Journal of ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 65, NO.

4, 2014, 221–227

APPLICATION OF A LINE AMPACITY MODEL AND

ITS USE IN TRANSMISSION LINES OPERATIONS
∗
Jaroslav Šnajdr — Jan Sedláček — Zdeněk Vostracký
A conductor thermal model related to CIGRE and IEEE solutions was developed and compared with measurements. Two
pylons of a single line were equipped with weather monitoring stations and conductor temperature sensors based on Surface
Acoustic Wave (SAW) principle. Also a fiber optic distributed temperature sensing system was installed to provide additional
data. Over 2.5 million data points were evaluated. Developed model deviation for more than 99 % of values proved to be
±1 ◦C for SAW sensor and ±3.5 ◦C for the fiber optic measurement. Several ampacity determination methods were described
from a transmission grid operator’s point of view. Their features were compared in order to show at which planning period
they could be useful. A new method for dynamic line rating determination was proposed. Although it reduces maximum
ampacity gain, its advantage lies in minimizing measurement systems while retaining relatively stable value and low risk of
temperature limit exceeding.
K e y w o r d s: ampacity, dynamic line rating, transmission line, heat transfer, conductor temperature measurement

Nomenclature 1 INTRODUCTION

ACSR aluminium conductor steel reinforced Computing and measuring capabilities of conductor
DLR dynamic line rating temperature brought new ways of increasing current rat-
SAW surface acoustic wave ing. Besides traditional solutions based on overhead lines
AAl total aluminium cross-section hardware change or modification, new methods [1,2] com-
AF e total steel cross-section prise actual ambient and conductor parameters. They are
b temperature coefficient called Operation-based Methods and allow dynamically
cAl specific heat capacity of conductor sheath enhance conductor current carrying capacity. Ampere ca-
cc conductor heat capacity pacity – ampacity – has been simply stated by standards
cF e specific heat capacity of conductor core as nominal current at given constant weather conditions.
D conductor diameter It is derived from conductor maximum allowable temper-
hc heat transfer coefficient ature or its minimal clearance above ground.
Ief effective current
A distinction among ampacity determination methods
Imax ampacity
should be made in order to ensure conductors current
Is intensity of solar radiation
kAC AC resistance coefficient carrying capacity under different conditions. Most com-
mc conductor mass monly the ampacity of overhead conductors is given by
Pc corona losses national standards guaranteeing stable and safe values.
PJ Joule losses Further differentiation in time leads to a statistical am-
Pk convective cooling pacity, which can provide loading plans in long-term pe-
Pr radiative cooling riods. Actual weather ampacity of a conductor can be de-
Ps solar heating termined by measuring or predicting weather conditions
Pw evaporative cooling along a line. To complete the list it is necessary to men-
RDC conductor DC resistance tion a possibility of conductor overloading for a limited
S conductor surface time utilizing its thermal capacity. Deterministic ampac-
sland landscape sector for radiative cooling ity models published in [3, 4] or non-physical solutions
ssky sky sector for radiative cooling [5, 6] involve all of the main weather parameters.
t time The new goal was to develop a suitable thermal model
Tc conductor temperature of an overhead conductor for a single transmission line
Tland landscape temperature and to compare it with measurements. Two hotspots on
Tamb ambient temperature the line had been chosen in accordance with the expected
Tsky sky temperature minimal wind flow. Measured weather data were conse-
εa absorptivity quently analyzed to reveal ampacity potential. Based on
εe conductor emissivity the experience of common dynamic line rating trends, a
ρAl conductor sheath material density method suitable for application by operators was devel-
ρF e conductor core material density oped. The new proposed method offers determination of
σ Stephan-Boltzmann constant dynamic line rating based on using minimum number of

∗ Faculty of Electrical Engineering of the University of West Bohemia, Univerzitnı́ 8, 30614, Pilsen, Czech Republic, [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]

DOI: 10.2478/jee-2014-0034, Print ISSN 1335-3632, On-line ISSN 1339-309X c 2014 FEI STU
222 J. Šnajdr — J. Sedláček — Z. Vostracký: APPLICATION OF A LINE AMPACITY MODEL AND ITS USE IN TRANSMISSION . . .

