Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 126

OVERHEAD LINE DESIGN HANDBOOK

Version 7.0 Date August 2009

Table of Contents

1

INTRODUCTION

7

2

DESIGN PHILOSOPHIES

9

2.1

Basic Methodology

9

3

ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS

11

3.1

Clearance and Spacing for Overhead Lines

11

3.2

Tower top geometry

13

3.3

Transpositions

15

4

SELECTION OF CONDUCTOR

15

Steady state thermal current rating

15

Short-circuit thermal current rating

15

Conductor long term electrical performance

16

Conductor Limit states

16

4.1

Sag-tension calculation

17

5

INSULATOR DESIGN

17

Design for pollution

18

6

BASIS OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN

22

6.1.1 Determination of height

22

6.1.2 Loading on Structures

22

6.1.3 Limit State Design

23

7

ACTION ON LINES

24

8

SUPPORTS

26

9

FOUNDATION DESIGN

27

10

EARTHING

30

Earthing and Insulation of Stay Wires

33

Conductor Failure Protection

33

Broken Stay Wire Protection

33

11

WORKED EXAMPLES

36

11.1

Electrical Clearances between conductors

36

11.2

Determination of conductor rating

37

References

38

11.3 Design for lightning performance

38

11.4 Electrical and Mechanical Design for Insulators

40

 

11.4.1

Design for pollution

40

11.4.2

Design for power frequency voltages (Wet withstand requirement)

41

11.4.3

Design for switching surge voltages

41

11.4.4

Selection of Insulator to meet Electrical Performance

41

11.4.5

Insulator mechanical design

43

References

43

11.5

Limit State Design Worked Examples

44

11.5.1

Pole Tip Load Calculation

45

CALCULATIONS

52

Distibution Worked Example 3

54

SWING ANGLE CALCULATIONS

56

APPENDICES

57

APPENDICES

57

11.6

Conductor Clashing

57

12

ROUTE SELECTION PROCESS

59

12.1

Risk Management Principle

59

12.2

Prudent Avoidance Principle

59

12.3

Aesthetic Considerations

59

12.4

Electric and Magnetic Fields

60

13

LAYOUT DESIGN PROCESS

60

Terrain

61

Terrain Model

61

Alignment

62

13.1

Pole Locations in Traffic Corridors

72

13.2

Railway and Tramway Crossings

73

13.3

Waterway Crossings

73

13.4

Co-ordination with other Services

73

13.5

Aerial Lines in the Vicinity of Aircraft

74

13.6

Rural Activities in Proximity to Line

74

13.7

Ruling Span

75

14

COST OF OVERHEAD LINE (BY COMPONENTS)

75

15

GUIDELINES FOR POLE LOCATION

77

15.1

Acceptable Location of Poles in Road Corridors

77

15.2

Special Considerations for Slip based poles

77

15.3

Aerial Lines in the Vicinity of Aircraft

78

15.4

Country Line Road Crossings

79

15.5

Markers

79

Permanent Markers

 

79

Temporary Markers

80

Over Crossing Markers

80

16 VEGETATION CLEARANCES

80

17 LIST OF AVAILABLE LINE DESIGN PROGRAMS

83

18 COMMENTARY ON APPENDIX B – WIND LOADS

84

Figure B 1

Wind Regions for Australian Design Wind Gust Types

84

B4. Downdraft wind regions (Australia Zone II

and Zone III and New Zealand Zones

Region A 7 )

 

85

B4.1 Downdraft Winds

85

19

COMMENTARY ON APPENDIX D - GUIDELINES ON SERVICE LIFE OF

OVERHEAD LINES

 

88

20

COMMENTARY ON APPENDIX F - TIMBER POLES

89

Clause F1

General

 

90

Clause F1.2

Characteristic strengths and elastic moduli

90

21

COMMENTARY ON APPENDIX I - CONCRETE POLES

97

22

APPENDIX L - STRUCTURE FOOTING DESIGN

100

L1

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

100

L2

GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS OF SOILS AND ROCKS

100

L3

FOOTING DESIGN OF DIRECTLY EMBEDDED OVERHEAD LINE POLES FOR

LATERAL LOADS AND MOMENTS

101

 

3.1.1

Bearing strength

104

3.2

Shear strength

105

3.3

FOOTINGS AND EMBEDMENT DEPTH IN SOILS

105

23

LOW VOLTAGE AERIAL BUNDLED CABLE

82

1.2

general

82

1.3

Aerial cable

82

1.3.1 Supports

82

1.3.2 Cable tension

82

1.3.3 Clearances

82

1.4

Facade cable

82

1.4.1 Mechanical design

83

1.4.2 Clearances

83

1.5

References

84

24

HIGH VOLTAGE AERIAL BUNDLED CABLE

85

1.6

General

85

1.7

Mechanical

85

1.8

Electrical

85

1.9

Clearances

86

1.10

references

86

25

COVERED CONDUCTOR SYSTEMS

86

1.11

general

86

1.12

CC

86

1.13

CCt

86

1.14

Clearances

87

1.15

references

87

26

SELECTION OF CONDUCTORS

88

SELECTION OF CONDUCTORS FOR HOSTILE ENVIRONMENTS

88

THERMAL LIMITS

88

General

88

Maximum design operating temperatures

89

Conductor permanent elongation

91

Fault ratings

92

Handbook for the Overhead Line Design Standard

1

INTRODUCTION

Scope

This Handbook is the second in the Overhead Line Design Standard suite of documents and is a companion to the Standard. The Handbook steps the Designer through the design process with application guidelines, relevant information and worked examples which comply with the Overhead Line Design Standard.

The application guidelines will apply to both transmission and distribution lines used in Australia. Typical distribution voltages in Australia and New Zealand are at 33 kV, 11 kV and 415/240 volts, commonly referred to as low voltage. Typical sub-transmission voltages in Australia and New Zealand are; 66 kV and 110/132 kV and transmission voltages are; 220 kV, 275 kV, 330 kV and 500 kV.

In particular, the Handbook has an emphasis on pole type sub-transmission and distribution lines.

An overview of the steps in the Overhead Line Design process is given in the flowchart below.

Determine Design Inputs / Parameters

Select Route

Select Conductor Type

Select Structure Suite

Conduct Route Survey and Draw Ground Line Profile

Nominate Structure Type/Strength, Height and Position

Produce Layout Design

Establish Final Electrical Parameters

Obtain Relevant Approvals

Produce Detailed Drawings and Specification

Conduct Design Review and Verification

Provide Design Support for Construction

Conduct Audit and Relevant Tests

Document As-Constructed Records

for Construction Conduct Audit and Relevant Tests Document As-Constructed Records Monitor Performance of Overhead Line

Monitor Performance of Overhead Line

2

DESIGN PHILOSOPHIES

2.1 Basic Methodology

The design methodology involves the development of a suite of appropriate structures, insulation and constructions for use at the various voltage levels to comply with the Overhead Line Design Standard. The overhead line has to perform with suitable levels of reliability and security for the weather loads expected in the region for it’s intended life.

Reliability levels

All overhead lines should be designed for a selected reliability level relevant to the lines importance to the system (including consideration of system redundancy), its location and exposure to climatic conditions, and with due consideration for public safety.

Design Working and Service Life

The design life, or target nominal service life expectancy, of the line is dependent on its exposure to a number of variable factors such as solar radiation, temperature, precipitation, wind, ice, and seismic effects.

The service life of an overhead line is the period over which it will continue to serve its intended purpose safely, without undue maintenance or repair disproportionate to its cost of replacement and without exceeding any specified serviceability criteria.

Structural components of the support must be able to withstand the ultimate design loadings without failure within this period. This may include providing allowance for a reducing load factor over time due to progressive degradation such as soft rot in timber pole elements and corrosion of steel elements.

Security levels

Clause 6.2.1 of the Standard provides a framework for the designer to evaluate and select a standard of design to suit a relevant security level appropriate to a particular line or a line construction class or type.

