Compact HVDC 320 kV lines proposed for the Nelson River Bipole 3:

Consideration of the dimensions of the shield conductors, and initial review of

the overall corona and field effects



Compiled by:
AC Britten, Pr Eng
2/21/2014


Mobile: +27-72-204-6086
Landline: +27-11-706-4542
Email: [email protected]




Compiled for:
Mr DA Woodford, CEO of the Electranix Corporation of Winnipeg, Canada





EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COMPACT AND CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURES:
The results of an initial study of the corona and field effects produced by the proposed compact 320 kV
HVDC line carrying two symmetrical monopolar circuits are presented. The results are compared with those
produced by the conventional bipolar configuration being proposed for Bipole 3. The effects of unbalanced
supply voltages on the corona performance of the compact line are quantified. How the optimum diameter of
the shield conductor is determined is explained. It is concluded that the compact line offers acceptable corona
performance from both engineering and environmental considerations, and also better performance than
predicted for Bipole 3. It is pointed out that the contingent question of the susceptibility of the compact design
to anomalous flashovers is still unresolved; however, it is speculated that reducing the ion generation may help

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 2 of 28
Classification:
to mitigate this problem. Other aspects, such as those related to the lightning, switching and pollution
withstand levels, have not been evaluated at this stage.




CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
2. TECHNICAL PARAMETERS, APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... 4
3. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 COMPACT STRUCTURE: CONDUCTOR SURFACE GRADIENTS (SHIELD AND POLE
CONDUCTORS)................................................................................................................................................. 5
3.2 COMPACT AND CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURES: AUDIBLE NOISE ........................................................... 8
3.3 COMPACT AND CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURES: RADIO INTERFERENCE 10
3.4 COMPACT AND CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURES: ELECTRIC FIELDS 11
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS .................................................................................................................................... 14
5. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
6. APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
6.1 APPENDIX A1: EXAMPLE OF THE DATA SHEET USED BY THE TLW PROGRAMME ............................. 16
6.2 APPENDIX A2: RAW DATA FOR THE COMPACT LINE STUDIES .............................................................. 20



REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 4 of 28
Classification:
1. INTRODUCTION

In January 2014 the author was requested by Mr DA Woodford, CEO of Electranix Corporation, to
investigate the sizing and position, from a corona and electric field effects point of view, of the two
underhanging shield conductors on the compact 320 kV HVDC structure shown in Figure 1. It is
understood that this structure is being considered for possible implementation in the Nelson River Bipole
3 Expansion Programme, so as to lessen the environmental impact of the scheme [1,2].
Also included in this report are the results of initial comparisons between the corona and field parameters
of the likely conventional 500 kV tower, proposed for use in Bipole 3, and the 320 kV compact
structure. (See Figures 1 and 2.)
2. TECHNICAL PARAMETERS, APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The author was requested to estimate and quantify the following parameters at 320 kV for the compact
tower geometry (Figure 1) and each of two pole conductor bundles, namely, 1x4.475 cm and 2x3.038
cm, with a spacing of 40-45 cm:
Variation of the conductor surface gradients on the pole and shield conductors as a function of
the diameter of the shield conductor.
Audible noise lateral profiles at midspan.
Audible noise and electric field levels at the 30 m lateral midspan positions, where the tower
centre line is the reference position.
Electric field lateral profile, with and without space charge, at midspan.
The author will also offer some comment on the limits of audible noise and electric fields for
consideration by Electranix. The author also decided to include a comparison between the radio
interference characteristics of the compact and conventional structures.
The predictions have been done means of the EPRI TLW 3.0 Programme. The key results are given
mainly in the form of graphs in the body of the report, and relevant raw data in the appendices.
The elements of the compact 320 kV compact structure are shown in Figure 1, as already noted. The
conventional 500 kV structure, which is understood to be the preferred option for Bipole 3, is shown in
Figure 2.
It has been assumed that operation of the system as two ungrounded VSC-fed, balanced monopoles will
imply that ideally the pole-to-ground voltages will be equal in magnitude, but opposite in polarity [3,4,5].
This means that the pole-to-pole voltage used in the studies was 640 kV, with the two pole voltages
being +320 kV and -320 kV with respect to earth and the neutral point of the source. As the author
understands the possible influence of unbalanced pole-to-ground resistive loading, the pole-to-pole
voltage will still be 640 kV, but with the so called common mode voltages being higher on one pole than
on the other; their sum will still be 640 kV [1,2]. The author has, for the purposes of these studies,
assumed voltage unbalance levels of 0 to 25 %.

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 5 of 28
Classification:

Figure 1: Dimensions of the proposed compact HVDC structure [1,2]


Figure 2: Dimensions of the tower being proposed for the Nelson River Bipole 3 [1]

3. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
The results of the studies are summarised below.
COMPACT STRUCTURE: conductor surface gradients (Shield and pole conductors)
All the studies done in this report assume and use phasing which requires the same polarity voltages to
be applied on the same side of the tower. This minimises the conductor surface gradient on the pole
conductor bundle. (See Table 1) It is also shown that the above form of phasing does not minimise the

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 6 of 28
Classification:
surface gradients on the shield conductors; this may be done by applying the procedures illustrated in
Figure 3.
Refer to Figure 1 for the dimensions of the compact tower. The left-hand upper pole conductor is Pole 1,
the left-hand lower, Pole 2, the right-hand upper, Pole 3 and the right-hand lower, Pole 4. Shield
conductor 1 is on the left-hand side of the tower.
Table 1 emphasises the importance of the correct phasing of the pole voltages.

