Comparative Study of Grid Validation Methods for

Wind Load Computations of Transmission Lines

Huixue Dang, Jingbo Yang, Fengli Yang
China Electric Power Research Institute
Beijing, China, 100055
Huixue Dang: danghuixue@epri.sgcc.com.cn;
Jingbo Yang: yjb@epri.sgcc.com.cn;
Fengli Yang: yangfl1@epri.sgcc.com.cn;
AbstractStrong unsteady aerodynamic forces are generated by well accepted mechanisms were proposed in recent decades.
severe flow separations around transmission lines, and galloping Only with assistance from the computational fluid dynamics
can be induced by this inherent motive force. Due to the severe (CFD) and computational structural dynamics (CSD), has the
flow separations around transmission line with blunt cross- galloping study renewed the interests of researchers, and
sections, transitions of boundary layers, and dissipations of nonlinearity[15] becomes more involved in the aeroelastic
vortex wakes, it is troublesome to calculate the wind load system for galloping, which includes the updating from linear
accurately. To account for the accurate computation of wind load cable model to that includes the geometry nonlinearity,
for both single conductor and bundle conductor, comparative aerodynamic load calculation is conducted from by using
study of four different grid validation methods, including
empirical equations[16~18] to by employing CFD tools[8,19~22],
unsteady lift/drag forces, power spectral density (PSD) analysis
and the accuracy of aeroelastic calculations of conductor
of both lift/drag forces, wall shear stress on cylinder surface,
unsteady turbulent kinetic energy in the flow field far down galloping is greatly improved.
stream of the conductor cylinder, are conducted by solving To manage the art of CFD, several key points should be
Navier-Stokes equations. The results indicate that, it is feasible to paid attention to, which include the grid quality, special
employ the unsteady lift/drag force, PSD results of lift/drag discretization scheme, turbulence model, time marching
forces to validate grid convergence of single conductor and wall scheme, etc., to obtain a physical flow field around
shear stress is proposed to provide a more thorough insight into
transmission lines. Furthermore, grid validations should be
flow separation characteristics on cylinder surface; while besides
implemented to verify that numerical results are insensitive to
the above three methods, the convergence of far field turbulent
kinetic energy PSD results is as well proposed and then validated
CFD grids[23~28] with different element numbers, different grid
to be suitable for bundle conductors. distributions, and different grid generation methods, etc. For
grid validation studies in the research field of aeronautics,
Keywords-grid validation methods; wind load; transmission lift/drag force convergence and pressure distribution
linesy;accurate computation; comparative study convergence were used to be selected as the criteria and these
flow parameters exhibit satisfactory behaviors for flows
without separations; however, for cross flows around blunt
I. INTRODUCTION
bodies such as cylinders and the flow interferences between
Ice-coated high-voltage electrical conductor would cylinders, the parameters mentioned above are not capable of
experience low frequency, large amplitude, wind-induced indicating the differences in separated flows. In order to
vibrations in moderate to high speed winds, and this large scale elucidate the differences among the numerical results from
mechanical vibration is known as galloping[1~4]. Galloping different grids, several methods normally used as well as the
emerge itself for both single and bundle overhead transmission grid validation method proposed for separated flow are
lines, leading to not only flashover but also wear and fatigue compared and discussed in present study.
damage to the transmission structure, causing costly electric
system outages and eventually electrical power supply can be II. GOVERNING EQUATIONS AND COMPUTATIONAL MODEL
severely disputed, resulting in significant economic losses[5~8].
This makes technology that minimizes galloping damage all A. Governing Equations
the more welcome. Three dimensional incompressible Navier-Stokes
Although several numbers of accidents in transmission equations are employed in present study:
G
lines still keep on happening in ice storms due to galloping, the V = 0
actual cause is yet unknown in majority of the cases[9]. G
( )
V GG (1)
Therefore, research interests are put up into the mechanism
study of galloping of overhead transmission lines[10~14], such as t
( )
+ VV = p + ( )
Den Hartog[10] and O. Nigol et. al[11~13] originally proposed the G
where is the air density, V is the velocity vector, p is the
vertical oscillation mechanism and torsional oscillation
mechanism, respectively. However, due to the challenging static pressureand is the stress tensor.
tasks of modeling the dynamic behavior of a transmission line The expressions for is listed as follows:
as well as investigating the effects of aerodynamic forces, little

Huixue Dang, doctor, E-mail_Address: danghuixue@epri.sgcc.com.cn; dhxlxz@126.com; Tel: +86-010-58386175

