Cigre 273

273
OVERHEAD CONDUCTOR SAFE

DESIGN TENSION
WITH RESPECT TO AEOLIAN
VIBRATIONS
Task Force
B2.11.04
June 2005
OVERHEAD CONDUCTOR SAFE
DESIGN TENSION
WITH RESPECT TO AEOLIAN
VIBRATIONS
TASK FORCE
B2.11.04
Members:
Claude Hardy (Convenor)
Hans-Jörg Krispin (Secretary)
André Leblond, Charles Rawlins, Konstantin Papailiou, Louis
Cloutier, Peter Dulhunty
Corresponding Members:
David Havard, Jean-Marie Asselin, Magnar Ervik, Tapani
Seppä, Vladimir Shkatsov
Copyright © 2005
“Ownership of a CIGRE publication, whether in paper form or on electronic support only infers right of use
for personal purposes. Are prohibited, except if explicitly agreed by CIGRE, total or partial reproduction of
the publication for use other than personal and transfer to a third party; hence circulation on any intranet or
other company network is forbidden”.
Disclaimer notice
“CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it accept any
responsibility, as to the accuracy or exhaustiveness of the information. All implied warranties and
conditions are excluded to the maximum extent permitted by law”.
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 3
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 5
2. REVIEW OF THE EVERY DAY STRESS (EDS) CONCEPT ............................................ 6
3. TURBULENCE AS A FUNCTION OF TERRAIN .............................................................. 8
4. SINGLE UNPROTECTED CONDUCTORS ...................................................................... 10
4.1 Modelling...................................................................................................................... 10
4.2 Comparison With Field Experience.............................................................................. 14
4.3 General Discussion ....................................................................................................... 16
4.4 Recommendations......................................................................................................... 18
5. DAMPED SINGLE CONDUCTORS .................................................................................. 20
5.1 Modelling...................................................................................................................... 20
5.2 Selection of Parameters................................................................................................. 21
5.3 Predicted Safe Design Tension ..................................................................................... 22
5.4 Comparaison With Field Experience ............................................................................ 23
5.5 Task Force Recommendations...................................................................................... 26
5.6 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 28
6. BUNDLED CONDUCTORS ............................................................................................... 29
6.1 Review of Literature ..................................................................................................... 29
6.2 Review of Field Experience.......................................................................................... 30
6.3 Determination of Safe Design Tension......................................................................... 32
6.3.1 Unspacered bundled conductors fitted or not with span-end Stockbridge dampers... 32
6.3.2 Bundled conductors fitted with non-damping spacers................................................ 32
6.3.3 Bundled conductors fitted with non-damping spacers and span-end Stockbridge
dampers ................................................................................................................................. 34
6.3.4 Bundled conductors fitted with damping spacers ....................................................... 34
6.4 Comparison With Field Experience.............................................................................. 36
6.5 Task Force Recommendations...................................................................................... 38
6.6 Limitations and Warnings............................................................................................. 39
7. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 40
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There may be several motives for controlling overhead conductor tension at the design stage.
One of the most obvious reasons is to ensure that maximum tension resulting from the assumed
most severe climatic loading does not exceed the conductor allowable tension. At the opposite
end, it may be required to limit minimum tension while the conductor is operating at maximum
temperature so that line clearance is not violated. A third motive, which should not be
disregarded, is to restrict conductor susceptibility to harmful conductor vibrations.
As a matter of fact, it is well known that stranded conductors get more vulnerable to Aeolian
vibrations as tension is increased. This is true for all conductor systems whether they are used in
solo or in bundles and whether they are fitted or not with damping and/or spacing devices.
Therefore, there is a need to set an upper limit to conductor unloaded tension that may prevail for
a significant period of time.
This brochure deals with this important issue. It starts in Section 2 with a critical examination of
the EDS concept which was put forward in 1960 by CIGRÉ SC6 with the intent to provide
guidance on such conductor safe design tensions with respect to Aeolian vibrations. It is noted,
for example, that the 18% EDS value which was proposed as safe for ACSR conductors did lead,
in spite of all, to fatigue failures in a significant number of cases, thus motivating the present
work further. In this conjuncture, one of the first and most important tasks of the Task Force was
to question the relevance of the EDS (% of the Ultimate Tensile Strength) as conductor tension
parameter. On account of its improved ability to rate conductor self-damping capacity, on the
one hand, and to generalise results as widely as possible, on the other hand, it was resolved to
adopt parameter H/w, the ratio between the initial horizontal tensile load H and conductor weight
w per unit length. As stated in the brochure, this tension refers to initial horizontal tension before
any significant wind and ice loading and before creep, at the average temperature of the coldest
month on the site of the line.
Another parameter of prime importance is wind turbulence since it affects to a great extent the
Aeolian power imparted to vibrating conductors. This is scrutinised in Section 3 of the brochure
insofar as it relates to roughness of the terrain crossed by the lines.
Single unarmored, unprotected single conductors of the most common types are considered in
Section 4 of the brochure. Then comes the description of analytical models from four different
organisations that were used to draw tentative recommendations about safe design tensions of
unarmored, unprotected single conductors. These recommendations were finally ratified on
account of a successful “reality check” against available field experience.
Section 5 of the brochure deals with single conductor lines protected by means of Stockbridge-
type vibration dampers set up at span extremities. Addition of dampers obviously calls for the
introduction of another parameter intended at rating the protective capacities of the damping
system. As justified in this section, the rating parameter that was selected is LD/m, the ratio of
the product of span length L and conductor diameter D to conductor mass m per unit length.
3
Similarly to what was done in the previous section, Section 5 goes on with a description of the
two analytical models that were used to predict safe design tensions, which are then compared
with all available test line and field experience, again as a “reality check”. This part of the
brochure concludes on the Task Force recommendations which are provided both graphically
and algebraically.
Finally, Section 6 of the brochure deals with bundled conductor lines, particularly, twin
horizontal bundles, triple apex-down bundles and quad horizontal bundles made up of
conventional stranded conductors fitted either with damping spacers or non-damping spacers or a
combination of non-damping spacers and span-end Stockbridge-type dampers. It starts with a
thorough review of literature about field tests carried out in the past, mainly on dedicated test
lines, on bundled conductors set up in parallel and at the same tension as identical single
conductors. It then covers a review of field experience gathered on 91 bundled conductor lines
erected in North America. This is followed by a description of the methodologies that were used
to arrive at safe design tension for each one of a number of bundled conductor systems. In this
case, these methodologies are purely empirical, relying on field experience and full scale test line
data.
The Task Force recommendations are summarised in a table at the end of Section 6 in the form
of simple algebraic expressions, each one associated to a specific conductor system and to one
out of four terrain categories. For sake of completeness, the table also incorporates the Task
Force recommendations for single conductors fitted or not with Stockbridge-type dampers set up
at the span extremities.
4
1. INTRODUCTION
There may be several motives for controlling overhead line conductor tension at the design stage.
One of the most obvious reasons is to ensure that maximum tension corresponding to the
assumed most severe climatic loading does not exceed a predefined, acceptable conductor
tension. At the opposite end, it may be required to limit tension while the conductor is operating
at maximum temperature so that line clearance is not violated. A third motive is to restrict
conductor susceptibility to harmful Aeolian vibrations.
As a matter of fact, it is well known that stranded conductors get more vulnerable to Aeolian
vibrations as tension is increased. This is true for all conductor systems whether they are used in
solo or in bundles and whether they are fitted or not with damping and/or spacing devices.
Hence, there is a need to set an upper limit to conductor unloaded tension that prevails for
significant periods of time.
Guidance to such safe design tension with respect to Aeolian vibrations was provided before,
more particularly in 1960 by the so-called EDS (Every Day Stress) Panel [1], working under
appointment of CIGRE SC6 (since disbanded). However, as discussed in the following section of
this brochure, it was felt timely to revise the Panel’s recommendations.
It was a premise for the Task Force that it would be quite difficult to work out a revised guide on
the basis of field experience only due to the rarity of well documented cases. Accordingly, the
Task Force’s terms of reference have been: To produce a practical guide for the selection of safe
design tensions in form of generic values for specific classes of single transmission line
conductors to avoid damage due to Aeolian vibrations during a typical design lifetime. This
guide should be based on existing experience and current knowledge on wind energy input,
conductor self-damping and conductor fatigue endurance. A theoretical model should be used
that translates energy balance into amplitude and number of cycles of vibration at the clamps to
assess vibration severity.
This brochure deals with this very important issue in the design and operation of overhead
transmission lines. It starts with a review of the Every Day Stress (EDS) concept. That is
followed in Section 3 by a review of the influence of terrain cover or roughness on wind
turbulence, which is known to affect to a large extent wind power imparted to conductors.
Single, unarmored, unprotected single conductors of the most common types are considered in
Section 4. The following section deals with single conductor lines protected by means of
Stockbridge-type vibration dampers set up at span extremities. Section 6 of the brochure deals in
turn with bundled conductor lines, particularly twin horizontal bundles, triple apex-down bundles
and quad horizontal bundles made up of conventional stranded conductors fitted either with
damping spacers or non-damping spacers or a combination of non-damping spacers and span-end
Stockbridge-type spacers.
5
2. REVIEW OF THE EVERY DAY STRESS (EDS) CONCEPT
Forty-five years have elapsed since the presentation, at the CIGRÉ 1960 session, of Report 223
[1] of CIGRÉ SC6, which showed the conclusions reached by the EDS Panel appointed in 1953
to investigate the fatigue damages caused to transmission line conductors by the Aeolian
vibrations.
In that report the EDS, expressed as a percent of the conductor breaking strength (or UTS,
Ultimate Tensile Strength), was defined as the maximum tensile load to which a conductor can
be subjected, at the temperature which will occur for the longest period of time, without any risk
of damage due to Aeolian vibrations. Different values of EDS were given for bare conductors
and for conductors with armour rods only, dampers only and armour rods and dampers. The
Panel’s recommendations are shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 EDS panel recommendations for safe design tensions in percent UTS.
Unprotected Lines equipped with
lines Armour rods Dampers Armour rods
and dampers
Copper conductors 26
ACSR 18 22 24 24
Aluminium conductors 17
Aldrey conductors 18 26
Steel conductors
1. Rigid clamps 11
2. Oscillating clamps 13
Since Report 223 was issued, new conductors have been put in service and lines have been built
for the first time in new areas. With the broader experience, the recommended EDS values have
appeared to be insufficient to explain the fatigue damage found on these more recent lines. In
fact, in retrospect, even the statistical conclusions drawn from EDS Panel do not seem quite
correct.
For example, Table 2.2 shows the results of an analysis of the EDS Panel data for bare ACSR
conductors. It indicates that for lines that have been in service for 10 to 20 years, 45% of the
lines with an EDS<18% and 78% of the lines with an EDS>18% revealed damages. As can be
seen, the 18% EDS value proposed as “safe” lead to fatigue failures although at a slower rate.
6
Table 2.2 Summary of damaged lines as per the EDS panel
Service life % of lines damaged
Years EDS < 18% EDS = > 18%
<=5 5.26 25.00
> 5 < = 10 20.93 35.29
> 10 < = 20 45.00 78.00
> 20 58.93 91.67
Research and testing performed since 1960 have provided information that was not available to
the EDS Panel. Self-damping tests on conductors showed that the increased tensile load reduces
the power dissipated by a vibrating conductor. To represent such effect, it is now considered
more convenient, in order to generalise the results, to use the ratio H/w between the horizontal
tensile load and the conductor weight per unit length rather than the % of UTS. This may not
have been evident to the EDS Panel because the vast majority of the lines up to 1962 were built
with the classical 30/7, 26/7 and 54/7 stranding ACSR. With such cables, the increase of UTS
due to an increase of the conductor diameter brought also an equal increase in the conductor
weight.
The EDS Panel classified the lines on the basis of terrain, (flat, hilly, mountainous, etc.), but it is
now well known that what influences the wind power is the surface roughness of the ground
which creates turbulence.
Finally, it is well known that conductor fatigue is the result of an accumulation of dynamic
bending strains in the presence of fretting [2-3]. It follows that a parameter often ignored is the
occurrence of dangerous winds on the line. In some locales, the occurrence and direction of these
winds is only related to general meteorological conditions but in other locations, close to large
water bodies or in desert areas, the thermal differences in areas surrounding the line cause daily
air flows in one direction and in the other. Under such conditions the rate of dynamic stress
accumulation can be significantly greater than in other areas.
All this information can now better explain the dispersion of the time to failure of the lines
investigated by the EDS Panel and, in general, of present similar lines in service.
It should be pointed out that the Panel offered its recommendations with clear reservations
regarding their fundamental soundness. Much poor experience that resulted from trying to apply
the recommendations was the result of ignoring those reservations.
In view of sometimes unsatisfactory experience with the Panel’s recommendations, and of

