IEEE STD 2746 - 2020

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 49

IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC

STANDARDS
Interference on Linear Facilities
Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

IEEE Power and Energy Society

Developed by the
Transmission and Distribution Committee

IEEE Std 2746™-2020

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746™-2020

IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC


Interference on Linear Facilities
Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Developed by the

Transmission and Distribution Committee


of the
IEEE Power and Energy Society

Approved 6 May 2020

IEEE SA Standards Board

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Abstract: This guide identifies the mechanisms and analytic approach for ac interference effects
on conductive linear facilities due to the operation of co-located electric transmission lines. The
common mechanisms for ac interference such as magnetic inductive coupling, capacitive coupling,
and conductive voltage transfer through soil are discussed. Included are general guidelines and
considerations for performing detailed ac interference analyses, with sections specific to the analysis
of co-located pipeline and railroad facilities. This guide does not dictate specific compliance limits,
direct when an ac interference analysis must be performed, or cover other issues that may need to
be considered in joint-use corridors, such as effects due to lightning striking the line or dc corrosion
on structures.

Keywords: ac interference, fences, IEEE 2746™, induction, lines, pipelines, transmission lines

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.


3 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5997, USA

Copyright © 2020 by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.


All rights reserved. Published 8 July 2020. Printed in the United States of America.

IEEE is a registered trademark in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, owned by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
Incorporated.

PDF: ISBN 978-1-5044-6713-1 STD24192


Print: ISBN 978-1-5044-6714-8 STDPD24192

IEEE prohibits discrimination, harassment, and bullying.


For more information, visit https://​www​.ieee​.org/​web/​aboutus/​whatis/​policies/​p9​-26​.html.
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission
of the publisher.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Important Notices and Disclaimers Concerning IEEE Standards Documents

IEEE Standards documents are made available for use subject to important notices and legal disclaimers.
These notices and disclaimers, or a reference to this page (https://​standards​.ieee​.org/​ipr/​disclaimers​.html),
appear in all standards and may be found under the heading “Important Notices and Disclaimers Concerning
IEEE Standards Documents.”

Notice and Disclaimer of Liability Concerning the Use of IEEE Standards


Documents
IEEE Standards documents are developed within the IEEE Societies and the Standards Coordinating
Committees of the IEEE Standards Association (IEEE SA) Standards Board. IEEE develops its standards
through an accredited consensus development process, which brings together volunteers representing varied
viewpoints and interests to achieve the final product. IEEE Standards are documents developed by volunteers
with scientific, academic, and industry-based expertise in technical working groups. Volunteers are not
necessarily members of IEEE or IEEE SA, and participate without compensation from IEEE. While IEEE
administers the process and establishes rules to promote fairness in the consensus development process, IEEE
does not independently evaluate, test, or verify the accuracy of any of the information or the soundness of any
judgments contained in its standards.

IEEE does not warrant or represent the accuracy or completeness of the material contained in its standards,
and expressly disclaims all warranties (express, implied and statutory) not included in this or any other
document relating to the standard, including, but not limited to, the warranties of: merchantability; fitness
for a particular purpose; non-infringement; and quality, accuracy, effectiveness, currency, or completeness
of material. In addition, IEEE disclaims any and all conditions relating to results and workmanlike effort. In
addition, IEEE does not warrant or represent that the use of the material contained in its standards is free from
patent infringement. IEEE Standards documents are supplied “AS IS” and “WITH ALL FAULTS.”

Use of an IEEE standard is wholly voluntary. The existence of an IEEE Standard does not imply that there
are no other ways to produce, test, measure, purchase, market, or provide other goods and services related to
the scope of the IEEE standard. Furthermore, the viewpoint expressed at the time a standard is approved and
issued is subject to change brought about through developments in the state of the art and comments received
from users of the standard.

In publishing and making its standards available, IEEE is not suggesting or rendering professional or other
services for, or on behalf of, any person or entity, nor is IEEE undertaking to perform any duty owed by any
other person or entity to another. Any person utilizing any IEEE Standards document, should rely upon his or
her own independent judgment in the exercise of reasonable care in any given circumstances or, as appropriate,
seek the advice of a competent professional in determining the appropriateness of a given IEEE standard.

IN NO EVENT SHALL IEEE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: THE
NEED TO PROCURE SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS;
OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY,
WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE PUBLICATION, USE OF, OR RELIANCE
UPON ANY STANDARD, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE AND
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH DAMAGE WAS FORESEEABLE.

3
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Translations

The IEEE consensus development process involves the review of documents in English only. In the event that
an IEEE standard is translated, only the English version published by IEEE is the approved IEEE standard.

Official statements

A statement, written or oral, that is not processed in accordance with the IEEE SA Standards Board Operations
Manual shall not be considered or inferred to be the official position of IEEE or any of its committees and shall
not be considered to be, nor be relied upon as, a formal position of IEEE. At lectures, symposia, seminars,
or educational courses, an individual presenting information on IEEE standards shall make it clear that the
presenter’s views should be considered the personal views of that individual rather than the formal position of
IEEE, IEEE SA, the Standards Committee, or the Working Group.

Comments on standards
Comments for revision of IEEE Standards documents are welcome from any interested party, regardless of
membership affiliation with IEEE or IEEE SA. However, IEEE does not provide interpretations, consulting
information, or advice pertaining to IEEE Standards documents.

Suggestions for changes in documents should be in the form of a proposed change of text, together with
appropriate supporting comments. Since IEEE standards represent a consensus of concerned interests, it is
important that any responses to comments and questions also receive the concurrence of a balance of interests.
For this reason, IEEE and the members of its Societies and Standards Coordinating Committees are not able to
provide an instant response to comments, or questions except in those cases where the matter has previously
been addressed. For the same reason, IEEE does not respond to interpretation requests. Any person who would
like to participate in evaluating comments or in revisions to an IEEE standard is welcome to join the relevant
IEEE working group. You can indicate interest in a working group using the Interests tab in the Manage Profile
and Interests area of the IEEE SA myProject system. An IEEE Account is needed to access the application.

Comments on standards should be submitted using the Contact Us form.

Laws and regulations


Users of IEEE Standards documents should consult all applicable laws and regulations. Compliance with
the provisions of any IEEE Standards document does not constitute compliance to any applicable regulatory
requirements. Implementers of the standard are responsible for observing or referring to the applicable
regulatory requirements. IEEE does not, by the publication of its standards, intend to urge action that is not in
compliance with applicable laws, and these documents may not be construed as doing so.

Data privacy

Users of IEEE Standards documents should evaluate the standards for considerations of data privacy and
data ownership in the context of assessing and using the standards in compliance with applicable laws and
regulations.

Copyrights

IEEE draft and approved standards are copyrighted by IEEE under US and international copyright laws. They
are made available by IEEE and are adopted for a wide variety of both public and private uses. These include

4
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
both use, by reference, in laws and regulations, and use in private self-regulation, standardization, and the
promotion of engineering practices and methods. By making these documents available for use and adoption
by public authorities and private users, IEEE does not waive any rights in copyright to the documents.

Photocopies

Subject to payment of the appropriate licensing fees, IEEE will grant users a limited, non-exclusive license to
photocopy portions of any individual standard for company or organizational internal use or individual, non-
commercial use only. To arrange for payment of licensing fees, please contact Copyright Clearance Center,
Customer Service, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA; +1 978 750 8400; https://​www​.copyright​
.com/​. Permission to photocopy portions of any individual standard for educational classroom use can also be
obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center.

Updating of IEEE Standards documents

Users of IEEE Standards documents should be aware that these documents may be superseded at any time
by the issuance of new editions or may be amended from time to time through the issuance of amendments,
corrigenda, or errata. An official IEEE document at any point in time consists of the current edition of the
document together with any amendments, corrigenda, or errata then in effect.

Every IEEE standard is subjected to review at least every 10 years. When a document is more than 10 years old
and has not undergone a revision process, it is reasonable to conclude that its contents, although still of some
value, do not wholly reflect the present state of the art. Users are cautioned to check to determine that they have
the latest edition of any IEEE standard.

In order to determine whether a given document is the current edition and whether it has been amended through
the issuance of amendments, corrigenda, or errata, visit IEEE Xplore or contact IEEE. For more information
about the IEEE SA or IEEE’s standards development process, visit the IEEE SA Website.

Errata

Errata, if any, for all IEEE standards can be accessed on the IEEE SA Website. Search for standard number and
year of approval to access the web page of the published standard. Errata links are located under the Additional
Resources Details section. Errata are also available in IEEE Xplore. Users are encouraged to periodically
check for errata.

Patents

IEEE Standards are developed in compliance with the IEEE SA Patent Policy.

IMPORTANT NOTICE

IEEE Standards do not guarantee or ensure safety, security, health, or environmental protection, or ensure against
interference with or from other devices or networks. IEEE Standards development activities consider research
and information presented to the standards development group in developing any safety recommendations.
Other information about safety practices, changes in technology or technology implementation, or impact
by peripheral systems also may be pertinent to safety considerations during implementation of the standard.
Implementers and users of IEEE Standards documents are responsible for determining and complying with
all appropriate safety, security, environmental, health, and interference protection practices and all applicable
laws and regulations.

5
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Participants

At the time this IEEE guide was completed, the Corona and Field Effects Working Group had the following
membership:

Danna Liebhaber, Chair


Rob Schaerer, Vice Chair

Hamed Ahmadi Nancy Fulk Teja Rao


Mazana Armstrong Jennifer Havel Brian Reynolds
Gordon Baker Andrea Helmig Tim Shaw
Stephen Bell Ian Higginson Kenneth Snider
Joshua Brown Arjan Jagtiani Gerald Stewart
Yair Berenstein Sarah Kolehmainen Nariman Roshandel
Bryan Beske Giancarlo Leone Tavana
Isaac Bohlken David Lewis Janos Toth
Benjamin Cotts Ali Moshref Timothy Van Remmen
Kevin Edmonds Mike Warntjes

The following members of the individual balloting committee voted on this guide. Balloters may have voted
for approval, disapproval, or abstention.

