561

Live Work – A Management Perspective

Joint Working Group

B2/B3.27

December 2013
 Live Work –
A Management Perspective

Joint Working Group

B2/B3.27

Members:
K. Lindsey, WG Convenor (US), R. Meijers, Secretary (NL)

H. Candia (US), S. Chabin (FA), R. Clerc (FA), R. Dubail (FA),

R. Garcia (SP), M. Grey (UK), I. Kuczkowska (PL), G. Kyed (DK),
V. Lauropoli (IT), M. Lavoie (CA), V. Lovrenčić (SI), S. Refsnaes (NO),
N. Ruano (SP), J. Steinbauer (CZ)

Corresponding Members:
H. Crockett (CA), G. Gela (US), C. Goncalves (BR), E. Marshall (SA),
S. Neve (UK), B. Simpson (NZ)

Reviewers
E. O'Connor (IR), R. Rendina (IT)

Copyright © 2013
“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”.

ISBN: 978-85873-256-2

2
Introduction

Higher demands on energy transmission together with higher interconnection flows and the
difficulty to establish new rights of way have resulted in a need to increase the availability of
the transmission grid system. Therefore it will be more difficult and costly to take the
transmission grid system components out of service for maintenance, refurbishment etc.
Asset owners are constantly evaluating new methods to improve availability, to decrease
outages and to reduce expenses at the same time. These demands result in finding new
solutions for condition based maintenance carried out on the grid without interruptions of
operation.
Live work (work on energised circuits) on overhead lines and in substations is the preferred
method of maintenance where system integrity, system reliability, and operating revenues are
at a premium, and removal of the circuit from service is not acceptable. Live work may also be
beneficial in construction, upgrading and uprating.

This technical brochure, TB, is intending to evaluate from a management point of view for
overhead transmission lines and substations of 100 kV or higher, and determine what is
required to implement and maintain an effective live work program.

Why consider

 General background: actually grids are getting older, the rate of use of existing lines is
being increased since demand is growing, and it is difficult to establish new rights of way.
Consequently there is more need of working on existing lines (maintenance, upgrading,
uprating, etc..) with high reliability and availability of the system (in many cases with high
requirements defined by regulators and due to impact of increasing renewable generation).

 Worldwide situation and trends: an overview for transmission lines and substations has
been searched through the survey performed from 50 different utilities. It was found out
that 40 utilities do live work on lines (i.e. 80%) and 20 utilities do live work on substation
(i.e. 40%).

Data and conclusions about frequency doing live works, typical live works (detailed and
classified in voltage levels and line and substations components), methods applied, tools
development, and outsourcing versus in-house, are given.

Most of the utilities who answered the survey expect to increase live line work in the
future.

 Cost analysis evaluation: various detailed case-studies are given, that consider aspects
such as money paid for penalties (producers, costumers), risk of outages, system security,
and flexibility for performing a maintenance programme with less impact in other circuits
(avoiding additional electrical loads).

Some examples are given of situations where live works can be more cost effective than
de-energised work by themselves.

3
 Non-quantifiable issues: the impact on the utility perceived image in the public opinion,
customers, generators, regulators and politics will help the asset owners present a positive
image and good corporate governance.

 Safety: live work has been found to be a safe means of performing maintenance operating
due to the additional planning and crew training required for live work.
Safety is treated in the TB as a paramount issue, the key areas that will need to be included
in the live work safety case are related and analysed:
o Procedures: elements to be considered (on site and emergency procedures, risk
assessments, authorisation, ...).
o Training and lineman qualification: facilities, skills, accreditation, practical, tests,
certification.
o Technical documentation.
o Weather conditions, tools, quality assurances, personal safety equipment (a case
study about consideration of EMF levels during live work is included).

A comparative analysis is introduced of the minimum requirements and issues that are
more important to focus on, depending on the working method (live or de-energised).

The TB also discusses a number of reasons why management may decide to postpone or not to
invest in a live work program, such as legal restrictions, redundancy of the network, few kms
of overhead lines, optimized current de-energised maintenance practices, and budgetary
constraints.

What Can be Done

Most maintenance operations that are performed de-energised can also be performed using live
work techniques. To do so require proper operating procedures that take into account the
complexity of the task and technical standards referring to equipment, procedures, safety and
quality assurance.

Live line work can be done with more widely commercially available technology, tools, and
equipment than substations live work.

Performing live work tasks on site in complete safety is dependent on using suitable tools and
applying both general and live work condition rules. The rules set out in live work conditions
are based on studies, physical calculations and experiments, as well as on-site risk analysis.
Insulation, electrical and mechanical issues are introduced in the TB for live work. They
include:
 Minimum approach distance
 Tool insulation
 Mechanical load
 Potential energy

The following two methods, their main requirements, feasibility and practical application are
described in the TB:
 Bare hand: the worker is in contact with the energised line, wearing conductive clothing,
while is insulated from earth and other electrical potentials.

4
 Hot stick: work is performed using tools and equipment fitted to insulating sticks. The
worker shall always maintain a minimum approach distance from any energised high
voltage line or equipment.

A wide list of live works (25 for lines and 14 for substations) in HVAC is classified from a
relative complexity rating point of view as shown in the Table 1.

For many of the AC works listed above a case study or illustrating photographs are included
and two examples of these live works are shown below.

Case Study (France) – Replacing Dead End Compression Joints

An insulated beam is raised up the tower into position using live line ropes, Figure 1. The live line worker then
proceeds out along the beam to the end. The beam is then rotated out towards the conductors this is then followed
by the installation of a working platform on the live conductors. The operation to replace the dead end
compression joints live is then completed, Figure 2.

Figure 1 Figure 2

5
 Case Study (France) – Replacing Busbar at the VILLEJUST substation
The VILLEJUST substation (400 kV, 225 kV, 90 kV) is a strategic part of the supply loop of Paris built in 1959
with a 3 bypass in cables suspended at 8m70 high. The defect of a component (suspension string, fittings… )
could have a considerable impact of the electrical system so it was decided to replace the cables by a 200 mm
busbar and to undertake this work live.
In a first step each of the 16 shield wires of 80 m in length were removed using live line working methods. The
wire is supported by an insulated rope (Figure 3). With a positioning insulated tower, operators remove the 152
switch connectors on the busbars (Figure 4).

Figure 3 Figure 4
The new busbar was put in place with helicopter and substation live work methods. Whilst this was being
completed the remain substation equipment was live. Figure 5, shows the helicopter bringing into position the
bar, the operators then secured the bar in place (Figure 6). A total of 144 bars ranging from 8 to 19 m long
were installed.

Figure 5 Figure 6

Feasibility Evaluation

In order to provide the management with all the information for making the decision for
implementing or not a live work program in the company, a feasibility study should be
provided (usually with the consultancy of live work experts in the field).

6
The main aspects to be covered by such a feasibility study (included and discussed in the TB)
are:
 Regulation evaluation.
 Technical evaluation- grid conditions and characteristics.
 Stakeholders -interest in the project, assessment impact and strategies.
 Implementation requirements.

For an in-house live program implementation additional considerations are listed.

How to proceed

There are two different ways of implementing a live program, in-house or outsourced with
various requirements.

For in-house, a sufficient organisational structure (engineering staff and field work force),
workers selection criteria, scope of works, technical skills, procedures development, and
training of staff, will need to be established and continuously improved.

The key issues for an outsourced system are pre-qualification of contractors and their
monitoring.

Even if the utilities are not yet considering live working opportunities it is worth checking
whether the design (air insulation distances between energised phases and ground and air
insulation distances between phases) will be suitable for all types of live works, to preserve
this option in the future. Ccompromises in initial and future maintenance costs and in ideal
designs for low EMF and ideal designs for maintainability, may need to be made

Savings and Costs

The TB provides managers with guidelines for analyses and evaluation of savings (what you
save by carrying out live works), the costs (additional cost to conventional works) and a
general comparison between live works and conventional works.

7
Table of Contents

1. Introduction 12
2. Purpose 13
3. Why Consider 14
3.1 General Background 14
3.2 Quantifiable Corporate Considerations (Economics) 14
3.3 Non-Quantifiable Corporate Considerations 19
3.3.1 Outside Demands on Management 19
3.3.1.1 Public Opinion 19
3.3.1.2 Customers 20
3.3.1.3 Regulators 20
3.3.2 Internal Requirements of Management 22
3.4 Worldwide Situation 22
3.4.1 Historical 22
3.4.2 Present Status 23
3.4.2.1 Frequency of the Live Work 27
3.4.2.2 Typical Live Work 27
3.4.2.3 Methods of Doing Live Work 29
3.4.2.4 Tools used for Doing Live Work 30
3.4.2.5 Doing Live Work In-house or Outsourced 30
3.4.3 Trends 31
3.5 Safety Considerations 32
3.5.1 Safety for the Workers 33
3.5.1.1 De-energised Work 35
3.5.1.2 Live Work 35
3.5.2 Safety for the Public 35
3.5.3 Focus on Safety Issues 36
3.6 Why Postpone, or Decide not to Invest in a Live Work Program 37
3.6.1 Sufficient Redundancy in Entire System 37
3.6.2 Optimize Current De-energised Maintenance Practices 38
3.6.3 Regulations that may Limit Live Work 38

4. What Can Be Done 39

4.1 Complexity of Various Jobs 39
4.2 Basic Concepts of Live Work (Lines/Stations) 41
4.2.1 Insulation 41
4.2.1.1 Air insulation – Minimum Approach Distance (MAD) 41
4.2.1.2 Tool Insulation 42
4.2.2 Electrical/Mechanical Considerations 43
4.2.2.1 Mechanical Loads for Live Work 43
4.2.2.2 Potential Energy in Live Work 43
4.2.3 Qualified Procedures 43
4.2.3.1 Bare Hand Method 44
4.2.3.2 Hot Stick Method 44
4.2.3.3 Feasibility of Bare Hand and Hot Stick Method 44

8
 4.3 Examples and Case Studies 45
4.3.1 Low Complexity for Lines 45
4.3.2 Medium Complexity for Lines 48
4.3.3 High Complexity for Lines 51
4.3.4 Low Complexity for Substations 52
4.3.5 Medium Complexity for Substations 53
4.3.6 High Complexity for Substations 54
4.4 Limiting Factors 55
4.4.1 Use of Insulating Screens 55
4.4.2 Temporary Limitation of the Possible Overvoltage 55
4.4.3 Use of Portable Protective Air Gap 55
4.4.4 Temporary MAD Extension 56
4.4.5 Live Working on DC lines 57

5. Feasibility Evaluation 59
5.1 Regulation Evaluation 59
5.2 Technical Evaluation 59
5.3 Stakeholders 60
5.4 Implementation of In-house Live Program 61
5.5 Feasibility Evaluation Output 62

6. How To Proceed 63
6.1 In-house 63
6.1.1 Organisational Structure 63
6.1.2 Determining Scope of Works 64
6.1.3 Develop Technical Skills 64
6.1.4 Develop Procedures and Select Tools 64
6.1.5 Training of Staff 65
6.1.6 Implementation & Continuous Improvement of Live Work 65
6.2 Outsourcing 66
6.2.1 Development of Technical Skills 66
6.2.2 Pre-qualification of Contractors 66
6.2.3 Extent of Outsourcing 66
6.2.4 Contractor Monitoring 67
6.2.5 Continuous Improvement 67
6.3 Considerations for New Lines and Substations 68
6.3.1 New Transmission Lines 69
6.3.1.1 Structures 69
6.3.1.2 Insulator Assemblies 70
6.3.1.3 Conductors 72
6.3.1.4 Earth Wire 72
6.3.2. New Substations 72

7 Savings and Costs 73

7.1 Identification and Evaluation of Savings 73
7.2 Live Work Program Implementation Costs 77
7.2.1 Feasibility Study 77
7.2.2 Start-up Costs for Live Work Programs 78
7.2.2.1 Regulations 78
7.2.2.2 Staff and Team Training 79
7.2.2.3 Purchasing of Tools 79
7.2.2.4 Maintenance of Live Work Tools 80
7.2.2.5 Purchase or Rent of Special Equipment 80
7.2.3 Live Work Program Operating Costs 80
7.2.3.1 Maintenance Staff Capabilities 80
7.2.3.2 Periodical Inspection of Tools 81

9
 7.2.3.3 Conductive Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) 81
7.2.3.4 Insulated Tools 82
7.2.3.5 Repairing of Tools 83
7.3 Cost methodology 84
7.4 Infrastructures Investment Costs 85
7.4.1 Overhead Lines Design Criteria 85
7.4.2 Substation Design Criteria 86
7.5 General Cost Comparisons 87
7.5.1 Comparison Between Live Work to De-energised Work 87
7.5.1.1 Overhead Lines 87
7.5.1.2 Substations 87
7.5.2 Comparison Between In-house to Outsourcing 89
7.5.2.1 Fixed Costs 89
7.5.2.2 Variable Costs 89

Appendix
A. General References 90
B. List of International Standards 91
C. Definitions 96

10
 Live Work – A Management Perspective
Examples / Case Studies

3. Why Consider
3.1 Cost Comparison between Live Line and De-energised Work [Part 1-3] 16
3.2 Outage Costs 19
3.3 Costs (Mean Values) for Notified Outages (Sweden) 21
3.4 Consideration of Electro Magnetic Fields Levels During Live Working [Part 1-2] 36

4. What Can Be Done

4.1 Installation of “Marker Balls” with Both Circuits Live (UK) 47
4.2 Replacing Dead End Compression Joints (France) 51
4.3 Replacing & Restringing While Energised (USA) 53
4.4 Installing Tranversal Busbar over Main Busbar at the Barreiras Substation (Brazil) 54

6. How To Proceed
6.1 Live Work Insulator Assemblies 71

7. Saving and Costs

7.1 Replacing Busbar at the Villejust Substation [Part 1-2] (France) 74
7.2 Replacement of Conductor Spacers at 500 kV Using Portable Protective Air Gaps (USA) 76
7.3 Evaluating the Impact of the Live Work Option on the Overhead Line Construction Cost (France) 86

11
1. Introduction
Higher demands on energy transmission together with higher interconnection flows of energy
have resulted in a need to increase the availability of the transmission grid system. Traditional
operation of the grid is changing. It will be more difficult and costly to take the transmission
grid system components out of service for maintenance, refurbishment etc.
Asset owners are constantly evaluating new methods to improve availability, decrease outages
and reduce expenses at the same time. These demands result in finding new solutions for
condition based maintenance carried out on the grid without interruptions of operation. Also
the outages of the grid can be further restricted by contracts with generators and customers.
Live work (work on energised circuits) has been carried out in different parts of the world for
many decades. Live work is the preferred method of maintenance where system integrity,
system reliability, and operating revenues are at a premium and removal of the circuit from
service is not acceptable. Live work may also be beneficial in construction, upgrading and
uprating.
Live work has been found to be a safe means of performing maintenance operating due to the
additional planning and crew training required for live work.
This brochure describes the costs and benefits of live work versus de-energised methods. Both
the costs of developing in-house live work programs and the outsourcing of live work are
described. Examples of typical live work operations are given along with a variety of case
studies applicable to many asset owners. There is also a brief description of some of the
technical requirements for implementing live work programs.

This brochure is intending to help management decide, whether or not, to introduce a live work
program in the company.

12
2. Purpose
Evaluate live work from a management point of view for overhead transmission lines and
substations of 100 kV or higher, and determine what is required to implement and maintain an
effective live work program.

The target audiences are executives, top management, regulators, asset owners and
asset/facility managers for maintenance.

The result of this evaluation will give a better understanding about the “pros” and “cons” of a
live work program and could improve availability of the grid in a cost effective manner.

13
3. Why Consider

3.1 General Background

Trends
Grids are getting older and need more maintenance. It will be more difficult to get the
authorization to build new lines. There is consequently a need to increase capacity on existing
facilities (e.g. replacing conductors). Increasing renewable generation (connection to the grid
of wind farms, co-generation, solar farms, etc.) has impact on the availability of the network
for scheduling maintenance.

Customers
There are difficulties and in some cases impossibilities to get outages of client feeders for de-
energised work. Moreover, penalties may be claimed for undelivered energy (from power plant
point of view).

Safety
With respect to the number and severity of accidents, live work has been found to be a safe
way of performing maintenance operating. However it requires extensive training,
qualification, and certification for each worker and supervisor.

Regulators
Regulators are requiring reliability and availability standards (i.e. respect of n-1 criteria,
penalties for outages, etc.). Live work can help complying with these requirements.

