718 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS, VOL. PAS-88, NO.
5, MAY 1969
Analysis of Corona Losses on Transmission
Lines: 1-Unipolar Lines
MARUVADA P. SARMA, MEMBER, IEEE, AND
Abstract-Theoretical calculation of corona losses for practical
unipolar dc transmission line configurations presents considerable
difficulty because of the nonlinear nature of the equations describing
the space-charge fields. The application of numerical methods to
obtain solutions of practical interest is discussed. One of the dif-
ficulties in the analysis of space-charge fields is the determination
of the actual charge distribution around the conductor in the corona.
A numerical iterative method of computing this charge distribution
is presented. The method is applicable to any general configuration
for which the space-charge-free field can be calculated. The line-
to-plane configuration is considered. A method of including the
effect of conductor surface irregularities in the theoretical calcula-
tion of corona losses is outlined, and it is suggested that, by the
same method, Popkov's formula may also be modified to make it ap-
plicable to lines with practical transmission-line conductors. Calcu-
lations by the method of analysis developed as well as by the
modified Popkov equation are compared with experimental results.
INTRODUCTION
HIGH-VOLTAGE dc possesses many advantages over con-
ventional ac for long-distance and bulk-power transmission.
Recent advances in the development of mercury-arc and solid-
state power conversion equipment have increased the technical
and economic feasibility of dc transmission. Consequently, the
various problems associated with it are being studied extensively.
One of these problems is the corona occurring on the transmission
lines and the radio interference and power loss associated with it.
Corona is a self-sustained partial breakdown of air in the
nonuniform field around the conductor. At alternating voltages,
the space charge created by corona is constrained to the vicinity
of the conductor because of the periodic reversal of the electric
field. Thus ac corona losses depend more on the conductor
surface voltage gradient than on the actual line configuration,
and it may be possible to predict with reasonable accuracy
the corona losses on a proposed line design from experimental
results obtained in a different configuration. On the other hand,
the space charge created by dc corona fills the entire inter-
electrode region, resulting in a greater dependence of corona
losses on the actual line geometry. Another important factor
which affects corona losses is weather. Tests on ac lines show
that corona losses become economically significant only during
foul weather conditions. In contrast, because of smaller difference
between fair and foul weather performance, fair weather corona
losses are a more important consideration in the design of high-
voltage dc lines.
Paper 68 TP 75-PWR, recommended and approved by the
Transmission and Distribution Committee of the IEEE Power
Group for presentation at the IEEE Winter Power Meeting, New
York, N. Y., January 28-February 2, 1968. Manuscript submitted
April 10, 1967; made available for printing December 11, 1967.
The authors are with the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.,
Canada.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de la Frontera. Downloaded on July 03,2020 at 00:49:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
DC
WASYL JANISCHEWSKYJ, MEMBER, IEEE
The two features mentioned in the preceding paragraph en-
hance the necessity for theoretical analysis of corona losses on
practical dc transmission lines. In the paper the case of unipolar
dc corona is discussed. Existing methods for analysis of corona
losses in certain conductor configurations are reviewed, and the
underlying assumptions are discussed. A numerical iterative
method for solving the equations of unipolar corona in the
general case is presented. The method is applied to calculate
corona losses in a line-to-plane geometry.
EQUATIONS OF UNIPOLAR CORONA
Unipolar corona is characterized by the flow of ions of one
polarity in the interelectrode space, the ion polarity being the
same as the polarity of the conductor in corona. The electric
field in the interelectrode region is governed by the space charge
of the ions, while the ionic flow itself is a function of the electric
field.
The equations describing the electric field and the ionic flow are
V.E= p (1)
CO
j = kpE (2)
Vj = 0. (3)
The first is the Poisson's equation for the electric field; the
second is the equation for current density; and the third is the
equation of current continuity. Thermal diffusion of Tons is
neglected.
The electric field is given in terms of the potential as
E = -VD. (4)
By combining (2) and (3) and substituting for p from (1),
the following equation is obtained for the electric field:
E.V (V-E) + (V.E)2 = 0 (5)
or, in terms of the potential,
V. (V¢Pvq) = 0. (6)
Equations (5) and (6) are the general equations describing
a unipolar ionized field. They are nonlinear partial differential
equations, and there are no known methods available for solving
them in a general case. An analytical solution may be obtained
only for simple cases like concentric spheres or coaxial cylinders.
Solution for the Cylindrical Configuration
Townsend [1] was the first to solve exactly for the ionized
field in a coaxial cylindrical configuration, as shown in Fig. 1.
For voltages above corona onset, ionization occurs in a narrow
region close to the conductor (shown by the dashed circle)
creating a unipolar ionized field in the interelectrode space.
In the corona layer, charged particles of both polarities exist.
SARMA AND JANISCHEWSKYJ: CORONA LOSSES ON DC TRANSMISSION LINES
Fig. 1. Coaxial cylindrical configuration.
For the electric field in the unipolar region (5) simplifies to
d&E 3EdE dE 2
E-+
dr2
--+
d
r dr dri
= O.
It can be verified by direct substitution that the following
expression for E
A2r2 + BJ2
E2 2
~~~~~~~~(8)
where A and B are arbitrary constants, satisfies (7). The con-
stants A and B are determined from appropriate boundary
conditions.
The first boundary condition required is the potential differ-
ence between the two electrodes. The second boundary condition
used is the electric field at the boundary between the corona
layer and the space-charge region. Following an approximate
analysis by Kapzow [2], it is assumed that the electric field at
the conductor surface remains constant at the onset value as
the conductor voltage is increased and that the net space charge
in the corona layer is zero.
A rigorous theoretical analysis of the electrical field distribution
in the ionization layer of a dc corona discharge under equivalent
steady-state conditions has been carried out by the authors for
both polarities of the conductor. The analysis, which is intended
for a future publication, resulted in several conclusions pertinent
to the present discussion. The most significant of these shows
that indeed the change in the field intensity at the surface of
the conductor from the onset value is negligible for the range
of corona currents encountered on practical transmission lines.
The analysis also indicates that the accuracy of corona loss
calculations is not significantly affected if the unipolar space
charge is assumed to start at the conductor surface itself rather
than at the corona layer boundary shown in Fig. 1. The analysis
shows, however, that for large corona currents, the field at the
conductor surface decreases for positive polarity and increases
for negative polarity. If desired, this change in the field at the
conductor surface may be included into the accurate calculation
of corona losses presented.
Based on the above boundary conditions, the voltage-current
relation for the cylindrical configuration is obtained in the
following nondimensional form:
V-Vo
ln-= (1 + Y)"J2-1 + ln + (1+Y)2
with
yz== I R
(10)
2FeM Or
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de la Frontera. Downloaded on July 03,2020 at 00:49:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
719
Analysis of Practical Configurations
Apart from the simple configurations discussed, it is very
difficult to obtain analytical solutions without making simplifying
assumptions. Deutsch [3] made an approximate analysis of
some of the more complicated cases such as the line-to-plane
geometry. Following Deutsch's work, Popkov [4] in his analysis
of the cylindrical and the line-to-plane geometry introduced
certain improvements. His analytical solution for the cylindrical
configuration is identical to (9). Popkov assumed that the
line-to-plane configuration can be approximated by an equivalent
cylindrical system and obtained the following equation for its
voltage-current characteristic:
0.41P In (1 + Y)"12 - 1 + ln
vo ro + (I1+ y)"2
~~~1
(11)
(7) with
(12)
2irEokEoro)
The empirical constant P is introduced to take into account the
nonuniform current distribution along the plane electrode.
Simpson and Morse [5] have recently discussed the applica-
bility of Popkov formulas to practical systems. Good agreement
was observed between (9) and the experiment for corona on
smooth conductors in a cylindrical configuration. Accurate meas-
urements were also made of corona currents on an outdoor test
line using stranded conductors, and the results were compared
with Popkov's formula (11). Reasonable agreement [6] between
theory and experiment could be obtained only when P was
increased from 1.65 (originally suggested by Popkov) to about 5.
Results also indicated that P, contrary to the assumption of
Popkov, will vary with line parameters as well as with the
intensity of corona.
NATURE OF THE GENERAL PROBLEM
The analysis of unipolar dc corona consists basically of the
analysis of the dc ionized electric field. A detailed investigation
of the mathematical aspects of dc ionized fields has been recently
presented by Felici [7]. With the availability of modern high-
speed digital computers, the possibility of obtaining accurate
numerical solutions for complex problems such as that of dc
ionized fields has become a reality.
The basis for the discussion of the general problem of dc
ionized fields is formed by (1)- (3). Combining again equations
(2) and (3) and substituting now for V-E from (1), the following
equation relating the field and charge density distribution is
obtained:
- -E.Vp. (13)
Co
E. Vp can be replaced by Edp/ds, where s denotes the distance
measured along the corresponding flux line, so that dp/ds repre-
sents the charge density gradient along the flux line. Now (13)
can be written as
dp _ 1 ds
(9) p2 eo E
(14)
Integration of (14) yields
1 1 rds
- = - I-+ constant.
P coJ E
720 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS, MAY 1969
The constant of integration depends on whether integration is 4 is a scalar point function of the space coordinates depending
started from the emitter (conductor in corona) or the collector on charge distribution. From (2), (3), and (16),
(ground electrode). The analysis of Felici [7] has shown that
the choice of the collector as the starting point in the integration E'*V(4p) = 0. (17)
is improper, as it may lead to some mathematical difficulties. According to (17), 4p is a constant along any given flux line of
Hence starting at the emitter the expression becomes the space-charge-free field. Substituting (16) in (1) and noting
1 1 1 s ds that
(15) V*E' = 0
p Pe EOE
and
Equation (15) together with (1) can be solved iteratively to
obtain the charge and field distribution. First, the space-charge- E'*V4= El I
free field is assumed, and a first approximation to the charge
distribution is obtained from (15). This, of course, requires the
value of Pe to be known. Substituting the newly calculated charge E'-=
ds
P. (18)
distribution in (1), a second approximation to the field distri- co
bution is obtained, and so on. However, there are two limitations Integrating (18) along any flux line starting at the conductor in
to this iterative method of solution. corona,
First, it is very difficult and time consuming to solve Poisson's
equation except in a one-dimensional problem. In order to
reduce the complexity of the numerical solution, it is therefore Eds
eOC- o E (19)
necessary to reduce the given problem to an equivalent one-
dimensional problem. This can be done by assuming that the Substituting E' = - d4/ds and changing the limits of integration
space charge affects only the magnitude but not the direction accordingly,

