Calculation accuracy of high-temperature
sag for ACSR in existing lines
D. Loudon, EFLA, Norway
D.A. Douglass*, DPC, LLC, USA
R.G. Stephen, ESKOM, South Africa
G.C. Sibilant, EPRI/UKZN, USA
Abstract
According to a CIGRE questionnaire completed in
2003, over 80% of existing lines were built with steel
reinforced aluminium conductors (ACSR). Therefore,
when attempting to increase the thermal rating of existing
High Voltage (50 kV to 345 kV) transmission lines, low-
cost line uprating methods often involve allowing the
existing ACSR conductors to operate at an increased
Maximum Allowable Conductor Temperature (MACT)
temperature. Of course, minimum electrical clearances to
ground, buildings and other lines must be maintained and
the conductor system unharmed by operating at higher
temperatures. If these criteria are not met, the line must be
reconductored or rebuilt.
For ACSR, all sag-tension calculation methods assume
that the unstressed length of aluminium and steel layers
is the same before and after installation. After initially
sagging the conductor, high line currents cause the
conductor temperature and sag to increase. CIGRE
Technical Brochure 324 suggests two linear and one
non-linear conductor model. The Experimental Plastic
Elongation (EPE) model considers the aluminium layers
and steel core separately. The paper explains and quantifies
the various factors that influence the calculation of ACSR
sag at high temperature.
The thermal elongation rate of the aluminium layer(s) is
twice that of the steel core, and, while the total tension
decreases with increasing temperature, the tension in the
aluminium layers decreases faster than the tension in the
steel core. For strong ACSR conductors in short spans
operated above 75oC, the aluminium layer tension may
reach zero at a knee-point temperature (KPT) which
is less than the lines actual or proposed templating
* Da.douglass@ieee.org
KEYWORDS
High temperature sag, knee-point temperature (KPT), aluminium layer axial compression, ACSR, LiDAR, Linear
Elastic, Simplified Plastic Elongation, Experimental Plastic Elongation.
Cigre Science & Engineering N7 February 2017
39
temperature. Since, above the KPT, the rate of sag increase
with temperature is reduced, the determination of KPT is
a significant factor in evaluating line uprating methods
using the existing conductors.
If the aluminium layers of ACSR undergo plastic
elongation due to metallurgical creep or high tension load
events, then the knee-point temperature of the conductor
is reduced, typically decreasing over the life of the line.
In calculating the conductor sag at temperatures above
the KPT, the possibility of compression forces, residual
manufacturing stress, and greater than anticipated plastic
elongation of the aluminium layers must be considered.
1. Introduction & Background
In designing a new overhead transmission line, one of
the most basic and necessary calculations is that of sag-
tension. CIGRE Technical Brochure 324 [1] explains
the calculation of sag and tension for bare overhead
conductors under various ice/wind conditions and at
the high conductor temperatures produced by the lines
highest power flow. Based on these calculations, span
lengths and structure heights are chosen to meet the
structure loads and electrical clearance requirements over
the life of the line.
In evaluating existing lines, power flow constraints
on the AC Transmission System are often the result of
inadequate thermal rating on older existing High Voltage
(50 kV to 345 kV) transmission lines, built with one
ACSR conductor per phase. Increasing the thermal rating
of these existing lines can often be accomplished by
increasing the maximum design temperature of the lines
if this can be done while continuing to maintain minimum
electrical clearances to ground, buildings and other lines.
As described in [2], if the sag of these ACSR conductors
at the higher temperature is not adequate, then the lines
conductors may be re-tensioned, the support heights raised,
the line reconductored with High-Temperature, Low-Sag
(HTLS) conductor of the same diameter, or the line simply
replaced by a new line with adequate thermal capacity.
The initial step in determining the choice of thermal
uprating method for an existing line, is to make a detailed
measurement of conductor position and terrain survey
for the entire line. Increasingly, this is done with airborne
LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). In most cases,
these older lines are lightly loaded (electrically) when
the system is operating normally. Even with the line in
service, the conductor temperature is typically within 5oC
to 15oC of air temperature since the current in most lines
is less than 0.5 amps/mm2. At higher current densities, the
conductor temperature which corresponds to the measured
sag must be calculated.
2. Errors in High Temperature Sag
TB244 [2] includes a useful table estimating high
temperature sag errors due to various factors. The table is
reproduced here (see Table 1) with certain modifications.
All three conductors are strung to an initial tension equal
to about 25% of their breaking strength.
Notice that the sag in Table 1, at 20C, is approximately 5
m, and that the sag increases by about 3 meters when the
conductor temperature increases to 120C. The calculated
high temperature sag can vary by as much as a meter due to
imperfect tension equalization [3] at supports for all three
ACSR conductors. Indeed, sag errors due to imperfect
tension equalization, occur for all aluminium conductor as
well as ACSR.
As per Table 1, the second largest variation in calculated
sag at 120C is due to the choice of conductor stress-strain
model. The models are discussed at length in [2] and also
in this paper.
Other factors, including additional heating of three-layer
ACSR at high current due to the steel core [4], variation
in the conductor temperature when manufactured, creep of
aluminium at high temperature, and variation in thermal
elongation rate due to high stress, produce relatively small
errors, typically less than 0.15 m, but can be important in
certain situations.

