IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution

Research Article

Improved calculation model for swing angle ISSN 1751-8687

Received on 7th June 2017
Accepted on 7th June 2017
of suspension insulator string E-First on 2nd August 2017
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2017.0904
www.ietdl.org

Ruixu Zhou1 , Wensheng Gao1, Dongbo Zhao2

1Department of Electrical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, People's Republic of China
2Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL 60439, USA
E-mail: Ruixuzhou_tsinghua@yeah.net

Abstract: In modern power systems, increasing faults of overhead transmission lines are caused by wind swing discharge
especially in weather-sensitive regions such as coastal hurricane-prone areas. Since the vast majority of wind swing discharge
accidents occur at the working voltage and existing models established for the suspension insulator wind swing discharge are
not adequate to analyse all cases, an improved model under wind with arbitrary directions is proposed in this paper.
Comprehensive factors are taken into consideration including exposure factor of wind pressure under different landforms and
different elevations, wind pressure asymmetric factor, iced conductors, the coupling effect of conductors to insulators, the
shielding wake flow effect of bundled conductor, the fluctuating wind amplification effect, mechanical oscillating of insulators, etc.
IEEE model and design manual model are chosen as comparisons with the simulation results of ANSYS. Test results show that
the improved model proposed in this paper coincides with ANSYS results better than the other two models almost in all the
working conditions considering different spans and altitude differences. The results demonstrate that the improved model can
make contribution to the economical and reasonable design of towers as well as early warning of wind swing discharge of
suspension insulators.

1 Introduction number of trip out accidents of high-voltage and ultra-high-voltage

Overhead transmission system consists of tower, transmission line,
insulator, wire hardware, tower foundation, grounding devices and
associated sensors and so on. Directly exposed to the atmosphere,
overhead transmission system is seriously influenced by
meteorological factors, especially typhoon or hurricane. The
common behaviours and faults of overhead transmission system
are related to transmission line vibration caused by strong wind, the
galloping behaviour of iced transmission line, tower collapse, wind
swing discharge of conductor or jumper to tower and so on. With
the speed development of computer mechanics theory, high-voltage
technique and related application software, many scholars have
made a variety of research work in fields mentioned above. For
example, the response of stranded cables to exciting forces
produced by wind is studied and details of an analytical and
experimental study of self-damping cable are presented in [1];
cables with different characteristics are simulated and tested at
transverse wind incidence, the results of which confirm the
importance of turbulence in the dynamic response and demonstrate
that the aerodynamic damping plays an important role in the
dynamic behaviour of the cables [2]. Gupta et al. [3] quantify
potential load leading to different failure possibilities during an ice
storm; Jianwei and Lilien [4] put forward a full multi-span iced
transmission line model with three degrees of freedom, which is
applicable for describing the galloping phenomena of both single
and bundled lines and so on. A rational analytical method for
determining dynamic response of wind-excited large truss towers
installed with friction dampers is presented and the effectiveness of
friction dampers is investigated in [5]; extreme wind statistics are
used to evaluate the clearance requirements in order to perform a
specific tower design in [6]. The emphasis of this paper is to
profoundly research the wind swing discharge of conductor or
jumper to tower.
The insulator is prone to vibrate under the wind load, which
results in the fact that the length of clearance between the
conductor and the tower changes continuously. When the electric
field intensity between the conductor and tower achieves at the
level above air dielectric strength, the conductor will flashover to
the tower. For instance, in China according to the statistics, the
transmission lines caused by wind swing discharge in the
administration area of State Grid Corporation of China are 157, 93,
79 and 174 during the years from 2007 to 2010, respectively [7].
Besides, the vast majority of wind swing discharge accidents occur
at the working voltage, and reclosing devices can barely be
performed successfully which has resulted in the big loss of the
national energy economy.
At present, plenty of research work about wind swing discharge
of conductor or jumper to tower has been carried out globally, the
focus of which can be divided into two aspects: the swing angle
calculation of insulator string and the calculation of minimum air
gap length between the conductor and the tower. The detailed
descriptions of these two aspects are as follows:
(a) With respect to the swing angle calculation of insulator string,
Hileman [8] calculates the swing angle of the insulator string as a
function of wind speed based on curves in [9], which does not take
the dynamic effect of wind load into consideration. Volpe [10]
investigates the relationship between the measured and theoretical
wind loads on transmission conductors and studies the results
associated with the calculation and analysis of the wind adjustment
factor based on the collected data, which ignores the influence of
transient strong wind. The current power industry standards in
many countries especially China [11, 12] widely adopt the rigid rod
method, a kind of simplified calculation methods, which possesses
poor accuracy and the reasons are concluded as follows. First, there
exist problems about choosing wind pressure asymmetric factor in
current standards. A variety of calculation methods of wind
pressure asymmetric factor put forward in many literatures and
standards do not comprehensively take wind speed and span into
consideration. Besides, the span reduction factor presented in some
literatures has the same definition with wind pressure asymmetric
factor, which is only the function of span [13, 14]. In the design of
overhead transmission lines in China, the regulation about wind
pressure asymmetric factor has been used for more than 20 years,
in which the wind pressure asymmetric factor is set to 0.61
uniformly in the calculation of swing angle with the design wind
speed >20 m/s. However, flashover accidents took place frequently
in the high-voltage transmission lines designed by this regulation.

