IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 5, No.

1, January 1990 415

ANALYSIS OF ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE
FROM POWER LINES TO GAS PIPELINES
PART 11: PARAMETRIC
l-. P. Dawalibi
Senior Member, IEEE
Safe Engineering Services & Technologies Ltd
1544 Viel, Montreal
Quebec, Canada, H3M IG4
ABsl-RAm
Analysis of electrical interference effects of transmission lines upon nearby
pipelines has been a topic of growing interest due to the proliferation of
rights-of-way which must be shared by transmission lines and pipelines.
This paper describes the results of a recent joint EPRI/A.G.A. research
project whose objectives were to develop a computer program for
simulating complex realistic right-of-way problems accurately and to
investigate the effects of various systemparameters. The computer program
combines a user-friendly input data preprocessor with a computation
algorithm which evaluates the effects of both conductive and inductive
interference for arbitrarily positioned above-ground and buried conductors
which could occur in typical rights-of-way. A parametric analysis was
conducted using the computer program and provides insight on how to
control both conductive and inductive interference effects.
I . INTRODUCTION
This paper introduces the computer software package. ECCAPP
(Electromagnetic & Conductive Coupling Analysis from Powerlines to
Pipelines), which resulted froman EPRI/A.G.A. research program[2]. in
terms of its problem-solving abilities and applications. This paper further
summarizes some of the results of an extensive parametric analysis, which
was performed using the software, and which examines the roles of various
factors which affect electrical interference levels caused in pipelines by
nearby transmission lines under fault conditions. A companion paper [21]
provides a detailed discussion of the computation methods used by the
software, as well as some introductory material which could be useful to
the reader. The reader should note that although no direct field testing was
performed during the research project to validate the programas a whole,
Section 3.4 of this paper refers to several field tests which validate the two
main analytical components of the software (i.e., conductive and inductive
interference analysis).
2. BACKGROUND
Metallic conductors such as gas pipelines which are located near power
lines may capture a portion of the energy encompassed by the conductors
paths, particularly under unfavourable circumstances such as long parallel
exposures and power fault conditions. In such cases, high currents and
voltages may develop along the conductors lengths. Also, energy may flow
directly frompower installations to gas pipeline installations via conductive
paths common to both. This direct flow of energy may result i n electrical
hazards and equipment damage or failure.
The traditional approach to analyzing power line effects upon gas pipelines
has concentrated on the magnetic interference problem during normal
power systemload conditions. This magnetic interference mechanismwill
be referred to in this paper as inductive coupling. This is not a new
problemand much work precedes the present project. The classic papers
by Carson [ 5] and Pollaczek [6] delineate the basic theory of inductive
89 SM 825-1 PWRD
by the IEEE Transmi ssi on and Di stri buti on Committee of
the IEEE Power Engi neeri ng Soci ety f or presentati on a t
the IEEE/PES 1989 Summer Meeti ng, Long Beach, Cal i f orni a,
J ul y 9 - 14, 1989. Manuscri pt submi tted J anuary 18, 1988;
made avai l abl e f or pri nti ng May 19, 1989.
A paper recommended and approved
ANALYSIS
R. D. Southey
Member. IEEE
Safe Engineering Services & Technologies Ltd.
1544 Viel. Montreal
Quebec. Canada, H3M IG4
coupling between parallel conductors i n the presence of a uniform half
space conductive medium(earth). Later, the excellent book of Sunde [7]
expanded Carsons and Pollaczeks work to include layered earth and
conductors near point sources of current. More recently. two extensive
EPRI/A.G.A. research projects introduced practical analytical expressions
which could be programmed on hand-held calculators [3] and
computerized techniques [4] for the analysis of power load current
inductive coupling to gas pipelines. Another recent EPRI project [SI
addressed the problem of proximity effects between power lines and
railroad communications systems.