Table 1: Sag Errors at High Temperature for three Different ACSR Strandings

Typical Errors for High-temperature Sag Calculations

ACSR Drake ACSR Condor ACSR Tern
Aluminium area (strands) 403 mm2 (26) 403 mm2 (54) 403 mm2 (45)
Steel area (strands) 66 mm2 (7) 53 mm2 (7) 28 mm2 (7)
Final tension at 20oC 25 800 N 23 150 N 19 100 N
Equivalent span length 250 m 250 m 250 m
Sag at 20C 4.84 m 5.06 m 5.36 m

Effect of Conductor Stress-strain model on final 120 C sag:

Single conductor modulus & CTE (LE or SPE) 7.76 m 7.78 m 8.53 m
Separate modulus & CTE (Graphical method) - no Residual stress (EPE) 7.00 m 7.53 m 8.53 m
Graphical method with typical 20 MPa residual stress offset. 7.32 m 7.73 m 8.53 m
Additional sag errors at 120 C :
Temperature difference core/surface +0.03 m +0.05 m +0.06 m
Change of elastic modulus vs. temperature +0.15 m +0.11 m +0.06 m
High temperature creep 0 0 +0.50 m
Multiple span effects +0.6 to -1.0 +0.5 to -0.9 m +0.5 to -0.8 m
Effect of core magnetisation losses 0 + 0.07 m +0.05 m
Effect of manufacturing temperature +/- 0.14 +/- 0.12 0

Cigre Science & Engineering N7 February 2017

40
3. Stress-strain models for
sag-tension calculation
The stress-strain mechanical models for ACSR, used in
sag-tension calculations, assume that: (1) the manufactured
lengths (i.e. unstressed lengths) of the steel core and
the aluminium layers are the same; (2) the mechanical
behaviour of the steel core is close to elastic and yields only
a small amount of plastic elongation at high load events,
and; (3) the thermal elongation of both the steel core and
the outer aluminium layers are linear with temperature. In
addition, the common conductor elongation models can
consider the thermal and mechanical elongation of the
steel core and the outer aluminium layers separately.
The models for conductor elongation of ACSR, differ
in how the plastic elongation and, to a lesser extent, the
linear elongation of the aluminium layers are modelled. At
high mechanical loading and high temperature, the choice
of model affects the calculated conductor sag. CIGRE
Technical Brochure 324 [1] suggests three alternative
mechanical conductor models, each models the steel core
similarly (e.g. a linear spring) and the aluminium layers
differently.
The Linear Elastic (LE) model [5] assumes that there is
no plastic elongation in the aluminium layers (the steel
core and the aluminium layers are modelled as parallel
springs). The Simplified Plastic Elongation (SPE) model
allows for plastic conductor elongation but on the basis
of field experience rather than calculation. As explained
in the next section of this paper, for both the LE and
SPE conductor models, the conductor is represented
mechanically with a single composite conductor modulus
(EAC) and thermally with a single composite conductor
Coefficient of Thermal Elongation (CTEAC).
Also, in reference [1], a third conductor model, the
Experimental Plastic Elongation (EPE) model, is defined.
The EPE model is very similar to the Varney graphical
method [6]. It models the mechanical and thermal
behaviour of the aluminium layers and the steel core,
separately. The mechanical stress and strain behaviour
of the aluminium layers and the steel core are measured
experimentally as is the plastic elongation of the conductor.
The thermal elongation of the aluminium and steel core
are modelled separately but not typically measured.
The generally non-linear mechanical stress-strain
behaviour of the conductor components is represented by
a polynomial equation.
4. Linear conductor thermal
elongation model
The initial sag and tension of bare overhead transmission
conductors change with the conductor length and with
conductor weight per unit length due to ice and/or wind
loading. Conductor length changes as the result of plastic
and elastic elongation and due to thermal elongation.
Elastic elongation and thermal elongation are reversible
(returning to the initial tension and temperature yields the
initial length). Plastic elongation occurs due to permanent
elongation during high tension events and, at normal
everyday tension, metallurgical creep elongation of
aluminium. Thermal elongation is the result of variations
in air temperature, solar heating, and line current.
For bare overhead conductors that are entirely stranded
from aluminium wires (e.g. All Aluminium Conductor),
the conductors coefficient of thermal elongation (CTE)
is taken equal to that of the aluminium wires (23E-6 per
oC). For bare overhead conductors that are stranded with
one or more layers of aluminium wires surrounding a
steel (or composite) core, the conductors CTE can be
calculated on the basis of the CTEs and Elastic Modulii
of aluminium and the core material accounting for the
cross section areas of each component.
Where the subscripts A refers to Aluminium, C refers to
the Core, and AC refers to the complete conductor.
Note that for most ACSR conductors, the composite CTE
is closer to aluminium than to steel. For 26/7 ACSR, the
composite CTE is 18.8 whereas the aluminium CTE is 23
and the steel core CTE is 11.5.
5. Non-linear coefficient of
thermal elongation model
The equation for CTEAC is derived by assuming that (1)
both the aluminium layers and the core are under tension