C=4~+1O14
eO [V p4
of the electric field. It is believed that such an assumption does
not contribute to any serious error for normal charge densities. (E' )2 (20)
The second limitation is in the choice of Pe. Only the two
limiting cases are discussed by Felici [7] in which p. is assumed where V is the conductor potential and 4 is the space-charge-free
to be equal to either very large or very small value. It can be potential at the point where 4 is being evaluated. At the con-
seen from (15) that when Pe is very large, the charge distribution ductor surface, according to assumption 5),
is practically independent of Pe, while for very small Pe the 4(0 = Vo/v (21)
charge density is very nearly constant throughout the inter-
electrode space. In the former case saturated solutions are ob- with Vo being the corona onset voltage. Integrating both sides
tained, while the latter corresponds to the so-called weak current of (20) with respect to 4 between the limits 0 and V, using
approximation. An inevitable consequence of such approxi- ij as the dummy integration variable,
mations is the assumption of a uniform charge distribution at
the surface of the emitter. In spite of these limitations, however,
such assumptions have been shown to give some useful approxi-
d =:

(e, dO + -0 I dO)
.
(22)
mate solutions to many practical problems. A different approach From (16)
is proposed by the authors. d4)X
__d( = _t
d

METHOD OF ANALYSIS ds ds
In a practical problem, both assumptions regarding Pe may Substituting this and (21) in (22) and simplifying,
not be true. A method of evaluating Pc, and hence the charge
o
1 Jv
Jo JEvdt7
and electric field distribution in the interelectrode region as v )2. (23)
well as the current distribution at the electrodes, is presented.
At the same time (15) can be rewritten in terms of 4, E', and
Assumptions 4) as
1) The entire interelectrode region is filled with unipolar space 1 1 J1 V 4
charge. (24)
P Pe c 0 (E' )2
2) The mobility of ions is constant (independent of field
intensity). For given values of V, Vo, and the distribution of E', (20),
3) Thermal diffusion of ions is neglected. (23), and (24) yield the distributions of p and E along any
4) The space charge affects only the magnitude but not the flux line of the space-charge-free field. The resultant current
direction of the electric field. distribution can be calculated subsequently from (2).
5) The electric field at the surface of the conductor in corona Iterative Solution
remains constant at the onset value.
Fig. 2 shows qualitatively the variation of charge density
Equations for Charge and Field Distributions along any given flux line, obtained from (24), as a function of
If E is the electric field in the presence of space charge and 4) for different values of p.. Very large p. corresponds to the
E' the space-charge-free field, according to assumption 4), saturated solution, and the curve for very small values of p.
corresponds to the weak current approximation. The curves
E= (E'. (16) in between show the distribution of p for intermediate values of

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de la Frontera. Downloaded on July 03,2020 at 00:49:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
SARMA AND JANISCHEWSKYJ: CORONA LOSSES ON DC TRANSMISSION LINES 721

value of Pe. This is a more difficult problem than the inverse

problem discussed above since it is impossible to obtain a solution
in closed form as in the previous case. It is only possible to arrive
at a solution using a suitable iterative technique.
The well-known secant method [8] of iteration is found to
be particularly suited to the problem since the method does not
ct involve the evaluation of any derivatives, while at the same time
it is considerably faster than any linear iteration method. The
iteration procedure is illustrated in Fig. 3. In the first step Pm is
z
v. computed for the flux line under consideration using the given
data in (26). Then two values of Pel and Pe2 are arbitrarily
chosen such that Pe2 > Pel > Pm. For each of these values, the
charge density distribution along the flux line and the corre-
sponding mean charge densities Pmi, pm are evaluated using
(25) and (27).
Fig. 2. Charge density distribution along a flux line Subsequent values Pei are calculated using the following iter-
for different Pe, ation function:

Pei = Pei-1 +
(Pmp-min1) (pei-i Pei-2), i 3,4,
(Pmi-1 - Pmi-2)
z (29)
0

w fm a The corresponding value of Pmi is then calculated before pro-

4S ceeding to the next iteration. The procedure is continued until
Pm, approaches Pm to the required precision e. The speed of
convergence of iteration depends on the choice of Pei and Pe2.
2
If these two initial values are chosen such that
a P4 P PO3
EMITTER CHARGE DENSITY Pei = fiPm
(30)
Fig. 3. Iterative procedure for determining Pe.
Pe2 = f2PN
then the factors fi and f2 must be chosen to achieve the fastest
Pe. For any given value of Pe, a mean charge density pm can be convergence. It has been observed that optimum values of fi
defined such that, and f2 vary for each flux line as well as with the value of p..
The choice of fi= 1.5 and f2= 3.0 resulted in a reasonably
PM [= (E')V (EJ)2Jdd (25) fast convergence rate on the average. In order to achieve an
agreement of closer than 0.1 percent between pm, and pm, an
From (24) it is obvious that at any point p < Pe. Consequently, average number of four iterations were necessary for each calcu-
pm defined in (25) is always smaller than Pe. lation.
Using (23), Pm may be written as APPLICATION TO PRACTICAL CONFIGURATIONS
Pm= eo(V- Vo) do
d
(26)
7 The method of analysis proposed is applicable to any general
(El(E)2 unipolar conductor configuration for which it is possible to
and pm may be calculated directly from the given data. Note determine the space-charge-free field either analytically or nu-
that according to (17) along any flux line of the space-charge-free merically. Because of the large amount of numerical computation
field, pt = Pete. Substituting this condition in (14) and (18), involved, the calculations have to be done on a high-speed
the intergration after change of the variable to O yields the digital computer. The method of calculation has been applied
to the well-known line-to-plane geometry shown in Fig. 4 with
following modified equations for the distributions of p and t: either smooth conductors or conductors having surface irregu-
1 1 2 v d larities such as stranding, etc. Details of the calculation pro-
p2 Pe2 EOPe,e J, (E' )2 (27)
cedure are given in the Appendix. Beside the line-to-plane
configuration discussed, the method can also be applied to lines
2+2pe4e d4CP with bundle conductors, homopolar lines, and lines with overhead
02 2
= (2+ EPctJO (E' 28
(28)
ground wires. A general numerical method of calculating the
space-charge-free field for such practical configurations has been
It can be seen from (25) and (27) that the mean charge density developed, and the results of corona loss calculations for char-
Pm for any specific flux line is a function of the emitter charge acteristic examples will be published at a later date.
density Pe. If Pe is known, (27) gives the distribution of charge
density along the flux line, and the corresponding mean charge Lines with Smooth Conductors
density may be calculated directly using (25). The variation of The first case considered is a hypothetical line comprised of a
pm as a function of Pe is shown as the solid line in Fig. 3. smooth conductor of 1-cm radius placed at different heights
In the present analysis, however, pm is known from the given above the ground plane. For purposes of comparison, corona
data through (26), and it is required to obtain the corresponding losses for this line have been calculated by the proposed method

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de la Frontera. Downloaded on July 03,2020 at 00:49:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
722 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS, MAY 1969

FLUX z
~1.
z
w

:3
4 ) -
Fig. 4. Line-to-plane configuration.
-I

0
ir
0
0

600

£ 500
4
200 250 300 350 400 450 500
I~-
400 H= 100 APPLIED VOLTAGE KV
z
w

xc 300 Fig.W8' Corona losses for experimental line with a Lark conductor
D

[6]; ro-1.02 cm, H-9.217 meters. Positive polarity. Vertical

< 200
z
lines show range of experimental values. A-Calculated by
0
method presented; B-calculated by modified Popkov formula.
0

0
0o 250 300 350 400 450 500 55 $0
APPLIED VOLTAGE KV
32
Fig. 5. Corona losses for a hypothetical line with a smooth conductor;
re-1 cm, H-1 meter. A-Calculated by method presented;
B-calculated by Popkov's formula. 28

A
1.