Saleman Alibhay Geza Joos Ryandi Ryandi


Thomas Barnes Jacob Kulangara Bartien Sayogo
Stephen Bell Jim Kulchisky Robert Schaerer
Bryan Beske Chung-Yiu Lam Dennis Schlender
Steven Bezner David Lewis Kenneth Sedziol
Joshua Brown Danna Liebhaber Nikunj Shah
Gustavo Brunello Reginaldo Maniego Jerry Smith
Demetrio Bucaneg Jr. Thomas Mc Carthy Gary Smullin
William Byrd Arthur Neubauer Andrew Steffen
Robert Christman Nick S.A. Nikjoo Gary Stoedter
Benjamin Cotts Joe Nims K. Stump
Charles DeNardo Matthew Norwalk Donald Swing
Gary Donner Lorraine Padden James Van De Ligt
Gearold O.H. Eidhin Bansi Patel John Vergis
George Gela Christopher Petrola Daniel Ward
Edwin Goodwin Percy Pool Michael Warntjes
Todd Goyette Douglas Proctor Kenneth White
Randall Groves Moises Ramos Larry Young
Andrea Helmig Reynaldo Ramos Jian Yu
Werner Hoelzl Charles Rogers Nicholas Zagrodnik

6
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
When the IEEE SA Standards Board approved this guide on 6 May 2020, it had the following membership:

Gary Hoffman, Chair


Jon Walter Rosdahl, Vice Chair
Jean-Philippe Faure, Past Chair
Konstantinos Karachalios, Secretary

Ted Burse David J. Law Mehmet Ulema


J.Travis Griffith Howard Li Lei Wang
Grace Gu Dong Liu Sha Wei
Guido R. Hiertz Kevin Lu Philip B. Winston
Joseph L. Koepfinger* Paul Nikolich Daidi Zhong
John D. Kulick Damir Novosel Jingyi Zhou
Dorothy Stanley

*Member Emeritus

7
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Introduction

This introduction is not part of IEEE Std 2746-2020, IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities
Co-Located Near Transmission Lines.

AC interference is a growing area of concern, with more lines being co-located with pipelines and railroads.
The railroad side is somewhat covered by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)/American Railway
Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) handbook [B9], while some pipeline
consortiums have developed material on their side (CEPA [B6], INGAA [B16]).1 This guide helps to fill in
the gaps and is written with members of electric utilities in mind. It captures common guidelines/limits from
other sources that electric utilities may not have access to as well as provide guidance as to what is practical
to consider/analyze. While the guide focuses on pipelines and railroads, other co-located facilities including
fences, other power lines, communications facilities, etc., may apply portions of this guide and, where
applicable, additional IEEE guides are referenced.

1
The numbers in brackets correspond to those of the bibliography in Annex A.

8
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Contents

1. Overview��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 10
1.1 Scope�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 10
1.2 Purpose����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 10

2.  Normative references�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 10

3.  Definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11


3.1  Definitions������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 11
3.2  Acronyms and abbreviations�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11

4.  Basics of ac interference���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11


4.1  Types of ac interference coupling for co-located linear facilities�������������������������������������������������������� 12
4.2  General considerations for ac interference analysis���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 14
4.3  Design techniques to reduce ac interference��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 19
4.4  Stray voltages resulting from ac interference�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 20
4.5  Other considerations not in scope������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 20

5.  AC interference analysis for pipelines������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21


5.1  Physical characteristics of pipelines��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21
5.2  Electrical characteristics of pipelines������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 22
5.3  Typical data requirements for analysis������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 22
5.4  Analysis considerations for pipelines������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23
5.5  Sample compliance criteria for pipelines�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23
5.6  Mitigation techniques for pipeline corridors��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 25

6.  AC interference analysis for railroads������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 25


6.1  Physical characteristics of railroads���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 25
6.2  Electrical characteristics of railroads�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 26
6.3  Analysis considerations for railroads�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 26
6.4  Sample compliance criteria for railroads�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27
6.5  Mitigation techniques for railroad corridors��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 28

7. Fences������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 28

8.  Other objects��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 30

Annex A (informative) Bibliography�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 31

Annex B (informative) Simple ac interference example project��������������������������������������������������������������������� 33

Annex C (informative) Complex example project results������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 41

9
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC
Interference on Linear Facilities
Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

1. Overview
1.1 Scope
This guide identifies the mechanisms and analytical approach for ac interference effects on conductive
linear facilities due to the operation of co-located electric transmission lines. The common mechanisms for
ac interference, including magnetic inductive coupling, capacitive coupling, and conductive voltage transfer
through soil are discussed. Included are general guidelines and considerations for performing detailed ac
interference analyses, with sections specific to the analysis of co-located pipeline and railroad facilities.

This guide does not dictate specific compliance limits, direct when an ac interference analysis must be
performed, or cover other issues that may need to be considered in joint-use corridors, such as effects due to
lightning striking the line or dc corrosion on structures.

1.2 Purpose
The electric utility industry is often encouraged or required to share corridors with other linear facilities, such as
pipelines and railroads. Electric transmission lines can electromagnetically couple onto and energize adjacent
facilities, resulting in electrical hazards to personnel and equipment. Guidance for analyzing these hazards is
limited. The purpose of this guide is to provide general guidance on when a study may be required to analyze
these hazards, what data is needed for a study, available industry compliance limits, general scenarios that may
need to be analyzed, and sample mitigation approaches. This guide aids users, from both the electric utility
and affected facility, in understanding the concerns and to develop approaches for studying and mitigating ac
interference issues on their systems. While the guide focuses on co-located transmission lines and pipeline or
railroad facilities, much of the information applies to similar linear facilities.

2.  Normative references


The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this document (i.e., they must
be understood and used, so each referenced document is cited in text and its relationship to this document is
explained). For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the
referenced document (including any amendments or corrigenda) applies.

10
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

IEEE Std 80™, IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding2,3

IEEE Std 81™, IEEE Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground Impedance, and Earth Surface Potentials
of a Grounding System

IEEE Std 1695™, IEEE Guide to Understanding, Diagnosing, and Mitigating Stray and Contact Voltage.

3.  Definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations


3.1  Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply. The IEEE Standards Dictionary
Online should be consulted for terms not defined in this clause. 4

ac interference: the total electromagnetic effects of an energized electrical facility on adjacent facilities,
including magnetic inductive coupling, electric field capacitive coupling, and conductive voltage transfer
through soil.

co-located: a term used to describe facilities near each other, often in shared or adjacent linear corridors.

reverse-phased system: two parallel circuits where the phasing is opposite from each other, such as a double
circuit structure, A-B-C top-to-bottom on one side, and C-B-A top-to-bottom on the other side. Syn: cross-
phased, ideal-phased, low reactance-phased, optimal-phased.

holiday: a physical defect or hole in the insulating surface coating of a pipeline where ac-induced corrosion
may occur.

linear facilities: metallic infrastructure or structures that traverses a path along the land, such as pipelines,
railroads, or fences.

3.2  Acronyms and abbreviations

CDF cumulative distribution fuction


EHV extra high voltage
GPR ground potential rise
HVDC high voltage direct current
NEV neutral-to-earth voltage
OPGW optical ground wire

4.  Basics of ac interference


Energized electrical systems both contribute and are susceptible to ac electromagnetic interference, hereafter
referred to simply as ac interference. Metallic facilities co-located to energized electrical systems are also
susceptible, increasing the risk of ac-induced corrosion, equipment degradation, malfunctions, and exposure
of humans and animals to shock hazards. A basic understanding of the types of ac interference present in the
electrical system is necessary in order to identify, analyze, and mitigate the risks posed.

2
IEEE publications are available from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (http://​standards​.ieee​.org/​).
3
The IEEE standards or products referred to in Clause 2 are trademarks owned by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
Incorporated.
4
IEEE Standards Dictionary Online is available at: http://​dictionary​.ieee​.org. An IEEE Account is required for access to the dictionary,
and one can be created at no charge on the dictionary sign-in page.

11
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

4.1  Types of ac interference coupling for co-located linear facilities


AC interference effects are driven by three primary coupling mechanisms: inductive, capacitive, and
conductive. This clause introduces these topics as they apply to linear facilities co-located to energized
electrical systems. For additional discussions, see the reference material provided in Annex A.

4.1.1 Inductive

Inductive coupling in ac systems occurs when time-varying current passes through a conductive path, such as
a transmission line or cable, producing a time-varying magnetic field around the path. When this infrastructure
is co-located in parallel with other continuous conductive pathways, mutual inductive coupling between
the systems can occur. For inductively coupled systems, time-varying current in one conductive pathway
induces voltages and currents in the co-located pathway. Common co-located linear facilities and equipment
susceptible to the effects of inductive coupling include railroad rails, pipelines, shield wires and optical ground
wire (OPGW) cables, grounding systems, communications cables, and other electrical lines or cables.

When systems are inductively coupled, a mutual inductance (L12) exists between the co-located facilities.
Figure 1 shows an energized conductor inductively coupled to a co-located linear facility, providing both a
current (I2) and a voltage (V2) onto that facility.

Figure 1—Inductively coupled systems example

4.1.2 Capacitive

Capacitive coupling in ac systems occurs when time-varying electric fields are present within energized
transmission lines or cables. When this infrastructure is co-located in parallel with other continuous conductive
pathways, capacitive coupling between the systems can occur. For capacitively coupled systems, time-varying
electric fields from the energized conductors interact through free space, causing a voltage on the co-located
linear facilities. If the capacitively coupled voltage is of sufficient magnitude, the co-located facility can
represent a shock hazard or cause interference in sensitive electrical equipment. Common co-located linear
facilities and equipment susceptible to the effects of capacitive coupling include railroad rails, above-grade
pipelines, shield wires and OPGW cables, metallic fencing, handrails, and other overhead electrical lines.
Capacitive coupling between overhead energized lines and below-grade metallic objects is greatly reduced

12
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

by the surrounding earth material, which causes electric charge to distribute more evenly over a large volume.
Higher voltage lines result in greater capacitive coupling as these effects are proportional to voltage.

When systems are capacitively coupled, an equivalent mutual capacitance (C12) exists between the co-located
facilities. Figure 2 shows an energized conductor capacitively coupled to a co-located linear facility, producing
a voltage (V2) on that facility. For co-located facilities connected to ground through their self-capacitance (C20)
only, excessive voltage buildup due to capacitive coupling presents a shock hazard to personnel and damage
to equipment.

Figure 2—Capacitively coupled systems example

4.1.3 Conductive

Conductive coupling in ac electrical systems is the method of energy transfer of which most engineers are
familiar. When time-varying electric fields are present in energized transmission lines, a voltage gradient and
electrical current are established within the conductors. If inadvertent physical contact is made between one
of the energized conductors and another conductive object, (commonly referred to as an electrical fault), the
conductive coupling can result in significant energy transfer and cause severe damage. If the voltage gradient
is high enough to exceed the breakdown voltage of the surrounding material, an ionized current conducting
channel can be formed, which is referred to as an arc fault.

In the context of ac interference on co-located facilities, coupling involving a grounded object (line-to-ground
fault) is the most prevalent concern, as the earth becomes part of the return path for the fault current and can
energize other objects also in contact with the soil. Unbalanced faults, especially single-line-to-ground faults,
which occur near the co-located linear facility or beyond the shared corridor, typically represent the greatest
risks to personnel and equipment. Some common modes of triggering a ground fault include encroaching
foliage, lightning-induced flashovers, animals, and equipment failures.

Co-located linear facilities, equipment, and other objects susceptible to the effects of conductive coupling
include shield wires and OPGW cables, above-grade metallic objects, metallic fencing, handrails, and other
adjacent overhead lines. Below-grade metallic objects, such as pipelines and grounding systems, can be
directly affected by the voltage gradients in the soil.