Cigre Science & Engineering N7 February 2017

41
 Figure 1: Initial component tensions in aluminium layers and steel core for 54/7 ACSR
in a 300 m span as a function of conductor temperature.
and that (2) the length of the aluminium layers and the
core must remain equal. For an aluminium conductor
with a steel core (i.e. ACSR), suspended in a catenary, the
aluminium strand layers of ACSR elongate at twice the
rate of the steel core.
If the conductor is modelled with the EPE method, the
tension of the steel core and the surrounding aluminium
layers are modelled separately. Therefore, as the ACSR
conductor temperature increases, the total conductor
length and sag increase and the total conductor tension
decreases. However, for the lengths of the steel core
and the surrounding aluminium layers to remain equal,
the greater thermal elongation of the aluminium must
be offset by reduced elastic elongation and the lesser
thermal elongation of the steel core must be increased
by increased elastic elongation. In other words, as the
conductor temperature increases, the percentage of total
tension in the aluminium must decrease.
At a temperature referred to as the knee-point
temperature (KPT), the tension in the aluminium layers
of the ACSR conductor has decreased to zero (see Figure
1) and all of the conductor tension is in the steel core.
Above the KPT, the aluminium wire layers go into
compression. If the elastic modulus of the aluminium
layers in compression is equal to that in tension (think
of the behaviour of Aluminium-clad steel wire), then the
CTE remains equal to that at temperatures below the KPT.
If the elastic modulus of the aluminium wire layers is
zero, then the conductors composite thermal elongation
rate decreases to that of the steel core alone, depending
upon the compression modulus of the aluminium layers.
In any stranded aluminium conductor, the aluminium
wires undergo both elastic and plastic elongation. With
an all-aluminium conductor, plastic elongation due to
high load events and metallurgical creep, cause both the
everyday sag and the high temperature sag to increase
over the life of an overhead line.
Cigre Science & Engineering N7 February 2017
42
With ACSR, the core usually undergoes only a small
amount of plastic elongation during high load events and
the impact of plastic elongation in the aluminium layers is
different. Using the EPE stress-strain model, the amount
of plastic elongation in the aluminium layers can be
calculated as a function of both high tension load events
and creep elongation over time. All three stress-strain
models allow one to calculate the KPT of ACSR, but LE
assumes that it remains constant over time and loads,
SPE assumes that KPT decreases a set amount over time,
and EPE can be used to calculate the KPT of ACSR for
user-specified loading events and, given creep elongation
models, the variation of KPT over the life of the line.
Other factors can also influence the KPT. The initial
KPT of ACSR (or other reinforced conductors) can be
reduced by pre-stressing the conductors prior to sagging
and clipping. Rawlins [7] suggests in some detail that the
KPT can be higher than expected due to residual stranding
stresses in the aluminium wires of ACSR made in modern
rigid-frame stranding machines, which effectively makes
the zero-stress aluminium wire layers shorter than the
zero stress length of the core. Finally, long pulls and
high tensions during tension stringing can produce non-
negligible plastic elongation of the aluminium prior to
sagging. These phenomena are best studied using the EPE
model.
Above the KPT, the continued thermal expansion of
aluminium yields increasing aluminium compression but,
if the aluminium compression modulus is low, the rate of
sag increase with temperature is sharply reduced to near
that of the steel core alone as shown in Figure 2.
The advantage of using the EPE conductor model is that
it yields lower calculated high temperature sags (about a
meter less at 150oC as shown in Figure 2). On the other
hand, because it is not as conservative as the LE/SPE
conductor model, there must be increased concern with
those factors that affect the modelling.
 Figure 2: Sag vs temperature for ACSR with LE/SPE and EPE conductor models

