Chicago, pp. 338-342 April 10-12, 2000.
[3] N. Mitskevitch, J. Ma, and F.P. Dawalibi, “Study of grounding system
safety aspects in the presence of finite heterogeneities,” in Proc. The
2000 IEEE IAS Workshop on Electrical Safety in Industry, New Delhi,
pp. 9-14 April 14-15, 2000.
[4] F. P. Dawalibi and N. Mitskevitch, "Analysis and validation of the
performance of grounding systems buried in soil structures containing
heterogeneous volumes," in Proc. The Third IASTED International
Conference on Power and Energy Systems, EuroPES 2003, Marbella,
Spain, pp. 700-705 Sept. 3-5, 2003.
[5] F. P. Dawalibi, N. Mitskevitch and S. Fortin, "Computation stability of
Figure 20. Surface potential around the center zone. grounding systems in soils contains heterogeneous volumes," in Proc.
The Seventh IASTED International Conference on Power and Energy
It can be seen from Fig. 20 that the low resistivity water Systems, Clearwater Beach, FL, USA, pp. 364-369, November 28 -
pond raises the potential in the center zone. The December 1, 2004.
hemispheroidal model and the square heterogeneous soil [6] J. Liu, R.D. Southey and F.P. Dawalibi, "Application of advanced
grounding design techniques to plant grounding systems," in Proc.
volume model produce correct touch voltages of about 200 V; IEEE/PES T&D 2005 Asia Pacific, Dalian, China, August 14 - 18,
while the touch voltages computed from the model with the 2005.
native soil only is overestimated and reaches a maximum [7] F. P. Dawalibi, N. Mitskevitch and G. Allard, "Grounding analysis of
value of about 320 V. This overestimated voltage may result large hydroelectric generating complex using soil structure containing
in unnecessary mitigation measures. As for the step voltages, heterogeneous volumes," in Proc. The 17th Conference of the Electric
Power Supply Industry (CEPSI), Macau, October 27 - 31, 2008.
it shows similar results to those obtained for touch voltages in
[8] F. P. Dawalibi, N. Mitskevitch and S. Fortin, “Analysis and validation
the center zone. However, the step voltages computed using of the performance of grounding systems buried in soil structures
the hemispheroidal model and the square finite volume containing heterogeneous volumes II," in Proc. The 17th Conference of
heterogeneous soil model present a sharp jump at the edge of the Electric Power Supply Industry (CEPSI), Macau, October 27 - 31,
the zone. This is again due to the low resistivity water pond 2008.
raising the potential in the center zone, while the earth [9] IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, IEEE Std. 80-
potentials outside of the center zone remain comparatively 2000.
lower, resulting in larger step voltages as shown in Fig. 19. [10] W. Ruan and J. Ma, “Effect of a thin layer of surface material in
grounding design," in Proc. The 15th CDEGS users’ group conference,
The overall computation results show clearly that a water New Orleans, June 20-24, 2005.
pond has a substantial effect on the touch and step voltages
around its zone. Both the hemispheroidal approach and square
21, rue d’Artois, F-75008 PARIS International Colloquium INSA LYON
http : //www.cigre.org
on Lightning and Power systems France
Electromagnetic Transients in a Building Struck by Lightning
F. GRANGE S. JOURNET S. FORTIN F.P. DAWALIBI

SES-EUROPE SES-EUROPE SESTech SESTech
FRANCE FRANCE CANADA CANADA
SUMMARY
Buildings are often exposed to lightning strikes. When this happens, very fast large
transient voltage stresses occur. In modern buildings, various kinds of extended electronic
and metallic networks exist. These different networks, having different paths inside a
building, can form loops that are dangerous from the point of view of magnetic induction.
After a nearby lightning stroke, the lightning current flowing in the down-conductors produces
overvoltages in these loops. Surge limiters can be destroyed and electronic equipment
(inside control rooms, for example), can be damaged.
The magnitude of these induced voltages depends on many parameters. Protection
against these harmful overvoltages can be optimized by a careful selection of the location of
the electrical installations and of the routing of cables, and also by the addition of shielding
conductors or by an appropriate layout of the conductors that are part of the construction of
the building.
This paper deals with induced transient voltages on electric circuits inside a protected
building due to direct lightning strikes. In order to gain a better understanding of the
mitigation measures required to prevent catastrophic damages, a model of a lightning strike
hitting the shielding structure of a building is analysed. Induced voltages on cables inside the
building are studied. The system analysed consists of a skeleton of the spatial grid-like shield
as well as a detailed model of the bonding of the metallic equipment. The maximum level of
expected transients and the efficiency of their attenuation by different bonding of the lightning
protection system (LPS) are evaluated.
The computations are performed using a full-wave solution of Maxwell’s equations
based on a moment method. The results are compared with those obtained by calculations
based on formulas presented IEC Standard 62305, with generally good agreement.
The effects of the bonding configuration on the transient induced voltages are
studied. It is shown that for a given loop area, the transient induced voltage increases when
the bonding length increases.
KEYWORDS
Direct strike, lightning-induced voltage, loop termination, transient analysis, bonding
francois.grange@sestech.fr
I. Introduction
During direct lightning strikes to the lightning protection system (LPS) of a building,
fast transient currents flow in the conductive elements of the LPS. There are two basic
mechanisms by which lightning may cause damages: conductive or radiating coupling. The
first is mainly due to a direct lightning stroke to the structure or surrounding installations. The
second is caused by magnetic and electric fields generated by the stroke in the space inside
and outside the building during lightning. The two mechanisms often appear simultaneously
and lead to combined effects.
Modern electronic devices are often interconnected to several service lines including
telecommunications cables. Thus, the electromagnetic fields induce voltage/current surges
into power and signal lines or loops constructed by conductive elements [1]. Voltages (Uoc)
and currents (Isc) induced into loop formed by these installations result in common mode
surges at the electronic system. These currents induce overvoltages on wires and cables
placed inside the protected volume that can cause serious hazards for the correct operation
of the connected electric and electronic devices [2]. For example, overvoltages can cause
resetting of microprocessor-based electronic systems, temporary disturbances, or internal
data corruption [3], [4]. The control of such electromagnetic interference has become one of
the dominant tasks of lightning protection [5]. Thus, the prediction of lightning-induced
overvoltages is a mandatory requirement for every EMC design of the installations inside the
stricken building.
This paper deals with induced transient voltages on electric circuits inside a protected
building due to direct lightning strikes. The maximum level of expected transients and the
efficiency of their attenuation by different configurations of the lightning protection system
(LPS) are evaluated by numerical modeling. The calculations are carried out with various
modules of the CDEGS software package [6]. The computation methodology is based on a
full-wave solution of Maxwell’s equations, allowing for an accurate determination of all
electromagnetic effects of lightning. A comparison with calculation results from the IEC
62305-4 standard is also performed for typical locations of electrical equipment [7].
This is a follow-up study to prior work that was performed to validate the numerical
magnetic field assessment for similar structures and conditions [8], [9].
II. Description of the system studied
a. Scenario examined
The system under study is shown in Figure 1 (a). It consists of a m

reinforced concrete building struck by lightning in one corner. In so far as the concrete itself
does not significantly contribute to the electromagnetic shielding of buildings, the model is
built as single layer steel cage only. Thus, an m mesh size structure simulates a part of the
lightning protection system as it is a common practice to use the existing reinforced concrete
for that purpose. Inside the building, a simple loop is located close to a down conductor. This
open-ended loop is identified in Figure 1, extending vertically along the wall. This loop is
intended to represent the cabling inside the building. The induced voltages across the
opening in the loop are evaluated.
The connected electrical device is taken into account as a resistive load located at the
loop termination inside the apparatus enclosure. To assess the induced transient voltages,
we model a short-circuited loop terminated by R = 1 kΩ. The electric equipment is usually
bonded by extra connections to ground via the rebar in the building’s walls and floors. To
investigate the effect of these interconnections, two different bonding configurations are
examined:
 a short bonding path to the rebar in the first floor (configuration ❶)
 a long bonding path to the wall rebar (configuration ❷)
1
Power line Apparatus Signal line
Bonding bar
Isc,Usc
st
1 floor
❶ floor connection ❷ wall connection
Ground floor
(a) (b)
Figure 1: (a) 3D conductor model, (b) Voltages and currents induced in a loop within a
building directly struck by lightning. (Taken from [7]).
The lightning waveforms considered in this study is a 200 kA, 10/350 µs stroke,
corresponding to the first short stroke LPL I defined in International Standard IEC 62305-1
[10]. The current waveshape of the first short stroke 10/350 s may be defined as follows:
( )
( )
(1)
( )
The parameters appearing in this equation are defined in Table 1.
Table 1 : Parameters for equation (1)

Parameter First short stroke LPL I
I (the peak current in kA) 200
k (the correction factor for the peak current) 0.93
t (the time in µs) from 0 to 5000 µs
τ1 (is the front time constant in µs) 19
τ2 (is the tail time constant in µs) 485
The 10/350 µs lightning waveform used is illustrated in Figure 2, which shows the
entire duration of the lightning stroke and a close-up of the first 100 µs of the waveform.
2
250 250
200 200
Current (kA)
Current (kA)
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 50 100
Time (µs) Time (µs)
(a) (b)
Figure 2 : IEC 62305-1 10 /350 µs lightning current waveform studied:
(a) Entire waveform and (b) First 100 µs.
b. Computer tools
The system described in the preceding section was modeled with the HIFREQ
computation module of the MultiFields software package (part of the CDEGS software [11]).
The FFTSES computation module of MultiFields was used to break down the lightning
waveform into its component frequencies (for each of which HIFREQ was run) then
reconstitute the time-domain response from the HIFREQ results. The computer model for the
frequency domain analysis includes a detailed metallic structure with actual dimensions. The
inductive, capacitive and conductive components of the field are included in the model. The
field theory approach used in the HIFREQ computation module is an extension to power
frequencies of the Moment Method used in antenna theory. By solving Maxwell’s
electromagnetic field equations, the method allows the computation of the current distribution
(as well as the charge or leakage current distribution) in a network consisting of both
aboveground and buried conductors with arbitrary orientations. The scalar potentials and
electromagnetic fields are thus obtained. The effect of a layered earth of arbitrary resistivity,
permittivity and permeability is taken into account by the use of the full Sommerfeld integrals
for the computation of the electromagnetic fields. The details of the methods are described in
[12] and its references.
c. Modeling details
While the HIFREQ module used in the analysis is capable of accounting correctly for
the presence of a soil with realistic electrical properties, the computations were performed
assuming a perfectly conducting earth to ease comparisons with published results. Since the
HIFREQ module does not natively offer a model for a perfect soil, this was implemented by
mirroring the entire system according to image theory.
The lightning channel in the model was represented by a constant current imposed
along the 100 m long channel and energized with the waveform shown in Figure 2. Since the
analysis is based on a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the lightning surge, it is important to
select the parameters of this transformation appropriately in order to correctly represent the
physical characteristics of the surge. In this study, as shown in Fig. 3, the analysis was
restricted to a time window T set to 5000 µs to ensure that the 10/350 µs lightning signal
decays to zero at about 5000 µs. This leads to a frequency resolution Δf of about 200 Hz.
The number of time samples in the FFT is set to (32768). This leads to a time resolution
16
Δt of 5000/2 = 0.0763 µs, which is sufficiently small to resolve the rise of the lightning
current accurately. The Nyquist frequency corresponding to these parameters is:
3
A total of about 30 000 frequencies were run, in order to faithfully reproduce the lightning
waveform and the impulse response of the system. Figure 3 shows the frequency samples
representing the lightning waveform.
50
40
Frequency spectrum (1/Hz)
30 REAL PART
20 IMAGINARY PART
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
0,0001 0,001 0,01 0,1 1 10
Frequency (MHz)
Figure 3 : Frequency samples of IEC 62305-1 10/350 µs lightning waveform studied.
Using an open-ended loop for measuring the induced voltage is, in principle, a correct
approach but it is sensitive to the combined effect of the magnetic induction and the
electrostatic potential difference between the two terminals. In some cases, the electrostatic
potential may be much higher than the value of the voltage induced by magnetic effect. This
makes it difficult to isolate the latter effect. In this study, the induced voltage in the loop was
monitored by closing the loop with a 1000 resistance and calculating the current flowing
through the resistance. This requires that the resistance be much higher than the impedance
of the loop, otherwise the results could be distorted.
III. Computation Results
This section summarizes the results of the computer modeling in terms of transient
induced voltages as a function of time and compares those results with analytical
calculations based on IEC 62305-4. The frequency response of the stricken steel structure is
shown only for configuration ❶.
a. Analytical calculations according to IEC 62305-4
The fundamentals for the calculation of magnetic fields, magnetic field derivatives and
induced voltages in case of a direct strike to a building with a grid-like electromagnetic shield
are given in Annex A of IEC 62305-4 [7].
( ) (2)
√
Table 2 : Parameters for equation (2)