Politics, stakeholders
Performing live work on lines and substations to reduce customer outage time presents
considerable advantages (public image, national consequences of outage, etc.).

3.2 Quantifiable Corporate Considerations (Economics)

Using the economic theories developed in Cigré Technical Brochure 175 and 353, the same
economic model can be used to determine if the additional cost of a live work program can be
justified.

Briefly restating this methodology:

i. It is assumed that one of management’s goals is to minimize the net present value of
annual expenditures over a given investment period (i.e. the planning horizon).

ii. “Annual expenditures” are defined as planned expenditures (i.e. normal costs and
investments) plus the annual monetary risk costs.

14
iii. Risk is defined as:

Risk = [chance] x [consequence]

iv. Chance is usually expressed as a probability of an event. In common usage, the event is
undesirable and the consequences are adverse; however, risk may include potential for
gain as well as exposure to loss.

v. Consequences are the totality of resulting consequences from an action. Consequences

need to be expressed in monetary terms. In the case of live work operations, the
consequences are the differential in the totality of costs of de-energizing a line or
substation vs. keeping the line or substation in service. These costs may include
differential energy costs, losses, and societal costs or penalty if the outage results in
curtailment of service to customers, etc.

vi. The probability of an event, or chance in the risk equation, is a function of normal costs
and investments. In the case of de-energised line work, the probability is 100% that the
additional costs will occur. In some cases it may be less than 100%, however the
consequences may be higher (i.e. required outages during peak operating times or other
lines tripping out while the de-energised line is being worked on). In the case of live
work the probability approximates 0% that the consequences will occur.

vii. To increase the utilization of existing assets (lines or substations), a number of economic
and technical factors need to be considered. Some of these factors are influenced by the
load growth forecast, the planning horizon, the value of capital, cost benefit analysis,
economic optimization and consideration of other project constraints. The fundamental
objective of an asset owner is to continuously assess the capacity of the electrical
network to determine the most economic and technically viable options for network
operation and development. This should be done in order to meet the increasing demands
for electricity and reliability of the electricity supply to customers.

Now let us consider a project such as implementing a live work program with a designated
financial and or technical planning horizon. There will be some capital costs followed by
recurrent costs. This is illustrated in figure 3.1 where the “do nothing” cost curve (“X”) and the
“live work project” costs curve (“Y”) are shown respectively. The average long run marginal
costs of the live work project, where slope of the tangent curve, is a minimum is also
illustrated. Also illustrated is the optimum time to undertake the project when the maximum
savings of the live work project are realised. Past the optimum time results in decreasing
potential savings and prior to the optimum time, results in the maximum savings not being
achieved.

15
 Figure 3.1: Economic Model of Live Work Project

Prudent financial return for capital investment for a long planning horizon project is achieved
by recognising the time dependent value of capital, the entitlement to interest earnings, the
NPV of capital and the optimum time to undertake the project.

This process can best be illustrated with an example (see example 3.1).

Example 3.1: Cost Comparison between Live Line and De-energised Work (1)

Given:
i. A double circuit 400 kV line, 200 km in length from a base generator to a load center.
ii. The load profile can be approximated as:
Winter Summer
1,400 1,800 Average Load (MW)
2,400 3,400 Peak week days (MW), lasting 4 hrs.
1,600 2,000 Peak weekends (MW), lasting 4 hrs.
iii. Annual load growth of 3%.
iv. Maximum capacity of each circuit 2,500 MW
v. Local generation can be used for peaking at an increased cost of 10/MWh
vi. The base generation is down for service 15 days/year
vii. The insulators need to be washed each year. Even with this washing each circuit experiences 1.5
contamination trips per year (or 0.411% daily probability of a flashover on each circuit).
viii. Several process plants are located in the load centre. They operate 24/7. Even momentary interruptions to
these process plants will cost the asset owner 1,000,000 per incident. This cost is increasing at a rate of 5%
per year.
ix. It takes crews 50 days to wash the insulators on one circuit. If the insulators are only washed on the
weekends, there will be 24 summer week end days required. The cost of a crew is summarized below:
3,000/day Week day cost for crew to wash insulators De-energised, i.e. DW
5,000/day Week end cost for crew to wash insulators De-energised, i.e. DW
4,000/day Daily week day cost for crew to wash insulators Energised i.e. LW
x. The initial cost to develop a live work (LW) program is 3,000,000, and would take 2 year to implement.
The annual cost to maintain the LW program (above the cost to maintain a de-energised program) is
200,000/year
xi. The asset owner has a 15 year planning horizon.

16
Example 3.1: Cost Comparison between Live Line and De-energised Work (2)
Find:
I. The cumulative cost of continuing to perform De-energised insulator washing on week days, over the
planning horizon.
II. The cumulative cost of continuing to perform De-energised insulator washing, but only on weekends,
over the planning horizon.
III. The cumulative cost of implementing a Live Line program and using Live Line techniques to wash the
insulators over the planning horizon.
Note:
I. Column B = The cost of the Risk of an Outage = [(Daily probability of a flashover) x (Number of days
one circuit is De-energised)] x [The penalty cost of an outage, increasing annually]
II. Column C = The cost of generating Peak Power = [(Winter peak, increasing annually) – Circuit capacity]
x {(Local generation premium) x (Hrs/day of Peak) x [(Number of days to do work) – (down time of
Base Generation)]}. If < 0, then = 0.
III. Column H = Week End Cost of DW = (Days base generation is down) x (Week day cost for DW)] +
[(Remaining days required to do work) x (Week end cost of DW)]
Solution:
For the purposes of this example, the effects of Net Present Value will be neglected since the time frame is short
and the effects of inflation will approximately offset the cost of capital.
The calculations of the cumulative cost of each option is shown in Table A, B and C.

A B C D E=B+C+D F=ΣE
Cost of Winter Week Day Cumulative
Risk of Peak Load Week Day Cost of DW Cost of DW
Year Outage Cost Cost of DW on Week Days on Week Days
0 349.315 - 300.000 649.315 649.315
1 366.781 - 300.000 666.781 1.316.096
2 385.120 156.944 300.000 842.064 2.158.160
3 404.376 416.652 300.000 1.121.028 3.279.188
4 424.595 684.152 300.000 1.408.747 4.687.934
5 445.824 959.676 300.000 1.705.501 6.393.435
6 468.116 1.243.467 300.000 2.011.582 8.405.018
7 491.521 1.535.771 300.000 2.327.292 10.732.310
8 516.097 1.836.844 300.000 2.685.140 13.417.450
9 541.902 2.146.949 300.000 3.094.016 16.511.466
10 568.997 2.466.358 300.000 3.515.675 20.027.140
11 597.447 2.795.348 300.000 3.950.525 23.977.665
12 627.320 3.134.209 300.000 4.398.989 28.376.654
13 658.686 3.483.235 300.000 4.861.505 33.238.160
14 691.620 3.842.732 300.000 5.338.524 38.576.684
15 726.201 4.213.014 300.000 5.830.512 44.407.197
Table A: Cumulative Cost of De-energised Work on Week days

A G H I=B+G+H J=ΣI
Summer Cumulative
Peak Load Week End Cost of DW Cost of DW
Year Cost Cost of DW on Week Ends on Week Ends
0 - 470.000 819.315 819.315
1 - 470.000 836.781 1.656.096
2 - 470.000 855.120 2.511.216
3 - 470.000 874.376 3.385.592
4 - 470.000 894.595 4.280.186
5 - 470.000 915.824 5.196.011
6 - 470.000 938.116 6.134.126
7 - 470.000 961.521 7.095.648
8 32.199 470.000 1.018.296 8.113.944
9 105.165 470.000 1.117.067 9.231.010
10 180.319 470.000 1.219.317 10.450.327
11 257.729 470.000 1.325.176 11.775.504
12 337.461 470.000 1.434.781 13.210.284
13 419.585 470.000 1.548.270 14.758.555
14 504.172 470.000 1.665.792 16.424.347
15 591.297 470.000 1.787.498 18.211.845
Table B: Cumulative Cost of De-energised Work on Weekends

17
Example 3.1: Cost Comparison between Live Line and De-energised Work (3)
A K L M=K+L N=ΣM
Additional Cost to Cumulative
Start and Maintain Week Day Cost of LLW Cost of LLW
Year LLW Program Cost of LLW Anytime Anytime
0 1.500.000 649.315 2.149.315 2.149.315
1 1.500.000 666.781 2.166.781 4.316.096
2 200.000 400.000 600.000 4.916.096
3 200.000 400.000 600.000 5.516.096
4 200.000 400.000 600.000 6.116.096
5 200.000 400.000 600.000 6.716.096
6 200.000 400.000 600.000 7.316.096
7 200.000 400.000 600.000 7.916.096
8 200.000 400.000 600.000 8.516.096
9 200.000 400.000 600.000 9.116.096
10 200.000 400.000 600.000 9.716.096
11 200.000 400.000 600.000 10.316.096
12 200.000 400.000 600.000 10.916.096
13 200.000 400.000 600.000 11.516.096
14 200.000 400.000 600.000 12.116.096
15 200.000 400.000 600.000 12.716.096
Table C: Cumulative Cost of Live Line Work performed anytime

The data from Tables A, B and C are plotted in Figure A below:

Figure A
As can be seen, in this particular example the cost to continue to wash the insulators De-energised is the most cost
effective for the first 5 years. After that washing the insulators using overtime on weekends is more cost
competitive. If the decision was to invest in a Live Line program, it would provide a positive payback in year 10.

This example is obviously over simplified, as it considers only one type of work to be performed on one
transmission line. In reality, the cost to implement the Live Line program could possibly be spread out over
several types of work on several different lines.

18
One of the more difficult aspects of this economic model is in determining the cost of
consequences. Some of the factors to be considered are:

i. Less money paid for penalties (producers, costumers)

Line loss penalties during outages increases for some utilities and countries. Due to
contractual agreements with generators and costumers, monetary penalties are minimized
by less outages on system, connected generators and customers. Outages can lead to
direct penalties or contingency plans, affecting system security and reliability;

Example 3.2: Outage Costs

A typical outage cost that can be charged from the authority to the asset owner in case of outages required for
de-energised maintenance can be about 100 €/MWh i.e. for a typical hydro plant of 40 MW installed power,
96 k€ per day of outage. The same average costs apply for solar and wind farms as well.

ii. Less planned outages thanks to live work means better system security and availability;

iii. Less required planned outages thanks to live work may lead to reduce redundancies (e.g.
investments in double circuits connections);

iv. Having capability to perform live work increases the facilities reliability by performing
maintenance at the appropriate time, without waiting for planned outages;

v. Some live work situations can be more cost effective than de-energised work.
Simple change of insulator string in live conditions may take the same time as in
de-energised condition. However the costs of switching, the lock out/in procedures and
the costs of having a line out of service for several hours have to be taken in account as
well.
Other examples of short period activities where live work may be more cost effective:
a. Insulator washing versus manual cleaning;
b. Live line/substation condition assessment;
c. Substation switch cleaning;
vi. Live work may avoid additional electrical loads (conductor ageing, losses, reduction of
clearances) of other circuits due to planned de-energised work.

3.3 Non-Quantifiable Corporate Considerations

3.3.1 Outside Demands on Management

3.3.1.1 Public Opinion

Live work helps to reduce the risk of unplanned outages (less and less acceptable due to
increased dependency from electricity supply - e.g. air conditioning), by optimizing the
maintenance scheduling. These outages have a considerable impact on the utility perceived
image in the public opinion, regulators and politics (being utilities, concessionaires of public
services): there will be the condensed expression of all constraints coming from industrial

19
clients, customers, public in general. The trend being the reduction of perceived acceptability
of outages.

In developing countries, it generally happens that the supply of major cities depends on single
circuit high voltage feeders. Because alternatives such as local generation may not be
operational or sufficient to cover a possible line outage, the live work brings a potential option
for avoiding system outages. Even if such outages may not have the same economic impacts
(costs) than those considered in developed countries (factory shutdowns causing significant
losses of production), it does have a direct cost (running the diesel or gas generation is
extremely costly in these countries). In addition to such costs, there are also the indirect cost
and consequences of social destabilisation, as part of the economy relies on the supply of
electricity.

3.3.1.2 Customers
If outages occur to customers, even frequent minor outages or voltage fluctuations, this can
result in bad public relations and lead to more regulations.

Some lines are impossible to have de-energised. In the case of industrial customers who need
electricity all the time – for example an aluminium plant – it is impossible to de-energize the
line without big penalties because of the damage occurred to the customer’s installation.

In other cases customers will allow the line to be de-energised for a limited time each year – as
an example 2 hours per year (the time needed by the industrial customer to do is own
maintenance). This limited time may not be enough to do the required work, for example
conductor replacement.

In another example customers may allow the line to be de-energised only every number of
years, as an example each 4 years. At that time the line may be de-energised for a reasonable
time, but if some work needs to be done before or between the identified years, the utility will
have to do live work or develop alternative work methods.

Interconnection lines are usually very difficult to de-energize for doing dead work because of
their impact on the income of electrical companies.

Some high voltage lines, which are of strategic importance to the network, may not be
available for dead work or if they are, it is only during weekends, holidays or some other times
when the utility may have to incur extra cost such as overtime for the linemen and crews.

In addition to the above, even if the line is being made available under de-energised condition,
the return to service times are very restrictive, for example 150 minutes.

20
 Example 3.3 (Sweden): Costs (Mean Values) for Notified Outages [1]

The following tables give an example of a direct estimation for planned outages in Sweden in 2005. Such
tables can be used as a reference to make an assessment of the specific company costs.

Cost for outage =

(Discontinued power) * X + (Discontinued power) * Y * (Duration of outage in hours)

The two factor X and Y are given for notified and for not notified outages, for different
types of customers and for different types of networks.

The factors for notified outages are reproduced in following table.

Table 1: Costs for notified outages in Sweden 2003/2005

3.3.1.3 Regulators
Regulators can bench mark grid cost from one utility to another. Asset owners must look at
minimizing their energy transport costs. Some countries or regulators are requiring reliability
and availability standards. Asset owners must show that they can comply.

On Extra High Voltage networks (i.e. 380 kV and above) there are mainly network security
considerations (n-1 criteria etc.) that make it very difficult to obtain planned outages.

Even when planned outages are obtained, depending on the national regulations, breaking a
mesh on the Extra High Voltage network for a planned outage can involve other outage costs
related to the “emergency re-energizing time” (time needed to give back in service the line
when requested to do so by the TSO for network security/stability reasons). This occurs
because during this time several plants may be requested by the TSO to bind a certain amount
of power as reserve for the network stability.

Penalties related to failure to meet quality or availability criteria need to be considered.

21
3.3.2 Internal Requirements of Management

Benchmarks with other countries/utilities as well as management by objective/management

incentives, may be linked to quality of services results. Live work could be a good tool to
achieve the required targets.

Asset owners need to present a positive image to the public. Performing live work on lines
and substations to reduce customer outage time presents such a public image. This lends itself
to media public service messages that help the asset owners present a positive image and good
corporate governance.

Performing live work on lines and substations can present the asset owner as progressive and
forward thinking.

3.4 Worldwide Situation

3.4.1 Historical

Although working on live lines is considered a recent development in the electrical industry,
the first tools made for this purpose appeared in 1913 in the USA. Initially, they were crude,
wooden and homemade, but they gave rise to the more efficient, higher-quality tools we use
today.

Live line maintenance began with the use of these first insulating sticks for operating blade
contacts or energised fuses. Even though this system demonstrated that long, dry sticks could
be equipped with additional fittings and equipment that would permit workers to work safely
on live lines, quite a few years passed before anyone took an interest in these tools for work
different from that already mentioned.

The economic depression between the two World Wars gave an incentive for the power
utilities in the USA to economize, by the use of live-work methods that provided uninterrupted
services to their consumers. This proved a useful impetus to further development.

The workers themselves were, perhaps, the first who comprehended the need for this type of
service and their input and guidance brought about the design and construction of new tools
which made it possible to conduct work on live lines. In this way they created the practice
currently known as "live work".

Live work was initially used on medium voltage distribution lines (22 kV and 34 kV),
thereafter it was extended to higher voltages (66 kV, 110 kV and 220 kV in the late 1930s) and
eventually to the first Extra High Voltage transmission line in 1948 (the 287 kV Hoover Dam-
Los Angeles transmission line). Introduction of live work methods to substations lagged
behind initially, but as our survey shows, by the end of the 20th century it has reached a
comparable level of acceptance and sophistication.

