1060 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 25, NO.

6 , NOVEMBERIDECEMBER 1989

Combined Method Based on Finite Differences and

Charge Simulation for Calculating Electric Fields
MAZEN ABDEL-SALAM, SENIOR MEMBER, IEEE, AND M. T. EL-MOHANDES, MEMBER, IEEE

Abstract-A combined method based on the finite-difference method known. The artificial boundary must be located far enough
(FDM) and the charge-simulation method (CSM) is proposed for electric away from the region of interest so that errors in the assumed
field calculation. In this method, the entire field is divided into two potentials have a minimal effect on calculated potential values
domains which are analyzed separately with FDM and CSM. These
in the region of interest [5]. The price paid for doing this is
domains are coupled together using the continuity condition of potential
and normal dielectric flux density at the boundary. The proposed method that Laplace’s equation must be solved for a larger region than
has the advantages of both the FDM and the CSM and could be applied the region of interest. Thus a larger number of equations must
for curved electrodes and multidielectrics in open space. Example be solved. This adds to the computational time. Note that
applications are provided to support the combined method. several alternatives to the artificial boundary technique have
been presented in the literature [6], [7].
INTRODUCTION Fortunately, the set of equations to be solved is a sparse
matrix, and techniques which have been developed to solve
F OR THE calculation of electric fields in high-voltage
engineering, three main methods are available in the
literature, namely, the finite-difference method (FDM) [ 11,
sparse matrix equations efficiently can be used to decrease the
computational time significantly [8]. Despite the efficiencies
introduced by sparse matrix techniques, FDM and FEM are
the charge-simulation method (CSM) [2], and the finite-
not often used for three-dimensional (3-D) geometries due to
element method (FEM) [3].
the large number of equations which must be solved.
In the FDM and FEM the region in which the electric field
However, FDM and FEM have been successfully applied for
is desired is bounded, and the electric potential or its normal
field calculation in 3-D fields with axial symmetry, such as
derivative is known on the boundary. To find a solution, the
switchgear design and development [9]-[ 111.
region is broken up into small subregions. Each of the
The CSM is appealing because it is not necessary to
subregions is assumed to be electrically homogeneous, al-
compute the potential at points where it is not desired. Another
though the electrical properties may change from subregion to
attractive quality is that the analysis of problems which are
subregion. In each subregion Laplace’s equation is approxi-
not bounded does not require additional programming effort or
mated by a linear algebraic equation which relates the
additional unknown quantities as in the case of FDM and
unknown potentials in the subregion to unknown potentials in
FEM. The unknown electrode surface charges are simulated
other subregions and to known boundary potentials. The result
by fictitious line, ring, and point charges as appropriate, with
is a set of simultaneous linear algebraic equations in the
unknown magnitudes placed at some distance behind the
unknown potentials. The number of equations will be equal to
electrode surface on which the potential is to be matched [2].
the number of unknown potentials which will be proportional
The electrode voltage, usually known, is equated to the
to the volume of the region. For a two-dimensional region,
potential due to the simulation charges calculated at selected
e.g., axially symmetric, the number of equations is propor-
points (boundary points) on the electrode surface. The result is
tional to the area. The set of equations can be solved for the
a set of simultaneous linear algebraic equations in the
unknown potentials throughout the region. Potential values
unknown fictitious charges. The surface polarization charge
between the nodes are obtained by interpolation. The electric
on a dielectric-dielectric interface is simulated by line, ring,
field components at any node are easily expressed in terms of
and point charges of unknown magnitudes on both sides of the
the potential values at the nodes surrounding it [4].
interface. At the interface the potential and the normal electric
As mentioned before, FDM and FEM are useful only in
flux must be continuous. This results in a larger number of
bounded regions. Many physical problems of interest, how-
linear equations to solve for the unknown fictitious charges.
ever, are unbounded, i.e., a portion of the boundary is at
The CSM is relatively simple to program in comparison with
infinity. This difficulty is usually surmounted by setting up an
the FDM and FEM. One disadvantage of CSM is that the
artificial boundary on which it is assumed that the potential is
location of the fictitious charges is difficult to obtain analyti-
cally and is guided by experience. The accuracy of the CSM is
Paper IUSD 87-66, approved by the Electrostatic Processes Committee of
the IEEE Industry Applications Society for presentation at the 1987 Industry
usually checked after the problem is solved by determining
applications Society Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, October 19-23. Manu- how closely the boundary conditions are matched along the
script released for publication January 26, 1989. entire electrode surfaces and dielectric-dielectric interfaces.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Assiut
University, Assiut, Egypt. With the increase in the number of dielectrics the solution of
IEEE Log Number 8928768. the field problem using CSM becomes more and more

