Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

21, rue d'Artois, F-75008 Paris http://www.cigre.

org

22-206

Session 2002
CIGR

Ampacity assessment of overhead line conductors as a compromise between safety and deregulated market requirements B. Cauzillo Consultant L. Paris Consultant (ITALY) G. Pirovano CESI S.p.A.

1- Summary A rigorous assessment of the thermal limits of the current carrying capacity of overhead lines is becoming more and more important due to growing reaction of the population to the installation of new lines which induces to push the exploitation of the existing lines much beyond the traditional economics limits. Furthermore the deregulated market is requiring precise and justified values for line ampacity for regulating the different position between the System Operator and the market operators in case of network congestion. Considering that the conductor temperature must be limited in order to control: - 1) the risk of discharge with the fixed or mobile objects below the line - 2) the conductor ageing any precise evaluation of ampacity must be related to precise limits of these two effects. Both the risk of discharge and the conductor ageing depends on temperature expected duration or probability. In order to evaluate them we must consider that the conductor temperature depends, as well as on the current flowing in the conductor, on some meteorological parameters which are very dispersed random variables weakly correlated among them; if the risk of discharge on mobile object the probability of appearance of these object in different high must be considered. A rigorous solution of the problem requires a probabilistic approach based on long duration continuous meteorological observation and interpretation; the authors propose a method for this evaluation which was studied for a new CEI (Italian Electrical Commission) recommendation recently published on the subject.

Keywords Ampacity, thermal rating, OHL, conductor ageing, upgrading, risk of discharge. 2 Why thermal ratings for overhead line conductors Conductor temperature need to be limited for the following reasons: It may give rise to an excessive elongation of the conductor with consequent dangerous reduction of the clearances to ground and to crossed structures (risk of discharge); It may produce a progressive reduction of the mechanical strength of the conductor (ageing).

As it will be explained further the first of the above reasons, for the lines designed in Italy according to clearances and temperatures given by CEI standards, is almost always determinant; and this fact makes the problem of evaluation of the thermal rating more complex since it depends not only on the conductor characteristics but also on the line design criteria. 3The classical method to evaluate thermal ratings As indicated above up to now the problem did not appear in a systematic way; when the operator was forced by contingent requirements to evaluate the maximum limit at which the line could be exploited, he just made reference to methods based on the only hypothesis that a given conductor temperature shall not be reached; and this without correlating this limit with the effects that excessive temperatures produce, that are different for each line. In this case (Fig. 1) it is assumed a maximum admissible temperature for the conductor and on the base of the classical thermal model the maximum steady state admissible current for the conductor is determined.

CESI S.p.A. Via Rubattino, 54 I 20134 Milano

Maximum allowable temperature of the conductor Ambient temperature Wind velocity Solar radiation
Reasonably at worse

Ambient temperature Wind velocity Solar radiation


Simultaneous series values

Conductors current

Conductor characteristics

Thermal model Temperature duration (probability) of the conductor


Line design criteria

Thermal model Maximum allowable current

Sag variation probability Risk of discharge no

Ageing of the conductor

Fig. 1 Classical method for the evaluation of ampacity Clearly at this aim it is necessary to make some assumptions on the meteorological conditions; those hypotheses are generally chosen reasonably at worse and thus among the most unfavourable conditions, discarding extreme values. It is clear that the choice of the maximum conductor temperature and of the meteorological conditions is completely arbitrary. The fact that the above method requires arbitrary choices and that it is not related in any way with the design criteria of overhead lines and with the relevant design standards produces the following consequences: The safety levels are different, and sometime very different, from one line to another; to this aim it is useful to remember that the recall to the adoption of similar criteria adopted in other Countries is not applicable, since the standards that define design temperature and clearances are different and different can be the other design criteria that influence the sag-temperature relation too. It is not possible to rationally modify existing lines in order to increase thermal rating.