41

2 0' -
,E 1.0 W-2
z
w

It
I--
z
Z I:

__X__ __
0.6 -- .2000 0
0

04
z
0

o02

0
_-10 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 APPLIED VOLTAGE KV
APPLIED VOLTAGE KV
Fig. 9. Corona losses for experimental line with a Lark conductor
Fig. 6. Corona losses for a hypothetical line with a smooth conductor; [6]; ro-1.02 cm, H-5.36 meters. Positive polarity. Vertical
ra-L cm, H-20 meters. A-Calculated by method presented; lines show range of experimental values. A-Calculated by
B-calculated by Popkov's formula. method presented; B-calculated by modified Popkov formula.

E
E 24
I-,

z 20
20
i t ILl

_ 2g _a
(: 16 z

msA7-~~~~~10 -_**
z 12
0

0
o
8

0 250 300 350 400 450

36 38 40 42 44 46
APPLIED VOLTAGE KV
APPLIED VOLTAGE KV

Fig. 7. Corona losses for a model line [9] with a smooth conductor; Fig. 10. Corona losses for experimental line with a Lark conductor
ro-0.04 inch, H-10 inches. Vertical lines show range of experi- [6]; ro-1.02 cm, H-9.35 meters. Negative polarity. Vertical
mental values. A-Calculated by method presented; B-cal- lines show the range of experimental values. A-Calculated by
culated by Popkov's method. method presented; B-calculated by modified Popkov formula.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de la Frontera. Downloaded on July 03,2020 at 00:49:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
SAYIMA AND JANISCHEWSKYJ: CORONA LOSSES ON DC TRANSMISSION LINES
as well as by Popkov's formula. The results for two extreme
values of the conductor height, 1 and 20 meters, respectively,
are shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
As already stated, in the derivation of Popkov's formula the
actual line-to-plane configuration is approximated by an equiva-
lent coaxial cylindrical system, and an empirical constant P
is introduced to take into account the difference between the
current distribution along the plane in the actual configuration
and the outer cylinder in the equivalent system. With a decrease
in the H/ro ratio, the current distribution around the conductor
becomes more nonuniform, which in turn changes the distribution
of current on the plane, thus requiring a new value of P. In
addition, the nonlinear nature of the equations suggests that
the current distribution on the plane changes also with the
intensity of corona. This shortcoming of Popkov's method is
illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6. The deviation of the results calculated
by Popkov's formula increases with a decrease in H/ro as well
as with an increase in the intensity of corona.
Corona currents measured on a laboratory model [9] con-
sisting of a smooth conductor, 0.08 inch in diameter, placed 10
inches above the ground plane, are compared with theoretfcal
results in Fig. 7. It can be seen from these results that there is
negligible difference between the two methods of calculation and
also that the experimental results agree quite well with theo-
retical calculations. The reason for the small difference observed
is the fact that the range of voltages above corona onset for
which the calculations are made is very small.
Lines with Stranded Conductors
Simpson [6] compared the experimental results of corona
currents, for a Lark conductor (1.02-cm radius) and for different
heights above the ground plane, obtained on an outdoor experi-
mental line, with prediction of Popkov's formula. He suggested
that a reasonably good agreement may be obtained between the
Popkov formula and experiment by increasing the value of the
empirical constant P by a factor of about three. The effect of
conductor stranding has been considered to correct computed
corona currents only near the region of onset.
Calculations for the lines with the smooth conductors discussed
in the previous section indicate that, although the empirical
constant P may vary with the line parameters as well as with
corona intensity, the extent of this variation is not very large.
Consequently, it seems reasonable to assume that the effect of
conductor surface irregularities, rather than the value of P, is
responsible for the observed differences between the experimental
results and Popkov's formula.
Practical transmission-line conductors are normally of stranded
construction and often contain surface irregularities such as
strand lift (birdcaging), nicks, scratches, grease, dirt, etc.
Irregularities distort the field in the immediate vicinity of the
conductor and reduce the corona onset voltage. It should be
noted that the distortion is confined only to a very narrow region
around the conductor and that the field in the remaining inter-
electrode space is not noticeably affected. In calculation of
corona losses, conductor surface irregularities may be taken into
account by replacing for the actual conductor an equivalent
smooth conductor of the same diameter with a reduced corona
onset voltage. The method of ncluding the effect of surface
irregularities in the calculation of corona losses is discussed in
the Appendix.
The reduction in the corona onset voltages due to surface
irregularities depends on the increase in the conductor surface
gradient as well as on the actual field distribution near the con-
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de la Frontera. Downloaded on July 03,2020 at 00:49:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
723
ductor. Although the field distortion caused by any one factor
alone, such as stranding, may be calculated theoretically, it is
difficult to relate the distortion to the reduction in the onset
voltage. In practice, the influence of the various surface ir-
regularities cannot be separated, and it is only possible to
obtain an overall reduction factor by testing actual conductor
samples.
Stone [10] investigated the reduction in ac corona onset
voltage due to stranding by testing aluminum tubes wrapped
with a single layer of strands. The stranding factors obtained by
Stone ranged from 0.88 to 0.98. Experiments conducted by the
authors [11] on an actual sample of a new stranded conductor
(0.502-inch diameter) in a cylindrical cage under both ac and dc
excitation gave values for the stranding factor of about 0.8.
It appears reasonable to expect still lower values of the reduction
factor for conductors on practical transmission lines because of
the combined effect of all existing surface irregularities.
The experimental results for the Lark conductor [6] are
compared with theoretical calculations using Popkov's formula
as well as the method presented. Figs. 8 and 9 show the results
for positive polarity and for conductor heights of 9.216 and 5.36
meters, respectively, while Fig. 10 shows the results for negative
polarity and conductor height of 9.35 meters. The experimental
data for these cases in(licate the value of the overall reduction
factor for the corona onset voltage to be about 0.7. The theo-
retical calculations are made with this value for the reduction
factor. The mobility of both positive and negative ions is taken
as 1.5 X 10-4 m2/V.s.
The agreement between the theoretical and experimental re-
sults is good for the larger conductor heights for both positive
and negative corona. For the smaller height, the experimental
results are larger than those predicted by the theory at higher
voltages. The large differences observed may be attributed to
the fact that at smaller conductor heights, the nonuniformities
in corona generation on the conductor due to the proximity of
the ground plane, conductor sag, etc., become increasingly sig-
nificant. It should also be noted that the suggested modification
to Popkov's formula results in a reasonably good agreement
with experimental values without changing the empirical con-
stant P. However, the calculations based on the method of
analysis developed in the paper are closer to the experimental
results. The modified Popkov equation again shows larger devi-
ation for lower values of conductor height and for higher corona
intensity, indicating the slightly variable nature of P.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the theoretical analysis presented, the following
conclusions may be drawn about the dc corona losses on unipolar
conductor configurations.
1) The numerical iterative method of solving the equations
of unipolar dc corona derived in the paper is a useful technique
for an accurate determination of the field and charge distribution
in the interelectrode space. Based on these, current distribution
at the electrodes and the associated power loss may be estab-
lished.
2) The method of analysis is applicable to any general uni-
polar conductor configuration for which the space-charge-free
field can be calculated.
3) Corona losses calculated for a model line with a smooth
conductor by the method proposed show a very good agreement
with experimental results.
4) Popkov's formula for the line-to-plane geometry gives
reasonably accurate results for smooth conductors; however, the
724 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS, MAY 1969

