2304

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2012

Stray Current Effects Mitigation in Subway Tunnels

Alberto Dolara, Student Member, IEEE, Federica Foiadelli, Member, IEEE, and Sonia Leva, Member, IEEE
AbstractThis paper brings an original contribution in the analysis of stray current and the evaluation of maximum potential in reference to particular transportation service conditions. Beginning with a real new transit system under construction in Italy, a nite element method analysis has been developed in order to propose precautionary measures to prevent the growth of anodic areas in reinforcement bars and to inuence the design procedure for better environmental compatibility. A possible solution to respect the limits imposed by the international standards is presented. Real ineld measurements with the aim to validate the data implemented in the model complete the study. Index TermsEquipotential connection, nite-element method (FEM) analysis, stray current, tramway and subway transportation.

I. INTRODUCTION

N REGARDS to the disturbance propagation, a railway domain is composed of electric and electronic power equipment as well as the control and communication systems. This railway domain electromagnetically interacts with its operating environment, both as a disturbing agent and as a target of interference from other signals existing in its surroundings and generated by other sources. It is then clear how each single subsystem is at the same time source and victim of disturbances, thereby creating a complex cause-effect process. In particular, the running rails are a sensitive element because besides for mechanical support/guide way, they are used as electric conductors for traction and signaling currents. Since the rails have nite resistance and poor insulation from the ground, a fraction of traction current leaves the rails and ows back to the negative side of the traction electrical substation (ESS) through the soil. In dc systems, these currents, that it is known as stray currents or leakage currents, can affect the rail transit system itself and buried metallic infrastructure by causing corrosion and maintenance problems. These stray currents are the main cause of corrosion not only for the structures and piping of the transportation systems, but also for the metallic parts which are located in the proximity of the railway. Therefore, transit system design characteristics are fundamental considering their environmental compatibility. In fact, the essential elements of a transit system, such as the route with
Manuscript received January 24, 2012; revised April 27, 2012; accepted May 29, 2012. Date of publication July 20, 2012; date of current version September 19, 2012. Paper no. TPWRD-00089-2012. The authors are with the Department of Energy of the Politecnico di Milano, Milano 20133, Italy (e-mail: alberto.dolara@mail.polimi.it; federica.foiadelli@polimi.it; sonia.leva@polimi.its). Color versions of one or more of the gures in this paper are available online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TPWRD.2012.2203829

its characteristic, rails, power supply and vehicles, strongly inuence the total stray current leaving the rails and reaching the adjacent structures and underground piping or tunnels. In particular, considering the metropolitan areas where different power systems have to coexist among themselves and with many underground metallic elements, the stray current performance is a primary topic to be considered during a transit system design procedure. These days, the research on the stray current in railway transit systems is related to the strategies to control and reduce stray current [1][5]; to develop monitoring systems [6], [7] or devices [8] and measurement apparatus [9]. Furthermore, other studies regard the analysis of stray current and the evaluation of maximum potential referred to particular transportation service conditions [10][12]. This paper brings an original contribution in the latter area, considering a real Italian situation: the new driverless subway line that is under construction in the city of Milan and that is mainly located under important streets and under already existing and working surface tramway lines. Considering the interference among the tramway and subway lines, the average reinforcement bars-to-soil voltage of tunnel segment rings due to the tramway return currents and, therefore, the electrolytic corrosion due to stray currents has been evaluated in [13]. In this paper, the nite-element method (FEM) analysis has been deepened in order to propose precautionary measures to prevent the development of anodic areas in reinforcement bars and to inuence the design procedure for better environmental compatibility. A possible solution of corrosion problems due to stray current is the equipotential connection between the reinforcement bars of the adjacent segments and of the adjacent rings. In this way, it is possible to respect the limits imposed by the international standard [14]. Real ineld measurements of the average track voltage and of the electrical conductivity of the reinforced concrete complete the study with the aim of validating the data implemented in the model. II. STUDY CASE: NEW DRIVERLESS SUBWAY LINE IN MILANO The study case analyzed in this paper refers to the new driverless subway line that is under construction in Milano, Italy, that is located under important streets and it runs parallel to already existing and working surface tramway lines, as depicted in Fig. 1. This gure shows one section of the planned work where the tunnel boring machine (TBM) for the excavation of the tunnel will be lowered. The TBM consists of a shield (a large metal cylinder) and trailing support mechanisms. More details about this technology are reported in [13]. Fig. 1 presents a possible cross section because other possibilities are realized depending on different factors, such as the number of the track for the same tramway line direction or the

0885-8977/$31.00 2012 IEEE

DOLARA et al.: STRAY CURRENT EFFECTS MITIGATION IN SUBWAY TUNNELS

2305

Fig. 1. Typical cross section of the subway tunnel with the above tramway lines.