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 14, pp. 3644-3653 3644
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
Fig. 1  Scene pictures of three types of tower
(a) Cat-head tower, (b) Cup-type tower, (c) Strain tower
Second, the rigid rod method ignores many factors, such as the
coupling effect of conductors to insulators, the shielding wake flow
effect of bundled conductor, the fluctuating wind amplification
effect, mechanical oscillating of insulators and so on. In order to
overcome these problems mentioned above, Xiaodong and Gang
[15] put forward the correction scheme about the value of wind
pressure asymmetric factor used in the design regulation of
transmission lines through the comparison and analysis of the
differences among the design regulations of Russia, Japan,
Germany and China. Li et al. [7] adopt the method of finite-
element simulation to revise the rigid rod model considering the
shielding wake flow effect of bundled conductor and the
fluctuating wind amplification effect. Deyi et al. [16] establish the
finite-element coupling model of tower-insulator string-
transmission line and exert spatial correlation fluctuating wind
excitation, by which the corresponding swing angle of insulator
string is obtained. Guiwei et al. [17] analyse the relationship
between the swing angle of insulator string and different
suspension ways of insulator string as well as the wind load of the
whole span conductor. Zhengzhi et al. [18] and Xi et al.[19] obtain
the shape factor of bundled conductor. Bo et al. [20] establish the
insulator string–conductor coupling model as well as the multi-
rigid-rod model of insulator string and perform the time series
analysis of fluctuating wind, which finally elicits the wind load
adjustment coefficient considering dynamic effect. Shengxue et al.
[21] analyse the existing problems in the static force balance
algorithm and put forward a revised method to calculate maximum
swing angle.
(b) With respect to the calculation of minimum air gap length
between the conductor and the tower, Rikh [22] and Clair [23]
utilise the graphic method to give the estimation but this method
possesses insufficient accuracy and is proved to be complicated.
Shengxue et al. [21] establish the Cartesian coordinate system to
simplify the complex process of the previous graphic method. A
rainfall correction coefficient is introduced in the minimum air gap
calculation considering that rainfall can reduce the breakdown
voltage of air gap [24].
The calculation model for swing angle of insulator string will
be researched in detail in this paper. Based on the rigid rod method,
the improved calculation model of swing angle under the wind
with arbitrary direction is established, which takes comprehensive
factors into consideration, such as exposure factor of wind pressure
under different landforms and different elevations, wind pressure
asymmetric factor, iced conductors, the coupling effect of
conductors to insulators, the shielding wake flow effect of bundled
conductor, the fluctuating wind amplification effect, mechanical
oscillating of insulators and so on. This improved model
(hereinafter referred to as Improved Model) is the synthesis and
correction of the existing models. Besides, Improved Model is
compared with IEEE recommended model [25] (hereinafter
referred to as IEEE Model) and the model proposed in ‘design
manual of high voltage transmission lines for electric engineering’
[12] (hereinafter referred to as Design Manual Model) based on the
ANSYS simulation results in [7]. The main contributions of this
paper are as follows:
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 14, pp. 3644-3653
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
i. Related test results show that Improved Model coincides with
ANSYS results better than IEEE Model and Design Manual
Model with obvious advantages almost in all the working
conditions considering different spans and altitude differences.
ii. As is well known, imprecise calculation of swing angle of
suspension insulator string will result in either a small design
size of tower easily causing wind swing discharge or a large
design size of tower causing a high cost. Therefore, Improved
Model put forward in this paper can not only help
economically determine the most appropriate size of
corresponding tower but also reduce the level of probability of
electric outages.
iii. In coastal hurricane-prone areas, Improved Model makes
contributions to the precise early warning of wind swing
discharge during the typhoon, which can make local power
staff economically allocate the resources to take essential
measures, such as the modification of transmission lines with
large probability of wind swing discharge, to guarantee the
power grid security.
The rest of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents
Improved Model. Section 3 provides IEEE Model and Design
Manual Model as well as their comparisons with Improved Model.
Section 4 presents the case study. The conclusions are drawn in
Section 5.
2 Improved Model description
The Improved Model proposed in this paper considers the pros and
cons of the state-of-the-art literatures mentioned above. This paper
integrates the related models in [7, 11, 15, 21, 26, 27] and make
essential corrections, which finally comes to Improved Model with
regard to three common tower types: cat-head tower, cup-type
tower and strain tower. The scene pictures of these three types of
tower are shown in Fig. 1.
The stress analysis diagram and its mechanical equivalent
diagram of insulator string suspended in the cat-head tower or the
cup-type tower are shown in Fig. 2a and those for the strain tower
are shown in Fig. 2b, where Fd, Fj and F0 denote the wind load of
conductor, insulator string and side shoring, respectively; Gd, Gj
and G0 denote the vertical load of conductor, the gravity of
insulator string and the gravity of side shoring; W denotes the
gravity of counterweight; Gf denotes the gravity of damper; φ
denotes the intersection angle of wind speed and horizontal plane;
Θ denotes the swing angle of insulator string. Based on [7, 21, 26,
27], the calculation method of Fd, Fj, F0 and Gd is shown in (1), in
which all the parameters adopt International System of Units in
case of confusion unless otherwise noted
3645
Fig. 2  Stress analysis diagram and its mechanical equivalent diagram of insulator string suspended in three types of tower
(a) Stress analysis diagram and its mechanical equivalent diagram of insulator string suspended in the cat-head or the cup-type tower, (b) Stress analysis diagram and its mechanical
equivalent diagram of insulator string suspended in the strain tower

