IEEE PES PowerAfrica 2007 Conference and Exposition

Johannesburg, South Africa, 16-20 July 2007

Geophysical and geological pre-investigations for HVDC-electrodes

H. Thunehed
GeoVista AB
P.O.Box 276, SE-97108 Lule, Sweden
Phone: +46-920-38388, Email: hans.thunehed@geovista.se

U. strm
ABB
SE-77180 Ludvika, Sweden
Phone: +46-240-782000, Email: urban.astrom@ se.abb.com

B. Westman
ABB
SE-77180 Ludvika, Sweden
Phone: +46-240-782000, Email: bo.westman@se.abb.com

Abstract The potential differences caused by the current injected

in the ground by a HVDC-electrode can cause corrosion of e.g.
pipelines and operational problems in transformer stations. Also,
hazardous electric fields can arise in the vicinity of HVDCelectrodes. High potentials and strong fields from electrodes are,
in principle, related to high-resistivity rock in the ground. The
presence of such potentially problematic rock volumes is not
routinely checked before the construction of an electrode site.
However, geophysical methods are available that can estimate the
electrical properties of the bedrock down to considerable depths.
Such surveys, in combination with geological knowledge and
modeling can be used to predict the environmental impact of an
electrode.
In this paper we present modeling results that shows the relevance
of geo-electrical surveys in a HVDC-electrode project. Some
methods that can be used to estimate the electrical properties of the
ground around an electrode site are also presented. Good electrode
sites can thus be selected at an early stage of a power transmission
project.

Problematic high potentials and strong electric fields are

related to high-resistivity rock volumes in the ground. The
resistivity of rocks can vary over several orders of magnitude
[1]. Most commonly, high resistivities are found for old
crystalline bedrock composed of granite, gneiss and similar
rock types. However, high-resistivity rock can sometimes
also be found in fairly young rock sequences as for example
basaltic lavas.
Today, pre-investigations are limited to, at most, finding a
location with near-surface low-resistivity material to act as a
host to the electrode itself. This might be sufficient for
making sure that the electrode works technically, i.e. is able
to inject the current into the ground. However, other
problems can be related to high-resistivity volumes at some
distance from the electrode or at large depths.

I. INTRODUCTION

We will first have a look at the situation around an

electrode situated on the surface of a horizontally stratified
earth (Figure 1). Although real geology is more complex than
the examples, they will give some insight into the influence
of rocks situated at different depths. All examples illustrate
possible situations in an area with old crystalline bedrock
covered by younger sediments. The electrical properties
assigned to each geological unit are however quite typical for
most areas around the world.
We will assume that the electrode has been placed in a
material of reasonably low resistivity, like clayey sediments
with a resistivity of 10 m. This unit is underlain by older,
more consolidated sediments with a resistivity of 40 or 200
m. The next layer in the sequence consists of granitic rock
where the resistivity takes values of 2500 or 25000 m in the
examples. Such large differences in resistivity are not
uncommon between different variants of these kinds of rock.

High-voltage DC current (HVDC) is an efficient method

for power transmission. Most land schemes operate in bipolar
operation mode with no return current, but the systems are
also designed to operate in monopolar operations that require
electrodes where significant amounts of current is injected
into the ground. In a high-resistivity environment, the
injected current will create large potentials and hence electric
fields in the vicinity of the electrode. The strong electric
fields can create safety problems close to the electrode for
humans, grazing cattle etc. The effect of the electrode can
also be noted at quite large distances as electric potential
differences of more moderate magnitude. These potential
differences can give rise to corrosion of pipe-lines and other
installations and also interfere with e.g. transformer stations.

II. POTENTIALS AROUND AN ELECTRODE

Finally, we introduce a layer of fairly low resistivity at the

bottom of the sequence. This corresponds to rocks in the
lower part of the earths crust or in the mantle that are known
from deep-probing geophysical surveys to be present in many
parts of the world, although not everywhere.
Two types of possible problems can be identified due to an
electrode. Firstly, there might be near-source problems
related to hazardous electric fields in the immediate vicinity
of the electrode. Areas where the electric field reaches levels
of tens of Volts per meters might put humans and animals in
danger. Secondly, there might be far-distance problems
related to fairly moderate field strengths. Electric fields of the
order of a few Volts per km can in some cases create
corrosion problems. The amount of corrosion is however also
a function of the design and orientation of the object in
question. Constructions oriented parallel to the current flow
in the ground will be most affected. The dashed line in Figure
1 indicates roughly a level where corrosion problems might
arise.
The thicknesses and resistivities of the different layers in
the examples are listed in Table I. Model 1 corresponds to an
electrode that has been placed in a favorable environment.
The thicknesses and low resistivities of the two uppermost
layers prevent strong electric fields near the source and the
fairly low resistivity of the granitic layer prevents strong
fields at large distances. The distance where the field strength
falls below 10 V/km is slightly more than 800 meters.
I
10000
Clay
Consolidated sediment
Granite
1000

Lower crust/mantle

Electric field (V/km)

100

10

2
3

1
1

4
0.1

0.01
0.01

0.1

10

100

Distance from electrode (km)

Fig. 1. Electric field due to 1000 A current injected by a point

electrode on the surface of a layered earth. Each curve is labeled with
the corresponding model number. Model parameters are according to
Table 1.