Parameters Scenario examined
µ0 the magnetic permeability, in (Vs/Am);
4
b width of the loop, in (m) 2
l length of the loop, in (m) 2
dl/w distance of the loop from the wall of the shield, in (m) 3,9
dl/r the average distance of the loop from the roof of the shield, in (m); 3,5
kh the configuration factor, in (m-1/2); 0,01
w mesh width of the grid-like shield of LPZ 1, in (m); 2
imax peak value of the lightning impulse current, in (kA); 200 000
T1 front time of the lightning impulse current, in (µs); 10
Table 2 gives the definition of the parameters in Equation (2) and lists the particular
values used for the scenario examined in this work. For those parameters, the peak value of
the induced voltage is 222 V.
b. Frequency Response of System
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show the real and imaginary parts of the frequency response of the
current flowing through the resistance at the center of the steel structure struck by lightning
(Icc). Fig. 5 (a) shows the so-called unmodulated frequency response of the system
corresponding to a unit current energization of the stricken steel structure. Fig. 5 (b) shows
the so-called modulated frequency response of the structure obtained by multiplying the
unmodulated response with the lightning current frequency spectrum. In Figure 4 (b), it is
apparent that the energy of the lightning strike is mostly confined to relatively low
frequencies.
0,5 2,5
Real part
Modulated current (µA/Hz)
Unmodulated current (mA)
0,4 2,0 Real part

Imaginary part
0,3 1,5
Imaginary part
1,0
0,2
0,5
0,1 0,0
0,0 -0,5
-0,1 -1,0
-1,5
-0,2 -2,0
-0,3 -2,5
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Frequency (MHz) Frequency (MHz)
(a) (b)
Figure 4 : Frequency samples of (a) unmodulated and (b) modulated current response
In Figure 4 (b), it is apparent that the energy of the lightning strike is mostly confined
to relatively low frequencies.
The smooth curves of frequency response of the system exhibit a resonance behavior, with
the first peak located at 3.8 MHz. The wavelength in the air at this frequency is about 80 m,
which is four times the height of the structure.
c. Numerical calculations
In Figure 5, we present the calculated induced voltage in the studied loop for the two
bonding paths configurations.
5
1200
❷ Wall bonding bar

1000
Induced voltage (V) ❶ Floor bonding bar
800
600
400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (µs)
Figure 5: Induced voltages as a function of time
The maximum induced voltages across the loop termination load are about 365 V and 1140
V with configurations ❶ and ❷ respectively. We note that the configuration waveform
exhibits an oscillatory behavior with a time period about 0.26 µs. The frequency of the
oscillations, which is about 3.8 MHz corresponds to the resonance frequency of the structure
under study.
One can note that for configuration ❶ (which corresponds to the example treated in the IEC
standard), the computed induced voltages by about 40 % from the values shown in the
standard. It is important to note that equations from the standard are only valid if the distance
from the point considered or from the cable routing to the wall or the roof is at least one mesh
width of the electromagnetic shield. In the case under study, this condition is respected
except for the presence of the first floor.
IV. Conclusions
A detailed model of a building struck by lightning was built and analyzed to investigate
the extent of the induced voltages on cables located inside the building and the shielding
effects of the rebar in the walls, floors and roof of the building. The computation results were
compared against analytical calculations based on the IEC 62305-4 Standard, with generally
good agreement.
We have shown that a 70% reduction in the level of induced voltages can be
achieved by appropriately choosing the bonding path of the cables. The results are helpful in
locating critical positions of circuits and devices within the volume protected by a lightning
protection system. This study has illustrated how the transient induced voltage varies as a
function of time during a lightning strike to the top of a steel structure.
In further work, the transient induced voltages will be studied as a function of the
lightning wave form, soil resistivity and extent of the grounding system.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] W. Hadrian, “Research into the electromagnetic disturbances caused by lightning in

buildings,” in Proc. 4th Int. Wrocław Symp. Electromagn. Compat., Poland, 1978, pp. 511–
519.
6
[2] A. Orlandi and F. Schietroma, “Attenuation by a lightning protection system of induced
voltages due to direct strikes to a building,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 38, no.
1, pp. 43–50, Feb. 1996.
[3] I. A. Metwally and F. Heidler, “Computation of Transient Overvoltages in Low-Voltage
Installations During Direct Strikes to Different Lightning Protection Systems”, IEEE
transactions on electromagnetic compatibility, vol. 49, no. 3, August 2007
[4] I. A. Metwally, F. Heidler, and W. Zischank, “Magnetic fields and loop voltages inside
reduced- and full-scale structures produced by direct lightning strikes,” IEEE Trans.
Electromagn. Compat., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 414– 426, May 2006.
[5] Orlandi, A.; Mazzetti, C.; Flisowski, Z. and Yarmarkin, M., “Systematic Approach for the
Analysis of the Electromagnetic Environment Inside a Building During Lightning Strike”, IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, v.40, n.4, pp. 521-34, November 1998.
[6] F. P. Dawalibi and F. Donoso, Integrated Analysis Software for Grounding, EMF, and
EMI, IEEE Computer Applications in Power, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1993, 19-24.
[7] Protection against lightning electromagnetic impulse (LEMP). Part 4: Electrical and
electronic systems within structures, IEC Standard 62305-4, (Ed. 1, 2006-01, 2006).
[8] Grange, F.; Journet, S.; Fortin, S.; Dawalibi, F.P. “Analysis of grounding grids influence
on lightning generated magnetic field”, Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC EUROPE), 2013
International Symposium on, 2013,
[9] Grange, F.; Journet, S.; Fortin, S.; Dawalibi, F.P. “Analysis of grounding grids influence
on lightning generated magnetic field”, Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC EUROPE), 2013
International Symposium on, 2013,
[10] Protection against lightning electromagnetic impulse (LEMP). Part 1: General Principles,
IEC Standard 62305-1, (Ed. 1, 2006-01, 2006).
[11] CDEGS Software Package, 2010, Safe Engineering Services & technologies ltd.,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Version 14, December 2010.
[12] S. Fortin, F. P. Dawalibi, J. Ma, and W. Ruan, "Effects of AC Power Line Configuration
and Current Unbalance on Electromagnetic Fields", Proceedings of The 57th American
Power Conference, Chicago, pp. 170-175, April 1995.
7
17ème Colloque International et Exposition sur la Compatibilité ÉlectroMagnétique (CEM 2014)
CONCEPTION D’UN SYSTEME DE MISE A LA TERRE D’UN PARC

