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

net/publication/259256377

Estimation of Stray Current From a DC-Electrified Railway and Impressed

Potential on a Buried Pipe

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery · October 2012

DOI: 10.1109/TPWRD.2012.2211623

CITATIONS READS

37 2,542

3 authors:

Ade Ogunsola Andrea Mariscotti

Parsons Group International ASTM Sagl
42 PUBLICATIONS   239 CITATIONS    142 PUBLICATIONS   1,119 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Leonardo Sandrolini
University of Bologna
74 PUBLICATIONS   600 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Modelling AC interference on buried metallic pipelines View project

Energy efficiency of railway systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leonardo Sandrolini on 12 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2238 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2012

Estimation of Stray Current From a DC-Electrified

Railway and Impressed Potential on a Buried Pipe
Ade Ogunsola, Senior Member, IEEE, Andrea Mariscotti, Member, IEEE, and Leonardo Sandrolini, Member, IEEE

Abstract—DC-electrified traction systems are a potential source rail-to-earth resistance has the advantage of limiting the amount
of stray current that may corrode internal and external structures of leakage current. A reduction of the total load current in-
and installations. The stray current intensity depends on several evitably results in the reduction of leakage current.
factors (traction current, rail insulation, concrete mat and piers
resistance), that are accounted for in the proposed model. The case It is known that the earthing scheme implemented in a
of a viaduct and a victim-buried pipeline is considered in detail, dc-electrified railway influences the current distribution and,
and the estimated impressed voltage on the pipe is compared suc- hence, the stray current. Alamuti et al. [4], Jamali et al. [5],
cessfully with experimental results. Lee [6], and Lee et al. [7], to list a few publications, provide
Index Terms—Corrosion, electromagnetic conductive interfer- an overview of the various earthing systems implemented
ence, guideway transportation power systems, power distribution in dc-electrified railways and the influence they have on the
electromagnetic interference, stray current. control of stray currents. The corrosion caused by stray cur-
rents, deviating from their intended path, is called stray current
corrosion. Stray current corrosion is the most severe form of
I. INTRODUCTION
corrosion, due to the fact that the victim metallic structure is
forced to become an anode and the amount of current impacting
T HE PURPOSE of the running rails in an electrified
railway is one of the unique aspects of railway engi-
neering. The running rails act as the path of return current
the said structure is translated directly into metal loss. Although
buried metallic structures in close vicinity to the railway, such
as gas, oil, and water pipelines, tend to be protected by the
and form part of the signaling circuit for the control of train
use of cathodic protection systems, operational experience
movements. Yet, the use of the running rails as the current
informs that such structures may corrode following the failure
return circuit is not without issues: even if the running rails are
of the cathode protection system and/or a failure of the railway
isolated from ground, current will leak to ground, depending on
stray current mitigation provisions. For the assessment of the
the rail-to-earth conductance term for each running rail, with
effect of stray current interference, the industry practice is
the ground now forming an unintended current return path [1].
to undertake field measurements to determine the change in
To limit the intensity of the current flowing through the un-
current density on the buried metallic structure [8]–[12]. The
intended path, IEC 61228 Part 2 (equivalent to EN 50122 Part
measurement of the potential of the pipeline to soil gives an
2) [2] recommends the values for the rail-to-earth insulation (in
indication of the intensity of the stray current. The potential
terms of conductance per kilometer) to be achieved as a design
can be measured versus a reference electrode (e.g. a saturated
goal. It is worth mentioning that the 2010 edition of the same
copper-copper-sulphate electrode placed in the
standard [3] takes a different approach by specifying a permis-
soil near the pipeline). Such a measurement-based assessment
sible level for stray current per unit length. It provides a for-
is, however, characterized by uncertainty related to the system
mulation for the assessment of stray current during the design
complexity and to the many conductive paths of the stray
stages, indicating the need for a detailed assessment of the risk
current between constructive elements. It equally requires that
due to stray current, if the estimated stray current exceeds the
the infrastructure be constructed with the assumption that the
value of 2.5 mA/m. In practice, limitation of the current leaking
existing stray current control measures are adequate and that no
to ground and, thus, causing corrosion is implemented by de-
further major changes are necessary. When a metallic structure
creasing the rail resistance and increasing the rail-to-earth re-
is electrically influenced by stray current, the potential of the
sistance, achieved by adequate insulation and coating. A lower
structure shifts in the positive or in the negative direction where
running rail resistance has the advantage of increasing the pro-
the current leaves or enters the metal surface. The pipe potential
portion of current propagating through the rails, while a greater
value and the magnitude of its variation are most frequently
proposed as the electrolytic corrosion hazard criterion in stan-
Manuscript received January 13, 2012; revised May 22, 2012 and July 09,
dards and regulations of many countries. The positive potential
2012; accepted July 27, 2012. Date of current version September 19, 2012. Paper
no. TPWRD-00048-2012. shifts of the affected structure and the potential gradient of soil
A. Ogunsola is with Parsons International, MENA, Abu Dhabi, United Arab shall be considered in the presence of stray current. However
Emirates (e-mail: ade.ogunsola@parsons.com).
such measurements are usually post construction and, thus, may
A. Mariscotti is with DYNATECH, University of Genoa, Genoa 16145, Italy
(e-mail: andrea.mariscotti@unige.it). lead to an expensive retrofit program, in the case of undesirable
L. Sandrolini is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of results.
Bologna, Bologna I-40136, Italy (e-mail: leonardo.sandrolini@unibo.it).
Determining the response of the structure is not an easy task,
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. because it is a function of three things: 1) the location of the
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2012.2211623 structure with respect to the electric field generated by the stray

