Methodology for the Determination of Real-Time
Dynamic Line Ratings for Secure Operation of
Overhead Conductors
Bonface Ngoko, Hideharu Sugihara, Tsuyoshi Funaki
Division of Electrical, Electronic, and Information Engineering
Osaka University
2-1 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan
Email: bngoko@ps.eei.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp
Abstract—Dynamic thermal ratings for overhead conductors
enable increased loadability of transmission lines during weather
conditions that are favorable for conductor cooling. This could
provide several benefits, including the accommodation of extra
variability and uncertainty in line flows occasioned by increased
penetration of intermittent renewable energy sources (IRES) in
power networks. However, there are concerns over perceived
increased risk of violating thermal limits if prevailing ambient
weather conditions are worse than the forecasted values used to
calculate the real-time ratings. This paper develops a methodol-
ogy for the determination of safety factors to be applied in the
calculation of real-time dynamic line ratings in order to ensure
safe operation of transmission lines. Analyses using real-time
weather data show significant increases in line loadability even
with the application of the safety factors.
Index Terms—Dynamic Line Rating, Overhead Conductors,
Forecasting Uncertainty, Rating Safety Factor.
I. I NTRODUCTION
The thermal rating of an overhead conductor is usually
provided as an ampacity (maximum current carrying capacity)
calculated from empirically developed electro-thermal models
[1], [2]. The ampacity is dependent on the ambient weather
conditions, which govern the rate of conductor cooling. Even
slight changes in weather parameters, especially wind speed,
could significantly alter line loadability [3]–[5]. Most power
networks employ static line ratings (SLRs) – usually a constant
ampacity value for each conductor that is calculated for very
poor (worst-case) cooling conditions [6]–[8].
The conservativeness in conductor cooling with which SLRs
are calculated ensures that the risk of violating thermal limits
is reduced to values below certain risk standards set by the
system operator. This, coupled with typical N-1 reliability
criteria, means that overhead conductors are typically used
well below their actual thermal ratings. However, although the
SLR is conservative, it is the most reliable rating system for
present power system operators, given its long use in many
countries.
Dynamic line ratings (DLRs), which are calculated using
prevailing, real-time weather parameters, usually result in
c 2017 IEEE
978-1-5386-1953-7/17/$31.00
based on an analysis of line rating forecasting errors for both
significantly higher line loadability and potentially more eco-
nomical utilization of transmission networks [9], [10]. This is
because prevailing weather conditions are usually considerably
better at cooling the conductor than the weather conditions
used to calculate the SLR. DLRs could be particularly useful
as networks become more stressed with increased generation
from intermittent renewable energy sources (IRES), which
increase uncertainties in power network line flows [3], [4],
[10].
Apart from cooling rates realized by weather conditions
more favorable than those used to calculate SLRs, DLRs can
also leverage a conductor’s thermal inertia — the characteristic
that the change in the conductor temperature is a relatively
slow process, as compared to the change in power flow [5],
[11], [12]. This means that over short durations, a conductor
could carry large current without reaching the thermal limits
[13]. Such fluctuations are typical in systems with large
amounts of IRES, especially where the IRES are concentrated
over small geographical areas.
The main counterargument against DLRs is that there is
a perceived increased risk of violating thermal limits, which
is particularly worrisome where line loadability limits are set
by minimum ground clearances [14]. The increased risk from
DLRs is because meteorological parameters have significant
levels of uncertainty, which, if not properly accounted for in
determination of the DLR, could result in calculated ampacity
values higher than the actual line limits [10]. The use of
probabilistic methods to forecast DLRs has been explored
by several researchers [15]–[17] with such studies focusing
mainly on the forecasting of ambient weather conditions across
the transmission lines in weather based DLR systems.
An approach that incorporates DLR-type uncertainties into
the conventional SLR criteria can take advantage of the
economic benefits of DLRs without increasing the risk of
violating thermal limits. Uncertainties can be handled by
applying safety factors to forecasted values of real-time DLRs
to ensure levels of rating violation risk similar to those
achieved by the application of SLR. In this paper, we develop
a methodology for the determination of such safety factors
steady-state and transient ratings. The value of the safety factor START
applied depends on the certainty with which ambient weather
Input Data:
conditions can be forecasted. Simulation results show that a Weather Data:
quantitative determination of safety factors based on allowed Initial Conductor Temp.,
Time Duration,
risk levels can guarantee safe operation of overhead lines while Time Step, ; Current Step,

achieving the significant increases in conductor loadability

Initial guess for transient state rating
associated with DLRs.

