IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 42, NO.

2, MAY 1993 225

Rail Track Distributed Transmission Line

Impedance and Admittance: Theoretical
Modeling and Experimental Results
R. John Hill, Senior Member, IEEE, and David C. Carpenter

Abstmct-Frequency-dependent distributed transmission line
self and mutual impedances and admittances for a single-track,
power-rail electrified railway are obtained by experiment and
modeling. Impedance results obtained by numerical calculation
from an electromagnetic minimum energy field solution using
the finite-elementmethod are compared with analytic impedance
models based on the Carson-Pollaczek equations for a stratified,
weakly conducting ground and with practical experimental mea-
surements made on a short length of rail track. The running
rail self conductances and the power rail to running rail mutual
capacitances are also evaluated by the finite element method and
compared with experimental measurements. A physical interpre-
tation of the results is given in terms of conductive and induced
ground currents caused by finite ground conductivity and relative
permittivity.
I. INTRODUCTION
track transfer function for various excitation conditions. For
a low number of rails, the mathematical computation can be
carried out in the time domain, but for larger systems with
parallel tracks, transformation into the modal domain, utilizing
track modal propagation constants and characteristic imped-
ances, may be more appropriate. This approach is convenient
for complex system analysis and can be used, for example,
together with knowledge of the nonlinear dependencies in
the matrix elements as functions of current and frequency
to model electromagnetic compatibility phenomena such as
intermodulation distortion arising from the mixing of power
frequency harmonics with signaling currents [11.
The accurate determination of track impedance and ad-
mittance has received little attention in the literature, most
traction simulation studies making simplifying assumptions

A realistic model of the electromagnetic properties of rail about rail and ground material properties. Knowledge of the
track is necessary for the analysis and design of electric impedance and admittance is important in several respects.
railway power and signaling systems. Representing the track The impedance is necessary for track circuit design, which
as a multiconductor coupled transmission line (MTL) is a usually considers only the running rail loop [2], and in
feasible approach provided accurate values for the distributed traction current power flow simulation, where simplified linear
self and mutual track impedance and admittance are known. data has been adopted for a variety of applications such as
The numerical values of these equivalent components are, modeling harmonic propagation along the overhead catenary
however, difficult to measure under practical conditions, since [3], predicting ground current distribution [4], and assessing
they are affected by the shape, position, permeability, and telecommunications interference [5]. The self admittances
conductivity of the rails, and the permittivity and conductivity determine the rail potential distribution in high-voltage AC
of the ground and track substructure. The problem addressed in railways which must be kept below specific safety limits [6]
this paper is to model and measure the equivalent MTL circuit and the magnitude of stray traction currents on dc railways
impedances and admittances for a single power-rail electrified [7], [8], where the variability in track self admittance can
rail track, with special reference to the frequency dependency be controlled by supplementary grounding arrangements or
of the components. The task is particularly difficult because by the addition of thyristor-controlled ground-leakage devices
the running rails and power distribution cables are located on [9]. Knowledge of the track mutual admittance is important
or above the ground which acts as a weak and diffuse, but for the evaluation of the transmission characteristics of signals
significant, conductor of electric current, and ground currents along the track, for example in audio frequency track signaling
are generated which affect the values of the track MTL systems where modulated signals travel along the running rails
equivalent components. at minimum attenuation [lo].
Determination of the equivalent components in the track In this paper, existing analytic models for self and mutual
model is important since the track self and mutual impedance impedance are reviewed [11]-[13]. The models are based on
and admittance matrices can then be used to obtain the the theory of the behavior of electrical conductors laid on and
in contact with a weakly conducting ground. To overcome
This work was supported by the U.K. Science and Engineering Research
Council under Research Grant GR/E/58816.
shortcomings in this analytical theory due to variable material
R. J. Hill is with the School of Electrical Engineering, University of Bath, properties, the self and mutual impedances and admittances
Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY,U.K. have been modeled using a minimum energy electromagnetic
D. C. Carpenter was with the School of Electrical Engineering, University
of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY,U.K. He is now with Vector Fields
field solution implemented by a finite element method (FEM)
Ltd., Kidlington, Oxford OX5 lJE, U.K. software package. This was done because of the difficulty of
IEEE Log Number 9206415. experimental verification due to the unavailability of an abso-
0018-9598/93$03.00 0 1993 IEEE
226 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY,VOL. 42, NO. 2, MAY 1993

lute ground reference point, and the impossibility of making Impedance model Admittance model
differential measurements between points at opposite track

-
211
0
ends because of the creation of substantial detection circuit
loops. Experiments in partial support of the modeling are, how- Rail 2
ever, described which exploit independence of impedance and
Rail 3 0
admittance elements for short lengths of rail track, where the
signal propagation wavelength is much greater than the track
Y
measurement length. The impedance results are interpreted
in terms of physical phenomena governing electromagnetic
fields and currents in the rails, track substructure, and ground, Fig. 1. Coupled transmission line ground return model for track impedance
and admittance.
and the interpretation is supported by a FEM-derived ground
current contour plot. The admittance results validate the FEM
conductance model, and are used to estimate the effective between lines 1and j . Incorporating similar equations for lines
permittivity of the ground as a function of frequency. 2 and 3, and rearranging, the matrix equation

11. THE TRACK TRANSMISSION LINEMODEL dm

--
dx
- -[Z][I]

A. General Transmission Line Theory

A full and accurate analysis of any transmission line requires
the complete determination of the electromagnetic fields in
the vicinity of the line since energy flow takes place through
the fields. Generally, representatim of a line by an electrical
network with distributed equivalent components introduces
simplifications which correspond to the assumption of plane-
wave propagation along the line. This condition is satisfied
for the case of railway track since the line length is much
greater than its width. The usual distributed component model
illustrated in Fig. 1 may thus be used for the complete
equivalent circuit.
In a rail track, the individual lines correspond to each
running rail, the power rail or overhead catenary, and any
parallel cables such as auxiliary power conductors or signaling
wires. Fig. 1 shows the electric circuit representation of a
three-wire coupled ground-return transmission line with self
and mutual impedance and admittance elements, representing
for example a power-rail electrified single track railroad.
The elements are distributed with values evaluated per unit
line length. The presence of a weakly conducting ground
effectively completes the circuit for each conductor so that
three self and three mutual ground-return impedances and
admittances can be identified.
The transmission line model is derived by writing differen-
tial equations for the line voltage and current, generalizing into
a matrix formulation, and then combining the two equations
using substitution. Representing the lines by 1-3, the voltage
along line 1 is given by the equation
where 211 (= ~ 1 +jwZll)
1 is the ground-return self impedance
+
of line 1, and z l j (= ~ l jj w m ~ is) the mutual impedance
(3)
is obtained. [VI and [I] are thus column vectors of the
phase voltages and currents, and [Z] is a square impedance
matrix with diagonal coefficients zii representing the line
i ground-return self impedances per unit length, and off-
diagonal coefficients z;j representing the ground-retum mutual
impedance of line i with respect to line j . The current along
line a is given by
where yie is the self admittance of line i and ym,j is the mutual
admittance between lines i and j . Combining the equations for
i = 1 - 3, (5), shown at the bottom of the page, is true. In
matrix form, this becomes
d[4
- - - -[y][V]
dx
where
y11 Y12 913
(7)
931 932 Y33
In the track admittance matrix of (7), the diagonal coefficients
yii represent the line i self admittances per unit length, and
the off-diagonal coefficients yij represent the ground-return
admittances of line i with respect to line j . There is no
direct equivalence between the admittance matrix components
and the physical track admittances as is the case with the
impedance matrix elements. The admittance matrix elements
HILL AND CARPENTER: RAIL TRACK TRANSMISSION LINE MODELING AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 221

for an n-phase line are related to the admittances in the 375

physical model of Fig. 1 by the equations
n

Yii = Yie + &mij?

