Electric Power Systems Research, 5 (1982) 179 - 190 179

Guidelines for the Selection and Operation of Bare ACSR Conductors with
Regard to Current-Carrying Capacity

HOWARD A. SMOLLECK
Department o f Electrical and Computer Engineering, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003
(U.S.A.)
JERRY P. SIMS
Tucson Electric Power Company, Tucson, AZ 85701 (U.S.A.)
(Received January 18, 1982)

SUMMARY line conductor can be operated is called the

thermal limit or thermal rating of that con-
Factors affecting the thermal ratings o f ductor. Three primary factors must be con-
bare overhead power conductors (in particular, sidered when defining the thermal limit of a
ACSR conductors) are reviewed. Equations power line: sag, loss of strength, and limita-
for calculating the current.carrying capacity tions of the c o n d u c t o r fittings.
(ampacity), loss o f strength, and time-temper- Sag is related to the ground clearance of
ature characteristics o f ACSR conductors are the line. As a conductor's temperature in-
illustrated and parameters used in these creases, the conductor elongates owing to
equations are explained. Results have been thermal expansion, its sag increases, and the
obtained for ampacity, loss o f strength and clearance to objects below the c o n d u c t o r
conductor temperature for a typical ACSR decreases correspondingly. A given line design
conductor ('Drake') in terms o f various para- is based on a certain maximum c o n d u c t o r
meters such as ambient temperature, wind temperature. Knowing the conductor's sag at
velocity, and (solar) insolation by means o f that temperature, the required structure
Fortran programs written by the authors. heights are calculated to provide safe and
These results are presented in graphical form. adequate clearances, provided the design tem-
From them, meaningful conclusions are perature is n o t exceeded. Design temperature
drawn regarding the means o f evaluating per- limitations due to sag are usually well known
missible loading levels o f transmission and for a given line.
distribution lines, especially lines o f short to The second factor which must be considered
moderate length. when defining the thermal limit of a power
The paper has been written primarily from line is the loss o f strength of the c o n d u c t o r
the standpoint o f showing how information which may o c c u r d u r i n g operation at elevated
currently available to utility industry per- temperatures. Exposures of aluminum alloys
sonnel can be applied to evaluate the impact to temperatures above a b o u t 90 °C b u t below
o f various parameters on the permissible the recrystallization temperature of the alloy
loading levels o f bare conductors. The exam- will reduce the strength by a process which is
ples presented are typical o f those o f interest sometimes called recovery. Harvey of Alcoa
to the Tucson Electric Power Company and Research Laboratories [1] developed a math-
other utilities. ematical model which can be used to calculate
the loss o f strength sustained by a c o n d u c t o r
at elevated operating temperatures. Harvey's
INTRODUCTION equations for ACSR-type conductors will be
illustrated.
The maximum allowable c o n d u c t o r temper- The third factor or consideration which
ature at which an overhead power transmission must be evaluated when specifying a thermal
0378-7796/82/0000-0000/$02.75 © Elsevier Sequoia/Printed in The Netherlands
180

limit for a power line is the l i m i t a t i o n s o f the where I is the c o n d u c t o r current (A at 60 Hz),
conductor fittings (such as splices and qc is the convected heat loss (W per unit
deadends) used on a transmission line. The length of conductor), qr is the radiated heat
fittings used on the line must be capable of loss (W per unit length of conductor), qs is
transferring the maximum available current in the solar heat gain (W per unit length of con-
the line. In addition, they must support the ductor), and r is the c o n d u c t o r resistance (~2
mechanical loads applied by the system per unit length at 60 Hz).
during both normal and abnormal exposure to Equation (1) is usually written in terms of
elevated temperatures. current as
It has been found by Howitt and Simpkins
[ 2 ] that fittings properly designed and selected I = [ ( q c + qr - - qs)/r] o.~ (2)
are n o t a limiting factor for the permissible
operating temperature of a transmission line The most difficult heat-loss quantity to
under emergency conditions. Additional inves- predict is that caused by convection. Even in
tigation by Dallas Power and Light Company a dead calm, heat is dissipated by a natural
[3] resulted in a similar conclusion. However, convective effect known as the c h i m n e y e f f e c t ;
limitations of c o n d u c t o r fittings should be thus, many researchers feel that a value of
carefully evaluated by each individual utility. zero for wind velocity is not realistic. Con-
The evaluation and consideration of the vection is further complicated by the fact that
thermal limits of a p o w e r line due to sag, loss wind conditions may differ extensively along
of c o n d u c t o r strength, and fitting limitations a long transmission line. The equations shown
usually result in a maximum allowable con- below for convected heat loss apply to the
ductor temperature or thermal rating for the most general as well as the special cases of still
transmission line. For a specified maximum air at sea level and still air for elevations above
allowable c o n d u c t o r temperature and a given 10 000 feet.
set of ambient weather conditions, the con-
tinuous current-carrying capacity (ampacity)
C o n v e c t e d h e a t loss qc
of a power line can also be determined by
When D P ~ V / 1 2 U f is between 0.1 and 1000,
applying heat-balance equations to the elec-
trical conductors. The current-carrying
capacity of a c o n d u c t o r as a function of con-
ductor temperature, ambient temperature,
I
qc = 1.01 + 0 . 3 7 1 \ - - ~ f ]

wind velocity, elevation, and incident solar (W per ft of conductor)

radiation will be examined in the following
When D P ~ V / 1 2 U f is between 1000 and
sections.
18 000,

CONTINUOUS CURRENT RATINGS q¢ = 0.1695 (--~--f

t D P f V 0.6 Kf(tc -- ta) (4)