0885-8977/$31.00 © 2012 IEEE

OGUNSOLA et al.: ESTIMATION OF STRAY CURRENT FROM A DC-ELECTRIFIED RAILWAY
current source (protection system), 2) the magnitude of the elec-
tric field, and 3) the electrochemical response of the structure
to the interference (protection). For postdesign purposes, two
analytical approaches are applied: 1) the field approach and 2)
the electric circuit approach. The field approach can be used to
model the electrochemical polarization that occurs on the buried
metallic structure [13]. In the electric circuit approach, based on
the earth-return circuit theory, which is more suitable for mod-
eling extended structures (pipelines, cables, etc.), the polariza-
tion phenomenon is not taken into account. Perhaps the first pub-
lication that provides a detailed analytical approach for the as-
sessment of stray current is that presented by McCollum et al.
[14]. Their formulation demonstrates the importance of keeping
the leakage factor (i.e. the square root of the value of the rail
resistance per unit length divided by the track-to-earth leakage
resistance per unit length) as low as possible. The formulation
provides an analytical solution for the estimation of stray cur-
rent for grounded and ungrounded dc-electrified railways; it,
however, does not consider the presence of a stray current col-
lector mat and, thus, is only applicable to primary current leak-
ages from rail to ground. Due to the limitation expressed before,
analytical models have been developed by various researchers
for the estimation of stray current from dc-electrified railways.
These models can be categorized into two main groups: 1) 2-D
or 3-D models [7], [15]–[21]; and 2) resistor models [4], [5].
While 2-D and 3-D models exist and are commercially avail-
able, the use in actual railway applications is limited due to the
effort required in setting up such models. The resistor model
is relatively simple and easy to implement; however, it is inca-
pable of fully predicting nonlinearities that can occur within a
stray current collection system under specific conditions, such
as low ground resistivity, and the simulation of complex struc-
tures is difficult. Explicit in these resistor models, referenced
before, is the assumption that the dc-electrified railway is di-
rectly laid above ground and that the soil layer is homogenous;
furthermore, the analytical solutions give no indication on the
potential impressed on a buried metallic object nor an estima-
tion of the corrosion current on a buried pipeline. In this paper,
we present a generic resistor model that can be used to estimate
the intensity of stray current from a dc-electrified railway, taking
into account one or two traction power substations (TPSs) and
a vehicle, thus simulating the most common configuration. The
model details a dc-electrified railway on a viaduct suspended on
concrete piers, for which also experimental results are available.
The resistance of the various interposed structural elements, ob-
tained from measurement, is included in the mesh of resistive el-
ements. The grounding resistance of the piers is estimated and
included in the mesh of resistive elements that is part of the
model. The voltage impressed on the victim pipe is computed
by estimating the resistance to ground of the pipe itself.
II. STRAY CURRENT AND CORROSION
A. Stray Current
Stray current is defined as current flowing into electrolytic
environments (i.e., soil and water) from electric circuits inade-
quately insulated from the environment. From a corrosion point
of view, dc industrial equipment remains the most prominent
2239
Fig. 1. Nonstationary electrical interference generated by stray currents.
source of stray currents for metallic structures. Any metallic
structure buried in soil, such as a pipeline, represents a low resis-
tance current path and is therefore fundamentally vulnerable to
the effects of stray currents. In a dc-electrified railway, leakage
of currents take place from the running rails, which are an el-
ement of the return circuit for traction currents. Current drawn
by the vehicles returns to the TPS through the current return cir-
cuit—running rails and return conductors (if installed). Part of
the return current leaks out of the running rail and returns to the
TPS through the ground and any underground metallic structure
in close proximity to the railway. The current leakage from the
rail to ground is due to a voltage drop, which develops on the
running rails due to the vehicle movement along the rails. This
voltage drop will force part of the current to leak from the rail
and flow into the earth or metallic structure buried in the earth.
Afterwards, the current leaves the buried metallic structure and
flows through the earth, back into the negative side of the TPS,
as Fig. 1 shows.
The magnitude of the leakage from the running rails depends
largely on the voltage drop in the rails (as a function of the
current flowing in the rails and of the rail resistance) and on
the rail-to-earth resistance. Traction stray currents are dynamic
by nature, their intensity and direction of flow continuously
changing, depending on the traction load and position of the
vehicles in relation to the TPS. Dynamic potential changes of
underground structures and their random periods of anodic (cor-
rosion) and cathodic polarization (lack of corrosion) are a con-
sequence of this.
B. Stray Current Corrosion
Corrosion processes occur on external surfaces of metallic
underground structures which, due to the character of the en-
vironment, are referred to as “earth corrosion.” Stray currents
flow in the field in the direction of the negative pole of the cur-
rent source (the TPS); such current may flow through nearby
metallic structures, such as underground pipelines and cables
and the facilities belonging to the transit system itself. The point
at which the current flows out of the metallic structure to the
electrolyte will experience corrosion—this type of corrosion is
referred to as electrolytic corrosion.
Electrolytic corrosion is the most severe form of corrosion,
because the metallic structure is forced to become an anode and
the amount of current will be translated directly into metal loss.
The corrosion occurs at the point where the current discharges.
At the point where the stray current leaves the metallic structure,
an anodic corrosion reaction takes place, resulting in oxidation
2240 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2012