There are three primary concerns with regard to sags
calculated by the EPE conductor model. They involve the
conductor manufacturing details (lay lengths and bobbin
tension), the conductor installation procedures, and the
occurrence of severe mechanical ice & wind load events
prior to the field sag measurements of the existing line.
The KPT depends on the ACSR stranding (Figure 3) and the
effective span length (Figure 4) as summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Final knee-point temperature as a function of ACSR
steel content and ruling span length.
6. Compression of helical
aluminium strand layers
For single-layer and multi-aluminium layer ACSR
conductors, at conductor temperatures above the KPT, the
aluminium wires continue to expand faster than the steel
core wires putting the aluminium layers into compression
and increasing the elastic elongation of the steel core.
Given the physics of the ACSR conductor, aluminium
compression must occur above the KPT.

Ruling Span Length - meters

The aluminium wires in each layer are helices. Under
tension, the modulus of the aluminium wires is close to
Type* of ACSR 180 300 425 10 Mpsi and the strength of these layers is a significant
7 (e.g. 45/7) 90C 130C 160C portion of the composite conductors tensile strength.
14 (e.g.54/7) 75C 95C 110C
Under compression, an unconstrained aluminium wire
helix produces a much lower modulus because the wire
23 (e.g. 30/7) 30C 30C 40C bends rather than compresses. That is, the helix expands
* - Type = 100*[AS/AA] radially and the resistance to axial strain is about 5% of
that in tension.
Clearly, high-temperature sag accuracy is more of an
issue with existing lines having relatively short spans and Rawlins paper on High Temperature Sag Calculation [7]
for any line having high steel content ACSR (e.g. 30/19). derives the axial compression modulus (spring constant

Figure 3: Comparison of sag vs temperature for 45/7, 54/7, and 30/19 ACSR Figure 4: Sag vs conductor temperature for 180, 300, and 425 m spans.
with a 300 m ruling span.

Cigre Science & Engineering N7 February 2017

43
 Figure 6: Radial expansion of unrestrained helical aluminium wire layers of Drake ACSR
as a function of axial strain.

per unit area of strand), Eff for a free helically-wound

aluminium strand layer as follows:

Where:
D = Overall diameter of strand layer
Where: E is the axial elastic modulus of aluminium d = Strand diameter in layer
(slightly less than 60 GPa). R = Radial expansion of the strand layer
n is the number of strands in the layer. Considering the number of strands in the layer, n, as a
is the lay angle of the layer. function of strand and layer diameters:
Eff is a weak function of the lay angle and is typically
slightly less than 4 GPa. Therefore, the axial modulus
of the aluminium layers in compression is less than 10%
of the axial modulus in tension unless the layers are Then:
constrained radially.

The relationship between the total length (L) of a strand

and its lay length () is shown in the following diagram. The strain, S, is the same for all layers of the conductor, so
a comparison between the radial expansion rates of each
layer can be made by
using:
Figure 5: Two-dimensional representation of aluminium wire helix dimensions

Where: Where subscript i denotes the specific strand layer.

