Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1000717
Transmission Line Uprating Guide
TR-1000717
M. Ostendorp
EPRI • 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.
This is an EPRI Level 2 report. A Level 2 report is intended as an informal report of continuing research, a
meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins Drive, P.O. Box
23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (800) 313-3774.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
EPRI. POWERING PROGRESS is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 2000 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
This document was prepared by
iii
iv
ABSTRACT
The objective of the Transmission Line Uprating Guide is to document both common and
uncommon methods for increasing the power transmission capacity of existing overhead
transmission lines. Most of the methods included in this guide require less capital investment
and shorter outages than the construction of new transmission lines or extensive reconstruction
of existing lines. The emphasis of this uprating guide is on methods of increasing the thermal
capacity of short high voltage (HV) lines without noticeably reducing service reliability.
This guide on line uprating is limited to methods that do not require extensive structural
modifications, reconstruction, or wholesale replacement of existing structures though certain
approaches may require the structural reinforcement of angle and dead-end wire supports.
Generally, this implies changes and modifications that will not increase the transverse or vertical
loading applied to suspension structures by more than 20%. Though the solutions proposed may
not suitable for all anticipated ice and wind loading levels, at least some of the methods proposed
should be applicable regardless of the loading environment.
The objectives of this uprating guide are to suggest methods and explain techniques that allow
significantly increased power flow on existing distributed assets without extensive disruption to
the operation of existing facilities. Regardless of the situation, in all cases, the issue of power
line reliability and public safety is primary while economic issues are considered secondary.
Based on this premise, the emphasis is on uprating techniques that yield the maximum increase
in rated transmission line power flow given restrictions on outage time and minimum capital
investment.
v
vi
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1-1
Scope...................................................................................................................... 1-1
Objectives ............................................................................................................... 1-1
Background............................................................................................................. 1-1
vii
Heat Balance Methods............................................................................................ 4-2
Definition of Variables for Heat Balance Calculations........................................ 4-3
Radiation ........................................................................................................... 4-4
Convection......................................................................................................... 4-5
Natural Convection........................................................................................ 4-5
Forced Convection ........................................................................................ 4-6
Solar Heating..................................................................................................... 4-9
Altitude of the Sun ......................................................................................... 4-9
Ohmic Losses.................................................................................................. 4-14
Thermal Rating – Dependence on Location and Orientation ................................ 4-14
Thermal Rating – Dependence on Conductor Parameters ................................... 4-15
Thermal Ratings – Dependence on Weather Conditions ...................................... 4-17
Thermal Ratings – Dependence on Maximum Allowable Conductor Temperature
(MACT) ................................................................................................................. 4-18
viii
Conductor Hardware............................................................................................. 5-22
Metallic Conductor Hardware .......................................................................... 5-23
Non-Metallic Conductor Hardware................................................................... 5-24
ix
Comparison of Weather Monitor and Tension Monitor-Based Dynamic Line
Ratings .............................................................................................................. 8-9
Rating Variation in Adjacent Line Sections...................................................... 8-11
x
[H] Dynamic Rating Methods ................................................................................ 11-4
[I] Reconductoring Lines with Novel Conductors .................................................. 11-5
[J] Sag-tension Calculations for Overhead Lines .................................................. 11-5
xi
FIGURE LIST
Figure 2-1 Maximum Power Flow Considering System Stability.............................................. 2-2
Figure 2-2 Phasor Diagram for Stability & Voltage Illustration. ................................................ 2-4
Figure 3-1 Sag Diagram Showing Sags for Various Times and Loading Conditions................ 3-2
Figure 3-2 Diagram Showing Variation in Conductor Tension as a Function of Length
and Loading Condition..................................................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3-3 Basic Electrical Ground Clearance Diagram for Bare Overhead Transmission
Lines ............................................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-4 Median Survey Results as to Why People Oppose Transmission Lines................3-14
Figure 3-5 NESC Transmission Line Loading Areas ..............................................................3-17
Figure 3-6 NESC Wind Pressure Values for Transmission Line Design. ................................3-17
Figure 4-1 Transmission Line Conductor Emissivity as a Function of Time. ...........................4-16
Figure 5-1 Stress-Strain Curve for ACSR Conductor............................................................... 5-8
Figure 5-2 Stress-Strain Curve for All Aluminum Conductor.................................................... 5-9
Figure 5-3 Annealing of 0.081 Inch Diameter Hard Drawn Copper Wire.................................5-11
Figure 5-4 Annealing of 1350-H19 Hard Drawn Aluminum Wire.............................................5-12
Figure 6-1 Change in Sag for All Aluminum Conductor as a Function of Span Length ............ 6-3
Figure 6-2 Sag for a "Strong" ACSR Conductor as a Function of Conductor Temperature
and Ruling Span Length .................................................................................................. 6-7
Figure 6-3 Comparison of Sag Change with Temperature for All Aluminum Conductor,
45/7 (Type 7) ACSR, and 30/19 (Type 23) ACSR............................................................ 6-8
Figure 6-4 Sag at High Temperature Calculated with and without Aluminum
Compression ................................................................................................................... 6-9
Figure 6-5 Final Sags for Mallard ACSR in a 1200 ft Span.....................................................6-10
Figure 6-6 Measured Line Tension as a Function of Line Current for a Line with 30/19
Mallard ACSR ................................................................................................................6-11
Figure 7-1 Wind Speed Distribution at 70°F Showing Actual Reported Values (Shown in
Parentheses) and the Author’s Smoothed Distribution Curve. ......................................... 7-4
Figure 7-2 Typical Annealing of Aluminum Wires (Alcoa)........................................................ 7-5
Figure 8-1 - Probability Density Distributions for a Typical Circuit Load and Dynamic
Rating.............................................................................................................................. 8-3
Figure 8-2 Wind Speed (15 min average) at Two Locations 1.5 km Apart Along a 230-kV
Line in the Eastern US..................................................................................................... 8-8
Figure 8-3 Comparison of Weather-Based and Tension-Based Cumulative Rating
Distributions ...................................................................................................................8-10
Figure 8-4 Comparison of Tension-Based Rating Estimates for 4 separate Line Sections .....8-10
Figure 9-1 Illustration of Typical Behavior of ACSS Conductor Illustrating that Initial and
Final Sags are Nearly Identical........................................................................................ 9-4
Figure 9-2 Application of ACSS in New Line Design Showing 30% Higher Thermal
Rating with the Same Maximum Sag and Tension Loading on Structures ....................... 9-5
xii
Figure 9-3 Ampacity and Sag of Original Drake ACSR and Calumet ACSS/TW
Replacement Conductor as a Function of Maximum Allowable Temperature .................. 9-6
Figure 9-4 Plots of Conductivity and Loss of Strength for High Temperature Japanese
Aluminum Alloys.............................................................................................................. 9-8
Figure 9-5 Comparison of ACSR-type Conductors with Invar and Conventional Steel
Cores. ............................................................................................................................. 9-9
Figure 9-6 Summary Table Showing Gapped and Conventional Constructions for
Japanese High Temperature Conductors. ....................................................................... 9-9
Figure 10-1 5 year Total Cost vs. Percent Increase in Rating for Case Study #3 ...................10-4
xiii
TABLE LIST
2-1 Power Flow Limits on Lines and Cables............................................................................ 2-3
3-1 Minimum Vertical Ground Clearances According to NESC C2-1997, Rule 232C .............. 3-7
3-2 Minimum Vertical Ground Clearances According to NESC C2-1997, Rule 232D .............. 3-8
3-3 The Impact of Distance on Public Opposition to Power Transmission Lines.....................3-15
3-4 Definition of NESC Loading Areas ...................................................................................3-16
3-5 Ratio of Iced to Bare Conductor Weight ...........................................................................3-19
3-6 Cyclic, Wind-induced Conductor Motions.........................................................................3-22
4-1 Variation in Conductor Temperature and Rating with Weather Conditions (IEEE738)....... 4-2
4-2 Definitions of Thermal Rating Equation Variables ............................................................. 4-3
4-3 Solar Azimuth Constant, C, as a Function of “Hour Angle,”,ω, and Solar Azimuth
Variable,χ. ......................................................................................................................4-11
4-4 Altitude, Hc, and Azimuth, Zc, in Degrees of the Sun at Various Latitudes for an
Annual Peak Solar Heat Input ........................................................................................4-11
4-5 Total Heat Flux Received by a Surface at Sea Level Normal to the Sun’s Rays ..............4-12
4-6 Elevation Correction Factor..............................................................................................4-13
4-7 Solar Heat Multiplying Factors, Ksolar for High Altitudes .................................................4-14
4-8 Thermal Rating for 795kcmil, 26/7 ACSR (Drake) at 100 °C with 40 °C Air
Temperature, Emissivity=Absorptivity=0.5, 2ft/sec (0.61m/sec) Crosswind, and
Direct Sun at 2PM on June10.........................................................................................4-15
4-9 Illustration of the Effect of Diameter, Resistance, Emissivity & Absorptivity on
Thermal Rating...............................................................................................................4-17
4-10 Effect of Weather Conditions on Thermal Ratings. In all Cases, the Conductor is
795kcmil, 26/7 ACSR (Drake), Emissivity=Absorptivity=0.5, Direct Sun on June10,
Clear Air,at Sea Level,Latitute=40deg, with Conductor at 100 °C ...................................4-18
4-11 Line Thermal Rating as a Function of Maximum Allowable Conductor Temperature.
In all Cases, the Conductor is 26/7 795kcmil ACSR (Drake) with
Emissivity=Absorptivity=0.5, Direct Sun on June 10, Clear Air, at Sea Level,
Latitude=40deg, with Line Oriented East-West...............................................................4-19
5-1a Basic Material Properties of Wire Used in Overhead Conductor ..................................... 5-2
5-1b Basic Material Properties of Wire Used in Overhead Conductor ..................................... 5-3
5-2 Comparison of Mechanical Properties for Different Strandings of 795 kcmil ACSR
conductors (US Common Units) ...................................................................................... 5-4
5-3 Comparison of Mechanical Properties for Different Strandings of 400mm2 ACSR
Conductors (SI Units) ...................................................................................................... 5-4
5-4 Comparison of AAC with AAC/TW Alternatives................................................................. 5-6
5-5 Formula Constants (Metric Units).....................................................................................5-17
5-6 Formula Constants (English Units)...................................................................................5-18
6-1 Sag-tension Calculations for 37 AAC (Arbutus)................................................................. 6-2
6-2 Coefficients of Thermal Expansion.................................................................................... 6-4
xiv
6-3 Sag-Tension Calculations for 37 AAC (Arbutus) ............................................................... 6-5
6-4 Sag-Tension Calculations for 37 AAC (Arbutus) ............................................................... 6-6
7-1 Assumed Hours of Combined Wind and Air Temperature in 30 Years for a Typical
Protected Transmission Line Right-of-Way...................................................................... 7-4
7-2 Conductor Ratings Based on 12% to 15% Loss of Aluminum Wire Strength Over 30
Years Where the Normal Load does not Occur for More than 13,000 Hours and the
Contingency Load does not Occur for More than 600 Hours. The Loads are
Assumed to be Random .................................................................................................. 7-6
8-1 Effect of Assumed Wind Speed on Thermal Rating for Drake 795 kcmil ACSR at
100°C, Assuming Full Sun and an Air Temperature of 40°C............................................ 8-4
9-1 ACSS Equivalents to Standard Type 16, 795 kcmil, 26/7 ACSR (Drake) .......................... 9-2
9-2 Continuous Ampacity of Equivalent ACSR and ACSS Conductors as a Function of
Maximum Allowable Conductor Temperature .................................................................. 9-3
9-3 Illustration of the Lower Thermal Elongation of ACSS Conductor...................................... 9-3
9-4 Maximum Operating Temperatures for High Temperature Alloys Made in Japan.............. 9-7
9-5 Conductivity of High Temperature Alloys Made in Japan .................................................. 9-7
xv
1
INTRODUCTION
The objective of the Transmission Line Uprating Guide is to document and explain both
common and uncommon methods for increasing the power transmission capacity of existing
overhead transmission lines. Most of the methods included in this guide require less capital
investment and shorter outages than the construction of new transmission lines or extensive
reconstruction of existing lines. The emphasis of this uprating guide is on methods of increasing
the thermal capacity of short high voltage (HV) lines without noticeably reducing their service
reliability.
Scope
This guide on line uprating is limited to methods that do not require extensive structural
modifications, reconstruction, or wholesale replacement of existing structures though certain
approaches may require the structural reinforcement of angle and dead-end wire supports.
Generally, this implies changes and modifications that will not increase the transverse or vertical
loading applied to suspension structures by more than 20%. Though the solutions proposed may
not suitable for all anticipated ice and wind loading levels, at least some of the methods proposed
should be applicable regardless of the loading environment.
Objectives
The objectives of this uprating guide are to suggest methods and explain techniques that allow
significantly increased power flow on existing distributed assets without extensive disruption to
the operation of existing facilities. Regardless of the situation, in all cases, the issue of power
line reliability and public safety is primary while economic issues are considered secondary.
Based on this premise, the emphasis is on uprating techniques that yield the maximum increase
in rated transmission line power flow given restrictions on outage time and minimum capital
investment.
Background
Over the years, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has supported considerable research
in the areas of transmission line uprating and upgrading in a variety of forms. In particular, this
guide draws upon the results of these EPRI projects to evaluate new line uprating technologies
and research into the high temperature operation of stranded conductors and connectors.
Previous investigations have explored the accuracy of sag and tension analysis models and the
effect of high temperature operation on the expected service life of suspension and termination
hardware. Results of these investigations have been reported in various EPRI technical reports
produced over the last 8 years and can be obtained from the EPRI distribution center in Palo
Alto, CA.
1-1
2
POWER TRANSMISSION FLOW CAPACITY LIMITS
The need for additional power transmission transfer capacity has traditionally been met by the
construction of new high voltage lines and substations. However, with continuously increasing
blocks of power being moved from an increasing number and size of generating stations over
increasing distances, novel transmission line designs for increasing line operating voltages were
and still are explored by the industry. As the length of high voltage power lines constructed in
the United States continuously grew, public opposition to this construction activity has increased
to the point where, in some areas of the United States and other developed countries, it is more
and more difficult or nearly impossible to obtain permission to build new facilities.
Also, issues such as the environmental land use, esthetics, and electrical and magnetic field
environmental effects have arisen to hinder and delay the planning and construction of new
transmission lines. While environmental and health issues have been sometimes raised out of
genuine concern of the public, many times opposition has focused on these issues because a
selected number of people does not appreciate the appearance of overhead lines within their
neighborhoods and communities.
While public opposition to the construction of new transmission lines has mounted a strong
campaign, the traditional power delivery system planning techniques, appropriate to a regulated
industry experiencing an extended period of sustained load growth, are increasingly being
questioned. Most of the questions raised by the opposition in such instances center on one of
two issues. First, the slowing of load growth on the overall power delivery system from a rate
ranging from 5% to 10% to a rate of 1% to 5%. Second, the inability to plan the transmission
grid and delivery system given the situation that the location and generating capacity of new
generating stations and large capacity users is unknown. Consequently, transmission planning
horizons have shortened from as much as 20 years to as little as 2 to 3 years, and the focus has
shifted to incremental uprating techniques. These short lead-time and economic incremental
uprating techniques typically yield transfer capacity increases of less than 10%.
With the addition of new Independent Power Producers and Co-generators to many transmission
systems, the combined effect of volatile price differentials, increased regulatory support and
requirements to provide open access, and the uncertainty associated with the future locations of
generators, lead to much greater uncertainty in the prediction of future loads. At the same time,
in several instances in New York State, line-rebuilding projects deferred to allow the installation
and evaluation of conductor temperature monitors were never implemented because the
projected load growth was accommodated by the installation of impedance control devices on
neighboring delivery systems. Such utility experiences indicate the need for flexibility whenever
dealing with modifications of transmission lines. Therefore, it is important for the operator to
explore transmission line modification alternatives that are capable of being implemented
quickly and economically.
2-1
This application guide emphasizes techniques for uprating existing transmission lines with
minimum capital investment. Although power flow through components of the transmission
system are the result of thermal, voltage drop, or phase shift limitations, this application guide
deals primarily with analysis and design methods to increase the thermal capacity of existing
high voltage overhead lines. More specifically, the application guide focuses on methods and
tools available for increasing the power transfer capacity of ‘short’ transmission lines since these
facilities are mostly affected by thermal limitations.
Figure 2-1
Maximum Power Flow Considering System Stability.
2-2
Surge Impedance Loading Limits
As power flows along high voltage transmission lines, there is an electrical phase shift that
increases proportionally with the distance of the line and the magnitude of the power flow. As
this phase shift increases, the system in which the line operates grows increasingly unstable
when subjected to electrical disturbances. Typically, for very long transmission lines, thermal
operational limits are not applicable and the power flow must be limited to what is commonly
called the Surge Impedance Loading (SIL) of the line.
Surge Impedance Loading is defined as the product of the termination bus voltages divided by
the characteristic impedance of the line. Since the characteristic impedance of various HV and
EHV lines is not dissimilar, the SIL can commonly be approximated by the square of the system
voltage.
Typically, such stability related operational limits are likely to govern the maximum allowable
power flow on lines that are more than 150 miles (240 km) in length. Typical stability limits as a
function of transmission line system voltage are listed in Table 2-1. For very long transmission
lines of more than 500 miles (800 km), the power flow limitation may be less than the SIL as
shown in Table 2-1. It should be noted that stability limits on power flow of high voltage lines
may be as low as 20% of the power flow limits stipulated by thermal operational requirements of
the transmission line.
Table 2-1
Power Flow Limits on Lines and Cables
The surge impedance and load limit for a transmission line can frequently be increased by the
addition of a series of capacitors or other impedance changing devices. However, little can be
done to increase the surge impedance load limit of an existing transmission line other than the
bundling of those transmission lines (addition of a second conductor) that were initially
constructed with a single conductor per phase.
2-3
Figure 2-2
Phasor Diagram for Stability & Voltage Illustration
2-4
Voltage drop limits are primarily a function of the transmission line series impedance. In most
cases, resistance plays a minor role in the constraints imposed on transmission lines. Therefore,
as is the case for SIL limits, there is very little that can be done to change the voltage drop of an
existing line other than to change line conductors. For example, reconductoring of an existing
230-kV line by replacing original 636 kcmil ACSR Hawk conductor with a 954 kcmil ACSR
Rail conductor only increases the voltage drop limit by 5%.
Adding shunt capacitors at the end of the transmission line may increase voltage drop limits. The
advantage in adding shunt resistors to a voltage drop constrained line is usually much less
expensive than the reconstruction of the line.
Thermal Limits
Thermal power flow limits on high voltage overhead lines are intended to limit the temperature
attained by the energized conductors and the resulting sag and loss of tensile strength of the
component. In most cases, the maximum conductor temperature permitted in the operation of
modern high voltage transmission lines is restricted as a function of ground clearance concerns
rather than by the annealing of the aluminum strands.
Thermal limits, as typically calculated, are not a function of the transmission line length. Thus
for a given line design, the thermal limit of a 1 mile (1.6 km) long transmission line and the
thermal limit of a 300 mile (500 km) long line are identical. Essentially, thermal limits usually
determine the maximum power flow capacity of lines that are less than 50 miles (80 km) in
length.
