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

net/publication/260395508

Limiting electric fields of HVDC overhead power lines

Article  in  Radiation and Environmental Biophysics · February 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s00411-014-0520-2 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

2 125

1 author:

Norbert Leitgeb
Graz University of Technology
194 PUBLICATIONS   943 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Norbert Leitgeb on 31 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Limiting electric fields of HVDC overhead
power lines

N. Leitgeb

Radiation and Environmental

Biophysics

ISSN 0301-634X

Radiat Environ Biophys

DOI 10.1007/s00411-014-0520-2

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer-
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Radiat Environ Biophys
DOI 10.1007/s00411-014-0520-2
ORIGINAL PAPER
Limiting electric fields of HVDC overhead power lines
N. Leitgeb
Received: 2 October 2013 / Accepted: 2 February 2014
 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract As a consequence of the increased use of
renewable energy and the now long distances between
energy generation and consumption, in Europe, electric
power transfer by high-voltage (HV) direct current (DC)
overhead power lines gains increasing importance. Thou-
sands of kilometers of them are going to be built within the
next years. However, existing guidelines and regulations do
not yet contain recommendations to limit static electric
fields, which are one of the most important criteria for
HVDC overhead power lines in terms of tower design, span
width and ground clearance. Based on theoretical and
experimental data, in this article, static electric fields
associated with adverse health effects are analysed and
various criteria are derived for limiting static electric field
strengths.
Keywords Biological effects  Reference level 
Health risk  Spark discharge  Microshock
Introduction
Electrostatic charging and associated static electric fields
are omnipresent in daily life. They are already produced by
body movement and/or friction in daily life and in partic-
ular in automated processes. However, until recently,
limitation of direct current (DC) electric fields was no
major issue, since except public transport and DC-powered
equipment, such as used for welding or electrolysis,
N. Leitgeb (&)
Institute of Health Care Engineering with European Notified
Body of Medical Devices, Graz University of Technology,
Kopernikusgasse 24, 8010 Graz, Austria
e-mail: norbert.leitgeb@tugraz.at
technical sources of static electric fields did not play an
essential role. However, the situation is going to change
dramatically.
In many parts of the world, in particular in the indus-
trializing countries such as Brazil, China, India and South
Africa, the growing demand on energy has already led to
transmitting electric power of several Gigawatt (GW)
across distances of thousands of kilometers. As a conse-
quence of the energy turnaround and the promotion of
renewable energy, such as from windmills and solar power
plants, long-distance power transmission is increasingly
needed also in Europe with its long distances between
industry in central Europe and offshore wind power plants
in the North or African solar power plants in the South,
respectively (EC 2010, 2011; Felix et al. 2012).
Compared to alternating currents, direct currents are
characterized by key advantages, in particular lower
transmission loss. Therefore, high-voltage direct current
(HVDC) overhead power lines are preferred for long-dis-
tance transmission, such as the Chinese Yunnan–Guang-
dong HVDC power line (800 kV, 8 GW) or the 660 km
HVDC power line planned in Germany between the port of
the North Sea offshore wind farms at Emden and Phi-
lippsburg, 70 km northwest of Stuttgart. The increased
costs for converter stations are outweighed by the better
efficiency already at transmission distances above some
100 km (Adapa 2012).
In view of this development, static electric and magnetic
fields emitted along the corridors of HVDC power lines
require specific consideration. However, existing regula-
tions do not yet contain restrictions of the static electric
field strength, which is one of the most important param-
eter of HVDC overhead power lines in terms of tower
design, span width and ground clearance. Here, based on
theoretical and experimental data, potential adverse health
123
 Author's personal copy
effects of static electric fields are analysed and various
criteria for potential limit values are derived.
In general, magnetic fields are generated by moving
electric charges, hence by electric currents. There are
already regulations limiting static (DC) magnetic fields
based on well-established biophysical effects such as
induced intracorporal electric current densities or electric
field strengths. Within static magnetic fields, these effects
happen either inside moving intracorporal structures, such
as the heart, or within the body of moving persons. The