Fault current inductive and conductive coupling analyses which are more
recent, are still not fully understood, mainly because of the numerous
parameters which intervene in the physical process. Early contributions to
this subject are by Sunde [7] and Favez et a1 [9]. More recent
contributions include a comprehensive report published by the Canadian
Electrical Association (CEA) [IO], various A.G.A. research projects on
HVDC effects on pipelines [I l ,I Z], EPRIs recent project 1902-1 (81, and
the work of Dawalibi et al [13-171.
3. COMPUTER ARE
3.1 General
The computer software used for the parametric analysis described in this
paper analyzes the effects of power transmission lines on neighbouring gas
pipelines. It analyzes the combined effects of inductive and conductive
(galvanic, through earth) coupling. These effects may develop
simultaneously during power faults at transmission line structures which
are near gas pipelines, or during normal conditions.
The software also determines the influence of mitigative measures on the
interference level.
A typical problemwhich the software can be used to solve is depicted in
Figure 3.1 (see Figure 4. I for a detailed view of a right-of-way situation).
This figure shows a power transmission line connecting two substations A
and B. Two pipelines run parallel to the power line along a segment ab of
the right-of-way. A phase-to-ground fault occurs on the transmission line
structure at location F. As a result, fault currents start flowing in the phase
conductors, skywires, transmission line structure grounds. earth and
pipelines. The pipeline currents consist of two components: an inductive
component resulting mainly from the inductive coupling to the
transmission line phase conductors: and a conductive component arising
fromthe current injected into the earth by the transmission line structure
grounds.
Top V i ew
Figure 3.1 A Typical Problem
416
The illustrations in Figures 3.1, 4.1, 4.2 and the data listed in the
appendix give a good idea of what a typical systemlooks like, and what
data is required to define it completely. Note in particular that in addition
to the information discussed above, the soil and individual conductor
characteristics must be described.
The primary task of a power system or gas pipeline engineer is to
determine the magnitudes and phase angles of all the currents, particularly
those flowing in the pipeline, to assess the severity of the electrical stresses
and, if necessary, apply appropriate mitigative measures. This task must be
performed using known basic design data and the methods described in the
project report.
The software was designed so as not to require fault currents in the power
line conductors, including skywires. as known data. This is primarily
because it is difficult for the user to compute these values at all accurately
without recourse to powerful computation methods: this difficulty arises
because the interaction of the pipelines with the power line may not be
negligible, especially if inductive coupling effects are significant. In such
cases, faults currents may be considerably different fromthose determined
assuming no pipelines to be present, which is how the fault currents are
generally obtained. Therefore, the basic input data assumed by the
software to be at the disposal of a design engineer consists of power line
and pipeline geometrical configuration, conductor and pipeline physical
characteristics (including insulation and coating characteristics),
environmental parameters (such as air characteristics, soil structure and
characteristics), power system terminal (or boundary) parameters
consisting of power source voltages and equivalent source impedances, and
fault parameters describing fault location and type.
Another important attribute of the software is that both long and short
buried conductors can be modelled within the same area. A "long"
conductor, for the purposes of this discussion, is one, such as a pipeline
or transmission line conductor, whose length is sufficient to allow it to
transmit or receive significant amounts of magnetic energy to or from
another one. A "short" conductor is one whose mode of energy
transmission to other conductors can be assumed to be limited to the
conductive mode: e.g. grounding grid or buried transmission line tower
footing conductors. Moreover, some of these conductors may be bare. or
only semi-insulated, which usually invalidates the simplifying assumption
of exponential mode of propagation i n conductors.
These software attributes significantly increase the complexity of the
analysis. Insurmountable analytical and computational difficulties are
encountered unless reasonable assumptions and judicious approximations
are made. These are discussed in the next section.
3.2 Theonticsl Basis
Interference calculations consist essentially of inductive interference
calculations and conductive interference calculations, which are performed
independently: computation results can subsequently be combined together
either manually by the user or automatically by the software. Both
interference types are linear: therefore, if the actual longitudinal currents
arising from both interference types are known, then they can be added
together by superposition, as is done by the software. when so requested.
