Effect of High-Temperature Cycling on

Conductor Systems:

2008 Progress Report

1015977

12636600
12636600
Effect of High-Temperature Cycling on Conductor Systems

2008 Progress Report

1015977

Technical Update, November 2008

EPRI Project Manager

J. Chan

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 ▪ PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 ▪ USA
12636600800.313.3774 ▪ 650.855.2121 ▪ [email protected] ▪ www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

PBS&J

This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of
continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail [email protected].

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY
are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Copyright © 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

12636600
 CITATIONS
This document was prepared by
PBS&J
18383 Preston Rd Suite 110
Dallas, TX 75252

Principal Investigators
T. Goodwin
I. Baskerville

This document describes research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Effect of High Temperature Cycling on Conductor Systems: Interim Report. EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 2008. 1015977.

12636600 iii
12636600
 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
Faced with difficulties in acquiring rights-of-way, and reduced capital budgets for new lines,
many electric energy companies are seeking ways to squeeze more capacity out of existing
systems. One option to increase power flow is to operate lines at higher temperatures than
originally designed. However, if utilities are to take this approach, it is important to understand
the short- and long-term effects of high operating temperatures on the conductor and its
accessories, as the accumulation of cyclic loading will create higher mechanical and electrical
stresses. This report describes EPRI’s multi-year project aimed at developing information on the
cyclic loading of conductors and their accessories at higher operating temperatures.

Results and Findings

The report summarizes the continuation of the advancement of the state-of-the-art knowledge on
the performance of conductor and conductor accessories at elevated temperatures. It provides the
user with a knowledgebase of not only performance, but also of technology gaps associated with
conductors and conductor accessories.
Results of 2008 testing include:
• Conventional single-stage compression connectors for the standard ACSR conductor do not
perform well at elevated temperatures. The connectors are not suitable for 150°C operation
and performed marginally at 125°C. Two-stage and implode-type connectors performed
nominally well at 150°C. Results are still pending for pull-tests of samples aged at 125°C,
and EPRI will present them in the 2009 report.
• The research did not clearly indicate a failure mechanism that provided a signature of
degradation with a correlated mechanical failure that would cause a line to drop in the field.
Degradation signatures that the project team could measure included temperature rise and
increase in connector resistance.
• The test data clearly identifies compression connectors as a potentially high-risk reliability
concern for operating transmission lines at elevated temperatures, especially when
conventional connectors, not designed for operating at temperatures above 100ºC, are on the
line.

Challenges and Objectives

EPRI has been conducting a number of studies on conductor aging due to the environment, the
effect of elevated temperature operations on conductor sag and tension predictions, and the
distribution of temperature gradients through the conductor and the accessories used to support
the conductor in overhead transmission applications. The objectives of this project are to develop
an up-to-date reference that highlights potential problems of overhead lines operating at high
temperatures, and to address some of the information gaps identified in this reference.

Applications, Values, and Use

This project investigates premature aging of conductor and conductor accessories, including
conductor connectors, dampers, spacer dampers, and other hardware resulting from thermal
cycling of these components. As identified in this report, there are a number of information gaps

12636600 v
that the industry must address to allow energy companies to perform on-time maintenance and
act appropriately to avoid transmission line failures, and thus improve system reliability.

EPRI Perspective
Utilities can use the information and evaluation methods generated from this project as guidance
in determining temperature limits of overhead lines. Transmission engineers can more accurately
evaluate the risks of raising conductors to specific temperatures to avoid potential line failures, to
enhance confidence in operating transmission lines at increased conductor operating
temperatures, and to achieve increased power flows. The report summarizes data in matrix
format, with easy retrieval facilitated by the application of HTC matrix software. HTC Matrix,
Version 2.2 is available in 2008. In this version, the Dynamic Thermal Rating Applet provides
thermal ratings and conductor temperatures for user-specified ranges of target temperatures and
step currents, respectively.

Approach
The project team conducted laboratory testing to evaluate the performance of compression
connectors exposed to elevated temperatures. Forty specimens were aged 1118 cycles at 150°C,
and thirty-two connectors were aged at 125°C for 1635 cycles. The compression connectors
included single-stage (two vendors), two-stage, and implosion-type connectors. The project team
aged the samples by applying sufficient current to maintain target conductor temperatures for
two-hour saturation periods, and then allowing them to cool to ambient before cycling again.
After cycling, the project team pulled the test samples in tension to failure to determine the loss
of strength from aging at elevated temperature. They then tested strand samples of the aluminum
strands and steel core in a metallurgical lab to determine if annealing had taken place during the
aging.

Keywords
Aging
Annealing
Conductors
Compression connectors
High-temperature operation
Overhead transmission

12636600 vi
 CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
Past Research......................................................................................................................... 1
High-Temperature Knowledgebase ........................................................................................ 2
Report Organization ................................................................................................................ 3

2 KNOWLEDGEBASE FOR CONDUCTOR SYSTEMS OPERATING AT ELEVATED

TEMPERATURES .....................................................................................................................2-1
Enhancements and Additions ..............................................................................................2-2
HTC Matrix .....................................................................................................................2-2
Annealing Calculator ......................................................................................................2-3
Dynamic Thermal Rating................................................................................................2-4
HTC Matrix Summary...................................................................................................2-13

3 AGING OF COMPRESSION FITTINGS AT HIGH OPERATING TEMPERATURES ............3-1

Utility Desire to Operate Lines at Elevated Temperatures ...................................................3-1
Focus of Research ...............................................................................................................3-2
Influence of Elevated Temperature on Connectors..............................................................3-3
Failure Modes ......................................................................................................................3-4
Mechanical Failure .........................................................................................................3-4
Electrical Failures...........................................................................................................3-5
What Constitutes a Failure?.................................................................................................3-6

4 DESIGN OF THE AGING TESTS FOR ACSR COMPRESSION CONNECTORS ................4-1

Test Parameters...................................................................................................................4-1
Temperature...................................................................................................................4-1
Number of Cycles...........................................................................................................4-1
Quenching......................................................................................................................4-2
Test Specimens ...................................................................................................................4-2
ANSI C119.4 Comparison....................................................................................................4-3
Test Frame...........................................................................................................................4-3

5 PERFORMANCE OF STANDARD ACSR CONNECTORS AT ELEVATED

TEMPERATURES .....................................................................................................................5-1
Aging Summary – Temperature Performance .....................................................................5-1
Aging Summary – Mechanical Performance........................................................................5-4
Summary of Aging at High Conductor Temperatures ..........................................................5-6

6 DETECTION AND MITIGATION OF HIGH-TEMPERATURE CONNECTOR

DEGRADATION ........................................................................................................................6-1
Detection ..............................................................................................................................6-1

12636600 vii
 Mitigation..............................................................................................................................6-2

7 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................7-1

8 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................8-1

A ANNEALING APPLET USERGUIDE ................................................................................... A-1

Annealing Calculation User Guide ...................................................................................... A-1
Accessing the Annealing Calculator.................................................................................... A-1
Performing a Calculation..................................................................................................... A-1
Closing the Applet ............................................................................................................... A-2

B DYNAMIC THERMAL RATING CALCULATOR HELP....................................................... B-1

Accessing the Dynamic Thermal Rating Calculator ............................................................ B-1
Performing a Calculation..................................................................................................... B-1
Closing the Applet ............................................................................................................... B-2
Transient Example .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

C 150 AND 125°C AGING DETAILS ....................................................................................... C-1

Summary of 150°C Aging Results....................................................................................... C-7
Summary of 125°C Aging Results..................................................................................... C-11

D DETECTION AND MITIGATION DETAILS .......................................................................... D-1

Detection ............................................................................................................................. D-1
Detectable Signatures................................................................................................... D-1
Detection Summary....................................................................................................... D-5
Remediation ........................................................................................................................ D-6
Application of Detection and Remediation Methodologies.................................................. D-7

12636600 viii
 FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Component Performance Matrix @ Elevated Temperatures for ACSR ...................................2-2
Figure 2-2 ACSR Annealing Calculation Applet Screen ............................................................................2-4
Figure 2-3 Dynamic Thermal Rating Calculation Applet............................................................................2-6
Figure 2-4 DTRC Results: Steady-state Temperature Calculation............................................................2-7
Figure 2-5 DTRC Detail Output: Steady-state Conductor Temperature Calculation .................................2-8
Figure 2-6 Transient Thermal Rating Input Screen .................................................................................2-10
Figure 2-7 Transient Conductor Temperature Output Screen .................................................................2-11
Figure 2-8 Transient Conductor Analysis Detail Screen..........................................................................2-12
Figure 4-1 Thermal Cycle Design for 150ºC ..............................................................................................4-2
Figure 4-2 ACSR Compression Connector Aging Frame at Haslet, TX Laboratory..................................4-4
Figure 4-3 High-Temperature Test Frame in Haslet, TX ...........................................................................4-5
Figure 4-4 High-Temperature Test Frame at Splice Position ....................................................................4-5
Figure 4-5 High-Temperature Test Frame at Deadend Position ...............................................................4-6
Figure 5-1 Maximum Temperature Chart by Connector Type ...................................................................5-2
Figure 5-2 Summary Test Data: Loads, Tensile Strength, and Annealing for 150°C Results...................5-5
Figure C-1 Temperature Profile for Implode Deadends – 150°C ............................................................. C-1
Figure C-2 Temperature Profile for Implode Splices – 150 °C ................................................................. C-2
Figure C-3 Temperature Profile for Single-Stage Deadends – 150 °C..................................................... C-2
Figure C-4 Temperature Profile for Single-Stage Splices – 150 °C ......................................................... C-3
Figure C-5 Temperature Profile for Two-Stage Deadends – 150 °C........................................................ C-3
Figure C-6 Temperature Profile for Two-Stage Splices – 150 °C............................................................. C-4
Figure C-7 Tension Profile of Test Spans – 150 °C.................................................................................. C-5
Figure C-8 Aluminum Tensile Strength vs Maximum Aging Temperature – 150 °C ................................ C-6
Figure C-9 Implode Deadend Temperature Profiles – 125°C Series ....................................................... C-8
Figure C-10 Implode Splice Temperature Profiles – 125°C Series .......................................................... C-8
Figure C-11 Single-stage Deadend Temperature Profiles – 125°C Series .............................................. C-9
Figure C-12 Single-stage Splice Temperature Profiles – 125°C Series ................................................... C-9
Figure C-13 Two-stage Deadends Temperature Profiles – 125°C Series.............................................. C-10
Figure C-14 Two-stage Splice Temperature Profiles – 125°C Series .................................................... C-10
Figure D-1 Inhibitor Compound Signature at Mouth of Connector ........................................................... D-2
Figure D-2 Thermal Image of Compression Splice................................................................................... D-3
Figure D-3 Preformed Shunt Installed over a Splice ................................................................................ D-7

12636600 ix
12636600
 TABLES
Table 4-1 Compression Connector Test Specimen Layout for 150°C.......................................................4-6
Table 4-2 Compression Connector Layout for 125°C Tests ......................................................................4-7
Table 5-1 Summary Results of 150°C Aging .............................................................................................5-1
Table 5-2 Summary Results of 125°C Aging .............................................................................................5-2
Table 5-3 Maximum Temperature Experienced During 150°C Aging .......................................................5-3
Table 5-4 Maximum Temperature Experienced During 125°C Aging .......................................................5-4
Table D-1 Summary of Connector Conditional Assessment Technologies.............................................. D-6

12636600 xi
12636600
1
INTRODUCTION
The High-Temperature Conductor Matrix (HTC Matrix) is a knowledgebase designed to put the
technical knowledge related to conductor systems on transmission lines at an engineer’s
fingertips. Instead of searching for the correct references, finding copies of the references, and
then reading them, engineers can use the indexed knowledgebase as a one-stop reference system
to retrieve pertinent information about conductor systems and transmission line accessories. The
user can access the database with selection of a conductor type, an operating temperature of
concern, or the name of the accessory or conductor that the user wants information on. The
knowledgebase returns a list of condensed reference notations that provide a synopsis of the
reference material available on the specific topic and a reference to the specific documents and
publications that the information is taken from. By using the matrix indexed knowledgebase, the
user can instantly locate all pertinent information on operating transmission lines at nominal and
elevated temperatures.
Increased transmission capacity is a driving force in today’s electric industry. Generation plants
are connected to the grid at locations that were not planned by the traditional vertical electric
utility, frequently long distances from their contracted load; RTOs are dealing with transmission
constraints; and after more than a decade of reduced capital budgets that have postponed many
projects, transmission grids have become stretched to their limits. The pent-up need for
transmission capacity increases is compounded by difficulties in acquiring rights-of-way such
that many transmission companies are left with no alternative than to squeeze more capacity out
of their existing systems. One of the most attractive alternatives from a cost/benefit perspective
is to operate the existing transmission lines at much higher temperatures than they were
originally designed for. Some of the drawbacks of high operating conductor temperature are loss
in conductor strength and reduction in conductor ground clearance. Operation at higher
temperatures may lead to accelerated aging and degradation of the conductor system’s
components, including the conductor and accessories such as compression connectors,
suspension clamps, spacers, etc. The short- and long-term effects of high operating temperatures
on the conductor system must be considered for an overhead line to operate safely and reliably.