j=1
(i # j) (8)
Rail2 Raa3
and

+80
I I

B. Application to Rail Track

The primary function of rail track is for the mechanical
support and guidance of trains. However, the rails are also
conductors of electrical current and as such are used to
carry both traction power return current and track signaling
information signals. Most transmission lines are intended
for either power or information flow, and have well-defined
propagation characteristics. It is thus not surprising that for rail
track the usual approximations of lossless and/or distortionless
lines do not apply. Furthermore, the physical layout of the Fig. 2. Test track geometry and rail profiles (dimensions in mm).
line, with several parallel, unscreened cables laid on and in
contact with the ground surface, means that mutual coupling by integration. In order to obtain representative conductivity
effects are significant. This conflict between power flow (with values for the models in the study, the conductivity-depth-
a high efficiency requirement) and information flow (with frequency variation was determined experimentally by a de-
a low distortion requirement), with a consequent potential velopment of the classic 4-probe technique [17]. The resulting
EM1 problem, stresses the importance of achieving a thorough measured continuous function conductivity profile was then
understanding of the line properties at the design stage. approximated to a layered structure, with either two layers
necessary for some of the analytic theory evaluated, or up to
111. TRACK IMPEDANCE AND ADMITTANCE MODELING four which could be handled by the FEM package (Fig. 3).
The values of conductivity in each layer and the layer depths
A. Physical Track Layout and Material Properties were chosen to minimize the integrated conductance between
Fig. 2 shows the physical layout of the power-rail-electrified ground surface and remote earth [17].
single track modeled. The rail dimensions represent actual
worn values. The track was laid on concrete track ties, with B. Track Self Impehnce Model
500 mm deep ballast in perfect condition. The rail material The self impedance of each rail line in the track system with
properties are fully specified in [14]. respect to ground return is the sum of separate internal and
The rail iron conductivity and permeability affect the series external components. These internal and external impedances
track self impedance through the resistance and internal induc- arise from the distribution of flux within and external to the
tance, but have minimal effect on the external self inductance rail surface. The internal component is nonlinear, varying with
and mutual impedance. The shape of the rails is an important current and frequency due to saturation and the skin effect
factor in determining the capacitance between the power rail, within the rail iron. For steady state conditions, it is normally
ground, and other rails. The type of rail fastening to the much smaller than the external component. It has been fully
ties is a factor in the determination of the self and mutual investigated in [14] and is only considered here within the
conductances. The present track used Pandrol spring clips as context of its contribution to the transmission line equivalent
used on British Rail, with insulating pads between the running impedances.
rails and ties. The power rail was mounted on insulators at 4 The self inductance of a circuit is defined by the energy
m intervals. stored in the magnetic field according to the volume integral
The finite ground conductivity affects the track impedance.
In general, it is a function of both depth and frequency and
is affected by the geological structure and moisture content.
Z..--
-:2L 2
J * A d V = - pH2dV H / m (10)

The technique of conductivity measurement as a function of where J is the current density, I is the total current, and A is
depth is well established from geological prospecting [151, the vector potential. The relationships between B (magnetic
and the depth variation may be treated as constant, in uniform flux density), H (magnetic field strength) and A (vector
layers or as a continuous function. In low frequency analyses, potential) are
a two-layer conductivity function has been shown to give B=VxA (11)
good results [16]. More generally, models of self and mutual
and
conductance may be derived from experimentally determined
stratified ground conductivity-depth-frequency relationships B=pH (12)
228 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY,VOL. 42, NO. 2, MAY 1993
-30
E- - ; ,
- layer 1
where p is the permeability. The internal self inductance is due
to the field energy within the conductor. For a long, isolated
cylindrical conductor it is [18]
P H/m.
lii,int = - (13)
8lr
The external self inductance is due to the field energy outside
the conductor, and for a long isolated conductor is
where y is the length of the wire and a is the radius (y >> a).
The inductance per unit length is thus itself a function of
length. This potential source of difficulty in deciding on correct
data values in a model is tempered by the fact that the
dependency is weak since it is contained within a natural
logarithm function.
The conductor resistance is obtained from the dissipated
energy within the conductor according to
V V
r=-=- (15)
I J, J . d A
where V is the longitudinal voltage causing the current I to
flow and J is the current density over area d A within the
conductor cross section S. In (13) and (15), both internal
inductance .and resistance are frequency dependent from the
skin effect [19].
When the conductor is brought parallel to a conducting
semi-infinite ground, eddy currents are generated by induction
in the ground whose associated magnetic field modifies the
field surrounding the wire. Return current is constrained to
flow in the ground near the outward path beneath the wire,
so the circuit impedance is changed. The circuit can be
represented as a conductor with its image. If the ground is
a perfect conductor, the image will be located beneath the
ground at a depth equal to the conductor height. For this
condition, the external self impedance is that of a parallel
wire circuit and is given by
Po 2h
z, = j w l , = j w - In - film (16)
2lr a corresponding to the cases of perfectly insulating and perfectly
where h is the height of the wire above the conducting plane.
Equation (16) contains no length dependency as did (14). If the
exp - 2hX
dX. (18)
where p and u are the equivalent homogeneous ground per-
meability and conductivity. Evaluation of (17) and (18) yields
a complex impedance whose real part represents additional
power dissipation in the lossy ground, and whose imaginary
part represents the energy stored in the magnetic field in the
air and ground. The equations have been applied extensively
to calculate the ground-return impedance of power lines. The
assumption of ground homogeneity, however, is dubious, and
attention has been focused on devising an analytic expression
for external self impedance for the multilayer ground case
[211, [221.
The result even with a two-layer approximation for the
ground model provides a more accurate representation since
the bottom layer can be assigned a lower conductivity, ac-
centuating the current density near the surface. A convenient
expression for the ground-return self impedance for a two-
layer ground has been given by Bickford et al. [23] as
PlPO
where
and
72 = x2 + jWPnP0.n. (22)
In (19)-(22), the subscripts 1, 2, 3 refer to air, upper ground
layer and lower ground layer respectively, and d is the depth
of the interface between ground layers.
The model for external self impedance taking account of the
ground conductivity must lie within extreme impedance limits
HILL AND CARPENTER: RAIL TRACK TRANSMISSION LINE MODELING AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 229

