188 Electromagnetic Field, Health and Environment

A. Krawczyk et al. (Eds.)

IOS Press, 2008
© 2008 The authors and IOS Press. All rights reserved.

Montecarlo Evaluation of Long Term

Exposure to ELF Magnetic Fields from
Independent Power Lines
Giovanni LUCCA
SIRTI S.p.A.,Via Stamira d'Ancona 9, 20127 Milano Italy;
E-mail:G.Lucca@sirti.it

Abstract – This paper is focused on the evaluation of the environmental magnetic

field produced by independent power lines in order to assess long term exposure
for human beings. The proposed and novel approach, based on the Montecarlo
method, directly takes into account of the intrinsic random nature of the problem.

Keywords. Power lines, magnetic field, random variables.

1. Introduction

In many countries a spread public concern exists about possible (but not demonstrated
till now) long term adverse effects for the human health produced by Extremely Low
Frequency (ELF) magnetic fields (typically 50-60Hz). Just for information, we add that
the limits introduced by some countries (e.g. Italy, Israel, Switzerland or in some states
of USA) in order to protect population against the supposed adverse effect of long
term exposure are very low; they are infact one or two orders of magnitude lower than
the ones established for short term effects (e.g. in the European Union a limit of 100μT
exists for short term effects). For such a reason, in many cases involving power and
industrial installations, there is the need to evaluate the magnetic field produced by
them in order to verify if its value is lower than the one prescribed by the relevant
national standards and regulations in force.
Often, the evaluation consists in calculations that are generally preferred to
measurements because they allow a significant save of time and money and, at the
same time, they permit to give a more complete description of the field in the space
region of interest; moreover, calculation is the only tool at disposal in case of new
plants when they are still at the design or construction stage.
The main problem we want to treat in this paper is the superposition of the effects
produced by two or more independent sources generating a magnetic field in the same
space region. In principle, we have to add the fields produced by each single plant;
nevertheless, even if we know with good precision the input data relevant to each
single installation (i.e. geometrical and physical characteristics and currents circulating
in the conductors), when we vectorially add the single contributions (each one
 G. Lucca / Montecarlo Evaluation of Long Term Exposure to ELF Magnetic Fields 189

represented by a vector phasor), we also need to know phase shift angles among them
in order to make a correct summation. Such phase shift angles (among the fields) are
the phase shift angles among the current terns relevant to each single plant.
In order to better explain the meaning of the phase shift angle see Fig.1 for a
simple example applied to three symmetrical terns.
Such an aspect seems not to be adequately considered in technical literature; as far
as we know, only some papers (focused on fields generated by two independent power
lines) put it into evidence [1]-[3]: in particular, they show that significant differences
can exist between different calculations done by assuming different values for the
phase shift ϕ.
Thus, in general, with N independent plants and by considering the phase angle of
one of them as reference, we have N-1 phase shifts ϕi (i=1,2,..N-1) that must be known
in order to make calculations.
It is also necessary to remark that, depending on load conditions, both phase shifts
among different plants and currents circulating in each single power line are not
constant but vary with time on a scale that can be daily, weekly and seasonal. Such
variations are affected by random factors that lead to a probabilistic and statistical
approach of the magnetic field evaluation, especially if it is aimed to estimate the long
term exposure.
Thus, on the basis of these considerations, it appears that a Montecarlo approach
can be fruitful and has the advantage of automatically reflecting the intrinsic random
nature of the problem.

ϕ2

ϕ1

Figure 1. Example of phase shift angles among three different terns where one of them has been taken
as reference.
190 G. Lucca / Montecarlo Evaluation of Long Term Exposure to ELF Magnetic Fields

2. Description of the Calculation Method

2.1. Outline of the Basic Formulas

The basic formula for calculating the magnetic flux density field B, in free space, in a
generic point of coordinates (x, y, z) produced by a thin wire, is given by [4]:

  μ 0 Id s × u r
B( r ) =
4π ∫Γ r 2
(1)

being I a complex phasor representing the current flowing in the wire Γ, μ0 the absolute
magnetic permeability of vacuum while the other quantities are represented in Fig.2

(x,y,z)

ds ur

Γ
Figure 2. Geometrical elements involved in formula (1).