Model 2 is identical to model 1 except for the resistivity of

the second layer. The layer has a resistivity that is five times
higher than for the first model. This has the consequence that
the distance at which the electric field falls below 10 V/km is
increased to 1.8 km. Even though this is not a very large
distance, it means that the area with corrosion risk is almost
five times as large compared to the first model.
Table I. Layer parameters for the models in Figure 1. The resistivities
of layers 1 and 4 are 10 and 500 m respectively.

Model

Thickness
layer 1 (m)

40

Thickness
layer 2 (m)
Resistivity
layer 2 (m)

Thickness
layer 3 (m)
Resistivity
layer 3 (m)

1000

10000

40

2500

1000

10000

200

2500

50

100000

200

25000

50

5000

200

25000

40

10

10

Model 3 presents a situation with a considerably worse

geological situation compared to the two first models. The
two uppermost layers are thinner and the third, granitic layer
has a quite high resistivity. The distance at which the curve
falls below the 10 V/km level has now been increased to over
9 km. This means that the area with corrosion risk has been
increased by a factor of around 120.
Model 4 is identical to model 3 with the exception that the
depth to low-resistivity rock in the lower crust has been
reduced to 5000 meters. This has the effect that the electric
field strength falls off very rapidly at distances greater than
10 km. This is a larger distance than the 10 V/km distances
for both models 3 and 4, but problems have occurred with
real HVDC-electrodes at such large distances. The modelling
results thus imply that it is necessary to estimate the electrical
properties of the bedrock to depths of many km in order to
properly predict the environmental impact of an electrode.
The modelling above is based on a simplified model of the
resistivity structure of the ground. Real geology contains e.g.
sub-vertical contacts, faults, folds and anisotropy. Even
though such structures must be considered, the conclusions
from the modelling are valid in a more complicated
environment. What is important to point out is that the four
models represent very similar basic geology. They would be
more or less impossible to distinguish from each other
without a geophysical survey. Such a survey must also be
capable of estimating the electrical properties of the ground
from the surface down to a depth of several km.

III.

GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY METHODS

It was concluded from in the previous section that it is

necessary to estimate the electrical parameters of the ground
with reasonable accuracy from the surface down to several
km depth. Both the geometry of different rock units and their
resistivity must be determined. This is however hardly
possible to accomplish with one type of geophysical method
alone. The choice of methods is also a function of the
geological environment in the project area. Some areas may
require quite extensive field investigations, whereas others
can be covered with reconnaissance surveys only.
Airborne methods can be used to cover large areas. The
electric resistivity of the ground is estimated by inducing
currents in the ground with the help of an A.C. current in a
coil mounted on an aircraft or towed underneath a helicopter.
The secondary magnetic field due to the currents in the
ground is measured with the help of a receiver induction coil.
Measurements can be made either in the time domain or in
the frequency domain. The depth of investigation is an effect
skin effects so that high frequencies can be used to
investigate near-surface layers and low frequencies can be
used to investigate rocks at larger depth. It is usually possible
to estimate the resistivity of the ground down to depths of
100 to 200 meters and in some cases even more. Airborne
methods are very cost-effective but mobilization costs can be
considerable and they are hardly an alternative if just a small
area needs to be covered.
The same type of measurements can be done on the
ground as the type of measurements described above for
airborne surveys. It is however also common to perform
ground measurements with galvanic methods. A lowfrequency current is then injected into the ground with the
help of two electrodes. The resulting potential difference
between two other locations is then measured with a pair of
potential electrodes connected to a high-impedence
voltmeter. The depth of investigation is dependent upon the
distances between the electrodes. This type of survey can
therefore be performed for both detailed near-surface
investigations and for deep-probing investigations. There is
however a practical limit for the investigation depth since
very large amounts of connecting cable needs to be put out in
the field.
The most common choice of geophysical method for very
deep investigations is magneto-tellurics. Naturally occurring
electromagnetic fields are measured. The sources to such
fields are particle radiation from the sun captured in the
ionosphere and distant thunder storms. It can be shown [1]
that the magnetic and electric fields from such sources
become horizontal and perpendicular to each other over a
layered earth at a sufficient distance from the source. Also,
the ratio of the electric to the magnetic field strength is
directly related to the resistivity of the ground. The electric
field strength is therefore measured with the help of two pairs
of electrodes perpendicular to each other and two induction
coils, also perpendicular to each other. Figure 2 shows the

principal setup for the measurements. Normally, more than

one station is measured simultaneously so that fields from
close by sources can be filtered out. Magnetotelluric
measurements can be made for frequencies down to fractions
of mHz. This means that the depth of investigation can be
more than 100 km.

Ex
Ey

Hx

Hy

Fig. 2. Principal setup for a magnetotelluric survey. Electric and

magnetic fields are measured in two perpendicular, horizontal
directions.

It is not always possible to perform geo-electric

measurements everywhere and with the desired resolution
and depth of investigation. It is therefore also important to be
able to use auxiliary information to support the modelling.
The geometry of a geological unit might be determined from
other types of geophysical data like magnetometry or gravity
surveys. Geological mapping and modelling will also assist in
reducing ambiguities in the geophysical models.

REFERENCES
[1]

G. V Keller and F. C. Frischknecht, Electrical Methods in Geophysical

Prospecting., Pergamon press. 1966.