Several methods can be used by utilities to increase the MVA capacity of their transmission
lines. Some of these methods are based on technically straightforward tasks, such as reinforcing
the support structures and load carrying components of the system or the restringing of the line
with a larger conductor or a bundle of conductors. However, these alternatives come at a price
and mostly require a sustained outage on the existing system. In addition to the refurbishment
cost involved, there construction will have to be managed and mitigated within the right-of-way
requiring environmental permits and restoration of the right-of-way condition. Alternatively, if
an outage is to be avoided or the duration to be minimized, special construction methods are
required to allow service while the work is in progress.
Other thermal uprating methods, such as methods employing dynamic thermal ratings or voltage
uprating, may require little or no line outage time and require less capital investment and lead
time than the reconductoring or reinforcing of the structures. The disadvantage of these methods
are that there is a greater degree of technical sophistication required in using these methods in
such a manner that ensures the safe and reliable operation of the system at higher loading levels.
2-5
appropriate method of uprating yields a transmission line of increased MVA capacity that is
economically sound and consistent with present and future transmission system needs.
System concerns and issues relate to a number of short and long-term system planning questions,
ranging from how to survive the next winter (summer) peak to providing transmission capacity
from a major proposed generation addition to the delivery grid. Sometimes these system effects
are complicated, difficult to analyze, and typically involve several utilities. For example, several
electric utilities may enter into a wheeling arrangement, which results in increased flows on lines
owned by still other utilities. Sometimes, major changes in power flow patterns occur as a result
of new construction such as the installation of a generating station, which may reverse the
direction of the previously observed flow of power. Short and long-range load flow, fault, and
system stability studies are required to thoroughly assess the impact of such individual changes
on the delivery system and to predict future transmission needs.
Once the need for additional transmission capacity has been identified, the first question that
needs to be answered is whether to construct new facilities or to attempt to gain the additional
capacity from existing installations. A number of factors need to be considered when making
this decision. As a first step, the utility is required to decide if the cause of the present limitation
is mandated by maximum power flow, voltage control, stability, or reliability of service? Other
questions to be answered address the issue if there is a need for base load or peaking (or perhaps
emergencies), is the load seasonal, is the effect localized or does the limitation affect a large area
of the delivery system?
In many cases, increased maximum power flow capability can be accomplished either by raising
the voltage or the current of a transmission line. If the problem involves stability, a reduction of
the effective impedance of the transmission line can be achieved with increased voltage which
will reduce the per unit impedance. If the need is to cover short-term loading contingencies, the
problem is more likely to require experience and knowledge of conductor temperatures, real time
monitoring, and dynamic rating to achieve an acceptable solution.
Other relevant questions that need to be addressed relate to system requirements of specific lines.
For example, can the existing transmission lines be taken out of service long enough to allow for
some form of reconstruction? If not, is it possible to use construction techniques and temporary
structures to maintain reliable service during the reconstruction of the transmission line? On the
other hand, can the required modifications be (and this takes us over into the physical aspects of
uprating) performed using live line work methods and tools? Frequently, the uprating of a line
by increasing the voltage may only require changing of insulators, which can often be done live.
Alternatively, the installation of sag monitoring devices for dynamic ratings can be performed
using a hot stick and need not result in line outages.
Frequently the selection of the most appropriate alternative is directly influenced by the schedule
set forth by the grid operator in which to achieve the system modification. Immediate needs by
system operators may be able to be met by the application of current uprating methods where the
economic impact of the cost of losses is of secondary importance. These uprating methods of
course could not be deployed in those cases that are dictated by longer-term operational needs
and economics.
Optimal transmission line economics requires consideration of the cost of construction as well as
the present worth of the cost of losses and maintenance. One alternative may result in greater
2-6
capital cost immediately while another may give higher cost of losses over a period of years.
Consequently, to fully evaluate each alternative, a detailed analysis is required to properly
estimate changes in energy costs, interest rates, and other financial characteristics to determine
the sensitivity of the highest ranked solution to changes in economic parameters. Adding to the
complexity of such an analysis is the fact that these economic parameters are continuously
changing in difficult to predict ways.
Sometimes financial characteristics rather than economic factors dominate the decision process
and the final outcome. For example, a refurbishment project may be economically advantageous
but it may be considered impossible for financial reasons. An example of such a situation is the
often repeated claim that it would be economically justified to change all of an electric utility’s
distribution transformers to minimize losses and realize additional revenues. While an economic
and technically justified case could be made to justify such a modification, the financial aspects
relating to such a large expenditure render it impossible.
To further complicate the evaluation of such analyses, it should be noted that the time frame
associated with the achievement of the primary goal, the increased power transfer, adds another
important constraint to the problem of ranking various alternatives. While an increase in the
current rating of a transmission line can be used to cover an immediate or short-term need within
the delivery system, such an approach is not appropriate to effect a long term increase in the
transfer capacity of the system.
Another consideration to be evaluated is related to the desire to implement system wide changes
to facilitate increased power transfers rather than the uprating of individual transmission lines.
One aspect of this with respect to transmission line uprating relates to the planned system wide
implementation of changes rather than the modification of an individual line. Some utilities have
considered the approach of uprating entire voltage classes of transmission line for the numerous
benefits this has on overall system operation and maintenance, as well as providing additional
transfer capacity to accommodate future load growth.
A very basic question of the decision process is whether construction of new transmission lines
is feasible. This decision involves physical considerations such as the availability of right-of-
way and institutional considerations such as the difficulty in obtaining necessary authorizations.
Frequently, physical and institutional considerations may overlap.
In a similar manner, physical and institutional considerations have a strong effect on the uprating
potential of transmission lines. If there is a physical constraint on the availability of right of way
for the construction of a new line, there usually is also a physical constraint for uprating as it
relates to the condition of existing transmission line structures and foundations. Essentially, are
the support structures capable of bearing the additional weight imposed by reconductoring?
Also, in most instances, there are physical constraints relating to the maximum conductor size
that can be supported and the insulation strength prevalent on the transmission line. Similarly,
increasing the line voltage may be limited by the conductor surface electric field and resulting
corona while the support structure’s opening may limit switching surge over-voltages and dictate
pre-insertion resistors in the circuit breakers.
Other fundamental questions involving physical constraints include deciding if the existing
transmission line has the potential to carry the desired capacity, if clearances are sufficient to
increase the line voltage, or if the clearances are sufficient to add a larger conductor at a lower
2-7
tension. For example, old lines may have generous clearances that would make voltage uprating
practical. On the other hand, old lines have often been constructed with such small conductor
that corona effects would limit any increase in the line voltage. Also, the question is posed if the
support structures are sufficiently robust and of a condition to allow reconductoring or permit the
addition of a second conductor per phase? Finally the question arises if there are line facilities of
a type that lend themselves to increase the transmission capacity via the dynamic rating of the
conductor? Alternatively, it should be determined if present conductor current limits are defined
unrealistically low given the present state of knowledge and technology?
Sometimes new equipment and procedures can be utilized to remove previously existing physical
restrictions on the power transfer capacity of a transmission line. Depending on the situation,
synthetic insulators may provide superior contamination performance and result in a lesser
structural load than porcelain suspension strings and can be used to withstand greater voltage
stress in the same space. Also, new conductor manufacturing techniques and the deployment of
such novel conductors that are particularly suited for the uprating of transmission lines provide
additional options to electric utilities.
At the same time, an easily overlooked physical constraint in the uprating of a transmission line
is the proportion of angle and deadend structures to tangent structures on the particular line being
considered for uprating. Angle and deadend structures frequently are required to be strengthened
and/or rebuilt in the reconductoring of a transmission line whereas minimal changes may be
required on tangent support structures. Therefore, the relative number of angle and deadend
structures in the transmission line, which require replacement, directly affect both physical and
economic feasibility of a selected uprating alternative.
Other types of constraints may also affect the ranking of uprating alternatives in the evaluation of
a particular transmission line. Frequently, institutional constraints brought forth by regulators
and agencies may require addressing pressures brought to bear by licensing considerations. For
example, is it less complicated and time consuming to gain permission to change some or all of
the presently existing facilities than to build new ones? Often, institutional constraints may force
the selection of a less economic alternative in order to meet schedules imposed by load growth
characteristics or competitive pressures.
Once the decision is made to seek additional transfer capacity by uprating existing lines, the
process requires the evaluation of yet another group of alternatives that center on the choice of
method and technologies used to increase the power transfer. For example, can the transmission
line capacity be increased by raising the line voltage only? Alternatively, can the power transfer
capacity be increased by raising the line current, or will it require an increase in the current and
voltage? Finally, a decision is required on the use of methods and technologies to be deployed to
achieve the objectives. Advantages and disadvantages of many of these approaches are
addressed in subsequent sections of this application guide.
2-8
3
TRANSMISSION LINE UPRATING CONSTRAINTS
There are many factors that constrain the construction of overhead transmission lines. Examples
of the primary issues affecting the construction of power lines include minimum operational and
live working related electrical clearances, maximum structure wire and environmental loads and
tensions, interruption of service, limits on capital expenditures, access restrictions, construction
limitations, inspection and maintenance requirements, and environmental effects. Environmental
effects include radio noise, audible noise, magnetic and electric fields, and induced voltage and
current in nearby objects. In this section of the application guide, several of these constraints are
considered and their consequences and impact are discussed in attempting to increase the power
flow on existing transmission lines.
3-1
maximum operating temperature directly equates to the minimum attachment height which in
turn equates to the minimum required support structure height and spacing. In a detailed analysis
and design of a transmission line having many different spans, sag-clearance calculations must
be developed and evaluated for all spans of each tension section.
Span Length
Init
Final - STC
Final - LTC
Max Load
TCmax
Buffer
Electrical
Clearance
GROUND LEVEL
Figure 3-1
Sag Diagram Showing Sags for Various Times and Loading Conditions
3-2
Definitions of the labels used in Figure 3-1 are provided as follows:
“Init” constitutes the initial installed unloaded (with no ice or wind) sag of the conductor. The
initial installed unloaded condition is typically determined at a conductor temperature of 10°C to
25°C (50°F to 80°F). This is also typically referred to as the line “ruling span stringing sag”.
“Final – STC” constitutes the final sag of the conductor after a significant ice and wind loading
event has occurred for a short time - typically an hour. STC stands for “Short Term Creep”.
“Final – LTC” constitutes the final sag of the conductor expected after an extended period of
service – typically 10 years – in which the conductor is assumed to maintain an even conductor
temperature of 15°C (59°F) with no ice or wind loading. “LTC” stands for “Long Term Creep”
which occurs even if heavy ice and wind loads never occur.
“Max Load” constitutes the sag of the conductor during the specified maximum ice and wind
loading at a reduced temperature – typically –18°C to 0°C (0°F to 32°F). It should be noted that
the sag prior to the occurrence of this event is normally assumed to be the “Init” sag and that the
sag observed upon conclusion of this event is considered the “Final STC” sag.
“TCmax” constitutes the sag of the conductor when the conductor’s temperature reaches the
maximum value for which the line has been designed – typically 50°C to 150°C. The conductor
sag expected prior to the occurrence of this high temperature event is assumed to be the larger of
the “Final STC” and the “Final LTC” sag.
Further review of Figure 3-1 also shows the typical behavior of transmission line conductors
where the expected conductor sag under maximum ice and wind loading conditions is less than
the expected sag of the conductor at the maximum temperature condition. As stated previously,
for small or weak conductors subjected to heavy ice loading, this may not be true.
Note that Figure 3-1 illustrates the “snapshot” nature of traditionally used conductor sag-tension
calculations. The actual conductor sag position at any time in the life of the transmission line
depends on the actual mechanical and electrical load history of the line. For example, if the high
loading event (ice and wind) is more severe or persists for a longer time than assumed in the
determination of the Max Load condition, then the corresponding conductor sag at the Max Load
and the associated increase in the sag will be greater than indicated in the figure. To account for
these uncertainties, the use of safety buffers is required.
The conductor sag never stops increasing with both time and high loading events throughout the
life of the transmission line. As a result, the sag at a given conductor temperature (e.g. 15.5°°C,
or 60oF) increases steadily over the years following construction. However, when subjected to
moderate unloaded and loaded conductor tensions (typically 15% and 50% of rated strength), the
rate of change in the conductor sag with each such event decreases over the life of the line.
Thus, if a heavy ice loading event occurs 10 years after the initial installation, the permanent
increase in the sag of the conductor is much smaller than if the loading event occurred within the
first 6 months after construction of the transmission line. Similarly, under everyday unloaded
conditions, the rate of change in the conductor sag will decrease with time.
3-3
Tension-Elongation Diagram (Normal)
The “tension-elongation” diagram shown in Figure 3-2 shows how the tension of the conductor
changes in response to the changes in the sag as a function of the load, time, and temperature as
shown in the preceding sag diagram (Figure 3-1).
The initial unloaded (Init) sag corresponds to the initial unloaded (Init) tension. Increasing this
initial tension decreases all of the transmission line sags but also results in an increase in the
tension loads on angle and dead-end structures while decreasing the mechanical self-damping of
the conductor. A significant reduction in the self-damping performance can lead to an increased
likelihood of aeolian vibration-induced fatigue damage.
Normal Conductor
Tension-Elongation
Diagram
Max
Structure Max
Tension
Loads
TCmax
Elastic Maximum Sag
Modulus
Conductor Length
Figure 3-2
Diagram Showing Variation in Conductor Tension as a Function of Length and Loading Condition
3-4
With an older existing line that has reached its final sag, increasing the conductor tension re-
initiates creep (though at a reduced rate) and yields the same increased angle and dead-end
structure loads. At the same time, re-tensioning reduces the conductor’s mechanical self-
damping resulting in increased aeolian vibration amplitudes. When re-tensioning new and
existing lines, the maximum conductor tension is the result of a combination of low conductor
temperature and high wind and/or ice loading. With new lines, these increased tensions are a
major determinant of angle and deadend structure cost. Similarly, with existing transmission
lines, any increase in the maximum tensions is likely to lead to the need for reinforcement or
replacement of angle and dead-end structures. Consequently, the maximum tensions resulting
from the reconductoring of an older transmission line are a critical factor in deciding on the most
suitable uprating alternative.
Figure 3-2 shows the typical behavior of a transmission conductor where the tension difference
between unloaded and loaded states may result in a tension increase of more than two times its
original value. The specification of a realistic conductor modulus of elasticity (in regards to the
stress-strain behavior) under high tension loads is important to calculating the maximum tension.
The modulus of elasticity (actually the spring constant, EA) of the conductor therefore directly
affects the resultant increase in tension between unloaded and loaded states.
As the temperature of the conductor increases, its length and the resulting sag increases while the
line tension decreases. Errors in modeling the conductor modulus of elasticity at significantly
increased operating temperatures have little or no effect on the calculated sag but the related
thermal elongation characteristics of conductors at high temperatures are very important. As is
discussed later in the guide, due to the combination of steel and aluminum strands, the thermal
elongation of ACSR can be particularly complex.
Electrical Clearances
Minimum electrical clearances of the conductor must be maintained under all line loading and
environmental conditions. Since the actual sag clearance of conductors on transmission lines is
seldom monitored, sufficient allowance for this clearance (safety buffer) must be included in the
process of the initial design or in the re-rating of existing transmission lines.
3-5
loading condition where the transmission line conductor catenaries are horizontally displaced by
the wind. In such cases, the conductor temperature is low due to high convection cooling.
Ground clearance minimums listed in the NESC safety code are primarily developed with
respect to the height of the object or person anticipated to pass beneath the span. For example, a
person with an overhead umbrella extended overhead at arms length may physically reach 10 ft
(3 m) above ground, whereas a railroad car may reach as high as 20 ft (6 m) above the ground.
Therefore the NESC safety code calls for a minimum ground clearance of 27 ft (8.2 m) for a low
voltage conductor extending across a railroad and only 16.5ft (5 m) over “spaces, areas, or ways”
accessible only to pedestrians. The difference in the mandated minimum ground clearance is due
primarily to the height of the object under the transmission line. In each case, the vertical line
clearance between the low voltage conductor and the top of the anticipated conflicting object is
approximately the same.
The following clearance diagram as shown in Figure 3-3 provides a breakdown of the minimum
vertical clearance required between any “conflicting activity” and the energized conductor of a
transmission line. The breakdown has been developed based on the references (Section I of the
References) and does not allow for the precise calculation of electrical clearances in all the
special cases covered by the NESC safety code. However, the breakdown does illustrate the
basic approach taken by codes in determining minimum ground clearances for energized power
line conductors.
Conductor at 115kV
Transmission adder 0.4" per kV
Conductor at 751 v to 22 kV
Conductor at 0 to 750 v
1 ft electrical safety margin
"Conflicting Activity"
be it person, truck, etc.
Figure 3-3
Basic Electrical Ground Clearance Diagram for Bare Overhead Transmission Lines
3-6
Essentially, the minimum vertical ground clearance for any “supply” conductor (0 to 750 Volts)
is specified by the NESC safety code as 16.5 ft (5 m) for power lines extending across objects
such as roads, streets, driveways, parking lots, and farmland or any other type of land which can
be traversed by vehicles. Similarly, based on the information shown in Figure 3-3, one may infer
that this assumes a height of 14.5 ft (4.4 m) above any “conflicting activity”. It should be noted
that energized line conductors passing over lakes and waterways must generally meet greater
clearance requirements.
Table 3-1
Minimum Vertical Ground Clearances According to NESC C2-1997, Rule 232C.
L-L/L-G Basic Clearance @ 22-kV Clearance Added for Voltage Streets
kV ft M ft m
Reduced Clearance for EHV Lines with Limited Switching Surge Levels
For power lines exceeding 98-kV of line to ground voltage, the NESC safety code requires the
allowable clearances to be calculated based on knowledge of the expected switching surge levels.
If the switching surge level of the power line can be restrained to 2.2 PU, the clearance at EHV
voltages may be decreased to values as shown in Table 3-2.
3-7
Table 3-2
Minimum Vertical Ground Clearances According to NESC C2-1997, Rule232D
Nominal Voltage Reference Height Listed Alternate Clearance Min Clearance for
L-L/L-G in Table 232-3 Adder Streets
kV ft m ft m ft m
3-8
Heavy ice loading on conductors are also relatively rare events. However, in any modern high
voltage or extra high voltage transmission line, the energized conductor sag determined at 0 °C
(32°F) in combination with the maximum ice loading typically results in a calculated sag of the
conductor that is less than the sag determined at the high temperature condition. This is correct,
even when that maximum operating temperature of the transmission line is only 50°C (122°F).
Thus, the assurance of adequate vertical clearances is focused on investigating the behavior of
the transmission line conductors at high temperatures not under heavy ice load.
In most cases, transmission line operators typically meet the NESC safety code mandated
minimum clearance requirements by limiting the current transferred on the energized conductors.
The specification of any relationship (i.e., mathematical correlation) between the power line’s
electrical current on the energized conductors and the resulting conductor temperature is left to
the discretion of the operator.