Heat-balance e q u a t i o n (W per ft of conductor)

Energy losses resulting from electric
currents in a c o n d u c t o r are dissipated in the For still air at sea level,
form of heat to the surrounding atmosphere. q¢ = 0 . 0 7 2 D ° ' 7 5 ( t ~ - ta) 1"25 (5)
This heat dissipation can take any of three
forms: conduction, convection, and/or radia- (W per ft of conductor)
tion. Owing to the minimal contact of the
c o n d u c t o r with the suspension insulators at For still air above 3050 m (10 000 ft) eleva-
each support tower, losses due to conduction tion,
are negligible in comparison with losses due to q¢ = 0.283Pf°'SD °'75 (to -- ta) 1"25 (6)
convection and radiation. Under steady-state
conditions of wind velocity, temperature, (W per ft of conductor)
solar radiation, and electric current, the where D is the c o n d u c t o r outside diameter
following heat-balance e q u a t i o n applies: (in), Pf is the air density (lb/ft3), V is the
qc + qr = IZr + qs (1) wind velocity (ft/h), Uf is the absolute viscos-
 181

TABLE 1
Viscosity, density and thermal conductivity of air

Temperature Abs. viscositya (Ib/h ft) Density b of air, Pf (lb/ft 3) Thermal con-
ductivity c of air
(°F) (°C) (°K) (OK/100) 4 Uf At sea 5000 ft 10 000 ft 15 000 ft K f ( W / f t 2°C)
level

32 0 273 55.55 0.0415 0.0807 0.0671 0.0554 0.0455 0.00739

41 5 278 59.73 0.0421 0.0793 0.0660 0.0545 0.0447 0.00750
50 10 283 64.14 0.0427 0.0779 0.0648 0.0535 0.0439 0.00762
59 15 288 68.80 0.0433 0.0765 0.0636 0.0526 0.0431 0.00773
68 20 293 73.70 0.0439 0.0752 0.0626 0.0517 0.0424 0.00784
77 25 298 78.86 0.0444 0.0740 0.0616 0.0508 0.0417 0.00795
86 30 303 84.29 0.0450 0.0728 0.0606 0.0500 0.0411 0.00807
95 35 308 89.99 0.0456 0.0716 0.0596 0.0492 0.0404 0.00818
104 40 313 95.98 0.0461 0.0704 0.0586 0.0484 0.0397 0.00830
113 45 318 102.26 0.0467 0.0693 0.0577 0.0476 0.0391 0.00841
122 50 323 108.85 0.0473 0.0683 0.0568 0.0469 0.0385 0.00852
131 55 328 115.74 0.0478 0.0672 0.0559 0.0462 0.0379 0.00864
140 60 333 122.96 0.0484 0.0661 0.0550 0.0454 0.0373 0.00875
149 65 338 130.52 0.0489 0.0652 0.0542 0.0448 0.0367 0.00886
158 70 343 138.41 0.0494 0.0643 0.0535 0.0442 0.0363 0.00898
167 75 348 146.66 0.0500 0.0634 0.0527 0.0436 0.0358 0.00909
176 80 353 155.27 0.0505 0.0627 0.0522 0.0431 0.0354 0.00921
185 85 358 164.26 0.0510 0.0616 0.0513 0.0423 0.0347 0.00932
194 90 363 173.63 0.0515 0.0608 0.0506 0.0418 0.0343 0.00943
203 95 368 183.40 0.0521 0.0599 0.0498 0.0412 0.0338 0.00952
212 100 373 193.57 0.0526 0.0591 0.0492 0.0406 0.0333 0.00966

aHilsenrath and Touloukian, The viscosity, thermal conductivity and Prandtl number for air and other gases,
ASME Trans., 76, (1954) 967 - 981.
hR. D. Madison (ed.), Fan Engineering, Buffalo Forge Company, Buffalo, New York, 5th edn., 1948.
cw. H. McAdams, Heat Transmission, McGraw-Hill, New York, 3rd edn., New York, 1954.

ity of air (lb/h ft), K~ is the thermal con- where 'elev' is the elevation of the c o n d u c t o r
ductivity of air (W/ft 2 °C), tc is the average above mean sea level (ft), and
temperature of the conductor (°C), and ta is
the ambient temperature (°C). tf = air film temperature
Values for P~, U~ and Kf can be approxi- = (gc + ga)/2 (K) (10)
mated from Table 1; however, the following
equations obtained from a regression analysis Radiated heat loss, qr
by Lutwen [4] are more useful for computer
applications:
[\100/ \100] ]
p~ = 21.6578eele~(-3.9o6 96 × io-5)×
(W per ft of conductor) (11)
tfelev(1.512 18× 10--7)--0.996 239
where K¢ is the conductor temperature (K),
(lb/ft 3) (7) Ka is the ambient temperature (K), D is the
ambient c o n d u c t o r diameter (in), and E is the
tf coefficient of emissivity (E for a new con-
Uf = (lb/h ft) (8) ductor = 0.23; E for a black c o n d u c t o r = 0.95).
5165.9 + 5.167 08t~
Solar heat gain, qs
k~ = 1.204 98 × 10 - 3 + tt(2.265 45 × 10 -5 )

(W/ft 2) (9) qs = aQs(sinO)A' (W per ft of c o n d u c t o r ) ( 1 2 )

182

TABLE 2 TABLE 3
Total heat received by a surface at sea level normal to Altitude and azimuth (in degrees) of the sun at various
the sun's rays a latitudes a, b (declination 23.0 °, Northern Hemisphere,
June 10 and July 3)
Solar altitude H c Qc (W/ft2)
(deg) Latitude Local sun time
Clear Industrial (°N)
atmosphere atmosphere 10:00AM 12:00noon 2:00PM

