IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. IA-23! NO.

4, JULY/AUGUST 1987 723

Conductor Impedance Approximations for

Deep-Un erground Mines
DANIEL J. TYLAVSKY, MEMBER, IEEE

Abstract-Wagner and Evan's approximation to Carson's equations the earth, and a is the conductivity of the earth. Interpreting
for overhead conductors has been used to approximate the impedance of complex depth as the effective depth (i.e., center of gravity) of
conductors buried deep within the earth such as an underground mine the earth return current, it becomes clear that the effective
environment. While these equations are acceptable for overhead and
shallow-buried conductors, superior approximations, retaining the same return depth is much larger than the depth of shallow buried
general form as the Wagner and Evans approximation, may be derived. conductors for most applications and that the error involved in
The derivation of self- and mutual-impedance equations for conductors using overhead approximations for shallow underground
that are enclosed in a cylindrical dielectric and surrounded by a applications is acceptable.
homogeneous earth of arbitrary permeability is presented. New approxi- When the frequencies of interest or surrounding medium
mations to modified Bessel functions are presented and used to obtain
approximate impedance expressions which show superior error perform- conductivity are sufficient to make the depth at which the
ance. Error performance is graphically presented for self- and mutual- conductor is buried close to or exceed that of the effective
impedance values over a broad range of operating conditions. Emphasis return depth, then different approximations are necessary.
is placed on the effect of nonunity relative permeability. These circumstances occur at high frequencies and/or in
underground mine environments where accurate prediction of
INTRODUCTION fault currents in ac systems and transients in dc track/trolly
THE calculation of self and mutual impedance for haulage systems must take into account the depth of the mine
conductors with earth returns is necessary to evaluate the environment [7]. With publication of the approximate expres-
ac system fault currents, dc system transient currents, and sions for self and mutual impedance of overhead conductors
mine communication performance over transmission lines in a
Zs= Ji
WO 2(h +p)
deep underground environment. Closed-form expressions for ln (2)
overhead lines have been available for some time [1], [2]. 2w a
More recently, additional closed-form approximations have
Zm ]wjOO ln
'1 (12+1+2p)2 +d2
been proposed which show superior error performance [3]- In - 12 (3)
[5]. Underground cables have received much less attention. 2w~~~~~~~~~1
Impedance approximations for cables buried in shallow where h1(2) is the height of conductor 1(2) above earth, and d12
troughs were originally investigated by Rudenberg [6] and is the horizontal separation distance between conductors given
shown to be identical with those in [2] for overhead transmis- by [4]. Semlyen reported [8] that L. M. Wedepohl conjectured
sion lines. Indeed, because of this result the same approxima- the approximate form of the impedance of a conductor of
tions are often used for overhead and underground transmis- radius a, directly buried in a tunnel of radius a, as
sion systems. For underground situations, the range over
which the application of overhead impedance approximations
Zs= Ji8o
a +po
is valid may be estimated by considering the skin depth of the ln . (4)
2wr a
earth, or equally, the magnitude of the complex depth
associated with the earth return current [4]. Complex depth is This result was presented without proof. About this time the
defined for the case of homogeneous earth of free-space author was independently deriving approximate expressions
permeability by for the impedance of underground conductors and arrived at
111 (4) as a special case of a more general results [7], [9]. The
Po=P = (1) objective of this paper is to provide the derivation of the more
general expressions which take into account off-center loca-
where w is the excitation frequency, it is the permeability of tion of a conductor in a cylindrical dielectric surrounded by a
homogeneous earth of arbitrary resistivity. Also provided is a
Paper PID 86-46, approved by the Mining Industry Committee of the IEEE detailed examination of the approximations needed in obtain-
Industry Applications Society for presentation at the 1986 Industry Applica- ing the result as well as simplified expressions for various
tions Society Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, September 28-October 3. This
work supported in part by a grant of the Salt River Project through the Electric special cases. The subsequent sections will present the
Power Research Laboratory, Arizona State University. Manuscript released assumptions used, the derivations of the magnetic vector
for publication December 15, 1986. potential, the electric field, the self and mutual impedance, the
D. J. Tylavsky is with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287. errors associated with the approximations involved in obtain-
IEEE Log Number 8714418. ing the final result, and some special cases of interest.

