See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224180517

Induced Voltage Calculation in Electric Traction

Systems: Simplified Methods, Screening
Factors, and Accuracy

Article in IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · April 2011

DOI: 10.1109/TITS.2010.2076327 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

3 760

1 author:

Andrea Mariscotti
ASTM Sagl
147 PUBLICATIONS 898 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Validation and performance assessment of electric network simulation models View project

Power Quality in Railway Electrification View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrea Mariscotti on 09 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 12, NO. 1, MARCH 2011
Induced Voltage Calculation in Electric
Traction Systems: Simplified Methods,
Screening Factors, and Accuracy
Andrea Mariscotti, Member, IEEE
Abstract—In modern electric traction systems, the calculation
of induced voltage on internal and external conductors is al-
ways required for both interference and people and equipment
safety. The International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative
Committee (CCITT) method is based on simplified relationships,
which are integrated by suitable screening factors (represent-
ing and hiding the traction system complexity). Focus is on the
determination of these factors and the accuracy, which are evalu-
ated with simulation and experimental data. The considered sys-
tems are rail return, return conductor, and autotransformer (AT)
2 × 25-kV traction systems with victim cables of various lengths;
the influence of the most relevant electric parameters (soil resis-
tivity and conductance to earth of the return circuit conductors) is
considered. The results confirm the relevance of the conductance
to earth and of the position of the current injection point. The
induced voltage is approximately proportional to the length, with
a slight increase for shorter victim cables. The calculated AT
screening factor is always smaller than the values suggested by
the standards by a factor of 2 in the worst case. For the influence
of separation of the inducing and victim circuits, the adopted
methods agree in finding a critical distance around 6–8 m; at
larger distances, CCITT values are slightly optimistic. Measured
results confirm that the CCITT coefficients are all conservative by
a factor of 2–4 (except the AT coefficient for total length exposure),
whereas the multiconductor transmission line (MTL) results agree
with a worst-case margin of 13%.
Index Terms—Electromagnetic induction, electromagnetic reac-
tive interference, guideway transportation power systems, power
distribution electromagnetic interference.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE PROBLEM of the estimation of the voltage induced
on a victim circuit by a nearby electric power line or
electric traction system is of great relevance in several dis-
ciplines and fields: electromagnetic (or, more generally, elec-
trical) compatibility and electrical safety applied to electric
traction systems, electric power distribution and transmission
networks (on the source side), and telecommunication and
industrial automation systems (on the victim side).
There are many contributions on specific computational is-
sues and sophisticated solution methods, but in the author’s
experience, more than 50% of the cases of analysis and demon-
Manuscript received July 21, 2009; revised March 4, 2010, June 30, 2010 and
August 18, 2010; accepted September 5, 2010. Date of publication October 4,
2010; date of current version March 3, 2011. The Associate Editor for this paper
was L. Li.
The author is with the Department of Naval Architecture and Electrical
Engineering, University of Genova, 16145 Genova, Italy (e-mail: andrea.
mariscotti@unige.it).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TITS.2010.2076327
1524-9050/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE
201
stration of electrical compliance in transportation systems may
be analyzed and solved satisfactorily with the simplified In-
ternational Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee
(CCITT) method. A complete analysis with numeric models is
needed for more complex cases, such as in-band interference
to signaling devices or solutions optimization, with tight design
margins and high implementation costs.
After a general problem presentation, the characteristics of
the reference case (autotransformer (AT) 2 × 25 kV 50-Hz
system) are presented in Section II. The CCITT method and
the determination of screening factors are then described in
Sections III–V, considering the approximations and simplifying
assumptions that affect its accuracy. Examples and test cases are
then considered in Sections VI and VII: The evaluation is done
first, with a more accurate simulator on a reference case and,
second, considering the consistency of the parameters values
found in the literature. The treatment is, however, quite general,
since most of these considerations are also applicable to other
traction supply systems. The calculation of the induced voltage
is applied in several cases:
1) extraneous conductive parts, such as fences or pipes, for
electrical safety limits and touch voltage [1];
2) trackside cables, connecting signaling equipment (track
circuits, point machines, and signals), for interference at
frequencies other than the supply frequency [2], [3];
3) other telecommunication cables, such as analog and digi-
tal telephone and digital data networks [4]–[6].
This is a basic analysis always required for all new railway
systems and when important changes to old railway systems are
undertaken. Calculations and simulations are needed, not only
because the analysis is carried out before system construction,
but also because of the increasing complexity of traction sys-
tems with various victim circuits, different configurations, and
the need for a sensitivity analysis for some parameters.
Modern electric transportation systems are complex systems,
for which a consortium is established with different companies
from all over the world (with their own philosophies and
approaches and different degrees of involvement and responsi-
bilities). The customer (e.g., a municipality or a government)
is represented by a technical board, who may lack the due
technical competence on such a specific topic. The choice
of the simulation or calculation method is a key issue: It
must be well supported for trustfulness and robustness, but it
must also be accurate in responding even to little changes of
system configurations and electrical parameters resulting from