improved current understanding of Aeolian vibration, it is felt that new proposals are
appropriate.
7
3. TURBULENCE AS A FUNCTION OF TERRAIN
Turbulence in the wind affects the amount of Aeolian vibration power that is imparted to a
vibrating conductor. Maximum power is transferred when wind causes a Strouhal frequency of
vortex shedding that is close to the frequency at which the conductor is vibrating [4]. Due to the
travelling-wave nature of conductor vibration, the conductor’s vibration frequency, or frequency
spectrum, is the same all along the span. If the wind speed is not constant all along the span,
there must be parts of the span where maximum power transfer does not occur, and total wind
power input must be less than would occur in perfectly uniform wind. Fluctuations in wind speed
with time - gustiness - also reduce wind power input, because the vibration of the span cannot
change frequency fast enough to follow short-term wind speed variations. Both the span-wise
variations and the gustiness are reflections of turbulence in the wind structure.
The turbulence that influences Aeolian vibration arises from the interaction of the mean wind
with the ground. The magnitude of the turbulence is ordinarily taken as the root-mean-square
variation of wind velocity about the mean speed, and turbulence intensity is expressed as the
ratio of that RMS variation to the mean wind velocity.
Turbulence intensity at any particular field location is strongly influenced by the local terrain,
and especially the nature of the ground cover. Obstacles to wind flow, such as trees and
buildings, and even blades of grass, shed vortices somewhat as conductors do. These vortices
comprise the turbulent component of the wind. Naturally, large obstacles shed large vortices and
result in large turbulence intensity, while small obstacles, with their small and short-lived
vortices, result in low intensity.
Very large obstacles such as hills, ridges and mountains do not cause turbulence as understood
here. Rather, they shape the flow to conform to these gross orographic features. For example,
valleys may funnel the wind, increasing its speed and actually reducing its turbulence intensity.
Field measurements have yielded tables of typical values of intensity found in various classes of
ground cover. The values in Table 3.1 pertain to elevation above ground of 10 metres [9]. Tables
with more finely-divided classifications are available. For example, Wieringa [10] provides
twice as many.
Table 3.1 Typical values of turbulence intensity.

Terrain Turbulence
Intensity
Open sea; large stretches of open water 0.11
Rural areas; open country with few, low, obstacles 0.18
Low-density built-up areas; small town; suburbs; 0.25
open woodland with small trees
Town and city centers with high density of buildings; 0.35
broken country with tall trees
8
The intensities given in these tables are typical of values measured during strong winds and, in
fact, such measurements show consistent results only during strong winds. Measurements during
light to moderate winds, say up to 8 or 10 m/s (hourly average), show a great deal of dispersion.
This dispersion results from effects of the buoyancy acquired by parcels of air that are in contact
with the surface when they are heated or cooled by the ground. Heating causes these parcels to
rise, churning the atmosphere as they do, resulting in increased turbulence. Cooling, on the other
hand, causes the atmosphere to stratify, with the cool layer sticking to the ground and blocking
the movement of surface-generated turbulence upward. Because of these effects, turbulence
intensity during the light-to-moderate winds associated with Aeolian vibration can be much
larger, or significantly smaller than the values reported in the table. For example, in rural areas,
intensity can be as high as 0.50 or as low as 0.07, depending upon whether the ground surface is
warmer or colder than the air.
9
4. SINGLE UNPROTECTED CONDUCTORS
This section aims at recommending safe design tensions for unarmored, unprotected single
conductor lines.
Modelling
All models that were employed to estimate safe tensions basically rely on the Energy Balance
Principle [11] to predict steady state vibration in terms of fymax (the product of vibration
frequency and maximum vibration amplitude at antinodes), that is the response of a span when
excitation by the wind is balanced by the internal damping of the span. The flow chart (Fig. 4.1)
shows parameters that, in a modelling approach, may serve to describe the properties of the
structural system (the span) and the wind excitation, and Table 4.1 summarizes which of these
parameters were considered in models of four different organizations, and how they were
quantified.
Two approaches were followed to assess computed vibration levels (the span response) with
regard to the tolerance of the conductor to vibration. In the Endurance Limit Approach, vibration
levels are considered to result in an infinite lifetime of the conductor, if they do not exceed a
definite limit value (the endurance limit in terms of fymax). Conductor tensions that lead to
vibration levels below the endurance limit are regarded as safe.
Conductor tension design guide - modelling approach
Increase or
decrease tension
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
Clamping system < >

Conductor type
Conductor stranding = O.K. , limiting
Tolerance to vibrations Resp. : Tol.
Tension Conductor condition design value
Damping capacity
Span length
Conductor size
Response
Energy balance Intensity
Recurence
Effective wind turbulence Wind power input

Wind statistics
Terrain category Effective wind recurrence
EXCITATION
Figure 4.1 Parameters describing undamped structural system and wind excitation.
10
Table 4.1 Basic assumptions underlying model calculations.
Organisation RIBE/Krispin [5] IREQ/Hardy, Leblond [6] Alcoa Fujikura/Rawlins [7] Claren [8]
Approach Endurance limit Endurance limit Cumulative damage Endurance limit Cumulative damage Cumulative damage
Conductor Measured (decay Measured Measured Calculated on the basis
damping capacity method, span with (ISWR method) (ISWR method) of equations that were
pivoted ends) and derived from measured
Calculated on the basis of similarity laws data
calibrated by means of measured data
Wind power Laminar & reduced Laminar & reduced for normally-distributed Laminar & reduced for turbulence Laminar & reduced for
input for turbulence turbulence turbulence
Wind recurrence − − Rayleigh-distributed − Linearly increasing Rayleigh-distributed
(4.5 km/h avrg) probability density (2.5 m/s avrg)
from 0 to 7 mph,
constant probability
density (0.057)
between 7 and 12 mph,
linearly decreasing
from 12 to 27 mph.
Proper winds to occur
half of the time.
Vibration mode Sinusoidal Narrow band random vibration (peak Sinusoidal Random (Flat Random (amplitudes
shape amplitudes Rayleigh-distributed, maximum probability density normally distributed
amplitude limited to 6 times rms-value at each from 0.4 to 1 times the about a mean
frequency) EBP-amplitude) corresponding to 50%
of the maximum
laminar amplitude at
respective frequency,
maximum amplitude
limited to 3.5 times that
mean value)
Conductor Fatigue endurance as Fatigue endurance as S/N-curves based on Fatigue endurance as S/N-curves based on CIGRÉ Safe Border
tolerance to per [13] per [13] [13] data for several per [13] [13] data Line
vibration probabilities of survival
Clamping system Fixed metal to metal Fixed metal to metal clamps Fixed metal to metal clamps Fixed clamps
clamps
Predicted fatigue Infinite Infinite 50 years with a Infinite 100 years 30 years
life probability of survival
of 95%
In the Cumulative Damage Approach, one assigns a certain portion of fatigue damage to each
vibration cycle. These small fractions of fatigue damage are assumed to accumulate at a certain
rate during the service life of the conductor, until fatigue breakage occurs. The usual assumption
is that of linear damage accumulation (Miner's Rule). This approach requires assumptions on the
recurrence of fatigue inducing stress levels to determine the number of occurrences at different
stress levels, and data on the probability of vibration exciting wind has to be introduced into the
model. Probabilistic considerations may be expanded to the S-N-curves that define the fatigue
inducing intensity of different vibration levels, and different S-N-curves may be surmised for
different levels of probability of survival. Safe conductor tensions that are calculated on that
ground necessarily pertain to a certain predicted fatigue life of the conductor.
Safe design tensions as predicted by the different organizations are depicted in Figs. 4.2 and 4.3
as a function of wind intensity of turbulence. Figures 4.2a & b were worked out on the basis of
the Endurance Limit Approach while Figs. 4.3a & b were prepared on the basis of the
Cumulative Damage Approach for multi-layer A1/Syz (ACSR) and A1 (AAC) conductor classes
[12] as well as for multi-layer A3 (AAAC) and A1/A3 (ACAR) conductor classes respectively.
Also shown in the figures are the tensions recommended by the EDS Panel, translated in terms of
H/w, for different conductor types. As the Panel did not account for the effect of turbulence, their
recommended tensions appear as flat horizontal lines in the figures.
11
Figure 4.2 Predicted conductor safe design tension according to endurance limit approach. (a)
Multi-layer A1 (AAC) and A1/Syz (ACSR) conductors; (b) Multi-layer A3
(AAAC-6201) and A1/A3 (ACAR) conductors.
12
Figure 4.3 Predicted conductor safe design tension according to cumulative damage approach.
(a) Multi-layer A1 (AAC) and A1/Syz (ACSR) conductors; (b) Multi-layer A3
(AAAC-6201) and A1/A3 (ACAR) conductors.
13
On the contrary, calculated safe design tensions are seen to increase with intensity of turbulence
pointing out that conductors are less susceptible to Aeolian vibration excitation by turbulent
winds.
It will be noticed that despite a considerable scatter in predicted safe tensions according to
organizations, they generally stand well below the corresponding EDS values, particularly at the
lowest intensities of turbulence. As for the scatter, it appears to result mainly from differences in
predicted conductor self-damping.
Three organizations computed admissible H/w for A3 (AAAC-6201) all aluminum alloy
conductors that are from 30 to 50% lower than those for A1 (AAC) all aluminum conductors or
A1/Syz (ACSR) steel reinforced aluminum conductors. This is the result of their calculations
being performed on the basis of lower fatigue endurance characteristics for the A3 conductors as
per reference [13].
Lastly, it may be observed that recourse to the cumulative damage approach leads to more
permissive H/w than the alternative approach. That stands to reason on account of the former
approach allowing for a certain number of vibration cycles above the conductor endurance limit
while the latter does not.
Comparison With Field Experience

