Paper No. T.12-3.5, pp.

1-4

The 6th PSU-UNS International Conference on Engineering and Technology (ICET-2013), Novi Sad, Serbia, May 15-17, 2013 University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences

LEVEL CURVES OF POWER LINE MAGNETIC FIELD

Miodrag Milutinov1*, Anamarija Juhas1 and Neda Pekaric-Nad1 University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, Serbia *Author the correspondence should be addressed via e-mail: miodragm@uns.ac.rs
1

Abstract: This paper presents a new way to portray magnetic field (MF) near power line. The results are presented for the three representative power line geometries, with the different currents and for the different spacing. The results are presented using constant MF level curves, from which one can quickly determine the line currents and the distances where the MF drops below the level of interest. Other characteristics of the power line, such as separation and the heights of the conductors, are taken as parameters. The obtained curves are simple and useful when evaluating general public exposure or designing a new power line. Key Words: Exposure / Magnetic Field / Power Lines 1. INTRODUCTION Inhabitants of urban regions are gradually more and more exposed to power frequency magnetic fields (MF). The MF is very often generated by the parts of the power system: power lines (PL), power stations, distribution lines, power sub-stations etc. There are two typical exposure scenarios: short time high level exposures and longtime low level exposures [1]. Basic restrictions proposed by the ICNIRP [1] are established based on the acute biological effects with some safety factors included. The relationship of the low level MF exposure and any long term effects has not yet been established. Therefore, these effects are not included in the basic restrictions [1]. Some findings show that an excess health risk may exist for average exposures as low as 0.3-0.4 T [1]. Thus, in spite of the fact that the ICNIRP established a continuous MF exposure limit of 200 T at 50 Hz and that our national rule book [2] established the limit of 40 T at 50 Hz, a restrictive value of Brestr 0.2 T is adopted as the first level of interest in our work. This paper also presents some results of the calculations in respect to a special value of the MF B10%ref 4 T . This value is adopted as the second level of interest in our work. It is justified by the fact that the national regulations [2] and [3] require identification of

the significant sources of non-ionizing radiation. The source is considered significant if it produces 10% of the reference level (40 T) in the so called sensitive areas such as dwellings, hospitals, playgrounds, schools, etc. This means that at 50 Hz the source is significant if it can produce B10%ref 4 T inside residential buildings. The low frequency MF in the vicinity of a PL depends on its geometry, currents and distances from the line. With an increase in the distance from the PL, the MF decreases and at some point it becomes lower than the prescribed level. With assumption that conductors of the PL are parallel to the ground, the magnetic filed is analyzed in plane perpendicular to the PL. The distance which is the subject of our study is referred to as a safety distance, where the magnetic flux density drops below the prescribed value. Serbian national power grid generally consists of the 400 kV, 220 kV and 110 kV transmission lines as well as the 35 kV and 20 kV regional distribution lines. In this paper most abundant 110 kV overhead PLs are analyzed, having horizontal, vertical or delta configuration, as shown in Fig. 1. Similar procedure can be applied for the PL of the other voltage levels.

Fig. 1. a) Horizontal, b) vertical and c) delta configuration of the PL. 2. NUMERICAL MODEL At power frequency, 50 Hz, both the electric and the magnetic fields of the PLs can be independently determined using the quasi-static methods [4]. The magnetic flux density produced by the PL is evaluated using Biot-Savart law and the superposition, see e.g. [5]-[7]. The input data for the model are the currents and

the physical dimensions of the PL. Since the PL phase currents unbalance is usually low, we assume that the currents are ideally balanced. The phase conductors are assumed to be parallel and of infinite length - sag is not taken into account. Influence of the ground is neglected. These assumptions simplify the problem to a 2D geometry. According to [5], the resultant magnetic flux density for the PL with horizontal or vertical configuration, shown in Fig. 1, can be calculated from expression
B

0 Is
2R

3R 2 s 2 , R 4 2 R 2 s 2 cos(2 ) s 4

three configurations, using equations (1) and (2). The calculations are performed at several heights, y, above the ground, starting from y 1m up to y 10 m . The currents are explored in the range from 100 A to 500 A. The separation of the conductors is varied from s 4m to s 6m . The worst case scenario, regarding the general public exposure, is obtained for the horizontal configuration. As an example, magnetic flux generated by the horizontally arranged PL, with 500 A currents, with the separation s 6 m and with the height of conductors hmin 7 m is shown in Fig. 2.