empirical constant P is found to be a function of the line pa-

rameters and of the intensity of corona.
5) For practical lines using stranded conductors, the proposed
method, modified to include the effect of conductor surface
irregularities, gives good agreement with experimental results
for practical line heights. For lower heights, the agreement is
good only for a comparatively small range of voltages above
corona onset.
6) The suggested method of accounting for the conductor
surface irregularities has also been incorporated into Popkov's
equation and was found to give reasonable agreement with
experimental results. Nevertheless, results calculated using the
modified Popkov equation are slightly lower than those using
the proposed method, the deviation being larger for lower con-
ductor heights and higher corona intensity as in the case of
smooth conductors.
APPENDIX
Application of the method of calculation proposed in he
paper is demonstrated by the calculation of corona currents
from a conductor in a line-to-plane configuration shown in Fig. 4.
Space-Charge-Free Field
Fig. 11. Flow chart for calculation of corona losses of
For this configuration, the space-charge-free electric field may line-to-plane configuration.
be calculated analytically by any of the well-known techniques.
Using the method of conformal transformations [4], the complex For the calculation of current distribution around the con-
potential function is given by ductor at each voltage, points along the conductor periphery
corresponding to equal intervals of AKi/ from 0 to 7r/2 are
V H+ z chosen. In order to reduce the computer storage requirements,
ln (2H/ro) Hl-n current densities from each flux line are calculated for the entire
voltage range and stored before proceeding to the next flux
with w = q5 + i+, z = x + iy. line. Finally, the current distributions corresponding to each
The function transforms the actual field of the conductor-plane voltage are integrated to obtain the V-I characteristic.
geometry in the z plane to the known field between a pair of The following abbreviated notation has been used in the
infinite parallel plates in the w plane. Constant values of 4 flow chart:
and 4l' represent equipotential lines and flux lines, respectively,
of the original field. The potential gradient at any point is given
by G = | (E')2 d) (33)
|d = [cosh 2KO + cos 2KVt] Jv dq
dz H In (2H/ro) (34)
with
p (4)) denotes the charge density as a function of 4) as obtained
2K= -ln-. (32) from (27). For purposes of calculating the functions I(+5) and
V ro p (4)), as well as for the various numerical integrations involved,
the range 0-V of 4 is divided into a number of equal intervals,
Equation (32) gives, for constant values of 2K4I, the variation the actual number of divisions depending on the accuracy re-
of E' with 4) along a specific flux line. 4) varies from zero on the quired. The calculations have been made on an IBM 7094
ground plane to V on the conductor. K*&, defined in Fig. 4, computer.
varies from zero to wr/2 for the different flux lines.
Flow Chart for the Computer Program Effect of Conductor Surface Irregularities

The flow chart, based on which the computer program for
the calculations is written, is shown in Fig. 11. Corona cur-
rents are calculated for voltages starting at Vs (> Vo) up to a
maximum voltage VM at fixed increments of AV. For conven-
ience, the calculations are made in the 4y4 coordinates instead
of the x-y coordinates. Because of the symmetry about a vertical
axis through the center of the conductor, it is sufficient if the
current distribution is calculated only for the range 0 < K# <
ir/2.
The method of including the effect of conductor surface ir-
regularities in the calculation of corona losses is discussed in
this section. The first step is the calculation of the corona
onset voltage, which is given by
Vo = mroEo ln (2H/ro) (35)
where m is the factor by which the onset voltage is reduced due
to surface irregularities. The onset gradient Eo at the conductor
surface is assumed to be the same as that for a smooth conductor

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de la Frontera. Downloaded on July 03,2020 at 00:49:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
SARMA AND JANISCHEWSKYJ: CORONA LOSSES ON DC TRANSMISSION LINES 725