Fig. 3. Diagram of the absorbed current by tram vehicle type B between two stops. It corresponds to its traction diagram divided in: 015 s acceleration, 1525 s coasting, 2540 s braking, and 4070 s stopping time phases.

Fig. 4. Sequence of the tram types on the 4.4-km tramway line characterizing the two considered cases.

Fig. 2. Diagram of the absorbed current by tram vehicle type A between two stops. It correspond to its traction diagram divided in: 015 s acceleration, 1525 s coasting and braking, and 4070 s stopping time phases.

presence of the retaining wall of reinforced concrete placed laterally to the tunnel. In order to evaluate the possible corrosion due to stray current produced by the tramway line, the average voltage of the metallic structures (as the concrete reinforcement bars) with respect to the soil must be estimated during the design stage and maybe measured during or at the end of the construction work. The standard [14] suggests considering the average value of source voltage in the study about stray current. Considering the nearness of a subway line and a tramway line, the calculation of the average voltage of the metallic structures could be carried out by means of a nite-elements (FE) tool. In this case, the interference on the subway structures is due to the stray current that leaves the rail of the above tramway because of the track voltagethat is the source of the interference. In the following text, the rail voltage will be evaluated starting from the vehicles distribution along the tramway line and their average traction current, and consequently from the typical traction diagram, and the electrical resistance of the track. The obtained results will be compared with the rail voltage measured in one particular section of the tramway line of Milan. A. Average Rail Voltage Calculation The tramway track above the subway tunnel is shared by several transportation lines. The trafc data employed in this analysis are deducted considering the timetable during a working day. In the higher trafc hoursfrom 6.00 A.M. to 20.00 P.M.

there are an average of 6 vehicles in the 4.4-km tramway line for each direction. In the other hours, the frequency per hour is about one half that in the higher trafc hours. On the tramway line considered in this paper, two types of trams usually run. The rst type, here called Train A, is a low-power old-type tram that employs dc motors without electronic drive and regenerative braking, and it is characterized by a low absorbed current (see Fig. 2). The second type of train, Train B, is a new type and it can realize regenerative braking [13]. With respect to Train A, this type of train absorbs additional signicant current also for the auxiliary systems. The diagram of the absorbed current by Train B is shown in Fig. 3. The part of the current that ows through the soil is about 50% of the total current; the remaining current is divided into equal parts in the two rails. Therefore, the average rail current due to each vehicle is equal to the 25% of the average traction current. The average rail current considered in this study is estimated about 7.5 A for Train A and 35 A for train B. The overhead catenary is supplied at 600-V dc by an ESS connected at one side. The track characteristics are typical of a tramway line where the rails have a linear mass of 60 kg/m: each track has an electrical resistance of 12.5 m /km. In the following analysis, an alternating sequence of vehicles on the tramway line composed by 3 Trains A and 3 Trains B uniformly spaced is taken into account. Two cases are considered depending on the type of the 6 vehicles present in the 4.4-km tramway line, as reported in Fig. 4. The calculated average track voltage along the line is reported in Fig. 5 for the two different cases. The worst case corresponds to the maximum distance from the ESS. The average value between the two cases is 8.17 V.

2306

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2012

Fig. 5. Average track voltage along the line. Fig. 7. Measurement of the electrical conductivity of the reinforced concrete.

Fig. 6. Measured track voltage 4.2 km far from ESS.