0093-9994/89/1100-1060$01.00 0 1989 IEEE

 ~

ABDEL-SALAM AND EL-MOHANDES: FINITE DIFFERENCES AND CHARGE SIMULATION 1061

complex. Therefore, the CSM is restricted to field calculations Electrode I

in arrangements with one or two dielectrics [2]. However,
Electrode 2
three-dimensional-fields with and without axial symmetry can
be handled with a reasonable amount of computation [12],
~31. "2
€1
Each of the methods has its own advantages and disadvan- C - F boundary
tages. Combining several calculation methods allow their
advantages to be utilized and their disadvantages to be
avoided, thus improving efficiency with regard to accuracy
and time. Electrode 4.
In summary, the CSM is well suited for field calculation in
I I F - domain ] vj=o
... ...
'
the vicinity of curved electrodes placed in open (unbounded)
space with one or two dielectries. On the other hand, the FDM 0 . A
for field calculation applies in limited (bounded) space with Fictitious line charges
multidielectries. x x x Boundary points
In this paper the FDM and the CSM are combined for Fig. 1
calculating the potential and field for configuration with
curved electrodes and multidielectrics in open space. Thus the where [ AI is a square NF X N F matrix, NF is the number of
combined method enables field calculations which could not unknown node potential [$I, and [B ] is a column matrix given
be solved with enough accuracy by CSM or FDM when by the boundary conditions. Clearly, a small number of
applied individually. elements exists only in each row of [ A ] ,and [ A ] is essentially
purely diagonal and symmetrical about the main diagonal [3].
CHARGE SIMULATION METHOD (CSM)
Using the superposition principle, the potential functions of COMBINED METHOD
the Laplacian field can be found by a summation of the Principle of Calculation
potentials resulting from discrete (fictitious) charges such as The entire field is divided into two domains which are
point, line, or ring charges [2]. Based on the concept of the analyzed separately either with FDM ( F domain) or CSM (C
potential coefficient, the basic equation of the CSM for given domain). The CSM is mainly used for domains with curved
boundary conditions is electrodes and open (unbounded) boundaries, and the FDM is
used for multidielectrics and bounded boundaries.
[PI[QI= [$I (1) Fig. 1 shows how the entire field is divided according to the
where [PI is a square N, x N, potential coefficient matrix, N, above classification. Electrodes 1, 2, and 3 are surrounded by
is the number of unknown charges [ Q], and [$I is the potential dielectric c l of unbounded boundary. Electrode 4 is sur-
column matrix given by the boundary conditions. The charges rounded by dielectric E:! of bounded boundary. Therefore, the
[Q] are located inside metal electrodes. In the presence of dielectric e l surrounding electrodes 1-3 is treated as C domain
more than one dielectric the polarization charge on the while the dielectric e2 surrounding electrode 4 is treated as F
interference between dielectrics is represented by two distinct domain.
sets of unknown charges located at either side of the boundary In the C domain the surface charge on the electrodes are
interface [2], [14]. [ P I is generally an assymetrical matrix. replaced by N, unknowns discrete (fictitious) charges Q ( j ), j
For multidielectric configurations, [ P I is sparse: it has several = 1 , 2, a , N,. Corresponding to each discrete charge, a
zero elements. For single-dielectric configurations, [P ] is free boundary point on the electrode surface is chosen as shown in
from zero elements [14]. Fig. 1. For accurate charge simulation a suitable arrangement
of the discrete charges and the boundary points is important. A
FtNITE DIFFERENCE METHOD (FDM) practical criterion is obtained by introducing the so-called
The FDM follows the usual numerical technique of super- "assignment factor" fa = dbb/db, with the distance dbb
imposing a rectangular grid over the whole field. The grid is between two successive boundary points and the distance dbc
made fine or course depending upon the accuracy require- between a boundary point and the corresponding charge.
ment. The difference equation at each node ( m ,n ) contains Experience shows that fa should be between 1 and 2.
the potentials at the four surrounding nodes: The F domain is replaced by rectangular grid whose N F
nodes are unknown potentials. Naturally, (1) applies to the C
KI v m - 1.n +K2 v m , n - I + K3 v m + l , n +& v m , n + 1 -KO v m , n = 0 domain while (3) applies to the F domain. The coupling
between the F and C domain is based on the condition of
(2) continuity of potential and normal dielectric flux density at Nb
where KO to K4 are constants given by the grid sizes, the coupling points along the boundary (C-F boundary) between
permittivities, and the boundary conditions. The basic equa- the two domains. If the dielectric c2 is not rectangular, the C-F
tion of the FDM to be solved is boundary is chosen as shown in Fig. 2.
In the C domain, the F domain looks like an electrode with
unknown potential whose value $ ( k ) changes from point to
1062 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 25, NO. 6 , NOVEMBERIDECEMBER 1989

