Benefits of Optimal Size Conductor in Transmission

System
Ilham Osman

Ahmed Rayhan Mahbub

Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Primeasia University
Dhaka, Bangladesh

Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Primeasia University
Dhaka, Bangladesh
ilham.osman@primeasia.edu.bd

rayhan.mahbub@hotmail.com

Mir Ashikur Rahman

Ariful Haque

Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
Dhaka, Bangladesh
ashik82@gmail.com

Dept. of Physics, Astronomy and Material Science

Missouri State University
Missouri, United States
ariful114@live.missouristate.edu

Abstract

Millions of kilowatt-hours of energy is

continuously transferred from generation end to load end through
transmission lines. Lower transmission loss in a power system
increases the transmission efficiency and reduces the unit cost of
electricity. This loss is generally reduced either by increasing the
transmission voltage and or decreasing the resistance of the
transmission conductor. The decrease of resistance usually
increases the volume of the material incurring a higher cost. This
paper proposes a cost model with a view to evaluate the optimal
conductor size for a given voltage level in the transmission sector
of a power system. The optimization model is applied to
Bangladesh Power system (BPS) to evaluate the optimal conductor
size for each of its existing lines. Comparing the losses the annual
benefits of the use of optimal conductor is also evaluated. The
evaluated results show that the selection of the conductor size for
the transmission system requires careful attention.
Keywords Optimal conductor size, Corona loss, Bangladesh
Power System, ACSR conductors and Cost model for transmission
system.

I. INTRODUCTION
Electricity is produced in the generation sector to supply to
the consumers through distribution sector. The transmission
sector is introduced between generation and distribution sectors
to reduce the loss in carrying electricity from the generation end
to the distribution end. The investigation of the Department of
Energy of USA [1] shows that the loss in the transmission and
distribution sectors of the country in 2011 is 7.1% of its total
electricity use in the states. The worth of this amount of
national annual loss is $28.8 billion.
The transmission loss is reduced by increasing the
transmission voltage and also by decreasing the resistance of
the transmission line conductor. Both of these two loss reducing
factors require higher capital investment.
Kennon et. al.[2] consider a range of line optimization
techniques which can be applied to decide whether standard or

optimized line designs are appropriate. They observed that even

simple methods of optimization can help the designer keep the
costs to a minimum. In [3], Eghbal et.al. introduces an
optimization approach to determine the optimal voltage level.
The paper considers cost associated with overhead conductors,
shunt and series power compensation and active power losses
to obtain an optimal voltage level. Like [2],[3] most of the
optimization approaches solve the problem of voltage level and
conductor size together. However, in a utility optimal
transmission voltage level/levels are determined considering its
global perspective. For a particular transmission line, especially
for the short length line, the voltage level is decided
considering one of the grid voltage levels. The problem is then
to determine the optimal conductor size.
This paper proposes a simple optimization approach to
determine the optimal conductor size for a given transmission
line. The approach is based on a cost model which includes
both copper and corona losses. The model is proposed with a
view to help designer determine the optimal size of the
conductor where the voltage level is already decided. The
proposed model is applied to BPS to determine the optimal
conductor size for each of the line of BPS. The reduction of
loss and the corresponding economic benefits are evaluated.
The results are encouraging and deserve the attention of the
transmission line designers.
II. METHODOLOGY
During the transfer of electrical energy from the generation
sector to the distribution sector through transmission lines a
portion of the energy is lost in the transmission lines. This loss
has two components :
i)
ii)

Copper loss
Corona loss

and

The manifestation of these losses is the production of heat.

The excessive heat limits the flow of electrical power through
the transmission line, commonly known as the thermal limit.

The copper loss is expressed in terms of the amount of

current, I, flowing through the transmission line and the
resistance, R of the line as
P cu loss= I2 R

(1)

Where,
P cu loss= Power loss in each phase of the transmission line(watt)
I = Phase current (Amp)
R = Resistance of each phase (ohm).
Corona loss is caused by the ionization of air molecules
around the transmission line conductors. The formation of
corona is noticed by hissing noise, the smell of ozone and the
glow. Along with other factors, these noticeable parameters are
dependent on weather condition. The corona loss is expressed
by an empirical formula [4] as :
P Corona loss =

(f+25) (Vph Vdo) x 10-2

(2)

Where, Pcorona loss=Power loss in each phase of the transmission

line per km (watt/km).
= Normalized air density factor.
f= Frequency.
r= Radius of the conductor (cm).
d= Spacing between phases (cm).
Vph = Phase voltage (line to neutral) (kv).
V do = Disruptive critical voltage (kv).