latter is particularly important in strong static magnetic
fields such as around medical magnetic resonance imaging
devices where applied static magnetic fields of several
Tesla are about five orders of magnitudes stronger than the
geomagnetic field of only several 10 lT. Even right
underneath HVDC overhead power lines, however, mag-
netic fields remain in the same order of magnitude than the
geomagnetic field.
Existing recommended restrictions to protect the general
public from potential adverse health effects are at least
three orders of magnitudes higher than the geomagnetic
field. For example, limits are 21.2 mT (BGV 2002), 40 mT
(EC 1999), 118 mT (IEEE 2002) and 400 mT (ICNIRP
2009). If interference with implanted cardiac pacemakers is
to be prevented, the restrictions are reduced to 0.5 mT
(ICNIRP 2009; FRG 2013).
Electric fields of HVDC overhead power lines depend
on the electric voltage, the tower configuration, the number
and relative positions of phase lines and their distance to
each other and ground. At the surface of HVDC phase
lines, the electric field strengths are extremely high and
cause release of electric sparks into air (corona loss). In
contrast to AC phase lines with their alternating polarity, at
DC phase lines, the polarity remains constant, and, hence,
emitted charges do not periodically compensate each other
but generate a space cloud of electric charges with each of
them being a source of an electric field. This space cloud is
the reason why electric field strengths below DC power
lines are higher compared to AC lines. In addition, space
charges and their electric fields may be dislocated by wind.
Consequently, DC electric fields may extend to a much
larger distance compared to those from AC power lines.
They vary with the ionic charge density and weather con-
ditions. In the worst case, right underneath phase lines and
at lowest ground clearance, electric field strengths may
exceed 30 kV/m (Carter 1987; Maruvada et al. 1983;
Maruvada 2012).
By now, existing national and international guidelines
and regulations lack restrictions of static (DC) electric
fields. Therefore, in this paper, based on literature review
including meta-analysis and experiments, biologic effects
are analysed and criteria derived to restrict static electric
fields, depending on the chosen objective.
123
Radiat Environ Biophys
Materials and methods
With regard to limiting static electric fields and in view of the
sparse experimental data, it is analysed whether existing AC
limits could be extrapolated to DC exposure. For this
attempt, it was evaluated whether both perception of DC
electric fields and electric discharging to and from the body
surface are similar to AC electric fields. If so, perception
thresholds of discharge effects could be extrapolated from
AC to DC fields. For this purpose, by theoretical consider-
ations and experiments, it was investigated whether the
electric nature of discharges differ. Similarity would allow
performing a meta-analysis by pooling limited experimental
results from existing perception studies at human volunteers.
Underneath overhead power lines, electric sparks may
be released either from an isolated charged person to a
grounded object (direct discharging) or vice versa from an
isolated charged object to a grounded person (indirect
discharging). This can be modeled by electric analogy. A
person can be represented by its person-equivalent capac-
itance CP with the equivalent distance dE between the
virtual plates. It is isolated from ground, e.g., by poorly
conducting foot ware. In an electric field E0, it becomes
charged and exhibits a potential difference (voltage) UP to
ground. This can be calculated by
U P ¼ E0  dE ð1Þ
If such a charged person approaches another grounded
object, due to field distortions, the breakthrough field strength
may be locally exceeded and a spark discharge generated
(direct discharge). This can be described by an electric
equivalent network (Fig. 1) containing the equivalent capac-
itance CP of the person to ground (which is 150–400 pF) and
its resistance to ground RP, which ranges from 500 X (bare-
foot) up to some 1,000,000 X (foot ware), respectively.
After spark discharging, the still persisting electric field
causes recharging of the person with a time constant sP of
75 ns to 150 ls which depends on the electric parameters
according to
sP ¼ RP CP ð2Þ
Usually, recharging lasts more than three orders of
magnitudes longer than discharging, but it happens. This
explains why discharging is repetitive even in DC electric
fields. It needs to be mentioned that discharging depends on
field polarity. The rise time of negative bursts is smaller
than of positive bursts. Reported half-value width ranges
between 50 ns and 100 ms (Deno and Comber 1975).
The charge QP and the energy WP of an electric spark can
be calculated with the undisturbed electric field strength E0,
the equivalent area AE and the dielectric constant e0 by
 Author's personal copy
Radiat Environ Biophys

