INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION
CIDEL ARGENTINA 2002
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS IN HIGH VOLTAGE
POWERLINES
J. Z. Vernieri - IITREE-UNLP P. L. Arnera - IITREE-UNLP
ARGENTINA
E-mail: iitree@ing.unlp.edu.ar
Key Words
Electric and magnetic fields, Environmental impact.
1. INTRODUCTION
Electric power delivery causes, unavoidably, alterations to
the environment in the vicinity of electrical facilities.
Electric and magnetic fields, visual impact, audible noise
and radio interference, are the most important
perturbations to be considered.
Among these effects, electric and magnetic fields
represent the main concerns to the public due to their
possible linking with aspects of health, especially with
cancer. Several epidemiological studies have reported a
statistical association of childhood leukemia and power
frequency magnetic fields. However, in spite of all the
effort made, no clear and convincing evidence has been
provided of a causal association between the exposure and
the development of cancer. While scientists go on trying
to solve this controversy, some utilities encourage the use
of new power line designs that reduce electromagnetic
field levels. Nevertheless, one should be cautious about
other environmental aspects that, with the aim of
achieving an electromagnetic level reduction, could be
deteriorated, such as radio interference.
In order to quantify environmental perturbation
parameters, calculations of electric and magnetic fields,
radio interference, and audible noise are presented,
comparing conventional designs with those that optimize
visual impact and reduce field levels.
Examinations have been carried out on 500 kV and
132 kV transmission lines, in this paper. In the first case,
Case A, environmental aspects of two different designs
employed in 500 kV overhead power lines are compared:
traditional horizontal configuration with steel lattice
towers, and the so called "Cross Rope Suspension"
compact design (CRS).
In the second case, Case B, environmental aspects of
three different designs employed in 132 kV overhead
electric lines are compared: a conventional design, a
compact design, vertical configuration, and a triangular
M. B. Barbieri - IITREE-UNLP
configuration, these two latest with straight support
organic insulators, configuration known as "Line Post".
In the third case, Case C, over a double circuit of 132 kV
two different phase sequencing arrangements are
examined.
Calculations of electric and magnetic fields are performed
with the EzEmf program (version 1.07) supplied by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, USA. It
calculates root mean square values for the electric field
and magnetic field flux density, at 1 m height over ground
level.
A program developed by the IITREE with the
participation of ENEL under the 1000 kV Project, is used
for the radio interference perturbation and audible noise
level calculations. The calculation model employed by
this program has been verified with measurements.
2. CASE A
Two overhead transmission lines of 500 kV are analyzed.
The first corresponds to the conventional design with steel
lattice structures, and the second to CRS compact design.
A 1400 A phase current is assumed for the calculation,
corresponding to a 1200 MVA power delivery. Each
phase consists of a bundle of four aluminum-steel
subconductors, with a 450 mm subconductor spacing.
Phase conductor characteristics are as follows:
Type: ACSR, Peace River Modified
Section: 396.56 mm2
External diameter: 24,89 mm
Arrangement: 48 x 3.11 + 7 x 2.41
Two shield wires with the following characteristics
protect each circuit:
Type: ASTM A 363
Section: 51.14 mm2
External diameter: 9.15 mm
Arrangement: 7
Center line (LC) is considered at x = 0. Conductor heights
correspond to the minimum ground distance, i.e. in the
middle of the span where the sag is maximum (extreme
condition).
2.1 Case A1 As it can be appreciated in these figures, for similar
maximum levels, the compact design (Case A2) provides
This case evaluates a traditional steel lattice structure the most marked reduction of both electric and magnetic
design, depicted in FIGURE 1. fields, as one walks away from the center line. (Case A1).
1- Disposition of phase conductors It should be noticed that the minimum conductor height is
x1= -12.54 m y1= 14.5 m lower for the compact design (Case A: 14.5 m and
x2= 0.00 m y2= 14.5 m Case A2: 11.5 m).
x3= +12.54 m y3= 14.5 m
2- Disposition of shield wires 7 ELECT RIC FIELD
6.10 6.12 6.12 6.10
x4= - 9.10 m y4= 27.0 m
6
x5= + 9.10 m y5= 27.0 m
5
2.2 Case A2 3.97
4
This case represents the CRS compact design, also 3.92
depicted in FIGURE 1. 3
1- Disposition of phase conductors Case A1
2
x1= - 7.0 m y1= 12.4 m Case A2
x2= 0.0 m y2= 11.5 m 1
x3= + 7.0 m y3= 12.4 m
2- Disposition of shield wires 0
x4= - 13.70 m y4= 25.0 m -25 -15 -5 x [m] 5 15 25
x5= + 13.70 m y5= 25.0 m FIGURE 2 - Cases A1 and A2: Electric Field Profiles
expressed in kV/m.