where is the length of the grounding rod in meters; is the

diameter of the grounding rod in meters; is the soil resistivity
in ohm-meters ( ). If the concrete casing is added, the fol-
lowing expression is obtained:

(4)

Fig. 2. General scheme of the reference traction line with two TPSs, separated where is the diameter of the concrete encasing in meters;
by km, and one vehicle at km, absorbing the traction current .
is the resistivity of concrete, assumed uniform, in . The es-
timated value of , relating to the buried portion of the pier,
obtained via (4) for various combinations of the parameters de-
(dissolution) of the metal. At the point where the stray current tailed below, is between 2 and 5 ; the parameters implemented
enters the metallic structure, the cathodic part of the corrosion in (4), referred to before, are as follows: m,
reaction occurs. In the anodic area, the reaction is iron dissolu- m, m, m, m.
tion [22] The pier longitudinal resistance term is estimated to be
another 5 to 10 , depending on the rebar-to-concrete electrical
(1) contact. In addition to these two values, the insulation between
the stray current mat and the pier itself adds a third resistive
for the cathodic part, the reaction is oxygen reduction term in series, which is variable depending on the insulating
conditions. The current and rail voltage profile between the train
(2) and an adjacent TPS can be obtained from the transmission-line
theory with the application of appropriate boundary conditions,
The intensity of the stray current that is generated by a rail using an approach similar to that implemented in [24] The cur-
transit system depends largely on the resistance of the rail to rents and sourced by the vehicle from the two TPSs
earth. Insulated rail fasteners, ungrounded traction power sub- are found as
stations, and clean, well-maintained ballasts are used to control
stray current at the source. Experience suggests that there is no
damage in the tracks over a period of 25 years, if the average
stray current per unit length does not exceed 2.5 mA/m [3]. (5)
for and