In this evaluation consideration must be given to the lines importance to the system (including any system redundancy), its location, exposure to extreme climatic conditions, public safety and design working life.

Initially a generic Security Level is selected (as set out in Clause 6.2.2 of the Standard) to reflect the importance of the line within the network.

Level I

Applicable to overhead lines where collapse of the line may be tolerable with respect to social and economic consequences. (Normal distribution lines)

Level II Applicable to overhead lines where collapse of the line would cause negligible danger to life and property and alternative arrangements can be provided if loss of support services occurs. (Higher security distribution lines and normal transmission lines)

Applicable to overhead lines where collapse of the line would cause unacceptable danger to life or significant economic loss to the community and sever vital post disaster services. (Higher security transmission lines)

Level III

Table 6.1 of the Standard provides Reliability load multipliers for each Security Level relative to a range of design working life options.

The design wind loads for an overhead line are be based on 50-year return period wind speeds as defined in AS/NZ 1170.2. The calculated wind loads shall be then multiplied by an appropriate reliability load multiplier based on the required security level and design life as selected from Table 6.1. As the design working life or security level increase so to do the wind and other applied loads proportionally increase as the load multiplier increases.

TABLE

6.1

RELIABILITY MULTIPLIER FOR DESIGN WORKING LIFE AND LINE SECURITY LEVELS

Minimum reliability load multiplier M rel

   

Line security level

Design working life

Level I

Level II

Level III

Temporary construction and construction equipment, e.g. hurdles, scaffolding and temporary line diversions with design life of less than 6 months

0.67

0.67

0.77

< 5 years

0.77

0.9

1.0

25

years

0.9

1.0

1.2

50

years

1.0

1.2

1.4

100 years

1.2

1.4

1.4

These Multipliers are applied to loads derived from 50-year return period wind speeds as defined in AS/NZ 1170.2.

AS/NZS1170.2 provides regional design wind velocities V R for a number of wind regions and design return periods. The load multipliers tabulated in Table 6.1 above have been derived from an analysis of all regional values of V R and expressed as a factor (V R /V 50 ) 2 against each design life.

When these load factors are applied, a probability of exceedance equivalent to that provided in AS/NZS 1170.2 for each of these return periods / design life values will be provided.

The standard also refers in Notes to Table 6.1 to giving consideration to the line length, number of circuits and proximity to other lines or infrastructure, special exposed locations such as long span water or valley crossings, or line locations where access is difficult (where time and cost to restore the construction can be high). In these cases a higher security level could be adopted for a particular structure or short sections of the line, or the whole line.

Design wind velocities greater than the regional value of V 50 values in AS/NZS 1170.2 could be used if considered more appropriate however the simplest approach is to increase the design working life.

.

Clause 6.2.4 of the standard sets out additional security requirements.

It requires that security requirements shall be provided in all designs to prevent or limit progressive or cascading structure failures in the event of collapse or failure of a support structure resulting from any external cause.

In general, on major transmission lines longitudinal design loads relevant to residual loads for broken or terminated and aerial phase conductor are provided to meet this requirement. This is an important consideration as restoration costs and disruption to supply in the event of structure failure can be considerable.

On distribution overhead pole lines, pole deflection (usually rotational and lateral or longitudinal ) combined with partial foundation deformation, will occur when abnormal longitudinal loads are applied.

When a single pole structure fails and conductors are broken (due to say vehicle impact or storm debris overload) the adjacent pole structures deflect such that they may provide sufficient release of load in the conductors to limit the extent of damage, particularly when there is localized failure of the overhead line. It is most probable when a single pole fails due to ground line failure the conductor system will most probably restrain the pole from falling to the ground. However the conductor tensions in the adjacent spans will increase dramatically and pose a maintenance work safety issue. Where more extensive overload occurs due to major wind storm with extensive wind blown debris, or major flooding occurs the containment potential provides some benefit in conserving major structure elements, whereas the aerial conductors most probably will be brought down.

3 ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Clearance and Spacing for Overhead Lines

From safety considerations, overhead conductors should maintain requisite clearances to ground, over roads, rivers, railways, tracks, telecommunication lines, other existing power lines.

The ground clearance for different voltages at maximum design temperature are given in Table 3 [ Table 3.7 of Overhead Line Design Standard].

TABLE

3

CLEARANCE FROM GROUND, LINES OTHER THAN INSULATED SERVICE LINES

Distance to ground in any direction

m

Over the

carriageway of

roads

Over land other than the carriageway of roads

Over land which due to its steepness or swampiness is not traversable by vehicles more than 3 m in height

Nominal system voltage

U

Bare or insulated conductor or any other cable U 1000 V

OR

5.5

Insulated conductor with earthed screen U > 1000 V

5.5

4.5

Insulated conductor without earthed screen U > 1000 V

6.0

5.5

4.5

Bare or covered conductor

1000 V <U 33 kV

6.7

5.5

4.5

33 V <U 132 kV

6.7

6.7

5.5

132 kV <U 275 kV

7.5

7.5

6.0

Other clearances given in the Overhead Line Design Standard are:

Clearances to Earthed Structures – Table 3.5

HV AC Live Line Approach Distances – Table 3.6

Clearances from Structures – Table 3.8

A coverage of vegetation clearances are given in Appendix ….

The spacing of conductors is determined by considerations, which are partly electrical and partly mechanical. Usually conductors will swing synchronously (in phase) with the wind, but with long spans and small size of conductors, there is always possibility of the conductors swinging non- synchronously, and the size of the conductor and the maximum sag at the centre of the span are factors, which should be taken into account in determining the phase distance apart at which they should strung. As a rule of thumb, minimum horizontal spacing between conductors should not be less than 1% of the span length in order to minimize the risk of phases coming into contact with each other during swing.

The conductor separation in the Overhead Line Design Standard is as follows.

U 2 2 X + (1.2 Y ) ≥ + k D + l i
U
2
2
X +
(1.2
Y
)
+
k
D
+
l
i
150

where

X is the projected horizontal distance in metres between the conductors at mid span;

Y

is the projected vertical distance in metres between the conductors at mid span;

U

is the r.m.s. vector difference in potential (kV) between the two conductors when each is operating at its nominal voltage.

k

is a constant, normally equal to 0.4. Where experience has shown that other values are appropriate, these may be applied.

D

is the greater of the two conductor sags in metres at the centre of an equivalent level span and at a conductor operating temperature of 50°C in still air

I i

is the length in metres of any free swing suspension insulator associated with either conductor.

3.2 Tower top geometry

There are a number of electrical clearance which determine the tower top geometry. clearances are:

These

(A)

Maintenance approach and live line working under 100 Pa wind

(B)

Switching and lightning impulse flashover under 300 Pa wind

(C)

Power frequency flashover under 500 Pa wind

(D)

Hand reach under 100 Pa wind

These clearances are shown in Figure 2.

Appendix R of the Detailed Procedure can be used with the following guidelines:

To determine the swing angle from the wind pressure

(1)

The transverse force is derived from the conductor diameter and wind span

(2)

The vertical force is derived from the conductor weight (N/metre) times the weight span

(3)

The minimum recommended weight to wind span ratio is 0.7

(4)

In general the weight and wind area of the insulator can be ignored

The vertical clearance between earthwire and top conductor, is governed by the desired lightning performance and angle of shielding. The shield angle generally varies from about 25 0 to 40 0 ,depending on the configuration of conductors.

FIGURE 2 STRUCTURE GEOMETRY FOR 132 KV LINE SHOWING ELECTRICAL CLEARANCES • Insulator Swing Angles

FIGURE 2

STRUCTURE GEOMETRY FOR 132 KV LINE SHOWING ELECTRICAL CLEARANCES

Insulator Swing Angles – T Gillespie

Produce worked example for insulator swing angle and blowout

Provide another drawing showing a line post insulator

Blowout clearance calculations are useful to determine clearances along the span to structures along the route.