2
F j = 9.80665A jKhV WD /16 windward area of conductor; W0 denotes the benchmark of wind
Fd = αKh μscSW 0sin θ 2 pressure; ρ denotes the air density, which is 1.25 kg/m3 in this
paper; θ denotes the intersection angle of conductor axis and wind
S = (d + 2b) × lh speed. nhi denotes the number of side shorings; Ahi denotes the
2
W 0 = ρV WD /2 windward area of each side shoring. g1 denotes the self-weight load
2
ratio of conductor; g2 denotes the icing-weight load ratio of
F0 = 9.80665nhi AhiKhV WD /16 conductor; Ad denotes the cross-sectional area of conductor; lv
(1)
h h denotes the vertical span; η denotes the elevation difference
Gd = (g1 + g2) ⋅ Ad ⋅ lv + ηT 0 1 + 2
l1 l2 correction coefficient; T0 denotes the conductor tension; l1/l2
m0 denotes the left/right span of the researched pole; h1/h2 denote the
g1 = 9.80665 × × 10−3 left/right altitude difference of the object tower, each of which is a
Ad
positive number when the adjacent tower suspension point is low
b(b + d)
g2 = 27.708 × × 103 and is a negative number otherwise; m0 denotes the weight of the
Ad
conductor per kilometre
where Aj denotes the total windward area of insulator string, which 0.2400
h
is 0.02 and 0.03 m2 for each piece of single and double skirt KhA = 1.2847 ⋅ (1.09 ≤ KhA ≤ 2.91)
10
insulator, respectively (a hardware part is equal to a piece of 0.3001
h
insulator). Kh denotes the exposure factor of wind pressure; the KhB = 0.9998 ⋅ (1.00 ≤ KhB ≤ 2.91)
surface roughness of the earth is divided into four types denoted as 10
0.4402
(2)
A, B, C and D based on [28]. A refers to coastal surface and h
KhC = 0.5436 ⋅ (0.65 ≤ KhC ≤ 2.91)
offshore island, seacoast, lakeshore and desert area; B refers to 10
field, country, jungle, hill, towns with quite sparse houses; C refers 0.6004
h
to urban areas with dense buildings; D refers to urban areas with KhD = 0.2619 ⋅ (0.51 ≤ KhD ≤ 2.91)
10
dense building and higher houses; KhA, KhB, KhC and KhD denote the
corresponding four kinds of exposure factor of wind pressure, the where h denotes the height from conductor to the ground or sea
calculation methods of which are shown in (2) with regard to flat level
or slightly undulating terrain. Besides, for mountainous areas, the
topographic correction coefficient should be considered and one V WD > 20 m/s, α = 0.50 + 60/lh(0.60 ≤ α ≤ 0.90)
can refer to [28] for more details. VWD denotes the wind speed in
V WD ≤ 10 m/s, α = 1
the tower location at 10 m altitude. α denotes the wind pressure
asymmetric factor, the calculation method of which is shown in (3) V WD = 15 m/s, α = 0.85
based on [15]; lh denotes the horizontal span; b denotes icing (3)
V WD = 20 m/s, α = 0.75
thickness of the conductor; d denotes the conductor outside
diameter and is the total of outside diameters of all sub-conductors 10 m/s < V WD < 20 m/s,
with regard to bundled conductor; μSC denotes the shape factor of α is determined by the interpolation method
conductor, the value of which is specified in [28]; S denotes the

3646 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 14, pp. 3644-3653
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
 denotes the corner angle of the corner tower; δ1 and δ2 denote the
correction factors of the static force balance method with regard to
the cat-head or cup-type tower and the strain tower, respectively,
which can be obtained through related experiments, specifically
referred to in [21]; β denotes the fluctuating wind amplification
coefficient and ξ denotes the shielding reduction factor, which are
referred to in [7] (see (6) and (7)) (see (7))
For the sake of comprehending (6) and (7) further, it is essential
to illustrate the physical meanings of δ1/δ2, β, ξ and η, which are
the critical parameters in Improved Model