5 21.7 12.6 Hc Zc Hc Zc He Zc
10 4O.2 22.3
15 54.2 30.5 20 62 78 87 0 62 282
20 64.4 39.2 25 62 88 88 180 62 272
25 71.5 46.6 30 62 98 83 180 62 262
35 61 107 78 180 61 253
30 77.0 53.0
40 60 115 73 180 60 245
35 81.5 57.5
40 84.8 61.5 45 57 122 68 180 57 238
45 87.4 64.5 50 54 128 63 180 54 232
50 90.0 67.5 60 47 137 53 180 47 223
70 40 143 43 180 40 217
60 92.9 71.6
70 95.0 75.2 aThe American Nautical Almanac, U.S. Naval Obser-
80 95.8 77.4 vatory, Washington, DC, 1957.
90 96.4 78.9 bSight Reduction Tables for Air Navigation, U.S.
Navy Hydrographic Office, H.O. Publ. No. 249, Vols.
aHeating, Ventilating and Air-Conditioning Guide
II and III.
1956, American Society of Heating and Air-Condi-
tioning Engineers, New York.
e f f e c t o n a c o n d u c t o r ' s a m p a c i t y . The effect
w h e r e a is t h e c o e f f i c i e n t o f s o l a r a b s o r p t i o n o f wind speed on ampacity is probably the
(a f o r a n e w c o n d u c t o r = 0 . 2 3 ; a f o r a b l a c k single m o s t influential factor in calculating
c o n d u c t o r = 0 . 9 5 ) , A ' is t h e p r o j e c t e d a r e a o f conductor ratings. T h e f o l l o w i n g T a b l e , p u b -
t h e c o n d u c t o r = D / 1 2 ( f t ) , a n d Qs is t h e t o t a l lished by Waghorne and Ogorodnikov [6],
solar and sky radiated heat (W/ft2). quantifies various wind speeds:

= c o s - 1 [cos/-/c c o s ( Z c - - Z 1)] (13)

Range of wind speed
w h e r e 0 is t h e a n g l e o f i n c i d e n c e o f t h e s o l a r
(m/s) (mile/h)
r a d i a t i o n ( d e g ) , H e is t h e a l t i t u d e o f t h e s u n
( s e e T a b l e 3) ( d e g ) , Z¢ is t h e a z i m u t h o f t h e < 0.45 <1 Calm; smoke rises vertically.
s u n ( s e e T a b l e 3) ( d e g ) , a n d Z1 is t h e a z i m u t h 0.45 - 1.3 1-3 Direction of wind shown by
of the line (deg). smoke drift, but not by wind
Qs c h a n g e s w i t h e l e v a t i o n a n d c a n b e a d - vanes
1.8 - 3.1 4 -7 Wind felt on face, leaves
justed for this change by the relation rustle; ordinary wind vane
moved by wind
Qs = Q¢ {1 + e l e v [ 3 . 5 x 1 0 - 5 + 3.6 - 5.4 8 - 12 Leaves and small twigs in
constant motion; wind ex-
-- elev(l.0 X 10-9)] ) (14) tends light flag
5 . 8 - 8.0 13-18 Raises dust and loose paper;
w h e r e Qc is t h e s o l a r r a d i a t e d h e a t ( s e e T a b l e small branches are moved
2) ( W / f t 2 ) .

Wind velocity, V, and ambient temperature, ta

General ampacity tables for ACSR con- As stated earlier, a condition of zero wind
d u c t o r s , s u c h as t h o s e in r e f . 5, a r e b a s e d o n v e l o c i t y is c o n s i d e r e d b y m o s t r e s e a r c h e r s t o
a n a m b i e n t t e m p e r a t u r e o f 2 5 °C ( 7 7 ° F ) a n d b e a n u n r e a l i s t i c s t a t e . Alcoa A l u m i n u m Over-
a wind velocity of 0.626 m/s (1.4 mile/h). As head Conductor Engineering Data [ 7 ] c i t e
c a n b e s e e n in F i g s . 1 a n d 2, a m b i e n t t e m p e r - laboratory tests which indicate that, under
ature and wind velocity can have a noticeable conditions of dead calm, vertical air velocities
 183

.... J ........
. . . . . . . . . -----WITHOUt
1 Awm~au~lSUN
,
I ~ 0 0 + + ' + + p + ' ' 1 ~ " +

+ . ~ , J . . . . .

1600 ~ * ' * * ~ ' ~ Tc~=MEAN CONDUCTOR

• P"'-L ' + TE~PE"~TU~E+

~120C
O.
~ 110£

I--
Z 100t
rr

~.~ 800
~ 1~00 %. %.'+" '~'

0
z, ~,,,,~%. ~ + '',,,,+p~. , ~+° +,6F

800

70C

60(
+ : IOO0 . . . . .% ~,. ,~

, 2+~~o' -l ( !