Past Research
EPRI has been conducting a number of studies on the performance of conductor systems at
elevated temperature. The research assesses how high-temperature operation affects conductor
sag and tension predictions and the distribution of temperature gradients through the conductor
and the accessories used to support the conductor in overhead transmission applications. The
short-term performance of conductor and conductor accessories at elevated temperatures have
been studied under Project 38.004, “Performance Characteristics of Conductor, Connectors, and
Hardware in High Temperature Operations,” since 2002. In 2002, the high-temperature
performance of conductor hardware and connectors was evaluated. Between 2002 and 2003,
tests were conducted on selected AAC, ACSR, and ACSS conductors to assess the thermal
performance of the conductor and attached hardware for high-temperature conductor operation.
In 2003, an additional test was performed on an ACSR conductor to evaluate the thermal

12636600 1-1
performance of the conductor and hardware when subjected to thermal cyclic loading above
1000C for over 300 hours to simulate emergency operations.
Studies on the long-term effects of conductor and conductor accessories began in 2004 under
Project 35.004, “Conductor and Conductor Accessories Premature Aging from High Operating
Temperature.” The first task under this project was to conduct a survey of operating practices of
overhead lines to determine how often a line will be operating at a certain temperature.
Information was collected from various power utilities to form the basis of the premature aging
study. Additional research was performed on conventional ACSR compression connectors aged
for over 2000 hours at temperatures above 100°C at the request of utility sponsors investigating
the potential problems associated with operating their transmission lines at a nominal
temperature above 100°C.

High-Temperature Knowledgebase
In 2004, the results of Project 38.004 and Project 35.004 were first rolled into a single guide
(publication) for users to identify operating issues for specific conductors and hardware at
various operating temperatures. Users can apply the guide according to their own operating
practice or use the knowledgebase as a reference. The guide provides a state-of-the-art
summary and application guidelines for conductor systems. This knowledgebase documentation
was delivered in 2004 as an applet to make indexing of the data to specific temperatures,
conductor types, and accessories easy for users to query. The knowledgebase serves as a:
• Characterization of the operating philosophies of utility transmission systems relative to
historical elevated temperature operating events, and as a guideline for evaluating various
conductors and accessories for future elevated temperature operation.
• Summary of the state-of-the-art in accessory and conductor performance at elevated
temperatures and an aid to assist utility personnel in understanding how elevated
temperature may affect the performance of the conductor and accessories.
• Summary of the gaps identified in the compilation of the elevated temperature operating
knowledgebase.
EPRI is continuing to study the gaps in our knowledge of the long-term effects of high-
temperature operation. Specifically, researchers are investigating the premature aging of
conductor and conductor accessories, including conductor connectors, dampers, spacer dampers,
and other hardware resulting from thermal cycling of these components. Information on the
effect of thermal cycling on these components will allow a transmission organization to perform
on-time maintenance and take appropriate rectifying measures to avoid transmission line failures
and thus improve system reliability. The knowledgebase is being appended to include additional
research as it is published, including the following:
• An annealing applet that is launched from the HTC Matrix was enhanced to provide pertinent
conductor information required to perform the tasks simply by selecting the conductor from
dropdown menus.
• An applet that performs a dynamic thermal rating calculation per IEEE Rate equations was
incorporated in the knowledgebase matrix.
• A study of the effect of broken strands on temperature at suspension points was performed.
The investigation researched how many broken strands in a clamp were needed before the

12636600 1-2
 current flow through a reduced aluminum cross-section created large amounts of heat that
could anneal the remaining strands and lead toward a conductor failure.
• A strategy was developed to evaluate the performance of single-stage and two-stage
compression connectors following prolonged aging, and a laboratory study was initiated.
Two series of tests were conducted, aging compression connectors at 150°C and 125°C. The
results indicate that conventional single-stage compression connectors for standard ACSR
conductor do not perform well at elevated temperatures. Two-stage and implode connectors
faired better. The knowledgebase has been enhanced to include these findings.

The results of these efforts and other advancements made throughout the industry are annually
incorporated in the HTC Matrix Knowledgebase and distributed on the CD applet.

Report Organization

This report describes the HTC Matrix, enhancements made to it, and the results of research in
2008 that added more information to the knowledgebase. Section 2 offers an overview of the
knowledgebase and the enhancements for annealing calculations and calculation of dynamic
thermal rating. Section 3 explains how compression connectors age at elevated temperatures and
the damage that can be incurred. Section 4 describes the methodology and setup for the aging
tests of the compression connectors. Section 5 summarizes the results of the tests. Section 6
briefly discusses the potential for detection and mitigation of connector degradation. Section 7
provides a brief summary. Appendices A and B provide user guides to the Annealing Calculator
and the Dynamic Thermal Rating Calculator. Appendix C summarizes the results of the 150°C
and 125°C aging tests. Appendix D describes methods available to detect and mitigate damage to
compression connectors caused by high-temperature operation.

12636600 1-3
12636600
2
KNOWLEDGEBASE FOR CONDUCTOR SYSTEMS
OPERATING AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES
The knowledgebase was originally distributed in 2004 as an applet to make it easier for users to
query the knowledge database about conductor systems performance at elevated temperatures.
The applet is on a CD available from EPRI as HTC Matrix Version 2.2. By selecting a wire
type, a component, and a desired operating temperature, users can locate the detailed information
in the High Temperature Conductor Knowledgebase, known as the HTC Matrix, including
Performance Notations, References, Gaps in the Knowledgebase, and Graphics of experimental
data collected by EPRI. Access to the information of the knowledgebase is made by selecting the
appropriate cell of the color-coded matrix in the control screen, illustrated in Figure 2-1.
Each cell in the matrix of Figure 2-1 is color coded to represent whether there are constraints on
the operation of that component at the specific temperature. Red-colored cells indicate that there
are known performance issues. Yellow-coded cells indicate that there may be issues. At a
minimum, there are characteristics that designers/operators should know about in that
component’s application. Green cells represent no known constraints. Blank cells indicate a lack
of available data.
This indexing format was developed at the request of project sponsors, who recognized the
wealth of information available on the subject, but felt a better organization method could be
available to index and reference the information in an optimized search basis.
References to temperature selection address the conductor temperature comparable to an
operating guideline that would designate an operating temperature for a specific current loading
and ambient design conditions. As you will see in the knowledgebase documentation, the
accessories are designed to operate at a lower temperature than the conductor. This is achieved
due to the greater mass of the accessory and their ability to radiate or transfer heat away from the
component. When an operating temperature is referenced, that refers to the conductor’s
temperature. However, the “convention” that accessories are designed to operate cooler than the
conductor should raise a significant level of caution in designers, planners, or line operators
when the accessory’s temperature is near, at, or above the conductor temperature.
When evaluating the future performance of existing lines, especially at elevated temperatures, it
is advisable to revisit the as-built and current condition characteristics of the line components.
As the following paragraphs illustrate, there is a considerable change in application philosophies
of components, a considerable change of component design, and of course, different levels of
degradation of components currently in-service as the proposed operating temperature is raised.
An inventory should be taken of the type of components, their design, and vintage, and
consultation should be undertaken with their original manufacturer, if available, relative to the
components’ specific capabilities at elevated temperatures. If access to such data is not possible
or there are concerns about the accuracy of the data, a deeper specific evaluation should be made
of the components’ capabilities to perform at elevated operating temperatures.

12636600 2-1
Figure 2-1
Component Performance Matrix @ Elevated Temperatures for ACSR

Enhancements and Additions

HTC Matrix
Each year, the records in the knowledgebase are updated with new information. Some of the
existing query combinations, which in the first version were based on assumed knowledge, are
compared to newly documented information from the latest EPRI research. That is to say, the
knowledgebase was restricted to information gained during the EPRI high-temperature
investigations or in published records. It is possible to expect the constraints identified at one
temperature will be present at higher temperatures, and perhaps accentuated. A decision has
been made to not make that inference in the matrix cells. Rather the information addresses only
information published for the temperature fields identified.

12636600 2-2
The aging performance of the compression connectors accumulated during the cyclic loading of
the Haslet test frame to 150°C is also incorporated in the cell references for the ACSR conductor.
A second test series was conducted at the Charlotte lab for an elevated temperature of 125°C.
The aging was completed in the summer of 2008, and results are being processed. This report
contains a summary of the data reduction completed to date in Appendix C. The compression
connectors will be removed from the test frame and pull-tested to failure to evaluate their
remaining mechanical strength. From these samples, strands will be taken to a metallurgical lab
for tensile and hardness tests. The lab data will provide a characterization of the amount of
annealing that took place in the aging.

Annealing Calculator
The HTC Matrix version 2.2 has an annealing calculator. The updated version has a dropdown
field that provides the pertinent core and aluminum strand data by selecting the conductor by
name: users simply pick the conductor to evaluate from the dropdown list, as shown in Figure
2-2 under the word ACSR. All pertinent dimensions and characteristics of that conductor are
loaded into the applet. Users enter the operating temperature ranges (up to 8 values), and hours
of exposure at each temperature level in the magenta cells shown in Figure 2-2. The applet
calculates the remaining strength in the conductor. In the case of an ACSR or ACAR conductor,
the applet shows the remaining strength of the 1350-H19 aluminum strands and the overall
conductor stranding remaining strength.
An example of how to use the annealing calculator is found in Appendix A.

12636600 2-3
Figure 2-2
ACSR Annealing Calculation Applet Screen

Dynamic Thermal Rating

The dynamic thermal rating calculation applet, DTRCalculator, has also been enhanced with an
associated conductor database reference/lookup system that retrieves the pertinent conductor
characteristics to perform a dynamic rating calculation. Based on the IEEE Standard 738 rating
formulae, the static and dynamic or transient thermal ratings can be calculated. Appendix B
contains the Help Manual for the DTRC applet.

Steady-state Ratings
Figure 2-3 illustrates the template for performing a steady-state rating i.e. calculating the
conductor temperature at set ambient conditions and a specific load current. Users select the
conductor to be evaluated from the Description dropdown. The database in the background
populates all of the conductor information block. Users then specify the number of conductors in
a bundle if a bundle is being evaluated and the maximum operating temperature allowed. In the
top right-hand corner of the screen, users can toggle the screen between SI and metric.
The conductor data fields can be edited if users wish to change a variable. While trying to be all-
inclusive, the database has some gaps for certain conductors that may be blank when the
conductor information block is populated. If a field is blank, users may need to enter appropriate

12636600 2-4
data. Note, for steady-sate calculations, the Heat Capacity and Core Capacity are not required
and could be blank.
In the next section of the screen, the line location is requested. A nominal latitude and longitude
provide information to the calculation relative to the sun’s location in the sky for solar influences
on the temperature of the conductor.
The ambient weather conditions are provided next. Users specify the time and date of interest,
the temperature, the wind speed and direction, and whether the sky is clear or covered with
clouds or industrial smog.
To perform a Steady-state Conductor Temperature, users specify a range of currents to be
evaluated and the increment. The results are obtained by pressing the Calculate control button. If
users want details, such as a breakdown by source of heat, they can check the “Show Details”
checkbox. With the data entered in Figure 2-3, the output results are shown in Figure 2-4. A
simple table showing the loading in amps, incremented by step levels and the conductor
temperature, are on the “Results” tab. If users had selected to show details, the “details” tab
would show Figure 2-5. In the Details view, the contribution to the temperature for solar,
radiation cooling, natural convection cooling, and forced convection cooling are noted with the
conductor temperature for each current increment.
The DTRC calculation can also calculate the amperage that a selected temperature range would
develop. These amperages are calculated by selecting the Thermal Rating button and entering a
range of temperatures and an increment. The output would be available in similar fashion to the
Conductor Temperature results.

12636600 2-5
Figure 2-3
Dynamic Thermal Rating Calculation Applet

12636600 2-6
Figure 2-4
DTRC Results: Steady-state Temperature Calculation

12636600 2-7
Figure 2-5
DTRC Detail Output: Steady-state Conductor Temperature Calculation

Transient Ratings
The DTRC applet can also calculate a transient thermal rating or conductor temperature.
Additional information is required in the input parameters to run a transient analysis. First, as
noted above, the heat capacity of the conductor is required. If the wire is ACSR, the core is
different from the aluminum, and a separate heat capacity for the core is needed. This
information is instantly provided for most conductors by selecting the conductor in the
Conductor Information portion of the screen.

12636600 2-8
Conductor Temperature Transient
This calculation starts with an initial current and then increments the current through a range of
loadings. At each current level, the program calculates the conductor temperature at requested
time intervals. The calculation tells you how much temperature rise you would have for a
specified load increment and at different time intervals. For example: You want to see the
temperature rise from time zero to 900 seconds at 60-second intervals. The conductor is initially
at 500 amps, and you want to start the table at 30°C.
At the bottom of the input screen, two sets of data entry are needed. The Transient Parameters
start the step load increments at 500 amps, the output table starts at 30°C, and the time window is
900 seconds long at 60-second intervals. The Conductor Temperature Parameters specify the
load increment range and steps.
The output screen, as shown by a portion of sample in Figure 2-7, shows the conductor
temperature for each load increment over a duration of 900 seconds at that load. For example, the
load rises to 700 amps from 500 amps; the conductor temperature rises from 30°C to 45.53°C
over 900 seconds. If you want to see the details on the calculation, press the “Details” tab on the
output screen. The transient calculation details present the same output data, and the
contributions to the temperature for solar, radiation cooling, natural convection cooling, and
forced convection cooling are noted with the conductor temperature for each current increment.

