A User-friendly Simulation Software for AC Predictive and Mitigation Techniques

Leslie Bortels*, Calin Munteanu**, Vasile Topa**, Johan Deconinck*

* Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel, BELGIUM, [email protected]

** Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, G. Baritiu 26-28, 3400 Cluj-Napoca, ROMANIA

ABSTRACT

Cases of close proximity of high voltage transmission lines and metallic pipelines become more
and more frequent. Therefore, there is a growing concern about possible hazards resulting from
the influence of electrical systems: safety of people making contact with the pipeline, damage to
the pipeline and to the cathodic protection equipment. Hence it is not surprising that there is an
industrial need for the availability of a user-friendly simulation software that provides capabilities
for predicting and mitigating inductively coupled voltages.

This paper presents a recently developed simulation software tool that can handle this kind of
problem. The software can deal with any configuration (no limitation on number of pipes, trans-
mission lines, bonds, groundings, coating and soil resistivity) and is very user-friendly and robust
since no a priori subdivision between pipe sections parallel or not to the transmission line(s)
needs to be made.

With the obtained values for the EMF, the induced voltages and currents are then calculated by
solving the well-known transmission line model using a numerical technique that allows to speci-
fy the pipeline parameters (diameter, coating, soil resistivity, …) for each individual section of
the pipeline.

In this paper, simulation results will be presented and compared with available theoretical test
cases. It will be demonstrated that the calculated values for the induced electromotive force
(EMF) and the induced voltage and current are in perfect agreement with these theoretical test ca-
ses. In addition, it will be proven that commonly used formula’s for the induced EMF need to be
handled with care, especially when the distance between the transmission line and the pipeline
becomes bigger.

Keywords: simulation software, HVAC, induced EMF, induced voltages, mitigation techniques.
 INTRODUCTION

Increased difficulty in obtaining utility right-of-way and the concept of utility corridors have
brought many underground structures, and pipelines in particular, into close proximity with
electric power transmission and distribution systems. Any metallic object subjected to the
alternating electromagnetic field of the transmission system will exhibit an induced voltage. In
addition, power conductor faults to ground can cause substantial fault currents in the underground
structure1,2.

There are three basic methods by which AC currents and voltages can be induced on metallic
structures near AC power lines. The first one is electrostatic coupling where the structure acts as
one side of a capacitor with respect to ground. This is only of concern when the structure is
above grade. Secondly, electromagnetic induction may occur when the structure is either above
or below ground. In this case, the structure acts as the single-turn secondary of an air-core trans-
former in which the overhead power line is the primary. Finally, resistive coupling is caused by
fault currents from AC power towers that flow on and off the underground structure.

Stray currents due to these induced voltages can cause corrosion of metallic structures although
the amount of metal loss is less than an equivalent amount of DC current discharge would
produce. The magnitude of AC stray current is often large – hundreds of amperes under
electromagnetic induction and thousands of amperes during power line faults. These high current
and voltage levels can produce a shock hazard for personnel and can damage the structure and
related equipment, such as cathodic protection facilities. According to NACE International
Recommended Practice RP0177, “Mitigation of Alternating Current and Lightning Effects on
Metallic Structures and Corrosion Control Systems”3, potentials in excess of 15 volts should be
considered hazardous and steps should be taken to reduce the hazardous potential level.

Therefore, it is not surprising that there is an industrial need for the availability of a user-friendly
simulation software that would provide capabilities for predicting and mitigating inductively
coupled voltages on buried pipelines paralleling high voltage electric power transmission lines4.
However, most available computer programs limit the modeling capabilities to parallel or near
parallel geometries such as the CORRIDOR5, ECCAPP6 and PRCI4 program. This limitation to
pseudo-parallel geometries requires a subdivision of the pipeline(s) in a number of sections that
are more or less parallel to the transmission line, which seriously reduces flexibility and can lead
to important errors if the distances vary strongly along the influence zone. In addition, most of
the available programs are restricted in the number of pipelines, transmission lines and (direct)
bonds that can be modeled. This is a serious restriction since in many corridors a large number of
pipelines are bonded together, e.g. for cathodic protection purposes.