of the same diameter. If the actual conductor is replaced by an ACKNOWLEDGMENT

equivalent smooth conductor, the gradient at its surface corre-
sponding to the voltage V0 would be mEo. The authors wish to thank Dr. J. H. Simpson of the National
For evaluating the integrals shown in (33) and (34), the Research Council of Canada for furnishing the experimental
space-charge-free field distribution E' is calculated assuming the data and for his keen interest in this work.
equivalent smooth conductor and using (32). It is presumed
that the field distortion, which is confined only to a small region REFERENCES
near the conductor, does not affect the values of these integrals [1] J. S. Townsend, Phil. Mag., vol. 28, p. 83, 1914.
appreciably. After determining pe for each flux line by the [2] N. A. Kapzow, Elektrische Vorgdnge in Gasen und im Vacuum.
Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1955,pp.
iterative procedure described, the corresponding current density 488-494.
at the conductor surface is calculated from [3] W. Deutsch, "tVber die Dichtverteilung unipolarer lonen-
strome," Ann. Physik, vol. 5, pp. 589-613, 1933.
[4] V. I. Popkov, "On the theory of unipolar D.C. corona,
je = kpeEo (36) Elektrichestvo, no. 1, pp. 33-48, 1949; NRC Tech. Transl.
TT-1093.
[51 J. H. Simpson and A. R. Morse, "Corona on direct current
and integrated over its surface to obtain the total corona current. transmission lines," Bull. Radio Elec. Engrg. Div. (Natl.
It is suggested that in order to take into account the effect Res. Council of Canada), vol. 14, pp. 18-30, 1964.
[6] J. H. Simpson, "Theoretical and experimental studies of corona
of conductor surface irregularities in Popkov's formula, his loss from D.C. lines " presented at the Corona Res. Meeting,
equations should be modified in exactly the same way. If Vo Montreal, P. Q., Canada, March 17-18, 1966.
and Eo have the same significance as above, the modified Popkov [7] N. J. Felici, "Recent advances in the analysis of D.C. ionized
electric fields," Direct Current, pt. I, pp. 252-260, September
equations will be 1963; pt. II, pp. 278-287, October 1963.
[81 S. D. Conte, Elementary Numerical Analysis. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1965.
V [9] M. M. Khalifa, "Study of overhead ground wires for dc
0.41P ln-= (1 + y)12-1 + 1
ln 1 n2 transmission lines," IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and Systems,
Vo ro1 ( y12 vol. PAS-87, pp. 1648-1656, July 1968.
[101 L. N. -Stone,, "EHV single and twin bundle conductors-
(37) Influence of conductor diameter and strand diameter on radio
influence voltage and corona initiation voltage," AIEE Trans.
PI H 2 (Power Apparatus and Systems), vol. 78, pp. 1434-1443, Decem-
1Y= __P1 H2(38) ber 1959.
27reokm kEoro.( [11] W. Janischewskyj, "Use of artificial contamination for studies
of corona in air, presented at the 1966 EHV Symp., Manitoba,
Canada.
NOMENCLATURE
The MKS system of units is used throughout.
Et E electric field in the presence of space charge
E', E' space-charge-free electric field
corona onset field at conductor surface Discussion
Eo
H height of conductor above ground plane
I corona current per unit length of conductor
Heine Martensson (ASEA, Ludvika, Sweden): We welcome the
j,j, de current density new approach taken by the authors to the theoretical approach
K constant on the question on corona losses on dc transmission lines. Even
k ionic mobility if considerable information is available from different test lines,
m surface irregularity factor it is essential that this information is backed up by theoretical
P Popkov's empirical constant approaches. It is easier to change a parameter in an equation than
radius of outer cylinder to make the same change on a big test line. The result of this new
R calculation method seems to agree very well with earlier results
r radial coordinate of any point from Popkov's equation. Evidently, more work has to be done
ro radius of conductor in this field to get a still better correlation between the theoretical
s distance measured along a flux line and practical approaches.
V voltage applied to conductor We have a detailed comment on the examples shown in Figs.
corona onset voltage
5-7 of the paper presented. The corona onset voltage, which we
Vo assume is the voltage at which corona can first be detected, seems
w complex plane to be extremely high. The electric field at the conductor surface
x, y coordinates seems to be between 40 and 50 kV/cm, which is higher than the
Y nondimensional current withstand value in normal atmosphere. We may, however, have
z complex plane misunderstood the definition of corona onset voltage.
ASEA published results earlier in [12] from investigations per-
permittivity of free space formed through 1964. We have further results from that time and
4. potential in the presence of space charge have also made investigations on how to calculate dc corona, which
space-charge-free potential we hope to publish within the next year.
flux of the space-charge-free electric field REFERENCES
p charge density at any point [12] N. Hylt'n-Cavallius, S. Annestrand, H. Witt, and V. coronaMadz-
Pe, Pell, Pei charge density at the emitter arevic, "Insulation requirements, corona losses,IEEE and
Pc charge density at the collector radio interference for high-voltage d-c lines," Trans.
pill,p...*p,,,,i mean charge densities for a flux line
Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. 83, pp. 500-508, May 1964.
i, (e scalar function
X0 dummy integration variable. Manuscript received February 8, 1968.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de la Frontera. Downloaded on July 03,2020 at 00:49:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
726
J. B. Jordan and P. L. Pirotte (Laval University, Quebec, P. Q.,
Canada): This paper is an excellent example of new possibilities
open in sciences with the application of computers. The authors
succeeded in presenting an elegant method of calculating the
corona current of a dc unipolar conductor on a completely theoreti-
cal basis, whereas the preceding formulas were at least semiempirical.
With regard to the proposed method itself, we would like to ask
the authors whether eventual application of Popkov's formula in
calculating the charge density of emitter Pe would not have the
advantage of arbitrary choice of coefficients f, and f2 in (30). Thus
the current I could be calculated from (11) and (12) and the appro-
priate emitter charge density from
Pei =- 2w1E
2-xrokEoD
Iterative values of pei could be found, for example, from the function
l Pm
P ei = P ei-1) (i + m
- Pm(i-l)0
m(1)
Pm
with i = 2, 3,
where the value of Pm is calculated from (26) and pmZ from (25)
and (27). General assumptions accepted in the proposed method
may have some influence upon the results of calculations and their
relation to the experimental values.
The first assumption omits automatically the electron component
of corona current at a positive conductor. The effect of this com-
ponent may be negligible for lower currents and larger distances,
but it should be more pronounced in opposite conditions. The
electron path is much shorter than the ion path because it is limited
to the direct neighborhood of the conductor. On the other hand,
however, the electron mobility is much higher than the mobility
of ions.
The second assumption concerning the constancy of ion mobility
seems to be justified, except in the high-field region around the
conductor. However, the authors apply the same value of mobility
for positive and negative ions, whereas the results of measurements
met generally in technical literature attribute higher mobilities
to negative ions.
It is rather difficult to evaluate the impact of the fourth assump-
tion without a deeper analysis. This assumption is completely
justified in a coaxial field. The distribution of space charge around a
real transmission line may be further modified by the wind and
updrafts. Vonnegut et al. [13] detected the perturbations of a fair
weather electric potential gradient caused by corona discharges
from a dc line as far as 10 km from the line. Khalifa and Morris [14]
found well pronounced effect of the wind to be well pronounced
on the value of corona current itself.
REFERENCES
[13] B. Vonnegut, C. B. Moore, G. E. Stout, D. W. Staggs, J. W.
Bullock, and W. E. Bradley, "Artificial modification of atmos-
pheric space charge," J. Geophys. Res., vol. 67, March 1962.
[141 M. M. Khalifa and R. M. Morris, "A laboratory study of the
effects of wind on dc corona," IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus
and Systems, vol. PAS-86, pp. 290-298, March 1967.
Manuscript received February 13, 1968.
M. Khalifa (University of Cairo, Giza, Egypt): The authors should
be commended for their rigorous numerical analysis of dc corona
on monopolar lines. Their paper is an improvement over Popkov's
work [4]. Although the authors in their analysis use the same
simplifying assumptions as Popkov's, they compute the point-to-
point variation of the charge density in the field space between
the high-voltage conductor and the ground plane of the line-to-
Manuscript received FebrLiary 13, 1968.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de la Frontera. Downloaded on July 03,2020 at 00:49:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS, MAY 1969
ground arrangement. This approach is evidently more accurate
than the empirical constant P introduLced by Popkov to account
for the nonuniform current density over the ground plane. Simpson
[6] and the authors multiplied the constant P by three in order
to obtain a reasonable agreement between Popkov's formulas (11)
and (12) and field-test results. I agree with the authors that P
depends upon the test-line geometry. This dependence may account
for the fact that curves A and B are closer to each other in Fig. 6
than in Fig. 5 and in Fig. 7 than in Figs. 8 and 9. We found that
multiplying P by four instead of three makes the curves A and B
in Fig. 9 almost coincide.
In using the authors' computer facilities, it may be another
valuable contribution to the literature to give some charts indicating
(39) normalized corona losses of dc lines as a function of the line geometry
and voltage relative to the corona inception level. An alternative
may be to compute the variation with the line geometry of the
factor P which makes Popkov's formula agree most closely with
experimental results. This would be a big help to dc line designers,
because a formula or set of charts is usually more easily available
than elaborate high-speed computers.
One of the authors' simplifying assumptions is that the space
(40) charge affects the magnitude but not the direction of the electric
field. We realize that it is difficult to proceed in the calculations
otherwise, and that it may be more difficult to check this assumption.
In Fig. 10 the calculated curve A is significantly lower than the
experimental results close to the inception voltage. This may be
partly caused by the low value assigned to the mobility of negative
ions, i.e., 1.5 X 10-4 was used by the authors instead of about
1.8 X 10-4 m2/V-s.
Both of the calculated curves A and B sometimes do not fit the
experimental results very well (Fig. 9). Would a better agreement
be obtained by considering the effect of stranding on the field
distribution at the conductor surface as previously done by Simpson
[6]? An additional improvement may be achieved by considering
the corona discharge to start on a limited part of the conductor
circumference that extends tangentially as the conductor voltage
increases. Perhaps the authors would comment on this in the
discussion.
J. H. Simpson and A. R. Morse (National Research Council of
Canada, Ottawa, Ont., Canada): It is clear from this paper that the
dc unipolar corona problem for smooth lines, operating under
standard clean conditions, has been solved. It is true that the
accuracy is limited by the initial assumptions, but for the range of
parameters used in practical unipolar lines the errors thus introduced
are negligible. The powerful iterative method introduced by the
authors should be very useful in the solution of other problems,
and it is good news that they are now applying it to the important
dc bipolar case. Another field in which it may prove especially
useful is that of electric precipitation.
With regard to the effects of stranding on the characteristic the
picture is not so clear. Calculations of the field due to stranding
performed in this laboratory indicate that stranding lowers the
corona inception field strength by about 30 percent and that corona
appears first at a single point on the strand nearest the ground
plane. It then spreads over the conductor as the potential is raised.
If field distortion due to the corona itself were negligible, the whole
conductor would not be in corona until the potential reached a
value some 16 percent above the corona inception voltage for a
smooth conductor of the same diameter. There is thus a broad
region of potential, which usually includes the operating potential,
in which the line is partially in corona. The situation is aggravated
by the fact that the height above the ground plane varies along
the span. For this reason we now feel that a simple factor taking
account of the lowering of the inception voltage due to stranding,
cannot give accurate values of corona current in the normal operating
region. This is especially true for large-diameter stranded conductors
which tend to be operated below their theoretical corona inception
Manuscript received Februiary 16, 1968.
SARMA AND JANISCHEWSKYJ: CORONA LOSSES ON DC TRANSMISSION LINES 727