The final values taking into account the coupling between inductive and
conductive interference, however, are not known exactly. so superposing
the independently calculated values is an approximation. On the other
hand, since currents flowing in pipelines due to conductive interference are
typically at least one order of magnitude lower than those caused by
magnetic induction, the error resulting from simple superposition would
typically be small for practical applications: i.e., within the accuracy with
which the engineering data is known. Although a full mathematical
demonstration has not been made, it is expected that future measurements
will validate this procedure.
It would be possible to avoid this approximation by implementing an
iterative algorithmwhich would alternate between inductive and conductive
computations, each time updating the interference currents. based on the
results of the previous iteration. Computation time. however. would
increase significantly and could not be justified in most applications, given
the accuracy of the engineering data.
Inductive interference calculations are based firstly on field theory, which
is used to compute self and mutual impedances per unit length of "long"
conductors, such as phase wires, shield wires, pipelines, and mitigating
wires. Internal impedances are obtained according to methods developed
many years ago by Shelkunoff [18], Sunde [7], and more recently Wait
1191. External impedances (including mutual impedances) are obtained
using well-known methods [7,19] and neglecting propagation effects, a
legitimate approximation at low frequencies.
Once the self and mutual impedance per unit length values are obtained
using field theory as described above, the transmission linelpipeline
network is broken down into short lengths which generally correspond to
transmission line segments. For each segment, the appropriate self,
mutual, and shunt (to ground) impedances are calculated and'then used to
create a circuit model of the network. This network is then solved using
electric circuit theory according to the generalized double-sided elimination
method, an extension of the work originally published in [15]. The
equations are updated to cover the case of a three phase circuit with mutual
coupling between phase conductors.
Thus it is seen that inductive interference calculations are performed on a
hybrid field theory/circuit theory model. The same is true of the
conductive inkrference calculations.
Conductive interference calculations deal with buried conductors
exclusively. Conductors are first subdivided into segments of length small
enough with respect to both wavelength and overall length of the ground
network such that they will lead satisfactorily to the desired engineering
accuracy. A finite elements field theory approach is then used to relate the
currents and potentials in the segments in such a way that an equivalent
circuit model can be created which involves the internal and external
impedances of the segments. Hence, circuit theory can be applied once
again to obtain potentials at all segment endpoints, as well as longitudinal
and leakage currents in every conductor segment in a quite straightforward
manner. This approach is similar to the one followed by Sunde [7] and
Burrows [20].
For a detailed discussion of the computation methods employed by the
software, refer to [21], a companion paper to this one.
3.3 Computation Results
The software produces the following computation results: the longitudinal
(axial) and leakage (transversal) currents in each transmission line section
for all conductors, including pipelines, mitigating wires, and grounding
conductors: the currents injected into the soil at each transmission line
structure; the potentials of the pipeline casing and coating surface at every
pipeline section; the earth surface potentials along profiles specified in the
neighbourhood of buried conductors.
3.4 Softwarc Field Tcsting
Both inductive and conductive interference calculations are based on
analytical methods which have been extensively tested and validated,
independently, in the past decade. For example, inductive interference
computation results are in agreement with those computed. for specified
load currents, using hand-held calculator methods and computer software
produced during EPRI-sponsored research which preceded the work
described in this paper. This latter EPRI software was field tested in the
Mohave Desert for load current conditions [4]. The inductive interference
computation algorithms are also based on the analytical methods used by
the PATHS program, which accurately predicted current distribution for
staged fault tests conducted by EPRI on a 500kV transmission line [22].
In these tests, systematic current measurements were made using optical
fibre cables: accurate mutual impedance values were of course computed
by the software in order to accurately predict current distribution.
Furthermore, conductive interference computation algorithms have been
extensively verified in the past by scale models. actual field experience of
major North American utilities, and tests documented in past published
research work (see [l] and [22]).
Recent tests (February 1989) have measured interference levels in
pipelines and power line currents, during both load conditions and staged
faults: a comparison with results predicted by the software will be the
subject of a future paper.