environment parameters. Therefore it minimizes the num- 2.4 Radiative cooling

ber of measuring equipment while the safety is ensured.
In the case of a conductor placed in the open we can
This technology can be also implemented on power cables,
assume its surrounding with infinite surface. The equa-
but further factors, such as [7], are necessary to analyze.
tion below describes such a case

2 CONDUCTOR THERMAL MODEL

Pr = εe σS Tc4 − Tamb
4


. (5)
Due to the pilot project, our theoretical model was
tailored on the specific conductor 382-AL1/49-ST1A. Us-
ing approaches mainly from CIGRE [8] and IEEE [9], the Emissivity changes through time. Le [13] proposed an
model was verified and its constants calibrated according empirical formula (6) for conductor emissivity and ab-
to the measurements. The thermal balance of the con- sorptivity determination. Variable Y stands for the num-
ductor can be modeled using lumped parameters [10] as ber of years the conductor has been energised. According
follows to the Le’s formula, εa and εe equal to 0.5 should be
dTc reached after a single year of operation. But in [12] it is
PJ + Ps + Pc = mc cc + Pr + Pk + Pw . (1) noted that data from certain US western states indicates
dt
that εa and εe may stay as low as 0.6 even after 10 years
The equation lacks corona heating and water evap-
of operation. Thus the emissivity value was chosen con-
orative cooling coefficients. While overhead conductors
stant 0.5 and consequently verified by measurements to
are designed to suppress significant corona effects, water
be acceptable.
evaporation can lower the temperature in the order of
degrees Celsius [11]. Also the effect of radial temperature
0.7Y
distribution was neglected because of direct comparison εe = 0.23 + . (6)
between the model and measurements. 1.22 + Y

2.1 Joule losses Ambient temperature for radiative cooling is more dif-
Heating of a conductor caused by electric current and ficult to obtain. Surrounding can be divided into two sec-
electromagnetic interactions is described by the following tors – the sky above with approx. one third to quar-
equation ter of the whole sector and the rest formed by build-
2
PJ = RDC kAC Ief [1 + b(Tc − 293.15)] . (2) up area, forests and land. The main difference between
ambient temperatures is the sky temperature varies be-
It makes use of ACSR conductor’s DC resistance at tween −40 and +10 ◦C, while the extreme can reach up
20 ◦C provided by a manufacturer and the fact, that most to −56 ◦C [14]. Although the sky temperature is not mea-
of the current flows through the sheath wires. Thus tem- sured, simulations using (7) and (8) have shown that the
perature coefficient can be considered just for aluminium. nominally loaded conductor temperature can drop more
The most problematic part can be represented by proper than 5 ◦C [15]. In connection with the neglected effect
evaluation of AC resistance as the conductor is composed of water evaporation, it could explain negative errors be-
of a number of wires stranded around each other. Ac- tween model and measurement.
cording to [8] it is recommended to use kAC = 1.0123 for
three-layered ACSR conductors. q
4 +s 4
Tamb = 4
ssky Tsky land Tland , (7)
2.2 Solar heating
Heat gain from solar radiation is defined by (3). Re- ssky = 1 − sland . (8)
ceived heat is determined by the conductor diameter and
its surface. Newly installed conductors emissivity can be
2.5 Convective cooling
as low as 0.23, while weathered surface after several years
in service can rise to 0.95; in [12] it is recommended in To calculate dissipated heat via convection it is possi-
the case of thermally rated conductor over 70–80 ◦C to ble to use two general approaches – Computational Fluid
use mean value of 0.5–0.6 . Dynamics (CFD) and convection correlation. Compari-
Ps = εa DIs . (3) son of both methods for current application is published
in [16–18]. The latter method uses Newton’s law of cool-
2.3 Heat capacity ing (9) whose most problematic part is to determine the
Capability of accumulating heat by a conductor is ex- heat transfer coefficient (hc ). For this purpose correlation
pressed by a combination of its mass and specific heat formulas were taken from [19]. By incorporating temper-
capacity. For ACSR we can use in advantage the formula ature dependent air parameters the final range of hc is
(4) for steel core and aluminium sheath. Although heat depicted in Fig. 1.
capacity is also dependent on temperature, the range of
its operating values causes a negligible change.
Pc = hc S (Tc − Tamb ) . (9)
mc cc = cAl ρAl AAl + cF e ρF e AF e . (4)
 Journal of ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 65, NO. 4, 2014 223