acceptable yes

acceptable yes

no

Fig. 2 CEI method for the evaluation of ampacity data (wind velocities and direction, solar radiation, ambient temperature) measured simultaneously for significant periods of time in places that can be considered representative of given zones. Once fixed a given constant current in a given conductor, the above series can be transformed in historical series of the conductor temperature, by a mathematical model (see appendix I) of the thermal balance of the conductor. By putting in a decreasing order the values of this historical data set, it is possible to obtain the curve of the temperature duration of the conductor for a constant load, that can be interpreted as the probability function of the temperature of the conductor. The meteorological data used for the calculation were obtained from ENEL weather stations1 and from Italian Air Force weather stations. The weather stations were selected in order to represent the two meteorological zones A and B defined in Italian Standard CEI 11-4. The distribution temperatures were evaluated for the conductor ACSR 31.5 mm (near Curlew) for different values of line current, by subdividing the year in two periods defined hot and cold (H and C) that correspond to the same summer and winter periods of the Italian multi-hour tariffs 2.

4The method adopted by Italian CEI to assess thermal ratings for overhead lines CEI wanted to link the determination of thermal limits to the reasons that motivate the necessity of this evaluation on the base of the process illustrated in Fig. 2, that requires the quantitative assessment of the risk of discharge of a given line and of the ageing of the relevant conductor, both, line and conductor, subjected during all their life to given rates of current. For both the cases it is necessary to assess the curve temperature time duration of the conductor for all the expected life, on the base, as far as possible, of data from meteorological measurements. 4.1 The assessment of the probability distribution of conductor temperature The meteorological data that are at the base of the process are the historical series of the meteorological

The meteorological stations were installed within the frame of a research project aimed at setting up a system for monitoring conductor temperature and predicting the maximum transmission capacity of a power overhead line on the basis of the actual and foreseen meteorological conditions As regard wind direction, with reference to the considered locations, the distributions of wind velocities and directions didnt give rise to significant differences in the conductor temperature distributions relevant to different possible orientations of the line (these considerations are not valid for particular conditions of lines situated in narrow valleys or when screened by threes, hills, etc.)

a)

a)

Probability density

Probability density

0,1

0,1

0,01

0,01

0,001

0,001

0,0001 0 20 40 60 80 100

0,0001 0 20 40 60 80 100

T emperature (C )

T emperature (C)

b)
60 55

b)

70 60

Average temperature (C)

Average temperature (C)

50 45 40 35 30 500 600 700 800 900 1000

50 40 30 20 10 0 400 500 600 700 C urrent (A ) 800 900 1000

C urrent (A)

Fig. 3 Interpolation of the temperature distributions in zone B: a) interpolation for a given current with normal distribution, b) interpolation of the average values. In zone B the conductor temperature distributions thus obtained were fitted with good precision by normal distributions (fig. 3a) whose standard deviation is proportional to the average value, that, in its turn, is proportional to the current (fig. 3b); the probability distribution in the figure is represented in logarithmic scale for a better evaluation of the extreme values. For zone A the interpolation was more complicated; it was necessary to introduce a linear combination of two normal distributions, whose average values are independent functions of the current as illustrated in fig. 4 a and b. For the ageing assessment the probability distribution of the conductor temperature could be directly used (as time duration curves), while for the evaluation of the risk of discharge it was necessary to transform them into probability distribution of the sag.

Fig. 4 Interpolation of the temperature distributions in zone A: a) interpolation for a given current with a linear combination of normal distributions, b) interpolation of the average values of the two distributions. 4.2 The assessment of the probability distribution of conductor sag The following analysis is made, for simplicity and with advantage for the safety, assuming that the critical point where the risk of discharge is verified is positioned at the centre of the span, in the point of maximum sag. The sag is proportional to the square of the span length, but the tensile load variation in the conductor as a function of temperature diminishes with the increase of the span length; as a consequence the sag variation per temperature degree, that we will call DERS (derivative of the sag), is very little sensitive to span length, especially in case of span length greater than 300 m, as illustrated in fig. 5. Always for simplicity and conservatively, it was decided to adopt for the calculations the asymptotic value of the curves of fig. 5; this value is only proportional to the catenary constant a

and to the thermal expansion coefficient of the conductor according the relation DERS0 =
6,0 5,0 DERS cm/C 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 0,0 0 200 400 600 800 1000
span length (m)