417
4. PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
I n the second part of the research project, the software was used to
produce a set of design curves which illustrate the effects of various
parameters upon the conductive and inductive interactions between
transmission lines and nearby pipelines. One basic system. consisting of a
40 km-long (24.85 miles) right-of-way through which run one pipelineand
one transmission line, was presented and analyzed. and its parameters
varied one by one to generate the different curves.
The cases described in this paper can be divided into two groups: those
runs investigating only the effects of magnetic induction between the
transmission line and the pipeline. and those investigating only the effects
of fault currents conducted through the soil upon the pipeline. The first
group of runs (the induction effect runs) operate on the assumption that no
fault current is conducted through the soil to the pipeline. The conduction
effect runs assume no magnetic induction. In the latter case. tlie Central
Site (see Figures 4. I and 4. 2) and any specified tower grounds inject fault
currents into the ground.
The basic system analyzed is illustrated in Figure 4.1 and some of its
circuit parameters indicated in Figure 4.2 See the appendix for more
details describing the basic system.
In each case studied, the electric potentials i n the pipelineare plotted from
the point closest to the transmission line fault location up to one of the
pipelines ends (the end at the Right Terminal): it was found that tlie
potentials along the left pipeline portion revealed no additional information
and were therefore omitted.
Some of the more interesting results of this parametric analysis are
discussed on the following pages.
4.2 Inductive Coupling
Pipeline Position
One of the most important mitigative measures that can be taken is to
position the pipeline as far away fromthe power line as possible. Figure
4. 3 shows how inductive interference is affected by changes in separation
distance.
Pipeline Section Length
In theory, the potential induced magnetically in a pipelinesection insulated
at both ends, is roughly proportional to the length of theexposed region of
the pipeline so long as this latter has not reached the characteristic length
of the pipeline (see Figure 4.4); the maximumpotential value(with respect
to remote ground) occurs at each extremity with roughly the same
magnitude and opposite phase. This ineatis that each pipeline insulating
junction is subjected to a stress voltage which is double the peak value in
the pipeline section. If insulating junctions are inserted frequently enough
along a pipeline, then the section size is kept to a minimum. and
consequently, so are the peak voltages in the pipeline. This constitutes one
possible mitigation method: however. this thorough segmentation of a
pipeline can result in very high cathodic protection costs.
It must be emphasized here that when insulating junctions or flanges are
used only at infrequent intervals along a pipeline. as occurs when
insulators are used only at junctions where different pipelines meet, at
valve stations, or between pipeline segments that are isolated for cathodic
protection purposes, very large potentials appear across the insulators
during single phase faults. This can result in piercing of the insulation and
melting of the pipeline metal to forma permanent weld bead across the
junction, thus defeating the purpose of inserting the ,junction in the first
place: fire and explosion hazards also exist due to leaks. In such cases. i t
is common practise to insert polarization cells. ground cells. spark gaps.
or lightning arresters to shunt the insulation.
Grounding
Grounding of a pipeline, as a protection against the great voltages that
appear during a fault. is one of the most effective mitigation measures
available. A pipeline should be grounded at all termination points. at both
extremities of a segment which is bounded at both ends by an insulating
junction. and at any other important point of discontinuity likely to result
in high induced voltages during a fault: e.g.. points where the pipeline
suddenly veers away from the power line, or suddenly changes coating
characteristics. or emerges from the earth. or retnrns to tlie earth: also
points where power line phases are transposed or where two or more
pipelines meet. I n order not to tax cathodic protection installations to a too
great extent. grounds should always be made via ground cells or
polarization cells. These decoupling devices should be properly sized.
spaced and physically secured to withstand currents resulting during a
power line fault.
Figure 4.1 Physical Layout of General Case. Note that neither the mitigation wire nor the tower ground rods are present in the basic inductive case.
418
:
SYSTEM CIRCUIT DIAGRAM
LEGEND
Pipeline Length:
A To Right Terniinal
B 18.75 k m
C 12.50 km
: * .