The NESC safety code describes the minimum horizontal and vertical clearances of energized
conductors in considerable detail as a function of the conductor to ground voltage and potentially
dangerous activities. The NESC safety code also prescribes the set of conditions under which
the mandated clearance minimums must be met. However, the NESC safety code does not
specify or recommend a method to be used to calculate the operating temperature of the
energized conductor, the method to be used to determine the physical position of the conductor
above ground and its relationship to the maximum operating temperature, and methods to be
used to confirm the adequacy of the conductor’s ground clearance in those rare occasions of high
electrical loading. Consequently, methods used to assure adequate ground clearance vary widely
among transmission line operators.
3-9
line designers to include a clearance buffer (as a safety margin) when a power line is designed
and constructed. This clearance buffer typically ranges from 1 to 2 m (3 to 6 ft) or more.
In the process of locating structures in all but the most level terrain, the goal of the designer is
typically to find the lowest cost solution (based on construction cost) rather than to minimize
excess clearance. Thus, upon completion of the construction it is common that the actual ground
to conductor clearance under worst-case conditions is well above the code specified combined
minimum clearance and construction buffer.
Upgrading Buffers
On older existing transmission lines, the structure placement along the right of way and the final
sag of the conductor is measurable. Thus the required buffer can be reduced. However, in this
process there are certain irreducible uncertainties and risks that stipulate that some clearance
safety margin must be maintained.
The traditional method of determining vertical and horizontal conductor to ground clearances for
existing transmission lines involves standard surveying methods to accurately measure the
position of the conductor attachment points and the conductor sags at the span mid-point for one
or more spans in each tension section of the transmission line. These measurements are typically
taken with the transmission line out of service so that the line’s conductor is more or less at the
ambient air temperature (some consideration has to be given to the influence of solar radiation).
In such detailed field surveys, vertical position errors of up to a foot (0.3m) are easily made in
determining the catenary’s position and the attachment heights. Additional errors may be
introduced and should be expected in determining the actual conductor to ground clearance since
the survey of the ground profile is only checked at a few points along the transmission line.
In more recent years, several photographic and laser based methods have been developed that are
suitable for the survey of the right of way, support structures, and conductors. These survey
methods are capable of determining the position of all attachment points at all support structures
and are also capable of providing a complete description of the catenaries profile of all phase
conductors and shield wires.
Based on utility evaluations, the accuracy of such laser-based surveys is better than the accuracy
achieved by conventional surveying methods. Such laser-based measurements are seldom done
with the transmission line out of service so that the line’s conductor temperature at the time of
the survey measurements must be either calculated or measured. While the results of such
detailed survey activity are very impressive and likely to convince the novice that safety buffers
can be eliminated or reduced when upgrading existing lines, industry experience has shown this
not to be the case.
Knowing the exact ground clearance with perfect certainty (if achievable) at the conclusion of a
laser survey does not mean that one can be certain of providing adequate clearances under all
conditions. Many other sources of uncertainty exist and need to be considered prior to a
reduction or elimination of the safety buffer. Most of these uncertainties arise from the
difficulties associated with determining the maximum electrical loading of the power line.
3-10
Probabilistic Clearances
In the United States, electrical clearances imposed by the safety codes are deterministic. That is,
the minimum electrical clearances specified in the various safety codes must be met under all
foreseeable operating conditions. It is not generally considered adequate to meet such clearances
a certain percentage of the time (e.g. 99% probability).
In 1990, a task force of industry representatives was set up under the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Working Group on the Calculation of Bare Overhead Conductor
Temperatures to review Section 23 of the NESC with regard to the electrical clearances at high
conductor temperatures. The conclusion of this Task Force (TF) was that the present clearance
definitions in this section of the Code were sufficiently clear to guide transmission operators in
maintaining adequate safe ground clearance under all operating conditions. The TF noted that
the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) which had been considering the use of probabilistic
clearances for some time had concluded that to attain a 98% probability of compliance with
safety code mandated clearances, the present 3 ft (0.9 m) design buffer needed to be increased to
about 5 ft (1.5 m). The conclusion of the TF was that this change was “probably not justified
economically”.
Jerry Redding of BPA has written an IEEE Transactions paper, which presents a method of
calculating the probability of line flashover to “conflicting activity” under it. On the contrary,
the NESC safety code essentially assumes that the probability of flashover is negligible at a line
to ground voltage of 22-kV as long as the energized conductor is 4 ft (1.2 m) from the conflicting
activity and assumes that the probability of flashover remains negligible as long as the spacing is
increased by 0.4 inches (1 cm) for every kV increase in voltage. The BPA model assumes a
probability of flashover of the form:
E f = Ap ⋅ Cp ⋅ Tp ⋅ Fp
in which the parameter Ef equals the probability of flashover from the energized transmission
line conductor to the conflicting activity.
Electrical Losses
Operation of transmission lines at high temperatures is a clear indication that electric losses are
significant (high temperatures are due to Ohmic (I2R) losses). The cost of these electrical losses
should be considered as part of the process of evaluating transmission line uprating alternatives,
but electrical losses are seldom a significant constraint on line uprating. This is due to the fact
that thermally limited lines are usually short and that the high loading events on the power line
are usually of limited duration and frequency.
The flow of electrical current on the phase conductors results in the loss of electrical energy due
to conductor heating. For example, consider a 10-mile long (16-km), 115-kV three-phase
transmission line with 26/7 ACSR Drake conductor. Assume that the current on the phases of
the line is constant and equal to the static thermal rating of 26/7 ACSR Drake conductor (the
static rating is 990 Amperes for a maximum allowable conductor temperature of 100°C without
sun, 25°C ambient air temperature, and a 2 ft/sec (0.6 m/sec) crosswind). For the example,
3-11
assume also that these “worst case” thermal rating weather conditions persist (remain constant).
Finally, consider that the cost of power equals $30 per MW-hr.
3-12
• “Average Load" is the average line load over a period of normal operation.
Since the "Peak Contingency Load" occurs only rarely, the transmission line electric losses that
occur during these contingency periods will be neglected and are omitted from the discussions.
It is assumed that the peak and average line loadings are known or may be bounded for each
future year of the uprated line. The line load factor (LoadF) for each of those future years is
defined as the ratio of average to peak line load over the year.
In order to calculate the present worth of line losses, however, one needs to know the loss factor
(LossF) - the ratio of average annual electrical losses to peak losses - rather than the load factor.
If the average current on a conductor over one year is 500 Amperes and the peak current over the
same period is 1000 Amperes, then the load factor is 0.50. If the current is quite constant at 500
Amperes except for brief excursions (short time increases) to 1000 Amperes, then the loss factor
for the conductor is 0.25.
The relationship of load factor to loss factor for a transformer depends on the ratio of load losses
to core losses. Since transformer core losses depend on the circuit voltage (not the circuit load),
it is possible that the loss factor of a lightly loaded transformer can exceed the load factor.
In many cases, the load factor and the loss factor are often empirically related by a formula such
as:
Clearly, the present value of $100 in the 15th year after a line is uprated is less than the present
value of $100 in losses during the first year after uprating. The present worth of line losses, n
years after the uprating occurs, depends upon the interest rate, I, as given by the formula:
−n
i
PWLosses = ( ADCn + AECn ) ⋅ 1 +
100
Where the factors ADCn and AECn are the annual demand charge and annual energy charges for
the nth year of the line's life. The parameter “i” is the assumed annual interest rate and “n” is the
year counting from the time when the line is uprated.
Environmental Effects
The public considers overhead transmission lines as very visible and imposing and, though most
power industry engineers have difficulty in understanding why, unattractive. Thus, one of the
primary environmental effects of any transmission line is their visual impact on people and their
surroundings. A great deal of effort has been expended by the industry in the past to make
transmission lines more visually acceptable. Such efforts have led to decidedly mixed results.
Because lines are highly visible and perceived as unattractive, they can have a negative impact
on property values. This is typically much less of an issue with the modification of existing lines
than with new lines.
3-13
Figure 3-4 shows a comparison of the relative importance of some of the major environmental
issues involving overhead lines as determined by a survey. It is interesting that the top three
factors are primarily the result of human perception and beliefs while the three least important
issues are matters of physics.
Various attempts have been made in the industry to reduce the visual impact of power lines and
the corresponding impact on property values. For example, there have been design competitions
motivating architects and designers to find more visually acceptable structures and research into
methods of compacting high voltage lines so they look more like distribution lines.
Figure 3-4
Median Survey Results as to Why People Oppose Transmission Lines
Probably the most effective way to reduce public opposition to transmission lines concerns
putting them away from where people live and work. Clearly, this is not always possible, but as
shown in Table 3-3, can be quite effective.
3-14
Table 3-3
The Impact of Distance on Public Opposition to Power Transmission Lines
Distance from Line
Feeling Less than 1 mile More than 1 mile
In the specific case of uprating, a variation on the Hippocratic oath “To do no harm” makes
sense. Specifically, it appears that uprating techniques that do not raise the height of the support
structures or make conductors more visible from a distance are preferred in achieving public
acceptance.
This guide emphasizes line uprating methods where the voltage of the line remains the same but
current flow is increased. Most of the techniques covered herein will leave the original ground
level electric field, electric induction, corona discharge levels and audible and radio noise levels
unchanged. However, it should be noted that the ground level magnetic field and magnetic
induction levels increase as the transmission line currents are increased. Both environmental
effects are linear proportional to the current so that the maximum original levels are easily
estimated by scaling the effects with the increase in rating.
3-15
a review of structure and foundation capacity indicates that the line was conservatively designed
exhibiting significant reserve capacity and that failures have not been observed, the line may be a
prime candidate for reconductoring with a larger diameter conductor.
When a conductor is ice covered and/or is exposed to the wind, the effective conductor weight
per unit length increases. During occasions of heavy icing and/or the presence of significant
wind load, the conductor catenary tension increases dramatically along with the loads on angle
and dead-end structures. Both the conductor and its supports can fail unless these high-tension
conditions are considered in the line design. The National Electric Safety Code (NESC) suggests
certain combinations of ice and wind corresponding to heavy, medium, and light loading regions
of the United States. Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6 show maps of the United States indicating those
areas. The combinations of ice and wind load areas corresponding to the loading districts that
are listed in Table 3-4. Recently, changes have been made to the estimates of the expected line
ice loading and to the calculation methods to be used for combined ice and wind loads.
Table 3-4
Definition of NESC Loading Areas
Loading Districts
Heavy Medium Light Extreme Wind
Loading
Radial thickness of ice(in) 12.5 6.5 0 0
The NESC safety code also suggests that increased conductor loads due to high wind loads but
no ice should be considered. Figure 3-6 shows the suggested wind pressure as a function of
geographical area for the United States.
Utilities in very heavy icing areas may use larger estimated glaze ice thickness of as much as 2 to
3 inches (5 to 7.6 cm) in order to calculate the iced conductor weight. This is especially true if
they have experienced extensive transmission line failures due to ice loading in excess of those
minimum recommended values required by the NESC safety code. Similarly, utilities in regions
where hurricane winds occur may use wind loads as high as 34 lb/ft2 (1.63 KPa).
3-16
Figure 3-5
NESC Transmission Line Loading Areas
Figure 3-6
NESC Wind Pressure Values for Transmission Line Design
3-17
The NESC tables and charts indicate that the degree of ice and wind loading varies from one
region to the other. Some areas may experience heavy icing, whereas other areas may be prone
to extremely high winds. Regardless of the type of load, all loads must be accounted for in the
line design process to prevent the unexpected failure of the transmission line. A brief discussion
of the effects of both the individual and combined components of ice and wind loading is
provided in the following sections.
Ice Loading
The formation of ice on overhead conductors may take several physical forms such as glaze ice,
rime ice, or wet snow. The impact of lower density ice formation is usually considered in the
design of line sections at high altitudes.
The formation of ice on overhead conductors has the following influence on line design:
• Ice loads determine the maximum vertical conductor loads that structures and
foundations must withstand.
• In combination with simultaneous wind loads, ice loads also determine the maximum
transverse loads on structures.
• In regions of heavy ice loads, the maximum sags and the permanent increase in sag
with time (difference between initial and final sags) may be due to ice loading.
Ice loads for use in designing lines are normally derived on the basis of past experience, code
requirements, state regulations, and analysis of historical weather data. Mean recurrence intervals
for heavy ice loadings are a function of local conditions along various routings. Line design
software is a tool typically used to investigate the impact of a variety of assumptions concerning
ice loading. The calculation of ice loads on conductors is normally done with an assumed glaze
ice density of 57 lb/ft3 (913 kg/m3). The following equation calculates the weight of ice per unit
length of conductor:
Where:
3-18
Table 3-5
Ratio of Iced to Bare Conductor Weight
The wind load per unit length of conductor, Ww, is equal to the wind pressure load, Pw,
multiplied by the conductor diameter (including radial ice of thickness t, if any):
Ww (lb / ft ) = Pw ( psf )
[Dc (in) + 2 ⋅ t (in)]
12
[D (mm) + 2 ⋅ t (mm)]
Ww ( N / m) = Pw ( Pascals) ⋅ c
1000
3-19
Combined Ice and Wind Loading - If the conductor weight is to include ice and wind loading,
the resultant magnitude of the loads must be determined. The following equation gives the
weight of a conductor under both ice and wind loading:
ww + i = ( wb + wi ) 2 + (Ww ) 2
Where
w = ww + i + K
3-20
The most common type of wind-induced motion is aeolian vibration. It occurs at relatively low
wind speeds and is cumulative in nature. Broken conductor strands that result from aeolian
vibration may take many years to occur. When broken strands do occur, the vibration is
normally controlled (1) by providing vibration dampers, (2) by stringing conductor at relatively
low tension levels to maximize its self-damping, or (3) by using special types of conductor such
as SDC, VR, or ACSS.
Ice galloping occurs with both single and bundled conductors and requires high winds and ice on
the conductors. If uncontrolled, it can yield both phase-to-phase flashovers, due to reduced
spacing at mid-span, and hardware damage. A variety of control methods have been proposed
and tested to varying degrees to limit flashovers due to ice galloping. The most common control
method is to allow sufficient phase-to-phase spacing to avoid flashovers when galloping does
occur. In certain instances, extended ice galloping of large amplitude has caused structural
failures.
Sub conductor oscillation only occurs for bundled phase conductors when wind speeds exceed a
certain critical velocity .If uncontrolled, it can result in fatigue damage to spacers and suspension
hardware. Oscillations are controlled by keeping bundled conductors at a spacing-to-diameter
ratio of about 20 or more and by avoiding uniform spacer spacing.
Transmission lines must be designed not only to provide adequate vertical clearance for
electrical and safety considerations, but also to allow for adequate horizontal clearance to tall
objects and buildings at the edge of the ROW under high wind conditions. This conductor
displacement is termed conductor blowout. The maximum displacement of the outermost
conductors from the center of the ROW under high wind conditions can be one of the most
important variables in determining ROW width. Conductor blowout is primarily a function of
conductor weight and the wind force perpendicular to the conductor. However, the calculation of
conductor blowout should also include the lateral movement of the suspension insulators. The
following equation estimates the horizontal wind force acting on a conductor:: (equation is
missing)
3-21
can be argued a connector operating in this mode has previously failed, and it can also be argued
a connector has not failed until the conductor has parted interrupting electrical continuity.
However, “failed” field connectors are very difficult to detect until operating in thermal failure
mode, and such operation is usually a precursor to imminent conductor parting.”
Thus, the condition of the connectors in an existing line can be a significant constraint on the
engineer’s ability to uprate the line with minimal capital investment. Failures of such connectors
after re-rating can be a source of embarrassment and service interruption costs.
Table 3-6
Cyclic, Wind-induced Conductor Motions
Aeolian Vibration Ice Galloping Subconductor
Oscillation
3-22
4
CALCULATION OF OVERHEAD LINE THERMAL
RATINGS
Rating Definitions
The power conductors of overhead lines are self-supporting and energized at high voltage. They
are stranded from wires of aluminum or copper, which may be reinforced with a steel core. As
the current flowing through a conductor increases, the temperature increases, and it elongates.
This elongation increases the sag of the conductor between support points, decreasing the
clearance to people, ground, other conductors, buildings, and vehicles under the line. Beyond
certain “maximum allowable” sag, the line may flashover, resulting in either a power supply
outage or injury to the public. If the conductor temperature remains high for an extended period
of time, the strength of the conductor and tensioned connectors may decrease, resulting in
mechanical failure during the next occurrence of ice or high wind loading.
To avoid excessive sag or loss of strength, a “maximum allowable conductor temperature” is
typically specified, and the conductor temperature is kept below this maximum by placing limits
on the level and duration of power transferred by the line (MVA or Amperes). If such limits are
based on worst-case weather conditions, they are called static ratings, and if based on actual
weather conditions, they are called dynamic ratings.
4-1
How Weather Changes Affect Line Ratings
The impact of changes in weather parameters upon thermal line ratings depends on the specific
rating situation. In this discussion, consider an overhead line with 795 kcmil, 26/7, “Drake”
ACSR conductor, whose static rating is based upon a maximum allowable conductor temperature
of 100oC with an air temperature of 40oC, full summer sun, and a wind blowing perpendicular to
the conductor axis at 2 ft/sec. The static rating under these conditions is 1000 Amperes.
Clearly, if the current in this conductor is a 1000 Amperes with the assumed weather conditions,
the conductor temperature is 100oC. Table 4-1 shows how the conductor temperature changes
for small changes in weather conditions. For example, the conductor temperature drops to 92oC
if there is no solar heating. The table also shows how the thermal rating (i.e. the current which
yields a temperature of 100oC) changes with small changes in weather.
Note that, with the conductor at a reasonably high temperature and near “worst-case” heat
transfer conditions, the overhead line rating and conductor temperature are very sensitive to wind
direction, modestly sensitive to changes in wind speed and solar heating and less affected by
small changes in air temperature. Other minor factors are gradual changes in emissivity and
absorptivity of the conductor with age and seasonal shifts in solar heating.
Table 4-1
Variation in Conductor Temperature and Rating with Weather Conditions (IEEE738)
o
Range in Weather Line Rating @ 100 C Conductor Temperature at 1000 amps
Conditions
4-2
Definition of Variables for Heat Balance Calculations
For the rating calculations described in this guide, it is customary in the United States to use a
non-standard combination of units that are referred to throughout this document as “US. Units”.
SI units are preferred.
Table 4-2
Definitions of Thermal Rating Equation Variables
Symbol Description SI Units US Units
2 2
A’ Projected area of conductor m/ ft /
lineal m lineal ft
D Conduct or diameter mm in
I Conductor current A A
4-3
Ta Ambient air temperature °C °C
Tc Conductor temperature °C °C
Y Year - -
; Solar absorptivity(.23to.91) - -
ε Emissivity(.23to.91) - -
ρf
3 3
Density of air kg/m lb/ft
f
Absolute(dynamic)viscosity of air N/m-s lb/ft-hr
Radiation
Radiation of heat from an overhead conductor is modeled similarly in the three major heat
balance methods. The equation for radiation heat loss is:
T + 273 4 T + 273 4
qr = 0. 0 1 78⋅ D ⋅ ε c
⋅ −
a
W /m
100 100
4-4
T + 273 4 T + 273 4
q r = 0.138⋅ D⋅ ε ⋅ c −
a
W / ft
100 100
As an example of radiation heat loss from a bare overhead conductor, consider Drake ACSR at
100oC and an air temperature of 40oC:
4 4
Tc + 273 Ta + 273
4
q = 0.0178 ⋅ D ⋅ε − q = 0.138 ⋅ D ⋅ε −
100 100 r 100 100
r
where
where
D = 1.108 in
D = 28.14 mm ε = 0.5
ε = 0.5 Tc = 100 °C
Ta = 40 °C
Ta = 40 °C
Tc = 100 °C
4 4
373 313 373 313
4 4
Convection
Natural Convection
With zero wind speed, natural convection occurs, where the rate of heat loss is:
4-5
It has been argued that, at low wind speeds, the convection-cooling rate should be calculated as
the vector sum of the wind speed and a “natural” wind speed, see [B22]. In most cases, this
causes a needless complication with little change in line rating.