conducting ground. Self impedance calculations assuming TABLE I

perfectly conducting, single-layer lossy, two-layer lossy and THEORETICAL SELF AND MUTUAL IMPEDANCES
AT 50 Hz FOR STANDARD GAUGERAIL TRACK
perfectly insulating ground have been performed at 50 Hz for
a single running rail on a track with the dimensions of Fig. 2, ' Self impedance Mutual impedance
using the conductivity profile of Fig. 3. They are summarized bm9 bm.4
in Table I.
Perfectly insulating rint + 49.3+ j m +
49.3 j m
earth
Perfectly conducting zint + 0 + j8l.l 0 + j2.35
C. Mutual Impedance Model earth
The mutual inductance between two parallel wires located Single layer earth' +
Zint 4- 49.3 j467.0 +
49.3 j363.9
over a perfectly insulating ground is [18] Two-layer earthZ + +
zint 49.4 j387.0 49.4+ j350.2
FEM +
zii = 532 j516 498 + j206
+
zint = 90 j104
Experimental 483 + j295
where d is the wire spacing, y is the line length and y >> d. measurement
In the vicinity of a perfectly conducting ground, the mutual lau = 0.9 x Sm-', a1 = 3.9 x Sm-', d = 0.8
2 a = 0.91 x Sm-'
inductance is reduced due to the screening effect. Each con-
ductor acquires an image beneath the ground surface, and the
mutual inductance becomes A(X) is defined as before by (21) and (22). Table I includes
sample mutual impedance calculations at 50 Hz for per-
fectly insulating, weakly conducting and perfectly conducting
where h is the height over the ground surface. As for the case ground, for a running rail pair on a standard gauge (1.435 m)
of the self inductance, the length dependency is lost. track.
If the ground is lossy, a field solution can again be obtained
in terms of the sum of the value with perfectly conduct- D. Physical Interpretation of Self and
ing ground, with appropriate correction terms. The Carson Mutual Impedance Models
equation for this condition is Evaluation of the mutual impedance from (25H30) results
in positive in-phase and quadrature components, representing
ground eddy current loss and mutual inductance respectively.
Klewe [24] explains the mutual impedance effect in terms of
with the phasor magnetic field components around the conductors.
The phase may be determined by considering the relationship
between the inducing current in the rail ( I l ) ,current density
in the ground ( J ) and electric field at the ground surface (E).
where h k and h, are the heights of the conductors above the For homogeneous ground with conductivity a,
ground surface. Equations (25) and (26) may be simplified at
power frequencies and harmonics for calculations of ground- J=aE (31)
return effects in electric railways. Klewe [24] approximates
the mutual impedance as E y = (jwm)l1 (32)
and
1,z -[12.98 - 21n [d,b\/(af)]
s jwPO -- R/m
4n 2
j"1
V = -E9 = - ( j w m ) l i = - 1 1 ~ ~ . (33)
where dab is the distance between the conductors a and b. In
this model the ground plane is treated as a conductor at a depth The inducing current and the induced voltage then differ in
that is frequency and conductivity dependent phase by an angle between nl2 and n.
A physical interpretation of the mutual impedance between
two conductors can be made using the knowledge that the
conductors will in general have different ground return depths.
Similar considerations to those for the self impedance model Therefore, total apportionment of the real and imaginary parts
apply for multilayered ground, and Bickford's equation for the cannot easily be made. Sunde [25] gives the mutual impedance
mutual impedance for a two-layer ground is [23] in the form
2, = + j w ( 1 +~ ZB) (34)
where T is the zero-frequency dc mutual resistance, ZA is the
(29) contribution of mutual inductance from the wire geometry and
where
ZB is the contribution from the ground return path. For pairs of
p2 cos [ X ( h k - h,)] exp - hX running rails which have almost the same ground return path,
dX. (30)
the dc term will normally be negligible. However, it could
230
be significant if the line heights above the ground vary, for
example in the calculation of mutual impedance between a
rail and an overhead catenary.
The application of Carson’s equations to the calculation of
self and mutual impedances in overhead power and communi-
cations lines has produced much published work. Rosen [26],
for example, has evaluated tables of mutual inductance for
power transmission systems assuming an equivalent single-
layer ground conductivity. For the same conditions, Deri et
al. [27] have introduced the concept of an ideal current
return plane below the surface with an equivalent depth
determined by the complex wave penetration. Their method
is also applicable to a multilayer ground.
To evaluate the Carson integrals accurately, some assump-
tions concerned with the physical nature of the system are
necessary. Wise [28] has neglected ground relative permeabil-
ity, displacement currents, and wave attenuation. Olsen and
Pankaskie [29] have compared the exact and Carson theories,
examining in detail the associated approximations. Their work,
applied to the case of rail track, confirms the validity of the
Carson equations for the assumptions:
the distance of the observer from the track is much
less than the freespace wavelength at right angles to the
wire (true even at higher harmonic frequencies where the
wavelength is still several hundred meters);
the relative magnitude of ground phase constant is much
less than that of the freespace phase constant, i.e.,
where
2a
ko = W ! / ( P O € O ) = -
x technique in widespread use for the solution of static and
and
4).
IC, = W ! / ( P O € , - JPoU, Re (k,) >0
typical values being ko = 1.05 x lop6 m-l and k, =
1.98 x 1 0 - ~m-l for CT = S/m;
the propagation constant is much less than the ground
phase constant
lYsl Ikgl
a typical value for 7sat 50 Hz being 15.7 x m-’.
The condition that the rail radius is much less than the height
above the ground is, however, violated.
E. Physical Interpretation of Admittance Model
The track transmission line model consists of several paral-
lel rails excited with respect to a remote, weakly conducting
ground. From the impedance viewpoint, this is equivalent
to regarding the system as a set of conductors which inject
current into the ground by induction (eddy currents) and
conduction (conductive currents). If the conductors are at
different potential with respect to each other or absolute
ground, currents will also flow between them or to ground.
The in-phase or conductive components of these currents will
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 42, NO. 2, MAY 1993
produce shunt losses along the track, the magnitude of which is
related to the values of the self and mutual conductances. The
actual conductive connection of the rails to the ground arises
from the resistance of rail fastenings to track ties, which in turn
are in contact with the underlying ballast and hence the soil.
The ground also has permittivity which determines the
magnitude of quadrature or displacement currents flowing be-
tween the conductors or to ground. Capacitive currents flowing
between the running rails at power and audio frequencies are
normally small compared with conductive currents because
the fastenings to the ties and ground substructure ensure the
establishment of a continuous, dominating ground conduc-
tance. However, the power rail self and mutual capacitances
may be significant and if so will influence the transmission
line characteristics by contributing to the modal propagation
constants and characteristic impedances. For power rails in
close proximity to the ground, but isolated from it, the large
bottom physical section of the rail produces significant capac-
itance effects to ground compared with the direct capacitance
from the power rail to the running rails (Fig. 2). In contrast
to the ground conductivity variation, the determination of
permittivity as a function of depth and frequency is difficult.
A model of an effective constant ground permittivity does,
however, provide a useful initial approach for the mutual
capacitance model [30].
Iv. FINITE ELEMENTMODELING
(35)
A. General Considerations
(36) The finite element method is a versatile numerical analytic
time-varying electromagnetic field problems. Its application to
(37)
problems involving magnetic stored and dissipated energy is
well established, and computation times for systems with two-
or three-dimensional geometrical symmetry are reasonable
using personal computer workstations. FEM is attractive for
the solution of electromagnetic fields around rail track where
analytic modeling is difficult because the rails and trackbed
do not have a regular geometric shape, and because the
rails are in close proximity to each other compared with
their individual dimensions. The difficulties in applying the
technique to rail track modeling are concerned with optimizing
the computational mesh size to achieve reasonable calculation
times, and setting the model boundaries to achieve acceptable
accuracy [31].
The theoretical basis of FEM requires a description of the
system to be modeled in electromagnetic field terms based
on Maxwell’s equations. The equations are manipulated in
either an integral or differential formulation and an efficient
numerical algorithm is selected for the solution. Elementary
accounts of FEM theory may be found in [32] and [33], with
a more detailed exposition in specialist texts such as [34]
and [35]. The package used in the present modeling uses a
differential formulation of the field equations, and following
is a summary together with interpretive information in terms
of the fields around rail track.
HILL AND CARPENTER RAIL TRACK TRANSMISSION LINE MODELING AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 23 1