The recommended conditions for calculating blowout are:

(1)

500 Pa wind on conductor

(2)

15 deg C or ambient temperature applicable to the location of line

(3)

3.3

Include the horizontal displacement of a swinging insulator

Transpositions

Transpositions may be required on long transmission lines or heavily loaded lines to reduce the level of negative sequence voltage unbalance and reduce the interference in adjacent telecommunication circuits.

4 SELECTION OF CONDUCTOR

The selection of conductor size is primarily governed by two factors:

1. Electrical requirement

2. Mechanical strength

Electrical requirements

Steady state thermal current rating

The steady state thermal current rating of a conductor is the maximum current inducing the maximum steady state temperature for a given ambient condition and is based on conductor heat gain equals conductor heat loss that is—

P j + P s = P r + P c

where the heat gain terms are P j which is the joule heating due to the resistance of the conductor and P s is the solar heat gain The heat loss terms are P c which is natural and forced convection cooling and P r is the radiation cooling. The terms for heat gain for cyclic

Short-circuit thermal current rating

The short-circuit thermal current rating shall be based on adiabatic heating, that is due to the transient nature of the current flow the conductor heat gain and loss at the surface of the conductor shall be ignored. The rating is a function of the conductor cross sectional area, the thermal conductivity of the conductor, the specific heat capacity of the conductor, the conductor resistivity, the conductor temperature coefficient of resistance, the duration of the transient current, the conductor initial temperature, the magnitude of the current and maximum permissible temperature.

Corona Effect

For high voltage lines generally above 100 kV, the conductor size may be determined on the corona performance which can cause adverse impacts such as Radio Interference Voltage (RIV), and Audible Noise. The surface voltage gradient on the conductor should be around 16 kV/cm or less to limit the generation of corona discharges.

Conductor long term electrical performance

The long term performance of a conductor is dependent on the degree of electrical and mechanical overload and the weathering effects. Conductors will suffer some degree of annealing (loss of mechanical strength) and this is dependent on the operating and overload temperature on the conductor.

Mechanical strength

The mechanical strength of the conductor is one of the major parameter during the selection of the conductor of the line.

Conductor Limit states

The overhead line is considered intact when its conductors and or tension fittings are used at stresses below their damage limit.

When subjected to increasing loads, conductors and or tension fittings may exhibit at some level, permanent deformation particularly if the failure mode is ductile; or for wind induced aeolian vibration, conductors may exhibit wire and or whole conductor fracture. This level is called the damage limit and conductors and or tension fittings will be in damaged state if the conductors and or tension fittings have exceeded the damage limit.

If the load is further increased, failure of the conductor and or tension fittings occurs at a level called the failure limit. The conductors and or tension fittings will be in a failed state if the conductors and or tension fittings have exceeded the failure limit.

The state of system and the damage and failure limits are illustrated in Figure 1 [ Section 2.2.1.2 of Overhead Line Design Standard]

Figure 1 [ Section 2.2.1.2 of Overhead Line Design Standard] FIGURE 1 LIMIT STATES OF CONDUCTOR

FIGURE 1

LIMIT STATES OF CONDUCTOR DESIGN

Table 2 gives the damage and failure limit for a bare conductor.

TABLE

2

DAMAGE AND FAILURE LIMITS OF CONDUCTORS

Conductors and tension fittings

Damage limit

Failure limit

 

Lowest of—

 

Bare

– vibration limit (see Note 1); or

0.7 conductor CBL (see Note 3)

– 0.5 conductor CBL (see Note 2)

Selection of Conductors – G Brennan and G Bruce

Selection of Conductor Tensions

Topics to cover:

Fatigue endurance limit

Lower tensions based on service experience

Lower tensions for short spans

Adjacent span effects

4.1

Sag-tension calculation

The sag and tension of the conductor are subject to variations due to the changes in temperatures

and loading. For spans of the order of 300 meters and less, the sag and tension calculation can be

carried out by parabolic formula with sufficient degree of accuracy. For the case of very long

spans, catenary formula gives more accurate results than parabolic.

Parabolic formula:

SAG =

2

wL

8 T

Catenary formula:

SAG

=

c

cosh

L

2

c

1

C = Horizontal Tension / Weight

Where:

L

= horizontal length (m)

c

= catenary constant (m)

T

= horizontal tension (N)

w

= weight of conductor (N/m)

5

INSULATOR DESIGN

Insulation is required to withstand the electrical and mechanical stresses applied to it during its lifetime. The electrical stresses include power frequency, switching and lightning overvoltages and the mechanical stresses include the tensile, compressive or cantilever loadings from conductor tension and weight.

Air gap clearance refers to the minimum distance which must be maintained between the live conductor and earthed metal parts of the support to avoid flashover. The minimum air clearance has to be maintained even under the conditions of system over-voltages with the insulator strings in the deflected position due to the action of wind pressure. The three types of over voltages which can occur on overhead lines are:

1.

Lightning induced

2. Switching surges

3. Power frequency over voltages

Design for pollution

For medium to high voltage lines, the pollution performance of the insulator usually dictates the amount of insulation is required for the particular voltage. When determining the insulation requirements in a contaminated environment, the following criteria need to be considered:

(a)

Creepage (or leakage) distance.

(b)

The ability of the material to endure the electrical activity without being degraded.

(c)

The shape of the insulator to assist in reducing the likelihood of contamination collection and facilitate washing.

AS 4436 provides guidance on the selection of insulators for polluted conditions. The basic concept is to increase the surface creepage distance so that it is long enough to prevent a pollution flashover across the surface.

Mechanical Design of Insulators

Explanation of limit states – T Gillespie

There are three states for the mechanical design of insulators identified in the Detailed Procedure, these being the—

(a)

everyday load;

(b)

serviceable wind load; and

(c)

failure containment load.

WORKED EXAMPLES:

Transmission Line Insulator Examples

Calculate the strength of a tension ceramic disc insulator used for oxygen conductor strung to everyday tension of 20% CBL.

Based on Appendix DD, the state to determine the mechanical design is the ultimate strength state.

(a) failure containment load at 1300 Pa

Conductor tension at 1300 Pa = 39162 N Component strength factor for ceramic insulator = 0.8 (Table 6.5) Minimum insulator ultimate strength = 39162 / 0.8 = 48952 N

Calculate the strength of a composite line post insulator used to support oxygen conductor in a clamp top with a weight of 0.925 kg/metre, weight span of 200 metres, and strung to everyday tension of 20% CBL.

(b) everyday load

Conductor weight = 0.925 * 9.806* 200 N = 1814 N Longitudinal load for 3:1 adjacent span ratio, and max operating temperature of 75 deg C = 5000 N

Resultant bending moment load = SQRT (1814^2 * 5000^2) = 5318 N Component strength factor for composite post insulator = 0.9 (Table 6.5) Insulator maximum design cantilever load = 5318 / 0.9 = 5909 N

Note:

strength.

The maximum design cantilever load of a post insulator is typically 40 to 50% of the ultimate

(c) serviceable wind load at 500 Pa

Conductor weight = 0.925 * 9.806* 200 N = 1814 N Longitudinal load for 3:1 adjacent span ratio, and max operating temperature of 75 deg C = 5000 N Resultant bending moment load = SQRT (1814^2 + 5000^2) = 5318 N Insulator ultimate cantilever strength without transverse load = 5318 / 0.9 = 5909 N Transverse compressive load = 0.0238*500*200 = 2380 N

Simplified method:

Compressive strength of 2.5 inch line post = 50 kN Derating factor = 1-2380 / 50000 = 0.94 Insulator maximum design cantilever load with transverse load = 5909 / 0.94 = 6200 N

(d) failure containment load at 1300 Pa

Conductor weight = 0.925 * 9.806* 200 N = 1814 N Longitudinal load for 3:1 adjacent span ratio, and max operating temperature of 75 deg C = 5000 N Resultant bending moment load = SQRT (1814^2 * 5000^2) = 5318 N Insulator ultimate cantilever strength without transverse load = 5318 / 0.9 = 5909 N Transverse compressive load = 0.0238*1300*200 = 6188 N

Simplified method:

Compressive strength of 2.5 inch line post = 50 kN Derating factor = 1- 6188 / 50000 = 0.87 Insulator maximum design cantilever strength with transverse load = 5909 / 0.87 = 6800 N

Comments:

(1)

The determining state is the failure containment load where the maximum design cantilever strength is 6800 N.