(1)

and for PL with delta configuration from expression

B 3 20 Ip 4 R2 p2 , R 2 R p 3 cos(3 ) p 6
6 3

(2)

where 0 4 107 H/m is permeability of the vacuum, I is the rms value of the currents, s is the separation between the conductors and p s / 3, as indicated in Fig. 1. The distance R x 2 ( y h) 2 is the distance from the center of the PL to the observation point ( x, y ). The only difference, when expression (1) is used for the horizontal or vertical PL configuration, is in the evaluation of the angle . The height of the lowest conductor is assumed to be minimal height permitted in residential areas in Serbia for 110 kV PLs, hmin 7 m. Notice that the relationship between the heights of the center of the PL, h, and hmin is: h hmin the for horizontal configuration,
h hmin s for the vertical, and

Fig. 2. Magnetic flux density distribution for the horizontally arranged conductors. The magnetic flux density profiles calculated for the other two configurations are quite similar. From the result shown in Fig. 2, it can be seen that the magnetic flux density below 4 T is found everywhere at distances 15 m or more from the middle of the PL. The calculation results are almost independent on the height of the observed point, y. In what follows, four illustrative examples are chosen to show how the new approach to the magnetic field portraying works. In the first three examples BL Brestr 0.2 T is the target value. For the fourth example the target value is BL 4 T (10% of the national reference level).
Case a Fig. 3 presents the curves that satisfy (3) for the horizontal PL configurations. The target value is BL Brestr 0.2 T . The current, I , is taken as the parameter. The separation of the conductors, s, is kept constant, s 6 m. The points on the left from the curves correspond to the MF levels greater than 0.2 T, while the points on the right from the curves correspond to the MF levels lower than 0.2 T. From Fig. 3, it can be seen that the safety distance, x, increases if the current, I , increases, but it is almost independent on the height of the PL, h. The other two PL configurations generate similar shapes of the curves. The distance from the PL, x, where the magnetic flux density drops below BL 0.2 T is greater for horizontal configuration than for vertical or delta configuration.

h hmin p 2 for the delta configuration.

The new approach to the presentation of the PL magnetic field includes plotting the level curves that correspond to the prescribed value of the magnetic flux density; in this paper to Brestr 0.2 T or B10%ref 4 T. Determination of the coordinates of the points in the plane perpendicular to PL and the currents of the PL, that produce the prescribed level of the MF, fall into the class of the so called inverse problems. The formulation of the problem of finding the coordinates ( x, y ), and the current, I , with the separation of conductors s, and conductors the height, h, as parameters, can be for short written as
B( x, y, I , s, h) BL ,

(3)

where BL Brestr 0.2 T or BL B10%ref 4 T. The analyzed space spreads 100 m away from the center of the PL. If not stated otherwise, the MF is calculated at y 1m.
3. RESULTS

In order to investigate the influence of the different parameters on the magnetic flux density, the first step is to investigate how it depends on the height of the point of interest, y . Therefore the magnetic flux density is calculated in the plane perpendicular to the PL for all

Fig. 3. The distances x as a function of height of the PL, h, with the current as the parameter.

