This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Claude H. Gary, member IEEE
Electricite de France, Paris
AbstractThis paper presents a simple demonstration and the physical meaning of the excitation function due to corona effect on EHV conductors. Its purpose is to promote and to make easier the application of the excitation function, in order to improve the calculation methods of Radio Interference of EHV lines.
INTRODUCTION
Radio interference (RI), generated by a corona streamer is caused by the movement of space charges in the electric field of the conductor. These charges are due to the ionization of air in the immediate vicinity of the conductor. As a source of RI, the streamer is usually represented as a current generator: the current injected from this generator into the conductor depends only on the own characteristics of this streamer. In 1956 (1), Adams demonstrated that this representation was somewhat imperfect, and that in reality the corona streamer induced currents in all conductors of a multiwire system (and not only in the conductor that produced it). These currents depend on the characteristics of the conductor under corona and on the selfs and mutual capacitances of the conductors. The separation into two terms constitutes a worthy progress, for it shows that the RI currents in conductors of different lines are not necessarily equal from one line to the other, even if they are produced by identical corona streamers. According to Adams the term that expresses the characteristics of the corona streamer is the "excitation function". In this paper we present a new demonstration of the meaning of the excitation function. Although this one is not thoroughly rigorous, it nevertheless presents the advantage of permitting to grasp, in a very concrete way, its theoretical and practical significance.
Suppose that a space charge of density qo per unit length is placed within this coaxial element. Let the space charge be in the form of an infinitely thin cylinder of radius p (fig. 1). If the center conductor is connected to ground, it will be at zero potential and carry a charge q induced by the presence of qo. In this electrical state, the radial electrostatical field is given by Gauss's theorem:
atapointoftheradius r<cs cy
at a point of the radius <cscR :
L:
2r.q s
2n6t,.s
q
i J
E2
(1)
Integrating in order to obtain the potential difference:
Vrr VRJElds+
R
E2ds
=
2
q E [Ln r r
.
q.tn&}
(2)
Since Vr  VR = 0, the charge per unit length induced on the center conductor is:
9
= 
9
R
(3)
Now assume that the cylindrical space charge qo uniformly expands at velocity dp/dt. This expansion results in the rate of change dq/dt of the induced charge, that represents the injected current. To calculate this current qo dp dq 1 dq d?
dt
d!
dt
In R
P
dt
(4)
DEMONSTRATION BY MEANS OF THE POTENTIAL FUNCTION
substituting for
.
In R/r
1
2nrE.
So
p
c
(5)
dp
dt
Elementary case of a coaxial element
Let us consider an element consisting of a cylindrical conductor having a radius r, and located coaxially within a cylinder of radius R, representing the mass of zero potential.
where C = capacity per unit length of the coaxial cell:
C 2lCEo
(6)
It should be noted that this current is the product of two terms:
one,
2nEo which depends on the cell geometry; and
c
the second, 2L *P
P dt' which solely depends on the characteristics of the space charge, that is to say, its quantity and the law of its movement. Next, the excitation function will be defined from the second term of the product.
Generalization of the preceding expressions
Fig. 1.
Paper 71 TP 153PWR, recommended and approved by the Transmission and Distribution Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE Winter Power Meeting, New York, N.Y., January 31February 5, 1971. Manuscript submitted September 16, 1970; made available for printing December 24, 1970.
a) In order to further the calculations, a cylindrical symmetrical configuration is adopted, including the space charge. But by virtue of the superposition theorem, it is quite obvious that a small element Xqo of this space charge cut out at any place of the cylinder of radius p induces a charge Xq on the center conductor. Instead of considering the whole space charge, only a local space charge can be placed at a point
305
Note: Although, when using this method, the charge induced by a point charge can be calculated, the total charge distribution along the conductor is unknown. Nevertheless, it is estimated that 95% of the induced charge is concentrated on a conductor length of about ±5p, as illustrated in fig. 2.
AL dx q
(6).
of radius p, without changing the already obtained equations (3) and
I
5P
4
S
qo0,p
Fig. 2.