3 a 2

Fig. 5 Sag variation per temperature degree (DERS) as a function of span length. The above considerations are valid in case of a single span with dead end terminals (or in case of a number of suspension span, all of the same length); in case of series of suspended spans not uniform in length, in the longest spans the DERS is higher; to be conservative the DERS0 must be correct in proportion to the square of the ratio longest span/equivalent span, which is referred in the standard as the coefficient of span unbalance. In the standard it was considered to cover all the possible cases of lines by assuming a DERS equal to the double of the asymptotic value with uniform spans (coefficient of span unbalance=1.41). 4.3 The quantitative assessment of conductor ageing The reduction of the breakage load of the conductors, due to ageing, is a consequence of the cold working process to which the elementary wires of a stranded conductor are subjected during the manufacturing of the conductor. The amount of reduction of the mechanical strength is higher in case of severe cold work (the reduction in diameter from the rod to the elementary wire) and is a function of the service temperature and of the relevant time interval. By using as temperature time-duration curve the relevant temperature distribution probability (with the methods reported at paragraph 4.1) it is possible to calculate the percentage of reduction of the mechanical strength on the base of the formula suggested by Harvey [3], formula considered valid by both experts and manufacturers. Given the temperature distribution of the line and assuming an average life duration for the conductors (30 years) it is possible to estimate the loss of mechanical strength for the different types of conductors. To this aim it is necessary to point out that in case of ACSR and

AACSR conductors only the reduction due to alloy or aluminium alloy is considered in the calculation of the loss of strength, since steel doesnt show reduction of mechanical strength up to 250 C (but at these temperatures the galvanising of the elementary wires may be damaged). Dead-end and mid-span tension joints, if well manufactured and if not damaged from external causes, are not subjected to ageing in case of currents that comply with the maximum allowed values for conductors, given the fact that they have a reduced electrical resistance and a higher dissipating surface than the relevant conductors; in case of presence of defects, the permanence of elevated current may contribute to the worsening of the conditions with, in extreme cases, the possible breakage of the conductor [4] [5]; unfortunately it is not possible to define current ratings on the base of these cause-effect relations in order to prevent the above situations; in those cases when there is the necessity to increase the current ratings (always within the allowable values), it is advisable to intensify the monitoring of possible hot spots on the line; this fact will produce higher costs that need to be taken into account by the market operators. 4.4 Limitations due to the risk of discharge The overhead line design in Italy, governed by CEI 11-4 standard (that is a state law), has always required the verification of the electrical clearances on the ground and on the crossed works at the conductor temperature of 40 C for zone B and of 55 C for zone A. The reasons of this choice go back to historical facts difficult to reconstruct. On the base of the values it is presumable that the authors of the standard wanted to make reference to a maximum ambient temperature without taking into account the temperature rise due to current flow. Given the fact that this temperature rise was surely known to the regulators, it is presumable that a margin has been included in the clearances on ground and crossed works in order to take into account the increase of the sag due to temperature rises (fig. 6).
tp
tp+D t
tp = design temperature t = temperature rise

tp

tp+D t

clearance from standard temperature rise margin

residual clearance

Fig. 6 - Decomposition of the clearance from standard in temperature rise and residual clearance Unfortunately also the criteria that are at the base of the calculation of the above clearances elude any possible interpretation; it is only possible to ascertain that they are not defined in a rational way and that they seem to