Case b Fig. 4 presents the curves that satisfy (3) for BL 0.2 T when the current, I , is taken as the parameter, for the horizontal PL configurations. The height of the conductors is kept constant, h hmin 7 m. Again, the points on the left from the curves correspond to the MF levels greater than 0.2 T, while the points on the right from the curves correspond to the MF levels lower than 0.2 T. From Fig. 4, it can be seen that the safety distance, x, increases if the current, I , increases. Moreover, the distance x slightly increases when the separation of the conductors, s, increases.

Fig. 5. The level curves BL 0.2 T for the horizontal (red lines), vertical (green lines) and delta (blue lines) configurations of the PL. Below the curves B 0.2 T.
Case d Calculations similar to the ones presented in the Cases a , b and c , are repeated for the new target value of BL 4 T. Due to the linearity of the medium, the results and the conclusions are similar to those for the previous target value of BL 0.2 T: the distances, x, from the PL, where the magnetic flux densities drop below the target level, mainly depend on the currents and the separation of the conductors. The influence of the heights of the conductors can be neglected. Fig. 6 presents the curves for the target value of BL 4 T that satisfy (3). The results are given at y 1m (Fig. 6a) and y 5 m (Fig. 6b) above the ground. All three PL configurations are considered for three different conductors separation, s. The main difference between the Case d and the Case c is for the safety distances, x, where the magnetic flux densities drop below the target value. Notice that since the new target value BL 4 T is much higher than the previous one, for the horizontal PL configuration and the current I=500A, the safety zone starts at x 16 m from the center of the PL (Fig. 6a). Also, it can be seen that for the current I=100A there is no safety distance - even directly under the PL the magnetic flux density is less than BL 4 T .

Fig. 4. The distances x as a function of the separation of the conductors, s, with the current as the parameter. Again, like in the Case a , the horizontal configuration offers the worst exposure scenario. The other two PL configurations generate similar shapes of the curves. The safety distances, x, where the magnetic flux densities drop below 0.2 T are found to be the shortest for the delta configuration of the PL. Therefore, regarding the exposure of the population living close to the PL, the delta configuration seems to be the best PL solution. From Figs. 3 and 4 it can be seen that the distance from the PL, where B 0.2 T, mainly depends on the current. Considerably less it depends on the separation of the conductors, while the explored heights of the conductors have almost no influence. Therefore the goal of this paper is to plot the curves that present how safety distance, x, depends on the PL current. The separation of the conductors, s, is a taken as parameter. Minimal height or the height of the lowest conductor in each of the configurations is kept at hmin 7 m.
Case c Fig. 5 presents the curves that satisfy (3) for BL 0.2 T. The separation of the conductors, s, is considered as the parameter for all three PL configurations. The points above the curves correspond to the MF levels higher than 0.2 T, while the points below the curves correspond to the MF levels lower than 0.2 T. From Fig. 5, it can be seen that the distance, x, increases if the current, I , increases. Similarly, the distance, x, increases if the separation of the conductors s, increases. Again, the delta configuration of the PL offers the best exposure solution, since the safety distance, x, is shorter than for the horizontal and vertical configurations. For instance, for the currents of 500A, the safety zone for the horizontal and vertical PL configuration starts at x 70 m from the center of the PL (Fig. 5), while for the delta configuration it starts at x 60 m from the center of the PL.

(a)

(b) Fig. 6. The level curves BL 4 T for the horizontal (red lines), vertical (green lines) and delta (blue lines) configuration: a) at y 1m and b) at y 5 m. Below the curves B 4 T.

In order to avoid false conclusions regarding the general public exposure, it is not sufficient to investigate magnetic flux densities at y 1m above the ground only. Therefore the calculations are repeated for y 5 m above the ground. For instance, from Fig. 6b it can be seen that for the current I=100A the safety distance ranges from x 4 m for the vertical, to x 10 m for the horizontal PL configuration.