For both forced and natural convection, air density (ρf), air viscosity (µ f), and coefficient of
thermal conductivity of air (kf) are taken at Tfilm, where
Tc + Ta
T film =
2
Taking our example of Drake ACSR at 100oC, the natural convection heat loss is calculated by
means of the following two equations:
q c = 0.0205⋅ ρ 0f .5 ⋅ D 0.75 ⋅(Tc −Ta )1.25 (5s ) q c = 0.283⋅ ρ 0f .5 ⋅(Tc −Ta )1.25
where: where:
D = 28.14 mm D = 1.108 in.
o
Tc = 100°C TC = 100 C
o
Ta = 40°C Ta = 40 C
100 + 40 100 + 40
Tfilm = = 70o C T film = = 70 o C
2 2
3
ρ ρ =
3
= 1.029 kg/m (see Table 1u) 0.0643 lb/ft (Table 1s)
f f
0.5 0.75
1.25 0.5 0.75 1.25
qc = 0.0205 (1.029) (28.14) (100–40) qc = 0.283 (0.0643) (1.108) (100-40)
= 42.4 W/m = 12.9 W/ft
Forced Convection
With the IEEE 738 method, forced convection is calculated with two separate formulas and the
larger of the two values for forced convection heat loss is used.
0.52
D ⋅ ρ ⋅ V
q = 1.01+ 0.0372⋅ ⋅ k f ⋅ (Tc − Ta ) W / m
f w
c1 µ
f
4-6
D ⋅ ρ f ⋅ Vw
0.52
q = 1.01+ 0.371⋅ ⋅ k ⋅ (T − T ) W / ft
c1 µ f c a
f
0 .6
D ⋅ ρ ⋅V
c2
q = 0 . 0119 ⋅
µ
f w
⋅k
f
(
⋅ T −T
c a ) W /m
f
0 .6
D ⋅ ρ ⋅V
c2
q = 0 . 1695 ⋅
µ
f w
⋅k
f
(
⋅ T −T
c a ) W / ft
f
The first equations apply at low winds but are too low at high speeds. The following equations
apply at high wind speeds, being too low at low wind speeds. At any wind speed, the larger of
the two calculated convection heat loss rates is used.
The convective heat loss rate is multiplied by the wind direction factor, Kangle, where φ is the
angle between the wind direction and the conductor axis:
Alternatively, the wind direction factor may be expressed as a function of the angle, ω, between
the wind direction and a perpendicular to the conductor axis. This angle is the complement of φ,
and the wind direction factor becomes:
qc1 = 1.01 + 0.0372⋅ ⋅ ⋅( − ) w / m
qc1 = 1.01 + 0.0372⋅ ⋅ ⋅( - ) w / m
µf k f Tc Ta µf k f Tc Ta
0.6 0 .6
D ⋅ ρ ⋅V D ⋅ ρ ⋅V
c2
q = 0 .0119 ⋅
µ
f w
⋅k
f
(
⋅ T −T
c a
) w/m
c2
q = 0 . 1695 ⋅
µ
f w
⋅k
f
(
⋅ T −T
c a
) w / ft
f f
4-7
where: where:
D = 28.14 mm D = 1.108 in
Vw = 0.61m/sec Vw = 2 ft/s ⋅ 3600 sec/hr
o o
Tc = 100 C Tc = 100 C
o o
Ta = 40 C Ta = 40 C
100 + 40 100 + 40
Tfilm = = 70o C Tfilm = = 70o C
2 2
0.52 1.108⋅0.643 ⋅ 7200
0.52
28.14⋅1.029⋅.6096
q c11.01 0.371
qc1=1.01+0.0372
−5 0.0494
2.04 ⋅
10
0 .6
28 .14⋅1.029 ⋅.6096 1.108⋅0.0643⋅7200
0.6
As instructed in Section 2.4.3, select the larger of the two calculated convection heat losses.
4-8
Solar Heating
Overhead conductors are typically 5oC to 10oC above air temperature due to solar heating alone,
even if the current in the conductor is zero. The conductor heat balance described in these notes
applies when there is only solar heat input as well as when the conductor carries electrical
current. The solar heat into the conductor in direct sun is a function of the solar heat flux
density, the angle of the solar beam relative to the line direction, and the conductor absorptivity
(the fraction of incident solar radiation absorbed by the conductor). The resulting temperature
rise above air temperature is a function of the conductor emissivity and diameter as well as the
wind speed and direction.
According to the IEEE or DYNAMP solar models, the maximum conductor rise above air
temperature is on the order of 15oC which corresponds to still air.
The hour angle, ω, is the number of hours from noon times 15 degrees (11AM is -15o, at 2PM is
+30o).
The solar declination, δ, is;
(284+ N )
δ = 23.4583⋅sin 360
365
where the argument of the sun is in degrees.
The equation is valid for all latitudes whether positive (northern hemisphere) or negative
(southern hemisphere).
For example, consider a line with Drake ACSR that runs East-West at 30o North latitude on June
10 at 11:00AM. In this example:
N = 31 + 28 + 31 + 30 + 31 + 10 = 161
4-9
284+161
δ = 23.4583 ⋅ sin ⋅360
365
The solar altitude, HC, is found by on the basis of the solar declination of 23o, and the
solar latitude of 30 degrees:
In a somewhat involved calculation using the latitude of the line and the time of day, the solar
azimuth of the conductor is found to be 114o.
Combining the solar declination and the solar azimuth with the line direction, the combined
whole solar angle is 76o and the solar heat input is:
Z c =C + arctan (χ )
where
sin (ω )
χ=
sin ( Lat )⋅cos(ω )−cos( Lat )⋅tan (δ )
The solar azimuth constant, C, (in degrees) , is a function of the “Hour angle”, ω, and the solar
azimuth variable, χ, as shown in the following table:
4-10
Table 4-3
ω, and Solar Azimuth Variable,χ
Solar Azimuth Constant, C, as a Function of “Hour Angle,”,ω χ.
ω,degrees
“Hour angle”,ω Cif χ≥0degrees Cif χ<0degrees
-180≤ω<0() 0 180
Table 4-4
Altitude, Hc, and Azimuth, Zc, in Degrees of the Sun at Various Latitudes for an Annual Peak Solar
Heat Input
Degrees North Latitude Local Sun Time
4-11
Table 4-5
Total Heat Flux Received by a Surface at Sea Level Normal to the Sun’s Rays
Solar Altitude, Hc QS for a Clear Atmosphere QS for an Industrial Atmosphere
2 2 2 2
Degrees (w/m ) (w/ft ) (w/m ) (w/ft )
The heat flux density received by a surface at sea level as shown in Table 4-5 may be represented
by the following regression equation.
2
Y = total heat flux, QS (w/ft )
X = solar altitude. HC (degrees)
Q S = A + B H C + C H C2 D H C3 + E H C4 + F H C5 + G H C6
4-12
Table 4-6
Elevation Correction Factor
SI US
Clear Atmosphere
A -42.2391 -3.9241
B 63.8044 5.9276
C -1.9220 -1.7856×10-1
D 3.46921×10-2 3.223×10-3
E -3.61118×10-4 -3.3549×10-5
F 1.94318×10-6 1.8053×10-7
G -4.07608×10-9 -3.7868×10-10
Industrial Atmosphere
A 53.1821 4.9408
B 14.2110 1.3202
C 6.6138×10-1 6.1444×10-2
D -3.1658×10-2 -2.9411×10-3
E +5.4654×10-4 5.07752×10-5
F -4.3446×10-6 -4.03627×10-7
-8 -9
G +1.3236×10 1.22967×10
where:
K solar = A + B⋅H e + C ⋅ H e2
SI US
A = 1 1
-4 -5
B = 1.148×10 3.500×10
-8 -9
C = -1.108×10 -1.000×10
4-13
Table 4-7
Solar Heat Multiplying Factors, Ksolar for High Altitudes
Elevation above sea level Multiplier for values in Elevation above sea level Multiplier for values in
He - m Table 3 He – ft Table 3
0 1.00 0 1.00
Ohmic Losses
Conductor resistance per unit length and the electrical current on the line determine the Ohmic
losses. The resistance of a stranded conductor is a function of the conductivity of the component
wires, the frequency, the current density, the temperature of the wires, and the stranded
construction.
Some useful rules of thumb are:
• The dc resistance of a single wire is equal to the resistivity of the metal divided by its
cross sectional area.
• The dc resistance of a helical stranded conductor is about 2% more than the parallel
combination of component wires.
• “Skin effect” (an electromagnetic phenomenon wherein the current tends to prefer
flowing in the outer layers) is negligible for 1-inch ( 2.54 cm) diameter conductors
and causes an increase of about 10% in the resistance of transmission conductors
whose outer diameter is between 1.5 and 2.0 inches (3.8 to 5.1 cm).
• The resistivity of aluminum and copper increases about 4% per 10oC.
• The conductivity of the steel core of ACSR decreases the resistance by about 2%.
In rating calculations, the change is resistance with temperature is important and must be
considered. Neglecting it can cause an error of 10% or more in the rating.
4-14
Latitude and line directions are reflected in solar heating of the conductor. Elevation affects both
solar heating (which increases with elevation) and heat convection (since the air density and thus
the convection heat loss decreases with elevation).
Consider the following example:
Table 4-8
Thermal Rating for 795 kcmil, 26/7 "Drake" ACSR at 100C with 40C Air Temperature, Emissivity =
Absorptivity = 0.5, 2 ft/sec Crosswind, and Direct Sun at 2PM on June 10.
The line direction has a larger effect on solar heating in the early morning and late afternoon but
this is primarily of interest in dynamic ratings rather than traditional static rating calculations.
In the high elevation case, the reduction in thermal rating is the combined result of a 15%
increase in solar heating and a 9% reduction in convective cooling.
The presence of an industrial atmosphere is assumed to reduce the solar heating of the conductor
by 23%.
The engineer can alter none of these rating factors. They are simply characteristics of the line
orientation and location. Luckily, none of these factors has a major impact on the line rating.
4-15
but increase to values close to 1.0 as the conductor ages. Figure 4 shows this increase in
emissivity with time for energized conductors.
The actual rate at which the conductor emissivity and absorptivity increase with time is a
function of the line voltage and the density of particulates in the air. Two observations, however,
can be made. The emissivity and absorptivity are correlated so it is unlikely that one parameter
will be high and the other low. Also, new conductors will have emissivity and absorptivity
values in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 and old conductors will have values in excess of 0.5.
Figure 4-1
Transmission Line Conductor Emissivity as a Function of Time.
As stated above, resistance and diameter are tightly correlated. Thus aluminum, stranded
conductors of a given diameter will have a corresponding resistance per unit length. The
exceptions to this are:
• The component strands have a different conductivity from that of standard aluminum
(e.g. Copper).
• Conducting strands are trapezoidal rather than round (e.g. TW conductor).
• The steel core strands are not used or are replaced by Aluminum-clad steel wires (e.g.
ACSR/AW).
4-16
Table 4-9
Illustration of the Effect of Diameter,Resistance, and Emissivity & Absorptivity onThermal Rating.
inches Ohms/mi
4-17
Table 4-10
Effect of Weather Conditions on Thermal Ratings. In all Cases, the Conductor is 26/7 795 kcmil
ACSR (Drake) with Emissivity = Absorptivity = 0.5, Direct Sun on June 10, Clear Air, at Sea Level,
Latitude = 40 Deg, with the Conductor at 100 °C.
40 2 90 2PM 996
By reviewing this limited series of rating calculations, a number of important aspects of line
rating dependence on weather can be drawn:
• Rating variation due to solar heating changes throughout the day is less than 5%.
• Air temperature variation is important. A difference of 10 oC in air temperature
causes a line rating change of nearly 10%.
• Relatively small differences in wind speed, in the range of 0 to 3 ft/sec (0.91 m/sec)
can make a big difference in the line rating, generally 10% to 20%.
• The wind direction relative to the line is as important as the speed. A 6 ft/sec (1.8
m/sec) wind blowing near parallel to the line (10 deg) yields a slightly lower line
rating than a 2 ft/sec (0.61 m/sec) wind blowing perpendicular to the line.
4-18
was typically calculated by conductor manufacturers for a conductor temperature of 75oC, a
temperature sure to avoid possible annealing problems with aluminum and copper.
In the 1970’s, the NESC changed and stated that the electrical clearances listed were to be met at
“The maximum conductor temperature for which the line was designed to operate, if greater than
50oC, with no wind displacement” (excerpted from Rule 232.A.2). Thus the maximum
allowable conductor temperature (MACT) used in line rating calculations may vary from 50oC to
200oC according to available ground clearance and consistent with concerns about loss of tensile
strength at temperatures above 90oC.
Consider the following table of line ratings as a function of the maximum allowable conductor
temperature
Table 4-11
Line Thermal Rating as a Function of Maximum Allowable Conductor Temperature. In all Cases,
the Conductor is 26/7 795kcmil ACSR (Drake) with Emissivity=Absorptivity=0.5, Direct Sun on
June 10, Clear Air, at Sea Level, Latitude=40deg, with Line Oriented East-West
Maximum Allowable Air Temperature Perpendicular Sun? Thermal Rating
Conductor Temperature
Wind Speed
Deg C Deg C ft/sec m/sec Amperes
4-19
Considering the non-shaded rows in Table 4-11, it can be seen that the incremental changes
(shown in the {} brackets) in line rating for changes in weather conditions are generally much
less at a MACT of 125oC than at 75oC. This is particularly true for changes in air temperature
and solar heating. Thus, simple ambient-adjusted dynamic rating or static re-rating methods are
less effective on lines with a high MACT. The impact of wind is, however, relatively
independent of MACT and dynamic rating or static re-rating methods, which consider variations
in wind speed and direction are nearly as effective at high as at low MACTs.
4-20
5
CONSEQUENCES OF TRANSMISSION LINE
OPERATION AT HIGH TEMPERATURE
Materials commonly used in conductors are aluminum, copper, and steel. A Summary of the
properties of these common materials fabricated as wires is in Table 5-1a and 5-1b. Galvanized
steel wires are combined with aluminum in the most common type of overhead conductor --
Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced (ACSR). The use of copper is uncommon in modern
transmission lines since it weighs and usually costs considerably more than aluminum conductor
of the same resistance.
With one or more wires combined into a stranded overhead conductor, the conductor is held in
the air at each structure connected to an insulating arm by means of a clamp. At high electrical
load levels, the conductor temperature and therefore its sag increases. The sag of the conductor
at high temperatures and the minimum safe ground clearance usually determines the structure
height.
The loading of the structure is determined by the weight of its iced conductors, the transverse
wind load on the conductors attached to it, and, for angle and dead-end structures, by the
maximum tension attained by the conductors.
Conductor sag behavior at its maximum temperature and its tension and weight under ice and
wind load thus determines both the structure height and the minimum required
structure/foundation load capability.
5-1
the outer layers, however, the number of strands always increases by a sixth of an inch in each
succeeding layer. Thus, in 26/7 ACSR, the number of layers in the inner layer of aluminum is 10
and in the outer layer 16.
Table 5-1a
Basic Material Properties of Wire Used in Overhead Conductor
International Commercial Standard
Annealed Hard-Drawn 1350-H19
PROPERTY
Copper Copper Wire Aluminum
Standard Wire
Conductivity, Percent IACS at 20oC (68°F) 100.00 96.2 61.2
Resistivity at 20oC,Α-in2/1000ft 0.008145 0.0083974 0.013310
Resistivity at 20oC,Α-mm2/km 17.24 17.774 28.173
Ratio of weight for equal D-C resistance and length 1.00 1.03 0.50
Temp. coefficient of resistance per oF 0.00218 0.00212 0.00224
o o
Temp. coefficient of resistance per C at 20 C 0.00393 0.00381* 0.00403
Density at 20 oC, lb/in3 0.32117 0.321 0.09765
Density at 20 oC, g/cm3 8.89 8.89 2.703
o
Coefficient of Linear Expansion per F 0.0000094 0.0000094 0.0000128
Coefficient of Linear Expansion per oC 0.0000169 0.0000230
Modulus of Elasticity Solid Wire Approximate, Mpsi --- 17 10
Modulus of Elasticity Solid Wire Approximate, MPa --- 117,000 69,000
Specific Heat cal/gm/oC (at 20oC) 0.0921 0.0921 0.214
Tensile Strength, ksi 62.0 62.0 24.0
Tensile Strength, MPa 430 430 165
Minimum Elongation, % 1.1 1.1 1.5
The cross sectional area of aluminum or copper is typically measured in kcmil or square
millimeters. The symbol “kcmil” is shorthand for thousands of circular mils. A strand that is 0.1
inches in diameter (100 mils), has a circular mil area of 10 kcmil. The approximate cross
sectional area in square millimeters may be obtained by dividing the kcmil area by 2. The
smallest sizes of conductor are usually described in terms of wire gauge. The wire gauge
numbers correspond to certain kcmil areas of aluminum. A #4/0 AWG ACSR conductor has 236
kcmil of aluminum.
5-2
Table 5-1b
Basic Material Properties of Wire Used in Overhead Conductor
Standard 6201- Galvanized Aluminum
T81 Aluminum Steel Core CladSteel
PROPERTY
Wire Wire (Alumoweld)
Conductivity, Percent IACS at 20oC (68°F) 52.5 8.0 20.3
Resistivity at 20oC,Α-in2/1000ft 0.015515 0.10182 0.04007
Resistivity at 20oC,Α-mm2/km 32.840 215.52 84.815
Ratio of weight for equal D-C resistance and length 0.58 10.6 3.54
o
Temp. coefficient of resistance per F 0.00193 0.00178 0.00200
Temp. coefficient of resistance per oC at 20oC 0.00347 0.00320 0.00360
Density at 20 oC, lb/in3 0.09765 0.281 0.2381
o 3
Density at 20 C, g/cm 2.703 7.78 6.590
Coefficient of Linear Expansion per oF 0.0000128 0.0000064 0.0000072
o
Coefficient of Linear Expansion per C 0.0000230 0.0000115 0.0000130
Modulus of Elasticity Solid Wire Approximate, Mpsi 10 29 23.5
Modulus of Elasticity Solid Wire Approximate, MPa 69,000 200,000 162,000
o o
Specific Heat cal/gm/ C (at 20 C) 0.214 0.107 0.112
Tensile Strength, ksi 46.0 185 175
Tensile Strength, MPa 320 1280 1210
Minimum Elongation, % 3.0 3.5 1.5
The most common type of transmission conductor is ACSR. ACSR consists of one or more
layers of aluminum strands surrounding a core of 1, 7, 19, or 37 galvanized steel strands. ACSR
is manufactured in a wide range of sizes and strandings ranging from #6 AWG 6/1 (OD = 0.198
inches [5.1 mm]) to 2156 kcmil, 84/19 “Bluebird” (OD = 1.762 inches [45.5 mm]). Certain
strandings are stronger than others. 36/1 ACSR is the weakest stranding (1/37 of the cross
sectional area is steel). 30/7 is the strongest (7/37 of the cross section is steel). The following
tables group strandings of ACSR by strength according to a "Type No." classification where the
Type No. is the percentage ratio of steel to aluminum cross sectional areas.