The field equations to be solved are Maxwell's equations: TABLE I1

FINITE
ELEMENT
DUALITY
EQUATIONSFOR STATIC CASE
V.D=p (39) Electromagnetic Static Electrostatic Comments
Conductivity
V.R=O O.J=O V.D=O Divergence
V.B=O (40) constraint
R =B / p J=uE D = eE Material
properties
3B relationship
VxE=--
at (41) B=CxA Ex-01. E=-VV Potential
relationship
and c. -v ' -v. [eVV] =
[(l/p)VA,] = 0 [uVV] = 0 0
VxH=J (42) 1/p U e Material
properties
where J is made up of both source currents ( J , ) and eddy J H . B dS S E . JdS $E.DdS
currents (aE).
The material properties are = 0.5 L I ~ = 0.5 GV2 = 0.5 C V 2 Energy
integral
D = EE (43)

and B. Building the FEM Model

The process of modeling a system using the finite ele-
B =pH. (44) ment method starts with the definition of the physical model
In the electrostatics case, a simplification is available by the which requires the geometric features of the system to be
use of a scalar potential V rather than the vector electric field identified. These include the shape, material properties, and
E. From excitation of the actual system. Hence dimensions, material
properties (permeability, permittivity, conductivity), conductor
E = -VV (45) (source) current densities and driving voltage magnitudes and
waveforms must all be known.
it follows from (39) and (43) that Next, the information in the physical model is refined
to form an appropriate geometric model. This simplification
-V.€VV=p. (46) process retains only features relevant to the particular analysis
under study. For example, in an inductance calculation, relative
This simplification is available for the magnetostatics case only permittivity is neglected, and for capacitance modeling, the
for simple solutions. Problems concerning static conductance permeability is of no interest. At this stage, boundary condi-
and capacitance may also be solved using these equations by tions must be chosen to provide a suitable shape, function
exploiting aspects of electromagnetic-electrostatic duality as condition and distance so that a meaningful and accurate
summarized in Table 11. solution may be obtained. For the case of rail track, to ensure
Where dynamic solutions including the effects of eddy that the far field boundaries are a sufficient distance away, two
currents are required, a continuous vector potential must be different boundary conditions may be used-the Neumann and
used. The magnetostatic solution is then simply a special case Dirichlet conditions. The former is a natural FEM condition
of the electromagnetic problem. In the electromagnetic case, which sets the normal derivative of the potential to zero, and
the vector potential is defined from the latter sets the potential value to zero. If the two solutions
from the two conditions provide results which are in agreement
VxA=B. (47) to within an acceptable error, then the boundary is deemed to
Hence be at an appropriate distance from the track.
At this stage, the geometric model may still contain redun-
V x H = J , +aE (48) dant information, especially concerning problem symmetry.
dA Thus the mathematical model need not coincide exactly with
= J , - a- (49) the physical system, but only to a subset of it. For example,
at
when analyzing a single rail, only half the cross-section
so that need be modeled since there is a vertical line of symmetry.
1 3A Other examples of redundant information include conductors
V X - ( V x A ) = J,-O-. in electrostatic analyses. Since the permittivity is infinite
P at
within good conductors, only their outline is required in the
In two dimensions x and y, only the z-component of A is mathematical model. A further consideration concerns the
required, since the remaining two components are assumed to relationship between magnetic flux density and vector potential
be constant in the model space. This simplifies the implemen- from (47). Since the potential does not have a unique value, the
tation procedure. The duality equations for the dynamic case model must be assigned a datum such as a boundary where
must incorporate the time dependency term in (50). the potential is known.
~
232
Fig. 4. Finite element method elemental nets. (a) Running rail. @) Track and ground substructure.
After formation in outline form, the mathematical model is
discretized into a numerical model by dividing each region
into a mesh linked by nodes. Qpical elemental nets for
an individual rail and for the complete problem space are
shown in Fig. 4. The number of mesh elements that can be
used is limited by the computational processing time, about
5000 elements being required for most problems covering
the complete space. At the time of publication, processing
power is continually increasing, with a concomitant increase
in possible model complexity. To improve the model accuracy,
more elements are necessary in regions of rapidly changing
fields, since the solution error is proportional to h2 where h is
the largest dimension of the element. A further variable is the
interpolation methocLa quadratic rather than linear technique
will improve the accuracy, albeit at the expense of computation
time.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 42, NO. 2, MAY 1993
@)
C. Application of FEM to Rail Track Modeling
In the case of rail track with its substructure, the problem
space is characterized by separate regions as follows:
ground, with low conductivity which is variable with
depth, zero permeability and significant permittivity which
may also be variable with depth;
rails, which have moderate conductivity, high nonlinear
permeability and permittivity equal to that of free space;
air, with zero conductivity and permeability and permit-
tivity equal to that of free space.
To simplify the problem, ferrous hysteresis in the rail iron is
ignored, although saturation is permitted through a predefined
B-H relationship.
After the problem region is divided into the elemental
net and the boundary conditions are defined, the numerical
 -

HILL AND CARPENTER: RAIL TRACK TRANSMISSION LINE: MODELING AND EXPERIMENTAL. RESULTS 233

solution of (50) determines values for the vector potential ‘ I L b : PN3F1000 I /Y€W
within every element for the minimum system energy state. MIlS 1 L 2 Bath Unlv

From these, values of other variables can be obtained and

the actual system magnetic stored and dissipated energies
evaluated. For problems involving duality, the scaling factors
will be known from the excitation conditions.
The software package used, MEGA, was developed in-
house over a number of years for a range of electromagnetic
and electrostatic problems [34]. The reported results were
obtained using a DEC MicroVax 2000 with 6 MB RAM.
The CPU time for solution of a typical problem ranged
from 7 minutes for linear solutions such as conductance and
capacitance problems, which require about 40 iterations for
convergence, to 10 hours for nonlinear solutions such as
resistance and inductance, which require about 280 iterations
lCCl Contours of A C 0 . 0 DEC I
for convergence.