EOLIEN A L’AIDE DE METHODES ET TECHNIQUES DE SIMULATION
INTEGREES
S. Journet1, F. Grange1, S.Fortin2, F. Dawalibi2
1
SES-EUROPE, Vienne, France, sebastien.journet@sestech.fr
1
SES-EUROPE, Vienne, France, francois.grange@sestech.fr
2
Safe Engineering Services & technologies Ltd., Laval, Québec Canada, simon.fortin@sestech.com
2
Safe Engineering Services & technologies Ltd., Laval, Québec Canada, Farid.Dawalibi@sestech.com
Résumé : La conception d’un système de Mise À La sur la conception d’un réseau de terre d’un parc éolien,
Terre (MALT) d’un parc éolien incluant le poste c’est pourquoi nous proposons ici une méthodologie pas à
électrique et les génératrices des éoliennes nécessite une pas [1]-[2].
approche globale. Alors que, bien souvent, la littérature Premièrement, les mesures de résistivité du sol
s’intéresse uniquement à la forme géométrique des constituent la base d’une étude de mise à la terre et sont
prises de terre des éoliennes pour réduire les tensions de d’une importance capitale. Un système de parc éolien
toucher et de pas, nous présentons dans cette article une couvre généralement une superficie importante et les
méthodologie de conception d’un système de MALT systèmes de MALT nécessaires doivent non seulement
d’un parc éolien en utilisant de puissantes méthodes de être dimensionnés au niveau du poste mais aussi au
simulation et les techniques de conception appropriées. niveau de chaque éolienne. En conséquence, un grand
Cette méthodologie est ici également confrontée à une nombre de mesures de résistivité du sol doivent être
approche simpliste consistant à ignorer l’influence des réalisées au niveau du poste mais aussi au niveau de
différents modèles de sol sur la distribution du courant chaque éolienne.
de défaut. Ces travaux incluent les mesures de résistivité Deuxièmement, les niveaux de tension de
du sol réalisées sur site, le calcul de la distribution du toucher et de pas d’un système de MALT étant
courant de défaut, la conception du système de MALT directement proportionnels au courant de défaut déchargé
au niveau des éoliennes, l’évaluation des critères de dans ce réseau de terre, nous étudions la distribution du
sécurité du système de MALT et enfin la mesure de la courant de défaut. Dans un système de parc éolien, le
résistance de terre. Cet article illustre notamment défaut peut survenir dans le poste électrique mais aussi au
l’importance de l’utilisation d’un modèle de sol niveau de chaque éolienne. Il y a de larges transferts de
multicouche. potentiel au niveau des éoliennes lorsqu’un défaut se
produit dans le poste électrique. De même, il existe
Mots clés : parc éolien, mise à la terre, sécurité, champs d’importants potentiels transférés au niveau du poste et à
électromagnétiques. proximité des éoliennes lorsqu’un défaut se produit au
niveau d’une éolienne. Par conséquent, des simulations
de panne à différents endroits doivent être analysées afin
I. INTRODUCTION de déterminer la performance du système de mise à la
Un principe de conception globale du système de mise terre du poste électrique et des éoliennes. Cela conduit
à la terre d’un parc éolien doit être systématiquement ainsi au dimensionnement initial de la prise de terre
appliqué pour fournir un système de MALT adéquat et Finalement, l’hypothèse d’un système
répondre à des critères spécifiques en ce qui concerne la équipotentiel n’est généralement pas valide pour le calcul
sécurité des personnes et l’intégrité des équipements en cas des performances d’un système de MALT en raison de
d’un défaut phase-terre ou lors d’un impact foudre sur le l’étendue d’un système de parc éolien et des
poste électrique et sur les éoliennes. La conception d’un interconnexions entre les éoliennes. Par conséquent, des
réseau de terre se compose généralement de quatre grandes outils de simulations sophistiqués doivent être utilisés
étapes : pour évaluer les critères de sécurité. Pour les mêmes
• l’interprétation des mesures de résistivité du sol, raisons, la méthode traditionnelle de mesure et d’analyse
• l’analyse de la distribution du courant de défaut, d’une seule valeur de résistance de terre n’est pas
• le dimensionnement des prises de terre appropriée pour caractériser le système en entier.
• l’évaluation des critères de sécurité. Cet article décrit un cas concret de conception d’un
Cependant, par rapport à la conception d’un système de système de MALT d’un parc éolien situé sur le territoire
MALT d’un poste électrique ou d’une centrale électrique, la français. Les méthodes et techniques de simulation
conception d’un réseau de terre d’un parc éolien présente utilisées dans cette étude sont décrites dans cet article [3].
quelques défis supplémentaires. Il existe peu de littérature La conception est basée sur les critères de sécurité prévus
par la norme NF EN 50 522 et la norme IEC 60479 – 1 [4]- source via les blindages, câbles de garde,
[5]. Nous nous attachons à démontrer la nécessité d’utiliser etc…
un modèle de sol multicouche en comparant nos résultats à • MALT: Analyse basse fréquence des
ceux produits en considérant un modèle de sol uniforme. réseaux de terre. – ce module analyse dans
le domaine fréquentiel les performances
d’un réseau de conducteurs enterrés et
II. DESCRIPTION DU SYSTEME
calcule les quantités suivantes : l’élévation
Dans ce chapitre nous décrivons le système de parc éolien de potentiel au niveau du sol et des
étudié. Il se compose d’un poste de livraison 20kV et de conducteurs, la distribution du courant de
sept génératrices éoliennes. Ce parc éolien fournissant une fuite le long des conducteurs.
tension de 20kV est connecté au réseau de distribution • HIFREQ: Analyse des champs
d’ERDF. Toutes les prises de terre des éoliennes sont électromagnétiques – il s’agit d’un module
interconnectées par un conducteur de cuivre enterré de d’ingénierie qui peut résoudre n’importe
section 50 mm². La Fig. 1 montre une vue en plan du parc quel problème électromagnétique
éolien étudié. Cette configuration est modélisée par la suite impliquant un réseau de conducteurs aériens
logicielle CDEGS qui peut résoudre n’importe quel et enterrés orientés arbitrairement et
problème électromagnétique impliquant un réseau de câbles alimentés par un certain nombre de source
et de conducteurs aériens ou enterrés avec une orientation de tension et de courant.
arbitraire, alimentés par des sources de courant et de L’évaluation des tensions de toucher et de pas est
tension [6]. Le modèle numérique montré en Fig. 1 est une méthode de mesure et d’analyse du système de mise
constitué des éléments suivants : à la terre qui indique le risque de blessure ou de décès
- les prises de terre de chaque éolienne (voir Fig. suite à un courant de défaut circulant dans le réseau de
4), terre. Il est basé sur la différence de potentiel entre deux
- des sources de courant représentant les défauts de points distants de un mètre et situés à la surface du sol ou
chaque génératrice des éoliennes, entre le sol et une partie conductrice accessible. Dans
- le conducteur de cuivre de 50mm² cette étude, les tensions de toucher et de pas sont
interconnectant les éoliennes. analysées pour permettre de répondre aux critères de
sécurité.
Eoliennes
IV. MESURES DE LA RESISTIVITE DU SOL ET
INTERPRETATION
Dans ce chapitre nous décrivons et interprétons
les mesures de résistivité du sol menées à chaque
emplacement d’éolienne. Au total, 140 mesures ont été
réalisées pour l’ensemble du parc éolien. Les mesures ont
Liaisons inter-éoliennes été réalisées selon la méthode de Wenner.
Fig. 1. Exemple de modélisation d’un parc éolien Cette étape a pour objectif d’aboutir, à partir des
mesures de résistivité apparentes, à un modèle de sol
représentatif de la réalité. Pour cela plusieurs méthodes
III. MODELISATION sont disponibles :
- l’approche analytique,
Une approche par modélisation numérique est utilisée
- l’approche numérique.
pour déterminer les besoins de protection. Elle est réalisée
Nous allons ici nous intéresser à la comparaison des
avec la suite logicielle CDEGS.
résultats pour une même éolienne mais à partir de
La fonction principale de ce logiciel est d’analyser les
structures de sol différentes :
problèmes liés à la mise à la terre, les champs
- un modèle de sol uniforme déterminé par le
électromagnétiques ainsi que les interférences
guide IEEE 80-2000 [7],
électromagnétiques. Les modules suivants, inclus dans cette
- un modèle de sol multicouche, déterminé par le
suite, sont utilisés :
module RESAP.
• RESAP: Analyse de la Résistivité du Sol – il
est utilisé afin de déterminer une structure de
modèle de sol équivalent à partir des mesures
de résistivité du sol.
• FCDIST : Analyse de la répartition du courant
de défaut – il est utilisé afin de déterminer la
part du courant s’écoulant dans la prise de
terre et la part du courant retournant à sa
Tableau 1 Mesures de résistivité du sol de l’éolienne
Un modèle de sol à quatre couches a été déterminé.
Espacement entre 0,1 0,3 0,5 0,7
les électrodes (m)
Résistivité (Ω.m) 544,3 1118,8 749,5 807,5 V. MESURES ET ANALYSE DES PRISES DE
Espacement entre 1 3 5 7 TERRE
les électrodes (m) Dans ce chapitre un modèle de prise de terre
Résistivité (Ω.m) 931,3 2125,2 3369,3 3469,7 d’une éolienne a été initialement conçu à l’aide du
Espacement entre 10 20 module MALT. Les résistances de terre de l’éolienne ont
les électrodes (m) ainsi pu être calculées à partir des modèles de sol obtenus
Résistivité (Ω.m) 3433,7 2921,7 précédemment. Ces valeurs sont listées dans la Tableau 3
et comparées avec les mesures réalisées sur le terrain.
IV.1. Modèle de sol Uniforme
Tableau 3. Résistance des prises de terre de l’éolienne à
Un modèle de sol uniforme est déterminé selon la 50Hz
formule suivante :
Modèle de sol Modèle de sol
+
+ + ⋯ + Mesures
(R en Ω)
ρ = (1) Eolienne Uniforme Multicouche
(R en Ω) (R en Ω)
E1 39,6 49,0 50,5
où ,
, , : sont les mesures de résistivité
Erreur
apparente obtenues pour différents espacements entre 21,5 % 3% NA
relative
électrodes et est le nombre total des mesures.
Le modèle de sol uniforme obtenue via les mesures Il en résulte une très bonne concordance avec le
présentées dans le Tableau 1 affiche une résistivité modèle multicouche. Cela illustre la meilleure
moyenne de 1947,1 Ω.m.
représentativité d’un modèle de sol plus complexe. Aussi
nous pouvons retrouver dans la littérature qu’un modèle
de sol multicouche est généralement plus représentatif de
IV.2. Modèle de sol Multicouche la structure réelle du sol [8].
Un modèle de sol Multicouche est obtenu par le module
RESAP à partir des mesures présentées dans le Tableau 1. VI. ANALYSE DE LA DISTRIBUTION DU
Metric/Logarithmic X and Y LEGEND
COURANT DE DEFAUT
10 5
Selon les calculs de court-circuit communément Measured Data

Computed Results Curve
Soil Model
pratiqués pour ce type d’installation par les bureaux

Measurement Method..:
RMS error...........:
Wenner
14.9%
10 4
d’étude spécialisés, la valeur du courant de défaut phase
Layer
Number
Resistivity
(Ohm-m)
Thickness
(Meters)
====== ============== ==============
terre pour cette éolienne est de 816 A. Air

2
Infinite
652.0106
Infinite
0.8361782
Apparent Resistivity (Ohm-meters)
3 2003.297 0.2083489
Dans ce chapitre deux approches sont utilisées afin

4
5
10605.13
1985.725
2.972965
Infinite
10 3
de déterminer le courant réellement injecté dans la grille
de terre de l’éolienne :
- une approche analytique afin de poursuivre
10 2
l’analyse avec un sol uniforme,
10 -2 - une approche numérique.
10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 RESAP <A6_AXE_B >
Inter-Electrode Spacing (meters)

L’approche analytique est basée sur la
Fig. 2. Modèle de sol obtenu à l’aide du module RESAP détermination d’un coefficient de réduction selon la
norme NF EN 50522. Ce coefficient quantifie la partie du
Les points bleus représentent les mesures de résistivité courant qui retourne à sa source via le blindage des
apparente du sol. La courbe verte représente les valeurs de câbles, câbles de gardes, etc… Il est choisi égal à 0,2
résistivités apparentes calculées par le programme. La conformément à la norme NF EN 50522.
courbe rose représente le modèle de sol déterminé par le
programme. L’approche numérique permet de traiter
différents scénarios de panne au niveau du poste
Tableau 2: Modèle de sol équivalent de l’éolienne électrique mais aussi de chaque éolienne. Dans le chapitre
Couche Résistivité (Ω.m) Epaisseur (m)
précédent, nous avons précisé que les éoliennes sont
électriquement interconnectées entre elles via un
1 652,0 0,8 conducteur de cuivre nu de 50 mm² cheminant en pleine
2 2003,3 0,2 terre. Si un défaut se produit sur une éolienne, ce
3 10605,1 3,0 conducteur va participer à la distribution du courant de
4 1985,7 ∞ défaut qui va ensuite se répartir dans toutes les prises de
terre des éoliennes. En effet, l’éolienne est soumise à une Modèle de sol Tension de toucher Tension de pas
élévation de potentiel de terre causée par un défaut phase- Uniforme 630,7 V 1809,7 V
terre pouvant provenir non seulement du poste électrique, Multicouche 565,5 V 1548,8 V
mais également de n’importe quelle éolienne (Fig. 3).
a) Tension de toucher pour le modèle de sol
uniforme
Single-Electrode/Touch Voltages/Worst Spherical [ID:fondation_prisedeter]
LEGEND
10
Maximum Value : 1075.970
1075.97
5 968.94
861.91
Y AXIS (METERS)
754.88
Fig. 3. Schéma de principe de la répartition du courant de 0
647.85
défaut. 540.82
433.80
-5
Cette élévation de potentiel sera déterminée en 326.77
219.74
modélisant le réseau global du parc éolien (voir Fig. 1). 112.71
-10
Pour chaque scénario de défaut sur une éolienne, nous -10 -5 0 5 10
relevons l’élévation de potentiel de la prise de terre de X AXIS (METERS)
chaque éolienne. Finalement, nous retiendrons la valeur
maximale d’élévation de potentiel au niveau de chaque Fig. 5. Distribution de la tension de toucher au niveau de
prise de terre des éoliennes pour ensuite effectuer l’analyse la prise de terre d’une éolienne – modèle de sol uniforme
des critères de sécurité sur chacune d’entre elles.
La Fig. 5 présente la distribution de la tension de
toucher à 1 m de toute structure métallique pour un
VII. EVALUATION DES CRITERES DE SECURITE modèle de sol uniforme. La tension de toucher maximale
est de 1076 V, elle est supérieure à la limite seuil de
Dans ce chapitre nous évaluons les critères de
630,7 V (Tableau 4).
sécurité des prises de terre conçues en utilisant les
fondations en béton armé au niveau de chaque éolienne, b) Tension de pas pour le modèle de sol uniforme
conformément à la norme NF EN 50522. Single-Electrode/Step Voltages (Spherical)/Worst Spherical [ID:f ondation_prisedeter]
LEGEND
Les tensions de toucher et de pas sont calculées et 12.5
comparées aux valeurs limites pour chaque modèle de sol Minimum Value : 2.145
368.78
préalablement déterminé. 7.5
332.11
295.45
2.5
Y AXIS (METERS)
258.79
222.12
-2.5 185.46
148.80
-7.5 112.13
75.47
38.81
-12.5
-12.5 -7.5 -2.5 2.5 7.5 12.5
X AXIS (METERS)
Step Voltage-Worst Magnitude (Volts)
Fig. 6. Distribution de la tension de pas au niveau de la

