Energies 17 00801

energies
Article
Modeling Magnetic Fields around Stranded Electrical
Transmission Lines via Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
Khaled Osmani * and Detlef Schulz
Department of Electrical Engineering, Helmut Schmidt University, 22043 Hamburg, Germany

* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: This paper aims to design the fundamental basis for an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)-driven,
remote, and non-invasive current sensing application. Using the COMSOL software, the methodology
presented here consists of the Computer Aided Design (CAD) for stranded Transmission Line (TL)
geometries composed of 7 to 91 sub-filaments and discretized via tetrahedral-element-based meshes.
The radiated Magnetic Field (MF) around each TL is then solved by means of Finite Element Analysis
(FEA) after selecting the proper materials for TLs under the coil geometry analysis study. For each
TL, all resultant MFs’ norms are presented as tabulated data, with respect to the inducing currents.
Eventually, the complex mathematical model needed to evaluate these MFs, radiated around stranded
TLs, is surpassed by the scalable models designed through this study. The min/max MFs radiated
around each TL resulting from the min/max injected current values are hence obtained. This would
serve in the accurate choosing/positioning of magnetic-based sensors in UAS applications, reliably.
Additionally, related future works are concretely presented.
Keywords: magnetic fields; non-invasive sensors; Maxwell equations; fields visualization; smart
grids; transmission lines; Finite Element Analysis (FEA); Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)
1. Introduction
Citation: Osmani, K.; Schulz, D.