Uncertainties in the data and assumptions that are required to determine maximum safe tensions
on the basis of the Energy Balance Principle have made it necessary to consider known
experience with existing lines when specifying protection for new lines. For that purpose,
collections have been made of historical data on existing lines, relative to their design tensions
and the occurrence or not of fatigued strands. Analyses of such collections have been published
by Zetterholm [1], Rawlins et al [14], Dulhunty et al [15] and Doocey et al [16].
These analyses rely upon evidence that there exist parameters that can rank spans according to
their risk of fatigue damage, and that well-chosen ranking parameters can properly rank
collections of spans of different design, as long as each collection is confined to a certain limited
class. For example, ACSR spans with dampers would belong to a different class from ACSR
spans with armor rods, and copper conductor spans, with dampers or with armor rods, would
belong to different classes from the ACSR spans. The power of such analyses hinges upon
choosing the ranking parameters well, defining the various classes narrowly enough, and yet
retaining enough cases in each class to define a pattern that distinguishes spans that are likely to
experience fatigue from the general population.
As noted earlier, the method adopted by the Task Force, to estimate maximum safe tensions for
Aeolian vibration, was Energy Balance Analysis. However, it also made use of the field
experience approach, as a “reality check.” In doing that, it was the view of the Task Force that,
since it was first concerned only with undamped, unarmored spans, the most significant design
parameter influencing the probability of fatigue is conductor tension, because of the impact of
tension upon conductor self-damping. However, tension can be expressed in various forms, such
as force, stress, percent of rated strength and others. The Task Force was faced with the need to
14
choose a form, for use as a ranking parameter that would be indifferent to such things as
conductor diameter, in order gather as many field cases into each class as possible. The
parameter that was selected was H/w.
Since tension H for any span is not constant, but varies with temperature, ice or wind loading
history and creep, it was necessary to define the reference condition for determining H. The Task
Force decided to use the average temperature for the coldest month as reference temperature, and
to determine tension for initial conditions, i.e., before wind and ice loading and creep.
The Task Force drew from several sources to form a collection of field experience cases for
undamped spans, i.e., spans equipped with neither dampers nor armor of any type. This
collection was used as a “reality check” on the predictions of maximum safe design tensions
based on the Energy Balance Principle, developed by Task Force members. The collection
contained enough cases to be useful only for conventional round strand ACSR. There were not
enough cases to indicate safe tension limits for aluminum or aluminum alloy conductors, ground
wires or OPGW. The ACSR collection is shown in Table 4.2.
In Table 4.2, the individual rows pertain to existing undamped ACSR lines for which data is
available. They are arranged in order of increasing H/w, and for each line it is indicated whether
conductor fatigue is known to have occurred.
The tension-ranking parameter H/w is expected to correlate with failure experience, and a
limiting value of H/w below which failures do not occur is expected to exist. Spans having H/w
values greater than this limit may survive without experiencing fatigue failure due to the
protective effects of terrain features such as trees and buildings, or where the line runs parallel to
a valley that channels the wind. However, no failures should occur where H/w is below the limit.
The table suggests that the limit may be about H/w = 1000 meters. However, there are not
enough experience cases in the vicinity of that value to support more than a tentative conclusion.
The lowest failure case, with H/w = 1030 meters, involved pin-type insulators with hand-formed
ties, whereas almost all the other cases involved spans supported by suspension clamps. Thus,
the departure of this case from the main pattern may indicate that pin insulator supports cannot
be included in the same class as suspension clamp supports. In addition, the span was short,
making the determination of tension particularly sensitive to the precision of “sagging in” and to
the choice of reference temperature. If this case is ignored, the safe limit may be as much as
H/w = 1400 meters. However, there are not enough experience cases in the interval between
1000 and 1400 m to determine where in this range the limit should fall. One can only conclude it
is somewhere in this interval.
15
Table 4.2 Field Experience Cases for Undamped ACSR.
Conductor Diam Al / St Average H/w Fatigue
(mm) Strands Span (m) (m) failure
21.9 36/12 200 707
21.9 36/12 395 844
24.2 54/7 137 934
8.0 6/1 61 1029 Yes
21.8 26/7 183 1358
26.6 26/19 362 1397 Yes
16.5 310 1405 Yes
18.8 30/7 396 1511 Yes
18.8 30/7 350 1554
10.7 12/7 300 1607 Yes
21.8 26/7 274 1638
25.9 30/7 396 1655 Yes
21.8 26/7 326 1723
20.5 26/7 300 1731 Yes
25.4 54/7 346 1735
19.9 26/7 170 1738
22.4 30/7 333 1747
21.0 30/7 390 1761 Yes
12.7 6/1 107 1772
22.4 30/7 340 1865 Yes
21.7 48/7 295 1881 Yes
18.8 30/7 270 1908
18.8 30/7 360 1959
11.7 12/7 264 1996 Yes
19.6 30/7 350 2001
19.6 30/7 350 2001
26.4 32/19 655 2095 Yes
26.4 32/19 445 2108 Yes
26.4 32/19 520 2116 Yes
22.4 34/19 475 2154
25.1 26/7 580 2162
26.4 32/19 475 2176
21.9 36/12 315 2243
18.3 26/7 440 2279 Yes
31.7 114/37 425 2297 Yes
31.7 114/37 415 2300 Yes
31.7 114/37 374 2382 Yes
14.4 12/7 194 2458 Yes
22.3 30/7 350 2861 Yes
General Discussion
Attempts to determine maximum safe tensions for Aeolian vibration on the basis of field
experience only have been difficult and sometimes unsuccessful. This is due to the fact that
actual conductor condition, tension history and even, on occasions, design tensions are not
known. One way round is to have recourse to modelling which is the method adopted by the
Task Force. One substantial advantage of this approach is the possibility to consider all relevant
parameters and variables in a systematic manner.
However, caution is compulsory despite the improved scientific appearance of the modelling
approach. Vibration-induced fatigue degradation of conductors is a problem of a highly complex
16
and highly random nature that is not easily amenable to mathematical analysis. From the very
first, the wind, the sole cause to Aeolian vibrations, is itself strongly random, with the wind
speed and direction fluctuating continuously both time-wise and space-wise, as noted above. The
conductors respond to variations in weather conditions associated with the passage of major
weather systems by displaying markedly different amplitudes and frequencies on different days,
and even different hours of the same day. They respond to differences in wind structure by
vibrating less when and where the wind is turbulent or gusty. Thus, the rate of accumulation of
fatigue cycles is random over time and varies markedly with location.
What is more, conductor self-damping, which determines the vibration intensity, is a strong
function of tension which itself is far from being a constant depending on non-deterministic
variables such as conductor temperature and also creep which in turn depends on wind and ice
loading history. For ACSR conductors, self-damping is even dependent on the share of tension
between the aluminium strands and the steel strands and that is again a function of temperature
and creep.
Conductor fatigue endurance, the conductor faculty to resist vibratory motion without strand
failure, is another random variable that comes into play. It has been determined that lifetime
before first strand failure of several samples of the same conductor, tested according to the same
ideal laboratory protocol, may be scattered over a range as large as 1-50. Dispersion in the cycles
to failure is indeed inherent to metal fatigue, and is increased by effects of variability in mill
processing and, particularly, effects of fretting.
Moreover, there is already a large scatter in the available experimental data yet, pertaining to the
same simplified vibratory schemes. Hence, there is a 2 to 1 factor between the highest and the
lowest value of maximum wind power input into conductors according to investigators [17].
What is even more consequential, there may be one order of magnitude difference in conductor
self-damping estimate at the same tension according to testing methods [17]. Likewise, as regard
conductor fatigue, there is a 2 to 1 ratio in the endurance limit of multilayer ACSR’s whether it is
extracted from EPRI’s Orange Book [13] or from the CIGRÉ Safe Border Line [18]. That entire
scatter would probably intensify had the true nature of the beat-pattern-like vibrations been duly
considered.
All that without saying anything about the great diversity in conductor types, sizes and makes as
well as in suspension clamps or other supporting devices.
All those complexities and uncertainties just enhanced the necessity of resorting to sound
analysis and judgement. Obviously, simplification is required to overcome complexities. Some
conservatism is needed to counterbalance uncertainties. And comparison against field experience
and test line results is a necessity to gain confidence in the recommended safe tensions. That has
been the philosophy that has guided the Task Force throughout.
Hence, initial tension at the average temperature of the coldest month was chosen as a base to the
recommendations knowing that any temperature increase, any wind and ice loading as well as
the inevitable creep would soon reduce tension permanently, thus alleviating the vibration
17
severity. Furthermore, the recommended safe tensions stand well in the lower range of the
predicted values.
The recommended safe H/w may appear over-conservative. Nevertheless, it should be noticed
that they generally stand above the 17-18% of UTS recommended by the EDS Panel for all
aluminum A1 (AAC) conductors and low steel-content aluminum conductors A1/Syz (ACSR).
Recommendations
The maximum safe design tensions with respect to Aeolian vibrations of undamped and
unarmored conductors, as recommended by the Task Force, are shown in Table 4.3 as a function
of terrain category. The table uses H/w, the ratio of horizontal tension in the span to conductor
weight per unit length, as the tension parameter. It is important to note that this horizontal
tension refers to initial horizontal tension, before wind and ice loading and before creep, at the
average temperature of the coldest month on the site of the line.
Recommended safe tensions apply to the following round strand conductors: all aluminium A1
(AAC) conductors; all aluminium alloy A2 or A3 (AAAC) conductors; aluminium/aluminium
alloy A1/A2 or A1/A3 (ACAR) conductors and steel-reinforced aluminium A1/Syz (ACSR)
conductors. It was resolved to give a uniform recommendation for all types of conventional
conductors using aluminium and/or aluminium alloy. Although a lower fatigue endurance of A2
(AAAC) conductors may be surmised from reference [13], there seems to be no well
documented field evidence to support a more pessimistic tension recommendation for these
conductors.
Terrains have been divided into four categories according to general characteristics. Should there
be any doubt about real terrain category, the lowest class should be selected.
Table 4.3 Recommended conductor safe design tension at the average temperature of the
coldest month as a function of terrain category. Valid for homogeneous aluminium
and aluminium alloy conductors Ax (AAC and AAAC), bi-metallic aluminium
conductors Ax/Ay (ACAR) and steel reinforced aluminium conductors A1/Syz
(ACSR).
Terrain Terrain characteristics ( H w) adm