II. C ALCULATION OF OVERHEAD C ONDUCTOR R ATINGS

A. Conductor Temperature Calculation
The thermal rating of an overhead conductor refers to the
maximum current that the conductor can carry without its
temperature exceeding a maximum allowable limit. Here, the
maximum allowable limit refers to the conductor temperature
that would result either in excessive sag or in significant NO
Is

loss of the conductor’s tensile strength [6], [10]. For a given YES

maximum allowable temperature, a conductor’s thermal rating

is calculated using equations that model the electro-thermal
processes of the conductor. The two most commonly used
models are those proposed by CIGRE [1] and IEEE [2]. Is
NO

In general, the thermal response of conductor temperature YES

is governed by the equation:

Store value of

dTl
mc = (PJ + PS ) − (PC + PR )
dt
where Tl is the conductor temperature, m and c are conductor
mass and specific heat capacity respectively, PJ is the heat
gain due to the conductor ohmic losses (Joule heat gain), PS
is the heat gain due to solar heating, PC is the heat loss due
to convective cooling, and PR is the heat loss due to radiative
cooling.
Equations for PJ , PS , PC , and PR are given as:
PJ = I 2 Rac
PS = αs DS
PC = πDhC (Tl − Ta )
h i
4 4
PR = πDǫσB (Tl + 273) − (Ta + 273)
where I is the ac current, Rac is the ac resistance (dependent
on Tl ), αs is the absorptivity of the conductor surface, D is
the external diameter of the conductor, S is the global solar
radiation, hC , is the coefficient of convective heat transfer
(a nonlinear function of wind speed V , wind direction δ,
ambient temperature Ta , and conductor temperature Tl ), ǫ is
the emissivity of the conductor surface, and σB is the Stefan-
Boltzmann constant. Detailed equations for evaluating Rac and
hC are given in [1]1 .
B. Steady-State and Transient-State Ratings
At steady state, the left hand side (LHS) of (1) equals zero
so that conductor heating equals cooling. The resulting steady
1 In this paper, the CIGRE model [1] is used to determine conductor
temperature and thus line rating.
(1)
STOP
Fig. 1. Algorithm for calculating transient-state thermal rating. Tl (t) is the
conductor temperature at time t, ∆P (t) is the thermal mismatch at time t,
err is the relative difference between Tl,max and Tl (t0 + td ), and maxerr
is the maximum allowed value of err.
state heat balance equation is used to calculate the steady state
ss
ampacity, Imax , as:
(2)
s
ss PC (Tl,max ) + PR (Tl,max ) − PS
(3) Imax = (6)
Rac (Tl,max )
(4)
where Tl,max is the maximum allowable conductor tempera-
(5) ture.
Due to thermal inertia, the variation of conductor tempera-
ture is a relatively slow process with a typical time constant of
a few minutes [11], and the effect is that over short durations
(transient state), an overhead conductor can carry a large
current without necessarily violating the thermal limits [11].
The transient state thermal rating will therefore be different
from the steady state rating, and typically higher, especially
for a relatively cold conductor.
ts
The transient state thermal rating, Imax , is defined as the
step current that would result in the conductor temperature
rising to the maximum allowable temperature over a given
duration of time [1], [10]. The determination of the transient
state rating requires an iterative algorithm that searches for
the magnitude of step current, which raises the conductor
temperature to the allowed maximum within a given time
period. Fig. 1 shows a flowchart of the algorithm used in this
ts
paper to calculate Imax . Transient state thermal rating will
 TABLE I 50

Ambient Temperature [ C]
160 MM2 ACSR C ONDUCTOR DATA [18]

o
40

30
Property Value 20

10
overall conductor diameter, D 18.13 mm
0
ac resistance at 20◦ C 0.2356 Ω/km
−10
J F M A M J J A S O N D
absorptivity factor, αs 0.5
(a)
emissivity factor, ǫ 0.5
1400
maximum conductor temperature, Tl,max 90◦ C