In modern sensing techniques, Magnetic Fields (MFs) can be utilized in various in-
Modeling Magnetic Fields around
dustries. Contactless magnetic sensors, for instance, leverage MFs to measure electrical
Stranded Electrical Transmission
currents, while requiring no direct physical contact with the electrical conductor. By reduc-
Lines via Finite Element Analysis ing wear and tear effects from the electrical conductors, such sensors can be implemented
(FEA). Energies 2024, 17, 801. in ample processes, in a wide range of fields, ranging from industrial automation and
https://doi.org/10.3390/ automotive industry to smart grid applications [1]. Therefore, magnetic data acquisition
en17040801 using magnetic-based sensors makes the latent invaluable in applications where the traditional
sensors (i.e., invasive electrical sensors) are not practical, such as drone and Unmanned Aerial
Academic Editor: Claus Leth Bak
System (UAS)-based applications for Transmission Line (TL) monitoring applications.
Received: 13 January 2024 For contactless current sensing processes driven by UAS, as an example, MFs provide
Revised: 2 February 2024 a clear and accurate image reflection of the current flowing through the electrical TLs;
Accepted: 5 February 2024 the directly proportional generated magnetic field around the TL, induced by the current,
Published: 7 February 2024 allows for a straightforward correlation between the field’s strength and the current’s
amplitude. Accordingly, real-time insights over the status of the TL can be gained, which
are essential for preventing overloads, power distribution optimization, and ensuring the
electrical grid’s reliability [2].
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
In order to know the mechanism through which MFs serve as a data source for
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
magnetic-based electrical sensors, these sensors’ principles of operation must be first known.
This article is an open access article
Existing in various types, the following set represents some of the working principles of
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
magnetic-based electrical sensors:
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// • Hall effect sensors [3]: the generation of a voltage across a conductor when subjected to
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ an MF represents the Hall effect. Hall sensors mainly consist of a thin semiconductor
4.0/). plate. The application of an MF perpendicularly to the plate deflects the charge carriers.
Energies 2024, 17, 801. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17040801 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2024, 17, 801 2 of 25
Such deflection in turn creates a voltage difference across the plate. This resultant
voltage is proportional to the norm of the applied MF, which is, in turn, proportional
to the strength of the conductor’s current.
• Ampere’s law-based sensors [4]: these sensors correspond generally to coils with a
fixed geometry, to be wrapped around the TL. The MF generated by the currents
passing through the TL either induces a voltage or changes some properties of such
sensors’ constitutional materials. The electrical detection of these changes can provide
information about the current. The Rogowski coil is an example of an Ampere’s
law-based sensor, where it measures the MF’s time rate change, then converts it into
an electrical signal, in order to determine the current.
• Magneto Resistive sensors [5]: these sensors utilize certain materials with a “magne-
toresistance” property. Such materials have their electrical resistance changing when
exposed to a MF and constitute different types of Magneto Resistive sensors, such as
Anisotropic Magnetoresistance (AMR) [6], Giant Magnetoresistance (GMR) [7], and
Tunneling Magnetoresistance (TMR) [8]. AMR, for instance, has its resistance varied
based on the angle between the applied MF and the material’s magnetization. GMR
sensors, on the other hand, rely on the relative orientation of the MFs. Lastly, TMR
sensors utilize the phenomenon of electron tunneling, taking place when electrons
pass through an insulating layer amid two magnetic layers. The insulating layer’s
resistivity is heavily influenced by the relative orientation of the magnetic moments in
the adjacent layers. With the parallel/anti-parallel alignments of magnetic moments,
electrons tunnel more easily/harder, thus resulting in lower/higher resistances of the
insulating layer, respectively. This change in resistance allows for the detection of the
inducing external MF, thus proportionally measuring the electrical current behind
its existence.
Therefore, the magnetic-based sensors fed by the data carried by MFs ameliorate the
safety and reliability within electrical systems. First of all, the actual MF surrounding TLs
clearly provides an overview of the grid’s health. By monitoring these MFs and through
the set of magnetic-based sensors listed above, better decision-making and more robust
preventive maintenance schemes can be established for electric grids [9]. The valuable
insights into the current’s behavior, for example monitored using magnetic-based sensors,
enables the identification of potential issues, like overloads and even faults. With such a
proactive approach, the TL’s reliability can be significantly improved, where the risks of
unexpected failures would also be minimized. It can be also stated that the contactless TLs’
monitoring process, helps in optimizing the grid’s performance (due to the reduced faults)
and overall efficiency (better load equilibration), contributing hence to a more secure and
stable electrical infrastructure [10].
Such added values over an electric grid (i.e., improved preventive maintenance, better
status acknowledgment, etc.) exist only with proper numerical analyses of MFs, which
constitute the informative background for contactless sensors. In other terms, the enhanced
grid management is feasible by means of data harnessing from MFs. On the first hand,
MFs’ numerical analyses enable the real-time monitoring and assessment of the grid’s
condition. Such data, when leveraged by smart grids’ utilities, compose a background for
knowing the root cause behind power fluctuations, power quality issues, and potential
faults [11]. With such a gained capability, self-healing ability within the grid is optimized,
as power rerouting would be better actuated, hence automatically minimizing disruptions
and enabling better energy optimization. Additionally, the better understanding of the
generated MFs around the TLs allows for better cooperation between smart grids and
renewable energy resources [12], since electric grids would have a dynamical adaptation to
variable generation patterns. Moreover, with the improved preventive, as well as predictive,
maintenance schemes, added by the insights from MFs’ numerical analyses, the grid’s
downtime can be reduced, thus lowering different maintenance costs and enhancing the
demand-side management.
Energies 2024, 17, 801 3 of 25
Even though the stated MF analysis is fruitful in terms of physical data acknowl-
edgment for contactless sensors with the positive subsequent consequences (i.e., better
monitoring, lower blackouts, etc.), still, MF calculations can be a challenging task, especially
for the case of stranded (twisted) TL architectures. Due to the fact that an MF is a vector
quantity, having magnitude and direction, physical laws (e.g., Ampere’s law, Biot–Savart
law, etc.) must be applied in order to determine its norm. Such computations, which
involve integral calculus, are not straight-forward, particularly for TLs that are composed
of multiple sub-filaments and of non-trivial geometries. For a stranded TL, each of the
strands carries a portion of the total current, with a specific amplitude and vector orien-
tation for the induced MF. Accordingly, the MF’s calculation is complicated due to the
varied positions and orientations of each individual strand. With that being said, the
Biot–Savart law for a straight current-carrying conductor cannot give the picture of the
total generated MF in this case. Instead, the resulting MF calculation requires breaking
down the wire into infinitesimally small current elements. To evaluate the contributions
from all elements, the superposition principle must in turn be employed to sum up the
MF generated by each element, where additionally the magnetic interactions between
the strands must be also taken into consideration. This means that the larger the set of
current elements exist, the longer the calculation time is required in order to produce an
accurate MF estimation. This adds cumbersomeness over the entire process, notably with
non-uniform current distributions [13], where the calculation must involve, as input factors,
the distances between the strands, the number of strands, and each individual current
values. Along with the mathematical complexity for calculating the produced MFs around
TLs, manual calculations have extremely limited accuracy and do not converge towards
a real solution. For instance, when performing these computations by hand, challenges
arise from the point where the three-dimensional structures of TLs must be considered.
Additionally, real-world stranded TLs may involve hundreds of individual strands, thus
making a precise MF calculation impossible. For a proper contactless electrical sensor
design, with a basis on MF calculation, these challenges can be overcome by means of
numerical simulations in specialized software, to have an accurate image for the accurate
MFs around real TLs.
Automated numerical methods, on the other hand (i.e., by means of computerized
software), are good for reducing the manual complexities in calculating the current resulting
MFs around stranded TLs. By employing different workflow structures, such numerical
techniques help in giving a clear idea about the actual MFs around TLs, where some of
them are listed as below:
• Finite Difference Method (FDM) [14]: the FDM discretizes a space (i.e., stranded TL)
into a grid, in which the partial differential equations (governing the MFs) are numer-
ically and iteratively solved. While the FDM is easy to implement and suitable for
time-dependent problems and can handle complex equations and boundary problems,
it reflects on the other side an inefficiency to compute MFs for complex geometries
(e.g., a stranded TL with tens of strands).
• Finite Volume Method (FVM) [15]: With the FVM, the space to be studied is divided
into volumes, where the fluxes across the faces of these volumes are computed. Even
though the FVM conserves the physical properties of the space well, in addition to
its suitability for irregular grid geometries, it can be computationally exhaustive for
some structures (i.e., strands excessively overlapping across a finite TL’s length).
• Boundary Element Method (BEM) [16]: by discretizing only the boundaries of a
problem, the BEM reduces the number of unknowns, thus providing extra particularity
for unbounded domains. On the other hand, this method’s accuracy is highly affected
by singularities.
• Method of Moments (MoM) [17]: the MoM represents a numerical technique that
discretizes the surfaces of objects into smaller elements. It is mainly used for the
electromagnetic behavior of antennas and less used for analyzing the MFs of TLs.
Energies 2024, 17, 801 4 of 25
• Finite Integration Technique (FIT) [18]: this technique combines both FDM and FVM
and yields in discretizing both space and time. The FIT is suitable for solving Maxwell’s
equations in electromagnetics, including MFs simulation, which makes it good for the
purpose of TL monitoring. It, however, presents high complexity upon applications.
• Homogenization and the Cauer ladder method [19]: in this modern technique, stranded
electrical wires are modelled via approximated numerical computations with the Cauer
ladder network; 3D MFs are hence calculated and projected to a 3D geometry so that
any stranded TL configuration can be simulated with a current vector potential and a
homogenized conductivity at each time step.
Aside from the different surveyed numerical techniques that are used to evaluate the
MFs generated by currents in stranded TLs, the Finite-Element-Analysis (FEA) [20] based
technique is another powerful computational method. The FEA divides a complex physical
structure (i.e., a stranded TL with too many strands) into smaller and simpler elements.
At the level of each element, a mathematical model (representing a set of equations) is
used to model its behavior. The collective solving for all elements yields, eventually,
the prediction of the entire structure’s overall behavior (i.e., the resulting MFs around
the studied TL when injected with a current of a known amplitude). With that being
said, the FEA-based computational techniques are more suitable for various physics and
structures, can handle complex geometries more efficiently, and are able to accurately
reflect the numerical results of different computations into graphical outputs. As compared
to the other numerical methods, FEA enables better resolution in the region of interest
(i.e., each filament composing a stranded TL) by allowing for adaptive mesh refinement.
Additionally, tiny fragments within each filament can be better represented by means
of higher-order elements, in parallel to incorporating material properties (i.e., copper,
aluminum, etc.) more easily. Due to these mentioned reasons, in addition to supporting a
mixed element (i.e., copper and aluminum inside the same transmission line) formulation
and its consistency in handling boundary conditions, the FEA approach is chosen in
this study.
Accordingly, this paper aims to utilize the COMSOL Multiphysics 6.1 software [21],
which is based on the FEA, in order to simulate and visualize the resulting MFs around
stranded electrical TLs, when subjected to different currents. This is established in order to
have discrete values (with as much as possible high accuracy) of the actual MFs around ac-
tual TLs, thus consisting of a reference for the magnetic-based sensor (i.e., TMR) sensitivity,
to be employed in a drone-based remote monitoring process for TLs. In other terms, the
tabulated data involving the number of filaments, the magnitude of the injected currents,
and the magnitude of the resulting magnetic fields with respect to the distance from the
TLs is to be presented. The latent shall compose a background for choosing magnetic-
based sensors intended to sense the current in TLs, non-invasively. The magnetic-based
sensors (i.e., TMR) are to be installed in a UAS application according to the “Digitalisierte,
rechtssichere und emissionsarme flugmobile Inspektion und Netzdatenerfassung mit au-
tomatisierten Drohnen” (DNeD) project description [22], hence ensuring an accurate current
sensing process by means of a drone-based application.
The remainder of this paper is composed as follows: Section 2 presents the working
methodology behind the fabrication of this paper. Section 3 represents the mathematical
model that is needed for MF calculations. Section 4 outputs the COMSOL simulation
of MFs resulting from a single straight current-carrying conductor. Section 5 reveals
the construction for different stranded wires’ Computer Aided Design (CAD) models in
COMSOL. Section 6 provides the outcomes of all simulation results for each of the designed
TL architectures. Section 7 exposes the discussion over the attained results and considers
the TMR application in the sensor’s box of the DNeD’s drone. Finally, conclusions are
derived in Section 8.
Energies 2024, 17, 801 5 of 25
2. Research Methodology
With the stated advantages of FEA over other similar numerical methods, the COM-
SOL simulation conducted in this paper starts by classifying the TLs’ geometries, mainly
with respect to the number of filaments. According to the regulation EN 50182:2001(D) the
reference [23], the intended TL geometries to be analyzed are of 7 filaments, 19 filaments,
37 filaments, 61 filaments, and 91 filaments, as revealed with their other characteristics
as in the norm EN 50182:2001(D). It is worth mentioning that despite having no direct
effect between the TLs’ materials and the MF’s norm, still, the study is conducted with
exact similarity as in reference [23]. Accordingly, some of the materials in the norm EN
50182:2001(D) represent Aluminum (AL1), Aluminum alloy (AL3), and galvanized steel
wire (ST1A).
The collection of overhead TLs’ characteristics of the norm EN 50182:2001(D) was
chosen for simulation purposes only, where in reality, they are actually used for power
transmission in certain European countries. The AL3, for instance, represents alloyed
Aluminum with other materials as a way to improve the TL’s mechanical properties
and electrical conductivity. Moreover, some filaments of the stranded TL, as depicted
in the norm EN 50182:2001(D), are made of galvanized steel encircled with others from
the same TL, made of Aluminum. This configuration can be interpreted as a trade-off
between corrosion resistance and maintained electrical conductivity. The Zinc layer coating
the steel provides excellent corrosion resistance, acting as a sacrificial anode; it corrodes
preferentially, thus protecting the underlying steel. Therefore, some of the norm EN
50182:2001(D) characteristics, for the TLs of 37 and 61 filaments, representing a mixed
architecture of different materials (Aluminum and galvanized steel), help in making the
entire TL more flexible in front of challenging environmental conditions.
For all TLs ranging from 7 filaments to 91 filaments, each filament is represented
by a “sweeping” cylinder around the neighboring filament. Additionally, for each TL, a
feeding current of a value between its maximum/minimum margins will be injected from a
defined common starting node, in order to finally visualize and interpret the total resulting
MF. Thereafter, tabulated data encapsulating the number of filaments, the magnitude of
the injected currents, and the magnitude of the resulting magnetic field with respect to
the distance from the TL are to be presented. The final tabulated data would serve as a
background for choosing magnetic-based electrical sensors, which are intended to sense
the actual currents in overhead TLs, non-invasively. The suggested magnetic sensors with
their corresponding sensitivity are to be then investigated for installation in a UAS process
(according to the DNeD’s project description).
Eventually, the numerical tabulated data, outputted from this study, would ensure
accurate current sensing processes by means of a drone-based application. By taking into
consideration this described workflow, and with consideration of the statute presented in
the norm EN 50182:2001(D), the sequential steps for obtaining MFs’ related graphics in
COMSOL can be elaborated as follows with four main steps:
1. Building the geometry: this step defines the geometric parameters and the object’s
(i.e., TL) characteristics intended to be simulated. Whether the TL is to be drawn in
2D or 3D spaces, its dimensions, boundaries, curvatures, and every detail related
to its body construction are to be specified. Moreover, for the intended MFs in the
study, during this step, the boundary conditions must also be defined. This urge
arises from the fact that MFs are not generally compressed by obstacles in nature and
therefore must be virtually limited by boundaries in COMSOL, in order to study their
interactions at defined points with respect to the TL.
2. Selecting the materials: according to the norm EN 50182:2001(D), the TL can encounter
filaments with mixed or different materials. For this, each filament must have its
material registered in the project’s workflow. For the case of TLs having 37 and
61 filaments and since the galvanized steel-based filaments are added to make the
entire TL more immune to undesired environmental conditions, it must be specified,
technically, which actual filaments are of ST1A and which others are made from AL1
Energies 2024, 17, 801 6 of 25
and AL3. Different materials embed specific electrical properties (e.g., conductivity,
resistivity, etc.), as well as mechanical characteristics (e.g., stress, elasticity, etc.). It
is therefore crucial to determine the materials of each filament specifically as in the
norm EN 50182:2001(D).
3. Mesh generation: after creating the geometry and assigning different materials for
different composers (in this case, the filaments), the meshing process sequentially
divides the entire geometric model into smaller elements to enable the numerical
simulation (i.e., application of FEA). It hence composes the basis for solving the
system’s (i.e., TL with virtual boundaries) differential equations and understanding
the system’s behavior under various physical conditions (i.e., different norms for the
injected current). The infinitesimal elements are then connected with a network of
nodes, which yields a single output (i.e., MF’s norm). The better designed the mesh
quality is, the better the accuracy and convergence in the final solution, but on the
other hand, larger computational power is needed. The methodology of meshing in
this study is based on a trade-off between finer mesh qualities and good convergent
output, with as minimum as possible computational time and resources.
4. Solver selection: the mathematical equations that represent the physical behavior
of each element are solved iteratively using numerical methods. The mathematical
model in this case can be represented by Maxwell’s equations and could be solved via
the “coil geometry analysis” in COMSOL.
The completion of these four main tasks finally allows the model to be post-processed
in COMSOL and the outputs to be visualized in both numerical, as well as graphical, forms.
Each of the suggested TLs’ architectures is to be presented in a 3D mode, where it would
be possible to visualize and interpret the resulting MF’s norm at any point X ( x; y; z) in the
