CONDUCTOR CORONA NOISE PREDICTION ON HIGH

VOLTAGE AC LINES
R.G. Urban*, H.C. Reader*, J.P. Holtzhausen*,
K.R. Hubbard**, A.C. Britten** & D.C. Smith**
* Department of EE Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, ** ESKOM

Abstract: The conductor corona noise of four local 400 kV AC transmission lines is measured and
compared to predictions. The prediction software developed is based on the EPRI semi-analytical
approach using excitation functions and the theory of natural modes. The nature and accuracy of the
prediction software is discussed along with relevant corona noise metrology issues encountered.
Keywords: Conductor corona noise, PLC, excitation function, corona cage, theory of natural modes.
1

INTRODUCTION

Significant electric fields at the surface of

phase conductor bundles cause self-sustaining
ionizing discharges in the surrounding air.
These conductor corona discharges are
responsible for many macroscopic phenomena
on
the
line,
including
conducted
electromagnetic
noise
and
radiated
electromagnetic fields. This noise causes
interference to neighbouring communication
systems. Line designers are therefore
concerned that the noise is within limits [1].
Power line carrier (PLC) communication
systems are installed on AC transmission lines
in South Africa principally for teleprotection
signalling for line protection. Conductor
corona is a significant source of the noise in
the PLC band on high voltage lines. A reliable
calculation of the line noise, and consequently
the resulting signal-to-noise ratio in the
teleprotection channel, is an essential part of
the system design process.
A software package has been developed [2] for
the prediction of conductor corona noise of
high voltage AC lines. The prediction method
is based on the EPRI semi-analytical approach
[3], which utilizes excitation functions [4] and
the theory of natural modes [5]. To evaluate
and verify the accuracy of the software, the
conductor corona noise of four 400 kV AC
lines was measured. The excitation functions
used in the simulations were measured in
ESKOMs Megawatt Park corona cage facility.
Previous papers ([6], [7]) described important
aspects of the research such as the use of the
theory of natural modes and the PLC system
models used. Preliminary results were shown
for two 400 kV lines. This paper reports on the
operational line measurements, corona cage
data extraction and the various correction

factors used in the software for accurate

predictions. A comparison between measured
and predicted noise levels for the four lines
and conclusions on the accuracy and reliability
of the prediction software are presented.
2

THE PREDICTION SOFTWARE

The fourth revision of the software, Corona

Generated Radio Noise Modelling [8], is used
for predictions presented in this paper. The
corona noise performance of a line is defined
by three measurements [1]. These are: the
conducted corona noise across the terminals of
the PLC receiver (i.e. the radio influence
voltage), the radiated noise 20 m from the
outer phase conductor of the line (i.e. the radio
interference), and a lateral profile of the
radiated noise in the vicinity of the line. The
software is thus written to output these
variables across the desired frequency band.
The modal attenuation of a line is also a
measurable quantity and can be used to check
the softwares use of the theory of natural
modes. This is integral to the corona noise
prediction process and can be considered as a
verification of the software.
To begin the prediction process, the line
geometry is entered and displayed with the
GUI. The software determines the average
maximum surface gradient on the lines subconductors. The result is displayed on the GUI
next to each phase conductor. The surface
gradient is calculated using the method of
successive images [9] to within 1% of the
actual gradient.
The excitation function for the conductor
bundle used and the calculated surface gradient
is obtained from corona cage measurements or
calculated using empirical excitation functions.
The selection and the accuracy of an empirical

line geometry
shield wire
phase
conductor
PLC coupling

Fig 1 The graphic user interface (GUI) for the corona noise prediction software [8].

excitation function is discussed in a companion

paper at this conference. The excitation
functions used for the corona noise predictions
presented in this paper are measured in
ESKOMs Megawatt Park corona cage.
Lastly, the earth model (see [6]) and PLC
system coupling (see [7]) are defined for the
line. The line attenuation and corona noise
levels are then extracted for the line, defined in
the GUI, across a defined bandwidth. The
output variables can then be plotted. The
softwares GUI, showing an entered line
geometry and calculated values, is presented in
figure 1.
3

CAGE EXCITATION FUNCTIONS

A corona cage is described in [9] as a

rectangular, grounded-mesh cage structure
surrounding a centred conductor bundle,
between 15 and 60 m long and energized by a
single phase high voltage source. Cylindrical
cages are more expensive to construct, but
provide a uniform radial electric field along the
length of the conductor bundle.
The average maximum surface gradient of a
phase conductor can be replicated in a coaxial
corona cage geometry by placing the bundle in
the centre of the cage and applying the correct
voltage. The total corona current on the
conductor bundle, I P , saturates at the level
defined by the attenuation constant of the
coaxial transmission line, , if the separation
distance, s, between individual corona sources,

i g , is sufficiently small, i.e. there are enough

corona sources on the line [9]:
lim
s 0

[I P ] =

ig
2

(1)

