Interaction of Surface Gradient, Precipitation Rate

and Conductor Surface Treatment on

Corona Induced Audible Noise of
AC Overhead Transmission Lines
Oliver Pischler
Institute of High Voltage Engineering
and System Performance
Graz University of Technology
Graz, Austria
oliver.pischler@tugraz.at
Uwe Schichler
Institute of High Voltage Engineering
and System Performance
Graz University of Technology
Graz, Austria
uwe.schichler@tugraz.at
Bo Zhang
State Key Lab of Power Systems,
Department of Electrical Engineering
Tsinghua University
Beijing, People’s Republic of China
shizbcn@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn

Abstract—Overhead Transmission lines are prone to emit
audible noises under foul weather conditions (e. g. rain or fog),
which can be a significant source of annoyance for people living
close to the line. Apart from mere fulfilment of emission limits
given by legislature, transmission system operators nowadays
often seek to reduce audible noise emissions as far as possible to
minimize public opposition towards overhead lines. A very
promising approach for the reduction of audible noise emissions
are hydrophilic conductor surface treatments, which influence
the way water drops form on the conductors. However, very
little is known about the operating behavior and limitations of
hydrophilic conductors. This contribution therefore strives to
illustrate how the electric field intensity around the conductors
(surface gradient) and the precipitation rate affect the
effectiveness and the emission behavior of hydrophilic
conductors compared to standard conductors. The presented
results are derived from a newly developed prediction model,
which is based on noise emission measurements performed on
25 different bundle conductor arrangements carried out in an
acoustically optimized high voltage laboratory. The compiled
results indicate that hydrophilic surfaces can provide significant
noise reductions, which tend to diminish with increasing surface
gradient. Above a certain point of intersection, hydrophilic
conductors exhibit higher emission levels than standard
conductors. Since this behavior has been observed to depend
strongly on the bundle conductor geometry, results for various
numbers of sub-conductors and sub-conductor diameters are
presented. From a practical point of view, this contribution shall
raise awareness regarding the optimal utilization of hydrophilic
conductors by illustrating the principal correlations and by
providing first guidelines.
Keywords—Audible Noise, Overhead Line, Corona, Surface
Gradient, Hydrophilic, Conductors
I. INTRODUCTION
The emission of audible noise by overhead lines (OHL)
during foul weather (rain, snow, fog, drizzle etc.) is a well-
known phenomenon, which has been studied extensively in
the past [1]. The noise emissions are generated by electric
discharges (corona discharges) stemming from the surfaces of
the OHL conductors. Since electric discharges are a result of
various ionisation processes, they can only occur if the electric
field in the vicinity of the conductors is sufficiently high.
Apart from the radial decay of the electric field, it is mostly
the electric field right at the conductor surface (surface
gradient), which governs the characteristics of the ionisation
and discharge phenomena in this regard.
An overhead line’s geometry is naturally chosen in such a
way that no corona discharges can occur under dry conditions.
Under wet conditions, however, the water drops deposited on
the conductors distort the electric field in such a way that
discharges may occur (Fig. 1).
A conductor’s surface condition strongly influences the
way the water drops adhere to it. On a new standard
aluminium conductor, which might be even tainted with
drawing grease and therefore exhibit hydrophobic properties,
small bead like drops form all around the conductor, which
cause a high number of corona discharges. On a hydrophilic
conductor, water drops only accumulate at the bottom side of
the conductors and the drops are also fewer in number.
Fig. 1. Electric discharges on water drops on an a standard OHL conductor.
It is a well known fact, that overhead line conductors gain
hydrophilic properties within their first few years of operation.
This is partly due to the removal of grease and partly due to
natural surface erosion, which roughens the surface and
thereby reduces the contact angle of adhering drops. An
overhead line therefore emits the highest noise levels right
after the first energization and noise levels can be expected to
decline as the line ages. To bridge the gap between first
energization and sufficient aging, conductors with hydrophilic
surface treatments can be employed.
Such silent conductors can be considered to be “artificially
aged”. It is a noteworthy fact that the degree of hydrophilicity
achieved by natural aging seems to lead to the highest noise
reduction attainable with standard round wire conductors.
However, modern surface treatments have been shown to be
able to replicate this behaviour [2, 3]. Therefore, no distinction
will be made and the term “hydrophilic” will be used
representatively for “naturally aged” as well as “artificially
surface treated”.

XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE

 The fundamental research of audible noise, which was
carried out several decades ago, was focused on aged
conductors. Available and widely used prediction formulas
therefore cover the case of “well aged” conductors [4], which
– this ought to be stressed – does not necessarily imply
“highest degree of attainable hydrophilicity”. Nowadays,
where legislature and emission control are more rigid, it is of
utmost importance to have a good understanding of the noise
levels, which can be expected right after the stringing of the
conductors (new line or reconductered) as well as after many
years of operation. Only if both are known, the optimal
conductor configuration for an OHL can be chosen and only
then reliable predictions can be made. For this purpose, the
principal differences in the emission behaviour of standard
and hydrophilic conductors and guidelines for the optimal
utilization of hydrophilic conductors will be presented.
II. OHL NOISE EMISSION MEASUREMENTS
IN THE HIGH VOLTAGE LABORATORY
A. Measurement Setup
To gather meaningful results, which can be used for a
prediction model later on, it is necessary to perform noise
emission measurements under conditions as close to reality as
possible. Therefore, all investigations were carried out on full
scale conductor bundles of 10 m length and under realistic rain
provided by a rainfall simulator. The details of the
measurement setup and the measurement equipment have
been described in detail in earlier publications (Fig. 2) [2, 3].
Fig. 2. Laboratory setup for audible noise measurements.
B. Calculation of the Generated Sound Power Level
The acoustic quantity most readily accessible in such
laboratory measurements is the sound pressure level L evoked
by the coronating conductor bundle at a certain observation
point in the laboratory. However, the sound pressure level’s
significance is quite limited, as it strongly depends on the
distance between the observation point(s) and the emitting
conductor bundle. As long as the measurement setup remains
unchanged, the sound pressure level can be used to compare
the emission characteristics of different conductors and
bundle configurations. To be able to make noise predictions,
the measured sound pressure levels have to be converted to the
underlying invariant source quantity, which is the sound
power level A. In the present case, the sound power level A’
describes the acoustic power emitted by the bundle conductor
per unit length. Although the sound pressure level as well as
the sound power level both use the unit “dB(A)”, the
respective reference values are different. In case of the sound
pressure level a reference pressure of p0 = 20 µPa is used,
while in accordance with the values provided by EPRI a
reference power of P0 = 1 µW will be used in this contribution
for the sound power level [4]. During the conversion of
measured sound pressure levels L into power levels A’ room
acoustics and other influencing factors have to be taken into
account. The whole process, which is based on the procedure
outlined in ISO 3744, is described in [5].
III. EXAMPLARY RESULTS
A. Results
Typically, results or prediction values of audible noise
levels are presented as a function of the surface gradient.
However, seen from a practical point of view where the (line)
voltage is usually predetermined, this might be misleading
when different bundle geometries are compared in one
diagram since the surface gradient is also influenced by bundle
geometry. However, as long as only different surfaces are
compared, the surface gradient is a convenient quantity. In
accordance with the definition provided by EPRI, E refers to
the RMS value of the average of the maximum surface
gradients occurring on each sub-conductor of a bundle
conductor [4].
The diagram depicted in Fig. 3 shows the sound power
levels emitted by a standard conductor and a hydrophilic
conductor, which has proven in comparisons with various
aged and treated conductors to possess optimal hydrophilic
properties. The conductors were arranged in horizontal twin
bundle arrangements (spacing: 400 mm, d = 29 mm) and
measured in the single phase setup described in section 2. Two
rain rates, 1 mm/h and 6 mm/h, were used for these
investigations. A similarly shaped diagram can be expected
for other bundle configurations.
Fig. 3. Sound power A’ emitted by a twin conductor bundle (d = 29 mm).
Unfortunately, no comprehensive description of the
audible noise generation process has been found yet. It is
therefore not possible to fit the results to a physical model.
However, a hyperbolic fit according to (1) allows a
satisfactory approximation over the whole surface gradient
range. In contrast to a simple polynomic fit, this description
also takes the saturation behaviour for high surface gradients
into account, which will be discussed further below.
Since the test setup is a single phase setup, the test voltage
U and the corresponding surface gradients E scale linearly
according to (2). The gradient factor, which in this case is
g = 0.0726 kV/(cm∙kV), was obtained from the CSM
calculation method previously described in [5].