space of the TL, under the created virtual boundaries. These four steps, in addition to their
anticipated MF for each TL’s architecture, can be summarized graphically as in Figure 1:
for each TL, the standard workflow in this study is to obtain a function-like input/output
relationship where the inputs for each TL are as listed in Figure 1, ranging from I1 (Input 1)
to I6. The overall flowchart behind this approach is presented in Figure 2. The required
output always corresponds to the MF’s norm at point X in the space of the virtual boundary.
For different positions around the TL for each case of the study (i.e., different coordinates
of X), a specific MF exists, where at the end, the minimum/maximum MF’s norms can be
known from a minimum/maximum distance from the TL. Therefore, accurate knowledge
in defining the required magnetic-based sensor for the drone-based TL monitoring will
be attained.
As can be stated from the observation of Figure 2, one of the most important tasks
within the shown flowchart is the mesh generation. The results’ convergence test is hence
mainly dependent on the conducted mesh’s quality. In other words, the MFs’ norms are
regarded as conclusive values, only if the mesh was fine enough. When the mesh is more
fine while noticing that the MFs’ norms are not changing, this means that the last obtained
mesh was the optimum. One can directly use an extremely fine mesh for example, but
again, this would require huge computational time. An extreme coarse mesh, on the
other hand, would develop non-convergent MFs’ norms, despite the fast computational
speed. Accordingly, an adaptive meshing technique was conducted in this study, which
dynamically refines or coarsens the mesh based on the solution behavior and the overall
visualization of the MFs around the stranded TLs. All meshes are built using tetrahedral-
based elements. Figure 3 encapsulates the startup mesh and the final adapted mesh for the
7-filament TL, after manual refinement and analysis with respect to the MFs’ norm values.
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 26
Energies 2024,
Energies 2024, 17,
17, 801
x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 7of
of 26
25
Figure
Figure 1. Graphical
Graphicalrepresentation
representation of the
of the study’s
study’s overall
overall function.
function.
Figure 1. Graphical representation of the study’s overall function.
Figure 2. FEA flowchart in COMSOL.
As can be stated from the observation of Figure 2, one of the most important tasks
Figure
Figure 2.
within 2. FEA
FEA
the flowchart
flowchart
shown ininCOMSOL.
flowchart COMSOL.
is the mesh generation. The results’ convergence test is hence
mainly dependent on the conducted mesh’s quality. In other words, the MFs’ norms are
As can
regarded be stated values,
as conclusive from the observation
only of Figure
if the mesh was 2, oneWhen
fine enough. of thethe
most
mesh important
is more tasks
within thenoticing
fine while shown that
flowchart
the MFs’is norms
the mesh generation.
are not changing,The
this results’ convergence
means that test is hence
the last obtained
mesh was
mainly the optimum.
dependent on the One can directly
conducted use an
mesh’s extremely
quality. fine mesh
In other for the
words, example,
MFs’ but
norms are
regarded as conclusive values, only if the mesh was fine enough. When the mesh is more
fine while noticing that the MFs’ norms are not changing, this means that the last obtained
mesh was the optimum. One can directly use an extremely fine mesh for example, but
again, this would require huge computational time. An extreme coarse mesh, on the other
hand, would develop non-convergent MFs’ norms, despite the fast computational speed.
Accordingly, an adaptive meshing technique was conducted in this study, which dynam-
ically refines or coarsens the mesh based on the solution behavior and the overall visuali-
zation of the MFs around the stranded TLs. All meshes are built using tetrahedral-based
Energies 2024, 17, 801 elements. Figure 3 encapsulates the startup mesh and the final adapted mesh for the 7- 8 of 25
filament TL, after manual refinement and analysis with respect to the MFs’ norm values.
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Adaptive
Adaptivemeshing
meshingexample of 7-filament
example TL; (a)
of 7-filament TL;startup, (b) final
(a) startup, (b)form.
final form.
3.3. Mathematical
Mathematical Model
Model
The stranded
The strandedTLs’
TLs’architectures must
architectures be assigned
must to a numerical
be assigned solver in
to a numerical COMSOL
solver in COMSOL
(after completing the geometries and assigning meshes). This solver inmeans
(after completing the geometries and assigning meshes). This solver in turn, by turn, of
by means
several
of iterations
several with with
iterations respect to a defined
respect threshold,
to a defined tests the obtained
threshold, tests thesolution for con-
obtained solution for
vergence. In other terms, it numerically computes a reference mathematical model, over
convergence. In other terms, it numerically computes a reference mathematical model,
which the MF creation due to the passage of currents in the TLs underlies. Generally, the
over which the MF creation due to the passage of currents in the TLs underlies. Generally,
concept behind such a model in the current study is Ampere’s law, which represents a
the concept
subset of thebehind such
Maxwell’s a model[24].
equations in the current study is Ampere’s law, which represents a
subset of the Maxwell’s equations
Ampere’s law relates the magnetic [24].
field around a closed loop to the current passing
Ampere’s
through law bounded
the surface, relates the
by magnetic
that loop, asfield
canaround a closed
be deduced from loop to the current
its mathematical for- passing
through
mulation the surface,
(vector bounded
notation) in (1). by that loop, as can be deduced from its mathematical
formulation (vector notation) in (1).
⃗ ⃗ 𝐽⃗. 𝑑𝐴⃗
I 𝐵→∙ 𝑑𝑙→ 𝜇 x →
𝜇 𝐼
→
(1)
B ·d l = µ J · d A = µ0 I (1)
such that 𝐵⃗ represents the magnetic field0 vector, 𝑑𝑙⃗ an infinitesimal length vector
along the closed loop path, 𝜇 the free space’s permeability, 𝐽⃗ the current density vector,
→ →
𝑑𝐴⃗ anthat
such infinitesimal area vector,
B represents and 𝐼 the
the magnetic total
field electricd current
vector, passing through
l an infinitesimal lengththe vector
loop along
[24]. Accordingly, Ampere’s law, with its mathematical form→in (1), provides a general →
the closed loop path, µ the free space’s permeability, J the current density vector, d A
framework for calculating0 MFs, advantageously when there is a symmetrical current dis-
an infinitesimal
tribution, and forarea vector,
the cases and
with I the totalsymmetry
geometrical electric current passing through
in the MF-radiating object. the
As aloop [24].
Accordingly, Ampere’s law, with its mathematical form in (1), provides a general
specific case of the described Ampere’s law, the Biot–Savart law [24], expressed in (2), also framework
for calculating MFs, advantageously when there is a symmetrical current
describes the MF produced by a continuous current distribution: the magnetic field at a distribution, and
for theincases
point spacewith geometrical
is calculated due tosymmetry in thesmall
an infinitesimally MF-radiating object. As
current’s segment, a specific case of
as presented
the described
in Figure 4. TheAmpere’s
Biot–Savartlaw,
lawthe Biot–Savart
hence law [24], expressed
allows for specialized incases
solutions for (2), also describes the
involving
complex
MF current
produced by distributions.
a continuousBoth lawsdistribution:
current constitute the themathematical
magnetic fieldbackground
at a pointfor in space is
solving the due
calculated MF values at specified distances
to an infinitesimally smallfrom the designed
current’s segment, TLs.
as presented in Figure 4. The
Biot–Savart law hence allows for specialized solutions for cases involving complex current
distributions. Both laws constitute the mathematical background for solving the MF values
at specified distances from the designed TLs.
→
→ µ0 Id l × r̂
dB = · (2)
4π r2
→
such that d B represents the MF, µ0 the free-space permeability, I the current (root cause of
→ →
the MF creation), d l the infinitesimal wire segment, r̂ a unit vector that points from d l to
the point in space (around the TL) on which the MF is to be measured, and r the distance
→
from d l to the point of measurement in space [24].
𝑑𝐵⃗ ∙ (2)
4𝜋 𝑟
such that 𝑑𝐵⃗ represents the MF, 𝜇 the free-space permeability, 𝐼 the current (root
cause of the MF creation), 𝑑𝑙⃗ the infinitesimal wire segment, 𝑟̂ a unit vector that points
Energies 2024, 17, 801 from 𝑑𝑙⃗ to the point in space (around the TL) on which the MF is to be measured, and 𝑟
9 of 25
⃗
the distance from 𝑑𝑙 to the point of measurement in space [24].
Figure 4. 4.
Figure Biot–Savart law
Biot–Savart graphical
law analysis
graphical forfor
analysis a single conductor.
a single conductor.
The
The point
point PPinin
Figure
Figure 4 is the
4 is point
the inin
point space,
space, around
aroundthe TL,
the atat
TL, which
whichthe MF
the MFresulting
resulting
from
from the
thepassage
passage ofof
I in
I inthe
thegrey
greyconductor
conductorisisintended
intendedtotobebeacknowledged.
acknowledged.The Thevertical
vertical
⃗→
projection
projectionofofP Pononthethex-axis
x-axisisisseparated
separatedby bya adistance
distanceXXfromfrom𝑑𝑙 d .l The
. Thecross-product
cross-product ofof
𝑑𝑙⃗ →𝑟̂ points out of the page for all elements along the wire (right-hand rule). Therefore,
d l × r̂ points out of the page for all elements along the wire (right-hand rule). Therefore,
the MFs due to all current elements have the same direction at point P. Accordingly, the
the MFs due to all current elements have the same direction at point P. Accordingly, the
stated cross-multiplication becomes equal to 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝜃𝑑𝑙. From another side, the distance 𝑟
stated cross-multiplication becomes equal to Sinθdl. From another side, the distance r
from 𝑑𝑙⃗ → to P can be calculated by means of the Pythagoras theorem as expressed in (3),
from in
where d l(4)topresented
P can be calculated by meansbetween
it is the relationship of the Pythagoras
𝑟 and 𝜃. theorem as expressed in (3),
where in (4) presented it is the relationship between r and θ.
𝑟 p𝑋 𝑅 (3)
r = X +R 2 2 (3)
𝑅
𝑆𝑖𝑛 𝜃 R 𝑅 (4)
Sin θ = √ √𝑋 (4)
X 2 + R2
By utilizing the integral form of (2), as presented in (5), and substituting (3) and (4)
into (5)By utilizing
while takingthe integral
into form of (2),
consideration thatas presented
the grey wirein(TL)
(5), of
and substituting
Figure (3) and
4 stretches from(4)
into (5) while taking into consideration that the grey wire (TL) of
the origin of the plane towards positive infinity, the numerical value of the produced MFFigure 4 stretches from
the origin
is shown in (6).of the plane towards positive infinity, the numerical value of the produced MF is
shown in (6).
𝜇µ Z 𝐼 I∙·𝑆𝑖𝑛𝜃𝑑𝑙
Sinθdl
𝐵B = 0 (5)(5)
4π wire 𝑟r2
4𝜋
µ0 I
B= 𝜇 𝐼 (6)
𝐵 2πR (6)
2𝜋𝑅
The result in (6) is intended to be achieved for a stranded TL, instead of a single
The result
straight TL, as in (6) isinintended
shown Figure 4,to be achieved
which takes intoforconsideration
a stranded TL, instead of
the crossing a single
between the
straight TL, as shown in Figure 4, which takes into consideration the crossing
filaments and the resulting directions of the resulting MF for each filament. The inversely between the
filaments and the
proportional resulting directions
relationship between theof the resulting
resulting MFMF forand
norm eachthe
filament.
distance The inversely
R as exposed
proportional relationship
in (6) is to be noted; from between the resulting
this point, MFofnorm
the effects the neighboring TLs, 𝑅toas
and the distance exposed
the TL over
inwhich
(6) is the
to be noted; from this point, the effects of the neighboring TLs,
sensor box will be dropped (i.e., DNeD’s project workflow), will be consideredto the TL over
which the sensor box will be dropped (i.e., DNeD’s project workflow), will
negligeable. This is because R (between the neighboring TLs over the transmission tower be considered
negligeable.
and point PThis
in space) will be𝑅relative
is because (between the neighboring
in meters, having thus TLsnoover theover
effects transmission tower
the MF generated
and point P in space) will be relative in meters, having thus no effects over
by the TL under investigation, which has the TMR sensors to be installed around, in the the MF gener-
ated by the
range TL under investigation, which has the TMR sensors to be installed around, in
of centimeters.
the range of centimeters.
4. MF Visualization in COMSOL: Single Conductor
The first approach in visualizing the MF created by the current flow in a TL, is to
apply the mathematical model presented in Section 3. A single straight “cylinder” will be
denoting the electrical conductor (i.e., TL). This cylinder shall be enclosed under another
cylinder, representing, in turn, the virtual boundary. The cylinder representing the wire has
a diameter of 0.01 m, where the cylinder representing the virtual boundary has a diameter
of 0.06 m. The electrical conductor is made of copper, where the virtual boundary is made
of air. By injecting the designed single straight TL with a current amplitude of 100 A,
apply the mathematical model presented in Section 3. A single straight “cylinder” will be
denoting the electrical conductor (i.e., TL). This cylinder shall be enclosed under another
cylinder, representing, in turn, the virtual boundary. The cylinder representing the wire
has a diameter of 0.01 m, where the cylinder representing the virtual boundary has a di-
Energies 2024, 17, 801 ameter of 0.06 m. The electrical conductor is made of copper, where the virtual boundary 10 of 25
is made of air. By injecting the designed single straight TL with a current amplitude of 100
A, the MF radiation around it under the virtual boundary will have the representation as
inthe
Figure 5a. The resulting
MF radiation around itMF is shown
under in both
the virtual the x-plane
boundary willand y-plane,
have where it canasbein
the representation
obviously
Figure 5a. The resulting MF is shown in both the x-plane and y-plane, whereFrom
concluded how it diminishes as the distance from the TL gets bigger. it canthebe
results of Figure 5a and with 100 A of current as an example, the choice of TMR
obviously concluded how it diminishes as the distance from the TL gets bigger. From the sensors
can be investigated,
results of Figure 5awith a maximum
and with 100 A ofdistance
current from
as an the TL equal
example, theto or less
choice of than
TMR0.05 m.
sensors
Table
can be1 represents the consequently
investigated, with a maximumdifferent norms
distance of the
from theresulting
TL equalMF, at different
to or less thanpoints
0.05 m.
𝑃(𝑥; 𝑦; 𝑧)
Table around the
1 represents theTL.
consequently different norms of the resulting MF, at different points
P( x; y; z) around the TL.
Figure
Figure5.5.(a)(a)
Magnetic field
Magnetic visualization
field duedue
visualization to the current
to the flowflow
current in a in
single straight
a single conductor;
straight (b)
conductor;
case of a stranded TL.
(b) case of a stranded TL.
Table
Table1.1.MF
MFnorm
normresulting
resultingfrom
fromthe
thecurrent
currentininaasingle
singlestraight
straightconductor.
conductor.
𝑷(𝒙; 𝒚; 𝒛)
P(x;y;z)
x-Coordinates [mm] y-Coordinates [mm] z-Coordinates [mm] MF Norm [mT]
x-Coordinates [mm] y-Coordinates [mm] z-Coordinates [mm] MF Norm [mT]
0 39 777 5.07 × 10−1
0 39 777 5.07 × 10−1−1
0 53 803 3.71 × 10
0 53 803 3.71 × 10−1
−1387
− 1387 44 44 364 364 4.54
4.54 × ×1010
−1−1
−30
− 30 0 0 294 294 6.09
6.09 × ×1010
−1−1
45
45 0 0 346 346 4.36
4.36 −
× ×10101−1
00 12 12 0 0 1.61
1.61
The
Thedifferent
differentpoints
pointsininspace
spaceshown
shownininTable
Table11were
werechosen
chosenrandomly
randomlyfor forsimulation
simulation
purposes
purposesonly.
only.The
Theresulting
resultingMF MFnorms
normsreflect
reflectthe
theapplication
applicationofofthe themathematical
mathematicalmodel model
ininSection
Section3,3,for
foreach
eachcalculation.
calculation.ItItisisworth
worthmentioning
mentioningthat thatthe
thez-coordinates
z-coordinateshave havethethe
biggest
biggestvalues
valuesamong
amongother
othercoordinates
coordinatessincesincethey
theyrepresent
representthe thepositioning
positioningaround
aroundthe the
TL’sspace
TL’s spacewith
withrespect
respecttotoits
itslength
length(i.e.,
(i.e.,aaportion
portionofof11mmfrom fromthethetotal
totalinfinitely
infinitelylong
long
current-carryingconductor
current-carrying conductorisisshown
shownininFigure
Figure5a).
5a).InInother
otherterms,
terms,a az-coordinate
z-coordinatewith withaa
valueofof11m
value m indicates
indicates that the
the point
pointininspace
spacethereof
thereofisisatat
the wire’s
the extremity
wire’s extremity(i.e., maximum
(i.e., maxi-
length).
mum As the
length). Asopposite, both xboth
the opposite, and yx coordinates are encapsulated
and y coordinates by the virtual
are encapsulated by theboundary
virtual
with a radius of 0.06 m. As can be stated from Table 1 and in conjunction with (5) and (6),
the resulting MF norm diminishes with respect to the increased distance from the TL.
Moreover, the x-plane- and y-plane-based representation of the MF in Figure 5a is for
demonstration purposes of the MF norm, where in reality, the actual resulting MF is created
in all directions, without a reference towards any plane, as shown in Figure 5a. When
it is straightforward to compute the resulting MF around the straight conductor shown
in Figure 5a (i.e., simple application of Biot–Savart law), the complexities arise when the
cylinder of Figure 5a is replaced by a stranded wire, as shown in Figure 5b. The arrow
representation in Figure 6 represents the actual MF norm with its corresponding orientation
in all directions (hence the applicability of TMRs anywhere in the space under the virtual
boundary with a radius of 0.06 m. As can be stated from Table 1 and in conjunction with
(5) and (6), the resulting MF norm diminishes with respect to the increased distance from
the TL. Moreover, the x-plane- and y-plane-based representation of the MF in Figure 5a is
for demonstration purposes of the MF norm, where in reality, the actual resulting MF is
created in all directions, without a reference towards any plane, as shown in Figure 5a.
Energies 2024, 17, 801
When it is straightforward to compute the resulting MF around the straight conductor 11 of 25
shown in Figure 5a (i.e., simple application of Biot–Savart law), the complexities arise
when the cylinder of Figure 5a is replaced by a stranded wire, as shown in Figure 5b. The
arrow representation
boundary limits) where biggerinarrows Figure 6(closer
represents the actual
to the MF norm
TL) denote with MF
larger its corresponding
norms. Under all
orientation in all directions (hence the applicability of TMRs anywhere in the space under
cases and with respect to the geometry/size of the virtual boundary,
the virtual boundary limits) where bigger arrows (closer to the TL) denote larger MF
it can be stated that a
TMR with anorms.
sensitivity
Under in all the
casesrange of 0respect
and with to 2 mTto the is geometry/size
optimal for of thetheapplication to sense
virtual boundary, it the
resulting MF candue to thethat
be stated passage
a TMR withof 100 A in theinstraight
a sensitivity the range TL.of 0Despite
to 2 mT representing
is optimal for thea direct
application application to sense the resulting
of the mathematical model of MFSection
due to the passage
3, the same of 100
MFAcalculation
in the straight TL. De- and
procedure
spite representing a direct application of the mathematical model of Section 3, the same
by taking into consideration the MF’s vectorial superposition, gets harder for a stranded TL,
MF calculation procedure and by taking into consideration the MF’s vectorial superposi-
as represented
tion,in Figure
gets harder 7.forThe four-filament
a stranded TL shown
TL, as represented in Figure
in Figure 7, would TL
7. The four-filament radiate
shownan MF
originated from each
in Figure filament.
7, would radiateAsanan
MFexample,
originated when
from eacha current
filament.flows into thewhen
As an example, bottoma two
current flows into the bottom two filaments,→two MFs→are created and denoted as 𝐵⃗ and
filaments, two MFs are created and denoted as B 1 and B 2 . Therefore, the total radiated MF
𝐵⃗ . Therefore, the total radiated MF will be the vectorial sum of each effector MF (in am-
will be the vectorial
plitude and sum of each
direction). effector MF
Accordingly, the (in
largeramplitude
number of and direction).
filaments indicatesAccordingly,
a larger re- the
larger number of filaments
sultant overall MF, indicates a largertoresultant
which is intolerable a manual overall
calculationMF, which
(i.e., is intolerable
to decompose each to a
filament into
manual calculation infinitesimal
(i.e., to decompose current elements, calculateinto
each filament the emitted MF of each,
infinitesimal vectorially
current elements,
calculate thesuperimpose
emitted MF eachof MF with the
each, others, etc.).
vectorially Hence, for the intended
superimpose each MF TLs to bethe
with simulated,
others, etc.).
as indicated in the norm EN 50182:2001(D), it becomes more and more challenging to de-
Hence, for the intended TLs to be simulated, as indicated in the norm EN 50182:2001(D), it
fine an accurate resulting MF for each.
becomes more and more challenging to define an accurate resulting MF for each.
Figure 6. Arrow surface representation for the MF norm resulting from the injection of 100 A in the
Figure 6. Arrow surface representation for the MF norm resulting from the injection of 100 A in the
straight TL.
straight TL.
Figure 7.
Figure MFsresulting
7.MFs resulting from
from a stranded
a stranded TL
TL of of four
four filaments.
filaments.
5. Stranded TLs: CAD and Meshes

