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

net/publication/268269505

SAFE SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN 132KV POWER LINES AND NEARBY

METALLIC CONDUCTORS

Article

CITATIONS READS

0 2,275

2 authors:

Abdullah Hamed Al-Badi Ehab El-Saadany

Sultan Qaboos University University of Waterloo
92 PUBLICATIONS   754 CITATIONS    394 PUBLICATIONS   10,333 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Cyber attacks on AGC systems View project

MEMS Generators View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ehab El-Saadany on 20 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Conference on Communication, Computer & Power (ICCCP’07) Muscat, February 19-21, 2007

SAFE SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN 132KV POWER LINES AND

NEARBY METALLIC CONDUCTORS

A. H. Al-Badi* and E.F. EL-Saadany**

*
Electrical & Computer Engineering Department
College of Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University
P.O. Box 33, Muscat 123, Oman, E-mail:albadi@squ.edu.om
**
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada, N2L 3G1, Email: ehab@hivolt.uwaterloo.ca

Abstract-- Electromagnetic interference effects of transmission
lines upon nearby metallic structure such as pipelines,
communication lines or railroads are a real problem, which can
place both operator safety and pipeline integrity at risk. This
paper presents a group of figures that determine the safe
separation distance between pipeline and overhead
transmission lines as a result of electromagnetic interference
effects. The study was conducted for a given fault current and
soil resistivity according to IEEE standard 80. It is expected
that this work will help utilities to place their system in the
right location along the corridor and will show them whether a
mitigation system is required or not and the requirement for
any further study to their system.
Keywords-- electromagnetic, interference, pipelines, power
transmission lines, safe separation distance.
I. INTRODUCTION
Analysis of AC electromagnetic interference between
high voltage overhead power transmission lines and nearby
conductors such as pipeline, communication line or railroad
has been a topic of growing interest. The main reason for
such interest is due to the restrictions that are currently
imposed on public utilities in the use of right-of-way (ROW)
and due to the significant increase in the load and short
circuit current levels. When pipelines are located in shared
ROW with power lines, the pipeline can incur high induced
voltages and currents due the AC interference.
The likelihood of interference increases depends on
several different factors. Overhead line current, quality of
pipeline coating and the length of pipeline parallel to and
close by the transmission lines are among the most important
factors. The electromagnetic interference between a power
system network and neighboring gas pipeline has been
traditionally divided into three main categories: capacitive
(electrostatic), conductive (resistive) and inductive
(magnetic) coupling [1]. The capacitive interference, which
is generated by electric field and occurs when the pipe is
placed on a foundation that is well insulated from ground.
The pipe picks up a voltage relative to the soil that is
proportional to the transmission line voltage. Further, the
bffmconductive interference occurs during lightning strikes
or a phase to ground fault. When this occurs, a large voltage
cone is created around the grounding system and as a result a
voltage can get into the pipeline through the pipe coating
defects. Moreover, the inductive interference, is generated
by
the magnetic field and present during both normal operating
conditions and fault conditions when the pipe is placed
parallel with three-phase overhead transmission lines.
It is well known that different levels of magnetic and
electric fields will be surrounding the power system in the
air and soil with the capability of energizing pipelines. The
induced voltage on a pipeline can be dangerous for workers
and represents safety hazards. A potential shock exists when
someone touches an exposed part of the pipeline while
standing on soil, which is at a different potential. Moreover,
pipe corrosion can be initiated from AC discharges [1-9],
where excessive coating stress voltages (the difference
between the pipe steel potential and local soil potential) can
lead to degradation of the coating, resulting in an accelerated
corrosion.
To reduce the effects of the AC interference levels to
acceptable limits according to NACE standard RP-01-77-95
[10] and ANSI/IEEE Standards 80 [11], mitigation system
should be designed [5].
This paper presents a group of graphs that yield safe
separation distance between pipeline and overhead
transmission lines due to the effect electromagnetic
interference, for a given fault current and soil resistivity
according to IEEE standards. It is expected that this work
will help utilities to place their system in the right location
with respect to overhead transmission lines. Moreover, this
work will indicate any requirement for a mitigation system
and any further required studies.