C - F boundary potential at the kth coupling point is expressed as

$k(Cdomain)=&(Fdomain), k = l , 2, e . . , Nb (5)
where
Nc+Nb

$k(C domain) = P(k, j ) Q ( j ) (6)

j= 1

in conformity with (1) and $k(F domain) is an unknown node

potential. Equations (5) and (6) relate the fictitious charges
Electrode 4
Q j , j = 1,2, ~ . * , N , + N b t o t h e n o d e p o t e n t i a l s $ k , k =
1,
Fig. 2.
2, ., Nb at the coupling points.
The continuity of the normal dielectric flux density D, at the
IC - domain 1 E. kth coupling point is

D n k( c domain) = Dnk(F domain)

or
€2
E,k(Cdomain)=- € 1 E,k(Fdomain), k = 1 , 2, * * e , Nb.

(7)

’@ 0’ Coupling Erik( C domain) and E n k ( Fdomain) are the field components

-* Node pbints points
Y it Fictitious line - charges normal to the C-F boundary:
Fig. 3. Nc+Nb
E,k(C domain) =
F(k, j)Q(j) (8)
point ( k = 1, 2, * * * , N b ) of the Nb coupling points chosen j= 1

along the C-F boundary. Corresponding to the coupling and

points, fictitious charges Q(j ), j = N, +
1, N, + 2, * .,N,
+ Nbare considered inside the F domain, the same as adopted Erik( F domain) = [$k - $; ]/dk (9)
in the conventional CSM.
In the F domain, the C domain potentials $(k), k = 1 , 2, where n in (7)-(9) denotes to the direction normal to the C-F
* ., Nb form the unknown node potentials along the C-F boundary, F ( k , j ) is the field coefficient in the normal
boundary. The unknown node potentials thus in the F domain direction, dk is the distance between the kth coupling point
are qj(k), k = 1,2, e , +
Nb N,, where Nf is the number of and the nearest node to it in the direction normal to the C-F
nodes in the F domain. boundary $k and 4; are node potentials as shown in Fig. 3.
Therefore, the number of unknowns N in the entire field is The distance tk between the kth coupling point and the
N, + Nb fictitious charges plus Nb + N, node potentials, i.e., corresponding fictitious charge is generally related to the
distance between adjacent coupling points as