Thus, provided that the sources of the magnetic field can be modeled by wires, the
application of formula (1) allows to describe any plant even with complex geometrical
configurations (i.e. non parallelisms, crossings, down conductors). Moreover, if the
curve Γ is discretised and approximated by means of a suitable number of straight
segments an analytical formulation for the field B can be deduced from formula (1).
Let us suppose we have to calculate the magnetic flux density field produced by N
independent power lines circuits each one characterized by a balanced current I i
(i=1,2,..N) and by phase shifts ϕk (k=1,2,..N-1): by applying formula (1), the modulus
of the field B in a generic space point (x, y, z) is expressed, in a formal way, by a
relation of the type:
 
B = B(x , y, z, I1 , I 2 ,..I N , ϕ1 , ϕ 2 ,..ϕ N −1 ) (2)
 G. Lucca / Montecarlo Evaluation of Long Term Exposure to ELF Magnetic Fields 191

2.2. Random Quantities

As already remarked, the currents Ii in the power circuits and the phase shifts ϕk are
random variables because they depend on the continuous and random variation of the
load conditions relevant to the considered power circuits. The statistical distributions of
such quantities can be derived from the database relevant to recordings, over long time
periods, of real and reactive powers as well as voltages measured at the receiving or
sending ends of the involved lines; this kind of database should be available at the
power line operator.
In the event of this historical database would not be available or existing (e.g. in
case of lines under construction) one could adopt, on the basis of previous knowledge
and experience, a certain ''a priori'' distribution (e.g. the uniform or normal
distribution).
Anyway, in order to be able to perform a Montecarlo simulation, one must know
the N probability density distributions of the currents I i circulating in the N power
circuits and the N-1 probability density distributions of the phase shifts among the
power circuits.
Thus, by looking at formula (2), the magnetic flux density field can be considered
as a random variable function of 2N-1 independent random variables.

2.3. Output of the Montecarlo Method

The Montecarlo method (also said of statistical trials) [5] consists, in this case, in
assigning, to each of the 2N-1 independent variables, a random value according to their
respective probability distributions and then in calculating the magnetic flux density
field according to formula (2); thus, after a suitable number M of trials, one can obtain
a statistical distribution of the field B for each point (x, y, z) in the space .
Finally, by processing the data relevant to such a distribution, it is possible to
deduce a certain number of statistical quantities that are of main interest for assessing
long term exposure. The most meaningful are the mean and median values.
In particular, for the mean value it is possible to give an estimation of the error.
Infact, if:
• Bm(x, y, z) is the mean value (in modulus) of the field;
• bi(x, y, z) is the field value (in modulus) resulting from the i-th trial;
• σ is the standard deviation of the random variable B(x,y,z).
we have that the error e(x,y,z) is expressed by:

1 M
e(x, y, z ) = ∑ b i (x, y, z ) − B m (x, y, z ) (3)
M i =1

The summation in formula (3) is the sample mean of M-th order that we indicate by:

1 M
B M (x , y, z ) = ∑ b i (x , y, z ) (4)
M i =1
192 G. Lucca / Montecarlo Evaluation of Long Term Exposure to ELF Magnetic Fields

As a direct consequence of the Central Limit Theorem and of the so called ''three
sigma rule'', it is possible to estimate the following probability P [5]:

⎧ 3σ(x , y, z ) ⎫
P ⎨e(x , y, z ) < ⎬ ≈ 0.997 (5)
⎩ M ⎭

We can notice that the error is inversely proportional to the square root of the
number M of trials.
Actually, we do not know the standard deviation σ, but usual practice is to replace
it, in formula (5), by the sample standard deviation s M(x,y,z) of M-th order evaluated
through the formula:

1 M
s M (x, y, z ) = ∑ (b i (x, y, z ) − B M (x, y, z ) )2 (6)
M i =1

We would like to remark that the statistical quantities in formulas from (3) to (6)
are all function of the space point (x, y, z); that means we have to run M trials for each
space point to be considered.

