On Calculating Surface Potential Gradient of

Overhead Line Conductors

Q. Li, R. Shuttleworth, G. Zhang and S. M. Rowland R. S. Morris
School of Electrical & Electronic Engineering National Grid UK
The University of Manchester Warwick, United Kingdom
Manchester, United Kingdom richard.morris@uk.ngrid.com
s.rowland@manchester.ac.uk

Abstract— The surface potential gradient is a critical design stresses for arbitrary boundary shapes. A comprehensive
parameter for planning overhead lines, as it determines the level method utilizing both analytical and numerical treatments is
of corona loss (CL), radio interference (RI), and audible noise developed to analyze the surface potential gradient for two
(AN). The majority of existing models for surface gradient typical stranding shapes.
calculation are based on analytical methods which restrict their
application in simulating complex surface geometry. This article
proposes a novel method which utilizes both analytical and II. LITERATURE REVIEW
numerical procedures to predict the surface gradient. One of UK
National Grid's transmission line configurations has been A. Simplified Model of Overhead Line
selected as an example to compare the results for different Major factors affecting surface stress for overhead lines are
methods. The different stranding shapes are a key variable in presented in Fig 3.1 as:
determining dry surface fields.
 Conductor sag
Keywords-surface gradient, finite element method, high voltage
conductor, field, corona, radio interference, audible noise, Maxwell  Proximity of towers
Potential Coefficient Method, Markt and Mengele's Method,  Uneven ground surface
Successive Images Method, Charge Simulation Method
 Finite ground conductivity
I. INTRODUCTION  Conductor stranding and protrusions(scratches, insects
Followed by the rapid increase of voltage level in modern and raindrops) [2]
power systems, corona phenomena, defined in terms of corona By ignoring all of the factors listed above, a simplified
loss (CL), radio interference (RI), and audible noise (AN), are transmission line model can be represented as: a series of
now becoming one of the critical design considerations for cylindrical conductors with infinite length, parallel to each
overhead lines. The most significant factor that influences the other and placed above a smooth ground plane. The three-
generation of corona is the electric field distribution in the dimensional transmission line is thus simplified to a two-
vicinity of the conductor surface [1], so calculation of the dimensional model as in Fig.1.
electric field strength on the surface of high voltage (HV)
conductors becomes critical when studying corona
phenomenon.
The calculation of surface gradients on overhead
conductors dates back to the 1950s when Maxwell's Potential
Matrix was first employed as an analytical tool. Over the past
60 years, a number of numerical methods have been applied to Simplified 2-D model

this subject due to the increasing power of computers. All these

calculations are based on a simplified model of transmission
line conductors—„a series of cylinders parallel to smooth
ground‟. In the first part of this paper, five major methods are
reviewed in detail. One of National Grid‟s transmission line
configurations has been selected as an example to compare the
results for the different methods.
Following the theoretical study of existing methods, the
second part of this paper presents the characteristics of
different methods, and analyzes the possibilities for improving
the calculation accuracy. Finite element analysis (FEA) is Figure 1. Diagrammatic drawing of a 400kV transmission line span
shown to have the advantage of being able to calculate electric
(Sponsored by National Grid UK)

978-1-4673-0487-0/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE 540

B. Existing Methods
Different methods for calculating field strength can be
classified as being either analytical or numerical by their
derivation principles.
Analytical methods can be listed (in order of increased
complexity):
 Maxwell Potential Coefficient Method
 Markt and Mengele‟s Method and Its Extension
And numerical methods are:
 Successive Images Method
 Charge Simulation Method
 Finite Element Method
 Boundary Element Method
C. Maxwell Potential Coefficient Method
The first publication on this method was in 1948 when
Temoshok introduced „Maxwell‟s Potential Coefficient‟ to
calculate the charge density for each conductor within a
transmission line system [3]. More systemic processes for this
method can be found from Adams‟s calculating example on
single conductor transmission line (1955) [4].
The „Maxwell Potential Coefficient Method‟ [4] is based on
the assumption that surface charges are distributed uniformly
around each conductor. Under this circumstance, the multi-
conductor system with a ground plane is equivalent to a multi
line charge system.
The electric field strength can be calculated by charge
densities λ1-λn as:
 U
 E   
2 0 r r ln D
r0
and charge densities are evaluated by:
    P U  
1
 