(2)

A 2.5 inch post insulator is typically rated at 6 kN MDCL and is not appropriate for this load

(3)

The design options to support the failure containment load are:

Brace 2.5 inch post with a long rod insulator

Limit the line layout to an adjacent span ratio of 2 or less

Use a 3 inch post which has a MDCL of around 9 kN

Calculate the strength of a suspension composite long rod used to support oxygen conductor with a weight of 0.925 kg/metre, weight and wind span of 400 metres, and strung to everyday tension of 20% CBL. For broken conductor condition assume a serviceable wind of 500 Pa.

(a) everyday load

Conductor weight = 0.925 * 9.806* 400 N = 3628 N Assume no longitudinal load due to free swinging insulator Component strength factor for long rod insulator = 0.5 (Table 6.5) Insulator specified mechanical load = 3628 / 0.5 = 7256 N

(b) ultimate strength state under 1300 Pa wind

Conductor weight = 0.925 * 9.806* 400 N = 3628 N Assume no longitudinal load due to free swinging insulator Transverse load = 0.0238 * 1300 * 400 N = 12376 Resultant load = SQRT (3628^2 + 12376^2) = 12896 N Component strength factor for long rod insulator = 0.5 (Table 6.5) Insulator specified mechanical load = 12896 / 0.5 = 25793 N

(c) failing containment load under broken conductor

Longitudinal load = 22700 N * 0.7 factor (load relief due to insulator swing) = 15890 N

Component strength factor for long rod insulator = 0.5 (Table 6.5) Insulator specified mechanical load = 15890 / 0.5 = 31780 N

Comments:

(4)

The

determining

state

is

the

failure

containment

load

under

broken

conductor

conditions

 

(5)

The minimum recommended size for the suspension insulator is 111 kN (specified mechanical load). The SML is a one minute withstand load.

(6)

If a ceramic disc insulator would be used, then the recommended minimum size is 70 kN (minimum breaking load).

(7)

The minimum recommended strengths are based on the requirement to achieve a design life comparable to other line components

Distribution Line Insulator Examples

Calculate the strength of a tension ceramic disc insulator used for moon conductor strung to everyday tension of 20% CBL.

(e) failure containment load at 900 Pa

Conductor tension at 900 Pa = 8617 N Component strength factor for ceramic insulator = 0.8 (Table 6.5) Minimum insulator ultimate strength = 8617 / 0.8 = 10771 N

Refer to Note 1 in Appendix CC which states insulator strength to be greater than conductor CBL or coordination of strength between conductor, insulator, fittings, crossarm and structure.

To achieve a long life for the ceramic disc insulator, the minimum standard of 70 kN is recommended.

Calculate the strength of a ceramic line post insulator used to support moon conductor in a clamp top with a weight of 0.34 kg/metre, weight span of 100 metres, and strung to everyday tension of 20% CBL.

(f) everyday load

Conductor weight = 0.34 * 9.806* 100 N = 333 N Longitudinal load for 2:1 adjacent span ratio (75 and 150 m spans), and max operating temperature of 75 deg C = 3300 N Resultant bending moment load = SQRT (333^2 * 3300^2) = 3316 N Component strength factor for ceramic post insulator = 0.8 (Table 6.5) Insulator minimum failing load = 3316 / 0.8 = 4145 N

(g) serviceable wind load at 500 Pa

Conductor weight = 0.34 * 9.806* 100 N = 333 N Longitudinal load for 2:1 adjacent span ratio, and max operating temperature of 75 deg C = 3300 N Resultant bending moment load = SQRT (333^2 * 3300^2) = 3316 N Insulator minimum failing load without transverse load = 3316 / 0.8 = 4145 N Transverse compressive load = 0.0143*500*100 = 715 N

Simplified method:

Compressive strength of ceramic post = 100 kN

Since the transverse compressive load is insignificant compared to the compressive strength of the ceramic post, this can be ignored.

(h) failure containment load at 900 Pa

Conductor weight = 0.34 * 9.806* 100 N = 333 N Longitudinal load for 2:1 adjacent span ratio, and max operating temperature of 75 deg C = 3300 N Resultant bending moment load = SQRT (333^2 * 3300^2) = 3316 N Insulator minimum failing load without transverse load = 3316 / 0.8 = 4145 N Transverse compressive load = 0.0143*900*100 = 1287 N

Simplified method:

Compressive strength of ceramic post = 100 kN

Since the transverse compressive load is insignificant compared to the compressive strength of the ceramic post, this can be ignored.

Produce worked examples for the following insulators: - T Gillespie

Tension string

Suspension or I string

Line post

Pin (G Bailey to provide)

6

BASIS OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN

6.1.1 Determination of height

The factors governing the height of structure are:

Minimum permissible ground clearance, h 1

Maximum sag, h 2

Vertical spacing between conductors, h 3

Vertical clearance between earthwire and top conductor, h 4

The total height of structure will be determined by:

H

T =

h

1

+

h

2

+

h

3

+

h

4

6.1.2 Loading on Structures

The loads on a structure consist of three mutually perpendicular systems of load acting vertical, normal to the direction of line, and parallel to the direction of the line. These loads can be described as:

Vertical load

Transverse load

Longitudinal load

Vertical loads

Vertical loads include the weight of conductors, earthwire, crossarms and pole mounted plant.

Transverse loads

Transverse loads are caused by wind on conductor and structure and horizontal tension from deviation angle in the line.

Longitudinal loads

Longitudinal loads are caused by difference in conductor tension on either side of termination structures, adjacent spans being of different lengths and an abnormal (broken wire) load on the structure.

Wind load

A complete coverage of wind loading is given in Appendix B of the Overhead Line Design Standards.

The design site wind speed is taken as— =

V

z

V 50 M d M z,cat M s M t

where

M z,cat

M

M

M t

V 50

d

s

=

=

=

=

=

gust winds speed multiplier for terrain category at height z. Refer AS/NZS 1170.2 for all regions use Table 4.1(A).

wind direction multiplier.

shielding multiplier.

topographic multiplier for gust wind speed.

basic regional wind velocity for the region corresponding to the 50 year return period.

The design pressure q z shall be calculated as follows:

q z

=

M rel x

2

0.6V

z

×

10

3

kPa

6.1.3 Limit State Design

Current practice in Australia for the design of Overhead Line Structural Components is to use a Limit State design approach as set out in ENA C(b)1 Guidelines for Design and Maintenance of Overhead Distribution and Transmission Lines.