Table 1: Conductor surface gradients for different, but not necessarily realistic, phasing
scenarios and possible contingencies

Mode Pole 1 Pole 2 Pole 3 Pole 4 Shield 1 Shield 2
Phasing + + - - 0 0
Conductor
surface
gradient in
kV/cm
+21.6
This is
the
optimum
phasing
22.2 -21.6 +22.2 -12.2
Diameter of
shield
conductors:
1.5 cm
+12.2
Phasing + - + - 0 0
Gradient
kV/cm
28.0 -31.0 28.0 -31.0 9.6 9.6
- + + - 0 0
Gradient
kV/cm
-31.5 31.1 30.5 -31.1 -7.5 7.5
Phasing + - 0 0 0 0
Gradient
kV/cm
31.0 -29.2 1.3 -0.1 -8.5 -8.5
Phasing 0 + - - 0 0
Gradient
kV/cm
-24.3 34.7 -15.4 -18.6 -3.5 16.3
Phasing + 0 0 - 0 0
Gradient
kV/cm
24.8 -4.4 3.2 -26.6 -1.3 10.9


REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 7 of 28
Classification:
It can be clearly seen that the +-+- phasing would cause unacceptably high conductor surface gradients
on the pole conductors. This would probably increase the risk of anomalous flashovers, in the opinion of
the author.

.
Figure 3: Surface gradients on the shield conductors, for two different conductor bundle sizes
The data in figure 3 suggests that the diameter of the shield conductor should be at least 1.5 cm; this is
to limit the gradient to about 12 kV/cm, and is a value derived from the authors experience on the
Cahora Bassa scheme [3].
Figure 3 also demonstrates that the larger the effective coupling area of the pole conductor bundle, the
higher will be the surface gradient on the shield conductor. This helps to improve ones insight into
coupling mechanisms on a dc line.

Figure 4: Same as Figure 3, but shows more detail
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
r

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

g
a
r
d
i
e
n
t

i
n

k
V
/
c
m

Diameter of shield conductor in cm
Variation of surface gradient on shield conductors with their
diameter for the balanced voltage case
Surface gradient on
SHIELD conductor,
2x3.04 cm case
Surface gradient on
SHIELD conductor,
1x4.43 cm case
SHIELD conductor
surface gradient: limit
of 12 kV/cm suggested
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
r

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

i
n

k
V
/
c
m

Diameter of shield conductor in cm
COMPACT STRUCTURE: variation of the SHIELD
and POLE conductor surface gradients with
diameter of the shield conductor
Negative conductor
surface gradient on
SHIELD conductor
Positive conductor
surface gradient on
SHIELD conductor
Positive conductor
surface gradient on
POLE conductor

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 8 of 28
Classification:
In Figure 4, the point is made that the surface gradient on the pole conductors is insensitive to changes
in the diameter of the shield conductor. This is not the case when voltage unbalance is present, as can
be deduced from Figure 5.


Figure 5: Influence of voltage unbalance on shield and pole conductor surface gradients
COMPACT AND CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURES: Audible Noise
Audible noise levels are expressed here in terms of Ldn which is essentially a 24-hour weighted average
sound pressure level [6,7,8]. The weighting refers not only to the well-known frequency or A weighting,
but also weighting which depends on the time of day. What this means is that between 21h00 and 07h00,
10 dB is automatically added to the averaged noise levels measured during this period. The result is that
the 24-hour weighted level is higher than it would have been without weighting. Thus, to meet a given
limit of noise from a dc power line in this case, it would be necessary for the designer to reduce the noise
by an amount equal at least to the difference between the average weighted and unweighted levels. The
unweighted level is often referred to as the equivalent A-weighted level or Laq
.
.
Leq quantifies the energy in a sound pressure signal; mathematically, it is given by the average value in
a time period T of the sum of the squares of the sound pressures.
The measure of power line noise is nowadays more and more being expressed in terms of Ldn. This
metric lends itself to the measurement of DC line noise, because positive polarity DC audible noise is
highest in fair-weather, and drops in rain conditions, unlike audible noise from AC lines, which increases
in foul-weather. This makes the application of the Ldn concept and limits more straight-forward and less
ambiguous for the designer to meet than in the case of AC. Another important point is that Ldn is widely
used in international and national noise regulations.
Another point to note is that the annual statistical spread of the values of Leq, typically the 24-hour
values, depend on the climate in a given area. Techniques have been developed for deriving the
resultant value of Ldn from a large number of Leq values [9].
The above text helps to explain why the author has concentrated on the Ldn metric for expressing noise,
from DC lines in particular.