Thermal Rating Transient

The thermal rating transient calculation is similar. The calculation takes an initial current and
determines what the current rating will be to achieve a specified temperature rise over a period of
time. For example, a Drake conductor, with the same location and ambient conditions shown in
Figure 2-6, will be analyzed for a temperature rise range of ambient stepping up to 50°C and
then 10-degree increments to a maximum of 150°C. The thermal rating of the conductor after
900 seconds is required. The calculation looks at 60-second intervals for the temperature. The
conductor is initially loaded with 500 amps.
The results of this transient analysis would show that the conductor would be able to carry 668
amps if the new conductor temperature was to be 50°C after 900 seconds. If the conductor was
allowed to rise to 150°C in 900 seconds, the rating would be 1645 amps.
The “Details” tab reveals how the program determines the conductor rating. At each temperature
rise, the program selects a current limit and calculates the temperature after the full length of
time. If it is below the target temperature rise, the current is increased and the process is run
again. If the temperature rise is less than target, the current is reduced, and the calculation is run
again. The process reiterates the narrowing of the current window until the target temperature is
obtained. Figure 2-8 shows a portion of the first two current approximations. The first run is
made at 750 amps, and the temperature reaches 55.41°C. Next, iterations are at 625 amps, which
develop 47.55°C, 687.5 amps for 51.28°C, 656.25 amps for 49.36°C, 671.88 amps for 50.31°C,
664.06 amps for 49.83°C, and 667.97 amps for 50.7°C.
The DTRC calculator is a handy tool for a quick approximation of the conductor thermal ratings.

12636600 2-9
Figure 2-6
Transient Thermal Rating Input Screen

12636600 2-10
Figure 2-7
Transient Conductor Temperature Output Screen

12636600 2-11
Figure 2-8
Transient Conductor Analysis Detail Screen

12636600 2-12
HTC Matrix Summary
The HTC Matrix applet provides a comprehensive indexed reference for users to quickly find the
most current information available on various aspects of conductor systems relative to
performance at elevated temperatures. The applet will generate a report of the available
information in the database respective to a user-selected Wire Type, Conductor System
Component, and Operating Temperature. The indexed information provides a summary of
known characteristics, performance experience, installation guidelines, application guidelines,
and references. The matrix is intended to be a fully indexed compilation of all EPRI data and
published industry information from which users can quickly research a question or develop an
application guideline. Through its configuration, additional knowledge is quickly assimilated
into the index and made available in future versions.

12636600 2-13
12636600
3
AGING OF COMPRESSION FITTINGS AT HIGH
OPERATING TEMPERATURES
Utility Desire to Operate Lines at Elevated Temperatures
As noted in the Introduction, increased transmission capacity on existing corridors and assets is a
prime motivation for operating lines at elevated temperatures. Depending on the utility, elevated
temperature can mean a wide range of temperatures. Whether the operation is for a brief
emergency response to a contingency constraint or an extended period of time to relieve a
transmission constraint for power flow also makes a difference in what is considered elevated
temperature operation. Historically some utilities never rated their lines to operate hotter than a
range of 70 to 90ºC, even under emergency conditions. Many other utilities have emergency
ratings that allow 125ºC operation for limited time periods, e.g., ten hours a year.
In the current transmission business environment, however, with many transmission constraints
for delivery of power across service areas into generation-poor areas or away from generation-
rich areas due to merchant plant interconnections, utilities are investigating the operation of their
lines at temperatures above 90ºC for extended periods of time. This strategy warranted the
research into the performance of compression connectors at elevated temperatures. New lines
are being designed with low-sag conductors that have improved performance at elevated
temperatures, reducing the sag and allowing for more economic design alternatives. These
conductor systems have specially designed connectors that are intended to address the concerns
about survivability for elevated temperatures. For upgrading and uprating of existing lines,
however, utilities are interested in the performance of conventional accessories and hardware
when these components are subjected to extended periods of elevated conductor temperature.
Many utilities have thousands and thousands of miles of transmission and distribution lines in
service, where the potential for high-temperature operation could save billions of dollars in
upgrade and rebuild costs, reduce transmission constraints, and create increased revenue.
Traditionally, these lines have ACSR (Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced) conductor. The
compression connectors used on these installations were never designed or intended for extended
exposure to elevated temperatures. The filler compounds were not designed to survive at
elevated temperatures.
Failure investigations of many compression connectors have shown that the connectors
experienced significant duration of time of operation at elevated temperatures. Tensile strength
and metallurgical assessment of grain structure within the strands near failure points show
annealing has taken place. When questioned about their line operations above 90ºC, the majority
of utilities say their lines never operated at that level. The tensile strength and grain structure
reveal that the temperatures were there, so several things could have happened.
• The line operated at the higher temperature due to an operator error that allowed the line to
run hotter than the operator expected or calculated.

12636600 3-1
• Due to terrain or cover, the line did not have any wind blowing at that location when
operated at a higher-than-normal level capacity, and the lack of wind allowed those spans to
become hotter than normal.
• The connector had degraded due to poor installation, no filler compound, filler compound
burnout, etc., which created a high-resistance current path and significant joule heating to
cause annealing.
With a better awareness of how connectors would perform at elevated temperatures, utilities
could develop a knowledgebase of how to operate, inspect, and evaluate the connectors to
succeed in using them to increase power flow while reducing capital and maintenance costs and
maintaining safe operations and reliable operations.
The aging tests performed under the EPRI projects’ efforts were not designed to qualify vendor’s
equipment for high-temperature operation. The objective is an improved knowledgebase on
performance that utility engineers can draw from to optimize their line performance.
In parallel, EPRI endeavors to model this degradation mechanism. The laboratory tests will be
used to simulate and accelerate aging and fatigue. Research on the finite element model will be
based on and expand the following precedent reference and standard:
G. DiTroia, “Effects of High Temperature Operation on Transmission Full-Tension Joints
and Conductors,” Presented at Meeting 23 of CIGRE Study Committee 22-WG12,
Evreux, France, August 26, 2000.
ANSI C119.4 Standard for Connectors for Use Between Aluminum-to-Aluminum and
Aluminum-to-Copper Bare Overhead Conductors, Washington D.C. 1998.
The expanded tests will model not only thermal cycling, but also the mechanical cycling of
resultant changes in tension and sag while the samples are being thermally cycled. Thus the
overall thermo-mechanical model becomes a complex interplay of creep, thermal expansion,
internal and external forces, dynamic electrical properties, and durability. Nonetheless, this more
complex model is more comparative to actual field installations.
Concurrent to the laboratory modeling, compression connectors will be modeled by Finite
Element Analysis (FEA) software and cyclically loaded. The FEA models will provide insight
into the failure mechanism. Laboratory tests are designed to validate the significant results of the
FEA. John Jy-An Wang, Ph. D., P.E., Senior R&D Staff, Metals & Ceramics Division, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory has been retained to perform this analysis.

Focus of Research
Terminations and connections between two lengths of conductor are made by compressing
connectors over the conductor. The connectors serve two purposes. First, they are a mechanical
connection between two pieces of conductor in a span or a conductor and an insulator assembly
to terminate the conductor at the end of a span. Second, they must provide a continuation of the
electrical path from source to load point.
The research is specifically concerned with the performance of conductors that have aluminum
current-carrying outer-layer strands supported by a steel core, e.g., ACSR (Aluminum Conductor
Steel Reinforced). The focus of the research is how to maximize the power transfer capability of
existing transmission and distribution assets that are constructed of traditional ACSR conductor

12636600 3-2
and compression connectors. Current technologies for other conductor designs are specifically
designed for elevated temperature operation, where the aluminum strands are typically fully
annealed by design and supported almost entirely by the core strand, whether it is steel strand or
a composite. These systems have compression connectors with design considerations for the
elevated temperature operation. Many utilities, however, are investigating the operation of their
existing facilities at elevated conductor temperatures. The research described in this report is
directed at understanding how the existing lines and their components will perform at these new
operating conditions.
Compression connectors are of particular interest because they serve in the dual role of
mechanical and electrical integrity of the assets. Manufacturing requirements and acceptance
criteria standards such as ANSI C119.4 are based on operating parameters that are much lower
than the 100°C above ambient or higher at which utilities wish to operate their transmission
lines. Although the compression connectors designed to the above referenced ANSI standard
were not designed to operate at elevated temperatures, this research is being carried out to
provide utilities with information to serve as a reference for the development of higher operating
performance criteria.

Influence of Elevated Temperature on Connectors

Elevated temperatures affect the ability of compression connectors to reliably perform their two
functions over the lifetime of the connector:
1. Mechanical connection to maintain tension along the length of the conductor span.
2. Electrical path to provide a low resistance path for current to flow along the conductor.
With respect to the mechanical performance of the connector, when the operating temperatures
are elevated above a threshold level and for a sufficient length of time, the aluminum strands of
the conductor will anneal. Annealing reduces the tensile strength of the aluminum, thus reducing
the strands’ ability to carry the mechanical strain of supporting the wire in the air. This reduction
in strength can cause the conductor to sag more than originally intended, and at some point
provide insufficient strength to support the conductor if the mechanical loads on the conductor
system, due to their dead weight or combinations of wind and ice or snow loads, exceed the
mechanical strength of the steel core or the compression connector system.
A second aspect of the influence of temperature on the mechanical strength is the unknown
influence of the increased range of expansion and contraction of the aluminum and aluminum
alloy of the connector body with larger temperature swings. The aluminum connectors are a
different alloy from the electrical grade conductor strand. In the case of the aluminum strands in
conductors, they are held to specific ASTM Standards for properties. The connectors, however,
are not constrained to a specific alloy. Rather, every manufacturer is free to design their
compression connectors with any alloy and dimensions that they determine is required to provide
a cost-effective, reliable component of the conductor system. Their requirement is compliance
with ANSI C119.4, which is an acceptance criterion that confirms a connector design is capable
of providing electrical conductivity at a prescribed level after 500 cycles of elevated temperature
cycling. As referenced above, however, this standard was not intended to qualify compression
connectors for long-term operating temperatures above 93°C.
With respect to the electrical performance of the compression connectors, one of the phenomena
of resistivity and properties of materials is that their resistance across the interface of the

12636600 3-3
aluminum strands to the connector body is proportional to the temperature. As temperatures rise,
the resistivity of the material increases. As the resistivity increases, the temperature of the
connector increases due to I2R heating. This can lead to a thermal runaway. Although the
compressive forces developed during installation typically generate sufficient mechanical
strength for long-term service, the electrical resistivity of the compression connector is a very
delicate, sensitive environment. Manufacturers recommend that all of the aluminum strands are
brushed and cleaned to remove the highly resistive aluminum oxides on the strand surfaces.
Aluminum oxide forms in a very short time. To prevent this immediate oxidation build-up,
manufacturers’ installation instructions include as a final wire brushing of the aluminum strands
with a brush infused with inhibit compound. The brush wires scratch away any oxidation, and
the wiping on of inhibitor prevents oxidation from forming. Inside the compression connector
during the crimping process, the inhibitor is forced into all interstices inside the connector and
among the wire strands to force out any moisture and provide oxidation inhibitor. The
compression forces also deform the barrel and aluminum strands to create new clean surfaces to
decrease the electrical resistance of the current path.
Compression connectors are designed to provide a superior electrical path. Unfortunately, the
installation process and corrosive characteristics of the connector lead to many compression
connectors that may be healthy upon installation but prone to increased electrical resistance and
the potential for failure with time.

Failure Modes
The definition of the failure mode of a compression connector should be characterized so that the
influences of elevated temperature can be understood. The descriptions of various failure
characterizations have been applied by many utilities. There are obvious failure modes and
discretionary modes as the following descriptions illustrate:

Mechanical Failure
Mechanical failure is an obvious event. The mechanical gripping of the conductor fails, and the
conductor pulls out of the connector, causing the span to fall to the ground. Installation practices
lead to most mechanical failures:
• The wrong diameter range compression connectors may be applied to a conductor.
• The conductor may not be prepared properly. For example, the core strands are nicked while
dressing the wire for installation. The nicked strand(s) are stress concentration points that
accelerate any degradation process.
• The conductor may not be inserted into the connector a sufficient length to fully engage the
mechanical gripping needed on the core strand or the aluminum strands
• The compression force during crimping of the connector may be inadequate. Causes for this
problem include: inadequate hydraulic pressure, faulty valves on the crimping heads, or
improperly sized or worn dies.
• During installation, an insufficient number of crimps or insufficient crimping lengths are
made.