Solar Radiation [W/m ]

1200

2
Static Line Rating∗ , ISLR 453 A 1000

∗ 800
ISLR is calculated for the weather conditions: Ta = 40◦ C;
600
V = 0.5 m/s; δ = 45◦ ; S = 1000 W/m2 . 400
200
0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
typically be dependent on the initial conductor temperature, (b)
Tl,0 , and the time duration, td [13]. 14

In practice, conductor ratings are calculated for steady state 12

Wind Speed [m/s]

10
conditions, and thus the thermal rating typically refers to a
8
steady state rating. 6
4
C. Static and Dynamic Line Ratings 2
0
1) Conductor and Weather Data: Conductor rating calcu- J F M A M J J A S O N D

lations are carried out in this paper for a typical transmission (c)
level conductor using actual monitored weather data. The
Fig. 2. Year-long profiles of: (a) ambient temperature; (b) solar radiation;
characteristics of the 160mm2 ACSR conductor are given in and (c) wind speed (5-minute temporal resolution).
Table I. The weather data obtained from the Japanese Meteoro-
logical Agency (JMA) consists of ambient temperature, wind 100
Conductor Temperature [ C]

speed, and solar radiation data at a temporal resolution of 1

o

80
minute for the year 2010. The measurement site is in Osaka,
60
Japan (latitude 34◦ 40.9′ N; longitude 135◦ 31.1′ E). Fig 2 shows
one-year profiles of ambient temperature, solar radiation, and 40

wind speed, at a temporal resolution of 5 minutes, averaged 20

from the 1-minute data. In the calculations, a constant wind 0

J F M A M J J A S O N D
direction2 of 45◦ is assumed. This is because wind direction
is a highly variable parameter that is also rather difficult to Fig. 3. Year-long profile of conductor temperature when continuously carrying
measure accurately. Also, wind direction meters give only the the SLR current.
horizontal direction component, yet wind direction is a three-
2000
dimensional vector.
Conductor Rating [A]

2) Static Line Rating: Most power systems employ an 1500

SLR for each conductor, defined as the steady state thermal

1000
rating for “worst-case” weather conditions, which typically
consist of high temperatures, high solar radiation, and low 500

wind speeds. In Fig. 2, values of the weather parameters used

to calculate the SLR are also shown as dotted lines. The SLR is
usually a very conservative value intended to ensure a very low
probability of violating thermal ratings even if the conductor
continuously carries the rated current.
Fig. 3 shows the evolution of conductor temperature —
calculated using (1) — while continuously carrying the SLR
current of 453 A. It is deduced that, even when continu-
ously carrying the SLR current, the probability of conductor
temperature reaching the maximum allowable value (in this
2 Wind direction refers to the acute angle between the direction of the wind
and the conductor axis.
0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Fig. 4. Year-long profile of conductor thermal ratings when continuously
carrying the SLR current.
case 90◦ C) is very low. For this data set, there are only 3
instances out of 105,120 (0.0029%) in which Tl is greater than
Tl,max , and all of them occur during summer when ambient
air temperature and global solar radiation are relatively high.
3) Dynamic Line Rating: The less conservative DLR is cal-
culated using prevailing (real-time) weather parameters, which
results in higher line loadability during favorable weather
conditions and thus a more economical use of the transmission 1800
5−minute Forecasts

[A]
system, especially if implemented on lines operating very near 1600

max
their thermal limits [6].

Forecasted Conductor Rating, If

1400
Using the values of weather parameters and conductor
1200
temperature shown in Figs. 2 and 3, the conductor’s DLR is
1000
calculated for the entire year and is shown in Fig. 4. The SLR
current is also shown in Fig. 4, which demonstrates that the 800

real-time rating could be up to 3.5 times the SLR. The higher 600

ratings as a result of DLR mean that the conductor could be 400

more heavily loaded during the periods of higher ratings. This 200
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
could present economic benefits in system operation, including Actual Conductor Rating, Imax [A]
better contingency management and increased utilization of (a)
renewable energy sources [10]. 1800
30−minute Forecasts