0093-9994/87/0700-0723$01.00 © 1987 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: J.R.D. Tata Memorial Library Indian Institute of Science Bengaluru. Downloaded on June 21,2023 at 12:52:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 724 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. IA-23, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 1987

ASSUMPTIONS
A conductor of radius a, placed at distance b from the center
of a cylindrical tunnel of radius d, surrounded by a homogene-
ous medium of conductivity a and permeability it, is shown in
Fig. 1. The following standard assumptions are used in this
derivation.
* Current density J and electric field intensity E in the earth
are parallel to the axial current in the conductor. Hence
the components in the k and r directions are
E4 = Er = Jo = Jr =0. (5)
* Skin effect in the conductor will be neglected and the Fig. 1. Geometric description.
proximity effect of the earth return current on the
conductor current will be neglected. Hence the total potential (MVP) under sinusoidal steady-state conditions is
current I in the conductor is modeled as concentrated at aA
the center of the conductor. V2A =-a -=jwAA . (9)
* The displacement currents are negligible at the frequen- at
cies of interest. Hence Field in the Earth
aD By assumption, the MVP has no z dependence and only a z
-=0, (6) component. Starting with the separation of variables technique
at and using cylindrical coordinates, the z component of the
where D is the electric flux density vector and, conse- MVP outside of the tunnel can be written
quently, in the earth Azo(r, 0) A I (r)A2(0) (10) =

Jz= aEz. (7) where ejwt has been suppressed. It is easy to show that the
* Current in the earth, and hence the electric field intensity, solution to (9) using the definition in (10) is
does not change in the direction of propagation, i.e.
dEz dJz Azo= [FlnIn (-+ 2nKn ()
= =0. ~~~~~~(8) n~=O L
dz dz
x [F3n cos nO + F4n sin no] (11)
This is strictly true only if the series impedance and shunt
admittance are calculated separately. Only series impe- where In(-) and Kn(-.) are modified Bessel functions of order
dance is derived in this paper as shunt admittances are n. Since In(-) approaches infinity as its argument goes to
easily calculated. infinity and since Al(r) must be bounded, Fln must be zero.
* The excitation source is sinusoidally time-varying. Similarly, since A2(A must be an even function of 0, F4, must
also be zero. This gives the general form of the MVP in the
MAGNETIC VECTOR POTENTIAL DERIVATION earth as
There are several ways in which the electric field for a
multilayered medium may be derived. One method is to take Azo(r, 0)= E FnKn (-)cos n (12)
n=o P
the two-dimensional Fourier transform (2DFT) of the wave
equation for each region of interest, then solve the resulting Field Inside the Tunnel
simultaneous equations using the appropriate boundary con- The MVP inside of the tunnel may be thought of as being
straints. The solution of interest is then obtained using the made up of two components:
inverse 2DFT [10], [11]. While this approach is simple when
using rectangular coordinates, the use of polar coordinates and A zi (p, 0) = A z, (p, 0) + A, (p, 0). (13)
the identification of the inverse transform of Bessel functions
makes this approach unattractive without a priori knowledge The first component, A, is due to the conductor current
of the solution. Another method, used by Carson [1], in [12], inside of the tunnel and has the form
and in this development, is to assume solution forms that obey
the wave equation in each region, then evaluate the arbitrary A z(p, 0)= 2ir ln (p2+b2-2bp cos 0)1/2 (14)
constants in the solution forms for each region so that
continuity of the necessary quantities is maintained at each which can be verified easily by substituting (14) into the
boundary. definition for the magnetic flux density B:
It is easy to show, that starting with Maxwell's equations,
the general form of the wave equation for magnetic vector B=VxA. (15)

Authorized licensed use limited to: J.R.D. Tata Memorial Library Indian Institute of Science Bengaluru. Downloaded on June 21,2023 at 12:52:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TYLAVSKY: CONDUCTOR IMPEDANCE FOR DEEP UNDERGROUND 725