III. STRAY CURRENT MODEL

A simplified double TPS and single-train model is shown (6)
in Fig. 2. The model is a generic one, describing a dc-electri-
fied railway on a viaduct. The model will default to that of a for . The parameter is a real number given by
dc-electrified railway laid above ground if the pier resistance is
assumed zero (in this case, there will be no pier structure at all). (7)
The length of the traction line between the two TPS is indicated
by and the position of the vehicle, represented by a lumped
and stands for the propagation constant limited to the dc com-
load pulling the current , sourced as currents and from
ponent. The coefficients and are to be determined by ap-
the two TPSs, is made variable between 0 and .
plying the boundary conditions related to the currents, and
In Fig. 2, is the running rail longitudinal resistance,
sourced by the vehicle from the two TPSs. Starting from the
is the rail to concrete mat resistance, is the stray current
current leaving the rail , the currents flowing in the concrete
collector mat resistance, and is the insulation resistance
mat and the piers are determined considering the
of the piers with respect to ground, including the longitudinal
resistive divider composed of the resistance terms and .
resistance of the pier itself, all expressed in per unit length.
By assuming that all of the current leaving the pier through
For the estimation of , the expressions for a concrete en-
impacts on the pipe, the voltage impressed on the same pipe
cased vertical rod given in IEEE Standard 80 [23] is used. The
is determined by multiplying the current and the resistance
total resistance to ground of the viaduct piers is divided
to ground of the pipe . The assumption is based on the fact
into two terms and . The first term is related to the
that the current flows to ground, along the pipe and returns
true grounding resistance of the pier considered first as a bare
to source (via the piers adjacent to the source TPS).
metallic vertical rod, that represents a generic grounding elec-
trode A. Pipeline Assessment Criteria
Methods and criteria for the assessment of stray current cor-
(3)
rosion are defined in a number of international standards such as
OGUNSOLA et al.: ESTIMATION OF STRAY CURRENT FROM A DC-ELECTRIFIED RAILWAY
TABLE I
RESISTANCE TO GROUND OF THE BURIED PIPE IN OHMS
Fig. 3. Schematic of a pipe showing a coating defect.
[25]–[28]. Clause 6 of the EN 50162 [29] specifies criteria for
structures without (Clause 6.1.1) and with cathodic protection
(Clause 6.1.2). Clause 6.1.2 states that a pipeline is deemed to
be exposed to an unacceptable stray current if the IR-free po-
tential is outside the protective potential range specified in EN
12954 [25]. The protection potential of most common metals
is listed in Table I of EN 12954. Generally, corrosion potential
and corrosion current density are used to characterize the active
dissolution ability of materials, while passivation current den-
sity and passivation potential are used to characterize the pas-
sivation ability of materials [30]. Without knowing the type of
metal the pipeline is constructed off, it is difficult for the railway
designer to determine the applicable criteria from Table I of EN
12954 and, thus, relies on the utility owner providing the rele-
vant data; furthermore, the protection criteria and, thus, the safe
corrosion current limit vary from application to application.
While a standardized method exists for the assessment of
stray current, usually by measuring the positive deviations
of the total (including the IR component) potential of a pipe
from its steady-state potential (i.e., ) in
a stray current field, there appears to be no common permis-
sible limit with respect to the positive value of . In practice,
the values of and are usually measured with respect to
a copper-sulfate reference electrode placed on the ground, with
measured in the absence of railway traffic (for example, at
night) and measured during peak traffic. From a theoretical
viewpoint, it is possible for the railway engineer to estimate the
permissible level of the anodic deviations of the potential of the
stray current field; however, to do so, as will be shown, requires
a consideration of the dependence of on the size and shape
of the through defects in the insulating coating of the pipe, the
coating thickness, the soil resistivity, etc., which are not nec-
essarily available to the railway engineer and, thus, the appli-
cation of this theoretical approach requires some simplification.
2241
The through defect in the insulating coating is generally referred
to as “coating holiday” and this implies a damaged or missing
coating on a pipeline, that exposes the pipeline metal [31]. For
a pipe with an insulation thickness , it is assumed that the axis
of a through defect channel in the insulation is normal to the
metal surface, and its cross section is circular having a diameter
. The anodic shift of the potential is the sum of the po-
larization and the ohmic potential drop
(8)
where is the sum of the ohmic resistance of soil in the defect
channel and the ohmic resistance to the current flowing from the
channel mouth. For a soil of resistivity , the spread resistance
can be expressed as[32]
(9)
Then
(10)
where is the stray current density in . The anodic curve
of active steel usually has a Tafel slope mV,
whereas the cathodic range can be approximated by an expo-
nent with a quasi-Tafel slope mV [33]. Usu-
ally, in the presence of stray current, the values are small
compared with ; however, irrespective of this, the limiting
stray current density value taken is so small that the following
Stern-Geary equation [34] for linear polarization is fulfilled
(11)
where is the free corrosion rate, is the polarization resis-
tance and is determined from the slopes of the potential-current
plots measured by the linear polarization curve in the range of
10 mV round the open-circuit potential and .
Hence, (11) can be written as
(12)
It is therefore possible to express in the form:
(13)
where is the spread resistance (otherwise referred to
as the leakage resistance in CEN/TS 15280 [35]), related to a
circular coating defect (as shown in Fig. 3) with area and di-
ameter embedded in soil with a soil resistivity . The spread
resistance plays a very important role in pipeline corrosion and
cathodic protection aspects. Along with the dc current density,
it determines the level of the IR drop measured in dc poten-
tials. It equally determines the level of ac current exchanged
between the soil and the pipe through the coating holiday at a
given pipe-to-soil ac voltage.
The total spread resistance of a coating holiday as shown
in Fig. 3 is given by the following [36]:
(14)
2242 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2012

Fig. 4. Estimated safe stray current induced anodic shift of pipe potential.