202 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 12, NO. 1, MARCH 2011
Fig. 1. The 2 × 25-kV line, consisting of one ESS and two ATs; the bold arrows and the symbols in the black frames refer to the ideal circulation of the traction
current IL and a rail current 2IR in the opposite direction; IBs may be connected to either the g.r.c or the a.r.c.; the EBs are shown as gray connections.
modifications of system design. Since the amount of coun-
termeasures and design modifications has a direct economic
impact, the company supporting the costs has all the interest
in selecting a method with the lowest implicit overestimating
margins to implement only really needed countermeasures. On
the other side, the technical board supervising verification,
validation, and safety aspects very often prefer a conservative
approach; the results are shown with associated uncertainty and
accompanied by worst-case maximum values. From this, there
is a need for a simple, trustable, and accurate method.
The problem arises of estimating the degree of approxima-
tion of a well-known and commonly adopted method proposed
by CCITT 20 years ago [4]–[6]. The validity is not questioned,
but interest is rather on its overestimation in terms of average
and minimum margin and its dependence on system configu-
ration and parameters. The CCITT method is simple, and the
overall accuracy relies on the estimation of additional screening
factors, which are deemed by different degrees of uncertainty.
II. R AILWAY S YSTEM D ESCRIPTION
The attention is focused on an AT 2 × 25 kV 50-Hz system,
representing modern railway traction systems such as LGV in
France; WCML in the U.K.; MAV in Hungary; high-speed lines
in Belgium, Spain, Italy, and South Korea; Betuweroute in The
Netherlands; the suburban high-capacity line of South Tunis,
Tunisia; Shinkansen lines in Japan; Queensland Railways in
Australia; some metropolitan railways in the United States,
such as New Haven, Philadelphia, and Boston; Central and
South Eastern Railways in India, etc. [7]. However, the AT
system features a complex structure with a nontrivial estimation
of the screening coefficients: The screening factors related to
other ac railway systems are described in [8] and [9] and for
a rail return (RR) booster in [10]. In a standard 2 × 25-kV
AT system (see Fig. 1), the rolling stock is supplied through
the overhead circuit at +25 kV (the catenary), and the traction
return current (TRC) flows from the rolling stock axles back
to the supply through the rails; the rail current that reaches the
Electric SubStation (ESS) is largely reduced by the balancing
action of ATs, which force almost equal currents in the +25-kV
and −25-kV circuits (the latter representing the negative feeder
or NF). This configuration reduces, in general, the induced
voltage on surrounding circuits. The train return current flows
through the rails and then to the NF at the neighboring ATs,
which are the supply section (SS) boundaries. Due to limita-
tions in AT power rating and stray inductance, some current
keeps flowing into the rails, and remote ATs are also involved.
An accurate treatment of the equations of single- and double-
feed SSs is presented in [11] and [12].
The arrangement of the return circuit (r.c.) conductors [the
rails themselves, the aerial return conductor (a.r.c.), and the
buried or grounded return conductor (g.r.c.)] influences the
overall system behavior in several ways. Their relative position
defines the mutual impedance matrix and, thus, the return
current sharing among the r.c. conductors and the earth; it also
modifies the inductive coupling to other victim conductors and
the related percentage reduction of the coupled disturbance
[10], [12]–[14].
If track circuits are used, the rails are possibly connected to
the r.c. by means of impedance bonds (IBs), which are built
around a strongly coupled AT, where the two winding terminals
are connected to the rails themselves, and the central terminal
is driven to either the a.r.c. or (preferably) the g.r.c.
The a.r.c. and g.r.c. are connected together by means of
equipotential bonds (EBs), with a separation dEB dictated by
electrical safety calculations for normal and faulty conditions;
dEB may be as short as the pole distance (about 50 or 60 m) or
as large as the separation of other system elements (e.g., IBs)
or some intermediate value. The EB design also depends on the
grounding methods [1], [15]: use of a grounding rod at all poles,
at major points, and at ESSs and ATs, and/or use of the g.r.c. as
a horizontal electrode.
Several parameters exert their influence, and there is no exact
and unique value of the induced voltage: The result should
always be expressed as an average value and a dispersion
interval, which are produced by a sensitivity analysis [16],
[17]. Some parameters are set to known reference values [18]–
[20], whereas others need conservative assumptions if scarcely
known or highly variable (with aging and environmental and
operating conditions), such as, for example, the rail-to-earth
conductance gRe , the g.r.c.-to-earth conductance gre , and the
soil resistivity ρe . gRe cannot be calculated from geometry
and conductors properties; however, in [21], it is assigned a
value labeled as normal case, which, in reality, corresponds to
a pessimistic case that is normally used as the limit value for
track circuits; this value corresponds to the average value in
[6, p. 24] for isolated tracks, whereas experimental evidence
on new AT systems [20] shows lower measured values. For the
MARISCOTTI: INDUCED VOLTAGE CALCULATION IN ELECTRIC TRACTION SYSTEMS
evaluation of traction line resonances, the capacitance of the
aerial conductors (calculable with the charge image method [6,
pp. 156–159]) and the additional capacitance of the AT, feeding
cables, and train bus must be considered.
A complete description of AT systems may be found in [8],
[14], and [19], and further details on low-frequency modeling
and validation may be found in [22] and [23]. The height of the
contact and messenger wires is standardized for interoperability
reasons and to ensure adequate mechanical performances. The
NF position may vary and depends on the infrastructure man-
ager policy and on the type of line section (open air, tunnel, and
viaduct crossing). The closer the two supply conductors of op-
posite polarity, the smaller the mutual inductance, and the better
the current balancing and screening effect. The a.r.c. and the NF
are suspended to the masts at different heights and positions
[13]; the g.r.c. is placed trackside either buried in the soil or in
a concrete bed or put in one of the ducts used for the signaling
and low-voltage supply conductors. The sensitivity analysis on
