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

net/publication/3275621

Homogenous Earth Approximation of Two-Layer Earth Structures: An

Equivalent Resistivity Approach

Article in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery · February 2007

DOI: 10.1109/TPWRD.2006.881465 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
40 1,222

3 authors:

Dimitrios Tsiamitros Grigoris Papagiannis

University of Western Macedonia Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
73 PUBLICATIONS 769 CITATIONS 221 PUBLICATIONS 2,952 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Petros Dokopoulos
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
144 PUBLICATIONS 4,940 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dimitrios Tsiamitros on 17 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

658 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 22, NO. 1, JANUARY 2007

Homogenous Earth Approximation of Two-Layer

Earth Structures: An Equivalent Resistivity Approach
Dimitrios A. Tsiamitros, Member, IEEE, Grigoris K. Papagiannis, Member, IEEE, and
Petros S. Dokopoulos, Member, IEEE

Abstract—The homogenous earth representation of two-layer The reliability of the multilayered earth representation de-
earth structures for earth return impedance calculations is inves- pends on the accuracy of the original ground resistivity mea-
tigated in this paper. This representation is based on equivalent surements. These measurements, however, vary significantly ac-
resistivity, which takes properly into account the electromagnetic
and the geometrical properties of the two earth layers. The equiv- cording to the weather, the season, and the temperature. There-
alent resistivity can be used in the relatively simpler formulas fore, it may be practical for the power engineer to use a proper
for the earth return calculations for the case of homogenous homogeneous representation of the multilayered earth and im-
earth. The new expression is implemented for six actual cases of plement the relatively simpler formulas for the homogeneous
two-layer earth structures involving combinations of overhead earth. The scope of this paper is to present a new simple ex-
and underground conductors. Results show that the equivalent
resistivity approach can lead to significant simplifications in
pression for the equivalent resistivity of a homogeneous rep-
most cases of switching transient simulations in the presence of resentation of two-layer earth structures. The expression is de-
two-layer earth structures. rived by the combination of the formulas for the two-layer earth
Index Terms—Electromagnetic transients analysis, nonhomo- models of [3], [10], and [11] and the respective expressions for
geneous earth, power cable modeling, power transmission-line the homogeneous earth in [1] and [2]. The validity of the new ex-
impedance. pression is checked by comparison between the two-layer earth
impedances obtained using the two-layer earth models and the
equivalent homogeneous earth impedances obtained by the ho-
I. INTRODUCTION mogeneous earth representation.
For this purpose, six two-layer earth cases based on actual
A N IMPORTANT step in transient simulations or electro-
magnetic-compatibility (EMC) studies is the accurate de-
termination of the conductor impedances. These impedances are
ground resistivity measurements [5] are examined. Self and mu-
tual impedances are calculated for three of the most common
strongly influenced by the presence of the lossy earth return conductor arrangements: overhead transmission lines, under-
path. For the case where the earth is assumed to be semi-infinite ground cables, and the combination of overhead lines and un-
and homogeneous, proper earth correction terms can be calcu- derground conductors. The maximum difference in the complex
lated using the widely accepted Carson’s [1] and Pollaczek’s impedances calculated is less than 9%, indicating that the rela-
[2] formulas for overhead and underground conductors, respec- tively simple formulas of [1] and [2] can be combined with the
tively. These terms depend on the geometrical configuration, on proposed equivalent resistivity expression for the efficient cal-
the frequency, and on the earth resistivity. culation of the impedances for a two-layer earth.
In practice, the earth is nonhomogeneous. Several techniques Finally, the actual switching transient voltages and currents
have been developed to simulate a nonuniform soil by means are calculated, using the impedances obtained by both the two-
of horizontal layers of different earth resistivity [3]–[6]. The layer and the equivalent homogeneous earth representation. The
parameters of such a multilayered earth model are calculated recorded differences are almost zero, showing that the equiv-
from the actual earth surface resistivities, which are measured alent resistivity approximation can be also used for switching
using standard procedures [7]. transient calculations.
For the calculation of the earth return impedances in the case
of multilayered earth, the methodologies proposed by Sunde [3], II. DERIVATION OF THE FORMULA
Wedepohl [8], and Nakagawa [9] for the case of overhead con-
ductors can be used. For the case of underground conductors or A. Overhead Line Arrangement
for complex configurations consisting of both overhead and un-
derground conductors, analytic expressions are proposed in [10] In Fig. 1, two overhead conductors and a two-layer earth con-
and [11]. All of these approaches involve complex semi-infinite figuration are shown. The first layer has permeability , permit-
integral terms and their calculation is not easy. tivity , and conductivity , while the corresponding proper-
ties of the second earth layer are , , and . The air has a
conductivity equal to zero and permeability and permit-
Manuscript received October 4, 2005; revised February 2, 2006. Paper no. tivity equal to those of free space. Since most soil types are
TPWRD-00593-2005. nonmagnetic, all of the magnetic permeabilities in Fig. 1 can be
The authors are with the Power Systems Laboratory, Department of Electrical considered equal to the free space permeability.
and Computer Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki
GR-54124, Greece (e-mail: [email protected]). The per-unit length mutual earth return impedance between
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2006.881465 the two conductors for the two-layer earth case of Fig. 1 is given
0885-8977/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE
TSIAMITROS et al.: HOMOGENOUS EARTH APPROXIMATION 659