For a circular defect

(15)

(16)

where is the soil resistivity in is the pore medium

resistivity in is the carrier plate length in meters, is the
thickness of the coating, is the diameter of the circular defect
as previously defined before, and is the angle of the coating
to coating fault gutter.
Equation (13) can therefore be used to estimate the maximum
safe stray current induced anodic shift of the pipe potential,
calculated for the most dangerous defects, as shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4 represents the dependences of on the product of
varied deliberately over wide limits. In solving (13),
the pipe is assumed to be a low-pressure gas pipeline having
a wall thickness of approximately 4.5 mm, and a speci-
fied operational life of 40 years. Depending on for a
given , the tolerable safe value of can vary in wide
limits, that is, from 20 to 930 mV approximately and the values
20 mV may be considered safe in practice under given
conditions.
B. Pipeline Potential to Ground
Dwight in [37] provided a formulation for the determination
of the resistance to ground of a long buried horizontal cylinder
(whose length is long compared to its depth) [38]:
Fig. 5. Current flow in the concrete mat (a) and piers (b) versus vehicle position
with as a parameter.
IV. RESULTS
The model presented was validated against measurements
taken on a buried steel pipeline having a diameter of 122 cm.
The pipe under consideration was buried in soil having a resis-
tivity of about 100 , at a depth of 1 m below ground and
approximately 12 m below the dc-electrified railway viaduct.
The model parameters used are those corresponding to the ac-
tual railway installation, with a longitudinal resistance of the
running rails km, a rail-to-concrete mat insula-
tion resistance km for the four running rails in
parallel, and a concrete mat resistance km. These
values are all measured values and are in agreement with those
calculated using the CDEGS software, as shown in [17]. The
separation distance between two TPSs is 3 km and the load cur-
rent per train is under 2000 A; 1000 A is taken in the following
analysis as a reference normalizing value.

A. Current Distribution Between Concrete Mat and Piers

(17) Since several terms influence the value of the pier resistance
where the length of the buried pipe line , its radius , and its to ground , a sensitivity analysis is made in order to assess
depth in soil are all in meters and the resistivity is in . the range of variability of the current flowing into the various
The pipeline potential can therefore be readily obtained from longitudinal and transversal terms. The term is varied from
the product of the corrosion current [obtained from the sum of a plausible minimum of 10 up to a maximum of 10 k , taken
(5) and (6)] and the pipeline resistance to ground obtained from as a reference for an infinite value; the results are shown in
(17). Fig. 5.
OGUNSOLA et al.: ESTIMATION OF STRAY CURRENT FROM A DC-ELECTRIFIED RAILWAY 2243

It is easy to see that for the minimum value of 10

(without insulation from the stray current concrete mat), approx-
imately 60% of the current leaving the rails goes into the piers
and, thus, has an impact on the victim pipe.

B. Resistance to Ground of the Buried Pipe

The voltage impressed on the buried pipe is proportional to
the resistance to ground of the same pipe computed with
(17); for this reason, a sensitivity analysis is performed with
respect to earth resistivity, the depth at which the pipe is buried
in soil, and the pipe length. The results are shown in Table I
for the entire pipeline length: for example, the value for
1.6 m and 4000 m is 35 m ; that is, 140 m km.
Results are given for 100- m soil resistivity; extrapolation to
other values can be made linearly.

C. Influence of the Vehicle Longitudinal Position

Depending on the longitudinal position of the vehicle with
respect to the two TPSs, the intensity of the current drawn
from each TPS changes, with constant sum . The behavior is
depicted in Fig. 6, where the considered vehicle positions are
, , , , and . Both simulations shown
in Fig. 6 were made for 1000 A of load current, as is evident
by summing the two left and right terms of the running rails
current. The results can be linearly extrapolated to any other
current value because of the linearity of the phenomena. The Fig. 6. Current flow in the concrete mat (a) and rails (b) for five vehicle posi-
plot of the current flowing in the concrete mat is a part of tions and for 40 .
the total current leaving the rails (the remaining part goes to
the piers). The used value is 40 and corresponds to
the curve already shown in Fig. 5(a); when approaches
infinity, there is no current flowing through the piers and
the current leaving the rails corresponds to the maximum
current profile in the concrete mat of Fig. 5(a), and that for
the vehicle position is 16 A. A displaced position of
the vehicle close to one of the TPSs produces much larger
current in one of the two sections and, as a consequence, a
much larger current in the concrete mat and in the piers. Since
the impressed potential is due to the sole current circulating
between two adjacent piers (or approximately so), then it is
advisable that TPSs are kept far from critical piers (the ones
close to victim buried pipes). For the calculation of the pipe
voltage, with reference to Table I, the resistance to ground Fig. 7. Voltage impressed on the pipe as a function of vehicle position.
of the pipe was set to 0.116 . Also, in this case, the load
current was set to 1000 A and extrapolation to other values
of the current is possible by multiplying by the effective train before, the maximum expected voltage is 0.53 V per 1 kA of ve-
current in kiloamperes. Larger load current values produce hicle current. This result will be used for comparison with the
proportionally larger voltage values, in theory, based on the measurement data shown in the next section. For pipe locations
design margins of the system, of up to 4.5 times larger. The further from the midpoint between TPSs, the maximum voltage
voltage impressed on the pipe as a function of five vehicle that corresponds to the train position during a run increases pro-
positions is shown in Fig. 7. gressively toward either TPS. With an inspection of Fig. 8(b),
The pipe position is now fixed just after the mid position be- values larger than 0.8 V/kA are possible.
tween the two TPS (0.54 L, corresponding to 1620 m) and the
train is made moving between the two TPSs; particular atten- D. Comparison With Measured Values
tion is given to the distribution of train positions around singular Measurements are used in this section to validate the pro-
points, that is in front of the pipe and before and preceding the posed model in terms of plausibility of the results and gen-
pipe, to identify the minimum and the maximum values, respec- eral agreement. The measurement system consists in a reference
tively. The results are shown in Fig. 8. From the results shown electrode using a saturated solution placed above
2244 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2012