In this paper, CatProAC (1), a new simulation software for AC predictive and mitigation
techniques will be presented that allows to model any number of pipelines, high voltage
transmission lines and bonds without any restriction at all on the complexity of the geometry.

1
CatProAC is a user-friendly simulation software for AC predictive and mitigation techniques available at
http://www.elsyca.com.

2
 THE MODEL

The software program presented here uses a general applicable model for the calculation of the
induced electromagnetic force (EMF) that automatically takes into account the direction of the
pipeline with respect to the transmission line(s). With the obtained values for the EMF, the
induced voltages and currents are then calculated by solving the well-known transmission line
model. This is done using a numerical technique that allows to specify the pipeline parameters
(diameter, coating, soil resistivity, …) for each individual section of the pipeline.

Calculation of the induced pipeline electromagnetic force (EMF)

Consider the situation of Figure 1, presenting a “source wire” (being part of the transmission line)
and a “victim wire” (being part of the pipeline).

Cind

is(t) 1s
Γind A
Js(t) lk SΓind
r

1i
Source wire Ccond

Victim wire

FIGURE 1 – Inductive coupling between source and victim.

According to Maxwell’s second equation, the induced electromotive force e [V] along a closed
contour Γ is given by:

∂Ψ ∂B ∂A
e=− =− ∫ dS = − ∫ 1i d Γind , (1)
∂t SΓ
∂t Γind
∂t
ind

with Ψ the potential, B the magnetic field and A the magnetic vector potential. Using the phasor
notation, the above relation becomes:

e = − jω ∫ A1 dΓ
Γind
i ind , (2)

with ω = 2πf the pulsation of the signal. The contribution of a segment lk of the victim wire to
the total electromotive force induced in the arbitrary contour Γ (which includes the segment lk) is
given by:

ek = − jω ∫ A1i dΓind . (3)

lk

3
If the source wire consists of several piecewise linear segments as shown in Figure 2, the general
expression of the magnetic vector potential is given, according to7, by:

N segm

A=µ∑ ∫I sn G 1sn dΓcond . (4)

n =1 Ccond

Cind
Is 1Sn
1i
r
Ccond lk

FIGURE 2 – Division of source and victim wire in piecewise linear segments.

In this case, the electromotive force induced in the segment lk can be expressed as:

( )
N segm

ek = − jωµ ∑ ∫ ∫I sn G 1sn .1i dΓcond dΓind , (5)

n =1 l k Ccond

where G is Green’s function corresponding to the problem to be solved7. The complex integrand
in equation (5) will be solved using a two-dimensional numerical integration technique.

The formula for the induced EMF is a function of the cross product between the norms
(directions) of both the source and victim wire. This implies that the position of the pipeline with
respect to the transmission line is automatically taken into account and no a priori subdivision of
the pipeline in sections parallel (or not) to the transmission line needs to be made.

Calculation of the induced pipeline voltage and current

The following section concerns the calculation of the response of the pipeline-earth electrical
circuit to the electromagnetic force (p.u.l.) calculated above. To that purpose, the well-known
distributed transmission line model8 is used, which is applicable to such facilities as buried pipe-
lines and railroad tracks. Figure 3 represents such a model for a section dx of the pipeline.

4
 I Edx zdx I+(dI/dx).dx

V
Ydx V+(dV/dx).dx

FIGURE 3 – Transmission line model for the pipeline-earth electrical circuit.

The corresponding transmission line equations, based on the configuration given in Figure 3, are
as follows:

dV ( x)
+ zI ( x) − E ( x) = 0 , (6)
dx
dI ( x)
+ yV ( x) = 0 , (7)
dx

with :
z = impedance per unit length of the circuit pipeline-earth [Ω/m],
y = admittance per unit length of the circuit pipeline-earth [1/Ωm],
E = induced EMF on the pipeline per unit length [V/m].