The Limit State design approach uses a reliability based (risk of failure) approach to match component strengths (modified by a factor to reflect strength variability) to the effect of loads calculated on the basis of an acceptably low probability of occurrence.

where

φR n > effect of loads ( M Rel W n + Σγ x X)

X =

M Rel

γ x

W n

φ

R n

=

=

=

=

=

the applied loads pertinent to each loading condition

Reliability multiplier – given in Table 3

are load factors which take into account variability of loads, importance of structure, stringing, maintenance and safety considerations etc.

wind load based on a 50 year return period scaled by the appropriate reliability load factor or specified design wind pressure

the strength factor which takes into account variability of material, workmanship etc.

the nominal strength of the component

Some of the Limit State load cases given in the Overhead Line Design Standard are as follows:

The Ultimate Strength Limit State Condition

φ Rn > Wn+1.25Gc +1.1Gs + 1.25 Ft

Where:

Wn = Effect of transverse wind loads Gc = Vertical dead loads resulting from conductors under limit state wind conditions

Gs = Vertical dead loads resulting from non conductor loads

Ft = Intact conductor tension loads under limit state wind conditions

φ R = Component design stress for limit state condition

The Maintenance Load Condition

φ R > 1.1Gs +1.5 Gc +2.0Q + 1.25 Ft

Where:

Gc = Vertical dead loads resulting from conductors under everyday condition Gs = Vertical dead loads resulting from non conductor loads

Q

= Maintenance loads

Ft

= Intact conductor tension loads under maintenance wind

Component Strength Factors

Wood Poles – Preserved

The relevant component strength factor for a preserved wood poles is dependent on the following characteristics and usage of the pole

Durability class

Strength class

Security class

Design life

7 ACTION ON LINES

Conductor Everyday Load Horizontal Tension

The recommended weather cases used in design of overhead line conductor tensions are given in Table …

Condition

Temp

Wind

Maximum

Initial / Final

Tension

Fatigue

Avg temp for coldest month

Design at 0.5 to

Refer Table Z1

Final

Endurance

7

m/sec

Conditions

   

Design

Avg ambient temp for year

0

Pa

Refer Table Z1

 

Everyday

 

Condition

 

Ultimate wind

Avg ambient temp for year

Regional design

.5 CBL for linear .7 CBL for non- linear

 

value

Servicability wind – electrical Avg ambient temp for year 500 Pa Cold Condition Coldest day
Servicability
wind – electrical
Avg ambient temp for
year
500
Pa
Cold Condition
Coldest day of year
based on design life
0 Pa
.5 x CBL for
linear
.7 x CBL for
non-linear
Final
Ice Loading – 10
mm thickness
Coldest day of year
based on design life
1 to 5 year
return period
(300 Pa
nominal)
Snow loading –
up to 100 mm
thickness
0 deg C
30 Pa
Conductor run-
Temp at time of run
0
Pa
0.3
x CBL
Initial
out
out
Conductor pre-
Temp at time of pre-
0
Pa
0.3
x CBL
Initial
tension
tension
Sagging
Temp at time of
sagging minus creep
correction factor
0
Pa
Everyday
tension plus
creep factor
Maintenance
100
Pa
Failure
Avg ambient temp for
year
.25 x Ult wind
Containment

Note: The relevant temperatures for a selection location is available from the Australia Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) website or NIWA for New Zealand

Establishment of loads cases - J McCormack, B Clulow and J Giles

Include basic limit state wind pressure for distribution designs; - B Clulow, R McLennan

900 Pa for conductors

1300 Pa for round surfaces such as poles

Modify wind pressures for various drag coefficients for poles and Regions/ Topography – R Fairweather and L Elder

Application Table

Overhead Line

 

Applicable Wind Loads

System

Line Component

Ultimate

Servicability

Everyday

or Parameter

Support System

       

(structures and

foundations)

 

Structures –

Ultimate wind

   

detailed

procedure Pole – detailed procedure Ultimate wind Deflection Limit at serviceable wind Pole – simplified
procedure
Pole – detailed
procedure
Ultimate wind
Deflection Limit
at serviceable
wind
Pole – simplified
method
900 Pa in
Region A & B
Deflection Limit
at 300 Pa
0
Pa
Electrical
System
Clearances –
60
to 100 Pa
low wind
Clearances –
100 to 300 Pa
moderate wind
Clearances –
500
Pa
high wind
Clearances –
60
to 100 Pa
Maintenance
Conductors
Insulators –
Ultimate or 900
Pa
500
Pa
0
Pa
tension
Insulators – vee
string
Ultimate
conductor
transverse or
Failure
containment
Insulators – post
or pin
Ultimate
conductor
transverse or
Failure
containment
Fittings
8
SUPPORTS

Pole Strength and Deflection Design

The recommended limit state wind pressures for distribution designs for a typical life of 50 years in Regions A and B are:

Ultimate Loads (W N )

900 Pa to conductor

1300 Pa to round pole (this allows for crossarms, pole steps, insulators but not metal clad plant)

These wind pressures allow for span reduction factors, drag factors and terrain categories 2 to 4.

For stayed poles, the vertical loads due to the stay reaction forces needs to be taken into account. The relevant multiplier for the vertical loads produced by the stay is 1.25 ??.

φ Rn > Wn+1.25Gc +1.1Gs + 1.25 Ft

For stayed poles with long length and small diameter, the buckling failure mode of the pole should be considered. Consideration should also be given to the P delta effects should they occur. The Euler buckling failure equations can be found in the relevant codes (eg AS1720).

Servicability Limits

Sustained Everyday tension loads on angle and termination poles

0 Pa for conductors

0 Pa for round surfaces such as poles

Deflection limits for maintenance and clearances

100 Pa for conductors

300 Pa for round surfaces such as poles

A deflection serviceability limit will apply to concrete poles which may crack under load. The maximum crack width is typically in the range 0.1 to 0.3 mm (refer Appendix D3.7) with a maximum deflection limit at 5% of the pole length.

9 FOUNDATION DESIGN

The foundation is called upon to resist the following types of forces:

Uplift

Downthrust

Lateral load

Overturning moment

Foundations for supports may take the form of single foundations in the case of pole type structures and guy anchors or separate footings for each leg of towers.

The loading on single footings is predominantly in the form of overturning moment, which is usually resisted by lateral soil pressure, together with additional shear and vertical forces resisted by upwards soil pressure.

Common types of single foundations are direct buried poles, bored caissons, mono-bloc footings, pad or raft footings, bored pier foundations, and single pile or pile group foundations.

When separate footings are provided for each leg the predominant loadings are compression and uplift forces, however, shear forces should be considered.

Uplift and compression forces are usually resisted by combinations of dead weight of the foundation bulk, earth surcharges, shear forces and bearing in the soil. This also applies to guy foundations.

Common types of separate footing foundations are (stepped) block footings with or without undercut (pad and chimney, spread footings); auger bored footings with or without expanded base; pier or caisson foundations; grillage foundations; and vertical or raked pile foundations.

Foundation for poles (distribution lines) – L Elder

Use simple formula

Distribution pole foundation design

There are various methods used for pole foundation design and these are covered in Table … The Brinch Hanson method is regarded as the superior method for pole structures, however more simple techniques, such as that outlines in AS4676 have been found to be suitable for intermediate poles in firm soil and with small conductors.

Table …

 

Foundation

 

Formula

Advantage

/

Comment

Design

Disadvantage

Brinch Hanson

Precise calculation,

Complex,

 

requires

soil

modelling

AS4676

 

Formula

   

C(b)

1

pre

10% pole length + 0.6

Simple

Applies to firm soil and small conductors assoc with intermediate poles

1992

to 0.8

New Zealand

 

Pole length / 6

Simple

Applies to firm soil and small conductors assoc with intermediate poles

The simplified embedment depth formula is given in Equation 13.2 (from AS4676).

Example: Servicable wind at 500 Pa on conductors and 750 Pa on pole Pole Tip

Example:

Servicable wind at 500 Pa on conductors and 750 Pa on pole

Pole Tip Load, Hg = 8 kN Height = 14 m Normal soil cohesive strength, Fb = 300 kPa Pole dia, b = 0.35

Embedment Depth = 2.22

This depth correlates with a traditional rule of thumb of 10% of the pole length + 0.8 m

Ultimate wind at 900 Pa on conductors and 1300 Pa on pole

Pole Tip Load, Hg = 14 kN Height = 14 m Normal soil cohesive strength, Fb = 300 kPa Pole dia, b = 0.35

Embedment Depth = 2.41

Variation of soil cohesive strengths

For low cohesive strength soils, the options are:

(1)

Increase the embedment depth – for the above case, with 150 kPa soil, the embedment

(2)

depth is 3.23 m under serviceable wind and 3.5 m under ultimate wind Increase the effective width of pole by installing a sand/cement backfill in the hole – for the above case with 150 kPa soil to achieve the same foundation strength, a hole of diameter 700 mm will be required for both serviceable and ultimate wind loads

To achieve a consistent above ground height (for clearances), option 2 is generally preferred.