come from compromises reached with the different administrations at the time of the first editions of the standard and not modified after that. On the other hand the sag increases due to temperature rises depend on line characteristics and on design criteria that are not subjected to the standard; they depend also on the position in the span of the critical points of minimum clearance (fig. 6). Until the problem of the thermal ratings was not decisively taken into consideration and the line currents were on average small due to economical reasons, it was possible to rely on relatively high margins on clearances, with a consequent average safety level that service results proved to be more than satisfactory. It remains the juridical problem in case of an accident due to discharge on crossed works; we may ask if the unavoidable fact that the temperature of the conductor is higher than the design temperature can be accepted. 4.5The quantitative evaluation of the risk of discharge The probability function of the sags calculated as reported in par. 4.3 and expressed as probability density is illustrated in fig. 7 in linear scale (it has the typical bell shape); since this scale doesnt allow to appraise the low probability values that are of main interest in our evaluation, fig. 8 reports the same curve with logarithmic scale. Both the figures also reports the calculus of the probability P that the sag (f) is greater than the design sag (fp), this probability is given by the integral of the probability density function beyond the design project sag. The probability of discharge on a fixed object (Ps) is the probability to have a clearance less than the critical discharge distance, dc, to the fixed object, that is similarly calculated by integration of the probability density function beyond this critical value P (f>fc) as illustrated in fig.9. In the case of clearance on ground, roads and accessible buildings the problem is more complex since the risk of discharge in this case is given by the probability that objects of different heights are present on the above surfaces too; unfortunately statistics that allow to construct probability functions of this type are not available, at this regard it is thus necessary to make reasonable hypothesis that can take their legitimacy only from a wide approval, from qualified experts, as the one given by a regulatory group; on the other hand the problem is not a consequence of the chosen approach but of the lack of data on these heights. Given the fact that the most critical situations are relevant to agricultural terrains and to local roads, it was assumed that the probability of occurrence of an object under the line having a height greater than h was represented by the curve of fig. 10; this curve assumes that an object with an height lower than 2 meter is always present under the line, while an object with an height above 7 m has a probability of 10-6.

tp
I

fp
d

P(f>fp) f

Fig. 7 Sag probability distribution (linear scale).

tp
I

fp
d

P(f>fp) f

Fig. 8 Sag probability distribution (logarithmic scale).

tp
I

fp
d

dc

fc P(f >fc)=Ps

Fig. 9 Calculation of discharge probability over fixed object.

probabily P(h >h)

0,1 0,01 0,001 0,0001 0,00001 0,000001 0 2 4 6 8 10

the displacements of insulators strings in case of exceptional winds. 4.6The determination of ampacity at constant load Making reference to the scheme reported in fig. 2 the calculated ageing and discharge probability values are compared with acceptable values for these two parameters; in case the condition is not met, the current value adopted is reduced until acceptable values are found for both the above quantities. This current value is assumed as thermal load limit of the line. Acceptable values for the risk of discharge and for ageing can only be the result of a responsible choice by the community of experts of the field. This choice derives its validity from the convergence of different skills and experiences. To give strength to these choices, always necessary in the engineers activity, is one of the main scopes of standardisation bodies like CEI. At this regard CEI fixed the ageing limit of the conductor in correspondence to a 10% loss of mechanical strength and the limit of the risk of discharge at 3.5 10-5. Under the above hypotheses it could be observed that the risk of discharge is the decisive factor for the determination of the thermal ratings, much more than ageing. 4.7 The determination of ampacity at variable load In par. 4.6 the load ampacity was calculated under the hypothesis that the line load was constant during all the year; this is not true for many reasons linked mainly to loads variability and to generation dispatching but also to planned or forced outage of lines and generation units. Fig. 12 illustrates examples of load duration curves in a generation and transmission network model [7] depending on the criteria adopted for the managing of emergency conditions. If the historical series of conductor temperature used for the risk assessment are calculated on the base of estimated series of conductor currents, it is possible to obtain a load duration curve of conductor temperature that takes into consideration the presence of variable loads as illustrated in fig. 13.
Current duration curve
Actions in case of overload 1,E-01 No action generation re-dispatching at 1,27 pu load curtailment at 1,8 pu load curtailment at 1,5 pu 1,E-02 Curve adopted in CEI 11-60 1000 500 Duration (hours/year) 100 50 10 5 1,0 0,5 0,10 0,05 1,E+00v 8760

Object height h (m) Fig. 10 Probability distribution of objects with heights greater than given values.
The calculation of the probability of discharge in this case is illustrated in fig. 11, where the following curves are reported: the probability density function of the height of the conductor above ground h = hp-Df (hp = design clearance above ground) the probability function P(hc>h) of the critical height hc = h+dc the probability density function of discharge s that can be obtained, for every value of h, as the product of the probability density that the conductor, in a given instant, has an height above ground equal to h and the probability P(hc>h) that in the same time an object with critical height greater than h is present under the line.

tp

fp fx
ds P, d

P(f >fx)

2m+dc

probability

Fig. 11 Calculation of the discharge probability in case of objects with variable height. The critical distance dc is a function of the type of voltage stress considered, that is the service voltage at power frequency or the highest switching overvoltage of short duration; in order to calculate the probability of discharge reference was made to the withstand voltage distance values (as defined in CEI 11-4); this choice assumes as very unlikely the occurrence of a switching overvoltage simultaneous with the extreme sags of the conductors, the same hypothesis is made in CEI 11-4 for

1,E-03

1,E-04

1,E-05

1,E-06 0 1 load (pu) 2 3

Fig. 12 Current duration curves in the peripheral lines of the network model.