the geometrical parameter variation reported in [24] shows that
the influence on the line impedance is below a few percentages.
III. C ALCULATION M ETHODS
The CCITT method relies on established and commonly
accepted simplified relationships that need to be integrated
by proper screening factors. A more complete multiconductor
transmission line (MTL) method, which is reported in the same
CCITT publications [4]–[6], is used as the reference method for
comparison.
A. CCITT Simplified Method
The frequency is low enough so that transverse electro-
magnetic (TEM) approximation is applicable, the capacitive
term is negligible compared with the inductive coupling term,
and any line resonance is also neglected. The approximation
for the ground-return impedance is satisfactory up to a con-
siderable distance, although it is worse than the Lucca and
Gauss–Lobatto quadrature [25], [26].
For parallel inducing and induced circuits, the induced elec-
tromotive force e on a victim conductor is given by
e = 2πf IlkM [mV] (1)
where f is the frequency of the inducing current (in hertz); I is
the inducing current (in kiloamperes); l is the length of exposi-
tion between the source and victim systems (in kilometers); k
is a screening factor (0 ≤ k ≤ 1), which is to be calculated as
the product of the screening factors of the inducing system ki
and of nearby conductors kc ; M is the coefficient of mutual in-
duction between the inducing circuit and the induced conductor
(in microhenries per kilometer), i.e.,
M = 142.5 + 45.96x − 1.413x2 − 198.4 ln x [μH/km]
(2)
where x is the equivalent
 distance (adimensional), which is
computed as x = d μ0 ω/ρ; d is the distance between the two
systems (in meters); μ0 is the permeability of the free space;
ω = 2πf is the angular frequency of the inducing current (in
203
Fig. 2. M versus frequency for ρ = 10, 50, 250, and 1000 Ω · m and
d = 100 m.
radians per second); and ρ is the soil resistivity (in ohm-meters).
Equation (2) is obtained by curve fitting of Carson’s formula
[4], [27, p. 159] and neglects the influence of conductors height
above ground.
For small values of x (≤ 0.25, as for victim circuits in
the railway corridor itself, such as telecommunication and
signaling cables), CCITT suggests another expression that is
still an approximation [4, pp. 149–151] and uses Carson’s
series formulation (different from, but equivalent to, the original
publication in integral form [27]). The mutual coupling term
M corresponds to the external impedance Zij,ext (in ohms per
meter) between the inducing and victim circuits, i.e.,
μ0 Dij
Zij,ext = jω ln + 2(ΔRij + jΔXij ). (3)
2π dij
The self-impedance term is useful for the calculation of some
of the screening factors, i.e.,
μ0 2hi
Zii,ext = jω ln + 2(ΔRii + jΔXii ) (4)
2π ri
where dij is the distance between conductors i and j; Dij is the
distance between conductor i and image of conductor j, and
vice versa; and hi and ri are the height above the ground and
the radius of conductor i, respectively. The corrective Δ terms
may be found in [4] and [28, p. 162]. Other formulations exist,
but they do not differ much from the Carson’s original formula
[27], [29].
For values of x ≥ 10, in the case of large separation d or at
higher frequency, further simplification may be applied, and the
following formula is indicated [4]:
M = 400/x2 [μH/km] (5)
with a good approximation of the asymptotic behavior of (2)
but overestimating at x = 8; for this reason, a starting point at
x = 6 and a 6.5% larger numerator (the correct value is 425
within 0.1%) are proposed, as shown in Fig. 2 for d = 100 m.
In Fig. 3, the difference between (2) and (3) is shown for a
shorter distance d = 10 m and for two height differences h = 6
and 9 m, representing the case of “catenary to trackside cable”
204 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 12, NO. 1, MARCH 2011
Fig. 3. M versus frequency for ρ = 10, 50, 250, and 1000 Ω · m and
d = 10 m. (2) solid, (3) h = 6 m dotted, and (3) h = 9 m dashed.
and “NF to trackside cable” coupling, respectively. In the low-
frequency range, (2) gives larger values than (3) by about 4.8%
and 8.6% for the considered smallest (10 Ω · m) and largest
(1000 Ω · m) soil resistivity values.
The estimation of the right and appropriate value of the
screening coefficient k should not require complex calculations
to preserve the simplicity of the method. Rather, practical
values are normally derived from the CCITT publications and
a few other available references, and this work wants to fill
the gap concerning the required accuracy in screening factor
estimation, the consequent required accuracy on electrical para-
meter values, and the implicit assumptions and simplifications.
Several partial screening factors may be identified at the in-
ducing circuit (due to earth wires, NF, and AT compensating
action) and at the induced circuit, which may be a telecom or
signaling cable (possibly shielded and lying in a duct or tray), a
metallic conduit (either buried or fixed at a wall), or the rails of
an adjacent transportation system.
The assumption that ktot is derived from the product of each
single screening factor is already an approximation, since it
neglects the reciprocal influence of the elements of the inducing
and the induced circuits (the influence acts to increase ktot
to worsen screening). This is shown in [4, Tab. 7/4] for an
additional compensating conductor or cable sheath, with a
longitudinal resistance larger than a fraction of an ohm and for
a distance > 1 m; the corrective increase in ktot is, however,
never > 1.25 and normally < 1.1.
B. MTL Method
There are some useful references [13], [14], [19] for the theo-
retical foundations, the calculation of the electrical parameters,
and the validation; here, only the main elements are recalled.
The MTL method is considered “exact” for a few reasons.
1) The adopted expressions are exact, the introduced ap-
proximations are relevant only at very high frequency, or
they represent second-order effects.
2) Any inaccuracy comes from approximate modeling of
real phenomena or partial knowledge of geometrical or
Fig. 4. (Black) Measured and (gray) simulated input impedance curves for a
test section of Alta Velocità line (Italy); the discrepancy at very low frequency
is due to the series resistance of feeding wires that are too small.
electrical properties, which is in common with the deter-
mination of CCITT screening coefficients.
3) The validations of the past years of one implementation of
the MTL method confirm that the accuracy with respect to
experimental results and other simulators is within 10%
for several variables: currents and voltages, impedance,