The destined TLs to be presented are to have their geometries constructed and mate-
rials set up. All TLs have the same construction manner starting from the face view ar-
rangements of the circles (i.e., geometrical basis of each filament), then sinusoidal sweep-
ing in the z-direction using a parametric curve. By taking into consideration the first
stranded TL’s architecture (i.e., of seven filaments), the arrangement of each filament is
Energies 2024, 17, 801 12 of 25
5. Stranded TLs: CAD and Meshes

The destined TLs to be presented are to have their geometries constructed and ma-
terials set up. All TLs have the same construction manner starting from the face view
arrangements of the circles (i.e., geometrical basis of each filament), then sinusoidal sweep-
ing in the z-direction using a parametric curve. By taking into consideration the first
stranded TL’s architecture (i.e., of seven filaments), the arrangement of each filament
is based on the application of the Pythagoras law, as encapsulated in Table 2 (since all
filaments have the same radius ‘R’).
Table 2. The origin coordinates for each of the circles needed for the seven-filament stranded
TL design.
Circle ID x-Coordinates y-Coordinates

√
1 −R R √3
2 R R 3
3 −2R 0
4 0 0
5 2R 0√
6 −R − R √3
7 R −R 3
The graphical arrangement of the x–y coordinates presented in Table 2 is shown in