To determine these unknowns, N equations are required for
simultaneous solution. These equations are N, equations in the
C domain according to (l), Nf equations in the f domain
according to (3), and 2Nb equations of the coupling points
according to the continuity condition of the potential and
normal dielectric flux density.
Having determined the N unknown values, the potential and
field in the C domain can be calculated due to charges Q (j ), j
= 1, 2, - N, + Nb. However, the potential and field
e ,
calculation in the F domain is based on the node potential
$(k), k = 1 , 2, * * * , Nf + Nb.
Continuity of Potential a n d Dielectric Flux a t Coupling
Points
Fig. 3 shows the boundary between the C and F domains,
the coupling points on the C-F boundary and the fictitious
charges Qk assigned to the coupling points. The continuity of
fk = (10)
where X is a constant to which values between 1-1.5,
generally used in CSM [2],are suitable.
Thus, the continuity of potential and normal dielectric flux
density at the C-F boundary between C-F domains is
determined by (5)-(9). Adding (1) and (3), which are used
individually in each domain, the final set (11) of N-
simultaneous equations is as shown in Fig. 4.
Solution of Equations
As shown in Fig. 4,some parts of the coefficient matrix are
full, sparse, diagonal, or zero. Subsequently, the matrix has a
wide variation in its elements ranging from very high values to
zero values. This is reflected in the “matrix condition” when
solved by iterative schemes. Direct solution of (11) using
Gauss or Grout decompositions algorithms is possible. How-
ever, it may by restricted in application due to high CPU
storage necessary for the computer. For bigger problems,
ABDEL-SALAM AND EL-MOHANDES: FINITE DIFFERENCES AND CHARGE SIMULATION 1063

- Unknown Charges Q (11 -c - Unknown Node - Polcntiols$4k1 -

11111 Diagonal part gL F~II part

+\' Pail with two elements per raw Parl with 3 , I or 5 elements per row

Fig. 4.

Electrode I section. Electrode 2 appears in both the C and F domains.

1 v, = too *I.
titious line charge
*'
Therefore, part 0-g of it belongs to the F domain and the
potential of the nodes on it is zero. The part g - 03 belongs to
the C domain. Inside electrode 1, infinite line charges are
distributed around a fictitious cylinder (of radius = 0.2-0.5
times the radius of the electrode). For the part g - 03 of
electrode 2, infinite line charges are located at gradually
increasing distances while the Y coordinate of each line charge
is related to the X coordinate as shown in Fig. 5:

Fig. 5 . I Ycoordinate I = Xcoordinate - D (12)

iterative schemes are efficient when combined with successive
overrelaxation methods. [ 11.
APPLICATIONS
An Example Application of Two-Dimensional Fields
The combined method is applied to a two-dimensional
cylinder-plane field with two dielectrics ( € 1 = 1, €2 = 3) as
shown in Fig. 5. To take the advantage of symmetry about the
Y axis, only half of the entire field needs to be analyzed.
Electrode 1 is a cylinder with potential 100% and electrode 2
is a ground plane. The dielectric e2 has a rectangular cross-
where 2 0 is the width of the dielectric E ~ The
. number of line
charges in the C domain is 12:6 of them for electrode 1 and 6
for electrode 2.
In the F domain the mesh size of the grid is uniform over the
domain (Fig. 5). The number of nodes N f and the number of
coupling points Nb are determined by M I and N I ,the number
of horizontal and vertical lines of the grid (Fig. 5):
A--= (MI - 2 ) ( N ,- 1)
Nb=Ml + N I- 2. (13)
The calculation precision of the proposed combined method
was studied by varying the number of coupling points Nb as
1064 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 25, NO. 6, NOVEMBERIDECEMBER 1989

TABLE I
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE COMBINED METHOD AND CSM APPLIED
FOR THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL TWO-DIELECTRIC FIELD OF FIG. 5"

Potential at P1 Field at P I Field at P2

Ml NI Nb (percent) (V/M per V) (V/Mper V)

6 6 10 25.395 2.7319 6.0819

6 9 13 27.906 2.5949 5.9197
6 11 15 29.553 2.5434 5.8961
8 13 19 27.792 2.6025 5.9267
10 15 23 27.361 2.6404 5.9392
12 17 27 27.331 2.6733 5.9915
14 18 30 27.310 2.7102 6.0084
Values obtained
by CSM 1151 27.230 2.7150 6.04001

a €2 = 3 andc, = 1, H = 0.7m, HD = 0.4m, r = 0.1 m, a n d D = 0.6

m.