However, this value refers to the cases characterized by a maximum distance between trams and ESS. An average track voltage equal to 8 V is assumed as the source in the FEM model. B. Rail Voltage Measurement The average track voltage calculation as a function of distance from the ESS has been validated by measurements. Daily track voltage recordings are available for some points along the tramway line. Track voltage has been recorded with a 1-s sampling interval, starting from 5:30 A.M. to 1:00 A.M. (next day). Fig. 6 reports the track voltage measured 4.2 km far from the ESS. Its behavior is very similar to the one recorded by the other authors and reported in [16]. Track voltage is more or less between 0 V and 25 V during higher trafc hours (form 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.); while the track voltage upper limit halves in the other hours. Moreover, the measured average track voltage at 4.2 km far from the ESS is 7.42 V, while the calculated average track voltage is 8.06 V. III. FEM MODEL FOR THE TRACTION SYSTEM The system just described has been simulated using nite-element (FE) software as described in [13]. The FE analysis enables considering the tunnel geometrical structure, the electrical properties of materials used for its construction, and the average track voltage during higher trafc

conditions. The FE model input data are the cross-section geometry of the system (tunnel segments, reinforcement bars, etc ) and the electrical characteristics of the various materials (concrete, iron, ground, etc ). The sources consist in the rails-to-ground voltage, which was set to the value of the average voltage track previously calculated. The electromagnetic steady-state analysis of the conduction eld, solved by numerical calculation, returns the electric potential and the electric and current density elds at all points in the space that are characterized by nonzero electrical conductivity. The main parameters are well described in [13] and summarized in the following text for easy reading. The system was modeled considering 6 rails (see Fig. 1) in order to simulate the worst case. The rail was modeled as an iron square conductor of 150 mm laid on the soil surface and the voltage was set on the face in contact with the soil. Rails-to-ground voltage is a boundary condition of the dc conduction problem. The soil was modeled with a semicircular section with a radius of 100 m and a resistivity of 100 m [17], which is a typical value for the Milan area. Detailed data concerning the stratication are not available: therefore, the soil has been regarded as uniform. The semicircular outer surface was taken as a voltage reference using as a boundary condition the voltage equal to zero. The tunnel was modeled considering a circular cross section with an internal diameter of 8.3 m. The structure of the tunnel is constituted by rings subdivided in 6 precast segments of reinforced concrete, placed directly by the TBM during the excavation of the tunnel. The thickness of the segment is 40 cm; consequently, the outside diameter of the tunnel is 9.1 m. The top of the tunnel is located at a depth of 6.78 m measured from the road surface. Each segment ring, which is the 60 arc sector that is the basic element of the tunnel structure, was represented in the FE model, also considering its reinforcement bars. For a correct data input, the electrical conductivity of the reinforced concrete has been measured on two concrete samples in the laboratory and it was equal to 6.67 mS/m (Fig. 7). The internal iron reinforcement bars were modeled considering them on the perimeter of the segment, as shown in Fig. 8. The reinforcement bars, with a diameter of 15 mm, are placed

DOLARA et al.: STRAY CURRENT EFFECTS MITIGATION IN SUBWAY TUNNELS

2307

Fig. 8. Segment ring with a reinforced bars model.

Fig. 11. Equipotential surfaces, current eld, and segment placement in position A with a track voltage equal to 8 V and without the equipotential connection. Fig. 9. Zoom of the wedge inserted between two segments and the equipotential connection between reinforcement bars.

Fig. 12. Equipotential surfaces, current eld, and segment placement in position B with a track voltage equal to 8 V and without the equipotential connection. Fig. 10. Equipotential connection between reinforcement bars.

IV. SYSTEM SIMULATIONS at a distance of 5 cm from the outer surface of the segment. An iron conductivity of 1.03 S/m was taken into account. The contact resistance between two adjacent segments was modeled by inserting a wedge of lower conductivity equal to 0.25 mS/m and 10 mm thick, as shown in Fig. 9. The model also considers improving the solution of the equipotential connection between the reinforcement bars of the adjacent segments and of the adjacent rings introduced in order to avoid the zones with high output current density as shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Fig. 10 shows three different segments: two of them belong to a ring while the third segment belongs to the adjacent ring. The traces of the reinforcement bars are depicted with a red dashed line. These reinforcement bars are connected together with a plate connection joining the connection points (red line). All of these equipotential elements are connected to the equipotential wire by the copper connection. The simulations already presented in [13] show the difference of potential between the reinforcing bars and the soil, verifying possible corrosion effects due to stray currents. The analysis was performed considering different tram trafc conditions and for the different arrangement of the segments along the circumference of the subway tunnel. The results have been obtained taking into account the arrangement of the segments along the circumference of the tunnel shown in Fig. 11 (position A) and in Fig. 12 (position B), respectively. It was noted that for the average tramway track voltage equal to 8 V, corresponding to the hours of higher trafc, there are localized areas where the difference of potential between reinforcement bars and soil is greater than or close to the maximum value allowed by the standard [14] (100 mV). In fact, the maximum value of the average bar-to-soil potentialcalculated as the difference between the potential at the reinforced bars and