[A]
III. D ETERMINATION OF R EAL -T IME DYNAMIC L INE 1600

max
R ATINGS FOR S ECURE O PERATION

Forecasted Conductor Rating, If

1400

A. Forecasting of Weather Conditions 1200

In practice, the real-time line rating is calculated ahead of 1000

time and the values so obtained are used to determine the 800
operation schedule of the transmission system. However, it 600
is impossible to know the weather conditions ahead of time.
400
The line rating is therefore calculated using forecasted values
200
of weather parameters [10]. If it were possible to perfectly 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Actual Conductor Rating, Imax [A]
forecast ambient weather conditions, the actual line rating as
(b)
depicted in Fig. 4 could be used. However, even very short-
term forecasts have a degree of uncertainty. Fig. 5. Forecasted line rating against actual line rating for: (a) 5-minute DLR;
and (b) 30-minute DLR. The dotted red line shows the situation of perfect
A very simple model [19] for forecasting the value of a f
rating forecast, Imax = Imax .
given weather parameter X is adopted in this paper as:
t0
1 X
E [X(t)] = X(tx ) t0 < t < t0 + ∆t (7) then the forecasted rating will be higher than the actual line
∆t
tx =t0 −∆t rating, and vice versa. A case in which Imax is higher than
f
Equation (7) means that the expected value of weather param- Imax represents a safe operation of the line, while the case in
f
eter X during the forecasting horizon (set as ∆t minutes from which Imax is lower than Imax represents a risky operation
the last last observation) is the average value of X measured of the line since it would mean that the actual weather
over the last ∆t minutes. For example, if the average wind conditions are worse than the forecasted conditions. Hence, if
f
speed over the past 5 minutes was 2 m/s, this value is used the line current is equal to Imax during the forecasted period,
to calculate the line rating over the next 5 minutes. Similarly, the conductor temperature will be higher than the maximum
if the average wind speed over the past 30 minutes was 2 allowed temperature.
m/s, this value is used to calculate the line rating over the Figs. 5(a) and (b) show plots of forecasted line ratings
next 30 minutes. The rating obtained using forecasted values against actual line ratings for 5-minute and 30-minute ratings,
of weather parameters is termed the forecasted conductor respectively3 . The plots also show the line Imax f
= Imax .
f
f
rating, Imax , and will be different from the actual conductor Points below the line Imax = Imax represent safe operation
rating, Imax , if the actual values of the weather parameters of the line while points above represent risky operation of the
are different from the forecasted values. line.
Note that (7) is a very simple model chosen here for A normalized thermal rating forecasting error κ is defined
illustration purposes, as forecasting is not the main focus of as:
this paper. More complicated forecasting models [15]–[17], f
Imax − Imax
[20] can be used to achieve better forecasts especially for κ= (8)
Imax
longer-term forecasting horizons. Such models would include
not only temporal fluctuations but also spatial extrapolations A negative value of κ indicates a risky operation of the line, as
when the weather station is located far from the transmission the actual line rating is lower than the forecasted line rating,
line.
3 The thermal time constant of the study conductor ranges from about 2
B. Safety Factors for Real-Time Ratings minutes at high wind speeds to 14 minutes at lower wind speeds so that the
5-minute rating is essentially a transient rating while the 30-minute rating is a
If the prevailing weather conditions are worse (in terms steady-state rating. The thermal response characteristics will vary depending
of conductor cooling) than the forecasted weather conditions, on the size and type of conductor.
 0.25 DATE: 15 MAY 2010
5−minute Forecasts 25
0.20 20

Ta [ C]
o
15
Probability

0.15

κ = −0.164 10
0.1% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
0.10
9

V [m/s]
0.05 6

3
0.00
−0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0
Rating Forecasting Error, κ 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
err
(a) 1.2

S [kW/m2]
0.25
0.8
30−minute Forecasts
0.4
0.20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Probability

0.15
Time of Day
κ = −0.325
0.1%
(a)
0.10

actual line rating

0.05 3.0
5−min DLR
30−min DLR
SLR
0.00
−0.5 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Line Rating [fraction of SLR] 2.5
Rating Forecasting Error, κ
err
(b)
Fig. 6. Probability distribution of normalized rating forecasting error for: (a) 2.0
5-minute DLR; and (b) 30-minute DLR.