In the 1950s, wood tools coated with Maplac were used successfully at a voltage of 330 kV.
With the advent of higher voltages and the need for longer insulating sticks, wooden tools
became heavy and difficult to handle; thus, the need arose for lighter sticks that had dielectric

22
qualities. Epoxy resin insulating tools were introduced in 1959. These fiberglass sticks
consisted of layers of resin-coated glass fibers wound around and laid lengthwise over a plastic
foam core. It was the introduction of these fiberglass sticks, which were highly resistant to
moisture absorption and damage, that allowed electric utilities to develop the live work
maintenance practices they currently employ on 345 kV, 400 kV, 500 kV, and 765 kV
transmission lines.

Because of the much-increased safety clearances needed for hot stick work at higher
transmission voltages, the lengths of insulating poles to be handled began to present
inconveniences and became impractical. The barehand method was therefore developed during
the period 1960 to 1967.

3.4.2 Present Status

In 2009 a survey questionnaire was sent out to a number of utility companies who were
members or observers belonging to CIGRÉ working groups B2 & B3. The survey covers
transmission lines and substations for 100 kV and over. A summary of the survey results is
shown below:

Results Of CIGRÉ JWG 27 Worldwide Survey On Live Work

No. of Countries Survey Was Sent To 42

No. of Countries Who Responded 23 55%

Countries Where Live Work Exits 18 78%

Countries Where Live Line Work Exits 18 78%

Countries Where Live Substation Work Exits 10 43%

Table 3.1: Results of Cigré JWG 27 Worldwide Survey on Live Work

23
 Number of countries doing LW

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Total received the Responded Doing LW on Doing LW on
survey Lines Subs

Graph 3.1: Number of Countries doing Live Work

The following map shows an over view of the countries where of live work is practiced
(according to the positive survey answers received).

Map 3.1: Results of Survey Members of Cigré

Green = Countries Answered Yes Who are doing Live Work
Yellow = Countries Answered Not doing Live Work
Red = Countries Who did not Answer to the Survey

24
Map 3.2: Information Carried Out from STRI Report R07-397 [1]
Green = Countries Identified as doing Live Work
Blue = Countries Using Robots for Live Maintenance

Of the eighteen (18) countries where live work is practiced, 50 different utilities responded.
As can be seen, in graph 3.2, 40 utilities do live work on lines (i.e. 80%) and 20 utilities do live
work on substation (i.e. 40%).

NUMBER OF UTILITIES DOING LW

45

40

35
Number of utilities

30

25 YES
20 NO

15

10

0
LINES SUBSTATIONS

Graph 3.2: Number of Utilities doing Live Work

The reasons given for not doing live line work were mainly lack of resources or skills (6
utilities), only one utility answered that they have regulation restrictions.

25
As shown below, the average length of the grid of the utilities doing live line work is much
higher (by 10 times) of those not doing live line work. For substations the utilities that are
doing live work have a higher number of substations.
AVERAGE NUMBER OFSUBSTATIONS
AVERAGE KILOMETRES (/ UTILITIES) DOING LW (/ UTILITIES) DOING LW

250

20 000
18 000 200

Number of substation
16 000
14 000 150
12 000 YES
Kilometre

YES
10 000 NO
NO 100
8 000
6 000
4 000 50
2 000
0 0

Graph 3.3: Average Kilometres of Line Graph 3.4: Average Number of

per Utilities Substations per Utilities

Of the utilities that are doing live work, more than half do it for line only and 43% of them do
live work on line and substation. Because of the confined space in the substation, it might be
more difficult to do live work on substation than on line. Also the substation might by
designed in a way that they can keep the line live in some part of the substation while de-
energizing the parts that need to be worked on.

NUMBER OF UTILITIES DOING LW

25

20
Number of utilities

15

10

0
Lines only Substations only Lines + Substations

Graph 3.5: Number of Utilities doing Live Work on Lines only, in Substations
only and in Both Places

26
3.4.2.1 Frequency of the Live Work
More than knowing who does live work, it is important to know the frequency of doing live
work. As we can see most of the utilities frequently do live work and few of them do it rarely.
For the line, the higher the voltage, the bigger is the proportion of the intensive live work. For
substations the results show that most of the utilities frequently do live work and just few of
them do it intensively.
FREQUENCY OF LW ON LINES
FREQUENCY OF LW IN SUBSTATIONS

100% 5%
90%

80%
70%
35%
60% intensively
U tilities

rarely
50% frequently
frequently
40% rarely
intensively
30%
20%

10%
0% 60%
100 ≤ kV < 220 220 ≤ kV < 380 380 ≤ kV ≤ 420 420 > kV

Graph 3.6: Frequency of doing Live Graph 3.7: Frequency of doing Live
Work on Lines Work in Substations

3.4.2.2 Typical Live Work

The following analysis shows that most of the utilities that are doing live work, do so on all the
voltages in their network. The survey covered 3 different categories of work namely:
conductors, towers (and poles) and insulators. In the analysis of the survey results, as shown in
graphs 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 we can see that the most frequent work done by utilities is the
replacement of insulator, damper and spacers. The least frequent live work done on lines
involves sag adjustment and inter-phase spacer replacement.
NUMBER OF UTILITIES DOING LW ON LINE ACCORDING TO THE WORK

40

35

30
Number of utilities

25

20
15

10
5

0
washing insulators
cross arms replact
clamp

sag adjstment
damper

earthwire replact or
wire repair

Others (Towers)
testing insulators
spacers

joint (conductors)

reinforcement
others accessories
replacing of

replacing / displ.

inter-phase spacer
insulators

at tower location

(Towers)
(Towers)

installation

Graph 3.8: Number of Utilities doing Live Work on Lines according to the Work

27
As can be seen in graph 3.9, some live work is dependent on the type of component to be
worked on and the voltage. As an example, the replacement of cross arms (for the wood pole)
is mostly applicable to lower voltages. Also note, inter-phase spacers are not commonly used
and are therefore not typical work.

TYPICAL LW DONE ON CONDUCTORS, TOWERS AND POLES

35
Number of utilities

30
25 100 ≤ kV < 220
20 220 ≤ kV < 380
15 380 ≤ kV ≤ 420
10 420 > kV
5
0
inter-phase
adjstment

replacing /
earthwire
wire repair
joint

Others
replact or
damper

spacers

reinforcement

cross arms
replact
spacer

displ.
sag

Graph 3.9: Typical Live Work done on Conductors, Towers and Poles According to the Voltage

TYPICAL LW ON INSULATORS

40
35
Number of utilities

30
100 ≤ kV < 220
25
220 ≤ kV < 380
20
380 ≤ kV ≤ 420
15
420 > kV
10
5
0
replacing washing testing clamp others
accessories

Graph 3.10: Typical Live Work done on Insulators According to the Voltage

The larger utilities do live work in house because it is easy for them to develop, retain and
sustain an experienced team (i.e. technical committee and experts dedicated to live work).
Graph 3.11, shows that the most common work done in the substations is repairs to
wires/conductors, followed by joint repairs.

28
 TYPICAL LW DONE IN SUBSTATION

16
14
Number of utilities

12
10
8
6
4
2
0

reinforcement
wire repair

damper

clamp

testing
earthwire

replacing

inter-phase

washing
joint

Others

replacing /

adjstment
spacers

cross arms

accessories
replct or

replact

spacer
displ.

others

sag
Graph 3.11: Number of Utilities doing Live Work in Substations According to the Work

3.4.2.3 Methods of Doing Live Work

As it’s shown in the graphs 3.12 and 3.13, most of the utilities use both hot stick and bare hand
live work techniques. There is only one utility who does only live work by bare hand on lines
and two on substations. Graph 3.12 shows that the higher the voltage the more the work is
done by bare hand.

METHODS OF DOING LW ON LINES METHODS OF DOING LW IN SUBSTATIONS

35 20

18
30
16
N u m b e r o f u tilitie s

25 14
Number of utilities

20 12
hot stick hot stick
10
15 bare hand bare hand
8

10 6
4
5
2
0 0
100 ≤ kV < 220 220 ≤ kV < 380 380 ≤ kV ≤ 420 420 > kV

Graph 3.12: Methods of doing Live Work on Graph 3.13: Methods of doing Live Work
Lines According to the Voltage in Substations

29
3.4.2.4 Tools Used for Doing Live Work
Graph 3.14 shows that the higher the voltage the more often utilities develop their specific
tools. Graph 3.15 shows that 65% of the utilities have developed their specific tools for live
line work.
SPECIFIC TOOLS DEVELOPED FOR LW
UTILITIES DEVELOPING SPECIFIC TOOLS FOR LW
ON LINES
100%

90%

80%
Number of utilities

70%

60% 35%
No
50%
Yes Yes
40%
No
30%

20%
65%
10%

0%
100 ≤ kV < 220 220 ≤ kV < 380 380 ≤ kV ≤ 420 420 > kV

Graph 3.14: Number of Utilities Developing Graph 3.15: Percentage of Utilities Developing
Specific Tools for Live Work Specific Tools for Live Work on
on Lines According to the Lines
Voltage

3.4.2.5 Doing Live Work in House versus Outsourced

As represented in graph 3.16, 20% of the utilities do all of their live work in house. For the
utilities who have work outsourced (80% of the total), 18% have all of their work outsourced,
and 53% do more work in house compared to 29% that outsource more.
% UTILITIES OUTSOURCED LW FOR LINES % UTILITIES OUTSOURCED 100% OF THE LW
FOR LINES
18%

20%
29%

100% outsourced
100% in house

> 50% in house

Partly outsourced

< 50% in house

80%
53%

Graph 3.16: Percentage of Utilities Graph 3.17: For Utilities who Outsource
Outsourced Live Work for LW for Lines, Percentage of
Lines them Outsourcing 100% of
the Work.

As represented in graphs 3.18 and 3.19, only 11% of the utilities do all substation live work in
house. For the utilities who outsource work in substations (89% of the total), 19% have all
work outsourced, and 68% do more work in house compared to 13% that outsource more.

30
 % UTILITIES OUTSOURCED LW
FOR SUBSTATIONS % UTILITIES OUTSOURCED 100% OF THE LW
FOR SUBSTATIONS
11% 13%
19%

100% outsourced
100% in house
> 50% in house

Partly outsourced < 50% in house

89%
68%

Graph 3.18: Percentage of Utilities Graph 3.19: For Utilities who Outsource LW
Outsource LW for for Substations, Percentage of
Substations them Outsourcing 100% of the
Work

3.4.3 Trends

Live work started at the beginning of the 20th century, since then the number of utilities doing
live work have increased year by year as shown bellow for lines and substations.

DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF LW ON LINES DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF LW IN SUBSTATIONS

Number of utilities
Number of utilities

1930-39 1940-49 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-09

Graph 3.20: Date of Introduction of Graph 3.21: Date of Introduction of

LW on Lines LW in Substations.

Most of the utilities who answered the survey expect to increase live line work in the future, of
those already doing live work only one does not expect increasing but it is already intensively
doing live work on lines.
If we refer to substations, 80% of the utilities doing live work expect to increase their
substation work. For the utilities not doing live work, for those who answered the question
nearly half of them expect to introduce live work in substations.

31
3.5 Safety Considerations
To enable a utility company to undertake live work a full and comprehensive review of its
safety case will need to be completed in order to get approval to commence live work. Shown
below are some key areas that will need to be included in the live work safety case review.

Figure 3.2: Live Work Safety Case.

Transmission and Substation Working Procedures

Within the transmission and substation working procedure section the following elements
should be considered:
i. All on site working procedures required to complete the task.
ii. Risk assessments specific for each work area.
iii. All associated operational authorisation & safety permits.
iv. On site briefing documents for the working teams.
v. An engineer’s preparation report.
vi. Associated scheduling & planning policies/procedures.
vii. Emergency procedures.

Training & Certification

To enable live work to be undertaken, sufficient training & certification will need to be
completed. The following are areas that should be adopted:
i. Adequate training facilities.
ii. Fully accredited trainers with field experience.
iii. Sufficient training material which could include interactive course material. The training
will need to cover both theory & practical elements of live work.
iv. Availability of a wide range of transmission and substation assets to enable training to be
undertaken on different components/equipment.
v. Fully comprehensive assessment test.
vi. Authorisation & certification cards.
vii. Procedure for retraining & recertification of staff.
viii. Live work authorisation for associated staff from operational centres.

32
Quality Assurance
Quality assurance processes form a vital part of the overall safety case to enable live work to
be undertaken. Some key areas for consideration are:
i. Live work equipment test certification.
ii. Undertaking & recording of routine tests carried out on tools & equipment.
iii. Equipment specifications.
iv. Approval process for external companies.
v. Quality assurance process for monitoring of works completed by external companies.

Technical Documentation
The final area for consideration within the live work safety case is technical documentation.
The key elements covered by this area are:
i. Clearance design calculations.
ii. Performance of tools/equipment.
iii. Compliance with international standards.
iv. System operating design & calculation studies.
v. Impact on live work from climatic conditions.
vi. Limitations for live work on certain equipment types.
vii. Electro-magnetic fields in connection with live work.

3.5.1 Safety for the Workers

Typical for both de-energised and live work:

i. Skilled linemen needed for both methods
ii. Working procedures must be precisely defined
iii. Work is safe if the above conditions are fulfilled
iv. Integrity of line structures and components must be checked
(i.e. porcelain cap and pin and composite insulators)
v. Helicopter procedures.

The typical minimum requirements for high voltage de-energised work and live work are
shown in figure 3.3 and figure 3.4.

33
Figure 3.3: Typical Minimum Requirements for De-energised Work’s Flow Chart
(According to European Std. EN 50110)

Figure 3.4: Typical Minimum Requirements for Live Work’s Flow Chart (According to
European Std. EN 50110)

34
3.5.1.1 De-energised Work
i. De-energizing/energizing process involves risks:
a. Many people and organizations involved - operators, switchers, site workers (all can
be from different companies) - may lead to problems in information flow.
b. Also many different site teams may be involved.
c. Communication is important for identification, disconnection and to secure the work
site.
ii. Grounding:
a. Parallel energised lines induce voltages on the de-energised line definite cause
danger if proper grounding measures are not taken.
iii. Weather conditions:
a. Planned work is normally stopped or cancelled if lightning is visible or thunder is
audible and in other adverse climate situation (strong winds, ice, etc., but this is also
true for live work).
b. Warning systems based on lightning detectors and weather forecast.

3.5.1.2 Live Work

i. From an operational point of view, auto-reclosing is normally disabled and system
operators need to be alert for any system changes.
ii. Both bare hand and stick method need special training above normal lineman training.
iii. Management of work equipment (i.e. vehicles and clothing) needs special attention
especially those with insulating properties; sticks, booms etc.
iv. Electric and magnetic fields (see case study 3.1):
a. Regulation.
b. Time limits for work.
c. Electric Field mitigation using proper clothing.
d. Magnetic Field mitigation can possibly be achieved by reducing load current.
v. Overvoltages must be considered in Minimum Approach Distance–calculation.
vi. Additional weather conditions which may prevent live working:
a. Rain.
b. Fog.
c. Humidity.
vii. Difficult working positions.

3.5.2 Safety for the Public

There are no extra precautions to be taken regarding public safety in case of live work
compared to de-energised work.

35
3.5.3 Focus on Safety Issues
Comparative table showing the issues that are more important depending on the working
method:
+ means that activities are needed;
++ means more focus is required on that activity.

Issues De- Live Comments Dedicated to Live Work

energised Work
Work
Planning + + Detailed planning required for both
Information flow ++ + Lock in/out information is not required
Training + ++ More training required
Grounding ++ n/a No grounding required
Work equipment management Insulated equipment require frequent and dedicated care and
+ ++ testing
Instructions + ++ Instructions are more detailed
Weather + ++ Some more restrictions required
Line/substation protection Auto-recloser equipment disabling may be required and check
+ ++ of protection settings
devices control
Table 3.2: Relative Focus for Safety Issues

Case Study 3.4: Consideration of Electro Magnetic Fields Levels during Live Work (1)

In undertaking live work, personnel are exposed to electric and magnetic fields. This case study reviews
magnetic field exposures which are likely to be experienced when working live. Electric fields are shielded by
the use of conductive suits forming a “faraday cage” thus avoiding exposure. The case study is based on the
guidelines on the limitation of exposures to electric and magnetic fields provided by the International
Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

In 1998, ICNIRP published definitive guidelines based on a careful examination of the research data on effects
of exposure to power frequency fields, and include a margin for safety. These limiting thresholds, defined by
ICNIRP, are widely accepted as providing complete protection against all known adverse health effects of
electric and magnetic fields.