978-1-4244-8165-1/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

596
 G G 2 G Eight multi-block structured grids are generated with their
= V + V T VI
(2) grid topology kept the same (as shown in Fig.1). The first grid
3
layer thickness is set to be 1 10-5m, and its corresponding
where is the molecular viscosity, and I denotes the unit
tensor.
B. Turbulence model
The transition SST (shear stress transport) model is
selected for this simulation due to its capability of effectively
addressing the transition of the boundary layer from a laminar
to a turbulent regime. This model is developed based on the
coupling of the SST k model equations with other two
other transport equations, one for the intermittency and the
other for the transition onset criteria in terms of momentum-
thickness Reynolds number. The transport equations for
turbulent kinetic energy k and the specific dissipation rate
can be written as: Fig.1 Multi-block grids around cylinder

y+=0.4 at free stream speed U=10m/s, satisfying the demands

( k ) k 
+ ( kui ) = k + Gk Yk of transition SST turbulence model.
t xi x j x j The mesh quality of the coarsest grid is shown in Fig.2,
(3) with a minimum and maximum mesh quality equals to
( ) 0.911613 and 0.999687, respectively. The element numbers
+ ( ui ) = + G Y + D
t xi x j x j and grid points on cylinder surface of these eight grids are all
listed in table 2. The most remarkable difference among these
The transport equation for the intermittency is defined as: grids are the stretching rate in the direction normal to cylinder
surface, which plays an important role in the simulation of flow
evolution down stream of cylinder. The influence of different
( ) grid points on cylinder surface will be studied in the following
t
+
xj
( u j ) = P 1 E 1 + P 2 E 2 + ( + t )
x j x j
(4)

The governing equation for separation induced transition can
be written as:
Rev
sep = min 2 max 1, 0 Freattach , 2 F t

3.235 Re c (5)

The transition model then interacts with the SST turbulence

model, as follows:
( k ) k
t
+
xj
( ku j ) = Pk D k + x ( + k t )
xj

Fig.2 Mesh quality of the coarsest grid
j
(6)
context.
where Pk and Dk are the original production and destruction TABLE II. GRID ELEMENT NUMBER AND GRID POINT NUMBER ON
terms for the SST model. CYLINDER SURFACE

Grid Number of Grid Grid Points on Cylinder

C. Geometry Model and Grids Index(n) Elements Surface
1st grid 32,921 276
The transmission line studied here is the LGJ630/45
transmission line, with its diameter 0.0336m. All its 2nd grid 47,708 376
mechanical characteristics are listed in table I. rd
3 grid 63,308 376
th
4 grid 78,910 376
TABLE I. MECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LGJ630/45 5th grid 94,128 376
TRANSMISSION LINE
6th grid 111,068 394
Conductor Cross-section Diameter Density Elastic
Model area Modulus 7th grid 126,952 402
LGJ630/45 666.35(mm2) 33.6(mm) 2.06(Kg/m) 63000(MPa) th
8 grid 141,219 404

597
D. Boundary Conditions
Three different boundary conditions are employed in
present study, as shown in Fig.3: velocity inlet boundary
condition is adopted to fix the both the flow speed and flow
direction, and it is placed 0.5m (about 15 times of cylinder
diameter) away from the circle center to eliminate boundary
condition effects on flow fields; adiabatic non-slip smooth wall
is used to model cylinder surface; moreover, pressure outlet
boundary condition is implemented to model the backpressure
of atmosphere for fluid zone, and it is placed 1.0m(about 30
times of cylinder diameter) to obtain fully developed flow.

Fig.4(b) Close-up view of transient lift force

Fig.3 Sketch map of Boundary conditions

III. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENT GRID

VALIDATION METHODS
Different methods are compared to study their
applicability in grid validations, with the uniform free stream
speed fixed at U =10m/s, corresponding to a Reynolds
Fig.5 Close-up view of transient drag force
number Re=21900. The turbulence intensity is set to be I=1%
to model the low intensity turbulent flow. Then transient
simulations are performed based on the eight grids referred to B. PSD Analysis of Transient Lift/Drag Forces
in table 2, and these methods are listed and compared for grid For the fully developed flow around cylinders, the
validations, as follows: frequency characteristics should also in included to portray
their periodic characteristics, hence the PSD results of transient
A. Unsteady Lift/Drag Forces lift/drag forces are calculated, as shown in Fig.6 and Fig.7,
The unsteady lift/drag forces are plotted in Fig.4 and Fig.5, respectively. It is seen that, the peak value frequencies of
respectively. It is clearly seen from these figures that, the transient lifts are identical, while the peak values exhibit small
transient lift forces extracted from the results based on these amplitude oscillations among these eight results, and so as
eight grids all agree well with each other, and so do the those of transient drag PSD results do.
transient drag forces.