\ \
Phase A -
Phase 0 -
Phase C -
Skywi res -
Mitigatio
Wi re
2. 0
Terminal
LEFT
LEGEND
Pipeline - Power Line Separation:
A,
\ A 25 meters
Terminal
RIGHT
Figure 4.2 Circuit D- for General Case. Note that the mitigation wire isnot present in the basicinductive case; otherwise this diagram is valid
fpr the basic inductive case.
Figure 4.5 shows the effect of terminating one end of a pipeline with
different impedances: this pipeline is of course parallel to the faulted power
line. Only potentials due to induction are taken into account on this graph.
Note that the fault site is vis a vis the origin of the graph.
Mitigation Wires
The parametric analysis indicates that buried mitigation wires can be very
effective, resulting in up to 65% reductions in peak pipeline potentials
during a fault. A low resistivity, low permeability material such as copper
or aluminium should be used. The diameter of the conductor is much less
important than the proximity of the conductor to the pipeline and the
number of conductors used: three small appropriately situated conductors
8 16 24
Distance From Central Site (km)
can be much more effective than a single conductor with the equivalent
cross-sectional area of ten small conductors. Note that these comments
apply to mitigation wires that are not bonded to the pipeline.
Figure 4.6 shows a right-of-way cross section in which mitigation wires
have been installed near a buried pipeline. Figure 4.7 shows the
improvement obtained by installing progressively more mitigation wires.
Favez et al. [9] have studied the use of buried mitigation wires using
electrical models and come up with similar results. They suggest that
bonding the mitigation wire to the pipeline via spark gaps (we would
recommend ground or polarization cells) provides increased efficiency i n
the mitigation.
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
a. 0
Figure 4-3 E m Of Pipetine Position on pipeme potentid %se
Figure 4.4 Effca of Pipeline Length on Pipeline Potential Rise. Note that
been modelled ody to the right of the Central
p i p e h
Site.
419
2. 4 1
I
Insulator
Hi gh Impdance
Terniination
,' ; s/ Characteristic
' 1 . Impedance
LEGEND
2. (3
1.6
1. 2
(3.8
(1.4
(3.0
Pipeline - Power Line Separation:
A I meter
B 5 meters
C IO meters
D 15 meters
E 25 meters
12
8
4
0
v
0 8 16 24
Distance FromCentral Site (km)
Figure4.5 EfFea of Terminating Impedance on Magnetically Induced
Potential Rise in a Pipeline
-
10 10 10
1
5
Distance From Central Site (meters)
Figure 4.8 Eft& of Pipeline Position on Pipeline Coating Stress Voltagc
Figure 4.8 shows how much separation distance can affect pipeline coating
stress voltages.
Transmission Tower Grounding
The grounding of power line structures is an important factor determining
what soil potentials will arise near a pipeline: the lower the structure
ground impedance, the lower the local soil potentials. Soil resistivity plays
a significant role here. Low soil resistivity means lower structure ground
impedances and lower potential differences between the grounding
structure and the pipeline.
Furthermore, the geometry of the structure ground is another important
factor. Geometries which situate ground conductors further away froma
pipeline produce less conductive coupling with the pipeline. As mentioned
in Reference [9] however, such asymmetrical geometries which encourage
fault current to be discharged on one side of the power line, can pose
problems for subsequent construction of pipelines on that side.
Figure 4.9 shows four grounding configurations of a faulted tower
structure and situates a buried pipeline with respect to them: the stress
voltages resulting across the pipeline's coating as a result of each are
shown i n Figure 4.10.