′= ′ −  
−
= ∙
The fitting coefficients for Eqn. 1 shown in Tab. 1 were
computed with Levenberg-Marquardt optimization with a
determination coefficient of R2 > 0.998.
TABLE I. SOUND POWER LEVEL FITTING COEFFICIENTS
Fitting coeff. for Fig. 3 according to (1)
Rain
Surface A’∞ k E0
Rate
dB(A) dB(A)∙kV/cm kV/cm
standard 26 166 5.3
6 mm/h
hydrophil. 32 266 4.4
standard 51 632 1.8
1 mm/h
hydrophil. 86 1658 -3.5
B. Noise Emission Behaviour
The noise emission curves depicted in Fig. 3 show that
hydrophilic conductors indeed exhibit significantly lower
emission values than standard conductors. However, the
difference between the two conductors decreases steadily until
the emission lines of the standard conductors and the treated
conductors intersect around EI ≈ 19 kV/cm. This can be
explained by the corona discharge behaviours of the different
conductor types under wet conditions.
As stated in section 1, a high number of water drops,
which are the source points of the noise generating discharges,
can be found around the whole circumference of standard
conductors. On hydrophilic conductors, water drops only
accumulate on the conductor’s bottom side. Due to this
behaviour, the corona onset gradient EC of a wet hydrophilic
conductor is higher than that of a wet standard conductor. This
can be described by PEEK’s equation
= ∙ ∙ ∙ 1+  
√ ∙
which can be used to predict the (critical) corona onset electric
field EC as a function of the conductor radius r (in cm) [6].
Since the onset electric field can be easily obtained from
audible noise tests or accompanying partial discharge
measurements, Eqn. 3 can be used to estimate the surface
roughness coefficient m for the two types of conductors. For
this, the air density factor is estimated to be δ = 1. The two
empirical constants E0 and K are 21.1 kV/cm (RMS) and
0.301 respectively [6].
Using results from various bundle configurations and
conductor diameters it was possible to derive a surface
roughness coefficient of m = 0.38 for standard conductors and
m = 0.44 for hydrophilic conductors (both for a rain rate of
6 mm/h).
The discharge activity continuously increases for surface
gradients E exceeding the onset gradient EC. However, with
the increasing accumulation of space charges around the
conductors and the accompanying mutual shielding of
adjacent corona points, the emission curve gradually starts to
flatten out. This behaviour is often referred to as the self-
limiting mechanism of corona.
In case of the hydrophilic conductor, fewer drops adhere
to the conductor. Therefore, the mutual shielding is less
pronounced and higher levels of corona activity and audible
 noise emissions can be attained for surface gradients
exceeding the intersection field strength. This behaviour is
also reflected in A’∞ in Tab. 1. The differences occurring
between the two investigated rain rates are caused by a similar
interaction between the density of adhering water drops and
resulting mutual shielding. XU et al. have investigated this
relationship extensively [7].
C. Practical Implications
Two major conclusions regarding OHL design are to be
drawn from the intersecting noise emission behaviours of
standard and hydrophilic conductors. First, it ought to be
avoided to operate an overhead line close or even above the
intersection surface gradient EI, since paradoxical emission
behaviour regarding the influence of the rain rate as well as
the conductor hydrophilicity can be expected. For excessive
surface gradients, a line might even get louder when it ages.
Secondly, if conductors with artificial hydrophilic properties
are to be used for an OHL, their noise reducing properties can
only be harnessed fully when the surface gradient is
sufficiently low. For high surface gradients, hydrophilic
conductors will yield only little effect.
Unfortunately, existing prediction models cannot be used
to determine the intersection surface gradient EI, as they do
not distinguish between standard and hydrophilic conductors
and only take the influence of different rain rates into
consideration in a rudimentary fashion.
IV. NOVEL NOISE EMISSION MODEL
A. General
While existing audible noise prediction models, such as
published by EPRI or BPA [4], allow to estimate noise
emission levels of a planned OHLs with reasonable accuracy,
their shortcomings, which were described in the previous
section, makes them less suited to be the basis for precise line
design. This realisation in combination with increasingly
stringent environmental protection laws triggered the
development of a new audible noise model, which in
particular strives to incorporate the different emission
characteristics of standard and hydrophilic conductors.
The model is based on a large number of noise emission
measurements carried out on standard and hydrophilic
overhead line conductors (diameters d = 20…50 mm) in
various bundle configurations with the methodologies
presented in section 2. The emission model itself is not yet
fully completed, but will be published soon. However, the
gathered data can already be used to provide further insight
into the optimal utilization of hydrophilic OHL conductors,
which is the aim of this contribution.
B. Intersection Surface Gradient
The large number of gathered results allows, for example,
to predict the intersection surface gradients of various bundle
configurations (Fig. 4), which are universally valid and can
serve as first guideline for OHL design. For twin and triple
conductor bundles, the intersection gradient was observed to
be in the range of EI = 17… 19 kV/cm for d > 30mm. Towards
thinner conductors the intersection surface gradient EI
increases quite steeply. This behaviour is particularly
pronounced for single conductors.