Fig.4(a) Global view of transient lift force Fig.6(a) PSD results of transient lift forces

598

Fig.6(b) Peak values of PSD results of lift forces
Fig.7(a) PSD results of transient drag forces
Fig.7(b) Peak values of PSD results of drag forces
C. Wall Shear Stress on Cylinder Surface
To account for the influence of grid parameters onto
separation points on cylinder surface, wall shear stresses
corresponding to maximum lifts calculated from these eight
grids are taken out and plotted in Fig.8, where the polar angle
is the defined positive from x-axis in counter-clock wise
direction to y-axis. The curves in Fig.8 indicate that, there is
only one separation point on upper surface of cylinder, which
locates just downstream of the maximum thickness location;
However, several separation points reside on the lower surface
599
of cylinder, promising that the flow first separates from
surface, then reattaches, and next re-separates again. Finally, a
separation bubble strong enough is engendered, and the
separated vortex blob oscillates downstream in the vortex
wake. These eight curves indicate identical separation positions
on cylinder surfaces, promising that the differences among the
grid points on cylinder surface can be neglected.
Fig.8 Wall shear stress on cylinder surface
D. Turbulent Kinetic Energy in the Far Field
To account for the flow interference among bundle
conductors, turbulent kinetic energy at X=0.25m (nearly 7.5
times cylinder diameter down stream) is monitored and evident
difference can be detected, as shown in Fig.9(a). To inspect the
differences in-between these results, PSD is calculated and
plotted in Fig.9(b) and Fig.9(c). Fig.9(b) shows that all the
peak value frequency calculated from these eight grids agree
well with each other; while Fig.9(c) indicates large amplitude
oscillation of peak values as the grid is refined and only when
the grid is fine enough will the peak values converge. It is also
discerned in Fig.9(c) that, the fifth grid is fine enough to well
resolve the turbulent kinetic energy dissipation characteristics
in the far flow field, and its grid parameters can be referred to
in further study.
Fig.9(a) Close-up view of turbulent kinetic Energy
at X=0.25m