D. Track Impedance Modeling

To determine the rail track impedance, it is convenient,
though not strictly necessary, to consider the internal and
external rail impedances separately. The internal impedance
has previously been evaluated for both ac and dc excitation
[14], [19], [36], and results are included here for completeness
and to assess its importance relative to the total impedance.
FEM has been used to determine the frequency-dependent
self impedances (211 and 222 = 233), including both internal
and external components, and the mutual impedances by
considering the excitation of a two-rail short circuit current
loop using the relationships:

and

2SC13 = 211 -k 233 - 2213. (53)

Since FEM is inherently more accurate in obtaining the system
energy than in predicting exact field values, integrating the
field energy produces realistic values for the impedances even
when there are significant errors in the field values. This is
particularly useful at high frequencies where it is unnecessary
to make major adjustments to the elements in regions of high
field gradient. After the field values have been obtained, the
rail resistance may be found from the system dissipated energy L icci contb.,~ or A c 0 . 0 DEG

and the rail inductance from the stored energy.

The model solution gives all the field variables at every
point in the problem space for a given set of boundary and
excitation conditions. Fig. 5 shows typical examples of vector
potential contours generated by the FEM package when each
pair of rails in a power-rail electrified single track is excited
in turn. The contour intervals between each pair of rails
depend on the magnitude of the excitation voltage. Since
this represents ripple components in a dc transit system, all
the figures have been normalized for 1-V excitation. Fig.
6 shows the corresponding contours of longitudinal current
density which are induced in the ground when the running
rails are excited. For a 1-A excitation current, the contour
Fig. 5. Finite element method derived vector potential contours for two-rail
track excitation.
interval indicates that the total induced current in the ground
is very small compared with the excitation current magnitude.
Figs. 5 and 6 also demonstrate the care that must be taken in
selecting the outer boundaries of the FEM model. Most of the
energy flow is contained in the fields near the current-carrying
conductors, and conditions far from the rails do not contribute
significantly. Moreover, since stored and dissipated energies
234 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY. VOL. 42, NO. 2, MAY 1993

I ICC NAl : [GS] JZ M

Fig. 6 . Finite element method derived ground current density profiles for running rail excitation.

are integrated to find the system impedances, the impedance static conductance problems is found by exploiting aspects
values will be insensitive to rail geometry if the problem area of electromagnetic-electrostaticduality given in Table 11. With
is large. appropriate scaling, it is possible to map A to V and l / p
to (T. The electromagnetic stored energy J B . HdS is then
E. Track Admittance Modeling equivalent to the dissipated energy J E .JdS. In the air region,
Conductance, The self conductance of a rail in continuous (T = 0 implies l / p = 0 or p -+00, so air must be modeled by
contact with the ground may be obtained by integrating the removing all elements from the region. For the dynamic case
current flow from the rail to remote ground. It may be where aA/at # 0, a more complex duality relationship based
represented by on (50) must be used. For the present conditions, this would
be required only for initially quiescent conditions during the
settling down period.
To solve the self conductance problem, a field calculation
where l i e is the total current injected into the ground per was performed by FEM to obtain the minimum energy con-
unit rail length, V, is the rail voltage, and Jie is the current dition with flow of current from one rail to remote ground. A
density in the ground over surface dS. Similarly, the mutual conventional top-contact power-rail electrified single rail track
conductance may be determined by integrating the flow of with the dimensions of Fig. 2 was modeled, and values of con-
current between two parallel rails, represented by ductance corresponding to tie, ballast (0.65 m) and four ground
layers (0.65, 2, 4,and 22 m) were estimated from previously
(55) measured conductivity-depth-frequency profiles [16]. The in-
tegral of (54) converges because the conductivity decreases
where Iij is the total injected current per unit length, V,, is the with depth. A sample equipotential contour for this condition
rail-rail potential difference and Jij is the current density in the is shown in Fig. 7(a). The contour interval has again been
ground over surface dS.In (54) and ( 5 9 , the current density normalized assuming a 1-V rail excitation.
depends on the local values of conductivity and electric field. The mutual conductance was found by considering current
The conductivity is a function of both depth and frequency flow between two rails, and the corresponding equipotential
and the electric field is a function of depth. is given in Fig. 7(b) (only half is required due to symmetry).
FEiM cannot be used to solve these equations directly. In both the self and mutual cases, the conductance was found
Instead, the electromagnetic fields are calculated in the various from the dissipated energy as gV2.
regions of the system being modelled, then integrated to Capacitance. For displacement current, the dual between the
find the corresponding dissipated energy. The solution for electromagnetic and electrostatic problems is required. Table
 ~

HILL AND CARPENTER RAIL TRACK TRANSMISSION LINE MODELING AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 235

ILE : 02GlEF1500HZ /Y€& 'ILE : CAP3RlZSO I /Y€GA

QIDUCTANCE: RAIL 2 k RQGTE EARTH Bath Uni a P A C I T W : RAILS 1 b 3 Bath univ

[CCI CDntOUrO Of A e 0 . 0 DEG [CCI contours of A e 0.0 DEG I

FILE : COND250000
mWMCE: RAILS 2 b 3
M€GA ILE : ONERUP6000 1 A€
Bath Univ

Fig. 7. Finite element method derived equipotentials for conductance
determination. (a) Single-rail excitation. @) %o-rail excitation.
I1 shows that the appropriate mapping is V to A and E to
l/p. The electromagnetic field stored energy J B . H d S is
then equivalent to the electrostatic stored energy E . DdS
through the relationship
/E.DdS=/VV.cVVdS (56)
which is equivalent to the stored electrostatic energy of 0.5
cv2.
Since no information was available about the variation of
permittivity with depth, a constant effective permittivity for the
tie, ballast and ground structure was assumed. To obtain the
mutual capacitances between the rails, FEM field calculations
were performed to solve for the minimum energy condition
when each pair of the three rails was excited in turn. Because
of the perceived dominance of ground effects, an analysis was
also carried out with an excitation voltage applied between the
power rail and the running rails connected in parallel.
Examples of the resulting FEM equipotential plots are
shown in Figs. 8(a) and (b) and confirm that there were no
Fig. 8. Finite element method derived equipotentials for capacitance deter-
mination. (a) Two-rail excitation including power rail. @) Excitation between
running trails.
significant differences in the capacitance between the power
rail to either running rail, and to both running rails in parallel.
The results clearly show crowding of the equipotentials in
the air between the power rail and the ground surface, the
ground being sufficiently conductive to prevent charge storage.
Thus the power rail shape and its ground proximity alone
determine the mutual capacitance between the power rail and
the other rails, and the inter-rail spacings have no effect. The
results also show an order of magnitude difference in the
mutual capacitances between the two running rails, which are
in good conductive contact with the ground compared with
those involving the power rail.
v. EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTSOF
TRACK IMPEDANCE AND h M l T T A N C E
A. Impedance Measurements
Since the track impedance is much less than the track
236 IEEE "RWSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL 42, NO. 2, MAY 1993