2308

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2012

Fig. 13. Equipotential surfaces and current eld for the anodic area of the reinforcement bar of segment 6 in position A with a track voltage equal to 8 V and without the equipotential connection.

Fig. 15. Zoom of the equipotential surfaces, current eld for segment 5-6 in position A with a track voltage equal to 8 V and without the equipotential connection.

Fig. 14. Equipotential surfaces and current eld for the anodic area of the reinforcement bar of segment 5 in position B with a track voltage equal to 8 V and without the equipotential connection.

Fig. 16. Zoom of the equipotential surfaces, current eld for segment 1-6 in position A with a track voltage equal to 8 V and without the equipotential connection.

the potential near the corner of the segment ring in the areas where the current leaves the segmentsresulted for segment 6 in position A and for segment 5 in position B about 140 mV and 150 mV, respectively, as reported in Figs. 13 and 14, where the equipotential lines inside the concrete and soil and the conduction eld inside the concrete are shown. Corrosion localized in the anodic areas where the current leaves the segments reinforcement bars is therefore possible. Consequently, it is clear that measures to prevent the creation of anodic areas in reinforcement bars must be necessary adopted. In the following text, the introduction of an equipotential connection between the reinforcement bars of the adjacent segments and of the adjacent rings in order to avoid the zones with high output current density is presented. Only the worst case corresponding to the hours of higher trafc is reported, because for average tramway track voltage equal to 4 V, that can

be observed in the low/medium trafc hours, simulations never lead to potential values higher than 100 mV. Nevertheless, the voltage potential was close to the maximum allowed value. Without considering the introduction of the equipotential connection, the part of the current that leaves the rails tends to ow in the tunnel iron reinforcement bars as illustrated in Fig. 11. The currents come into the tunnel from the top and go out from the bottom. Furthermore, the current density between two adjacent segments tends to increase due to the high contact resistance. The dissymmetry in the electric elds reects the dissymmetry of the aforementioned tramway line because there are 4 rails on the left and only 2 rails on the right. In order to evaluate the effect of the equipotential connection introduction, the zoom of some contact areas between two adjacent segments obtained with the segments in position

DOLARA et al.: STRAY CURRENT EFFECTS MITIGATION IN SUBWAY TUNNELS

2309

Fig. 19. Equipotential surfaces, current eld inside soil, and reinforcement bars in position B with a track voltage equal to 8 V and with the equipotential connection. Fig. 17. Zoom of the equipotential surfaces, current eld for segment 5-4 in position B with a track voltage equal to 8 V and without the equipotential connection.

Fig. 20. Zoom of the equipotential surfaces, current eld inside soil, and reinforcement bars for segment 5-6 in position A with a track voltage equal to 8 V and with the equipotential connection. Fig. 18. Equipotential surfaces, current eld inside soil, and reinforcement bars in position A with a track voltage equal to 8 V and with the equipotential connection.

A and without the equipotential connection are reported in Figs. 1517. In particular, these gures show the effect of the electrical insulation provided by the concrete and the contact resistance between the segments themselves on the current conduction. The current leaves the upper segment, ows into the ground, and then returns within the adjacent segment. This phenomenon depends on the placement of the segments in the tunnel ring. If the contact surface between two adjacent segments is almost parallel to the conduction eld (i.e., segments 1-6), this phenomenon is negligible. Vice-versa, it is noticeable when the contact surface is almost perpendicular to the conduction eld, such as between segments 5-6 and 5-4. As shown in [13], the different displacement of the segment rings does not substantially change the phenomenon but only the numerical values vary. Fig. 17 shows the worst case considering the segment ring in position B. The introduction of the equipotential connection brings about the two global situations represented in Figs. 18 and 19 for the position A and B, respectively.