Because of the way of the weather data reading, all of

the values had to be interpolated. Results were compared
with measured data from April 1st 2010 to April 30th
2013 to evaluate three year period. Typical temperature
curve can be seen in Figs. 4 and 5. Each of the peaks
represents daytime when sun radiation and current load
considerably heat up the conductor.
As the dynamic ampacity determination should be
used primarily for maximizing transmission capacity, it
is necessary to compare model at highest current loads
possible before putting the DLR technology into live op-
eration. Since start of data acquisition typical line loading
Fig. 1. Calculated heat transfer coefficient for modeled conductor has been around 50 % of nominal value with peak level
of 90 %.
An evaluation of the long-term accuracy between mod-
els and temperature measurements was made using a box-
plot. Figure 6 depicts such a comparison when Tc mod-
eled is subtracted from T c measured. It is obvious that
the modeled temperature curve is more similar to the
surface than the inner measurement. Half of the values is
located within the range of ±0.5 ◦C in the case of con-
ductor surface measurement and ±1 ◦C for inner temper-
ature. The whiskers range is set according to the Matlab
default value – the lowest datum still within 1.5 interquar-
tile range of the lower quartile, and the highest datum still
Fig. 2. An optical fiber (black) inside the modeled ACSR conductor within 1.5 interquartile range of the upper quartile. The
(white – steel core, grey – aluminium) [20] biggest error was calculated to be +13 and −33 ◦C, but
it is important to note here, that these difference could
be caused by faulty measurements, as it was difficult to
distinguish them.

5 APPLICATION OF THE MODEL FOR

DIFFERENT TYPES OF AMPACITY

Fig. 3. SAW sensor placed on the conductor [21]

Based on the model mentioned in Chapter 2, sev-
eral types of ampacity were described and their advan-
3 MEASURED DATA tages and disadvantages compared with each other. Ac-
tual steady-state ampacity can be determined by the fol-
Measurements were provided by the local transmission lowing formula.
line operator in the Czech Republic, ČEPS, a.s. since r
April 2010. A weather station and RIBE Ritherm sys- Pk + Pr − Ps
Imax = . (10)
tem (SAW technology) for local surface conductor tem- RAC
perature measurement were installed on each of two py-
lons along a single line. Also one conductor contained The term “ampacity” has generally a quite broad
an optical fiber inside to compare its temperature using meaning. It stands for the maximum current load of a
VALCAP system. Input values are ambient temperature conductor in amperes (amperes capacity). The loading –
Tamb , conductor temperature Tc , total solar radiation in- ampacity – can be categorized due to the fact it depends
tensity Is , wind velocity v and wind angle φ. The data on several factors, such as ambient conditions and the
are available in the form of irregular sampling of pairs dynamical characteristics of conductors. Therefore, it is
(time stamp, value), where each variable is sampled in- appropriate to specify a qualifying adjective to the term
dependently with different average sampling rate. ampacity. From this perspective it is possible to define
five types of ampacity:
4 COMPARISON OF THE THEORETICAL 1) Standardized ampacity – static value derived from the
MODEL AND MEASUREMENTS worst-case combination of weather parameters,
2) Statistical ampacity – based on statistical evaluation of
Conductor temperature was modeled numerically ap- weather measurements; suitable for long-term (weeks,
plying adaptive Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg on formula (1). months) operation planning,
224 J. Šnajdr — J. Sedláček — Z. Vostracký: APPLICATION OF A LINE AMPACITY MODEL AND ITS USE IN TRANSMISSION . . .

indisputable advantage lies in a lifetime operation secu-

rity, but on the other hand the conductor current carrying
capacity stays most of the time underrated.
The Czech national standard [22] presents following
values as standard conditions: maximum conductor tem-
perature Tc = 80 ◦C , ambient temperature Tamb =
35 ◦C , solar radiation intensity Is = 1000 W/m2 , and
wind speed v = 0.5 m/s inclined to a conductor at angle
φ = 45◦ . The surveyed three bundle conductor is rated
2000 A accordingly.
Fig. 4. Typical difference between modeled and measured conduc- A statistics considering measured weather conditions
tor surface temperature
was made to evaluate present standardized ampacity. Ta-
Conductor temperature (°C) ble 1 shows, how many times the conductor temperature
80
would have risen above 80 ◦C at nominal loading and how
60 Measurement long it would have taken in total. It is obvious that de-
fined nominal current is reasonable, because the lowering
40
of actual ampacity below the static limit occurs annually
Model
20 in the order of hours.
Difference
0