Consider the following 795 kcmil (400 mm2) conductors listed in order of increasing rated
breaking strength:
5-3
Table 5-2
Comparison of Mechanical Properties for Different Strandings of 795 kcmil ACSR Conductors (US
Common Units).
Type Code Alum Wire Steel Wire Overall Rated Total Core
No. Name No. x OD No. x OD Diameter Strength Weight Weight
(in) (in) (in) (lbs) (lbs/ft) (lbs/ft)
Table 5-3
2
Comparison of Mechanical Properties for Different Strandings of 400mm ACSR Conductors (SI
Units).
Type Code Alum Wire Steel Wire Overall Rated Total Core
No. Name No. x OD No. x OD Diameter Strength Weight Weight
The stronger the ACSR conductor is, the higher the conductor tension under all conditions, and
the less the conductor stretches under load (thus reducing sag increase for a given ice and wind
loading). High strength strandings of ACSR also exhibit less thermal elongation and less high
temperature creep so it is likely that the sag increase under high temperature conditions will be
less. The major drawbacks to high strength ACSR are cost (a 30/7 ACSR conductor costs about
30% more than an all aluminum conductor of the same kcmil area), increased angle structure
tension loads, and, under certain conditions, increased aeolian vibration induced fatigue of the
aluminum strands.
5-4
Non-Standard Conductors
In addition to considering different sizes and strandings of standard conductors, the line designer
may also want to consider the use of a number of non-standard conductors if their special
properties offer sufficient advantage in a particular line design situation. The main types of
special conductors include “self-damping conductor” (SDC), “aluminum conductor steel
supported” (ACSS), “trapezoidal wire conductor” (TW - a conductor having aluminum strands
with a trapezoidal shape rather than round), or “T2” (also called “VR” for variable ratio)
conductor consisting of two sub conductors twisted about one another with a lay length of about
3 meters. The value of the use of such special conductors may be economic or they may offer
increased reliability or offer a unique solution to an otherwise impossible design problem. It is
difficult to assess the value of special conductors without the use of advanced line design
techniques. With such techniques available, however, one can consider the value of the
following items:
• Lower electrical resistance for the same conductor diameter [TW] yielding lower
electrical losses with the same wind and ice structure loads.
• Lower thermal elongation [ACSS] yielding less increase in sag at high temperatures.
• Higher annealing temperatures [ACSS] yielding increased thermal rating.
• Reduced Aeolian vibration activity [SDC, ACSS, T2] allowing new lines to be strung
with less sag for the same Aeolian vibration amplitude or with the same sag and
lower Aeolian vibration.
5-5
TW – “Trapezoidal Wire”
This conductor is essentially similar to SDC conductor except that there is no gap between the
layers. TW may also be manufactured without a steel core. It has none of SDC's self-damping
properties but it presents a diameter, which is approximately 10% less than a standard ACSR
conductor of the same AC resistance whereas SDC is only 5% less.
Table 5-4
Comparison of AAC with AAC/TW Alternatives
Diameter DC Resistance @ 20°°C
Conductor Description
(in) (mm) (%) (A/1000ft) (A/1000m) (%)
T2 - "Twisted 2 Conductor"
The conductor consists of two standard conductors twisted about one another with a twist length
of approximately 3 meters. The conductor cross section is a rotating "figure-8". The sub
conductors can be any of the standard conductors.
The major advantages are:
• Reduction or elimination of the amplitude and frequency of occurrence of large
amplitude "ice-galloping" motions. .
• The non-round shape of this conductor reduces the amplitude of aeolian vibration and
the accompanying fatigue inducing strains near clamps. Consequently, T2 conductor
can be installed to higher tension levels and reduced sags.
The major disadvantages are:
• The non-round cross section yields wind and ice loadings that are about 11% higher
than standard conductor of the same AC resistance per mile.
• The installation of, and hardware for this conductor, can be somewhat more
expensive than the cost of standard conductor.
5-6
• Since the aluminum strands are "dead-soft" to begin with, the conductor may be
operated at temperatures in excess of 200°C without loss of strength.
• Since the tension in the aluminum strands is normally low, the conductor's self-
damping of Aeolian vibration is high and it may be installed at high unloaded tension
levels without the need for separate Stockbridge dampers.
The major disadvantages of ACSS are:
• In areas experiencing heavy ice load, the reduced strength of this conductor relative to
standard ACSR may make it less desirable.
• The softness of the annealed aluminum strands and the possible need for pre-stressing
prior to clipping and sagging may raise installation costs.
Stress-Strain Characteristics
Stress-strain curves for bare overhead conductors include a minimum of an initial curve and a
final curve ranging from 0 to 0.45%. For conductors consisting of two materials, an initial and
final curve for each is included. Creep curves for various lengths of time are typically included.
Overhead conductors are not purely elastic. They stretch with tension, but when the tension is
reduced to zero, they do not return to their initial length. That is, conductors are plastic; the
change in conductor length cannot be expressed with a simple linear equation, as used in the
preceding hand calculations. The permanent length increase that occurs in overhead conductors
yields the difference in initial and final sag-tension data found in most computer programs.
Figure 5-1 shows a typical stress-strain curve[5] for a 26/7 ACSR conductor; the curve is valid
for conductor sizes ranging from 266.8 to 795 kcmil. A 795 kcmil-26/7 ACSR (Drake) conductor
has a breaking strength of 31,500 lbs. [14,000 kg.] and an area of 0.7264 in2 [46.9 MM.] so that
it fails at an average stress of 43,000 psi [30 kgs/mm2]. The stress-strain curve illustrates that at a
stress equal to 50% of the conductor’s breaking strength (21,500 psi), the elongation is less than
0.3%. This translates to an elongation of 1.8 feet [0.55 m] in a 600-ft [180-m] span.
Note that the component curves for the steel core and the aluminum stranded outer layers are
separated. This separation allows for changes in the relative curve locations as the temperature
of the conductor changes.
For the preceding example, with the Drake conductor at a tension of 6300 lb [2860 kg], the
length of the conductor in the 600-ft [180-m] span was found to be 0.27 ft longer than the span.
This tension corresponds to a stress of 8600 psi (6.05 kg/mm2). From the stress-strain curve in
Figure 5-1, this corresponds to an initial elongation of 0.105% (0.63 ft). As in the preceding hand
calculation, if the conductor is reduced to zero tension, its unstressed length would be less than
the span length.
Figure 5-2 is a stress-strain curve[5] for an all aluminum 37-strand conductor ranging in size
from 250 kcmil to 1033.5 kcmil. Because the conductor is made entirely of aluminum, there is
only one initial and final curve.
5-7
Figure 5-1
Stress-Strain Curve for ACSR Conductor.
5-8
Figure 5-2
Stress-Strain Curve for All Aluminum Conductor
Creep Elongation
Once a conductor has been installed to an initial tension, it can elongate further. Such elongation
results from two phenomena, permanent elongation due to high-tension levels resulting from ice
and wind loads and creep elongation under everyday tension levels. These types of conductor
elongation are discussed in the following sections.
5-9
Creep Due to Heavy Loading
When an aluminum-stranded conductor is initially installed, it elongates non-linearly. If the
conductor tension increases to a relatively high level under ice and wind loading, the conductor
will elongate. When the wind and ice loads abate, the conductor elongation will reduce along a
curve parallel to the final curve, but will never return to its original length.
For example, refer to Figure 5-2 and assume that a newly strung 795-kcmil, 37-strand AAC
(Arbutus) conductor has an everyday tension of 2780 lbs. The conductor area is 0.6245 in2, so
the everyday stress is 4,450 psi and the elongation is 0.062%. Following an extremely heavy ice
and wind load event, assume that the conductor stress reaches 18000 psi. When the conductor
tension decreases back to everyday levels, the conductor elongation will be permanently
increased by more than 0.2%. In addition, the sag under everyday conditions will be
correspondingly greater, and the tension will be less. In most numerical sag-tension methods,
final sag-tensions are calculated for such permanent elongation due to heavy loading conditions.
The definition of “normal” creep is the accumulative non-elastic elongation of a conductor under
tension, over an extended period of time at modest temperatures usually not in excess of
approximately 75°C.A conductor under tension undergoes non-elastic elongation over a period
of time (usually measured in years). This elongation is creep. The magnitude and rate of creep
are a function of the conductor's composition, stranding, line tension, and operating temperature.
Conductors exhibit creep under everyday tension levels even if the tension level never exceeds
normal levels. Creep can be determined by long-term laboratory creep tests. The results of the
tests are used to generate creep versus time curves. On the stress-strain graphs, creep curves are
often shown for 6-month, 1-year, and 10-year periods. Figure shows these typical creep curves
for a 37-strand 250 kcmil through 1033.5 kcmil AAC. In Figure , assume that the conductor
tension remains constant at the initial stress of 4,450 psi. At the intersection of this stress level
and the initial elongation curve, 6-month, 1-year, and 10-year creep curves, the conductor
elongation from the initial elongation of 0.062% increases to 0.11%, 0.12%, and 0.15%,
respectively. Because of creep elongation, the resulting final sags are greater and the conductor
tension is less than the initial values.
Creep elongation in aluminum conductors is quite predictable as a function of time and obeys a
simple exponential relationship. Thus, the permanent elongation due to creep at everyday
tension can be found for any period of time after initial installation. Creep elongation of copper
and steel strands is much less and is normally ignored.
Permanent increase in conductor length due to heavy load occurrences cannot be predicted at the
time a line is built. The reason for this unpredictability is the random nature of heavy ice and
wind loads. A heavy ice storm may occur the day after the line is built or may never occur over
the life of the line.
Annealing of Aluminum
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or the International Engineering
Consortium (IEC) standards specify the minimum tensile strength of aluminum and copper
wires, which is the stress at which the wire breaks. At temperatures above 75°C, the tensile
5-10
strength decreases with time. Temperatures below 300°C do not affect the tensile strength of
galvanized, aluminum-clad, or copper-clad steel wires. Thus, extended exposure of conductors
made up largely of aluminum or copper wires to temperatures above 75oC can eventually lead to
tensile failures during high ice and/or wind loading events.
Figure 5-3 shows the reduction in tensile strength with time and temperature for a sample of
0.081 inch (0.2 cm) diameter hard drawn copper wire. There are 8760 hours in a year, so the
diagram clearly shows that sustained operation at 65oC yields no measurable reduction of tensile
strength, sustained operation at 100oC yields a 10% reduction in 600 hours (25 days), and that
only 40 hours at 125oC reduces the wire tensile strength by 10%.
Figure 5-3
Annealing of 0.081 Inch Diameter Hard Drawn Copper Wire
Figure 5-4 shows similar tensile strength reduction data for 1350-H19 “EC” hard drawn
aluminum wire. In general, tensile strength reduction of aluminum wires at temperatures of less
than 90oC is considered negligible. At 100oC, the tensile strength of the wire is reduced by 10%
after 5000 hours and at 125oC, the tensile strength is reduced 10% after 250 hours.
When compared to copper, aluminum appears to anneal somewhat more slowly though the
difference is probably not important in transmission line applications. The source of the copper
wire data also noted a significant amount of variation in the annealing rates for wire obtained
from different manufacturers.
5-11
Figure 5-4
Annealing of 1350-H19 Hard Drawn Aluminum Wire
5-12
Residual Strength Predictor Equations for Aluminum Conductors
Definition of Terms:
T - Temperature [°C]
A1350 - Area of aluminum (1350 Alloy) strands [sq. mm, sq. in.]
5-13
Predictor Equations: (English)
In applying these equations, the cumulative strength reduction for multiple exposures at the same
conductor temperature is simply additive, however this is not true for multiple exposures at
different conductor temperatures. To determine the cumulative strength reduction for a series of
high temperature exposures at different temperatures and times, all exposures must be expressed
in equivalent time at the highest temperature before adding.
Thus if an all aluminum conductor, consisting of 37-0.1466 inch diameter strands, is raised to
125oC for 100 hours and then at a later time for 50 hours, then the strength reduction can be
calculated for 150 hours at 125oC. If the same conductor is raised to 125oC for 100 hours and
then at a later time is raised to 150oC for 50 hours, then the following calculation must be
performed:
For 100 hours @125oC,
0.1
− (0.125 − 0.095 )•
RS = 100 × 100 0.1466
= 91.0%
At 150oC, RS = 91.0% after 7.2 hours, so the cumulative loss of strength over the two high
temperature exposures is equal to the remaining strength after 50+7.2 hours. It is 82.1%
Thermal Elongation
ACSR and AAC conductors elongate with increasing conductor temperature. The rate of linear
thermal expansion for the composite ACSR conductor is less than that of the AAC conductor
because the steel strands in the ACSR elongate at approximately half the rate of aluminum. The
composite coefficient of linear thermal expansion of a non-homogenous conductor, such as
“ACSR” Drake, may be found from the following equations:
E AAL E AST
∂ AS = ∂ AL AL + ∂ ST ST
E AS ATOTAL E AS ATOTAL
5-14
A A
E AS = E AL AL + EST ST
ATOTAL ATOTAL
where
EAL = modulus of elasticity of aluminum, psi
EST = modulus of elasticity of steel, psi
EAS = modulus of elasticity of aluminum-steel composite, psi
AAL = area of aluminum strands, square units
AST = area of steel strands, square units
ATOTAL = total cross sectional area, square units
αAL = aluminum coefficient of linear thermal expansion, per oF
αST = steel coefficient of thermal elongation, per oF
αAS = composite aluminum-steel coefficient of thermal elongation, per oF
Using elastic moduli of 10 and 30 million psi for aluminum and steel, respectively, the elastic
modulus for “ACSR” Drake is:
( )
E AS = 10 x10 6
0.6247
(
+ 30 x10 6
0.7264 )
0.1017
= 12.8 x10 6 psi
0.7264
and the coefficient of linear thermal expansion is:
5-15
H AS = H AL + H ST
H ST H AL
=
AST ⋅ EST AAL ⋅ E AL
For a “Drake” 26/7 ACSR installed in a 600 ft (183 m) span to an initial tension of 9450 lbs
(4286 kg), the tension in the steel core is 3124 lbs (1417 kg), or33% of the total tension. If the
conductor is heated to a temperature of 212oF (100oC), the sag increases and the total tension
decreases to 4780 lbs (2168 kg), but the tension in the steel core goes up to 3305 lbs (1499 kg),
or 69% of the total tension.
As the temperature increases further, the tension in the aluminum eventually decreases to zero.
Beyond that “knee point” temperature, the expansion of the conductor continues, but the
aluminum strands are in compression. The “knee point” temperature is lowest for ACSR
conductors having the highest percentage of steel and, for any ACSR, is further reduced by creep
elongation of the aluminum strands.
Thermal expansion at high operating temperatures for ACSRs is discussed in the next chapter.
The correct calculation of sag change at high temperature can have a large impact on the proper
choice of which uprating method needs to be implemented.
Effect on Sag-Tension
At elevated temperatures, conductor sags and tensions are affected by an accelerated creep rate
and the thermal expansion of conductor strand materials. Aluminum strands expand at twice the
rate of steel strands. The effect of high temperature operations on the sag of all-aluminum
conductors is greater than the effect for composite conductors. In a composite conductor, as
temperature increases, the conductor tension transfers from the aluminum strands to the steel
strands. This load transfer decreases the creep rate on the aluminum, and reduces the elongation
of the conductor due to thermal expansion. If the tensile load is completely transferred, or "off-
loaded" to the steel, only the creep and thermal expansion of the steel strands further effect
conductor sag.
5-16
Elevated temperature effect on sags and tensions for conductors with a high steel content are
reduced because the aluminum may off-load at relatively low temperatures (greater than 7.5%
steel by area). Since the steel has picked up most of the conductor’s mechanical load at relatively
low operating temperatures, the aluminum's influence on sags and tensions is minimal. Hence,
high steel reinforced conductors are less susceptible to high temperature creep than conductors
with lower steel ratios.
For modest operating temperatures, ACSS conductors quickly off-load the aluminum strands
(especially if pre-stressed). Hence, high temperature effects on sags and tensions for ACSS
conductors are smaller than the effects on high steel conductors, and exhibit negligible high
temperature creep below 200°C.
Definition of Terms:
εc - Primary creep strain (units/unit)
ε - Strain - increase in length/original (units/unit)
ΣεT - Increase in conductor strain due to elevated temperature operations (units/unit)
σ -
2 2
Stress - tension/area (N/mm , lbs/in )
α - Coefficient of thermal expansion (units/unit/°C)
t - Elapsed time (hours)
T - Conductor temperature (°C)
∆T - Temperature change value (°C)
AEC - Area of aluminum strands (sq. mm., sq. in.)
AST - Area of steel strands (sq. mm., sq. in.)
AT - Total conductor area (sq. mm., sq. in.)
%RS - Tension as a percentage of the rated strength (%)
Table 5-5
Formula Constants (Metric Units)
7 Strands 19 Strands 37 Strands 61 Strands
5-17
Formula Constants: (English)
Table 5-6
Formula Constants (English Units)
7 Strands 19 Strands 37 Strands 61 Strands
Note: K1, K3, M1, & M3 are for wire bar rolled rod and K2, K4, M2, & M4 are for continuous cast (rolled) rod.
Predictor Equations:
All-Aluminum Conductors
AAC: εc = M T
1.4
σ1.3 t 0.16
AAAC: εc = 0.0077 T
1.4
σ1.3 t 0.16
AAC: εc = M T
1.4
σ1.3 t 0.16
5-18
AAAC: εc = 0.000012 T
1.4
σ1.3 t 0.16
Room Temperature:
εc = 2.4 (%RS)
1.3
t
0.16
εc = 1.1 (%RS)
1.3
t
0.16
Elevated Temperature:
εc = .24 (%RS) T t
0.16
Elevated creep strain for conductors with a steel core equal to or greater than 7.5% steel by area
can be ignored.
ε@ambient is the strain due to room temperature creep only and ε@high is the strain due to elevated
(high) temperature creep.
5-19
• Calculate the final sag following elevated temperature creep by adding this temperature
change value to the temperatures used in the standard sag & tension calculation.
The above creep predictor equations were developed by Harvey and Larson. Note that the creep
elongation calculated by these equations is the total creep that includes the initial 1-hour hold
elongation at the temperature in question.
5-20
process, where the connector will continue to provide good performance as long as there are
locations where contact points can be easily established.
Once the connector has aged such that all locations for easily establishing contact points are
exhausted, the connector is forced to establish contact points through resistive compounds to
reach the parent metal. This increases the overall resistance of the connector, its operating
temperature, and current density within the remaining contact points. Once in this mode of
operation, higher current densities and operating temperatures encourage further build up of
resistive compounds, which further drive up current density and operating temperatures resulting
in electrical failure. This electrical failure of a connector will mature into a thermal failure,
detectable with thermal sensing equipment. If allowed to continue, the thermal failure will
induce mechanical failure where the connector locally heats the conductor to temperatures where
it becomes so hot, the conductor softens and eventually parts.