where P is the „Maxwell potential coefficient matrix‟ obtained
by the distance between two points. The analytical solution for
electric field strength at any location is thus obtained by vector
superposition.
This method is restricted to the calculation of multi-
conductor systems with large spacing. Using a single line
charge at the centre point to replace the surface charge
distribution implies a uniform charge and electric field
distribution around the conductor surface. Such an assumption
becomes inadequate in the case of transmission lines when a
conductor bundle is used rather than a single conductor since
the sub-conductor spacing in a bundle is of the order of ten to
forty times the sub-conductor radius.
541
D. Markt and Mengele’s Method
Markt and Mengele were the first to suggest a method of
calculating the conductor surface electric fields of bundle
conductors in transmission lines [5]. This method can be
treated as an extension of the „Maxwell Potential Coefficient
Method‟. The sub-conductors within each bundle are initially
replaced by a single conductor, representing the whole bundle,
with electrically equivalent radius [1]:
1
req   n  r   R  n 
n 1
 
 
where r is the radius of sub-conductors within the bundle; R is
the radius of the bundle; and n is the total number of sub-
conductors within the bundle. The same process is carried out
to calculate the line charge density distribution as for the
previous method (Maxwell Potential Coefficient Method).
The „Markt and Mengele‟s Method‟ is well known as an
accurate analytical method for field calculation in high voltage
transmission lines. However, bundled conductors are widely
utilized in higher voltage level. The distance between sub-
conductors is relatively small compared to distance between
different phases. As a result line-charge simplification
introduces large errors in calculating electric field distributions
within bundles. Further improvement of calculation accuracy is
thus required for bundle conductors. An improvement was
introduced by King who suggested that the line charge used to
replace each sub-conductor is not located at its central point but
a small distance away from its central point [6]. This small
distance is a function of the bundle‟s geometry. King further
improved this method by replacing a sub-conductor by two line
charges symmetrically displaced from the centre of the
conductor [7].
E. Successive Images Method
The „Image Method‟ comes from Lord Kelvin‟s publication
[8] in 1848 when he discovered that the electric field of a
charge in front of a conducting plane can be calculated by the
charge and its mirror image. By using this basic idea of the
image method, Hammond [9] presented a cylindrical conductor
example which connected the „image method‟ to transmission
line field calculations. Based on this, Sarma and Janischewskyj
published a similar paper [10] in 1969 on electrostatic field
calculation of parallel cylindrical conductors using the
„Successive Images Method‟.
The method of successive images initially allows „central
line charge‟ simplification (as introduced in „Maxwell‟s
Potential Method‟) to calculate the charge density of each
conductor, and then consider the non uniform distribution of
those charges around the surface of each conductor. An
iterative procedure is employed to achieve the required results.
F. Charge Simulation Method
The „Charge Simulation Method‟ (CSM) has been widely
utilized to analyze electric field distribution in high voltage
insulation components. The method dates back to 1969 when
Abou Seada and Nasser employed CSM to evaluate the field
strength in a twin cylindrical conductor [11]. Subsequently,
Singer, Steinbigler and Weiss published a comprehensive paper
[12] on the details of CSM. They extended the applicability of
CSM from two dimensions to three dimensions, and gave an
example of the calculation of electric field strength near a
transmission line tower, using CSM. „An optimized charge
simulation method‟ was discussed by Yializis, Kuffel and
Alexander in 1978 [13], and techniques for optimizing
calculation speed by flexibly selecting simulation charge
shapes were presented. More recent work employing CSM
refers to surface field calculation of ±800 kV UHVDC
transmission line in China [14].
The principle of the „Charge Simulation Method‟ can be
explained as „using discrete fictitious charges to replace the
non-uniformly distributed surface charge‟ [11]. Similar to the
„Successive Images Method‟, it is also a numerical method
based on fictitious charges. However, the difference is that the
images introduced in the „Successive Images Method‟ are fixed
at a certain position with a certain shape and charge density,
while the fictitious charges introduced in CSM are flexible in
both location and shape. As long as the fictitious charges have
been set up, the charge densities can be calculated so that their
integrated effect satisfies the boundary conditions. This is
explained through a simplified example as follows:
As shown in Fig. 2, N line charges have been introduced to
simulate the surface charge distribution of a twin cylindrical
bundle. The boundary conditions are satisfied by selecting N
testing points on the surface (red points) and assuming their
potential to be the conductor‟s voltage. As the potentials of the
testing points can be calculated by superposition of fictitious
line charges, N equations can thus be constructed with N
unknown variables (fictitious line charge densities):
  P   U  
The line charge densities can be found by matrix inversion:
    P U  
1
 