category (m)
1 Open, flat, no trees, no obstruction, with snow cover, or 1000
near/across large bodies of water; flat desert.
2 Open, flat, no obstruction, no snow; e.g. farmland without any 1125
obstruction, summer time.
3 Open, flat, or undulating with very few obstacles, e.g. open 1225
grass or farmland with few trees, hedgerows and other
barriers; prairie, tundra.
4 Built-up with some trees and buildings, e.g. residential 1425
suburbs; small towns; woodlands and shrubs. Small fields with
bushes, trees and hedges.
18
The maximum safe design tensions recommended herein should be suitable most of the time.
However, special situations require specific attention. Such is the case for extra long spans, or
spans exposed to pollutants that may decrease the self-damping or the fatigue endurance of the
conductor, or spans often covered with ice, rime or hoarfrost, or spans operated at high
temperature.
Generally speaking, damping spans is inexpensive and that is certainly preferable to hazarding
conductor fatigue breaks. Moreover, use of damping may allow higher tensions resulting in
significant cost savings in line construction.
Use of armour rods or special supporting devices such as cushioned clamps and helical
elastomer-bushed suspensions may justify higher design tensions on otherwise unprotected
conductors. Information on safe tension, when these devices are employed, should be obtained
from their suppliers.
Existing lines using single unprotected conductors strung at a tension exceeding the
recommended value for the terrain may require inspection and field measurement. Techniques to
perform such vibration measurements have been described previously [19].
Incidentally, in some countries, the maximum safe design tension may be governed by the
maximum climatic loading rather than by Aeolian vibrations.
19
5. DAMPED SINGLE CONDUCTORS
This section aims at recommending safe design tensions for single conductor lines protected by
means of Stockbridge-type vibration dampers set up at the span extremities.
Modelling
The two models that were employed to estimate safe tensions basically rely on the Energy
Balance Principle [11] to predict steady state vibration in terms of f ymax (the product of vibration
frequency and maximum vibration amplitudes at antinodes), that is the response of a span when
excitation by the wind is balanced by the self-damping in the conductor and by damping devices.
The flow chart in Fig. 4.1 shows parameters that, in a modelling approach, may serve to describe
the properties of the structural system (the span and span-end damping arrangements) and the
wind excitation, and Table 5.1 summarizes which of these parameters were considered in models
of different organisations, and how they were quantified.
Table 5.1 Basic assumptions underlying model calculations.

Organisation IREQ / Leblond & Hardy [25] Alcoa Fujikura / Rawlins [26]
Approach Endurance Limit Endurance Limit
Conductor damping Calculated on the basis of similarity Measured
capacity laws calibrated by means of (ISWR method)
measured data
(ISWR method).
Span-end damping Travelling wave approach using Measured efficiency of span-
complex damper stiffness measured end damping arrangement
on shaker
Wind power input Laminar or reduced for normally- Laminar or reduced for
distributed turbulence turbulence
Vibration mode Narrow band random vibration Sinusoidal
shape (peak amplitudes Rayleigh-
distributed, maximum amplitude
limited to 3.5 times RMS-value at
each frequency)
Conductor tolerance Fatigue endurance as per [13] Fatigue endurance as per [13]
to vibration
Clamping system Fixed metal to metal clamps Fixed metal to metal clamps
20
As the Task Force focused on Stockbridge-type dampers applied at span ends, information on the
span-end damping was needed to be employed in the Energy Balance analysis. Data was
available that was obtained by indoor testing techniques described in IEEE Std 664-1993, “IEEE
Guide for Laboratory Measurement of the Power Dissipation of Aeolian vibration Damper for
Single Conductors” (see also ref. [20]). One technique uses a conductor span to determine the so-
called efficiency of a span-end damping arrangement which can directly be used in the Energy
Balance [21]. Another technique consists in measuring the dynamic characteristics of a
Stockbridge-type vibration damper on a shaker. Travelling wave analysis was then used to
predict the span-end dissipation characteristics from the measured complex characteristics of the
damper [21].
The Endurance Limit Approach, as defined in Section 4, was generally followed to assess
computed vibration levels (the span response) with regard to the tolerance of the conductor to
vibration. In this approach, vibration levels are considered to result in an infinite lifetime of the
conductor, if they do not exceed a definite limit value (the endurance limit in terms of f ymax).
Conductor tensions that lead to vibration levels below the endurance limit are regarded as safe.
Selection of Parameters
The Task Force has focused on Stockbridge-type dampers, since this is at present the type most
widely used on conductors. It is noted that there are differences in design and application rules
among Stockbridge dampers of different sources. The Task Force is not in a position to
distinguish among these, and does not feel that it should. Thus, it has been forced to seek a single
safe tension criterion for a population that is not homogeneous, even though limited to
Stockbridge-type dampers.
The Task Force was aided, in dealing with this difficulty, by the observation that tests on
laboratory spans as well as on an outdoor test span [22] have shown somewhat similar level of
damping efficiency1 using dampers of various sources. This observation was found to be true,
even for widely different conductor sizes, when applied to well-designed and properly applied
dampers of sizes appropriate to the conductors in question. In fact, certain utility specifications
specify the same minimum level of performance in terms of damping efficiency for a significant
range of conductor sizes [23].
The similarity in damping efficiency levels pointed toward a particular parameter to use in rating
the protective capabilities of dampers. This rating parameter, L D H m , (where L is actual span
length, D is conductor diameter, H is horizontal tension in the conductor and m is mass of the
conductor per unit length) has been used in analyses of collections of field experience data on
fatigue of overhead conductors [24] to rank spans according to the difficulty in damping them,
based on the line design variables, span length, conductor size and tension. The parameter is
proportional to the damping efficiency required to control vibration amplitude to a given level.
Since the Task Force had adopted the parameter H/w (where w is weight of the conductor per
1
Damping efficiency is defined [21] as the ratio of power actually dissipated by the damper to the power that would be dissipated by
a perfect damper - one that absorbed incident waves without reflection - at the same frequency and amplitude. In the laboratory,
damping is measured through the inverse standing wave ratio [20].
21
unit length) to rate the effect of tension on conductor self damping, it was able to simplify the set
of rating parameters L D H m and H/m to LD/m and H/w respectively.
Predicted Safe Design Tension

Safe design tension as predicted by Leblond and Hardy [25] for one conductor type over a full
range of span lengths and by Rawlins [26] for three sets of conductor types and span lengths is
depicted in Fig. 5.1 in terms of the span parameter LD/m and the tension parameter H/w. As a
rule, the calculations were carried out using the endurance limit approach for the A1/Syz2
(ACSR) aluminium-conductors-steel-reinforced indicated in the legend. The results shown here
were determined on the basis of an assumed constant level of wind turbulence ranging from 5%
to 30%. It will be noticed that despite a large scatter in the calculated safe design tension
according to the source, there is a fair agreement in the minimum, more conservative, values.
22
EDS - ACSR 42/7
EDS - ACSR 48/7
EDS - ACSR 26/7
EDS - ACSR 30/7
EDS - Aldrey
20
18
16
L D / m, (m /kg)
14
3
12
10
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

H/w, (m)
Leblond and Hardy [14] : Bersfort : , 8% turb.; , 15% turb.; , 22% turb.; , 30% turb.
Rawlins [15] : Chukar : , 5% turb.; , 10% turb.; Condor : , 5% turb.; , 10% turb.;
Drake, damper A : , 5% turb.; , 10% turb.; Drake, damper B : 1 , 5% turb.; 2, 10% turb.
Figure 5.1 Predicted safe boundaries according to endurance limit approach.
Also shown in Fig. 5.1 are the safe tensions recommended by the EDS Panel, translated in terms
of H/w, for different damped A1/Syz (ACSR) and Aldrey conductors. As the Panel did not
2
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) conductor designation [12] : see Table 5.3.
22
account for the span length, their recommended tensions appear as straight vertical lines in the
graphics. For the common range of span parameters, 5 < LD/m < 15 (m3/kg), it may be observed
that the safe design tension as calculated by the endurance limit approach for 8% wind
turbulence is respectively more permissive, about equally permissive or less permissive than the
corresponding EDS values for low steel content, medium steel content or high steel content
A1/Syz (ACSR) conductors. However, for Aldrey conductors, the calculated safe design tension
is definitely much more conservative over all the span range than the value recommended by the
EDS Panel, i.e. 26% of UTS or about 3000 m.