Elevated temperature operations of conductors’ will increase the current density and operating
temperature of associated connectors. This increase in service duty for connectors will
accelerate their aging process, effectively reducing service life. The amount of accelerated aging
connectors experience is related to the magnitude and frequency of elevated current and
operating temperature excursions. Unfortunately, the relationship between connector aging and
service duty is nonlinear and little success has been achieved in directly quantifying that
relationship.
Most well designed connectors (when properly installed) are capable of operating at high current
densities and high conductor temperatures with acceptable long-term service. The current cycle
test (Ref. 13), an industry standard, is used to evaluate these connector designs. Current cycling
the connector results in thermal expansion and contraction of the electrical contact interface,
which tends to break down the contact points. Although this standard test identifies procedures
and qualification criteria for connectors use under normal operating conditions, it does have its
limitations. The test requires a modest conductor temperature of only 100°C above ambient
temperature and does not evaluate the effects of fault current nor atmospheric or industrial
contamination. Recognizing that generalizations should be used cautiously, connectors that
maintain satisfactory contact pressure over adequate contact areas, plus maintain low operating
temperatures will exhibit better long-term service than connectors exhibiting lesser values of
contact pressure and/or higher operating temperatures.
For this Guide, connectors shall be considered failed if their operating temperature exceeds the
temperature of the conductor to which they are attached. It can be argued that a connector
operating in this mode has previously failed, and it can also be argued that a connector has not
failed until the conductor has parted interrupting electrical continuity. However, “failed” field
connectors are very difficult to detect until operating in thermal failure mode, and such operation
is usually a precursor to imminent conductor parting.
5-21
above 200°F - Ref. 9) can degrade the joint interface through compound evaporating in place
and/or boiling the compound out of the connector-conductor joint. Joint compound evaporation
will leave a shrunken and hardened residue no longer effective as a moisture barrier, and joint
compound boiling expels the compound rendering a fitting no longer protected against moisture
and contaminants leaching into the connector-conductor interface. The presence of moisture and
contaminants in the joint will accelerate the connectors aging process and effectively shorten the
connector’s service life.
Conductor Hardware
Conductor hardware, as used in this Guide, refers to non-current carrying devices attached
directly to the conductor. Conductor hardware includes such standard devices as suspension
5-22
clamps (with and without armor rod), bolted strain clamps, armor grip suspension, dampers,
spacers, and spacer-dampers. Insulators and other hardware not directly attached to the
conductor are beyond the scope of this Guide. Connectors are covered in Section 5.0
“Connectors”.
5-23
Nonferrous conductor hardware does not have internal heat generation due to conductor current
flow. Such hardware also increases the local radiating surface area. Hence, nonferrous hardware
usually operates cooler than the conductor to which it is attached.
5-24
6
UPRATING BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE CONDUCTOR TEMPERATURE
In this section, we will consider methods to increase the rating of an existing line without
reconductoring it. Whatever method is chosen, since the transmission conductors are not to be
replaced, the result will be operation at increased temperature levels. Consequently, the
conductor, its hardware, and its connectors need extensive inspections prior to uprating and any
questionable elements need replacement.
In addition to a physical inspection, the engineer in charge of the uprating process must verify
that adequate electrical clearances will be maintained after the uprating is complete. Typically,
this verification consists of two parts: (1) measurement of sag clearance under everyday modest
electrical load, and (2) calculation of minimum sag clearances under maximum electrical
loading. A third step that should be taken (but seldom is) is experimental verification of
electrical clearances under a combination of rated load and worst-case weather conditions.
If the conductor of an existing line is not replaced, the only way the line rating can be increased
is by increasing the maximum allowable conductor temperature. Since the maximum allowable
temperature is increased, the additional sag must not violate electrical clearance requirements,
nor the increased annealing of the conductor reduce the safety factor under maximum loading to
an unacceptable level.
6-1
airplane or helicopter with digital recording devices. The latter provides more data than required
and costs more. The former provides less data than one might wish for and costs less.
Particularly with digital recording from the air, the data can be loaded directly into line profiling
and design programs like PLS-CADD and TL-CADD. This allows a span-by-span verification
of sag and a relatively straightforward calculation of conductor sag at higher temperatures.
While the accuracy of these measurements is in the range of a few inches, the determination of
the corresponding conductor temperature at the time the conductor position is measured is less
accurate. Generally, the conductor temperature is determined by use of a heat balance equation
such as IEEE738 or DYNAMP with the line electrical load and local weather data.
Table 6-1
Sag-tension Calculations for 37 AAC (Arbutus)
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICAN SAG AND TENSION DATA
Conductor Arbutus 795.0Kcmil 37 Strands AAC Area = .6234 Sq. In Dia + 1.026 In
Wt = .746 Lb/F RTS= 13900 Lb Span + 600.0 Feet Creep is a Factor NESC Medium Load Zone
Design Points Final Initial
Temp Ice Wind K Weight Sag Tension Sag Tension
F In Psf LB/F Lb/F Ft Lb Ft Lb
15. .25 4.00 .20 1.451 12.02 5446. 10.65 6140
32. .25 .00 .00 1.143 12.00 4294. 10.06 5118
0. .00 .00 .00 .746 8.77 3833. 6.63 5067.
15. .00 .00 .00 .746 9.67 3475.* 7.27 4621.
30. .00 .00 .00 .746 10.58 3179. 7.98 4212.
60. .00 .00 .00 .746 12.34 2727. 9.54 3524.
90. .00 .00 .00 .746 13.99 2406. 11.19 3006.
120. .00 .00 .00 .746 15.54 2167. 12.82 2624.
167. .00 .00 .00 .746 17.78 1897. 15.24 2210.
212. .00 .00 .00 .746 19.73 1711. 17.37 1941.
257. .00 .00 .00 .746 21.54 1570. 19.33 1746.
302. .00 .00 .00 .746 23.22 1457. 21.15 1598.
*Design Condition
6-2
For example, consider a line section of an all-aluminum, 37 strand (Arbutus) conductor having a
ruling span of 600 ft (183 meters) installed to meet the following constraints: maximum tension
of 50%, 33% initial unloaded at 15°F and 25% final unloaded at 15°F (-9.4 °C). An equally
typical SAG10 program line design sag-tension run is in the following tabular output.
In this example, we will assume that the line was originally designed for a maximum conductor
temperature of 120 °F (49 °C) and that the line structures were placed such that the minimum
ground clearances are met at a final ruling span sag of 15.5 ft (4.7 m).
In order to operate the existing line at 167°F (75 °C), the attachment points must be raised
approximately 2.2 ft (0.67 m). To operate at 212°F (100 °C), the attachment points must be
raised approximately 4.2 ft (1.28 m).
In existing lines having longer ruling span sections, there are fewer structures per mile (km) but
longer ruling span correspond to greater sag increases with temperatures as shown in Figure .
1200
Ruling Span - ft
900
600
300
AAC
Figure 6-1
Change in Sag for All Aluminum Conductor as a Function of Span Length
6-3
Predicting High Temperature Sag and Tension – Non-homogeneous
Conductors.
As described previously in section 5, the thermal elongation of ACSR conductor is less than it is
for an all aluminum conductor because the steel core has a coefficient of thermal elongation
which is half that of aluminum. Therefore, older lines (which often have relatively small
conductors with high steel content) sag less than all aluminum conductors for the same change in
temperature.
The degree to which an ACSR conductor’s thermal expansion is less than that of an all
aluminum conductor (AAC), is dependent on the ratio of the steel to aluminum area. This ratio
expressed as a percentage is usually referred to as the ACSR “Type” number. The following
table lists the composite thermal elongation of ACSR conductors with different type numbers:
Typical values for the coefficient of thermal expansion (α) of an ACSR are:
Table 6-2
Coefficients of Thermal Expansion
Conductor Type Number α (per degree C)
AAC 0 23.0x10-6
36/1 ACSR 3 22.0x10-6
18/1 ACSR 5 21.1x10-6
45/7 ACSR 7 20.7x10-6
54/7 ACSR 13 19.5x10-6
26/7 ACSR 16 18.9x10-6
30/7 or 30/19 ACSR 23 17.5x10-6
Notice, however, that although we have listed composite thermal elongation coefficients for
ACSR, in reality the aluminum strands elongate at twice the rate of the steel strands. The
reduced thermal elongation coefficient of the composite is actually the result of both this
difference in expansion with temperature and the change in component tensions that it produces.
6-4
Table 6-3
Sag-Tension Calculations for 37 AAC (Arbutus)
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICAN SAG AND TENSION DATA
Conductor Arbutus 795.0Kcmil 37 Strands AAC Area = .6234 Sq. In Dia + 1.026 In
Wt = .746 Lb/F RTS= 13900 LB Span + 600.0 Feet Creep is a Factor NESC Medium Load Zone
Design Points Final Initial
Temp Ice Wind K Weight Sag Tension Sag Tension
F In Psf LB/F Lb/F Ft Lbs Ft Lbs
15. .25 4.00 .20 1.605 9.73 7429. 8.48 8527.
5618.A 6843.A
1811.S 1684.S
32. .25 .00 .00 1.304 9.62 6109. 7.90 7434.
4449.A 5953.A
1660.S 1480.S
0. .00 .00 .00 .896 6.57 6137. 5.16 7823.
4671.A 6412.A
1466.S 1411.S
15. .00 .00 .00 .896 7.30 5525.* 5.57 7243.
4084.A 5904.A
1441.S 1339.S
30. .00 .00 .00 .896 8.08 4996. 6.05 6668.
3565.A 5392.A
1431.S 1277.S
60. .00 .00 .00 .896 9.70 4164. 7.22 5588.
2708.A 4400.A
1456.S 1189.S
90. .00 .00 .00 .896 11.31 3571. 8.63 4675.
2043.A 3516.A
1528.S 1159.S
120. .00 .00 .00 .896 12.86 3142. 10.18 3967.
1511.A 2781.A
1631.S 1186.S
167. .00 .00 .00 .896 15.13 2675. 12.62 3203.
842.A 1892.A
1833.S 1311.S
212. .00 .00 .00 .896 17.10 2368. 14.81 2731.
314.A 1242.A
2054.S 1490.S
257. .00 .00 .00 .896 18.59 2180. 16.83 2406.
0.A 706.A
2180.S 1700.S
302. .00 .00 .00 .896 19.37 2094. 18.69 2168.
0.A 239.A
2094.S 1929.S
*Design Condition
6-5
Table 6-4
Sag-tension Calculations for 37 AAC (Arbutus)
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICAN SAG AND TENSION DATA
Conductor Arbutus 795.0Kcmil 37 Strands AAC Area = .6234 Sq.In Dia + 1.026 In
Wt = .746 Lb/F RTS= 13900 LB Span + 600.0 Feet Creep is a Factor NESC Medium Load Zone
Design Points Final Initial
Temp Ice Wind K Weight Sag Tension Sag Tension
F In Psf LB/F Lb/F Ft Lb Ft Lb
15. .25 4.00 .20 1.955 7.80 11283. 6.83 12880.
3423.A 4986.A
7859.S 7894.S
32. .25 .00 .00 1.667 7.68 9773. 6.36 11804.
2377.A 4462.A
7395.S 7342.S
0. .00 .00 .00 1.235 5.30 10495. 4.45 12499.
3193.A 4972.A
7302.S 7527.S
15. .00 .00 .00 1.235 5.79 9600.* 4.69 11864.
2508.A 4623.A
7092.S 7242.S
30. .00 .00 .00 1.235 6.34 8775. 4.95 11241.
1860.A 4277.A
6914.S 6963.S
60. .00 .00 .00 1.235 7.56 7357. 5.54 10039.
693.A 3605.A
6664.S 6435.S
90. .00 .00 .00 1.235 8.65 6432. 6.23 8921.
0.A 2966.A
6432.S 5955.S
120. .00 .00 .00 1.235 9.26 6010. 7.03 7910.
0.A 2373.A
6010.S 5537.S
167. .00 .00 .00 1.235 10.27 5422.S 8.45 6580.
0.A 1553.A
5422.S 5027.S
212. .00 .00 .00 1.235 11.27 4939. 9.94 5600.
0.A 894.A
4939.S 4706.S
257. .00 .00 .00 1.235 12.30 4528. 11.45 4864.
0.A 343.A
4528.S 4522.S
302. .00 .00 .00 1.235 13.34 4178. 12.80 4352.
0.A 0.A
4178.S 4352.S
*Design Condition
6-6
With reference to this table, notice the following:
• The difference in sag-tension between “initial” and “final” conditions is due to
everyday creep elongation rather than high-tension events due to ice and wind.
• The total conductor tension decreases with time (i.e. between initial and final
conditions) and with conductor temperature, but the tension in the component steel
core strands increases.
• The aluminum strand component tension becomes zero at 257oF (125 oC) under final
conditions and remains zero as the temperature increases further to 302oF (150 oC).
257oF (125 oC) is the “knee point” temperature of the line beyond which the sag
increases at a lower rate.
Next, compare the preceding sag-tension behavior for 45/7 ACSR (Tern) with the following
table for 30/19 ACSR (Mallard) (also 795 kcmil) installed to the same final unloaded 25% RBS
tension at 60oF (15.5 oC).
Notice that the knee point temperature, under final conditions, is only 90oF (32 oC).
Figure 6-2 shows final sag versus conductor temperature for ACSR (Mallard) in four different
ruling span lengths. Note the change in slope of the curves below 50oC where the knee point
occurs.
40.0
35.0
Ruling Span Sag - ft
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
-50.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0
Conductor Temperature - deg C
Figure 6-2
Sag for a "Strong" ACSR Conductor as a Function of Conductor Temperature and Ruling Span
Length
Many older lines that are typical candidates for uprating were designed with high steel ACSR
such as 30/19, 30/7, and 26/7. The low thermal elongation beyond the knee point temperature,
illustrated in the preceding calculations, makes these older lines attractive candidates for
6-7
operation at higher temperatures. Figure 6-3 confirms that this lower sag increase rate at high
temperature makes a large difference in uprating calculations, which compares the sag increase
rates between 100 °C and 150 °C for a “low steel” ACSR (45/7), a high steel ACSR (30/19), and
an all aluminum conductor.
The “knee point” for 45/7 ACSR occurs at a higher temperature than for 30/19 since there is less
steel in this Type 7 ACSR. It is also a function of ruling span length being 85 °C for 300 ft (91
m), 115 °C for 600 ft (183 m), 145 °C for 900 ft (274 m), and 155 °C for 1200 ft (366 m).
Therefore, the sag increase rate for 45/7 is comparable to AAC at the larger spans but much less
for the smaller spans.
1200
Ruling Span - ft
900
600
300
Figure 6-3
Comparison of Sag Change with Temperature for All Aluminum Conductor, 45/7 (Type 7) ACSR,
and 30/19 (Type 23) ACSR
6-8
Recent studies by Rawlins seem to confirm the existence of compressive effects as well as
residual stresses (due to manufacturing) in aluminum strands at high temperatures. The effect on
sag at high temperatures appears to be much smaller than those predicted by Barrett. The widely
used SAG10 program has incorporated Rawlin’s studies’ as an optional calculation. In a 1200 ft
(366 m) span, Rawlin’s method would add about 1 ft (30 cm) to the sag of a high steel conductor
such as Drake at 150oC.
Figure 6-4 shows a comparison of sag as a function of conductor temperature calculated with the
following assumptions:
• The SAG10 computer program with an assumption of zero compressive stress in the
aluminum strands.
• The SAG10 computer program with the default assumption of 2500 psi residual stress
and allowance for aluminum compression.
• The STESS computer program with the default assumption of 10 MPa for maximum
compressive stress and no residual stress.
16
15
14
13
12
SAg - ft
11
10
6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Conductor Temp - C
Figure 6-4
Sag at High Temperatures Calculated with and without Aluminum Compression
Figure is a similar plot that shows the somewhat larger sag differences that occur in a 1200 foot
ruling span.
6-9
High Temp Sag Comparison
1200 ft span of Mallard ACSR
41
39
37
35
Sag - ft
33
31
29
27
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Conductor Temp - C
Figure 6-5
Final Sags for Mallard ACSR in a 1200 ft span.
At this point, there is no clear way to determine which of these methods is correct. Indeed, there
is no way to be certain that the stress assumptions for either are correct. However, there is a
distinct possibility that the original line design calculations of final high temperature sag were
too small. There is also some uncertainty as to how much the sag should be increased to be
certain that electrical clearances will be maintained at an increased maximum conductor
temperature.
6-10
Line Tension Measurements for July 1995
15 min sampling (5 min avgs)
Minimum Line Design Tension = 5500 lbs
6300
Line Tension (lbs)
5800
5300
july_15min.xls
4800
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0
Line Current (amps)
Figure 6-6
Measured Line Tension as a Function of Line Current for a Line with 30/19 Mallard ACSR
Direct measurement is the best way to verify high temperature sag behavior, but these
measurements are optimized when the line current is at high levels, and kept high over a long
enough period to include worst-case weather conditions.
6-11
7
PROBABILISTIC METHODS OF LINE UPRATING
Of the three major types of power equipment – underground cables, overhead lines, and power
transformers – overhead lines react most quickly to changes in current and weather. Overhead
lines are the only type of power equipment that may directly impact public safety through
inadequate electrical clearance. The NESC specifies minimum clearances for high voltage
overhead lines that must be met at “the maximum conductor temperature for which the line is
designed to operate….” Therefore, in the United States, it is generally not possible to specify the
electrical clearances of a line probabilistically. That is, by specifying that the electrical
clearances set by the NESC Code are met 99.99% of the time. In other countries, the use of such
probabilistic clearances is acceptable.
In fact, unless the line is designed with a very generous clearance buffer, electrical clearances
may be violated during those relatively rare events when the line load equals the rating, and the
actual weather conditions along the line are less “conservative” than the static rating
assumptions. For example, with a transmission line designed to reach electrical clearance
minimums at 100oC, whose Summer rating is based on a 3 ft/sec (0.91 m/sec) perpendicular
wind and an air temperature of 35oC, the line’s clearances may be less than these minimums for
wind speeds of less than 6 ft/sec (1.83 m/sec) blowing parallel to the line. It is important to
understand how often this might occur and, if it never occurs, it may be possible to increase the
rating of the line.
Aside from the issue of clearances, the rating of lines having conductors with little or no steel
(AAC, AAAC, ACAR, Cu, 45/7 ACSR, 18/1 ACSR, etc.) may be limited by concerns about loss
of tensile strength. As described in section 5, aluminum and copper rapidly lose tensile strength
when exposed to temperatures above 100oC. A careful review of cumulative loss of strength
during periods of emergency loading may allow an increase in emergency ratings without the
need for reconductoring.
This section reviews two probabilistic rating calculations:
1. Probabilistic Clearance – Actual line ratings over an extended period are compared to the
present static thermal rating. The static rating is assigned a certain probability of failure.
The rating of the line may be increased if it is determined that minimum clearances are
always met or if methods are available to reduce the load during periods of low rating.
2. Probabilistic Loss of Strength – Conductor temperatures during periods of high line current
is calculated and the cumulative loss of strength over time is determined. If the cumulative
loss of strength of the existing conductor under present allowable loads is acceptable, the line
rating may be raised until the limits on loss of strength are reached.