= Lay angle For an ACSR conductor with two layers of aluminium
R = Radius of strand helix wires, if the radial expansion rate of the outer layer is greater
L = Helical wire length than or equal to that of the inner layer, then both are free to
= Axial length of one turn of the helix (the lay length) expand radially and the modulus of each in compression is
Now, low. Given the range of recommended lay ratios from IEC
or ASTM production standards, use of preferred ratios will
allow free expansion of the aluminium layers.
With 2 or more layers of aluminium, each layer will
The conductor strain, S, is defined as the ratio of the expand similarly if free to do so. Figure 6 shows the
change in lay length divided by the lay length and the dependence of inner and outer aluminium layer expansion
radial expansion of the strand layer due to a change in lay for 26/7, 2-layer Drake ACSR as a function of lay ratio. At
length due to conductor strain is: the preferred ratio, the layers are free to expand radially.

Cigre Science & Engineering N7 February 2017

44
 Figure 7: Influence of aluminium compression force and residual aluminium layer stress on EPE
high-temperature sag calculations

Rawlins developed an approximate aluminium layer 7. Experimental measurements

compression modulus for multi-layer ACSR which was
implemented in the SAG10 numerical sag-tension
calculation method. Using the maximum recommended
inner layer lay ratio (16) and the minimum recommended
outer lay ratio (10) for 2-layer, 26/7 Drake ACSR, the
compression modulus was sufficiently high to change
the thermal elongation rate beyond the KPT as shown in
Figure 7.
Note that the existence of significant axial aluminium
layer compression stress changes the slope of the sag
versus temperature curve beyond the KPT while the
existence of residual stress from manufacturing shifts the
KPT value itself but does not change the slope. Higher
than estimated plastic elongation of the aluminium layers
would have an effect similar to that of residual stress but
would reduce the KPT rather than increasing it.
of High Temperature Sag
Field measurements of high temperature sag in operating
lines are extraordinarily difficult primarily because very
few lines carry currents close the line thermal rating under
normal system conditions and because weather conditions
are normally more favourable to heat loss than those
assumed for thermal line rating calculations. In addition,
the small differences in sag produced by variation in
CTE at high temperature are easily overwhelmed by
small variations in end-point movement. Consequently,
experimental measurements have been attempted for
indoor and outdoor test spans.
The point of this paper is to explain and quantify how the
users choice of conductor model (LE, SPE, and EPE)
influences the calculation of ACSR sag at high temperature
based on field survey measurements. The result of these