Figure 8 and represents the face view for the seven-filament stranded TL. The face view
presented in Figure 8 is to be swept along a sinusoidal function along its z-directed length.
In other words, each circle of Figure 8 is to be uniquely swept along a uniform sinusoidal
function for all circles, as exposed in Figure 9, where the total swept filaments would
eventually constitute the stranded TL. This CAD procedure, uniformized for each TL,
would ensure contacting filaments, in a realistic way, hence mimicking the appearance, as
well as the physics, of real TLs.
Figure
Figure8.
8.Front-side
Front-sidecross-sectional
cross-sectional filament
filament arrangement
arrangement of
of the
the seven-filament
seven-filament stranded
stranded TL.
TL.
When each circle of Figure 8 is swept around the presented curve along the z-axis,
the final form of the TL (in this case, the seven-filament) can be obtained. Concerning the
materials for this particular TL (i.e., AL1 according to the norm EN 50182:2001(D)), Table 3
represents its electrical and other characteristics. The electrical conductivity in Table 3 for
example represents the TL’s efficiency and performance in transmitting electrical power
Energies 2024, 17, 801 13 of 25
over8.long
Figure distances.
Front-side The higher
cross-sectional this value
filament is, the lower
arrangement the skin effectstranded
of the seven-filament at high frequencies,
TL.
for example, and the lower the power losses.
Figure
Figure 9. Sweeping
9. Sweeping curve
curve of the
of the seven-filament
seven-filament TL.TL.
Table 3. Characteristics of the AL1 material used for the seven-filament TL.
When each circle of Figure 8 is swept around the presented curve along the z-axis,
the final form of the TL (in this case, the seven-filament)
Property Valuecan be obtained. Concerning
Unit the
materials for this particular TL (i.e., AL1 according to the norm EN 50182:2001(D)), Table
Electrical conductivity 5.998 × 107 S/m
3 represents its electrical and other characteristics.
Heat capacity at constant pressure The
385 electrical conductivity in·KTable 3
J/kg
for example represents the TL’s efficiency and performance
Surface emissivity 0.5 in transmitting1 electrical
power over long distances.
Density The higher this value is, 8940
the lower the skin effectkg/m
at high
3 fre-
quencies, forThermal
example, and the lower the power losses.
conductivity 400 W/m·K
Young’s modulus 126 × 109 Pa
Poisson’s
Table 3. Characteristics ratio
of the 0.34
AL1 material used for the seven-filament TL. 1
Reference resistivity 1.667 × 10−8 Ω ·m
Property
Resistivity temperature coefficient Value3.862 × 10−3 Unit 1/K
Reference
Electrical temperature
conductivity 5.998 × 107293.15 S/m K
Heat capacity at constant pressure 385 J/Kg ∙ K
Surface emissivity 0.5
This factor, while not directly affecting the radiated MF, is to be taken1 into considera-
tion (in addition to other TLs’ materials) when
Density 8940 designing the sensor’s Kg/mbox of the DNeD’s
project (in terms
Thermal of constructing materials and
conductivity 400 possible interferencesW/mwith∙ Kthe AL1). After
building the face view,
Young’s modulus sweeping it along the parametric
126 × 10 9 curve, and thenPaassigning materials
for the established geometry,
Poisson’s ratio the meshing process
0.34 takes place. The FEA
1 conducted by
COMSOL and previously
Reference resistivity mentioned decomposes
1.667 × 10−8the space into smaller
Ω∙mfinite elements and
then applies the mathematical reference model (Section 3) onto each element. Therefore,
the final output, which is the superposition of each element’s contribution, has its accuracy
mainly affected by the mesh’s quality.
That is to say, the finer the mesh is, the better the obtained solution (i.e., precision of
the obtained MF norm) and vice versa. Accordingly, the meshes chosen in this study were
a trade-off between accuracy and heavy computational requirements. This described CAD
execution process is identical for all TLs of 19 filaments, 37 filaments, 61 filaments, and
91 filaments; each of the mentioned TLs would have its design started as in Figure 8, with
the extra circles (i.e., filaments after sweeping) properly arranged onto the added rows of
the entire geometry. The materials are selected according to the norm EN 50182:2001(D);
then, at last, each TL’s geometry is “meshed” appropriately. By bearing in mind what has
been precedent, Figure 10 represents a major overview for some of the TL’s design.
execution process is identical for all TLs of 19 filaments, 37 filaments, 61 filaments, and 91
filaments; each of the mentioned TLs would have its design started as in Figure 8, with
the extra circles (i.e., filaments after sweeping) properly arranged onto the added rows of
the entire geometry. The materials are selected according to the norm EN 50182:2001(D);
Energies 2024, 17, 801 14 of 25
then, at last, each TL’s geometry is “meshed” appropriately. By bearing in mind what has
been precedent, Figure 10 represents a major overview for some of the TL’s design.
Figure 10. Complete geometries of TLs; (a) 7-filament, (b) 19-filament, and (c) 37-filament.
Figure 10. Complete geometries of TLs; (a) 7-filament, (b) 19-filament, and (c) 37-filament.
6.
6. Simulation
Simulation Results
Results
The TLs revealed
revealed in Figure
Figure 1010 are
are to
to be
be each
each injected
injected with
with currents’
currents’ amplitudes
amplitudes thatthat
fall within the the domains
domains constrained
constrained by their
their corresponding
corresponding minimum/maximum
minimum/maximum values. values.
Concerning
Concerning the thenorm
normEN EN50182:2001(D),
50182:2001(D), thethe maximum
maximum currents’
currents’ amplitudes
amplitudes are consid-
are considered to
ered to be the continuous current-carrying capacities, for simplification and
be the continuous current-carrying capacities, for simplification and pure simulation purposes. pure simula-
tion purposes.
In other terms, theIn other terms,
TL in the normthe
ENTL in the normthat
50182:2001(D) EN has
50182:2001(D) that area
a cross-sectional has of 15.9 mm2 ,
a cross-sec-
tional area ofcan
for example, 15.9 mm (i.e.,
carry , formaximum
example, canvalue)carry
more(i.e., maximum
than value)
110 A (i.e., more than
continuous 110for
ability A
(i.e., continuous ability
current-carrying) for periods
for short current-carrying)
of time (i.e.,fornon-continuously).
short periods of time (i.e., non-continu-
Additionally, the TL’s
ously).
heatingAdditionally,
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW the TL’s heating
criteria and environment criteria and
of application environment
(i.e., overhead TL of application
in air) should (i.e.,also
over-
be
takenTL
head intoinconsideration
air) should also when the TLinto
be taken is subjected to more
consideration whenthanthe110
TLA. Therefore,to
is subjected diverse
more
factors/scenarios
than need to
110 A. Therefore, be considered
diverse when calculating
factors/scenarios need to be theconsidered
current-carrying abilities for
when calculating
TLs current-carrying
the mainly with respect to theirfor
abilities cross-sectional
TLs mainly areas. Since such
with respect to calculation requirements
their cross-sectional are
areas.
not the
Since
6.1. purpose
such
Case of this requirements
calculation
of paper, the
Seven-Filament TLsimulated
are notTLsthe are henceof
purpose supposed
this paper,to be
theoperating
simulated under
TLs
normal
are hence working
supposed conditions: no current
to be operating surges,
under and no
normal overloading,
working with maximum
conditions: no currentcurrents’
surges,
and Since
magnitudes,
no the
as seven-filament
indicated
overloading, withinmaximum
the norm ENTL has amagnitudes,
continuous
50182:2001(D).
currents’ current-carrying
as indicated in the normcapacity
EN (th
maximum,
50182:2001(D).as previously indicated) of 110 A, the currents to be injected into it are
6.1. Case of Seven-Filament TL
posed into decades of tens: starting by 10 A, the resulting MF is to be visualized/ta
Since the seven-filament TL has a continuous current-carrying capacity (therefore max-
at fixed positions underlying the virtual boundary. This process is to be repeated
imum, as previously indicated) of 110 A, the currents to be injected into it are decomposed
next decade-valued
into decades current
of tens: starting amplitudes
by 10 (i.e.,MF
A, the resulting 20 is
A,to30beA, until 110 A). For at
visualized/tabulated this TL c
ration
fixed positions underlying the virtual boundary. This process is to be repeated for the next to be
(as well as for all successive configurations), all filaments are assumed
geneous,
decade-valuedhaving
currenttheamplitudes
exact electrical characteristics
(i.e., 20 A, (i.e.,
30 A, until 110 A). Forequivalent resistance, indu
this TL configuration
(as well as for all successive configurations), all filaments are assumed
and capacitance). Therefore, the injected current is to be homogeneously divided to be homogeneous,
having the exact electrical characteristics (i.e., equivalent resistance, inductance, and capaci-
the filaments since each filament would represent the same resistance as every o
tance). Therefore, the injected current is to be homogeneously divided across the filaments
other terms
since each and would
filament in accordance
represent thewithsameKirchoff’s law,
resistance as theother.
every 10 AIntoother
be injected
terms andinto the
filament TL,with
in accordance would result
Kirchoff’s inthe
law, 10/7
10 AA toinbeeach filament
injected into the(current’s
seven-filamentamplitude
TL, would/ numbe
result in 10/7 A in each filament (current’s amplitude/number of
aments). This fact also applies to all TLs of this study and can be graphically filaments). This fact also inte
applies to all TLs of this study and can be graphically interpreted by means of Figure 11
by means of Figure 11 (case of the four-filament TL).
(case of the four-filament TL).
Figure 11.Homogeneous
Figure 11. Homogeneouscurrent distribution
current (case of the
distribution four-filament
(case TL).
of the four-filament TL).
By taking the assumed current distribution law of Figure 11 for the case of the
filament TL (as well as for each other TL) and by considering different points 𝑃
(two fixed points, P1 and P2, for each injected current) in the space of the TL und
the virtual boundary conditions, Table 4 encapsulates the resulting MFs after the in
Energies 2024, 17, 801 15 of 25
By taking the assumed current distribution law of Figure 11 for the case of the seven-
filament TL (as well as for each other TL) and by considering different points P( x; y; z)
(two fixed points, P1 and P2, for each injected current) in the space of the TL underlying
the virtual boundary conditions, Table 4 encapsulates the resulting MFs after the injection
of the electrical currents as described (with P1 having the smallest coordinate values as
compared to P2, i.e., first raw of each current value in Table 4). Figure 12 successively
elaborates the graphical interpretation of the current-to-MF relation for the seven-filament
under a total current of 100 A (i.e., each filament possesses 10 A as in Table 4).
Table 4. Resulting MFs due to the application of different current values in the seven-filament TL.
P(x;y;z)
Current in Each
Total Current [A] x [mm] y [mm] z [mm] MF Norm [mT]
Filament [A]
16 9 188 1.02 × 10−1
10 1.428
21 12 188 8.13 × 10−2
13 9 188 2.37 × 10−1
20 2.857
19 13 188 1.65 × 10−1
14 11 188 3.29 × 10−1
30 4.285
19 14 188 2.46 × 10−1
14 9 188 4.76 × 10−1
40 5.714
18 16 188 3.24 × 10−1
13 14 188 5.92 × 10−1
50 7.142
18 16 188 4.13 × 10−1
15 9 188 6.65 × 10−1
60 8.571
18 15 188 5.05 × 10−1
13 10 188 8.09 × 10−1
70 10
18 15 188 5.84 × 10−1
14 9 188 9.32 × 10−1
80 11.428
17 15 188 6.78 × 10−1
13 10 188 1.00
90 12.857
19 14 188 7.40 × 10−1
13 11 188 1.00
100 14.285
17 16 188 8.32 × 10−1
13 10 188 1.00
110 15.714
16 16 188 9.28 × 10−1
The virtual boundary for the seven-filament TL has a radius of 20 mm and stretches
along the TL’s represented length. This means that around the wire with a distance up to
20 mm, in all directions, the resulting MF can be directly valued. For the case of the two
points in Table 4, they were chosen as the reference for acknowledging the amplitude of the
MF, specifically regarding the presented ( x; y; z) coordinates as in Table 4. Therefore, the
magnetic sensor intended to be installed around this TL, as well as for all other TLs, does
not necessarily have to be in the exact positioning coordinates of Table 4, where the latent
was only chosen for presentation purposes.
6.2. Case of 19-Filament TL

The continuous current-carrying (i.e., maximum) capability of the 19-filament TL is
210 A as in the norm EN 50182:2001(D). Since the MF analysis in this case is the same as was
the case for the seven-filament TL, the injected currents here are set to have amplitudes of
105 A and 210 A: values of middle and maximum capacities, for simplification, and to have
an overall idea about the resulting MF. In other words, in this TL’s study and every other
Energies 2024, 17, 801 16 of 25
successive, too many assumptions are not to be established, as the overall procedure is
thoroughly presented in the case of the seven-filament TL. Table 5 encapsulates the resulting
MFs correspondingly, where Figure 13 graphically locates the two points (P1 and P2) chosen
for the tabulated data in Table 5 calculations, with the corresponding MF visualization due
to an injected current of 210 A.
Figure 12. MF radiation around the seven-filament TL, injected with 100 A, with P1 and P2 as the
points of observation.
Table 5. Resulting MFs due to the application of different current values in the 19-filament TL.
P(x;y;z)
Current in Each
Filament [A]
13 15 188 1
105 5.526
33 29 188 0.467
15 16 188 2.5
210 11.052
20 30 188 2