12636600 3-4
• The crimping sequence may be incorrect, especially for deadends. The proper direction is
from the center of the connector towards the mouth or ends. If that sequence is not followed,
excessive residual stresses can develop in the connector that lead to a failure mechanism.
Mechanical failure can also be a derivative of experiencing elevated temperatures for extended
periods of time. Excessive heat anneals the aluminum strands, which reduces their mechanical
properties and leads to a transfer of all mechanical loads to the core, which may not have
sufficient strength alone to carry the span loads. If the current path is impacted to an extensive
degree such that current must flow through the core strands, the steel strands will reach
temperatures where they transition their crystalline structure and loose strength, i.e., anneal.
Another failure mechanism would develop if the core grip is inadequate for whatever reason and
the core slips a very small amount, even an almost undetectable amount, shifting the load-
bearing ratio between the core and the aluminum strands. The higher loads in the aluminum
strands could lead to their premature degradation and failure. If the connector experiences a heat
buildup for whatever reason, the degradation process is accentuated.
Another form of mechanical failure is associated with fatigue of the individual strands at the
mouth of the connectors. The inertia difference between the “free-span” conductor and the
weight of the accessory creates a locus for bending of the strands. Sufficient bending amplitudes
and number of cycles can and will lead to conductor fatigue and failure. If the connector
experiences a heat buildup for whatever reason, the degradation process is accentuated.

Electrical Failure
Electrical failure manifests itself, first, as a high-resistance path and associated heat increase,
eventually reaching a point where sufficient heat is present to melt the aluminum and, on
occasion, the steel core strands, leading to a mechanical failure. As noted previously, the
resistance and temperature characteristics are directly coupled such that the increase in either
causes an increase in the other, leading to a spiral degradation effect.
During the degradation process, the conductor can experience changes that actually improve the
electrical performance for brief intervals. Due to the mechanical strain on the conductor, a
geometry change can take place when the aluminum softens enough due to heat, and the
conductor slips or adjusts inside the compression connector. In that process, some oxidation in
the interfaces between strands and the aluminum body of the connector may be “wiped” clean
and a lower resistance path developed. The net effect is that the resistance of that interface goes
down, and the connector operates cooler. This improved performance is short-lived, quickly
replaced by a return to the degradation curve, as the “new” interfaces oxidize and increase in
resistance.
Failure investigations of compression connectors have even shown evidence of nearly all the
current passing through a compression connector, conducting on a path through the steel core.
The grain growth of the steel crystals indicates long periods of operation, e.g., days to weeks, at a
near melting point temperature. The evidence suggests that a compromised electrical path will
eventually lead to a mechanical failure and a wire drop.

12636600 3-5
What Constitutes a Failure?
To manage their transmission assets, utilities must establish failure criteria for the different
components of the line, including the compression connectors. Obviously, a full mechanical
failure is one extreme of the failure definition. But at what point should a compression
connector still in service, even though it is in a degraded state, be declared a “failure,” such that
the maintenance department must/should replace it before a mechanical failure and line drop
occurs?
Because of the mass of the compression connector compared to the conductor that it connects, all
compression connectors should operate cooler than the conductor. The added mass and diameter
allow for greater heat transfer and radiation to keep them cooler. During inspections, any
indication that the connector is running as hot as or hotter than the conductor is an indication that
the compression connector has experienced degradation that will eventually lead to failure.
Because most transmission lines do not operate at a level that would cause such high
temperatures, the inspection of most lines is performed when the lines are operating nominally
and the compression connectors and conductor should nominally be at or just above ambient.
Under these conditions there should be no question that the connector should be cooler than the
conductor.
The resistance of the connector’s electrical interfaces is also a measurable characteristic of
condition of the compression connector. An increased electrical resistance is both a contributor
to the degradation and a signature of the degradation.
Inspection technologies such as infrared (temperature of the connector) and the Ohmstik
(resistance of the connector interfaces) may not identify compression connectors of concern
when inspected in these “nominal” conditions.
The data presented later in this report indicates temperatures inside the compression connectors
reached levels as high as three times the nominal conductor temperature for extended lengths of
time. At that temperature level, the aluminum strands annealed significantly, and failure of the
connector was anticipated. All the connectors remained intact even though the tensions were
greatly reduced.
One of the phenomena discovered in the reported aging tests described later in this report is the
fact that an anticipated run-away heat built up, and mechanical failure of the connector was not
fully realized. Some of the connectors achieved temperatures hundreds of degrees hotter than the
conductor and were expected to fail in tension and drop the test spans. The lack of the full
mechanical failure during the aging process may have been due to the quasi-static environment
in the labs. On several occasions, the tensions in the test spans were adjusted back to 25% rated
breaking strength of the conductor, and small amounts of slippage were measured. Full pullout
was not encountered. In the real world on a transmission line, there are more dynamics involved
in conductor motion due to wind, and larger variations in temperature due to wind and ice
loading and temperature shifts, especially in cold environments where cold days nearly double
the tension in a line. It is not possible to rule out that degraded compression connectors would
not pull out while in service. Pullout tensions of aged connectors from the test program ranged as
low as 40% of the conductor breaking strength. If a connector reached that degraded state in
service, it has a very high potential for failure.

12636600 3-6
One of the objectives of the aging process was to provide an indication of the time element
between noticing the connector in a degraded condition, at temperatures close to or above the
conductor temperature, and the point of mechanical failure. The test protocol could have also
provided another signature indication of the aging process by demonstrating a “ceiling”
temperature rise at which the threshold from aging and minimal degradation versus runaway
degradation to failure was crossed. Neither signature characterization was realized during the
research. As the test data shows later in the document, there was a loss of tension and conductor
slippage in the connectors in the spans where connectors experienced temperatures above the
conductor temperature. Could those signatures be precursors to mechanical failure if the
conductor and connectors were in a more dynamic environment exposed to wind loads and
dynamics that were not in the laboratory? Realistically, we need to say that they are concerns for
survivability.
At our present level of knowledge, compression connectors attaining the same temperature as the
conductor, when the conductor is operating above ambient, are suspect for eventual failure and
require immediate attention by the operating and maintenance departments to execute a
replacement or repair strategy.

12636600 3-7
12636600
4
DESIGN OF THE AGING TESTS FOR ACSR
COMPRESSION CONNECTORS
EPRI performed aging tests of 40 conventional ACSR compression connectors at 150ºC in the
Haslet, TX laboratory and 32 conventional ACSR compression connectors at 125ºC in the
Charlotte, NC laboratory. The aging was performed by applying sufficient current to maintain
target conductor temperatures for two-hour saturation periods and then allowing cooling to
ambient before cycling again. The compression connectors were tensioned at 25% of the rated
breaking strength of the conductor. X-rays, thermal images, and gage-length measurements for
slippage were conducted during the tests. The temperature at the core depth inside each
connector, at the interface between the conductor strands and the connector body, and on the
connector’s surface were continuously monitored and recorded for analysis.

Test Parameters
As a start, the test strategy looked at what the compression connectors are being called on to do.
The following considerations led to the test parameters used in the aging program:

Temperature
Many of the inquiries to EPRI ask about the performance of conductor systems at 150ºC. This is
a significant increase over the annealing threshold and “pseudo” ceiling temperature currently
applied. When the annealing curves and equations for predicting the amount of annealing in
aluminum strands are reviewed, it can be seen that conductors can tolerate many hours at 150ºC
without a significant amount of annealing, thereby reducing concerns of increased sag and
reduced strength to manageable terms. Based on these criteria, an exposure temperature of
150ºC was chosen.
When the results of the 150ºC cycle tests were completed and the poor performance of the
compression connectors noted, a decision was made to run a second series of aging tests at
125ºC. Hopefully, they would be below some threshold of current and thermal loading that
would not cause the connectors to degrade as quickly, or at all.
A specific conductor temperature was used for the control rather than a rise in temperature above
ambient. The test protocol was designed to replicate a transmission line field operation, which is
typically based by the Transmission System Operator on running the line at a target conductor
temperature rather than at a temperature rise above ambient.

Number of Cycles
The number of cycles to be tested was also based on anticipated exposure in service. A line has
an expected life of 40 years. Assuming that it has one cycle a day and is operated at elevated
temperatures 10% of the time, the line would experience 1460 cycles at elevated temperature.
The system was designed to age the conductor through 1500 cycles. Each cycle would be
fashioned as in Figure 4-1. Each cycle would start and ramp immediately to the target

12636600 4-1
temperature, either 125 or 150ºC, where the current would be controlled to maintain the test
temperature in the conductor for a period of two hours. The system would then cycle off and
allow the system to cool until 75% of the control thermocouples changed less than 2.0°C over a
ten-minute period. When that ambient stability threshold was reached, the system would cycle
on.

Temperature Cycle Profiles

(2 of 1500 Cycles)

160
2 Hours 2 Hours

140

120

100
Tabs

80

60

40

Special Condition Starts Next Cycle

20
Ramp rate programable

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Minutes

Figure 4-1
Thermal Cycle Design for 150ºC

Quenching
As an additional exposure parameter, half of the test samples experienced a quenching “rainfall”
at the end of every 100 cycles of operation. This simulated the potential for rain events
occurring at the same time as a high-temperature operating event. This variable would test
whether the rainfall from a thunderstorm could have an impact on connectors that are at elevated
temperature due to heavy thermal loading of the line.

Test Specimens
The selection of compression connectors to be tested was based on the desire to test connectors
used for ACSR conductor and typically found on the majority of existing transmission lines in
service today. Drake was selected as the target conductor size due to its high usage. Single-
stage and two-stage compression connectors with the standard filler compound were selected for
test. In addition, a sample of implosion-designed connectors was tested in the frame.

12636600 4-2
ANSI C119.4 Comparison
Compression connectors are evaluated per the standard testing protocol in ANSI C119.4
“Standard for Connectors for Use Between Aluminum-to-Aluminum and Aluminum-to-Copper
Bare Overhead Conductors.” When a vendor designs and markets a connector, it is required to
meet the C119.4 Standard. The standard requires the high-tension connectors to survive an
exposure of 500 two-hour cycles at zero tension with a temperature rise of 100ºC above ambient.
The connectors are required to achieve 95% RBS before failing in a separate sample of
connectors pulled in tension.
The EPRI aging protocol, while similar, is not intended to duplicate or validate the ANSI
protocol. The following features of the EPRI protocol are noted:
• Number of cycles. 1500, rather than the 500, cycles were tested because 1500 cycles
represent a minimum exposure level of a critically loaded line. As noted previously, 1500
cycles are in the same magnitude of exposure for a 40-year service life, and the accumulated
exposure of two hours per cycle is considerably less than a line proposed to be nominally
loaded at these elevated current/temperature levels.
• Temperature. To simulate utility operating procedures, a target temperature was maintained
rather than a temperature rise over ambient. Utilities usually design lines based on a target
operating temperature at a prescribed set of ambient conditions for ambient temperature,
wind velocity, solar radiation, emissivity, etc. Thus they calculate a current level to achieve
that temperature based on the climatic criteria.
• Tension, Connectors are under tension while in service, which made it imperative that the
testing protocol be applied to tensioned connectors.
• Quenching. The connectors are exposed in the EPRI protocol to a series of quenching
sessions every 100 cycles. The ANSI protocol allows for quenching to accelerate the cycling
cool-down period, but it is typically not applied to the connectors for larger conductor
connector tests, e.g., Drake.

Test Frame
Test frames were designed and built primarily of W10X87 (red) and W18X60 (blue) ASTM A-
572 I-beams, as shown in Figures 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5.The compression connector layout is
represented schematically in Table 4-1 for 150ºC and Table 4-2 for 125ºC. The conductor used
is 795 kcmil “Drake” ACSR. The spans were tensioned to 25% rated breaking strength (RBS) of
the conductor to simulate typical stringing tensions.
Dual high-current DC power supplies (60 kW) manufactured by Rapid Power supply the
electrical energy required to heat the samples resistively in a controlled manner. A single PID-
type controller (Eurotherm 2404) was used to control the heating curve. The control point was
the average of eight reference thermocouples placed at the conductor’s core away from any
connector. These eight thermocouples were used by the control algorithm to determine the
beginning and end of each heat cycle. The heating curve depicted in Figure 4-1 was followed.
The components were quickly heated to the target temperature and held for two hours. After
“soaking” at temperature, the samples were allowed to follow Newtonian cooling, approaching
ambient temperature. The samples were considered cool after 75% of the eight control point
thermocouples change less than 2ºC in a ten-minute interval, at which point the next cycle began.

12636600 4-3
It was anticipated to run the test continuously for 1500 cycles. However, EPRI decided to close
the Haslet, TX laboratory, and only 1118 cycles were accumulated on the 150ºC test frame
before the system was de-energized and dismantled. After cycling, the samples were tested to
failure in tension. The reduced sample test frame erected in Charlotte’s lab was cycled for 1635
cycles at 125ºC. The balance of the test protocol was followed.