problem have been already solved and (4) is obtained by equal-

izing the per-unit length impedances, which are independent of
the coordinates and . After some simple transformations, the
following expression is derived:

(5)
The exponential terms in the right-hand side of (5) are com-
plex terms. The left-hand side of (5) is a real number. This dis-
Fig. 1. Geometric configuration of two overhead lines and two-layer earth. crepancy results from the assumption commonly adopted in the
derivation of the earth return impedance formulas in [1]–[3] and
[8]–[11] according to which the propagation constant along the
by the general expression (1), with depending on the ac- lines is the same regardless of the earth structure. Thus, the cur-
tual earth structure [12]. For the two-layer earth case of Fig. 1, rent attenuation along the lines is neglected and the propagation
has the form of (2), where , , constant is considered to be equal to the free-space propagation
2, and is the imaginary unit constant in both the two-layer and the homogeneous
earth cases.
This assumption is valid at the power frequency. However, for
frequencies higher than 1 MHz, the validity of this assumption is
highly questionable. This also becomes obvious in (5). For any
(1) two-layer earth structure, the right-hand side of (5) is a complex
number with a negligible imaginary part for frequencies close
to 50 or 60 Hz. With increasing frequency, the imaginary part
(2) becomes more significant and difficult to be neglected.
Due to this inconsistency, (5) must be further processed. By
If the earth is considered to be homogeneous with an equiva- replacing , (5) takes the form as shown
lent resistivity equal to and an equivalent conductivity equal in (6), at the bottom of the page.
to , (1) takes the form of (3), which is the well- Equation (6) can be used as a complex-valued equivalent re-
known Carson’s formula [1] sistivity approximation. However, the numerical methods used
so far for the calculation of Carson [1] and Pollaczek [2] in-
tegrals and the respective supporting routines of most software
packages are based on the assumption that the earth resistivity is
real. In order to reach a convenient expression for the equivalent
(3) resistivity, which can be easily adopted in practical calculations,
the expression of (6) must be further processed in order to give a
real value. The term is a complex number with a
where . magnitude always equal to unity. Replacing this term with unity,
Equalizing (1) and (3), the following equation is derived: the final form of the real-valued equivalent resistivity approxi-
mation is

(4)
The integration variable is the transformed space variable,
resulting from the Fourier transform of the differential electro- (7)
magnetic-field equations. Mathematically, it represents the fre-
quency of the Fourier spectrum [13]. Equation (4) is valid for B. Underground Cables Arrangements
every value of in the domain. A convenient choice In Fig. 2, two single-core (SC) underground cables are
that can help the elimination of in (4) is to set equal to buried in a two-layer earth configuration as in Fig. 1. The
zero. This selection does not affect the validity of the solu- per-unit length mutual earth return impedance between the
tion, since the electromagnetic-field equations describing the cables is given by (8), according to [10]. In (8), ,