10 EARTHING

An earthing system of overhead earthwires, earth down leads, grading rings and counterpoise earthing addresses the following objectives:

(d)

Ensure protective equipment will operate in faulted situations.

(e)

Provide acceptable reliability (lightning performance) on the line.

(f)

Control touch and step potentials around the base of the structure.

(g)

Provide a conductive path for fault current.

(h)

Avoid damage to properties and equipment.

The dimensioning of earthing systems considers the following requirements:

(i)

To ensure mechanical strength and corrosion resistance.

(ii)

To withstand, from a thermal point of view, the highest fault current as determined by calculation

(iii)

Limit lightning induced voltages on earth down leads

The transfer of potential by nearby metallic objects may occur due to fault currents flowing in the earth system.

It is a desirable goal to achieve an average structure footing resistance for the line of less than 10 ohms. This can ensure the lightning performance of a line is acceptable and ensure touch and step potentials are at an acceptable level. The structure footing resistance can be controlled

during the construction phase of the line by installing additional earth rods or counterpoise wires in the soil away from the structure.

Practical Earthing Schemes – T Gillespie

Design for Touch and Step Potential for conductive structures

The range of mitigation measures to address touch and step potentials are:

1. Installation of overhead and underslung earthwire

2. Installation of grading ring

3. Reduction of footing resistance

4. Installing high conductivity earthwires

5. Installation of high resistivity surface layer (eg ashphalt)

6. Installation of NER or NEX on zone transformer to limit earth fault current

7. Connection to CMEN earthing system

8. Insulating base of pole

9. Installing a fence around conductive structure

10. Appropriate insulation of low voltage circuits

Replacing a non-conductive pole with a conductive pole

When replacing a non-conductive pole with a conductive pole, due consideration needs to be taken to address step and touch potentials.

SWER Earthing

For public safety, a SWER high voltage earth needs to be restricted to around 20 volts or less (Queensland Code of Practice for Works – Earthing)

Risk Based Approach to Earthing

The risk based approach is covered in the ENA EG-0 Power System Earthing Guide Part 1:

Management Principles

Risk Based Earthing Examples:

1 HV Distribution Earth (eg Pole mounted transformer, recloser, air break switch) in a CMEN urban area

Voltage = 11 kV Fault Current = 5,000 A Fault Clearing Time = 1 sec Fault Rate = 2 x 100 m span without earthwire at 40 faults per 100 km per year Contacts per year = 40 for 4 seconds Footwear = standard distribution Earthing resistance = 1 ohm Soil resistivity = 100 ohm-m

Prospective Touch Voltage = 1,000 Volt (derived by impedance model of footwear and soil resistivity)

Prospective Touch Voltage Curve DU for 1 sec clearing = 800 Volts

Mitigation Options:

(1)

Insulate earth (this is standard practice for HV earth downleads but may not be practical for air break switches with exposed metal operating rod and handle)

(2)

Installation of NER or NEX to limit fault current to typically 1000 A

(3)

Installation of grading ring – this would lower prospective touch voltage

(4)

Reduce protection clearing times – at 0.5 seconds, the prospective touch limit is 4,000 volts

2

Conductive distribution pole in an urban area

Voltage = 11 kV Fault Current = 5,000 A Fault Clearing Time = 1 sec Fault Rate = 2 x 100 m span without earthwire at 40 faults per 100 km per year Contacts per year = 40 for 4 seconds Footwear = standard distribution Earthing resistance = 10 ohm Soil resistivity = 100 ohm-m

Prospective Touch Voltage = 10,000 Volt (derived by impedance model of footwear and soil resistivity)

Prospective Touch Voltage Curve DU for 1 sec clearing = 800 Volts

Mitigation Options:

(1)

Insulate pole (there have been trials on networks but no proven product is available)

(2)

Installation of NER or NEX to limit fault current to typically 1000 A – prospective touch voltage reduces to 2,000 volts. This is still above limit

(3)

Installation of grading ring – this would lower prospective touch voltage to around 5,000 volts. This is still above limit.

(4)

Reduce protection clearing times – at 0.5 seconds, the prospective touch limit is 4,000 volts. The prospective touch voltage is above limit.

(5)

Combination of (2) and (3) – still above limit

(6)

Combination of (2 and (4) – meets limit

(7)

Installation of underslung earthwire – this reduces prospective touch voltage to less than 800 volts (underslung earthwire is expected to reduce fault current on striken pole to range of 5 to 8% of previous value). This meets limits.

The installation of underslung earthwire is also effective in addressing touch hazards on all conductive poles on the feeder.

Distribution Earthing Systems

Multiple Earthed Neutral (MEN)

In a low voltage MEN system of earthing the elements of an installation that require earthing are

commonly connected to earth, and in addition are connected to the neutral conductor of the supply system. This results in a well distributed, low impedance earthing system with many connections to the general mass of the earth. A well connected MEN system has a resistance of

less than 1 ohms.

Common Multiple Earthed Neutral (CMEN)

This is where the HV and LV earthing systems are commonly bonded together with the LV MEN customer installation. With this type of system special consideration should be given to protection against HV earth faults and EPR. Where CMEN systems are installed, an MEN value of <1ohm is desirable.

Separate Earthed System

A separated earthing system is implemented with a pole top transformer by providing high

voltage (HV) and low voltage (LV) earths on opposite sides of the pole and installing a non- conductive covering for the earthing conductors within 2.4m of the ground. Again earth electrode separation should be kept to the length of the electrode or 4m at a minimum. Where a separate earthed system is installed, a resistance of 30 ohms or less is desirable.

Earthing and Insulation of Stay Wires

Stay wires on lines should have insulators installed to limit the chance of an energised stay wire coming into contact with the public or staff. There are two possible mechanisms that may energise a stay wire; a conductor falling and energising the stay wire and a broken stay wire coming in contact with live conductors. Mitigations methods for either scenario are given below:

Conductor Failure Protection

Stay wires within 2.4 metres of the ground should be earthed in accordance with Clause 11 unless they are insulated by means of an insulator placed in the stay wire. The stay wire insulator shall be placed so its lowest point is not less than 2.4 metres above the ground. The stay wire insulator must also be placed so it is lower than the lowest conductor, excluding any underslung earth wire. The wet flashover voltage of the insulator must be 50% greater than the highest conductor on the pole phase to earth voltage.

Broken Stay Wire Protection

A failed stay wire can fall onto live conductors and bring an energized stay wire closer than 2.4 metres in height from the ground. The following diagrams showing various broken stay wire scenarios.

To protect for these scenarios more than one stay wire insulator may be required.

11

WORKED EXAMPLES

11.1 Electrical Clearances between conductors

Example 1:

Single circuit 19/3.25 AAC at 33 kV 3 phase on pin insulators in a delta configuration with a span of 200 m. What is the mid span vertical separation required between phases if a crossarm with a separation of 2.1 m between outer phases is used?

Sag at 50 degrees C is 6.07 m and sited in Region A.

Refer Figure 10.3.1.

where

 

X

=

1.05

U

=

33

k

=

0.4

D

=

6.07

l i

=

0

U 2 2 X + (1.2 Y ) ≥ + k D + l i
U
2
2
X +
(1.2
Y
)
+
k
D
+
l
i
150
33
2
1.05 2
+
(1.2
Y
)
+
0.4
6.07
+
0
150
2
2
1.05
+
(1.2
Y
)
0.22
+
0.985
2
2
1.05
+
(1.2
Y
)
1.205
2
2
1.2Y ≥
1
205
− 1.05
0.591
Y
1.2
Y
≥ 0.493

Therefore required minimum vertical separation for centre phase is 0.493 m.