13
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

4.2  General considerations for ac interference analysis


AC interference analysis is a complex combination of several effects, as addressed above. In all but the
simplest cases, the use of software is necessary to completely analyze these interference effects, incorporating
a large amount of site-specific data. The following subsections discuss the general considerations for ac
interference analysis, specifically related to aspects regarding the transmission line and items common to
most interference studies. Specifics related to pipelines and railroads are found in Clause 5 and Clause 6,
respectively. An example of a simple ac interference project is described in Annex B, while Annex C provides
example results from a complex ac interference project.

4.2.1  Data collection

Performing an ac interference analysis requires a significant amount of data. This data is generally shared with
all parties involved in a co-located project as applicable. At a minimum, a GIS based map providing accurate
and detailed locations of the co-located facilities can be made available to all affected parties. For any data
collection, mutual testing requirements can be coordinated among affected parties (such as soil resistivity
testing, data from which may be used for other unrelated analyses).

Transmission line companies generally have information about geometry of their transmission lines but may
not have all the information about grounding details, soil conditions, future loading, or fault forecasts readily
available. Significant delays may result while utilities are gathering this data. If scheduling constraints or data
unavailability dictates, conservative assumptions may be necessary to perform the ac interference analysis.
Any assumptions made can be documented and vetted with the appropriate stakeholders.

4.2.2  Electrical system geometry

The longitudinal voltage induced in linear facilities from parallel transmission line(s) depends on a number of
parameters. Gathering as much of the following data as practical for each transmission line that is co-located
in a corridor improves the accuracy of the ac interference analysis.

— Reference name
— Length of exposure
— Horizontal offset between linear facility and transmission line
— Span between towers
— Structure dimensions (horizontal and vertical placement of line conductors)
— Phasing of conductors
— Conductor data, type and sag at study condition(s)
— Shield wire data, type and sag
— Guy detail
— Grounding facilities including counterpoise
— Details of corrosion protection systems
— Phase transposition details and locations

If the transmission line is underground, some of the data outlined above may not apply. The following data is
gathered for underground facilities:

— Depth of conductors
— Cable types, size, construction details

14
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

— Duct configurations including horizontal and vertical placements of phase and ground conductors
— Cable sheath grounding and bonding details

4.2.3  Electrical system characteristics

The following data related to the transmission line electrical system characteristics is necessary for an accurate
ac interference analysis:

— Voltage of each line


— Load current of each line including
— Maximum design load value
— Maximum (peak) loading (and projected, if available)
— Annual average loading (and projected, if available)
— System unbalance for each scenario
— Phasing configuration if multiple transmission lines
— Maximum fault current at connecting stations, including magnitude, X/R ratio, and duration
— Fault current information from each direction, for a line-to-ground fault at the beginning and end of the
co-location with the facility, as well as several locations along the corridor

4.2.4  Transmission line operating scenarios

Generally, concerns associated with ac interference may be divided into two transmission line operating
scenarios. Typical operation for a transmission line, described as steady-state operation, generally consists
of a steady flow of current that varies throughout the day, resulting in near-constant effects on the co-located
facility. The second scenario is the faulted state of the transmission line, which usually consists of significantly
higher current magnitudes for a short duration of time before the fault current is interrupted by circuit protective
devices. Concerns for equipment, human and/or livestock protection are evaluated for both transmission line
operating conditions.

4.2.4.1  Steady-state transmission line operation

In an integrated power system, generation and demand vary substantially on an hourly, daily, and monthly
basis; these variations are reflected in the loading carried by the transmission lines. As such, it is important to
determine what loading condition to use when ac interference to adjacent linear facilities is of concern since
any variation in the line loading directly affects the induced voltages transferred to the facility.

For inductive coupling in multi-phase transmission systems, each current-carrying phase contributes
magnetic flux at the co-located facility, and the net flux acting on the facility is the vector sum of each phase's
contribution. When the distance between the co-located facility and the transmission line is much larger than
the distance between transmission line phases, the net flux from the three phases is similar to the net flux from
a single conductor carrying an equivalent net current of all three phases. In other words, at relatively large
distance from the co-located objects, each phase induces voltages that are nearly equal in magnitude and 120°
out of phase, resulting in some cancellation under normal circumstances. Greater current flow on a line results
in greater inductive coupling.

Additionally, the power system may change over the lifetime of the transmission lines: load growth, system
reconfiguration, outages, and expansions impact the load carried by a given transmission line. Therefore, both
the present case and foreseen future cases are considered when performing ac interference studies. There may
be cases where the addition of a new transmission line alleviates the loading of other lines, while in some other
cases load growth can result in increased line loading.

15
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

The following subclauses describe steady-state scenarios to be considered for transmission line loading.

4.2.4.1.1  Present day loading

Historical values for line loading are often tracked and recorded by utilities at a given sampling frequency,
e.g., every hour. Historical data from the past one or two years may be a good indicator for characterizing the
present-day loading scenario. A cumulative distribution function (CDF) can be calculated using the historical
data, which can then be used with statistical methods to evaluate likelihood of given loading conditions. An
example using actual transmission line data is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3—Sample line probability density and cumulative distribution functions

This time-weighted distribution of loading allows the engineer to examine the ac interference issue with a
more accurate long-term representation, instead of considering a single worst-case (often overly-conservative)
scenario. For instance, if the probability of a person contacting the co-located facility during maximum line
loading is low, one might use a very high percentile loading for assessing hazards. However, if people contact
the co-located facility frequently (e.g., on a pedestrian handrail used a daily basis), then the maximum recorded
transmission line loading may be more appropriate to consider.

When equipment protection and integrity is of concern, the nature of the interference determines what line
loading condition to use. For instance, if interference with railway signaling is of concern, the maximum
recorded line loading is used, since even a short duration of induced voltage exposure may cause significant
issues. Conversely, pipeline ac corrosion (i.e., ac leakage current through a holiday coating imperfection that
causes degradation of the metallic pipeline wall) is a cumulative effect over long durations of time, so short-
duration, high-load conditions are less impactful than the average loading throughout the year. See 5.5.1.2 for
additional discussion related to ac corrosion for buried pipelines.

16
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

4.2.4.1.2  Foreseen future

The future loading of a transmission line is usually determined by a transmission planning group. Based on
the available information on load forecast, expansion/decommissioning plans, reconfiguration plans, etc.,
the future load of a line is determined for a foreseen future period. This loading value comes with inherent
uncertainties and engineering judgement is required when applying this information by comparing the
foreseeable future loading to present-day conditions.

4.2.4.1.3  Conductor ratings

When the utility does not provide specific loading data, considering the conductor thermal ratings themselves
may be the only transmission line loading scenario available to consider. Under this case, there are often
multiple ratings such as normal, long-term emergency (e.g., 4 h emergency), and short-term emergency (e.g.,
15 min emergency). Transmission line ratings are rarely constrained by conductor ampacity; therefore, the
ampacity of the conductor is rarely the best value to use.

4.2.4.1.4  Normal/abnormal operation

Normal operation is defined as the load carried by the transmission line when there are no outages in the
system that could increase the line loading. For instance, for two transmission lines running between the same
two terminals, an outage of one line could cause all the power flow to be diverted into the remaining circuit.
Though the circuits are often designed and rated to carry such contingency load, it is considered an abnormal
condition. Depending on the frequency of occurrence and the aspects being considered (e.g., long-term
degradation versus personnel protection), abnormal conditions may or may not need to be considered.

4.2.4.1.5  Lines sharing the same corridor

For lines sharing the same corridor, it is important to consider a few factors. The loading on these lines may be
interdependent, meaning that the outage of one line could increase the loading in the adjacent line(s). These
interdependencies need to be considered when ac interference in such corridors is of concern. In some cases,
outage of one line could result in reduced or increased induced voltage on the co-located facility. As such,
possible cases need to be studied for various outage scenarios. Load flow direction for all lines in the corridor
needs to be considered for all common system operating states.

Phasing of the circuits plays an important role in determining the induced voltage level. For example, a
reverse-phased system inherently provides significant field cancellation under normal operating scenarios.
But if one circuit is out of service, the cancellation is removed and induction is likely greater.

Transmission lines have inherent current imbalance due to the mutual coupling between the phase conductors.
This imbalance is affected by conductor configuration geometry and is sometimes managed through line
transpositions, but full balance is practically impossible. The induced voltage is highly sensitive to the
unbalance level and proper modeling of the unbalance is critical. One approach to model such unbalance is
to model the transmission line(s) using actual impedance matrices and energize the line(s) using balanced
voltage sources. This is justifiable since most of the unbalance in transmission circuits stems from the inherent
unbalance in line impedance matrix. The transmission system voltages are relatively balanced; therefore,
analysis using balanced three-phase voltage sources is appropriate. The impact of voltage source modeling
versus balanced current source modeling was studied in Tavighi et al. [B22].

4.2.4.2  Faulted transmission line operation

Transmission lines experience faults in the form of line-to-ground, line-to-line, line-to-line-to-ground, and
three-phase faults, with the most common being line-to-ground faults. Fault conditions have three major
differences when compared to steady-state conditions, as follows:

a) Significantly higher current magnitudes and unbalance levels

17
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

b) Shorter duration (a few power-frequency cycles)


c) Conductive ac interference effects in addition to the inductive effects

The fault current magnitude and direction varies depending on the fault location along the transmission line,
structure grounding impedance, and source impedance (i.e., source strength). An example is shown in Figure 4.
Because of the variability, faults at various locations along the line need to be considered to capture the worst-
case interference results; a single fault location generally cannot be used to analyze faulted operation of the
entire line.

Figure 4—Fault current contributions from two ends of a 75 km-long transmission line

More generation units and transmission lines may be added or modified to the system in the future, and in
some cases, it may be prudent to use the projected system for the fault scenario.

4.2.5  Soil data and modeling

Soil resistivity is an important factor in the ac interference analysis and impacts personnel protection limits,
equipment damage limits, the self-impedance of transmission lines, and the design and performance of
grounding systems and needs to be based on actual field measurements. The impact of these factors on the
induced voltage levels has been studied in Tavighi et al. [B22].

Measurement procedures are documented in IEEE Std 81™5; however, some additional guidance specific to
soil resistivity measurements for ac interference analysis is presented here.

Shallow depth readings (including multiple test points of the first meter) are important for a number of reasons.
The deeper soil resistivity readings are the weighted averages of the soil resistivity down to the traverse depth,
including all the shallow soil resistivity readings above. Additionally, if the soil resistivity measurement
probes are driven too deep or taken only at spacings 1 m and greater, the resistivity of shallow soil layers can
be difficult to determine due to the added resistance of the probes themselves. The performance of grounding
systems, behavior of currents around pipes and rails, etc., depend on these shallow layers of soil.

5
Information on references can be found in Clause 2.

18
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Deeper soil resistivity measurements may be important in other aspects, such as the performance of
larger grounding systems (e.g., substations, complex ac interference mitigation designs, etc.). As stated in
IEEE Std 81™, maximum probe spacings need to be on the same order as the maximum dimensions of the
grounding systems.