(1) δ1/δ2 is the correction factor of the static force balance method.
As the swing of insulator string is a dynamic process, the swing
angle reaches its maximum not at the force equilibrium point.
Besides, what determines whether wind swing discharge happens
Fig. 3  Schematic diagram of lh and lv or not is the maximum swing angle of insulator string. This
parameter is mainly influenced by wind speed, also by the types of
The schematic diagram of lh and lv is shown in Fig. 3, where O1 tower, insulator string, conductors and so on.
and O2 denote the lowest points of conductors during two spans; (2) β is the fluctuating wind amplification coefficient which takes
β1/β2 denote the left/right elevation difference angle of tower A stochastic wind into consideration. Based on the basic theory of
structural dynamics, the rigid rod can be mended to become
(note that h1 is positive but h2 is negative in the case of Fig. 3).
suitable to analyse stochastic wind by the method of amplifying the
Based on [12], the calculation of lh and lv is shown in (4), where g1 loads of structures. However, this measure needs to calculate the
and g2 are calculated using (1); σ10/σ20 denote the left/right level conductor tension first, which involves a large quantity of
stress of conductors suspended on tower A. Based on [29], the calculation. So this parameter β is introduced to simplify the
calculation method of transmission line level stress is shown in (5), process but not at the cost of accuracy. This parameter is mainly
where αT denotes the conductor expansion coefficient; E denotes influenced by wind speed, span, altitude difference, parameters of
the elastic modulus of conductor; t1 denotes the temperature in the conductor and so on.
state 1; γ1 denotes the load ratio of conductor in state 1; σ1 denotes (3) ξ is the shielding reduction factor which takes into the fact that
the known level stress of conductor in state 1; t2 denotes the the resistance coefficients of all sub-conductors are not the same.
temperature in state 2; γ2 denotes the load ratio of conductor in This parameter is mainly influenced by wind speed, the type of
bundled conductor, the arrangement of sub-conductors and so on.
state 2; σ2 denotes the level stress of conductor to be solved in state
(4) η is the elevation difference correction coefficient which takes
2
the coupling effect of conductors to insulators into consideration,
which is mainly influenced by wind speed and so on.
1 l1 l
lh = + 2
2 cos β1 cos β2 It can be concluded from the above illustration that δ1/δ2, β, ξ
1 and η cannot keep constant and the values of them depend on the
≃ (l1 + l2)
2 real conditions. However, they can be determined with regard to
lv = l1v + l2v (4) any specific insulator–tower–conductor system by the process
shown in Fig. 4. In order to make Improved Model proposed above
l1 σ10h1 l σ20h2 more convenient for engineers to operate, how to choose the most
= + + 2+
2 (g1 + g2)l1 2 (g1 + g2)l2 appropriate values of δ (the representative of δ1 or δ2), β, ξ and η in
l1 + l2 σ10h1 σ20h2 Fig. 4 will be illustrated in detail as follows.
= + + It can be seen from (6) or (7) that the maximum swing angle of
2 (g1 + g2)l1 (g1 + g2)l2
insulator string is a non-linear function of δ, β, ξ and η. Let x
Eγ22lr2cos3 βr Eγ12lr2cos3 βr denote other parameters, which will be utilised in Improved Model,
σ2 − 2 = σ1 − − αT E(t2 − t1)cos βr except δ, β, ξ, and η. Then the maximum swing angle can be
24σ2 24σ12 expressed as a function of δ, β, ξ, η and x, which is shown in (8).
2
∑i = 1 li3cos βi The criterion adopted in this paper to choose the most appropriate
1
lr = (5) values of δ, β, ξ, η is that the sum of deviation squares between the
cos βr ∑2i = 1 (li /cos βi)
results of Improved Model and the simulation (or experiment)
2
∑i = 1 (li /cos βi) results arrives at the minimum, which is shown in (9)
cos βr = 2
∑i = 1 (li /cos2 βi) Θmax = f (δ, β, ξ, η, x) (8)

On the basis of theories which have been expounded above, it is N

δ, β, ξ, η^ = argmin ∑ Θmaxk − f (δ, β, ξ, η, xk)
^ ^ ^ 2
appropriate to lead to the Improved Model proposed in this paper. (9)
[δ, β, ξ, η] k = 1
The final calculation method of maximum swing angle of insulator
string with regard to the cat-head or cup-type tower is shown in (6)
and that is shown in (7) with regard to the strain tower, where ψ

(Fd + (1/2)F j + 2T 0sin(ψ /2))cos φ

Θ = βξarctan
Gd + (1/2)G j − (Fd + (1/2)F j + 2T 0sin(ψ /2))sin φ + W + G f (6)
Θmax = (1 + δ1)Θ

(Fd + (1/2)F j + F0 + 2T 0sin(ψ /2))cos φ

Θ = βξarctan
Gd + (1/2)G j + G0 − (Fd + (1/2)F j + F0 + 2T 0sin(ψ /2))sin φ (7)
Θmax = (1 + δ2)Θ
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 14, pp. 3644-3653 3647
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
Fig. 4  Flow diagram of Improved Model

^ ^ ^
where δ, β, ξ, η^ denote the chosen values of δ, β, ξ, η; xk denotes the 3.2 Design Manual Model
chosen parameters except δ, β, ξ, η corresponding to the kth Based on [12], the calculation method for the swing angle of
simulation or experiment; Θmaxk denotes the kth simulation (or insulator string under wind load proposed in ‘design manual of
experiment) result of the maximum swing angle; N denotes the high voltage transmission lines for electric engineering’ is shown
total number of simulations or experiments. in (11), which is referred to as Design Manual Model. As the
Based on [30], the preferable method of a grid search is parameters used in Design Manual Model originate from the
practical to solve (9) if the number of parameters to be estimated is previous release of [11] GB50545-2010, some parameters of which
<5. Fortunately, the number of parameters to be estimated is 4 in also originate from [28] GB50009-2012. So all the parameters
(9) so that the grid search method is chosen in Section 4. Taking a presented in Design Manual Model will keep pace with the latest
step back, if the number of parameters to be estimated here is national standards of China. Taking all the updates into
more, several effective approaches can be employed to tackle the consideration, all the physical parameters have the same meaning
non-linear least squares problem, such as the Newton–Raphson with those in Improved Model. Particularly, this model and its
algorithm or the Gauss–Newton method. derived model are utilised pervasively such as [20, 24]. Especially,
in the case of suspension tower, there exists a relationship shown in
3 IEEE Model and Design Manual Model (12), then (11) can be transformed through the process shown in
(13) by means of (4)
As mentioned in Section 1, Improved Model will be compared with
IEEE Model and Design Manual Model in the following parts. In 1
this section, IEEE Model and Design Manual Model are elaborated Fd + F j
2
as well as their comparisons with Improved Model. Θ = arctan (11)
h h 1
(g1 + g2) ⋅ Ad ⋅ lh + T 0 1 + 2 + G j
l1 l2 2
3.1 IEEE Model
Based on [25], the calculation method for the swing angle of T0
σ10 = σ20 = σ0 = (12)
insulator string under wind load in the IEEE standard is shown in Ad
(10), where v denotes 60% of the wind speed with a mean
recurrence interval of 100 years for high-voltage lines in km/h;
other parameters have the identical meanings with those in (1)