Fig. 1 Electrical equivalent

circuit describing decharging of
an isolated person to a grounded
object

QP ¼ e0 AE E0 ð3Þ
ðe0 AE E0 Þ2
WP ¼ ð4Þ
2CP
Please note that the equivalent area is not just the sur-
face of an object but that area in the undisturbed field zone
which comprises all field lines that finally end at the object.
With the equivalent area 5 m2 of a standing person, QP
becomes 44.3 nAs per kV/m. In an electric field of 10 kV/
m, the spark energy is 78.4 lJ. However, at indirect dis-
charging from an object to a person, due to the much larger
equivalent area of objects such as vehicles, spark charges
may exceed the value of direct discharge by a manifold,
e.g., at buses by fourfold. From spark energy, the electric
field strength can be calculated by
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2WP CP
E0 ¼ ð5Þ
e 0 AE
To demonstrate repetitive spark discharging, in the
present work, sparks from a spike at 2 mm distance to a
grounded plate were generated by a direct and alternating
voltage of 2.5 kV and monitored experimentally. Mea-
surements were performed by a current probe and a storage
oscilloscope (Tektronix TDS 2024B).
Available data of direct perception of electric fields are
sparse. Perception of alternating electric fields has been
investigated by three studies comprising a total of 220
volunteers. However, in each study, the number of volun-
teers was limited (27, 75 and 118 participants, respec-
tively), in particular with regard to women (Delaplace and
Reilly 1978; Deno and Zaffanella 1975; Blondin et al.
1996). Therefore, for this paper, a pooled analysis was
performed by accessing the raw data of the studies and
generating a new joint perception probability curve from
the new data pool which comprises the data of all three
studies.
Results
The theoretical considerations have shown that the time
constants for charging and discharging at AC and DC
electric fields are similar. Therefore, with regard to electric
discharges, it can be concluded that there are no major
differences between AC or DC electric fields. While
polarity at HVAC power lines changes every 10 ms, it
remains constant at HVDC power lines. Both polarities are,
however, found below HCDC power lines.
The results of the experiments confirmed the theoretical
results by demonstrating that discharging repeatedly occurs
both at AC and DC voltage as shown in Fig. 2. The pre-
sented fluctuations in discharge amplitude can be explained
by a sampling effect which occurred in spite of the high
sample frequency of 2 GHz. Therefore, the results are
qualitative. Another reason is that the peak voltage of
sinusoidal signals is 41 % higher than their root mean
square (rms) value, while at DC voltages, rms and peak
voltages are the same. Consequently, in the experiment,
AC spark discharging is more frequent with one spark each
half period. However, higher DC voltages would also lead
to higher repetition frequencies. As a main result, the
experiment demonstrates that generated electric sparks as
such do not differ, and consequently AC and DC spark
discharge effects can be considered as similar.
Limiting static electric fields can be based on the fol-
lowing approaches:
a) Limiting direct interactions with living cells and
tissues