Because facilities can often be co-located for many kilometers, the soil resistivity can change along the
corridor, which can significantly affect analyses. Whenever the types of soil change along a corridor, additional
testing needs to be performed. This may be as often as every kilometer (0.6 mi) or less, or in some instances
every 10 km (6 mi) or more may be sufficient. Generally, several locations along the corridor are tested at a
minimum. Consulting available geotechnical information for the region in which the co-located facilities exist
can help determine the number and locations of soil resistivity measurement traverses required.

As noted in IEEE Std 81™, measurements have to be performed away from grounded metallic objects, even
if buried. Generally keeping test probes further than the maximum spacing from metallic objects is preferred.
This can present challenges in existing corridors with pipes, rails, or other linear facilities. If the corridor is
condensed, measurements are taken as far as practical from the facilities and examined for signs of interference
in the readings. Taking measurements perpendicular to and away from these objects also reduces likelihood of
error. In some areas, going to undisturbed land outside the shared corridor (but still typically within a kilometer
of the site) may provide reasonably accurate soil resistivity data assuming the soil characteristics are similar.

4.2.6  Zone of influence

One question regularly asked regarding ac interference is “when does a co-located facility need to be studied?”
The answer depends on a complex variety of factors including the transmission line loading, fault current,
separation distance, length of parallelism, line configuration, and soil characteristics. For example, inductive
effects are proportional to the transmission line loading (for steady-state operation) or fault current (for faulted-
state scenarios), as well as the length of parallelism. Separation distance and line configuration/spacing are
non-linear effects.

Heavily loaded lines directly under extra high voltage (EHV) lines may cause substantial inductive interference
on co-located facilities with only a kilometer of parallelism, while lightly loaded lines separated by a few
hundred meters may require multiple kilometers of parallelism before ac interference effects cause significant
concern.

Soil characteristics and fault currents play a large impact for conductive ac interference concerns. A co-located
facility, (such as a pipeline) nearby or crossing a transmission line right-of-way may experience conductive
voltage in excess of established limits, even at locations hundreds of meters from the faulted structure. If the
co-located facility is entirely outside of the ground potential rise (GPR) equipotential contour line equal to or
less than the touch voltage or equipment damage limits, then the facility would be outside the zone of influence
for conductive ac interference at that fault location. IEEE Std 367™ [B12] is one source to examine GPR and
zone of influence, particularly related to communications facilities.

4.3  Design techniques to reduce ac interference


When designing a line, there are steps that can be taken to reduce the amount of ac interference on a co-located
facility. General design approaches include the following:

— Placing structures as far as practical from co-located facilities (e.g., farther from the edge of right-of-
way or such that a crossing occurs near mid-span of the transmission line)
— Using compact phase spacing to increase field cancelation
— Using a delta circuit configuration to increase field cancelation
— Utilizing taller structures when the co-located facility is very near the transmission line

19
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

— Using reverse-phased systems for double circuit lines (note that single circuit operation needs to be
considered)
— Considering designs such as an under-built shield wire (below the phase conductors)

4.4  Stray voltages resulting from ac interference


IEEE Std 1695™ defines stray voltage as a voltage resulting from the normal delivery or use of electricity
that may be present between two conductive surfaces that can be simultaneously contacted by members of the
general public or animals. Stray voltage is not related to electrical faults. AC interference is generally evaluated
based on objects directly within the influence of transmission lines; however, it may also be necessary to
consider the extension of systems outside of the proximity of transmission lines. One example of this is multi-
grounded neutrals of distribution lines co-located with transmission lines which can form conductive loops
that result in stray voltages. Connections of the neutral-to-earth path (e.g., ground rods) and the earth path
between those connections can result in the flow of current through the earth. Physical connections to the
service neutral required by building electrical codes for safety means that some amount of electrical current is
also present in utilities such as water, cable TV, and phone line sheathes.

The result of inductively coupled current can be elevated neutral-to-earth voltage (NEV) reported by other
utilities as well as residents. Mitigating this voltage may require changes to the distribution system, grounding
at residences, or both. Investigation procedures for identifying sources of stray voltage are provided in
IEEE Std 1695™ along with mitigation practices that can be used.

4.5  Other considerations not in scope


The following subsections provide a very brief overview of other considerations that may be of interest related
to co-located linear facilities. Addressing these topics is outside the scope of this document; the discussions
below are provided for a high-level awareness only.

4.5.1  DC currents

Transmission line structures located in the vicinity of corrosion-protected pipelines or rail systems are at the
risk of stray dc corrosion (dc interference). The majority of dc interference issues can be traced to rectifier
and anode beds for pipelines or dc traction power sources for electrified rail systems. Stray dc currents from
external sources can result in accelerated corrosion of transmission tower/poles, even with the best available
corrosion protection coating systems.

Utilities may want to assess the impact of cathodic protection or dc traction power on the foundations of
nearby transmission line metallic structures.

4.5.2 Harmonics

Triplen harmonics (e.g., h = 3, 9, 15, etc.) can result in significant induced voltages on metallic facilities
co-located with transmission lines. Since triplen harmonics are generally zero-sequence in nature,
there is no cancellation in the ac field effects from the harmonic currents in each phase. The presence of
harmonics in the electric system has proven to be significant in some situations. In Boteler, the induced
voltage on a pipeline was measured, revealing high levels of 3rd, 5th, and 9th harmonic components
(AS/NZS 4853 [B2]). On transmission lines, particularly at the EHV level, the harmonics are controlled by
two factors. First, power companies impose strict limitations on harmonic distortion (voltage and current)
imposed on the lines. Second, transformers and transmission lines exhibit high impedance at typical harmonic
frequencies, which naturally impede the flow of harmonics from the distribution system to the high voltage
transmission lines. High voltage direct current (HVDC) converter stations may generate a significant amount
of harmonics but the converter stations, are equipped with harmonic filters to significantly reduce harmonics
entering the high voltage system. Therefore, analyzing the electromagnetic coupling effects of triplen
harmonics is typically not required, unless severe harmonic distortion is suspected or confirmed through field
measurements.

20
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

4.5.3 Lightning

A co-located facility can be exposed to electrical hazards such as direct contact with lightning, indirect arcing
from lightning striking a nearby object such as a transmission structure, or indirect contact following the
collapse of a transmission structure or failure of its energized conductors. This clause focuses on the situation
where a high amplitude lightning stroke can initiate arcing from the footings of a tower to an adjacent facility
allowing for power system frequency short circuit current to flow through the ionized path that has already
been established by the lightning. This phenomenon can be reduced by the following:

— Physical separation: Several standards and studies have recommended minimum separation distance
between pipelines and transmission line structures. For example, NESC notes that made grounds
or grounded structures are required to be separated by 3 m (10 ft) or more from pipelines carrying
flammable liquids or gases at high pressure (NESC® [B1]). CSA uses a minimum 10 m separation
distance standard for shielded systems that is based on maintenance activity requirements, although
the standard suggests that this separation distance is likely sufficient to reduce the likelihood of arcing
for shielded systems (CAN/CSA C22.3 No. 6 [B5]). Some studies and references recommended a
variable minimum separation distance for different soil resistivities based on the soil ionization and
breakdown characteristics, but these methods share no industry consensus.
— Grounding improvements: Grounding improvements can be a cost-effective way to mitigate the arcing
hazard posed by lightning and to support co-location of a linear facility with existing transmission
structures.
— Operational controls: Faster fault clearing times on the power system, implemented through relaying
or communication scheme upgrades, can lower the likelihood of damage due to sustained fault currents
and reduce the duration of personnel exposure to conducted voltages.

4.5.4 Measurements

Where practical, on existing co-located facilities, gathering measured voltages on the pipeline or railroad can
assist in correlating models with real-world results. This generally involves measuring the voltage-to-ground
at pipeline test stations, or for railroads, measuring the voltages rail-to-ground or across insulating joints.
Typically, these measurements would be performed over a time duration long enough to capture the desired
steady-state operating conditions of the co-located transmission line. This guide does not provide information
on how to perform these measurements as it is out of scope.

5.  AC interference analysis for pipelines


A pipeline right-of-way often provides a convenient path for routing transmission lines, as many physical
and legal challenges of transmission line construction may be simplified in a shared corridor. While this route
may provide many benefits to a project, the ac interference effects from a transmission system may have
substantial effect on the integrity of co-located pipelines. Pipelines may be damaged by ac corrosion over time
or in very short duration when a fault occurs on an electrical line. In addition, personnel protection concerns
exist, primarily touch voltages, when elevated voltages exist on the pipeline either under steady-state or fault
conditions. The protective coating on some metallic pipelines acts as an electrical insulator and exacerbates
the problems.

5.1  Physical characteristics of pipelines


Pipelines are typically buried although they can also be built above grade. Buried pipelines typically have
appurtenances, which are objects associated with the pipeline but not directly part of the pipeline structure.
These are often electrically continuous with the pipeline steel and can provide a variety of ancillary functions.
Some on the main types of appurtenances are as follows:

— Test stations: allow the pipeline to measure the dc voltages and cathodic protection

21
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

— Valves: allow the pipeline to be shut off


— Compressor stations: increase the pressure and flow of liquid inside the pipeline
— Casings: reinforcement to reduce the likelihood the pipeline being crushed, often at roads

5.2  Electrical characteristics of pipelines


Pipelines consist of three main electrical components that need to be considered when analyzing the effects
of a nearby transmission line. The first component is the steel pipeline itself, which is primarily characterized
by the outside diameter and wall thickness. The second component is the coating applied to pipeline to reduce
galvanic corrosion. The third item to consider is the cathodic protection of the pipeline.

The steel portion of the pipeline is the material that is capable of being magnetically coupled or transferring
voltages over a large distance. The material properties for the steel can vary, but the outside diameter and wall
thickness have the largest impacts on ac interference and the capability to transfer energy over long distances.

The other main driver for the performance of a pipeline subject to ac interference is the coating on the pipeline.
The characteristics of coatings vary depending on the type and condition of the coating. In general, the coatings
are defined in an ohm per unit surface area (ohm meter squared or ohm foot squared). Newer coating types tend
to have higher ohm meter squared values than types used in the past, but these values can vary significantly
even with a particular coating type. This results in less cathodic protection being required for the pipeline, but
also means that induced ac energy has a harder time exiting the pipeline.

The cathodic protection system on the pipeline protects the pipeline against galvanic corrosion (rusting) over
the life of the pipeline. It works in conjunction with the coating to push current from anodes, through the soil,
and onto any areas with bare steel exposed to the soil. Depending on the configuration of the anode system, it
may or may not have a direct impact on the ac voltages on the pipeline. Passive anodes are typically directly
connected to the pipeline and can provide a path for ac current to flow into the earth.

Valves and other pipe junctions may be electrically isolated with insulating flange kits and can be modeled
accordingly, as the voltage across these joints can present touch voltage hazards during steady-state conditions
and fault conditions. The high dielectric strength and thickness of the flange kit generally offer high voltage
breakdown strength; however, the voltage stress during fault conditions needs consideration.