Figure 4-2
ACSR Compression Connector Aging Frame at Haslet, TX Laboratory

12636600 4-4
Figure 4-3
High-Temperature Test Frame in Haslet, TX

Figure 4-4
High-Temperature Test Frame at Splice Position

12636600 4-5
Figure 4-5
High-Temperature Test Frame at Deadend Position

Table 4-1
Compression Connector Test Specimen Layout for 150°C

Position
Bay L. Deadend L. Splice Mid Splice R. Splice R. Deadend

1 Implo Implo Implo Implo Implo

Quenched

2 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage

3 2 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage
4 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage
5 Implo Implo Implo Implo Implo
UnQuenched

6 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage

7 2 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage
8 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage

12636600 4-6
Table 4-2
Compression Connector Layout for 125°C Tests

Position
Bay L. Deadend L. Splice Mid Splice R. Splice R. Deadend

1 Implo Implo Implo Implo Implo

2 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage Quenched

3 2 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage

4 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage
5 Implo Implo Implo Implo Implo Unquenched
6 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage
7 2 Stage 2 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage
8 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage

12636600 4-7
12636600
5 PERFORMANCE OF STANDARD ACSR
CONNECTORS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES
Two aging series for standard ACSR compression connectors were completed on the specimens
outlined in the previous chapter. Forty specimens were aged 1118 cycles at 150°C, and thirty-
two connectors were aged at 125°C for 1635 cycles. The compression connectors were selected
from single-stage (two vendors), two-stage, and implosion-type connectors. None of the
connector types experienced a complete failure, i.e., pullout, during the aging tests. However,
none of the connector types was exempt from overheating, i.e., reaching a temperature hotter
than the conductor temperature. Many reached temperatures over 200°C and over 300°C, and
one over 400°C. Mechanically, the series aged at 150°C have been pull-tested to failure. Their
target criteria is 95% of the conductor strength, but the aging process caused many to fail below
80% and some below 50% RBS. Significant annealing was found in the aluminum strands due to
heat exposure. The testing results clearly indicate that single-stage compression connectors are
not suitable for 150°C operation and marginally performed at 125°C. Two-stage and implosion-
type connectors performed well at 150°C. The pull-tests are still pending on the 125°C
connectors.

Aging Summary – Temperature Performance

The first indicator of concern about the performance of a compression connector is the
temperature of the connector relative to the conductor. Due to its mass, a connector is designed,
even required by standards, to run cooler than the conductor that it is supporting. Even though
the traditional ACSR compression connector was not designed to perform continuously at
elevated temperatures, utilities would like to pursue that operating opportunity. As Table 5-1 and
5-2 show, half the connectors in each series reached temperatures greater than the conductor.

Table 5-1
Summary Results of 150°C Aging

Quantity of Connectors less than or greater

than conductor temperature:
ratio of samples tested
Type Connector < Conductor > Conductor
temperature temperature
Implode Deadends 4 of 4
Implode Splices 5 of 6 1 of 6
Single-stage Deadends 0 of 6 6 of 6
Single-stage Splices 0 of 10 10 of 10
Two-stage Deadends 4 of 4
Two-stage Splices 7 of 10 3 of 10
Totals 20 of 40 20 of 40

12636600 5-1
Table 5-2
Summary Results of 125°C Aging

Quantity of Connectors less than or greater

than conductor temperature:
ratio of samples tested
Type Connector < Conductor > Conductor
temperature temperature
Implode Deadends 4 of 4 0 of 4
Implode Splices 3 of 4 1 of 4
Single-stage Deadends 2 of 8 6 of 8
Single-stage Splices 0 of 8 8 of 8
Two-stage Deadends 4 of 4 0 of 4
Two-stage Splices 4 of 4 0of4
Totals 17 of 32 15 of 32

450

400

350

300
Temperature °C

250

200

150

100

50

0
SS- SSQ- SD- SDQ- TS- TSQ- TD- TDQ- IS- ISQ- ID- IDQ- SS- SSQ- SD- SDQ- TS- TSQ- TD- TDQ- IS- ISQ- ID- IDQ-
150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
Connector Type

Single-stage: SS : splice SSQ : splice quenched SD : deadend SDQ : deadend quenched

Two-stage: TS : splice TSQ : splice quenched TD : deadend TDQ : deadend quenched
Implode: IS : splice ISQ : splice quenched ID : deadend IDQ : deadend quenched

Figure 5-1
Maximum Temperature Chart by Connector Type

12636600 5-2
The deviation from the conductor operating temperature was varied and in many cases was
significantly above the conductor temperature, as shown in Figure 5-1. The connectors on the
left-hand side of the chart were tested at 150°C, and those on the right at 125°. From both series,
it is evident that certain connector types performed very poorly, while others maintained their
electrical integrity. Tables 5-3 and 5-4 provide detailed temperature data for each connector in
both series. The tables clearly show that the single-stage connectors are not appropriate for high-
temperature operation.

Table 5-3
Maximum Temperature Experienced During 150°C Aging

Maximum temperature at each Position - ºC

1 2 3 4 5
Span L. Deadend L. Splice Mid Splice R. Splice R. Deadend

1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage

8 157.8 226.6 202.2 243.7 385.1
1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage Unquenched
7 245 279.7 265.9 114.9 111.1
2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage
6 103.2 204 119 377.8 103.3
Implo Implo Implo Implo Implo
5 98 129.6 153.4 125.9 117.9
1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage
4 372.4 409.7 418.6 395.8 411.3
1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage
3 348.3 255.7 204.5 381.8 119.1 Quenched
2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage
2 101.6 141.7 129 133.9 103.9
Implo Implo Implo Implo Implo
1 125.1 136.9 134.4 127.6 100.4

12636600 5-3
Table 5-4
Maximum Temperature Experienced During 125°C Aging

POSITION
Bay 1 2 3 4

Implo Implo Implo Implo

1 75 125.7 112.6 93
1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage
2 297.1 288.8 329 183.6 Non-
1 Stage B 1 Stage B 1 Stage B 1 Stage B Quenched
3 243.5 268.8 249.8 194.4
2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage
4 71 87.7 86 84.9
Implo Implo Implo Implo
5 99.5 108.5 109.3 100.7
1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage 1 Stage
6 345.4 236.9 303.3 195
Quenched
1 Stage B 1 Stage B 2 Stage B 1 Stage B
7 115.8 198.2 170.5 104.6
2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage
8 80 88 81.2 83.3

Aging Summary – Mechanical Performance

The mechanical performance of the compression connectors correlated with the maximum
temperature characteristics. The test samples from the 150°C aging frame were pulled in tension
to failure to determine the loss of strength from aging at elevated temperature. Strand samples of
the aluminum strands and steel core were then tested in a metallurgical lab to determine if
annealing had taken place during the aging. The results of this research are detailed in Appendix
C.
The evidence is clear from the loading tests, and the tensile and hardness tests, that a
considerable amount of annealing has taken place. Figure 5-2 shows the test results for each
connector, depicting the following information:
• Load Test Data. The percent breaking strength of each connector is shown, based on a
percentage of the average breaking strength of the implosion connector assemblies. There
was no record of the actual breaking strength of the Drake conductor used in the test program
prior to aging. So, as a basis to show the amount of degradation in each connector type, the
implosion average was used. Note that the implosion average was 107% of the nominal
Drake RBS.
• Tensile Strength. The datum for the aluminum strands is plotted as the average for the strands
removed from the conductor adjacent to the connector. The steel strands did not exhibit any
loss of strength. The aluminum strands show significant loss of strength, probably associated
with annealing.

12636600 5-4
• Annealed. Based on the temperature of the core of the connector, time frames of exposure
were calculated for each connector. These exposures were then used in the estimated
annealing curves for conductors to calculate an approximate remaining strength by percent of
the nominal strength.
• Elongation %. Another characteristic of the conductor strands that would be affected by
annealing temperature exposure is elongation. Elongation is characteristic of the materials
ductility. Aluminum strands require a minimum level, but annealing significantly increases
the elongation. The baseline implode samples were in the 10% range, while the degraded
strands in the single-stage connectors reached 20% and as high as 40%.
• Aluminum Hardness. Aluminum hardness is also affected by the exposure to temperature.
Heat causes the aluminum to anneal and drop in hardness.
The correlation between these variables in Figure 5-2 is very clear. The green line representing
the breaking strength of the connector after aging is coupled to each of the other chart variables,
indicating that there was a considerable amount of annealing and other degradation taking place
in the connections as they were aged. These correlations extend to the maximum temperatures
recorded during the aging and are presented in Tables 5-3 and 5-4.
The single-stage connectors performed below acceptable limits. A number of two-stage
connectors were also a concern.

150°C DEGRADATION SUMMARY

Load Test Tensile Annealed Elongation % Al Hardness

120% 120.0

100% 100.0
% REMAINING STRENGTH: LOAD, TENSILE,

ELONGATION % & HARDNESS VALUE

80% 80.0
ANNEALING

60% 60.0

40% 40.0

20% 20.0

0% 0.0
TD 6-5

5
1
Q 1
IS -5

Q 2

1
5
Q 3

Q -1

2
SD 1-4
SD 8-1

Q -5

Q -5
Q -1
SS 4-5

3
4
4
Q -3
Q 1

IS -2
IS -3
Q 4

SS 7-2

Q -4
Q -2
Q -3
Q -2

Q -4
TD 7-2
SS 7-3
SS 8-2
SS 8-3

2
3
4
4
2-
3-
ID 1-

IS 1-
IS 1-
ID 5-

7-
6-

6-
6-
6-
7-
2-
2-
2-
3-
IS 5-
1

SD 4
SD 8

SD 2
SD 3
5
5

SS 8

SS 4
SS 4
SS 3
SS 3

SS 4

TD

Q
Q
TS
TS

Q
Q

Q
TS
TS

Q
ID

TD
TD

TS
TS
TS
TS

CONNECTOR BY TYPE & POSITION

Figure 5-2
Summary Test Data: Loads, Tensile Strength, and Annealing for 150°C Results

12636600 5-5
Summary of Aging at High Conductor Temperatures
As the discussion shows, the single-stage compression connectors performed poorly. They
created a tremendous amount of heat inside the connector, which indicates a poor electrical
connection between the conductor strands and the body of the connector. The single-stage
connector should not be used at temperatures above 100°C. The implosion and two-stage
connectors performed nominally well. In each type, however, one or two connectors indicated
some thermal stress during the aging process. Although they exhibited some temperature
excursions over the conductor temperature, they maintained good mechanical properties.
Appendix C provides greater details about the test data and results comparison.
Conclusions about the 125°C aging are not complete at this time. The temperature characteristics
are presented in this document, but the tension loading and metallurgical tests had not been
completed at the time of publication. They will be documented in the 2009 Technical Update.

12636600 5-6
6
DETECTION AND MITIGATION OF HIGH-
TEMPERATURE CONNECTOR DEGRADATION
The research did not clearly indicate a failure mechanism that provided a signature of
degradation and a correlated mechanical failure that would cause a line to drop in the field. The
degradation signatures that can be measured are temperature rise and increase in connector
resistance. The test data show that, if left to continue, the degradation rate severely affects the
electrical and mechanical performance of the connectors. The test data clearly identifies
compression connectors as a potentially high risk reliability concern for operating transmission
lines at elevated temperatures, especially when conventional connectors, not designed for
operating at temperatures above 100ºC, are on the line. Utilities that are considering operating
their lines at higher temperatures must inspect the condition of their connectors before raising the
thermal limits and must develop an inspection program to periodically monitor the connectors’
condition. Connectors that have elevated temperature or resistance signatures indicate
accelerated aging, increased reliability risk, and a need for mitigation.
Detection protocols can be developed to capture these signatures. EPRI is developing these
protocols in on-going research. Mitigation strategies are also being evaluated. Preliminary results
of a mitigation protocol using shunts over the connectors have shown favorable results. They
have been performing well from an electrical standpoint. Their mechanical performance will be
evaluated after they have been aged in a similar program to the connector aging referenced in
this report. Developing the inspection/detection protocol and confirming mitigation technologies
are vital to utilities successfully increasing their line thermal limits to temperatures over 100ºC

Detection
Although the test results indicate some significant degradation of the performance of several
types of compression connectors at elevated temperatures, the fact remains that many utilities
have operated their lines, either knowingly or unknowingly, at current levels that would develop
the degradation in connectors found in this research. Of particular concern is the sensitivity of
the connections to the installation process and their thermal loading history. These tests were
performed on new conductor with varying degrees of cleaning compliance to manufacturers’
recommendations. If the field installation is less stringent on cleaning or installation of the
appropriate or sufficient filler-inhibitor compound, the performance of a compression connector
at elevated temperatures has a high probability of failure.
Our original discussions addressed failure modes and defining failure. They covered the extreme
of dropping the conductor due to conductor failure or pull-out to a “declared” failure mode of the
connector operating at a temperature greater than the conductor temperature. One of the
anticipated deliverables of the project was a failure curve defining the time span between
detection of a temperature in the connector and its mechanical failure while in service. The
premise was that the temperature would degrade the connection sufficiently to lead to a
conductor drop in a short period of time. One of the findings of the research, however, was that
the temperature rise can happen after few cycles and continue over a thousand cycles, but the

12636600 6-1
connectors did not pull out in the laboratory test frame. In some samples, the temperature rose to
over twice the conductor temperature in as few as a hundred cycles. It is uncertain whether this
survival experienced in the lab is also possible in the field when a line is exposed to a variety of
mechanical loading conditions, many of which are dynamic in nature.
Detection of the connectors’ electrical and mechanical condition is critical to monitoring the
ability of the connectors to fulfill their intended purpose. From the testing program, connector
temperature and resistance across the interface of the connector body to the conductor strands are
prime condition parameters that can be measured with the line in service. At this time, there is
not a clear correlation of imminent failure with these signatures that can be applied in the field.
They are, however, definitive degradation signatures in that elevated temperature or resistance
will reduce the strength of the connector to an eventual mechanical failure mechanism. These are
two issues that continuing research at EPRI is addressing. First, if the line is not operating at
elevated thermal ratings when the inspection is performed, the temperature and resistance
measurements may not be representative of the signatures at elevated loading. If these signatures
do not have a residual component to their signature when the degraded connector operates at
lower ratings, the inspection will not detect the degraded condition. This characteristic is being
researched because of its criticality to the detection process. Second, field experience must be
gained to correlate the degradation signatures to field performance of connectors. This is
necessary to assess the risk of leaving connectors with degradation signatures in service. The
window of opportunity to perform a mitigation program to ensure reliability needs real-world
correlation to define, for a detected degradation, how long a mitigation effort can be delayed or
scheduled. To complete this aspect, the inspection protocols need implementation and
application by utilities to gain exposure information and validation for the detection protocols.