40( E. 0.7
! ~10~ND~YI3 + vll.a~ae ~+PH : -- ",~ +
30¢

• , y ' . , , , ,

10.80) 11+36) 12.051 12.731 (3.41) (4.06) 14.771 15.46) (6.141 (6.82) B~T_W~ENt,IJ~_ 10 A N e J U t
?00 E EV ZO U'( ~L + + . . . . . .
VELOCITY FPS (MPH)
~dl'~.-,THUu,-]uz" NomprM + I + ' t + ~ '
Fig. 1. Effect o f w i n d speed on a m p a e i t y (Drake
4100~0 ,O IlO 60 100 110 130
795 000 cm, 26 x 7 ACSR).
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE ('F)

range from 0.122 to 0.183 m/s (0.2727 - 0.409 Fig. 2. Effect o f a m b i e n t t e m p e r a t u r e on ampaeity
mile/h) as a result of the chimney effect at (Drake '795 000 era, 26 x '7 ACSR).
the heated conductor. Because of the uncer-
tainties of wind velocity along a transmission thermal limit for normal operation of stranded
line, it has been the practice of the industry aluminum and ACSR conductors [1, 9].
to consider a wind velocity of 0.608 m/s
(1.36 mile/h) as a safe lower limit [5, 7, 8]. If Coefficient o f emissivity, E
it is known from climatological data t h a t Radiated heat loss to the surrounding at-
wind velocities much greater than 0.608 m/s mosphere by a conductor is a function of the
prevail, however, considerably higher load surface condition which is described by the
currents can be obtained on an existing con- coefficient of emissivity E. Well-weathered
ductor or a smaller conductor may be used conductors, after being energized for a period
for a new line design. of time, have a dark surface which radiates
well and may have an emissivity as high as
M a x i m u m conductor temperature, t c 0.98. New conductors, on the other hand,
The maximum allowable conductor temper- may have an emissivity as low as 0.23. The
ature is the thermal limit of the conductor length of time needed to develop a high emis-
and must be determined after reviewing design sivity was studied by House et al. before 1963
temperatures for sag, loss of conductor [10]. They found that conductors energized
strength and thermal capabilities or limitations above 15 kV in an industrial atmosphere
of line fittings. As seen in Fig. 2, variation in reached an emissivity of 0.9 in 8 years. In
conductor temperature t~ affects ampacity rural atmospheres, conductors energized
considerably. The specification of the maxi- above 15 kV attained an emissivity of 0.9 in
m u m allowable conductor temperature t¢ about 30 years. These results may be expressed
must be the first step in defining the maxi- by the (highly empirical) relation
m u m allowable conductor current. If there
are no other limitations due to sag, fittings, 0.70 Y
E = 0.23 + - - (15)
etc., 93 °C (200 °F) is considered to be a safe 1.22+Y
184

where Y is the n u m b e r of years the c o n d u c t o r 2000 ! i

has been energized. This equation is believed
to be conservative for m os t industrial expo-
,soo ' ' ~ W /iSUN
sures and n o t unreasonable for c o n d u c t o r s
energized above 15 kV in rural atmospheres. t700 ~%~ . . . . .
It yields an emissivity of a b o u t 0.70 for a 3-
to 4- year exposure, which is the value used in
the Figures presented here. At very high ele-
vations, such as 3050 m (10 000 ft) above
mean sea level, very little weathering or emis-
sivity changes were n o t e d by House [ 1 0 ] .

Elevation, elev
The effects of elevation on ampacity of a
c o n d u c t o r can be quite noticeable due to
changes in air density Pf. For example, Pf =
0.0740 at sea level and 25 °C (77 °F), whereas
at 3050 m (10 000 ft) and the same temper-
ature P~ = 0.0508. If the lower ambient tem-
perature associated with higher elevation is ,oo t t , i
considered, the difference in P~ is even greater
eo,o. t • l . . . .

(see Table 1).

soo /| E077
~: ~ . . . . .
Solar heat gain, q~ .oo . . . . . . . . o . . . .

Solar heating represents a source o f energy

ELE~ 25(10' (I ~SL) i
input to the c o n d u c t o r similar in e f f e c t t o the 3oc -Tc== I ~4 ~
SUN ~,ZIMI ITH 62° i
/2r c o n t r i b u t i o n of load current. Davis [11] ;to(] INIcP.I INAT t'3N ;
reports th at an electrical c o n d u c t o r near the BETV IEENI JUNE .,i,N,:, ,ULY . . . . . .

loo LINE ORII~NTA T I O N I : E A 3 T / W l E S T AT ,

surface of the earth will n o t receive all of the
sun's rays because of the scattering effect i I ¢ , i
80 70 80
present in the atmosphere. The effects of
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE (°F)
solar heating have been used by some engineers
and discarded by others (see, e.g., ref. 5). Fig. 3. Effect of wind speed on ampacity for various
The effects of solar heat gain to a c o n d u c t o r ambient temperatures (Drake 795 000 cm, 26 × 7
can be seen in Figs. 1 - 4. Solar heating of a ACSR).
p o w e r c o n d u c t o r is partially de t e r m i ne d by
the orientation of the transmission line, the coefficient of about 0.23. According t o House
distance o f the line from the equator, the and T ut t l e [ 8 ] , a c o n d u c t o r darkened by age
time o f day, the time o f the year, and existing and atmospheric contaminants might have a
atmospheric conditions. coefficient of 0.97 and would t herefore gain a
A line th at is oriented in an E-W direction greater a m o u n t of solar energy. Davis [11]
has an azimuth o f 270 ° , whereas a N - S line reports that solar absorption and emissivity
has an azimuth of 180 ° . The a ppr oxi m at e coefficients are equal and that an average
worst-case solar conditions f o u n d in Tucson, value of 0.7 should be used. In this paper, a
Arizona, have been assumed in preparing the value o f 0.7 is used for bot h the solar absorp-
Figures shown. These are an E-W line orien- tion coefficient a and the coefficient of emis-
tation, latitude 32 ° N, and sun altitude at sivity E for all graphs.
2:00 PM (MST).
Conductor resistance, r
Coefficient o f solar absorption, a The resistance of an ACSR c o n d u c t o r in-
Conductors for overhead lines develop creases with temperature. Tables of c o n d u c t o r
varying surface conditions t ha t affect the resistance at 60 Hz are available {e.g., ref. 12),
a m o u n t of solar heat actually absorbed by but the use of an equation is more appropriate
them. A new c o n d u c t o r has a solar absorption for c o m p u t e r applications. To adjust resistance
 185