~ ~o
In R/p
in R/r
q
=

qo .e(M)
(10)
APPLICATION TO A MULTIWIRE LINE
=J dx dx f q
x
Consider a multiwire line consisting of n conductors of radii rn; let us assume that a space charge qo is located in the , vicinity of conductor 1, at a point M close enough so that the electrical field around 1, in the absence of qo, is essentially radial. Let us find the potential functions 6(M) associated with the various conductors.
rl, r2
CONDUCTOR AXIS
a) The potential function 61(M) associated with conductor 1.
(fig. 3)
Let conductor 1 be at + 1 potential and all the others grounded
V+1
2
V =O
3 4
b) In equation (3), the expression
is no other than the potential function 0(p). This function expresses the potential of the point at radius p when the center conductor is at + l and the earthed cylinder at 0 potential. Therefore the expression can be written:
q
'
Me0
;
qo.e(M)
(7) From equation:
q
Fig. 3.
where qo is a localized charge placed at a point M in space, and 6(M) is the potential function of the conductor whose induced charge is to be found. It is assumed that expression (7) can be applied to any configuration of conductors, and in particular to a multiwire line.
=civl
C11
/
+ C12 V2 + 
Clm nv
(C41 )
1
q
for
V1
= +1 j
VKO V(K)
Using Gauss's identity
The preceding generalization, divided into step a) and b), has the advantage of being very concrete, yet it is not altogether obvious. This is why another demonstration is suggested here, which does not require any particular geometrical hypothesis. This demonstration is based on Gauss's identity, which is expressed in the following manner:
The radial field around I then equals:
E
2nEos
(C12 (12)
In P( ri
integrating in order to obtain the potential of the point M at radius p:
lM)
C1 fEds J2n6uo
ri
(13)
Assume a system of n conductors, successively submitted to two different electrostatical states; these two states are respectively characterized by charge qi and qi', and by potential Vi and Vi'; the identity is written:
[ vq' n
Therefore it can be deduced that:
e I (M)

C1 ttIn
2 nZo
 p
r1
=
E
n
(8)
b) The potential function
6i(M) associated with conductor i * 1.
Further assume a conductor C and a point M of the dielectrical space, submitted to two electrostatical states, such as they are described in the following table;
CHARGE
In this case, conductor i is considered to be at + 1 potential, and all the others are at zero potential of the earth (fig. 4)
POTENTIAL
CHARGE POTENTIAL
C I
1
2
.
q
+1
q
qa. sen
s
0
v=+1
0
n
M(pI
S
MO
0
Fr
e((M)
Fi rst state
st
V
second state
Fig. 4.
According (8), Gauss's identity is written as follows:
(+ 1 ) xq
+
From equation
+ VxO
S3(M)
x
qO
=
Oxq
(9)
306
q=
c11v1 + C12V2 *...+Cln
for
Vn
from where it is immediately drawn that:
q1 = C1i
Vj =+
, VK = 0 (KI i )
}
(15)
Therefore the radial field around 1 is:
E = C1 /27CeoS
integrating in the same manner as above:
(16)
impulse is replaced by the spectral density G(w). Without going into the theory of stationary random signals, let us merely recall that the spectral density defines an energy. The RMS of g(c) of the pseudoperiodic signal, contained within an infinitely small frequency interval dw is directly related to G(co), according to Parseval's theorem, by:
O.80(M)
=
Eds = 'r
2T e, o
In p
1i
In
p r,
(17)
(18)
dg2(c) = G2(.) )
d d
(23)
11
81(M M=

2 3To
Cli
Consequently if the original signal passes through a measuring device tuned to the frequency coo and with a "quadratic equivalent" bandwidth of B Hz the RMS value of the measured signal is:
r,
9tOo)
=
G
(po)
(24)
c) Calculating the currents injected in the conductors by the moving charge qo. The charges induced into the various conductors are determined by equation (10)
Let n be the numbei of discreet uncorrelated corona sources per unit length of conductor and let Gi be the spectral density of the source "i"; then the resultant RMS value of all the sources per unit length of conductor is
n
q,
and
= q (  Cl
=
Ln
(19)
(20)
(25)
qi
q
2 3fo
Cli
ln
P r
dp
dt
dp
This quantity r' is called the excitation function. In consequence, the RMS value of the injected HF current, measured at frequency wo and with a bandwidth of B Hz, per length unit of a multiwire line is:
_ ..