5.3  Typical data requirements for analysis


The typical data requirements needed to perform ac interference analysis on pipelines include, but are not
limited to, the following:

— Pipeline GPS coordinates


— Pipeline diameter and wall thickness
— Pipeline burial depth
— Pipeline material and electrical characteristics
— Pipeline coating type, thickness, and resistance/resistivity
— Details of the cathodic protection system
— Appurtenance details and locations
— Grounding facilities
— Location of isolating joints and decouplers

22
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Pipeline companies may not have information readily available about the locations of above ground
appurtenances, connections to ground, or coating resistances. Some typical conservative values may need to
be used in these scenarios.

5.4  Analysis considerations for pipelines


When a structure foundation, ground, or guy anchor is near the object experiencing interference, it is
important to consider the conductive component when a ground fault occurs at that particular structure. Take
an underground pipeline as an example. During a fault condition, there are two components that contribute
to the coating stress of the exposed pipeline. A voltage is induced in the metallic part of the pipe due to
the fault current flowing in the line conductors (induction). At the faulted structure, the injected current to
ground causes a GPR which, depending on the distance of the pipeline to that particular structure, changes
the potential stress on the coating of the pipeline. The resultant of these two components, i.e., the inductive
and conductive components, yields the total coating stress. Some commercially available software tools are
capable of modeling both inductive and conductive components during a ground fault. The use of these tools is
often necessary when such cases are studied.

5.5  Sample compliance criteria for pipelines


The purpose of this clause is to provide common compliance limits for the personal protection and integrity
conditions typically evaluated for ac interference on pipelines. These limits identified are industry standards
or typical practices. This does not indicate a definitive list of limits for analysis, and the limits used by a
pipeline company may differ from these.

5.5.1  Steady-state conditions

For steady-state power system conditions, protection of both personnel and long-term pipeline damage can be
considered.

5.5.1.1  Steady-state personnel protection

The primary concern for personnel protection under normal operation on the electrical system is shock
hazards in the form of touch voltages to workers or the public at appurtenances or above grade sections of pipe.
The ac induced voltage limit under steady-state conditions is 15 V at above-grade appurtenances or exposed
portions of the pipeline according to NACE SP0177 [B18]. Guidelines for areas not normally exposed could
be as high as 50 V based on OSHA guidelines that indicate live parts above 50 V require guarding against
accidental contact (29 C.F.R. Part 1910 [B20]). Calculations can be performed using the body resistance and
soil resistivity (foot resistance) to determine a value to limit body current to a certain value, such as 5 mA (see
the EPRI AC Transmission Line Reference Book [B8]), as well.

Analysis needs to consider the maximum foreseeable future loading, or conductor thermal ratings, on the
power system since this is a personnel protection limit.

5.5.1.2  Pipeline corrosion protection

AC corrosion can occur on areas of the pipeline that do not have protective coating, or where the protective
coating has been damaged. Corrosion is a long-term effect with degradation occurring over time based on the
current density. Therefore, analysis is typically performed using an averaged line loading scenario because of
this long-term effect.

Based on laboratory testing, the current density goes up for the same voltage on the pipeline as the coating
defect (holiday) size decreases until the size of the defect is 1 cm2 (NACE SP1077 [B18]). This size of coating
defect is often used to calculate the ac current density in ac interference analysis.

23
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

AC corrosion is not expected at current densities less than 20 A/m2 but is expected above 100 A/m2 per NACE
SP21424-2018-SG [B19]. Corrosion rates are less predictable between these values with the European
Standards Associations, indicating that current densities below 30 A/m2 do not significantly accelerate
corrosion on pipelines (see BS EN ISO 18086 [B4]). The North American pipeline groups CEPA [B6] and
IGNAA [B16] both reference the 20 A/m2 and 30 A/m2 values in documents they have published.

NACE SP21424-2018 states that the ac current density for a cathodically protected pipeline should not exceed
30 A/m2 if dc current density exceeds 1 A/m2 and not exceed 100 A/m2 if dc current density is less than 1 A/m2
NACE SP21424-2018-SG [B19].

The current density due to a holiday in a pipeline coating depends on the induced voltage in the metallic part of
the pipeline, soil resistivity, and size of the holiday. This can be calculated as shown in Equation (1).

8V
I= (1)
 d
where

I is the leakage current density in A/m2


V is the induced voltage in V
ρ is the soil resistivity at the depth of the pipeline in ohm-m
d is the holiday diameter in m

For a holiday with an area of 1 cm2, the following simple relationship of Equation (2) can be used to
approximate the leakage current density.

225V
I= (2)
ρ

5.5.2  Fault conditions

For faulted power system conditions, protection of both personnel and short-term pipeline damage can be
considered.

5.5.2.1  Fault conditions personnel protection

The primary concern for personnel protection under fault conditions is touch and step voltages at or near
appurtenances or above grade sections of pipelines. IEEE Std 80™ provides recommended limits for both
touch and step voltages based on the soil and fault characteristics. The limits would be determined using the
ultimate or future line-to-ground fault current.

5.5.2.2  Pipeline coating protection

Under fault conditions, large voltages can develop between the pipeline and the surrounding soil. This is
defined as a coating stress voltage. If the coating stress voltage becomes too large, the coating can breakdown
in that area. NACE SP0177 [B18] recommends that pipeline coating stress voltage during short period of fault
condition is limited to values in the range of 1 kV to 5 kV depending on the type and age of coating. Higher
values may be recommended by pipeline owners, as there is some indication that 1 kV to 5 kV may be much
lower that actual coating dielectric strength (AS/NZS 4853 [B2]).

5.6  Mitigation techniques for pipeline corridors


The mitigation of ac interference on pipelines typically are measures that modify the pipeline versus the
electrical transmission line. While the field of the lines can be shaped by items such as shield wire placement
or underbuilt neutrals, these techniques are often less cost effective than bonding grounding systems to the
pipeline itself.

24
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

The three most common forms of mitigation for ac voltages on pipelines are counterpoise, deep earth
electrodes, or gradient mats. Each of these objects is typically connected to the pipeline with a device which
allows the ac currents to pass through while blocking the dc currents from the cathodic protection system from
flowing into the mitigation.

Counterpoise is typically installed parallel to the pipeline and connected to it at regular intervals, often
through decouplers to keep dc impressed current on the pipeline while allowing ac to pass to ground. This
type of mitigation is most commonly used to reduce ac current density or coating stress voltage compliance
violations. It also has a direct effect on the reduction of touch voltages. The mechanism for ac voltage reduction
is providing a large ground that drains the ac energy off the pipeline. It has the added effect of elevating the
voltage of the soil along the pipeline for long stretches, further reducing leakage current at existing holidays
on the pipeline.

Deep earth electrodes are also used to reduce voltages along pipelines and often consist of a ground conductor
installed into a bored hole, backfilled with low resistivity material. They are most commonly applied where
counterpoise is not practical to install, or the soil resistivity is such that counterpoise is not effective. The
mechanism for ac voltage reduction is providing a large ground that bleeds ac energy off the pipeline through
a decoupler, similar to counterpoise connections. However, it does not have the benefit of elevating the soil
voltage for long parallel stretches to the pipeline.

Gradient mats are primarily used to reduce touch voltages at appurtenances and above grade locations such as
at valves and test stations. These do not typically provide sufficient grounding to substantially influence the
voltage on the pipeline but are effective in equalizing the voltage of the appurtenance and/or pipeline and the
soil in a limited area.

When selecting mitigation designs, the designer may consider ongoing maintenance. Equipment such as ac/
dc decouplers can be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations. Gradient control mats
and/or surfacing material around appurtenances need occasional inspection to make sure the intended design is
still present. More permanent below-grade installations, such as buried counterpoise, likely need less ongoing
maintenance or inspection.

6.  AC interference analysis for railroads


A railroad right-of-way often provides a convenient path for routing transmission lines, as many physical
challenges of transmission line construction are simplified in a shared corridor. While this route may provide
many benefits to a project, the ac interference effects from a transmission system may have substantial
effect on the personnel protection and operation of co-located railroads. Train signaling equipment used to
determine train occupancy, speed, or leaks may mis-operate or have permanent damage from ac interference.
Additionally, personnel protection concerns for public and railroad personnel may exist on the tracks. As the
rails provide a linear metallic path, they are susceptible to ac interference.

6.1  Physical characteristics of railroads


Railroad tracks typically consist of two steel rails supported by perpendicular railroad ties. The steel rails
are often segmented and connected at the ends with a track joint or welded to make a continuous track. The
perpendicular railroad ties maintain the rails gauge (separation distance between rails) and are embedded
in the track ballast. Ballast, being the large crushed rock under and adjacent to the railroad tracks, provides
physical support as well as allows debris and water to permeate the track surface in order to maintain physical
integrity of the tracks. The ballast is placed upon stable sub-ballast, creating a stable material for trains to
pass over. A track system may not have ballast, referred to as a ballast less track, but these can be evaluated
similarly to tracks with ballast for ac interference concerns.

25
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

6.2  Electrical characteristics of railroads


Each rail is a linear conductor which may be susceptible to ac interference. The railroad ties and ballast partially
insulate each rail from the earth and from the adjacent rail. A high impedance path between rails is part of the
electrical design of railroads as this allows for track circuit signals to operate. It is impossible to completely
isolate the rails and over large distances, with the tracks run in parallel, leakage impedance can affect the track
circuit operation. The quality of the insulation properties of track ballast is typically described in ohms per
thousand feet, although it is technically a value of ohms over a thousand-foot section of rail (EPRI [B9]). The
proper units for expressing this ballast leakage impedance is ohm-ft.

Track ballast leakage impedance can vary from less than 1 Ω-kft to more than 80 Ω-kft Typical values of
maintained ballast range from 1 Ω-kft to 15 Ω-kft Lower values often result in difficultly in maintaining
proper signaling. Higher values are hard to maintain over time due to contamination and have little impact on
ac interference results.

The majority of railroad tracks are segmented and simply attached to the next segment via a railroad joint, but
welded continuous track are also widely used. Segmented and continuous tracks provide continuity for track
signals to pass between segments, as well as continuity for 60 Hz ac interference. Track circuits may be limited
either by a track circuit shunt, providing a low impedance path between rails, or by high impedance insulated
track joints. The impedance of an insulated joint can vary greatly over time, starting at several megaohms after
manufacturing but rapidly degrading after installation. Severe degradation or complete failure of an insulated
joint may occur over time, possibly causing failure in the track signaling systems.

Railroad communication and signaling have various systems that may or may not utilize the railroad tracks
themselves. AC interference concerns at 60 Hz primarily affect track signaling that is transmitted on the rails,
even damaging the surge protection meant to protect the signaling equipment. There are numerous types of
equipment that may be affected by 60 Hz interference or provide alternative paths for currents to flow in the
railroad system.

6.3  Analysis considerations for railroads


AC interference may adversely affect railroads during both steady-state and faulted state operation, primarily
presenting two types of concerns. AC interference to railroads may result in personnel protection and/or
equipment integrity issues. These concerns may be alleviated or worsened by the railroad system configuration
or operational processes of the railroad.