prise de terre d’une éolienne – modèle de sol uniforme
La Fig. 6 présente la distribution de la tension de pas
Fig. 4. Prise de terre d’une éolienne pour un espacement de 1 m entre les deux pieds. La
tension de pas maximale est de 368,8 V, elle est
Deux modèles de sol ont été déterminés dans les
inférieure à la limite seuil de 1809,7 V (Tableau 4).
paragraphes précédents. Pour chaque modèle de sol, des
valeurs limites sont déterminées selon la norme IEC 60479-
1 en considérant les hypothèses suivantes:
- parcours du courant main pied,
- probabilité de fibrillation ventriculaire de 5%,
- couche surfacique d’asphalte ou de gravier non
pris en compte,
- durée du courant de défaut égale à 0,3s.
Les valeurs limites, en condition sèche, sont présentées
dans le Tableau 4.
Tableau 4 : Valeurs limites de tension de toucher et de pas
c) Tension de toucher pour le modèle de sol l’équation du paragraphe IV.1. Il est difficile de
multicouche développer un modèle de sol uniforme lorsque la
résistivité du sol varie. Deuxièmement, une analyse de la
Single-Electrode/Touch Voltages/Worst Spherical [ID:fondation_prisedeter]
10
LEGEND répartition du courant de défaut doit être réalisée en
Minimum Value : 1.227 considérant le modèle de sol local au niveau de chaque
253.08 éolienne. Sans cette analyse, la valeur du courant de
5 227.89
202.71
défaut peut être soit surestimée soit sous-estimée. Le
courant de défaut étant directement proportionnel à
Y AXIS (METERS)
177.52
0
152.34
l’élévation du potentiel de terre, les tensions de toucher et
127.15
101.97
de pas le sont également. C’est pourquoi les méthodes
-5
76.78 discutées dans cet article sont précises et réalistes et
51.60
26.41
peuvent être utilisées comme référence pour la
-10 conception d'un réseau de terre d’un vaste parc éolien,
-10 -5 0 5 10
X AXIS (METERS) afin de proposer un dimensionnement de réseau de terre
efficace et économique.
Fig. 7. Distribution de la tension de toucher au niveau de la
prise de terre d’une éolienne – modèle de sol multicouche
REFERENCES
La Fig. 7 présente la distribution de la tension de
toucher à 1 m de toute structure métallique pour un modèle [1] A. Esmaeilian, A.A. Shayegani Akmal, " Wind Farm
de sol multicouche. La tension de toucher maximale est de Grounding Systems Design Regarding the Maximum
253,1 V, elle est inférieure à la limite seuil de 565,5 V Permissible Touch & Step Voltage ", IEEE
(Tableau 4). Environment and Electrical Engineering (EEEIC),
2012 11th International Conference on, pp. 74-79,
d) Tension de pas pour le modèle de sol multicouche
May 2012
[2] H. Kazemi Karegar,"New Wind Turbine Grounding
Single-Electrode/Step Voltages (Spherical)/Worst Spherical [ID:fondation_prisedeter]
LEGEND
12.5
Minimum Value : 2.052 System to Reduce Step & Touch Voltage”, Power
7.5 59.97 and Energy (PECon), 2010 IEEE International
54.18
Conference on, pp. 168-171, December 2010
48.38
2.5
[3] Liu, J. ; Dawalibi, F.P., “Wind Turbine Farm
Y AXIS (METERS)
42.59
36.80
Network Grounding Design Using Integrated
-2.5 31.01
25.22
Simulation Methods and Techniques”, Future Power
-7.5
19.43 and Energy Engineering (ICFPEE), 2010
13.64 International Conference on, Pages: 99 -102
7.84
-12.5
-12.5 -7.5 -2.5 2.5 7.5 12.5
[4] NF EN 50 522, "Prise de terre des installations
X AXIS (METERS) électriques en courant alternatif de puissance
Step Voltage-W orst Magnitude (Volts)
supérieure à 1kV"
Fig. 8. Distribution de la tension de pas au niveau de la [5] IEEE/TS 60479-1, Effets du courant sur l’homme et
prise de terre d’une éolienne – modèle de sol uniforme les animaux domestiques – Partie 1 : Aspects
La Fig. 8 présente la distribution de la tension de pas généraux.
pour un espacement de 1 m entre les deux pieds. La tension [6] CDEGS and MultiFields Software Package, Safe
de pas maximale est de 60,0 V, elle est inférieure à la limite Engineering Services & technologies ltd., Montreal,
seuil de 1548,8 V (Tableau 4). Quebec, Canada, 2009.
[7] IEEE Std 80-2000, Guide for Safety in AC
Substation Grounding.
VIII. CONCLUSION [8] J. M. Whelan, B. Hanratty, E. Morgan, “Earth
Resistivity in Ireland”, CDEGS Users’ Group
Deux approches ont été utilisées pour effectuer une
Meeting Conference Proceedings, Montreal, pp.155-
analyse des prises de terre des éoliennes. Une méthode
intégrant un sol uniforme avec détermination du courant de 165, June 2010.
défaut selon la norme NF EN 50522 et une autre méthode
utilisant des techniques avancées afin d’effectuer une
analyse efficace et réaliste des systèmes de mise à la terre
d'un vaste réseau de parc éolien constitué d’un poste
électrique, des éoliennes et des liaisons souterraines. Nous
avons pu démontrer que les résultats diffèrent largement au
niveau des critères de sécurité en fonction de l’approche.
Premièrement, la majorité des sols ne répondent à
A new methodology of cranes modeling for ITER
grounding safety assessment
F. GRANGE1, T. GOURDAN2, P. BLASQUEZ2, D. LESCHI2, F.P. DAWALIBI3
1
SES-EUROPE, Vienne, FRANCE, francois.grange@sestech.fr
2
EGIS, Lyon, FRANCE, thomas.gourdan@egis.fr, pascal.blasquez@egis.fr, didier.leschi@egis.fr
3
Safe Engineering Services & Technologies Ltd, LAVAL, farid.dawalibi@sestech.com
Abstract—The ongoing international demonstration project most advanced experimental Tokamak designed so far. This
(ITER) will be located on a 1200 m long and 800 m wide platform fusion facility was designed to produce 500 MW of thermal
belonging to an even larger site including neighboring areas to power for 50 MW of input power, or ten times the amount of
the site boundary fences. This whole complex requires a full energy injected into the Tokamak. A top bird eye view of the
grounding system which constitutes an electrically large overall plant is shown in Figure 1.
grounding grid. Due to the long construction time, a particular
attention is required to deal with safety problems during the
different phases. Safety of persons in contact with the cranes
during a fault is a major concern and must be prevented by
adequate grounding mitigation measures. This paper describes a
new methodology of touch voltage assessment under a crane due
to the ground potential rises and the current distribution in
metallic structures during a substation fault. This paper focuses
on the 50 Hz analysis and related safety aspects.
Index Terms—Grounding, earthing, safety, touch voltage,

human body, CDEGS, crane, ITER
I. INTRODUCTION
The design of the ground electrode - its size, shape and
disposition - is critically important, not only for producing
sufficiently low impedance but also for controlling the shape of
the electric field on the ground surface. Figure 1: The ITER site
A low impedance path to earth is required to conduct short A previous calculation report was produced to define ITER
circuit currents into the soil. This grounding system has to be a platform grounding design to ensure people’s safety and
metallic network that provides a low impedance connection property within the platform in accordance with these
between all objects and a good distributed contact with the soil. principles. The grounding analysis regarding safety inside the
It must be able to conduct all possible fault currents while grounding grid area has already been carried out using the
avoiding dangerous touch voltages and excessive currents and grounding analysis software described in [2].
potentials on cables connecting remote objects.
For this previous study, the model was restricted to the
In general, any grounding system needs to satisfy the ITER platform. Thus, for workers’ safety and to ensure
following requirements: acceptable plant operation, a complementary analysis that
includes the whole ITER site was required. The main objective
• Safety: the grounding system must conduct was to perform the detailed grounding analysis taking into
lightning and short-circuit currents without account step voltage and touch voltage inside and outside the
introducing unsafe step-voltage and touch- ITER platform during 400kV phase to earth fault. Engineering
voltages, analysis of grounding systems set up on ITER site is carried
• Equipment protection and functionality: the out according to results of normative computational methods
grounding system must protect electronic devices using the CDEGS software tool.
by providing a low impedance path to discharge This paper deals with the specific cases of tower cranes on
currents to earth. Proper cable routing, zoning and the ITER platform for which touch voltage risks can occur for
shielding are important aspects and serve the workers in contact with the lifting hooks. Thus, transferred
purpose of preventing sources of disturbance from voltage, which is a special case of the touch voltage where a
interfering with the operation of electrical voltage is transferred into or out of the substation, from or to a
equipment. remote point external to the substation site, might be dangerous
ITER [1], is an ongoing international research and [3]-[5]. The importance of the problem results from the very
engineering project which is currently building the largest and high magnitude of potential difference.
In this paper we propose a full methodology to take into
account the safety related issues for such cases of transferred
potentials.
The main objective here is to fulfill the safety requirements
according to the expected precision level.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDIED SYSTEM
A. Preliminary studies
This first study consisted in analyzing the behavior of the
site grounding network in case of phase to ground fault on the
400kV power system.
The modeled grounding networks were the following:
• RTE substation and 2 pylons of the 400kV line
• 15kV site loop and its load centers
• LV networks connected to buildings and 15kV loop Figure 2: Overview of the CDEGS model for the 2016 site situation
• Site fences
Up to 22 cranes will be set up for ITER construction. As
• Buildings grounding conductors and site meshed cranes with the largest radius will present the highest risks and
grounding grid for different construction phases several situations (close to the ITER grounding grid, far away
from it or completely on it) have to be taken into account, a
The different site situations, according to construction selection of representative cranes has been done for the touch
phases, for which the computations were carried out, are the voltages safety study.
following:
• Substation study: RTE substation and 2 pylons
• 2013 site situation: RTE substation plus constructed
buildings and networks outside the ITER platform
• 2016 site situation: ITER platform connected to the
RTE substation and partially meshed
• Final situation: ITER platform fully constructed and
meshed
Only one scenario is studied for the computations

comparison for crane related risks, namely the 2016
configuration
B. Description of the system
This model includes the following items: Figure 3: Selected cranes for the touch voltages calculations
• Local grounding systems Figure 3 zooms to the area of Figure 1 framed by a blue
• Buried conductive parts line.
• Electrical connections between equipment / For the comparison of touch voltage computation
buildings methodologies, the TB3-C2 and TB3-C8 cranes have been
• Simplified cranes grounding system selected due to their sensitive dimensions and to their positions
on the ITER platform site.
The 2016 site situation model is shown in Figure 2. C. Computational approach
A computational approach is used to validate the protection
recommendations by numerical simulations carried out with
the MultiGroundZ and MultiFields software package that are
part of the CDEGS suite of software packages.
The purpose of these software packages is to analyze
problems involving grounding, electromagnetic fields and
electromagnetic interferences.
The following computation modules that are included in the
software packages were used:
• RESAP: Soil Resistivity Analysis - it is normally B. Calculation of safety thresholds
used to determine equivalent grounding structure We can now generate allowable touch voltages limits for
models based on measured soil resistivity data. the natural soil layer resistivity. The tolerable touch voltages
• MALZ: Frequency Domain Grounding / computed with CDEGS software according to IEEE Std. 80-
Grounding Analysis - it analyzes the frequency 2000 are presented in the following table.
domain performance of buried conductor networks
TABLE I. ALLOWABLE TOUCH VOLTAGE LIMITS FOR NATURAL SOIL
and calculates the following quantities: earth and SURFACE LAYER
conductor potentials, longitudinal and leakage
current distribution in the conductors, as well as Considered sub- Touch voltage
Resistivity (Ω-m)
surface layer threshold Etouch_50
magnetic fields in the air.
Natural soil 144 381,8 V
• HIFREQ: Electromagnetic Fields Analysis – these
computation module analyses accurately IV. TOUCH VOLTAGES COMPUTATIONS UNDER THE HOOK
electromagnetic problems involving a network of
Safety values, grid impedance and ground potential rise are
arbitrarily oriented aboveground and buried
numerically computed by the CDEGS software in order to
conductors energized by an arbitrary number of
determine touch voltage values and risks for workers.
current and voltage sources.
The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the maximal
Step and touch voltage calculation is a method of ground
touch voltage occurring for cranes worker which may be in
system measurement and analysis that indicates the risk of
contact with the lifting hook during a fault in the Prionnet
injury or death from electrical fault currents flowing into
substation. Indeed, as the lifting hook will be at the crane tower
electrical grounds. It is based on determining the potential
potential, a dangerous touch voltage may then occur between
difference across a distance equal to 1 step (one meter), or
the worker hand and its feet on the ground.
between the feet and accessible conductive objects that can be
touched. A. Using the MultiGroundZ software package (MALZ
For that study, only the touch voltages are studied for crane module)
workers as the crane conductor is located inside the In MultiGroundZ, since conductors have to be modeled
equipotential crane structure. below ground, the aerial part is ignored.
D. Maximum fault current 1) Cranes modeling
During typical ground fault conditions, current flowing to The evaluated risk concerns a worker subject to touch
the earth will produce potential gradients within and around the voltages as he handles the crane hook and stands on the local
substation. Fault input data are then essential in order to soil potential. The potential difference can then endanger that
calculate current distribution and potential gradients along the worker.
ground surface, to determine the efficiency of grounding As the crane impedance is estimated to be low, the
networks and ensure people’s safety in the area. calculation can be done by considering that the hook is at the
The maximum fault current injected in the grid is about same potential as the crane grounding system. The fall of
13.8 kA (2016 situation) for a phase to ground fault located in potential in the crane structure is then neglected.
RTE 400kV distribution in Prionnet substation. Indeed, the touch voltage can be conservatively estimated
as being at most the potential difference between the crane
III. CALCULATION OF SAFETY VALUES FOR TOUCH grounding conductors and the soil potential at the worker
VOLTAGES location.
Touch potential is the touch voltage between the energized The calculation can then be carried out using MALZ, by
object and the feet of a person in contact with the object. modeling only buried conductors.
A. Tolerable touch voltage in fault current conditions The model is constructed by adding a vertical ground wire
which represents the local crane grounding network which is
The maximal tolerable touch voltage for a 50kg human is used as the reference potential (hook potential) for the touch
calculated according to the following IEEE Std. 80 formula [6]: voltage calculation. This model is based on the hypothesis of a
0.116 local grounding network for cranes. Their grounding
1000 1.5 (1) conductors are not connected to a remote conductor of the
existing grid.
where:
• Etouch50: tolerable touch voltage for a 50 kg weighting 2) Computation method
human First, the scalar potential is calculated for each point on the
• Cs: surface layer derating factor soil surface for the crane surface during fault conditions.
• ρs : surface layer resistivity This potential is then compared by the software to the crane
• ts: duration of shock of 80 ms grounding conductor potential to determine the touch voltage
value for each point on the soil around the crane. Only the
surface points accessible by the crane hook have to be of the person and aboveground part of cranes and. In this
considered. They are situated inside the ring shown in the section we focus on two different computation approaches, first
figures. one including a human body model and second one with only
its feet.
3) Results
In this section, touch voltages results are presented for the 1) Modeling of a person
TB3-C2 and TB3-C8 cranes according to their respective Figure 7shows a close up of the HIFREQ model including
reference conductors of the crane towers grounding. grounded cranes and a person located nearby while touching a
metallic hook. In order to assess the tolerable touch voltage, we
use an alternative safety assessment approach by computing the
current circulating through the body. In particular, we represent
the trunk of a person as a 500 Ω conductor and 1000 Ω for each
leg impedance to model the 1000 Ω body impedance of human
beings [7]. The person is represented by two feet equivalent
electrodes as well.
IB
RB
IL · ·
RL RL
(1)
RF RF
Figure 4: Touch voltages between the crane hook and a worker on the
ground - TB3-C2 Figure 6: Equivalent circuit model and corresponding equation
for the touch voltage
where:
• IB: body current in A
• IL: leg current in A
• RB: body resistance equal to 500 Ω
• RL: leg resistance equal to 1000 Ω
• Rf: foot resistance equal to 3ρ/4b
• b: foot electrode area
Two approaches have been developed to assess the touch