LOSS OF CONDUCTOR STRENGTH

Loss of c o n d u c t o r strength owing to opera-

tion at high temperatures is one of the three
primary factors which must be considered
when specifying the thermal rating of a p o w e r
transmission line conductor. Reference 1 gives
the results of an Alcoa test program which
resulted in a mathematical model that may be
used directly to calculate loss of strength of
0-
<
aluminum conductors. The study indicates
that the loss of strength of a c o n d u c t o r over
tlJ the range of interest to most utilities can be
represented by a simple parabolic function.
O
Problems involving the loss of strength of con-
ductors owing to operation at elevated temper-
atures are not subject to exact solutions; the
mathematical models are intended to be used
only as guides for approximating the detrimen-
tal effect of elevated temperatures on conduc-
tor strength. However, the precision of the
methods used in the mathematical model is
thought to exceed the precision with which
the actual operating temperatures of trans-
mission lines can be measured, calculated or
ELEVATION (THOUSANDS OF FEET) predicted [ 1 ].

Fig. 4. Ampacity versus elevation with and without sun Loss-of-strength e q u a t i o n s

effect.
Aluminum does not anneal or lose strength
very rapidly below about 90 °C (200 °F). Any
for temperature changes, the following equa- loss of strength depends upon both the tem-
tion may be used [12] : perature and the amount of time the conduc-
tor is subjected to that temperature.
r = ra[1 + k ( t - - t ~ ) ] (16) Harvey [ 1] presents the following equation
for ACSR conductors:
where r is the c o n d u c t o r resistance at 60 Hz
and at any temperature t (~2/ft), ra is the STREC STRST
RS = RSEC - - + 109 (17)
known value of resistance at a temperature ta STRT STRT
(~2/ft), k is the temperature coefficient of
resistance (= 0.004 01 at 25 °C), and t is the where RS is the remaining strength as a per-
temperature for calculating the new resistance centage of initial strength, STREC is the cal-
r (°C). culated initial strength of type EC aluminum
The coefficient k is a function of temper- strands (lbf), STRT is the calculated initial
ature, but this dependence is so slight that k is strength of the c o n d u c t o r (lbf), and STRST is
considered a constant here. the calculated initial strength of the steel (lbf).
Lewis and Tuttle [13] indicate that high
precision in determining the resistance is not RSEC = (-- 0.24 tc + 134) X
justified because the resistance of a conductor X T -(O'O01tc-O'O95)O'l/d (%) (18)
in service varies somewhat for reasons other
than temperature effects. These may include where tc is the conductor temperature (°C), T
spiraling, tolerance in conductivity of alumi- is the elapsed time (h), and d is the diameter
num strands and steel core, and the ASTM of a strand of type EC aluminum (in).
standards which specify minimum conducti- Note: if (-- 0.24 te + 134) is greater than
vity for c o n d u c t o r materials. 100, use 100.
186

Tc:210o F
and other single-metal conductors, however,
100
creep may reach very dangerous values at high

~
temperatures under certain conditions of span
T ¢- :~O0*F
g8 tension.

gQ

TIME-TEMPERATURE CHARACTERISTICS OF
ACSR
3: g4
I--
Z
uJ The heat-balance equations presented earlier
Or) g2 in this paper have been used to determine

.i.ii
z steady-state or long-term conductor ampaci-
Z
<c
80
ties. With the increasing complexity of inter-
LU
rr- system ties, load currents during and following
system disturbances may reach values well in
88
excess of the continuous current rating of the
line. This condition, however, might exist for
86 perhaps only half an hour or so, by which
~u.r_E0._7 time the generation would have been increased
and switching performed.
84

DECLINATION-;Z3" Time-temperature calculations

B~T . W ( E ~ 1~ AND JI~LY 3
82
ELEV.~250~L~ ~ " When an increase in current takes place
ut~ Q ~ I E~T/WES~ suddenly in a conductor the temperature does
AT LATITUDE ~2'NORTH
not rise instantaneously but increases along a
1 2 3 4 S 6 7 6 g 10 11 12
TIME (THOUSANDS OF HRS.)
curve determined by the impressed current,
the properties of the conductor and the
Fig. 5. R e m a i n i n g s t r e n g t h versus t i m e for various con-
ambient conditions. Because adequate clear-
d u c t o r t e m p e r a t u r e s (Drake 795 000 c m , 26 × 7
ACSR). ances and loss-of-strength limitations must still
be maintained, even under emergency con-
ditions, the conductor temperature at the end
The remaining strength of ACSR as a func- of a short-time overload period must be re-
tion of conductor temperature and time is stricted to its maximum design value or
illustrated in Fig. 5. thermal limit.
Several approaches to this problem were in-
Creep o f transmission line conductors
vestigated by Davidson et al. [15] in 1969.
Creep, which may be defined as "The non-
They concluded that during a short-time over-
recoverable deformation that occurs under
load period the following heat-balance equa-
load", has been studied in detail by Harvey
tion applied:
[14]. Its effect upon the sag of conductors is
a primary concern of electric utilities. Harvey Heat stored = Heat gained from I2r +
concluded that: in conductor and solar radiation
"The trend toward high operating temper- Heat lost through
atures of transmission lines will have no signif- radiation and convection
icant effect on the creep of ACSR. This trend,
or
however, will have a marked effect on the
creep of all-aluminum conductors." Pdtc = [( I2r + qs) -- (qr + qc)l dT (19)
Reference 9 explains further t h a t the differ-
ence in creep at higher temperatures from where P is the heat capacity of the conductor
that at room temperature is very small for (J/ft °C), and tc is the instantaneous conductor
ACSR owing to the shifting of mechanical temperature (°C).
stress from the aluminum strands to the steel Solution of eqn. (19) by direct integration
core as temperature increases. In all-aluminum is n o t possible because r, qc and qr vary with
 187