In the previous section dealing with Unprotected Single Conductors, it was remarked,
“Uncertainties in the data and assumptions that are required to determine maximum safe tensions
on the basis of the Energy Balance Principle have made it necessary to consider known
experience with existing lines when specifying protection for new lines.” These uncertainties are
even more significant in the present case where dampers are involved. The analytical basis for
applying the Energy Balance Principle is still open to question and is, in fact, currently under
scrutiny by CIGRÉ TF B2.11.01 “Vibration Principles”. Thus, the need to test the present
recommendations against past experience is even greater than before.
It is worthwhile to examine the range of the ranking parameters LD/m and H/w actually
represented in overhead lines. Fig. 5.2 shows a collection of points representing a number of
actual lines, all of which are protected by Stockbridge-type dampers. It is not certain that all of
these lines were free of fatigue damage, but most probably were. The collection was drawn from
files of Task Force members.
Figure 5.2 includes the estimated safe boundaries depicted in Fig. 5.1. It is evident that many
existing lines fall on the safe side of the estimated safe boundaries, but a significant number fall
on the “unsafe” side. It is likely that a few of these “unsafe” lines did experience damage, and
that others were protected from severe vibration by very rough terrain, beyond Category 4.
However, the Task Force interprets the presence of so many cases on the unsafe side as
indicating a conservative bias in the estimated safe boundaries.
The TF found only meagre information on field experience cases where conductor fatigue
occurred in lines protected by Stockbridge type dampers. Table 5.2 summarises cases from
questionnaires collected by CSC6 [2] and SC22 WG04 for all damper types. Only three cases,
Items 1, 5 and 6, clearly pertain to Stockbridge dampers. Items 7 and 8 may or may not pertain
to Stockbridge dampers, but it is considered likely that the fatigue occurred before any dampers
were installed. For Items 1 and 6, the damage may have occurred in spans that were not fitted
with dampers. For Item 1, the figure for H/w applies to the design value of H. Actual tension
was higher due to contractor error, but an actual value was not reported. Thus, Item 5 represents
the only case that is clearly valid for testing the estimated safe boundaries against field
experience. The case led the utility to increase the number of dampers in designing its lines,
implying that the damaged line had originally been fitted with less damping than might have
been required.
23
18
Terrain
16
Category : 1 2 3 4
14
12
L D / m, (m /kg)
3
10
2 Ruling spans
Maximum spans
0
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

H/w, (m)
Figure 5.2 Ranking parameters of damped ACSR lines in North America (no water crossings) in
relation to estimated safe boundaries.
Table 5.2 Field experience conductor fatigue cases – ACSR.
Item Diam. Stranding Span H/w LD/m Damper type Note

mm metres metres m3/kg
1 16.28 26/7 167 1542 4.983 Stockbridge 1
2 31.59 54/7 360 2017 5.755 Torsional
3 27.00 30/7 290 1851 5.861 Dumbell
4 27.00 30/7 305 1851 6.164 Dumbell
5 26.60 26/19 380 1994 6.971 Stockbridge
6 31.77 54/7 320 2031 5.086 Stockbridge 2
7 27.72 54/7 305 1677 5.691 “yes” 3
8 24.20 54/7 268 1406 5.592 “yes” 3
9 26.40 32/19 510 2227 8.496 Bretelles
10 27.72 54/7 330 1734 6.140 Elgra
1. Dampers may have been installed in dead-end spans and at angle towers only. H/w based on design tension.
Actual tension was higher due to contractor error.
2. Not all spans were damped. Damage may have only occurred in spans that were protected by armour rods only.
3. Lines were built in 1930 and 1927, respectively, before dampers were commercially available. Evidently, dampers
were added later. Damage likely occurred before they were installed.
24
Figure 5.3 shows all of the cases from Table 5.2, for comparison with the estimated safe
boundaries. All but Item 9 fall on the “safe” side of all four boundaries. The one valid case for
Stockbridge dampers, Item 5, falls slightly on the safe side of the Terrain Category 1 boundary.
Item 6, which may or may not be valid, falls similarly. Both cases came from Category 1 terrain.
Their position in the plot suggests that the proposed safe boundaries are not excessively
conservative.
Figure 5.3 also includes data from a number of operating lines where there is information that
fatigue damage to conductors has not occurred. The cases drawn from the test line are
particularly well documented because of the close control of conductor tensions, careful
vibration measurements and close inspection for damage. All these cases are in harmony with
the proposed safe boundaries.
12
Terrain category :
10
1 2 3 4
8
L D / m, (m /kg)
3
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

H/w, (m)
Conductor damage reported : , valid case;

, other cases;
0, other damage reported.
No damage reported : , individual spans;
, one damper/span test line safe cases;
, Zebra conductor over 2800 route km;
, Lynx conductor over 4000 route km.
Figure 5.3 Available field experience regarding damped single conductor lines in relation to
estimated safe boundaries.
25
Task Force Recommendations
As explained above, the Task Force has resolved to provide guidance to conductor safe design
tension with respect to Aeolian vibrations in terms of two parameters: the tension parameter H/w,
the ratio of horizontal tension H in the span to conductor weight w per unit length and the span
parameter, LD/m, the ratio of actual span length L times conductor diameter D to conductor mass
m per unit length. The tension H refers to initial horizontal tension before any significant wind
and ice loading and before creep, at the average temperature of the coldest month on the site of
the line.
The Task Force recommendations are depicted in Fig. 5.4 in the form of four sets of curves, each
one set associated to a particular terrain category described in the legend. The corresponding
information is provided in Table 6.3 in algebraic form. Terrains have been divided into four
categories according to their general characteristics. Should there be any doubt about real terrain
category, the lowest category should be selected.
The basic Safe Design Zone - No Damping applies to undamped and unarmoured single
conductors, as already shown in Section 4. This zone is defined in terms of the H/w parameter
only and it is unlimited in the LD/m parameter.
The Safe Design Zone - Span End Damping constitutes a zone where full protection of single
conductors against Aeolian vibrations is assuredly feasible by means of one or more
Stockbridge-type damper(s) set up at span extremities. Hence, within the limits of this zone,
Aeolian vibrations should not be a constraint on design tension.
For line parameters falling in the Special Application Zone, Aeolian vibrations may or may not
be a constraint and it is recommended that line designers determine the availability of adequate
protection before finalising the design.
This guide applies to all round wire, concentric lay, overhead electrical conductors shown in
Table 5.3.
Table 5.3 Conductor types to which recommendations apply.

Metal Combination Common IEC
Designation Designation
All 1350-H19 ASC or AAC A1
All 6101-T81 AASC or AAAC A2
All 6201-T81 AASC or AAAC A3
1350-H19 / Steel ACSR A1/S1A
1350-H19 / 6101-T81 ACAR A1/A2
1350-H19 / 6201-T81 ACAR A1/A3
26
20
18 Special Application
Zone
16
L D / m, (m /kg) 14
12
3
Safe Design
10 Zone
No Damping
8
6 Safe
Design
4 Zone
Span-
2 End
Damping
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

H/w, (m)
Terrain Category
#1 : Open, flat, no trees, no obstruction, with snow cover,
or near/across large bodies of water or flat desert.
#2 : Open, flat, no obstruction, no snow; e.g. farmland
without any obstruction, summer time.
#3 : Open, flat, or undulating with very few obstacles, e.g.
open grass of farmland with few trees, hedgerows
and other barriers; prairie, tundra.
#4 : Built-up with some trees and buildings, e.g. residential
suburbs; small towns; woodlands and shrubs. Small
fields with bushes, trees and hedges.
Figure 5.4 Recommended safe design tension for single conductor lines. H: initial horizontal
tension; w: conductor weight per unit length; L: actual span length; D: conductor
diameter and m: conductor mass per unit length.
It was resolved to give a uniform recommendation for all types of conventional conductors using
aluminium and/or aluminium alloy. Although a lower fatigue endurance of A3 (AAAC)
conductors may be surmised from reference [13], there seems to be no well documented field
evidence to support a more pessimistic tension recommendation for these conductors.
27
Existing lines using single conductors strung at a tension exceeding the recommended value for
the terrain and span length may require inspection and field measurement. Techniques to perform
such vibration measurements have been described previously [19].
It may be noted here that conductors do not get more susceptible to other forms of wind-induced
vibrations when tension is increased. As a matter of fact, their propensity to both galloping [27]
and wake-induced oscillations [28] (of bundled conductors) has been shown to decrease with
increased tension.
Limitations
As mentioned above, the Task Force has focused on Stockbridge-type dampers. It is noted that
the “Bretelle” is also used in some countries, helical impact dampers are widely used on earth
wires and special designs such as “Festoon” dampers are employed in certain applications such
as fjord crossings. However, it was judged not feasible at this juncture to arrive at safe tension
recommendations for these types.
The Task Force has used the parameters H/w and LD/m to construct boundaries within which
satisfactory performance should be commercially available, often from multiple sources. This
statement should in no way be taken to mean that all commercially available dampers will
provide such protection up to the limits of those boundaries or that they could provide such
protection indefinitely without themselves failing from fatigue. Rather, appropriate field testing
or evaluation of available dampers is likely to reveal at least some that do. It falls to the line
designer to identify them.
The guidance provided herein should be suitable most of the time. However, special situations
require specific attention. Such is the case for extra long spans; for spans often covered with ice,
rime or hoarfrost in which case dampers may break up prematurely as a result of galloping
and/or excessive Aeolian vibrations; for spans exposed to pollutants that may decrease the
fatigue endurance of the conductors; for spans equipped with warning devices and for spans
using non-conventional conductors such as compact or high temperature conductors.
Use of armour rods or special supporting devices such as cushioned clamps and helical
elastomer-bushed suspensions may justify higher design tensions. Information on safe tension,
when these devices are employed should be obtained from their suppliers.
28
6. BUNDLED CONDUCTORS
The present section aims at recommending safe design tensions for bundled conductor lines. The
recommendations cover twin horizontal bundles, triple apex-down bundles and quad horizontal
bundles made up of conventional stranded conductors fitted either with damping spacers or non-
damping spacers or a combination of non-damping spacers and span-end Stockbridge-type
dampers.
Review of Literature
Numerous field tests have demonstrated that bundled conductors respond less to Aeolian
excitation than single conductors of the same size and at the same tension as those of the bundle.
For example, Fig. 6.1 shows results of simultaneous recordings at Alcoa’s outdoor laboratory
in1960 [29]. Bundling reduced vibration amplitudes by about half, with and without dampers on
the span.
Figure 6.1 Comparison of vibration in single versus bundled conductors