voltage. The first one uses the current flowing through the
body from hand to feet and the second one uses the prospective
potential difference (voltage) between the soil potential at the
feet location and the crane hook potential.
Figure 5: Touch voltages between the crane hook and a worker on the 2) Full model and results
ground - TB3-C8 Figure 7 presents a perspective view of the HIFEQ
approximate model considered in this study. It includes as well
The obtained touch voltage values are lower than 607 V for a simplified representation of the TB3-C2 and TB3-C8 cranes
the TB3-C2 and lower than 486 V for the TB3-C8 cranes and the workers. However, here we focus only on the TB3-C2
(maximal radius). For all other accessible areas, the obtained crane.
values are even lower. The maximal risk occurs for hook
locations aligned with the equipotential line outside the site TB3-C2 crane TB3-C8 crane
grounding grids.
That simplified and conservative calculation ensures a
quick and complete analysis of touch voltage values for all
accessible areas.
B. Using MultiFields software package (HIFREQ module)
This package allows above-ground conductors to be
modeled. Therefore the crane metallic structure and a human
body were modeled realistically.
Figure 7: Full HIFREQ model
The difference between Figure 2 from the first MALZ
model and Figure 7 from the HIFREQ model is the modeling
However, the conclusion is that no particular mitigation
measures are necessary for such cranes because the resistance
values of gloves or safety shoes that must be worn during work
are not taken into account in these calculations. Indeed, the
0.0
20
calculated threshold for a 10 000 Ω shoes resistance (which can
2
0.0
0
0.0
2
20
0
be estimated as a classical safety shoe resistance) is then about
0.0
1940 V. This value is high enough to ensure that the maximum
0
calculated values for our models are not exceeding the safety
0.44
limit.
44
0.
0
RB The differences in results obtained by modeling a person
0.44
are twofold:
2
0.22
RL
.2
1- Modeling the person accounts for through-earth resistive
2 0
0.2
RL coupling between the feet and the grounded structure being
0.22
touched, resulting in a lower foot resistance and higher
0.22 body currents.
RF
0.22
0.
0.11
0.22
00.
0.048
04
2- Modeling the person requires careful positions of the feet

1.13
2
RF to obtain worst case results. This can be quite difficult and

0.
0.11
0.22
00.
0.047
04
1.13
2
thus not always appropriate to preliminary studies.

(a) (b)
Figure 8: (a) HIFREQ human body model – (b) Current distribution

in TB03-C2 crane case for the north direction V. CONCLUSIONS
In this article we have shown three different methods for
Figure 8 shows the body current distribution as computed computing the touch voltage in the specific case of transferred
on all conductors constituting the human body model (first voltages due to large cranes. We have shown that the
approach). It shows the 50 Hz body current distribution due to differences between the three approaches are minimal and that
fault currents. they lead to comparable touch voltage values.
In the second approach we computed the difference of
potentials between the crane grounding conductor and the soil Although the body resistance and foot electrodes could
at the worker location. have also been modeled with MultiGroundZ, this simpler
These simulations lead to a touch voltage of 479.6 V based model for crane related touch voltages is a quick and
on the body current computation approach and 482 V based on conservative method which better fits engineering needs to
the potential difference approach. quickly obtain touch voltage results for the whole area under
study.
C. Safety related discussion If more specific results are needed and if detailed input data
of crane structures and their grounding networks are available,
In section III, we obtained a minimum touch voltage calculations using the MultiFields software packages can be
threshold Etouch_50 of about 381.8 V for the native soil surface carried out to obtain accurate touch voltage values.
layer. Such value has to be compared with the computed results
for the three methods. The most important contribution of this article is the
demonstration of how a transferred voltage can be computed
TABLE II. ALLOWABLE TOUCH VOLTAGE LIMITS FOR NATURAL SOIL and used in the calculation of the touch voltage risks caused by
SURFACE LAYER a metallic structure such as a crane.
Studied cases: Tolerable touch voltage (V) In this case, it was shown that cranes can be contacted
Tolerable value without safely by workers protected by standard work shoes or gloves.
381.8
safety shoes
Tolerable value with safety ACKNOWLEDGMENT
1940
shoes The authors would like to express their special thanks
MALZ (potential difference expressed to the Electrical Power Distribution Section Leader,
486 (maximum in the area) Mr. Joël Hourtoule and the Electrical Engineering division
approach)
HIFREQ (potential 482 (maximum radius and leader, Mr. Ivone Benfatto of the ITER Organization for
difference approach) maximum potential drop) helpful suggestions. Please note that, the views and opinions
HIFREQ (current approach) 479,6 expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the ITER
Organization.
Thus, we note a bare foot threshold value that is lower than

the computed values whether using MALZ or HIFREQ.
REFERENCES Conductive Coupling from Nearby Transmission Lines,” Power and
Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC), 2011 Asia-Pacific, 2011 ,
[1] ITER – “A large-scale international scientific experiment that aims to Page(s): 1- 4
demonstrate that it is possible to produce commercial energy from
fusion”. http://www.iter.org/ [5] Agudelo, L. ; Ortiz, R.H. ; Montoya, M. ; Zapata, W.H. ; Cardenas, C. ;
Echeverri, J.C. ; Moreno, G., “Transferred voltages in multigrounded
[2] F. P. Dawalibi and F. Donoso, "Integrated analysis software for systems”, Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition:
grounding, EMF, and EMI," IEEE Computer Applications in Power, Latin America, 2008 IEEE/PES, Page(s): 1-5
1993, vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 19-24.
[6] IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, IEEE Standard 80-
[3] J. Ma, W. Ruan, R. D. Southey, and F. P. Dawalibi, "Safety analysis of 2000 (Revision of IEEE Standard 80-1986), IEEE, 2000.
fence interconnection to substation grounding system," Proc. of the
IASTED International Conference on Power and Energy Systems, [7] Pham, K.D. ; Thomas, R.S. ; Stinger, W.E, “Operational and safety
Marbella, Spain, Sept. 19-22, 2000, pp. 223-228.. considerations in designing a light rail DC traction electrification
system”, Rail Conference, 2003. Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE/ASME
[4] Jinxi Ma ; Huiliang Zhao ; Dawalibi, F.P., “Safety Analysis of Fence Joint.
Installation on a Large Power Station Concerning Inductive and
Grounding of Urban GIS Substation Connected to Commercial
Buildings and Metallic Infrastructures
Yexu Li3,d and Farid Dawalibi3,e Zhang Jinsong1,a, Qian Feng2,b, Guo Bing2,c
1
Jiangsu Fangtian, Nanjing, China
2
Yangzhou Power Supply Company, Yangzhou, China
3
SES technologies ltd. Quebec, Canada
a b c
15905166808@163.com, ygsqf27144@163.com, 21340483@qq.com，
d e
yexu.li@sestech.com, farid.dawalibi@sestech.com
Keywords: Urban Substation, GIS, Grounding, Metallic Infrastructures, Touch & Step Voltages,
Ground Potential Rise (GPR).
Abstract. This paper examines various aspects of the design process of an urban Gas insulate
Switchgear (GIS) complex substation grounding system. The study shows how advanced simulation
approaches can be used to study complex grounding systems involving gas-insulated substations and
massive connected metallic infrastructure in an urban environment by following the IEEE 80-2000
recommendations and requirements. It describes why it is important to model accurately the GIS
structure, ground conductors, massive reinforced steel rebar, residential neutrals, surrounding
commercial buildings and residential water pipe infrastructures as well as correctly simulate fault
currents and circulating currents in order to determine touch voltages accurately and avoid
overestimating or underestimating them. A parametric sensitivity analysis are performed. It is shown
that bonding of an urban substation grounding system to the urban city buried metallic infrastructures,
in most cases, enhances the safety status inside the substation while ensuring that the transferred
voltages to the city metallic infrastructures will not endanger the safety of people in the zone of
influence. Furthermore, this paper suggests that the grounding grid installed beneath the GIS system
does not have a major influence on the grounding grid or GIS performance. However, the method of
bonding the GIS to the rebar or to the grounding system can significantly modify the building and GIS
safety status. Finally, the paper demonstrates that the urban substation grounding grid performance is
not very sensitive to the type of soil structures in which the system is buried due to the surrounding
city buried metallic network and building rebar which are typically directly or indirectly connected to
the grounding system providing thus a significant damper on the effects of soil characteristics
changes.
Introduction
The grounding system is the fundamental component that controls excessive overvoltages and
ensures safety within a substation in the power system. It is directly related to the stability of the power
grid, the integrity and operational safety of several power network devices and the safety of personnel
inside or nearby the substation. Surveys show that in China many accidents and incidents occur due to
inappropriate grounding system design, i.e., the substation grounding system does not meet the
operational and safety requirements. Every incident caused by the grounding system can cause not
only immediate and direct financial losses, but also more serious indirect economic losses related to
social and economic development.
On the other hand, with the rapid growth of China national economy, the power system grid is
expanding rapidly and short circuit current levels are increasing significantly. As a result, appropriate
substation grounding system must be designed, tested, and implemented in order to ensure the safety
of the substation personnel and to enhance the life expectancy of the substation equipment and
1
infrastructure. Consequently, the design and construction of conventional grounding systems are
mandated to follow various criteria (e.g., IEEE Guide 80 and GB50065-2011). Various national and
international guidelines and standards have also been widely recognized and applied.
Meanwhile, in order to minimize the required substation area and enhance the aesthetic look of the
substation construction, gas-insulated substations (GIS) are widely used, mainly in urban city
nowadays. A GIS is a high voltage substation in which the major structures are contained in a sealed
environment with sulfur hexafluoride gas as the insulating medium. GIS technology was developed to
make substations as compact as possible. The clearance required for phase to phase and phase to
ground for all equipment is much lower than that required in an air insulated substation. The total
space required for a GIS is probably only 10% of that needed for a conventional substation.
Furthermore, Gas insulated substations offer other advantages in addition to the reduced space
requirements. Because the substation is enclosed in a building, a GIS is less sensitive to pollution, as
well as salt, sand or large amounts of snow. Although the initial cost of building a GIS is higher than
building an air insulated substation, the operation and maintenance costs of a GIS are less.
For suburban conventional substation, the perimeter is closed to the public. Few personnel, most of
them are professionals, can access the substation. Therefore, the grounding system is satisfactory as
long as it meets the national standard or guidelines. For urban substation, however, the substation
grounding system is connected directly or indirectly to the surrounding civilian facilities (such as
residential neutrals and pipes, commercial buildings, etc.). In this case, the grounding system is
extended to a much larger area and the grounding impedance is reduced. However, in the event of a
short circuit, earth fault current can in the surrounding buried metallic infrastructure where it will be
dissipated into the soil. It is therefore legitimate to determine if this will threaten the integrity of
adjacent civilian facilities and become a concern to public personnel safety.
An urban GIS substation grounding system design is a complicated task in order to provide an
adequate system that meets specific criteria with regards to personnel safety and integrity of
equipment during a fault condition. There are a few additional challenges unique to GIS grounding
computer simulation approaches. First, given an urban location, the site offers limited space for the
grounding system and requires that the grounding analysis accounts for interactions with the metallic
infrastructure outside the substation, such as water and gas pipes. Second, for GIS, induction between
faulted phase conductors and associated enclosures can result in circulating currents that generate
sufficient voltage drop between switchgear enclosures and the grounding grid to warrant special
analysis. Third, due to large fault current levels that exist nowadays, the grounding design should be
satisfactory for a total single-phase-to-ground fault current of 60 kA and preferably more. Finally,
often, an urban GIS station is connected to other substations through underground cables. Sheaths,
vaults and ground continuity conductors of the cable circuits that connect to the GIS station must be
analyzed to account for the current returning back to the remote sources as well as dissipating into the
earth through the existing grounding systems installed along the cable circuits.
Therefore, how to accurately model the GIS structure, ground conductors, massive reinforced steel
rebar and adjacent infrastructures and correctly simulate fault currents become crucial. Previous
studies have already been carried out on this related subject [3-7]. This paper presents a grounding
study for such an urban GIS situation using an advanced grounding and EMF analysis software
package [7] based on the safety criteria provided by IEEE Standard 80-2000 [1] and GB/T
50065-2011[2].
Computation Methodology
The computation is performed in the frequency domain for a single 50 Hz harmonic current. The
computation method accounts for both the buried and above ground metallic components of the
2
system which could be bare or coated conductors and considers the electromagnetic interactions
between all elements and supports multilayer soils with arbitrary characteristics. A field theory
approach is used to solve Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations. The field theory approach used
in the computation module is an extension to power frequencies of the Moment Method used in
antenna theory. This approach takes induction effects fully into account. In other words, the
computation results contain the combined effects of the inductive, conductive and capacitive
interference.
The method approach is an exact method that eliminates all of the assumptions in the conventional
method, such as equipotential, and takes into account circulating currents and modeling exact cables
as well. It accounts for attenuation, phase-shift and propagation effects in the electromagnetic fields
when moving away from the current sources. It models correctly and accurately the GIS phase
conductors and enclosures that play a major role in discharging more realistically and accurately the
fault current along the GIS structure ground bonding locations that are connected to the grounding
grid through the steel rebar in concrete.
System Studied
The substation under study is situated upon approximately 66m by 49.5 m land. The substation
functions as a medium voltage distribution substation. The highest operating voltage is 110 kV. The
station is inside a commercial building. The metallic steel rebar of an indoor large parking lot and the
rest of the building are interconnected to the GIS station grounding system. Fig. 1 shows a perspective
view of the system under study. Fig. 2 shows a three-dimensional view of a portion of the GIS
structure.
Parking Buidling Steel Rebar
Substation Grouding System