TABLE I1
POTENTIAL VALUES AROUND THE PERIPHERY OF ELECTRODE 1 OF FIG.
5"

Angle Measured from Potential

Vertical Y axis (") (percent)

0 99.790
30 100.OOO
60 99.802
90 100.OOO
120 99.780
150 100.OOO
180 99.443

aMl=10,Nl=15,Nb=23,eI=1,c2=3,H=0.1m,HD=0.4m,
r = 0.1 m, and D = 0.6 m.

TABLE 111
TANGENTIAL FIELD COMPONENTS IN C AND F DOMAINS OF THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL TWO-DIELECTRIC FIELD OF FIG. 5 a

x(m) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13~0.035294
Y(m) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
E,(tangent) 0.00067 0.09221 0.1756 0.24646 0.29410 0.31409 0.32941 0.32327 0.30838 0.28679 0.25934 0.246 0.2143 0.14019
C domain
&(tangent) O.oo00 0.09220 0.1751 0.2419 0.28890 0.31721 0.32911 0.32811 0.31701 0.28811 0.25470 0.242 0.2133 0.14100

aMl = 14, NI = 18, Nb = 30, cl = 1, = 3 , H = 0.7m, HD = 0.4m, r = 0.1 m, a n d D = 0.6m.

shown in Table I. It is quite clear that the calculated potential
and field values approach those obtained by the CSM [15] by
increasing Nb.
It is satisfying that the deviation of the potential of electrode
1 from the applied value did not exceed one percent (Table II).
A lower percentage deviation can be achieved by increasing
the number of fictitious charges simulating electrode 1 in the C
domain.
While the normal electric field along the C-F boundary in
the C domain is maintained equal to 3( = e2/c1) times that in
the F domain (7). Table III shows the tangential field values
along the C-F boundary calculated in the C and F domains. It
is satisfying to observe the precise equality of the tangential
field values in the C and F domains which differed by less than
three percent. This indicates the accuracy of the proposed
combined method. The difference between the tangential field
values in the C and F domains can be reduced more by
increasing the number of coupling points Nb and hence the
number of nodes n f .
Table IV shows the calculated potential using the combined
method in comparison with those obtained using FDM [16]. In
the combined method the number of nodes in the F domain is
112 against 133 in the FDM [16]. Therefore, the difference in
potentials shown in Table IV may be ascribed to the small
number of nodes used in the combined method.
A n Example Application of Rotationally Symmetric
Fields
The combined method is applied to a rotationally symmetric
sphere-plane field with two dielectrics (e1 = 1, c2 = 3) as
ABDEL-SALAM AND EL-MOHANDES: FINITE DIFFERENCES AND CHARGE SIMULATION 1065