and resonance frequencies (see Fig. 4 ).
The results on the currents of the single conductors of the
cross section of the Italian Alta Velocità test line (obtained
in 2007) are well within the aforementioned 10% accuracy
up to several kilohertz. Other comparisons at 50 Hz with
experimental data [22] or independent simulators [23] confirm
the low-frequency accuracy to around a few percentages.
IV. S CREENING FACTORS FOR THE I NDUCING C IRCUIT
A. Supply System
RR and return conductor (RC) traction systems and NF trac-
tion systems with ATs differently behave well if the circulation
of the supply traction current and the residual amount of TRC
are considered [4], [6]. The AT system is maybe more expen-
sive, since it requires an additional conductor, the NF (normally
one for each track), and a more complex suspension system,
but it has superior performance with respect to RR and RC
and even booster systems. Available results on screening factors
are almost exclusively for RR and RC systems [4], [26], [30],
[31, pp. 433–439]. AT systems are usually simulated case by
case, and there is no common agreement on an equivalent
screening factor. In [9, p. 51], we find 0.1, whereas we read
in [4, pp. 436] that “AT necessitates the use of multiconductor
circuit representation.” From the symmetry of AT systems, one
is led to conclude that the NF compensating action almost can-
cels out any induced disturbance onto trackside victim circuits.
However, this is (partially) true only outside the SS where the
train resides; inside it, there is an unbalance between NF and
a catenary of 25% to 50% of the traction current. Thus, the
equivalent screening factor k1a is closer to 1 than expected for
all cases with exposure length shorter than AT separation (the
so-called “point screening factor”).
MARISCOTTI: INDUCED VOLTAGE CALCULATION IN ELECTRIC TRACTION SYSTEMS
TABLE I
S CREENING FACTOR FOR S INGLE AND D OUBLE RR C IRCUITS
V ERSUS F REQUENCY AND E ARTH R ESISTIVITY ρ
The screening coefficient for “1 km length” (point exposure)
is k1a = 0.1, whereas “in total feeder section” (for a victim
cable as long as or longer than the AT separation), k1a = 0.04
[4, p. 443]. These data are reported for 8- to 10-km AT spacing,
which is typical of lower speed railway systems, whereas
10–15 km is to be used for high-speed railway lines. The
distance and position of AT and IBs largely influence the
current distributions, as shown in Section VII-A.
A key point in the evaluation of the average inducing cur-
rent, and hence of the resulting screening factor, is the rail-
to-earth conductance, which causes an increase in the earth
current and an increase in the equivalent area of the inducing
loop. Starting from a reference value gRe0 = 50 mS/km, the
average screening factor increases for larger gRe = GgRe0 by
approximately the square root of G for AT systems. In general,
the induced voltage is lower for an AT system with respect to
booster systems by 20% to 50%.
B. Return Circuit
The r.c. conductors, which are nominally at ground potential,
tend to reduce the induced disturbance, depending on their
geometrical positions with respect to the inducing conductors;
this is the reason for the analysis of TRC sharing versus
frequency and of the injection point (IP) position, which was
performed in [13] and [14]. The simplest case is that of an RR
system [4, pp. 433–435]; a more complex RC system has the
return current shared between the rails and the other RCs. The
general expression k1b = 1 − Zcr /Zrr , where Zcr is the mutual
impedance (3) between the catenary and the return circuit and
Zrr is the self-impedance (4) of the return circuit, may be
used for all exposure lengths, at the expense of additional
calculations. Estimated values of k1b,RR of 0.51 and 0.43 are
reported in [4, pp. 436–437] at 50 and 16.7 Hz, respectively; the
end effect occurring in the last 10% of the line length produces a
further decrease of k1b,RR linearly down to 50% of its nominal
value at the center (the earth stray current gets closer to the rails,
thus reducing the equivalent loop area).
The dependence on frequency and soil resistivity is outlined
in Table I with respect to a reference value of 50 Ω · m. The
factor k1b,RR increases by about 30% and 40% for different
rail arrangements, i.e., “double track—one return rail” and
“single track—both return rails,” respectively, at all frequencies
[4, p. 435].
As a confirmation, the values adopted for the French ac
railways are 0.56 and 0.4 for single- and double-track lines,
respectively, at 50 Hz [32].
205
Large earth resistivity values produce better (smaller) screen-
ing factors, since a larger earth resistivity value pushes much
more current into the rails themselves, reducing the area of
the inducing circuit; on the contrary, large resistivity values
are often assumed as a worst case because it is believed that
the shunting of the induced voltage is minimized. However,
since the coupling mechanism is, in general, both inductive and
conductive (for victim cables with faulty insulation), the choice
of the worst earth resistivity value is not trivial.
The combined effect of the rails and the other RCs is only
partially considered by CCITT: Some information is given as
the “aggregate” performance of AT systems, with respect to
a simple RR system; others may be found in the similarity
of a.g.c. to the earth wires of high-voltage lines: 0.55–0.7,
0.65–0.75, and 0.8–0.9 for dc resistance < 0.1, 0.5, and
1.0 Ω/km, respectively, [4, p. 23]. These screening values may
also be applied to AT systems for the SS where the train
resides when catenary and feeder currents are not flowing in
opposite directions. The French standard [32] simply indicates
a screening factor of 0.15 or 0.1 for a double-track line with ATs
every 15 or 5 km. In reality, not only the equivalent screening
factor is different at various longitudinal positions, but EBs and
IBs and their position are two influencing elements as well.
C. Effect of Tunnels
The effect of tunnels is treated in [26], where the change of
self- and mutual series impedance (due to proximity effect) and
capacitance terms is calculated for some basic configurations:
The conclusion is that, for frequencies low enough to produce
a negligible skin effect in the tunnel layer, the reduction of
impedance terms is limited to 1% or less; otherwise, for a
significant skin effect, the reduction may be on the order of
5% for self-terms and even 20% for mutual terms. The k1b
factor is then increasing by the same order. The self- and mutual
capacitance terms of aerial conductors are more than doubled.
V. S CREENING FACTORS FOR THE V ICTIM C IRCUIT
A. Earthed Conductors
For proximal earthed conductors, such as a compensating