The general form of the second component is found by starting

with the relationship between the current density JzO and the
MVP in the tunnel walls given by
Jzo(r, k)=jwoAzo(r, 0). (16)
Gn
I
Pn
2rdn-I
ALr P) nKn
11
r
E nKn
d
d
--K1
(p)(d) (22)

p
n

The form of the MVP inside of the tunnel is found by

treating an infinitesimal cross section of the tunnel wall as a where
conductor carrying current JzO(r, O)rdrdo. The contribution
of this current to the MVP at location (p, 0) inside of the tunnel (dd ) Pd (23)
is given by and K,(d/p) is the derivative of Kn(z) with respect to z
I
evaluated at z = d/p.
dAzw 2 Jzo(r,
= -
4) In R r dr do (17)
ELECTRIC FIELD CALCULATIONS
where R is the distance from exterior point (r, 4) to interior Starting with the relationship between the electrostatic
point (p, 0) as shown in Fig. 1 and rdrd> is the differential potential V, the MVP, and E,
element area. Note that the signs in (14) and (17) are different aA
since the current flow in the conductor is antiparallel with that E=-VV- at (24)
in the tunnel walls. The contribution from the total return
current is found by integration (17) over the entire cross- and using the assumption that E does not change in the
sectional surface of the earth. When this operation, along with direction of propagation, the electric field intensity may be
suitable substitutions, is carried out, and this result, along with expressed as
(14), is substituted into (13), the resulting general form of the Ezij(p, 0)-Eji(d-c-, 0)= -jw[AZi(p,
MVP inside of the tunnel is obtained as 0)-A,i(d-E, 4>)].
(25)
Az,= ln (p2±b2-2bp cos 6)1/2 Continuity of the tangential E components guarantees that
2wr
-/101~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
lim Ej (d -,E, 0) = lim Eo (d + E, 0). (26)
c-0 ,-O
+Go+ Lur G,pncosn0. (18)
n=o In the tunnel walls the relationship between J and E given by
(7) allows (26) to be written as
Application of Boundary Conditions lim Ezi(d - c, <) = linm Jzo (d+ e (27)
At the region boundaries, the normal component of B and eO0 E-0 or
0

the tangential component of the magnetic field intensity H are Substituting (27) into (25) yields
both continuous. Using (15), the boundary conditions may be
written in terms of the MVP as EZi(p, 0)= -jw[A,j(p, 0)-AAj(d, 41)1+zo(d d (28)
1 aAzi p=d lAzo r=d
_
p aO
a 6==
0=b _~
r ao 0=0 Substituting (16), (12), (18), and (21) through (23) into (28)
6~19) gives the electric field in the form
1 aAzi p =d_ 1 aAzo r= d -jC1Uo [ d2 2 11/2
,o aP 16=/ 1 a) 16=-f(20) Ezi (p, 0) = 2r In p 2+b2- 2bp cos 0
The constants Fn and Gn are obtained by applying (19) and
(20) to (18) and (12) and equating coefficients of the K0
corresponding terms in the resulting cos (*) and sin (*) series
to obtain K,

n=O jWjtoI P-ppn cos nO

2rdKI (-) - n=1 d2-In
- tiPPn it,) nKn
Knt (-+r
n*0 (21)
(d) (29)
w [lrn
( Kd ()]
Itr (!nKn (-)-Kn
(d)J
Authorized licensed use limited to: J.R.D. Tata Memorial Library Indian Institute of Science Bengaluru. Downloaded on June 21,2023 at 12:52:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 726 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. IA-23, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 1987

where use has been made of the identity [13] is valid for small z, where z may be complex. The second
b Xn approximation involves the ratio Ko(z)/K1(z) where
td)cos nO . d
(7on Ld2+b2_2bd coso z = - = d oaoe e14 -xej/4. (35)
n=I p
The standard one-term approximations to Ko(z) and K1(z) are
IMPEDANCE CALCULATIONS given by [14]
Exact Expressions
1
The general expression for the impedance per-unit length is Ko(z) =ln - (36)
well known to be z
-Ezi 1
(31) K1 (z)= - , (37)
I z
The self-impedance is generated by using the electric field A new, more accurate approximation to Ko(z) is
value at the surface of the conductor, i.e., (p, 0) = (b + a, 0),
to give
Ko(z) =ln ( +) (38)
z
Ko
=s--
Z2 Iyo The error associated with the use of (36)-(37) versus (38)-
K,
Kd( (37) in the approximation of the ratio in (32) and (33) is shown
XP in Fig. 2. Using these approximations, the series self and
mutual impedances are given by
(__ baan) cos nO
n= d J n Zs= ln [-] +,r ln [(d ] + [ +l