Fig. 9. Measured potential on a section of 122-cm-diameter buried pipe, in-

cluding IR drop.

Fig. 8. Voltage impressed on the pipe as a function of vehicle position: pipe

located at (a) 0.54 L (actual position) and (b) 0.2 L.
Fig. 10. Measured potential on a section of 122-cm diameter pipe, excluding
IR drop (at approximately 18:38).

the pipeline at the soil level. Two sample measurements of the

impressed potential on the 122–cm diameter pipe were obtained,
lasting for 24 h and, thus, covering all operating conditions in
normal railway operational service, as shown in Figs. 9 and 10.
The recorded values in Fig. 10 change at time 18:38 h, when
the cathodic protection is switched off, and they settle to an ap-
proximate constant value of about 0.9 V, once a time interval for
depolarization is elapsed. By comparison of Figs. 7 and 10, it is
evident that the proposed model is reasonably accurate with re-
spect to the measured values. The pipe location is approximately
midway between two TPSs and with reference to Fig. 8(a), a
0.53 V/1000-A value may be assumed. The absorbed current of
a train in full configuration is 1800 A (including traction and Fig. 11. Measured potential on a section of 122-cm diameter pipe, excluding
auxiliaries) and, thus, the model gives a maximum impressed IR drop (at approximately 18:38).
voltage of 0.954 V, close to the observed maximum values in
Fig. 10.
A zoom of Fig. 10 is shown (Fig. 11): first, a sawtooth pattern the track equipped with a stray current concrete mat. The
can be seen that follows accelerations and braking of the train; results consist of the current flowing in the various elements
second, the finer temporal resolution enables appreciating the at different vehicle positions and the voltage impressed on
average value, the maximum value,, and the peaks (occurring at an external victim pipe. The comparison with measurement
maximum accelerations, depending also on the driving style) of results indicates that the model is accurate enough within
the impressed voltage. the inaccuracy and uncertainty related to some of the system
parameters, either due to changes in environmental conditions
V. CONCLUSION (soil resistivity, insulation resistance) or operating conditions
(instantaneous traction load current).
A distributed parameter model for the prediction of the
stray current phenomenon in dc-electrified railway systems REFERENCES
is proposed. The model takes into account the longitudinal
[1] A. Mariscotti, “Distribution of the traction return current in AC and DC
and transversal insulation resistances of the various elements electric railway systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 18, no. 4, pp.
that compose, in particular, a viaduct suspended on piers with 1422–1432, Oct. 2003.
OGUNSOLA et al.: ESTIMATION OF STRAY CURRENT FROM A DC-ELECTRIFIED RAILWAY
[2] Part 2, Railway Applications—Fixed Installations—Part 2: Protective
Provisions Against the Effects of Stray Currents Caused by d.c. Trac-
tion Systems, EN 50122, 1999.
[3] Part 2, Railway Applications—Fixed Installations—Electrical Safety,
Earthing and the Return Circuit Part 2: Provisions Against the Effects
of Stray Currents Caused by d.c. Traction Systems, EN 50122, 2010,
pp. 1–34.
[4] M. M. Alamuti, H. Nouri, and S. Jamali, “Effects of earthing systems
on stray current for corrosion and safety behaviour in practical metro
systems,” Inst. Eng. Technol. Elect. Syst. Transport., vol. 1, no. 2, pp.
69–79, Jun. 2011.
[5] S. Jamali, 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., Padua, Italy, Sep. 1–4, 2008, pp. 1–5.
[6] C.-H. Lee, “Effects of grounding schemes on rail potential and stray
currents in Taipei rail transit systems,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Elect.
Power Appl., vol. 48, pp. 14–154, Mar. 2001.
[7] C.-H. Lee and C.-J. Lu, “Assessment of grounding schemes on rail
potential and stray currents in a DC transit system,” IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1941–1947, Oct. 2006.
[8] G. Santi and L. Sandrolini, “Stray current interferences on high-speed
rail transit systems and surrounding buried metallic structures,” in
Proc. 6th Int. Congr., Giardini Naxos, Messina, Italy, May 13–16,
2003, pp. 1–12.
[9] Q. Zhu, A. Cao, W. Zaifend, J. Song, and C. Shengli, “Stray current
corrosion in buried pipeline,” Anti-Corrosion Methods and Materials,
vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 234–237, 2011.
[10] K. Zakowski, “The determination and identification of stray current
source influences on buried pipelines using time/frequency analysis,”