Example 2:

Upper circuit 19/3.25 AAC at 33 kV 3 phase on pin insulators in a delta configuration with a span of 200 m located directly above the lower circuit. The lower circuit conductor is 19/.064 copper at 11 kV. The lower circuit has a 120° phase differential to the upper circuit.

What is the mid span vertical separation required between circuits if a crossarm with a separation of 2.1 m between outer phases is used?

Sag at 50 degrees C is 6.07 m 19/3.25 AAC and 5.81 m for 19/.064 Copper sited in Region Type A.

Refer Figure 10.3.2.

Because the circuits are located vertically above each other the horizontal component is taken as zero and

2 U = V 2 + − 2 V V V Cos φ from ‘U’
2
U =
V
2 + − 2
V
V
V
Cos φ
from ‘U’ above
a
b
a
b
2
2
⎛ 33 ⎞
⎛ 11 ⎞
33
11
=
− 2 ×
×
Cos120
°
⎜ ⎜
3
+ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝
3
3
3
= 22.9 kV
∴X
=
0

U

k

D

= 22.9 (the difference in the vector r.m.s. potential of the circuit voltages)

= 0.4 (Region A)

= 6.07 (greater of the two sags)

l i = 0 (Pin insulators) U 2 2 X + (1.2 Y ) ≥
l i
=
0 (Pin insulators)
U
2
2
X
+
(1.2
Y
)
+
k
D
+
l
i
150
22.9
0
+
(1.2
Y
)
2 ≥
+
0.4
6.07
+
0
150
2
(1.2
Y
)
0.153
+
0.985
1.2Y ≥ 1.138
1.138
Y
1.2
Y
≥ 0.948

11.2 Determination of conductor rating

Once a conductor and its maximum operating temperature have been chosen, the conductor rating can be calculated. The method is based on the heat balance equations where Heat In (Solar Radiation Current Heating) = Heat Out (Convection Cooling from Wind and Radiated Losses). A coverage of the method is given in Reference [1]. Should further detail be required refer to Reference [2].

TNSP have agreed on a common method for conducting conductor ratings [Ref 3].

Conductor ratings are usually calculated for a combination of ambient temperatures and wind speeds. Guidelines for the use of these parameters are given in Table 4.1.

TABLE

4.1

AMBIENT TEMPERATURES AND WIND SPEEDS FOR CONDUCTOR RATINGS

Rating type

Ambient temperature

Wind speed (ms 1 )

(°C)

Summer noon normal

Max summer temp at location

0.5

to 1.0

Summer noon emergency

Max summer temp at location

1.0

to 2.0

Winter evening normal

Mild winter evening temp at location

0.5

to 1.0

Winter evening emergency

Mild winter evening temp at location

1.0

to 2.0

References

1

Electricity Supply Association of Australia, D (b) 5—1998, Current Rating of Bare Overhead Line Conductors published by Standards Association of Australia.

2

MORGAN, V.T. Thermal Behaviour of Electrical Conductors, Steady, Dynamic and Fault- Current Ratings. Published in Brisbane by John Wiley and Sons Inc, 1991.

3.

“Standard Line Ratings Methodology for Transmission Network Services Providers”.

4

IEEE 738 Thermal Rating of Conductors

5

IEC 60909 “Calculation of the short-circuit currents in three phase a.c. systems”

6

EN 60865-1 “Calculation of the effects of short-circuit current”

11.3 Design for lightning performance

Lightning induced outages are one of the major cause of outages on overhead lines in areas of moderate to high ceraunic activity. A moderate ceraunic level is between 30 and 50 thunderdays per year, and high level above 50 thunderdays per year.

The acceptable outage rate due to lightning is therefore one of the most dominant design parameters for an overhead line. In a low to moderate ceraunic activity area, an acceptable outage rate from lightning for overhead lines with overhead earthwires is typically 2 to 5 outages per 100 km per year.

Process for design – balance shielding failures vs backflashover performance – T Gillespie

Estimation of line outages due to lightning

There are 3 types of outages caused by lightning; shielding failure / direct strike , backflashover and induced voltage.

A shielding failure occurs when the overhead earthwire fails to intercept the lightning stroke and the voltage developed by the surge current (1/2 stroke current x surge impedance of conductor) exceeds the insulation strength of the insulation. The electrogeometric model developed by IEEE (and incorporated in lightning prediction programs, like Flash) can be used to determine the probability of a shielding flashover.

Backflashovers are the predominant cause of lighting induced flashovers on overhead lines protected by an earth or shield wire. The mechanism of a backflashover is that the lightning current flowing in the overhead earthwire couples inductively and capacitively with the phase conductor

and induces a voltage in it. A portion of current also flows down the conductive structure (or earth down lead) to ground and develops a voltage on the structure. The magnitude of the voltage is dependent on the structure surge impedance and the ground footing resistance. The lower the footing resistance, the smaller is the reflection co-efficient and this results in a lower voltage on the structure.

Distribution lines are generally unshielded and the major causes of lightning outages are direct strikes and induced voltages from nearby lightning strikes.

The prediction of lightning outages is not an exact science and the methods adopted in one Authority may not be appropriate in others. It has been found that the parameters which can be varied to achieve the largest influence on the lightning performance of overhead lines are—

(i)

installation of earthwire;

(j)

having wood in the flashover circuit (crossarm or pole);

(k)

Critical Flashover voltage (CFO) of the insulators; and

(l)

pole footing resistance.

Overhead earthwires are used to shield the line from lightning strikes and are usually installed on high reliability lines operating at sub-transmission and transmission voltage levels. They are also installed on overhead distribution lines for short distances (typically 800 m) out of a substation to protect the substation equipment from damaging overvoltages. One earthwire is usually sufficient to cater for shielding flashovers on structures below 20 m, but higher structures will need two earthwires to achieve effective shielding. With a single earthwire, the shielding angle is usually in the range of 30 to 40 degrees.

The lightning performance of a shielded overhead line is complex and requires mathematical modelling to determine the optimal shielding and backflashover rates.

The arc quenching properties of wood has been used by Authorities to reduce lightning induced outages on the network. When wood is added to the insulation path, the combined insulation strength of the insulator and wood is increased. The higher the impulse strength of the insulator/wood combination, the higher the resistance to flashover. Refer to Reference [8] for the electrical properties of wood. The effective impulse strength of a series wood and insulator path can be calculated as follows:

I total

where

I wood

=

=

[I wood 2 + I insulator 2 ] 1/2

Impulse strength of wood

I insulator = Impulse strength of insulator

.

.

.

1

When an overhead earthwire is installed on powerlines, generally a down lead is run to earth to provide a low resistance path to ground. A low pole footing resistance not only reduces the probability of lightning induced backflashovers but also offers the following advantages:

(a)

Reduces risk of injury to persons or animals due to rises in earth potential at the structure and the surrounding soil.

(b)

Provides a low impedance path for earth faults to ensure there is sufficient fault current to operate protection relays

Application of Surge Arresters

Surge arresters can be applied to an overhead line to improve the lightning performance. Surge arresters have been used in the following applications:

(1)

Protection of pole mounted plant

(2)

Protection of underground terminations

(3)

Protect covered conductor from failure

(4)

To improve lightning outage rate

(5)

Where it is difficult or costly to install an overhead earthwire (eg retrofitting an existing line)

11.4 Electrical and Mechanical Design for Insulators

11.4.1 Design for pollution

When determining the insulation requirements for an overhead power line or an outdoor substation in a contaminated environment, the following criteria need to be considered:

1. Creepage (or leakage) distance.

2. The ability of the material to endure the electrical activity without being degraded.

3. The shape of the insulator to assist in reducing the likelihood of contamination collection and facilitate washing.

There are two approaches which can be used to select the appropriate creepage distance for various levels of contamination severity. The recommendations are given in Table 5.1 (titled Relationship between severity of pollution at site to various parameters) of Reference [1]. Table 5.2 reproduces the guidelines in Reference [2]. The basic concept is to increase the surface creepage distance so that it is long enough to prevent a pollution flashover across the surface.