ln d4 +b2(b+a)2d4~~~
~~~ - 1/2)
-2d2(b+a)b cos 0) 3 (39)

ZmJ/=
zm
io
W
{ln [2 d2 2 /2
In
d l 1/2 +iyrln
+ t n
fd+pl
27 p 2+b 2-2bp cos 0 d
The mutual impedance between a conductor at location (b, 0)
and one at location (p, 0) is given by
It,-1ln
I
Itr+ I
db4 1d
In

Ld4-b 2p2 -2bpd 2 cos g J

. (40)
40

in j'WLu
__ {i
ln
d2
[p+b 2- 2bp cos 0]
1/2 Special-Case Approximations
There are many special cases that lead to simplification of
(39) and (40). Consider first the case where one conductor is at
the center of the dielectric cylinder (i.e., b = 0). In this case
(39) and (40) reduce to
Ko(- _
(d) d
p
(bp)n
n=1 (d )
cos no
n Zs =y ° {ln [-] +rln
[IAp]} (41)

zm =IIo {ln [-] +rln [d+p]3 (42)

Kn (- + Ir K()
(d ) K '(d
p) If ILr = 1, then (39) and (40) can be simplified further to yield
___bo d+p
ZS= 27r2n
a
(43)
Approximate Impedance Expressions
Equations (32) and (33) may be simplified if the following JC.o r ±d+p)2 11/2
m- .. p 2+ b2 2bP cos 0
two approximate expressions are used. The first approxima-
tion [14]
(44)
zK (z) = -nKn (z) (34) =Jc._o
Iln Y1 2c2
-Y2) +d 11/2

Authorized licensed use limited to: J.R.D. Tata Memorial Library Indian Institute of Science Bengaluru. Downloaded on June 21,2023 at 12:52:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TYLAVSKY: CONDUCTOR IMPEDANCE FOR DEEP UNDERGROUND 727

0
464.0 SELF IMPEDANCE
b/a = 10.0. ,R r r1. 2

56.0

0
48.0 18.0

a: ar
0 40.0
a: r
w
w
(5 320 _ O 12
z z
tLJ
w 24.0 Ko(z)/Kg (z) t z (nI/z)
in a: 9
a. 'UJ
0-

16.0 _

8.0

K (z)/K1fz) - zin (I+ I/z)

0.0 II
-3.0 -20 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
0.5 1.2
LOG10( X ) LOG (d/Ip()
Fig. 2. Error plot for two approximations to Ko(z)/K,(z) for z = xeij/4. Fig. 4. Error for self-impedance approximation with b/a = 10.0, A, = 1.2.

24 0 r
SELF IMPEDANCE
b/la 10.0, u, = 10

200

b/d = 091
° 16.0
r-

(D
a:0
o 02.0 a:
z

x 80)
)F U.2
z
li
40 vi
'U
CR
0.

b/d,bid..00091
- 0.0091, ~~ = 0.091
V.U
-3.2 -2.4 -1.6 -0.8 0.0 0.8 1.6
LOG (d/IpI)
Fig. 3. Error for self-impedance approximation with b/a = 10.0, t,U = 1.0.

- 3.0 - 2.3 -1.6 - 0.9 - 0.2 0.5 1.2

where Y1(2) is the y Cartesian coordinate location of conductors LOG (d/Ipi)

1(2). Fig. 5. Error for self-impedance approximation with b/a = 10.0., , -

3.0.
ERROR ANALYSIS
The approximate impedance expressions are much simpler resistivity of 100 Q, with frequencies of 60 Hz, 6000 Hz, and
and easier to use. It is necessary that the errors involved with 600 000 Hz, respectively. Figs. 3-7 show that self-impedance
these approximations be quantified. Figs. 3-7 show the error approximation (39) is good for low and high values of relative
associated with self-impedance approximation (39) versus permeability with a peak error occurring around A, = 3.0.
loglo (d/lpl) for It values of 1.0, 1.2, 3.0, 10.0, and 100, Clearly for cases where ir = 1.0, the error in using (39) is
respectively, and with b/a = 10 using bid as a parameter. quite acceptable for a broad range of frequencies and tunnel
Error plots for different values of b/a were generated, but are configurations. Also for small values of bid, (39) is accept-
nearly identical to Figs. 3-7 and hence are not shown here. As able for all Ai,. values. The errors associated with mutual
a reference point for determining the error for typical impedance approximation (40) are shown in Figs. 8-11 for
situations, p = 460 m when the earth resistivity is 100 Q and a various values of pld, bid and 0. The value of ur 1.0 was =