The current induced in conductor i is obtained by differentiating equations ( 19) (20)
Jj
=
2 6
.
(26)
or, in a generalized matrix relation:
C11 2it.
C1j
q.
P
(21)
(22)
This equation can be generalized in the form
23rrto
qo dp
P dt
1
[c [i
(27)
q1
P
This result is similar to and consistent with equation (6), because the quantity r had been uniquely defined from the function, a characteristics of the moving space charge. The random aspect of the r function is due to the inherent nature of the space charges. It is introduced to take into account the measuring system and in particular, the bandwidth of a receiver with a squarelaw detector. Adams calls r the "spectral density of the excitation function" [1 ].
SYSTEM OF BUNDLED CONDUCTORS
The calculations performed as yet were based on the hypothesis that the conductors were cylindrical, and that their mutual distances were very large with respect to their radii. It was furthermore assumed that the space charges moved within the region of radial field. It is important to know whether the results remain fundamentally the same when the single conductor is replaced by a bundle, commonly used on EHV lines.
dt
where j: conductor index near which the charge qj is located i: conductor index on which the current is measured The following important deduction can be made from the examination of the generalized equation for induced currents. The current in each conductor depends on the capacitance coefficient of this conductor considered as an element of a whole system. These capacitance coefficients are determined by the geometry of the system only, i.e. the size of conductors and the distances between them and earth. Hence, the first term in the equation for induced current is a well defined constant for each conductor. The second term is governed by the laws of the formation and movement of the space charges within the ionized zone very close to the surface of the conductor under corona. The excitation function is directly related to the second term that completely describes all physical characteristics of the corona. This function will be developed in the next paragraph.
THE DEFINITION OF THE EXCITATION FUNCTION: GENERALIZATION OF qp° d P
Because of the internal characteristics of the electrical field within the zone of the ionized air, in the neighbourhood of the conductor, the function
q
Practical evidence of the excitation function
In practice, the excitation function used in the precalculation of the RI level of a line appears in the equation (27) where [C] is the matrix of the capacitance coefficients of the line and derived for cylindrical conductors of equivalent radius (i.e. conductors carrying, under equal conditions, the same charge as the bundle). It must be remembered that the magnitude that can be measured is the current [J], and not the excitation function [Fr. In a general case [r] represents an important parameter in the calculation and has to be derived from experimental measurements of HF currents and capacity, achieved in a test cage, for example. The validity of the excitation function is proved, if the following equation is satisfied:
dp
P dt presents an impulsive form of very short duration. This impulsive functioncan be described by a Fourier spectrum, F(Q.). On the other hand, the character of the space charge is such that the impulses f(t) are pseudoperiodically repeted, or more exactly randomly. Experience shows, that the successive impulses all have the same form, but fluctuate in amplitude and time intervals around stable average values. Under these conditions, the Fourier spectrum of a single
307
[c4[ Ji] = fC2]f [ J2]
=
2rr6
It follows that the induced HF current is
= ni
2
where J1 and J2 are the HF currents measured on the same bundle, submitted to the same gradient, and placed in two different systems characterized respectively by the capacitance matrices [C I I and [C2] . The experimental checking of the above relation has been carried out by placing the same bundle in a cage and on a line. The measured currents were found exactly in conformity with this law, obviously under conditions of identical corona streamers (heavy rain). This was shown in reference [2] and widely used in references [3] [41 [5] . However, a closer examination of the behaviour of a bundle indicates that the concept of the equivalent cylinder has to be revised and that it is necessary to take into account the mutual effects between the subconductors of the bundles. The problem arises whether the excitation function of a conductor with a given surface gradient and surface conditions, is the same when this conductor is alone or when it is part of a bundle. Another problem can be stated in the following way: is the total HF current induced in a bundle with interconnected subconductors different from the one in a bundle with insulated subconductors? If that were the case, it would indeed be better to choose the arrangement with the least total current, since this would reduce the interference field of the bundle. Case of a bundle with interconnected subconductors
Tr 0 n
c 11 o
ri
(32)
If the excitation function of every subconductor i is Fi, every Ii being equal in amplitude but uncorrelated, the equation (32) leads immediately to: 1 ri
Jn
2nTr Fo 2
Vn
(33)
an equation that provides the means to compare the excitation functions of bundles with different numbers of subconductors.
