CEFC1164
An Integral Method for ELF Magnetic Shielding
Massimo GUARNIERI, Federico MORO, and Roberto TURRI
Abstract—A novel approach for analyzing conducting
shields of ELF magnetic fields in linear media is presented. It
consists of an integral formulation based on the Cell Method,
expressed in terms of network-like loop currents and magnetic
vector potential line integrals on the shield surface. This
formulation leads to a considerable reduction of field problem
variables, thus limiting the amount of allocated memory and
speeding-up the numerical procedure compared to other
differential and integral techniques. Eddy currents are
computed first, then the magnetic vector potential and the
magnetic flux density distributions are evaluated by applying
the superimposition principle. A detailed comparison between
this method and a 3D FEM code demonstrates the accuracy of
the results and the advantages of the method.
Index Terms—eddy currents, cell method, extremely low
frequency, conductive shielding, loop currents.
INTRODUCTION
I.
I N recent years there has been an increased interest
shielding ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) magnetic fields,
due to health issues and new EMC (Electro-Magnetic
in
Compatibility) regulations. This holds in particular for
MV/LV substations, which are the main field sources in built-
up areas.
A reduction of stray magnetic fields produced by MV/LV
substations is usually achieved either rearranging the layout of
the magnetic field sources (e.g. transformers, bus-bars, cables,
switch boards) or using metallic screens. The conductor
optimization may lead to major field reduction, whereas
shields may constitute viable low-cost solutions. The metallic
shielding systems can be made of ferromagnetic or (high)
conductive materials. Due to their different shielding behavior,
thin conductive shields are more effective than ferromagnetic
ones when placed close to the magnetic field sources [1].
An efficient design of these shielding systems requires
computational techniques able to model accurately the shape
and geometry of the ELF sources and to compute the currents
induced in conductive plates. Several specific numerical
methods have been proposed in the literature to cope with
these requirements. Most of them are based on 2D
electromagnetic field analysis, which provides useful results
for some preliminary evaluations. For instance, analytical
techniques such as the variable separation method (VSM) or
Manuscript received June 8, 2004. This work was supported by MIUR,
the Italian Government Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della
Ricerca.
Authors are with the Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica, Università di
Padova, Via Gradenigo 6/A, 35131 Padova, Italy (e-mail:
guarnieri/moro/turri@die.unipd.it).
the conformal mapping (CTM) have been used to get closed-
form solutions [2]. However, the 2D assumption strongly
limits the applicability of these methods in practical cases.
Thus a 3D approach is needed to perform a reliable field
analysis at the design stage.
On the other hand, general purpose 3D commercial codes
do not seem to be particularly suited to treat these kinds of
problems. In fact, they are usually based on differential
formulations, such as the finite-element method (FEM) or the
finite-volume method (FVM), which can easily take into
account all the geometrical parameters and material
characteristics but are not particularly suited to manage the far-
field boundary conditions. Moreover, several numerical
problems arise when very thin domains, such as conductive
plates, have to be discretized, because of the great number of
variables required. Instead, hybrid and integral formulations
have peculiar advantages since only the active parts of the
model have to be discretized, thus reducing the amount of
allocated memory and computing time [3], [4].
Starting from these bases, an efficient numerical procedure
has been developed for computing the magnetic field produced
by bus-bar systems carrying poly-phase impressed currents and
shielded by conductive plates. This integral formulation is
based on the Cell Method (CM) and originates from the
approach proposed in [4]. Unlike hybrid methods, it does not
require simplifying assumptions concerning the magnetic field
components on the shield surfaces. However, the induced
current density distribution can be assumed uniform across the
plate thickness, being the latter much smaller than the skin
depth at extremely low frequencies.
II. SYSTEM DISTRETIZATION AND INTEGRAL VARIABLES
The phase conductors, consisting of sharp bended straight
bus-bars, are modeled as sets of segmental filaments, since the
current density inside is uniform and it is not necessary to
compute the field nearby. The voltage induced in the phase
conductors by the shield eddy currents has been neglected; the
field contributions of other devices —like MV/LV
transformers— have also been neglected, even though they
could be taken into account using, for instance, a multipole
technique as suggested in [5].
The conducting plate magnetic shielding problem in linear
media (air, aluminum, copper) is formulated in terms of eddy
currents and magnetic vector potential interaction, making it
possible to extend the computation domain to the shield
plates only. These plates, which have usually rectangular
shape possibly bended along orthogonal lines, are tessellated
into dual-orthogonal staggered cell complexes (Fig. 1),
 CEFC1164

according to finite formulation approaches such as FIT (Finite Configuration and source variables are linked each other by
Integration Technique) [6] and CM [7]. In fact, finite constitutive metric equations. Exploiting the primal-dual cells
formulations map the quasi-magnetostatic problem integral orthogonal geometry and in the hypothesis of local field
variables over these dual cell complexes. uniformity, the Ohm’s law can be written as:

L
U= I = RI (2)
σ S˜

being σ the conductor conductivity. The latter can be

S˜ trace
assembled in matrix form as U = R I, where R is the
€
resistance diagonal matrix and I the column vector of the
S L current phasors, and replaced in (1), yielding:

C R I + jω Φ = 0 (3)

As media are linear, the induction fluxes Φ can be

€
Fig. 1. Tessellation of a conducting plate with primal (continuous line) and
dual (dashed line) orthogonal cell complexes endowed with inner and outer
orientation respectively.
expressed as sums of two contributions: Φ i produced by the
induced currents and Φ s produced by the source currents.
Using again the incidence matrix C, they can be expressed as:

~ Φ i = C Pi = C M I (4)
The induced currents I [S ] are source variables defined over
the dual faces S˜ endowed with outer orientation, whereas Φs = C Ps (5)
electric voltages U[L] are configuration variables defined over
the primal edges L endowed with inner orientation [7]. Due€ to
where vectors Pi , P s collect the line integrals of the magnetic
the primal-dual geometrical correspondence, it is possible to vector potential along the primal edges L (electrokinetic
relate the induced currents to the same primal edges, as€usual momenta) and M is the matrix of the partial inductances of the
in the network theory approach, where both currents and primal edges L of G . Partial self-inductances (diagonal
voltages are related to graph branches. Exploiting network elements) are computed taking into account the dual face
topological properties, the currents I[ S˜ ] can be expressed in dimensions like in (2) and assuming uniform current density
terms of loop currents Il[S], defined on the boundaries of the across the plate [9]:
primal rectangles S. The network-like loop currents, which
imply the div-free property of the induced currents implicitly  2L 1 
M hh = 2 ⋅10 −7 L  ln ˜ + − ε (6)
accounting for magneto-quasistatic conditions, are the main  S /δ + δ 2 
variables to be computed. As it will be shown, this choice
provides a dramatic improvement of the efficiency and where δ is the shield thickness and ε is a negligible quantity
velocity of the integral model, since it uses only about a if compared with the other terms in parentheses. Partial
fourth of the number of variables required by a standard €
mutual inductances (off diagonal elements) for parallel edges
primal-dual edge based approach [4]. L h and Lk are computed as (Mhk = 0 in the case of orthogonal
The induction fluxes Φ [S] are also considered in the edges Lh and Lk):
formulation, which, being configuration variables, are related
to the primal faces S.  α  β 
M hk = 10 −7 α sinh −1   − β sinh −1  
 r r
III. INTEGRAL FORMULATION
γ  d
A. Induced current computation −γ sinh −1   + d sinh −1   − α 2 + r 2 (7)
r r
Configuration variables are linked together by structure 
non-metric equations. In the case of U [L] and Φ [S] the + β2 + r2 + γ 2 + r2 − d2 + r2 

Faraday’s law in phasor form yields:
the meaning of the geometric parameters being shown in
C U + jω Φ = 0 (1)
Fig. 2. If segments overlap (d<0) the distance d is taken
€ negative, whereas the asymptotical values of (7) for r→0 are
being U the column vector of the edge voltage phasors, Φ the used in the case of aligned edges (r=0). Substituting (4) into
column vector of the surface induction flux phasors, and C the (3) yields:
€
primal face-edge incidence matrix [8].
 CEFC1164

Lk

α = Lh+Lk +d uz
r β = Lh+d r
Lh γ = L k+d P
d

Fig. 2. Geometric parameters in the local reference system used for s I

computing the mutual partial inductances between parallel segmental uϕ
filaments (i.e. primal edges). z

C Z I = − jω Φs (8)

where the symmetric impedance matrix Z = R + jω M

represents the complete constitutive operator in phasor form.
€ Equation (8) must be complemented with the structure
non-metric equations for the source variables (i.e. the induced
currents). These equations have to state the magneto-
quasistatic condition C˜ F = I (in integral form, with C˜ the
dual face-edge incidence matrix and F the magnetic voltages
along dual edges, corresponding to the differential law
∇×H = J) that implies the induced currents to be divergence
€ € loop currents
free. This condition is satisfied resorting to the
Il, as usual in the electric network theory, yielding:
I = C T Il
Finally, replacing (9) into (8) the following fundamental
equation is obtained:
€
C Z C T Il = − jω Φs
Fig. 3. Geometrical parameters in the local cylindrical reference system
used for computing the field contributions from a single segmental filament.
IV. NUMERICAL TEST AGAINST A 3D FEM CODE
The method has been implemented into a numerical code in
MATLAB® and tested against a commercial 3D FEM code
(FLUX3D® ). The test configuration is shown in Fig. 4. The
three-phase conductors, 0.25 m apart each other, carry a
balanced set of 100 A rms currents. The shield is a 2 mm
(9) thick aluminum (σ = 35 MS/m) 1 m x 2 m rectangular plate,
placed 0.3 m above the conductors. In the CM integral model
the shield has been tessellated into 20 x 40 rectangular primal
faces.
(10)

The right-hand side of (9) is the known term given by (5),

where the electrokinetic momenta Ps are directly computable
€
from the source impressed currents Is in the phase conductors.
B. Magnetic field computation
Once the eddy currents in the shielding plates are
computed, the vector potential A and flux density B
distributions in the surrounding region are evaluated by
applying the superposition principle, i.e. summing up the
local contributions due to both impressed and induced
currents.
The field contributions of each current segment are
obtained by applying the following expressions derived from Fig. 4. Test geometry (shielding plate is grey; three phase conductors carry
the Biot-Savart law: 100 A rms).