Commericial Buiding Rebar GIS
GIS Rebar
Fig. 1 Perspective view of the system under study
3
GIS
GIS Steel Rebar
Fig. 2 Three-dimensional view of a portion of the 110kV GIS structure and its computer
model equivalent
Soil resistivity measurements constitute the basis of any grounding study. Soil resistivity
measurements were made at a few representative and accessible locations in the substation area. An
interpretation of the soil resistivity measurements was carried out and analyzed. For simplicity, a
resistivity of 28 ohm-m uniform soil was used in most computation results presented in this paper.
Fault Current Distribution

The objective of the fault current split calculations is to obtain the earth current (current discharged
by the grounding system to earth). Under most conditions, the total fault current doesn’t discharge
entirely in the substation grounding system. Part of the fault current, which does not contribute to the
average ground potential rise (GPR) of the grounding system, will return to remote source terminals
and to transformer neutrals through shield wires, neutral wires or conductors of the grid.
It is well known that the GPR and the touch and step voltages associated with a grounding network
are directly proportional to the magnitude of the fault current component discharged directly into the
soil by the grounding network. It is therefore important to determine how much of the fault current
returns to remote sources via overhead ground wires and neutral wires of the transmission lines and
distribution lines connected to the substation.
Computer simulations have been performed using both Right-Of-Way (based on a circuit approach)
and MultiFields (based on a field approach) software packages described in [7]. The results are shown
in Figures 3 and 4, respectively, representing the scenario of a 110 kV single-line-to-ground fault at
the GIS station. Figures 3 and 4 also show the fault current contributions from the two remote sources.
Table 1 provides the results of fault current distribution calculation. The values shown in Table I have
been used in the grounding grid analysis. The earth currents discharged by the grounding systems
were determined to be about 22 to 24% of the total fault current.
Table 1 Fault current split calculation results

Station #1 Station #1
Remote contribution 11.94  -85°kA 11.45  -85°kA
Current returning via OHGW 10.89  13.6°kA 10.42  13.6°kA
Earth current discharged in grid 2.62  -61.8° kA 2.79  -61.8°kA
4
Fig. 3 Fault current distribution computation circuit model
Fig. 4 Fault current distribution computation field approach model
Grounding System Performance Analysis

GPR, touch and step voltages are important quantities when a substation is assessed for safety
during fault conditions. In order to consider the infrastructure outside the substation, a full network
computer model was built for the grounding system. Figure 5 shows the model considering all
grounding systems, including GIS, commercial building rebar, parking lot rebar, cables and water
pipes, etc.
Various cases have been analyzed and touch and step voltages all over the substation and
residential water pipes have been examined. However, in this paper, only the results for a typical case
are reported to illustrate the system performance.
Fig. 6 shows the touch voltages computed throughout the substation when the fault is outside the
GIS building but near the GIS end. The maximum computed substation touch voltage is 29.5 V and it
occurs at the commercial building of the station. This value is well below the touch voltage limit of
132.7 V. Furthermore, the touch voltages outside the substation, near water pipes for example, are
also below the 132.7 V safe limit. Fig. 7 shows the touch voltages along waters pipes within an area of
about 5 km outside the GIS substation.
5
Fig. 5 Complete computer model for safety evaluation at the substation
Table 2 Safety evaluation

Maximum Value (V) Grounding Grid GIS Parking Lot Building Water Pipes
GPR 246 243 245 246 175
Touch Voltage 37.0 16.3 27.0 45.9 88.4
Step Voltage 35.0 10.7 34.5 7.7 35.0
Earth Potential 257.2 243.4 246.2 242.3 257.2
Scalar Potentials/Touch Voltages/Worst Spherical [ID:GIS current distribu @f=50.0000 Hz ]
LEGEND

2090
2090 16.86
(in Meters)
15.24
13.62
AXIS (METERS)
12.00
2040
2040
10.37
8.75
Y YAxis
7.13
1990
1990 5.50
3.88
2.26
1940
1940
1725 1775 1825 1875
1725 1775 1825 1875
X AXIS (METERS)
X Axis (in Meters)
Fig. 6 Touch voltages at the GIS substation (Volts)
6
Scalar Potentials/Touch Voltages/Nearest Conductor Segment [ID:GIS current distribu @ f=50.0000 Hz ]
LEGEND

Minimum Value : 0.125E-02
6250
6250 Scalar Potentials/Touch Voltages/Nearest Conductor Segment [ID:GIS current distribu @ f=50.0000 Hz ]
100.00
LEGEND
20.00
8.00
Minimum Value : 0.125E-02
Relative Distance Along Surface (METERS)
Y Axis (in Meters)
6250 100.00
7.00
20.00
8.00 6.00
1250
Relative Distance Along Surface (METERS)
7.00
5.00
6.00
1250 1250 5.00 4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
0.10
-3750
0.10
-3750 -3750 1250 6250
Relative Distance Along Profile (METERS)

-3750
-3750 1250
1250 6250
6250
Touch Voltage Magn. (Volts) [Near]
-3750 X Axis (in Meters)

Relative Distance Along Profile (METERS)
Touch Voltage Magn. (Volts) [Near]
Fig. 7 Touch voltages on pipes 5 km around the GIS substation
Sensitivity Analysis
In this section several grounding network features and parameters that are often related to an urban
GIS substation performance were analyzed to demonstrate their effects on the results due to
uncertainty on some basic data or alternative design options and contingency conditions.
1. Bonding of the Grounding System to City Buried Metallic Infrastructures

In general, in an urban area, the low voltage distribution neutrals and the city metallic infrastructure
such as the residential water pipe network are inevitably directly or indirectly connected to the
substation grid. Their omission in the computer model can cause negligible or significant inaccuracies
in the computed grounding performance depending on the topology of the electrical network. This is
because the power line fault currents can dissipate easily in the metallic infrastructures, a situation
that, in most cases, enhances the safety status inside the substation. On the other hand, the transferred
voltages to the city metallic infrastructure may endanger the safety of people in the zones outside the
substation.
Realistic computer models including a skeleton of the extensive urban business and residential
metallic pipe network (see Fig. 5) were modeled. In order to examine the effect of the pipe network on
the system performance, a study was conducted with and without the metallic pipes included in the
model. The results are presented in Table 3. As can be seen, the GPR, touch and step voltages can be
very different if water pipes are not considered. The maximum GPR with water pipes is about 33%
less than when the water pipes are ignored.
7
Table 3 GPR, touch and step voltages with & without considering water pipes
Maximum GPR (V) Maximum Touch Voltage (V) Maximum

Scenario Grounding Grounding Parking
Step Voltage
GIS GIS (V)
Grid Grid Lot
With Water Pipes 246 243 37.0 16.3 27.0 35.0
Without Water Pipes 511 498 90.6 22.1 56.4 80.3
2. Effects of Installing a Grounding Grid under the GIS Enclosure

A study regarding the effects of installing a grounding grid under the GIS enclosure was carried
out. The grounding grid beneath the GIS rebar was removed and the performance of the grounding
system was evaluated. Table 4 presents the results for scenarios that include or exclude the grid under
the GIS rebar. As can be seen, adding a grid under the GIS enclosure will only improve slightly the
overall performance of the grounding grid system. In other words, this grid beneath the GIS does not
have a major influence on the grounding grid or GIS performance.
Table 4 GPR, touch and step voltages with & without grid under GIS rebar
Step
GIS GIS Voltage (V)
Grid Grid Lot
No Grid under GIS Rebar 246 243 37.0 16.3 27.0 35.0
With Grid under GIS Rebar 253 245 37.5 17.1 27.1 35.2
3. Connecting or Disconnecting the Commercial Parking Lot Rebar from the Grounding Grid
The steel rebar in the GIS enclosure is usually bonded to the grounding system. The bonding
method is one of the challenges in the GIS design. In order to assess the feasibility and efficiency of
the bonding method as well as for the purpose of comparison from a safety perspective, two scenarios
were analyzed: (1) rebar connected to the grounding system; (2) rebar not connected to the grounding
system. Table 5 shows that the GPR and touch voltages higher when the rebars are disconnected from
the grounding system.
Table 5 GPR, touch and step voltages with building rebar connected and disconnected from the
grounding grid

Step
GIS GIS Voltage (V)
Grid Grid Lot
Building Rebar Connected 246 243 37.0 16.3 27.0 35.0
Building Rebar Disconnected 263 267 49.4 20.9 28.0 48.2
4. Soil Uncertainty
It is known that grounding system performance and safety are closely related to soil characteristics.
The performance of the grounding grid is heavily dependent on the soil structure. This study focuses
on the effects of possible variations of soil structure on the studied urban substation grounding
performance. Three soil models were used to carry out the soil sensitivity study. Soil Model 1 is a 28
ohm-m uniform soil; Soil Model 2 is a two-layer model with a low soil resistivity top layer over a high
8
soil resistivity bottom layer. Soil Model 3 is also a two-layer soil model but with a high soil resistivity
top layer over a low soil resistivity bottom layer. Table 6 describes the three soil model structures.
The computed results are shown in Table 7. The touch and step voltages are safe everywhere for all
three soil cases. As can be seen, the urban substation grounding grid performance is not very sensitive
to the soil structure models. Note that normally soil variations should remain within narrow limits,
and will not change as dramatically as shown in this paper. This is due to the fact that the city buried
metallic network and commercial building rebar which are connected to the grounding grid provides a
significant damper on the effects of soil characteristics changes.
Table 6 Three soil models used in soil sensitivity study
Soil Model Number Layer Soil Resistivity (Ohm-m) Thickness (feet)