radian frequency of 2w 60 rad/s is assumed. For a tunnel of selected for Figs. 8-10 because this represents the worst-case
radius 0.1 m, 1.0 m, and 10.0 m, the value of logI0 (d/lpI) is error condition. As shown, for example, in Fig. 11, the error
-3.66, - 2.66, and - 1.66, respectively. These same log ( ) associated with the mutual impedance approximation is signifi-
values are obtained for a tunnel of radius 0.1 m and earth cantly lower for ,.t, = 100.0 than for A, = 1.0. As can be seen

Authorized licensed use limited to: J.R.D. Tata Memorial Library Indian Institute of Science Bengaluru. Downloaded on June 21,2023 at 12:52:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 728 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. IA-23, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 1987

3.2

r
o 15.0 0

a:
w LL
w LAJ
O 12.0

z z
w 11J
0 LU

ix 9.0
LU LU)
0. a.

- 3.0 - 2z3 - 1.6 - 0.9 -0.2 0.5 1.2

LOG (d/lpI) LOG (d/Ipi)

Fig. 6. Error for self-impedance approximation with b/a = 10.0, A, = Fig. 8. Error for mutual-impedance approximation with p/d = 0.0, 0 =

10.0. /°L
0.0, = 1.0.

24 -or MUTUAL IMPEDANCE

I.A A
24.0 SELF IMPEDANCE
p/d=1.0, =0.0, .Lr=l0
b/a = 10.0. ru
r O
1000
20.01-
21.0

180~~~~1
a:
0
16.0
18.0
b/d-0 9

a: 12.0
0
15.0
a:
a: z
(0
:
bId= 0.91
8.01
(0
/bd 0.45
W
z
Q
4.0
9.0
a-
b/d-.0091 b/d 0.0

6.0 / -3.2 -2.4 -16 -0.8 000 08 1.6

LOG (d/ lpi)

30O Fig. 9. Error for mutual-impedance approximation with pid = 1.0, 6 =

b/d= 0.0091 0.0, Alr 1.0. =

0.0-3.0 .I
-2.3 -1.6 -0.9 -0.2 0.5 1.2
LOG (d/|p|) 24.0 r
MUTUAL IMPEDANCE
Fig. 7. Error for self-impedance approximation with b/a = 10.0, , = b/dc0.45, p/d=-0.5, Fr=10
100.0. 200

al:
0
ak: 16.0
from all of the figures the impedance approximation errors are
bounded by 3 percent when either p = 0 or b 0, (i.e., one =
(0
12.0
conductor is in the center of the tunnel) for most practical z

LU
situations. These figures also show that when A,r = 1.0, the 0-

impedance approximation error is bounded by about 3.5 - v/ 3

percent for most practical applications, with significant errors 4.0

occurring only when these approximations are used to model
the impedance of a very small conductor in a large tunnel of
high conductivity under high-frequency conditions. -3.2 -2.4 -1.6 -0.8 00 08 1.6

It is useful to compare these results with those that would be LOG (d/lp|)
obtained using the Wagner-Evans-Rudenberg self-impedance Fig. 10. Error for mutual-impedance approximation for b/d = 0.45, p/d
approximation [2], [6] for overhead and shallowly buried = 0.5, ,= 1.0.

Authorized licensed use limited to: J.R.D. Tata Memorial Library Indian Institute of Science Bengaluru. Downloaded on June 21,2023 at 12:52:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TYLAVSKY: CONDUCTOR IMPEDANCE FOR DEEP UNDERGROUND 729
3.2 MUTUAL IMPEDANCE 24.0 r Wagner - Evans -Rudenberg
SELF IMPEDANCE
b/d=0.45, p/d=05, /,r=100.0 b/a= 10.0, F'r=1.0

28 200k

CE
0
2-4- 16 0F
wr
CE

cE.
0 20
z
U
ui
0
1,6 CE
Lii
01-
z
Li
Q0 1.2-
CE
U.L
40k
0L

0.8
-3.2 -24 -16 -0.8 0.0 08 16
LOG (d/|p|)
0.4 \ 6=,r/ 3
Fig. 12. Error for Wagner-Evans-Rudenberg self-impedance approxima-
8= 2 w/3 tion for b/a = 10.0.
00
-3 0 - 2.3 -1.6 -0.9 -0.2 0.5 L2
LOG (d/|p|)

Fig. 11. Error for mutual-impedance approximation for bld = 0.45, p/d
tained simply by changing the constant multiplier from 1.8514
= 0.5, r = 100.0. in the Wagner-Evans-Rudenberg overhead approximation to
1.0. It may be possible, by trial and error, to improve the