The corona cage is much shorter than a

transmission line and the number of corona
sources on the centre conductor of a corona
cage may therefore not be sufficient to produce
a saturated noise level. Corona activity
increases under heavy rain conditions and the
cage length required to ensure a saturated
corona current level is reduced. A minimum
cage length has not been derived in the
literature, although it is suggested in [9] that
the cage should be longer than 30 m for heavy
rain tests. An advantage of corona cages is the
ability to apply uniform rainfall of a
controllable intensity along the entire length of
the conductor bundle tested.
The excitation functions of numerous
conductor bundles, under various weather
conditions, were made available for the noise
predictions of the studied lines. These
excitation functions were extracted from the
Megawatt Park corona cage and are similar to
the measurements used to calculate empirical
excitation functions defined in the literature,
since they were made in accordance with
CISPR 18 specifications [1]. The empirical
functions are however general functions
defined for a wide range of conductor bundle
geometries. By using the excitation function
for the actual conductor bundles used on the

studied lines, a more accurate prediction of the

lines noise levels should be obtained.

levels measured at one minute intervals until

the conductor is completely dry and the noise
level reaches the L50 dry fair weather level.
The three consecutive QP noise measurements,
plotted in figure 3(a) below, are made under
the same weather conditions in the Megawatt
Park corona cage at 500 kHz for a twin IEC800 conductor bundle. They show significant
variation at all measured surface gradients. The
excitation functions used in the simulations are
therefore the average value of numerous noise
measurements. The accuracy of the prediction
will therefore be dependent upon the number
of measurements used to calculate the
excitation function.

Fig 2 The Megawatt Park corona cage

The QP plot in figure 3(b) below indicates that

the relationship between the noise level and the
surface gradient is a smooth curve above about
18 kV/cm. Peak and average detector levels
were also measured with the QP levels. The
differences between these levels, which are
important to the metrology community, have
been discussed in [2] and will be examined in
a future paper. The variation of the noise level
at a single surface gradient was investigated by
making 50 consecutive measurements at
regularly spaced time intervals over a 5 minute
period. The result revealed that the variation of
the measured noise is reduced from 8 % to 3 %
with an increase in surface gradient from 14
kV/cm to 20 kV/cm.

The Megawatt Park corona cage is a screened

cylindrical
cage
design
located
in
Johannesburg at an altitude of 1750 m. A
photograph of the cage is given in figure 2.
The facility is equipped with meteorological
equipment that is used to log ambient weather
conditions during each measurement sequence.
Numerous reactive elements are used at the
facility to ensure a low harmonic content in the
source voltage.
Both fair and foul weather excitation functions
can be measured in the cage. The L5 wet
excitation function is extracted by applying
uniform rain at a rate of about 2 mm/hr. The
L50 wet level is next extracted by switching the

Empirical corrections for altitude, weather

condition and wind speed are also included in
the software. Two relationships are extracted
from a comparison of various empirical

artificial rain off and waiting 1 minute. After

the minute has passed, the noise level is
measured. This procedure is repeated,
producing a measurement sequence of noise

[dBA]

[dBA]

(a)

(b)

Fig 3 Fair weather QP excitation function measurements and (b) measured QP, peak and
average excitation functions extracted from the Megawatt Park cage.

weather correction terms in [2]:

L50 wet = L50 dry + (17 3)

(2)

L1wet = L50 dry + (24 1)

(3)

These equations are used to calculate fair

weather corona noise levels from the more
reliable heavy rain excitation function
extracted from the short corona cage. The
correction term for a change in altitude,
A [km], used in the CIGR, BPA and ENEL
methods is used [9]:

RI A =

A
0.3

(4)

The correction term derived for wind speed,

WS [km/hr], by LaForest et al. is used [2]:

RI ws = (WS )

0.3

(5)

LINE MEASUREMENTS

Corona noise measurements were made on

four 400 kV lines. These were the HydraDrorivier,
Aries-Kokerboom,
AcaciaKoeberg and Kriel-Tutuka lines. The radiated
noise measurements are greatly affected by
two main issues:
The high radiated noise levels present at
short lateral distances from the lines outer
phase conductor overloaded the input amplifier
of the active loop antenna and caused it to
saturate.
Reflections and excessive radiation caused
by line discontinuities near the measurement
site resulted in misleading radiated noise
measurements.
The accuracy of the software prediction was
therefore assessed by comparing the measured
and predicted conducted noise levels measured
across the terminals of the PLC receiver in the
PLC band.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig 4 The measured and predicted conducted corona noise levels of (a) the AcaciaKoeberg, (b) Hydra-Drorivier, (c) Aries-Kokerboom and (d) Kriel-Tutuka 400 kV lines.