voltage. An attempt to take account of this "spreading" effect in In Electricite de France we have developed a rather different
an iterative calculation would form an interesting extension of method for calculating corona losses on ae lines. Instead of inte-
the authors' work. However, from the point of view of application, grating the differential equations linking field and current density
the dividends would be greater in the case of the bipolar lines in the space around the conductors, our program calculates the
where the effect should be equally important. movement of space charges emitted by the conductor, taking into
A final remark on the Popkov factor P is in order. We increased account the action of all other charges either on the conductor or in
this factor empirically in an attempt to take into consideration space. This method has been described in [16].
air pollution and humidity effects at very high potentials. The The comparison between the results of the calculation and those
introduction of the factor m, taking stranding effects at lower obtained in our EHV test station is very good, making us quite
potentials into account, is a definite improvement although we are confident in this method of calculation as far as ac corona losses
not clear on the theoretical justification for [37] and [38]. Perhaps are concerned.
Dr. Sarma and Prof. Janischewskyj wouild enlarge upon this in Concerning dc, we have as yet no experience on our method.
the discussion. The principle of the method should still be valid, nevertheless.
In conclusion, we congratulate the authors of this paper for We have used it to calculate the corona current when a step of
an exceptional piece of work which should assist materially in the voltage is applied to a conductor. At the first moment this current
development of a theoretical base for the design of dc transmission is very high and subsequently decreases slowly to what the steady-
lines. state dc corona current should be.
In one example treated, the step of voltage was 600 kV positive.
The conductor diameter was 26.4 mm, with a stranding factor of
0.8. It was surrounded by a cylindrical collector with a radius of
7.65 m. The dimensions are rather similar to those on which Fig. 9
is based, the main difference apparently being in the conductor
diameter. However, the steady-state current that we have calculated
was 800,uA/m, which seems to be higher than the calculated values
N. Hylten-Cavallius (Research Institute, Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, of Fig. 9. We would therefore like to ask the authors if they have
P. Q., Canada): May I compliment the authors for an extremely experience, through testing or calculation, on the variation of
interesting and well-written paper. I am glad to note that this corona current with the conductor diameter, provided the surface
problem of strict theoretical predetermination of the unipolar dc gradient without corona does not change and is very high.
corona is solved or on its way to being solved. But in this connection With ae voltage the capacitance of the conductor practically
I would like to underline the comments by Mr. Martensson; the defines, with sufficient accuracy, the position of the earth, which
practical importance of dc corona losses is in the range of 15-25 the authors call the collector. This is due to the fact that the losses
kV/cm, which is lower than the range covered by the authors. physically take place chiefly within 1 or 2 meters around the con-
I also think that a study of the losses during rain is of some ductor. Is this approximation valid for dc?
practical importance and wonder whether the effect of rain can be Our last question concerns the mobility of the ions. How was
mathematically interpreted as a decrease of the corona inception mobility chosen by the authors? Does the difference between positive
field strength Eo at the conductor. Some tests carried out during and negative ion mobility justify the large difference between
my time with ASEA in Sweden on a unipolar experimental line corona currents which are given in Figs. 9 and 10 and cannot be
up to 1 MV may give a clue to the problem. The losses during heavy explained only by the difference in onset voltages?
rain on a conductor with "practical" diameter seemed to increase
to the same value as the losses under dry and wet conditions on the REFERENCES
same conductor being provided with a number of small points
along its entire length. They also seemed to reach roughly the [16] J. J. Clade, C. H. Gary, and C. A. Lefevre, "Calculation of
same value as for a conductor of very small diameter. corona losses beyond the critical gradient in alternating voltage,"
Another problem of practical importance is the bipolar dc corona, this issue, pp. 695-703.
for which precalculation methods should be extremely valuable.
It may suffice, however, with a determination of the derivative of the
losses with reference to the most important parameters. This
would permit the recalculation of experimental values obtained in
one configuration to those valid for another. Such an analysis may
be simpler than a determination of the losses themselves.
Finally, I wish to draw attention to paper [15] put at my disposal
by Dr. Popkov which should, according to him, also contain a (Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oreg.): The
T. Udo
rigourous solution of the unipolar corona. presentation includes practical suggestions which may be
author's
very important on the investigation of de corona.
REFERENCES From the author's theoretical analysis, as well as from the result
of investigation on testing lines [17], [18], it appears that the height
[15] G. T. Usynin, "The calculation of the field and characteristics of a conductor has a large influence rather than the conductor
of d.c. unipolar corona discharge (wire parallel to plane)," surface voltage gradient. The difference between the average surface
Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Energ. i Transp., no. 4, pp. 56-70, voltage gradient and the maximum surface voltage gradient is
1966. too small to explain the large influence of height.
Therefore, analysis based on the surface voltage gradient, which
has been the most favorable method adopted for 60-Hz corona
Manuscript received February 15, 1968. analysis, is not adequate in the case of dc corona (Fig. 12). Also,
adoption of a corona cage or a reduced size model would bring
different results as compared with actual overhead lines in the
case of dc. Do the authors agree?
REFERENCES
"Corona losses, radio interference
[17] N. Hylten-Cavallius et al., for
J. Clade and C. Gary (Electricit6 de France, Paris, France):
and insulator requirements HVDC," Direct Current, vol. 9,
In their very interesting paper, the authors give a mathematical August 1964.
[18] R. Morris and B. Rakoshdas, "An investigation of corona loss
method for calculating corona current due to dc voltage. The and radio interference from transmission line conductor at
results of the calculation are confirmed by tests in a large range of high direct voltage," IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus and
voltage, and the authors are to be congratulated for this success. Systems, vol. 83, pp. 5-16, January 1964.