Derivation of equation (6) with respect to x in combination with equation (7) gives us the follo-
wing second order differential equation for the induced voltage:

d 2V ( x) dE ( x)
2
− γ 2V ( x) − = 0, (8)
dx dx

with γ = zy the propagation constant of the pipeline-earth circuit. This constant is calculated
using the following formulae for the impedance and admittance8:

ρ p µ o µ rω µ oω  ρ p µ o µ r ω µ ω 3.7 ρω −1 µ −1 
o
z= + + j + o ln , (9)
πD 2 8  π D 2 2π D 

πD ε ε πD
y= + jω o r , (10)
ρ cδ c δc

with :
ρp = resistivity of the pipeline [Ωm],

5
µo = magnetic permeability of the air [= 4π 10-7 H/m],
µr = relative permeability of the pipeline,
D = diameter of the pipeline [m],
ρ = resistivity of the soil [Ωm],
ρc = resistivity of the coating [Ωm],
δc = thickness of the coating [m],
εo = electrical permittivity of the air [= 8.85 10-12 F/m],
εr = relative permittivity of the pipeline coating.

Formulas (9) and (10) take into account the effect of the earth and are valid for buried pipelines
(except for bare pipelines or pipelines with low values of the specific coating resistance).

Introducing the boundary conditions and solving the set of equations

Equation (8) is solved using a one-dimensional Galerkin Finite Element Method (FEM)9. To that
purpose, the pipeline(s) and transmission line(s) are divided into a number of sections, connecting
two successive “nodal points” of the pipeline. This allows to specify the values for z and y, cal-
culated using (9) and (10) for each individual section of the pipeline. As a result, a set of equa-
tions is obtained with as unknowns the voltages V in the nodal points.

This set of equations is completed by applying the proper boundary conditions to the system of
equations, involving among others the implementation of (resistive) bonds, earthings and charac-
teristic impedances. Resistive bonds are modeled as a wire with a known impedance that is pla-
ced between two nodal points. Earthings and characteristic impedances can be seen as special
bonds between a nodal point of the pipeline and the non-influenced far field. Characteristic
impedances can be placed at the beginning and/or end of a pipeline to model electrically long
pipelines. The characteristic impedance Zo is given by the expression Z o = z / y . Once solved
for the induced voltage V, equation (6) can be used to solve for the induced current I. The
(derivative of the) electromagnetic force E(x) is calculated a priori and hence is not an unknown
of equation (8).

VALIDATION OF THE MODEL

In what follows, the model will be evaluated by comparison with analytical solutions obtained in
the literature. These analytical solutions are the best means to evaluate the accuracy of the deve-
loped model.

In order to be able to find an analytical solution of the general voltage equation (8), the following
assumptions will be made:

- the pipeline is parallel to the transmission line,

- the leakage admittance of the pipeline is constant, i.e. the coating resistance per unit length
of the pipeline is uniform and independent of the applied voltage,
- the soil resistivity along the parallel route is constant.

6
Under these conditions, E(x), z, y and γ are constant along the developed length of the pipeline
and equation (8) reduces to a differential equation with constant coefficient which can easily be
solved. This has been done for three different cases as outlined below.

Case 1 : The pipeline extends for a few kilometres beyond the parallel route without
earthing

Consider the configuration of Figure 4. A pipeline parallels a single horizontal 50 Hz, 345 kV
transmission line for 10 km at a constant distance of 25 m. The pipeline lays at a constant depth
of 5 m in a 100 Ωm resistivity soil, has a diameter of 50 cm and a coating resistance of 10.000
Ωm2. Beyond the parallel route, the pipeline extends for 5 km without earthing.

Pipeline

Transmission Line

FIGURE 4 – Case 1 : The pipeline extends for a few kilometres beyond the parallel route
without earthing.

Calculation of the induced EMF

Let us first concentrate on the calculation and verification of the induced EMF on the pipeline.
The configuration of the 345 kV transmission line tower with specification of the phase wires is
given in Figure 5. The currents in the phase wires are perfectly balanced and given by:

I 1 = I , I 2 = aI , I 3 = a 2 I ,
2π 4π (11)
−j −j
a=e 3
,a = e
2 3
.

Do note that the effect of the shield wires is not taken into account.

FIGURE 5 – Single horizontal 345 kV tower with phase wire specifications.