-40
-20
0
20
40
0 5 10 15 20 25
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
r

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t

i
n

k
V
/
c
m

Voltage unbalance in %
COMPACT STRUCTURE : variation of pole and
shield conductor surface gradients with voltage
unbalance
Positive pole conductor
Positive shield
conductor
Negative shield
conductor
Negative pole

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 9 of 28
Classification:

Figure 6: Audible noise, expressed in Ldn, from the compact and conventional DC lines
If a limit of Ldn = 50 dBA at the edge of the right of way were to be applied to the data in Figure 6, it can
be seen that the two lower curves comply easily. The curve for the single conductor bundle compact line
(where the left-hand portion is generated by positive corona) just complies. It can be deduced that the
compact design does not constitute an audible noise problem under conditions of balanced supply
voltage. The data in Figure 7 (for the one conductor bundle) shows, however, that a sustained positive
voltage unbalance of a few percent, will cause the 50 dBA limit to be exceeded.
Audible noise will to some extent be a constraining factor in the application of the compact design, if
voltage unbalance does indeed occur. (Note that the conventional design does of course not experience
voltage unbalance.)

Figure 7: Variation of the audible noise levels at the 30 m positions, with voltage unbalance

3.3 COMPACT AND CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURES: Radio interference

30
40
50
60
-50 -40-30-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
A
u
d
i
b
l
e

n
o
i
s
e

L
d
n

i
n

d
B
A

Lateral distance from c/l of line in m
Comparison between the audible noise
levels for the compact and conventional
lines
Conventional Bipole
3 design
Compact, 2x3.04 cm
conductor
compact, 1x4.44 cm
conductor
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0 5 10 15 20 25
A
u
d
i
b
l
e

n
o
i
s
e

l
e
v
e
l

L
d
n

i
n

d
B
A

Voltage unbalance in %
AUDIBLE NOISE Ldn AS A FUNCTION OF VOLTAGE
UNBALANCE
Increasing positive
voltage
Decreasing positive
voltage

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 10 of 28
Classification:

Figure 8: radio interference profiles in heavy rain conditions
The comparison between the radio noise profiles for the compact HVDC and the Bipole 3 designs shows
(Figure 8) that the compact line out-performs the conventional design by a considerable margin. If power
line carrier were to be used, the noise performance of the compact line, being superior to that of the
conventional design, would make the power line carrier system easier to engineer.
3.4 COMPACT AND CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURES: Electric Fields
The author has been informed that the main concern as regards electric fields is the question of the
degree to which such fields can be perceived by persons, become annoying or become dangerous.
These aspects have been studied for both the compact line and the conventional tower designs. Unlike
the case for audible noise, the important limit to be complied with is the maximum field, and not just the
field at the edge of the right of way.
The response of humans to electric fields varies, on average, as shown in the Table 2 below.
Table 2: Subjective assessments of the electrostatic and space charge enhanced electric fields
[7,8,9,10]
Typical Voltage kV Electric Field
kV/m
Result Reaction
+400 +22 Very slight
sensation on
scalp.
Aware of field

+500 +27 Hair stimulation,
slight feeling on
ears and hair.
Moderate
nuisance

+600 +32 Strong tingling
sensation on
scalp.
Disturbing
nuisance
+750 +40 Sensation on face
and legs.
Very disturbing to
painful

20
30
40
50
60
70
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
R
a
d
i
o

i
n
t
e
r
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

d
B

(
1

V
/
m
)

@

0
.
5

M
h
z

midspan lateral position m
Variation of radio noise in heavy rain
midspan lateral profiles for average conductor
heights
Compact design
Bipole 3

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 11 of 28
Classification:

Figure 9: Electrostatic field profiles for the basic compact and conventional line designs at the
midspan positions, with the conductor heights 4.7 and 8.80 m
According to the criteria given in Table 2, the above fields would not be perceptible.
The electric field limit of 25 kV/m, in the electrostatic case, would be possible to meet without difficulty.


Figure 10: Comparisons between the space charge enhanced fields (10 % probability of
occurrence)
From Figure 10, it appears that the ground level fields produced by the compact line would just be
perceptible to the average person. Conversely, the maximum fields generated by the conventional design
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

f
i
e
l
d

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

i
n

k
V
/
m

Lateral distance at midspan in m
Electrostatic electric field profiles
Compact design, 2x3.04
cm conductors
Compact design, 1 x 4.44
conductor
Nelson River bipole 3
-70
-50
-30
-10
10
30
50
70
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

f
i
e
l
d

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

i
n

k
V
/
m

Lateral midspan position in m
Prospective maximum electric field profiles
with space charge
Nelson River,
prospective
maximum levels
Compact,
prospective
maximum 1x 4.44
cms conductors
Compact, 2x3.05
cm curve
superimposed on
that of the 1x4.44
cm case

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 12 of 28
Classification:
will be very disturbing to painful. This could be an important point in favour of the use of the compact
structure.

Figure 11: Maximum ground level electric field in ROW, for the compact design, with voltage
unbalance the variable


Figure 12: Ion current density profiles for the two tower configurations, for rated voltage
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
0 5 10 15 20 25
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

f
i
e
l
d

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

i
n

k
V
/
m

Voltage unbalance in %
COMPACT STRUCTURE: Variation of maximum electric field with
voltage unbalance
Positive electric field
negative electric field
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
i
o
n

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

i
n

n
A
/
m
2

Lateral midspan position in m
Ion current density profiles at rated balanced
voltage
Compact line, ion
current density in
nA/m2
Bipole 3, ion current
density, nA/m2

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 13 of 28
Classification:

Figure 13 Ion concentrations for 25% unbalance, for the compact and (balanced) conventional
lines

The results contained in Figures 12 and 13 show, or suggest that, the ion concentrations under the
positive and negative poles of the compact will be quasibalanced.