Drake ACSR in 1200-foot span [29]. (MILS ≡ in x 10-3; CPS ≡ Hertz)
1 – Single conductor 2,3 – Subconductors in horizontal two-conductor bundle
A – No dampers B – One Stockbridge damper at end opposite recorder.
Early investigations showed that the reduction in amplitude becomes greater as the number of
subconductors in the bundle increases. Leibfried and Mors reported that spans in the
Hornisgrinde Test Station displayed, on average, amplitudes in the ratios 4:2:1 in spans with
single, twin- and quad-bundles respectively [30]. Liberman and Krukov reported that amplitudes
29
were reduced by factors of 1.5 to 2.5 for horizontal two-bundles, and of 5 to 10 for triple and
quadruple bundles [31]. There was some influence by spacer design, but in all of these tests the
spacers did not include intentional damping. Thus, the benefits of bundling were attributed to the
effects of mechanical coupling among the subconductors interfering with the vortex excitation
mechanism.
The effect of intentional damping in spacers was investigated initially by Edwards and Boyd at
Ontario Hydro [32]. They found that damping of a certain type reduced amplitudes in a twin
bundle by a factor of 5, relative to a comparable single conductor, and by a factor of 20 in a quad
bundle. The benefit of damping was confirmed by Diana et al. at the Porto Tolle Test Station in
Italy [33]. The effect of bundle configuration upon this benefit was investigated by Hardy et al.
at the Magdalen Islands Test Station of IREQ [34]. Damping in spacers is beneficial in all bundle
configurations, but seems greatest in those that have size in the vertical direction, such as triple
and quad bundles.
Table 6.1 collects the test conditions and salient data from a number of these field tests.
Review of Field Experience

Table 6.2 summarises some line design variables of 91 bundled conductor lines in North
America which have most likely operated for many decades without any Aeolian vibration
problem. It comprises 70 twin horizontal bundled lines (2H), out of which 19 lines have been
fitted with non-damping spacers (NDS) alone, 48 lines fitted with a combination of such spacers
and span-end Stockbridge dampers (NDS+Stk) and 3 lines fitted with damping spacers (DS)
alone. The tension parameter H/w ranged up to 2088 m in the first case, 2959 m in the second
and 1937 m in the third.
Table 6.2 also gives details of 14 triple apex-down bundled lines (3AD), out of which one line
only has been equipped with NDS, 4 lines with NDS+Stk and 9 lines with DS. This time, the
tension parameter H/w reached 1627 m in the first case, 2056 m in the second and 2096 m in the
third.
Finally, Table 6.2 includes 7 quad horizontal bundled lines (4H), out of which 3 are protected by
means of NDS+Stk and 4 others by means of DS. In this case, the tension parameter H/w was set
to a maximum of 1488 m and 1937 m respectively.
30
Table 6.1 Synthesis of field test experience about comparative vibration behaviour of bundled
conductors.
Ref. Bundle Nominal Test span Spacer End Amplitude ratio
type conductor H/w LD/m type damper single/bundle
(m) (m3/kg)
[29] Hor. twin 1755 6.3 Articulated No >2,1
[29] Hor. twin 1755 6.3 Articulated Yes >1,8
[29] Hor. twin 1755 6.3 Ball-&-socket No >2,7
[29] Hor. twin 1755 6.3 Ball-&-socket Yes >1,9
[30] Hor. twin 1295 6.5 Various No ~2
[30] Hor. quad 1295 6.5 Various No ~4
[31] Hor. twin >1454 6.5 Articulated No >1,5
[31] Vert. twin >1454 6.5 Articulated No >1,7
[31] Vert. twin >1730 6.3 Articulated No >5
[31] Triple >1437 7.5 Grouped twins No >5
[31] Hor. quad >1730 6.3 Grouped twins No >5
[33] Hor. twin 1743 7.2 Rigid No >1,3
[33] Triple 1743 7.2 Damping spacers No >5
[34] Hor. twin 1550 6.8 Damping spacers No ~2,4
[34] Triple 1550 6.8 Damping spacers No ~6,5
[34] Hor. quad 1550 6.8 Damping spacers No ~7,7
[34] Hor. twin 2325 6.8 Damping spacers No ~3,6
[34] Triple 2325 6.8 Damping spacers No ~8,6
[34] Hor. quad 2325 6.8 Damping spacers No ~13,0
Table 6.2 Outlook of field experience with bundled conductor lines in North America.
No. of lines Bundle Protection Range of Range of
type mean LD/m initial H/w
(m3/kg) (m)
19 2H NDS 2.19 - 4.63 802 - 2088
48 2H NDS+Stk 3.14 - 7.27 910 - 2959
3 2H DS 5.03 - 6.60 1636 - 1937
1 3AD NDS 5.62 1627
4 3AD NDS+Stk 6.20 - 6.93 1166- 2056
9 3AD DS 3.93 - 7.81 1401 - 2096
3 4H NDS+Stk 6.63 - 7.89 1452 - 1488
4 4H DS 7.33 - 8.38 1633 - 1937
31
Determination of Safe Design Tension
As an accommodating reference and benchmark, the safe design tensions that were
recommended previously for undamped single conductors (conductor system #1) and single
conductors fitted with Stockbridge dampers (Stk) at the span extremities (system #2) are shown
in Table 6.3 for each one of the four terrain categories that were then defined.
6.3.1 Unspacered bundled conductors fitted or not with span-end Stockbridge dampers
Unspacered bundled conductors have sometimes been used with the object of reducing their
susceptibility to galloping. In such cases, it appears reasonable to use the same safe design
tension limits as for equivalent single conductors whether they are undamped (system #3) or
damped by means of Stk (system #4), as indicated in Table 6.3
6.3.2 Bundled conductors fitted with non-damping spacers
The Task Force could not find any well-documented, instrumented field test data related to twin
horizontal bundles fitted with NDS alone. But field experience suggests that a tension of
H/w = 2100 m should be safe for terrain category #2, as it could be appreciated for one of the
lines in Table 6.2. However, to keep on the prudent side, it was resolved to associate that safe
design tension to terrain category #3. The safe design tensions for terrain categories #1, 2 and 4,
as shown in Table 6.3 (system #5), were then determined on the basis of terrain category #3
using the same terrain-to-terrain ratio as for the undamped single conductor case.
For triple apex-down bundled lines fitted with NDS, reference was made to comparative field
tests [35] carried out at the IREQ test line in Varennes clearly showing such a tension
H/w = 2100 m to be safe for terrain category #2, applicable to the test station. The safe design
tensions for the other terrain categories were determined using the same transposition principle
as for the twin bundles. However, as indicated in Table 6.3 (system #8), it was resolved to limit
the safe design tension for terrain category #4 to H/w = 2500 m as a matter of prudence.
The same absolute limit (H/w = 2500 m) was indeed applied to all systems even if they are
strung over the roughest terrain.
32
Table 6.3 Recommended conductor safe design tension with respect to Aeolian vibrations.
Conductor system Terrain Cat. #1 Terrain Cat. #2 Terrain Cat. #3 Terrain Cat. #4
H/w (m) LD/m (m3/kg) H/w (m) LD/m (m3/kg) H/w (m) LD/m (m3/kg) H/w (m) LD/m (m3/kg)
1. Undamped single conductor < 1000 < 1125 < 1225 < 1425
2. Single conductor with span-end Stockbridge dampers < 2615/(LD/m)0.12 < 15 < 2780/(LD/m)0.12 < 15 < 2860/(LD/m)0.12 < 15 < 3030/(LD/m)0.12 < 15
3. Undamped, unspacered twin, triple & quad bundled < 1000 < 1125 < 1225 < 1425
conductors
4. Unspacered twin, triple & quad bundled conductors < 2615/(LD/m)0.12 < 15 < 2780/(LD/m)0.12 < 15 < 2860/(LD/m)0.12 < 15 < 3030/(LD/m)0.12 < 15
with span-end Stockbridge dampers
5. Twin horizontal bundled conductors with non-damping < 1725 < 15 < 1925 < 15 < 2100 < 15 < 2450 < 15
spacers
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
6. Twin horizontal bundled conductors with non-damping < 2615/(LD/m) < 15 < 2780/(LD/m) < 15 < 2860/(LD/m) < 13 < 3030/(LD/m) <6
spacers and span-end Stockbridge dampers < 2100 > 13 ; < 15 < 2450 > 6 ; < 15
7. Twin horizontal bundled conductors with damping < 1900 < 2200 < 2500 < 2500
spacers
8. Triple apex-down bundled conductors with non-damping < 1850 < 15 < 2100 < 15 < 2275 < 15 < 2500 < 15
spacers
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
9. Triple apex-down bundled conductors with non-damping < 2615/(LD/m) < 15 < 2780/(LD/m) < 10 < 2860/(LD/m) <7 < 3030/(LD/m) <5
spacers and span-end Stockbridge dampers < 2100 > 10 ; < 15 < 2275 > 7 ; < 15 < 2500 > 5 ; < 15
10. Triple apex-down bundled conductors with damping < 2500 < 2500 < 2500 < 2500
spacers
11. Quad horizontal bundled conductors with non-damping < 1850 < 15 < 2100 < 15 < 2275 < 15 < 2500 < 15
spacers
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
12. Quad horizontal bundled conductors with non-damping < 2615/(LD/m) < 15 < 2780/(LD/m) < 10 < 2860/(LD/m) <7 < 3030/(LD/m) <5
spacers and span-end Stockbridge dampers < 2100 > 10 ; < 15 < 2275 > 7 ; < 15 < 2500 > 5 ; < 15
13. Quad horizontal bundled conductors with damping < 2500 < 2500 < 2500 < 2500
spacers
Terrain category # 1 : Open, flat, no trees, no obstruction, with snow cover, or near/across large bodies of water or flat desert.
Terrain category # 2 : Open, flat, no obstruction, no snow; e.g. farmland without any obstruction, summer time.
Terrain category # 3 : Open, flat or undulating with very few obstacles, e.g. open grass of farmland with few trees, hedgerows and other barriers; prairie, tundra.
Terrain category # 4 : Built-up with some trees and buildings, e.g. residential suburbs; small towns; woodlands and shrubs. Small fields with bushes, trees and hedges.
H: initial horizontal tension; w: conductor weight per unit length; L: actual span length; D: conductor diameter and m: conductor mass per unit length.
33
Quad bundles (system #11) fitted with NDS should be somewhat less prone to Aeolian vibrations
than their triple equivalents. However, due to lack of accurate information from the field, quad
bundles were assigned the same safe design tensions as the triple bundles (system #8).
For all systems using NDS or NDS+Stk (systems #5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12), it was resolved, as a
matter of prudence, to limit the range of application of the given safe design tensions H/w to
spans for which LD/m < 15 m3/kg.
6.3.3 Bundled conductors fitted with non-damping spacers and span-end Stockbridge dampers
Again, the Task Force could not find any well-documented field test data related to bundles fitted
with NDS+Stk which could have been used to determine safe design tensions rigorously.
However, it appears reasonable and at one and the same time prudent to recommend the same
safe design tensions as for either single conductors fitted with Stk (system #2) or bundles fitted
with NDS alone (systems #5, 8 and 11), whichever are more permissive. That applies to twin
horizontal bundles (system #6), to triple apex-down bundles (system #9) and quad horizontal
bundles (system #12) as shown in Table 6.3.
6.3.4 Bundled conductors fitted with damping spacers