1 1 28 
1 20 1.5
2
2 500 
1 500 1.5
3
2 20 
Table 7 GPR, touch and step voltages with three different soil models
Soil Model Maximum GPR (V) Maximum Touch Voltage (V) Maximum Step
Number Grounding Grid GIS Parking Lot Voltage (V)
Grounding Grid GIS
1 246 243 37.0 16.3 27.0 35.0
2 899 891 31.3 17.7 32.5 28.9
3 557 550 177 40.2 121.1 156.0
Summary
The performance of an urban GIS substation grounding system has been analyzed using modern
computer techniques. The paper shows how advanced simulation approaches can be used to study
complex grounding systems involving gas-insulated substations and massive connected metallic
infrastructure in an urban environment by following international standards recommendations and
requirements. It is necessary to model accurately the GIS structure, ground conductors, massive
reinforced steel rebar, residential neutrals, surrounding commercial buildings and water pipe
infrastructure as well as correctly simulate fault currents including circulating currents in order to
determine touch voltages accurately and avoid overestimating or underestimating them.
For an urban GIS substation, bonding of an urban substation grounding system to the city buried
metallic infrastructure, in most cases, will enhance the safety status inside the substation. However, it
is important to ensure that the transferred voltages to the surrounding city metallic infrastructure will
not endanger the safety of people in the zones of significant influence. The grounding system located
under the GIS building does not have a major influence on the overall grounding grid or GIS
performance. However, connecting or disconnecting the GIS building rebar to the grounding system
can significantly alter the building and GIS safety status. Finally, the urban substation grounding grid
performance is not very sensitive to the soil structure models due to the fact that the city buried
metallic network and commercial building rebar which are connected to the substation grounding grid
provides a significant damper on the effects of soil characteristics changes.
9
References
[1] IEEE Standard 80-2000, “IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding”.
[2] GB/T 50065-2011, “Code for Design of AC Electrical Installations Earthing, China planning
press, December 5, 2011.
[3] F.P. Dawalibi and D. Mukhekar, “Ground Electrode Resistance Measurement in Nonuniform
Soils”, IEEE Transactions, Vol. PAS-93, No. 1, Jan. 1974, pp. 109-116.
[4] G. Yu, J. Ma, and F. P. Dawalibi, “Effect of Soil Structures on Grounding Systems Consisting of
Steel Conductors,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Electrical Engineering
(ICEE'2001), Xian, China, July 22-26, 2001.
[5] Y. Li, J. Ma and F. P. Dawalibi, "Power Grounding Safety: Copper Grounding Systems vs. Steel
Grounding Systems," International Conference on Power System Technology
(POWERCON2006), Chongqing, China, October 22-26, 2006.
[6] J. Liu, and F. P. Dawalibi, "Gas Insulated Substation Grounding System Design Using the
Electromagnetic Field Method," 5th International Conference on Electricity Distribution, CICED,
Shanghai, China, Septmeber 5-6, 2012.
[7] CDEGS Software Package, 2014, Safe Engineering Services & technologies ltd., Laval, Quebec,
Canada, Version 15, June 2014.
10
Journal of Power and Energy Engineering,2014, *, **
Published Online **** 2014 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/jpee
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jpee.2014.*****
Advanced Analysis of HVDC Electrodes In-

terference on Neighboring Pipelines
Yexu Li and Farid Paul Dawalibi
Safe Engineering Services & technologies ltd., Laval, Quebec, Canada
Yu Gong
EHV Power Transmission Company China Southern Power Grid, Guangzhou
Chunlin Xue, Zhilei, Yuan

East China Electric Power Design Institute, Shanghai
Abstract
This paper focuses on advanced analysis techniques and design considerations of DC interference
generated by HVDC electrodes during normal bipolar and temporary monopolar operations on
neighboring metallic utilities, with a special emphasis on buried gas and oil pipelines. This study
examines the level of pipeline corrosion, the safety status in the vicinity of exposed appurtenances
and the impact of DC interference on the integrity of insulating flanges and impressed current ca-
thodic protection (ICCP) systems. Computation results obtained for different soil models show
that different soils can lead to completely different DC interference effects. The results and con-
clusions presented here can be used as a reference to analyze the severity of DC interference on
pipelines due to proximate HVDC electrodes.
Keywords
HVDC Electrode, DC Interference, Pipe-to-soil Potential, Polarization Potential, Insulating Joint
(Flanges), Rectifier, Touch Voltage, Corrosion, Safety, Impressed Current Cathodic Protection.
1. Introduction
HVDC networks have been widely implemented in China in recent years. HVDC has proved to be well suited to
specific applications, including long-distance power transmission, relatively long cable interconnections, inter-
connections between large isolated HVAC systems, and asynchronous tie-lines between HVAC systems. During
normal bipolar operations and particularly during temporary monopolar operations of the HVDC lines ,DC cur-
rents injected into the soil result in an electric field that can introduce excessive currents and voltages in nearby
metallic utilities, such as pipelines. Consequently, such current can cause or accelerate DC corrosion, damage
rectifiers and insulating flanges or joints and can threaten the safety of personnel working at valve and test sta-
tions as well as along the pipe. Due to the significant increase of HVDC systems, the concerns on their possible
adverse impact on the environment have accelerated the need for accurate approaches to analyze HVDC adverse
effects on neighboring buried metallic utilities and development of appropriate effective and economical mitiga-
tion measures.
How to cite this paper: Author 1, Author 2 and Author 3 (2014) Paper Title.*********, *,
**-**.http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jpee.2014.*****
Yu Gong, Chunlin Xue, Zhilei, Yuan, Yexu Li and Farid Paul Dawalibi
This paper discusses recent advances and new developments achieved in the analysis of electromagnetic in-
terference generated by HVDC ground electrodes on neighboring metallic utilities, with a particular emphasis on
buried pipelines. This study is based on a realistic case and has been carried out using a computer model that re-
produces accurately the existing installations. The study includes comparisons between field measurements and
computed results in order to validate the computation method and computer models that were developed to de-
scribe accurately the existing system. It examines the level of pipeline corrosion, the safety status in the vicinity
of exposed appurtenances and the impact of DC interference on the integrity of insulating flanges and impressed
current cathodic protection (ICCP) systems. A future paper will deal with advanced mitigation measures to re-
duce the interference level to acceptable values following various design standards and criteria.
2. HVDC Electrode Interference Effects on Pipelines and Design Standards

HVDC systems may operate in such a manner that continuous (normal operation) or periodic (monopolar opera-
tion) direct current follows an earth path between HVDC system terminals. During such operations, a portion of
the DC current that is flowing between the two HVDC electrodes is captured by the pipelines and associated
grounding systems located in zones where the earth potentials are high and are discharged back to soil at locations
where the earth potentials are lower. More precisely, a pipeline may collect, conduct, or discharge a portion of
this current depending on the location of the pipeline and the polarity of the HVDC ground electrode. When the
electrode near the pipeline is operating in positive mode, the current from the electrode is collected by the pipe-
line in the region located in the vicinity of the electrode. The current is then discharged from the pipeline at loca-
tions remote from the electrode; resulting in corrosion at these points. When the HVDC electrode near the pipe-
line is operating in negative mode, the current is discharged from the pipeline in the vicinity of the electrode and
collected in the area far from the electrode. In this case, corrosion occurs near the electrode. In addition, coating
damage due to disbonding can also occur if the pipeline is polarized negatively beyond a safe level as a result of
excessive current collection. Fig. 1 illustrates this DC interference mechanism due to the operation of an HVDC
electrode.
Positive HVDC Electrode Negative HVDC Electrode
Stray Current Out: Stray Current In:

Corrosion Region No Corrosion
+ Pipeline + Pipeline Stray Current Out:
Pipe to Soil Potential
Pipe to Soil Potential
Stray Current In: Corrosion Region

No Corrosion
0 0
Anodic Anodic
Area Cathodic Cathodic Area
- Area
- Area
Fig. 1. Mechanism of HVDC Electrode Interference

The European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization BS/EN50162-2004[1] and Chinese National
Standard GB/T 21447-2008[2] state that: (1) Protective measures must be applied if the pipe leakage current den-
sity is more than 1μA/cm2 or the cumulative corrosion amount (thickness) affects the safe operation. (2) DC in-
terference exists if the pipe-to-soil potential (polarization potential) is higher than 20 mV positive shift to the pipe
natural potential (galvanic series potential) or the DC soil potential gradient near the pipe is greater than 0.5
mV/m. When the pipe-to-soil potential is higher than 100 mV positive shift to the pipe natural potential (galvanic
series potential), protective measures must be applied. (3) For a new pipeline, if a pipeline route is in the zones
where the DC soil potential gradient is greater than 2.5 mV/m, the pipeline may be subject to DC interference and
therefore must be evaluated. Protective measures must be applied to mitigate the excessive DC voltages and cur-
rents.
2
The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) Standard [3] states that the protection criterion for
corrosion is a negative (cathodic) voltage of at least 0.85 V with respect to a saturated copper/copper sulfate elec-
trode. Determination of this voltage is to be made after the polarization has been achieved with the protective
current applied. The generally accepted value below which coating damage due to disbonding may become sig-
nificant is –1.5 V.
The primary concern of the personnel safety is to satisfy ANSI/IEEE Standard 80 safety criteria at above-
ground pipeline appurtenances.
3. Measured vs. Computed Interference Levels

The system described in this section will be used as our example for most of the following discussions. The
computer model, including a 609.5mm diameter pipeline and the three nearby HVDC ground electrodes, that
were under different operation modes, is shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Top view of the studied network

The studied pipeline covers a distance of over 270 km. The closet point of the pipeline is about 7 km away
from the HVDC electrode operating in monpolar mode. The soil was measured and analyzed and was found to
have the four-layer structure as shown in Table 1. The injected current into the monpolar HVDC ground elec-
trode is 3,232A while the unbalanced currents into the soil for the other two electrodes that are under normal
operation are 61A and 18A, respectively. The pipeline coating resistance is assumed to be 100,000 ohm-m2.
Table 1. Existing soil model structure
Depth (m) Resistivity(ohm-m)

0~2 200
2~10 500
10~30 200
30~300 1000
>300 3500
The pipe-to-soil potentials at various locations along the pipeline were measured. The results of the measured
and computer simulation are shown in Fig. 3. As it can be seen, the theoretical computing results (the blue
curve), compared with the measured results (the orange dots), agree with each other very well. This conductive
coupling between the HVDC electrodes and pipeline results in soil currents collected then discharged by the
pipeline. The computer model and computation method are validated.
3
Fig. 3. Computed and measured DC interference levels
4. Pipeline Corrosion Analysis

Leakage current density, pipe-to-soil potential, electric field gradient outside the pipe and current density across
a 1 cm2 holiday are important quantities when a pipe is assessed for its corrosion activity status. Considering the
dc voltage drop caused by the pipeline conductor longitude resistance and knowing that the three electrodes are
operating in positive mode, the pipeline status is examined based on the soil structure shown in Table 1. The re-
sulting pipeline leakage current density is displayed Fig. 4. This figure shows that when the monopolar opera-
tion electrode is positive, some current tends to be collected by the pipeline at points near the electrode. This
current is carried away towards both ends of the pipeline, where it is discharged progressively.
The pipe-to-soil potentials and the electric field gradient outside the pipe are plotted in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, re-
spectively. Clearly, corrosion occurs seriously along most, if not the entire length of the pipeline, if no mitiga-
tion is applied or if the cathodic protection system is not adjusted accordingly. Furthermore, coating disbanding
may occur at the south end locations because pipe-to-soil potentials remain below the –1.5 V limit. The maxi-
mum electric field gradient is about 93.7 mV/m.
Fig. 4 Leakage current along the pipeline
4
Electric Fields/Resultant (Total) Field