123
 Author's personal copy
Fig. 2 Measured repetitive
electric spark discharges
generated by 2.5 kV alternating
(above) and direct (below)
voltage from a spike in 2 mm to
a grounded plate
b) Limiting biologic effects of spark discharges to or
from the surface
c) Limiting surface effects of induced electric charges
by movement of hair
d) Limiting indirect hazards of spark discharges such as
explosion
e) Extrapolating existing AC limits
a) Direct interaction of DC electric fields with the body
can be neglected because due to the shielding effect,
electric fields cannot penetrate into the human body.
However, due to the very low but existent conductivity of
air (its specific electric conductivity rL = 10-14 S/m), the
leakage current iD from a power line to ground may flow
across the body which can be estimated with
iD ¼ rL AE E0 ð6Þ
This results in 50 pA per kV/m. With this result, the
electric field strength associated with the DC electric cur-
rent perception threshold 2 mA (IEC 2006) becomes 4 GV/
m which is three orders of magnitudes higher than the
breakthrough field strength. Therefore, for basic physical
reasons, direct interactions of DC electric fields can be
neglected with regard to limit setting.
123
Radiat Environ Biophys
b) Electric spark charges need specific consideration,
because depending on their charge (or energy), electric
sparks may just be perceived or cause adverse electric
shocks or even lethal cardiac fibrillation. To prevent
from dangerous electric shocks, the charge of electric
sparks is limited by existing international safety stan-
dards to 50 lAs (CENELEC 2007; 2009) or 45 lAs
(CENELEC 2011). With Eq. (3), the associated safety
limit of DC electric field strengths results in 1.016 kV/m
or 1.129 kV/m if based on charge limits. The electric
charge of capacitive discharges with time constants
above 1 ms associated with the 5 % fibrillation proba-
bility is defined as 1,000 lC (IEC 2007; Reilly 1992)
which is equivalent to 2.260 kV/m. However, there are
also existing safety standards limiting the discharge
energy to 350 mJ to prevent from cardiac fibrillation
(CENELEC 2007). With Eq. (4), this would result in an
alternative safety limit of 267 kV/m. However, it needs
to be stressed that the objective of safety standards is
preventing from severe adverse effects only while
existing EMF guidelines aim at preventing from any
adverse health effect (ICNIRP 2010; EU 1999). Conse-
quently, this would need lowering existing safety limits
by a suitable reduction factor.
 Author's personal copy
Radiat Environ Biophys
Fig. 3 Probability of
perception (empty symbols) and
annoyance (full symbols),
respectively, directly induced
by AC electric fields with peak
field strengths Epeak (rather than
rms values, to be analogue to
DC fields) in terms of results
from single studies (thin lines)
of Delaplace and Reilly 1978
(DR), Deno and Zaffanella 1975
(DZ) and Blondin et al. 1996
(B), together with data from the
meta-analysis (P, thick lines) of
perception (empty symbols) and
annoyance (full symbols)
Perception of spark discharges has been studied in lab-
oratory experiments at discharges of a 200 pF capacitance
from a fingertip to a metal plate. This mimics the most
frequent case of direct discharging such as seen underneath
power lines. The results reported on 50 women and 74 men
revealed gender-specific differences. For women, the 5 %
perception probability was associated with a spark charge
of 0.26 lAs. For men, the required charge was 1.15-fold
higher (0.30 lAs). The 5 % annoyance levels were about
40 % higher, namely 0.35 and 0.44 lAs, respectively
(Larkin et al. 1986; Reilly and Larkin 1987; Reilly 1992;
Reilly and Diamant 2011). With Eq. (3), this corresponds
to 5 % perception field levels of 5.8 and 6.9 kV/m for
women and men, respectively. The 5 % annoyance levels
were 8.0 and 9.9 kV/m for women and men, respectively.
c) Perception of alternating electric fields has been
investigated in three studies comprising a total of 220
volunteers (27, 75 and 118 participants, respectively), in
particular with regard to women (Delaplace and Reilly
1978; Deno and Zaffanella 1975; Blondin et al. 1996). The
5 % perception threshold ranged between 5 and 7 kV/m,
the 5 % annoyance level between 16.5 and 40 kV/m.
ICNIRP concludes that the 10 % power frequency