As induced currents in the body are difficult to measure or calculate, ICNIRP also provide ‘reference levels’.
Reference levels are in terms of the more easily measured ambient electric and magnetic fields which give rise to
induced body currents. The ICNIRP guidelines applying at 50 Hz are summarised in the table below:

Table 1
Exposure characteristics Basic restriction Reference levels
Induced current Electric field Magnetic flux See Note 2)
density strength density
(mA/m²) (kV/m) (µT)
Occupational 10 10 500
General public 2 5 100

36
Case Study 3.4: Consideration of Electro Magnetic Fields Levels during Live Work (2)

A study was then undertaken of peak loads and induced current for circuits of the highest loaded lines on the
network. The results of the study are shown below in table 2.

Table 2 – Peak Loads and Induced Current for Circuits of the Highest Loaded Lines on the Network

Recorded am ps per conductor excluding planned outages Induced

Conductor
Circuit current
Configuration Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-D ec Peak (mA/m²)

Twin 308 302 306 237 308 4

Circuit A
Single 616 603 611 473 616 8
Twin 303 303 312 281 312 4.1
Circuit B
Single 605 606 624 562 624 8.1
Twin 270 296 306 286 306 4
Circuit C
Single 540 591 612 572 612 8
Twin 455 416 322 279 455 5.9
Circuit D
Single 910 832 643 557 910 11.8
Circuit E Twin 435 630 459 370 630 8.2
Circuit F Twin 318 246 442 361 442 5.7

The table above shows that on only one circuit, (Circuit D), have loads been above that at which the modelling
suggests the basic restriction would be exceeded (11.8 mA/m²). For that circuit the induced current exceeded
levels for a total of 28 hours in the year or 0.43% of the time and as such the risk of a live worker being present
and therefore exposed to field levels above the ICNIRP basic restriction is very low.

1) ICNIRP- Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic field (up to 300 Ghz) (April 1998) No 4
2) ICNIRP 2010 increased the allowable level of Magnetic Flux Density

3.6 Why Postpone, or Decide Not to Invest in a Live Work Program

There could be many reasons for postponing a decision to consider investing in a live work
program. An extreme case would be where all overhead lines will be replaced with
underground facilities in the near future. Another reason would be that there is sufficient
redundancy in the entire network that an outage can be taken on any one circuit without
causing increased losses or risk of losses. Other reasons might be regulations that limit the use
of various live work techniques so as to limit its cost effectiveness in the current planning
horizon. The planning horizon being considered by management may be too short to realize
the cost payback of investing in a live work program. Budgetary constraints may also be a
factor. In the worst case, insufficient data exists on the costs of line outages due to de-
energised maintenance activities to make a decision. However, if this is the case, the situation
may demand a higher priority.

These and other reasons are listed below.

3.6.1 Sufficient Redundancy in Entire System.

i. Losses due to a line outage are minimal or not charged to transmission asset owner.
ii. Redundancy in substations allows a phase and associated substation equipment to be de-
energised for insulator washing or other maintenance operations.
iii. The risk of waiting for a convenient outage time to do de-energised maintenance is
minimal.

37
3.6.2 Optimize Current De-energised Maintenance Practices.

i. Substantial savings may first be realized by improving de-energised work procedures

thereby reducing outage time.
ii. When an outage is taken, employ sufficient manpower and equipment resources to
minimize outage time.
iii. Stay within the time limits given by system operators. This may require working
overtime and at low usage periods.
iv. Improve equipment and methods of de-energised work to reduce outage time.

3.6.3 Regulations that may Limit Live Work

i. Safety regulations prohibit a worker from violating safety distance of an energised phase.
This would still allow hot stick work but could prohibit bare hand procedures. In some
cases, exceptions to these rules can be given by providing work procedures to authorities
to do bare hand work.
ii. Exposure to Magnetic Fields. Some countries are initiating exposure regulations. These
regulations may be time related and dependent on electrical loads. This may limit the use
of bare hand methods.
iii. For Overhead Lines, local aviation regulations may limit the use of helicopters in the
vicinity of energised lines. In some cases exceptions to these rules can be given by
providing work procedures to authorities to do the work.

38
4. What Can Be Done
Most maintenance operations that are performed de-energised can also be performed using live
work techniques. To do so requires proper operating procedures that take into account the
complexity of the task and technical standards referring to equipment, procedures, safety and
quality assurance. (Several international standards are listed in appendix B).

4.1 Complexity of Various Jobs

Live work has mainly been developed for overhead lines, fewer utilities are able to carry out
live work in substations.
This situation reflects the complexity raised in each situation. The main difficulty for the
substations is the presence of live parts in a complex 3D working area, while the presence of
live parts in an OHL is more easily identified in a 2D working area. While the tower designs
are generally quite standardised within a utility network, the works carried out in substations
generally deal with the handling of heavy equipment, in a restricted area.
This means that the preparation required for substation live work is different than that required
for the overhead lines. Moreover, the substation live work may require different tools and
machinery, while live line working can be done with more widely commercially available
products.
It is then economically and technically quicker to realize the benefits of live work if utility
efforts focus on the OHL case.
Tables 4.1 and 4.2 give a relative complexity rating of performing live working on
overhead lines and substations. The relative complexity is ranked as either low, medium
or high (1,2,3), where:
i. Low complexity work normally does not modify the electrical and mechanical
characteristics of the structure and are often some distance away from the structures.
ii. Medium complexity work may modify the network configuration. These operations
sometimes include connection/disconnection of electrical parts of the network.
iii. High complexity work corresponds to the operations where the aim of the work will
modify the network configuration in the structure or substation. These operations
include connection/disconnection of electrical parts of the network.

39
 Reference photographs or
Lines Complexity Case Studies
Insulators
 Change out
Suspension I-string 1 Figures 4.3 and 4.4
Suspension V-string 2 Figure 4.9
Dead Ends 2-3 Figures 4.10 to 4.13
 Testing 1 Figure 4.5
 Cleaning and Washing 1 Figure 4.6
Conductor & Shield Wire
 Splicing
Conductor 2 Figure 4.14
Shield Wire 1
 Sampling & Testing 1-3
 Repairing/Patch rod/split 1 Figure 4.7
sleeve
 Replacing & Restringing 3 Case Studies 4.2 and 4.3
 Relocating Phases 3
 Installing OPGW 3
Components
 Communication device 2
 Aerial Markers 1 Case Study 4.1/Figure 4.8
 Inter-Phase Spacers 2
 Spacer dampers 1-2 Case Study 7.2
 Corona rings 1
 Suspension clamps 1
 Jumpers 1
Tower and Poles
 Replacing tower 3
 Replacing wood pole 2-3
 Relocating 3
 Refurbish, replacing steel 2
members
 Raising 2-3
 Painting 1

Table 4.1: Live Line Work

Complexity of Live work: Low, Medium, High (1,2,3)

40
 Reference photographs or
Substations Complexity Case Studies
 Busbars/Replacing/Jumpers 3 Case Study 7.1/Figure 6.3
 Replacing Stack insulators 2 Figure 4.17
 Fixing hot joints 1 Figure 4.15
 Replace Switch breakers 2-3
 Substation bypass 3 Case Study 4.4
 Clean Contacts 1
 Change out of PT, Circuit 3 Figure 4.18
Breakers, Surge Arrestors, etc
 Washing 1 Figure 4.16
 Replace conductor wires 3
 Strain Insulators 2-3
 Phase Check (Phase A,B,C or 1
Red, White, Blue)
 Install of monitoring devices 1
 Structure Replacing 3
 Structure Painting 1
Table 4.2: Live Substation Work
Complexity of Live work: Low, Medium, High (1,2,3)

4.2 Basic Concepts of Live Work (Lines/Substations)

Performing live work tasks on site in complete safety is dependent on using suitable tools and
applying both general and live work condition rules. The rules set out in live work conditions
are based on studies, physical calculations and experiments, as well as on-site risk analysis
carried out to developed live work methods and tools.

4.2.1 Insulation

When performing live work tasks, one must constantly ensure that live workers and parts
are fully insulated at all voltage levels. Insulation can be achieved in relation to either a
phase or to earth.

4.2.1.1 Air Insulation – Minimum Approach Distance (MAD)

The minimum approach distance, MAD, is “the minimum distance in air to be maintained
between any part of the body of a worker, including any object (except appropriate tools for
live work) being directly handled, and any parts at different potentials” [2]

The minimum approach distance, MAD, is the sum of the electrical distance D U “distance in
air required to prevent a disruptive discharge between energised parts or between energised
parts and earthed parts during live work” and the distance D E “distance in air to take into
account inadvertent movement and errors in judgement of distance while performing work”
(figure 4.1) [2].

41
 MAD = D U + D E = D A

D U and D E being calculated in accordance with appropriate standards or regulations [ref IEC
61472, IEEE 516, EU stds, OSHA regulations, etc].

MAD = D U + D E
Component at ground Energised
potential or live line component or
worker at ground DE bare hand live
potential using DU
line worker
insulated stick

Figure 4.1: Calculation of MAD

The minimum approach distances adopted by utilities for use on their system should be
analysed considering the actual conditions on their network (i.e. their maximum anticipated
transient overvoltage, altitude, etc.).

The minimum approach distances and the electrical distances, D U , are not linear with line
voltage. Typically they vary as shown in figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Electrical Distance, D U , versus Line Voltage

The minimum approach distances will be greater at a given line voltage if the transient
overvoltage (TOV) is greater and if the line is at a high altitude. Calculating the actual
transient overvoltage at the worksite can often reduce the minimum approach distance required
to perform live work.

4.2.1.2 Tool Insulation

Like air insulation requirements, all tools (i.e. hot sticks, aerial devices with insulating booms,
etc.) must have electrical insulation properties that are calculated in accordance with
appropriate standards or regulations.

Live work tools must be cleaned and have their properties periodically checked according to
the timetable established by the manufacturer or the company’s maintenance programme.

42
The periodical inspection of tools particularly involves checking the dielectric properties of the
different tools:
i. Insulating tubes, rods, sticks, poles.
ii. Insulating ladders.
iii. Insulating rope.
iv. Insulating hydraulic hoses.
v. Aerial devices with insulating booms.

All insulating tools should be appropriately stored in clean and dry areas to protect their
electrical and mechanical properties.

4.2.2 Electrical/Mechanical Considerations

4.2.2.1 Mechanical Loads For Live Work

Live work, especially on lines, often requires the displacement of mechanical load, ie. Load
transferred from insulator string to strain tools in order to change out the string. For this it is
critical to have tools and equipment suitably rated to not fail under mechanical load subjected
to.

Live work on network devices or components, for example work on brushing contacts,
removing hot spots, maintenance of switches, needs to operate or open the electrical circuit.
The live operations of the electrical circuit need a shunt established while live work is being
carried out.

During the work this shunt will support the transit current but it will also support mechanical
efforts in case of a short circuit on the system. The effect of the short circuit must not impact
on the live work that is being carried out. In substations this consideration is more critical
because the distances between the shunt is smaller, currents are larger and the time the shunt is
on the busbar is typically longer than the time a shunt is on a transmission line.

4.2.2.2 Potential Energy in Live Work

Three types of energy need to be accounted for in live work:
i. Active energy when working on installations in service.
ii. Reactive energy when working on live off-load or floating potential installations.
iii. Short-circuit energy for instances of defective insulation.

The basis for the rules relating to this concept and dealing with potential energy is the control
of two fundamental parameters:
i. Operator protection with regard to current transit.
ii. Controlling the capacitive arc.

4.2.3 Qualified Procedures

As well as qualified procedures to enable a utility company to undertake live work a full and
comprehensive review of its safety case will need to be completed. The requirements of which

43
are shown in section 3.5. Typically for live work two methods are used, these are “bare hand”
and “hot stick”. A description of each is listed below.

4.2.3.1 Bare Hand Method

Bare hand work is carried out on energised high and extra high-voltage lines, with the line
workers normally wearing conductive clothing. The line worker is in contact with the
energised line while insulated from earth and other electrical potentials.

The live bare hand method is based on the principle that a live worker can safely be in contact
with an energised line, provided that the live worker is permanently insulated from any other
object at a different potential.

The application of this method requires the use of conductive clothing and electrically
insulating equipment to gain access to the energised conductor or fitting while maintaining
adequate air clearance as insulation from other objects at different electrical potential.

Access to the work can be gained, for instance, by use of an insulating ladder or rope, insulated
elevating work platform, crane, positioning insulating tower, insulated boom truck or
helicopter.

The work can include, for instance, inspections and repairs to conductors and/or fittings and
the replacement of insulators or inspection and repairs and/or replacement of part of
disconnecting switches, circuit breakers, etc..

4.2.3.2 Hot Stick Method

The hot stick method is based on the principle that the worker shall always maintain a
minimum approach distance from any energised high voltage line or equipment.

Work is performed using tools and equipment fitted to insulating sticks.

Access to the work can be gained, for instance, from a pole or structure, a work platform or
ladder attached to pole or structure, elevating work platform.

The work can include, for instance, replacement of insulators, measurement of intensity,
cleaning or washing of insulators or fittings, etc.

4.2.3.3 Feasibility of Bare Hand and Hot Stick Method

An increasing working distance reduces the ability to perform any work when hot stick work is
considered. Moreover, increasing distance is generally related to an increasing voltage level,
the related equipment becomes much heavier, requires higher torque values for unscrewing as
well as for screwing the assembling. The capability to remove and handle the equipment with
the hot stick method is therefore inversely proportional to the distance, and then the voltage
level.

When considering the bare hand method, this drawback does not apply. However, when the
distance decreases, the capability to carry out the bare hand method reaches its limitation when
the distance does not allow a transfer of the workers from the earthed parts to the live parts.

44
This required minimum distance is also affected by the worker’s equipment size which is
basically the same, whatever the voltage level, whatever the method, live or dead work.

These two limitations respectively for the hot stick method and the bare hand method can be
illustrated as follows:

66 kV 90 kV 110 kV 220 kV 300 kV 400 kV 500 kV 750 kV

Typical voltage where bare hand method are used

Typical voltage where hot stick method are used

Table 4.3: Typical Application of Hot Stick and Bare Hand Methods

4.3 Examples and Case Studies

4.3.1 Low Complexity for Lines

Figure 4.3: Figure 4.4:

Changing 220kV I-string insulator Changing I-string insulator using hot
using bare hand techniques (Spain) stick techniques.

45
 Figure 4.5: Testing 69 kV Suspension String (Brazil)

 
Figure 4.6: Washing 230 kV Suspension String
(Brazil)

46
Figure 4.7: Repairing Conductor (Brazil)

Case Study 4.1 (UK) Installation of “Marker Balls” with Both Circuits Live

Due to the location of some circuits across known areas of wildlife installation of
bird flight divertors onto the earthwire is necessary. This example shows them
being installed with both circuits live.

47
 Figure 4.8
Installation and Replacing Aerial Markers

4.3.2 Medium Complexity for Lines

Figure 4.9
Changing a 500 kV V-String Insulator
using Bare Hand Techniques (USA)

Figure 4.10
Changing a 500 kV Dead End Insulator
String using Hot Stick Techniques (USA)

48
Figure 4.11
Changing a 400 kV Dead End Insulator String using Bare Hand Techniques (Spain)

Figure 4.12
Changing 600 kV Insulator String using Bare Hand Method (Brazil)

49
Figure 4.13
Changing 765 kV Insulator String using Bare Hand Method (Brazil)

Figure 4.14
Making a full Tension Conductor
Splice (South Africa)

50
 Case Study 4.2 (France) Replacing Dead End Compression Joints

This case study below shows an example of the replacement of dead end compression joints using live
working techniques. An insulated beam is raised up the tower into position using live line ropes. The live line
worker then proceeds out along the beam to the end. The beam is then rotated out towards the conductors this
is then followed by the installation of a working platform on the live conductors. The operation to replace the
dead end compression joints live is then completed.

4.3.3 High Complexity for Lines

Case Study 4.3 (USA) Replacing & Restringing while Energised

The increase in capacity was accomplished by replacing the existing ACSR conductor with ACSS/TW
(trapezoidal wire) and matching the design working tensions so that it would not be necessary to change out
structures or anchors.