Fig. 21. Zoom of the equipotential surfaces, current eld inside soil, and reinforcement bars for segment 1-6 in position A with a track voltage equal to 8 V and with the equipotential connection.

Figs. 2025 show zooms of some contact areas between two adjacent segments. The equipotential connections between the reinforcement bars of all segments that form the tunnel constitute a way with extremely low resistance that allows the current to ow from a segment to the adjacent one without passing into the

2310

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2012

Fig. 22. Zoom of the equipotential surfaces, current eld inside soil, and reinforcement bars for segment 1-2 in position A with a track voltage equal to 8 V and with the equipotential connection.

Fig. 25. Zoom of the equipotential surfaces, current eld inside soil, and reinforcement bars for segment 4-5 in position B with a track voltage equal to 8 V and with the equipotential connection.

TABLE I MAXIMUM VALUE OF THE AVERAGE BAR TO GROUND POTENTIAL

Fig. 23. Zoom of the equipotential surfaces, current eld inside soil, and reinforcement bars for segment 3-4 in position A with a track voltage equal to 8 V and with the equipotential connection.

respectively. In this case, the anodic area is the lower part of the tunnel outer surface and the maximum value of the bar-to-soil voltagecalculated as the difference between the potential at the reinforcement bars and the minimum potential on the ring outer surface (near the bottom of the tunnel) where the current leaves the segmentsis about 10 mV. In the anodic areas of the case without equipotential connectionsat the corner of the segmentsbar-to-soil voltages fall down around 6 and 5 mV in case A and B, respectively. Moreover, the equipotential connections between the reinforcement bars make the phenomenon substantially independent from the displacement of the segments, as can be noticed by comparing the obtained results. Table I shows the maximum average bar-to-soil voltage calculated with a track voltage equal to 8 V. The standard [14] for reinforced concrete structures involved by stray currents from railway or tramway lines states that the corrosion of the metallic parts does not prime if the average value of the potential difference between iron and ground is less than 100 mV. Comparing the two different conditions withoutand withthe equipotential connection, it is evident that the usefulness of the equipotential connection is strongly reducing bar-to-soil voltage to values that are well below the limit stated by the standard [14]. V. CONCLUSION This paper presents a deep analysis of the stray-current performances in a complex transportation system, such as the new driverless subway line that is under construction in Milan, Italy. The coexistence of the different power systems and the many underground metallic elements requires the respect of the limits imposed by the international standard [14] in order to avoid possible dangerous corrosions. This paper presents a deep FE analysis and proposes a precautionary measure to prevent the development of anodic areas in

Fig. 24. Zoom of the equipotential surfaces, current eld inside soil, and reinforcement bars for segment 1-2 in position B with a track voltage equal to 8 V and with the equipotential connection.

soil. The areas with high current density at the corners of the rings, where the bars-to-soil voltage is elevated and corrosion phenomena can prime, are avoided. The electrically connected bars behave like a cylindrical metallic shield that allows the stray current to be distributed in an almost uniform way both in entering and leaving the top and the bottom of the tunnel,