The maximum continuously supported current for the 37-filament TL is 425 A, where
accordingly, the injected currents are as with the case with the 19-filament TL: middle and
full current-carrying capacities, which are 212 A and 425 A, respectively. Since this TL, in
turn, has a bigger cross-sectional area, the radius of its virtual boundary is increased to
100 mm (i.e., in any radial distance in the space around this TL with a maximum of 100 mm,
the resulting COMSOL model would directly yield the corresponding MF norm). Table 6
envelopes the resulting MFs correspondingly.
Total Cur- Current in Each Filament
x [mm] y [mm] z [mm] MF Norm [mT]
rent [A] [A]
13 15 188 1
105 5.526
33 29 188 0.467
Energies 2024, 17, 801 15 16 188 2.5 17 of 25
210 11.052
20 30 188 2
Figure13.
Figure 13. MF
MF radiation
radiationaround
aroundthe
the19-filament
19-filamentTL,
TL,injected
injectedwith
with210
210A,
A,with
withP1
P1and
andP2
P2as
as the
the points
points
of observation.
of observation.
Table 6. Resulting
6.3. Case MFs due
of 37-Filament TLto the application of different current values in the 37-filament TL.
The maximum continuously supported currentP(x;y;z) for the 37-filament TL is 425 A, where
accordingly, the injected currents are as with the case with the 19-filament TL: middle and
Current in Each
Total
full Current [A]
current-carrying capacities, x [mm]
which are 212 A andy 425
[mm] z [mm]
A, respectively. MF Norm
Since this[mT]
TL, in
Filament [A]
turn, has a bigger cross-sectional area, the radius of its virtual boundary is increased to
18 18 424 2
100 mm212 (i.e., in any radial distance in the 40
5.729 space around
33 this TL424with a maximum
0.82 of 100
mm, the resulting COMSOL model would directly yield the corresponding MF norm).
−15 −20 424 3
Table 6425
envelopes the resulting
11.486 MFs correspondingly.
−37 −40 424 2

The maximum continuously supported current for the 61-filament TL is 905 A, where
accordingly, the injected currents have the values of 600 A and the maximum amperage of
905 A. Unlike other preceding TLs, the increased number of filaments for this TL makes
currents with low amplitudes less significant for the MF visualization. For example, even
though this TL can theoretically be operating under the case where the total flowing current
is only of 10 A, in normal cases (i.e., power transmission over large distances), this TL would
be regularly operating to transmit power for medium-voltage power stations. Regardless
of the standards and different electrical norms that define how such a larger TL should be
operating and under which conditions, the values of currents to be injected are assumed as
in Table 7. Similarly to the preceding 37-filament TL, this TL, in turn, has an even bigger
cross-sectional area due to the increased number of filaments as compared with each of
the preceding TLs. Therefore, the radius of its virtual boundary is increased to 150 mm.
Numerical results are shown in Table 7.
Energies 2024, 17, 801 18 of 25
P(x;y;z)
Current in Each
Filament [A]
28 −13 224 4
600 9.386
100 566 772 1
34 −18 443 5
905 14.836
109 −36 188 1

This final 91-filament TL corresponds to the biggest dimensions amongst the different
designed TLs. According to its maximum current of 1450 A, as indicated in the norm EN
50182:2001(D), and since such a large TL is generally used to transmit higher amounts of
electrical power across large distances (as is the case of the previous 61-filament TL), the
destined currents to be injected have the amplitudes of 1000 A and 1450 A. As was also the
case for the 61-filament TL and since this TL has, in turn, a larger cross-sectional area, the
virtual boundary radius was consequently augmented to 200 mm (that is, anywhere around
the TL’s space, with a radial distance equal to or less than 200 mm, an MF can be read by
the COMSOL model, hence constituting a reference upon the TMRs physical installation).
The corresponding MF tabulated data are shown in Table 8, where the corresponding
MF visualization due to different injected currents for the 37-filament, 61-filament,
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW and
19 of 26
91-filament TLs are shown in Figure 14.
Table 8. Resulting MFs due to the application of different current values in the 91-filament TL.
P(x;y;z)
𝑷(𝒙; 𝒚; 𝒛)
Total Cur- CurrentCurrent
in EachinFilament
Each
Total Current [A] x x[mm]
[mm] yy[mm]
[mm] zz[mm]
[mm] MF Norm
MF Norm[mT]
[mT]
Filament [A]
rent [A] [A]
−82
−82 3737 223
223 66
10001000 10.989
10.989 −51 −44 199 3
−51 −44 199 3
187
187 9797 433
433 88
14501450 15.934
15.934 77 −82 557 4
77 −82 557 4
Figure 14.
Figure 14. MF radiation around
MF radiation around (a)
(a) 37-filament
37-filament TL,
TL, (b)
(b) 61-filament
61-filament TL,
TL, and
and (c)
(c) 91-filament
91-filament TLs.
TLs.
7. Results, Discussion, and Future Work

It can be revealed through the numerical analysis of Table 4, that the minimum re-
sulting MF due to the injection of the total current of 10 A has a value of 8.134 × 10−2 mT
located at P2 (Figure 12). On the contrary, the resulting MF with the biggest amplitude
Energies 2024, 17, 801 19 of 25
7. Results, Discussion, and Future Work

It can be revealed through the numerical analysis of Table 4, that the minimum
resulting MF due to the injection of the total current of 10 A has a value of 8.134 × 10−2 mT
located at P2 (Figure 12). On the contrary, the resulting MF with the biggest amplitude
due to the injection of a total current of 110 A has a value of 1 mT (at P1). On average, the
resulting MF for the seven-filament TL has a value of 5.74 × 10−1 mT. For this particular
TL, considering the two selected points of observation, as in Figure 12, a TMR with a
sensitivity ranging from 0 to 1 mT will be able to detect the current-resulting MF, induced
with currents from 10 to 110 A. The graphical interpretation concerning the relationship
among the injected current norms, the average radial distance, and the obtained magnetic
fields around the 7-filament and 19-filament TLs is presented in Figure 15.
Figure 15.
Figure 15. 3D
3D scatter
scatter representation
representation of
of the
the obtained
obtained magnetic
magnetic field
field for
for the
the 7-filament
7-filament and
and 19-filament
19-filament
TLs with respect to the injected currents and the average radial distance from the TL.
In light
In light of
of the
theMFMFvisual
visualrepresentation
representationinin Figure
Figure 12,12, it clear
it is is clear to say
to say thatthat there
there are
are not
not any specific points for referencing the TMR installation (for this
any specific points for referencing the TMR installation (for this TL, as well as all other TLs TL, as well as all other
TLs
in in study)
this this study)
around around
the TL the
(asTLin (as
thisincase:
this P1
case:
andP1P2),and P2), rather
rather than thethan the observation
observation points,
points,can
which which can be anywhere,
be anywhere, underneathunderneath the virtual
the virtual boundary. boundary.
For theFor the where
cases cases where
the TMR the
TMR sensors
sensors cannot cannot be fitted
be fitted underunder the virtual
the virtual boundary
boundary with with its actual
its actual radial radial wideness
wideness (for
(forseven-filament
the the seven-filament TL: 20TL: 20 mm),
mm), this criterion
this criterion can be can easily beexpanded
easily expanded in the corre-
in the corresponding
sponding COMSOL
COMSOL model. For model. For this
this reason, the reason, the coordinates
coordinates of point Pofinpoint P in the
the space space under-
underneath the
neath the virtual boundary in Table 4 can have larger values
virtual boundary in Table 4 can have larger values with respect to the extended virtual with respect to the extended
virtual boundary’s
boundary’s geometry. geometry. From another
From another side, forside, for the 19-filament
the 19-filament TL and
TL and after theafter the in-
injection of
jection
the of thein
currents currents
Table 5in Table 5 (quantities
(quantities justified),justified),
the maximum the maximum
resultantresultant
MF is valued MF isatvalued
2 mT,
at 2 mT,
which is which
doubleisthatdouble thatMF
of the of as
theinMF theascase
in the
of case of the 7-filament
the 7-filament TL. TheTL. The minimum
minimum MF is
MF is valued
hence hence valued
at 4.67 at 10−1×mT,
× 4.67 10−1which
mT, which is almost
is almost ten-fold ten-fold
bigger bigger
than the than the minimum
minimum MF for
MF seven-filament
the for the seven-filament TL. Moreover,
TL. Moreover, the average theMF average
is valued MFatis1.117valuedmT,atwhere
1.117 accordingly,
mT, where
aaccordingly,
TMR with aasensitivity from 0 to 2 mT would work fine in
TMR with a sensitivity from 0 to 2 mT would work fine in detecting detecting the MFs under the
virtual
MFs under boundary of 60 boundary
the virtual mm of radius. of 60 mm of radius.
Any observation points other than P1 and P2 that are presented in Figure 12, around
the TL in space, can be selected for a proper proper TMRTMR installation.
installation. Since it is not practical to
involve each each point
point in inthe
thespace
spaceofofthe thevirtual
virtualboundary,
boundary, thethe observation
observation points
points of Figure
of Figure 12
were selected for demonstration purposes only. In regards
12 were selected for demonstration purposes only. In regards with the increased number with the increased number of
filaments and the consequential proportional increase in the
of filaments and the consequential proportional increase in the current-carrying ability, current-carrying ability, the
37-filament
the 37-filament TL showed
TL showeda minimum
a minimum resulting MF ofMF
resulting 8.20of×8.20 10−×1 mT 10−1and
mT aand maximum
a maximum of 3 mT.
of
Such
3 mT.marginal values values
Such marginal are dueare to due
the injection of the sample
to the injection currentscurrents
of the sample presented in Tablein
presented 5.
Since
Table this TL has
5. Since thisa TL
wider
hascross-sectional area as compared
a wider cross-sectional to its precedents
area as compared (i.e., 7-filament,
to its precedents (i.e.,
7-filament, and 19-filament TLs), its virtual boundary’s radius is set to 100 mm, hence al-
lowing for more space for the installation of the TMR around the TL. The graphical inter-
pretation concerning the relationship between the injected current norms, the average ra-
dial distance, and the obtained magnetic fields around the 37-filament and 61-filament
TLs are presented in Figure 16. By comparing it to the seven-filament TL, its maximum
Energies 2024, 17, 801 20 of 25
and 19-filament TLs), its virtual boundary’s radius is set to 100 mm, hence allowing for
more space for the installation of the TMR around the TL. The graphical interpretation
concerning the relationship between the injected current norms, the average radial distance,
and the obtained magnetic fields around the 37-filament and 61-filament TLs are presented
in Figure 16. By comparing it to the seven-filament TL, its maximum MF is three times
bigger. A TMR with a sensitivity rate from 0 to 3 mT would hence be able to detect the
resulting MFs from the 37-filament TL, for all flowing currents from 0 to 425 A. As for the
61-filament TL and considering the values of the injected currents in Table 8, a maximum
MF is seen valued at 5 mT where the minimum MF scored 1 mT, which is the maximum
MF for the 7-filament TL. Therefore, a TMR with a sensitivity range from 0 to 5 mT under
the virtual boundary with a radius of 150 mm would be able to detect currents passing
through this TL from 0 to 905 A. At the final stage, the 91-filament TL, which represents the
largest simulated electrical stranded cable in this study, had an average MF of 5 mT where
the maximum MF scored an 8 mT with respect to the injected currents in Table 8, as well as
the observation distances, under a virtual boundary with a 200 mm radius. Accordingly, a
TMR installed anywhere around this TL with a radial distance less than or equal to 200 mm
would be able to detect the MFs, which reflects the flowing currents from 0 to 1450 A. The
graphical interpretation concerning the relationship among the injected current norms,
the average radial distance, and the obtained magnetic fields around the 91-filament TL
is presented in Figure 17. Regarding other analogous studies, the approach conducted
in this manuscript represented a thoroughly detailed methodology, thus enabling the
straightforward selection of TMR sensors based on the values of the inducing currents. For
instance, the obtained numerical data of the resulting MFs, without the need for excessive
mathematical computations in order to know the range of TMR sensitivity. The study in
reference [25], on the first hand, despite its relative accuracy in evaluating the MFs, still
has its FEA based on meshes with triangular elements, unlike the tetrahedral elements
used in this study, which have more accurate representations of complex 3D geometries
(i.e., stranded transmission lines). From another side, the work in reference [26] took into
consideration only two static models for overhead TLs (i.e., 161 kV and 330 kV), such
that MFs are then calculated by using GetDP 3.4.0 software. This procedure hence reflects
a lack of flexibility, when considering other types of overhead TLs, unlike the strategy
proposed in this work. Here, after simple modifications in the resultant COMSOL models
(e.g., TL’s architecture, number of strands, current norm, etc.), the MF can be dynamically
obtained. On the other hand, the work in [27] did consider the impact of conductor sag on
the generated MF near power facilities, which still has only accounted for a single-circuit
400 kV TL. On the other hand, the reliable methodology presented in this paper takes into
consideration different stranded TLs, subjected to different currents, with a feasibility to
be extended into further TL geometries. The other COMSOL-based FEA for calculating
the MFs around TLs, such as the study in [28], deliberates on the MF effects on human
bodies, unlike the present study, which aims to accurately select the TMR to be employed
in UAS-based TL remote monitoring.
It is noteworthy to mention that this FEA-based approach requires more calculation
time and computational resources due to the complex meshing techniques needed when
taking into consideration the proximity effect for example [29]. Other new studies exist for
calculating the magnetic vector potential in multilayered electrical wires, under externally
influencing harmonic MFs. With that being said, such a developed algorithm considers
skin and proximity effects when calculating MFs for multilayered wires with less compu-
tational times [30]. Concerning each of the simulated TL magnetic norms in this study,
all data and results were presented in the form of samples. This is to reassure that the
coordinates in Tables 4–8 do not restrict the applicability of this study when considering
other coordinates/distances from each TL. This fact also applies to virtual boundary ge-
ometry, where the obtained COMSOL models can have the virtual boundary geometries
(i.e., radius) easily adjusted. Hence, the generalized models can be flexibly adjusted for any
ifications in the resultant COMSOL models (e.g., TL’s architecture, number of strands,
current norm, etc.), the MF can be dynamically obtained. On the other hand, the work in
[27] did consider the impact of conductor sag on the generated MF near power facilities,
which still has only accounted for a single-circuit 400 kV TL. On the other hand, the relia-
Energies 2024, 17, 801 ble methodology presented in this paper takes into consideration different stranded TLs,
21 of 25
subjected to different currents, with a feasibility to be extended into further TL geometries.
The other COMSOL-based FEA for calculating the MFs around TLs, such as the study in
[28], deliberates
other on the MF effects
measurements/electrical on human thus
modifications, bodies, unlikefor
allowing theapresent
generalstudy, which aims
MF visualization
to accurately select the TMR to be employed in UAS-based TL
around TLs at any distance, with respect to any injected current. remote monitoring.