Fig.9(b) PSD results of turbulent kinetic energy
Fig.9(c) Peak values of PSD results of
turbulent kinetic energy
IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS
To account for the grid sensitivities in the accurate
simulation of transient wind load induced by separated flows
around cylinders, eight high-quality multi-block structured
grids are generated and then Navier-Stokes equations are
solved based on them. Four different grid validation methods,
including the normally used grid validation method of lift/drag
forces, PSD results of lift/drag forces, as well as the proposed
methods of both wall shear stress on cylinder surface and
turbulent kinetic energy in the far field, are employed are
compared. The results indicate that, the lift/drag force and PSD
results of lift/drag force can by adopted in grid validations
conducted for single conductor since they are integrated from
wall surface and are the compromise results of flow separations
on cylinder surface; For a more through study of flow
separation characteristics, wall shear stress on cylinder surface
should be included since it can well predict the flow separation
characteristics on wall surface. These three methods are all
applicable for single conductor. For bundle conductors, flow
interference should be accounted for and turbulent kinetic
energy is proposed as the grid validation parameter. The results
show that, large amplitude oscillation of peak values as the grid
is refined, indicating flow dissipation characteristics are
evidently influenced by grid density variations; and as the grid
is condensed to be fine enough, the peak values of turbulent
600
kinetic energy PSD results will converge. Hence, besides the
above three methods, the convergence of far field turbulent
kinetic energy PSD results should also be included in the grid
validations for bundle conductors.
REFERENCES
[1] Sjoerd W. Rienstra, Nonlinear Free Vibration of Coupled Spans of
OverheadTransmission Lines[C], Proceedings of the 3rd European
Conference on Mathematics in Industry 27-31 (1988), 133144.
[2] Muhammad Bilal Waris, Takashi Ishihara, Muhammad Waheed Sarwar,
Galloping response prediction of ice-accreted transmission lines[C], The
4th International Conference on Advances in Wind and
Structures(AWAS'08), Jeju, Korea, May 29-31, 2008
[3] Xin Wang, Wen-Juan Lou, NUMERICAL APPROACH TO
GALLOPING OF CONDUCTOR[C], The Seventh Asia-Pacific
Conference on Wind Engineering, November 8-12, 2009, Taipei,
Taiwan
[4] M.A.Baenziger, W.D.James, B.Wouters, L.Li, Dynamics Load on
Transmission line Strutcures Due to Galloping Conditions[C], IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol.9,No.1, January 1994
[5] C.B.Rawlins,Analysis of Conductor Galloping Field Observations-
Single Conductors, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, Vol.PAS-100, No.8, August 1981
[6] Xiao-hui LIU, BoYAN,Hong-yan ZHANG,SongZHOU, Nonlinear
numerical simulation method for galloping of iced conductor[J], Appl.
Math. Mech. -Engl. Ed. 30(4), 489501 (2009)
[7] JIANG Zhenglong, LU ]iazheng. LEI Hongcai. Analysis of the causes of
tower collapses in Hunan during the 2008 ice storm [J]. High Voltage
Engineering, 2008 ,34(11) : 7(In Chinese)
[8] Shinichi Oka, Takeshi Ishihara, Numerical study on steady aerodynamic
characteristics of ice accreted transmission lines[C], The Fifth
International Symposium on Computational Wind Engineering
(CWE2010),Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA May 23-27, 2010
[9] C.B. Gurung, H. Yamaguchi, T. Yukino, Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, 91(7), pp.903-924, 2003
[10] Den Hartog, J. P. Transmission line vibration due to sleet. Transaction
AIEE 51, Part 4, 10741086 (1932)
[11] Nigol, O., Clarke, G. J. Conductor galloping and control based on
torsional mechanism. IEEE Power Engineering Society, Meeting, Paper
No. C74016-2, New York (1974)
[12] O. Nigol, P.G. Buchan, Conductor galloping part I- Den Hartog
mechanism, IEEE Transaction on PAS 100(2) (1981) 699-707.
[13] O. Nigol, P.G. Buchan, Conductor galloping-part II Torsional
mechanism, IEEETransaction on PAS 100(2) (1981) 708-20.
[14] J. Wang, J.L. Lilien, Overhead electric transmission line galloping - A
full multi-span 3DOF model, some application and design
recommendations, IEEE Transaction on PD 113(3) (1998) 909-16.
[15] Dumitru DELEANU, The Non-Linear Galloping Response of a One-
dimensional Structure[J], Ovidius University Annals of Constructions,
Vol.1, No. 3, April 2002
[16] McComber P., Paradis A., A cable galloping model for thin ice
accretions[J]. Atmospheric Research, 1998 ,46 (12) : 13.
[17] J. Chabart O. , Lilien J. L. Galloping of electrical lines in wind tunnel
facilities[J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics.1998. 74(6) :967.
[18] Macdonald J. H. G, Larose G. L. A unified approach to aerodynamic
damping and drag/lift instabilities, and its application to dry inclined
cable galloping[J]. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2006, 22 (2) : 229.
[19] W. Dettmer, D. Peric, A computational framework for fluidrigid body
interaction: Finite element formulation and applications, Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg[J]. 195 (2006) 16331666
[20] L. Li, S. J. Sherwin, P. W. Bearman, A moving frame of reference
algorithm for _uid=structure interaction of rotating and translating
bodies[J], INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL
METHODS IN FLUIDS, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 2002; 38:187206
(DOI: 10.1002/_d.216)
[21] I. Robertson, L. Li1, S.J. Sherwin, P.W. Bearman, A numerical study of
rotational and transverse galloping rectangular bodies[J], Journal of
Fluids and Structures 17 (2003) , 681699
[22] Tetsuro Tamura, Reliability on CFD estimation for wind-structure
interaction problems[J], Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 81 (1999) 117~143
[23] B. Blocken, T. van Hooff, L. Aanen , B. BronsemaComputational
analysis of the performance of a venturishaped roof for natural
ventilation: venturi-effect versus wind-blocking effect[J]Accepted for
publication in Computers & Fluids, 26 April, 2011
[24] John C. Vassberg,Edward N. Tinoco,Mori Mani, David Levy, Tom
Zickuhr, Dimitri J. Mavriplis, Richard A. Wahls, Joseph H. Morrison,
Olaf P. Brodersen, Bernhard Eisfeld, Mitsuhiro Murayama, Comparison
of NTF Experimental Datawith CFD Predictions from the Third AIAA
CFD Drag Prediction Workshop[C], AIAA 2008-6918, Honolulu,
Hawaii, August 2008
601
[25] Yolanda Mack, Raphael Haftka, Corin Segal, Nestor Queipo, Wei Shyy,
Computational Modeling and Sensitivity Evaluation of Liquid Rocket
Injector Flow[C], AIAA 2007-5592
[26] Adam Neale, Dominique Derome, Bert Blocken, Jan Carmeliet,
etermination of surface convective heat transfer coefficients by CFD[C],
11th Canadian Conference on Building Science and Technology Banff,
Alberta, 2007
[27] Alexander M. Levchenya, Evgueni M. Smirnov, CFD-ANALYSIS OF
3D FLOW STRUCTURE AND ENDWALL HEAT TRANSFER IN A
TRANSONIC TURBINE BLADE CASCADE: EFFECTS OF GRID
REFINEMENT[C], WEST-EAST HIGH SPEED FLOW FIELD
CONFERENCE 19-22, November 2007, Moscow, Russia
[28] Yutong Liu, Kerem Pekkan, S. Casey Jones, Ajit P. Yoganathan, The
Effects of Different Mesh Generation Methods on Computational Fluid
Dynamic Analysis and Power Loss Assessment in Total Cavopulmonary
Connection[C], Transactions of the ASME, 2004, Vol.126. 594:603