4. APPLICATION
The MF level curves can be used for fast determination of the distances where the MF drops below the prescribed level. For example, for the PL with the horizontal configuration, with the separation between the conductors of s 6 m and for the currents of I 300 A, the MF drops below BL 0.2 T at x 56 m from the center of the PL (see Fig. 7). In the case of the target value of BL 4 T , for the same PL configuration and for the same current I 300 A, the distance where the MF drops below 4 T is x 12 m (Fig. 7).

configuration ensures the lowest safety distance from the PL. For the target value of B 4T , again the horizontal configuration gives the worst case scenario, but this time the vertical configuration ensures the lowest safety distance from the PL. From the constant MF level curves one can easily determine the currents and the distances where the MF drops below the prescribed level. The MF level curves may be helpful for planning new PLs in urban or suburban areas and during preparations of the MF measurements.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This paper has been supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology Development of the Republic of Serbia, under the grant for the Project TR 32055.

Fig. 7. The level curves of B 0.2 T and B 4 T for the horizontal configuration. The MF level curves can provide valuable information during preparation of the MF measurements in the vicinity of the PLs. Also, they can help when deciding on placement of the MF probes, which is very important in the MF monitoring [8], [9]. For the future work, the authors are to consider temporal variations of the MF, due to the PL currents seasonal variations. The approach to the MF calculation presented in this paper may prove useful for statistical modeling of the general public exposure conditions.

5. CONCLUSION
A new approach to the presentation of the MF in the vicinity of the PL is described in this paper. The prescribed constant level of the MF is presented in the graphs as a function of the distances and currents of the PL, taking the heights and the separations of the conductors as the parameters. From the curves presented in this paper could be easy to find the safety distance depending on target reference level of magnetic field. The 110kV overhead PL is analyzed having one of three possible configurations: horizontal, vertical or delta. It is shown how the observed heights, separations and currents of the PL conductors influence the MF. From the results obtained in this paper it can be concluded that the PL currents have the major influence on the distance where the magnetic flux densities drop below the target value. It is shown that for the target value of B 0.2 T the horizontal PL configuration constitutes the worst case scenario while the delta

7. REFERENCES [1] N. Pekaric Nadj, B. Lazetic, Electromagnetic fields and humans, Proc. 4th Int. PhD Seminar on Comp. mag. and bioeff. of EM fields, Nis, Serbia, Aug. 28-30, 2009, pp. 60-62. ICNIRP, Guidelines for limiting exposure to [2] time-varying electric and magnetic fields (1 Hz 100 kHz), Health Physics, 2010, Vol. 99, pp. 818836. Regulation on the limits exposure of non[3] ionizing radiation, the law of the Republic of Serbia, no. 104/09, Dec. 2009. [4] Regulation on significant source of non-ionizing radiation, source classification, method and period of its examination, the law of the Republic of Serbia, no. 104/09, Dec. 2009. W. Deno, Transmission line fields, IEEE [5] Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems, 1976, Vol. PAS-95, No. 5, pp. 1600-1611. [6] G. Filippopoulos, D. Tsanakas, Analytical calculation of the magnetic field produced by electric power lines, IEEE Trans. Power Del., 2005, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 14741482. F. Moro, R. Turri, Fast analytical computation [7] of power-line magnetic fields by complex vector method, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 10421048, April 2008. [8] A. Juhas, M. Milutinov, M. Prsa, Magnetic field of multi-line power system, Scientific bulletin of the "Politehnica" University of Temisoara, Trans. on Power Eng., 2007, Tom 52(66), pp. 319-328. M. Milutinov, N. Djuric, B. Vukobratovic, [9] Sensor networking for power lines magnetic field monitoring, 16th Int. Symp. on Pow. El.EE 2011, Novi Sad, Serbia, Oct. 2628, Paper No. T6-1.5. M. Milutinov, N. Djuric, D. Miskovic, D. [10] Knezevic, Area monitor sensor for broadband electromagnetic environmental pollution monitoring, ICEST 2011, Proc. of papers, Nis, Serbia, June 29-July 1, Vol. 1, pp. 217-220.