Figure 16. 3D scatter representation of the obtained magnetic field for the 37-filament and 61-fila-
Figure 16. 3D scatter representation of the obtained magnetic field for the 37-filament and 61-filament
ment TLs with respect to the injected currents and the average radial distance from the TL.
Figure
Figure17.
17. 3D
3D scatter representation of
scatter representation ofthe
theobtained
obtainedmagnetic
magneticfield
field
forfor
thethe 91-filament
91-filament TL TL with
with re-
respect
spect to the injected currents and the average radial distance from
to the injected currents and the average radial distance from the TL. the TL.
ItAccording
is noteworthyto thetopreceding
mention analysis,
that this FEA-based approach
this paper suggests therequires more calculation
future implementation of
time and computational
the resulting numerical resources due to
MF data (i.e., to be
theacquainted
complex meshing
with thetechniques needed
physical TMR), when
through
a computerized
taking system to
into consideration beproximity
the installed in the for
effect DNeD’s
example project
[29].sensor
Other box:
new this boxexist
studies is to
be calculating
for released from the the drone vector
magnetic onto a potential
TL, where inspecifically,
multilayered this study can
electrical be incorporated
wires, under exter-
in theinfluencing
nally box itself, as exposedMFs.
harmonic in Figure
With 18.
thatThebeingTMR sensors,
said, such ahaving theiralgorithm
developed positions fixed
con-
on theskin
siders mechanical holding
and proximity tubeswhen
effects of the box, as shown
calculating MFs forin multilayered
Figure 18, would wireshave
with their
less
output voltages
computational (i.e.,[30].
times reflecting imageseach
Concerning of theof sensed MFs) transmitted
the simulated TL magnetic vianorms
electricinwires
this
to the all
study, computerized
data and resultssystem represented
were presentedby in athe
red
formboxofinsamples.
Figure 18. TheisTMR
This sensorsthat
to reassure are
encouraged
the coordinates to beinfixed
Tableson4–8
the do
four fasteners,
not in order
restrict the to have the
applicability moststudy
of this accuratewhenpicture of the
consider-
resulting
ing MF; in this way, the final
other coordinates/distances output
from eachvoltage
TL. This would be better
fact also calibrated
applies to virtualby taking
boundary into
consideration the signals sensed at each corner of the box. Through
geometry, where the obtained COMSOL models can have the virtual boundary geome- analog input channels,
the computerized
tries system,
(i.e., radius) easily which Hence,
adjusted. can be any type of microcontrollers
the generalized models can be (e.g., RaspBerry
flexibly adjustedPi),
canany
for hence reflect
other the flowing current’smodifications,
measurements/electrical amplitude by thus means of an analog-to-digital
allowing for a general MFsignal vis-
conversion, regarding its bandwidth. Therefore, the current
ualization around TLs at any distance, with respect to any injected current. flowing through a TL can be
According to the preceding analysis, this paper suggests the future implementation
of the resulting numerical MF data (i.e., to be acquainted with the physical TMR), through
a computerized system to be installed in the DNeD’s project sensor box: this box is to be
released from the drone onto a TL, where specifically, this study can be incorporated in
the box itself, as exposed in Figure 18. The TMR sensors, having their positions fixed on
Energies 2024, 17, 801 22 of 25
non-invasively sensed, by means of a UAS, drone-controlled operation. Additionally, a