Temperature duration curve 1,E+00


Actions in case of overload 1,E-01 No action generation re-dispatching at 1,27 pu load curtailment at 1,8 pu load curtailment at 1,5 pu 1,E-02 probability

8760

1000 500 Duration (hours/year) 100 50 10 5 1,0 0,5 0,10 0,05

1,E-03

1,E-04

1,E-05

1,E-06 0 100C 200C 300C Conductor temperature

Fig. 13 Temperature duration curves in peripheral lines of the network model.

the

It is clear that a similar solution cannot be adopted in a standard; moreover it is important to take into consideration, with simple methods, the possibility to face emergency conditions even with lower limits by taking advantage of their short duration and hence of their low probability of occurrence. A discrete load duration curve was thus considered as reference (see fig. 12); the curve is characterised by three current values and three relevant times duration: one extreme condition with a duration of 1% of the total time (about 10 hours per year), one condition with a duration of 3% of the total time (about 300 hours per year) and one of normal service with the residual duration. For the sake of simplicity the short duration current values are expressed in percentage of the normal service value, thus allowing to define the thermal rating with a single value: the normal service rating. In fig. 12 the above discrete curve is reported in order to show its adherence to the continuos curve of the considered electrical system model in its more severe managing conditions. Analogous consideration applied to a mashed subtransmission network has suggested a second standard discrete curve with a more severe extreme conditions, 5 Structure of the standard The standard prescribes first of all the thermal ratings of the power overhead lines of the Italian grid at a voltage >100 kV under the hypothesis that they are designed according to the rules of CEI 11-4. Therefore the lines are characterised only by conductor characteristics and relevant stringing conditions. The standard allow therefore to attribute an ampacity to all the line without considering the possible extra margin on the clearances adopted by the designers for any specific lines. In any case the rule prescribes how to take in account the effect of these extra clearances on the ampacity. But CEI is conscious that many lines can be upgraded in terms of ampacity when necessary with a design revision that may imply no line modification or few not expensive modifications. Therefore CEI is studying how to regulate this upgrading avoiding any glazing of the

existing ampacity. A short information on this effort is given in paragraph 6. The current values are defined, according to the above reported methods, for a given type of conductor and for a given tensile load condition, assumed as reference; the reference conductor is the ACSR 31.5 mm with a catenary constant of 1750 m (at 15 C); here follows the characteristics of the conductor: diameter: 31,5 mm formation: All (543,50)+St (192,10) total cross section: 585,3 mm2 unit mass: 1,953 kg/m final elasticity modulus: 68000 N/mm2 thermal expansion coefficient: 19,410-6 C-1 The ampacity values, for constant load, are defined for the two climatic zones A and B indicated in CEI 11-4 and for two seasonal periods: one hot, H (comprising the months of May, June, July, August and September) and one cold, C (comprising the months of October, November, December, January, February and March). Rated voltage of the line (kV) 380 220 132-150 Table I Current ratings of the reference conductor I0 (A) Zone A Zone B Period H Period C Period H Period C 740 985 680 770 665 905 610 710 620 870 575 675 Current ratings 94% 113% 136% 73% 117% 146%

Table II Considered Annual duration duration X% (h) Normal 96.7% 8472 Emergency 3.2% 280 Extreme 0.1% 8 Normal 98.3% Emergency 1.6% Extreme 0.1% 8612 140 8

Table I reports the ampacity values thus calculated for the three voltage levels of 380 kV, 220 kV and 132150 kV. The thermal ratings for variable loads calculated assuming the same risk of discharge and ageing are reported in Table II as a percentage of the ampacity values of table I. In case of conductors and line parameters different from the reference conductor, current ratings are calculated starting from the reference ones with simple semi/empiric formulas taking into account the conductor diameter the conductor stranding the characteristic of the conductor materials (resistivity and thermal expansion coefficient) the actual catenary constant and span-unbalance coefficient the actual clearance to ground. Appendix I reports the above mentioned formulas.