(6)
660 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 22, NO. 1, JANUARY 2007

After some simple transformations, (9) is transformed into

(10), which is the one proposed by Pollaczek [2]

(10)

where

(11)

Fig. 2. Geometric configuration of two SC underground cables in two-layer

earth. and , .
The expression for the equivalent resistivity results by set-
, and , , as shown
ting (8) equal to (9). This equality is valid for every possible
in (8), at the bottom of the page.
cable configuration and position. Therefore, without any loss of
When earth is considered to be homogeneous, the mutual
generality, it can be assumed that and are equal to zero.
impedance is also given by (8), by replacing and with .
Substituting this condition in (8) and (9), the expression of (12)
This transformation is shown in (9), where is the modified
is derived
complex Bessel function of the second kind with zero order

(12)
After is set equal to zero, (12) becomes similar to (5). Thus,
an equation similar to (7) is also derived.

C. Arrangements Comprising of Overhead and Underground

Conductors
In Fig. 3, an overhead–underground conductors system is
shown. All of the magnetic permeabilities in Fig. 3 are con-
sidered to be equal to the free space permeability. Extending
the basic solution of [10] for the complex system of Fig. 3,
the per-unit length mutual earth return impedance between
the two conductors is given by (13) and [11]. If and are
substituted by , (13) takes the form of (14) as proposed in
[2] and in [11] for the homogeneous earth case, as shown in
(13) at the bottom of the page.
(9) By setting and equal to zero and equalizing (13) and
(14), once again an expression similar to (5) is produced, leading

(8)

(13)
TSIAMITROS et al.: HOMOGENOUS EARTH APPROXIMATION 661

TABLE I
TWO-LAYER EARTH MODELS

TABLE II
EQUIVALENT RESISTIVITIES CALCULATED BY THE NEW EXPRESSION

Fig. 3. Geometric configuration of an overhead and an underground conductor

in two-layer earth.

to an equation similar to (7) for the equivalent resistivity of the

fictitious homogeneous earth

(14)

III. REMARKS ON THE NEW EXPRESSION

The equivalent earth resistivity of (7) depends on the resistivi-
ties of the two earth layers, the depth of the first layer, and on the
frequency. Therefore, the expression of the equivalent resistivity
is the same for all cases of examined conductor configurations.
By simple inspection, it is shown that if the two layers have the
same resistivity, the equivalent resistivity becomes equal to the
resistivity of the single layer. Next, for high frequencies or high
values of the first layer depth and conductivity , the ex-
ponential term in (7) becomes almost zero and the equivalent from 50 Hz up to 1 MHz is considered, to cover operating
resistivity results are almost equal to the first earth layer resis- conditions from steady state up to very fast transients. The
tivity. In such cases (i.e., where the penetration depth [14] given results are shown in Table II.
by (15) approaches the first earth layer depth), the earth can be To check the accuracy of the assumption of a real equiva-
considered as homogeneous with a resistivity equal to that of lent resistivity, which was implemented in (7), the real and the
the first layer imaginary parts of the right-hand side of (5) as well as the re-
spective approximate real equivalent resistivity of (7) are plotted
(15) in Fig. 4(a) and (b) for CASE VI and CASE III of Table I and
for the frequency range from 50 Hz up to 1 MHz, respectively.
As shown in [10]–[12], the impedance formulas of overhead It is obvious that the approximation is very accurate for low fre-
lines or underground cables for cases of two-layer earth struc- quencies. As the frequency increases, the imaginary part also in-
tures are complex and their calculation requires the implemen- creases. The approximation is better if the divergence between
tation of specific numerical integration techniques. The distinct the resistivities of the layers is smaller. To further check the
advantage of the new expression of (7) is that it can be combined accuracy of the approximation, the actual impedances of sev-
with the much simpler Carson and Pollaczek formulas in order eral configurations, calculated using the equivalent resistivity
to perform the same task (i.e., to calculate the impedances for approach, are compared to the corresponding which results by
two-layer earth structures). the expressions for the two-layer earth, for the frequency range
between 50 Hz and 1 MHz.
IV. EARTH RETURN IMPEDANCE CALCULATIONS
The equivalent resistivity approach is checked for six dif- A. Overhead Lines Impedances
ferent two-layer earth models, based on actual grounding pa- Two typical overhead line configurations, namely a
rameter measurements [5]. The corresponding data for the re- single-circuit 150-kV transmission line and a double-cir-
sistivities of the first and of the second layer and for the cuit 735-kV line with a single conductor per phase as shown in
depth of the first layer are shown in Table I. Fig. 5(a) and (b), respectively, are examined. Transmission-line
The frequency-dependent equivalent earth resistivities are data according to [12] are shown in Table III. The impedances
calculated using (7) for the above cases. A frequency range for the configurations of Fig. 5 and the two-layer earth models
662 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 22, NO. 1, JANUARY 2007