-5
l ' " ' l " ' ' l " ' " ' ' " I " ' I ' l ' ' I ' " ' c
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 o 5 m
Figure 4.6 Right-of-way Cross Section with Mitiption
h
P
Y, 2.0 I\
1.6 1 '\
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
A B
L - l o m - !
f '
10 m
ne
4
Wires
T
10 m
I
I . ' " ' ' * ' [ ' . . *
0 8 16 24
Distance From Central Site (km)
C
Figure4.7 E M of Buried Mitigation Wires on Magnetically Induced
Potential Rise in a Pipeline
- 1 0 m - t
I
7 -
10 m
a
4.3 Conductive Coupling
Pipeline Position
Naturally, the greater the separation distance between a pipeline and a
nearby power line, the better. It should be kept in mind that coating stress
voltages due to conductive coupling cannot exceed local soil potentials.
Figure 4.9 Aerial View of Four Tower Grounding System Configurations.
Dots are 6 m long, vertical grounding rods. Lines are
horizontal conductors buried 1.2 m deep, the depth of the
buried pipeline.
420
6.4
4.8
3.2
1.6
0.0
Distance From Central Site (meters)
Figure 4.10 Eftea of Various Tower Ground Configurations Upon
Pipehe Cmting Stress Voltage Resulting From Conductive
Coupling
Mitigation Wm
Any buried conductor, with one end situated in soil at remote soil
electrical potential, will lower the magnitude of soil potentials at its other
end if they are high. If such a conductor is short. then its grounding is
poor and it will be of limited use: the longer it is, the more efficient it is at
lowering soil potentials which are high at some point along its length.
Because conductive interference in pipelines is the direct result of high
local soil potentials, long mitigation wires significantly reduce pipeline
coating stress voltages due to fault currents injected into the soil. Figure
4.11 illustrates the effect of lengthening a buried mitigation wire.
The effect of varying the number and distribution of mitigation wires was
not examined in the conductive coupling portion of the parametric analysis.
This is definitely worth investigating.
6.4 .l
h
4.8
3.2
1.6
0.0
10 10 10
1
Distance From Central Site (meters)
Figure 4.11 E&ct Of varying Buried Mitigation Wire Length upon
Conductive Coupling
4.4 Other Parametric Analysis Results
The reader is referred to Reference 2 for more details describing the
parametric analysis and results not described here, such as the effects of
coating breakdown. Furthermore, the parametric analysis performed was
by no means exhaustive; further work could reveal much insight into
interference processes and effective mitigation measures.
5. CONCLUSION
The parametric analysis described in part by this paper has shown the
effects on interference levels of various factors and also the effectiveness of
certain mitigation methods. The parametric analysis also gives an idea of
how further study of factors affecting interference levels can be made. In
this way, new, more effective mitigation methods may be uncovered.
6. FUTURE WORK
Although the research project described in this paper was quite extensive.
there remain aspects of the problem which require further study. The
analysis of coupling effects during transient conditions is one example.
Also. the problemof estimating the extent of pipeline damage which could
be caused by arcing frompower system ground networks to pipelines is
still unresolved and a clear understanding of the arc mechanismis largely
lacking.
However, research work into some of the unresolved issues including the
first one above is currently i n progress and research into others is about to
start. The tremendous capabilities of modern computers have virtually
eliminated all of the computational constraints which have i n the past
severely restricted advances in the analysis of proximity effects between
power lines and pipelines.
Finally, further parametric analyses should be performed using the
computer software described i n this paper to evaluate i n greater detail
various existing methods of interference mitigation and to develop new
ones
7 . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank both the Electric Power Research Institute and
the American Gas Association for funding the project discussed in this
paper, as well as the members of the advisory committee for their guidance
throughout the project.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
8. REFERENCES
E. A. Cherney, K. G. Ringler, N. Kolcio, G. K. Bell. "Step and
Touch Potentials at Faulted Transmission Towers". IEEE Transactions
on PAS, J uly 1981. Vol. PAS-100. No. 7, pp. 3312-3321.
"Power Line Fault Current Coupling to Nearby Natural Gas
Pipelines", EPRI1A.G.A. Project 742, EL-5472/PRI 76-510,
November 1987.
"Mutual Design Considerations for Overhead ac Transmission Lines
and Gas Transmission Pipelines'', EPRI/A.G.A. Project 742-1.