d/m0
Θ = arctan(11.38 × × v1.6) (10)
lv /lh

3648 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 14, pp. 3644-3653
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
 Table 1 XWP-300 material parameters
E, MPa Poisson ratio Length, m Weight, kg Windward area,
m2
2.8 × 105 0.028 0.195 13 0.03

speed and will result in either a small design size of tower easily
causing wind swing discharge or a large design size of tower
causing a high cost.
(2) Improved Model takes the wind direction into consideration but
neither IEEE Model nor Design Manual Model considers the wind
direction not lying in the horizontal plane.
(3) Improved Model synthetically takes comprehensive factors into
consideration, including mechanical oscillating of insulators, the
fluctuating wind amplification effect, the shielding wake flow
effect of bundled conductor and the coupling effect of conductors
to insulators, which are represented by δ, β, ξ and η, respectively.
On the contrary, neither IEEE Model nor Design Manual Model
considers these factors.

4 Case study
Based on the simulation results of ANSYS in [7], Improved Model
proposed in this paper will be tested compared with IEEE Model
and Design Manual Model in this section. The chosen insulator is
54 × XWP-300, the detailed parameters of which are shown in
Table 1. The chosen conductor is 8 × JL/G1A-630/45, the detailed
parameters of which are shown in Table 2. The wind speed is set to
30 m/s. The simulation results of ANSYS derived from [7] used in
this paper include three parts as follows (here not considering the
fluctuating wind amplification effect which means β is set to 1 in
(6) and (7); δ, the correction factor of the static force balance
method, is always considered in this section):

(1) The ANSYS simulation results only considering the coupling

effect of conductors to insulators under five working conditions,
which are shown in Table 3.
Fig. 5  Sum of deviation squares (2) The ANSYS simulation results considering both the coupling
(a) Sum of deviation squares when only considering the coupling effect of conductors effect of conductors to insulators and the shielding wake flow
to insulators, (b) Sum of deviation squares when considering both the coupling effect effect of bundled conductor under five working conditions, which
of conductors to insulators and the shielding wake flow effect of bundled conductor are shown in Table 4;
(3) Only considering the coupling effect of conductors to
1 insulators, the ANSYS simulation results under different spans (all
Fd + F j
2 the elevation differences are zero) and different elevation
Θ = arctan
h h 1 differences (all the spans are 800 m) are shown in Table 5.
(g1 + g2) ⋅ Ad ⋅ lh + T 0 1 + 2 + G j
l1 l2 2
To test Improved Model proposed in this paper, Improved
1
Fd + F j Model is trained first based on the data of Tables 3 and 4 to
2
= arctan determine the most appropriate values of elevation difference
T0 h1 h2 1
(g1 + g2) ⋅ Ad ⋅ lh + + + Gj correction coefficient η, the shielding reduction factor ξ and the
Ad(g1 + g2) l1 l2 2 correction factor of the static force balance method δ, which makes
(13)
1 the results of Improved Model are closest to the ANSYS
Fd + F j simulation results. As mentioned in Section 2, the criterion is that
2
= arctan the sum of deviation squares between the results of Improved
σ0 h1 h2 1
(g1 + g2) ⋅ Ad ⋅ lh + + + Gj Model under five working conditions, referred to in Tables 3 and 4,
g1 + g2 l1 l2 2
and the corresponding ANSYS simulation results arrives at the
1 minimum. The sum of deviation squares changing with η and δ,
Fd + F j
2 only considering the coupling effect of conductors to insulators, is
≈ arctan
1 shown in Fig. 5a. The sum of deviation squares changing with η, ξ
(g1 + g2) ⋅ Ad ⋅ lv + G j
2 and δ, considering both the coupling effect of conductors to
insulators and the shielding wake flow effect of bundled conductor,
3.3 Model comparison is shown in Fig. 5b. Through related programs in MATLAB, the
training results are as follows: (i) η is equal to 2.13 and δ is equal
From the models established above, the advantages of Improved to 0.41 when only considering the coupling effect of conductors to
Model superior to IEEE Model and Design Manual Model are as insulators; (ii) η is equal to 2.2 and ξ is equal to 0.63 and δ is equal
follows: to 1.1 when considering both the coupling effect of conductors to
insulators and the shielding wake flow effect of bundled conductor.
(1) The wind pressure asymmetric factor α in Improved Model
comprehensively considers the effects of both span and wind To illustrate the advantage of Improved Model, IEEE Model
speed. However, α is set to 0.61 uniformly in the calculation of and Design Manual Model are taken as comparison standards. The
swing angle when the wind speed is >27 m/s in Design Manual detailed test results are as follows.
Model, which neglects the synthetical effect of span and wind