6 - How to regulate the ampacity upgrading A general rule for the determination the overhead line ampacity valid for all the HV line of the Italian system implies simplification based on assumptions which must cover all the possible case remaining necessarily on the conservativity side; therefore, the calculated ampacity is in general lower than the real one. These simplifications are: 1. the use of the DERS for the transformation of temperature functions in sag functions and especially the use of its asymptotic value 2. the use of a DERS calculated for the worst span in a series of suspended spans 3. to imagine that all the critical object are in the middle of span When a single line is taken into consideration for a tailor made upgrading a different approach is needed; this approach should eliminate or reduce the three above mentioned effects. This approach requires to verify all the line clearances using a limit state approach; the clearances used in this check shall include only a small margin to face the sag variation and the catenary will be based on an extreme temperature. The verification of all the clearances eliminates the simplifications 3 and strongly reduce the effect of the simplification 2 The limits state approach strongly reduce the effect of the simplification 1 and furtherly reduce the effect of the simplification 2 This verification in many case allows an appreciable upgrading of the line without any line physical modification; but the method allow to find the best compromise between the amount of modifications and the ampacity upgrading. When a list of clearances related to voltage are established it is possible to create, for each climatic zone (Az Bz) and climatic period (Hp Cp) a series of relations between the catenary temperature assumed in the clearances revision and the line ampacity. These relations are determined with the same probabilistic procedures described in paragraph 4; a set of them are shown as an example in figure 14.
1300 1200 1100 Ampacity (A) 1000 900 800 700 600 70 75 80 85

7 - Conclusion 1. Precise and unbiased values for line ampacity are required by the free energy market to regulate the relations between network operator and network users in case of network congestion; The growing difficulties in finding new path for overhead lines induces to push the exploitation of the existing lines much beyond the traditional economics limits; Risk of sag excess, cause of discharge on the object below the line, and conductor ageing are the effect which determine the current limits (ampacity) of a line; the more severe effect in Italy is the former; A probabilistic approach is needed to determine both effect; at the base of the process there is the determination of the probability distribution of the conductor temperature (and of the conductor sag) for a given constant current based on the statistical knowledge of the three meteorological factors an their correlation; Because the current is not constant the temperature probability distribution depend on the probability distribution of the current and on its correlation with meteorology; the problem became more complex but it is possible to define reasonably simplified engineering approaches; The risk of discharge and therefore the ampacity depends on the general design criteria adopted for the line; therefore a rule for ampacities must be related to a given design rule; On this base it is possible to organise a recommendation for ampacity valid for all the line of a given category having characteristics defined by design recommendation as in Italy is; It is also possible to regulate the upgrading of ampacity of existing lines taking advantage from both, design margin adopted by the designer and minor physical modification of the line.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Thanks
Az-Hp Az-Cp Bz-Hp Bz-Cp
90

The authors would like to thank the members of the working group that produced the standard3 and the members of SC 11B that improved and validated it, for their decisive contribution in terms of work and competence. The paper was developed within the activity Ricerca di Sistema DM 17/04/2001.

Catenary Tem perature (C)