conductor in the same or adjacent duct, there is the distinction
between “conductors earthed at the ends” [4, p. 223] and “con-
tinuously earthed conductors” [4, p. 231], for which the concept
of length constant, or equivalent length, is introduced. When a
screening conductor is very long and its longitudinal impedance
(or resistance) is comparable with the earthing resistance (either
lumped or distributed), then the conductor is not equipotential.
The equivalent length in [4, Tab. 8/4] ranges between a fraction
of kilometers and a few kilometers at 50 Hz and is always
less than 1 km at 800 Hz for different values of longitudinal
resistance and conductance to earth.
B. Shielded Cables
For a shielded signal cable, it is possible to define a screen-
ing factor k2b relating the external longitudinal voltage EE
with that transferred to the internal surface of the shield ES
206 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 12, NO. 1, MARCH 2011
Fig. 5. Screening factor k2b versus frequency for ρ = 100 Ω · m (gray) with
and (black) without flat steel wire armor (error bars indicate min and max values
for different sheath currents; average values correspond to the solid curve).
[4, p. 256]. It is common to separate this factor into two
terms, i.e., ki = ZI /ZO and ke = ZO /(ZO + ZE ), called the
transverse and longitudinal screening factors, with ZI and ZO
as the internal and external surface impedances of the shield,
respectively: k2b = ki ke . Thus, ki indicates a characteristic of
the cable itself, whereas ke includes the external impedance
ZE of the shield-to-earth circuit; the quality and the circuit
arrangement of shield earthing are included in the ke term. For
most cables, the shield is made of nonferromagnetic materials,
and the penetration depth at low frequency is much larger
than the shield thickness so that ki = 1, and hence, k2b = ke .
A great deal of information on multilayer and ferromagnetic
shields may be found in [4, pp. 261–320]. Then, for ke , we
may consider first a continuously earthed shield, which is usu-
ally indicated by a distributed conductance-to-earth term; the
external impedance of the shield-to-earth circuit is dominated
by the inductive reactance Ze ∼ = jXe = j2πf Le , which may
be computed with (3)—with a suggested reference value of
2 mH/km—and ke ∼ = RS /(RS + jXe ) [4, eq. (4.3)]. Since ke
is roughly proportional to the shield resistance RS , it is com-
mon practice that purposely grounded internal conductors are
used in parallel to decrease it; the proximal earthed conductors
play the same role without sacrificing the voltage-withstanding
capability of the cable. If the shield is terminated at the two
ends only with two lumped resistors Rl and Rr , then they must
be added at the denominator.
There may be different arrangements for cable shields and
armoring (steel or iron armor or an external metallic pipe). Fer-
romagnetic armor may produce an improvement of the trans-
verse term ki , also depending on the amplitude and frequency
of the total current (at the lowest frequencies, the penetration
depth might not be small enough, and the larger resistivity of
ferromagnetic materials produce an opposite effect, as shown
in Fig. 5) [4, p. 288].
C. Conductive Structures Surrounding the Cable
While a metallic pipe or conduit surrounding the victim cable
may be treated as an additional shield, concrete ducts and duct
banks are a complex issue, since the electrical properties of
concrete are highly variable: Resistivity may vary between 0.1
and 10 kΩ · m, depending also on the percentage of sand, other
chemical substances, and residual water. For a normal thickness
of 5–15 cm and a much longer circumference, we obtain a
longitudinal resistance that is only 10–50 times that of steel or
iron armor. Moreover, any reinforcement grid is to be added in
parallel.
D. Buried Objects
For buried metallic objects, the screening effect is improved
by the presence of the soil and its electrical conductivity and
other conductive structures and installations nearby; exper-
imental results obtained in China [33] give practical refer-
ence values: city center and industrial districts (0.15–0.50 and
0.08–0.30), other parts of large cities or small cities (0.50–0.85
and 0.30–0.75), and suburban areas (0.85 and 0.75), with the
pairs of values for 50 and 800 Hz, respectively. A confirmation
is found in the intervals reported in [34, p. 32]: 0.1–0.2 for city
center, 0.4–0.6 for suburban areas and outskirts, and 0.8–1.0 in
countryside and nonurban areas.
VI. W ORKED O UT E XAMPLES
Some examples are worked out to evaluate the spread of the
total screening factor.
As a first example, an RC system is considered, which is
equivalent to a 2 × 25-kV 50-Hz AT system with the AT out
of service (degraded 1 × 25 kV configuration with the NF open
circuited on the AT side). The cross section is shown in Fig. 6
with the geometry values; the victim cable is shielded.
First, the RR screening factor is estimated: k1b,RR = 0.51.
Then, for the victim cable (with reference to Section V-B),
two return circuit arrangements are considered: an RR system
and an RC system (with b.g.c. and a.g.c. added); the mutual im-
pedance terms at 50 Hz are Ze,RR = 0.0487 + j0.3182 Ω/km
and Ze,RC = 0.0492 + j0.4836 Ω/km, respectively (giving
1.0 and 1.5 mH/km of mutual inductance, which is less than
the overestimating value of 2 mH/km suggested by CCITT).
The shield resistance RS are 4.17 and 0.87 Ω/km for 5 and
25 mm2 of the shield cross section, respectively, which are so
much larger and comparable with the self-inductance term of
j0.84 Ω/km (the assumption of considering only the shield
resistance is nearly justified). With RS alone, we have k2b,RR =
0.94, . . . , 1.0 and k2b,RC = 0.87, . . . , 0.99, whereas accounting
for the self-inductance, we bring the screening factor to more
realistic values k2b,RR = 0.83, . . . , 0.98 and k2b,RC =
0.76, . . . , 0.97. Bulletins of multipair shield cables show
∗
measured shielding factors k2b = 0.65−0.75 at 50 Hz, which
is in agreement with the values above for a cross section of
about 30–35 mm2 . These values highlight two important facts:
First, the screening factor ke is given by the shield as a draining
conductor in parallel with the rest of the return circuit, so that
about 25 mm2 is needed to be effective; second, ke is exactly
the residual screening occurring in the extreme configuration
of a victim shielded pair with an undetected dispersion to
earth on both sides alternatively for the inner conductors (this
configuration was used as the reference worst case for the
MARISCOTTI: INDUCED VOLTAGE CALCULATION IN ELECTRIC TRACTION SYSTEMS 207