Fig. 1 Variation of Cu loss and Corona loss with the size of the conductor.

Note that the increased or the decreased diameter of the

conductor increases or decreases the volume of the material for
the conductor and it has a clear reflection in the cost of
transmission. The transmission loss as a whole, copper and
corona loss together, and the cost of the conductor for the line
considered in Fig.1 are depicted for the different size of the
conductors in Fig.2.

The disruptive critical voltage, Vd0, of equation (2) depends

on the geometry of the conductor and weather condition and
initial voltage at which corona starts to form. This voltage may
be expressed as-

Vd 0 = g 0 m0 * r * log e Dr

(3)

Where,
g0 = Disruptive gradient in air (kv/cm).
m0= Roughness factor of the conductor.
D = GMD equivalent spacing between conductors (cm).
Although, the power loss component P cu loss linearly varies
with the resistance of the conductor for a given amount of
current flow, however, P Corona loss is complex in nature. To
observe the dependence of these two losses on the size of the
conductor, the variation of these two with the variation of
conductor resistance are separately depicted in Fig.1 for a
typical line of 230 kv and 1000 km long.

Fig. 2 Variation of transmission loss and the corresponding cost of conductor

for a 1000km line.

Fig.2 clearly reveals that the decrease of transmission loss

requires the increased investment in transmission line. The
figure also reveals that an optimal condition, M, may be
obtained. This optimal condition may not be unique for each
line. In order to evaluate an optimal condition in terms of
conductor size a cost function is proposed in what follows :
J(R) = JA + JB

(4)

JA of equation (4) is the cost due to the transmission loss and it

may be expressed as :
JA = 1 [ I2 R +

(f+25) (Vph Vdo) x 10-2 ]

Where, 1 is the cost per unit of energy loss.

(5)

The second term JB of equation (4) is the conductor cost

and may be expressed as :

Voltage Level (kv)

Current carrying
capacity (Amp)

Usual Power flow

(MW)

Conductor

Tongi

Ghorasal

Grosbeak

27

230

753

123.3

Shahji
bazar

Chatak

Grosbeak

150

132

600

237.6

Comilla
North

Meghna
Ghat

Twin
Mallard

56

230

1500

(6)

Where,
2 =cost/unit volume of conductor material.
l = length of transmission line (km).
= density of the material / unit volume (gm/cm3).

From

To obtain the optimal diameter of the conductor the cost

J(R) should be minimized for the rated condition of the power
flow. That is :
Min {J(R)} such that Ploss + Pflow = PR

(7)

To

Type

Line Length (km)

JB = 2 ( r2 l )

Location

345

where,
Ploss = P cu loss + Pcorona loss
Pflow = Vph I cos Vph , I
PR = Rated power flow per phase through the line.
III. RESULTS
A. Evaluation of optimal conductor size and benefits of its use :

Using the cost function of section II, the optimal conductor

size is evaluated for each of the selected lines. The evaluation
process considers the price of aluminum as $1.14/lb. The
variation of the cost J(R) with the variation of the diameter of
the conductor for all these lines are depicted in Figure.3 :

The cost model developed in section II is applied to BPS

with a view to observe its applicability and also to evaluate the
benefits of the use of optimal conductors in transmission lines.
The BPS transmission sector is an integrated grid of two
voltage level transmission lines; 132 and 230 kv. Extra high
voltage line is not economical for BPS as the grid network
consists of comparatively small geographical area and it does
not transfer huge electrical power. The 400kv transmission
lines are under construction, which will raise transmission
voltage level of this grid from two to three. The statistics of
BPS grid in terms of voltage level and line length are presented
in Table 1 [5]. The line length is expressed in terms of the
distance of the circuit. For example, for a double circuit line,
the length of the circuit is twice the actual distance.
TABLE I
TRANSMISSION LINE STATISTICS OF BPS.
Voltage Level (kv)

No. of lines

Total line length (in

ckt km)

132

80

6071.34

230

20

2647.30

400

686.00

Out of 103 transmission lines, 3 (three) lines are randomly

selected and they are described in Table II. All of these three
lines are made of aluminum with steel re-inforced.
TABLE II
DIFFERENT PARAMETERS OF SELECTED LINES :

Fig. 3 Variation of cost with the variation of conductor size.