7
The analytical formulation for the induced EMF p.u.l. on a parallel pipeline due to a perfectly
balanced three-phase system without shield wires is given by the Carson-Clem formula8:

µo I  d 2 p d3 p d2p 
E o = − jf ln + j 3 ln , (12)
2  d12p d 3 p 

where dip represents the distance between phase conductor i and the pipeline p. One needs to re-
mark that formula (12) is only valid for relatively short distances d ≤ 90 ρ / f ( d ≤ 127 m )
between a phase wire and the pipeline as will become clear.

The model as used in the simulations is given in Figure 6 below. Based on the specifications as
given above, the induced EMF has been calculated using the general formula (5) per unit length.
Results are presented in Figure 7. As expected, a constant EMF is observed along the parallel ex-
posure which drops to zero at both sides beyond the parallel exposure.

Pipeline

Transmission Line

FIGURE 6 – Numerical model for case 1.

In addition, similar calculations have been done for a wide range of distances from 0 to 1000 m.
A comparison between Carson-Clem predictions and numerical calculations as used here is given
in Table 1. One can easily see that for small distances a very good agreement between the
Carson-Clem and numerical results is found. However, as the distance increases, the error
increases and once beyond about 100 m, the error increases rapidly. This is in perfect agreement
with the observation that equation (12) should only be used for distances below 127 m. As out-
lined before, the general applicable equation (5) is solved using a two-dimensional numerical
integration scheme since the integrand involved is too complex to find an analytical solution.
However, in the case of a perfectly parallel exposure, an exact solution has been found using
Mathematica® 4.0 (referred to as “M4”). A comparison between the numerical and “M4” values

8
is added in Table 1 and it can be observed that the general method adopted here gives perfect
results regardless of the spacing between transmission line and pipeline.

FIGURE 7 – Numerical simulation of the induced EMF per unit length (case 1).

Distance [m] E,CC [mV/m] E,num [mV/m] E,error, CC[%] E,M4 [mV/m] E,num [mV/m] E,error, M4 [%]
0 1.5977 1.5970 0.04 1.5963 1.5970 0.04
5 3.6188 3.6160 0.08 3.6152 3.6160 0.02
10 6.0952 6.0880 0.12 6.0873 6.0880 0.01
15 7.7546 7.7420 0.16 7.7421 7.7420 0.00
20 8.5630 8.5460 0.20 8.5461 8.5460 0.00
25 8.7489 8.7280 0.24 8.7278 8.7280 0.00
30 8.5637 8.5390 0.29 8.5388 8.5390 0.00
40 7.7425 7.7110 0.41 7.7108 7.7110 0.00
50 6.8293 6.7920 0.55 6.7915 6.7920 0.01
100 3.9396 3.8750 1.64 3.8748 3.8750 0.00
200 2.0465 1.9390 5.25 1.9380 1.9390 0.05
500 0.8275 0.6451 22.05 0.6442 0.6451 0.13
1000 0.4144 0.2039 50.81 0.2032 0.2039 0.33
2000 0.2073 0.0334 83.90 0.0332 0.0334 0.59

TABLE 1 – Comparison between Carson-Clem (“CC”), numerical and Mathematica® 4.0

(“M4”) values for the induced EMF per unit length.

Many conventional calculation methods consider a zone of about 200 ρ (i.e. 2 km) parallel to
both sides of the transmission line in which its influence is considered to be “significant”8. From
the results obtained above, it is clear that the use of equation (12) for the calculation of the
induced EMF, can give a serious overestimation of the EMF, hence introducing errors on the safe
side.

Calculation of the induced voltage and current

Let us now go back to the original case with a 25 m spacing between the pipeline and trans-
mission line. Based on the calculated induced EMF as specified in Figure 7, the transmission line
model for the induced voltages and currents will be solved. To that purpose, a characteristic
impedance is placed at the beginning and end of the pipeline to simulate an electrically long

9
pipeline at both ends. The calculation of the pipeline impedance and admittance p.u.l. is based on
equations (9) and (10) with ρp = 1.7 10-7 Ωm, µr = 300 and εr = 5.