Do to system constraints the line could not be taken out of service for the extended period of time required for
normal uprating. Therefore, the 52 km line, consisting of 234 H-Frame structures with the three phases in a
horizontal configuration, was reconductored while energised. Work plans were developed to enable the
sequential transfer of electric load between the three existing phases and a temporary transfer bus.
Supplementary pole structures were constructed to support the energised temporary line. Rollers were
installed on the de-energised existing phases to be reconductored. In this configuration, the induced voltages
on the “de-energised” conductor ranged up to 30 kV, therefore, the equal potential stringing method was used
to eliminate potential hazards to the line crews and public. Other procedures that were developed were:
i. Tying off the existing and new conductor at night by insulating and isolating the conductor from the
equipment.
ii. Transferring of large loads from existing conductor to the temporary line, and from the temporary line to
the new conductor, using a mobile 345 kV breaker.

Installing rollers on the de-energised phase while the Mobile 345 kV Breaker.
temporary line at the left is energised.

51
4.3.4 Low Complexity for Substations

Figure 4.15: Maintenance of a Hot Connector on a 230 kV Current Transformer (Brazil)

Figure 4.16: Washing Insulators (Brazil)

52
 4.3.5 Medium Complexity for Substations

4.3.5 High Complexity for Substations

Figure 4.17: Replacing a 500 kV Support
Insulator (Brazil)

Figure 4.18: Changing 500 kV

Connector (Brazil)
 

53
4.3.6 High Complexity for Substations

Case Study 4.4 (Brazil) Installing Tranversal Busbar over Main Busbar at the
Barreiras Substation

The BARREIRAS substation is a strategic part of the network to supply electricity to the Bahia State. It was
necessary to expand the power capacity of the substation through the installation of a new Busbar. It’s not
possible to disconnect the substation without impacting the regional economy, so ELETROBRAS CHESF
decided to install this new busbar using live line work methods over the energised main busbar. In a first step,
live line work team assembled 3 special scaffolds, 2 x 2 m base, among the phases of the main busbar in order
to provide the insulating base to launch the cables.

The crew installed ladders and PVC U shapes on the top of the scaffolds to drive and slip the conductors.
Using a pilot rope, the linemen pulled the conductors through the U Shapes to be attached to the main
structures

The ground crew prepared the insulating string and other linemen on the metallic structure raised the
conductor with insulating string to finish the job.

54
4.4 Limiting Factors
One of the major limiting factors in performing live work is meeting the minimum phase to
ground or phase to phase minimum approach distances on existing line or substation designs.
In some cases this can be overcome by application of one of the following:
i. Use of insulating screens.
ii. Temporary limitation of the possible overvoltage.
iii. Use of portable protective air gaps.
iv. Temporary MAD extension.
v. Robotic Techniques.

4.4.1 Use of Insulating Screens

The insulating screens physically limit the worker’s inadvertent movement (covered by the
distance D E ). Insulating screens are not relied upon for electrical insulation, but only act as a
physical barrier to restrict access to live parts in a particular area.

Due to its size and shape [catches the wind], the necessity of firmly attaching the screen to a
rigid support, the use of insulating screens is quite limited for the overhead lines. The use of
screens in the substations is also limited considering the need of handling and stabilising the
screen. It may reduce the ergonomic distance to be taken into consideration.

4.4.2 Temporary Limitation of the Possible Overvoltage

The MAD concept results from various assumptions, among those, the risk of high overvoltage
flashover at the worksite as a consequence of a line circuit breaker attempting to reclose after a
single-phase fault clearing operation.

It is then possible to reduce the distances by, for instance, disabling all auto-reclose equipment
controlling the section of the circuit on which the live work team is carrying out the works.
However, this may not be considered as an option for the realisation of live works (refer to EN
50110 and figure 3.4).

This is a kind of compromise between the acceptable risk on the network operation (risk of
losing a circuit) versus the possibility of carrying out the live works in good conditions.

4.4.3 Use of Portable Protective Air Gap

The application of portable protective air gaps is shown in figure 4.19 [ref IEEE 516, EPRI
live line book]. This type of device can be employed to provide worker protection by
establishing a controlled spark over path that is coordinated with the flashover voltage of the
minimum approach distance. Recognizing that the protective gap at the work area may operate,
these gaps are generally installed at an adjacent structure.

55
 Figure 4.19: Example of Portable Protective
Air Gaps on a 500 kV
Transmission Line

4.4.4 Temporary MAD Extension

In some cases, it is possible to get the MAD by temporarily displacing the phase conductors to
provide additional clearance between the phase and tower (figure 4.20).

Figure 4.20: Example of Temporarily Displacing the Phase

56
Other limitations to performing live work are:
i. Restricted access to the right-of-way for Aerial devices with insulating booms.
ii. Design of the structures.
iii. Disconnection capacity of the live work devices.
iv. Weather conditions (i.e. storms, rain, fog).
v. High temperature conductor (i.e. some bare hand techniques that require landing a line
worker on the conductor and some hot stick work where the mechanical strength can be
reduced at high temperature).
vi. EMF regulatory limitations.

4.4.5 Live Working on DC Lines

There is a growing interest for HVDC transmission for bulk power transmission over long
distances. It is thus appropriate to outline the main differences to be considered, compared to
the practice on AC systems.

Whatever the system, AC or DC, the feasibility of live works is envisaged from a feasibility
point on view (is it feasible) and then on a methodology aspect (how to proceed). In addition to
technical and physical considerations, depending on the country, there might be limitations
imposed by the national regulations related to the works carried out in the vicinity of live parts.

There is a large worldwide experience on live works on AC lines, which have been shared
through standards like IEC 61472 (Live working - Minimum approach distances for AC
systems in the voltage range 72,5 kV to 800 kV - A method of calculation) or IEEE Std 516
(Guide for Maintenance Methods on Energised Power Lines). There is a much limited
knowledge and experience of live works on DC lines. Research programs are currently carried
out (EPRI, etc.). As a consequence, there might be more limitations in the national regulatory
framework as a consequence of insufficient backing information and predominance of the
precaution principle.

The main consideration remains the evaluation of the minimum approach distance. The
phenomena of field distribution in the space for DC systems is much less known and studied
than in AC. In DC there is a suspicion that the dielectric withstand under switching surge
condition is reduced compared to the AC (all things being otherwise equal). This affects the
insulating tools and the air gaps design, because of the possible presence of a significant space
charge.

In the case of AC systems, corona ions emitted from high-voltage overhead lines are quickly
attenuated when the distance from the conductor increases. In DC systems, there is no such
attenuation and the influence of these phenomena on minimum approach distance should be
carefully evaluated. The uncertainty on withstand of dielectric tools in DC case, may also
affect the feasibility. In contrast to AC transmission systems, HVDC can be operated at
reduced voltage, provided that this has been anticipated at the design stage. This might be a
compromise, to temporarily reduce the transmitted power and make possible the live works.

57
Whatever the system, AC or DC, the possibility to carry out the live work is mainly guided by
the knowledge and possible limitation of overvoltage likely to occur during the live work. Due
to the scheme configuration, the overvoltage magnitude and occurrence is in principle more
severe on AC lines than DC ones, as HDVC systems built and operated so far do not include
circuit breakers. However de-energised bipolar HVDC overhead lines - the most widely used
system - are likely to face overvoltage by capacitive coupling in the event of a line-to-ground
fault of one pole. In the case of monopolar lines, the capacitive coupling is very low.

The next important aspect to be considered is the behaviour of the insulator strings in polluted
areas. In AC systems, depending on the condition of the insulator string (apparent pollution
status, number of damaged cap-and-pin insulators), the procedure will allow the live work to
be undertaken or not. This is based on a large worldwide feedback over a long period. In DC
systems, the knowledge of the insulator strings behaviour in polluted areas is quite limited or
not as well documented as it is for AC systems. In AC and DC systems, the contamination of
the insulator surface may lead to partial flashovers. The process is more critical for direct
current as arc currents may remain active until a total flashover occurs (no zero crossing). The
IEEE Guide for Maintenance Methods on Energised Power Lines indicates a limitation of the
worksite area relative humidity of 85% for High Voltage DC work above 72.5 kV (while it
tolerates a 100 % rate for AC lines).

The use of composite insulators for HVDC may solve the contamination issues in areas subject
to a severe pollution level (thanks to the hydrophobia of the surface). This technology however
raises other issues for the feasibility of live works (risk of premature ageing, procedure for
checking insulators soundness). The composite insulators have indeed a better behaviour in
relation to the pollution, but they can present internal defects, therefore not visible, likely to
degenerate toward a flashover. The state of the insulator should be evaluated prior to starting
the live work. The detection method has been developed in AC, it is not certain that the
internal defect detection method by analysis of the electric field along the insulator is also
efficient in DC.

The pollution issue being more critical than with AC lines, this should be addressed also at the
early design stage through an appropriate choice of the HVDC line route (to avoid critical
areas).

Live work on DC power lines would necessitate further studies to better understand the risks
associated to a particular contamination status of the insulator strings. It would be necessary to
verify the appropriate clearances, study the effect of space charge on the flashover
characteristics and mechanisms of an air gap and determine minimum number of healthy
insulators required in a string to conduct safe live working.

58
5. Feasibility Evaluation
The feasibility study should provide the management with all the information for making the
decision as to whether or not to implement a live work program. Cost benefit evaluation is
discussed in chapter 7.

The feasibility study should be carried out with the consultancy of live work experts in the
field of who regularly validate options, varying from simplifying the project scope to detailed
optimising investments. Instead of considering the complete implementation of a live work
organisation, the utility may consider studying the feasibility of that option for a particular case
only.

The following points outline the main aspects to be covered by such a feasibility study.

5.1 Regulation Evaluation

First thing to check is if there is any restriction in national, local or company regulations
(safety, working, unions, standards, procedures) about implementing live work. It is important
to find out if it is necessary and possible to change national regulations to do live work.

Some examples of limitations are:

i. Weather conditions (e.g. thunder, ambient temperature, wind (aerial devices), rain, fog,
humidity, ice).
ii. EMF exposure.
iii. Possibility of using helicopters.
iv. Minimum approach distances.
v. Procedures or requirements from the company to give an access to the live work team.
vi. Safety level achieved by the company (accident research statistics).
vii. Restricted access to the right-of-way for aerial devices with insulating booms.

In some countries live works may be forbidden. In other countries live works may need special
authorization and/or procedures.

5.2 Technical Evaluation

The following items are required for feasibility study:
i. List of the most frequent maintenance operations.
ii. System and network constraints.
iii. Phase to phase and phase to ground clearances on towers and in substations.
iv. Conductor temperature (bare hands live work); high temperature conductors (i.e. some
bare hand techniques that require landing a line worker on the conductor and some hot
stick work where the mechanical strength might be reduced at high temperature).
v. Access to the towers.

59
vi. Disconnection capability of the live work devices (e.g. voltage transformers).
vii. Access of overhead lines or substations (i.e. component’s suitability for live work: in
most cases special yokes and tools must be developed to perform live work on existing
components).
viii. Existing congestion areas in the network.
ix. Geometry design criteria: in case of different design standards a case by case feasibility
assessment may be required.
x. Assessment of the existing infrastructure (i.e., fittings, hardware, etc.).
xi. Envisaged live work volume.
xii. Levels of network operation overvoltages.
xiii. Network protection system (possibility to remotely deactivate the automatic re-closure
function).
xiv. Number of existing teams for de-energised works.
xv. Skills of teams (evaluation based on predetermined criteria).

5.3 Stakeholders
When the future needs for maintenance is evaluated and a live program is going to be
implemented the opinion of some or all (according to the specific country situation) of the
following groups might be considered:

Potential Strategies for

Stakeholder Interest in the Project Assessment of Impact Gaining Support or
Reducing Obstacles
Company management  Increase network security.  Decision makers (e.g. in-  Communication /
 Decrease outages. house vs outsourcing). Explanation.
 Global cost reduction.  Company organization.  Cost/benefits analyses.
 Working condition.
 Flexibility of maintenance
program (less dependence
from producers /
costumers).
 Promote company image.

Investors /  Increase efficiency.  Potential increase value of  Communication.

Shareholders  Global cost reduction. company on financial
 Promote company image. market.

Regulator  Network security.  Change of regulations that  Communication /

 Network availability. could affect: Explanation.
 Worker safety.  Implementation time.  Cost/benefits analyses.
 Cost efficiency.  Procedures.
 Cost evaluation.

Unions /  Potential safety issues.  Implementation time.  Communication /

Workers  Working conditions.  Procedures. Explanation.
representatives  Number of workers.  Cost evaluation.  Involve them in project
 Increase skill of linemen. team.

60
 Potential Strategies for
Stakeholder Interest in the Project Assessment of Impact Gaining Support or
Reducing Obstacles
Producer  Network availability.  Supporting the idea with  Communication (no
 Avoid limitation in regulator and government. outages during work).
production capacity.  Lobby to regulator and
government.

Customer  Network availability  Supporting the idea with  Communication.

(Distributors/Big (service continuity). regulator and government.  Lobby to regulator and
companies)  Flexibility of maintenance government.
program.
 Quality of service.
 Less overloads on
distribution network.

General Public  Continuity of supply.  Supporting the idea with  Communication.

regulator and government.  Lobby to regulator and
government.

Consultants  New market opportunity.  Project costs.  Accurate choice of a

 Project time. independent skilled
 Feasibility assessment. consultant with strict
 Procedures and tools. confidential approach.

Contractor  New market opportunity.  Company procedures.  Communication.

(In case of outsourcing)  Responsibility issues.  Lobby to regulator and
 Contractor availability. government.
 Cost evaluation.

Suppliers  New market opportunity.  Project costs.  Lobby to regulator and

(tools and safety  Project time. government and company
equipment)  Feasibility assessment. management.
 Procedures and tools.

Table 5.1: Considerations of Stakeholders

5.4 Implementation of In-house Live Program

When the Utility envisages the option of in-house live work, the feasibility study is
supplemented by:
i. A list of tools needed for live work.
ii. Any specific apparatus design features.
iii. Conditions for tool checking and repairs.
iv. Assessment of the professionalism of the operators likely to be trained in live work
methods.

61
5.5 Feasibility Evaluation Output
On the basis of a risk analysis that takes into account the requirements and constraints, the
feasibility study will propose the following:
i. An organization for validating live work rules.
ii. An organization for managing live work and delegating responsibilities.
iii. List of selected operations to be carried out on live systems (the study should document
the motivation of the selection and rejection).
iv. Guidelines for distances at which work can be carried out safely.
v. Guidelines and criteria for assessing external contractors.
vi. Network access management in live work conditions, overcoming the overvoltages.

62
6 How To Proceed
This section assumes that a feasibility study has been conducted and that a decision has been
made to implement a live work program. If during the feasibility study, regulatory constraints
have been encountered, these will need to be taken into account during the implementation.

We will assume that the asset owner has no previous experience in live line work and has no
in-house expertise. A decision will need to be made as to either perform the live work in-house
or to outsource the work. This decision will depend on many factors including if the asset
owner already has an engineering and maintenance department. If they already outsource all of
their maintenance activities they will probably want to outsource their live work activities.

6.1 In-house
We will assume that the asset owner has an existing in-house engineering staff and field work
force from which most of the required organizational structure may be established,
management appointed and the live work teams selected.

6.1.1 Organisational Structure

In order to undertake live work in-house a sufficient organisational structure will need to be
established before live work commences. The key to insuring that a line or substation
component is maintainable using live work methods lies in close cooperation among at least
four areas: the design group, the maintenance group with live work experience, the system
operations group, and the safety group. This should include suitably trained and qualified staff
to carry out live work and also sufficient technical & safety staff supported by experienced
consultants. This support could be provided by organizations including other utilities and may
involve training, operating and tools testing procedures, hiring tools and components, and the
use of training and testing facilities.

Selection Criteria

As previously discussed in section 3.5 staff that are required to undertake live work should be
required to fulfil the following requirements.

One consideration with regards to training is whether to train entire teams or, on the contrary,
if a group of workers trained on the same course can then be integrated back into different
teams already operating. However, if operators are integrated into different teams after
training, they will have to pass through a period of adjustment with their definitive team during
which the team leader shall do his or her best to ensure a smooth transition. Another
consideration is whether a team created for high voltage live work can complete jobs in both
live work and de-energised environments.

63
6.1.2 Determining Scope of Works

The asset owner needs to determine the scope of live work that will be initially undertaken by
their in-house teams. The complexity of each type of work will influence the initial scope of
work. Table 4.1 can be useful in making these decisions.