accuracy even further by optimizing the coefficient of p0 in
conductors, given by (46) and (47). Similarly it may also be the case that 1.8514 is
co5 ./It 1.8514
not an optimized coefficient for the overhead case, but that the
Z' + lnIn 2.0 coefficient present in (2) and (3) may be superior. Once
8 2wr a r the optimized coefficients are determined, it is easy to see that
approximations to the impedance of conductors that are neither
= j_O_ lnInF1.8514po1 (45)
overhead nor deeply buried can then be bracketed by these two
27r a extremes and may provide sufficient accuracy for many
applications.
Fig. 12 shows the error obtained when (45) is used as an
approximation in an underground application. Comparison of CONCLUSION
Figs. 12 and 3 shows that the proposed self-impedance A derivation for the self and mutual impedances of
approximation is superior to the Wagner-Evans-Rudenberg underground conductors has been presented, and the approxi-
approximation for a wide range of d/lpl values. Further, for mations used in obtaining closed-form results investigated in
conductors which are located near the center of the tunnel, the detail. The approximations presented are shown to be general-
proposed approximation is valid for all values of d/lpl when izations of the self-impedance equations conjectured indepen-
Altr = 1.0 while the Wagner-Evans-Rudenberg approximation dently and provided without proof, for direct-buried cables.
breaks down for large d/lpl. The resulting approximations are shown to be superior to the
The general performance of the error for the Wagner- closed-form solutions, previously derived for the overhead
Evans-Rudenberg mutual-impedance approximation is similar case, which are often applied in underground applications.
to that shown in Fig. 12. Comparison of this with Fig. 8 shows The error figures show that the approximations are valid for a
the superiority of expressions (43) and (44). For small values very broad range of frequencies, tunnel diameters, relative
of d, and with itr = 1.0, (43) and (44) may be approximated permeabilities, the earth conductivities. These figures also
similarly, yielding show that the self- and mutual-impedance error bound is 3.5
percent for most practical applications when itr = 1.0.
]wzoi In 1Po = ito + Jw/so ln 1
ZS 27rFAO (46) Suggestions have been made for improving the approximations
a 8 2r awl.to0 presented here, as well as for the standard Wagner-Evans-
Rudenberg approximation for overhead and shallow buried
cables. Use of approximations will allow mine electrical
Zmj2m27r ln [b PO
p2 +b2 -2bp cos 0J11/2 engineers to more accurately predict ac system fault currents,
dc systems transients, and electric field levels throughout
underground mines for in-mine communication.
OlLo JiW Ao ln (Y uo ) - l 1/2
=-+
8 2 -r (47)
_(YI -Y2 )2+dl22 REFERENCES
[1] J. R. Carson, "Wave propagation in overhead wires, with ground
It is easily verified that, for a large region of interest, a return," Bell Syst. Techn. J., vol. 5, pp. 539-554, 1926.
suitable approximation for underground applications is ob- [2] C. F. Wagner and R. D. Evans, Symmetrical Components as

Authorized licensed use limited to: J.R.D. Tata Memorial Library Indian Institute of Science Bengaluru. Downloaded on June 21,2023 at 12:52:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 730 70IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. IA-23, NO. 4, JULY/AUGUST 1987
Applied to the Analysis of Electrical Circuits. New York: Mc-
Graw-Hill, 1933.