Characterizing the railroad signaling systems to understand equipment and the associated limitations
is important in maintaining railroad operation. Railroads may have insulated joints that can be shorted,
significantly affecting the voltages 60 Hz ac interference by allowing significant rail-to-rail voltages to occur.
Operational processes may provide immediate repair of insulated joints or could allow a marginal insulated
joint to persist for days or months. Some railroads may be considered ‘dark territory,’ areas without signaling
with the exception of grade crossing predictors, while others may have electrified rail systems, which have
existing touch voltage hazards present. Understanding the railroad system is inherent in properly assessing ac
interference on railroads.

6.4  Sample compliance criteria for railroads


The purpose of this clause is to provide common compliance limits for the personnel protection and integrity
conditions typically evaluated for ac interference on railroads. These limits identified are industry standards or
typical practices. This does not indicate a definitive list of limits for analysis, and the limits used by a railroad
company may differ from these.

26
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

6.4.1  Steady-state conditions

For steady-state power system conditions, protection of both personnel and signaling equipment integrity can
be considered.

6.4.1.1  Railway signaling system protection

The joint EPRI/AREMA manual [B9] states that railway signaling systems operate properly on tracks having
up to 5 V rms at 60 Hz rail-to-rail voltage. With newer signaling equipment, these limits may increase to
around 15 V at 60 Hz. Specific equipment limits can be provided by the railroad.

6.4.1.2  Steady-state personnel protection

The primary concern for personnel protection during steady-state conditions is touch voltages at the rails and
associated railroad equipment (signal huts, track switches, etc.). EPRI [B9], based on OSHA, indicates that the
rail-to-ground voltage cannot exceed 50 V rms for personnel protection standing on the surrounding ground
and touching exposed equipment (EPRI [B9] and 29 C.F.R. Part 1910 [B20]). This limit would also apply
across accessible points on the rail (such as across an insulating joint) as well. If equal induction on equal track
blocks, a commonly referenced limit is then 25 V to ground (+25 V on one side of the joint and −25 V on the
other side, resulting in a 50 V difference). CSA in Canada uses 25 V rms as a suggested value based on this.
However most real-world systems are not this balanced with equal track blocks (CAN/CSA [B5]).

6.4.2  Fault conditions

For faulted power system conditions, protection of both personnel and signaling equipment integrity can be
considered.

6.4.2.1  Railway signaling system protection

Railway signaling systems are installed with surge protection primarily to protect against lightning surges
in circuits. Typical surge protection would consist of an arrester or solid-state device, but there are multiple
types of these devices that have various operational specifications. Arresters generally have a wider range for
operate voltages but would be expected to consistently operate between 350 V to 950 V (EPRI [B9]). Solid
state devices typically have a narrower operating voltages and can consist of surge suppression or gate devices
(NESC® [B1]). The solid-state gate devices may be able to withstand several thousand amps. Surge protection
devices on the railroad need to consider possible operation when exposed to 60 Hz voltages. Thermal limits of
the track lightning arresters are limited but range from 250 A to 1000 A (Gummow et al. [B10]).

6.4.2.2  Fault condition personnel protection

The primary concern for personnel protection under fault conditions is touch and step voltages at or near
the rails and associated railroad equipment (signal huts, crossing arms, etc.). IEEE Std 80 provides
recommended limits for both touch and step voltages based on the soil and fault characteristics and may
be the preferred approach. Additionally EPRI provides recommended limits of 650 V rms for systems with
high speed protection and 430 V rms for other systems where practical based on typical data that may not
apply to all situations as they are based on certain assumptions (EPRI [B9]). CSA in Canada also references
a generalized 430 V rms limit and allows for a higher limit for lines with reliable high-speed protection
(CAN/CSA C22.3 No. 6 [B5]).

6.5  Mitigation techniques for railroad corridors


The mitigation of ac interference on railroads varies based on the pertinent track and transmission line
conditions. Generally, mitigation consists of grounding systems, field shielding designs, changes to the
transmission line, or changes to the railroad. Personnel operational practices may also be considered as
additional precaution, but likely are not suitable for mitigation for railroads that are often publicly accessible.
A much more extensive list of mitigation approaches is included by EPRI [B9].

27
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Direct grounding is commonly applied as either a buried counterpoise adjacent to the railroad or as a gradient
mat around equipment and buildings. Additional grounding to railroad signal huts can be directly bonded to
existing grounding systems, but connections to the track themselves may not be permitted due to railroad
signaling, though new devices are in the process of being certified for use on signaled rails. Tracks with limited
or no signaling may allow for direct grounding to the track.

Buried parallel, but unconnected, counterpoise and aerial shield conductor allow for a current to be induced to
counter the effects of the transmission line on the railroad. This results in a lower voltage being induced on the
railroad. Compared to direct grounding, more conductor is often required but does not interfere with existing
track signaling systems.

Several transmission line design changes may help reduce ac interference from a transmission line to a
railroad. Transmission lines that consist of two or more circuits may configure the phasing of the conductor to
reduce magnetic fields for steady-state operation. Also, the addition of an underbuilt shield wire or underbuilt
neutral acts as a shield for ac interference, as well as improves lightning performance of the transmission
structures. For conduction concerns, adjusting the location of transmission line poles and changes to the
grounding systems can significantly reduce voltages transferred to the railroad. Considering the personnel
protection voltage is affected by the time that a person is exposed to voltages, a protective relay operation may
be adjusted to clear a fault faster on the transmission line.

Design changes to the railroad may improve track rail voltages, either rail-to-ground or rail-to-rail. Reducing
the continuous track exposure length can be done by adding an insulated joint to the shared corridor; however,
these insulated joints may fail and need to be evaluated for signaling operation. Upgrading or adding track
signaling can either improve the 60 Hz voltage susceptibility of equipment or remove ac interference concerns.
Track signaling affected by voltage imbalance from one rail to another may be mitigated by the addition of
60 Hz shunts. As mentioned above, some surge protection devices may be added to the track system to operate
at voltages below equipment and personnel limits.

7. Fences
Fences are another commonly considered linear facility near transmission lines. Fences can be grounded (even
if indirectly via metal posts, such as a chain-link fence) or ungrounded (such as barb wire fences on wooden
posts). Both types of fences may experience ac interference effects, but these are often most pronounced on
ungrounded fences, which can include electric fences. The NESC [B1] also provides information on grounding
fences and gates.

The allowable continuous length of the metallic fence depends on the maximum allowable voltage on the
fence. One example is provided by Jaffa, examining adding grounding to ungrounded fences [B17]. Assuming
the fence is of non-electric type on non-conductive posts, both ends of the fence section are to be grounded, the
line loading is balanced and the ground impedances at the ends are identical, the permissible continuous length
of a fence can be calculated using Equation (3).

Vmax
L = 2× (3)
Vem
where

L is the continuous length of a fence section in meters


Vmax is the maximum induced voltage in the fence section in volts
Vem is the induced voltage per meter in the fence

28
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

The term Vem would be determined based on calculations involving the transmission line configuration,
loading, phase spacing, separation distance, etc. Generally, this value increases with voltage due to increased
phase spacing, assuming the current is the same.

Metal fences on metal posts may provide regular ground paths to which may reduce the voltages on the fence.
EPRI [B8] provides guidance that the distance between grounds be selected to limit the current in any ground
to less than 4 mA.

The use of non-metallic fences can also be explored. If metallic fence is the only option, and the continuous
length exceeds the allowable length, ‘insulation breaks’ can be used as shown in Figure 5. In this figure, “a”
is a metallic fence post, “b” is a strain insulator, and “c” is a 3 m (10 ft) long strand of fencing. Fences can be
grounded by metallic fence posts at each side of any insulation break in a fence.

Figure 5—Insulation break

At every grounding point, a galvanized steel fence post can be driven into the ground with each metallic fence
wire bonded to the metallic post (Figure 5). Regardless of the distance from the last grounding point, metallic
fence posts are usually also placed at each end of any gate or random break in a fence (Figure 6 and Figure 7).

Figure 6—Grounding at the end of a fence

29
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Figure 7—Grounding at each side of a gate

Electric fences are intentionally insulated from ground and installing direct grounding as discussed above
is not practical. In these instances, fence filters that bleed off 60 Hz induced voltage to ground but maintain
isolation from ground for the intentional fence energization, can be installed.

8.  Other objects


Railroads and petrochemical pipelines are the most common linear facilities where ac interference occurs
because of their length, conductance, complexity, and accessibility, but these are by no means the only such
facilities. Other linear facilities include but are not limited to:

— Telecommunications lines both above ground and underground, including OPGW and ADSS with
contamination which may lead to dry-arcing concerns (see IEEE Std 776™ [B13], which provides
recommendations for communications lines)
— Other power lines both above ground and underground, energized and de-energized (IEEE Std 1048™
[B14] and IEEE Std 1695™ may prove valuable in these situations)
— Pipelines for district heating or cooling
— Pipelines for potable water, non-potable water, storm water, and waste water
— Pipelines for steam distribution, compressed air, or other gases
— Pipelines for slurries
— Irrigation equipment (center pivot equipment can be up to a mile in length, see IEEE Std 1542™ [B15])
— Other transportation infrastructure such as roadways with metallic roadbeds, bridges, and viaducts
with metallic components

There are also other large but non-linear facilities where the techniques in this document could provide useful
insight—predominantly large metal framed or metal clad buildings such as warehouses and silos.

While no specific guidance is given on these facilities, the general techniques and considerations presented in
this document may apply.

30
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Annex A
(informative)

Bibliography
Bibliographical references are resources that provide additional or helpful material but do not need to be
understood or used to implement this standard. Reference to these resources is made for informational use
only.

[B1] Accredited Standards Committee C2, National Electrical Safety Code® (NESC®).6

[B2] AS/NZS 4853, Electrical hazards on metallic pipelines.7

[B3] Boteler, D. and S. Croall, “Measurements of higher harmonics in AC interference on pipelines,”


NACE—International Corrosion Conference Series, January 2010.8

[B4] BS EN ISO 18086, Corrosion of metals and alloys. Determination of AC corrosion. Protection criteria.

[B5] CAN/CSA C22.3 No. 6, Principles and practices of electrical coordination between pipelines and electric
supply lines.9

[B6] Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, A/C Interference Guideline Final Report, Ontario, Canada,
June 2014.10

[B7] CIGRE, Technical Brochure 095, “Guide on the influence of high voltage AC power systems on metallic
pipelines,” 1995.11

[B8] Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI AC Transmission Line Reference Book—200 kV and Above, Palo
Alto, CA, 2017.

[B9] Electric Power Research Institute, Power System and Railroad Electromagnetic Compatibility Handbook,
Revised First Edition, November 2006.

[B10] Gummow, R.A., S.M. Segall, and W. Fieltsch, “Pipeline AC Mitigation Misconceptions”,
NACE—Northern Area Western Conference, February 2010.

[B11] Holmstrom, F., Lightning and its Effects on Railroad Signal Circuits, National Technical Information
Service, December 1975.

[B12] IEEE Std 367™, IEEE Recommended Practice for Determining the Electric Power Station Ground
Potential Rise and Induced Voltage from a Power Fault.