3. Examples of Application

3.1. Introduction

This paragraph presents two examples of application relevant to two real cases that are
based on simple geometries (parallel and infinite conductors) and on the minimum
number of independent plants i.e. two; these are not limitations of the method that, in
principle, can be applied to cases with any number N of independent plants and with
more complex geometries and line layouts even if with more computational effort.

3.2. Two Independent Power Lines: Constant Currents

The first example deals with a double circuit 132 kV, 50 Hz power line that is still at
the design stage and is devoted to supply two independent electrified railway lines (the
first one 3 kV d.c. and the other one 25 kV, 50 Hz); the six conductors forming the
double circuit are installed on the same masts for a considerable length.
Even if the lines are not still existing, it is necessary to make a previsional
evaluation of the magnetic field produced by the currents circulating in the two circuits.
In this example the currents are assumed to be known and constant but the phase
shift ϕ is assumed to be a random quantity uniformly distributed in the interval [0 0,
3600]; thus, in this case, the problem is characterized by only one random variable.
The conductors are treated, for simplicity, as infinite straigth wires having constant
mean height with respect to the soil (i.e. the catenary effect is neglected); such a
simplied geometry allows for the use of a bidimensional model described by the well
known Biot-Savart formula [6].
In Table 1 the conductors position and the current circulating on them are reported.
 G. Lucca / Montecarlo Evaluation of Long Term Exposure to ELF Magnetic Fields 193

Table 1: Conductors position and current

Current:
Current: real
Abscissa [m] Ordinate [m] imaginary part
part [A]
[A]

2.8 28 0 0
3.8 24 0 -106

3.1 20 0 106
-2.8 28 -165 -85

-3.8 24 -46 141

-3.1 20 211 -56

The plots of Figure 3a represent the mean and median values (rms) of the magnetic
flux density field versus lateral distance x from the line axis. Each curve is relevant to a
fixed height h from the soil. These results have been obtained by means of 4000 trials.

h=15m
5
mean and median value of B [μT]

h=10m
2

h=5m
h=1m
1

0
80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80
lateral distance [m]

Figure 3a. Mean (solid lines) and median (dashed lines) values of the magnetic flux density field versus
lateral distance evaluated at different heights h from the soil; M=4000.
194 G. Lucca / Montecarlo Evaluation of Long Term Exposure to ELF Magnetic Fields

0.04

h=15m

0.03
upper bound of the error [μT]

0.02

h=10m

0.01
h=5m
h=1m

0
80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80
lateral distance [m]

Figure 3b. Upper bound of the error (referred to the mean value) versus lateral distance evaluated at different
heights h from the soil; M=4000.

It is interesting to note that, in all the cases, the curves of mean and median values
are practically overlapping.
On the basis of formula (5), the upper bound of the error e(x,y,z) versus the lateral
distance from the line axis has been plotted in Figure 3b.

3.3. Two Independent Power Lines: non Constant Currents

The second example deals with a double circuit 380 kV, 50 Hz, with balanced currents,
that is in operation; the six conductors forming the double circuit are installed on the
same masts for a considerable length.
In this case we have at disposal some historical data concerning the currents
flowing in the two circuits as well as the the phase shift between them; in particular, the
currents circulating in the first and second circuits have values inside the intervals
[10A, 410A], [320A, 720A] respectively, while the phase shift ranges inside the
interval [00, 3600].
Therefore, in this case, we have three random variables that are:
• the current I1 in the first circuit;
• the current I2 in the second circuit;
• the phase shift ϕ between the two circuits.
 G. Lucca / Montecarlo Evaluation of Long Term Exposure to ELF Magnetic Fields 195

We further assume that:

• the current I1 has normal distibution with mean value equal to 210A and standard
deviation equal to 57.14A: that means a probability of 0.046% of having a value
for I1 outside of the interval [10A, 410A];
• the current I2 has normal distibution with mean value equal to 520A and standard
deviation equal to 57.14A: that means a probability of 0.046% of having a value
for I2 outside of the interval [320A, 720A];
• the phase shift ϕ between the two circuits is uniformly distributed inside the
interval [00, 3600]1.
We remark that the assumption of normal distribution for the currents is fairly
reasonable as confirmed also by measurements. See for example [7].
As far as geometry is concerned, also in this case we model the conductors by
means of infinite straight wires having constant height with respect to the soil.
In Table 2, the conductors position and information about the current are reported.

Table 2. Conductors position and current

Abscissa [m] Ordinate [m] Current Phase current

-9.43 47 I2 00

-9.93 38 I2 2400
-10.63 29 I2 1200

9.43 47 I1 1200

9.93 38 I1 2400

10.63 29 I1 00

The plots of Figure 4a represent the mean and median values (rms) of the magnetic
flux density field versus lateral distance from the line axis are. These results have been
obtained by means of 4000 trials. In Figure 4b, the upper bound of the error e(x,y,z)
versus lateral distance from the line axis has been plotted.

1
In other cases, this assumption is not realistic because the range of the phase shift is restricted to a much
narrower interval.
196 G. Lucca / Montecarlo Evaluation of Long Term Exposure to ELF Magnetic Fields
4
h=15m
3.5

mean and median value of B [μT]

3

h=10m
2.5

2
h=5m
1.5

h=1m
0.5

0
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
lateral distance [m]

Figure 4a. Mean (solid lines) and median (dashed lines) values of the magnetic flux density field versus
lateral distance evaluated at different heights h from the soil; M=4000.

0.025

h=15m

0.02
upper bound of the error [μT]

0.015
h=10m
h=5m
0.01

h=1m
0.005

0
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
lateral distance [m]
Figure 4b. Upper bound of the error (referred to the mean value) versus lateral distance evaluated at different
heights h from the soil; M=4000.
 G. Lucca / Montecarlo Evaluation of Long Term Exposure to ELF Magnetic Fields 197

4. Conclusions

We have presented in this paper a novel method to assess the ELF magnetic flux
density field produced by independent power lines; the calculation procedure, based on
the Montecarlo method, takes into account, in a natural way, of the intrinsic random
nature of the problem allowing to easily get some statistical quantities, like mean and
median values, of the field (in each point of the space) that are of main importance in
estimating the long term human exposure.

References

[1] G. Mazzanti, The Role Played by Current Phase Shift on Magnetic Field Established by AC Double-
Circuit Overhead Transmission Lines-Part I: Static Analysis'', IEEE Trans. On Power Delivery, vol.21,
pp. 938-948, Apr. 2006.
[2] M. Albano, R. Benato, R. Turri, Predictive Analysis of Environmental Magnetic Fields Generated by
Multiple Power Lines, Proc. IEEE Power Tech Conference, June 23-26 2003, Bologna, Italy.
[3] M. Albano, R. Benato, R. Turri, 'Determination of Line Current Phase Angle Displacement from
Magnetic Field Measurements in Multiple-Corridor Power lines', Proc. UPEC Conference, September
1-3 2003, Thessaloniki, Greece.
[4] C. T. A. Johnk, Engineering Electromagnetic Fields and Waves, 1st ed., John Wiley &Sons, 1975.
[5] M. Sobol, The Monte Carlo Method, 2nd ed., MIR Publishers Moscow, 1984.
[6] IEEE Magnetic Fields Task Force, ''Magnetic Fields from Electric Power Lines Theory and
Comparison to Measurements, IEEE Trans. On Power Delivery, vol. 3, pp. 2127-2136, Oct. 1988.
[7] J. Hoeffelman, G. Decat, J-L. Lilien, A. Delaigle, B. Govaerts, Assessment of the electric and magnetic
field levels in the vicinity of the HV overhead power lines in Belgium', paper C3-202, CIGRE Session
2004, Paris.