Rail 2
;G T ? t
Is *L

Fig. 9. Experimental arrangement for triple-short-circuit tests.

admittance for short track lengths

(57)

lumped circuit measurements with the track short circuited

may be used to determine the impedance matrix element
@)
values. There are, however, two main difficulties in devising
Fig. 10. Discontinuous rail experiment. (a) Technique. @) Equivalent circuit.
suitable experiments to do this. The first is that the remote
ground terminal is inaccessible, so absolute voltage measure-
ments cannot be taken, and the second is that differential are known from the FEM models and impedance measurement,
voltage measurements between the track ends cannot be made, the method can reveal the mutual impedance values.
since additional inductance loops would be created. These
factors restrict measurements to line currents and rail-rail volt- B. Admittance Measurements
ages, with only a limited number of independent experiments
available. From (57), the self and mutual admittances may be mea-
sured from open circuit conditions by considering the track as
An experimental technique, the triple-short-circuit test, can
be used to determine the mutual impedances if the self a lumped circuit. 'hvo sets of circuit tests were devised. First,
impedances are known. The circuit is illustrated in Fig. 9. Thethe running rail admittances were measured by a discontinuous
track was an isolated section 36 m in length laid to British rail test. However, this test is not suitable for the power rail,
since there is no conductance to ground and the total rail-rail
Rail specifications and with the ballast in perfect condition so
as to give high conductance. All three rails are continuously admittance is an order of magnitude smaller than that between
excited at frequencies between 15 Hz and 40 kHz. In each the running rails. Direct rail-rail admittance measurements
test, two of the three rails are connected in parallel and thenwere thus used in the latter case.
excited differentially with respect to the third line. The rail Discontinuous rad test. The running rail self and mutual
currents and excitation voltage are then measured as functions admittances were determined for the same 36 m length of
of frequency. track as for the impedance measurements. The test involved
Loop circuit analysis for the configuration of Fig. 9 gives making a break at the center of one of the running rails and
then exciting the rail pair at one end, with a load admittance
y~ comparable in magnitude to the track admittance connected
across the other (Fig. lqa)). The source voltage, source
current, load admittance and load current were all measured.
Loop equations for the equivalent circuit of Fig. lo@),together
with similar sets of equations obtained when the two other with the current continuity relationship I; = 0, then give
pairs of rails are connected in parallel. Since there are only (59), shown at the bottom of the page.
three independent equations with six unknowns, only three of Since running rail symmetry implies ~ 2 = e y3e, then ~ 2 (=
e
the six impedances may be determined. If the self impedances 93e), ym23, 11,12, and I3 may be determined.
 ~

H I U AND CARF'ENTER RAIL TRACK TRANSMISSION W N E MODELlNG AND EWERMENTAL RESULTS 237

%GC
Rail 3 (Running)

Fig. 11. Inter-rail admittance test model.

Inter-rail admittance test. In this experiment, the admittance

f: a a 9 / /

between each rail pair in tum was measured. Consideration of

the test circuit of Fig. 11 reveals, on analysis, six unknowns
with three independent equations. Since the values of pm23
0.1 I
/
A
4

and pze (= ~ 3 are ~ known

) from the broken rail test, the
values of ym12, ~ ~ 1 and 3 ,ple may be determined. Due to zero 0.01
measured conductance and the small capacitance, the lower 10 100 1k 10k 1OOk
frequency limit for these measurements was 400 Hz.
Frequency(*I

VI. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

AND THEORETICAL
The self and mutual impedances were determined for a
conventional top-contact power-rail electrified single rail track
with dimensions given in Fig. 2. The results are shown in
Fig. 12 (self impedances) and Fig. 13 (mutual impedances).
The self impedances zll and 222 (= 233) are shown for
the theoretical model of (19) for two-layer ground (a, =
0.9 x Sm-', a1 = 3.9 x Sm-', d = 0.8m), for
a FEM analysis for multiple layered ground as determined
from previous experiments [17], for a FEM analysis for the
internal components, and for a laboratory experiment for the
internal component of 222 (= ,233) [14]. The results show
good agreement for the value of internal self impedance up
to a frequency of about 10 kHz for the resistive part and 2
kHz for the reactive part. However, the FEM result differs
from the theoretical model in the resistive part of the total self
impedance. The reasons for this are considered later.
The results for track mutual impedance ( ~ 1 2 , 223, and 231)
shown in Fig. 13 have been evaluated using the theoretical
model from (29) for two-layer ground (a,,= 0 . 9 ~ Sm-',
06 = 3.9 x Sm-l, d = 0.8 m), for a FEM analysis
for multiple layered ground, and from the track experiment
using FEM derived values for zll and 222 (= 233). Again,
there is divergence in the results for the resistive component,
considered later.
The self and mutual admittance results expressed in terms
of the admittance matrix elements according to (8) and (9)
are given in Fig. 14 for conductance and Fig. 15 for capac-
itance. The conductance results for the running rails show
good agreement between experiment and FEM modeling. The
experimental results involving the power rail, obtained by than those of the running rails and could not be verified by
manipulation of (8) and (9), are orders of magnitude lower the FEM model.
238 EEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY,VOL. 4 5 NO. 2, MAY 1993

-
VI
1 :

$ - 8 :
5
Qa
.- 100f
:
c
3 10:
u -
2 : s :
10 r 1:

-
1: 0.1 F

0.1 : 0.01 :

'
/ ' ' ""'
0.001 0 1 # * * . * * * """" """"
0.01 10 100 lk 10k 1 OOk 10 100 lk 1Ok 1ook

Frequency (W Fresuency(W

(4 Fig. 14. Track conductance matrix element values as function of frequency.

0.1
10 100 lk 10k 1OOk

(W
Fig. 15. Validation of finite element method capacitance models.

permittivity assumption, only the mutual capacitances may

be determined by FEM and so the experimental comparison
is with the direct rail-rail capacitance measurements. The
experimental results for the capacitance (and hence suscep-
tance) components of the admittance matrix, obtained from
0.01 the practical tests and using (8) and (9), are given in Fig. 16.
10 100 lk 10k 1OOk