remote communication module can be also installed in the box of Figure 18, in a way that
the acquainted electrical current’s information can be transmitted to a local station, for
further analysis. For example, a wireless communication module can transmit the data
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW
(e.g., numerical currents’ magnitudes, time-sampled) to a nearby station underneath23theof 26
TL, for a proper visualization and investigation about the grid’s overall health.
Figure 18. Physical application of the obtained numerical MF data into a prototype for remote sens-
Figure 18. Physical application of the obtained numerical MF data into a prototype for remote
ing applications.
sensing applications.
The suggested design is straightforward and simple for real execution in a way that
The suggested design is
the distances straightforward
between the TMR sensorsand simple
(i.e., redfor real execution
rectangles in a waycan
on each fastener) that
be the
easily
distances between the TMR
adjusted when sensors (i.e., red
considering rectangles
space on each
coordinates, other fastener) can presented
than the ones be easily adjusted
in Tables 4–
when considering 8. In other coordinates,
space terms, the designed
otherCOMSOL
than themodels in this study
ones presented inare firstly4–8.
Tables scalable and ad-
In other
justable
terms, the designed for any TL
COMSOL architecture,
models in thisincluding
study arethe geometries
firstly of the
scalable andvirtual boundaries.
adjustable for anyWith
that being said, the ranges of MFs can be easily acknowledged with respect to other TL
TL architecture, including the geometries of the virtual boundaries. With that being said, the
configurations, as well as other ranges for the flowing currents. This scalability can be
ranges of MFs can be easily
easily, in turn,acknowledged
reflected by the boxwith in respect
Figure 18, toby
other
only TL configurations,
changing the distances asfrom/be-
well
as other rangestween
for thetheflowing
TMR sensors currents.
and theThis
TL, onscalability
each fastener.canThe
be scaling
easily,on
inthe
turn,
levelreflected
of the com-
by the box in Figure 18, system
puterized by only changing
must the distances
be also adjusted from/between
to accommodate the TMR sensors
the increased/decreased values
and the TL, on ofeachMFsfastener.
and electrical currents. on
The scaling Moreover,
the level since the drone
of the would be temporarily
computerized system must hold-
be also adjusteding/releasing
to accommodate the sensor’s
thebox, there would not be any
increased/decreased need tooftake
values MFsintoand
consideration
electricalvi-
brational
currents. Moreover, sincestudies: generally,
the drone would drone-based applications
be temporarily must undergo specific
holding/releasing vibration
the sensor’s
tests, especially for the power electronic components, due to the effects of the continuous
box, there would not be any need to take into consideration vibrational studies: generally,
rotational movements of the drone’s shafts. In this case, the drone would only be acting
drone-based applications
as a conveyancemust undergo
medium, specific
only vibration
“delivering” the boxtests, especially
of Figure 18 withforitsthe power
added equip-
electronic components,
ment, overdue to the
the TL. effects
Through thisoftemporary
the continuous
interactionrotational
between the movements
drone and its ofembed-
the
drone’s shafts. In
dedthis case,
box, the drone
no vibration would
studies only be
are hence actingforasthe
required a conveyance medium,
suggested circuits only
of Figure 18.
“delivering” the box of Figure 18 with its added equipment, over the TL. Through this
8. Conclusions
temporary interaction between the drone and its embedded box, no vibration studies are
hence required for the Remote-monitoring
suggested circuits and electrical-sensing
of Figure 18. applications contribute solidly to the ex-
pandability and reliability of Smart Grids. The monitoring process of electrical grids
8. Conclusions through UAS is still considered a relatively new topic but underlies, at the same time, a
potential solution for troubleshooting the grids at a distance. This paper has suggested a
Remote-monitoring
UAS-based and electrical-sensing
prototype, to be involved inapplications contribute current-sensing
remote and non-invasive solidly to the appli-
ex-
pandability andcations,
reliability
from theof overhead
Smart Grids. The monitoring
power transmission process
lines. Under of ofelectrical
the title FEA and by grids
means
through UAS isofstill considered
COMSOL, a relatively
the numerical new topic
data presented but
in this underlies,
study result in at
thethe sameMFs
reflected time, a
around
fivefor
potential solution distinct geometries of TLs
troubleshooting the(mainly
grids atcharacterized
a distance.byThis the number
paper has of filaments).
suggested Hence,
a
by composing
UAS-based prototype, a discrete reference,
to be involved in remotetheandTMR sensors to be current-sensing
non-invasive actually employedapplica-
in the sen-
sor’s box, have their sensitivity ranges easily acknowledged. The presented models over-
tions, from the overhead power transmission lines. Under the title of FEA and by means of
come the mathematical complexities for calculating the MFs induced due to electrical cur-
COMSOL, the numerical
rent flowingdata presented
in stranded in are
TLs and this study
also result
scalable into in theTLs’
other reflected
geometries MFs around
(i.e., different
five distinct geometries
numbers of of filaments,
TLs (mainly othercharacterized by the number
filament arrangements, of filaments).
bigger/smaller Hence,
virtual boundaries,
by composing a discrete reference, the TMR sensors to be actually employed in the sensor’s
Energies 2024, 17, 801 23 of 25
box, have their sensitivity ranges easily acknowledged. The presented models overcome
the mathematical complexities for calculating the MFs induced due to electrical current
flowing in stranded TLs and are also scalable into other TLs’ geometries (i.e., different
numbers of filaments, other filament arrangements, bigger/smaller virtual boundaries, etc.).
It can finally be concluded that this paper allows for accurate MF calculations under com-
plex TL geometries, thus enabling accurate TMR sensitivity domains to be selected and
applied according to the future work suggestions, which were also conducted in this paper.
Therefore, it can be stated that this paper contributes to the body of knowledge regarding
the calculation of magnetic fields around stranded electrical transmission lines, specifically
by following the German norm EN 50182:2001(D), when designing different stranded
wires. The FEA hence precisely models the number of filaments ranging from 7 to 91, with
the corresponding geometries, as well as the respective current levels. Consequently, the
numerical output data representing the magnetic fields’ norms around these transmission
lines effectively help in choosing the most accurate TMR sensors, for the explicit sensor’s
box architecture shown in Figure 18. It is recommended that the prototype of Figure 18 be
physically implemented and its performance be tested (by taking into consideration the TL’s
architecture and electrical current range of operation) under actual TL operation conditions,
to further investigate the accuracy of the presented models, in real-world applications.
Author Contributions: Writing—original draft, K.O.; review, editing, and supervision D.S. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research and the APC were funded by the dtec.bw—Digitalization and Technology
Research Center of the Bundeswehr (Digitalization and E-Mobility).
Data Availability Statement: Data are unavailable due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
Acknowledgments: This research paper out of the project DNeD (“Digitalisierte, rechtssichere
und emissionsarme flugmobile Inspektion und Netzdatenerfassung mit automatisierten Drohnen”,
engl. “Digitalised, legally safe and low-emission airborne inspection and grid data acquisition using
automated drones”) is supported by dtec.bw—Digitalization and Technology Research Center of the
Bundeswehr, which we gratefully acknowledge.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
AMR Anisotropic Magnetoresistance
BEM Boundary Element Method
CAD Computer Aided Design
DNeD Digitalisierte, rechtssichere und emissionsarme flugmobile Inspektion
und Netzdatenerfassung mit automatisierten Drohnen
FDM Finite Difference Method
FEA Finite Element Analysis
FIT Finite Integral Technique
FVM Finite Volume Method
GMR Giant Magnetoresistance
MFs Magnetic Fields
MoM Method of Moments
TLs Transmission Lines
TMR Tunneling Magnetoresistance
UAS Unmanned Aerial Systems
Units
Ω/km Ohm per Kilo-meter
A Amperes
m Meter
mm2 Milli-meter squared
T Tesla
Energies 2024, 17, 801 24 of 25
References
1. Osmani, K.; Meyer, M.F.; Grumm, F.; Schulz, D. Toward Smarter Grids: Experimental Investigation of an “All-Optical” Electrical
Sensor Under Laboratory Conditions. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 108418–108432. [CrossRef]
2. Zhao, Q.; Zhang, L.; Nan, D.; Gao, X.; Liu, Z.; Ouyang, J. Reliability Assessment Method for Power Grid Security and Stability
Control Devices Based on Weibull Fault Rate Fitting. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 86351–86361. [CrossRef]
3. Polley, A.; Ramaswamy, S.M.; Haroun, B.S. Residual Offset in Silicon Hall-Effect Sensor: Analytical Formula, Stress Effects, and
Implications for Octagonal Hall Plate Geometry. IEEE Sens. J. 2020, 20, 11283–11291. [CrossRef]
4. Han, S.; Han, X.; Sun, W. The Analysis of Magnetic Flux Density Inside Rogowski Coil Based on Full Current Theory. IEEE Sens.
Lett. 2020, 4, 2500704. [CrossRef]
5. Guo, Z.; Sasayama, T. Detection of Metal Surface and Back Surface by Rectangular Wave Eddy Current Testing with Magneto
Resistive Sensor. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Magnetic Conference—Short Papers (INTERMAG Short Papers),
Sendai, Japan, 15–19 May 2023; pp. 1–2. [CrossRef]
6. De Wall, S.; Bengsch, S.; Fischer, E.; Dencker, F.; Wurz, M.C. Anisotropic Magneto-Resistive Sensor Effect based Sensor using Daisy
Chain on Polyether Ether Ketone Substrate. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Sensors, Sydney, Australia, 31 October–3 November
2021; pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
7. Chen, Y.; Heredia, L.C.C.; Smit, J.J.; Niasar, M.G.; Ross, R. Giant Magneto-Resistive (GMR) Sensors for Non-Contacting Partial
Discharge Detection. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2023, 72, 6004411. [CrossRef]
8. Li, W.; Long, Z.; Fan, J.; Hu, K.; Peng, W.; Yin, X. Development of transient current sensor based on tunnel magneto resistance
effect. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Conference on High Voltage Engineering and Applications (ICHVE),
Chongqing, China, 25–29 September 2022; pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
9. Behzadirafi, S.; Salehfar, H. Preventive Maintenance Scheduling Based on Short Circuit and Overload Currents. IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid 2015, 6, 1740–1747. [CrossRef]
10. Tianqi, L.; Zhanjun, L.; Zheng, G.; Meijun, L.; Le, C.; Haonan, S. Research on Power Planning Considering Power Grid Security.
In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Image Processing, Electronics and Computers (IPEC), Dalian, China,
14–16 April 2021; pp. 113–117. [CrossRef]
11. Zhao, J.; Wei, Y.; Liu, J.; Wei, S.; Wang, Z.; Ke, Y.; Deng, X. Power Grid Fault Diagnosis Based on Fault Information Coding and
Fusion Method. In Proceedings of the 2018 2nd IEEE Conference on Energy Internet and Energy System Integration (EI2), Beijing,
China, 20–22 October 2018; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
12. Osmani, K.; Haddad, A.; Alkhedher, M.; Lemenand, T.; Castanier, B.; Ramadan, M. A Novel MPPT-Based Lithium-Ion Battery
Solar Charger for Operation under Fluctuating Irradiance Conditions. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9839. [CrossRef]
13. Zhao, M.; Wan, D.; Zhou, H.; Fang, J.; Peng, S.; Zhou, W. Study on the Influence of Load Imbalance on Carrying Capacity of
Power Transmission Equipment in Distribution Network. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 3rd Conference on Energy Internet and
Energy System Integration (EI2), Changsha, China, 8–10 November 2019; pp. 2882–2885. [CrossRef]
14. Ohnishi, R.; Wu, D.; Yamaguchi, T.; Ohnuki, S. Numerical Accuracy of Finite-Difference Methods. In Proceedings of the 2018
International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation (ISAP), Busan, Republic of Korea, 23–26 October 2018; pp. 1–2.
15. Zou, J.; Yuan, J.S.; Ma, X.S.; Cui, X.; Chen, S.M.; He, J.L. Magnetic field analysis of iron-core reactor coils by the finite-volume
method. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2004, 40, 814–817. [CrossRef]
16. Gumerov, N.A.; Adelman, R.N.; Duraiswami, R. Boundary Element Solution of Electromagnetic Fields for Non-Perfect Conductors
at Low Frequencies and Thin Skin Depths. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2020, 56, 6300312. [CrossRef]
17. Mitsufuji, K.; Nambu, M.; Hirata, K.; Miyasaka, F. Numerical Method for the Ferromagnetic Granules Utilizing Discrete Element
Method and Method of Moments. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2018, 54, 7000504. [CrossRef]
18. Qiu, H.; Wang, S.; Sun, F.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, N. Transient Electromagnetic Field Analysis for the Single-Stage Fast Linear
Transformer Driver with Two Different Configurations Using the Finite-Element Method and Finite Integration Technique. IEEE
Trans. Magn. 2020, 56, 7515805. [CrossRef]
19. Koester, N.; Pichler, F.; Biro, O. Modelling stranded wires using homogenization and the Cauer ladder method. COMPEL—Int. J.
Comput. Math. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2023, 42, 1090–1100. [CrossRef]
20. Lefevre, Y.; Henaux, C.; Llibre, J.F. Magnetic Field Continuity Conditions in Finite-Element Analysis. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2018,
54, 7400304. [CrossRef]
21. Available online: https://www.comsol.com/ (accessed on 13 October 2023).
22. Available online: https://www.hsu-hh.de/forschung/en/interdepartmental/advanced-aerial-mobility-uas-and-more/dned
(accessed on 13 October 2023).
23. Fachdaten Einzelsicht Norm—Beuth.de. Available online: https://www.beuth.de/de/norm/din-en-50182/44710562 (accessed
on 13 October 2023).
24. Saslow, W.M. How Electric Currents Make Magnetic Fields: The Biot—Savart Law and Ampère’s Law. In Electricity, Magnetism,
and Light; Academic Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 460–504. [CrossRef]
25. Tomasevich, M.Y.; Lima, A.C.S. Analysis of 50/60-Hz Magnetic Fields in 2-D Induced by High-Voltage Transmission Lines. In
Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE XXVIII International Conference on Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computing (INTERCON),
Lima, Peru, 5–7 August 2021; pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 801 25 of 25
26. Adegbola, R.; Fifatin, F.X.; Agbokpanzo, R.; Acakpovi, A. Modelling and Simulation of Magnetic Fields in the Vicinity of High
Voltage Transmission Line. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 8th International Conference on Adaptive Science and Technology
(ICAST), Accra, Ghana, 25–26 November 2021; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
27. Diamantis, A.; Kladas, A.G. Mixed Numerical Methodology for Evaluation of Low-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields Near
Power Facilities. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2019, 55, 7000704. [CrossRef]
28. Ates, K.; Ozen, S.; Carlak, H.F. Finite Element Method Based Simulations of the Magnetic Fields Around the Overhead Transmis-
sion Line and Its Dosimetric Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2019 11th International Conference on Electrical and Electronics
Engineering (ELECO), Bursa, Turkey, 28–30 November 2019; pp. 642–645. [CrossRef]
29. Kubiczek, K.; Kampik, M. Highly Accurate and Numerically Stable Matrix Computations of the Internal Impedance of Multilayer
Cylindrical Conductors. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 2020, 62, 204–211. [CrossRef]
30. Kubiczek, K.; Kampik, M. Fast and Numerically Stable Analytical Computations for the Power Induced in Cylindrical Multilay-
ered Conductors Under External Magnetic Fields. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 2023, 65, 292–299. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Energies 17 00801

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energies 17 00801

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energies 17 00801

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

energies

Department of Electrical Engineering, Helmut Schmidt University, 22043 Hamburg, Germany

Citation: Osmani, K.; Schulz, D.

Energies 2024, 17, 801. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17040801 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Figure 2. FEA flowchart in COMSOL.

Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 26

5. Stranded TLs: CAD and Meshes

5. Stranded TLs: CAD and Meshes

Circle ID x-Coordinates y-Coordinates

The graphical arrangement of the x–y coordinates presented in Table 2 is shown in

6.2. Case of 19-Filament TL

6.3. Case of 37-Filament TL

6.4. Case of 61-Filament TL

6.5. Case of 91-Filament TL

7. Results, Discussion, and Future Work

7. Results, Discussion, and Future Work

Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 26

non-invasively sensed, by means of a UAS, drone-controlled operation. Additionally, a

You might also like