Figure 8: Comparison of measured and calculated sag vs temperature for 26/7 ACSR

Cigre Science & Engineering N7 February 2017

45
 Figure 9: Comparison of experimental measurements of sag vs temperature vs
conductor average temperature.
calculations can be important in establishing the thermal
capacity of existing clearance-limited overhead lines and
in determining the best method for increasing the thermal
capacity of such lines.
Two careful laboratory experiments are discussed in the
following paragraphs. Figure 8, shown in Reference [7],
is based on tests performed as part of a study of high
temperature thermal elongation with an indoor, 90 meter
test span. The conductor is 26/7 Hawk (240 mm2) and it
was pre-stressed to simulate the aluminium layer plastic
elongation that would occur as a result of creep and high
load events in an installed line.
This experimental data was analysed by Rawlins [7] and
presented in an IEEE paper which elicited a good deal
of interesting discussion. In essence, Rawlins proposed
that the experimental data could best be explained by
residual stress in the aluminium layers produced as a
result of stranding in a rigid-frame stranding machine.
He supplemented this data by measurements of residual
stress in various ACSR conductors prior to installation
and concluded that the KPT should be adjusted upward
by assuming a residual stress of 15 MPa.
A second experimental study was performed in an outdoor
test line (2 spans) at the Oakridge National Laboratory in
Oakridge, Tennessee. The analysis was reported by Seppa
[8] and his plot of the test data is reproduced in Figure 9.
The test facility consisted of two 180 m spans, carefully
terminated to allow accurate sag measurement and with
many thermocouples embedded in the conductors.
The laboratory experiments demonstrate that the measured
sags are less than those calculated with the LE or EPE,
constant CTE model and greater than that calculated
with the EPE/Graphical method where residual stress is
ignored.
Cigre Science & Engineering N7 February 2017
46
The experiments at both locations indicate that high
temperature sag calculations using the EPE conductor
model should use an assumption of 15 to 20 MPa for
residual aluminium stress to be conservative on the basis
of this limited experimental data.
8. High Temperature Sag in new
and existing lines
it may be observed that sag at high temperature is seldom
measured in either new or old lines. In both cases, high
temperature sag is calculated based upon sag measurements
made at everyday line currents and weather conditions.
For new lines, field measurements are made after tension
stringing as part of line construction. For existing lines,
measurements are made with the line carrying normal
current (or none), by LiDAR or conventional survey
methods.
With new and existing lines, given non-homogeneous
conductors (both conventional ACSR and HTLS), the
tension distribution between core and aluminium layers is
estimated at the time of measurement.
The EPE analysis presented in this paper is also applicable
to the analysis of high-temperature, low-sag conductors
having either zirconium or annealed aluminium layers
surrounding a core which has high strength and low
thermal elongation.
9. Selection of High-Temperature
Sag model for new lines
when designing new overhead transmission lines,
the height and the placement of support structures is
dependent on wind and ice loads (primarily on the
conductors) and on the sag of the phase conductor at the
templating temperature. If the reduction in slope of sag
versus temperature beyond the knee-point temperature
is neglected, then the structure attachment heights and
spacing will be somewhat higher than need be. The added
cost of somewhat higher sag clearances may be less
onerous in new lines compared to reconductoring existing
lines. For example, the difference in total line cost when
increasing the templating temperature from 50C to 80C
has been found to be around 5% in certain projects in
Eskom, South Africa. This is not a generic finding and
the cost will differ depending on the terrain, tower family
being used, conductor types, etc.
In determining the model to use, it is important to
determine the application of the conductor and the likely
operating temperature. If the power on the line has a
fairly flat load profile, the cost of losses will likely lead
the designer to select a larger aluminium area. This will
imply that the operating temperature of the conductor will
be quite low. In this case the linear model may suffice as it
will result in a slightly conservative sag but will not result
in high line costs as the difference between the models
below the knee point is small.
If the line is used to supply a peak load for a short duration
or is designed to operate at a high temperature under n-1
conditions, it is important to understand the exact sag-
temperature relationship of the conductor. If the linear
model is adopted, the cost of the line may be excessive
due to the conservative sag calculation, because it ignores
the non-linear CTE behaviour of ACSR.
10. Selection of High-
Temperature Sag calculation
method for existing lines
The initial step in evaluating methods of uprating existing
overhead lines consists of making detailed measurements
of conductor position and terrain survey for the entire
line. Increasingly, this is done with airborne LiDAR,
though traditionally, by conventional survey methods.
In most cases, these older HV lines are lightly loaded
(electrically) when the system is operating normally, so
the measured conductor position in each span corresponds
to a conductor temperature within 5oC to 15oC of air
temperature. It is necessary to calculate the conductor sag
for the lines maximum conductor design (templating)
temperature and for any higher temperature considered
for uprating purposes.
Cigre Science & Engineering N7 February 2017
47
In this case, the choice of high temperature sag model
can be quite important. If the knee-point behaviour is
ignored altogether, then the resulting conservative