TABLE

5.2

GUIDE FOR SELECTING INSULATORS IN CONTAMINATED ENVIRONMENTS

Contamination severity

ESDD range (1)

Minimum nominal specific creepage distance (2)

 

g/m

mm/kV

Light

 

0 to1.2

16

Medium

1.2

to 2.0

20

Heavy

2.0

to 3.0

25

Very Heavy

Above 3.0

31

(1)

(2)

ESDD is the equivalent salt deposit density.

Ratio of leakage distance measured between phase and earth over the r.m.s phase to phase voltage of the highest voltage of the equipment.

(3) Consideration should be given to increasing the creepage distances is areas where there are long periods without rainfall or very close to the marine coast

11.4.2

Design for power frequency voltages (Wet withstand requirement)

The line insulation should be designed to withstand the maximum voltage expected on the line. Overhead powerlines usually operate at 1.1 per unit voltage to take into account the effects of voltage drop with loading and there is the possibility that with capacitors on the line, the powerline could operate up to 1.4 per unit which can be regarded as the maximum dynamic overvoltage. Maximum dynamic overvoltage can occur during faults and load rejection. (1.4 per unit is for a three phase power system that is effectively earthed e.g. the neutral is earthed). The wet power frequency withstand voltage of the line insulation should be selected to exceed this maximum dynamic overvoltage.

11.4.3 Design for switching surge voltages

Switching surge overvoltages up to 3 per unit peak voltage can arise when overhead lines are switched. The extent of this overvoltage is dependent on (1) the point of voltage wave when the line

is switched, (2) the capacitance or amount of trapped charges on the line and (3) other equipment

connected to the line. When high speed autoreclosing is installed, overvoltage can exceed 3 per unit

voltage, particularly on transmission lines. In these cases, it would be common to install surge arresters on the line to limit the overvoltages to the designed line insulation.

A good coverage on the design for switching surge is given in AS 1824.2. When designing for

switching surges, one of the parameters which is difficult to obtain is the switching surge impulse voltage. There are 2 main types of electrical tests conducted on insulators; one being the lightning impulse and the other the power frequency flashover (wet and dry). Switching tests have been

conducted in laboratories and the flashover voltages have been inconsistent and found to be dependent on the shape of the surge, the type of electrodes and the presence of earth planes.

In lieu of adequate test data on switching surges a good approximation for the switching surge

flashover voltage is 0.8 times the lightning impulse flashover voltage.

The insulator parameter that determines the insulator impulse performance ( i.e. switching surge and lightning ) is the arc distance across the insulator.

Line insulation is usually selected independent of substation insulation. It is necessary to check substation insulation impulse performance and install surge arresters, especially when the line insulation is longer than the substation insulation.

11.4.4 Selection of Insulator to meet Electrical Performance

String Insulator Units:

Min Failing

Min Creepage

Dry Lightning

Wet Power

Load (kN)

Dist (mm)

Impulse (kVp)

Freq

withstand

(kVp)

Clevis Tongue - Normal

 

70

280

95

40

Clevis Tongue - Fog

 

70

360

95

40

Ball Socket - Normal

 

70

280

95

40

Ball Socket - Fog

 

70

360

95

40

11 kV Insulators:

       

Pin - Normal

 

7

180

95

30

Pin - Fog

 

7

360

95

30

Shackle Type SH.11

 

22

180

95

30

Line Post Tie Top

18

(cantil)

425

150

38

6

(axial)

Line Post Clamp Top

12

(cantil)

425

150

38

18

(axial)

Standoff Line Post with Trunnion Clamp

12

(cantil)

425

150

38

18

(axial)

Station Post

8

(cantil)

360

95

 

1.2 (kNm tors)

Composite Long Rod

8.25 (OML)

350

95

38

25

(MML)

33 kV Insulators:

Min Failing

Min Creepage

Dry Lightning

Wet Power

Load (kN)

Dist (mm)

Impulse (kVp)

Freq

withstand

(kVp)

Pin - Two part

 

11

534

200

65

Standoff Line Post with Tie Top

9

(cantil)

785

200

95

11

(axial)

Standoff Line Post with Clamp Top

9

(cantil)

785

200

95

11

(axial)

Station Post

5

(cantil)

760

200

 

1 (kNm tors)

Composite Long Rod

8.25 (OML)

900

200

70

25 (MML)

Example:

Select a suitable disc insulator string for a 33 kV line subject to extreme contamination. Normal disc profiles have a creepage length of 300 mm and fog discs of 400 mm.

System Highest Voltage

=

36 kV

Minimum nominal specific creepage distance

=

31 mm/kV for extreme contamination

Required creepage distance for 36 kV

=

1116 mm

Number of normal discs = 1116/300

=

3.72 4 discs

Number of fog discs = 1116/400

=

2.79 3 discs

Select a suitable disc insulator string for a 275 kV line subject to heavy contamination. Use normal or fog disc profiles where the creepage length is 300 mm normal and 400 mm for fog.

System Highest Voltage

=

300 kV

Minimum nominal specific creepage distance

=

25 mm/kV for heavy contamination

Required creepage distance for 300 kV

=

7500 mm

Number of normal discs = 7500/300

=

25 discs

Number of fog discs = 7500/400

=

18.75 19 discs

11.4.5 Insulator mechanical design

The loads on an insulator can be calculated using the Limit State methodology outlined in Section 3. The guidelines for the strength factor are given in Table 3.1.

References

1. AS 1824.2—1985, Insulation coordination, Part 2: Application guide.

2. IEC 60815, Guide for the selection of insulators in respect of polluted conditions.

3. AS 4436 Guide for the selection of insulators in respect of polluted conditions. (Identical to ISO Report 815).

11.5

Limit State Design Worked Examples

Basic Formula for Bending Moment Loads

P Z T X T X θ/2 θ/2 = P x D x W +
P Z
T X
T X
θ/2
θ/2
=
P
x
D
x W
+
2 T
sin θ
F T
Z
d
X
2
F
=
T
P
=
force on the conductor
wind pressure
Z
D
=
W d
=
T X
=
conductor diameter
wind span
horizontal tension
θ
=
structure deviation angle

11.5.1

Pole Tip Load Calculation

Calculate the tip load on a 33 kV monopole with a Libra earthwire and Pluto phase conductors

vertically configured on the pole.

There is also a line deviation of 20 degrees.

F (Load from earthwire) 1 2.4m F (Load from A Phase) 2 1.5m F (Load
F
(Load from earthwire)
1
2.4m
F
(Load from A Phase)
2
1.5m
F
(Load from B Phase)
3
d 1 1.5m
F
(Load from C Phase)
4
d
2
d
3
d
F
4
(Load on pole)
o
20
deviation

Input

Pole height

=

17.4m

Earth wire

=

Libra AAC (T x = 5000N)

Conductors

=

Pluto AAC (T x = 13000N)

Line deviation

=

20 o

Wind span

=

180m

Average pole OD

=

0.4m

Wind pressure

=

900 Pa on conductor/OHEW, and 1300 Pa on pole

Tip Load

F

2

,

F

3

,

F

4

=

F

1

F w

φ

=

F

1

+

F

2,3,4

d

2

+

d

3

+

d

4

⎞ ⎟

F

w

φ

d

1

2

+

=

P

W

x OD x W

d

+

2 T

X

= 900 x 0.009 x 180

+

= 3628 N

900

x

0.0188

x

180

+

2

x

= 8688 N

=

P

w

φ

x OD x d

1

sin

θ

2

2 x 1.25x5000 x sin10

1.25 13000

x

x

sin10

= 1300 X 0.4 X 17.4

= 9048 N

Tip Load

=

=

F

1

3628

+

+

d

2

+

d

3

+

d

4