Mitigation
Mitigation measures range from full replacement to a repair that performs both electrical and
mechanical mitigation tasks. Replacement is an expensive alternative. Crews, equipment,
outages, and other resources must be coordinated to bring the resources to the connectors’
location and perform a replacement. Several repair systems are available on the market that
provide an electrical shunt path to improve the electrical performance and a component to help
maintain mechanical integrity of a degraded connection.
Appendix D contains additional details on detection and mitigation information. The utility focus
on operating lines at elevated temperatures to increase transmission capacity has supported the
research that assessed the aging performance of connectors. Now that there is a definitive
degradation concern, and detection and mitigation techniques have been raised as critical needs
for managing reliable performance of compression connectors, the programs to improve and
establish detection and mitigation protocols are being established and require utility support.

12636600 6-2
7 SUMMARY
The HTC Matrix is a user-friendly tool designed to put the breadth of the technical information
available concerning the operation of transmission lines at any temperature, but focused on
temperatures higher than 100°C, at the fingertips of line designers. When the topic of interest is
selected (e.g., conductor or accessory and the temperature of operation), the indexed
knowledgebase is parsed into a report containing operating characteristics, performance, and
critical concerns about the accessory or conductor system at that temperature. The
knowledgebase, which has been collated and indexed, contains a complete review of the
technology advancements developed within EPRI and the industry at large concerning conductor
systems. When the user drills down to the topic of interest, a report is generated that presents
notations from each resource addressing the issues and a list of pertinent references.
An annual update of the knowledgebase improves the information and indexing to provide the
latest information available to the user.
Included with the HTC Matrix are two applets that provide calculating tools for line designers:
the Dynamic Thermal Rating Calculator performs dynamic thermal ratings for different
conductors and operating conditions, and the Annealing Calculator estimates the remaining
strength of a conductor.
This document also provides a summary of the research results that EPRI performed in 2007-
2008 concerning aging compression connectors at elevated temperatures. The goal of these
projects is to assess the performance of conventional compression connectors for ACSR when
they are exposed to many cycles of elevated temperatures. The results to date indicate that
single-stage compression connectors do not perform well at elevated temperatures. Two-stage
and implosion connectors perform much better but require monitoring to detect whether they
show degradation characteristics.

12636600 7-1
12636600
8 REFERENCES
Adams, H. 1976. “Thermal Cycle Tests of SSAC and Associated Fittings.” Reynolds
Aluminum. Series No. 34.
ANSI C119.4. 1998. “American National Standard for Electric Connectors: Connectors for Use
Between Aluminum-to-Aluminum or Aluminum-to-Copper Bare Overhead Conductors.”
National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Rosslyn, VA.
Cardou, A., A. Leblond, and L. Cloutier. 1993. “Suspension Clamp and ACSR Electrical
Conductor Contact Conditions.” Journal of Energy Engineering. April.
CIGRE. 1995. “Loss of Strength of Overhead Electrical Conductors Caused by Elevated
Temperature Operation.” CIGRE SC22 WG 12. Electra No. 162. October.
Clarke, G. Summary Report on the Effects of High Operating Temperatures on Conductors and
Hardware Behavior. Ontario Hydro Research Division. Report No. 77.
Comte, C. and R. Lacasse. 2003. Applicability of Resistance and Temperature Measurements for
the Characterization of Full Tension Compression Splices. ESMO Proceedings.
Crabb, V. and J. Sheadel. “Magnetic Heating of Transmission Line Clamps.” AIEE Transactions.
vol. 68. pp. 1032-1035.
Di Troia, G. 2000. “Effects of High Temperature Operation on Transmission Full-Tension Joints
and Conductors.” Presented at Meeting 23 of CIGRE Study Committee 22-WG12. Evreux,
France. August 26.
EPRI. 2000. High Temperature Mechanical Properties of Bare Overhead Conductors. Palo Alto,
CA. 1000276.
EPRI. 2000. Initial Investigation in the Effect of Elevated Conductor Temperature Operation on
NCI. Palo Alto, CA. 1000033.
EPRI. 2001. Effect of Elevated Conductor Temperature Operation on Polymer Suspension
Insulators and the Effect of elevated Temperatures on the Mechanical Performance of Polymer
Post Insulators. Palo Alto, CA. Southern Company, Bonneville Power Administration, American
Electric Power, City Public Service of San Antonio, Eskom, Tennessee Valley Authority, and
Excel Energy.
EPRI. 2002. Infrared Inspection Application Guide. EPRI Report 1001915. January.
EPRI. 2003. Performance of Transmission Line Components at Increasing Operating
Temperatures. Palo Alto, CA. December. 1002094
Fantaye, E. and M. Ostendorp. 2000. High Temperature Mechanical Properties of ACSS/TW
‘Suwannee.’ EPRIsolutions, Inc. 100 Research Dr., Haslet, TX 76052. Report No. HC-2000-T1.
Project T176.

12636600 8-1
Farley, R. and D. Paddon. 1961. “Aluminum Suspension Clamps.” Electrical Review. vol. 168.
no. 14. pp. 652-653.
Harvey, J. R. “Effect of Elevated Temperature Operation on the Strength of Aluminum
Conductors.” T 72 189-4 IEEE.
IEEE. 2001. “Draft Guide for Determining the Effects of High Temperature Operation on
Conductors, Connectors, and Accessories.” New York, NY. P1283/D7.0.
Howitt, W. and T. Simpkins. 1972. “Effect of Elevated Temperature on the Performance of
Conductor Accessories.” IEEE Paper C72 188-6.
Morgan, V. 1964. “Non-Magnetic Suspension Clamps for Overhead Power Lines.” Electrical
Review. vol. 175. no. 9. pp. 314-317.
NEETRAC. 2000. Mechanical Performance of Suspension Insulators in Transmission Lines
Operated at Elevated Temperatures. Atlanta, GA. NEETRAC Project No. 00-085.
Ormin, J. and J. Bartsch. 1998. “Hotline Inspection and Control of Joints.” CIGRE SC22-203
Session.
Tamm, C. R. “Application Dynamics of High Temperature Conductors in Suspension Clamps.”
Hubbell Power Systems.
Tamm, C. R. “Application Dynamics of High Temperature Conductors in Full Tension Splices &
Deadends.” Hubbell Power Systems.

12636600 8-2
A
ANNEALING APPLET USER GUIDE
Annealing Calculation User Guide

The Annealing Calculation performs a calculation to estimate the remaining strength of the
conductor after exposure to extended periods of high-temperature operation.

Accessing the Annealing Calculator

While viewing the Performance Notes of the HTC Matrix Knowledgebase, press the Annealing
Calculations control button at the bottom of the screen.

Performing a Calculation
Select Conductor Type: Select the conductor type by selecting a Worksheet tab at the bottom of
the screen. The choices are: ACSR, AAC and AAAC, or ACAR.
Select a Conductor: From the dropdown box in the top right-hand corner, select the conductor
to be evaluated. This will populate the calculator with the specific parameters for that conductor
size and material, including the diameter of the conductor and the core, the material types, and
the distribution of strength between core and conducting strands as appropriate for the conductor
type.
Operating Temperatures: Users can enter in the Input Field the temperatures at which they want
to evaluate the conductor. There are eight (8) available fields. User decide on the temperature
“blocks” and associated hours to be characterized.
Time of Exposure – hrs: For each operating temperature, users define the hours of exposure at
that temperature.
Example: This table shows an exposure of 10,000 hours at 100°C, 300 hours at 125°C, 200
hours at 150°C, and 100 hours at 200°C.
90 100 125 150 200 225 250 300 350
10000 300 200 100

Results: The Remaining Strengths by % of original RBS are posted for the aluminum strands
and the conductor. The results can be saved as an Xcel spreadsheet.

12636600 A-1
Closing the Applet
The applet is closed by closing the Xcel spreadsheet, and users are returned to the HTC Matrix
Performance Report.

12636600 A-2
B
DYNAMIC THERMAL RATING CALCULATOR HELP
The Dynamic Thermal Rating Calculator performs dynamic thermal ratings for conductors in
steady-state or transient modes.

Accessing the Dynamic Thermal Rating Calculator

While viewing the Performance Notes of the HTC Matrix Knowledgebase, press the DTR
Calculator control button at the bottom of the screen.

Performing a Calculation
1. Select the units’ format: Before proceeding, note in the bottom left-hand corner of the
screen the units: English or SI. Select your preference. You may toggle at any time. In
filling certain fields, the units’ abbreviation must be provided (e.g., a temperature value
must be followed by a space and then the F or C).
2. Select a Conductor: From the dropdown box in the top of the screen, select the
conductor to be evaluated. This will populate the calculator with the specific parameters
for that conductor size and material, including diameter of the conductor and the core,
and the material types. The conductor database is very extensive; however, there are
some conductors that do not have all of their parameters defined. After selecting a
conductor, please check the following screens to make sure that they are non-zero. If
they show a 0.00 value, input a value to perform the calculation. Note: the DTR will
calculate a steady-state rating without heat capacity values.
• Homogeneous or Steel Core – if the conductor has a steel core (regardless of the
coating), select Steel Core.
• Heat Capacity of Aluminum Strands and Core in Joule/meter-C or Watt-sec/ft-C
• Emissivity – Allowable range 0.2 to 0.9
• Solar Absorptivity – Allowable range 0.2 to 0.9
• AC resistances at two temperatures in ohm/km or ohm/mile
• Bundling – number of conductors in the bundle
• Max Allowed Temperature
3. Location: To perform the solar effects, the orientation of the line is needed. Users can
specify the general line endpoints by Lat and Long. Also the altitude must be specified in
m or ft.
4. Weather Information: Pertinent weather conditions for the rating. Note wind speed is in
m/s or ft/s. Range limits for temperature input are -50 to 120 °C and wind speed < 20

12636600 B-1
 fps. Direction of Wind specifies incidence to the line by comparing the Direction of Line
entered under location versus Direction entered in Weather Information.
5. Transient Parameters: If a transient calculation is to be performed, user must specify the
initial conditions, either the initial Current or Temperature, and the length of the time
interval and increments at which they wish to evaluate the transient.
6. Results: Users can perform either a steady-state or transient calculation by pressing the
appropriate control button. A popup window will show the results. A detailed
calculation summary can be obtained by clicking the Show Calculation Details checkbox.

SEE TRANSIENT EXAMPLE BELOW

Closing the Applet

The applet is closed by closing the applet and users are returned to the HTC Matrix Performance
Report.

Transient Example

1. Select Units: English or SI. You can switch back and forth while filling out the
calculator if it is easier to enter a specific variable in one unit or the other. The toggle can
be used any number of times.
2. Select Conductor – e.g., DRAKE
a. The diameter, steel core, conductor type, and heat capacity are input, based on the
conductor tables provided. Remember: if these values are 0.00, you may need to
research appropriate values and enter them.
b. The AC resistance is input from the provided conductor database.
3. Adjust Emissivity and Absorptivity based on your utility criteria for your ratings.
a. This example will use 0.5 for both values.
4. Location Data: Input the starting point of the transmission line, the altitude, and the
general line of direction from the starting point in which the line progresses.
5. Weather Information:
a. Specify the ambient temperature for the rating calculations.
b. Specify whether the air is clear or clouded/industrial.
c. Specify the criteria wind speed and direction affecting the line, i.e., if the Direction of
the Line is 224 degrees, an input here of 224 degrees infers the wind is parallel to the
conductor. An input of 314 or 134 would be 90 degrees incident to the conductor
(maximum cooling).
d. Date and Time of calculation provide solar radiation parameters.
6. Calculation to Perform
a. Select Thermal Rating/Transient Buttons

12636600 B-2
 Inputs are:
• Thermal Rating Parameters: Target Temperature Range and Increments
• Transient Parameters: Initial Temperature and Transient Time Duration
Calculates:
• Steady State Current at the end of the Transient Time Duration at the Target
Maximum Temperature for that temperature increment; for each temperature
increment in the range.
b. Select Conductor Temperature / Transient Buttons
Inputs are:
• Conductor Rating Parameters that set the target current range to be studied and
the increment current loading.
• Transient Parameters: Specify the time duration of the transient and how often
you want to calculate the temperature at each current increment.
Calculates:
• The conductor temperature for each time increment and current level over the
duration of the transient with the initial temperature and current levels specified.

7. Output Screens:
a. Results Tab – summarizes the calculation results.
b. Input – publishes the input values.
c. Details – if checked for details on the calculator screen, the full calculation details are
available.