MAGNET IC FIELD
20 18.97
18.10 18.10

17.91
15

10

Case A1
Case A2
5

FIGURE 1 - Case A1, Traditional Horizontal Design:

0
Steel lattice structure. Case A2, Compact design: -25 -15 -5 x [m] 5 15 25
Cross Rope Suspension.
FIGURE 3 - Cases A1 and A2: Magnetic Field Flux
2.3 Case A Results Density Profiles expressed in microTesla.

2.3.1 Electric and Magnetic Fields 2.3.2 Corona Effect

Electric field and magnetic field flux density profiles are Radio Interference and Audible Noise
shown in FIGURES 2 and 3, respectively.
The radio interference level (RI) under "heavy rain"
Maximum levels and levels at some reference distances condition is defined as an average value for a stationary
are given in the following table (CL in x = 0 m): rain condition with intensity of 1 mm/h or higher. This
level is considerably steady and reproducible, reason why
it is assumed as a characteristic level for the electric line.
ELECTRIC FIELD MAGNETIC FIELD
[kV/m] [microT] The application of the calculation model provides the RI
Case A1 Case A2 Case A1 Case A2 profile (expressed in dB above 1V/m) for "heavy rain"
maximum 6.10 6.12 18.10 18.97 and minimum conductor height, as shown in FIGURE 4.
at x =± 25 m 3.65 1.94 8.47 4.74 Calculations are performed for "heavy rain" conditions. If
at x =± 50 m 0.62 0.30 2.4 1.32 other reference values are desired, it will be necessary to
subtract from 10 to 15 dB of these RI levels, when
referring to a 50 % "heavy rain" and 80 % "all weather"

2
condition, and from 20 to 25 dB of RI levels, when It should be underlined that RI and NA values are based
referring to a 50 % "heavy rain" and 50 % "fair weather" on each reference ("heavy rain" for RI, and "wet
condition. conductor" for AN).

110 RADIO INT ERFERENCE 3. CASE B

100 In Case B three overhead lines in 132 kV are analyzed.

The first one corresponds to a conventional design which
90 consists of cross-arms and strings of insulators in a
vertical array, the second one corresponds to a compact
design, composed by straight support organic insulators in
80
a vertical array. This type of configuration, composed by
Case A1 straight support organic insulators is known as "Line
70 Case A2
Post" type. The third circuit is a "Line Post" type in a
triangular array. The three configurations are illustrated in
60 FIGURE 6.
-50 -30 -10 10 30 x [m] 50

FIGURE 4 - Cases A1 and A2: Radio Interference

Profiles expressed in decibels.

Corona effect in power line conductors may produce

audible noises (AN). As it happens with RI intensity, AN
level depends on conductor surface voltage gradient
(electric field intensity), conductor surface conditions and
weather conditions.
"Heavy rain" condition is the one that performs the
maximum AN intensity. Nevertheless, this is not the most
adverse condition in the viewpoint of public perception.
The most unfavorable condition, is after the rain period,
since the noise that rain produces itself has stopped, and
the surface is still wet, so AN emissions are still very
intense. As a result, "wet conductor" is the reference
weather condition adopted. RA profile is illustrated in FIGURE 6 - Case B1: cross-arms and strings of
FIGURE 5. insulators, vertical array; Case B2: Compact design,
"Line Post" type, vertical array, and Case B3: "Line
60 AUDIBLE NOISE Post" type, triangular array.
55 54.9
The same lowest conductor ground distance, this is 8.8 m,
50 was considered in each configuration in order to make all
47.5 profiles comparable.
45
The phase current considered for the calculation is 630 A,
40
corresponding to the conductor admissible thermal limit,
Case A1
resulting in a 144 MVA power transference. An
35 Case A2
aluminum-steel conductor with the following
30 characteristics composes each phase:
-50 -30 -10 10 30 x [m] 50 Type: Al/Ac
FIGURE 5 - Cases A1 and A2: Audible Noise Profiles, Section: 240/40 mm2
expressed in decibels. External diameter: 21.793 mm
In order to compare cases A1 and A2 results, the Arrangement: 26 x 3.45 + 7 x 2.68
following table displays the maximum values and a pair
of values at reference distances. One shield wire with the following characteristics protects
each circuit:
RI [dB V/m] RA [dB (A)] Type: ASTM A 363
Case A1 Case A2 Case A1 Case A2 Section: 51.14 mm2
maximum 101 107 93 97 External diameter: 9.15 mm
at x =± 25 m 96 96 44.6 50.5
Arrangement: 7