DOLARA et al.: STRAY CURRENT EFFECTS MITIGATION IN SUBWAY TUNNELS

2311

reinforcement bars, inuencing the design procedure for better environmental compatibility. In fact, the results obtained in the preliminary study reported in [13] showed that the average potential of the reinforcement bars of tunnel segment rings due to the tramway return currents could exceed the limits, causing possible corrosion effects due to stray current. This paper starts from the model presented in [13] and, rst of all, validates the data implemented in the model through an ineld rail voltage measurement survey. Following this, it considers a possible improved solution in order to avoid the zones with high-output current density. Therefore, the introduction of an equipotential connection between the reinforcement bars of the adjacent segments has been proposed. The simulation results demonstrate that this precautionary measure leads to a complete respect of the standard limits and it can be considered as a solution to be introduced in the transit system design in order to prevent corrosion phenomena once the system has been constructed. REFERENCES
[1] L. Chien-Hsing and L. Chien-Jung, Assessment of grounding schemes on rail potential and stray currents in a DC transit system, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 19411947, Oct. 2006. [2] I. Cotton, C. Charalambous, P. Aylott, and P. Ernst, Stray current control in DC mass transit systems, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 722730, Mar. 2005. [3] M. Niasati and A. Gholami, Overview of stray current control in DC railway systems, in Proc. Int. Conf. Railway Eng.Challenges for Railway Transport. Inf. Age, Mar. 2528, 2008, pp. 16. [4] S. Jamali, M. M. Alamuti, and M. Savaghebi, Effects of different earthing schemes on the stray current in rail transit systems, in Proc. 43rd Int. Univ. Power Eng. Conf., Sep. 14, 2008, pp. 15. [5] Y. C. Liu and J. F. Chen, Control scheme for reducing rail potential and stray current in MRT systems, in Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Elect. Power Appl., May 2005, vol. 152, no. 3, 6, pp. 612618. [6] M. Longhua and Zhouwei, Stray current automatic monitoring system and intelligent obviating, current device in metro, in Proc. Int. Power Eng. Conf., Dec. 36, 2007, pp. 10701074. [7] W. M. Sim and C. F. Chan, Stray current monitoring and control on singapore MRT system, in Proc. Int. Conf. Power Syst. Technol., Nov. 2124, 2004, vol. 2, pp. 18981903. [8] Jinmin and M. Longhua, A novel on-line monitoring device of stray current in dc rail transit systems, in Proc. Int. Conf. Power Syst. Technol., Oct. 2226, 2006, pp. 14. [9] J.-H. Bae, Y.-C. Ha, T.-H. Ha, H.-G. Lee, D.-K. Kim, and J.-D. Lee, Data logger apparatus for stray current measurement of subway and power line, in Proc. 30th Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc., Nov. 26, 2004, vol. 2, pp. 15631566. [10] K. D. Pham, R. S. Thomas, and W. E. Stinger, Analysis of stray current, track-to-earth potentials and substation negative grounding in DC traction electrication system, in Proc. IEEE/ASME Joint Railroad Conf., Apr. 1719, 2001, pp. 141160. [11] C.-H. Lee, Evaluation of the maximum potential rise in taipei rail transit systems, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 20, no. 2, pt. 2, pp. 13791384, Apr. 2005. [12] S.-L. Chen, S.-C. Hsu, C.-T. Tseng, K.-H. Yan, H.-Y. Chou, and T.-M. Too, Analysis of rail potential and stray current for taipei metro, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 6775, Jan. 2006.

[13] M. Brenna, A. Dolara, S. Leva, and D. Zaninelli, Effects of the DC stray currents on subway tunnel structures evaluated by FEM analysis, in Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, Jul. 2529, 2010, p. 7. [14] Railway Applications-Fixed Installations-Part 2: Protective Provisions Against The Effects of Stray Currents Caused By d.c. Traction Systems, Standard EN 50122-2, 1999. [15] M. Brenna, F. Foiadelli, and D. Zaninelli, New stability analysis for tuning PI controller of power converters in railway application, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 533543, Feb. 2011. [16] T. Yii-Shen and L. Chien-Hsing, Analysis of rail potential and stray currents in a direct-current transit system, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 15161525, Jul. 2010. [17] R. J. HiII, S. Brillante, and P. J. Leonard, Railway track transmission line parameters from nite element eld modelingSeries impedance, in Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Elect. Power Appl., Nov. 1999, vol. 146, no. 6. [18] L. Bertolini, B. Elsener, R. Polder, and P. Pedeferri, Corrosion of Steel in ConcretePrevention, Diagnosis, Repair. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, Mar. 2004.

Alberto Dolara (S09) received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy, in 2005 and 2010, respectively. Currently, is Temporary Researcher with the Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy. His areas of research include traction systems, power quality, electromagnetic compatibility, and renewable sources.

Federica Foiadelli (M08) received the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy, in 2003 and 2008, respectively. Currently, she is Assistant Professor with the Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano. Her areas of research include electric power systems and electric traction. Prof. Foiadelli is a member of CIFI (Italian Group of Engineering about Railways and the Italian Electric Association (AEI).

Sonia Leva (M01) received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy, in 1997 and 2001, respectively. Currently, she is an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering with the Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano. Her research interests include electromagnetic compatibility, power quality, the foundation of the electromagnetic theory of the electric network, and renewable energy. Prof. Leva is a member of the Italian Standard Authority (CEI/CT82) and of the IEEE Working Group Distributed Resources: Modeling & Analysis and of the Task Force on Modeling and Analysis of Electronically-Coupled Distributed Resources.