µ I z uz  −1 z − s  −1 z  In the FEM analysis, exploiting the system symmetry,

A(P) = sinh   + sinh   (11) only half geometry has been discretized, in order to reduce
4π   r   r 
memory requirements. Brick elements with the same
µ I uϕ  z−s z
 dimensions as in the CM have been used for the shield,
B(P) =  +  (12) whereas the air region has been discretized into 79.533 second
4π r  (z − s)2 + r 2 z 2 + r 2  order tetrahedrons. Asymptotical conditions have been applied
€ 
on the boundary of the FEM field domain in order to properly
cater for the open-boundary problem. Even with this
where the local cylindrical reference system of Fig. 3 is
simplified model the FEM code required 1.51 GB of RAM
considered; P is the observation point with coordinates r and
€ against 54 MB of the integral method.
z, and s the length of the segmental filament carrying the Fig. 5 illustrates the eddy current density rms values in
current I (either impressed or induced). the conducting plate along the x direction at y = 0, showing
CEFC1164
that the distributions computed with the CM and FEM codes
are in fairly good agreement.
Fig. 5. Induced current density distribution inside the conducting shield.
Comparison between rms values computed with the CM and FEM methods
along x at y = 0.
The consistency of the two models in computing the
magnetic field has been tested on the whole field domain. An
example is given in Fig. 6 that shows the contours of the
magnetic vector potential rms values computed with the two
methods in the xy plane at z = 0.5 m above the shield.
Fig. 6. Magnetic vector potential in the xy plane at z = 0.5 m above the
shield. Contours of the rms values computed with the CM and FEM methods.
Finally, Fig. 7 illustrates the relative differences between
the magnetic vector potential rms values computed with the
two methods along x at y = 0 and z = 0.3, 0.5, 0.7 m above
the shielding plate; discrepancies between the two models are
always below 6.5 %.
V. CONCLUSION
The developed formulation involves a dramatic reduction
of memory and computing time requirements compared to
other differential and integral techniques, still ensuring a fairly
good accuracy. Even though the test geometry here presented
was intentionally kept rather simple for the sake of
comparison, the integral method is not limited to small size
and low complexity of both source conductors and conductive
shield geometries. Thus it appears particularly suitable for
assessing the ELF shielding efficiency of conductive shields
in 3D open-boundary problems.
Fig. 7. Discrepancies between the CM and FEM magnetic vector potential
rms values along x at y = 0 and at three different vertical positions (z = 0.3,
0.5, 0.7 m above the shielding plate).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We wish to thank dr. Michele Forzan for his valuable
cooperation in developing the 3D FEM calculations and
comparisons.
REFERENCES
[1] O. Bottauscio, M. Chiampi, R. Conti, M. Repetto, and M. Zucca, "Some
considerations about environmental ELF magnetic field reduction,"
proc. of the 8th Int. IGTE Symposium on Numerical Field Calculation in
Electrical Engineering, pp. 275-280, Graz, Austria, September 1998.
[2] A. Canova, A. Manzin, M. Tartaglia, "Evaluation of different
analytical and semi-analytical methods for the design of ELF magnetic
field shields," IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 38, pp. 788-796, May/June
2002.
[3] A. Kost, H. Igarashi, "Different numerical methods for
electromagnetic field computation with thin shielding sheets," proc. of
the IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility,
pp. 248-253, Austin, Texas, USA, 1997.
[4] A. Canova, G. Gruosso, and M. Repetto, "Integral methods for analysis
and design of low-frequency conductive shields," IEEE Trans. Magn.,
vol. 39, pp. 2009-2017, July 2003.
[5] R. G. Olsen, C. E. Lyon, "Modelling of extremely low frequency
magnetic field sources using multipole techniques," IEEE Trans. On
Power Delivery, vol. 11, pp.1563-1570, July 1996.
[6] M. Clemens, T. Weiland, "Discrete electromagnetism with the finite
integration technique," PIER monograph series, vol. 32, pp. 65-87,
2001.
[7] E. Tonti, "Finite formulation of electromagnetic field," IEEE Trans.
Magn., vol. 38, pp. 333-336, March 2002.
[8] E. Tonti, Gravitation, electromagnetism and geometrical structures,
Pitagora ed., Bologna, 1995.
[9] F. W. Grover, Inductance calculation working formulas and tables,
Dover Publication, Inc., New York, 1962.