EL-904/PR-I 32-80, September 1978.
"Power Line - Induced ac Potential on Natural Gas Pipelines for
Complex Right-of-way Configurations", EPRI/A.G.A. Project 742-2,
EL-3 106/PR- 15 1- 127, MayINovember, 1983.
J . R. Carson, "Wave Propagation i n Overhead Wires With Ground
Return", Bell SystemTechnical Journal, Volume 5, October 1926.
F. Pollaczek, "On the Field Produced by an Infinitely Long Wire
Carrying Alternating Current", Electrische Nachrichten Technik,
Volume 111, 1929. No. 9, pp. 339-359 (in German). French
Translation also available i n Revue Generale de I'Electricik. Volume
E. D. Sunde, "Earth Conduction Effects i n Transmission Systems",
2nd edition, Dover Publications. New York. 1968.
"Mutual Design of Overhead Transmission Lines and Railroad
Communications and Signal System", EPRI Project 1902-1. EL-3301.
October 1983.
B. Favez, J . G. Gougeuil, "Contribution to Studies on Problems
Resulting From the Proximity of Overhead Lines with Underground
Metal Lines'', CIGRFi, 1966, Paper No. 336.
"Study of Problems Associated with Pipelines Occupying J oint- Use
Corridors with ac Transmission Lines", CEA Research Project
RF75-02, J anuary 1979.
"Analysis of the Effects of High-Voltage Direct-Current Transmission
Systems on Buried Pipelines", American Gas Association Project
PR-3-41, Catalog No. 30500, J anuary 1967.
"Earth Current Effects on Buried Pipelines - Computer Programs and
Mathematical Models for Analysis of Effects", American Gas
Association on Rcsearch Project. Catalog No. L30570. 1970.
F. Dawalibi, D. Mukhedkar, "Transferred Earth Potentials i n Power
Systems", I EEE Transactions, Vol. PAS-97, No. I . J anuary/February
pp. 539-554.
29, 1931, NO. 22, pp. 851-867.
1978. PP. 90-101.
42 1
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
F. Dawalibi, A. Pinho, "Computerized Analysis of Power Systems and
Pipelines Proximity Effects", IEEE Transactions. Volume PWRL- I .
No. 2, April 1986, pp. 40-48.
F. Dawalibi, "Ground Fault Current Distribution Between Soil and
Neutral Conductors", IEEE Transadons, Volume PAS-99.
MarchlApril 1980. pp. 452-461.
F. Dawalibi, D. Bensted, D. Mukhedkar. "Soil Effects on Ground
Fault Currents", IEEE Transactions, Volume PAS-100, No. 7, J uly
"Effectiveness of Station Grounding and Surface Detection of Damaged
Ground Conductors". Canadian Electrical Association (CEA) Report,
Contract No. 0191218, April 1984.
S. A. Shelkunoff, "The Electromagnetic Theory of Coaxial
Transmission Lines and Cylindrical Shields", Bell System Technical
Journal No. 13, 1934-4, pp. 532-579.
J . R. Wait, "Mutual Coupling Between Grounded Circuits and the
Effect of a Thin Vertical Conductor in the Earth", IEEE Transactions
on Antennas and Propagation, Volume AP-31, No. 4, J uly 1983, pp.
M. L. Burrows, "Bared-End Ground for an Insulated Buried Antenna
Cable", IEEE Transactions on Communications, Volume COM-22.
No. 4, April 1974, pp. 404-408.
F. P. Dawalibi, R. D. Southey, "Analysis of Electrical Interference
From Power Lines to Gas Pipelines. Part I: Computations Methods",
IEEE Paper 89WM 092-8 PWRD, PES 1989 Winter Power Meeting.
New York, J anuarylFebruary 1989.
F. P. Dawalibi, "Transmission Line Grounding". EPRI Report,
Project 1494-1, Vol. 1 and 2, August 1982.
1981. pp. 3442-3450.
640-644.
APPENDIX
Basic Case Detailed Parameters
The following summarizes all systemdatathat characterizes the basic case.