Fig. 6. Cross section of the RC system.

Fig. 7. Reference AT system: 2000- and 500-m victim circuits, IB + EB every 1500 m (filled circle), and EB every 750 m (hollow circle).

electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) analysis of the high- TABLE II

NIV C HANGE FOR E XTREME E ARTH R ESISTIVITY VALUES
speed lines in Italy [22]). If the victim cable is in healthy
conditions (no dispersion), then an additional factor derived
from Fig. 5 must be included to obtain the induced voltage
across the inner pair.
The wise choice of the r.c. arrangement also depends on the
IP distance, since the return current leaves the rails for the g.r.c.
and a.r.c. only at the first IB, and thus, the behavior of the first
track section where the IP lies is that of an RR system.
The 2 × 25 kV AT system is now considered; the inducing
current represented by the short-circuit current for the same IP is grounded to the g.r.c. itself, which is used as a grounding
is then slightly higher: about 20% to 30%. From Section III-A, reference, as in reality. The length of the victim circuit is
the AT with NF gives k1a = 0.15 or better at 50 Hz. For a 10 important compared with IB separation, which influences the
times larger rail-to-earth conductance of 0.5 S/km (which is a distribution of the return current toward the ESS or the AT. Five
commonly adopted limit related to signaling requirements but victim circuits A, B, C, D, and E of 500- and 2000-m lengths are
is of less relevance in reality), a 3.2 (the square root of 10) times distributed over the 15-km test line. Five train positions T1, T2,
larger screening factor may be expected, i.e., 0.47. T3, T4, and T5 are set 10 m to the right of each victim circuit.
A sensitivity analysis covers the lesser known or less-stable
VII. M ETHOD C OMPARISON AND ACCURACY E VALUATION parameters. An additional case is that of reduced AT separation:
Two ATs are separated by 7.5 km, keeping the total rated power
The reference system is as described in Section II, with
of 15 MVA constant.
the following nominal parameters and characteristics (typical
In Fig. 7, the chainage of the relevant elements is reported.
of high-speed or high-capacity modern railway systems): one
Results are shown in terms of the normalized induced voltage
60-MVA ESS (not so relevant, since the inducing current is
(NIV) per 1 A of the inducing current.
imposed by the current source) with one 15-MVA AT and
an SS of 15 km [14], [23]; short-circuit reactances of 10.5%
(one average value for the two 25-kV secondary windings)
A. Reference 15-km Cell With One or Two ATs
and 1.8% for the ESS and the AT, respectively; ρe = 50 Ωm,
gre = 0.25 S/km, gRe = 5.0 S/km, and dV-TR = 2.5 m. The influence of earth resistivity ρe is evaluated for two
The victim circuit is a bare conductor representing any metal- extreme values of 5 and 1000 Ω · m around the central value
lic object in parallel with the track. One end of the victim circuit of 50 Ω · m (see Table II).
208 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 12, NO. 1, MARCH 2011

Fig. 8. Simplified scheme of the return current circulation between the IP and
the IB and along the victim circuit section.