6.1.3 Develop Technical Skills

Following a decision to undertake live work, management will have to establish the level of
technical skills within its organisation. This will involve hiring in an outside consultant or
another asset owner with sufficient live work experience. Other points that need to be
considered here are:
i. Analyse high voltage grid system.
ii. Suggest any changes in the organisation structure.
iii. Suggest changes to scope of live work and method of live work.
iv. Suggest ordering of personal protective equipment and tools.
v. Discussing to prepare a training program for:
a. Project manager.
b. Operational control centre staff.
c. Craftsmen and team leaders.
d. Undertaking the first practical experience of live work on the grid system.
e. Authorisation of staff following successful training.
f. Set up of training facilities or decide to use contractor’s facilities.
vi. Verify if sufficient documentation exists within the utility and that it has authorized
staff to carry out live work.

When live work exceeds the selected scope or method a decision will need to be made as to
whether this work will need to be outsourced.

6.1.4 Develop Procedures and Select Tools

When it has been decided what scope of work could be used for live work with the in-house
teams, it is necessary to describe how to do the different types of work. Each type of task
should have an appropriate and approved procedure. A third party could be used to assist with
the production of this document. Within this document a number of safety standards have to be
addressed.

The procedure should include the following:

i. Preparation of the job - planning activities.
ii. Staff to be involved in the works – informed.
iii. Who is responsible for each activity.
iv. What skills and resources are required.
v. What tools and equipment are needed.
vi. Testing equipment.
vii. Safety measures.

64
viii. How to complete the work activity.
ix. How the tools, equipment and PPE are handled, before and after the work is completed.
x. Sufficient documentation is in place before the work starts i.e. risk assessments, safe
system of work, circuit restriction requests.
xi. After the work is completed ensure all relevant documentation is completed.

Procedures should be put in place to ensure that the current documents and version numbers
are being used. A technical committee should be set up to approve any new procedure. The
approval process should involve reviewing that proposed procedure for compliance with the
above list, proving the procedure (may involve testing first on de-energised system). In some
countries national committees exist to approve new procedures submitted by utilities/
companies. The entire approval process for a new procedure could take several months.

6.1.5 Training of Staff

The training of all staff for live work should include such areas as:
i. Explanation of fundamental rules of live work, presentation, care and testing of tools &
equipment, explanation of working procedures.
ii. Practical training on a de-energised circuit for those tasks which will be required to be
performed live on similar types of towers, insulators strings, conductor configuration etc
and the use of live work tools and safety measures.
iii. First contact with live high voltage equipment (either in a high voltage laboratory or on
the network)
iv. Test procedures and qualification of live work staff members.
v. First live work activity with supervision of engineering staff.
vi. Periodic refresher training for those tasks for which a crew has previously been trained
and qualified as well as the introduction of new work methods and/or equipment.
vii. Team leaders and safety observers will need additional (and/or specific) training – this
could include observing live work in practice.

If any modification of tools/procedure has been required for specific jobs, it is necessary to
perform a training on those specific changes. After the training process has been completed
satisfactorily, workers can then be deemed competent for carrying out live work. This
competency has to be maintained on an ongoing basis.

6.1.6 Implementation & Continuous Improvement of Live Work

Following the implementation of the live work program it is important to ensure that a
continuous improvement program is implemented. This could focus on such areas as:
i. Evaluation of costs and benefit of the ongoing live work program versus de-energised
methods.
ii. Periodic auditing.

65
iii. Evaluation of previous work activities.
iv. Continuous monitoring of international standards and advancements in tools &
equipment.
v. Evaluation of current regulations and any future changes that may be implemented.

6.2 Outsourcing
Much like in-house live work, responsibility for implementation of the program needs to be
assigned to the appropriate department or program manager. The asset owner needs to
determine the scope of live line work that will be initially undertaken by outside contractors.
Tables 4.1 and 4.2 can be useful in making these decisions.
6.2.1 Development of Technical Skills

The technical skills required for outsourcing are not necessarily the same as for in-house live
work. It is necessary to obtain sufficient knowledge of appropriate regulations and
international live work standards in order to evaluate the capabilities of the outside contractors.
This can be facilitated by contracting with knowledgeable organizations that have experience
with live work. In addition, the system operators need to be trained in the system requirements
for live work and their responsibilities. The asset owners staff responsible for the live work
program implementation and ongoing management also need to have the appropriate
knowledge of live work practices.
6.2.2 Pre-qualification of Contractors

Contractors should meet at least the following requirements:

i. Have established appropriate working procedures (including all safety rules) for live
work, which comply with asset owner and any applicable regulations.
ii. Have sufficient competent people to carry out live work.
iii. Have appropriate plant, tools and equipment (including protective equipment).
iv. Be able to demonstrate capability in performing live work.

6.2.3 Extent of Outsourcing

Partial or total outsourcing is possible. The following list shows the main key areas in which
the utility has to define the extent of the outsourcing:
i. Planning and scheduling of work.
ii. Development and approval of work procedures.
iii. Ownership, maintenance and testing of necessary equipment.
iv. Training and certification for live work.
v. Hazards identification and management (e.g. environmental factors, equipment condition
- defective insulator types, corroded or defective fittings).
vi. Work safety management.

66
vii. System and operating requirements applicable when live work is being carried out (e.g.
blocking reclosing - forbid manual reclosing without prior approval of the work party,
operational communications).
viii. Auditing and inspection.

Depending on the extent of the outsourcing, different liability scenarios may apply and live
work outsourcing may not be possible (e.g. due to existing regulations). In any case the asset
owner has to provide asset safety and operational requirements (e.g. networks parameters -
overvoltages level, BIL, load currents, short circuit currents, communication protocols, safety
rules).
Asset owner may have established safety rules (guidelines) for live work which comply with
all existing rules and regulations. These rules should be appropriate for conducting live work
by contractors and define clearly the liability and obligations of both parties (utility and
contractor).
Utility may own working procedures or at least accept contractor’s working procedures.

6.2.4 Contractor Monitoring

Local regulations may have additional monitoring requirements if they consider live work as
electrically hazardous: this includes special procedures to follow such as written job orders for
performing each particular job. Job orders are given by authorized persons from the utility and
define in detail the scope of work to be accomplished, job sites, safety measures,
communication etc.. Job orders for live work are based on working procedures accepted by the
utility and signed by contracts.
The utility should determine through regular supervision and inspections that the contracted
live work task is performed in accordance with contract requirements, relevant working
procedure, and safety guidelines. For this reason the utility should designate an inspector to
monitor and supervise ongoing live work at the job site. The inspector should be authorized to
stop any live work task when working procedures are violated.

6.2.5 Continuous Improvement

Utilities outsourcing live works should be aware of the following:

i. Working procedures must be periodically reviewed or updated to reflect the latest work
practices, safety concerns, and new equipment and tools.
ii. The cost of development of new work procedures and for basic training may be high,
depending on the working method.
iii. Contractors may have limited financial resources and may not be able to finance
expensive development of new work procedures.
iv. Contractors may not be willing to invest in improvement and development when
contracting of live work is based on short-term contracts.

67
Stimulating improvement and development of live work technologies and working procedures
can be achieved by:
i. Long- term contracts.
ii. Financing (by utilities) research and development of new working procedures.
iii. Purchasing new working procedures from abroad.
iv. Motivate contractors to remain in this business.
v. Develop competence in the utility for being able to understand what are the most
important issues in live work.

6.3 Considerations for New Lines and Substations

Formerly, when planning and designing new overhead lines and substations, live work was not
a major consideration.
However, in some countries, with the advent of new sources of generation (i.e. wind farms)
and the re-emergence of nuclear generation, combined with the difficulty in building redundant
multiple circuits from these generators live work of these new lines and substations should be
considered.
Even if the utilities are not yet considering, or only considering dedicated live work
opportunities, it is worth checking whether the design of OHLs or substations will be suitable
for all types of live work, to preserve this option in the future, these infrastructures being built
for several decades.
Of course, this will not be the only condition for permitting these live work to be carried out
efficiently, the utilities should also consider the acquisition of appropriate tools and skilled
resources.
The major concerns for planning and designing these lines and substations for live work, are
the air insulation distances between energised phases and ground, the air insulation distances
between phases and the detailed design of various overhead line and substation components.
Compromises in initial and future maintenance costs and in ideal designs for low EMF and
ideal designs for maintainability, may need to be made.

Depending on the amount of standardization adopted by the asset owner for the design of their
transmission lines and substations, the decision to implement a live work program may have an
effect on new infrastructure. If the asset owner typically builds new lines and substations using
a "turnkey" procedure, then the specifying that these new facilities are live work maintainable
will have impact on their design and initial cost. If the asset owner has well established
standardized designs for their lines and substations, then there is less likelihood that
implementing a live work program will affect future facilities because procedures will be
developed for these standardized designs.

Some of the design considerations for new lines and substations are described below.

68
6.3.1 New Transmission Lines
A transmission line is composed of five components: foundations, structures, insulator
assemblies, conductors and earth wire. Live work will have no effect on foundations unless the
structure is modified. The possible influence of a live work program on the other four
components is discussed below.

6.3.1.1 Structures
Overall structure design should recognize the need of performing live work and should
accommodate, as much as possible, provisions that would help facilitate live work and render
the work least strenuous and costly. When designing structures, it is possible to include design
features and modifications that have a very low impact on the overall project cost but are very
useful from the viewpoint of executing live work tasks. Conversely, the cost of not including
such simple and low-impact design modifications can result in high subsequent cost of
performing live work or retrofitting structures, can hinder efficient execution of live work
tasks, and in some cases can prevent live work altogether.

However, the distance remains the critical criterion, and can be much more costly to achieve.
For example, a compact tower design may limit the feasibility of live works.

The feasibility study of the live work should be analysed at the design stage by assessing the
path to be followed by the linemen from ground level up to the working zone, keeping
appropriate Minimum Approach Distances, D A (see figure 6.1).

It is also necessary to take into account the size of the spare and replaced parts carried by the
workers. Loads from tools, equipment and the live work methods on tower members should
also be taken into consideration (i.e. rigging points should be incorporated in the design).

Provision for climbing (access on the tower)

Whether doing dead or live work, it is necessary to provide climbing devices such as step-bolts
or safety ladder to facilitate easy and safe climbing on the structure. In addition, depending on
the work procedures for accessing the work site, phase-to-ground clearances may be affected.
Some utilities have included permanent fall arrest system as part of the structure design.

Provision for phase-to-ground clearance

Depending on the live work methods proposed, additional phase-to-ground clearance may be
required. As an example, if conductor carts are used to access the centre phase conductors,
additional clearance in the tower window may be required.

Provision for phase-to-phase clearance

Depending on the live work methods proposed, additional phase-to-phase clearance may be
required. If helicopters or insulated bucket trucks will be used to access the energised
conductors (e.g. to change spacers or dampers), then adequate phase-to-phase clearance that
includes a large conductive object (i.e. helicopter or aerial bucket or platform) needs to be
specified in the new design specifications (see figure 6.2). Phase geometry may also limit
access to the conductors.

69
Figure 6.1: Different Live Work Tasks, as per IEC 61472

70
Figure 6.2: Helicopter Working on Center Phase

Provision for good access to the tower site

In many instances a tower design may not allow live work from the tower itself. In those cases,
live work may be done from below using insulated equipment. This increases the importance
of maintaining access to the tower.

6.3.1.2 Insulator Assemblies

The selection of hardware is critical for safe and efficient live work. The addition of a
shoulder live line link to facilitate strain taking tools on assemblies simplifies live work, makes
attachment safer and increases efficiencies. The cost of implementation at the design and
construction stage is negligible with respect to overall cost.

Case Study 6.1: Live Work Insulator Assemblies

The insulator hardware assembly

on top shows the insulators
attached to a yoke plate with and
shackle with a bolt, nut and cotter
pin. This assembly can only be
disassembled using bare hand
techniques.

The assembly below shows an

insulator connected to the yoke
plate with a ball and socket
fitting. This assembly can be
disassembled using both hot stick
and bare hand techniques. Thus
both techniques are available.

71
6.3.1.3 Conductors
Special conductors could be nearly impossible to access i.e. conductor with soft aluminium or
conductors operating at high temperatures.

6.3.1.4 Earth wire

The placement of the earth wire could affect the access to the conductors below when using a
helicopter for example.

6.3.2 New Substations

All of the observations concerning access and clearances for transmission lines also apply to
bus and bus supports inside substations. Maintenance costs for live line work can be reduced if
reclosures can be remotely operated. In addition, not having crossing bus bars simplifies live
work in substations.

Ideally, substation design practices dictate that major equipment have switches or disconnects
to remove equipment from service, and redundant bus work to bypass equipment. However, if
these design features do not exist, there should be room available to build temporary bypass
installations, otherwise it may not be possible to maintain the substation live (see case study
4.4).

Equipment bays should have access roads or lanes. They should be accessible for heavy
equipment such as cranes and trucks. A minimum of cables and cable trenches should cross
the access lanes. The roads should have good foundations to take the heavy loadings especially
for large cranes with long reach (see figure 6.3).

Figure 6.3: Insulated Aerial Platforms used to Replace Overhead

Busbar Insulators in Energised Substation.

72
7. Savings and Costs
The live work opportunity for a utility should be analysed on both savings and costs. The goal
of this chapter is to provide management with guidelines for:
i. An evaluation of these savings (what you save by carrying out live work).
ii. An evaluation of the costs (additional cost to de-energised work).
iii. General comparison between live works and de-energised work.

7.1 Identification and Evaluation of Savings

The table below gives a potential list of savings to be considered. Most of these savings are
difficult to quantify because they are subject to evaluation of risk and consequences (compared
to purchasing of tools which are much easier to quantify). However the value should not be
zero.

In order to give a preliminary ranking of these savings, there is also a consideration about the
savings magnitude of each item (* meaning low impact, **** very high impact)

The Savings Performing Live Work Procedures Versus De-energised Work Magnitude

Revenue Losses : transmission and generation revenues ****

Public image: failing to repair under live work condition will place the company at
****
risk to face loss of credibility, penalties from regulator, etc.
Advantage of being able to perform preventive maintenance:
- The work can be planned year around, with direct consequences on:
o Labour cost.
o Machinery cost. ****
o Tools cost.
- The maintenance can be planned before the issue becomes critical, with
higher consequences.
System outage costs: cost of un-served energy, limits of production ***

“Congestion costs”: an outage in one network point may induce a congestion

***
elsewhere
“Congestion reliability impact”: an outage may result overloading other lines and
***
even cause permanent damages, clearance violations and rapid aging of components
Risk and consequences of human operating errors (grounding/un-grounding):
****
sometimes the operator may forget to remove the grounds
Reduced accidents: : the work is performed using staff with improved skill, with
improved planning and preparation, with more concentration on the job, which
***
generally results in reduced number of incident and accidents (some utilities even
start live programs for targeting lower accident rate)
Switching costs (grounding/un-grounding): performing de-energised work requires
**
personnel mobilization to perform grounding and un-grounding operations
Table 7.1: Savings Magnitude for Performing Live Work Procedures

73
The economic benefits of live work cannot be identified by direct comparison with de-
energised methods, but by looking at the possibility to carry out other live work jobs and
managing certain maintenance situations without having to put the system out of service and
incur indirect costs. These indirect costs are often higher than the cost of live work.

Note that in recent years, live work in substations has been largely mechanised to ensure
improved performance and also increase the number of work categories likely to be carried
out.

Case Study 7.1 (France): Replacing Busbar at the VILLEJUST substation (1)

The VILLEJUST substation (400 kV, 225

kV, 90 kV) is a strategic part of the
supply loop of Paris. This substation was
built in 1959 with a 3 bypass in cable
suspended at 8m70 high. The defect of a
component suspension string, fittings…
could have a considerable impact of the
electrical system.
RTE decided therefore to replace
the cables by a 200 mm busbar
and to undertake this live work.

In a first step each of the 16 shield wires of 80 m in length were removed using live work methods. The wire
is supported by an insulated rope (Figure A). With a positioning insulated tower, operators remove the 152
switch connectors on the busbars (Figure B).

Figure A Figure B

74
Case Study 7.1 (France): Replacing Busbar at the VILLEJUST substation (2)

The 153 stack insulators are put in place in order to receive the new busbar (Figure C). The bypass cables were
removed. This part was completed by de-energised methods but above live equipment (Figure D).

Figure C Figure D

The new busbar was put in place with helicopter and substation live work methods. Whilst this was
being completed the remain substation equipment was live. Figure E, below, shows the helicopter
bringing into position the bar, the operators then secured the bar in place (Figure F). A total of 144 bars
ranging from 8 to 19 m long were installed.

Figure E Figure F

The last part was to connect the new bus bar into service in the substation. [REF: Extract from ICOLIM
2008 article]

75
Case Study 7.2 (USA) : Replacement of conductor spacers at 500 kV using Portable
Protective Air Gaps

This case study demonstrates how a spacer replacement programme could be completed live. The route is a 500
kV twin ACAR construction which has encountered spacer induced conductor damage.