Case of a bundle with insulated subconductors To simplify the discussion, let us assume that a bundle with n insulated subconductors is located in the center of a cylindrical cage (fig. 6). Furthermore, let ri be the excitation function of subconductor i in corona. The current induced in subconductor j is given by an approximate equation:
Ji
"I
=
it tJ 2.n6o ri
11
(34)
Interconnected conductors can be considered equipotential from the HF point of view provided that the distance between the electrical connections (generally through the spacers) is a small fraction of the wave length at con, the frequency under consideration. Let the bundle be formed by n identical conductors of radius r, and let the space charge qo move in the vicinity of the conductor i
.I
1%
//
I
0
1
n
\\
1iX
(fig. 5).
I
I
Q I~~~~~~~~~~
/

Q
I
1 20 I
~~~~p,q0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
//
30
0
4
1
P"
2>.
_ o
"
"I.
"I
I
1
//
Fig. 6.
where yij are the entries of the matrix of capacitance coefficients of the system of subconductors. In a conventional bundle the subconductor spacing is assumed to be much larger than p, the distance of the space charge from the axis of the subconductor. Under these conditions the equation for Jileads to accurate results. The total current injected onto the bundle is
1
Fig. 5. The total induced charge, i.e. the sum of the charges induced in all conductors, will be calculated by considering the potential function. In the immediate neighbourhood s of the conductor, the field due to the charge on the conductor is essentially radial. Now, when the bundle is at the + 1 potential, this charge is equal to q.
=
C11 n
(28)
j
o
]
J
=
r
2
rr
(35)
where C11 is calculated for the equivalent cylinder of the bundle. Hence, the field intensity is approximately equal to
E _=
C
2r Eo nS
1
(29)
The corresponding potential function is:
Finally, let us try to find the relation between the elementary capacities 7ij and the total bundle capacity C1 1 This relation depends only on the geometry of the bundle. Let us consider now the fictitious case, where every subconductor is at the same potential V; the charge Qi of the subconductor i is:
8(p)
= 1
2iT& 2Trreiodn
In _ r
(30)
Qi
=
E X j V;
c11 V n
=
v
F j
(36)
Therefore, the induced charge
(31) butbydefinition ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q = is the total charge, because 0(p) is the potential function of the bundle. This equation is valid only in the immediate vicinity of a subconductor. therefore
q
=
0~ ~
q0 O(p)
C11:
308
j=1i
j= _1
J =5n
Cil
n
and the equation for the sum of injected currents becomes:
r (38) n 2rcto This equation is identical to the one developed for the current injected into a conventional bundle. Therefore, it can be concluded that the total current induced by a corona streamer is the same for a bundle with interconnected or insulated subconductors.
Cii
ever, no experimental results were available to verify the mathematically derived relationships, especially with respect to translating the results of test cage measurements into actual line performance. The author has succeeded admirably in coupling together the results of such experiments previously made and reported with a demonstration of the physical meaning of the excitation function. In my opinion, this is a contribution to the literature since it should lead to a wider understanding of the fundamentals of the phenomenon involved. I recommend that the Transmission and Distribution Committee consider reclassifying this paper as a Transactions paper if this is possible.