Figure 14: maximum ion concentrations which have a 1% probability of being exceeded in a cold
North American climate

It is observed in Figure 13 that the peak ion concentrations near the conventional structure for Bipole 3
are about twice those applicable to the compact designs. Figure 14 shows the profile for the existing
Bipole 2 line geometry; it is clear that the peak ion concentrations under these lines, in transverse wind
conditions, are substantially higher than the values predicted for Bipole 3. The high ion concentration
-250000
-200000
-150000
-100000
-50000
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
I
o
n

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

i
o
n
s
/
c
m
3

Lateral midspan position m
Ion density profiles for bipole 3 and compact design with
voltage unbalance
Bipole 3
Compact line, 25 % voltage
unbalance
Compact line, balanced
voltages
-400000
-300000
-200000
-100000
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
I
o
n

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

i
o
n
s
/
c
m
3


Lateral midspan position m
Ion concentration profiles for compact
line and Bipoles 2 and 3
Existing Bipole 2
Proposed Bipole 3
Compact line

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 14 of 28
Classification:
provides a clue about where to look for factors which could contribute to the high incidence of anomalous
line faults.

The author has looked into this aspect and has found that the ratio of the pole-to-pole spacing to the
minimum conductor height is unusually high in the case of the original Nelson River lines; this fact
combined with the high conductor surface gradient on the these lines, could provide a fruitful and useful
direction for further investigation.
As regards the compact design, the authors assessment at this stage is that such lines will not suffer
from anomalous negative polarity flashovers.
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
What has this preliminary study revealed about the viability of a heavily compacted 320 kV HVDC line
from corona and field effect points of view?
Can such a line be engineered to be compatible with the environment, and yet withstand some elements
the environment?
To what extent will the compact design be affected by the yet unexplained factors which cause
anomalous flashovers of the Nelson River HVDC lines?
How does the corona performance of the compact line compare with that of conventional HVDC bipolar
lines?
These are just a few of the questions which this study has looked into; it is felt that some progress has
been made in providing answers to them.
The author contends that the studies have clearly revealed the following findings:
The surface gradients on the pole and shield conductors can be kept economically to values low enough
to prevent the generation of excessive space charge.
The author speculates that voltage unbalance may occur, but that its extent is still unknown.
In the event of unbalance occurring, special attention may have to be given to the suppression of
abnormal corona; however, this is seen as doable, an aspect that, can be engineered not to be a
problem.
Compared with conventional 500 kV HVDC lines, the compact design gives better corona performance.
This is an encouraging finding, especially in relation to the much lower ion generation by the compact line
design.
The lower conductor surface gradients and reduced ion generation suggest that anomalous flashovers
on the compact lines should not be a problem.
The radio interference studies done on the compact and conventional designs show that the former
design meets acceptable limits of noise.
Overall, the corona and field effect assessments show that the compact design (as given in Figure 1) is
viable from a corona and field effects point of view, provided the voltage unbalance can be kept to below
25 %.


REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 15 of 28
Classification:
5. REFERENCES
1. DA Woodford, Compact high voltage electric power transmission. Electranix Corporation,
Winnipeg, Canada, January 2014.
2. DM Larruskain et al, VSC-HVDC configurations for converting AC distribution lines into DC
lines. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 54 (2014) pp 589-597.
3. AC Britten et al, Extraneous electromagnetic noise in the Cahora Bassa power line carrier
system, Proceedings of 2006 HVDC Congress, University of KwaZulu Natal (Westville
Campus), Durban, South Africa, 14-16 July 2006.
4. MMC Merlin et al, A new multi-level VSC converter with DC fault blocking capability. IET
International Conference on AC/DC transmission, 2010.
5. GP Adam et al, Network fault tolerant Voltage Source Converters for high voltage
applications. Ibid [4].
6. P Sarma Maruvada, Corona performance of high voltage transmission lines. Research
Studies Press LTD, UK, 2000.
7. HVDC Transmission Line reference Book, EPRI TR 102764, September, 1993.
8. Transmission line reference book: HVDC to 600 kV. EPRI Project RP 104, 1977.
9. EPRI AC Transmission line handbook: 200 kV and above, third edition, 2005.
10. Bipole 3 DC EMF Brochure, Manitoba Hydro, October 2009.


REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 16 of 28
Classification:
6. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A1: Example of the data output sheet generated by the TLW programme
COMPACT STRUCTURES:
Limited example of the printout as it relates to the calculation of the conductor surface gradient in a
particular case.
Results of AC/DCLINE program CORONA (EPRI/HVTRC 7-93) for:
-------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE GRADIENTS at AVERAGE LINE HEIGHT
CORONA LOSS
AUDIBLE NOISE

Configuration file name: C:\TLW30\ACDCLINE\DATA\ACCASE1
Date: 3/ 7/2014 Time: 13: 3


CASE1 compact dc with single conductor

**************************************************************************
* BUNDLE INFORMATION *
**************************************************************************
| | | VOLTAGE | CURRENT | # | BUNDLE COORDINATES | |
|BNDL|CIRC|VOLTAGE|ANGLE| LOAD |ANGLE| OF | X | Y | SAG | PH |
| # | # | (kV) |(DEG)| (A) |(DEG)|COND| (m) | (m) | (m) | |
**************************************************************************
| 1 | 1 | 320.0| 0.| 1000.| 0.| 1 | -3.65| 11.70| .00| + | POSITIVE POLE
| 2 | 1 | 320.0| 0.| 1000.| 0.| 1 | -3.65| 8.00| .00| + | POSITIVE POLE
| 3 | 1 | -320.0| 0.| 1000.| 0.| 1 | 3.65| 11.70| .00| - NEGATIVE POLE
| 4 | 1 | -320.0| 0.| 1000.| 0.| 1 | 3.65| 8.00| .00| - NEGATIVE POLE |
| 5 | 1 | . 0| 0.| 0.| 0.| 1 | -3.65| 4.70| .00| GND | SHIELD CONDUCTOR
| 6 | 1 | .0| 0.| 0.| 0.| 1 | 3.65| 4.70| .00| GND | SHIELD CONDUCTOR
**************************************************************************
* MINIMUM GROUND CLEARANCE = 4.70 meter *
* SOIL RESISTIVITY = 100 ohm meter *
* ALTITUDE ABOVE SEA LEVEL = 0 meter

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 17 of 28
Classification:
*************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************
* SUBCONDUCTOR INFORMATION - REGULAR BUNDLES *
*****************************************************************************
|BNDL | CONDUCTOR | DIAMETER | SPACING | DC RESIST | AC RESIST | AC REACT |
| # | NAME | (cm) | (cm) | (ohm/km) | (ohm/km) | (ohm/km) |
*****************************************************************************
| 1 |unnamed | 4.440 | .000
2 |unnamed | 4.440 | .000 |
3 |unnamed | 4.440 | .000 |
| 4 |unnamed | 4.440 | .000 |
| 5 |unnamed | 1.500 | .000 |
| 6 |unnamed | 1.500 | . 000 |
****************************************************************************
Results of AC/DCLINE program CORONA (EPRI/HVTRC 7-93) for:
-------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE GRADIENTS at AVERAGE LINE HEIGHT
CORONA LOSS
AUDIBLE NOISE

Configuration file name: C:\TLW30\ACDCLINE\DATA\ACCASE1
Date: 3/ 7/2014 Time: 13: 3


CASE1 compact dc with single conductor

**************************************************************************
* BUNDLE INFORMATION *
**************************************************************************
| | | VOLTAGE | CURRENT | # | BUNDLE COORDINATES | |
|BNDL|CIRC|VOLTAGE|ANGLE| LOAD |ANGLE| OF | X | Y | SAG | PH |
| # | # | (kV) |(DEG)| (A) |(DEG)|COND| (m) | (m) | (m) | |
**************************************************************************

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 18 of 28
Classification:
| 1 | 1 | 320.0| 0.| 1000.| 0.| 1 | -3.65| 11.70| .00| + |
| 2 | 1 | 320.0| 0.| 1000.| 0.| 1 | -3.65| 8.00| .00| + |
| 3 | 1 | -320.0| 0.| 1000.| 0.| 1 | 3.65| 11.70| .00| - |
| 4 | 1 | -320.0| 0.| 1000.| 0.| 1 | 3.65| 8.00| .00| - |
| 5 | 1 | .0| 0.| 0.| 0.| 1 | -3.65| 4.70| .00| GND |
| 6 | 1 | .0| 0.| 0.| 0.| 1 | 3.65| 4.70| .00| GND |
**************************************************************************
* MINIMUM GROUND CLEARANCE = 4.70 meter *
* POWER SYSTEM FREQUENCY = 60. Hz *
* SOIL RESISTIVITY = 100. ohm meter *
**************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************
* SUBCONDUCTOR INFORMATION - REGULAR BUNDLES *
*****************************************************************************
|BNDL | CONDUCTOR | DIAMETER | SPACING | DC RESIST | AC RESIST | AC REACT |
| # | NAME | (cm) | (cm) | (ohm/km) | (ohm/km) | (ohm/km) |
*****************************************************************************
| 1 |DRAKE | 4.440 | .000 | .0720 | .0730 | .2480 |
| 2 |DRAKE | 4.440 | .000 | .0720 | .0730 | .2480 |
| 3 |DRAKE | 4.440 | .000 | .0720 | .0730 | .2480 |
| 4 |DRAKE | 4.440 | .000 | .0720 | .0730 | .2480 |
| 5 |DRAKE | 1.500 | .000 | .0720 | .0730 | .2480 |
| 6 |DRAKE | 1.500 | .000 | .0720 | .0730 | .2480 |
*****************************************************************************


REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 19 of 28
Classification:

* *
* MAXIMUM SURFACE GRADIENT (kV/cm) *
* *
************************************

BNDL Type DC PEAK(+) PEAK(-)
------ --------- ------ ------- -------
1 DC 22.34 22.34 22.34
2 DC 22.88 22.88 22.88
3 DC -22.34 -22.34 -22.34
4 DC -22.88 -22.88 -22.88
5 Ground Wire -10.35 -10.35 -10.35
6 Ground Wire 10.35 10.35 10.35






REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 20 of 28
Classification:
APPENDIX A2: RAW DATA FOR THE COMPACT LINE STUDIES
Diameter of the shield conductor (Case 1: 1x4.44 cm pole conductor bundle)
Diameter
of
SHIELD
WIRE
(cm)
Conductor
surface
gradient on
SHIELD
WIRE
kV/cm, E5
Conductor
surface
gradient on
SHIELD WIRE
kV/cm, E6
Conductor
surface gradient
on Pos POLE
kV/cm

Conductor
surface gradient
on Neg POLE,
kV/cm

0.50 -26.58 +26.58 +22.32 -22.32
0.75 -18.71 +18.71 +22.33 -22.33
1.00 -14.62 +14.62 +22.33 -22.33
1.25 -12.08 +12.08 +22.33 -22.33
1.50 -10.25 +10.25 +22.34 -22.34
1.75 -9.08 +9.08 +22.34 -22.34
2.00 -8.12 +8.12 +22.34 -22.34
2.25 -7.35 +7.35 +22.35 -22.35
2.50 -6.75 +6.75 +22.35 -22.35

CASE 2: 2x3.038 cm
Diameter
of
SHIELD
WIRE
(cm)
Conductor
surface
gradient on
SHIELD
WIRE
kV/cm
Conductor
surface
gradient on
SHIELD WIRE
kV/cm
Conductor
surface gradient
on Pos POLE
kV/cm

Conductor
surface gradient
on Neg POLE,
kV/cm

0.50 -31.34 +31.34 +21.56 -21.56
0.75 -22.07 +22.07 +21.57 -21.57
1.00 -17.24 +17.24 +21.57 -21.57
1.25 -15.34 +15.34 +22.33 -22.33
1.50 -12.90 +12.90 +22.21 -22.21
1.75 -11.11 +11.11 +22.34 -22.34
2.00 -10.13 +10.13 +22.34 -22.34
2.25 -9.18 +9.18 +22.35 -22.35
2.50 -8.41 +8.41 +22.35 -22.35



REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 21 of 28
Classification:
AUDIBLE NOISE
Audible noise case 1: 1x4.43 cm; lateral profile at midspan
Lateral
Distance
m
L50 FAIR
dBA
L5 RAIN
dBA
L50 RAIN
dBA
Leq (24)
dBA
Ldn
dBA
-50 38.9 32.9 32.9 38.9 45.2
-45 39.5 33.5 33.5 39.5 45.7
-40 40.1 34.1 34.1 40.1 46.4
-35 40.9 34.8 34.8 40.8 47.1
-30 41.7 35.6 35.6 41.6 47.9
-25 42.6 36.5 36.5 42.5 48.8
-20 43.6 37.6 37.6 43.6 49.9
-15 44.9 38.9 38.9 44.9 51.2
-10 46.4 40.2 40.2 46.2 52.7
-5 47.7 41.7 41.7 47.7 53.9
0 47.2 41.2 41.2 47.2 53.5
5 45,7 39.7 39.7 45.7 52.0
10 44.3 38.3 38.3 44.3 50.5
15 43.1 37.1 37.1 43.1 49.4
20 42.5 36.1 36.1 42.1 48.4
25 41.3 35.2 35.2 41.2 47.5
30 40.5 34.5 34.5 0.5 46.7
35 39.8 33.8 33.8 39.8 46.1
40 39.2 33.2 33.2 39.2 45.5
45 38.7 32.7 32.7 38.7 44.9
50 38.2 32.2 32.2 38.1 44.4


Audible noise case 2: 2x3.04 cm; lateral profile at midspan

Lateral
Distance m
L50 FAIR
dBA
L5 RAIN
dBA
L50 RAIN
dBA
Leq (24)
dBA
Ldn
dBA
-50 34.3 28.3 28.3 34.2 40.5

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 22 of 28
Classification:
-45 34.8 28.8 28.8 34.8 41.1
-40 35.5 29.5 29.5 35.4 41.7
-35 36.2 30.2 30.2 36.1 42.4
-30 37.0 31.0 31.0 36.9 43.2
-25 37.9 31.9 31.9 37.9 44.1
-20 39.0 33.0 33.0 38.9 45.2
-15 40.3 34.3 34.3 40.2 46.5
-10 41.8 35.8 35.8 41.8 48.0
-5 43.1 37.1 37.1 43.0 49.3
0 42.6 36.6 36.6 42.6 48.8
5 41.1 35.1 35.1 41.0 47.3
10 39.7 33.7 33.7 39.6 45.9
15 38.5 32.5 32.5 38.4 44.7
20 37.5 31.5 31.5 37.4 43.7
25 36.6 30.6 30.6 36.6 42.8
30 35.8 29.8 29.8 35.8 42.1
35 35.2 29.2 29.2 35.1 41.4
40 34.7 28.6 28.6 34.5 40.8
45 34.0 28.0 28.0 34.0 40.2
50 33.5 27.5 27.5 33.5 39.7