TABLE III
TRANSMISSION-LINE DATA

Fig. 6. Differences in the mutual impedances between the two-layer earth

model and the equivalent resistivity approximation for the single-circuit
Fig. 4. Real and imaginary part of the right-hand side of (5) together with the transmission line.
approximate real equivalent resistivity (a) for Case VI of Table I and (b) for Case
III of Table I.

Fig. 7. Differences in the self impedances between the two-layer earth model
Fig. 5. Transmission-line configurations: (a) 150-kV single-circuit transmis- and the equivalent resistivity approximation for the double-circuit transmission
sion line and (b) 735-kV double-circuit transmission line. line.

of Table I are calculated using the formulas proposed in [3]. Figs. 6 and 7 show that differences of less than the 9% result
They are compared to those calculated by Carson’s formula [1] by the application of the equivalent resistivity approach. The
for the homogeneous earth model, using the equivalent earth greater differences occur for the cases of great divergence be-
resistivities calculated in Table II. The differences calculated tween the layers resistivity (e.g., cases VI and IV and for fre-
by (16) are shown in Figs. 6 and 7 for the mutual and self quencies beyond 500 kHz). These differences are due to the as-
impedances, respectively sumptions adopted in the derivation of the equivalent resistivity
formula, as reported before.

difference B. Underground Cables Impedances

The case of an SC cable system is examined in the hori-
(16) zontal arrangement of Fig. 8(a) as in [10]. Cables are in a depth
TSIAMITROS et al.: HOMOGENOUS EARTH APPROXIMATION 663

Fig. 8. (a) Horizontal SC cable arrangement and (b) SC cable with core and
sheath.

TABLE IV
DATA OF THE SC CABLE ARRANGEMENT OF Fig. 8 Fig. 10. Differences in the self impedances between the two-layer earth model
and the equivalent resistivity approximation for the cable arrangement.

Fig. 11. Geometric configuration of a single-circuit overhead line and an un-

derground insulated conductor in a two-layer earth.

C. Overhead and Underground Conductors Impedances

The system configuration examined is shown in Fig. 11. It

consists of a single-circuit overhead line with two ground wires.
Fig. 9. Differences in the mutual impedances between the two-layer earth The ground and phase conductors are solid cylindrical with ra-
model and the equivalent resistivity approximation for the cable arrangement. dius 0.004 m and 0.0109 m, respectively. The ground wires have
a conductivity equal to and a relative perme-
ability equal to 250. The corresponding values for the phase con-
with spacing m. Each SC cable has a ductors are and 1. The insulated underground
core and a sheath, as shown in Fig. 8(b). The cable data are re- conductor has an inner radius equal to 0.195 m and an outer
produced in Table IV. Series impedances for this cable config- radius of 0.2 m, with an insulation thickness of 0.1 m. The con-
uration and for the six earth models of Table I have been cal- ductivity and the relative permeability of the underground con-
culated using the proposed analytic formula of (8) for the fre- ductor are the same as the ground wires. The insulation of the
quency range of 50 Hz to 1 MHz. The results are compared to underground conductor has a relative permeability equal to 1.
the impedances obtained by (9) for the homogeneous earth case The mutual impedances between the lines and the under-
with the equivalent resistivities of Table II. The differences cal- ground conductor are calculated for the six earth models of
culated by (16) are presented in Figs. 9 and 10 for the mutual Table I using (13). The results are compared to the impedances
and self impedances, respectively. obtained by (14) for the homogeneous earth case with the
The differences are less than 5% and the greater values appear equivalent resistivities of Table II. The differences calculated
once again for the cases of significant divergence between the by (16) are presented in Fig. 12. The differences are less than
layers resistivity and for frequencies of more than 100 kHz. 6% for all cases and appear for frequencies over 500 kHz.
664 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 22, NO. 1, JANUARY 2007