Consideration was given to completing the work either de-energised or live. With circuit outage constraint
charges at $75,000 per hour the decision was made to complete the work live with industry standard Portable
Protective Air Gaps (PPAG) also fitted. The PPAG were installed on the towers at a distance of every 4 miles.

The work was completed over a 22 day period via a helicopter and this involved changing 6,208 spacers with a
total cost of under $800,000 i.e. approximately 10 hours of outage cost.

76
7.2 Live Work Program Implementation Costs
The utility that decides to investigate the implementation of a live work program, must take the
following initial steps in their assessment:
i. Feasibility study.
ii. Start-up cost for live work program.
iii. Live work program operating costs.

7.2.1 Feasibility Study

As defined in chapter 5, the feasibility study will help management to decide the extent of the
live work program implementation. Based on the adopted live work program strategy the
relevant implementation cost will be different. The items detailed in chapter 5 will also help to
build a preliminary assessment; it is indeed assumed that the utility has carried out that
preliminary assessment, regarding the suitability of the live work to solve technical issues in
the Company.

The expected length of the feasibility study project, for a full live work program
implementation, will vary based on the utility assets, but could take up to between 5 to 6
months.

Figure 7.1 : Typical diagram of study team

77
A typical feasibility project team cost for a live work program implementation will consist of:
i. Consultants (Outside Resources), focused on Safety & Environmental, legal and
technical aspects, requiring approximately 2 man-months.
ii. Internal resources, 2 people for each of the following areas: Safety & Environmental,
Legal, Technical, Commercial, Human Resources and System Planning. The typical
internal team resource allocation for the duration of the feasibility study is 1,5 FTE (full
time equivalent) broken as follows:
a. Safety & Environmental, 350 man-hours.
b. Legal, 350 man-hours.
c. Commercial, 170 man-hours.
d. Human Resources, 90 man-hours.
e. System Planning, 170 man-hours.
f. Technical, 1.000 man-hours.
g. Project Manager, 700 man-hours.

Instead of considering the complete implementation of a live work organisation, the utility
may consider studying the feasibility of that option for a particular case only. The cost of the
feasibility study will vary accordingly.

7.2.2 Start-Up Costs for Live Work Programs

i. Potential Cost to Modify Regulations.

ii. Staff (management, etc.) and (live work) teams training.
iii. Purchase of tools.
iv. Maintaining the live work tools:
a. Testing laboratory services.
b. Storage of tools.
c. Services for repairing tools.
d. Customised design of new tools.
v. Potential purchase or rental of motorized equipment for live work like helicopters,
insulated aerial devices, robots, etc..

7.2.2.1 Regulations

The live work rules must abide by national regulations and be adapted to the needs of the
company. There are two principal ways of validating live work rules:
i. Setting up a National Live Work Committee in coordination with the local regulation
authority. This is often the practice in countries where different companies and utilities
perform live work in an effort to standardize skills and practices.
ii. Setting up a Validation Committee within the utility. This is common for particular
operations applicable to the utility only.

78
7.2.2.2 Staff and Team Training
Field personnel training:
Initial training: 3-7 weeks (simple to full scope).
Comment: basic training to perform hot stick works is a 3 week training course for simple
tasks, depending on the following:
i. The complexity of the operations to be carried out on live lines.
ii. The initial knowledge of the workers.

Also, the training consists of explaining electrical behaviour and giving enough practical
experience to start live work jobs.

Re-certification: approximately 1 week/year (see section 7.2.3.1).

Staff personnel training:

To a lesser extent, the training must also be extended to the management and staff in charge of
system operation. That takes 2 or 3 days.

Training should be provided by reputable and experienced instructor and/or training company.

The Cost of training including instructors needs to be evaluated for each country as the labour
rates varies from country to country.

7.2.2.3 Purchasing of Tools

The budget needed for the tools depends on the work to be done and the various designs of the
infrastructure (towers, substations).

The cost of purchasing tools for performing basic live work activity (as shown in figure 7.2)
varies from about €100,000 to €200,000. This would include one set of tools, such as personal
protective equipment, hot sticks, manual tools, ropes, scaffolds etc. This cost excludes import
duties, taxes.

Different manufacturers offer their tools across the world. It is easy to find information on live
work tools on the Internet, with different product qualities.

Figure 7.2: Storage and Transport Truck

79
The publication IEC 60743, Terminology, describes the principal tools used for live work and
is useful in this process.

7.2.2.4 Maintenance of Live Work Tools

The utility needs to consider the cost to set up an electrical testing facility or outsource testing
services (see paragraph 7.2.3.2 “Periodical Inspection of Tools”).

7.2.2.5 Purchase or Rent of Special Equipment

Historically utilities have started by purchasing manual tools to perform live work. Typically
after experience has been gained they may look at purchasing or renting additional motorised
equipment such as:
i. Insulated aerial devices.
ii. Washing equipment.
iii. Conductor carts.
iv. Helicopters.
v. Robots.

To determine the cost of these items detailed specifications should be written to obtain costs
from suppliers.

7.2.3 Live Work Program Operating Costs

After a live work organisation has been implemented, it is necessary to assess the cost of
maintaining good operational conditions as regards both the staff and the dedicated equipment.

7.2.3.1 Maintaining Staff Capabilities

The high level of safety needed to carry out live work is achieved by maintaining the
professionalism of the staff (line workers, site managers and inspectors).

One approach is to establish a minimum requirement that each person must achieve, expressed
in either live work hours/year and/or live work jobs per year. For example some utilities with
several years of experience require 400 hrs/year or 60 tasks/year. In other cases if no live
work is performed in a period of one year, the person is retrained.

Regular refresher courses are commonly organised, depending on the actual practice of the
individual, for example:
i. Individuals that carry out several live work jobs above the minimum requirement are
normally retrained every four years.
ii. Individuals that carry out less than the minimum requirement of jobs per year are
retrained every two years.

Another approach is to conduct periodic refresher courses for all staff members, independent
of the number of jobs performed or the hours worked. This approach not only keeps the staff
proficient in the procedures but also provides a check to make sure the line workers have not
altered or adjusted the procedures.

80
Anytime a procedure is changed or a new procedure for a new task is introduced, a training
course should be held.

This should ensure that the staff are aware of and know how to apply live work safety rules
and procedures.

Furthermore, regular safety audits can be carried out by management several times a year to
check that the staff is following the rules and to identify the areas that need more training
through refresher courses.

Depending on the country regulations, external audits may be carried out after each two or
three years to check that the general organisation is efficient and that the roles and
responsibilities of everyone involved are being carried out. An external audit could require
one consultant for a week.

Engineering staff should be aware of ongoing changes in international standards and

guidelines.

7.2.3.2 Periodical Inspection of Tools

The safety of live work depends on the quality and properties of the tools.

Live work tools must be cleaned and have their properties checked according to the timetable
established by the manufacturer or the company’s maintenance program, e.g. once in a year, in
what is called the periodical inspection.

7.2.3.3 Conductive Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

PPE needs to have periodical inspections to ensure their conductive properties are above the
minimum allowable limits. The periodical inspection involves checking the conductive
properties of:
i. Conductive (bare hand) suits.
ii. Conductive gloves.
iii. Boots.
iv. Head protection.
v. Eye protection.
vi. Hand protection.
vii. Full body harness.
viii. Fall arrest system.

81
Figure 7.3 : Personal Protective Equipment

Such periodical inspection is based on a visual inspection and electrical test of the PPE. The
live worker is responsible to keep good care of its PPE between periodic inspections.

7.2.3.4 Insulated Tools

The periodical inspection of tools particularly involves checking the dielectric properties of the
different tools:
i. Insulating tubes, rods, sticks, poles.
ii. Insulating ladders.
iii. Insulating rope.
iv. Insulating hydraulic hoses.
v. Aerial devices with insulating booms.

Such periodical inspection is based on a visual inspection of the insulating surface and the
electrical tests advocated in the IEC 60855 standard and IEEE 516.

On the mechanical side, high wear and excess strain on a tool can lead to damage:
i. Weakening of the mechanical characteristics of the tools.
ii. Sealing of the end fittings.

Such deterioration can have serious consequences due to the live environment.

Therefore, if there is any doubt regarding the overall condition of a tool or any specific part, it
must be meticulously tested in a dedicated lab before use and rejected if it does not measure up
to the minimum requirements.

82
Most regulations require the results of the tests to be clearly recorded and stored.

Figure 7.4: Illustration of a Periodical

Inspection Lab

The cost of such a lab depends on the types of tool (dielectric testing of tubes, covers,
mechanical testing, testing of insulating boom truck etc.)

Consequently, the laboratory must have an AC transformer up to 100 kV, and special supports
for the tested tools and all the security devices for the installation.

Specific instructions and training are generally offered by the manufacturer for the equipment
inspections. The price of such the laboratory equipment is approximately € 100,000. Periodic
inspections may also be outsourced.

The inspector should be a trained and competent technician or lineman. It takes about one
week to train the inspector to perform these tests. According to the particular organization, this
activity could take one man-month or more per year.

7.2.3.5 Repairing of Tools

The repairing of live work tools makes it possible to maintain the performance of tools at the
necessary level to ensure the safety of operators.

The process must ensure that the mechanical and dielectric capabilities of the tools are
consistent with the associated standards. That is why repairs of insulating parts must be carried
out by qualified staff, the process must be duly supervised and the performance achievement of
the products repaired should be checked in accordance with the standards, in particular tubes
according to IEC 60855.

83
Note:
Repair is not always possible. If the damage is too great or if the cost of repair is too
significant in comparison with the price of a new tool, repairing makes no sense.

Typically 10 – 15 % of the inspected equipment will require repairs. On average, 30% of the
tools to be repaired will be destroyed and replaced by new tools.

Repairing of live tools, particularly insulating tubes, requires a repair shop that is fitted out for
sandpapering, cementing and varnishing and has drying oven for curing resins. All that
equipment must comply with health and environment requirements.

The estimated cost of such a workshop is around € 40,000 and for the drying oven € 60,000.

Figure 7.5 & 7.6: Illustration of a Repair Shop for Hot Sticks

7.3 Cost Methodology

Assuming the availability of an existing maintenance crew the following steps should be
considered:
i. Assessment of your existing system. What maintenance work will need to be done,
within your planning horizon?
a. Insulator change out.
b. Spacer-damper replacement.
c. Splice repair/replacement.
d. Re-conductoring.
e. Tower substitution.
ii. Determine the cost of line outages now and in your planning horizon.
iii. Develop tables of cost to perform de-energised work.
iv. Develop tables of cost to perform live work for each type of job: i.e. insulator change
out, time to complete, number of linemen, equipment cost, etc.. The utility should
consult with companies that do this type of work to get these estimates.

84
v. Determine start-up costs and time to implement a live work program.
a. Cost and time for number of crews based on work to be done.
b. Cost and time to develop an outsource capability, and cost and availability of live
work contractors.

With these costs and system outage costs a cost benefit analysis could be completed, as
outlined in section 3.2.

An essential requirement to implement an in-house live work program is that the asset owner
has existing skilled maintenance crews capable of doing de-energised work. If not, a live work
program may be implemented as well, but most likely outsourced.

7.4 Infrastructures Investment Costs

As the utility live work program matures, the following considerations could be addressed.

7.4.1 Overhead Lines Design Criteria

Another consideration to support a live work program will be to include in the design criteria
of transmission towers the Minimum Approach Distances to perform live work to allow hot
stick and/or bare hand work.

Notes:
i. Increasing the distances between phases increase EMF.
ii. System planners should provide the input of the importance of the new line and its
availability for outages in the future.
iii. There could be other options than simply increasing the size of the tower: the use of
special tools may offer the possibility to cope with insufficient distances (robots, access
by helicopter, etc.).

85
 Case study 7.3 (France) : Evaluating the Impact of the Live Work option on the Overhead
Line Construction Cost

A standard design will allow a reasonable range of hot stick live work. However, this method is limiting the
extend of intervention, depending on the distance and capability of the worker to undertake some operation
(like unscrewing, handling heavy parts, etc..) requiring a minimum physical strenght. The bare hand method
would allow a wider range of operations. The design of a tower compliant with the bare hand method, shall
consider the live line minimum distance, as being the sum of air gaps providing air insulation for the line
workers. This distance shall be interpreted as the sum of air gaps from the conductor to the line worker and
from the line worker to earth, during the process of moving to or from the conductors and bonding on.
On some particular tower configurations, like single circuit towers with horizontal configuration as presented
below, the compliance with the distances is critical for the access to the central phase conductors. The tower
design reflecting this compliance will consider a larger size of the tower head.

The launching of a tender for the construction of a new line is an opportunity to make the decision for a bare
hand live work option, based on the quotation of that option:
The bidder would quote the overhead
line with a tower design only
permitting hot stick work methods
(base case).
The bidder would quote as an option,
the overhead line with a tower design
permitting both methods of live work,
with an indication on the respective
impact on tower geometry, weight and
clearances.
For a similar design, an extra cost in
the range of 10 % has been observed.
This is just indicative, not a statistic,
and should be assessed for each
particular project.
Tower design allowing hot stick Tower design allowing bare hand
method only method

7.4.2 Substations Design Criteria

In substations the following points should be considered:
i. Appropriate spacing of substation bays to allow hot stick and/or bare hand work should
be included in the design criteria’s.
ii. Other options to cope with insufficient distances for hot stick and/or bare hand work is to
use insulating boom-trucks, scaffolds, helicopters, etc..

86
7.5 General Cost Comparisons
7.5.1 Comparison Between Live Work to De-energised Work

7.5.1.1 Overhead Lines

The feedback from utilities performing live work on overhead lines is that the cost is
comparable to that in de-energised conditions. However, there will be a minimum additional
cost of 1 or 2 more days for preparation of live work plans.

The table below gives a comparison of time required between live work and de-energised
method and for different works.

225 kV 400 kV
Bare hand method
Changing suspension insulators From 5 to 15% more from 5 to 10% more

Changing fitting and insulators From 5 to 15% more From 5 to 10% more

Changing wire components 30% less 30% less

Table 7.2: Comparison of Time Required to Complete Live Line Work versus De-energised
Work

7.5.1.2 Substations
The feedback from utilities performing live work on substations is that the cost is 30 to 50%
higher than that in de-energised conditions. However, the benefits are generally worth that
difference.

Live work carried out on substations is more delicate than live work carried out on power
lines:
i. Difficulties to access to the work site due to the compact surroundings, in 3D mode.
ii. The nature of the switchgear (circuit-breaker, switches) often needs shunts.
iii. The transit capacity and higher short-circuit currents.
iv. The weight of devices and lack of anchorage points (compared to what a tower structure
may offer).

All of these mean that the cost of live work in substations is 30-50% above what it is with de-
energised methods.

The economic benefits of live work cannot be identified by direct comparison with de-
energised methods, but by looking at the possibility to carry out other live work jobs and
manage certain maintenance situations without having to put the system out of service and
incur indirect costs. These indirect costs are often higher than the cost of live work.

For example, the direct costs generated by the replacement of the busbar of the Villejust
substation near Paris (see case study 7.1) in live work conditions are without comparison with
the costs of the same project requiring the release from service of such a substation.

87
Note that in recent years, live work in substations has been largely mechanised to ensure
improved performance and also increase the number of work categories likely to be carried
out.

The table below gives a comparison of time required between live work and de-energised
method and for different works in substations.

225 kV 400 kV
Cleaning contacts 15% less

Fixing screens 10% more 10% more

Replacement of disconnecting switches 70% more 40% more

Replacement of insulating columns, hot joints 30% more 30% more

Replacement of devices, circuit breakers etc. 50% more 50% more

Replacement of conductor wires 10% more 10% more

Table 7.3: Comparison of Time Required to Complete Live Substation Work versus De-energised
Work

88
7.5.2 Comparison Between In-house to Outsourcing

7.5.2.1 Fixed Costs

Depending on whether live work program is carried out in house or outsourced, the next table
will give a general idea about the costs for the utility of each stage in the live work program.

Item In-house Outsourced (In House Cost)

Preparing the conditions for a
live work organisation 100% 10%

Feasibility study At the beginning of the project At each new situation.