Fig. 14 Relationship between design temperature and line ampacity

catenary

L. Paris B.A. Cauzillo G. Floriello M.E. Mandozzi P. Paoli G. Pirovano C. Risso F. Tavano V. Tummolo

Bibliography [1] M.Valeriani et al. - Linterconnessione elettrica con lestero, LEnergia elettrica 11-Ottobre 2000 [2] L. Carissimi, L. D'Ajello, G. Pirovano, F. Tavano "Sistema di Monitoraggio della Temperatura dei Conduttori e di Previsione in Tempo Reale della Sovraccaricabilit di una Linea Elettrica Aerea: Ricerche e Risultati Sperimentali", 94a Riunione Annuale AEI, Ancona 1993. [3] J. R. Harvey - "Effect of elevated temperature operation on the strength of aluminium conductors", IEEE Trans. On Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-91, pp. 1769-1772, September/October 1972. [4] G. Pirovano, F. Tavano, R. Rendina, A. Fracchia, A. Pigini - "Diagnostic of compression joints of conductors for HV overhead lines", Cigre Session 1998, Parigi paper 22-206 . [5] G. Pirovano, F. Tavano, A. Fracchia, A. Pigini "Studio Teorico e Sperimentale dell'Invecchiamento dei Giunti e delle Morse di Amarro a Compressione delle Linee Elettriche Aeree AT", 95a Riunione AEI 1994. [6] Ministero dei lavori pubblici Approvazione delle norme tecniche per la progettazione lesecuzione e lesercizio delle linee elettriche aeree esterne, Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana n. 79 del 5 aprile 1988. [7] L.Paris, F.Reggiani, M.Valtorta Possibility to increase transmission line loading in well developed electrical networks, Rapporto 31-13 GIGRE 1978 Session [8] CIGRE WG22-12 - "The Thermal Behaviour of Overhead Conductors: Mathematical Model for Evaluation of Conductor Temperature in the Steady State and the Application Thereof" - ELECTRA n. 144, pag. 107-125, October 1992. [9] D.O. Koval, R. Billington - "Determination of transmission line ampacities by probability and numerical methods", IEEE Trans. On Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-89, pp. 14851492, September/October 1970. APPENDIX I In case of conductors different from the reference conductor, current ratings are calculated starting from the reference ones as follows: effect of the different diameter: within the frame of the conductors with the same formation and materials it was observed that, under a reasonably wide meteorological conditions situations and temperature rises above ambient of the conductors, the relationship between thermal rating values and diameter can be expressed with the following empirical law: I R = 0,14 2 + 30,8 110 I 0 10 3

where the diameter of the conductor is expressed in mm. effect of the formation and of the material of the conductor; given the same diameter these differences affect the thermal balance in terms of electrical resistance variations; the consequent effect on thermal ratings values is thus inversely proportional to the square root of electrical resistance; ampacity can be obtained by multiplying IR for the factor:

m0 + 1 m m0 m + 1

where: m0 = 8 is the ratio aluminium/steel of the reference conductor m is the ratio aluminium/steel of the conductor under examination. 0 = 0,02826 mm2/m is the aluminium resistivity at 20C is the metal resistivity at 20C of the conductor under examination. effect of the thermal expansion coefficient: this factor influences DERS as reported in 4.2. The relation that correlates DERS with the current is very complex, in the Standard this function was interpolated by the following formula that multiplied by IR gives the allowable ampacity:

where 0 is the thermal expansion coefficient of the reference conductor; is the thermal expansion coefficient of the conductor under examination; is the exponent obtained by interpolation and reported in Tab. III. Table III Rated voltage of the line (kV) 380 220 132-150 Exponent Zone A Period H Period C 0,56 0,43 0,50 0,37 0,47 0,34 Zone B Period H Period C 0,39 0,33 0,28 0,23 0,20 0,16

In case of line parameters different from the reference conductor current ratings are calculated starting from the reference one as follows: effect of the catenary constant: this factor influences DERS as reported in 4.2. The relation that correlates DERS with the current is very complex, in the Standard this function was interpolated by the

following formula that multiplied by IR gives the allowable ampacity:

a0 a

were a0 = 1750 m is the catenary constant used as reference; a is the catenary constant of the line under examination; is the exponent obtained by interpolation and reported in Tab. III. effect of the span unbalance coefficient: in case of span unbalance coefficient different from the one adopted in the standard (s = 2 ) the ampacity can be obtained by multiplying IR for the factor:

effect of clearances higher than the minimum values considered in CEI 11-4: in presence of an extra value with respect to above minimum clearance, the ampacity can be obtained by multiplying IR for the factor 1+Le where e is the extra value with respect to standard; L is the coefficient from table IV. Table IV Coefficient L (m-1) Zone A Zone B 0,17 0,16 0,13 0,14

Period H Period C

2 s
where

is the exponent from table III; s is the span unbalance coefficient.

Some limits to an undefined increase of the ampacity trough the application of the various factors are given in CEI recommendations, in order to avoid to enter in the dominion of ampacity limited by conductor ageing. These limits should not be reached in too many cases; should the number of cases be high, a rule for evaluation of ampacity limits due to aging could be introduced in the future.