Note that in either case, the probability of success in using these methods to uprate existing lines
depends on how conservative present static rating are.
7-1
Probabilistic Clearances
If the weather along a transmission line is recorded over a period of months or years, it is
possible to calculate the line rating for every 10 minutes during the period. Then, the resulting
list of line ratings may be statistically analyzed in order to determine the probability that the line
rating exceeds a range of values. This may also serve to provide a quantitative basis for any
conventional static rating.
Given the weather conditions, it is also possible to calculate the conductor temperature if the line
current is specified for the study time period. The current may be actual recorded values of line
load, a worst-case daily load cycle, or a constant load. In any event, the corresponding
distribution of conductor temperatures, the sag distribution, and the cumulative strength
distribution can be found.
When these techniques are applied with the goal of increasing the line’s rating, either the
probability of a clearance violation or the cumulative loss of conductor strength is found. The
cumulative loss of conductor strength corresponds to a range of line electrical loadings. This is
where the possibility of operation at higher line loads is evaluated.
7-2
Probabilistic Loss of Strength
On lines having copper (Cu) or all aluminum (AAC, AAAC, ACAR) conductors which have
sufficient clearance to operate at an increased maximum allowable conductor temperature, but
are limited from doing so by concerns over loss of tensile strength at temperatures above 90oC, it
may be possible to take a probabilistic approach to uprating the line.
The technical paper by Beers, Gilligan, Lis, and Schamberger is an excellent example of a
practical method used to calculate the loss of tensile strength in transmission conductors as a
function of loading and weather conditions.
The method used to calculate the loss of tensile strength begins by using weather data from the
U.S. Weather Bureau. Then, the conductor temperature is calculated using the House & Tuttle
thermal heat balance model (similar to the IEEE 738-1993 method). Next, the loss in tensile
strength is calculated according to data provided by Alcoa, assuming that a loss of strength of
12% to 15% in the aluminum strands is acceptable over a 30 year life span.
Next, the authors developed combined frequency of occurrence tables for air temperature and
wind speed as shown in Table 7-1. The number of hours shown in this table is actually 4 times
as many as was determined through analysis of Weather Bureau data in order to account for
sheltering effects along the line.
7-3
Figure 7-1
Wind Speed Distribution at 70 °F Showing Actual Reported Values (Shown in Parentheses) and
the Author’s Smoothed Distribution Curve.
Table 7-1
Assumed Hours of Combined Wind and Air Temperature in 30 Years for a Typical Protected
Transmission Line Right-of-Way.
Ambient Temp Wind Speed–ft/sec
7-4
Load Current Assumptions and Annealing Calculation
The authors used the annealing curves shown in Figure to estimate the conductor loss of
strength. Note that the dashed zigzag line indicates how the cumulative annealing was calculated
starting with 65oC.
The line current load was assumed constant for all hours of the year and all years of the 30 years
life. For a range of line currents, the corresponding conductor temperature was calculated for
each of the air temperature and wind speed combinations and the annealing was found for that
temperature and the number of hours. The authors found acceptable levels of strength reduction
where the range of maximum conductor temperatures under still air conditions reached
temperatures between 140oC and 180oC.
Figure 7-2
Typical Annealing of Aluminum Wires (Alcoa)
7-5
In the appendix to the paper, the authors present the following ratings for transmission
conductor. The total loss of strength due to operation with load current equal to the normal
rating over 13,000 hours and equal to the post-contingency rating for 600 hours over 30 years is
a cumulative loss of strength of 12% and 15%.
Table 7-2
Conductor Ratings Based on 12% to 15% Loss of Aluminum Wire Strength Over 30 Years Where
the Normal Load does not Occur for More than 13,000 Hours and the Contingency Load does not
Occur for More than 600 Hours. The Loads are Assumed to be Random.
ACSR Conductor Rating-Amperes
Size (kcmil) Stranding Normal Post-Contingency
The authors note that a line current equal to the normal rating would result in a conductor
temperature of 140 °C with zero wind at 90 °F (32 °C), and that a line current equal to the post-
contingency rating would result in a conductor temperature of 180oC. They note that this applies
for all the conductors considered and that the line clearance must be adequate for these conductor
temperatures in order for these ratings to be valid.
7-6
will result in the same conductor temperature as a 2 ft/sec (1.8 m/sec) crosswind. It
seems likely that the ratings derived in the study would be lower if wind direction
was considered.
• The authors assumed that zero wind conditions never occur in their annealing
calculations and that wind speeds of 1.0 ft/sec (0.3 m/sec) occur only 1/3 as often as
winds of 2 ft/sec (1.8 m/sec). There is no evidence to support this. On the other
hand, the frequency of occurrence of winds of 3 ft/sec (0.91 m/sec) and below is
responsible for almost all of the significant annealing that occurs.
• Ratings and peak normal or post-contingency emergency load events may be
correlated. The authors of this study assumed that peak normal ratings occur only 5%
of the time, and they also assumed that such peak current events occurred randomly.
• While the authors considered the possibility of seasonal ratings (summer and winter),
they ignored daily variations driven by solar heating. There is considerable evidence
in recent years that peak ratings often occur in the afternoon and minimum ratings are
at night.
• Most lines with ACSR conductor are clearance limited. That is, the maximum
allowable conductor temperature is determined by the need to maintain ground
clearance rather than by the need to limit annealing of the aluminum strands.
• The authors did not consider the possibility that such high temperatures may cause
increased permanent sag due to creep elongation. Conductors such as 45/7 and 18/1
ACSR do exhibit high temperature creep.
7-7
8
DYNAMIC UPRATING METHODS
If dynamic rating methods are applied to increase the effective rating of an overhead line, real-
time weather data and optionally line temperature or sag-tension data must be communicated
from multiple remote locations to the utility operations center where the line rating calculations
are performed. In all such cases, the line rating is no longer constant but varies with weather
conditions.
This technology has been implemented at a number of EPRI member utilities and is worth
considering in cases where there is a need for minimum capital investment, a modest increase in
rating, combined with operational flexibility and available SCADA/EMS communications.
Maintain Reliability
Given the rapidly changing utility business, utilities are hesitant to make the large capital
investments required to build new facilities. As a result, power utility engineers are under
pressure to make greater use of existing power equipment while maintaining or improving the
reliability of an increasingly aged transmission system.
In a regulated business environment, the transmission system operator had little reason not to
provide generous transmission capacity, since return on investment was guaranteed. In an
unregulated environment, it is anticipated that transmission facilities will be much more heavily
utilized and are more likely to approach or exceed their operating limits. This is likely to have
an impact on transmission reliability.
8-1
One of the benefits of real-time thermal monitoring is the improved understanding gained of how
power equipment behaves when subjected to heavy electrical loading. Such high loading events
in a regulated environment were rare. Errors in thermal modeling of equipment may well have
gone unnoticed since the loadings were modest. Any theory works just fine as long as there is no
measurement to disprove it.
8-2
INCREASING LINE UTILIZATION WHILE REDUCING RISK
BY DYNAMIC RATING
0.45
LOAD ACTUAL
0.40
DISTRIBUTION DYNAMIC RATING
INCREASES AS A
DISTRIBUTION
0.35 RESULT OF NEW
HIGHER RATING
PROBABILITY DENSITY
0.30
New, less
conservative
rating LOAD1
0.25
LOAD2
RATING
0.20
Old, fixed
rating
0.15
DYNAMIC "LOW
0.10 RATING"
WARNING
PROVIDED TO
0.05 OPERATOR IF
0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
PTINEWS_LDVSRAT1.xls
AMPERES
Figure 8-1
Probability Density Distributions for a Typical Circuit Load and Dynamic Rating
8-3
An Alternative to Less-Conservative Static Ratings
Driven by the advent of open transmission access and deregulation of the utility business, there
has been a distinct trend toward the use of less conservative rating assumptions with little or no
basis in science. Field testing of dynamic thermal methods offered an opportunity both to
evaluate the possible increase in ratings and to detect the frequency of occurrences where
existing equipment might be damaged due to less conservative rating assumptions.
Calculation of thermal ratings for overhead lines are typically based upon heat balance methods
such as that found in IEEE 738-1993. Given a maximum allowable conductor temperature, the
corresponding maximum allowable current (the thermal rating) is determined for “worst-case”
weather conditions. Maximum allowable conductor temperatures typically range from 50 °C to
150 °C. Typical “worst-case” weather conditions are a wind speed of 2 ft/sec (0.61 m/sec)
perpendicular to the conductor, with full solar heating and an air temperature of 30 °C to 40 °C.
Table 8-1 illustrates the advantage of assuming a higher wind speed and the consequence of
doing so. Use of a higher wind speed for thermal rating calculations yields an increase in the line
rating even though the maximum conductor temperature (100 °C) remains the same. For
example, an increase in assumed wind speed from 2 to 3 ft/sec (0.61 m/sec to 0.91 m/sec) yields
an increase in the rating from 990 to 1080 Amperes and, since the assumed conductor
temperature remains the same, no line modifications are required.
Table 8-1
Effect of Assumed Wind Speed on Thermal Rating for Drake 795 kcmil ACSR at 100°°C, Assuming
Full Sun and an Air Temperature of 40°°C
Assumed Wind Speed for Line Rating for 795 kcmil Conductor Temperature when
Line Rating Calculation ACSR @ 100°°C current=rating & windspeed=0 ft/sec
(0m/sec)
(ft/sec) (m/sec) (Amperes) (°C)
0 0 750 100
2 0.61 990 130
3 0.91 1080 145
4 1.22 1160 160
The major advantage of this method of uprating is clear - it is very inexpensive. Since the
maximum allowable conductor temperature remains the same (100 °C), the corresponding
maximum sag is unchanged and no line modifications are required.
The major disadvantage of this approach is also clear from the rightmost column of Table 8-1.
This column shows the temperature attained by the conductor for still air conditions (0 ft/sec, or
0 m/sec), with a line load equal to the calculated rating shown in column 2. Historically, the
joint probability of maximum loading and worst-case weather was considered a rare event.
Recent field studies indicate that, in certain areas, the probability of still air may be in excess of
10%. Combined with the previously noted increase in normal and emergency line loading, the
8-4
temperatures indicated in the last column of Table 8-1 may be a real concern, and the use of a
less conservative wind assumption may impact line reliability.
8-5
of the conductor in light of the sag-tension line design data. Alternatively, the conductor
temperature is compared to the line design maximum allowable conductor temperature and it is
assumed that if the design temperature is reached, then the safety limit is exceeded and there is
risk to the public.
The highest conductor temperature is obtained for the lowest wind speeds and those winds are
nearly parallel to the line direction. Therefore, the wind anemometer must be of high quality,
able to measure wind speeds below 1m/sec. The propeller type is more accurate than the cup
type but both are subject to start-up error after stalling at low wind speed. The best results are
often obtained from the ultrasonic type.
Alone among the monitoring methods discussion in this guide, the accuracy of line ratings
determined by weather monitoring are not dependent on the line current. This method may
therefore be used to supplement the other monitor based dynamic rating methods.
This method may not cater for variation in parameters that could affect the conductor
temperature and hence sag. Variation in the value of the parameters can be caused by variability
of the terrain or by the sheltering of a line by trees or buildings. In addition, wind speed and
direction can differ from the point of measurement, (for example an airport) to the actual line.
To mitigate the above effects there may be a need to install a number of weather stations along
the (long) lines; associated communication problems to transmit the readings may occur together
with uncertainty of the best location of weather stations. This is because the critical span could
be varying.
The calculations generally refer to the surface temperature of the conductor. Assumptions have
to be made as to the total power input and the thermal conduction between strands to determine
the average temperature of the conductor from which the sag can be determined.
Conductor temperature monitor - The sensor is usually located at one position only. It is known
that the temperature varies along the span as well as between spans. To make a judgment on this
one reading only is risky since the temperature of the conductor can be very different from span
to span, especially if the line changes direction or terrain (sheltered or unsheltered spans). The
sensor could be placed in a span that has the wind perpendicular to it. An adjacent span could
have altered the line direction so that the line is now parallel to the wind. The cooling is
approximately 40 % in the line section parallel to the wind compared to the section perpendicular
to the wind. This means that the section parallel to the wind, the section without the sensor, is
hotter than the span with the sensor by a considerable amount. The sensor may therefore indicate
that the line is under the thermal limit when in effect it could be above the limit.
The temperature measured is the conductor surface temperature and not the average conductor
temperature (that affects sag).
8-6
attached at various locations on the conductor and/or conductor support points and the "x, y, z"
co-ordinates are determined by measuring the distance and angles from a known point. The
measuring instrument can take measurements at preset intervals or on demand. Software has
been developed to calculate the clearance to the ground or other objects. The sagometer can be
used with or without daylight.
Sag monitors offer several advantages. If the targets can be mounted on the energized conductor
with a hot stick, they can be installed without the need to take a line outage. They are also
clearly the most accurate method of determining the sag and ground clearance in the span where
they are mounted.
Over the last 5 years, use of line tension monitors is wide spread within the US. The first
commercially available device, known as the CAT-1, is installed at over 30 utilities. There are a
number of reasons for the popularity of these devices. The tension-measuring device is a
commercial load cell, which appears to be very reliable and exhibits little drift with varying
weather and line load conditions. The device is mounted on the grounded side of a dead-end
insulator string and thus is not subject to high electric fields.
Line tension monitors are normally installed with the line taken out of service. While the sag in
the last span can be determined with great accuracy, the sag estimate for other spans in the line
section may exhibit increasing error.
The estimation of sag in spans away from the monitoring location is prone to certain errors
whether the sag or tension monitor is used. In either case, if the line section has nearly equal
span lengths, long insulator suspension strings, and modest temperature variations, then the sag
in remote spans may be calculated simply by using the “ruling span” approximation. The “ruling
span” approximation assumes that all spans have the same tension at any temperature. In lines
with post insulators, unequal spans, and large temperature variations, the line section needs to be
modeled with a more sophisticated line model such as the one described in the IEEE ruling span
paper.
Either type of monitor provides a direct measurement of the sag-tension behavior of the line at
high temperature levels.
1. Dynamic thermal ratings for overhead lines may be calculated based on either real time
weather or real time tension data. For weather-based ratings, the wind angle should be
assumed fixed and near parallel to the line direction to account for directional variation along
the line section.
8-7
2. In rating longer lines with multiple ruling span sections, it is likely that the line rating
(dynamic or static) decreases with line length and that dynamic rating of lines requires
multiple monitoring locations, and the minimum number of monitors required must be based
on field measurements.
3. Tension monitors work well in lines having high current density (greater than approximately
1 amp/mm2) where they generally yield more accurate ratings than single-point weather
monitors. However, in lines with low current density (less than 0.5 amps/mm2), weather-
based dynamic ratings are more accurate than those based on sag-tension monitors
4. Tension monitoring allows one to directly measure tension at high temperatures. Weather
monitoring does not. Errors in the calculation of high temperature sag using various standard
methods can be detected with tension monitors but not with weather monitoring methods.
For example, the data obtained in these field tests show that there is a great deal of fluctuation in
both wind speed and direction along most line routes, particularly during periods of low wind
activity. The following figure shows 15 minute average wind speeds at locations only 1.5 km
apart along a line route in Philadelphia.
25
july_15min.xls
20
Loc #2 (ft/s)
15
10
5
Loc #1 has more low
wind speeds.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Loc #1 (ft/s)
Figure 8-2
Wind Speed (15 min average) at Two Locations 1.5 km Apart Along a 230-kV Line in the Eastern
US.
8-8
The field tests confirm that not only the wind speed but also the wind direction varies along the
line. This raises questions about the usefulness and accuracy of basing dynamic thermal line
ratings on weather data from a single location within a line section. It would seem to imply that
multiple weather monitor locations might be required within long line sections.
8-9
100
0
1300
1700
2100
2500
2900
3300
3700
Normal Rating (amps)
Figure 8-3
Comparison of Weather-Based and Tension-Based Cumulative Rating Distributions
4000
I 1 (N-S) 9/30 - 10/1/97 240
140
2000 120
100
1500 bundle
80
current
1000 60
40
500 solar temp
wind speed 20
0 0
11:09
13:09
15:09
17:09
19:09
21:09
23:09
5:09
7:09
9:09
1:09
s ep_ mat.xls
Figure 8-4
Comparison of Tension-Based Rating Estimates for Four Separate Line Sections
8-10
Rating Variation in Adjacent Line Sections
Figure shows the variation in tension-based line rating with time for the 230 -kV SRP line. Four
ruling span sections are monitored. I2 is E-W, and the other three are oriented nearly N-S. Note
that the E-W span generally has the lowest rating but that this is not true for certain periods such
as the three hours starting at 6 AM.
Clearly, if the entire line were rated on the basis of a monitor in only one section, the rating
would be too high some percentage of the time and therefore not conservative. Multiple
monitoring locations are required to correctly calculate the real time line rating; however, it
appears that there is good agreement for the three line sections oriented in the same direction (N-
S).
It appears that the number of monitoring locations (either weather or tension) required to
calculate the real time line rating correctly must be empirically determined for each location.
8-11
9
REDCONDUCTORING WITHOUT STRUCTURAL
MODIFICATIONS
TW
The use of trapezoidal (TW) aluminum wires in place of round wires potentially increases the
cross sectional area of a round wire conductor of the same diameter by approximately 20%.
Therefore, the use of TW conductor in uprating offers a reduction in conductor resistance of 20%
with no increase in structure transverse loading.
ACSS
Aluminum Conductor Steel Supported (ACSS) is described in ASTM B 856-95. It consists of
fully annealed strands of aluminum (1350-H0) stranded around stranded steel core. The steel
core wires may be aluminized, galvanized, or aluminum clad and are normally “high strength”
having a tensile strength about 10% greater than standard steel core wire. In appearance, ACSS
conductors are essentially identical to standard ACSR conductors.
By using annealed aluminum, the rated strength of ACSS is reduced by an amount dependent on
the stranding (e.g. 35% for 45/7, 18% for 26/7, and 10% for 30/7). In fact, a 45/7 ACSS
conductor has about the same rated breaking strength as a conventional all-aluminum conductor
(e.g. 16,700 lbs for 954kcmil 45/7 ACSS versus 16,400 lbs for 954 kcmil 37 strand AAC
(Magnolia)). The thermal elongation coefficient, creep rate, and maximum operating
temperature is, however, quite different.
9-1
Table 9-1
ACSS Equivalents to Standard Type 16, 795 kcmil, 26/7 ACSR (Drake)
Conductor Name OD Alum Area AC Resistance
(inches) (mm) (kcmil) Ω/mile)
(Ω Ω/km)
(Ω ∆%)
(∆
Drake ACSR 1.108 28.14 795 0.1170 0.0727
Drake/ACSS 1.108 28.14 795 0.1137 0.0707 -3%
Suwannee/ACSS/T 1.108 28.14 960 0.0939 0.0584 -17%
W
Drake/ACSS/TW 1.010 25.65 795 0.1132 0.0704 -3%
9-2
Table 9-2
Continuous Ampacity of Equivalent ACSR and ACSS Conductors as a Function of Maximum
Allowable Conductor Temperature
Conductor Drake ACSR* Suwannee ACSS/TW Drake/ACSS or
o
Temperature ( C) Drake/ACSS/TW
Thermal Elongation
Aluminum strands elongate thermally at twice the rate of steel. The sag increase of ACSR
conductor is therefore less than it is for AAC. In the case of ACSS, the tension level in the
aluminum strands is very small and the conductor elongates thermally as though it were steel.