The electric field can thus be calculated from (1).
Figure 2. Charge Simulation Method for an isolated two-conductor bundle
Additional to these, Boundary Element Method (BEM) is
an effective method in open field problem however has the
limitation that cannot couple with different fields.
III. METHODOLOGY
The Finite Element Method can analyze geometries with
irregular shapes coupled with different fields. However it is
limited by the scale of geometries it can simulate. The largest
number of mesh elements an 8 gigabyte PC can sustain is
approximately one million. Taking the proposed transmission
line parameters as an example, simulation for the whole span of
overhead line will result less than two elements over a 1 cm
length on the conductor surface. This number can be increased
by using a finer mesh size in the vicinity of conductor surface.
However this demonstrates the limitation of FEM in modeling
the large scale transmission line environment. On the other
hand, the „Successive Images Method‟ can only simulate
regular cylindrical conductors with smooth surface profile, but
it can do so for a relatively large scale for two dimensions. The
CSM has the advantage that it can be extended to simulate the
effect of sag in three dimensions.
These characteristics make it possible to combine the three
methods together to analyze the surface stranding effect within
the whole scale of the transmission line environment.
The flow chart in Fig. 3 combines the three methods in
analyzing the surface field distribution. The „Successive
Images Method‟ and „Charge Simulation Method‟ are
employed to calculate the electric potential distribution in a
relatively large scale (a whole span of a transmission line). 500
fictitious line charges were introduced for each conductor.
Within this large scale, surface profiles and protrusions are
negligible, so the calculation results obtained are within
tolerable distortion (less than one percent). As long as the large
scale results are obtained, a micro-scale domain (an
equipotential surface) is extracted as boundary conditions for
the FEA process. The accuracy is further improved by adding
an iterative process which gradually approaches the best-fit

boundary for FEA.
Simplified transmission line
model calculation by ‘Successive
Sag effect analysis by ‘Charge
Simulation Method’
Images Method’
Electric potential
distribution around the
bundle
Iterative process
Stranding shape analysis for each
sub-conductor by ‘Finite Element
Method’
Figure 3. Comprehensive method for surface gradient calculation
IV. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
As presented in Fig. 4, one analytical method and two
numerical methods have been studied and the „Maximum
Surface Gradient‟ (rms) for each is compared. It is found that
sub-conductors 2, 6, 7, 11 sustain higher surface stresses while
542
sub-conductors 4 and 9 create lower stresses (see figure 5 for
conductor annotation). When comparing the different methods,
Markt and Mengele‟s Method generated a lower value
compared to the other methods. This inaccuracy is due to
neglecting non-uniform charge density on the surface of each
sub-conductor. As shown in Fig. 4, the four lines are following
the same trends, and the difference between calculations for
each conductor is not large (being under 0.05 kV/cm which is
than a single maximum value overall. This information can be
obtained from the new model. As plotted in Fig. 6, we see that
a conductor with trapezoidal strands has approximately 43%
surface area above 14 kV/cm compared with 21% for
cylindrical strands.
17.5

around 0.3%). This leads to the conclusion that: both the 17.4

Electric Field Strength (kV/cm)

„Successive Images Method‟ and the „Charge Simulation 17.3

Method‟ can generate sufficiently accurate results for 17.2

simplified calculation in transmission line systems. 17.1

The simulation results shown in Fig. 5 are produced from 17

the novel method as previously introduced. Table 1 compares 16.9

the results between the simplified calculation and novel 16.8

method. The numbering of conductors in Table 1 refers to 16.7
Fig.5. The maximum and average value when considering 16.6
stranding shape is approximately 3kV/cm higher than the
16.5
simplified model which assumes cylindrical shape. Traditional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Conductor Number
empirical equations for noise level evaluation employ the ELECMODL Successive Images Method
maximum gradient on a smooth cylinder as an intermediate Markt and Mengele's Method Charge Simulation Method

variable. However, the acoustic power depends upon the

surface area of emission. So the percentage of surface area
having surface stress above a certain level is more important Figure 4. Comparison among different methods (simplified model)