310 -
If this process is continued until the entire
~ 15C %- rating period has been accumulated, the final
temperature calculated can then be compared
....... /
p
., -
with the allowable c o n d u c t o r temperature.
oI 2to The equations for r, qc, qr, and qs used
here are those previously defined. The con-
ductor heat capacity P can be expressed for
A C S R as
~2so ~ 12C %-
P = 4.186 (453.6) ( C 1 W 1 + C2W2)

(J/ft °C) (22)

~ ~ "" RRENT 92 .0 AMPS
,o0 OAR ATMOS;.ERE 1 !
,].,0. o~ . __ ~- ELEVATION
, T13.636100pM
a. F. 2 (M
: ST)
2500
OIMilPH'
oM( SV
L) _~ where C1 is the specific heat capacity of alu-
lzo ~ ~ SUN AZIMUTH 262 J minum (cal/g °C), W1 is the weight of alumi-
DECLNATON 23 ~
~eo ~
BETWEEN JUNE 10 AND JULY 3
LINE ORIENTATION EAST/WEST AT - -
num (lb/ft), C2 is the specific heat capacity of
~500 10 20
' LATITUDE 32 NORTH
30 40 50 60 70
steel (cal/g °C), and Wz is the weight of steel
TIME - MINUTES (lb/ft).
Fig. 6. Time-temperature characteristics for various It should be stated that the temperatures
line overloads (Drake 795 000 cm, 26 × 7 ACSR). obtained b y using this method are conservative.
Data based on laboratory tests b y Hazan [16]
c o n d u c t o r temperature. If, however, a current of Kaiser Aluminum show that overloads can
rating is assumed for a period of t~ seconds, be carried for a longer period than is predicted
an incremental method can be used to appro- by the above method. Figure 6 shows t i m e -
ximate the integration. Current prior to the temperature characteristics for various con-
overload period is assumed equal to the ductor loads for the c o n d u c t o r Drake.
normal current rating of the conductor, and
current following the overload period is equal
to or less than the conductor's continuous O P E R A T I N G EXPERIENCE: M E A S U R E D V E R S U S
thermal rating for the ambient conditions at CALCULATED CONDUCTOR TEMPERATURES
the time of the overload.
The heat-balance equation can be evaluated A number of investigators over the years
for a time increment AT sufficiently small have measured c o n d u c t o r temperatures in the
that r, qc and qr are essentially constant laboratory and in the field in order to verify
during the interval. Davidson e t al. [ 15 ] found the heat-loss equations. Baltimore Gas and
that little increase in accuracy resulted for Electric Company [17l made measurements
time increments less than 10 seconds. The on a field test installation of a 40-foot span of
change in c o n d u c t o r temperature during the a typical large-size ACSR c o n d u c t o r erected
time increment A T is given by on a wood-pole structure in a rural area. An
induction regulator was used to maintain,
I2r + q s - - q c - - q r automatically, a predetermined current. Ins-
At~ = AT (20)
P truments recorded continuously all the
ambient weather conditions as well as the
A new c o n d u c t o r temperature t'¢ resulting loaded conductor's temperature, load current
from heat storage during the time increment and (solar) insolation effects.
can then be calculated: The Baltimore tests confirmed the maxi-
t m u m c o n d u c t o r temperatures predicted by
tc = tci + A t c (21) calculations in almost all cases. They found a
very wide range in c o n d u c t o r temperature and
Values of r, qc and qr at temperature tci temperature rise due to changes in atmospheric
(initial conductor temperature) are then cal- conditions. For instance, over one three-month
culated and used to compute the At c for a summer period the temperature of the test
second time increment. conductor varied from 18 to 101 °C at cons-
188