at x =± 50 m 83 84 40.7 46.5 3.1 Case B1

3
This case represents a conventional design, composed by Exploring these figures, the highest maximum electric
cross-arms and strings of insulators in a vertical array, as field and magnetic field levels correspond to the
it is shown in FIGURE 6. conventional configuration (case B1). The triangular
1- Disposition of phase conductors array, "Line post" type (case B3), provides the lowest
x1= + 2.4 m y1= 15.2 m maximum electric field, but with a slower rate reduction
x2= + 2.4 m y2= 12.0 m of the electric field profile. The compact vertical design,
x3= + 2.4 m y3= 8.8 m (Case B2), produces the narrowest electric field profile,
2- Disposition of shield wire with a marked reduction of the field with the distance.
x4= + 0.5 m y4= 18.4 m Even though it produces a maximum electric field that is a
little higher than the one generated by the triangular array.
3.2 Case B2
In relation to the magnetic field compact vertical design,
This case represents a compact design, "Line Post" type, case B2, produces the lowest magnetic field profile of all.
in a vertical array, as it is shown in FIGURE 6. It is very important to emphasize that this design not only
1- Disposition of phase conductors reduces magnetic field levels, but also reduces visual
x1= + 1.6 m y1= 12.6 m impact since, for the same lowest conductor ground
x2= + 1.6 m y2= 10.7 m distance, the necessary tower height is lower. As well as,
x3= + 1.6 m y3= 8.8 m this compact design reduces aesthetic impact, since it is a
2- Disposition of shield wire cross-armless configuration.
x4= + 0.0 m y4= 15.4 m
6.39 MAGNET IC FIELD
3.3 Case B3 6

This case represents a compact design, "Line Post" type, 5.16

5
in a triangular array as it is shown in FIGURE 6.
1- Disposition of phase conductors Case B1
x1= + 1.6 m y1= 12.0 m 4 4.61 Case B2
Case B3
x2= - 1.6 m y2= 10.4 m
x3= + 1.6 m y3= 8.8 m 3
2- Disposition of shield wire
x4= + 0.0 m y4= 14.8 m 2

3.4 Case B Results

1

3.4.1 Electric and Magnetic Fields

0
FIGURES 7 and 8 show electric field and magnetic field -25 -15 -5 x [m] 5 15 25

flux density profiles, respectively. FIGURE 8 - Magnetic Field Flux Density in

microTesla. Case B1: conventional vertical design;
1.4 ELECT RIC FIELD Case B2: compact vertical design, and Case B3: "Line
1.33
Post" type, triangular array.
1.2
1.04
Maximum levels and levels at some reference distances
1.0
are given in the following table (CL in x = 0 m):

0.98 ELECTRIC FIELD [kV/m]

0.8
Case B1 Case B2 Case B3
Case B1 maximum 1.33 (x=2.5m) 1.04 (x=2 m) 0.98 (x=2.5m)
0.6 Case B2
Case B3 x = -10 m 0.10 0.09 0.46
x = -5 m 0.48 0.41 0.64
0.4 x = +5 m 1.14 0.79 0.86
x = +10 m 0.44 0.24 0.44
0.2

MAGNETIC FIELD [microT]

0.0 Case B1 Case B2 Case B3
-25 -15 -5 x [m] 5 15 25
maximum 6.39 (x=2.5m) 4.61 (x=1.5m) 5.16 (x=0.5m)
FIGURE 7 - Electric Field Profiles in kV/m, Case B1: x = -10 m 2.54 1.81 2.26
conventional vertical design; Case B2: compact x = -5 m 4.08 3.05 3.85
vertical design, and Case B3: "Line Post" type, x = +5 m 5.96 4.05 4.08
triangular array. x = +10 m 4.01 2.53 2.35

4
3.4.2 Corona Effect 4. CASE C

Radio Interference and Audible Noise Case C analyzes the influence of different phase
conductor arrangements in a multiple circuit. It consists of
Radio Interference and Audible Noise profiles are a double circuit 132 kV compact line, "Line Post" type
illustrated in FIGURES 9 and 10, respectively. configuration on a vertical array, similar to Case B2.
Cases C1 and C2 differ each other on the phase
110 RADIO INT E RF E RE NCE sequencing arrangement, as it is shown in FIGURE 11.

100

Case B1
90
Case B2
Case B3
80

70

60
-50 -30 -10 10 30 x [m] 50

FIGURE 9 - Cases B1, B2 and B3: Radio Interference FIGURE 11 – Two different phase sequencing
Profiles expressed in decibels. arrangements in a double circuit 132 kV compact line.