electric field detection threshold was between 2 and 5 kV/
m, and the 5 % annoyance level between 5 and 20 kV/m,
respectively (ICNIRP 2010). Unfortunately, due to the
limited number of volunteers, the results in terms of curves
of effect versus probability of occurrence are varying too
much to allow drawing reliable conclusions from the
individual studies. Consequently, the results of the pooled
analysis are presented in Fig. 3. Based on a 5 % probability
level, the electric field strength could be derived as 4.4 kV/
m for perception and 36 kV/m for annoyance, respectively.
Static electric fields were studied in only two studies,
one at 48 sitting volunteers (Blondin et al. 1996) and the
other at an undefined number of standing volunteers
(Clairmont et al. 1989). It was shown that increased ion
current densities, such as found underneath HVDC power
lines, could lower perception thresholds by up to twofold.
Due to the different study designs including different vol-
unteer positions and insufficient information, the results
could not be pooled. However, overall, the results fit with
those of AC fields.
d) Indirect hazards from spark discharges are caused by
the delivery of ignition energy to explosive atmospheres
such as from petrol. Critical situations may occur if car
drivers refill the fuel tank of their vehicle underneath a
power line. With petrol’s minimum ignition energy of
250 lJ (McKinney 1962) and Eq. (5), explosion hazards
would already exist at an electric field strength of 7.3 kV/
m. However, realistic experiments simulating direct dis-
charge by discharging a 200 pF capacitance resulted in a
123
 Author's personal copy
Fig. 4 Compilation of
candidates for DC electric field
reference levels and their
associated health risks; black:
extrapolation from existing AC
field regulations at 1 Hz
2.2-fold higher ignition energy, namely 15.8 kV/m (Deno
and Zaffanella 1975).
Apart from direct discharge of an isolated person to a
grounded object, theoretically, the inverse case, namely
indirect discharging from a charged isolated object to a
grounded person cannot be excluded. In that case, the
equivalent area and, consequently, the accumulated charge
would be much higher, e.g., sevenfold at small vehicles and
twofold at buses, respectively (Deno and Zaffanella 1975),
leading to associated electric field strengths of 0.37–1 kV/
m (based on 250 lJ ignition energy) and 0.8–2.2 kV/m
(based on practical experiments). However, experience
with already existing HVAC power lines suggests that
ignition hazards from indirect discharging could be low
enough to be acceptable.
e) Extrapolation from existing AC limits to DC expo-
sure is justified by the physical nature of spark discharges
and the results from experimental spark discharge studies,
as well as the similarity of results from direct perception
studies of AC and DC electric fields. This confirms that in
principle, there is no difference between both types of
electric fields with regard to discharge effects at body
surface and discharging to another object. Overall, this
justifies extrapolation from AC limits to DC exposure with
regard to surface charge and spark discharge effects. This
merits a look to existing AC electric field limits.
Existing guidelines and regulations for protecting the
general population restrict AC electric fields depending on
their frequency with regard to cellular stimulation;
123
Radiat Environ Biophys
however, due to the similarity of body surface effects, no
further frequency dependence is assumed below 50 Hz
(ICNIRP 2010) or 368 Hz (IEEE 2002) with a constant
reference level of 5 kV/m down to the lowest frequency
1 Hz. Other regulations keep reference levels constant for
all AC fields below 25 Hz without further frequency limit,
at the level 10 kV/m (EC 1999; ÖVE/ÖNORM 2006).
Extrapolation to static fields has to consider that AC
field levels are given in rms values while spark discharge
effects are associated with peak values. Therefore,
extrapolation from AC reference levels to DC values
requires multiplication by the factor 1.41 (equivalent to the
square root of 2 which applies to sinusoidal fields).
Therefore, with the existing AC reference levels at 1 Hz,
namely 5 kV/m (ICNIRP 2010; IEEE 2002) and 10 kV/m
(EC 1999), respectively, equivalent DC reference values
can be derived as 7.1 or 14.1 kV/m, respectively.