Anti-Corrosion Meth. Mater., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 330–333, 2009.
[11] Y. C. Ha, D. K. Kim, T. H. Ha, H. G. Lee, and J. H.
Bae, “Investigation of stray current from DC subway system
in Korea,” in Proc. Corrosion, Houston, TX, Apr. 3–7, 2005,
pp. 1–8, paper no. 05620.
[12] J. Fitzgerald, “Stray current testing on a gas distribution piping fol-
lowing start-up of a new light rail transit line,” in Proc. Corrosion,
Houston, TX, Apr. 3–7, 2005, pp. 1–11, paper no. 05248.
[13] W. Machczynski, “A calculation model for cathodic protection of
underground extensive structures using impressed current cable
anodes,” Archiv für Elektrotechnik, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 33–39,
Feb. 2002.
[14] B. McCollum and K. H. Logan, Leakage of Currents From Electric
Railways. Washington, DC: Dept. Commerce, Govt. Print. Off.,
1916.
[15] R. D. White and E. Currens, “Earthing the London underground,” in
Proc. Int. Conf. Railway Eng.—Challenges Railway Transport. Inf.
Age, Hong Kong, China, Mar. 25–28, 2008, pp. 1–6.
[16] Y. S. Tzeng and C. H. Lee, “Assessment of grounding, bonding, and
insulation on rail potential and stray currents in a direct current transit
system,” Proc. Inst. Mechan. Eng., Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit,
vol. 223, no. 3, pp. 229–240, Mar. 2009.
[17] C. Charalambous and I. Cotton, “Influence of soil structures on corro-
sion performance of floating-DC transit systems,” Inst. Eng. Technol.
Elect. Power Appl., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9–16, Jan. 2007.
[18] B.-Y. Ku and T. Hsu, “Computation and validation of rail-to-earth po-
tential for diode-grounded DC traction system at Taipei rapid transit
system,” in Proc. ASME/IEEE Joint Rail Conference, Baltimore, MD,
Apr. 6–8, 2004, pp. 41–46.
[19] G. Lucca and M. Moro, “Conductive coupling among electrified
traction lines and buried structures,” in Proc. Int. Symp. Electromagn.
Compat. Eur., Eindhoven, the Netherlands, Sep. 6–10, 2004, pp.
505–509.
[20] I. A. Metwally, H. M. Al-Mandhari, Z. Nadir, and A. Gastli, “Boundary
element simulation of DC stray currents in oil industry due to cathodic
protection interference,” Eur. Trans. Elect. Power, vol. 17, no. 5, pp.
486–499, 2007.
[21] C. Charalambous, I. Cotton, and P. Aylott, “A simulation tool to predict
the impact of soil topologies on coupling between a light rail system
and buried third-party infrastructure,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol.
57, no. 3, pp. 1404–1416, 2008.
2245
[22] J. P. Broomfeld, Corrosion of Steel in Concrete, 2nd ed. Oxon, U.K.:
Taylor & Francis, 2007.
[23] IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, IEEE Standard 80,
2000, pp. 1–199.
[24] A. Ogunsola, “Analysis of EM coupling from AC electrified railway to
nearby earth return circuit,” in Proc. 7th IEEE AFRICON Conf. Africa,
Gaborone, Botswana, Sep. 15–17, 2004, vol. 2, pp. 723–727.
[25] Cathodic Protection of Buried or Immersed Metallic Structures—Gen-
eral Principles and Application for Pipelines, EN 12954, 2001, pp.
1–34.
[26] Cathodic Protection Measurement Techniques, EN 13509, ISO2003,
pp. 1–42.
[27] Corrosion of Metals and Alloys—Basic Terms and Definitions, British
Standards Institute, ISO 8044, 2000, pp. 1–56.
[28] Part 1, Cathodic Protection—Part 1: Code of Practice for Land and
Marine Applications—(Formerly CP 1021), BS 7361, 1991.
[29] Protection Against Corrosion by Stray Current From Direct Current
Systems, EN 50162, 2008, pp. 1–34.
[30] G. Z. Meng, Y. Li, and F. H. Wang, “The corrosion behavior of
Fe-10Cr nanocrystalline coating,” Electrochimica Acta, vol. 51, no.
20, pp. 4277–4284, May 2006.
[31] A. Ogunsola and A. Mariscotti, Electromagnetic Compatibility in Rail-
ways. New York: Springer, 2012.
[32] L. I. Freiman, “Stray-current corrosion criteria for underground steel
pipelines,” Protect. Metals, vol. 39, no. 2, Mar. 2003.
[33] A. Ismail, S. Sanad, and A. El-Meligi, “Inhibiting effect of indole and
some of its derivatives on corrosion of C-steel in HCl,” J. Mater. Sci.
Technol., Shenyang, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 397–400, 2000.
[34] M. Stern and A. L. Geary, “Electrochemical polarization,” J. Elec-
trochem. Soc., vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 56–63, Jan. 1957.
[35] Evaluation of AC Corrosion Likelihood of Buried Pipelines—Applica-
tion to Cathodically Protected Pipelines, CEN/TS 15280, 2006.
[36] L. V. Nielsen, M. B. Petersen, L. Bortels, and J. Parlongue, “Effect of