TABLE IV TABLE V
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE COMBINED METHOD AND FDM APPLIED POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION ALONG C-F BOUNDARY OF THE
FOR THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL TWO-DIELECTRIC FIELD OF FIG. 5 a ROTATIONALLYSYMMETRIC TWO-DIELECTRICFIELD OF FIG. 6”
~~~

Potential Distribution in Percent Along Y axis Distance from Combined Method CSM
Distance from Combined Method FDM Y axis (m) (percent) (percent)
Ground (m) (percent) (percent)
~~

0.0 13.67 13.94

0 0 0 0.15 11.64 11.81
0.08 7.442 7.8 0.30 8.21 8.44
F domain 0.16 15.627 15.8 0.45 5.73 -
0.24 24.400 24.2 0.60 2.97 -
0.32 32.640 32.9
0.40 42.670 42.5 a M , = 1 4 , N , = 1 8 , N b = 3 O , e 1 =l , e 2 = 3 , H = 0 . 7 m , H D = 0 . 4 m , r
0.44 53.80 53.1 = 0.1 m, and D = 0.6 m.
C domain 0.48 62.90 63.6
0.52 74.10 75.0 For calculating three-dimensionalfields with axial symme-
0.56 85.05 86.9 try, the proposed combined FD-CS method can be applied
since FDM was successfully applied [9], [lo] for these fields.
Potential Distribution in Percent Along C-F Boundary The CSM can handle three-dimensional fields with or without
Distance from Combined Method FDM
Y axis (m) (percent) (percent)
axial symmetry [13].

CONCLUSION
0 42.670 42.5
0.04 41.500 39.9 A combined method based on charge simulation and finite
0.08 40.400 40.5 differences is developed for calculating high-voltage fields.
0.12 38.879 38.2
0.16 36.800 36.0 The method uses the specific advantages of the CSM and
0.20 32.570 33.1 FDM, i.e., calculation of potentials and fields in the vicinity of
0.28 27.767 27.7 curved electrodes placed in open (unbounded) space, including
0.36 22.010 20.9
0.44 17.360 16.6 multidielectrics. The calculated potential and field values
obtained by the combined method compare favorably with
‘MI = 10,N1 = 1 5 , N b 2 3 , =
~ ~1 , ~ 2 2 , H = 0.1 m , H D = 0.04m,r
= CSM and FDM when applied individually for some example
= 0.04 m, and D = 0.2 m. applications.

I
aEy:S.;, x x
Ring charge
Boundary mint
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to express their indebtedness to the

+y
r ~0.1

0 2 H=O.lrn c!,~tctitious ring charge

Coupling point
reviewers for their instructive comments.
Fig. 6.
shown in Fig. 6. Electrode 1 is a sphere with potential 100
percent, and electrode 2 is a ground plane. The dielectric e2 is
a disccentered about the Y axis (Fig. 6). Due to the rotational
symmetry about the Y axis, fictitious charges are ring charges
instead of infinite line charges considered in the preceding
example. Details of simulation charges, number, and coordi-
nates representing the electrodes 1 and 2 were reported
elsewhere [ 171.
Table V shows the potential distribution along the C-F
boundary. For comparison purposes the potential values
available using CSM [lS], [19] (Table V) agreed with those
obtained using the combined method even the FDM introduces
more approximation to the field structure than is implied by
(2). This is because the Laplacian operator for cylindrical
coordinates is slightly more complicated than that for Carte-
sian (rectangular) coordinates.
REFERENCES
K. J. Binns and P. L. Lawrenson, Analysis and Computation of
Electric and Magnetic Field Problems. New York: Pergamon,
1973.
H. Singer, H . Steinbigler, and P. Weiss, “A charge simulation method
for the calculation of high voltage fields,” IEEE Trans, Power App.
Syst., vol. PAS-93, pp. 1660-1668, 1974.
E. Kuffel and W. Zaengl, High Voltage Engineering. New York:
Pergamon, 1984.
M. Abel-Salam, “Electric fields,’’ in High Voltage Engineering
Theory andfractice, ” M. Khalifa, Ed. New York: Marcel Dekker,
1989, ch. 2.
M . Abdel-Salam, M. Farghally, and S. Abdel-Sattar, “Finite element
solution of monopolar corona equation,” IEEE Trans. Elec. Insula-
tion, vol. EI-18, pp. 110-119, 1983.
1. A. Gerrnak and P. Silvester, “Boundary-relaxation analysis of
rotationally symmetric electric field problems,” IEEE Trans. Power
App. SYS. vol. PAS-89, pp. 925-932, 1970.
R. W. Thatcher, “On the finite element method for unbounded
region,” Siam J. Numer. Anal. vol. 15, pp. 466-477, 1978.
B. A. Carre, “The determination of the optimum accelerating factor for
successive over-relaxation,’’ Comp. J. vol. 4, pp. 73-78, 1961.
M. Scott, J. Mattingley, and H. Ryan, “Computation of electric fields:
Recent developments and practical applications,” IEEE Trans. Elec.
Insulation, vol. EI-9, pp. 18-25, 1974.