For all the considered frequency values, the average change

may be summarized in +12%−13.5%, in accordance to what Fig. 9. Comparison of (black) 2000- and (gray) 500-m victim circuits for two
was estimated for the rail-to-rail voltage inside ac (5% to 10%) ATs. (Thick line) mean value. (Thin line) envelope of maxima.
and dc (15% to 20%) systems [13].
In addition, the effects of conductance-to-earth terms gre and
gRe are analyzed by considering much smaller values (by two
orders of magnitude), which are normally assigned to brand
new systems [20]: gre = 2.5 mS/km produces an NIV increase
of only about 2% to 3% for all the cables, except for that close
to the train position without any IB in between (the increase
is 20%); gRe = 5 mS/km, including the gre reduction above,
produces an NIV increase variable between 130% and 300%
for different longitudinal positions of the victim circuit. It is
remembered that the reduction of conductance-to-earth terms is
normally also accompanied by an increase in earth resistivity;
some expressions exist to put these parameters in relationship
for a consistent choice of their values [15].
In addition to the longitudinal position of the victim circuit
Fig. 10. Comparison of (black) 2000- and (gray) 500-m victim circuits for
with respect to the ESS and ATs, the most significant source of one AT. (Thick line) mean value. (Thin line) envelope of maxima.
variability for the NIV is the IP position with respect not only
to the victim circuit itself but to the adjacent IB (see Fig. 8)
as well. This IB drives (1 − p)% of the return current toward
the AT (in the opposite direction with respect to the ESS) and
reduces then the screening effect of rails: The shorter the track
section between the IP and the IB, the larger the NIV across the
closest victim circuit; a limiting factor is the impedance of the
IB in series with the rails and by the redistribution of the return
current between a.r.c. and g.r.c. at the nearest EB.
For the influence on the NIV of the victim circuit length, a
linear extrapolation is considered (see Figs. 9–11 for a series of
cases with one and two ATs).
The NIV ratio for various victim circuit lengths is roughly
equal to the ratio of the lengths: It is slightly larger for shorter
cables and slightly smaller for longer cables (see Fig. 11).
The relative position of the circuit and IBs is chosen for
almost worst-case conditions; the NIV ratio is smaller for other Fig. 11. NIV ratio for various victim circuit length ratios and AT numbers.
positions.
The NIV ratios for one and two ATs are 1.38/1.18 and low frequency; the French coefficients [32] always represent
1.31/1.25 for the max and mean curves, respectively, with low a worst-case condition that is always larger than the envelope
frequency (below some hundreds of hertz) and high frequency of maximum NIV values (by approximately a factor of 2) and
(around 1 kHz) values separated by a slash. This ratio is larger larger by a factor of 3–5 than the respective mean values. The
than that of 1.15 indicated in the French standard [32]. CCITT AT coefficient is for a long cable exposure, accounting
Fig. 12 shows the AT influence on the NIV reduction (the for the reduction of about 10% already seen in Fig. 11. This
product of kRR and kRC coefficients is shown for comparison). coefficient gives an NIV curve corresponding more or less
The CCITT coefficient for AT action over “total feeder to the “one AT” case solved with MTL Simulator (MTLS)
length” is slightly optimistic for one AT configuration at very but always above the curve for 7.5-km separation (two ATs).
MARISCOTTI: INDUCED VOLTAGE CALCULATION IN ELECTRIC TRACTION SYSTEMS
Fig. 12. One and two ATs for the 2000-m victim circuits. MTL results [(thick
line) mean value, (thin line) envelope of maxima] and CCITT results (k1b =
kRR ∗ kRC (circle), French factor for the AT every 15 km (upper triangle) and
5 km (lower triangle), and CCITT factor for the AT (square) for “total feeder
length”).
TABLE III
NIV V ERSUS S EPARATION D ISTANCE a: MTLS (CCITT) VALUES
CCITT gives also another coefficient for “point exposure,”
which corresponds to the lowest French coefficient (0.1) but
without indication of the number of ATs and their separation.
The variation of NIV versus separation distance a of the
victim circuit with respect to the vertical projection of the
catenary [4, p. 435] is finally considered. There is a maximum
V ∗ occurring for a = a∗ , and both CCITT and MTLS agree in
finding a∗ = 6 to 8 m for decreasing frequency (from 2000 Hz
down to 700 Hz). It is sensible to correlate the critical distance
a∗ to the size of the inducing loop, to the height of the catenary,
and to the position of the equivalent RC, which takes into
account the r.c. conductors and the earth itself.
NIV values for a half (3 m) and double (12 m) of a∗ are
lower, and they are reported as fraction of V ∗ to allow the
comparison of CCITT and MTLS values (see Table III, with
CCITT values in parentheses).
MTLS results show a significant variation at higher fre-
quency, due to the increased losses in the ferromagnetic con-
ductors and to the reduction of stray current to earth. The reason
for the rapid change between 1600 and 2000 Hz is due to the
influence of the SS resonance occurring at about 2600 Hz. In
general, a maximum increase of 15% (whatever the distance
and the frequency) may be expected with respect to the worst-
case separation distance a∗ .
B. Real Case
This case refers to an experimental campaign performed on
the Italian Alta Velocità line between Rome and Naples. One of
the two tracks was supplied in short circuit from a low-voltage
supply configured as an ESS transformer at about 200 Vrms
with 150–200 Arms flowing in two configurations: one with the
209
TABLE IV
C OMPARISON W ITH M EASURED S CREENING FACTORS (50 H Z )
AT excluded (1 × 25 kV configuration) and the other with an
AT at 11.150 km from the generation (2 × 25 kV configuration).
It is underlined that the low supply voltage cannot bring the AT
to operate in the designed point of the magnetic characteristic
curve. The voltages across two signaling cables of 1-km length
and at 1.5-m distance were recorded: differential voltages and
the voltage toward the g.r.c. The results for the cable shield
grounded at one end only are shown in Table IV (for the 1 × 25
configuration, the AT-related coefficients are not applicable).
All the screening factors lead to NIV overestimation, except
for the CCITT factor for total length exposure, which should be
used for very long victim circuits, which is longer than AT sep-
aration and not for this circuit length (1027 m). NIV values ob-
tained with the considered screening coefficients (rows 1–4 of
Table III) are overestimating with the following factors: 1.78,
2.67, and 3.41. The MTLS result is only 13% overestimating.
From the ratio of the two measured values in the last row
(which has been obtained during the campaign treated in [22]),
the improvement due to the AT action on the NF is estimated
to be equal to 1.45, which is larger than the ratio of 1.15 of the
two coefficients in the French standard [32].
VIII. C ONCLUSION
This paper has focused on the CCITT simplified method
[4]–[6] for the evaluation of induced voltages in electric traction
systems, as well as power transmission and distribution sys-
tems. While the basic relationships are well known and widely
used, few are aware of their approximation errors and of the
uncertainty related to the adequate calculation and estimation
of the screening factors that complement the said relationships.
The screening factors, in turn, bear all the complexity of the
underlying system so that several factors exert their influence:
traction power system topology and arrangement, geometrical
and electrical parameters, operating conditions, type of victim
circuit, and quality of earthing. More complex and accurate
methods, such as the MTL method [5], [13], are exposed to
further discussions and questions concerning validity, accuracy,
and adequacy; the answer often requires a complex validation
process.
Thus, a critical search and analysis of published material
has been done in view of presenting concise and reliable
information on screening factors: Attention is paid to reference
values, their boundaries, and any critical factors. Simulations
with an MTL model allowed one to ascertain the following:
The influence of soil resistivity is about ±10% for a variation
210 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 12, NO. 1, MARCH 2011
of one order of magnitude around an average reference value;
the reduction of the rail-to-earth conductance, such as for new
systems, may produce a significant increase in the induced
voltage up to 300%, depending on the position of the victim
cable; and the number of ATs has a benign effect on the
voltage reduction (about 30%). Experimental data confirm that