INPUT:
Conductor DRAKE
Emissivity 0.5
Solar Absorptivity 0.5
Lat: 35:28 N Long 101:02 W Altitude 328.08 ft
Direction of Line: 224 deg
Weather: Temperature 100°F Clear
Wind Speed 0.00 Direction 224
Date 7/6/2009 Time 3:30 PM Local
Conductor Temperature Transient Analysis
Step Current Range: 1,000 to 2,000 amps Increment by 100 amps
Transient Parameters: Initial Current 1,000 amps Temp 86 F

12636600 B-3
 Time Scan 1000 sec at 10 sec interval
Show Details checked
OUTPUT:
Results Tab: For each 10-minute Interval over 1000 seconds, the Conductor
temperature is shown for the current level for 1000 to 2000 amps at 100 amp steps
Input Screen: Reverts Input Values
Details Tab: For each Step Current, the Temperature and Resistance are calculated and
published at different time intervals at the conductor temperature reached at the end of
that interval. The Contribution of heating and cooling is also provided for Solar Heat,
Radiation cooling, and Convective (Natural and Forced).

12636600 B-4
C
150 AND 125°C AGING DETAILS
This appendix provides a summary of details on the results of the 150 and 125°C aging tests.

Implo Deadends
1118 Cycles

450

400

350
Max Temp. per Cycle (ºC)

300

1:01
250 5:01
1:05
200 5:05
Ambient

150

100

50

10 1
10 5
89
1
35
69

3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3

10 7
10
13
17
20
23
27
30
34
37
40
44
47
51
54
57
61
64
68
71
74
78
81
85
88
91
95
98

2
5 Cycle Number

Figure C-1
Temperature Profile for Implode Deadends – 150°C

12636600 C-1
 Implo Splices
1118 Cycles

450

400

350
Max Temp. per Cycle (ºC)

300
1:02
5:02
250 1:03
5:03
200 1:04
5:04
Ambient
150

100

50

10 1
55
89
1

1
5
9
3

10 7
1
5
9
3
7
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
35
69

3
7
1
5
9
3

88
91
95
98

2
61
64
68
71
74
78
81
85
23
27
30
34
37
40
44
47
51
54
57
10
13
17
20

10
Cycle Number

Figure C-2
Temperature Profile for Implode Splices – 150 °C

One-Stage Deadend
1118 Cycles

450

400

350
Max Temp. per Cycle (ºC)

300
3:01
4:01
250 7:01
8:01
200 4:05
8:05
Ambient
150

100

50

0
10 1
10 5
89
1
35
69

1
5
9
3

10 7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7

88
91
95
98

2
5
51
54
57
61
64
68
71
74
78
81
85
10
13
17
20
23
27
30
34
37
40
44
47

Cycle Number

Figure C-3
Temperature Profile for Single-Stage Deadends – 150 °C

12636600 C-2
 One-Stage Splice
1118 Cycles

450

400

350
3:02
4:02
Max Temp. per Cycle (ºC)

300
7:02
8:02
250 3:03
4:03
200 7:03
8:03
4:04
150 8:04
Ambient
100

50

10 1
10 5
89
1
35
69

9
3

10 7
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5

2
5
95
98
10
13
17
20
23
27
30
34
37
40
44
47
51
54
57
61
64
68
71
74
78
81
85
88
91
Cycle Number

Figure C-4
Temperature Profile for Single-Stage Splices – 150 °C

Two-Stage Deadend
1118 Cycles

450

400

350

300
Max Temp. per Cycle (ºC)

2:01
6:01
250 2:05
3:05
200 6:05
7:05
Ambient
150

100

50

0
1
36
71
106
141
176
211
246
281
316
351
386
421
456
491
526
561
596
631
666
701
736
771
806
841
876
911
946
981
1016
1051
1086

Cycle Number

Figure C-5
Temperature Profile for Two-Stage Deadends – 150 °C

12636600 C-3
 Two-Stage Splice
1118 Cycles

450

400

350

2:02
Max Temp. per Cycle (ºC)

300
6:02
2:03
250 6:03
2:04
200 3:04
6:04
7:04
150 Ambient

100

50

10 1
10 5
89
1
35
69

7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3

10 7
3
7
1
5
9
3
7
1
5
9
3

2
5
47
51
54
57
61
64
68
71
74
78
81
85
88
91
95
98
10
13
17
20
23
27
30
34
37
40
44

Cycle Number

Figure C-6
Temperature Profile for Two-Stage Splices – 150 °C

12636600 C-4
Figure C-7 is a plot of the maximum tension in each span for every cycle. The maximum tension
is at the end of the cool-down period and the start of a new cycle. The tension values, therefore,
reflect the change in tension of the spans due to creep, slippage, and loss of strength. Initially the
spans were set to 25% RBS of the Drake conductor, approximately 7875 pounds. As the graph
shows, most spans experienced a steady decline in tension with each aging cycle. At certain
points during the test, the tension was adjusted back to the 25% level, identified as distinct
vertical shifts in the chart. But immediately following the tension adjustment, the spans that were
experiencing degradation returned to the same degradation curve. This is evident in both the
tension graphs and the previously shown temperature graphs. It is a consistent signature that
there is loss of strength occurring during the aging process. If the decrease was attributed to
slippage, the connectors should have experienced a drop of conductor failure during the tests.

Tensions Over 1118 Cycles

10000

9000

8000

7000
SPAN 1
Max Tension per Cycle

6000 SPAN 2
SPAN 3
SPAN 4
(lbs)

5000
SPAN 5
SPAN 6
4000 SPAN 7
SPAN 8
3000

2000

1000

0
1 55 109 163 217 271 325 379 433 487 541 595 649 703 757 811 865 919 973 1027 1081
Cycle Number

Figure C-7
Tension Profile of Test Spans – 150 °C

The following bullet points summarize the significant observations:

• Twenty of forty connectors experienced temperatures higher than the conductor temperature.
Connectors are designed to operate cooler than the conductor.
• The majority, sixteen of twenty, of the connectors exceeding the conductor temperature were
single-stage designs.
• Some connectors ramped up to over 200°C in less than 100 cycles, others had a steady rise.
• It was anticipated that once the connector temperatures ramped up to an elevated temperature
at or above the conductor temperature, the temperature rise would be a runaway condition,

12636600 C-5
 leading to mechanical and/or full electrical failures. No connectors experienced any
mechanical failure, except surpassing our threshold temperature levels while on the test
frame.
• The tension in each of the test spans decreased as the test cycles accumulated (see Figure C-
7). No re-tensioning of the spans was performed, with the exception of one adjustment on all
the samples near 400 cycles and when connectors were removed. The decreases in
temperatures were dramatic when the tensions were adjusted and indicate some slippage in
the conductor-to-connector interface electrical path relation. Notice the continuous decline in
tension in most of the spans in Figure C-7.
• When tension shifts occurred, including retensioning by the lab techs, the temperature of the
connectors in that span improved (decreased) considerably. This gives credence to the
concept that the dynamics of tension adjustments internally within the connectors wipe and
refresh contact surfaces, which reduces the resistance of the current path, thus reducing the
temperature. Inevitably, though, the connectors degrade quickly from that “improved” state
and start to ratchet up the temperature cycle after cycle.
• When connectors are performing properly, the temperature records show that the connector
should run cooler than the conductor by at least 30 °C and as high as 50°C. Any time that gap
closes and the connector reaches the conductor change, the connector should be considered
for replacement.

Tensile Strength vs Max Temperature

Max Temp Remaining Tensile Strength

450 120%
400
100%
350
% Remaining Tensile Strength
Temperature - deg C

300 80%
250
60%
200
150 40%
100
20%
50
0 0%
1
R -2
8 . -1
2 1

3 1
4 2
2 2

4 2

5 ER - 2

2
1
4 2
3 1
3 2
2 1
3 -2

4 2
2 1
4 2
3 1
8 . -2

4 1

3 . . 4 -1
C ’
5 . R- 1

6 . ER M -
2 . C-

6. L -

T-
7. F L-
3. FL-

4 . L-
L-
1. CL-
2 . R-
3 . R-
4. CL-

5. L-
6. L-
6. CL-
7 . R-

3 . R-

TE M F

F
5 FL
4 . CR

8 R
C

F
F
F

F
C
C

C
C

M
2
C

3
2
3

2
1.
1.

4. T
T
1

Figure C-8
Aluminum Tensile Strength vs Maximum Aging Temperature – 150 °C

12636600 C-6
Summary of 150°C Aging Results
The Haslet test rack accumulated a total of 1118 saturation cycles during its run before it was
dismantled to close the Haslet Center. Forty test specimens were thermally operated at a
controlled conductor temperature of 150°C. The connectors are not designed to reach this
temperature. In the tests, however, 22 connectors remained at or below the conductor
temperature, 9 ranged up to 250°C, 3 ranged up to 350°C, and 5 ranged up to 450°C. None of the
connectors failed in the test frame, i.e., let go of the conductor. After the exposure runs, the
connectors were loaded in tension to evaluate their mechanical load capability. By design, they
are required to provide 95% of the rated breaking strength of the conductor.
There are two criteria that compression connectors must adhere to in order for them to be
considered performing their function correctly. These are based on electrical and mechanical
parameters:
• Electrically. The connectors are designed to carry the equivalent current capacity of the
conductors that they join. The current path crosses several interfaces of conductor strands and
connector body. If these interfaces degrade, the resistance of the connection increases and
heat is generated. The temperature of the connector is designed to stay cooler than the
conductor at all times. If the connector is hotter than the conductor, the connector has failed.
• Mechanically. The connector is designed to create a connection that is as strong as the
conductor itself, at least a minimum of 95% of the rated strength of the conductor. The
criteria do not consider the degradation of the connection, and the engineer/operator assumes
the connectors maintain that capability. Obviously, if the conductor pulls out of the
connector, this is a failure mode. The concern with the aging of connectors at elevated
temperatures is that the mechanical integrity degrades quickly when high temperatures are
present in the connector, and there are no pre-indicators that mechanical failure may be
eminent.

12636600 C-7
 125 °C Aging - Implode Deadends

1:1 TC0 5:1 TC12 1:4 TC96 5:4 TC108 125 degC

140

120

100
Temperature - °C

80

60

40

20

0
1 67 133 199 265 331 397 463 529 595 661 727 793 859 925 991 1057 1123 1189 1255 1321 1387 1453 1519 1585
Cycle

Figure C-9
Implode Deadend Temperature Profiles – 125°C Series

125 °C Aging - Implode Splices

1:2 TC32 5:2 TC44 1:3 TC64 5:3 TC76 125 degC

140

120

100
Temperature - °C

80

60

40

20

0
1 67 133 199 265 331 397 463 529 595 661 727 793 859 925 991 1057 1123 1189 1255 1321 1387 1453 1519 1585
Cycle

Figure C-10
Implode Splice Temperature Profiles – 125°C Series

12636600 C-8
 125 °C Aging - Single Stage Deadends

2:1 TC3 3:1 TC6 6:1 TC15 7:1 TC 18 2:4 TC99 3:4 TC102 6:4 TC111 7:4 TC114 125 TARGET

400

350

300

250
Temperature - °C

200

150

100

50

0
1 67 133 199 265 331 397 463 529 595 661 727 793 859 925 991 1057 1123 1189 1255 1321 1387 1453 1519 1585
Cycle

Figure C-11
Single-stage Deadend Temperature Profiles – 125°C Series

125 °C Aging - Single Stage Splices

2:2 TC35 3:2 TC38 6:2 TC47 7:2 TC 50 2:3 TC67 3:3 TC70 6:3 TC79 7:3 TC82 125 TARGET

350

300

250
Temperature - °C

200

150

100

50

0
1 67 133 199 265 331 397 463 529 595 661 727 793 859 925 991 1057 1123 1189 1255 1321 1387 1453 1519 1585
Cycle

Figure C-12
Single-stage Splice Temperature Profiles – 125°C Series

12636600 C-9
 125 °C Aging - Two Stage Deadends

4:1 TC9 8:1 TC21 4:4 TC105 8:4 TC117 125 TARGET

140

120

100
Temperature - °C

80

60

40

20

0
1 67 133 199 265 331 397 463 529 595 661 727 793 859 925 991 1057 1123 1189 1255 1321 1387 1453 1519 1585
Cycle

Figure C-13
Two-stage Deadends Temperature Profiles – 125°C Series

125 °C Aging - Two Stage Splices

4:2 TC41 4:3 TC85 125 TARGET

140

120

100
Temperature - °C

80

60

40

20

0
1 67 133 199 265 331 397 463 529 595 661 727 793 859 925 991 1057 1123 1189 1255 1321 1387 1453 1519 1585
Cycle

Figure C-14
Two-stage Splice Temperature Profiles – 125°C Series

12636600 C-10
Summary of 125°C Aging Results
The data so far indicate that the temperature exposure at 125°C may be just as critical as the
exposure at 150°C reported on previously, at least for the single-stage connectors. The two-stage
and implode connectors are performing extremely well.
It is unclear why the single-stage connectors are exhibiting this problem. Theoretically the
design only changes the mechanical gripping of the core strand. The electrical interface across
the aluminum strands and the aluminum sleeve are almost identical to the two-stage interface.
The dies and geometry of the crimping system are different, however, and the residual stress
following crimping that retains the crimping pressure and interface contacts may not be adequate
in the single-stage design.