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 14, pp. 3644-3653 3649
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
Table 2 JL/G1A-630/45 material parameters
Diameter, mm Sectional area, mm2 E, GPa Weight, kg m−1 Pull strength, kN Poisson ratio
33.8 674 63 2.0792 150.45 0.03

Table 3 ANSYS simulation results only considering the coupling effect of conductors to insulators
Working condition l1, m h1, m l2, m h2, m Θmax, deg
1 800 −30 800 −30 50.58
2 800 −30 800 0 47.00
3 800 0 800 0 43.79
4 800 0 800 30 40.91
5 800 30 800 30 38.35

Table 4 ANSYS simulation results considering both the coupling effect of conductors to insulators and the shielding wake flow
effect of bundled conductor
Working condition l1, m h1, m l2, m h2, m Θmax, deg
1 800 −30 800 −30 47.62
2 800 −30 800 0 44.20
3 800 0 800 0 41.16
4 800 0 800 30 38.45
5 800 30 800 30 36.05

Table 5 ANSYS simulation results under different spans and different elevation differences (only considering the coupling
effect of conductors to insulators)
Span, m Θmax, deg Elevation difference, m Θmax, deg
600 43.62 90 30.56
700 43.83 60 34.06
800 43.99 0 43.87
900 44.12 −30 50.67
1000 44.22 −90 68.68

Fig. 6  Comparison of Improved Model, IEEE Model and ANSYS simulation results under five working conditions
(a) Only considering the coupling effect, (b) Considering both the coupling effect of conductors to insulators and the shielding wake flow effect of bundled conductor

4.1 Comparison of Improved Model and IEEE Model
Through continuously changing the value of v in (8) to determine
the most proper v, which make the results of IEEE Model are
closest to the ANSYS simulation results. The criterion is also that
the sum of deviation squares between the results of IEEE Model
under five working conditions, referred to in Tables 3 and 4, and
the corresponding ANSYS simulation results arrives at the
minimum. Through related programs in MATLAB, the range of v
is set from 0 to 216 km/h which means the maximum of the
selected wind speed with a mean recurrence interval of 100 years
for high-voltage lines is 100 m/s and the final results are as
follows: (i) v is equal to 210.6 km/h when only considering the
coupling effect of conductors to insulators; (ii) v is equal to 198.7  Table 5 do not take the shielding wake flow effect into
km/h when considering both the coupling effect of conductors to
insulators and the shielding wake flow effect of bundled conductor.
Only considering the coupling effect of conductors to insulators,
the comparison of Improved Model, IEEE Model and ANSYS
simulation results under five working conditions is shown in
Fig. 6a. Considering both the coupling effect of conductors to
insulators and the shielding wake flow effect of bundled conductor,
the comparison under five working conditions is shown in Fig. 6b.
The deviations of Improved Model and IEEE Model with regard to
ANSYS simulation results are shown in Table 6, from which it can
be concluded that Improved Model coincides with ANSYS
simulation results better than IEEE Model in all the working
conditions mentioned above.
Then based on Table 5, the trained Improved Model and IEEE
Model will be tested more comprehensively, under different spans
and different altitude differences. On account that the results in
consideration, the trained Improved Model and IEEE Model when
only considering the coupling effect of conductors to insulators

3650 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 14, pp. 3644-3653
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
will be used here. Through related programs in MATLAB, the
comparison of Improved Model, IEEE Model and ANSYS
simulation results under different spans is shown in Fig. 7a and
that under different altitude differences is shown in Fig. 7b. The
deviations of Improved Model and IEEE Model with regard to
ANSYS simulation results are shown in Table 7. It can be seen
from Fig. 7a and Table 7 that IEEE Model do not take the
influence of span into consideration when altitude difference is
equal to zero because the swing angle is a constant under different
spans; but Improved Model take the influence of span into
consideration and have the same changing trend with ANSYS
simulation results. Besides, it can be seen from Fig. 7b and Table 7
that the deviations of Improved Model are less than IEEE Model
under all the different altitude differences.
4.2 Comparison of Improved Model and Design Manual
Model
Similar to the comparison of Improved Model and IEEE Model,
the corresponding results are as follows. Only considering the
coupling effect of conductors to insulators, the comparison of
Improved Model, Design Manual Model and ANSYS simulation
results under five working conditions is shown in Fig. 8a.
Considering both the coupling effect of conductors to insulators
and the shielding wake flow effect of bundled conductor, the
comparison under five working conditions is shown in Fig. 8b. The
deviations of Improved Model and Design Manual Model with
regard to ANSYS simulation results are shown in Table 8. It can be
seen from Figs. 8a and b that Improved Model coincides with
ANSYS simulation results better than Design Manual Model in all
the working conditions mentioned above. Besides, the deviations
of Improved Model are very small, the maximum of which is only
0.16°.
To further compare the accuracy of Improved Model and
Design Manual Model, the results of these two models under
different spans and different altitude differences are obtained. The
comparison of Improved Model, Design Manual Model and
ANSYS simulation results under different spans is shown in
Fig. 8c and that under different altitude differences is shown in
Fig. 8d. The deviations of Improved Model and Design Manual
Model with regard to ANSYS simulation results are shown in
Table 9, from which it can be seen that the deviations of Improved
Model are less than that of Design Manual Model under all the
spans and altitude differences.
5 Conclusion
Based on the existing models of wind swing angle models of
suspension insulator string, an improved model under the wind
with arbitrary direction which takes comprehensive factors into
consideration is established in this paper through the synthesis and
correction of those existing models. Based on the simulation results
of ANSYS, Improved Model proposed in this paper is compared
with IEEE Model and Design Manual Model. Test results have
shown that:
(a) The results of Improved Model coincide with the ANSYS
simulation results better than those of IEEE Model and Design