Frequency (W
(b)
Fig. 13. Track mutual impedance results from experiment, finite element
method, and analytic theory. (a) Mutual resistance. @) Mutual reactance.
A comparison of the FEM and experimental results for
capacitance is given in Fig. 15. Because of the constant ground
VII. DISCUSSION
The sample calculations of self and mutual impedance at
50 HZ given in I show that the difference
single-layer and two-layer stratification models of ground
conductivity is small. The sensitivity of the results in general
to changes in ground conductivity is thus also small. The
HILL AND CARPENTER: RAIL TRACK TRANSMISSION LINE MODELING AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
10 100 lk 10k 1 OOk
Frequency (W
Fig. 16. Track capacitance and susceptance matrix element values as
function of frequency.
analytical and FEM derived self and mutual resistances differ
by a factor of ten. This may be understood by considering how
the Carson-Pollaczek theory is implemented by Bickford's
equations. In both the Carson model, with constant ground
conductivity, and the Bickford model, with a two-layer ground
model, the self and mutual resistances as evaluated by the
real parts of the equations are equal to each other. Moreover,
according to (19) and (29), the resistance magnitudes are
also unaffected by the actual numerical value of the ground
conductivity. Since it might be expected that the size and
distribution of ground eddy currents, and hence the associated
power losses, are affected by conductor proximity to the
ground and rail shape, the analytic theory must contain simpli-
fying assumptions. The equality of the resistance components
is also unrealistic, since their numerical values should be
dependent on conductor separation. The theory of Carson-
Pollaczek is commonly applied to the study of overhead line
power and harmonic frequency propagation under ground-
return conditions, for which eddy current losses in the ground
would usually be negligible. Although Bickford claims the
equations are generally valid, for conductors in close proximity
to the ground the fundamental assumptions regarding contact
impedance and the neglect of displacement currents should be
re-examined [29].
Examination of the impedance results in Figs. 12 and 13
shows that the mutual reactance displays good agreement be-
tween experiment and theory, being smallest when the rails are
closest together. This can be explained by the rail geometric
contribution, (34),with the large rail cross sections distorting
the magnetic flux, and producing a nonlinear screening effect
(shown in Fig. 5). The self inductance of the power rail is
239
Fig. 17. Effective ground permittivity as function of frequency.
greater than that of the running rails, and this is consistent
with the different cross section and height above the ground.
However, (19) and (20) do not include any component due
to internal self inductance, for which the necessary correction
will enhance agreement between theory and experiment.
Although the experimental measurements rely on prior
knowledge of the self impedances to obtain the mutual im-
pedances, the FEM technique has previously been fully vali-
dated by laboratory measurements of the running rail internal
impedance. The agreement between practical measurements
and FEM is shown in Fig. 12.
The experimental and FEM results for running rail self
and mutual conductance are also in good agreement, though
it is important to remember that the various tests were per-
formed on different occasions and take no account of any
environmental changes that may have taken place in the
soil substructure with time. The previously measured ground
conductivity profiles with depth and frequency do, however,
supply accurate data for the FEM model, accounting for the
excellent match obtained.
In carrying out the FEM conductance and capacitance mod-
eling independently, implicit assumptions were made about
the relative magnitude of the conductance and susceptance
components for each physical configuration since a com-
prehensive field model should strictly take into account at
the same time both conductive and displacement currents.
The running rail conductance results are based on a mea-
sured stratified conductivity-depth profile and good agreement
between experimental tests and FEM is obtained. Similar
independent data for a stratified ground permittivity profile
was, however, not available and the model assumes that the
permittivity is constant with depth. The numerical value of
effective permittivity has been determined by comparing FEM
with experimental measurements between the running rails at
variable frequency. The result is the permittivity-frequency
relationship of Fig. 17. This technique for determination of
effective permittivity by rail-rail capacitance measurement is
essentially similar to that reported by Mayhan and Bailey [30],
and shows the same increase of permittivity as frequency
is decreased. However, the very large permittivity values in
Fig. 17 at low frequencies are greater than those reported in
reference [30].
Because the power rail admittance is dominated by ca-
pacitance, there is confidence in the model of power rail
240
to running rail capacitance. The unavailability of accurate
ground permittivity data was of little consequence because
the capacitance is dominated by the rail-ground air gap rather
than the exact value of ground permittivity. The experimental
results for self capacitance and susceptance could not be
checked by FEM using the constant ground permittivity model,
because the result would be dependent on the assumed depth
of the ground plane, rather than on the value of permittivity
chosen. A decreasing permittivity profile with depth would
have been required for the self capacitance to be independent
of the position of the ground plane in the model.
VIII. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Analytical models for rail track self and mutual impedance
based on the established Carson-Pollaczek theory have been
evaluated using ground conductivity data obtained from local
measurements of ground conductance. Both single-layer and
two-layer conductivity data have been used. The finite element
method has been applied to establish the validity of the
analytical models, and a practical method has been described
for the measurement of the mutual impedance between the
individual rails in an electrified rail track. The experimental
technique relies on the separability of the track impedance and
admittance for short track lengths. Due to the inaccessibility
of the remote ground, the method requires prior knowledge
of the rail self impedance, and this is obtained using the
FEM model. Self and mutual impedance results are given
for a frequency range between 25 Hz and 40 kHz. Good
agreement is obtained between all the methods, and the results
are interpreted physically utilizing the concept of induced and
conductive currents in the weakly conducting ground.
The self and mutual conductances and capacitances have
been obtained by a combination of field modeling using
FEM and practical tests on the same short track length.
The model of ground conductivity used as data in the FEM
model has a multi-layer variation with depth and frequency.
Good agreement is obtained between FEM and experimental
results for the running rail self and mutual conductances.
The assumption of an equivalent constant permittivity with
depth and frequency is sufficient to model the power rail to
running rail mutual capacitances to a high degree of accuracy.
However, exact knowledge of the permittivity depth and
frequency dependencies would be required for more accurate
modeling of the self capacitance of the power rail.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors acknowledge Prof. D. Rodger and Dr. P.
Leonard at the University of Bath, England, for the use of
the FEM package MEGA.
REFERENCES
R. J. Hill, S. L. Yu, and N. J. Dunn, “Rail transit chopper traction
interference modelling using the SPICE circuit simulation package,”
IEEE Trans. Veh. TechnoL, vol. 38, pp. 237-246, Nov. 1989.
R. J. Hill, “Train position detection and track-train data transmission
using audio frequency track circuits,” J. Electrical and Electronics
Engineering Australia, vol. 5 , no. 4, pp. 267-277, Dec. 1985.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 42, NO. 2, MAY 1993
J. Holtz and H.-J. Klein, “The propagation of harmonic currents gen-
erated by inverter-fed locomotives in the distributed overhead supply
system,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 4, pp. 168-174, Apr. 1989.
W. Machczynski, “Currents and potentials in earth-return circuits ex-
posed to alternating current electric railways,” IEE Proc., vol. 129B,
no. 5, pp. 279-288, Sept. 1982.
A. Rosen, “Interferencein railway lineside telephone cable circuits from
25 kV 50 Hz traction systems,” Institution of Railway Signal Engineers
pro^., pp. 55-79, 1958.
S. D. Jacimovic, “Maximum permissible values of step and touch
voltages with special consideration to electrified railroads,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., VOI. IA-20, pp. 935-941, JulylAUg. 1984.
R. E. Shaffer, “Design of DC powered rail transit systems to minimize
stray currents,” Materials Performance, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 17-22, Sept.
1982.
P. Vernon, “Stray-current corrosion control in metros,” Institutwn of
Civil Engineers Proc., vol. 80, pt. 1, pp. 641-650, June 1986.
T. A. Kneschke, “Design considerations for the DART traction electri-
fication system,” in Proc. 1987 IEEEIASME Joint Railroad Conference,
Toronto, Canada, April 21-23, 1987, New York: IEEE, pp. 1-11.
B. Mellitt, “Data-transmission characteristicsof railway track,” Electron
Lett., vol. 9, no. 23, pp, 550-551, Nov. 1973.
J. R. Carson, “Wave propagation in overhead wires with ground return,”
Bell Syst. Tech. J., vol. 5 , pp. 539-56, Oct. 1926.
F. Pollaczek, “Uber das Feld einer unendlich langen wechselstrom-
durchflossenen Einfachleitung,” E.N.T., vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 339-359,
1926.
G. Haberland, “Theorie der Leitung von Wechselstrom durch die
Erde,” Zeitschrifi f i r Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, vol. 6,
pp. 366-379, 1926.
R. J. Hill and D. C. Carpenter, “Determination of rail internal impedance
for electric railway traction system simulation,” IEE Proc.-B, vol. 138,
no. 6, pp. 311-321, Nov. 1991.
W. M. Telford, L. P. Geldart, R. E. Sheriff, and D. A. Keys, Applied
Geophysics. Cambridge U K CUP 1976.
R. J. Hill, D. C. Carpenter, and T. Tasar, “Railway track admit-
tance, earth-leakage effects and track circuit operation,” in Proc. 1989
IEEEIASME Joint Railroad Conf., Philadelphia, PA, April 25-27, 1989,
New York IEEE, pp. 55-62.
D. C. Carpenter and R. J. Hill, “A continuous-function ground conduc-
tivity model for the determination of electric railway earth conductance,”
IEEE Trans. Geosci Remote Sensing, to be published.
F. W. Grover, Inductance Calculatwns. New York Dover 1973.
R. J. Hill and D. C. Carpenter, “Modelling of nonlinear rail impedance
in AC traction power systems,” presented at the Int. Conf. Harmonics
in Power Systems: ICHPS N,Budapest, Hungary, Oct. 4-6 1990, pp.
268-274.
F. C. Alvarado and R. Betancourt, “An accurate closed-form approxi-
mation for ground retum impedance,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 71, pp. 279-80,
Feb. 1983.
M. Nakagawa and K. Iwamoto, “Earth-return impedance for the multi-
layer case,’’ IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst., vol. PAS-95, pp.
671-4576, MarJApr. 1976.
A. Ametani, “Stratified earth effects on wave propagation - frequency
dependent parameters,” in Proc. IEEE PES Wnter Meeting, New York,
Jan. 27-Feb. 1, 1974, New York IEEE, pp. 1233-1239.
J. P. Bickford, N. Mullineux, and J. R. Reed, Computation of Power
System Transients. London, U.K.: Peter Peregrinus, 1976.
M. R. G . Klewe, Interference Between Power Systems and Telecommu-
nications Lines. London, U.K.: Edward h o l d , 1958.
E. D. Sunde, Earth Conduction Effects in Transmission System. New
York: Dover, 1968.
A. Rosen, “Formulas and tables for mutual inductance between pardel
circuits with earth retum,” Proc. IEE, vol. 118, no. 9, pp. 1227-1236,
Sept. 1971.
A. Den, G. Tevan, A. Semlyen, and A. Castanheira, “The complex
ground return plane. A simplified model for homogeneous and multi-
layer earth return,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Sys&, vol. PAS-100,
pp. 3686-93, Aug. 1981.
W. H. Wise, “Propagation of high-frequency currents in ground return
circuits,” Pmc. IRE,vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 522-527, Apr. 1934.
R. G. Olsen and T. A. Pankaskie, “On the exact, Carson and image
theories for wires at or above the earth’s interface,” IEEE Trans.Power
Apparatus Syst., vol. PAS-102, pp. 769-778, Apr. 1983.
R. J. Mayhan and R, E. Bailey, “An indirect measurement of the effec-
tive dielectric constant and loss tangent of typical concrete roadways,”
IEEE Trans.Antennas Propagat., vol. AP-23, pp. 565-569, July 1975.
D. C. Carpenter and R. J. Hill, “The effect of magnetic saturation,
hysteresis and eddy currents on rail track impedance,” in Pmc. 1989
HILL AND CARPENTER:RAIL TRACK TRANSMISSION LINE: MODELING AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 241