Figure 4 summarizes the presented data on candidates
for DC electric field reference values and associated
effects. It is up to authorized committees and regulatory
bodies to decide on the protection goal and as a conse-
quence the resulting field level.
Discussion
The potential reference levels derived from existing
knowledge on spark discharge effects as well as from
pooled data on field perception demonstrate that limits are
 Author's personal copy
Radiat Environ Biophys
needed to protect also from adverse health effects of static
electric fields. However, objectives are a matter of social
concern rather than a scientific question. Scientifically,
there is no reason to change objectives that are already
applied for limiting AC electric fields.
ICNIRP’s objective is ‘‘providing protection against all
established adverse health effects.’’ However, this leaves it
open, first, who (or what percentage of the population)
should be protected (or might be not protected) and, sec-
ond, what should be considered an adverse health effect.
With regard to AC electric fields and the general pop-
ulation, ICNIRP’s objectives in the extra low-frequency
range are threefold (ICNIRP 2010):
• to ‘‘protect from nerve stimulation in the central
nervous system and peripheral nervous system.’’ Since
stimulation thresholds increase with decreasing fre-
quency, this would allow increasing electric field
strengths accordingly.
• to ‘‘prevent from adverse indirect effects (shocks and
burns) for more than 90 % of exposed individuals.’’
• to prevent ‘‘most people’’ from ‘‘painful effects of
surface electric charges induced on the body.’’
In contrast, in the USA, IEEE restrictions aim at ‘‘pro-
tecting almost all exposed individuals from adverse effects
including aversive or painful stimulation’’ (IEEE 2002).
However, the essential terms ‘‘almost all’’ and ‘‘aversive’’
remain undefined.
In the European Union the European Council recom-
mends providing ‘‘a high level of protection as regards the
established health effects,’’ and with regard to static elec-
tric fields—while not giving quantitative limits—it is rec-
ommended ‘‘that annoying perception of electric charges
and spark discharges causing stress or annoyance should be
avoided’’ (EC 1999).
As summarized in Fig. 4, a reference level 7.1 kV/m
extrapolated from ICNIRP’s reference level at 1 Hz would
prevent 95 % of the general population from annoying
spark discharges and from ignition (explosion) of petrol
vapor. It keeps a 50-fold safety margin to cardiac fibrilla-
tion. The higher alternative 14.2 kV/m, which was
extrapolated from older regulation’s reference level at 1 Hz
(EC 1999; ÖVE/ÖNORM 2006), would accept an annoy-
ance probability higher than 5 %, an only 25-fold safety
margin to cardiac fibrillation and some risk from ignition
(explosion) of petrol vapor. The latter could be reduced by
adequate routing of HVDC power lines aside of streets or
by increasing ground clearance at critical zones. However,
with regard to off-road vehicles and farming machines,
explosion risk could not be totally avoided.
As already mentioned, these considerations are based on
spark discharges from isolated persons to grounded objects.
Reverse discharging from grounded objects to isolated
persons would be associated with considerable higher spark
charges and, consequently, higher ignition risk. However,
this could partly be reduced by requiring grounding sta-
tionary critical objects nearby power lines. The residual
risk from large vehicles may be considered low enough to
be acceptable based on experience with already existing
HVAC overhead power lines.
Conclusion
Results from theoretical and experimental studies dem-
onstrate that DC electric field levels as may be
encountered underneath HVDC power lines can be high
enough to cause adverse health effects. With regard to
the long-distance HVDC power lines, such exposures
are going to become relevant. This justifies closing the
existing regulatory gap and limiting DC electric field
levels. Because of the similarity of basic interaction
mechanisms and biologic effects, extrapolation from AC
limits is justified. Based on the same health protection
goals and depending on the reference regulation,
extrapolation would result in a DC electric field refer-
ence level of 7 or 14 kV/m, respectively.
References