Fig. 12. Differences in the mutual impedance between the two-layer earth
model and the equivalent resistivity approximation for the overhead line–un-
derground conductor system.

Fig. 14. Test configuration open phase b voltage. Two-layer earth CASE VI
versus equivalent homogeneous earth model for a 50-km-long single-circuit
line.

TABLE V
PEAK VALUES RELATIVE (%) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HOMOGENEOUS AND
TWO-LAYERED EARTH MODELS FOR THE 50-KM-LONG LINE OF FIG. 13

Fig. 13. Test configuration for switching transient simulation.

V. ELECTROMAGNETIC TRANSIENT ANALYSIS

A. Overhead Lines
To check the influence of the proposed model in transient
simulation results, a simple switching transient on an overhead
line configuration is examined. The BPA field test configuration, Fig. 6. The results are practically identical even at voltage peaks.
described in [15], is adopted as shown in Fig. 13. The trans- For better verification of the accuracy of the approximation, the
mission-line arrangement of Fig. 5(a) is considered with a total relative differences in peak transient voltages and currents for all
length of 50 km. A single-line-to-ground fault through 2- re- examined cases are recorded in Table V. These differences are
sistance is applied at the open end of phase at . calculated using a formula similar to (16), keeping the two-layer
First, the configuration of Fig. 5(a) is considered to be over a earth results as reference.
two-layer earth having the characteristics of the six cases of From Fig. 14 and Table V, it is shown that the differences
Table I. A time-domain transmission-line model is used. The in the impedances of Figs. 6 and 7 influence the transient re-
per-unit length line parameters have been calculated using (1) sponses less than 1% in all examined cases. The corresponding
and the procedure described in [12]. Constant modal transfor- differences recorded in [12], when the resistivity of the homo-
mation matrices are calculated at the frequency of 1 kHz. Next, geneous earth is assumed to be equal to the resistivity of the first
in the same overhead line model, the earth is assumed to be ho- layer, are almost 18%.
mogeneous with the equivalent resistivity of Table II. The line
parameters in this case have been calculated using the LINE B. Underground Cables
CONSTANTS supporting the routine of the Electromagnetic A simple switching transient in a cable configuration is also
Transients Program (EMTP) at the same frequency [16]. The examined. The test configuration adopted from [17] is shown in
transient voltages and currents are calculated using an integra- Fig. 15. The SC cable of Fig. 8 is used, with a length equal
tion step . to 1 km. A three-phase balanced sinusoidal voltage source with
Fig. 14 shows the results of the simulation for the phase b a peak magnitude of 1.0 p.u. is connected at the sending end of
open-end voltage for the two-layer and the equivalent homo- the cable. The cable sheaths are grounded at both sending and
geneous earth. The CASE VI of the two-layer earth models of receiving ends with 10- resistances. A balanced resistive load
Table I is chosen, as this case presents the greatest differences in of 100 is connected at the receiving end. A single line-to-
TSIAMITROS et al.: HOMOGENOUS EARTH APPROXIMATION 665

TABLE VI
PEAK VALUES RELATIVE (%) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HOMOGENEOUS
AND TWO-LAYERED EARTH MODELS FOR THE 1-km-LONG
UNDERGROUND CABLE OF FIG. 15

Fig. 15. System diagram of the single-line-to-ground short-circuit test.

the homogeneous earth was assumed to be equal of that of the

first layer, the differences in the transient voltages and currents
would vary between 9% and 30% [10].