REFERENCES
CONCLUSIONS
1. The current induced into a conductor by the movement, in its neighbourhood, of a space charge, can be calculated by using the potential function. 2. In the case of a multiwire system (power transmission line) the preceding relation shows that currents are induced in all the conductors. They depend on the movement of the space charge and on the geometry of the system. This geometry is expressed by means of the capacitance coefficients. 3. In applying these results to the "corona streamers", it is possible, while introducing the spectral density of the movement of the charges and the quadratic bandwidth of a measuring device, to determine, in a very concrete manner, the excitation function worked out by Adams. 4. The examination of the "corona" behaviour of a conductor bundle leads to a relation between the excitation function of a subconductor, and the excitation function of the whole bundle. It is demonstrated that the total current, injected in a bundle by the corona effect, is the same, whether the bundle is conventional or whether each subconductor is insulated from the others.
[1] The Calculation of the Radio Interference Level of Transmission Lines caused by Corona Discharges, G. E. Adams, AIEE Transactions, Part III, 1956. [2] An Analysis of the RadioInterference Characteristics of Bundled Conductors, G. E. Adams, AIEE Transactions, Part III, 1956. [3] Radio Interference and Transmission Line Design, G. E. Adams, Proceedings of C.I.G.R.E. Conference, 1958.
REFERENCES
[1] G. E. Adams: The calculation of the radio interference level of [2]
[3]
transmission lines caused by corona discharges. AIEE Trans. Part III  June 1956, pp. 411419. J. Clade, C. Gary, M. Moreau: Results of studies on corona effect undertaken at the experimental station at les Renardieres, CIGRE 1970  report 3 108  p. 6. J. W. Juette, L. E. Zaffanella: Radio noise currents and audible noise on short sections of UHV bundle conductors. Paper 69.TP 690  IEEE Power Meeting, Dallas 1969. C. H. Gary, M. R. Moreau: Predetermination of the radio noise level under rain of an EHV line. Paper 68 C 57 PWR, EHV Transmission Conference, Montreal 1968. J. J. Clade, C. H. Gary, M. R. Moreau: Usage and checking of the theoretical relations between fields, currents and excitation functions in radiofrequencies in the case of short test lines. Paper 69 TP 64, IEEE Power Meeting  New York 1968.
G. W. Juette and L. E. Zaffanella (General Electric Company, Pittsfield, Mass. 01 201): Conductor test cages have been used for several years as an important tool in radio noise research at Project UHV in Pittsfield, Mass. As pointed out in the literature6 cage test results were translated into equivalent line noise data. The theories developed by Dr. Adams are essential for this translation. When Reference 1 was presented by Dr. Adams, more than 15 years ago, its importance was acknowledged by many experts. At the same time, the lack of experimental verification was criticized. Dr. Adams' work was also found difficult to read and apply. The digital radio noise computer program written at the General Electric Company with Dr. Adams' personal assistance was for many years the only one available in this country. Credit should be given to Mr. Gary and his frequent coauthor Mr. Moreau for their valuable contributions toward experimental verification of the theory in a series of IEEE papers. The paper at hand represents a very nice physical and mathematical interpretation of a complex theory within which, of course, the last word has not yet been said. For example, could the author explain why he has assumed the conductor potential unchanged by the highfrequency space charge movement? It seems that the surge impedance should rather have been introduced. If so, would this have led to the same conclusions? REFERENCE
[61 G. W. Juette, L. E. Zaffanella, "Radio noise, audible noise, and
11681178.
[41
[5]
corona loss of EHV and UHV transmission lines under rain: predetermination based on cage tests. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS, July/August 1970, pp.
Manuscript received August 4, 1971.