tant load. Conductor temperature underwent CM conductor cited, no loss of strength can be
rapid changes and in one case varied as much observed for operation up to 10 000 hours for
as 50 °C within 20 minutes during a change in a conductor temperature at or below 116 °C
weather conditions from a period of almost (240 °F) for the conditions given (see Fig. 5).
complete calm to one of high wind velocity. Contrast this with the Alcoa recommended
BG&E f o u n d that m a x i m u m conductor tem- temperature limit for normal operation of
peratures, as calculated by the methods pre- stranded aluminum and ACSR conductors,
sented in this paper, actually do occur, which is 93 °C (200 °F) [9].
although rarely; but a conductor carrying a It is our conclusion that, in general, the
constant current will operate well below the temperature limit of 93 °C (200 °F) can be
theoretically calculated m a x i m u m temper- established as aminimum level for the normal,
ature during most of i t s life. Correlation bet- continuous operation of ACSR lines. Higher
ween the field test curves and the calculated continuous temperature limits may be estab-
curves was very good except for the zero wind lished after sag and loss-of-strength limitations
velocity condition. The test temperature rises are reviewed. Emergency short-time operation
were always lower than the calculated rises at at higher temperatures may also be considered
zero wind velocity. after review of the loss-of-strength equations.
Investigation of transmission and distribu- Of course, sag limitations must still be observed
tion load capabilities at Dallas Power and Light during emergency operating conditions. The
Company [3] further confirmed the accuracy t i m e - t e m p e r a t u r e relations given here can be
of predicting conductor temperatures by cal- used to prevent the exceeding of the sag limi-
culation. DP&L found that the steady-state tations during any emergency overload con-
heat-balance equations presented in this paper dition.
were accurate to within 1 °C for the range bet-
ween 81 and 171 °C in their laboratory tests.
They did, however, note a decrease in the Localizing the ampacity parameters
cooling effect of wind m o v e m e n t when the Once a m a x i m u m conductor temperature
direction of flow was parallel to the conductor has been established, the heat-balance equa-
and not perpendicular to it as is assumed tions illustrated in this paper can be applied
when using the equations given in this paper. to determine the conductor's continuous
current-carrying capacity for a given set of
ambient weather conditions at the specified
conductor temperature. These equations can
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS be used to localize such factors as weather,
solar heat gain, elevation, and emissivity to
Establishing a thermal rating the particular section of line and to adopt
The m a x i m u m operating temperature of an individual and seasonal ratings. The results of
overhead ACSR transmission line conductor is such studies should in many cases allow de-
established by reviewing thermal limitations ferral of reconductoring or line rebuilding.
of the conductor due to sag and loss of The Aluminum Association [18] correctly
strength. For most lines, conductor fittings states that:
will n o t be a limitation if chosen properly.
Sag limitations can usually be determined "There is nothing magic about an ampacity
from the transmission line design criteria. For table published by Alcoa, Alcan, Kaiser,
example, sag design temperatures for three Noranda, Anaconda or Reynolds. You have to
transmission lines in the Tucson Electric Power look at any ampacity table in light of para-
transmission system are 121, 132 and 146 °C meters that are governing that calculation."
(personal communication to J. P. Sims from
K. Wright, Tucson Electric Power Company, It makes sense to base the ampacity rating of
February 13, 1978). any particular transmission line upon the
Harvey's equations greatly simplify the loss- ambient environment and operational demands
of-strength consideration in establishing associated with that particular line whenever
thermal limits for lines: The results can be possible.
quite startling. As an example, for the 795 000 The effects of various parameters on the
 189

ampacity of one size of ACSR c o n d u c t o r time-varying currents in the overloaded line to

(Drake) are shown in Figs. 1 - 4. The single prevent the exceeding of sag limitations.
most influential parameter is obviously wind A study of the typical protective relays
velocity. For this particular conductor, an in- currently available and those in use on most
crease in current-carrying capacity of a b o u t power lines reveals that they were designed
75% is realized when wind velocity changes for the detection of line fault conditions, and
from essentially zero to 6.82 mile/hour. (Recall not overloads. Therefore, at present most elec-
that the chimney effect at zero air velocity is tric utilities leave the detection of overloads
equivalent to a wind speed of 0.122 - 0.183 to system dispatchers or to central load-flow
m/s (0.273 - 0.41 mile/h).) It is emphasized computers which monitor line loadings with
that a wind speed of 7 mile/h is n o t a very fixed worst-case limits as guides. With this me-
strong wind and corresponds to the rustling of thod, there is always the risk of causing un-
leaves. necessary system islanding or even excessive
Hourly historical observations of wind ve- conductor damage should an emergency over-
locities for most areas of interest in the United load occur for other than the exact weather
States can be obtained from the U.S. Weather conditions anticipated for the given line
Bureau; however, Davidson [19] and Beers current.
[20] found that wind velocities below about The authors feel that a microprocessor or
2.0 m/s (4.6 mile/h) obtained from the other dedicated computer programmed with
Weather Bureau were n o t reliable owing to the equations cited earlier could be effectively
the limitations of the anemometers used. In integrated into existing line-protection
fact, many of the instruments used did n o t schemes to allow higher margins of overload,
begin to record until wind speed exceeded especially during short-term emergency con-
about 1.0 m/s (2.3 mile/h)! ditions when the effects of thermal transients
Because of the uncertainties o f determining in the conductors can be exploited. In the
wind velocities, it is our recommendation that ultimate system (which might prove economi-
the traditional approach of using 0.608 m/s cally feasible for important, heavily loaded
(1.36 mile/h) as a minimum be followed unless lines of high capacity), variables such as line
wind velocity information known to be reliable currents, ambient temperatures, and wind
is obtained which would justify a lower value. velocities could be monitored by the com-
However, we believe that a value o f zero for puter, which would then determine the line
wind velocity is never justified when using the ampacities for the existing weather conditions
equations presented earlier for bare overhead on a real-time basis. These functions could of
conductors in open air under normal condi- course be performed by either a central com-
tions. puter monitoring telemetered data or by local
machines.
Overload protection o f transmission lines Although the topic of thermal limits of line
The traditional approach to rating p o w e r conductors has been singled o u t for study
line conductors is to study climatological data here, the authors caution that other limita-
for a given application and to select worst- tions may exist which could reduce the current-
case conditions of wind velocity, ambient carrying capacity of a line. For instance, the
temperature and solar heat gain. However, the capacity of most long transmission lines is
selection of the most severe ambient condi- limited by steady-state stability considerations,
tions could result in a rating which would be while long distribution lines are usually limited
unacceptably l o w should an emergency occur in their capacity by voltage-drop constraints.
during ambient conditions other than the Circuit-breaker, relay, and other device limit-
worst-case conditions. Even if seasonal ratings ations must also be taken into account. For-
were adopted for each line, the probability of tunately, these latter factors do n o t pose
all the worst-case weather conditions and the difficult analytical problems. If one remains
anticipated emergency condition coinciding aware of the entire situation, we feel that
would be very small [ 2 1 ] . In addition, a significant improvements in line capacity can
human operator would probably n o t be able, be made in many cases, as demonstrated in
during an emergency, to keep track of the our study.
190