The evaluated optimal conductor size and the

corresponding power losses are compared with the existing
values in Table III. The table also presents the annual saving for
each of the selected lines. The unit cost of electrical energy is
considered as Tk. 2.60/KWhr.
The table reveals that the annual saving with the optimal
conductor depends on the voltage level and also on the type of
conductor. Note that the corona loss is a function of voltage and
the copper loss increases with the increase of conductor
resistance.

TABLE III
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE EXISTING LINE LOSS WITH THE
EXPECTED ONE FOR LINES WITH OPTIMAL CONDUCTOR SIZE
Conductor
diameter
(cm)

For existing

For optimal
conductor

Annual Savings
(Tk.x 105)

Optimal (cm)

Line loss
(MW)

Existing (cm)

Location

Total

Tongi

Ghorasal

2.264

2.22

3.22

2.52

15.01

0.55

Shahji
bazar
Comilla
North

Chatak

2.025

2.00

6.39

6.378

122.5

0.816

Fig.5 Annual saving per unit length of conductor when optimal size is used.

M.Ghat

2.264
*2

3.37

5.38

5.074

69.6

1.244

Table IV and Fig.5 show that the saving in case of 230kv

lines is more than that of 132kv line. Similarly, the reduction in
line loss in 230kv lines is more than that of 132kv lines.

From

To

Saving
/ km

The paper also investigates the optimal conductor size for

each of the line of BPS. However, the optimal size of conductor
for 11 lines of 132kv and one line of 230kv are not possible to
determine as the necessary data are not available. In this case, it
is considered that the existing line is replaced by ACSR
conductor of optimal diameter. The evaluated result is
presented in Table IV.
TABLE IV
COMPARISON OF LOSSES OF EXISTING AND OPTIMAL
CONDUCTORS AND THE CORRESPONDING ANNUAL BENEFIT
Hourly total loss
No. of
Line
Voltage
Annual
lines
length
Level
saving
(MWhr)
(km)
(kv)
(Tk x107)

132
230

69
19

3360.8
1324.4

Existing
conductor

With
optimal
ACSR
conductor

143.23
117.32

131.02
95.178

27.84
50.43

The reduction of line loss due to the use of optimal

conductor is shown in Fig.4. Saving per unit length of line for
both 132 and 230 kv lines are depicted in Fig.5.

During the investigation it appears that in many lines of

132kv, the existing conductor size is close to the optimal.
However, in case of conductors of 230kv lines, a significant
difference is observed when the optimal size is compared with
the existing one. Moreover, the consideration of corona loss in
the optimization model creates a significant difference in 230kv
lines as this loss increases with the increasing voltage level.
IV. CONCLUSION
The selection of optimal conductor size in the transmission
sector reduces the transmission loss resulting lower cost of
electricity. This paper develops a simple optimization model
based on a cost function appropriate for transmission system
with a view to help designer select conductor size for a given
voltage level. The model is applied to each of the line of BPS
and optimal conductor size for each line is evaluated. The
annual losses for each line and also for the global system (BPS)
are evaluated. The corresponding expected annual savings due
to the use of optimal conductor is determined. The evaluated
result clearly reveals that the optimal conductor size reduces a
significant amount of transmission loss creating an eloquent
annual saving. The benefits in terms of the reduction of line
loss or reduction of the cost of electricity are more for higher
voltage transmission lines.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]
Fig.4 Reduction in line loss due to optimal conductor size.

"State Electricity Profiles 2011", US Energy Information

Administration, DOE/EIA 0348(01)/2, July 2012.
Kennon, R. E., & Douglass, D. A. (1990). EHV transmission line design
opportunities for cost reduction. Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions
on, 5(2), 1145-1152.
Eghbal, M., Saha, T. K., & Nguyen, M. H. (2010, December). Optimal
voltage level and line bundling for transmission lines. In Universities
Power Engineering Conference (AUPEC), 2010 20th Australasian (pp. 16). IEEE.
Peek, F. W. (1911). The law of corona and the dielectric strength of
air.American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Transactions of the, 30(3),
1889-1965.
(2012) List of Transmission lines, PGCB Official website [Online].
Available:
http://www.pgcb.org.bd/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i
d=288&Itemid=207