Manuscript received February 19, 1968. Manuscript received February 19, 1968.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de la Frontera. Downloaded on July 03,2020 at 00:49:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
728
/L./ I/
VOLTAGE GRADIENT
Fig. 12. Relation between average conductor surface gradient
(kV/cm) versus monopolar dc corona loss (kW/km). Solid lines
are reproduced from author's calculation. Dotted lines are quoted
from laboratory investigations [17], [18].
E. Schaefer (400 kV-Forschungsgemeinschaft e. V., Heidelberg,
Germany): This paper is most valuable because it represents a first
step to calculating the corona losses on a dc transmission line.
Although the studies and calculations cover ranges of surface
gradients which will not occur with a practical transmission line,
a way is yet shown for calculating the corona losses. Also one of
the aims of the 400 kV-Forschungsgemeinschaft is to predetermine
corona losses and radio interference of any dc line in a similar way,
as it is already possible for ac lines. Experimental tests to this
purpose are still under way. However, main consideration is given
to bipolar lines with surface gradients up to the order of 30 kV/cm,
as have to be expected in practical operation, but the test program
also includes unipolar lines. We try to determine experimentally
the effects of the surface gradient, the pole distance, the conductor
diameter, and the number of subconductors of a bundle conductor
on the corona losses and radio interference. These tests are not
only realized on a dc line but also by measurements in a corona
cage. In this cage it will also be possible to produce surface gradients
of similar magnitude as used in the investigation referred to in
the paper so that a comparison of the results would be possible.
The discussed method for a numerical evaluation of corona
seems to become very difficult and extensive in the case of bipolar
dc lines. Do you think it possible also for this problem to achieve
a result of sufficient accuracy for practical application by simpli-
fying assumptions? In such a case the 400 kV-Forschungsgemein-
schaft would be glad to communicate results of their experimental
investigations for comparative purposes.
Manuscript received February 15, 1968.
P. Atten (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Grenoble,
France): I have undertaken a theoretical analysis of dc ionized
fields from a mathematical point of view, and my purpose is to
Manuscript received February 19, 1968.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de la Frontera. Downloaded on July 03,2020 at 00:49:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS, MAY 1969
construct a method which would give an exact solution in the
general case.
The iterative method presented in the paper may be considered
as greatly increasing the accuracy of determination of local quanti-
ties of the dc unipolar field. For instance, I am sure that, by using
relation (15), this method considerably increases the knowledge
of the charge density distribution in the interelectrode space.
Nevertheless, because of the assumption that the space charge does
not affect the direction of the elecAric field,< only an approximate
solution is obtained. If it were the exact -solution, the quantity
¢, defined by (16), would be a function of +
r = f(0)
independently of the flux lines; however, in general case, this is
not so.
Assumption 4) may have a meaning for some configurations
in which the angular deviation of the flux lines between the ionized
and the space-charge-free field is very small, but in the case of
the line-to-plane configuration the angular deviation may take
important values due to the very asymmetric geometrical aspect.
I suppose that this would be seen if one plotted the values of the
potential by the iterative method described by the authors and if
one compared the flux lines of this potential with those of the space-
charge-free field. Moreover, we must keep in mind that, for a given
point, the angular deviation depends on and increases with the
ionization intensity, the maximum probably occurring for the
saturated solution.
The method presented by the authors for evaluating corona
losses is the only valid one in principle. Other methods, such as
that of Popkov, are mathematically unwarranted and give only
rough approximations. In spite of the fact that the approximation
due to assumption 4) is not warranted in some regions of the inter-
electrode space, the corona current is determined with a good
accuracy; I think the compensation of the two terms p and E and the
subsequent integration give a more accurate result for the current
than for the local values of the field and the charge density.
A very interesting point in the paper is the method of evaluating
pe. In my work [19] I proved that the problem of the dc unipolar
electric field is "properly posed," as mathematicians say, if together
with (6) the following boundary conditions are given: 1) potential
values on the two electrodes, and 2) charge density values on the
emitter.
As my work is essentially mathematical, I am not concerned
with the determination of the charge density on the emitter from
the experimental conditions. We are here confronted by a con-
siderable difficulty and the authors' method of evaluating p. con-
stitutes the first and an important contribution to its solution.
REFERENCES
[19] P. Atten, "D.C. ionized fields," Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique, Laboratoire d'Electrostatique et de Physique du
Metal, Grenoble, France, Internal Rept.
V. I. Popkov (Academy of Sciences, Moscow, USSR): It is both
interesting and useful to find some suitable algorithm to calculate
corona losses using computer technique. It may help to take into
account the possible influence of some factors which are ignored
or simplified in analytical descriptions of voltage-current char-
acteristics of corona. Consider, for instance, the calculations using
(1)-(4), without using a simplifying supposition of the kind
EP = OEL (41)
where EP is the vector of the field intensity corresponding to the
Poisson equation, EL is the vector of the field intensity corresponding
to the Laplace equation, and 0 is some scalar function. Such a
solution has already been devised on a sound mathematical basis
[15]; of course, a great number of calculations are necessary to get
closer and closer approximations, a task appropriate for a computer.
Manuscript received February 11, 1969.
SARMA AND JANISCHEWSKYJ: CORONA LOSSES ON DC TRANSMISSION LINES
It is also of interest to find the influence of ion mobility when
K = variable (42)
as it takes place in the actual field [20].
There are some other problems leading us to a more rigorous
description and better understanding of the unipolar corona process.
Unfortunately, what we actually find in the paper does not lead us
any further. The approach is well known; in [4], solutions of (1)-(4)
were obtained, based on (41) (which differs from (16) only in the
symbols used). The final formulas describing field and charge
distribution are obtained directly, within the limits of (41), as well
as a more [4] or less [21] rough approximation of the voltage-
current characteristics of unipolar corona. Although rather simply
shaped electrodes were actually considered (a wire or live and
ground wires parallel to ground), it is a matter of routine to find
analogous solutions for other arrangements, such as bundle con-
ductors, etc., using appropriate conformal transformations. That is
essentially the same procedure that is now considered by the
authors, who entrust to a computer the calculations which were
already well adapted to slide-rule use.
We regret to mention the mathematical error or negligence
in the manipulations with vectorial equation (13). In dealing
with a two-dimensional problem one naturally cannot substitute
the normal derivative dp/ds for Vp.
It may be shown that such a substitution means p is constant on
the equipotential lines, which carries to an absurdity: p is constant
from - co to + X on the ground plane.
Rules of vector algebra would evidently lead to partial dif-
ferential or integro-differential equations instead of what is written
and used as (14), (15), and (24). Naturally it would be inconsiderate
to draw any conclusions on the basis of such equations.
It was interesting and complimentary to find in the paper refer-
ences on several occasions to "Popkov's formula" which challenges
us to clarify some points.
1) To clear away the authors' speculations on this formula we
would like to draw attention to the following facts. As shown in
an English edition [22] rather good correlation of calculations was
found with the results of experiments involving many variations in
conditions: both polarities of the voltage, wire diameter varying
from 0.11 to 3.71 cm, H/ro = 54 + 665, wires having smooth
surfaces or ACSR, and dry surfaces as well as those wet by arti-
ficial rain.
2) We thank the authors for their efforts to modify "Popkov's
formula" (see Figs. 8-10) although such a modification was un-
necessary.
Eo in our formula, as well as in the authors' equations, is not a
corona starting gradient for a smooth wire as it seems the authors
supposed it to be. Eo is the boundary value, the field intensity at
the surface of the wire under corona, which approximately may be
equivalised as the corona starting gradient. Naturally, in the case of
smooth wires with starting gradient Eo' one uses Eo = Eo', and
for stranded wires as usual one uses Eo = mE0', where m is the
surface irregularity factor. In the formula (38) there is a misprint.
Evidently instead of m there should be M2.
REFERENCES
[20] V. I. Popkov, "On the ions mobilities in corona discharge,"
Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 1043-1046, 1947.
[21] , "On the theory of d.c. corona discharge in the gas;
General characteristics of unipolar corona and volt-ampere
relation for the electrodes wire-ground," Izv. Akad. Nauk
SSSR, Otd. Tekhn. Nauk, no. 5, pp. 664-674, 1953.
[22] , "Some special features of corona on high-voltage d.c.
transmission lines" in Gas Discharges and the Electricity Supply
Industry. London: Butterworth, 1962.
M. P. Sarma and W. Janischewskyj: The authors are most gratified
by the response to their paper and wish to thank all discussers for
their contributions. Questions pertinent to several assumptions
made in the paper have been raised by a number of discussers
and will be treated first.
Manuscript received February 24, 1969.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de la Frontera. Downloaded on July 03,2020 at 00:49:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
729
The assumption of constant ionic mobility is generally valid
excepting in the high-field intensity region. It is also generally
true that the mobilities of both positive and negative ions are
comparable although the presence of a few fast moving electrons
will increase somewhat the apparent mobility of the negative ions.
In a gaseous mixture such as air, it is rather difficult to assign a
definite value for the mobility of ions, as in addition their mobility
may be reduced by the formation of ion clusters. The values of
ionic mobilities in air found in the literature vary from about
1.2 X 10-4 to 1.8 X 104 m2/V-s. Since all pertinent parameters
affecting ionic mobility cannot be included in the analysis, a constant
average value of 1.5 m2/V.s has been chosen for both positive and
negative ions.
Another important assumption made in the analysis implies that
the space charge affects only the magnitude but not the direction
of the electric field. Let us state first that without this assumption,
the analysis of ionized fields would be extremely difficult as it
would require numerical solution of nonlinear partial differential
equations in complex geometries. The assumption is perfectly valid
in symmetrical configurations such as the concentric cylindrical
geometry, and it will be sufficiently close to reality also in other
configurations if the space-charge density in the interelectrode
region is not very large. Fortunately, in practical transmission-line
configurations the field in the vicinity of the conductors, the region
in which the space-charge density is a maximum, is very nearly
cylindrical and therefore practically symmetrical. In the rest of the
interelectrode region, where the field is not symmetrical, the space-
charge density is comparatively small. Consequently, in practical
configurations the assumption that the geometric pattern of the
field is unchanged by the space charge is reasonably justified.
With reference to Mr. Martensson's question, the corona onset
gradients for all the examples considered in the paper have been
calculated using the well-known Whitehead's empirical formulas
[23]. The withstand value of 30 kV/cm for normal atmospheric air
applies only for uniform field gaps, while in the case of corona on
conductors, the onset gradients will be higher because of the non-
uniform field distribution. The higher values of corona onset gra-
dients in the examples shown in Figs. 5-7 may be attributed to the
smaller conductor sizes chosen and to the assumption of smooth
conductors surfaces. In the case of practical transmission lines,
corona onset gradients will be considerably lower due to the larger
conductor sizes as well as due to the conductor surface irregularities.
Dr. Jordan and Mr. Pirotte suggest calculation of p ei from
Popkov's formula and propose an alternate iteration procedure.
Value of P,ei so calculated would be constant around the conductor
periphery, being lower than the actual value of Pe for the flux
lines in the vicinity of K4p = 0, and higher for those near K4, = 7r/2.
In the method proposed by the authors the values of Pe1 and Pe2
for any particular flux line are chosen on the basis of Pm for that
flux line and therefore are uniformly closer to the correct value of
Pe for all flux lines. Moreover, the method proposed in the paper
can be applied to any general unipolar configuration, while that
based on Popkov's formula can be applied only to the line-to-plane
configuration.
The iterative procedure proposed by Dr. Jordan and Mr. Pirotte
has only a linear rate of convergence while the secant method used
in the paper has a very nearly quadratic rate of convergence. Fig.
13 shows the number of iterations necessary, in a typical case, to
reduce the error to less than about 0.1 percent by the two methods.
The secant method A requires only about five iterations, while the
iteration procedure suggested by the discussers B requires about 14
iterations to achieve the same accuracy. Dr. Jordan and Mr. Pirotte
further comment on some additional assumptions made in the
paper. The electron component of the corona current is significant
when establishing the transient behavior of corona discharges. For
determination of the average corona loss, however, it is sufficient
to consider only the continuous average drift of ions. The authors
agree that the effect of wind will change the space-charge distri-
bution, especially in the low-field intensity region. However, in-
clusion of wind effects, although possible, should considerably
complicate the analysis.
The authors concur with Dr. Khalifa that the proposed method
of analysis should be employed to obtain data on dc corona losses
in a form that can be easily applied to practical transmission-line
design. The authors have adopted the proposed method to various
practical transmission-line configurations and hope to publish the
results soon. With reference to Fig. 10, indeed a higher value of
730 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS; MAY 1969