1.5
while a positive value of κ suggests a safe operation of the line.
The normalized thermal rating forecasting error was calculated
for the entire year (for both 5-minute and 30-minute forecasts), 1.0

and Figs. 6(a) and (b) show the probability distributions of κ 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

for the two cases. In Fig. 6(a), the 0.1 percentile4 value of Time of Day
κ for the 5-minute DLR is indicated as κ.1% = −0.164. This (b)
implies that, for the data set, 99.9% of the time, the normalized Fig. 7. Illustration of: (a) weather conditions and (b) line ratings for a 24-hour
rating error is greater than −0.164. This value can be used to period.
determine a safety factor that would ensure that the applied
real-time rating is lower than the actual rating 99.9% of the where κβ% is the β percentile value of the normalized rating
time. The 0.1 percentile value of κ for the 30-minute DLR is forecasting error. As an example, using the κ.1% value indi-
indicated in Fig. 6(b) as κ.1% = −0.325. cated in Fig. 6(a), γ = 1/1.164 = 0.86. For the 30-minute
For safe operation of the line, the following formula is used DLR, γ = 1/1.325 = 0.75.
RT
to calculate the real-time line rating Imax :
RT f

C. Illustrative Example
Imax = max ISLR , γImax (9)
f
Fig. 7 illustrates the application of real-time dynamic line
where γ is the real-time rating safety factor. From (9), if Imax ratings using safety factors. Fig. 7(a) shows the evolution of
is lower than ISLR /γ, then the static line rating should be used the ambient weather conditions for a 24-hour period (at 5-
as the real-time rating; otherwise, the forecasted rating should minute temporal resolution). 5-minute and 30-minute DLRs
RT
be multiplied byγ to give Imax . are calculated using (9) and (10) updated every 5 minutes.
In the case where the forecasting errors have been analyzed Fig. 7(b) shows the two DLRs calculated wile applying the
as depicted in Figs. 5 and 6, an applicable safety factor is safety factor γ = 0.86 for the 5-minute DLR and γ = 0.75
determined by: for the 30-minute DLR. The actual line rating and the static
1 line ratings are also shown.
γ= (10)
1 − κβ% The plots of Fig. 7 show that application of the safety factors
4 The 0.1 percentile value is used here to illustrate a very conservative
reduces the chances of using a real-time line rating that is
approach to setting the line rating. Applicable risk levels will depend on the higher than the actual line rating. However, the applied line
standards adopted by the system operator. rating is still, in most cases, higher than the static line rating.
 3.0
5−min DLR 30−min DLR
2.5
Line Rating [fraction of SLR]
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Percent of Time
Fig. 8. Line rating duration curves showing extra line capacity from DLR.
It is also noted that the 5-minute rating (transient rating) is
significantly higher than the 30-minute rating (steady-state
rating). This is because of the conductor’s thermal inertia,
which allows for relatively larger fluctuations in line current.
The extra line capacity resulting from the DLR is quantified
for the whole year, and Fig. 8 shows the rating duration curves
for both the 5-minute and 30-minute DLRs. The area between
the DLR and the SLR curves represent the extra available line
capacity (EALC) due to DLR. For the data set used in this
paper, the 5-minute DLR results in a 77% increase in line
capacity while the 30-minute DLR results in a 33% increase
in line capacity at a 0.1% risk level.
D. Forecasting Uncertainties
The values of the safety factors obtained from (10) are a
consequence of the uncertainties in the forecasts of weather
parameters. The results discussed in this paper describe un-
certainties due to temporal variations in weather conditions.
However, such uncertainties could also be due to [10]:
• spatial variations between the location of the weather
station and the relevant transmission line
• errors in measurements of weather parameters and con-
ductor current
• errors in the mathematical model used to estimate con-
ductor temperature.
It is thus noted that an implementation of real-time dynamic
line ratings would require a thorough assessment of these
uncertainties and relatively accurate monitoring systems so as
to minimize any risks that may result from application of such
ratings.
IV. C ONCLUSION
Real-time dynamic thermal ratings for overhead conductors
are calculated based on forecasted values of weather parame-