[B13] IEEE Std 776™, IEEE Recommended Practice for Inductive Coordination of Electric Supply and
Communication Lines.

[B14] IEEE Std 1048™, IEEE Guide for Protective Grounding of Power Lines.

6
The NESC is available from The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA (https://​
standards​.ieee​.org/​).
7
Available from: https://​www​.saiglobal​.com/​PDFTemp/​Previews/​OSH/​as/​as4000/​4800/​4853​.pdf.
8
NACE publications are available at: https://​store​.nace​.org/​.
9
CSA publications are available from the Canadian Standards Association (http://​www​.csa​.ca/​).
10
Available at: https://​www​.cepa​.com/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2016/​11/​AC​-Interference​-Guidelines​-Final​-Report​-FOR​-PUB​.​.pdf.
11
CIGRE publications are available at: https://​e​-cigre​.org/​.

31
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

[B15] IEEE Std 1542™, IEEE Guide for Installation, Maintenance, and Operation of Irrigation Equipment
Located Near or Under Power Lines.

[B16] The INGAA Foundation, Criteria for Pipelines Co-Existing with Electric Power Lines. Dublin, OH;
2015.12

[B17] Jaffa, K. C., “Magnetic field induction from overhead transmission and distribution power lines on
parallel fences,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-100, no. 4, pp. 1624–1636,
April 1981.

[B18] NACE SP0177, “Mitigation of Alternating Current and Lightning Effects on Metallic Structures and
Corrosion Control Systems.”

[B19] NACE SP21424–2018-SG, Alternating Current Corrosion on Cathodically Protected Pipelines: Risk
Assessment, Mitigation, and Monitoring.

[B20] Occupational safety and health standards: Occupational health and environmental control,
29 C.F.R. Part 1910.13

[B21] Olsen, R.G., High Voltage Overhead Transmission Line Electromagnetics, 2015.

[B22] Tavighi, A., H. Ahmadi, M. Armstrong, and J. R. Marti, “Optimal phasing for parallel transmission
lines to minimize ac interference,” 2018 IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical & Computer Engineering
(CCECE), Quebec City, QC, 2018, pp. 1–5.

12
Available at: https://​www​.ingaa​.org/​File​.aspx​?id​=​24732.
13
Available from: https://​www​.osha​.gov/​laws​-regs.

32
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Annex B
(informative)

Simple ac interference example project


B.1 Introduction
This annex presents a simple example ac interference project with the objective of demonstrating the primary
data required, cases analyzed, initial results, mitigation design, and final results. This example does not cover
all scenarios that would need to be analyzed on all projects, the only mitigation approach that could work, or
establish specific compliance criteria. It is intended only to provide general guidance and each project has
different considerations.

B.2  Project information


Consider a 500 kV transmission line in parallel with a gas pipeline. The data for the transmission line is
summarized in the following tables:

Line-line Phase- Average Sub Subconductor Number of Bundle


voltage to-phase conductor height conductor dc resistance subconductors spacing
(kV-rms) spacing (m) above ground (m) diameter (Ω/km) per bundle (cm)
(cm)
525 12 16 2.4 0.09 4 45
Soil resistivity

per tower (m)


Average span

burial depth
Average line

Leg spacing

grillage size
Foundation

Foundation
line loading

per grillage
Line length

parallelism

Number of
Maximum

length (m)
Length of

I-beams
loading

(Ωm)
(km)

(km)

(m)

(m)
1800 MVA 600 MVA 50 10 500 400 8 2.4*2.4*0.2 4 9

Thevenin equivalent at Terminal 1 Thevenin equivalent at Terminal 2 Fault clearing time (ms)
Z+ = Z- = 0.5 + j8 Z+ = Z- = 0.8 + j12 150
Z0 = 1.4 + j20 Z0 = 2 + j28

Pipeline data is summarized in the following tables:

Diameter Coating Coating Distance to Burial Coating DC current


(in) thickness resistance (Ω.m2) power line depth (m) withstand density
(mm) centerline (m) voltage (kV) (A/m2)
24 1 30000 50 1.5 10 0.5

Ground locations along the pipe and corresponding grounding resistance


At 0 km, 1 Ω

33
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

B.3  Initial simulation results


The transmission line is energized at the two ends using balanced voltage sources. The current imbalance is a
result of the inherent imbalance in line impedance (untransposed transmission line).

Voltages (line-to-ground) and phase angles at the two ends of the transmission line are as follows:

— Terminal 1
— Va: 303 kV < 0 deg
— Vb: 303 kV < −120 deg
— Vc: 303 kV < 120 deg
— Terminal 2
— Va: 303 kV < −6.5 deg
— Vb: 303 kV < −126.5 deg
— Vc: 303 kV < 113.5 deg
— Current in each phase:
— Ia: 1890 A
— Ib: 2150 A
— Ic: 1918 A

The calculated induced voltage profile is shown in Figure B.1. The change in voltage angle, shown in
Figure B.2, explains the dip in the voltage magnitude.

Figure B.1—Induced voltage magnitude profile along the pipeline

34
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Figure B.2—Induced voltage angle profile along the pipeline

The induced voltage level for the maximum line loading is used for evaluating personnel protection. Where
ever the pipeline is exposed above ground and can be accessed by the public, the induced voltage level is
limited to 15 V. Assuming that there is an above-ground facility at 0 km, the voltage level exceeds the defined
limit of 15 V and, therefore, mitigation is needed. Before jumping into conclusions on what type of mitigation
is appropriate, it is important to analyze other criteria as well: current leakage density for steady-state, and
coating stress and touch potential for fault conditions.

For this example, let us assume soil resistivity is uniform 500 Ωm all along the pipeline route. The leakage
current density through this holiday is calculated by (1).

According to NACE SP21424–2018-SG, the ac current density should not exceed a time weighted average
of 100 A/m2 if dc current density is less than 1 A/m2 [B19]. The term “time weighted average” refers to the
fact that the loading in a transmission line is not constant and it varies on a continuous basis. If the histogram
of line loading is available for the transmission line, it would be appropriate to calculate the CDF for the line
loading based on the historical data, apply a factor for expected future load increase (obtained in consultation
with transmission planning department at the power utility), and choose the average value when calculating
the ac leakage current density. In this example, the time weighted average loading of the line is assumed to be
600 MVA. This can be achieved by applying 2.2° angle difference between the voltage sources connected to
the end terminals of the transmission line.

The leakage current density through a holiday in the pipe at 600 MVA of line loading is calculated as shown in
Figure B.3.

35
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Figure B.3—Holiday leakage current density along pipeline

As can be seen, the leakage current density in the pipe is below the defined limit of 100 A/m2 along its length.
Therefore, mitigation is not needed for this item.

Fault condition

An important factor in determining the available fault current at a given location along a transmission line is
the source impedance at the terminal substations. As the transmission line would be sharing the corridor with
the pipeline for years, it is important to consider the system growth. When the power system expands, the
available fault current at the terminal substations would, in most cases, increase. This data can be obtained
from transmission planning or stations planning departments at the power utility. Let us refer to this as the
“ultimate fault current.” The Thevenin equivalent impedances at the terminal stations were given in this
example for the ultimate stage.

Each tower along the transmission line length would have different grounding impedance, as the soil
conditions and foundation types may vary. For this example, it is assumed that the tower foundations are all
similar and the tower are rigid (no guy wires), in the 10 km parallel section. Each foundation is a 2.4m × 2.4m
× 0.2m grillage buried 4 m below grade, and the legs are 8 m apart. The equivalent grounding impedance of
each tower foundation in a uniform soil of 500 Ωm is 16 Ω. Assume the pipe starts at 1 km outside Terminal 1
of the transmission line and ends at 11 km from Terminal 1. The first tower of the transmission line within the
parallel section is located at 1.1 km outside Terminal 1. When there is a fault at this first tower, the fault current
contribution from Terminal 1 is much higher than Terminal 2. The total fault current would be around 15.6 kA,
which yields a GPR of about 250 kV at the tower location. Since the pipe is located nearby, the conduction
effect would increase the coating stress on the pipeline. The fault current would also induce a voltage on the
pipe. The combination of these two, i.e., induction and conduction effects, yields the total coating stress on the
pipe.

The coating stress on the pipeline due to faults at various tower locations is shown in Figure B.4. There are
a total of 26 towers (each represented by a spike on the plot) in the section parallel with the pipeline (400 m
average span length). The envelope of the coating stress, considering all the fault scenarios, is shown in the
Figure B.5. As can be seen, the maximum pipeline coating stress is around 25 kV, for a fault at a tower near
the end of the pipe parallel section (11 km from Terminal 1). The coating stress withstand of the pipeline was
assumed 10 kV. Therefore, mitigations are required. The touch potential is very similar to the coating stress,
if the soil resistivity is assumed to be the same at the above-ground appurtenances. The fault clearing time for
a ground fault is given as 150 ms. Based on IEEE Std 80, the tolerable body current is 300 mA. Assuming the

36
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Figure B.4—Coating stress on the pipeline for faults on various tower locations

Figure B.5—Envelope of the coating stress on the pipeline for faults on various towers

37
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

workers do not have electrical-rated boots, the equivalent body resistance in case of touch potential scenario
would be the internal body resistance plus half of the resistance of each foot to ground. Based on the simplified
analysis in IEEE Std 80, the resistance of two feet in parallel would be 1.5ρ, for a uniform soil of resistivity
ρ. In this case, the resistance is 750 Ω. The internal body resistance is assumed 1000 Ω. The total resistance,
therefore, is 1750 Ω. The tolerable touch potential is then calculated as 1750 × 0.3 = 525 V. Assuming that the
only above-ground appurtenance on the pipeline is at 0 km of the pipe, the step potential at this location is well
above the allowable touch potential. Therefore, mitigation is required.

B.4 Mitigation
Mitigation design is a trial-and-error process where the designer starts with the minimum mitigation and keeps
increasing it, using engineering knowledge, to meet all the required criteria. The mitigations considered here
are in the form of mitigation wires buried in parallel with the pipeline for its entire length in the parallel section
at a depth of 1.5 m, 0.5 m away from the pipe centerline, and connected to the pipe at every 300 m using solid
state decouplers (SSD). SSDs block the dc current to avoid interfering with the cathodic protection system
of the pipeline. The wire is buried all along the pipeline. At kilometer 10 (the end of the parallel section), a
grounding resistance of 1 Ω needs to be achieved using an appropriate grounding electrode.

Steady-state scenario

With these mitigations, the steady-state induced voltage profile along the pipeline look like Figure B.6
(magnitude) and Figure B.7 (angle). As can be seen, the voltage at 0 km is still above the 15 V limit. It appears
that further mitigations along the pipeline does not reduce the induced voltage level. It is also practically not
feasible to achieve grounding resistances lower than 1 Ω. As such, the last solution in this case would be to
install gradient control mats. These mats are buried at a shallow depth around the pipeline above-ground
appurtenance where the personnel can come in contact with the bare pipe. Crushed rock may be used as a
filling for the top layer above the mat. These mats are bonded to the pipe using SSDs to create an equipotential
zone. These mats also limit the touch potential hazard during a power system fault. Figure B.8 shows the
holiday leakage current density along the pipeline with mitigation.