ISSN 1813-419X 447

 International Conference on Communication, Computer & Power (ICCCP’07)
II. SAFETY VOLTAGE LIMITS
The criteria used to evaluate the voltages appearing on the
pipeline with respect to human safety and the maintenance of
pipeline coating integrity is as follows:
o At exposed pipeline appurtenances such as valve sites
and metering stations, the maximum acceptable touch
voltage, during normal operating conditions, according to
NACE standard RP-01-77-95 [10] and ANSI/IEEE
Standard 80 safety criteria [11] is 15 volts for structures
which may be contacted by unexpected workers and
general public. Pipeline potentials with respect to local
earth ranging from 15 to 65 volts are considered
acceptable in different countries.
o During fault conditions, pipeline potentials with respect
to local earth (i.e., touch voltages) are not to exceed the
limit determined in accordance with ANSI/IEEE
Standard 80-2000. In this case, with fault duration of 0.3
C en tra l site
T erm in a l 2
Fig.1: Circuit model for the case under study
The following is a list of parameter settings of the
computer models used in this study:
Pipe (18 inch)
Coating Resistivity: 13924 : .m (20000 : .m 2 )
Coating thickness: 0.0036m
Outer Diameter: 0.4572 m
Inner Diameter: 0.45 m
Wall thickness: 0.0036m
Burial depth: 0.6m
Relative Resistivity: 17 (with respect to annealed
copper).
Relative permeability: 250 (with respect to free space).
Grounding: None
Overhead Transmission line
AAAC (single-ELM) 132 kV
G.M.R: 0.7122 cm
Conductor outer radius: 0.94 cm
Outer strand radius: 0.188 cm
Number of strands: 19
ISSN 1813-419X
Muscat, February 19-21, 2007
sec., soil resistivity of 100 :.m, the permissible “safe
touch voltage“, according to ANSI/IEEE standard is
244.8-V. The touch voltage limit could be increased by
applying a layer of crashed rock.
o Coating stress voltages must be maintained sufficiently
low to prevent arcing through pipeline coating. This
typically occurs for coating stress voltages on order of 3-
5 kV or higher for modern coatings such as fusion
bonded epoxy [12].
III. SYSTEM MODEL PARAMETERS
The circuit diagram for the system under study is
presented in Fig. 1. The system under consideration consists
of transmission lines and a neighboring pipeline. The system
was modeled and simulated using CDEGS software [13].
The length of the parallelism (transmission lines and
pipeline) was varied from 0.5 km to 20 km; the pipeline is
placed at the central site with burial depth of 0.6m.
B u ried P ip elin e
P h a se c
P h a se b
P h a se a
T erm in a l 1
Fault current (phase-to-ground fault): 1KA, 3KA, 5 KA
& 8 KA.
System
Length of parallelism: varied from 0.5km to 20 km
Soil Resistivity : 50 : .m , 500 : .m and 1000 : .m
Separation distance: varied from 10 m to 3800 m
IV. DISCUSSIONS OF RESULTS
A. Steady-State Condition
During steady state condition, the currents flowing are
relatively low in magnitude compared to fault conditions and
their effects on nearby pipelines tend to cancel one another.
However, the interference maybe produced due to the
difference in the relative distance of each phase from the
nearby pipelines and due to any phase imbalance in the line.
Under the steady state, for buried pipeline, only the
inductive interference exist, although the magnetic field is
448
 International Conference on Communication, Computer & Power (ICCCP’07) Muscat, February 19-21, 2007

low the induced voltage on an unmitigated pipeline can I=1kA I=3kA I=5kA I=8kA
reach values that exceed the allowable limit according to
some international standards.
1800
Based on two different values of load currents per phase, 1650
different separation distances and soil resistively of 1000 1500
.m, the induced pipeline potential, in rms, during steady 1350

Separation, m
state conditions is shown in Fig.2 for parallelism of 10 and 1200
15 km. It should be noted that the effect of the soil resistivity 1050
on the induced voltage will be negligible at steady-state. 900
750
600
450
I=200A I=400A I=200A I=400A 300
150
0
40
Parallelism=10km 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
35
Parallelism, km
30
25 Fig. 3. The safe touch voltage with different fault currents at
Voltage, V

Parallelism=15km
20
15
10
5 less than 300m if the fault current is greater than 1kA for soil
0 resistivity of 50 :.m. For the same parallelism, increasing
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Separation, m
Fig. 2. Induced pipeline potentials at different values of load
currents, 132 kV, soil resistivity=1000 : .m
B. Results of Fault Conditions
Based on two values of soil resistivities (50 :.m and 500
:.m) the pipeline potentials under different values of single
phase to ground faults are found. All types of interference
were considered during the fault conditions, the subsequent
figures include the total pipeline voltages.
x Soil resistivity = 50 :.m
Under phase-to-ground fault, with fault duration of 0.3
sec., soil resistivity of 50 :.m, the permissible “safe touch
voltage“, according to ANSI/IEEE standard is 228.3V. Fig.
3 shows the safe separation distance (horizontal distance
from pipeline and the center of overhead line) and
parallelism (pipeline length parallel to overhead line) for
same safe touch voltage without using any mitigation
system.
soil resistivity of 50 :.m
From Fig. 3, for a parallelism of 8 km the safe separation
distance between the power lines and pipeline should not be
140 160 180 200 the fault current to 3 kA will increase the minimum safe
separation distance to 900 m. Adding a layer of crashed
rock can reduce the safe separation distance. However, it is
possible to reduce this distance to that imposed on utilities
by designing a mitigation system.
In the past, different types of mitigation strategies have
been employed, but many have been found to be either very
expensive, as lumped grounding, or ineffective or even
hazardous like cancellation wires [6]. The preferred
mitigation technique was found to be the gradient control
wires. These wires not only provide good grounding for the
pipe and thus lower the absolute value of the pipeline
potentials, but they also raise earth potentials in the vicinity
of the pipeline. Therefore, the difference in potential
between the pipeline and the local earth will be reduced, thus
providing reduced touch voltages and decreasing coating
stress voltages.
x Soil resistivity = 500:.m
Under phase-to-ground fault, with fault duration of 0.3
sec., soil resistivity of 500 :.m, the permissible “safe touch
voltage“, according to ANSI/IEEE standard is 377 V. Fig. 4
shows the safe separation distance and parallelism for same
safe touch voltage without using any mitigation system.