The analytical solution for this configuration is given by8:

V ( x) =
2γ
e (
E −γ ( L − x )
)
− e −γx , (13)

I ( x) =
E
2z
( )
2 − e −γ ( L − x ) − e −γx . (14)

The maximum potential Vmax = E /(2γ )(1 − e −γL ) occurs at the ends of the parallel routing at km 5
and 15. Beyond the exposure, the pipeline potential and current decrease according to the follo-
wing exponential function:

V ( x) = Vmax e −γx , (15)

V γ
I ( x) = max e −γx . (16)
z

with x the co-ordinate outside the parallel section.

In Figures 5 and 6, the calculated values for the induced voltage and current are compared with
the analytical solutions as obtained from (13). A perfect agreement for the induced voltage and
the induced current, both for the parallel section and for the section beyond the parallel exposure
can be observed. The average error made is about 0.16% for the induced voltage and about
0.01% for the induced current. Detailed information on the obtained numerical and analytical
values is given in Table 2.

The current flowing at both ends of the pipeline at 5 km beyond the parallel exposure is about
2.4A. It is not necessary to extend the pipeline for 5 km beyond the parallel exposure when the
characteristic impedance is used to close both ends. This is only done to demonstrate the
exponential decay of the induced voltage and current beyond the parallel exposure. Although not
presented here, simulations done with a characteristic impedance at very short extensions give
exactly the same results.

10
 FIGURE 8 – Comparison between numerical and analytical (full square) voltages (case 1).

FIGURE 9 – Comparison between numerical and analytical (full square) currents (case 1).

Case 2 : The pipeline extends beyond the parallel routing at one extremity and stops at the
other extremity without earthing

Next consider the configuration of Figure 10. The pipeline extends beyond the parallel routing at
one extremity and stops at the other extremity without earthing. This case is modeled by putting
a characteristic impedance at the beginning of the pipeline and by doing nothing at the end.

The pipeline and transmission line parameters are exactly the same as for the previous case. The-
refore the calculated EMF will be exactly the same as for the first 15 km of Figure 7.

11
 Pipeline

Transmission Line

FIGURE 10 – Case 2 : The pipeline extends beyond the parallel routing at one extremity
and stops at the other extremity without earthing.

The analytical solution for this configuration is given by8:

V ( x) = [
e (2e − e − 2γL ) − e −γx ,
E γx −γL
2γ
] (17)

I ( x) =
E
2z
[ ( ) ]
2 + e γx 2e −γL − e − 2γL + e −γx , (18)

again with an exponential decay of both the voltage and current beyond the parallel exposure at
the beginning of the pipeline.

The calculated and analytical values for the induced voltage and current are presented in Figures
11 and 12. Again, a perfect agreement along the entire developed length of the pipeline can be
seen, indicated by the detailed information in Table 2, presenting an average error of about 0.12%
for the induced voltage and about 0.01% for the induced current.

FIGURE 11 – Comparison between numerical and analytical (full square) voltages (case 2).

12
 FIGURE 12 – Comparison between numerical and analytical (full square) currents (case 2).

Case 3 : The pipeline extends beyond the parallel routing at one extremity and is perfectly
earthed at the other extremity

Finally, consider the configuration of Figure 10. This example is exactly the same as the one
before, except that the pipeline is now perfectly earthed at the end of it. This case is modeled by
putting a characteristic impedance at the beginning of the pipeline and a zero impedance at the
end.

Pipeline

Transmission Line

FIGURE 13 – Case 3 : The pipeline extends beyond the parallel routing at one extremity
and is perfectly earthed at the other extremity.
.
For this configuration, the analytical solution is given by8:

V ( x) =
2γ
(
E γ ( L− x)
e − e −γ ( L − x ) )e −γL , (19)

I ( x) =
E
2z
[ ]
2 − (e γ ( L − x ) + e −γ ( L − x ) ).e −γL , (20)

13
again with an exponential decay of both the voltage and current beyond the parallel exposure at
the beginning of the pipeline.