VI. CONCLUSION
An equivalent earth resistivity approximation for the calcula-
tion of the earth return impedance of conductors for the case of a
two-layer earth structure is presented in this paper. An analytic
expression for the equivalent resistivity of a fictitious homoge-
neous earth structure is derived. The equivalent resistivity can
be used in the Carson and Pollaczek expressions for the homo-
geneous earth, greatly simplifying the calculation process.
Several configurations involving combinations of overhead
and underground conductors are examined. The derived expres-
sion results in the same for all configurations, as it depends only
on the frequency, on the earth layer structure, and on the elec-
Fig. 16. Cable 2 receiving end voltage. Two-layer earth CASE VI versus equiv-
alent homogeneous earth model for the 1-km-long SC cable arrangement. tromagnetic properties of each layer.
For the validation of the new expression, six two-layer earth
structures, based on actual earth resistivity measurements, are
ground fault is applied at the receiving end of core 1 through a investigated. For each earth model and conductor arrangement,
resistance of 0.05 at time zero. the differences between the exact values of the self and mutual
First, the cable configuration of Fig. 8 is considered to be impedances and the corresponding by the use of the equivalent
buried in a two-layer earth having the characteristics of the six resistivity in the homogeneous earth expressions are recorded.
cases of Table I. A time-domain cable model is used with the The differences are practically negligible for all cases up to
per-unit length cable parameters calculated using (8) and the 100 kHz. In the 1-MHz range, they result in less than 9%, even
methodology presented in [10]. Constant modal transformation for the cases of great divergence between the resistivities of the
matrices are calculated at the frequency of 16.667 kHz, due two earth layers.
to the short cable length. Next, in the same cable model, the The overhead lines and cables impedances obtained con-
earth is assumed to be homogeneous with a resistivity equal sidering the two-layer and the equivalent homogeneous earth
to the equivalent resistivity of Table II. The cable parameters models are used in the calculation of the transient response in
are then calculated using the CABLE CONSTANTS/PARAM- simple switching transients. The results show no practical dif-
ETERS supporting routine of the EMTP [16]. The transient volt- ference, indicating that the equivalent resistivity approximation
ages and currents are calculated using an integration step of can be used in transient simulation involving two-layer earth
. structures.
In Fig. 16, the voltage at the receiving end of core 2 for the
two-layer earth is superimposed on the corresponding curve REFERENCES
for the homogeneous earth for CASE VI of the two-layer earth [1] J. R. Carson, “Wave propagation in overhead wires with ground return,”
models of Table I. Since the resulting curves are practically Bell Syst. Tech. J., no. 5, pp. 539–554, 1926.
identical, the recorded relative differences in peak transient [2] F. Pollaczek, “Ueber das Feld einer unendlich langen wechselstrom-
durchflossenen Einfachleitung,” Elektrische Nachrichtentechnik, vol.
voltages and currents for all examined cases are also shown 3, no. 4, pp. 339–359, 1926.
in Table VI. These differences are calculated using a formula [3] E. D. Sunde, Earth Conduction Effects in Transmission Systems, 2nd
similar to (16), keeping the two-layer earth results as reference. ed. New York: Dover, 1968, pp. 30–33, 99–139.
[4] F. Dawalibi and C. J. Blattner, “Earth resistivity measurements inter-
From Fig. 16 and Table VI, it is shown that the resulting pretation techniques,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-103, no.
differences are less than 4% in all cases. If the resistivity of 2, pp. 374–382, Feb. 1984.
666 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 22, NO. 1, JANUARY 2007