ters. Uncertainties in such forecasts indicate that the forecasted
value of line ampacity may be higher than actual line ampacity
which, in turn, implies a risky operation of the transmission
line. In order to avoid such risky operation, safety factors
should be applied to the forecasted value of ampacity. This
paper develops a methodology for determining such safety
factors. Simulation results show that even with the application
of such safety factors, real-time ratings still result in significant
SLR increases in line loadability. However, care should be taken
to ensure that all sources of uncertainty are included in the
determination of DLR safety factors.
V. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge financial support
from CREST, Japan Science and Technology Agency.
R EFERENCES
[1] CIGRE Working Group 22.12, “Thermal behaviour of overhead conduc-
80 90 100
tors,” pp. 1–40, August 2002.
[2] “IEEE standard for calculating the current-temperature relationship of
bare overhead conductors,” IEEE Std 738-2012, pp. 1–72, Dec 2013.
[3] B. Xu, A. Ulbig, and G. Andersson, “Impacts of dynamic line rating
on power dispatch performance and grid integration of renewable
energy sources,” in Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT
EUROPE), 2013 4th IEEE/PES, 2013, pp. 1–5.
[4] J. Hosek, “Dynamic thermal rating of power transmission lines and
renewable resources,” in Proceedings of the ES1002 Workshop, Paris,
France, 2011, pp. 22–23.
[5] T. Krontiris, A. Wasserrab, and G. Balzer, “Weather-based loading of
overhead lines – consideration of conductor’s heat capacity,” in Modern
Electric Power Systems (MEPS), 2010 Proceedings of the International
Symposium, Sept 2010, pp. 1–8.
[6] S. D. Foss and R. A. Maraio, “Dynamic line rating in the operating
environment,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 5, no. 2, pp.
1095–1105, Apr 1990.
[7] D. A. Douglass, “Weather-dependent versus static thermal line ratings
[power overhead lines],” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 3,
no. 2, pp. 742–753, Apr 1988.
[8] “Current capacity of overhead power transmission lines (in Japanese),”
Technical Report of the Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan, Dec
1997.
[9] K. W. Cheung and J. Wu, “Enhancement of real-time operational
efficiency by applying dynamic line ratings,” in Proceedings of the 2016
IEEE PES Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Conference, Xi’an, China,
Nov 2016, pp. 103–107.
[10] CIGRE Working Group B2.36, “Guide for application of direct real-time
monitoring systems,” pp. 1–77, June 2012.
[11] H. Banakar, N. Alguacil, and F. D. Galiana, “Electrothermal coordination
part I: Theory and implementation schemes,” IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 798–805, 2005.
[12] N. Alguacil, M. H. Banakar, and F. D. Galiana, “Electrothermal coor-
dination part II: Case studies,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1738–1745, 2005.
[13] B. O. Ngoko, H. Sugihara, and T. Funaki, “A short-term dynamic thermal
rating for accommodating increased fluctuations in conductor current
due to intermittent renewable energy,” in 2016 IEEE PES Asia-Pacific
Power and Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC), Oct 2016, pp.
141–145.
[14] C. R. Black and W. A. Chisholm, “Key considerations for the selection
of dynamic thermal line rating systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 2154–2162, Oct 2015.
[15] T. Ringelband, P. Schäfer, and A. Moser, “Probabilistic ampacity fore-
casting for overhead lines using weather forecast ensembles,” Electrical
Engineering, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 99–107, Jun 2013.
[16] X. Sun, P. B. Luh, K. W. Cheung, and W. Guan, “Probabilistic forecast-
ing of dynamic line rating for over-head transmission lines,” in 2015
IEEE Power Energy Society General Meeting, July 2015, pp. 1–5.
[17] F. Fan, K. Bell, and D. Infield, “Probabilistic weather forecasting for
dynamic line rating studies,” in 2016 Power Systems Computation
Conference (PSCC), June 2016, pp. 1–7.
[18] Midal Cables. (2016) Overhead Conductor Data Sheets. [Online].
Available: https://www.midalcable.com
[19] R. J. Hyndman and G. Athanasopoulos, Forecasting: Principles and
Practice, OTexts, Ed. [Online]. Available: www.otexts.org/book/fpp
[20] M. Lei, L. Shiyan, J. Chuanwen, L. Hongling, and Z. Yan, “A review
on the forecasting of wind speed and generated power,” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 915 – 920, 2009.