calculation of sag at high temperature may rule out the
use of existing ACSR conductors at higher temperature
and reconductoring may seem to be the only choice. If
the reduced thermal elongation beyond the knee-point
temperature is considered and properly modelled, then
it may be possible to choose a relatively inexpensive
method of uprating the line by raising certain supports or
re-tensioning the line.
On the other hand, when doing calculations to allow thermal
uprating of an existing line without reconductoring, one
must be careful to recognize the need to model the sag
behaviour correctly and to allow for both calculation
errors and measurement tolerances, both of which are
impossible to avoid.
If the thermal rating is to be determined in real time, it
is important that the actual sag-temperature relationship
is determined by calibration and measurement. This is
covered in TB 498 [9].
11. Use of High Temperature
Low Sag (HTLS) conductors
High temperature low sag conductors are often designed
so that the conductor operates above the knee-point
under normal conditions. This is the case with annealed
aluminium, gapped and some polymer cored conductors.
The rate of sag as a function of temperature is therefore
dependent on the core only and not the aluminium
component. This allows for a high temperature of
operation without exceeding the permissible sag.
If the linear model is chosen with regard to HTLS
conductors, it may indicate that the conductor is not
suitable for certain applications which may not be the
case. This is demonstrated in Technical Brochure 244
[2]. The type of HTLS also needs to be chosen to suit the
application.
In determining the initial cost of the HTLS installation
it is important that an accurate sag-temperature model
be used. This should take the knee-point into account.
Failing to do this may result in the HTLS option being
found less than optimal as the increase in thermal rating
may not negate the higher initial cost.
12. Conclusions
When calculating the sag of ACSR at conductor
temperatures above 75C, the thermal elongation rate
of the conductor should model the mechanical and
thermal behaviour of the aluminium layers and the steel
core separately. If the conventional ACSR temperature-
independent CTE formula is used, the sag at maximum
line temperature will be overestimated. In designing new
lines, allowing for the modest amount of excess high
temperature sag which results from the linear CTE method
is of minor importance. However, in evaluating options
for thermal uprating of existing lines, the difference in
the linear and non-linear CTE methods can have a large
impact on the uprating method chosen.
If the conductors are intended to operate at temperatures
above 75C, it is recommended that a model be used that
takes into account the knee-point of the conductor. Failure
to do this may result in a suboptimal conductor being
chosen for the line.
The temperature gradient also needs to be considered as
the average temperature determines the conductor sag and
not the surface temperature [10].
As the conductor temperature increases above ambient,
the aluminium layer thermal expansion rate is twice that
of the steel core and at the knee-point temperature
(KPT), the tension in the aluminium layers is zero and
all the tension is in the steel core. Beyond the KPT, the
CTE of the conductor is reduced and the conductor sag
which corresponds to the lines maximum temperature is
reduced.
The issue of KPT and its impact on the line sag at high
temperature depends on a number of line design factors.
The issue is of minimal concern when:
1. The maximum operating high temperature of the line is
determined by loss of strength in the aluminium layers
rather than sag.
2. The spans are long (>400 m).
3. The conductor has a steel core area less than 7% that of
the aluminium layers.
4. Compression modulus of the aluminium layers is
negligible.
Cigre Science & Engineering N7 February 2017
48
The issue is of primary concern when:
1. The maximum operating high temperature of the line
is determined by the clearances produced when the
conductor is at the templating temperature.
2. The spans are short (<400m).
3. The conductor has a steel core area greater than 10%
that of the aluminium layers.
4. Lay ratios are near recommended values.
When the sag of ACSR at high temperature is essential
to the selection of line uprating method, the KPT should
be determined by use of the EPE mechanical conductor
model (including the impact of metallurgical creep of
aluminium and plastic elongation for high tension load
events) and a residual stress of 15 to 20 MPa should be
specified for the aluminium layers.
13. Bibliography
[1] CIGRE Task Force B2.12.3, Sag-tension Calculation Methods for
Overhead Lines, Technical Brochure 324, June, 2007.
[2] CIGRE Task Force B2.12, Conductors for Uprating of Overhead
Lines, Technical Brochure 244, April, 2004,
[3] IEEE Subcommittee 15.11, Limitations of the Ruling Span Method
for Overhead Line Conductors at High Operating Temperatures.
Report of IEEE WG on Thermal Aspects of Conductors, IEEE WPM
1998, Tampa, FL, Feb. 3, 1998
[4] CIGRE WG B2.12, Alternating Current (AC) Resistance of
Helically Stranded Conductors, Technical Brochure 345, April,
2008.
[5] IEC 1597, Overhead electrical conductors Calculation methods
for stranded bare conductors, First Edition, 1995.
[6] Varney T., Aluminium Company of America, Graphic Method
for Sag Tension Calculations for A1/S1A (ACSR) and Other
Conductors, Pittsburg, 1927
[7] Rawlins, C.B., Some Effects of Mill Practice on the Stress Strain
Behavior of ACSR, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 14,
No. 2, April, 1999.
[8] T. Seppa Fried Wire? (Public Utilities Fortnightly, December 2003,
pages 39-41)
[9] CIGRE Working Group B2.36, Guide for Application of Direct Real-
Time Monitoring Systems, Technical Brochure 498, June, 2012.
[10] Clairmont, B, Douglass, D., Radial and Longitudinal Temperature
Gradients in Bare Stranded Conductors with High Current
Densities, CIGRE Paper B2-108, Paris, 2012.