IEEEIASME Joint Railroad Conj, Philadelphia, PA, April 25-27, 1989,
New York IEEE, pp. 73-79.
[32] M. N. 0. Sadiku, “A simple introduction to finite element analysis
of electromagnetic problems,” IEEE Trans. Education, vol. E-32, pp.
85-93, May 1989.
[33] M. N. 0. S a d h , “A further introduction to finite element analysis
of electromagnetic problems,” IEEE Trans. Education, vol. E-34, pp.
322-329, NOV.1991.
[34] J. F. Eastham and D. Rodger, “Differential methods, finite elements and
applications,” in Industrial Applications of Electromagnetic Computer
Codes, Y . R. Crutzen, G. Molinari, and G. Rubinacci, a s . Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer, 1990, pp. 51-79.
[35] P. P. Silvester and R. L. Ferrari, FiniteEZementsforEZecrricaZEngineers.
Cambridge, U K CUP, 1983.
[36] D. C. Carpenter and R. J. Hill, “Rail impedance modelling for DC-
fed railway traction simulation,” in Proc. M T E D Int. Symp. Applied
Simulation and ModeZZing, Lugano, Switzerland, June 18-20, 1990,
Anaheim, Ck. Acta Press, pp. 105-108.
David C. Carpenter was bom in England on
September 8, 1956. He received the B.Sc. degree
from the University of Southampton, England,
in 1978 and the M.Phil. degree from Coventry
Polytechnic, England in 1989.
In 1979 he hecame a Computer-Aided Design
Engineer at GEC Machines Ltd, Rugby, England,
where he was involved in the design of large
induction motors. In 1982, he became a Lecturer
(Senior Lecturer from 1984) in Electrical Engineer-
ing at Coventry Polytechnic, England. From 1986
to 1987 he was a Visiting Professor at Lalcehead University, Canada, where
he extended his research interests to intersystem satellite communications
interference analysis. Between 1988 and 1991 he has been a Research O a c e r
at the University of Bath, England, working on the modeling of electric
traction systems, with special reference to the development of simulation
techniques for EMC. Mr. Carpenter is now an Applications Engineer at Vector
Fields Ltd., Oxford, England, responsible for developments in electromagnetic
field computation with finite-element methods.
Mr.Carpenter is a Member of the IEE (UK).

R John Hill was hom in Somerset, England, on

July 3, 1948. He received the B.Eng. degree in
electronics and the Ph.D. degree in power electrical
engineering from the University of Liverpool, Eng-
land, in 1969 and 1973, and the M.A. degree from
the University of Cambridge, England, in 1983.
From 1973 to 1980he was a Design and Develop-
ment Engineer for London Underground Railways
working on automatictrain control systems. In 1980
he became a Ledurer (Senior Lecturer from 1990) at
Cambridge University Engineering Department and
in 1983 a Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge, England. Since 1986 he
has been a Lecturer at the University of Bath, England. His current research
interests are in the modeling of railway traction systems, and he has published
over 75 technical papers on power electronics and rail traction, electrification
and control systems.
Dr. Hill is a Member of the IEE (UK) and the Institute of Physics (UK).
In 1988 he was awarded the IEEE Vehicular Technology Society prize for the
best paper presented at the Joint ASME/IEEE Railroad Conference.