13] C. Gary, "Approache complete de la propagation multifilaire an haute
frequence par utilisation des matrices complexes," EDF Bulletin de la
Direction des Etudes et Recherches-Serie B, no. 314, pp. 5-20, 1976.
[41 A. Deri, G. Teran, A. Semlyen, and A. Castanheirs, "The complex
ground return plane, A simplified model for homogeneous and multi-
layer earth return," IEEE Power, App., Syst., vol. PAS-100, no. 8,
pp. 3686-3693, Aug. 1981.
[5] F. L. Alvarado and R. Betancourt, "An accurate closed-form approxi-
mation for ground return impedance calculations," in Proc. IEEE,
vol. 71, Feb. 1983, pp. 279-280.
[6] R. Rudenberg, "Die Ausbrietung der Erdstrome in der Umgerbung
von Wechelstromleitungen," Z. f. angew. Math. u. Mech., vol. 5, p.
361, Oct. 1926.
[7] D. J. Tylavsky, "Impedance of track/trolley haulage systems," in
Conf. Rec. 1985 Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting,
Oct. 1985, pp. 206-212.
[81 A. Semlyen (discussion of H. W. Dommel), "Overhead line parame-
ters for handbook formulas an computer programs," IEEE Trans.
Power, App., Syst., vol. PAS-104, no. 2, pp. 366-372, Feb. 1985.
[9] K. A. Brown, "Calculation of underground cable impedances," IEEE
Student Paper Contest, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, Mar.
1985.
[10] N. Mullineux and J. R. Reed, "Calculation of electrical parameters for
short and long polyphase transmission lines," in Proc. IEE, vol. 112,
no. 4, Apr. 1965, pp. 741-742.
[11] L. M. Wedepohl and R. G. Wasley, "Wave propagation in multicon-
ductor overhead lines, Calculation of series impedance for multilayer
earth," in Proc. LEE, vol. 113, no. 4, Apr. 1966, pp. 627-632.
[12] J. A. Tegopoulos and E. E. Kriezis, "Eddy current distribution in
cylindrical shells of infinite length due to axial currents, Part I: Shells of
Authorized licensed use limited to: J.R.D. Tata Memorial Library Indian Institute of Science Bengaluru. Downloaded on June 21,2023 at 12:52:43 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
one boundary," IEEE Trans. Power, App., vol. PAS-90, no 3, pp.
1278-1286, May/June 1971.
[131 1. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Tables of Integrals, Series, and
Products. New York: Academic Press, 1980.
[141 M. Abramowitz and 1. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical
Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables.
New York: Dover Publications, 1972.
Daniel J. Tylavsky was born in Pittsburgh, PA, on
August 24, 1952. He received the B.S. degree in
engineering science in 1974, the M.S.E.E. degree
in 1978, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engi-
neering in 1982, all from The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park.
In 1974 he joined Basic Technology, Inc., Pitts-
burgh, PA, working in the thermal and mechanical
stress analysis group. In 1978 he joined the faculty
at Penn State as an Instructor in electrical engineer-
ing. He retained that position until 1980, at which
time he returned to full-time graduate study with the aid of an RCA
Fellowship. In 1982 he assumed his present position as Assistant Professor of
Engineering in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at
Arizona State University.
Dr. Tylavsky is a member of the Society for Industrial and Applied
Mathematics (SIAM) and of the IEEE Power Engineering, Industry Applica-
tions, and Computer Societies. He is an RCA Fellow, a NASA-ASEE Fellow,
and a member of Phi Eta Sigma, Eta Kappa Nu, Tau Beta Pi, and Phi Kappa
Phi.