12636600 C-11
12636600
D
DETECTION AND MITIGATION DETAILS
Detection
What detection methods are available to identify the potentially vulnerable splices and
compression connectors? The detection of at–risk compression connectors needs to be a very
efficient process that is incorporated in regular inspection protocols. Compression splices are in-
span and often in difficult locations for access. The compression deadends are more densely
populated on the structures. One of the most difficult aspects of detection is that the
characteristic signature of degradation or weakness may not be apparent during nominal day-to-
day operation because the electrical load on the line may be insufficient to cause the signature.

Detectable Signatures
What signatures do an at-risk compression connector exhibit, and what senses them?

Lack of Inhibitor in the Connector

After years of service, most compression connectors have some indication at the mouth of the
connector that inhibitor was present inside the connector. During installation, the filler is
supposed to be injected into the connector until it starts to come out of the connector’s mouth
around the conductor; the crimping process then causes filler compound to extrude as successive
crimps are made towards the end of the connector. This compound residue at the mouth of the
connector eventually discolors due to heat and exposure to the elements. A tell-tale signature
should, therefore, be visible on a properly filled connector (see Figure D-1).
Conversely, an overheated connector may boil out the inhibitor. With the inhibitor boiled out or
burnt due to heat, it will not prevent the elements from invading the interstices around the
strands. This causes corrosion and oxidation, which are the precursors to increased resistance and
increased heat. So detection of an inhibitor signature at the mouth cannot be a clear indication of
the effectiveness of the inhibitor.

12636600 D-1
Figure D-1
Inhibitor Compound Signature at Mouth of Connector

Elevated Temperature
The aging tests have clearly defined an elevated temperature signature as part of the degradation
process. These temperatures can be present for sufficient periods of time to cause the aluminum
strands to anneal. Nominally, conductor operates at or below ambient. Even under emergency
conditions, the conductor will experience temperatures as high as 100-125°C only for short
periods of time. During these temperature excursions, and at all normal operating conditions,
compression connectors are designed to run cooler than the conductor. If a connector is close to
or exceeding the conductor temperature, the connector is an at-risk component.
Temperature detection using infrared cameras has been used widely in the transmission business
to detect components that are not operating as designed (see Figure D-2). Infrared detection is a
common tool on many ground-line and aerial inspection protocols. It has been a mainstay of
detecting at-risk compression connectors for many years. Because ambient conditions have a
significant impact on infrared readings, comparative readings to evaluate the current condition of
a connector against a previous conditional state are not very effective. Comparable status of two
components at the same inspection time under similar conditions is a more reliable evaluation.
But, even at that time, if the two components have different surface emissivity, the comparison is
less than straightforward.

12636600 D-2
Figure D-2
Thermal Image of Compression Splice

Many infrared protocols for evaluating compression connectors are based on the comparison of a
compression connector temperature versus the adjacent conductor temperature. If the
temperature of the connector is above the conductor temperature, the connector is considered at-
risk. There are caveats to this comparison as well. The inspector should be an experienced
infrared camera user and an experienced infrared image evaluator. Surface emissivity variation
between conductor and compression connector or the angle of the sun or the angle of the image
capture can play a role in the credibility of the infrared evaluation.
Another caveat of thermal imaging is that the compression connector temperature may not be a
problem at nominal line operating levels when inspections are being performed. For example,
many lines nominally operate at current levels well below their normal and emergency ratings.
In that case, the conductor temperature and compression connector may be near or at ambient,
and any differential temperature between the conductor and connector would be very small and
may not be detectable.

Connector Resistance
The elevated temperature signature also indicates that the resistance of the electrical path within
a compression connector is a key to the failure mechanics. Higher than nominal joint resistance
is a clear signature of a compression connector at-risk. The connector resistance can be measured
with the line energized or de-energized, low load or high load. Because the resistance is also
coupled to the operating temperature of the connector, the readings for a lower temperature
operating condition may not be as indicative of the high load/high temperature loading case.
The utility industry has a commercially available tool for measuring the resistance of a connector
while the line is energized; it is the Ohmstik by SensorLink®, http://www.sensorlink.com/index .

12636600 D-3
Some users have expressed concern about the consistency and repeatability of the measurements
that they get from the Ohmstik, but it is the most viable tool for use in an energized environment.
Application of the tool requires access to the compression connector location and placement of
the technician/lineman within hot-stick length of the energized conductor. This makes the
technology difficult to execute on a full-line examination on a frequent basis.
If the line is de-energized, a sensitive ohm-meter can be used to measure the resistance of the
path from the conductor into the aluminum compression connector sleeve. This is not a very
practical evaluation method because outage availability for most lines is becoming more and
more difficult to obtain. As in the Ohmstik case, the technician and instrument must be placed at
the compression connector location, a very expensive inspection protocol.
The issue of correlation of low current/low load signature characteristics versus high current/high
load signatures has a significant impact on the practicality of this inspection alternative.

In-situ X-Ray
X-ray equipment is now available in digital-camera-based systems that make the protocol easier
to use in the field than in the past. The equipment is placed on the conductor such that an image
of the connector can be obtained with the X-ray camera. The image can be immediately viewed.
Application of the tool requires access to the splice location and placement of the
technician/lineman within hot-stick length of the energized conductor. This makes the
technology difficult to execute in a full line examination.
The X-ray technology can detect the depth of insertion of the conductor into the connector body.
It cannot test or provide conditional information about the connector interfaces and the main
characteristics that experience degradation.
EMAT Technology
EPRI has been developing a sensor technology that uses electro-magnetic acoustic technology
(EMAT) for a conductor inspection tool. EMAT induces a molecular-level torsional excitation
force into the specimen. The acoustic wave uses the specimen as a waveguide and travels to a
reflection point and then returns. The evaluation of the signal comparison between the input
signal and the received reflected signal can detect the endpoints of the strands, whether they are
the cut end of the conductor inside the connector or a crack or break in the strand. EMAT can
also detect corrosion of the waveguide by recognizing the random reflections off of the
waveguide surface. A non-corroded waveguide will have little reflected signal. A corroded
specimen with its random surface, due to pitting and corrosion product, will have a much noisier
signal. EMAT technology has been proven to be effective to detect broken strands inside
conductors under armor rods and or inside suspension clamps. EMAT has also been proven
capable of detecting corrosion of metallic surfaces such as the surface of an anchor rod or
galvanizing coating on core strand. EMAT has not been fully investigated concerning its ability
to detect compression connector conditional status. EMAT does have the capability to
differentiate various compressive stresses within a connector. That capability could be tuned or
trained to associate the electrical/mechanical performance of a connector with the signature of its
“compressed” strength.
EMAT technology can be used to detect the depth of the insertion of the conductor inside a
compression connector and as a comparative indicator of the crimping consistency of the

12636600 D-4
installation of the connector. A “loose” connector, where the compression crimps are
inadequate, should have a different reflected signature than a properly installed compression
connector. The EMAT technology is being marketed by EPRI, which is seeking additional
sponsors to more fully substantiate these inspection and assessment capabilities.
EMAT has not been tested or evaluated to determine what its specific capabilities would be
relative to the thermal performance of a compression connector. The degree of compaction and
residual clamping force of the sleeve on the conductor would be the variable that it could assess.
The correlation of that signature to thermal and mechanical behavior would need to be
developed.

Detection Summary
Detection of at-risk connectors is summarized in Table D-1. Only infrared and resistance are
direct measures of the conditional state of known conditional signatures of a failing compression
connector. The connector temperature and resistance are directly correlated, and their change
(typically an increase) is indicative of compression connector degradation. The X-ray and EMAT
technologies are currently only able to identify broken strands and a measure of the compression
uniformity across the connector length and cross section. All of the technologies can be applied
to energized lines and with the exception of the Ohmstik to deenergized lines. The ability to
remotely sense the signature of an at-risk connector is very important to an effective assessment
program. All the technologies, except infrared, require contact with the connector in the field.
Contact sensing increases the cost of assessing a transmission line’s connector inventory.
In summary, infrared is the most effective technology available to detect at-risk compression
connectors.

12636600 D-5
Table D-1
Summary of Connector Conditional Assessment Technologies

Infrared Resistance X-Ray EMAT

Direct Measure of Connector Electrical Path No No
Connector Temperature Resistance
Condition
Indirect Measure Degradation Degradation correlated Detect broken Detect broken strands
of Connector correlated to to temperature rise. strands, depth of and depth of insertion
Condition temperature rise. insertion of of conductor into
conductor into connector.
connector, and
It has been proposed
some
that EMAT could
characterization of
also be trained to
the degree of
differentiate
compression force
compressive
The geometry compaction and the
variation of the residual force of the
depth of insertion sleeve on the
and broken strands conductor.
are quantifiable.
These are somewhat
The compressive
subjective
force will be a
characterizations that
subjective analysis.
are validated with
calibration and the
artificial intelligence
of the EMAT system
to learn signature
recognition.
Line Either Ohmstik - energized Either Either
Energized/De-
Ohmmeter – de-
energized
energized
Remote or Contact Remote Contact Contact Contact
Sensor
Effectiveness Most Second Subjective Incomplete

Remediation
The most severe form of remediation is replacement. Replacement is a very expensive
alternative. It requires mobilizing a crew to the compression connector location, cutting the
conductor, removing the at-risk connector, and installing a new section of conductor and two
new compression connectors or an ultra-long replacement connector specially designed for
replacing the length of an existing connector and a small amount of conductor. Access must be
gained by climbing, bucket trucks, conductor buggies, or helicopter. When numerous connectors
have been shown to be at-risk, the proposition of replacing many of the compression connectors
to maintain serviceability and reliability of the line is a great challenge, logistically and
financially.

12636600 D-6
Remediation, short of replacement, of at-risk connectors would allow continued operation of the
transmission line with desired reliability, performance, safety, and longevity. Depending on the
condition of the connector at the time its at-risk characterization is made, certain remediation
tasks can be taken to extend the serviceability of the connector.
Unfortunately, little information is available to designate various thresholds in the degradation
process or its signature characterization to signify which different remediation approaches should
be taken. If these thresholds were known, a better and more refined application of the few
available remediation techniques could be applied.
Current remediation technologies include the installation of shunts that provide an alternative
electrical path around the connector, hopefully to reduce the electrical current stress across the
connector and to allow it to run cooler. The shunts also provide mechanical support to the
assembly. EPRI and several sponsors are currently performing performance tests on several
shunts installed on splices and deadends in a cyclic loading frame identical to the two test
protocols documented in earlier sections of this document. The conductor is being driven at
specific amperage for this set of tests held for two-hour saturation periods. The objectives of the
tests are to measure the temperature of the shunt strands and the associate compression connector
to determine the adequacy of the shunts to perform their designed task at very high current
levels.

Figure D-3
Preformed Shunt Installed over a Splice

Application of Detection and Remediation Methodologies

As noted previously in the description of detection methodologies, every technique except
infrared requires the inspection to be within hotstick distance of the conductor. Application of

12636600 D-7
shunts requires the same proximity. An appropriate detection and remediation protocol may be
two-staged.
First, the line is assessed using infrared technology to get an indication of how many and where
at-risk connectors may be.
Second, a crew is dispatched, whether using bucket trucks, climbing, or helicopters to get the
lineman in place at the at-risk locations. A second assessment technique, such as an Ohmstik, is
used to collect valuable resistance data. The resistance data may indicate a need to replace the
connector or mitigate further degradation with shunts.
In performing the two-stage operation, mobilizing to more locations than necessary is minimized
and a better correlation between infrared, Ohmstik, and visual assessment can be developed. The
crews should be prepared when they arrive at the site to perform the replacement or remediation
shunt installation after collecting resistance data.
With the accumulation of resistance, infrared, and visual assessment, the detection accuracy will
improve and make the inspection protocol more efficient

12636600 D-8
12636600
Export Control Restrictions The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with
granted with the specific understanding and major locations in Palo Alto, California; Charlotte,
requirement that responsibility for ensuring full North Carolina; and Knoxville, Tennessee, was
compliance with all applicable U.S. and foreign export established in 1973 as an independent, nonprofit
laws and regulations is being undertaken by you and center for public interest energy and environmental
your company. This includes an obligation to ensure research. EPRI brings together members, participants,
that any individual receiving access hereunder who is the Institute's scientists and engineers, and other
not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is leading experts to work collaboratively on solutions to
permitted access under applicable U.S. and foreign the challenges of electric power. These solutions span
export laws and regulations. In the event you are nearly every area of electricity generation, delivery,
uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully and use, including health, safety, and environment.
obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you EPRI's members represent over 90% of the electricity
acknowledge that it is your obligation to consult with generated in the United States. International
your company’s legal counsel to determine whether participation represents nearly 15% of EPRI's total
this access is lawful. Although EPRI may make research, development, and demonstration program.
available on a case-by-case basis an informal
assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity
for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and your
company acknowledge that this assessment is solely
for informational purposes and not for reliance
purposes. You and your company acknowledge that it
is still the obligation of you and your company to make
your own assessment of the applicable U.S. export
classification and ensure compliance accordingly. You
and your company understand and acknowledge your
obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the
appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use
of EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in
violation of applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or
regulations.

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING
THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the
Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America 1015977

Electric Power Research Institute

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 • USA
12636600800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • [email protected] • www.epri.com