In all other cases, the data is the same unless explicitly specified otherwise
A standard power frequency of 60.0 Hz was used to simulate a Phase A to
ground fault at the Central Site (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2). The ground
impedances of the Central Site and of all towers were 20 ohms each. The
soil was a 100 ohm-meter uniformtype. The phases bundles consisted of
pairs of Hawk ACSR conductors. The remaining data is listed below:
Skywire Characteristics
RelativeResistivity': 17.0
Relative Permeability: 250.0
Conductor Radius: 4 nim (0.0157 inch)
Insulation: None
Pipeline Chamcterislics
RelativeResistivity: 17.0
Relative Permeability: 250.0
Outer Radius: 0.2 m (7.874 inches)
Inner Radius: 0.195 m (7.677 inches)
Coating Resistance: 20 000 ohm-square-meters
(2 I 5 278 ohm-square-feet)
Coating Thickness: 0.1 m (3.937 inches)
Terminal LEFT
X-coordinate:
Ground Impedance: 0.1 ohms
Source Voltages: 145.22 KV
Source Impedances:
-15 200 m (-49 868.8 feet)
4.0 +j50.0 ohms
Terminal RIGHT
X-coordinate:
Ground Impedance: 0.2 ohms
Source Voltages: 145.22 KV
Source Impedances:
25 200 m (82 677.2 feet)
4.0 +j50.0 ohms
Section Length (Distance between Towers, for both terminals)
323 m ( I 059.7 feet) Zones 1 to 3:
Zone h2: 10 ni (32.8 feet)
For the conductive interference analyses only. a 6 111long vertical ground
rod was modelled of the very center of the faulted structure.
Dr. Farid Dawalibi (M'72 SM'82) was born i n
Lebanon in November 1947. He received the
Engineering degrees from St. J oseph's
University, affiliated to University of Lyon. and
the M.Sc.A. and P1i.D. degrees from Ecole
Polytechnique. University of Montreal.
From 1971 to 1976. he was with the Shawinigan
Engineering Company, Consulting Engineers i n
Montreal, where he participated in numerous
projects involving power system analysis and
design, railway electrification studies and
specialized computer software code development.
He then joined Montel-Sprecher & Schuh, manufacturer of high voltage
equipment in Montreal, as Manager of Technical Services. He was
involved in power systemdesign, equipment selection and testing ranging
froma few kV to 765 kV.
In 1979, he joined Safe Engineering Services & Technologies, a company
specializing i n soil effects on power networks. Since that time, he has been
responsible for the engineering activities of the company. including the
development of specialized software code relating to power systems
applications.
Dr. Dawalibi is the author of more than 60 papers on power system
grounding, soil resistivity analysis, safety, and electromagnetic
interference. He is also the author of several research reports on behalf of
CEA and EPRI .
Dr. Dawalibi is a corresponding member of various IEEE Committee
Working Groups and a Senior Member of the IEEE Power Engineering
Society and the Canadian Society for Electrical Engineering. Dr. Dawalibi
is a registered Professional Engineer i n the Province of Quebec.
Mr. Robert D. Soutbey (M'87) was born in
Shawinigan, Quebec. Canada, on April 26, 1964.
He graduated fromMcGill University. Montreal.
in December 1985 with a B Eng (Honors)
degree in Electrical Engineering.
From that time to the present. he has worked for
Safe Engineering Services & Technologies as an
electric power engineer specializing i n software
development. He was extensively involved i n
EPRI and other research projects investigating
electrical interference between pipelines and
transmission lines, as well as a CEA projects
studying Canadian distribution grounding practices and the formulation of
new Canadian Electrical Code rules for customer-owned distribution
substation grounding.
Mr. Southey has coauthored several papers on grounding. electric power
line interference effects on nearby pipelines and related subjects Mr.
Southey is a registered Professional Engineer in the Province of Quebec.
Relative to annealed copper resistivity.
There are no towers in Zone 4.