Implementing a live work

organisation 100% 5%

Validation of rules 100% for initialising 100% at each new situation

Training of teams 100% for initialising 0%

Training of system operating 100% for surveying at each new

100% for initialising
staff procedure

100% (more or less due to the

Staff re-training 5% for each new procedure
live work activity)

Purchasing tools 100% for initialising 0%

Regular testing
100% 0%

Tool repair 100% 0%

Table 7.4: Comparison of Fixed Costs of In-house versus Outsourced Live Work

7.5.2.2 Variable Costs

Referring to table 7.4 the costs for a in-house project will mainly depend on labour costs. In
case of outsourcing the live work, costs may be higher, because the fixed costs of the
contractor will be calculated on the project. The level of these costs depends on the number of
projects to be done, the situation in the market, short-time versus long-time contracts etc.

89
APPENDIX A
General References

[1] Olof Andersson, Göran Olsson, “Live-line working in the Nordic Transmission Grids.
An assessment of the technical and economical conditions”, STRI Report R07-397, 2007

[2] “Operation of electrical installations”, European Standard from Cenelec. EN 50 110-1:

2004.
[3] “Guide for Maintenance Methods on Energised Power Lines”, ANSI/IEEE 516-2009

[4] “Live Working: Structure, Strategy and Program of Work”, IEC/TC78

[5] ”Live work in Eskom Transmission”, Marshall, C.E.; Visser, H.H; Transmission &
Distribution Construction, Operation & Live-Line Maintenance Proceedings, 1998.
ESMO apos;98. 1998 IEEE 8th International Conference on 11-18

[6] EPRI report “Live Working Guide for Overhead Lines”, 10008747

[7] Cigré Brochure 151 “Guidelines for insulation coordination in live working”
by WG 33.07

90
APPENDIX B
List of International Standards
Reference Date Title
CLC/TS 61482-1:2003 2003-12-12 Live working - Flame-resistant materials for clothing for
thermal protection of workers - Thermal hazards of an
electric arc - Part 1: Test methods
EN 50286:1999 1999-05-21 Electrical insulating protective clothing for low-voltage
installations
EN 50321:1999 1999-10-29 Electrically insulating footwear for working on low
voltage installations
EN 50340:2001 2001-10-25 Hydraulic cable cutting devices - Devices to be used on
electrical installations with nominal voltage up to AC 30
kV
EN 50340:2010 2010-05-21 Hydraulic cable cutting devices - Devices to be used on
electrical installations with nominal voltage up to AC 30
kV
EN 50365:2002 2002-05-08 Electrically insulating helmets for use on low voltage
installations
EN 50508:2009 2009-02-13 Multi-purpose insulating sticks for electrical operations on
high voltage installations
EN 50528:2010 2010-05-14 Insulating ladders for use on or near low voltage electrical
installations
EN 60743:2001 2001-12-11 Live working - Terminology for tools, equipment and
devices
EN 60743:2001/A1:2008 2008-07-18 Live working - Terminology for tools, equipment and
devices
EN 60832:1996 1996-06-17 Insulating poles (insulating sticks) and universal tool
attachments (fittings) for live working
EN 60832-1:2010 2010-03-19 Live working - Insulating sticks and attachable devices -
Part 1: Insulating sticks
EN 60832-2:2010 2010-03-19 Live working - Insulating sticks and attachable devices -
Part 2: Attachable devices
EN 60855:1996 1996-06-17 Insulating foam-filled tubes and solid rods for live
working
EN 60895:2003 2003-11-27 Live working - Conductive clothing for use at nominal
voltage up to 800 kV a.c. and ± 600 kV d.c.
EN 60900:2004 2004-05-13 Live working - Hand tools for use up to 1 000 V a.c. and 1
500 V d.c.
EN 60903:2003 2003-11-28 Live working - Gloves of insulating material
EN 60984:1992 1992-10-09 Sleeves of insulating material for live working
EN 60984:1992/A1:2002 2002-07-25 Sleeves of insulating material for live working
EN 60984:1992/A11:1997 1997-05-29 Sleeves of insulating material for live working
EN 61057:1993 1993-11-03 Aerial devices with insulating boom used for live working
exceeding 1 kV a.c.
EN 61111:2009 2009-06-26 Live working - Electrical insulating matting

91
 Reference Date Title
EN 61112:2009 2009-06-26 Live working - Electrical insulating blankets
EN 61219:1993 1993-12-23 Live working - Earthing or earthing and short-circuiting
equipment using lances as short-circuiting device - Lance
earthing
EN 61229:1995 1995-12-12 Rigid protective covers for live working on a.c.
installations
EN 61229:1995/A1:1998 1998-04-02 Rigid protective covers for live working on a.c.
installations
EN 61229:1995/A2:2002 2002-08-02 Rigid protective covers for live working on a.c.
installations
EN 61230:1995 1995-08-23 Live working - Portable equipment for earthing or
earthing and short-circuiting
EN 61230:1995/A11:1999 1999-11-25 Live working - Portable equipment for earthing or
earthing and short-circuiting
EN 61230:2008 2008-11-06 Live working - Portable equipment for earthing or
earthing and short-circuiting
EN 61235:1995 1995-08-04 Live working - Insulating hollow tubes for electrical
purposes
EN 61236:1995 1995-08-04 Saddles, pole clamps (stick clamps) and accessories for
live working
EN 61236:2011 2011-03-25 Live working - Saddles, stick clamps and their accessories
EN 61243-1:2005 2005-03-31 Live working - Voltage detectors - Part 1: Capacitive type
to be used for voltages exceeding 1 kV a.c.
EN 61243-1:2005/A1:2010 2010-02-26 Live working - Voltage detectors - Part 1: Capacitive type
to be used for voltages exceeding 1 kV a.c.
EN 61243-2:1997 1997-08-26 Live working - Voltage detectors - Part 2: Resistive type
to be used for voltages of 1 kV to 36 kV a.c.
EN 61243-2:1997/A1:2000 2000-01-17 Live working - Voltage detectors - Part 2: Resistive type
to be used for voltages of 1 kV to 36 kV a.c.
EN 61243-2:1997/A2:2002 2002-08-08 Live working - Voltage detectors - Part 2: Resistive type
to be used for voltages of 1 kV to 36 kV a.c.
EN 61243-3:1998 1998-11-13 Live working - Voltage detectors - Part 3: Two-pole low-
voltage type
EN 61243-3:2010 2010-05-07 Live working - Voltage detectors - Part 3: Two-pole low-
voltage type
EN 61243-5:2001 2001-05-29 Live working - Voltage detectors - Part 5: Voltage
detecting systems (VDS)
EN 61318:2008 2008-05-29 Live working - Conformity assessment applicable to tools,
devices and equipment
EN 61472:2004 2004-11-19 Live working - Minimum approach distances for a.c.
systems in the voltage range 72,5 kV to 800 kV - A
method of calculation
EN 61477:2002 2002-12-20 Live working - Minimum requirements for the utilization
of tools, devices and equipment
EN 61477:2002/A1:2002 2002-12-20 Live working - Minimum requirements for the utilization
of tools, devices and equipment
EN 61477:2002/A2:2005 2005-03-11 Live working - Minimum requirements for the utilization
of tools, devices and equipment

92
 Reference Date Title
EN 61477:2009 2009-06-10 Live working - Minimum requirements for the utilization
of tools, devices and equipment
EN 61478:2001 2001-12-20 Live working - Ladders of insulating material
EN 61478:2001/A1:2003 2003-10-17 Live working - Ladders of insulating material
EN 61479:2001 2001-06-13 Live working - Flexible conductor covers (line hoses) of
insulating material
EN 61479:2001/A1:2002 2002-07-31 Live working - Flexible conductor covers (line hoses) of
insulating material
EN 61481:2001 2001-05-11 Live working - Portable phase comparators for use on
voltages from 1 kV to 36 kV a.c.
EN 61481:2001/A1:2002 2002-08-02 Live working - Portable phase comparators for use on
voltages from 1 kV to 36 kV a.c.
EN 61481:2001/A2:2005 2005-03-31 Live working - Portable phase comparators for use on
voltages from 1 kV to 36 kV a.c.
EN 61482-1-1:2009 2009-07-16 Live working - Protective clothing against the thermal
hazards of an electric arc - Part 1-1: Test methods -
Method 1: Determination of the arc rating (ATPV or
EBT50) of flame resistant materials for clothing
EN 61482-1-2:2007 2007-03-30 Live working - Protective clothing against the thermal
hazards of an electric arc - Part 1-2: Test methods -
Method 2: Determination of arc protection class of
material and clothing by using a constrained and directed
arc (box test)
EN 62192:2009 2009-06-12 Live working - Insulating ropes
EN 62193:2003 2003-10-23 Live working - Telescopic sticks and telescopic measuring
sticks
EN 62237:2005 2005-04-01 Live working - Insulating hoses with fittings for use with
hydraulic tools and equipment
IEC 60743 2008-06-25 Live working - Terminology for tools, equipment and
Edtion 2.1 devices
IEC 60832-1 2010-02-11 Live working - Insulating sticks and attachable devices -
Edition 1.0 Part 1: Insulating sticks
IEC 60832-2 2010-02-11 Live working - Insulating sticks and attachable devices -
Edition 1.0 Part 2: Part 2: Attachables devices
IEC 60855-1 2009-10-28 Live working - Insulating foam-filled tubes and solid rods -
Edition 1.0 Part 1: Tubes and rods of a circular cross-section
IEC 60895 2002-08-22 Live working - Conductive clothing for use at nominal
Edition 2.0 voltage up to 800 kV a.c. and +/- 600 kV d.c.
IEC 60900 2004-01-08 Live working - Hand tools for use up to 1000 V a.c. and
Edition 2.0 1500 V d.c.
IEC 60903 2002-08-22 Live working - Gloves of insulating material
Edition 2.0
IEC 60984 2002-06-25 Sleeves of insulating material for live working
Edition 1.1
IEC 61057 1991-06-25 Aerial devices with insulating boom used for live working
Edition 1.0
IEC 61111 2009-04-07 Live working - Electrical insulating matting
Edition 2.0

93
 Reference Date Title
IEC 61112 2009-04-07 Live working - Electrical insulating blankets
Edition 2.0
IEC 61219 1993-10-15 Live working - Earthing or earthing and short-circuiting
Edition 1.0 equipment using lances as a short-circuiting device - Lance
earthing
IEC 61229 1993-07-20 Rigid protective covers for live working on a.c.
Edition 1.0 installations
IEC 61229 2002-06-28 Rigid protective covers for live working on a.c.
Edition 1.2 installations
IEC 61230 2008-07-09 Live working - Portable equipment for earthing or earthing
Edition 2.0 and short-circuiting
IEC 61235 1993-09-06 Live working - Insulating hollow tubes for electrical
Edition 1.0 purposes
IEC 61236 2010-10-27 Live working - Saddles, stick clamps and their accessories
Edition 2.0
IEC 61243-2 1995-10-11 Live working - Voltage detectors - Part 2: Resistive type to
Editon 1.0 be used for voltages of 1 kV to 36 kV a.c.
IEC 61243-2 2002-06-25 Live working - Voltage detectors - Part 2: Resistive type to
Edition 1.2 be used for voltages of 1 kV to 36 kV a.c.
IEC 61243-3 2009-11-20 Live working - Voltage detectors - Part 3: Two-pole low-
Edition 2.0 voltage type
IEC 61243-5 1997-06-05 Live working - Voltage detectors - Part 5: Voltage
Edition 1.0 detecting systems (VDS)
IEC 61318 2007-11-27 Live working - Conformity assessment applicable to tools,
Edition 3.0 devices and equipment
IEC 61472 2006-11-15 Corrigendum 2 - Live working - Minimum approach
Edition 2.0 distances for a.c. systems in the voltage range 72,5 kV to
800 kV - A method of calculation
IEC 61472 2005-05-27 Corrigendum 1 - Live working - Minimum approach
Edition 2.0 distances for a.c. systems in the voltage range 72,5 kV to
800 kV - A method of calculation
IEC 61472 2004-07-15 Live working - Minimum approach distances for a.c.
Edition 2.0 systems in the voltage range 72,5 kV to 800 kV - A
method of calculation
IEC 61477 2009-02-20 Live working - Minimum requirements for the utilization
Edition 2.0 of tools, devices and equipment
IEC 61478 2003-03-27 Live working - Ladders of insulating material
Edition 1.1
IEC 61479 2002-06-26 Live working - Flexible conductor covers (line hoses) of
Edition 1.1 insulating material
IEC 61481 2004-06-07 Live working - Portable phase comparators for use on
Edition 1.2 voltages from 1 kV to 36 kV a.c.
IEC 61482-1-1 2009-05-27 Live working - Protective clothing against the thermal
Edition 1.0 hazards of an electric arc - Part 1-1: Test methods -
Method 1: Determination of the arc rating (ATPV or
E;sub;BT50;/sub;) of flame resistant materials for clothing

94
 Reference Date Title
IEC 61482-1-2 2007-01-23 Live working - Protective clothing against the thermal
Edition 1.0 hazards of an electric arc - Part 1-2: Test methods -
Method 2: Determination of arc protection class of material
and clothing by using a constrained and directed arc (box
test)
IEC 61482-2 2009-04-20 Live working - Protective clothing against the thermal
Edition 1.0 hazards of an electric arc - Part 2: Requirements
IEC 62192 2009-02-20 Live working - Insulating ropes
Edition 1.0
IEC 62193 2003-05-27 Live working - Telescopic sticks and telescopic measuring
Edition 1.0 sticks
IEC 62237 2003-10-27 Live working - Insulating hoses with fittings for use with
Edition 1.0 hydraulic tools and equipment
IEC/TR 61328 2003-03-12 Live working - Guidelines for the installation of
Edition 2.0 transmission line conductors and earthwires - Stringing
equipment and accessory items
IEC/TR 61911 2003-02-25 Live working - Guidelines for installation of distribution
Edition 2.0 line conductors - Stringing equipment and accessory items
IEC/TR 62263 2005-12-13 Live working - Guidelines for the installation and
Edition 1.0 maintenance of optical fibre cables on overhead power
lines
IEC/TS 61813 2000-10-18 Live working - Care, maintenance and in-service testing of
Edition 1.0 aerial devices with insulating booms

95
Definitions
Bare hand A technique of performing live maintenance on energised wires and
equipment whereby one or more line workers work directly on an
energised part after having been raised and bonded to the same potential
as the energised wire or equipment. These line workers are normally
supported by an insulating ladder, insulating rope, insulating aerial
device, helicopter, or the energised wires or equipment on which they
are working. Most bare hand work includes the use of insulating tools.
[3]

Dead work(s) Work activity on electrical installations which are neither live nor
charged, carried out after having taken all measures to prevent
electrical danger

De-energised Disconnected from all sources of electrical supply by open switches,

jumpers, taps, or other means.
Note: de-energised conductors or equipment could be electrically
charged or energised through various means, such as induction from
energised circuits, portable generators, lightning, etc [3]

Electric and magnetic

Field (EMF) The Electric and Magnetic field associated with the generation,
transmission and use of electricity.

Energised Electrically connected to a source of potential difference or electrically

charged so as to have a potential different from that of the ground.
Synonym: alive, current carrying, hot, live [3]

Grounding The connection between conductors and ground. For the purposes of this
document, earthing and grounding are the synonyms.

Hot Stick A type of insulating tool used in various operations of live work.
Synonym: hot stick, live-line tool, pole, work pole, work stick. [3]

Hot stick work Safe clearance work: This method of live work by which the worker
remains at a specified distance from the live parts and carries out his
work by means of insulating poles (‘Hot stick working’ reference [2])

Live Worker A person qualified to perform various energised line-work or substation

work, including aerial and groundwork

96
Live Work (LW) All work in which a worker deliberately makes contact with live parts or
reaches into the live working zone with either parts of his or her body or
with tools, equipment or devices being handled.

Maintainability Suitability for a successful maintenance task, taking into consideration

time, cost and safety etc to carry out the task.

Minimum Approach
Distance: the minimum distance in air to be maintained between any part of the
body of a worker, including any object (except appropriate tools for live
work) being directly handled, and any parts at different potentials.

n-1 criteria Any probable single event leading to a loss of power system elements
should not endanger the security of operation. The
remaining network elements, which are still in operation should be able
to accommodate the additional load or changes of generation, voltage
deviation or transient stability regime caused by the initial failure.

TSO Transmission System Operator, a company responsible for operation,

maintaining and, if necessary, developing the transmission system in a
given area and, where applicable, its interconnections with other
systems, and for ensuring the long-term ability of the system to meet
reasonable demands for the transmission of electricity.

Utility network An electrical network (an interconnection of electrical elements)

operated by the particular utility (e.g.TSO)

97