Nelson River bipole 3: audible noise
Lateral
Distance
m
L50 FAIR
dBA
L5 RAIN
dBA
L50 RAIN
dBA
Leq (24)
dBA
Ldn
dBA
-50 34.4 28.4 28.4 34.3 40.6
-45 35.0 29.0 29.0 35.0 41.2
-40 35.7 29.7 29.7 35.6 41.9
-35 36.4 30.4 30.4 36.4 42.7
-30 37.3 31.3 31.3 37.3 43.5
-25 38.3 32.3 32.3 38.3 44.5
-20 39.5 33.5 33.5 39.5 45.7
-15 40.8 34.8 34.8 40.7 47.0

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 23 of 28
Classification:
-10 41.8 35.7 35.7 41.8 48.0
-5 41.7 35.7 35.7 41.7 47.9
0 0 34.6 34.6 46.9 46.9
5 39.4 33.4 33.4 39.3 45.6
10 38.2 32.2 32.2 38.2 44.4
15 37.2 31.2 31.2 37.2 43.4
20 36.4 30.4 30.4 36.3 42.6
25 35.6 29.6 29.6 35.6 41.8
30 34.9 28.9 28.9 34.9 41.1
35 34.3 28.3 28.3 34.8 40.5
40 33.8 27.8 27.8 33.7 40.0
45 33.2 27.2 27.2 33.2 39.5
50 32.8 26.8 26.8 32.7 39.0

ELELCTRIC FIELD STUDIES
1x4.44 cm conductor, balanced voltage
Lateral
Distance
m
DC
ELECTROST
ATIC FIELD
Em
kV/m
MAXIMUM
FAIR
WEATHER
FIELD WITH
SPACE
CHARGE
kV/m
ELECTRIC
FIELD L50 IN
RAIN kV/m
Ion current
density
nA/m2
Ion
density
Ions/cm
3

/-50 0.21 2.32 1.5 0.1 2984
-45 0.28 2.78 1.8 0.2 3947
-40 0.39 3.37 2.2 0.3 5335
-35 0.55 4.17 2.8 0.6 7436
-30 0.84 5.23 3.6 1.0 10676
-25 1.33 6.80 4.7 2.0 16122
-20 2.23 9.04 6.5 4.2 25270
-15 3.93 12.49 9.3 8.1 35135
-10 6.68 20.13 15.0 28.7 77585
-5 7.08 21.93 16.3 52.0 128802
0 0 0.03 0 0 0
5 -7.08 -21.93 -16.3 -67 -128802

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 24 of 28
Classification:
10 -6.68 -20.13 -15.0 -37.5 -77585
15 -3.93 -12.49 -9.3 -10.5 -35136
20 -2.23 -9.04 -6.5 -5.5 -25270
25 -1.33 -6.80 -4.7 -2.6 -16122
30 -0.84 -5.23 -3.6 -1.3 -10676
35 -0.55 -4.17 -2.8 -0.7 -7436
40 -0.39 -3.37 -2.2 -0.4 -5335
45 -0.28 -2.78 -1.8 -0.3 -3947
50 -0.21 -2.32 -1.5 -0.2 -2984

2x3.04 cm conductor
Lateral
Distance
m
DC
ELECTROST
ATIC FIELD
Em
kV/m
MAXIMUM
FAIR
WEATHER
FIELD WITH
SPACE
CHARGE
kV/m
ELECTRIC
FIELD L50 IN
RAIN kV/m
Ion
current
Density
nA/m2
Ion
density
Ions/cm
3

-50 0.26 2.32 1.5 0.1 2984
-45 0.34 2.78 1.8 0.2 3947
-40 0.48 2.37 2.2 0.3 5335
-35 0.69 4.17 2.8 0.6 7436
-30 1.04 5.23 3.6 1.0 10676
-25 1.65 6.80 4.8 2.0 16122
-20 2.77 9.03 6.6 4.2 25270
-15 4.88 12.50 9.5 8.1 34941
-10 8.29 20.1 15.5 28.4 76753
-5 8.71 21.41 16.5 49.7 125035
0 0.0 -0.03 0 0 0
5 -8.71 -21.41 -16.5 -64 -125035
10 -8.29 -20.01 -15.5 -37 -76753
15 -4.88 -12.5 -9.5 -10 -34941
20 -2.77 -9.03 -6.6 -5.5 -25270
25 -1.65 -6.80 -4.8 -2.6 -16122
30 -1.04 -5.23 -3.6 -1.3 -10676

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 25 of 28
Classification:
35 -0.69 -4.17 -2.8 -0.7 -7436
40 -0.48 -3.37 -2.2 -0.4 -5335
45 -0.34 -2.78 -1.8 -0.3 -3947
50 -0.26 -2.32 -1.5 -0.2 --2984

Bipole 3: Electric field and ion concentrations for a bipolar voltage of 500 kV
Lateral
Distance
m
DC
ELECTRO
STATIC
FIELD Em
kV/m
MAXIMUM
FAIR
WEATHER
FIELD WITH
SPACE
CHARGE
kV/m
ELECTRIC
FIELD L50
IN RAIN
kV/m
Ion current
density
nA/m
2