[5] J. L. del Alamo, “A Comparison among different techniques to achieve [17] T.-C. Yu and J. R. Marti, “A robust phase-coordinates frequency-de-
an optimum estimation of electrical grounding parameters in two-lay- pendent underground cable model (zCable) for the EMTP,” IEEE
ered earth,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1890–1899, Oct. Trans. Power Del., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 189–194, Jan. 2003.
1993.
[6] I. F. Gonos and I. A. Stathopoulos, “Estimation of multilayer soil pa-
rameters using genetic algorithms,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 20,
no. 1, pp. 100–106, Jan. 2005. Dimitrios A. Tsiamitros (M’05) was born in Kozani, Greece, in 1979. He
[7] IEEE Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground Impedance and received the Dipl.-Eng. and Ph.D. degrees from the Department of Electrical
Earth Surface Potential of a Ground System, IEEE Std. 81-1983, 1983. and Computer Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki,
[8] L. M. Wedepohl and R. G. Wasley, “Wave propagation in multicon- Greece, in 2001 and 2005, respectively.
ductor overhead lines—Calculation of series impedance for multilayer His special interests are power system modeling and computation of electro-
earth,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 627–632, 1966. magnetic transients.
[9] M. Nakagawa, A. Ametani, and K. Iwamoto, “Further studies on
wave propagation in overhead transmission lines with earth return:
impedance of stratified earth,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 120, no. 12,
pp. 1521–1528, 1973.
[10] D. A. Tsiamitros, G. K. Papagiannis, D. P. Labridis, and P. S. Grigoris K. Papagiannis (S’79–M’88) was born in Thessaloniki, Greece,
Dokopoulos, “Earth return path impedances of underground cables in 1956. He received the Dipl.-Eng. and Ph.D. degrees from the Department
for the two-layer case,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. of Electrical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki,
2174–2181, Jul. 2005. Greece, in 1979 and 1998, respectively.
[11] D. A. Tsiamitros, G. C. Christoforidis, G. K. Papagiannis, D. P. In 1981, he became a Research Assistant with the Aristotle University of
Labridis, and P. S. Dokopoulos, “A novel method for the calculation Thessaloniki and is currently a Lecturer in the Power Systems Laboratory of
of self and mutual impedances of overhead conductors and pipelines the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. His special interests
buried in two-layer soils,” presented at the MedPower’04 Conf., are power systems modeling, computation of electromagnetic transients, and
Lemesos, Cyprus, 2004. power-line communications.
[12] G. K. Papagiannis, D. A. Tsiamitros, D. P. Labridis, and P. S.
Dokopoulos, “A systematic approach to the evaluation of the influence
of multi-layered earth on overhead power transmission lines,” IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 2594–2601, Oct. 2005. Petros S. Dokopoulos (M’77) was born in Athens, Greece, in 1939. He received
[13] M. C. Perz and M. R. Raghuveer, “Generalized derivation of fields and the Dipl. Eng. degree from the Technical University of Athens in 1962 and the
impedance correction factors of lossy transmission lines, part II, lossy Ph.D. degree from the University of Brunswick, Brunswick, Germany, in 1967.
conductors above lossy ground,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. From 1962 to 1967, he was with the Laboratory for High Voltage and Trans-
PAS-93, no. 6, pp. 1832–1841, Nov./Dec. 1974. mission, University of Brunswick; from 1967 to 1974, he was with the Nuclear
[14] P. C. Magnusson, G. C. Alexander, and V. K. Tripathi, Transmission Research Center, Julich, Germany, and from 1974 to 1978, he was with the Joint
Lines and Wave Propagation, 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 1992, European Torus, Oxfordshire, U.K.
p. 229. Since 1978, he has been Full Professor with the Department of Electrical En-
[15] W. S. Meyer and H. W. Dommel, “Numerical modelling of fre- gineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. He was a
quency-dependent transmission line parameters in an electromagnetic Consultant to Brown Boveri and Cie, Mannheim, Germany; Siemens, Erlangen,
transients program,” IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-93, no. Germany; Public Power Corporation, Athens; the National Telecommunication
5, pp. 1401–1409, Sep./Oct. 1974. Organization, Athens, and construction companies in Greece. His research in-
[16] H. W. Dommel, Electromagnetic Transients Program Reference terests are dielectrics, power switches, power generation, transmission, and dis-
Manual. Portland, OR: Bonneville Power, 1986, pp. 4–4. tribution.

View publication stats