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 13 W. A. Lewis and P. D. Tuttle, The resistance and

reactance of aluminum conductors, steel rein-
This work was supported by an Electric forced, AIEE Paper 58-1029, 1958.
14 J. R. Harvey, Creep of transmission line conduc-
Utility Management Program fellowship at tors, IEEE Trans., PAS-88 (1969) 281 - 286.
New Mexico State University. The authors 15 G. A. Davidson et al., Short-time thermal ratings
wish to thank the sponsoring utility companies for bare overhead conductors, IEEE Trans., PAS-
and to express their appreciation in particular 88 (1969) 194 - 199.
to Professor William H. Kersting, Program 16 E. Hazan, Extra-high-voltage single and twin
bundle conductors: electrical characteristics and
Director, and to the engineers at Tucson Elec- conductor selection, IEEE Trans., PAS- 78 (1959)
tric Power Company who have helpfully pro- 1425 - 1432.
vided data, experience, insight, and evaluation 17 J. C. Gorub and E. F. Wolf, Load capability of
during the project. bare ACSR and all-aluminum conductors based
on long-term outdoor temperature rise tests,
IEEE Trans., PAS-82 (1963) 852 - 857.
18 The Aluminum Association, Aluminum conduc-
tor rating panel discussion, 1973 Annual Confer-
REFERENCES ence of the Engineering and Operating Division,
Southeastern Electric Exchange, April 12, 1973,
1 J. R. Harvey, Effect of elevated temperature oper- Publ. No. T-4.
ation on the strength of aluminum conductors, 19 G. A. Davidson et al., Thermal ratings for bare
IEEE Trans., PAS-91 (1972} 1769 - 1772. overhead conductors, IEEE Paper C 74 003-0,
2 W. B. Howitt and T. E. Simpkins, Effect of ele- 1973.
vated temperature on the performance of conduc- 20 G. M. Beers et al., Transmission conductor ratings,
tor accessories, IEEE Paper C 72 188-6, 1971. IEEE Trans., PAS-82 (1963) 767 - 775.
3 D. G. Parvin et al., Investigation of transmission 21 J. P. Sims, Current-Carrying Capacity o f Bare
and distribution system load capabilities at Dallas ACSR Transmission Line Conductors, MS Thesis,
Power & Light Company, IEEE Trans., PAS-99 New Mexico State University, March 1980.
(1980) 512 - 521.
4 T . E . Lutwen, Economize by customizing conduc- Useful references not mentioned in the text
tor thermal ratings, Paper presented at the Pacific H. W. Adams, Steel supported aluminum conductors
Coast Electrical Association Annual Conference (SSAC) for overhead transmission lines, IEEE Trans.,
of the Engineering and Operational Section, San PAS-93 (1974) 1700 - 1705.
Francisco, California, March 1976. Aluminum Company of America, Graphic method for
5 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Electrical sag tension calculations for ACSR and other conduc-
Transmission and Distribution Reference Book, tors, Alcoa Aluminum Overhead Conductor Engi-
East Pittsburgh, PA, 4th edn., 1964. neering Data, Section 8, 1961.
6 J. H. Waghorne and V. E. Ogorodnikov, Current American Society for Testing and Materials, 1976
carrying capacity of ACSR conductors, AIEE Annual Book o f ASTM Standards, B232.
Paper 51-195, 1951. G. A. Davidson, Weather variables can stretch conduc-
7 Aluminum Company of America, Current-temper- tor capabilities, Electr. Light Power, (June) (1976).
ature characteristics of aluminum conductors, M. W. Davis, A new thermal rating approach, Parts I
Alcoa Aluminum Overhead Conductor Engineering and II, IEEE Trans., PAS-96 (1977) 803 - 809.
Data, Section 6, 1961. J. R. Harvey and R. E. Larson, Creep equations of
8 H. E. House and P. D. Tuttle, Current-carrying conductors for sag-tension calculations, IEEE Paper C
capacity of ACSR, AIEE Paper 58-41, 1957. 72 190-2, 1971.
9 Aluminum Company of America, Overload and H. E. House and C. S. Taylor, Emissivity and its effect
fault limitations of bare aluminum conductors, on the current carrying capacity of stranded aluminum
Alcoa Aluminum Overhead Conductor Engineering conductors, AIEE Paper 56-722, 1956.
Data, Section 7, 1961. D. O. Koval and R. Billinton, Determination of trans-
10 H. E. House et al., Emissivity of weathered con- mission line ampacities by probability and numerical
ductors after service in rural and industrial envi- methods, IEEE Trans., PAS-89 (1970) 1485 - 1492.
ronments, IEEE Paper 62-1026, 1963. J. A. McElyea, Thermal limits of overhead conductors
11 M. W. Davis, Nomographic computation of the at various meteorological conditions, AIEE Paper CP
ampacity rating of aerial conductors, IEEE Trans., 61-823, 1961.
PAS-89 (1970) 387 - 399. L. M. Olmsted, Safe ratings for overhead line conduc-
12 Aluminum Company of America, Resistance and tors, AIEE Paper 43 - 85, 1943.
reactance of aluminum conductors, Alcoa Alumi- D. G. Parvin et al., Thermal rating system will boost
num Overhead Conductor Engineering Data, conductor capacity 70%, say DE, Electr. Light Power,
Section 5, 1961. (August) (1979).