RESULTS

The measured and predicted conducted corona

noise levels at the Acacia, Drorivier, Aries
and Tutuka substations are plotted in figure 4.
Only altitude, wind and weather correction
factors are added to the calculated excitation
function predictions. It is evident in all four
comparisons that the conducted corona noise
performance is best predicted by the measured
heavy artificial rain excitation function. The
empirical weather relations defined in equation
3 are used to calculate the fair weather corona
noise from the stable foul weather data. Two
possible reasons for this are the reduced
sensitivity of the corona cage measurements to
changes in environmental conditions under
heavy rain conditions and secondly, the
decrease in the separation distance between
pulses along the line, which causes the RMS
summation of current pulses to saturate to a
long line current level.
The comparison between the corona noise
predictions in figure 4 revealed that an
appropriately chosen semi-analytical method
produced a more accurate result for all
measured lines except the Hydra-Drorivier
line. This is attributed to the number of
measurements used to derive both the
measured cage and empirical excitations
functions. Since more measurements are used
for the empirical excitation function, the
statistical average will have a narrower
confidence interval. The choice of which
empirical excitation function to use for a
specific line is dealt with in a companion
paper.
The line measurements were made under
favourable conditions and only a few
correction factors needed to be included. The
conducted corona noise predictions for these
lines could therefore be made with a high level
of confidence and are within 3 dB for all lines
(c.f. figure 4 at 500 kHz).
6

CONCLUSIONS

Software was developed to predict the corona

noise performance of transmission lines.
Comparisons between the measured and
predicted conducted noise levels suggest that
the predicted conducted noise levels are within
3 dB of the measured levels at 500 kHz.
To obtain a high level of confidence in the
predicted noise level under various conditions,
appropriate correction factors defined in this
paper must be applied and a heavy rain

excitation function obtained from numerous

measurements must be used.
7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ESKOM ENTERPRISES are acknowledged

for funding the research. The DTI is also
acknowledged for its funding received through
THRIP. Ulrich Buttner and Petrus Pieterse are
thanked for their laboratory contributions.
8

REFERENCES

[1]
CISPR 18. Radio Interference
Characteristics of Overhead Power Lines and
High-Voltage Equipment, IEC, Bureau
Central de la Commission Electrotechnique
Internationale, 3 rue de Varembe, Geneve,
Switzerland, 1986.
[2]
Urban, R.G. : Power Line Corona
Noise
Prediction
from
Small
Cage
Measurement, PhD Dissertation, Stellenbosch
University 2004.
[3]
Comber, M.G. and Nigbor, R.J.:
Transmission Line Reference Book 345 kV
and above, Chapter 5: Radio Noise, EPRI, 2nd
Edition, Revised 1987, pp. 205 - 266.
[4]
Gary, C.H.: The Theory of the
Excitation Function: A Demonstration of its
Physical Meaning IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-91,
January 1972, pp.305 310.
[5]
Wedepohl, L.M.: The Theory of
Natural
Modes
in
Multi-Conductor
Transmission Systems, unpublished lecture
notes, Westband, British Columbia, Canada,
January 1999.
[6]
Urban,
R.G.,
Reader,
H.C.,
Holtzhausen, J.P., Britten, A.C. & Hubbard,
K.R.,: Calculating Conductor Corona Noise
in Power Line Carrier Systems on AC
Transmission Lines, Proceedings of the South
African Universities Power Engineering
Conference, SAUPEC 2003, pp. 96 99.
[7]
Urban,
R.G.,
Reader,
H.C.,
Holtzhausen, J.P., Britten, A.C. & Hubbard,
K.R.,: Preliminary Predictions of Corona
Noise on High Voltage AC Lines using Cage
Data, Proceedings of the South African
Universities Power Engineering Conference,
SAUPEC 2004, Stellenbosch.
[8]
Urban, R.G.: Corona Generated
Radio Noise Modelling, Version 4, Users
Manual,
Department
EE
Engineering,
Stellenbosch University, 2004.
[9]
P.
Sarma
Maruvada,
Corona
Performance of High-Voltage Transmission
Lines, Research Studies Press Ltd, 2000.