Table 6 Comparison of Improved Model, IEEE Model and ANSYS simulation results under five working conditions
Working condition Only considering coupling effect Considering both coupling effect and shielding wake flow
effect
Deviation of Improved Deviation of IEEE Deviation of Improved Model, Deviation of IEEE Model, deg
Model, deg Model, deg deg
1 0.12 −2.38 0.00 −2.07
2 0.05 −0.98 −0.03 −0.84
3 0.04 0.20 −0.03 0.18
4 0.11 1.21 0.02 1.03
5 0.16 2.02 0.06 1.72

Fig. 7  Comparison of Improved Model, IEEE Model and ANSYS simulation results under different spans and different altitude differences
(a) Under different spans, (b) Under different altitude differences

Table 7 Deviations of Improved Model and IEEE Model with regard to ANSYS simulation results under different spans and
altitude differences
Span, m Deviation of Improved Deviation of IEEE Altitude difference, m Deviation of Improved Deviation of IEEE
Model, deg Model, deg Model, deg Model, deg
600 −0.03 0.37 90 0.40 4.02
700 −0.10 0.16 60 0.26 3.20
800 −0.16 0.00 0 −0.04 0.12
900 −0.21 −0.13 −30 0.03 12.47
1000 −0.24 −0.23 −90 2.91 −9.99

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 14, pp. 3644-3653 3651
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
Fig. 8  Comparison of Improved Model, Design Manual Model and ANSYS simulation results
(a) Under five working conditions when only considering the coupling effect, (b) Under five working conditions when considering both effects, (c) Under different spans, (d) Under
different altitude differences

Table 8 Comparison of Improved Model, Design Manual Model and ANSYS simulation results under five working conditions
Working condition Only considering coupling effect Considering both coupling effect and shielding wake flow
effect
Deviation of Improved Deviation of design Deviation of Improved Deviation of Design Manual
Model, deg manual Model, deg Model, deg Model, deg
1 0.12 −15.77 0.00 −12.81
2 0.05 −14.14 −0.03 −11.34
3 0.04 −12.70 −0.03 −10.07
4 0.11 −11.43 0.02 −8.97
5 0.16 −10.32 0.06 −8.02

Table 9 Deviations of Improved Model and Design Manual Model with regard to ANSYS simulation results under different
spans and altitude differences
Span, m Deviation of Improved Deviation of Design Altitude difference, m Deviation of Improved Deviation of Design
Model, deg Manual Model, deg Model, deg Manual Model, deg
600 −0.03 −12.70 90 0.40 −7.20
700 −0.10 −12.82 60 0.26 −8.57
800 −0.16 −12.90 0 −0.04 −12.78
900 −0.21 −12.98 −30 0.03 −15.86
1000 −0.24 −13.03 −90 2.91 −23.72

Manual Model under five working conditions of small altitude
differences.
(b) Under different spans, IEEE Model does not take the influence
of span into consideration when altitude difference is equal to zero
because the swing angle is a constant under different spans, but
Improved Model takes the influence of span into consideration, the
results of which have the same changing trend with ANSYS
simulation results. The deviations of Improved Model are less than
those of Design Manual Model.
(c) Under large altitude differences, the deviations of Improved
Model are less than those of both IEEE Model and Design Manual
Model.
Therefore, it can be concluded from the test results that
Improved Model proposed in this paper coincides with ANSYS
results better than the other two models almost in all the mentioned
working conditions. Thus, Improved Model proposed in this paper
provides a more accurate calculation of the swing angle of
insulator string under wind with arbitrary directions. Besides, the
calculation method of minimum air gap length will be explored in
the following research work.
If the wind speed and wind direction at the location of the tower
with suspension insulators can be predicted accurately before the
hurricane or typhoon comes into being, which has been realised
actually in other research work of the authors, the Improved Model
proposed in this paper can make great contribution to the early
warning of wind swing discharge of the suspension insulators.