Ion density
Ions/cm
3

-50 0.57 6.73 4.2 0.8 6781
-45 0.77 8.06 5.1 1.3 9004
-40 1.08 9.98 6.4 2.3 12522
-35 1.57 12.53 8.1 4.2 17932
-30 2.38 16.31 10.7 8.2 27121
-25 3.81 21.95 14.6 17.7 43526
-20 6.39 30.92 21.0 43.1 75296
-15 10.63 43.65 30.3 107.9 133608
-10 14.6 54.93 38.6 209.1 206335
-5 11.07 46.37 32.1 176.7 207481
0 0.00 0.05 0.00 -1.2 -12
5 -11.14 -46.37 -32.2 -232.1 -207481
10 -14.56 -54.87 -38.6 -272 -206335
15 -10.52 -43.32 -30.3 -139 -133608
20 -4.82 -23.76 -21.0 -55.8 -75296
25 -3.73 -21.44 -14.6 -22.9 -43526
30 -2.36 -16.14 -10.7 -10.6 -27121
35 -1.55 -12.46 -8.1 -5.4 -17932
40 -1.07 -9.93 -6.4 -3.0 -12522
45 -0.76 -8.03 -5.1 -1.7 -9004
50 -0.57 -6.71 -4.2 -1.1 -6781


REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 26 of 28
Classification:
VOLTAGE UNBALANCE
Influence of the common mode voltage unbalance on the conductor surface gradients,
ground level electric field and audible noise (1x4.44 cm conductor)
VOLTAGE
UNBALANCE
%
POLE
VOLTAGES
kV
ES1,2
kV/cm
EP
kV/cm
EMAX
kV/m
Ldn
dBA @ 30
m (ROW)
0 (NORMAL) +320
-320
-10.4
+10.3
+22.3
+22.9
21.9 46.7
47.9
5 +336
-304
+304
-336
-9.4
+11.3
+9.4
-11.3
-23.1
-24.3
+23.1
+24.3

-25.6

+23.7
44.9
46.0
48.5
49.7
6 +339
-301
+301
-339
-11.5
+9.2
-9.2
+11.5
+23.9
-21.9
-23.9
+21.9
+24.1

-4.1

48.8
50.0
45.7
44.6
8 +347
-294
+294
-347
+8.7
-12.0
-8.7
+12.0
+24.3
-21.6
-21.6
-24.3
-25.0

25.0
49.7
50.9
43.8
44.9
10


+352
+288
+352
-288
-8.4
+12.3
+8.4
-12.3

+24.27
21.57
+23.7
+24.5
-25.4

+25.6

44.2

51.4


15

+368
-272
+272
-368
+7.3
-13.3
-7.4
+13.3
+25.3
-20.4
+20.3
-25.3
+27.8

-27.8
53.0
51.9
42.2
41.1
20 +384
-256
+256
-384

-14.30
+6.37
-6.37
+14.32
+26.2
-19.6
+19.6
-26.2
+29.7

-29.7


53.5
54.7
39.0
40.2

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 27 of 28
Classification:
25 +400
-240
+240
-400
-15.3
+5.4
-5.4
+15.3

+27.0
-18.9
+18.9
-27.0


+31.6

-31.6

55.1
56.2
37.1
38.1


Influence of the common mode voltage unbalance on the conductor surface gradients,
ground level electric field and audible noise (2x3.04 cm conductors)

VOLTAGE
UNBALANCE
%
POLE
VOLTAGES
kV
ES1,2
kV/cm
EP
kV/cm
EMAX
kV/m
Ldn
dBA @ 30
m (ROW)
0 (NORMAL) +320
-320
-10.4
+10.3
+22.3
+22.9
21.9 46.7
47.9
5 +336
-304
+304
-336
-9.4
+11.3
+9.4
-11.3
-23.1
-24.3
+23.1
+24.3

-25.6

+23.7
44.9
46.0
48.5
49.7
6 +339
-301
+301
-339
-11.5
+9.2
-9.2
+11.5
+23.9
-21.9
-23.9
+21.9
+24.1

-24.1

48.8
50.0
45.7
44.6
8 +347
-294
+294
-347
+8.7
-12.0
-8.7
+12.0
+24.3
-21.6
-21.6
-24.3
-25.0

25.0
49.7
50.9
43.8
44.9
10


+352
+288
+352
-288
-8.4
+12.3
+8.4
-12.3

+24.2
+21.5
+23.7
+24.5
-25.4

+25.6

44.2

51.4


15

+368
-272
+272
+7.3
-13.3
-7.4
+25.3
-20.4
+20.3
+27.8

-27.8
53.0
51.9
42.2

REPORT NUMBER: ACB/1/14

Confidential
Revision: 1
Page: 28 of 28
Classification:
-368 +13.3 -25.3 41.1
20 +384
-256
+256
-384

-14.30
+6.37
-6.37
+14.32
+26.2
-19.6
+19.6
-26.2
+29.7

-29.7


53.5
54.7
39.0
40.2
25 +400
-240
+240
-400
-15.3
+5.4
-5.4
+15.3

+27.0
-18.9
+18.9
-27.0


+31.6

-31.6

55.1
56.2
37.1
38.1