To determine safe design tensions of bundles fitted with DS, the Task Force could rely on the
results of an extensive program of tests [34] carried out at the IREQ test line in the Magdalen
Islands. The test program covered a horizontal twin, an apex-down triple and a horizontal quad
bundle of ACSR Bersfort conductors fitted with the same number of DS, staggered in a similar
manner, as well as an undamped single conductor of the same type. Each conductor system was
tested successively at a nominal tension H/w of 1550 m, 2325 m and 2870 m respectively.
The most relevant results are shown synthetically in Fig. 6.2 in terms of a relative effective
amplitude as a function of the tension parameter H/w. The effective amplitudes relate to a single,
integrated figure expressing the overall Aeolian vibration response of each system according to a
severity or fatigue-damage point of view. The effective amplitudes are then normalized by means
of the effective amplitude of the single conductor strung at H/w = 2325 m to yield the relative
effective amplitudes.
The resultant relative effective amplitudes are plotted as data points in Fig.6.2 which are then
related by straight line segments. There are two and three such points for the single conductor on
the one hand and each one of the twin, triple and quad bundles on the other hand. It may be
observed first that the relative effective amplitude of vibration is from 2 to 4, 6 to 9 and 8 to 13
times less severe on the twin, triple and quad bundles respectively, at the same tension, in
comparison to the undamped single conductor.
34
C
1.0
gle
Sin
Relative effective amplitude 0.8 D
ped
d am
Un
0.6
B
0.4 4

3
T win

2 ped

1 Dam 4

2
3
0.2 1

A
Triple
1 2 3 4
D a mped

d
Damped Qua
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Tension parameter H/w, (m)
Figure 6.2 Determination of safe design tension for twin horizontal bundled conductor lines
fitted with damping spacers on the basis of comparative field test results [34].
In order to proceed further, one would need at least one data point for the undamped single
conductor that would stand on the low side of the range of safe design tensions for such a
conductor, i.e. 1000 m < H/w < 1425 m. For lack of such a point from the test program, the
IREQ’s calculation model [36] was called upon to determine the expected response of the
undamped single conductor below data point B in Fig. 6.2, assuming a turbulence intensity
corresponding to terrain category 2, as the test site was classified.
Now, if line segment AB is accepted as a reasonable approximation of the actual single

conductor response in the range 1000 m < H/w < 1550 m, one can proceed as follows: for
instance, going along arrowed line 2 in Fig.6.2, it may be seen that the relative effective
amplitude of the undamped single conductor is expected to stand at about 0.27 when the tension
is set at H/w = 1125 m while for the twin bundled conductors, this amplitude is reached when the
tension is set at H/w = 2200 m. As a result, it looks reasonable to conclude that H/w = 2200 m
may be used as the safe design tension for the twin bundle fitted with DS where H/w = 1125 m is
considered safe for the undamped single conductor.
35
Strictly speaking, the above procedure for transposing the safe design tension of the undamped
single conductor to the twin bundle fitted with DS would be valid only for terrains category 2 as
for the test site. However, it was argued that, had the same tests been repeated in other terrains,
the effective amplitudes would have certainly moved up or down in absolute terms, but it seems
reasonable to assume that they would have moved everywhere in even proportion. As a result,
the respective locus for the undamped single conductor and each one of the damped conductor
bundles when shown in relative terms would be expected to be approximately unchanged.
To check that assumption to a certain extent, the IREQ computer model for undamped single
conductors was run at H/w = 1500 m, 2000 m and 2500 m respectively for each of the four
terrain categories. It could be confirmed that the locus of the predicted, effective amplitude for
each terrain category almost coincides when normalized appropriately. Besides, this result makes
sense since it is expected that the slope of the line expressing the effective response of any
conductor system as a function of the tension parameter H/w should be determined entirely on
structural grounds and not on aerodynamics grounds.
Thus, it appears that Fig. 6.2 could also be used to determine the safe design tensions of twin
bundles for the other terrain categories, according to the same transposition procedure. Doing so,
it came out that the safe design tensions H/w = 1000 m, 1225 m and 1425 m for the undamped
single conductor in terrain category #1, 3 and 4 respectively translate into safe design tensions
H/w = 1900 m, 2500 m and 3050 m respectively for the horizontal twin bundled conductors
(system #7 in Table 6.3) in the same terrain categories. However, in the latter case, the Task
Force resolved again to limit the safe H/w to 2500 m as a matter of prudence.
The above safe H/w figures are well supported by the results of the test on the twin bundle at
H/w = 2870 m at the test site, in terrain category 2, which indicated a safe condition.
As for the triple and the quad bundles (system #10 and #13), it is clear from Fig. 6.2 that their
response is much lower than that of the twin bundle. Using the same transposition procedure as
above would lead to quite high safe design tensions even for terrains category 1. Again, the Task
Force decided to limit their respective safe design tension to H/w = 2500 m for any terrain
category.
It should be noted that safe design tensions H/w for bundled conductors fitted with DS are
provided in a way independent of the span parameter LD/m as it was considered that the benefits
of damping are usually well distributed over the span length.

Figures 6.3 and 6.4 depict the proposed safe design tension limits together with the
corresponding field cases in Table 6.2 for the twin horizontal bundles fitted with NDS or
NDS+Stk respectively. It will be seen that the proposed limits reflect well field experience.
Such is also the case for both triple apex-down and quad horizontal bundles fitted with either
NDS+Stk or DS, as shown in Fig. 6.5.
36
15
Field cases
Terrain #1
Terrain #2
Terrain #3
10
L D / m, (m /kg) Terrain #4
3
Special
Safe Design Zone Application
Zone
5
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

H/w, (m)
Figure 6.3 Ranking parameters of twin horizontal bundled lines in North America fitted with
non-damping spacers in relation to estimated safe boundaries.
15
Field cases
Terrain #1
Terrain #2
Terrain #3
10
L D / m, (m /kg)
Terrain #4
3
Special
Zone
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

H/w, (m)
Figure 6.4 Ranking parameters of twin horizontal bundled lines in North America fitted with
non-damping spacers and span-end Stockbridge dampers in relation to estimated safe boundaries.
37
15
Field cases
Terrain #1, NDS+Stk
Terrain #2, NDS+Stk
Terrain #3, NDS+Stk
Terrain #4, NDS+Stk
10
L D / m, (m /kg) Any terrain, DS
3
Special
Zone
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

H/w, (m)
Figure 6.5 Ranking parameters of triple apex-down and quad horizontal bundled lines in North
America fitted either with non-damping spacers (NDS) plus span-end Stockbridge dampers (Stk)
or damping spacers (DS) in relation to estimated safe boundaries.
Task Force Recommendations