Fig. 4. Intersection surface gradient EI for various bundle conductors with
n sub-conductors and sub-conductor diameter d.
C. Influence of the Bundle Geometry
Regarding the design of an overhead line and based on the
exemplary curves shown in Fig. 3, the question arises how the
surface gradient can be kept sufficiently low so that surface
treatments can still take effect. Naturally, for a fixed operating
voltage U, increasing the number of sub-conductors n will
yield the most significant reduction of surface gradient and
thereby audible noise. However, the number of sub-
conductors is often chosen with other considerations in mind,
which leaves the conductor diameter d as available parameter.
While the following results are universally valid, the
example of a standard European 400 kV line shall be used to
put the findings into perspective and to bridge the gap to real
life applications. For that purpose, Fig. 5 shows the average
maximum surface gradients E occurring on the point of
minimum ground clearance on the line when n = 1…3
conductors per phase and conductors with diameters between
d = 30…45 mm are used. The values for the intersection
gradient summarized in Fig. 4 already suggest that a single
conductor might give an unfavourable noise performance for
all available diameters, since it is constantly overstressed,
which cannot be remedied by using a hydrophilic conductor.
Employing a surface treated conductor will also be to little
avail in the case of twin conductor bundles for d < 33 mm.
Fig. 5. Surface gradient E occuring on the model OHL for various n and d.
Fig. 6 illustrates the noise reductions ΔA’ = A’hydro-A’std
which can be expected for the bundle configurations whose
surface gradients are shown in Fig. 5 when a hydrophilic
conductor is used instead of a standard conductor. As
previously mentioned, in the present case, a hydrophilic
surface will only aggravate the noise levels emitted by a single
conductor. In case of a twin conductor bundle, a hydrophilic
surface can be expected to yield a noticeable sound power
reduction for d > 33 mm. For d = 45 mm the attainable noise
reduction then amounts to ΔA = 6 dB(A). Unsurprisingly, the
triple conductor bundle exhibits the most advantageous
audible noise behaviour.
Fig. 6. Noise reductions achievable from using hydrophilic conductors.
V. OUTLOOK
While single conductors and twin as well as triple
conductors bundles are already fully incorporated in the newly
developed prediction model, quad bundles are not yet
sufficiently covered. Additionally, investigations with a
suitable high-speed camera are planned to analyse the
discharge behaviour on water drops at surface gradients close
to the intersection gradient.
VI. CONCLUSION
Hydrophilic conductor surfaces can provide a significant
reduction of audible noise. However, the attainable reduction
diminishes with increasing surface gradient. Above the
intersection surface gradient EI hydrophilic conductors exhibit
higher noise levels than a standard conductor. A similar
behaviour is apparent for the rain rate dependant emission
behaviour of both conductor types, where low rain rates lead
to stronger noise emissions when the intersection surface
gradient is exceeded. The noise reducing properties of
hydrophilic conductors can therefore only be harnessed when
the surface gradient is sufficiently low. While increasing the
number of sub-conductors per bundle yields the best results in
this respect, increasing the sub-conductor diameter can also
help to boost the efficacy of hydrophilic surfaces.
REFERENCES
[1] E. R. Taylor, V. L. Chartier, and D. N. Rice, “Audible Noise and Visual
Corona from HV and EHV Transmission Lines and Substation
Conductors – Laboratory Tests”, IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-88(5), pp. 666 - 679, 1969.
[2] O. Pischler, U. Schichler, N. Hadinger, K. Reich, M. Leonhardsberger,
and O. Oberzaucher, “Corona Noise Reduction in the Austrian
Transmission Grid”, CIGRE SEERC, Report 3-113, Ukraine, 2019.
[3] O. Pischler, U. Schichler, S. Hedtke, P. Bleuler, and C. M. Franck,
“Corona Effects of Overhead Lines under Mixed AC/DC Stresses”,
CIGRE Symposium, Report PS1-95, Chengdu, People’s Republic of
China, 2019.
[4] Electric Power Research Institute, “EPRI AC Transmission Line
Reference Book – 200 kV and Above”, Third Edition, United States of
America, 2005.
[5] I. Kurniawan, Suwarno, O. Pischler, and U. Schichler, “Audible Noise
Calculation for Different Overhead Transmission Lines”, 53rd
International Universities Power Engineering Conference, Glasgow,
Scotland, 2018.
[6] F. Rizk, and G. Trinh, “High Voltage Enginnering”, CRC Press, 2014.
[7] P. Xu, S. Hedtke, B. Zhang, M. Pfeiffer, C. M. Franck, and J. He,
“HVAC Corona Current Characteristics and Audible Noise during
Rain”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, early access, 2020.