Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
4, October 1999
1555
1. - INTRODUCTION
Both the IEEE Standard for Calculating the Currenl
Temperafure Relationship of Bare Overhead Conductors [I]
and CIGREs Thermul Behavior cf Overhead Conductors [2]
each present diffcrent methodologies for calculating the
steady state ampacity of bare overhcad conductors. Although
these two industly standards use the same basic heat balance
concept, their approach to the calculation of the heat balance
terms i s different.
As a result of these differences, the
ampacity rating calculated by each method may vaiy by
almost 10% depending on the environmental conditions
being considered.
~~
PI t P,,, + P, + Pf = P,
+ P, + P ,
where:
PI
P,
Joule Heating
Magnetic Heating
P, = Solar Heating
Pf = Coronalleating
P, = Convective Cooling
P, = Radiative Cooling
P, = Evaporative Cooling
Units = Watts per unit area
Although both methods use the same heat balance concept,
each method uses a different approach, often based on
different published experimental rcsearch, to calculate
individual heat balance terms.
1556
1557
Solar tlctting
Magnetic lleating
Cnrona Heating
Convective Cooling
Radiative Cooling
Evap. Cooling
hrnpacily Rating
~~~
4.31 Wifl
4.96 W/R
+13.2%
NIA
I
1
I
I
I
I
Ignored
I
1
I
I
I
I
t3.9%
0.0%
C. WindSpeed Effect,s
1
I
I
I
I
Nih
25.0 WIfl
7.5 W/fl
NIA
992Ampi
Ignored
26.0 W/fl
7.5 Wifl
Ignored
99RArnpr
+0.6%
G. Evaporative Cooling
Of the two methods, only C E R E considers Evaporative
Cooling in it's heat balance formula. Evaporative Cooling is
generally not significant from air horn water vapor or from
water droplets flowing around the conductor but can be when
the conductor is entirely wetted. CIGRE states that, in
general, Evaporative Cooling can be ignored. The CIGRE
document also does not provide a method for calculating this
term.
111. - AMPACITY RATING COMPARISONS
~~~,
700
40 "C
2 fps
Pcrpcndicular to line
30"
90
,.
3
4
5
Wind Spced (fps)
~!
Clear
On
0 (Ignored)
0.5
0.5
0 Fcet
Ilrhan
11'00 am
Junc 10
"O0
imoc
~~7~~~
in
~,
20
30 40
50
60
70
Witid Dirccticiii (90 Ucg = I'crpendicular)
80
9n
1558
I100
900
~~~~
. ~.~...
~ . ~
ILO0 AM
1000hM
1200 PM
~ ..4
~
.
L O O PM
2:OO PM
Time of Day
I
I
I
Solar Healing
Sun On
Sun Off
/.E.E,E.
992hmps
1065Amps
I
I
I
CMRk
998Amps
10x1 Amps
I
1
I
Di/f
+0.6%
+1.5%
1300
800
1000
-P
950
2E
900
4
M
$
Y
850
--
800
5,000
~-i
i
10,000
Elevation (Feel)
15.000
c-10
~~~~
?n
40
Ainbienl Tcinpcratuic (DEB.Cl
20
50
500
1000
~SOD
2000
2500
AAC Conductor kcmil Sine
300c
3500
1559
conductor sizes.
This comparison was made for all
aluminum conductors (AAC) to avoid complications from
different stecl core combinations used in ACSR conductors.
This comparison SIIOWS that the two methods are very
consistent, with a typical variations less than I%,over the
range of conductor sizes studied. I.E.E.E. calculates a
slightly lower ampacity rating for all conductor sizes less
than 1750 kcmil and calculates a slightly higher ratings for
larger conductor sizes.
1V. - SUMMARY
VI. - REFERENCES
[I]
IEEE Standard for Calculating llie Current
Tempcrature Relationship of Bare Ovcrhead Conductors,
IEEE P738-1993.
121
CIGRE Thermal Behavior of Overhead
Conductors, ELECTRA No. 144, October 1992.
VII. - BIOGRAPHY
Neil Srlimidt received his Bachclor 01
Electrical Lhgincering Dzgrec from Frcsno
Slate Univcrsity iii 1968 and ti Master of
Electrical lingincering Ucgree from
University nf Santa Clara in 1974.
V. -CONCLUSIONS
Although the general methodologies arc very similar, the
approachcs used by I.E.E.E. and CIGRk to the calculations
are very different. I.E.E.E. relies very heavily on tabular data
to determine various heat balance terms while C E R E uses
closed form equations to calculate these same terms. In some
cases CIGREs equations may the source, or at least are very
a similar method, to the methods used to establish the
original I.E.E.E. tables. The overall impact of these tables
vs. equations approaches is that CIGRk method is mucli
more flexible and can be used over a much wider range of
environmental situations. I n contrast the I.E.E.E. method is
restrictcd to the limited environmental situations considered
in the tables (See Writers tiote below).
For most practical transmission linc design and operation
applications, both methods can be considered equivalent and
the difference in ampacity results are generally not
significant, especially considering the precision of most
environmental input parameters. For some less typical
applications such as high wind speed and/or parallel wind
speed calculations, users of thcse standards should be aware
of the variations in the calculated ratings and, if they consider
the difference between the two methods to be significant, the
user needs to determine which of the two methods should be
1560
Discussion
comparable.
significantly different if 2 Ws or 6 fi /s
cooling.
ampacity:
2. Ambient temperature
3. Solar radiation
4. Line direction
8. Switching overvoltage
1561
REFERENCES
[l] Power Line Ampacity System -
December 1998.
number 3, 1995.
1997.
temperatures," J. F. Hall,
,February 1996.
1562
Neil P. Schmidt:
I agree with Mr. Deb that the enviroumenlal
paramcler assumptions used in the ampacity
formulas have a significant effect on the
outcome of the calculations. The intent of the
paper was to compare the IEEE and CIG&
ampacity calculation methods. In making this
comparison, the sensitivity of the two methods