The total corona current from the conductor is given by

I = 2r roje (46)
or, substituting from (36),
I = 27rrokpEo. (47)
Now, Pe may be calculated from (1) as
Pe = EoV.E. (48)
Substituting for E from (43) (r = ro for the equivalent smooth
conductor),
A2
P = 0 o/A'ro2 + B2
(49)
The constant A is obtained by substituting (45) and (49) in (47):
mI m2EO2rO2 I fRt2 (50)
2ireo- R2 2r-eokm kEoror
putting
I R
27reokm \Eoro/
the constant A may be written as
NUMBER OF ITERATnONS (i)
A2 = (m2Eo2ro2/R2) Y. (51)
Fig. 13.
The constant B is obtained by substituting for A in (45):
ionic mobility should be needed to make the theoretical calculations B2 = m2Eo2ro2[l - (ro2/R2)yJ. (52)
agree with the experimental data. Thus the ionized field is obtained as
The authors appreciate the comments of Dr. Khalifa and those
of Dr. Simpson and Mr. Morse on the effect of gradual spreading
of corona around the conductor due to stranding upon corona losses. EmEoro1 ro2 +r2 y] (53)
The authors have independently analysed the field distribution in
Integrating (53) between the limits r = ro and r = R, and using
the vicinity of a stranded conductor by solving numerically Laplace's
(44), the equation for the voltage-current characteristic is obtained.
equation, and their results agree very well with those of Dr. Simpson.
However, as already pointed out in the paper, the increase in the The resulting equation is identical to (10) excepting that Vo and y
conductor surface voltage gradient due to stranding, or any other are modified as described above to include the factor m.
surface irregularity, cannot be directly related to the reduction The corresponding equations for the line-to-plane geometry are
obtained directly from the above analysis by introducing the
in the corona onset voltage, since it depends not only on the value
of the surface voltage gradient but also on the field distributionempirical constant P and are given by (37) and (38).
in the vicinity of the conductor. Nevertheless, the nonuniform The authors agree with Mr. Hyltln-Cavallius that the effect
generation of corona due to stranding may be included in the of rain may have to be interpreted as a reduction in the corona
proposed analysis, provided the actual variation of corona onset onset voltage of the conductor. In such a case the effect of rain
voltage for different points on the conductor periphery is known. should be treated as a conductor surface irregularity.
Likewise, it is possible to take into account the effect of conductorIn reply to the discussion by Mr. Clade and Mr. Gary, the authors
sag by dividing the span into a number of segments, the height would like to state that the space-charge conditions in ac and dc
of each being assumed constant. are quite different, and therefore it would be rather difficult to
Dr. Simpson and Mr. Morse ask about the theoretical justifica- obtain a theoretical correlation between corona losses present in
tion for the introduction of the factor m in (37) and (38). The the two cases. For the configuration cited by the discussers, the
corona current calculated using Townsend's formtulas (9) and (10)
procedure consists of first deriving the voltage-current character-
istic of a concentric cylindrical configuration with the conductoris about 3.41 LA/m. Therefore, it seems that the large discrepancy
having surface irregularities such as stranding, etc., and subse- observed by the discussers is probably due to the method of cal-
quently introducing the Popkov's empirical constant P to make the culation rather than because of the small difference in conductor
result agree with the corresponding line-to-plane configuration. size. Finally, the difference between corona currents of Figs. 9 and
10 is mainly due to the difference in conductor height.
In the classical solution for the cylindrical geometry, the ionized
field is assumed to be of the following form: The authors share with Dr. Udo the opinion that the dc corona
losses depend more on the conductor height than on the conductor
-/A2r2 + B2 and that the line configuration has a much larger influence
E -= Ar'+B
r
(43) diameter
on its corona performance than in the case of ac.
Mr. Schafer, Mr. Hylten-Cavallius, and Dr. Simpson and Mr.
where arbitrary constants A and B are determined from appropriate Morse rightly point out the greater practical importance of bi-
boundary conditions. The actual conductor with the surface ir- polar corona. The analysis of bipolar corona is further complicated
regularities is replaced by an equivalent smooth conductor with by the mixing of space charges of opposite polarity and the con-
corona onset voltage reduced by the factor m sequent ion recombination in the interelectrode space. The authors
have developed a similar analysis of bipolar corona also and hope
Vo = mEoro hn (R/ro). (44) to make it public in the near future. The offer from the 400 kV-
Forschungsgemeinschaft for exchange of information is hereby
The space-charge-free field is calculated by considering only the gladly accepted.
equivalent smooth conductor as discussed in the paper. According The authors appreciate Mr. Atten's comments on the theoretical
to the boundary condition v, therefore, implications of the fourth assumption made in the paper. The authors
nevertheless consider the assumption justified from an engineering
E VAro'2 + B'2 (45) point of view when it is attempted to determine corona losses on
practical dc transmission lines.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de la Frontera. Downloaded on July 03,2020 at 00:49:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER APPARATUS AND SYSTEMS, VOL.
The authors wish to thank Dr. Popkov for bringing to their
attention the work of Mr. Usynin on unipolar corona. Mr. Usynin
has obtained a rigorous analytical solution for the particular case
of the line-to-plane geometry. It seems extremely diffictlt, how-
ever, to apply his method to the other practical configurations.
In reply to Dr. Popkov's second question, the authors would
like to point out that in (13) it is the vector dot product E.Vp
which has been replaced by Edp/ds and not Vp by dp/ds, as was
wrongly interpreted by Dr. Popkov. Since the direction of the
electric field is assumed to be unchanged by the presence of the
space charge, E.Vp will simply be the projection of Vp in the di-
rection of E and, therefore, equal to Edp/ds. The subsequent con-
clusion drawn by Dr. Popkov, that the authors' analysis leads to
the physical absurdity of constant charge density along the equi-
potential surfaces, is thus seen to be a direct consequence of his
misinterpretation.
The authors would like to emphasize that the paper's main
contribution to the theory of unipolar corona is the method of
calculating, unider the simplifying assumptions made in the paper
which are also similar to those made by Dr. Popkov and others, the
correct charge distribution on the conductor surfaces. Admittedly,
Impedance of Nonmagnetic Overhead Power
Transmission Conductors
P. SILVESTER, MEMBER,
Abstract-A high-accuracy method of calculating skin-effect
resistance and reactance of nonmagnetic stranded overhead power
transmission conductors is described. This method uses an equiva-
lent network approach and takes into account the effects due to
wire spiraling, as well as the proximity effect between strands
and the nonuniform current distribution in each strand. It produces
results of greater accuracy than manufacturing tolerances usually
warrant for overhead transmission conductors and requires a very
small investment in computation cost. A table of skin-effect re-
sistance factors that covers a wide range of standard aluminum
conductors has been computed.
INTRODUCTION
TRANDED aluminum, as well as aluminum alloy con-
ductors, have in recent years assumed importance in trans-
mission line design. Particularly in extrahigh-voltage trans-
mission where heavy currents, radio interference, and corona
problems all make large conductor diameters desirable, the all-
Paper 68 C 57-PWR, recommended and approved by the Trans-
mission and Distribution Committee of the IEEE Power Group
for presentation at the 1968 EHV Transmission Conference, Mon-
treal, P.Q., Canada, September 30-October 2. Manuscript submitted
May 20, 1968; made available for printing December 17, 1968.
This work was suLpported in part by the Aluminium Laboratories
Ltd., and in part by the National Research Council of Canada.
The author is with the Department of Electrical Engineering,
McGill University, Montreal, P. Q., Canada.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de la Frontera. Downloaded on July 03,2020 at 00:49:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
PAs-88, NO. 5, MAY 1969 731
the analysis is still limited by the simplifying assumptions made,
but it is definitely an improvement over the existing theories.
Popkov's analysis, although starting from apparently the same set
of assumptions, introduces several other simplifications, which are
not necessary from a mathematical point of view, in calculating
the current distribution on the electrodes. One of the reasons why
Popkov's simplifications do not give rise to large errors in the
calculation of corona currents is apparently due to the compensating
nature of the errors in the calculation of charge and electric field
distributions [7]. Agreement of Popkov's theory with experimental
results does not, therefore, completely justify its theoretical validity.
Finally, the authors' approach to include the effect of conductor
surface irregularities in the calculation of corona losses is not based
on a simple substitution of mE0 as was done by Popkov. The actual
basis for the introduction of the factor m is described in the authors'
reply to the discussion of Dr. Simpson and Mr. Morse.
REFERENCES
[23] J. B. Whitehead, "High voltage corona," in International
Critical Tables. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1929.
IEEE
aluminum designs may show economic advantages over the
more conventional steel-cored conductors [1]. At present, there
exist few standards for large-diameter conductors, and most
large conductors are in fact designed to satisfy the requirements
of specific projects. However, for operation at 60 Hz, strandings
are prescribed for conductors up to a 1.75-inch diameter by a
Canadian standard [2], while British standards cover the smaller
sizes of both aluminum and alloy conductors intended for 50-Hz
service [3], [4].
The conductor power loss, the operating temperature, and,
ultimately, the economic choice of the conductor, are signifi-
cantly influenced by the conductor resistance, and it is therefore
important for the designer to have a reasonably good assessment
of the actual resistance at the operating frequency. The resistance
rise due to skin effect is generally considered negligible in con-
ductors up to about 1 cm in diameter, while for conductors of
about 2-cm diameter sufficient accuracy is usually obtained by
assuming that the resistance is equal to that of a solid cylinder
of the same diameter and dc resistance. For large conductors,
especially where mixed aluminum and alloy strandings are em-
ployed, better methods of resistance calculation are required.
The nonuniform current distribution in the conductor may
occasionally also have an effect on the line reactance, making it
desirable to take account of its influence [51.
The present paper furnishes a method of computing the actual
ac resistance and reactance of nonmagnetic stranded conductors,