The calculated and analytical values for the induced voltage and current are presented in Figures
14 and 15. Again, a perfect agreement along the entire developed length of the pipeline can be
seen, indicated by the detailed data in Table 2, presenting an average error of about 0.1% for the
induced voltage and about 0.01% for the induced current. The positive effect of the earthing
when compared to the previous case can be seen by the fact that the maximum induced voltage
along the pipeline drops more than 50% from about 29.8V to only 14.4V. The current that is
drained away via the earthing at this locating is about 15.4A.

FIGURE 14 – Comparison between numerical and analytical (full square) voltages (case 3).

FIGURE 15 – Comparison between numerical and analytical (full square) currents (case 3).

14
 Length [m] V,anal [V] V,num [V] V,error [%] I,anal [A] I,num [A] I,error [%]
0 4.6286 4.6288 0.0053 2.3854 2.3856 0.0055
1000 5.8484 5.8487 0.0051 3.0141 3.0142 0.0044
2000 7.3896 7.3900 0.0045 3.8084 3.8086 0.0040
3000 9.3371 9.3374 0.0038 4.8120 4.8122 0.0035
4000 11.7977 11.7981 0.0030 6.0802 6.0804 0.0031
5000 14.9069 14.6694 1.5931 7.6826 7.6820 0.0071
6000 11.4658 11.4663 0.0046 9.4269 9.4250 0.0204
7000 8.3738 8.3743 0.0048 10.8822 10.8800 0.0198
8000 5.4908 5.4911 0.0053 11.9397 11.9376 0.0180
9000 2.7210 2.7212 0.0057 12.5758 12.5736 0.0173
10000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 12.7876 12.7855 0.0166
11000 2.7210 2.7212 0.0057 12.5758 12.5736 0.0173
12000 5.4908 5.4911 0.0053 11.9397 11.9376 0.0180
13000 8.3738 8.3743 0.0048 10.8822 10.8800 0.0198
14000 11.4658 11.4663 0.0046 9.4269 9.4250 0.0204
15000 14.9069 14.6694 1.5931 7.6826 7.6820 0.0071
16000 11.7977 11.7981 0.0030 6.0802 6.0804 0.0031
17000 9.3371 9.3374 0.0038 4.8120 4.8122 0.0035
18000 7.3896 7.3900 0.0045 3.8084 3.8086 0.0040
19000 5.8484 5.8487 0.0051 3.0141 3.0142 0.0044
20000 4.6286 4.6288 0.0053 2.3854 2.3856 0.0055
<0.1631> <0.0111>

Length [m] V,anal [V] V,num [V] V,error [%] I,anal [A] I,num [A] I,error [%]
0 4.8134 4.8140 0.0115 2.4807 2.4810 0.0115
1000 6.0819 6.0826 0.0113 3.1345 3.1348 0.0108
2000 7.6848 7.6856 0.0107 3.9605 3.9609 0.0100
3000 9.7100 9.7109 0.0099 5.0042 5.0047 0.0098
4000 12.2689 12.2700 0.0089 6.3230 6.3236 0.0094
5000 15.5022 15.2520 1.6141 7.9894 7.9891 0.0035
6000 11.7150 11.7168 0.0155 9.7601 9.7584 0.0179
7000 8.1421 8.1443 0.0264 11.1507 11.1489 0.0158
8000 4.7991 4.8016 0.0505 12.0372 12.0356 0.0136
9000 2.6892 2.6909 0.0630 12.3699 12.3684 0.0118
10000 4.6286 4.6279 0.0146 12.1126 12.1115 0.0093
11000 8.3988 8.3975 0.0156 11.2248 11.2239 0.0081
12000 12.7574 12.7559 0.0114 9.6529 9.6522 0.0072
13000 17.6550 17.6534 0.0089 7.3255 7.3251 0.0065
14000 23.2505 23.2488 0.0075 4.1486 4.1484 0.0061
15000 29.8138 29.8115 0.0076 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
<0.1180> <0.0095>