Figure 5. Results from novel method presented in this paper

543
 TABLE I. RESULTS OF SURFACE GRATIENT CALCULATION

Simplified model Novel model employing FEA

Conductor Trapezoidal shape strands Cylindrical shape strands
Number E_max E_ave
P1% P2% P3%
(kV/cm) (kV/cm) E_max E_ave E_max E_ave
P1% P2% P3% P1% P2% P3%
(kV/cm) (kV/cm) (kV/cm) (kV/cm)
1 17.21 16.02 21.14 13.94 23.77 10.58
2 17.39 16.16 21.35 14.04 24.02 10.66
3 17.28 16.06 21.19 13.95 23.83 10.59
4 17.14 15.96 21.02 13.87 23.64 10.53
5 17.19 16.01 21.10 13.92 23.73 10.57
6 17.42 16.17 21.37 14.05 24.02 10.66
100% 53% 0% 43% 33% 13% 21% 17% 13%
7 17.39 16.15 21.28 13.99 23.94 10.62
8 17.20 16.02 21.06 13.89 23.69 10.54
9 17.14 15.96 21.05 13.89 23.66 10.54
10 17.28 16.06 21.25 13.99 23.89 10.62
11 17.42 16.17 21.33 14.03 24.00 10.65
12 17.19 16.01 21.06 13.89 23.68 10.55
E_max: maximum electric field in rms; E_ave: average electric field in rms;
P1%: ratio of surface area above 14 kV/cm; P2%: ratio of surface area above 16 kV/cm; P3% ratio of surface area above 18 kV/cm.

Figure 6. Percentage of area above a certain voltage gradient
V. CONCLUSIONS
A novel method integrating both analytical and numerical
methods is proposed for surface voltage gradient calculation in
overhead lines. Trapezoidal and round shapes have been
compared in terms of maximum surface field, average surface
stress and ratio of surface area above a certain level of electric
field. It is concluded that rounded shape conductor has higher
maximum value of surface gradient while trapezoidal shape
conductor produces larger area of surface above a certain levels
of electric field.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The support of National Grid UK in providing the funding
for this work is gratefully acknowledged by the authors.
REFERENCES
[1] P. S. Maruvada, Corona Performance of High-Voltages Transmission
Lines, Ch. 6.6. Baldock, Herts.: Research Studies Press Ltd., pp. 164-
165, 2000,.
[2] EPRI AC Transmission Line Reference Book—200 kV and Above/ Third
Edition, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA, 2005.
[3] M. Temoshok, “Relative Surface Voltage Gradients of Grouped
Conductors”, Trans. AIEE, Vol. 67, pp. 1583-1591, 1948.
[4] G.E. Adams, “Voltage gradients on high voltage transmission lines”,
AIEE Trans. (Power Apparatus and Systems), Vol.74, pp.5-11, April
1955.
[5] IEEE Committee Paper, “A Survey of Methods for Calculating
Transmission Line Conductor Surface Voltage Gradients”, IEEE Trans.,
Vol. PAS-98, pp 1996-2014, Nov/Dec 1979.
[6] S. Y. King, „The electric field near bundled conductors‟, Proc. IEE
(London), Part.C, monogr. 338s, pp.200-206, June 1959.
[7] S. Y. King, „Improved solution for the field near bundle conductors‟,
Proc. IEE (London), Vol.110 No.6, pp.1044-1050, June 1963.
[8] Lord Kelvin: “Reprint of Papers on Electrostatics and
Magnetism”(Macmillan, 1872), pp. 52 and 144.
[9] P. Hammond, “Electric and magnetic images”, Proc. IEE (London), pt.
C, monogr. 379, pp. 306-313, May 1960.
[10] Maruvada P. Sarma and W. Janischewskyj “Electrostatic Field of a
System of Parallel Cylindrical Conductors”, IEEE Trans. on Power
Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-88, pp. 1069, 1969.
[11] M. S. Abou-Seada, E. Nasser, “Digital Computer Calculation of the
Potential and Its Gradient of a Twin Cylindrical Conductor”, IEEE
Trans. PAS, Vol. 88, pp. 1802-1814 Dec. 1969.
[12] H. Singer, H. Steinbigler, P. Weiss, “A Charge Simulation Method for
the Calculation of High Voltage Fields”, IEEE Trans. PAS, Vol. 93, pp.
1660-1668 Sept. 1974.
[13] A. Yializis, E. Kuffel, P. H. Alexander, “An Optimized Charge
Simulation Method for the Calculation of High Voltages Fields”, IEEE
Trans. PAS, Vol. 97, pp. 2434-2440 Nov. 1978.
[14] H. Qin, S. Lichun, J. Xingliang, X. Rong, Y. Qianfei, Z. Shikun,
“Calculation of Conductors‟ Surface Electric Field of ±800 kV UHVDC
Transmission Lines with Optimized Charge Simulation Method”,
International Conference on High Voltage Engineering and Application,
2008.

544