As explained above, the Task Force has resolved to provide guidance to conductor safe design
tension in terms of two parameters: the tension parameter H/w, the ratio of tension H to
conductor weight w per unit length and, as the case may be, the span parameter LD/m, the ratio
of actual span length L times conductor diameter D to conductor mass m per unit length. The
tension H refers to initial horizontal tension before any significant wind and ice load and before
creep, at the average temperature of the coldest month.
The Task Force recommendations regarding each one of several bundled conductor systems, in
addition to two single conductor systems, are summarized in Table 6.3 in the form of simple
algebraic expressions, each one associated to a particular terrain category described in the
legend. Terrains have been divided in four categories according to their general characteristics.
Should there be any doubt about real terrain category, the lowest should be selected.
For some systems, the safe design zones are defined in terms of the H/w parameter only in which
case they are unlimited in the LD/m parameter. However in all cases, they constitute zones where
full protection of conductors against Aeolian vibrations is certainly feasible by means of a
reliable system of non-damping spacers, combined or not with span-end Stockbridge dampers, or
38
alternatively, a reliable system of damping spacers. Hence, within the limits of these zones,
Aeolian vibrations should not be a constraint on design tension.
For line parameters falling outside of these zones, Aeolian vibrations may or may not be a
constraint and it is recommended that line designers determine the availability of adequate
protection before finalising the design.
In the context of this paper, non-damping spacers should be understood as spacers allowing a
certain relative mobility of the attachment points with the subconductors in the vertical direction.
Lack of such relative mobility may lead to harmful vibration trapping.
This guide applies to all round wire, concentric lay, overhead electrical conductors listed in
Table 5.3 supported in conventional metal-to metal clamps.
Use of armour rods or special supporting devices such as helical elastomer-bushed suspensions
may justify higher design tensions. Information on safe design tension, when these devices are
employed should be obtained from their suppliers.
Limitations and Warnings

The Task Force has recommended safe design boundaries within which satisfactory performance
should be available, often from multiple commercial sources. This statement should in no way be
taken that all commercially available spacing and/or damping systems will provide such
protection up to the limits of those boundaries or that they could provide such protection
indefinitely without themselves failing from loosening, fatigue or wear. Rather, appropriate field
testing or evaluation of available systems is likely to reveal at least some that do. It falls to the
line engineer to identify them.
The guidance provided herein should be suitable most of the time. However, special situations
require specific attention. Such is the case for extra long spans; for spans often covered with ice,
rime, or hoarfrost; for spans equipped with aircraft warning devices and for spans using non-
conventional conductors.
39
7. REFERENCES
[1] Zetterholm. O.D., “Bare Conductors and Mechanical Calculation of Overhead
Conductors”, CIGRÉ Session 1960, Report No. 223.
[2] Fricke, Jr., W.G. and Rawlins, C.B., “The Importance of Fretting in Vibration Failure of
Stranded Conductors”, IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus & Systems, Vol. PAS-87, No. 6,
June 1968, pp. 1381-1384.
[3] CIGRÉ Study Committee 22, Working Group 04, “Recommendations for the Evaluation
of the Lifetime of Transmission Line Conductors”, Electra No. 63, March 1979, pp. 103-
145.
[4] Rawlins, C.B., “Wind Tunnel Measurement of the Power Imparted to a Model of a
Vibrating Conductor”, IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus & Systems, Vol. PAS-102, No.
4, April 1983, pp. 963-971.
[5] Krispin, H.-J., "Parametric Studies: Vibration Intensity of Various Conductors as a
Function of Tension and Wind Turbulence", Report CIGRÉ SC22-WG11-TF4-95-6,
April 1995.
[6] Hardy, C. and Leblond A., "Estimated Maximum Safe H/w for Undamped Conductor
Spans", Report CIGRÉ SC22-WG11-TF4-95-13, September 1995.
[7] Rawlins, C.B., "Exploratory Calculations of the Predicted Fatigue Life of Two ACSR
and One AAAC", Report CIGRÉ SC22-WG11-TF4-96-5, April 1996.
[8] Claren, R., "A Contribution to Safe Design T/m Values", Report CIGRÉ SC22-WG11-
TF4-94-10, 1994.
[9] ESDU, “Across-Flow Response Due to Vortex Shedding”, Eng. Science Data Item
Number 78006, Oct. 1978, ESDU, London.
[10] Wieringa, “Updating the Davenport Roughness Classification”, J. Wind Engineering &
Industrial Aerodynamics, 41-44, 1992, pp. 357-368.
[11] CIGRÉ Study Committee 22, Working Group 01, “Report on Aeolian Vibration”, Electra
No. 124, May 1989, pp. 40-77.
[12] International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 61089 Publication, “Round Wire
Concentric Lay Overhead Electrical Stranded Conductors”, June 1991.
[13] Rawlins, C.B., “Fatigue of Overhead Conductors”, Chapter 2 of “Wind-Induced
Conductor Motion”, EPRI Transmission Line Reference Book, Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, California, 1979.
[14] Rawlins, C.B., Greathouse, K.R. and Larson, R.E. "Conductor Vibration - A Study of
Field Experience", AIEE Paper No. CP61-1090, presented at the AIEE Fall General
Meeting, Detroit, MI, Oct. 15-20, 1961.
[15] Dulhunty, P.W., Lamprecht, A. and Roughan, J., "The Fatigue Life of Overhead Line
Conductors", CIGRÉ SC22-WG04 Task Force document, 1982.
[16] Doocey et al., "Wind-Induced Conductor Motion", EPRI Transmission Line Reference
Book, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, 1979, Chapter 3.
40
[17] CIGRÉ Study Committee 22, WG11, Task Force 1, "Modelling of Aeolian Vibrations of
Single Conductors : Assessment of The Technology". Electra No. 198, December 1998,
pp. 53-69.
[18] CIGRÉ Study Committee 22, Working Group 04, "Endurance Capability of Conductors",
Final Report, July 1988.
[19] CIGRÉ Study Committee 22, Working Group 11, Task Force 2, “Guide to Vibration
Measurements on Overhead Lines”, Electra No. 163, Dec. 1995.
[20] CIGRÉ Study Committee 22, “Guide on the Measurement of the Performance of Aeolian
Vibration Dampers for Single Conductors”, Électra No. 76, May 1981, pp.21-28.
[21] Tompkins, J.S., Merrill, L.L. and Jones, B. L., “Quantitative Relationship in Conductor
Vibration Damping”, AIEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. 75, Pt.
III, 1956, pp. 879-894.
[22] Van Dyke, P., Hardy, C., St-Louis, M. and Gardes, J.L., “Comparative Field Tests on
Various Practices for the Control of Wind-Induced Conductor Motion”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 12, No. 2, April 1997.
[23] Bonneville Power Administration, Specification ETF 60-25.2G, October 1, 1987.
[24] Rawlins, C.B., Greathouse, K.R. and Larson, R.E., “Conductor Vibration – A Study of
Field Experience”, AIEE Paper No. CP 61-1090, presented at the AIEE Fall Meeting,
Detroit, MI, October 15-20, 1961.
[25] Leblond A. and Hardy, C., “IREQ Predicted Safe Design Tension”, Report CIGRÉ
SC22-WG11-TF4-99-6, April 1999.
[26] Rawlins C.B., “Safe Tensions with Dampers”, Report CIGRÉ SC22-WG11-TF4-99-5,
April 1999.
[27] Rawlins, C.B., “Analysis of Conductor Galloping Field Observations – Single
Conductors”, IEEE Trans. On Power Apparatus & Systems, Vol. PAS-100, No. 8,
August 1981, pp. 3744-3753.
[28] Hardy, C. and Van Dyke, P., “Field Observations on Wind-Induced Conductor Motions”,
Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 9, 1995, pp. 43-60.
[29] Rawlins & J.R. Harvey, “Improved Systems for Recording Conductor Vibration” Trans.
of the AIEE, Transmission and Distribution Committee, Feb. 1960, pp. 1494-1501.
[30] W. Leibfried & H. Mors, “Die Bündelleiter-Vershuchsanlage Hornisgrinde der
Badenwerk AG, Karlsruhe”, 1964.
[31] A.J. Liberman & K.P. Krukov, Vibration of Overhead Line Conductors and Protection
Against it in the U.S.S.R.”, CIGRÉ General Session, 10-20 June 1968.
[32] A. T. Edwards & J. M. Boyd, “Bundle Conductor Design Requirements and
Development of ‘Spacer-Vibration Damper’”, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus &
Systems, Vol. PAS-84, No. 10, October 1965, pp. 924-932.
[33] G. Diana, M. Gasparetto, F. Tavano & U. Cosmai, “Field Measurements and Field Data
Processing on Conductor Vibration (Comparison Between Experimental and Analytical
Results)”, CIGRÉ General Session, 1-9 September 1982.
41
[34] C. Hardy, P. Jahier & S. Houle, “Field Evaluation of Aeolian Vibration of Bundled
Conductors”, Canadian Electrical Association Report No. 220T553, December 1990.
[35] P. Van Dyke, C. Hardy, M. St-Louis & J.L. Gardes, “Comparative Practices for the
Control of Wind-Induced Conductor Motion”, IEEE Trans. On Power Delivery, Vol. 12,
No. 2, April 1997.
[36] A. Leblond & C. Hardy, “Assessment of Safe Design Tension with Regard to Aeolian
Vibrations of Single Overhead Conductors”, Proc. of the ESMO 2000 Conference,
Montreal, 8-12 October 2000, pp. 202-208.
42

Cigre 273

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cigre 273

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cigre 273

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the document?

What is the purpose of the document?

What factors influence aeolian vibrations?

What factors influence aeolian vibrations?

273

OVERHEAD CONDUCTOR SAFE

In view of sometimes unsatisfactory experience with the Panel’s recommendations, and of

Table 3.1 Typical values of turbulence intensity.

Conductor tension design guide - modelling approach

Clamping system < >

Effective wind turbulence Wind power input

Comparison With Field Experience

Terrain Terrain characteristics ( H w) adm

Table 5.1 Basic assumptions underlying model calculations.

Predicted Safe Design Tension

EDS - ACSR 26/7

EDS - ACSR 30/7

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Figure 5.1 Predicted safe boundaries according to endurance limit approach.

Comparison With Field Experience

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Table 5.2 Field experience conductor fatigue cases – ACSR.

Item Diam. Stranding Span H/w LD/m Damper type Note

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Conductor damage reported : , valid case;

Table 5.3 Conductor types to which recommendations apply.

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Figure 6.1 Comparison of vibration in single versus bundled conductors

Review of Field Experience

6.3.2 Bundled conductors fitted with non-damping spacers

6.3.4 Bundled conductors fitted with damping spacers

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Now, if line segment AB is accepted as a reasonable approximation of the actual single

Comparison With Field Experience

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Task Force Recommendations

Limitations and Warnings

You might also like