Figure B.6—Induced voltage magnitude profile along the pipeline with mitigation

38
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Figure B.7—Induced voltage angle profile along the pipeline with mitigation

Figure B.8—Holiday leakage current density along the pipeline with mitigation

Fault scenario

Same mitigation design was simulated for ground faults at all the towers within the parallel section (1 km to
11 km outside Terminal 1 of the transmission line). The results look like the Figure B.9. As can be seen, the
coating stress is below the 10 kV withstand limit of the pipeline with the proposed mitigations. The reason for
the periodic reduction in the peak at every third tower is that the mitigation wire is bonded to the pipe at every
300 m, and the transmission towers are located at every 400 m along the transmission line route. At every third
tower, the tower location and the location of bonding to the pipe coincide, which leads to a smaller coating
stress at that point. This means that it would be more beneficial to bond the pipe to the mitigation wire near the
tower locations. The designer can try various connection frequencies and locations from the mitigation wire to
the pipe in order to achieve a certain target.

39
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Figure B.9—Envelop of coating stress voltage

Note that there is a limit on how much reduction can be achieved using mitigation wires. In case the desired
target cannot be achieved using one wire, other forms of mitigation can be pursued. This includes, but is not
limited to, adding a second mitigation wire, reducing the tower GPR by installing addition grounding at the
transmission towers, moving the pipeline/transmission line farther apart (if possible), etc. Also note that the
transmission line in this example has no shield wires. Shield wires, if not insulated from the towers, reduce the
GPR on each tower due to the current split factor.

B.4  Discussion on more complicated cases


There are often conditions where a full-length mitigation wire may not be needed. The designer needs to
start with basic mitigation level and modify (expand, shrink, or shift) it in order to achieve the desired design
targets. Other solutions could involve activities such as modifying, realigning, or relocating the pipeline.

In many cases, there are multiple lines in a corridor, which presents additional scenarios. At times, power flow
and current loading in each circuit may increase, decrease, and/or change directions. Scenarios could include
one circuit being at peak load in one direction when the other is at minimal load (or out of service) flowing
in the opposite direction, depending on the phasing of the circuits. With other phasing, each circuit at peak
coincidental loading may present the worst case.

Some areas may have a more complicated pipeline route, possibly including a mesh or a large number of taps
off the main line. This requires significant more modeling and mitigation approaches may get very complex.

40
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Annex C
(informative)

Complex example project results


C.1 Introduction
This annex provides additional project results beyond the simple case presented in Annex B. These samples
have less background and information about the approaches taken but are intended to provide some idea of
what complex project results may look like. The goal is to demonstrate that complex analysis and mitigation
designs are often required for certain projects.

C.2  Example railroad interference project


C.2.1 Introduction
This case study shows a double circuit 230 kV transmission line located in an existing railroad corridor, such
that the transmission line and railroad would be approximately parallel for 4 km (Figure C.1). The transmission
line phase conductors are separated from the nearest railroad track by approximately 15 m in parallel sections
with one transmission span crossing the railroad. The rail system consists of two tracks with track signaling for
grade crossings and several insulating joints.

Figure C.1—Alignment of railroad and transmission line

The railroad consists of several track blocks varying in length from 300 m to 600 m with multiple grade
crossings. In the parallel portion of the shared corridor there are four insulated joints, one per rail, with
an additional 12 insulated joints outside the parallel area. For this analysis a single shorted insulated joint

41
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

contingency condition was evaluated for the parallel area, and the first insulated joints outside the parallel
area. The track ballast was visually confirmed to be in good condition with measurements of the rail ballast
resulting in an average leakage impedance of approximately 10 Ω-kft. The railroad and transmission line
summary information are shown in Table C.1 and Table C.2.

Table C.1—Railroad information


General description Freight train traffic
Parallel length (km) 2.25
Ballast condition Good condition, 10 Ω-kft
Signaled rail Multiple track and grade crossing signaling systems

Table C.2—Transmission line information


  230 kV Line#1 230 kV Line#2
Maximum loading (A) 1800 1800
Normal loading (A) 700 700
Maximum short-circuit level (A) 15 000 15 000
Fault clearing time (s) 0.25 0.25

The two 230 kV circuits are optimally phased to reduce magnetic and electric fields on the edge of the right
of way. The maximum loading and highest induced voltages on the rail occur during an outage of one of the
230 kV circuits. Additionally, soil resistivity measurements were taken at various locations in proximity of the
railroad and used to create a two-layer soil model along the shared corridor.

C.2.2  Analysis results


This shared corridor was assessed using software to evaluate the complex relationship of the transmission
line to the multiple rails and varying angles. The analysis evaluated steady-state and faulted state scenarios
considering both personnel protection and equipment damage. The initial (pre-mitigation) results are shown
in Table C.3.

Table C.3—Pre-mitigation railroad voltages


Compatibility
Scenario Compliance limit description Results (volts)
limit (volts)
Personnel accessible voltage 50 70
Steady state
Equipment rail-to-rail voltage 5 21
Personnel touch voltage 850 900
Faulted state
Equipment rail-to-ground voltage 2000 1200

Prior to mitigation, the maximum steady-state load on a single circuit resulted in voltages of approximately
70 V across the insulated joint with normal track configuration. If an insulated joint were to short, the track
could experience up to 20 V from rail-to-rail likely resulting in misoperation of the railroad signaling.
Similarly, fault scenarios resulted in personnel protection concerns from more than 900 V for the touch voltage
to the rails from the ballast.

Reducing the railroad voltages to limits acceptable to the railroad required multiple approaches. Primarily the
mitigation consisted of the following:

— Installation of approximately 2.7 km of continuous underbuild shield wire placed approximately 3 m


below the lowest phase conductor on the transmission line

42
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

— Installation of approximately 1.7 km of buried counterpoise wire, in two sections, placed 4 m from the
railroad and buried below frost depth
— Installation of four 60 Hz shunting devices on each side of the insulated joint in the parallel area
— Two surge devices, one for each section of buried counterpoise, to shunt railroad track to the
counterpoise during fault conditions

The locations of the counterpoise and underbuild wire are shown in Figure C.2.

Figure C.2—Mitigation for railroad and transmission line

Table C.4 shows the results after mitigation is added to the system with all values reduced to values below the
compatibility limit.

43
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Table C.4—Mitigated railroad voltages


Scenario Compatibility
Compliance limit description Results (volt)
limit (volt)
Personnel accessible voltage 50 45
Steady-state
Equipment rail-to-rail voltage 5 3
Personnel touch voltage 850 805
Faulted state
Equipment rail-to-ground voltage 2000 1150

C.3  Example pipeline interference project


C.3.1 Introduction
An overview of a case study is shown in Figure C.3, which includes transmission pressure (TP) pipeline
installed between two valve stations. The pipeline runs in a shared corridor with three electric transmission
lines. The pipeline also has two valve stations near the lines. An ac interference study was performed using
advanced analysis software that requires a number of input data such as information from the pipeline,
transmission line, soil resistivity along the pipeline alignment, and ground resistance at the towers and valve
stations.

Figure C.3—Alignment of pipeline and transmission lines

The pipeline and transmission line information are shown in Table C.5 and Table C.6. To increase the accuracy
of study, soil resistivity measurements were taken at various locations in proximity of pipeline. The measured
data was analyzed, and soil resistivity models were created (three-layer soil model) along the alignment.
Grounding impedances of the valve stations were measured as well. Grounding impedance of each tower for
the 230 kV and 500 kV lines were also calculated.

Table C.5—Pipeline information


Type Heavy wall
Size 42”
Length (km) 4.97
Coating resistivity (ohm-m2) 5000
Burial depth (m) 1.2

44
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Table C.6—Transmission line information


  500 kV line 230 kV Line #1 230 kV Line #2
Maximum loading (A) 2000 600 600
Normal loading (A) 800 200 250
Maximum short-circuit level (A) 21 500 20 400 28 600

C.3.2  Simulation result


Two conditions were considered for the analysis: steady-state and fault. For the steady-state condition, two
scenarios were evaluated to calculate the induced voltage and resulting leakage current in the pipeline due
to the different transmission line loadings as shown in Table C.6. The first scenario is based on all circuits’
maximum load (all the circuits are loaded to their maximum thermal capacity) while the second scenario
is based on load flow. Mitigation methods were evaluated for effectiveness when deemed necessary due to
criteria violations. The mitigation method chosen was counterpoise wire i.e., grounding the pipe using a metal
wire such as zinc or copper.

The induced voltage was calculated for both scenarios and shown in Figure C.4. It is observed that the induced
voltage for both cases follows the same shape for the different load levels. However, the induced voltage level
resulting from the maximum loading is much higher than the voltage level resulting from the normal flow
loading. While induced voltage is proportional to the line loading for a single circuit, with multiple circuits the
induced voltage often does not change proportionally due to the complex network.

Figure C.4—Voltage profile—steady-state condition

The leakage current density also plays an important role in reducing corrosion of the pipeline. Figure C.5
shows the current density for both scenarios, calculated through an assumed holiday in the coating of 1 cm2
at various locations along the pipeline. For this project, the desired current density was to be below 20 A/m2.

45
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Figure C.5—Current density profile—steady-state condition

It is observed that the current density exceeded the maximum design criteria even in the normal flow scenario.
To overcome to this problem in the normal flow case, implementation of mitigation was investigated. A
mitigation wire 200 m long, connected to the pipeline between kilometer posts (kp) 4.6 and 4.8 was modeled.
Connecting one partial mitigation wire to the pipeline reduced current density levels significantly to slightly
more than 20 A/m2. If two partial mitigation wires were modeled, the current density would meet the standard
criteria.

During the fault conditions, the voltage difference between the pipeline (metallic part) and the surrounding
soil represents the coating stress on the pipeline. The study considered conductive and inductive effects during
the fault. As shown in Figure C.6, the coating stress exceeded the design criteria of 3000 V and reached as high
as 22 500 V when a fault occurred at the tower near the station #1, around 0.2 kp. Installation of two mitigation
wires connected to the pipeline provided a significant reduction of coating stress. However, to meet the design
criteria in this case, more than two mitigation wires would be required.

46
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 2746-2020
IEEE Guide for Evaluating AC Interference on Linear Facilities Co-Located Near Transmission Lines

Figure C.6—Coating stress along the alignment

47
Copyright © 2020 IEEE. All rights reserved.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
RAISING THE
WORLD’S
STANDARDS
Connect with us on:
Twitter: twitter.com/ieeesa
Facebook: facebook.com/ieeesa
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/groups/1791118
Beyond Standards blog: beyondstandards.ieee.org
YouTube: youtube.com/ieeesa

standards.ieee.org
Phone: +1 732 981 0060

Authorized licensed use limited to: Middlesex University. Downloaded on August 03,2020 at 19:53:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

You might also like