Conductor Data/Coating Stress Voltage/Nearest Conductor LEGEND
0.100
200
Profile Number 1. Profile

Coating Stress Voltage <Real Part> [Near] (Volts)
100
0.050
Electric Field Total Magn. (V/M)

0
-100 0.000
0 100000 200000 300000 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
[ID: @ f=0.0001 Hz ] [ID: @ f=0.0001 Hz ]
Fig. 5 Pipe-to-soil potential Fig. 6 Electric field outside the pipe

The current density in coating defects (referred to as holidays) is one of the key parameters used to evaluate
the corrosion rate. The calculation of coating potential from the coating impedance and radial leakage current
density, indicates that the holiday current can be estimated fairly accurately along the entire pipeline based on
the coating stress voltage, assuming that there are enough grounds along the pipeline length (including its im-
perfect coating) to establish the external pipeline potential (which is the case in our model). In this case, a small
holiday introduces only a small perturbation to the external potential. The holiday current is then estimated as
the ratio of the “coating potential difference” to the product of the holiday resistance by the holiday base area.
The holiday current through a 1 cm2 defect is shown in Fig. 7. The maximum current through such defect is
14.61 mA. Consequently, for a 1 cm2 small defect occurring anywhere along pipeline perforation time may oc-
cur in about 39 days! This estimate is based on the knowledge that each ampere of current discharging continu-
ously from one location on a ferrous structure remove approximately 9.1 kg of iron in a year’s time [4]. Since the
pipe wall thickness is 1.84 cm, in the absence of any mitigation measures and cathodic protection system, the
pipeline fast perforation time is about 39 days.
16
14
12
Leakage Current (mA)
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Fig.7 Leakage current along the pipeline through a one (1) cm2 holiday
5
Mitigation measures aimed at reducing safety hazards and DC interference levels must be designed if the in-
terference level is high. Presently, there are a few available techniques, such as increasing separation distance
between the electrode and the pipeline, adding insulating flanges at appropriate locations, installing lumped
concentrated grounds or continuous mitigation wires, etc. Regardless of the method used, however, it is crucial
that accurate computer models be developed, taking the soil structure into account. Mitigation techniques and
their efficiency will be discussed in a subsequent paper.
5. Safety at Valve and Testing Stations

Touch and step voltages should be evaluated for personnel safety at valve and testing stations. In order to con-
sider all elements associated with the pipeline, a full computer model of the electrode and pipeline network sys-
tem, including valve grounding grids, insulting flanges, anode beds and rectifiers was built.
Various cases have been analyzed and touch and step voltages for all stations have been examined. However,
in this paper, only the results for a typical case are reported to illustrate the HVDC conductive coupling level at
valve stations along the pipe.
Fig. 8 Maximum touch and step voltages at aboveground appurtenances

Fig.8 shows the touch voltages to the pipe, the touch voltages to the conductors of the valve grid aboveground
and step voltages at the stations. The maximum computed station touch voltage is 47.9 V and it occurs at the
station that is close to the monopolar HVDC electrode ground. This value was considered below the touch volt-
age safe design limit required at this restricted access location for this project. The maximum step is only 0.04 V,
well below the safe design limit required in this project.
6. Integrity of Insulating Flanges and ICCP Systems

To ensure the effectiveness of cathodic protection, rectifier stations are built along pipelines. Furthermore hy-
draulic valve stations are a very important part of the pipeline system. In case of an emergency, it automatic
shuts-off the valve, cuts off the downstream flow of gas or oil to prevent a catastrophic leakage. Insulating joints
at a valve station separate the pipeline and its grounding systems. These are essentially electrically isolated from
one another in order to prevent unnecessary leakage of the cathodic protection current. However, under HVDC
electrode monopolar operations, the transferred voltages across the insulated joints of the pipeline network can
be large enough to activate the lightning protectors or breakdown the insulating flanges. Consequently, damage
to the integrity of the pipeline may occur under normal operations.
To evaluate the impact of the HVDC electrode operations on the insulating flanges correctly, the voltages
across the insulating joints at all stations was carried out. The maximum voltage across the insulating joint in our
6
studied system was about 100 V. The DC impulse breakdown voltage of the insulating joints is on the order of
1,000 V. Therefore, all insulating joints are not subject to excessive stress voltages and will remain in good
working conditions.
Gas and oil hazardous product pipelines are routinely protected by a coating supplemented with cathodic pro-
tection. An ICCP (impressed current cathodic protection) system for a pipeline consists of a DC power source,
often an AC powered transformer rectifier and an anode, or array of anodes buried in the ground. The DC power
source would typically need a constant DC output of a specific current and voltage, depending on several factors,
such as the size of the pipeline and coating quality. The positive DC output terminal is connected via cables to
the anode array, while another cable connects the negative terminal of the rectifier to the pipeline, preferably
through junction boxes to allow measurements to be taken. The rectifier stack is comprised of silicon diodes in
series in a bridge circuit. The diodes can be damaged due to switching surges or large steady state DC or AC
gradients in the soil during monopolar operation.
There are four ICCPs along the studied pipeline. The systems, including the anode arrays and the cables, are
modeled as is and the voltages on the rectifiers are examined. The results are listed in Table 2. They appear to be
all below the rectifier diodes breakdown voltage which is typically about a few hundred volts.
Table 2. Voltages across rectifiers
Rectifier Anode Pipe GPR Voltage across
GPR (V) (V) Rectifier (V)
#1 17.2 21.5 4.3
#2 121.8 72.5 49.3
#3 27.8 53.3 25.5
#4 20.5 49.7 29.2
7. Effects of Soil Structure

The magnitude of HVDC transferred ground potential rise is strongly influenced by the soil structure. It de-
creases with increasing distance away from the HVDC electrode, but the rate of decrease depends upon the soil
structure. Due to its key importance, this section demonstrates the influence of the soil structure on the predicted
DC conductive levels. Three types of soil structures are examined based on the same network shown in Fig.1: A
100 Ω-m uniform soil (Soil #1), a two-layer soil consisting of a 2 m thick, 10 Ω-m top layer overlying a 2000
Ω-m infinitely thick layer (Soil #2) and a two-layer soil similar to the preceding one except for the layer resis-
tivities that are reversed (Soil #3). Fig. 9 shows the pipe-to-soil potentials due to the transferred potentials
through the soil (conductive coupling effects) for the three soil models. Fig. 10 plots the pipe-to-soil potential as
a percentage of the GPR of the HVDC electrode that is under monopolar operation.
Fig. 9 shows clearly that soil structure characteristics have a significant impact on the level of coupling be-
tween the HVDC ground and the pipe. It is understandable that the low-over-high resistivity soil type (Soil #2)
will generate the highest conductive coupling level. We also note that the pipe-to-soil potentials in Soil #1 and
Soil #3 that have the same bottom layer soil resistivity appears to provide similar interference levels, or to be
insensitive to the top layer: This is due to the relatively small depth (compared with the overall size of the sys-
tem), i.e., a 2 m thickness of the top layer, of the soil resistivity variations. This underscores the need and im-
portance to know soil resistivities to considerable depths to predict the performance of such a system.
7
Fig. 9 Pipe-to-soil potentials in different soil structures
Figure 10 reveals an interesting result. Although the actual interference levels vary dramatically with the
change of the soil resistivity (compare Soil #1 and Soil #2), the coupling factor (ratio of the maximum
pipe-to-soil potential to HVDC electrode GPR) appears to be much less sensitive to the soil structure. In this
case, they all lie between 2 to 3%. However, it is important to point out the conclusion can be very different if
the pipe is much closer to the electrode and the contrast ratio of soil resistivity becomes lager. Indeed, if we con-
sider the limiting case of an almost metallic top layer soil and plastic bottom layer, we would naturally conclude
that the HVDC GPR will transfer 100% to any other location (e.g., the pipeline).
3.5 Soil #1 Soil #2 Soil #3

Pipe-to-Soil Potential % Electrode GPR (V)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Fig. 10 Pipe-to-soil potentials as a percentage of HVDC electrode GPR in different soil structures
On the other hand, if the bottom layer is metallic and the top layer is very resistive, then the injected HVDC
current would naturally travel vertically to the deep soil and will drop rapidly along the horizontal direction.
8. Conclusions
Detailed analysis of HVDC ground current effects on neighboring metallic utilities is an absolute requirement.
Accurate models of HVDC ground electrodes and buried metallic pipelines in complex soil structures must be
built to compute leakage currents, potentials, and evaluate the interference levels for safety assessment and cor-
8
rosion rates .This paper discussed and demonstrated advanced methods for evaluating and analyzing electro-
magnetic interference caused by HVDC electrodes. The study that is described in this paper is based on a realis-
tic case and includes comparisons between field measurements and computed results that validate the computa-
tion method and computer models that were developed to describe accurately the existing system.
The resulting computations not only describe the interference levels in the vicinity of a ground electrode, but
also demonstrate how the soil structure influences the predicted DC interference levels. It is critical to model the
system as built in order to provide accurate data to determine the necessary mitigation required to avoid pipeline
damage and to ensure personnel safety and the integrity of the equipment.
The effectiveness of various mitigation measures that reduce the DC interference level to acceptable values
will be discussed in a future paper.
9. References
[1] BS/EN50162-2004 “Protection against corrosion by stray current from direct current systems”British-Adopted Euro-
pean Standard, 01/19/2005.
[2] GB/T21447-2008, “Specification for external corrosion control for steel pipeline”Chinese National
Standard 2/13/2008.
[3] NACE SP0169-2013, “Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems”
NACE, 2013.
[4] A.W. Peabody and C.G.Siegfried, “Corrosion control problems and personnel hazard control problems caused by
HVDC and HVAC transmission systems on non-associated underground facilities”, CIGRE International Conference
on Large High Voltage Electric Systems, 1974.

Conference Proceedings 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conference Proceedings 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

June 8 to 11, 2015

San Diego - California

Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page i

Farid Paul Dawalibi

Page ii Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

25th Annual CDEGS Users’ Group Conference

Bahia Resort Hotel

Dear CDEGS Users’ Group Member:

On behalf of the Executive Committee and myself personally, it is a pleasure to welcome

 Giancarlo Leone, Stanley Consultants (Vice-Chairman)

Francisco Muñoz Martin

Chairman, 25th CDEGS User’s Group Conference

IIMPROVEMENTS IN SES SOFTWARE

Figure 1: Geometrical and physical properties of four component concentric cable.

2.2 Improvements in SESTralin Interface

3 Coated Conductors and Coated Metallic Plates in MALT

Page I-2 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

Figure 2: Specification of the coating type of selected conductors in SESCAD.

Figure 3: Plates characteristics editor screen.

Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page I-3

4 Modeling of Plate Structures in HIFREQ

5 SESeBundle – New Tool to Find an Equivalent Conductor

Page I-4 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

Figure 5: Main screen of SESeBundle.

Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page I-5

6 SESThreshold – Safety Analysis with Multiple Safety

Figure 6. Main screen of SESThreshold.

Page I-6 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

Figure 7. Plot of touch voltages produced by SESThreshold.

7 CorrCAD and its Applications

Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page I-7

Figure 8: CorrCAD interface.

8 Improvements in Right-of-Way, ROWCAD and Cross-

Page I-8 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

The details are in the article “Improvements in ROWCAD”.

9 SESEnviroPlus: Calculation of Ion Current Density

10 SPLITS: Enhancements to Three-Phase Transformer

Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page I-9

11 Improvements and New Features in SESImpedance

Figure 10: Enhancement to the main screen of SESImpedance.

Page I-10 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

12 SESCAD – Plates, Coating, and More Plates

13 Different Neutral/Shield Wires in FCDIST

Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page I-11

Figure 12. Specification of multiple types of neutral/shield wires in FCDIST.

Page I-12 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

2 Coated Conductors in MALT

Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page II-1

Figure 1. The Coating Type code in the Characteristics dialog.

Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page II-3

Figure 5. Coating-type information in the Quick Info tool.

3 Coated Metallic Plates in MALT

Page II-4 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

4 Metallic Plates in HIFREQ

Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page II-5

5 Breaking Profiles and Reversing their Direction

Page II-6 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

Figure 8. An observation surface with a small region cut out.

5.2 Reversing the Direction of Observation Profiles

Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page II-7

6 Ordering of Background Pictures

Page II-8 Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved.

IIIIMPROVEMENTS AND NEW FEATURES IN

Copyright © 2015 SES ltd. All rights reserved. Page III-1