H. Ryan, S. Ah, and C. Powell, “Field computation relating to
switchgear design,” in Proc. ISH-83, Athens, Greece, 1983, paper
12.12.
H . Okubo and D. Metz, “Determination of electric fields using
different computational methods and optimization of electrode configu-
rations in high-voltage equipment,” Arch. Electrotech. vol. 60, pp.
21-33, 1978.
1066 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 25, NO. 6, NOVEMBERIDECEMBER 1989
D. Utmische, “Calculation of three dimensional fields,” ETZ-A, vol.
99, pp. 83-86, 1978.
H. Chen and A. Pearman, “Efficient computation of electrostatic fields
using the charge simulation technique,” in Proc. ISH-83, Athens,
Greece, 1983, paper 11.07.
M. Abdel-Salam and E. Stanek, “Field optimization of high-voltage
insulators,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. vol. IA-22, pp. 594-601, 1986.
H. Okubo, M. Ikeda and M. Honda, “Combination method for electric
field calculation,” in Proc. ISH-79, Italy, 1979, paper 11.13.
N. Flatabo and H. Riege, “Automatic calculation of electric fields,” in
Proc. ISH-72, W. Germany, 1972, pp. 17-22.
M. Abdel-Salam, “On the computation of lifting voltages for free
conducting particles in compressed SF6” IEEE Power Engineering
Society paper A-79-003-5, 1979.
H. Steinbigler, “Combined application of finite element method and
charge simulation method for the computation of electric fields,” in
Proc. ISH-79, Italy, 1979, paper 11.11.
K. Tan and H. Steinbigler, “Combined application of the finite element
method and the charge simulation method for the calculation of 3D
electric fields in high voltage engineering,” COMPEL, vol. 4, pp.
209-223, 1985.
Mazen Abdel-Salam (SM’78) was born in Egypt in
1946. He received the B.Sc. degree in electrical
engineering in 1967, the M.Sc. degree in electro-
magnetic desalination in 1970, and the Ph.D.
degree in gas discharges in 1973, all from the Cairo
University, Cairo, Egypt.
Starting in 1967 he was with the Academy of
Science and Technology in Cairo as a Research
Assistant. In 1973 he joined the staff of Electrical
Engineering at Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt, as
Assistant Professor. In October of 1977 he became
an Associate Professor at Assiut University. During the academic years of
1977-1979 he was in West Germany as an Alexander-von-Humboldt Fellow
to carry out a research plan at the Technical University of Munich, High
Voltage Institute and the University of Liverpool, UK. In September of 1979
he worked with General Electric Company, Pittsfield, MA, as a Researcher
for six months. In January 1982 he rejoined Assiut University as a Professor
of Electrical Engineering. During the academic years of 1982-1984 he was a
Visiting Professor with the Department of Electrical Engineering at the
University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. During the academic years of 1984-
1986 he was a Visiting Professor with the Department of Electrical
Engineering of Michigan Technological University, Houghton. He has
obtained a research fellowship at the University of Leeds, UK in 1988. He is
currently a Professor of Electrical Engineering at Assiut University. His
research activities include corona studies, digital calculation of electric fields,
investigations of high-voltage phenomena, low-voltage distribution networks,
and control of electrical machines. He is a coauthor of High Voltage
Engineering-Theory and Practice, New York: Marcel Dekker, 1989. He
has been the OrganizedFounder of MEPCON, the middle East Power System
Conference that was held in Egypt in January 1989.
Dr. Abdel-Salam currently serves as a member of the Electro-static
Processes Committee to the IEEE Industrial Applications Society and is a
member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, London, England.
M. T. El-Mobandes (M’89) was born in Egypt on
March 3, 1952. He received the B.Sc. degree in
electrical engineering in 1975, the M.Sc. degree in
electrical power systems engineering in 1979, and
the Ph.D. degree in high voltage engineering, in
1986, all from Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt.
He is on the staff of the Electrical Engineering
Department of Assiut University as a Lecturer. His
current research interests include corona stuhes and
digital calculation of electric fields. He has been on
the Organizing Committee of the Middle East
Power System Conference MEPCON which was held in Egypt m January
1989.