Discussion
not been actively working in the field of radio interference for several
G. E. Adams (University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo.): Although I have
years, I have tried to "look in" occasionally from the outside to see what was happening. I have been continually impressed with the progress that has been made by workers both here and abroad. I have been especially interested in several aspects which even in 1959 were obviously in need of additional research and, in some cases, confirmation. One of these aspects is the subject of this paper, the excitation function, or what I usually referred to as the "generation" 1,2,3 of the conductor. At the time, this concept seemed to be rigorously defined mathematically and intuitively made sense. HowManuscript received February 16, 1971.
Claude H. Gary: I would first of all like to thank Dr. Adams for his very favorable appreciation of my paper and for his support in awarding it the status of a "Transactions Paper". I would then like to tell him that the basic importance of his study was recognized very early at the "Electricite de France", both from the point of view of the theoretical understanding of the phenomena in question and in the field of its practical applications. The transposition between measurements in cages and measurements under the lines, as well as the method of predetermination, based on the excitation function, which we have presented at this same session (1) (2), have given proof of the signification and usefulness of this idea. One of the purposes of my paper was therefore to suggest a demonstration of the excitation function which would be more concrete and more easy to assimilate, with the hope of seeing its use being generally adopted as one of the methods of predetermining the interference fields of lines. Messrs. Juette and Zaffanella made a perfectly pertinent criticism, by calling attention to the simplification consisting in paying no attention to the line's wave impedance. This criticism gives me an opManuscript received September 13, 1971.
309
portunity to demonstrate here that this simplification does not involve any change in the conclusions concerning the properties of the excitation function, at least at frequencies lower than about 2 MHz. In the diagram where the conductor's high frequency potential is nil, this potential is a result of the hypothesis of the source's nil impedance, connected at its other end to the earth. Under these conditions, the relationship between the induced charge and the space charge is independent of time. We still have
Leaving the temporal analysis for the frequential analysis, the expression above becomes, at the frequency component co:
q [I
It can be seen if
jw.r + I
]
= 
q0G (W)
qi = qo 0 (M)
which means that the induced charge follows strictly and without any delay all the variations in time of the quantity qo 0 (t). Let us now represent the conductor, on both sides of the space charge, by its wave impedance Z, except in the immediate vicinity of this space charge, where the conductor will be represented by a certain capacity r. The theoretical difficulty consists in estimating the length of conductor to be considered for defining r, as this length is linked to the formation distance of the plane wave.; we shall admit that it is the same as the height of the conductor above ground. The diagram of the circuit now becomes as follows:
at a given instant, the charge borne by section Q is no longer qi, but a certain value q. Likewise, the potential of this section is no longer zero, but takes as its value:
+
I77
2 1$ 2 there will be no marked attenuation or phase shifting of q, and as a result of i, in relation to the zero impedance hypothesis. And so, for:
Z = 300 i
r= 200 pF u = 2 IT . 1o6
wzr =0.2, involving an attenuation of 0.25 dB. 2
At higher frequencies, the term
[
IZ2r
+
I]
0 (e)J
0WX~
will have an effect of modifying the spectrum of the induced currents: it would seem then, that taking the wave impedance into consideration plays an important part in the form of the frequency spectrum observed under the line. But in any event, the theory of plane waves loses its signification, for EHV lines, as soon as the frequency exceeds about 2 or 3 MHz. It can therefore be stated, that in the validity field of the plane waves theory, and a fortiori at frequencies lower than the frequency defined by
zr'w
/1/7Tf
v
q
.
e
r
(t)
+
q
the fact of ignoring the wave impedance when calculating currents linked to the movement of space charges does not modify the description of the phenomena in question.
REFERENCES
and the circuit equation will be written as follows:
qo
r
as
(t) +
q
z
2
i
i
= 
,
the differential equation is obtained:
Zr'.
2
dq
dIt
=
(t)
[11 C. Gary, M. Moreau: "Predetermination of the RadioInterference Level of High Voltage Transmission Lines Part I. Predetermination of the Excitation Function", Paper 71 TP 661 PWR. [2] C. Gary, M. Moreau: "Predetermination of the Interference Level for High Voltage Transmission Lines Part II. Field Calculating Method", Paper 71 TP 662 PWR.




310
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.