-20 5.2 Statistical ampacity

00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
Time
The application of the statistical ampacity can be es-
Fig. 5. Typical difference between modeled and measured conduc- pecially helpful in planning of a transmission grid oper-
tor inner temperature
ation outside reliable weather forecast period. Compared
DT (°C)
4 to the temperature ampacity, this method can determine
ampacity range for any desired time interval.
2
Ampacity (%)
0 155 December

-2 150

145
-4
UWB/SAW UWB/opt.fiber 140
CIGRE/SAW CIGRE/opt.fiber
135
Fig. 6. Evaluation of temperature difference between modeled and
measured values for surface and inner sensors; University of West 130
Bohemia (UWB) and CIGRE models 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Hour
Fig. 7. Ampacity during December sorted by hour
3) Temperature ampacity – determined by ambient tem-
perature and sun radiation intensity, both measured
Ampacity (%)
or predicted, at constant wind parameters; proper for
140
short-term (hours, days) ampacity prediction, June
4) Dynamic ampacity – instantaneous reserve for conduc- 130
tor overloading given by time constant and the tem-
perature difference between immediate and maximum 120
value,
5) Weather ampacity – instant ampacity of a line affected 110
by all of the weather factors.
100
5.1 Standardized ampacity 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Present-day ampacity determination is based on a Hour
worst-case weather conditions scenario. On one hand its Fig. 8. Typical ampacity range affected by summer sun radiation
 Journal of ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 65, NO. 4, 2014 225
Table 1. Ampacity below static limit according to measured
weather conditions technology. Usually conductor time constant is about 15
minutes. Thus it allows temporary overloading in depen-
Times Risk percentage dence on previous temperature.
Year Total time Maximum overcurrent can be easily defined as shown
below limit per year
2010 121 11 h 39 m 0.133 % in Fig. 11. Contrary to [23] curves create continuous limit
representing maximum conductor temperature. For in-
2011 84 3 h 10 m 0.036 %
2012 126 3 h 30 m 0.040 % stance, if previous temperature matches 75 % of nominal
current and an operator needs to load the line on 150 %,
maximum time available for this operation is 5 minutes.
For instance Fig. 7 shows ampacity range made of mea- As seen in the figure, the applicability of this method is
sured ambient temperature and sun radiation intensity. limited because of the response time of operators, which
The data were selected from measurements during De- is at best 20 minutes.
cember 2010, 2011 and 2012 and sorted by hour. The
information for an operator says, that it is highly prob- 5.5 Weather ampacity
able, that the ampacity at noon in December would not If a measurement system of ambient conditions is
fall below 130 % of nominal level. The same way of data available to an operator, line ampacity can be fully de-
selection for June is shown in Fig. 8. The trend is more termined. Its main advantage lies in the possibility of
dramatic because of higher sun radiation intensity. Other the static ampacity value multiplication but at the cost
possible combinations can lead to for instance winter and of rapid oscillation caused by changing wind conditions
summer ampacity regime or day and night regime accord- along the observed line. Comparison between weather and
ing to a present month. temperature ampacity is shown in Fig. 12. This kind of
DLR model can be also integrated with switchgear and
5.3 Temperature ampacity transformers ampacity as shown in [24] in order to max-
Prediction of ampacity always represents a difficult imize the benefit of the technology.
task when an operator needs to compile a next-day sched- Although measurement can ensure validity of present
ule. It is given by the variety of wind conditions and ampacity value, it is rather improper for ampacity fore-
cloudiness along transmission lines. The proposed method cast because of its deterministic nature. A Bayesian ap-
is based on a prediction of temperature, while calculat- proach [25, 26] can provide information about short-term
ing or measuring the maximum solar radiation intensity ampacity prediction and, in particular, it can estimate
and setting wind speed and angle at a certain level giving the actual risk of exceeding the ampacity value. In this
steadier values to an operator. It also suits perfectly for way grid operators will be able to react successfully and
a next-day operation plan in an interval of 36 hours. utilize the whole ampacity range in a safe way.
The only question is how to set wind speed and angle. The only bottleneck for all of the ampacity determina-
Presumption of the worst case, when a conductor is cooled tion methods could be represented by specific local con-
just by natural convection, results in highly conservative ditions. The line vicinity (ie forest, buildings) can, for
approach. Although it means zero risk of conductor tem- instance, significantly change air flow at a single place.
perature exceeding, in extreme hot weather the dynamic Thus the one anomaly could affect whole line. A history
limit may drop below the stationary value. Another op- of extreme ampacity values for each month is depicted
tion is to set minimal expected wind conditions on a cer- in Fig. 13. It shows the overall ampacity range, the bot-
tain level, ie v = 0.5 m/s and φ = 45◦ . In Fig. 9 the tom limit is rather stable, while the upper one is strongly
ampacity gain is about 15-20 % for the “low risk” than dependent on local conditions.
the worst case scenario of zero wind conditions presented
On one hand modeling of conductor temperature us-
by the “zero risk” curve. The oscillations are caused by
ing deterministic methods, while neglecting factors such
measuring the actual sun radiation.
as evaporative cooling or icing as well as the effect of
Risk analyses indicated that conductor temperature cloudiness, produces common error of ±1 ◦C for surface
for the “low risk” setting would be exceeded in 8–16 % temperature measurement and ±3 ◦C for inner optical
of examined data time. Historical extremes of both ap- fiber sensor. On the other hand all of these factors should
proaches are compared in Fig. 10. This method is mainly cause conductor temperature drop thus they do not mean
usable when weather monitoring stations are not avail- any threat to the temperature limit exceeding.
able. It can be easily connected with temperature forecast
because of the smooth trend of output data. Also the
minimal expected wind conditions can be derived from 6 DISCUSSION
weather forecast.
Based on the modeled and measured conductor tem-
5.4 Dynamic ampacity perature deviation, a method for ampacity determination
The third proposed method derives benefit from the solely from ambient temperature measurement or predic-
ability of a conductor to accumulate heat and comple- tion was introduced. Its main advantage lies in reduction
ments other methods in order to make the most of DLR of needed sensors for acquiring weather data along a line,
226 J. Šnajdr — J. Sedláček — Z. Vostracký: APPLICATION OF A LINE AMPACITY MODEL AND ITS USE IN TRANSMISSION . . .