ISSN 1813-419X 449

 International Conference on Communication, Computer & Power (ICCCP’07) Muscat, February 19-21, 2007

Annual Meeting of the American Power Conference,

I=1kA I=3kA I=5kA
Chicago, April 10-12, 2000, pp. 311-316.
3400
[2] CIGRE Working Group 36.02, “ Guide On The
3200 Interference of High Voltage AC Power Systems On
3000
2800 Metallic Pipelines,” 1995.
2600 [3] R. D. Southey, F. P. Dawalibi, and W. Vukonich,
2400
Separation, m

2200 “Recent Advances in the Mitigation of AC Voltages

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Parallelism , km
Fig. 4. The safe touch voltage with different fault currents at
soil resistivity of 500 :.m
Comparing both Figure 3 and Figure4, it is clear that
increasing the soil resistivity will increase the minimum safe
separation distance. This can be explained by the fact that
high soil resistivity means higher system grounding
impedance and higher potential differences between the [8] Y. Baba, M. Ishii, “Numerical electromagnetic field
grounding structure and the pipeline. Thus the soil resistivity
plays a major rule in determining the minimum separation
distances between the power lines and pipeline.
From the preceding figures we can notice that once the
length of parallelism exceeds about 14km, its effect on the
pipeline voltage will be negligible.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Electromagnetic interference caused by 132-kV overhead [11] IEEE guide for safety in alternating current substation
transmission lines on neighboring, 18’’ parallel pipeline has
been analyzed under both steady-state and single-phase-to-
ground fault using a computer software package. The model
developed can predict the level of the total voltage on the
pipeline. Graphs were developed that yield safe separation
distance between power line and pipeline for different soil [13] CDEGS Software Package Safe Engineering Services &
resistivities and different fault currents assuming that no
mitigation is used on the pipeline. To reduce the minimum
separation distance between the power lines and pipeline, a
mitigation system should be designed. The mitigation
consists of buried zinc wire that has to be connected with the
pipeline at some strategic location. It is expected that this
work will help utilities to place their system in the right
location along the corridor.
Occurring in Pipelines Located Close to Electric
Transmission Lines,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, Vol. 9, No. 2, April 1994, pp. 1090-1097.
[4] F. P. Dawalibi, R. D. Southey, J. Ma, and Y. Li, “On the
Mechanisms of Electromagnetic Interference between
Electrical Power Systems and Neighboring Pipelines,”
NACE 2000, T10B Symposium on DC &AC
20
Interference, Orlando, March 26-31, 2000.
[5] A. H. Al-Badi and I.A. Metwally, "Induced Voltages on
Pipelines Installed in Corridors of AC power Lines,"
Journal of Electric Power components & Systems, to be
publish.
[7] A. H. Al-Badi and H. Al-Rizzo," Simulation of
Electromagnetic Coupling on Pipelines Close to
Overhead Transmission Lines: A Parametric Study,"
Journal of Communications Software and Systems, to be
publish.
analysis on lighting surge response of tower with shield
wire,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 15,
No. 3, July 2000, pp. 1010-1015.
[9] R. D. Southey, W. Ruan, and F. P. Dawalibi, “AC
Mitigation Requirements: A Parametric Analysis,” The
Corrosion/2001 NACE International Conference, Texas,
March 11-16, 2001.
[10] Mitigation of Alternating Current and Lightning Effects
on Metallic Structures and Corrosion Control Systems,
NACE Standard RP0177-95.
grounding (ANSI), Publication 80,193.
[12] J. Dabkowski, M. Frazier “ Power line fault current
coupling to nearby natural gas pipelines”, volume 3:
analysis of pipeline coating impedance, EPRI Report
EL-5472 , A.G.A. Cat. No. L51537, August 1988.
Technologies ltd., Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2000.

VI. REFERENCES:

[1] Y. Li, F. P. Dawalibi, and J. Ma, “Electromagnetic

Interference Caused by a Power System Network and a
Neighboring Pipeline,” Proceedings of the 62nd

ISSN 1813-419X 450

View publication stats