the screening coefficients are overestimating by a factor of
2–3, except for the lowest AT screening coefficient defined by
CCITT “in total feeder section” (see Table IV).
R EFERENCES
[1] Railway Applications—Fixed Installations—Part 1: Protective Provisions
Relating to Electrical Safety and Earthing, CENELEC Std. EN 50122-1,
1997.
[2] Railway Applications—Compatibility Between Rolling Stock and Train
Detection Systems, CENELEC Std. EN 50238, 2000.
[3] A. Mariscotti, M. Ruscelli, and M. Vanti, “Modeling of audiofrequency
track circuits for validation, tuning and conducted interference predic-
tion,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 52–60,
Mar. 2010.
[4] International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT),
Directives concerning the protection of telecommunication lines against
harmful effects from electric power and electrified rail-way lines, vol. II,
Geneva, Switzerland, 1989.
[5] International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT),
Directives concerning the protection of telecommunication lines against
harmful effects from electric power and electrified rail-way lines, vol. III,
Geneva, Switzerland, 1989.
[6] International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT),
Directives concerning the protection of telecommunication lines against
harmful effects from electric power and electrified rail-way lines, vol. IV,
Geneva, Switzerland, 1989.
[7] C. Courtois, “Why the 2 × 25 kV alternative,” in Proc. IEE Colloq. 50 kV
Autotransformer Traction Supply Syst., Nov. 9, 1993, pp. 1/1–1/4.
[8] B. Mellitt, J. Allan, Z. Y. Shao, W. B. Johnston, and C. J. Goodman,
“Computer-based methods for induced-voltage calculations in AC rail-
ways,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. B, vol. 137, no. 1, pp. 59–72, Jan. 1990.
[9] International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT),
Directives concerning the protection of telecommunication lines against
harmful effects from electric power and electrified rail-way lines, vol. I,
Geneva, Switzerland, 1989.
[10] R. D. White, Z. Zhang, J. Cox, D. Armstrong, and S. Price, “Induced
longitudinal voltage into lineside cables for WCRM,” in Proc. ASPEC,
Westminster, U.K., Sep. 2003.
[11] T. K. Ho, Y. L. Chi, J. Wang, K. K. Leung, L. K. Siu, and C. T. Tse,
“Probabilistic load flow in AC electrified railways,” Proc. Inst. Elect.
Eng.—Elect. Power Appl., vol. 152, no. 4, pp. 1003–1013, Jul. 2005.
[12] R. J. Hill and I. H. Cevik, “On-line simulation of voltage regulation in
autotransformer-fed AC electric railroad traction networks,” IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 365–372, Aug. 1993.
[13] A. Mariscotti, “Distribution of the traction return current in AC and
DC electric railway systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 18, no. 4,
pp. 1422–1432, Oct. 2003.
[14] A. Mariscotti, P. Pozzobon, and M. Vanti, “Distribution of the traction
return current in AT electric railway systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del.,
vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 2119–2128, Jul. 2005.
[15] IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, IEEE Std. 80, 2000.
[16] G. D’Addio, M. Fracchia, A. Mariscotti, and P. Pozzobon, “Sensitivity
analysis of railway line impedance to variations of electrical and geo-
metrical parameters,” in Proc. WCRR, Tokyo, Japan, Oct. 19–23, 1999,
p. 262.
[17] A. Mariscotti and P. Pozzobon, “Synthesis of line impedance expressions
for railway traction systems,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 52, no. 2,
pp. 420–430, Mar. 2003.
[18] A. Mariscotti and P. Pozzobon, “Resistance and internal inductance of
traction rails: A survey,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 49, no. 2,
pp. 294–299, Apr. 2000.
[19] A. Mariscotti and P. Pozzobon, “Determination of the electrical para-
meters of railway traction lines: Calculation, measurement and reference
data,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1538–1546, Oct. 2004.
[20] A. Mariscotti and P. Pozzobon, “Experimental results on low rail-to-rail
conductance values,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 1219–
1222, May 2005.
View publication stats
[21] F. J. Sollerkvist, G. Varjú, and K. Károlyi, Sophisticated Multiconductor
Modelling in the Frequency Domain. Part 2: Case Studies. [Online].
Available: http://www.vmt.bme.hu/
[22] R. Cella, G. Giangaspero, A. Mariscotti, A. Montepagano, P. Pozzobon,
M. Ruscelli, and M. Vanti, “Measurement of at electric railway system
currents and validation of a multiconductor transmission line model,”
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1721–1726, Jul. 2006.
[23] A. Mariscotti, P. Pozzobon, and M. Vanti, “Simplified modelling of 2 ×
25 kV AT railway system for the solution of low frequency and large
scale problems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 296–301,
Jan. 2007.
[24] G. D’Addio, M. Fracchia, A. Mariscotti, and P. Pozzobon, “Sensitivity
analysis of railway line impedance to variations of electrical and geomet-
rical parameters,” in Proc. WCRR, Tokyo, Japan, Oct. 19–23, 1999.
[25] F. A. Uribe, “Calculating mutual ground impedances between overhead
and buried cables,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 50, no. 1,
pp. 198–203, Jan. 2008.
[26] G. Lucca, “Per unit length parameters of a multiconductor line with earth
return inside a tunnel,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 42, no. 1,
pp. 6–15, Feb. 2000.
[27] J. R. Carson, “Wave propagation in overhead wires with ground return,”
Bell Syst. Tech. J., vol. 5, pp. 539–554, Oct. 1926.
[28] R. J. Hill, S. Brillante, and P. J. Leonard, “Railway track transmission
line parameters from finite element field modelling: Series impedance,”
Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.—Elect. Power Appl., vol. 146, no. 6, pp. 647–660,
Nov. 1999.
[29] K. C. Chen and K. M. Damrau, “Accuracy of approximate transmission
line formulas for overhead wires,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.,
vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 396–397, Apr. 1989.
[30] K. J. Satsios, D. P. Labridis, and P. S. Dokopoulos, “Inductive interference
caused to telecommunication cables by nearby AC electric traction lines.
Measurement and FEM calculations,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 14,
no. 2, pp. 588–594, Apr. 1999.
[31] K. J. Satsios, D. P. Labridis, and P. S. Dokopoulos, “The influence of non-
homogeneous earth on the inductive interference caused to telecommu-
nication cables by nearby AC electric traction lines,” IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1016–1021, Jul. 2000.
[32] Normalisation Française NF 07-011, Installations fixes et matériel roulant
ferroviaires—Perturbations électromagnétiques en électrification 25 kV,
50 Hz, Oct. 1993.
[33] L. Hong, W. Weihan, C. Huimin, and M. Qingbo, “Low frequency screen-
ing effect in urban areas and the engineering measurement technology,”
in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Electromagn. Compat., Austin, TX, May 21–23,
1997, pp. 106–109.
[34] Effetti delle interferenze elettromagnetiche provocate da linee di trazione
ferroviarie elettrificate in corrente alternata su tubazioni (Italian “Effects
of electromagnetic interference from ac railway traction lines on pipes”),
CEI 9-34, 1997.
Andrea Mariscotti (S’88–M’99) was born in
Genova, Italy, in 1968. He received the Laurea de-
gree in electronics engineering (cum laude) and the
Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the Uni-
versity of Genova, in 1991 and 1997, respectively.
Between 1998 and 2004, he worked on national
and international research programs in the field
of electromagnetic compatibility (EMC), electri-
cal measurements, and modeling of converters and
drives for industrial applications. In 2005, he became
an Assistant Professor with the Department of Elec-
trical Engineering, University of Genova. He is currently with the Department
of Naval Architecture and Electrical Engineering, University of Genova, where
he teaches courses in electronic circuits and signal processing, lectures, and
seminars on EMC and applied measurements for companies and agencies in the
industrial and military sectors. His main research interests are EMC (applied to
industrial, military, and transportation systems), modeling and measurement of
electromagnetic interference, its relevance to safety and availability, and the
design and construction of measurement instruments.
Dr. Mariscotti is a member of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement
Society and of the Italian Electrical and Electronic Measurement Group. He
is also a reviewer for some IEEE T RANSACTIONS, Elsevier, The Institute of
Physics, and Springer. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in the Province
of Genova.