coating defect size, coating defect geometry, and cathodic polarization
on spread resistance—Consequences in relation to ac corrosion moni-
toring,” in Proc. CEOCOR, 2010, pp. 1–14.
[37] H. Dwight, “Calculation of resistance to ground,” Elect. Eng., vol. 55,
pp. 1319–1328, Dec. 1936, reprinted in Mater. Performance, vol. 22,
no. 4, Apr. 1983.
[38] O. W. Zastrow, “Estimating cathodic protection requirements for elec-
tric cables in contact with soil,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 24, no. 2,
pp. 356–360, Mar./Apr. 1988.
Ade Ogunsola (M’00–SM’03) received the B.Sc.
(Hons.) degree in physics and computer electronics
from North London University, London, U.K., in
1994; the M.Sc. degree in sensor and intelligent
instrumentation from Middlesex University, London,
in 1995; and the Ph.D. degree in electrical and elec-
tronics engineering from Loughborough University,
Loughborough, U.K, in 2008.
Since 2003, he has been with Parsons, where he
is Technical Director—EMC for Parsons Group In-
ternational, U.K., and System Manager for Parsons
MENA, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, since 2011. Prior to joining Par-
sons, he was Engineering Manager with Alstom Transportation Information So-
lutions, Borehamwood, U.K. He is Adjunct Associate Professor of Electrical
and Electroinics Engineering, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria. His
main research interests are electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) of large com-
plex distributed systems, EMC in railway applications, shielding, antenna and
propagation, and EMC functional safety. He is actively involved in standard-
ization in the area of EMC, as well as EMC and functional safety.
Dr. Ogunsola is Chair of AFSEC TC 77, an active member of IEC TC 77,
and the IEC Advisory Committee on Electromagnetic Compatibility (ACEC).
He is a Chartered Engineer, Chartered Physicist, and a Fellow of the Institute of
Physics.
2246
Andrea Mariscotti (M’95) received the Ph.D. de-
gree in electrical engineering from the University of
Genova, Genova, Italy, in 1997.
As a Tenure Researcher under different grants
between 1998 and 2004, he worked in national and
international research programs. In 2005, he became
Assistant Professor at the former Electrical Engi-
neering Department of the University of Genova.
His main research interests are electromagnetic com-
patibility (EMC) applied to industrial, military, and
transportation systems; modeling and measurement
of electromagnetic interference; its relevance to safety and availability; and
the design and construction of measurement instruments. He currently holds
courses in electronic circuits and signal processing, lectures and seminars on
EMC, and applied measurements for companies and agencies in the industrial
and military sectors.
Prof. Mariscotti is a member of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement
Society and of the Italian Electrical and Electronic Measurement Group
(GMEE). He is also a reviewer for IEEE TRANSACTIONS, Elsevier, the Institute
of Physics, and Springer. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in the
Province of Genova.
View publication stats
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 27, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2012
Leonardo Sandrolini (M’00) received the Laurea
(Hons.) and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering
from the University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy, in
1995 and 2000, respectively.
Since 2001, he has been with the Department
of Electrical Engineering, University of Bologna,
Bologna, Italy, as a Tenured Researcher and Assis-
tant Professor. He currently lectures electromagnetic
compatibility at the University of Bologna. He was
also Adjunct Professor at the University of Modena
and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy, from 2002 to
2010. He is a reviewer for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC
COMPATIBILITY and IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS),
Compel, Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications, PIER Journal,
Elsevier (Applied energy, Renewable Energy, Journal of Applied Geophysics),
and MDPI Energies. His research interests are in the areas of electromag-
netic-field theory, electromagnetic compatibility (shielding, electromagnetic
coupling, electromagnetic characterization of dispersive materials, electromag-
netic interference in switching converters, railway applications), and electrical
characterization of renewable energy sources.