Adapa R (2012) High wire act. IEEE Power Energy Magazin
10(6):18–29. doi:10.1109/MPE.2012.2213011
BGV B11 (2002) Elektromagnetische Felder. German Profess Assoc
Standard (Berufsgenossenschaftliche Vorschrift)
Blondin J-P, Nguyen D-H, Sbeghen J, Goulet D, Cardinal C,
Maruvada PS, Plante M, Nalley H (1996) Human perception
of electric fields and ion currents associated with high-voltage
DC transmission lines. Bioelectromagnet 17:230–241
Carter PJ (1987) Space charge measurements downwind from a
monopolar 500 kV HVCD test line. IEEE Trans Power Deliv
3(4):2016–2063
CENELEC (2007) Low-voltage electrical installations—Part 4-41:
Protection for safety—Protection against electric shock. CEN-
ELEC standard HD 60364–4-41
CENELEC (2009) Safety of machinery—Electrical equipment of
machines—Part 1: General requirements. CENELEC standard
EN 60204–1:2006/A1
CENELEC (2011) Medical electrical equipment—Part 1: general
requirements for basic safety and essential performance. CEN-
ELEC standard EN 60601–1:2006/A11
Clairmont BA, Johnson CB, Zaffanella LE, Zelingher S (1989) The
effect of HVAC-HVDC line separation in a hybrid corridor.
IEEE Trans Power Deliv 4(4):1338–1350
Delaplace LR, Reilly JP (1978) Electric and magnetic field coupling
from high voltage AC power transmission lines—classification
of short-term effects on people. IEEE Trans Power App Syst
PAS 97(6):2243–2252
Deno DW, Comber MG (1975) Corona phenomena on AC transmis-
sion lines. In: Transmission line reference book 345 kV and
above. Fred Weidner & Son Printers, Inc. New York pp 122–128
123
 Author's personal copy
Deno DW, Zaffanella LE (1975) Electrostatic effects of overhead
transmission lines and stations. In: Transmission line reference
book 345 kV and above. Fred Weidner & Son Printers, Inc. New
York pp 248–280
EC (1999) Council recommendation 1999/519/EC on limiting the
public exposure to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz).
OJEC L199/59
EC (2010) Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas
emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage.
Communication EU Commission COM 2010/265
EC (2011) Energy efficiency plan. Communication EU Commission
COM 2011/0109
Felix O, Obermann R, Hermann M, Zeltner S (2012) Neue Netze für
neue Energien. http://www.netzentwicklungsplan.de
FRG (2013) Ordinance on electromagnetic fields and judicial
telecommunication evidence procedure. 26.BImSchV, Federal
Republic Gernamy, BGBl I S 3266
ICNIRP (2009) Guidelines on limits of exposure to static magnetic
fields. Health Phys 96(4):504–514
ICNIRP (2010) Guidelines for restricting exposure to time-varying
electric and magnetic fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz). Health Phys
99(6):818–836
IEC/TS 60479-1 (2006) Effects of current on human being and
livestock—Part 1: General aspects. IEC Technical Specification
IEC/TS 60479-2 (2007) Effects of current on human being and
livestock—Part 2: Special aspects. IEC Technical Specification
123
View publication stats
Radiat Environ Biophys
IEEE C95.6 (2002) Safety levels with respect to human exposure to
electromagnetic fields, 0-3 kHz. IEEE standard 2002 (R2007)
Larkin WD, Reilly JP, Kittler LB (1986) Individual differences in
sensitivity to transient electrocutaneous stimulation. IEEE Trans
Biomed Eng 33(5):495–503
Maruvada PS (2012) Electric field ion current environment of HVDC
transmission lines: comparison of calculations and measure-
ments. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 22(1):401–410
Maruvada PS, Dallaire RD, Héroux P, Rivest N (1983) Long-term
statistical study of the corona electric field and ion current
performance of a ± 900 kV bipolar HBVDC transmission line
configuration. IEEE Trans Power Appar Syst PAS-1031:76–83
McKinney AH (1962) Electrical ignition of combustible atmospheres.
ISA Trans 1(1):45–64
ÖVE/ÖNORM E 8850 (2006) Elektrische, magnetische und elektro-
magnetische Felder im Frequenzbereich von 0 Hz bis
300 GHz—Beschränkung der Exposition von Personen. Austrian
standard
Reilly JP (1992) Electrical stimulation and electropathology. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge
Reilly JP, Diamant AM (2011) Electrostimulation. Artec House,
London
Reilly JP, Larkin WD (1987) Human sensitivity to electric shock
induced by power-frequency electric fields. IEEE Trans Elec-
tromagnet Compatibil 29(3):221–232