Length [m] V,anal [V] V,num [V] V,error [%] I,anal [A] I,num [A] I,error [%]
0 4.4807 4.4809 0.0042 2.3092 2.3093 0.0042
1000 5.6615 5.6617 0.0039 2.9178 2.9179 0.0032
2000 7.1535 7.1538 0.0033 3.6867 3.6868 0.0028
3000 9.0388 9.0390 0.0026 4.6583 4.6584 0.0023
4000 11.4208 11.4210 0.0017 5.8859 5.8861 0.0019
5000 14.4306 14.2097 1.5308 7.4371 7.4367 0.0051
6000 11.5014 11.5018 0.0035 9.1774 9.1759 0.0165
7000 9.1912 9.1916 0.0039 10.7379 10.7362 0.0156
8000 7.3536 7.3539 0.0046 12.0285 12.0269 0.0133
9000 5.8663 5.8666 0.0050 13.0543 13.0528 0.0116
10000 4.6286 4.6288 0.0051 13.8460 13.8446 0.0101
11000 3.5601 3.5603 0.0044 14.4386 14.4373 0.0090
12000 2.6001 2.6001 0.0022 14.8642 14.8630 0.0080
13000 1.7049 1.7048 0.0035 15.1489 15.1479 0.0069
14000 0.8449 0.8447 0.0206 15.3120 15.3110 0.0068
15000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 15.3651 15.3600 0.0333
<0.1000> <0.0094>

TABLE 2 – Comparison between analytical and numerical values for the induced voltage
and current for cases 1 to 3 (from top to bottom).

15
 CONCLUSION

A recently developed simulation software that predicts and mitigates inductively coupled volta-
ges on buried pipelines paralleling high voltage electric power transmission lines has been
presented. To that purpose, a general applicable formulation for the induced EMF on the pipeline
has been introduced. This formula can be used for any configuration between transmission line
and pipeline and does not require an a priori (and artificial) division of the pipeline in sections
parallel or not to the transmission line.

With the obtained values for the EMF, the induced voltages and currents are calculated by
solving the well-known transmission line model that represents the pipe-earth circuit. This has
been done using a numerical technique based on the one-dimensional finite element method. This
approach is very flexible since it allows to specify the pipeline parameters (diameter, coating, soil
resistivity, …) for each individual section of the pipeline.

As a first evaluation, the simulated results have been compared with available theoretical test
cases. It has been found that the calculated values for the induced electromotive force and the
induced voltage and current are in perfect agreement with these theoretical test cases. In
addition, it has been proven that commonly used formulas for the induced EMF need to be
handled with care, especially when the distance between the transmission line and the pipeline
becomes bigger.

The next step in the development of the simulation software will be the introduction of a module
for fault current prediction and mitigation and the comparison with experimental data provided
by pipeline companies.

REFERENCES

1 “Cathodic Protection Level 1 Training Manual”, NACE International, 2000.

2 “Cathodic Protection Level 2 Training Manual”, NACE International, 2000.

3 NACE Standard Recommended Practice RP0177-2000, “Mitigation of Alternating Current

and Lightning Effects on Metallic Structures and Corrosion Control Systems”, 2000.

4 “AC Predictive and Mitigation Techniques – Final Report”, for Corrosion Supervisory
Committee PRC International, 1999.

5 “TL WorkstationTM Code: Version 2.3, Volume 3: CORRIDOR Manual”, EPRI Project
1902-07, BIRL Final Report, EPRI, Palo Alto CA, June 1992.

6 F. Dawalibi, et al, “Power Line Fault Current Coupling to Nearby Natural Gas Pipelines,
Volume 2: User’s Guide for ECCAPP Computer Program, Final Report, EPRI Project RP
742-4, A.G.A. Project PR 176-510, Safe Engineering Services & Technologies Ltd,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, October, 1987.

16
7 Jinxing Shen, “Computational Electromagnetics using Boundary Elements – Advances in
Modelling Eddy Currents”, Topics in Engineering Vol. 24, Computational Mechanics
Publications, Southampton (UK) and Boston (USA), 1995.

8 “Guide on the Influence of High Voltage AC Power Systems on Metallic Pipelines”, CIGRE,
Working Group 36.02, 1995.

9 “The Finite Element Method in Engineering Science”, O.C. Zienkiewicz, McGraw-Hill,

Londen, 1971.

17