3652 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 14, pp. 3644-3653
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
7 Acknowledgments
Xinzheng Liao and Ruihai Li, both of whom work in Electric
Power Research Institute of China Southern Power Grid
Corporation, also provided important technological supports during
the process of our completing this article. Thanks for their efforts
sincerely.
8 References
[1] Claren, R., Diana, G.: ‘Mathematical analysis of transmission line vibration’,
IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst., 1969, 88, (12), pp. 1741–1771
[2] Loredo-Souza, A.M., Davebport, A.G.: ‘The effects of high winds on
transmission lines’, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 1998, 74, (98), pp. 987–994
[3] Gupta, S., Wipf, T., Fanous, F.: ‘Structural failure analysis of 345 kV
transmission line’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 1994, 9, (2), pp. 894–903
[4] Jianwei, W., Lilien, J.L.: ‘Overhead electrical transmission line galloping: a
full multi-span 3-DOFmodel, some applications and design recommendation’,
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 1998, 13, (3), pp. 909–916
[5] Qu, W.L., Chen, Z.H., Xu, Y.L.: ‘Dynamic analysis of wind-excited truss
tower with friction dampers’, Comput. Struct., 2001, 79, (01), pp. 2817–2831
[6] Annestrand, S., Bossuyt, E.F., Reppen, N.D.: ‘Insulation performance analysis
of a 500 kV transmission line design’, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst., 1970,
PAS-89, (3), pp. 429–437
[7] Li, L., Linhai, X., Xianguo, L., et al.: ‘Windage Yaw calculation method of
UHV insulator strings’, High Volt. Eng., 2013, 57, (1), pp. 62–71
[8] Hileman, A.R.: ‘Weather and its effect on air insulation specifications’, IEEE
Trans. Power Appar. Syst., 1984, PAS-103, (10), pp. 3104–3116
[9] Phillips, T.A., Robertson, L.M., Rohlfs, A.F., et al.: ‘Influence of air density
on electrical strength of transmission line insulation’, IEEE Trans. Power
Appar. Syst., 1967, PAS-86, (8), pp. 948–961
[10] Volpe, H.W.: ‘Bonneville power administration study of wind effects on
conductors for span factors’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 1992, 7, (3), pp.
1387–1395
[11] GB50545: ‘Code for design of 110 kV–750 kV overhead transmission line’,
2010
[12] Diansheng, Z.: ‘Design manual of high voltage transmission lines for electric
engineering’ (China Electric Power Press, 2003, 2nd edn.)
[13] Landers, P.G.: ‘EPRI-sponsored transmission line wind loading research’,
IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst., 1982, 101, (8), pp. 2460–2466
[14] Chay, M.T., Albermani, F., Hawes, H.: ‘Wind load on transmission line
structure simulated downbursts’. World Congress on Asset Management,
Gold Coast, Australia, 2006
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 14, pp. 3644-3653
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2017
[15] Xiaodong, X., Gang, W.: ‘Research on wind pressure asymmetric factor’,
Electr. Power Constr., 2007, 28, (7), pp. 1–4
[16] Deyi, K., Li, L., Xiaohong, L., et al.: ‘Finite element analysis of dynamic
windage angle of suspended insulator strings’, Electr. Power Constr., 2008,
29, (9), pp. 5–9
[17] Guiwei, S., Xuan, M., Yanwu, D., et al.: ‘Simulation analysis of the
equivalent wind loads on the transmission conductor two hanging points’,
High Volt. Eng., 2012, 38, (2), pp. 476–482
[18] Zhengzhi, X., Zhitao, Y., Zhengliang, L., et al.: ‘Wind tunnel and
aerodynamic characteristics tests for ice-covering of transmission line
adopting 8-bundled conductor’, Power Syst. Technol., 2009, 33, (5), pp. 90–
94
[19] Xi, W., Wenjuan, L., Guohui, S., et al.: ‘A wind tunnel study on aerodynamic
characteristics of iced conductor’, Acta Aerodyn. Sin., 2011, 29, (5), pp. 573–
579
[20] Bo, Y., Xuesong, L., Wei, L., et al.: ‘Numerical study on dynamic swing of
suspension insulator string in overhead transmission line under wind load’,
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2009, 25, (1), pp. 248–259
[21] Shengxue, W., Guangning, W., Jianbin, F., et al.: ‘Study on flashover of
suspension insulator string caused by windage yaw in 500 kV transmission
lines’, Power Syst. Technol., 2008, 32, (9), pp. 65–69
[22] Rikh, V.N.: ‘Conductor spacings in transmission lines and effect of long spans
with steep slopes in hilly terrain’, IE (I) J., 2004, 85, (5), pp. 8–16
[23] Clair, J.G.S.: ‘Clearance calculations of conductors to buildings’, IEEE Trans.
Power Deliv., 1997, 12, (2), pp. 979–984
[24] Xiaofu, X., Shijie, W., Jian, W.: ‘An online early-warning method for wind
swing discharge of the conductor toward the tangent tower and jumper toward
the strain tower’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2015, 30, (1), pp. 114–121
[25] IEEE Standard PC62.82.2/D3: ‘IEEE draft guide for the application of
insulation coordination’. December 2015
[26] Lihong, L., Yi, H., Jinglu, L., et al.: ‘Study on windage yaw flashover of
transmission line’, High Volt. Eng., 2006, 32, (4), pp. 19–21
[27] Yanling, Z.: ‘Research on the calculation model of high voltage transmission
line insulator strings’. MS thesis, Taiyuan University of Technology, 2012
[28] GB50009: ‘Load code for the design of building structures’. 2012
[29] Jun, L., Dingyou, J., Xu, W., et al.: ‘The comparison of conductor stress
calculation methods for overhead line under extreme weather conditions’.
2013 IEEE PES Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conf.
(APPEEC), Kowloon, December 2013, pp. 1–6
[30] Steven, M.K.: ‘Fundamentals of statistical processing, volume I: estimation
theory’ (Prentice Hall PTR, 1993), pp. 254–260
3653