40 AUDIBLE NOISE 4.1 Case C Results

35
32.8
Case B1 4.1.1 Electric and Magnetic Fields
Case B2
30 Case B3
FIGURES 12 and 13 show electric field and magnetic
27.2
flux density field profiles, respectively.
25
25.9 Maximum levels and levels at some reference distances
20 are given in the following table (CL in x = 0 m):

15 ELECTRIC FIELD MAGNETIC FIELD

[kV/m] [microT]
10 Case C1 Case C2 Case C1 Case C2
-50 -30 -10 10 30 x [m] 50 maximum 1.85 0.56 8.43 2.96
FIGURE 10 - Cases B1, B2 and B3: Audible Noise x = +/-15 m 0.06 0.07 2.62 0.46
Profiles, expressed in decibels. x = +/-10 m 0.31 0.20 4.29 0.98
x = +/-5 m 1.13 0.50 6.86 2.07
The following table compares RI and RA reference levels
between the two considered alternatives. 2.0 ELECT RIC FIELD
1.85
RADIO INTERFERENCE [dB]
Case B1 Case B2 Case B3
1.5
maximum 93 97 95

x =-10 m 86 90 89 Case C1
x =-5 m 90 94 93 Case C2
1.0
x =+5 m 93 96 94
x =+10 m 90 93 90
0.56 0.56
0.5
AUDIBLE NOISE [dB (A)]
Case B1 Case B2 Case B3
maximum 25,9 32,8 27,2 0.0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 x [m] 5 10 15 20 25
x =-10 m 23,9 30,8 25,3
x =-5 m 25,1 32 26,5 FIGURE 12 - Cases C1 and C2: Electric Field Profiles
x =+5 m 25,9 32,6 26,8
expressed in kV/m.
x =+10 m 25 31,6 25,7

5
 10 MAGNET IC FIELD
9 50 AUDIBLE NOISE
8.43
8
7 45 44.7
Case C1 Case C1
6 Case C2 Case C2
42.7
5
40
4
2.96
3
2 35

1
0 30
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0x [m] 5 10 15 20 25 -50 -30 -10 10 30 x [m] 50

FIGURE 13 - Cases C1 and C2: Magnetic Field Flux FIGURE 15 - Cases C1 and C2: Audible Noise Profiles
Density expressed in microTesla. expressed in decibels.

In FIGURES 12 and 13 it can be appreciated the influence 5. CONCLUSIONS

of the different phase conductor arrangements in the
electric and magnetic field levels, in a multiple circuit.  This paper presents a qualitative and quantitative
comparison of environmental parameters among
An appropriated phase conductor arrangement allows a different line designs.
drastic reduction of electric and magnetic field maximum
values, as it happens in Case C2.  Each conventional design is contrasted with the
corresponding design that optimizes the visual impact.
4.1.2. Corona Effect For each design calculations are made under extreme
conditions in order to compare "reference" results.
Radio Interference and Audible Noise
 The use of compact designs reduces, in a considerable
FIGURES 14 and 15 show Radio Interference and way, electric and magnetic field maximum levels, as
Audible Noise profiles, respectively. well as, produces narrower field profiles. In addition
The following table compares RI and RA reference levels they grant an aesthetic impact improvement.
between the two considered alternatives.
 However the use of compact designs increases radio
R.I. AUDIBLE NOISE interference and audible noise levels.
[dB V/m] [dB (A)]
Case C1 Case C2 Case C1 Case C2
 It should be assessed for each design the compatibility
maximum 96 99 42,7 44,5
of different parameters, regarding which of them are
at x =± 5 m 94 97 42 44 restrictive for the regulations in operation.
at x =± 10 m 90 93 41 43
6. REFERENCES

[1] Res. SE 77/98, Secretaría de Energía de la Nación

110 RADIO INT ERFERENCE (Argentina). Boletín Oficial N° 28.859 1ª Sección.

100 [2] Res. ENRE 0546/1999, Ente Nacional Regulador de la

Electricidad (Argentina). Boletín Oficial N° 29.135, p.17.
90 Case C1
Case C2
[3] Electrical Transmission and Distribution Reference
Book. Westinghouse Electrical Corporation, Fourth
80 Edition 1964.

70 [4] Tsanakas, D. et. al. "Compact and Optimum Phase

Conductor Arrangement for the Reduction of Electric and
Magnetic Fields of Overhead Lines", CIGRE Session
60
-50 -30 -10 10 30 x [m] 50 2000, 36-103.

FIGURE 14 - Cases C1 and C2: Radio Interference

Profiles expressed in decibels.