Thus, the sag increase in going from 15 °C to 150 °C with ACSS may be the same as the sag
increase from 15 °C to 95 °C with ordinary ACSR.
As an example of this lower thermal elongation of ACSS, consider the data in Table 9-3. The
ACSS conductor has the same sag at 150 °C as the ACSR conductor of the same diameter has at
100 °C. Therefore, for a clearance-limited line, by re-conductoring with ACSS, the thermal
capacity of the line increases by about 30% without the need to raise or reinforce structures.
Table 9-3
Illustration of the Lower Thermal Elongation of ACSS Conductor.
Conductor Temp Sag of Drake ACSR Sag of Drake/ACSS Ampacity
o
( C) (ft) (m) (ft) (m) (Amperes)
15 31.0 9.4 31.0 9.4
100 37.6 11.5 35.3 10.8 1110
150 37.8 11.5 1490
Self-Damping
The tension of conductors in overhead lines is normally determined by concern about Aeolian
vibration induced fatigue. It is normal to limit initial tension to no more than 20% of the rated
breaking strength in order to limit vibration levels. Because it has higher self-damping than
ordinary ACSR, ACSS may be installed to smaller initial sags and because it has a lower
modulus, it yields lower maximum tensions than ACSR.
9-3
Low Creep Elongation
When re-conductoring one must allow for creep elongation over time with ordinary ACSR. In
addition, except for ACSR conductors with a high steel content, one must consider the possibility
of accelerated creep at high operating temperatures. ACSS does not creep at any temperature,
high or low. Thus, its final and initial sags are the same as shown in Figure 9-1.
Figure 9-1
Illustration of Typical Behavior of ACSS Conductor Illustrating that Initial and Final Sags are
Nearly Identical
Not only is there little or no difference between the initial and final sag, but also the initial sag is
less and the change in sag due to temperature is less than it is for standard ACSR.
9-4
Max Tension of Drake/ACSS/TW same as Standard
Drake ACSR
1400 50
1200 45
1000
AMPACITY
40
Sag - ft
800
35
600
30
400
200 25
0 20
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
CDR TEMP - DEG C
Figure 9-2
Application of ACSS in New Line Design Showing 30% Higher Thermal Rating with the Same
Maximum Sag and Tension Loading on Structures.
In comparison to standard ACSR or other types of conventional conductors, a new line can be
built with ACSS at a much lower cost per MVA of thermal capacity. This is because the
conductor can be operated at much higher temperatures for the same sag and structure loading.
This is particularly true of ACSS/TW conductor.
The novel characteristics of ACSS make it attractive as a replacement conductor for HV lines
where thermal capacity is inadequate. ACSS can be substituted for existing ACSR of the same
diameter. Although having nearly the same resistance and diameter as the conductor it replaces,
ACSS can be operated at a much higher temperature without exceeding the original high
temperature sag levels. Since the aluminum strands of ACSS are fully annealed, it has a
somewhat lower rated strength than the same stranding in ACSR. In areas where ice and wind
loads permit, ACSS may be specified with a reduced steel content. The result is that with ACSS
the maximum tension loads on angle and dead-end structures may be no higher than those
generated by the ACSR conductor it replaces.
As an example of the advantages of ACSS in re-conductoring, consider Figure , which shows
ampacity and sag as a function of maximum allowable temperature. The original conductor in
the existing line is assumed to be 477 kcmil ACSR (Hawk). The proposed replacement
conductors are 565.3 kcmil ACSS/TW (Calumet), which has the same diameter as the original
and 795 kcmil ACSR (Drake), which has a diameter that is 30% higher. For continuous
operation, the 565.3 kcmil ACSS/TW (Calumet) conductor at 200 °C has an ampacity about 25%
9-5
higher than Drake at 100 °C and lower maximum sag than the original or replacement ACSR
conductors.
20.0
SAG - FT
800 18.0
600 16.0
400 14.0
200 12.0
0 10.0
75 100 125 150 175 200
CDR TEMP - DEG C
HAWK Calumet/ACSS/TW DRAKE
HAWK Calumet/ACSS/TW DRAKE
Figure 9-3
Ampacity and Sag of Original Drake ACSR and Calumet ACSS/TW Replacement Conductor as a
Function of Maximum Allowable Temperature.
9-6
Table 9-4
Maximum Operating Temperatures for High Temperature Alloys Made in Japan.
Description Symbol Max Temp Continuous Max Temp Emergency
Table 9-5
Conductivity of High Temperature Alloys Made in Japan.
Aluminum Alloy %Conductivity Max Temp Continuous Min. Tensile Strength
(°°C)
2
(IACS) (kgf/mm )
UTAL 57.0 200 16.2to17.9
ZTAL 60.0 210 16.2to17.9
XTAL 58.0 230 16.2to17.9
TAL 60.0 150 16.2to17.9
1350-H19 61.0 95 16.2to17.9
The TAL alloy was developed in the 1960’s. The other alloys were developed in a continuing
attempt to keep the conductivity near that of ordinary electrical conductor grade aluminum
(1350-H19). The relationship between conductivity and maximum continuous temperature is
shown in the following figures.
At high operating temperatures, the aluminum strands of any high temperature conductor
unloads tension almost entirely to the steel core. With Invar, this happens at a lower (“knee
9-7
point”) temperature. In addition, the rate of increase in sag with further increases in conductor
temperature is less with Invar steel cores. This is demonstrated in Figure 9-5:
Figure 9-4
Plots of Conductivity and Loss of Strength for High Temperature Japanese Aluminum Alloys
9-8
Figure 9-5
Comparison of ACSR-type Conductors with Invar and Conventional Steel Cores.
Gapped Construction
The lower temperature range aluminum alloys are optionally supplied in a “gapped” construction
as shown in the following picture taken from a Sumitomo Technical Data Sheet:
Figure 9-6
9-9
Summary Table Showing Gapped and Conventional constructions for Japanese High Temperature
Conductors.
In the gapped construction, the space between the steel core and the inner layer of the aluminum
alloy strands is filled with high temperature grease to prevent corrosion. In addition, the gapped
construction conductors are installed with full tension on the steel core (and little or no load on
the aluminum strands).
It was noted in the preceding comparison of Invar with conventional steel wire that Invar has a
reduced tensile strength. While it is conceivable that a gapped construction conductor could be
made with an Invar steel core for use in a light-loading region such as Arizona, it is not
commonly done in Japan where heavy ice and wind loads commonly occur. Thus, as shown in
the Figure, Gapped conductors are designed with conventional high strength steel core wires.
9-10
10
UPRATING CASE STUDIES
Clearly, the uprating method applicable to a particular line depends on a number of different
parameters, which must be defined as part of the uprating process. There are, however, certain
aspects of the line design that suggest certain uprating methods or that suggest avoiding certain
approaches. This section of the guide includes a collection of typical candidate lines with
appropriate line uprating methods identified (including references to the section describing the
method).
To be useful, a detailed description of each case study is included to make at least some initial
decisions about what approach to take, but a detailed plan profile or sag survey data is not
included. Similarly, the lines include voltage ranges of69-kV to 345-kV , the most common
lines that need uprating. Some of the examples may have been uprated previously.
Line Description
• 69-kV system voltage, 4 suspension insulator bells, ferrous clamps.
• No dampers, bolted dead-ends, no armor rod.
• 7 strand, #2/0 AWG Copper conductor, original splices.
• Rating conditions – 2ft/sec perpendicular, 40 °C air, sun, 50 °C continuous/75 °C
emergency.
• Mild corrosion area, broken strands found at several clamp locations.
• Normal daily peak annual loading is only 30% of normal continuous rating. System
analysis by planning needs a 50% increase in emergency rating (post-contingency
loading).
• Span lengths range from 250 to 400 ft. Ruling span is 350 ft. Electrical clearance at
75 °C ranges from 2ft to 10ft. Average clearance is 4 ft. The line length is 10 km (6
miles) with 15 line sections going in a predominantly east-west direction.
• NESC Medium loading area (0.25in ice with 4 psf wind). Everyday tension at 15 °C
equal to 12% RBS (Rated Breaking Strength) final.
• Wood pole H-frame structures, no knee or X bracing.
10-1
• Built in 1935, 20% damaged poles (rot) replaced in 1962. Another 15% replaced in
1988. No extensive structural failures known. No broken conductors.
Uprating Analysis
Given the age of the phase conductor, the evidence of some obvious vibration fatigue damage,
the original splices, and its rare operation at high temperature levels, the re-rating of this line by
going to a higher maximum temperature is risky.
On the other hand, the line’s electrical clearance margins are relatively generous, the rating
weather conditions are conservative, and the contingency loading event is relatively rare and of
limited duration.
The following parameters make this line a good candidate for reconductoring: it has a low
normal load, and the poles are in a relatively good condition. The low normal load implies that
the line can be taken out of service for construction. The relatively good condition of the poles
can have bracing added to them, if required. Reconductoring with a larger diameter trapezoidal
strand conventional aluminum or ACSR conductor is possible.
Line Description
• 69-kV system voltage, 4 suspension insulator bells, aluminum clamps.
• Dampers on exposed sections, compression dead-ends, armor rod used at all clamps.
• 26/7 strand, 366.4 kcmil, ACSR conductor, approximately 20% of full tension splices
replaced on basis of infrared scans.
• Rating conditions – 2ft/sec perpendicular, 40 °C air, sun, 75 °C continuous/90 °C
emergency.
• Mild corrosion area, no broken strands found in routine climbing inspection.
• Normal daily peak annual loading is 70% of normal continuous rating. System
analysis by planning indicates that the continuous rating needs 30% increase to meet
peak seasonal demand. Emergency loading will be equal to peak seasonal normal.
• Span lengths range from 250 to 400 ft. Ruling span is 350 ft. Electrical clearance at
75 °C ranges from 2ft to 10ft. Average clearance is 4 ft. The line length is 10 km (6
miles) with 15 line sections going in a predominantly east-west direction.
10-2
• NESC Heavy loading area (0.5in ice with 4 psf wind and 1.0 inch radial ice).
Everyday tension at 15 °C equal to 14% RBS (Rated Breaking Strength) final.
• Wood pole H-frame structures, knee but no X bracing.
• Built in 1948, 10% damaged poles (rot) replaced in 1969. Another 20% replaced in
1985. One line section failure in 1972 due to excessive ice load. Cross arm broken,
not conductor.
Uprating Analysis
Given the regular inspections of the line, the existing protection from vibration fatigue damage,
the inspection and replacement of compression splices, and the extensive experience in operating
this line at conductor temperatures well above air temperature, the re-rating of this line by going
to a higher maximum temperature is a viable option.
On the other hand, the line’s electrical clearance margins are relatively generous, the rating
weather conditions are conservative, and the contingency loading event is relatively rare and of
limited duration.
The following parameters make this line a good candidate for reconductoring: it has a low
normal load, and the poles are in a relatively good condition. The low normal load implies that
the line can be taken out of service for construction. The relatively good condition of the poles
can have bracing added as required. Reconductoring, perhaps with a larger diameter trapezoidal
strand conventional aluminum or ACSR conductor is possible.
Case Study #3 – 230-kV, 795kcmil ACSR, Medium Spans, Steel Lattice, 10%
Rating Increase
Typical of the moderate aged lines in many systems, this double circuit 230 -kV line was built in
the 1960’s using steel lattice self-supporting structures. The desired increase in thermal line
capacity results from an attempt to deal with a relatively common post-contingency emergency
load condition where the operator can re-dispatch generation to reduce the line load in about one
hour, with little economic penalty. Load shedding is also an option in case of overload but is
undesirable from a public relations viewpoint. The period of high loading is likely to persist for
several weeks if it occurs.
Line Description
• 230-kV system voltage, double circuit, 12 suspension insulator bells, aluminum
clamps.
• Dampers on exposed sections, compression dead-ends, armor rod used at all clamps.
• 30/19 strands, 795 kcmil ACSR conductor, the condition of full tension splices is
uncertain.
• Rating conditions – 3ft/sec perpendicular, 30 °C air, sun, 100 °C continuous/100 °C
emergency
10-3
• Mild corrosion area, no broken strands found in routine climbing inspection.
• Normal daily peak annual loading is 40% of normal continuous rating. System
analysis by planning indicates that the emergency rating needs a 10% increase to
meet the peak post-contingency loading. System re-dispatch is possible in one hour.
• Span lengths range from 800 to 1100 ft. Ruling span is 1000 ft. Electrical clearance
at 100 °C ranges from 1ft to 3ft. Average clearance at 100 °C is 2 ft. The line length
is 40 km (24 miles) with 20 line sections going in a predominantly north-south
direction.
• NESC Heavy loading area (0.5in ice with 4 psf wind and 1.0 inch radial ice).
Everyday tension at 15 °C equal to 18% RBS (Rated Breaking Strength) final.
• Steel lattice, self-supporting structures. Galvanizing is in good shape. Concrete
footing inspection indicates they are in “near-original” condition.
• Built in 1963, structures have been inspected by helicopter. No major line failures
have occurred. One line section failure in 1972 due to a crane accident. Cross arm
failure and conductor damaged.
Uprating Analysis
Clearly, this line is in reasonably good condition with modest maintenance costs and the required
incremental uprating is relatively small, hence reconductoring would yield little or no savings in
losses or maintenance.
45
40 B undle
Co st o f M e th o d (%N e w L in e )
35 A CS S
30
25
20
15
10 DTR
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% In cre a se in Ra tin g
Figure 10-1
5 year Total Cost vs. Percent Increase in Rating for Case Study #3.
10-4
Given the regular inspections of the line, the existing protection from vibration fatigue damage,
the inspection and replacement of compression splices, and the extensive experience in operating
this line at conductor temperatures well above air temperature, the re-rating of this line by going
to a higher maximum temperature is an option.
On the other hand, the line’s electrical clearance margins are relatively generous, the rating
weather conditions are conservative, and the contingency loading event is relatively rare and of
limited duration.
The following parameters make this line a good candidate for reconductoring: it has a low
normal load, and the poles are in a relatively good condition. The low normal load implies that
the line can be taken out of service for construction. The relatively good condition of the poles
can have bracing added as required. Reconductoring, perhaps with a larger diameter trapezoidal
strand conventional aluminum or ACSR conductor is possible.
10-5
11
REFERENCES
11-1
3. Kennelly, A.E., Laws, F.A., and Pierce, P.H., Experimental Researches of Skin Effect
in Conductors, AIEE Transactions, Vol. 34, Part 2, 1915, pp. 1953-2021.
4. Wright, H.B., Skin Effect in Tubular and Flat Conductors.
5. Lewis, W.A., and Tuttle, P.D., The Resistance and Reactance of Aluminum
Conductors Steel Reinforced, AIEE Transactions, Vol. 77, Part III, 1958.
6. Aluminum Association, Aluminum Electrical Conductor Handbook, Third Edition,
1989.
7. IEEE, IEEE Standard for Calculating the Current-Temperature Relationship of Bare
Overhead Conductors, PES, IEEE Standard 738-1993.
8. House, H.E., and Tuttle, P.D., Current-Carrying Capacity of ACSR.
9. IEEE Standard 738-93, IEEE Standard for Calculation of Bare Overhead Conductor
Temperature and Ampacity, Published 1993.
10. CIGRE WG 05 - Conductors, The Thermal Behaviour of Overhead Conductors, 22-
81 (WG05), December, 1981.
11. Black, W. Z. and Rehberg, R. L., Simplified model for steady state and real-time
ampacity of overhead conductors, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems, vol. 104, Oct. 1985, pp 29-42.
12. Davidson, G. A., et al., Short-time thermal ratings for bare overhead conductors,
IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-88, No.3, Mar. 1969.
13. House, H. E., Rigdon, W. S., Grosh, R. J., and Cottingham, W. B., Emissivity of
Weathered Conductors after Service in Rural and Industrial Environments, AIEE
Transactions, pp. 891-896, Feb. 1963
14. Morgan, V. T., The Current carrying capacities of overhead line conductors. Paper
A75 575-3, IEEE/PES Summer Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, 1978.
15. Schurig, O. R. and Frick, C. U. Heating and Current Carrying Capacity of Bare
Conductor for Outdoor Service. General Electric Review, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 141-157,
Mar. 1930.
16. Transmission Conductors Thermal Ratings, Paper 68-TAP-28, Report by
Transmission Advisory Panel, East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement.
11-2
5. Harvey, JR and Larson, RE. Creep Equations of Conductors for Sag-Tension
Calculations. IEEE Paper C72 190-2
6. Harvey, JR and Larson RE. Use of Elevated Temperature Creep Data in Sag-Tension
Calculations. IEEE Trans., Vol. PAS-89, No. 3, pp. 380-386, March 1970
11-3
3. Champa, RJ, Heating Characteristics of the Armor-Grip Suspension at Elevated
Temperatures, Preformed Line Products Co Research and Engineering, TR-591-E,
November 1976
4. Crabb, VL and Sheadel, JM. Magnetic Heating of Suspension Clamps. AIEE
Transactions, Vol. 68, pp. 1032-1035, 1949.
5. Farley, R.W. Power Losses in Malleable Iron and Aluminum Overhead Line
Suspension Clamps. Electrical Review, Vol. 168, No. 15, 1961
6. Morgan, V.T. Non-magnetic Suspension Clamps for Overhead Power Lines,.
Electrical Review, Vol. 175, No. 9, pp. 314-317, August 1964
7. Nabet, Guive, Effect of Elevated Temperature on Conductors and Associated
Hardware, presented at EEI T&D Baltimore, Maryland, October 1985
8. Ohio Brass, Cooler in the Clamp, Hi-Tension News, p.7, September 1959
9. Olmsted, LM, Joints and Hardware Limit Overhead Conductor Ratings, Electrical
World, Vol. 127, pp. 42-45, January 1947
11-4
7. Davis, M. W., A new thermal rating approach: the real time thermal rating system
for strategic overhead conductor transmission lines, Part III. IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-97, pp. 444-455, Mar./Apr. 1978.
8. Davis, M. W., A new thermal rating approach: the real time thermal rating system
for strategic overhead conductor transmission lines, Part II. IEEE Transactions on
Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-97, pp. 810-825, Mar./Apr. 1978.
9. Davis, M. W., A new thermal rating approach: the real time thermal rating system
for strategic overhead transmission lines, Part IV. IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-99, pp. 2184-2192, Nov./Dec. 1980.
11-5
9. Cahill, T., Development of Low-Creep ACSR Conductor, Wire Journal, July 1973.
10. Overend, P.R., and Smith, S., Impulse Time Method of Sag Measurement.
11-6
About EPRI
EPRI creates science and technology
solutions for the global energy and energy
services industry. U.S. electric utilities
established the Electric Power Research
Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research
consortium for the benefit of utility members,
their customers, and society. Now known
simply as EPRI, the company provides a wide
range of innovative products and services to
more than 1000 energy-related organizations
in 40 countries. EPRI’s multidisciplinary team
of scientists and engineers draws on a
worldwide network of technical and business
expertise to help solve today’s toughest
energy and environmental problems.
1000717
EPRI • 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com