Ampacity (%) Ampacity (%)

140 160
Low risk
Low risk minimum
120 140
Zero risk
100 120
Current
80
100

60 Zero risk minimum

80
04 07 10 01 04 07 10 01 04 07 10 01 04
40 2010 2011 2012 2013
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
Time Month/year

Fig. 9. Temperature ampacity compared to peak current for dif- Fig. 10. Calculated minimum temperature ampacity for each
ferent wind conditions month at different wind conditions

Ampacity (%) Ampacity (%)

Weather ampacity
400
Previous loading 0% 200

300
Temperature ampacity
Previous loading 75% 100
200
Previous loading 95% Measured current

100 0
0 20 40 60 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
Time (min) Time

Fig. 11. Relation between overcurrent and its maximum time du- Fig. 12. The difference between ampacity determination ap-
ration based on previous loading proaches

Ampacity (%)
7 CONCLUSION
Maximum ampacity
400
Introducing the DLR technology into operation raised
300 a lot of questions on efficiency and safety. The devel-
oped deterministic thermal model can be further comple-
200 mented with a stochastic approach. Although it is possi-
Minimum ampacity
ble to dynamically raise ampacity level, the risk assess-
100
ment of exceeding the highest permitted temperature or
0 maximum sag is rather limited.
04 07 10 01 04 07 10 01 04 07 10 01 04 Minimizing the number of weather or temperature sen-
2010 2011 2012 2013
sors represented another challenge. A new method was
Month/year proposed, which is able to utilize conductor current car-
rying capacity while keeping relatively stable prediction
Fig. 13. Calculated trend of minimum and maximum line ampacity
for each month during measurements curve. Despite its lower ampacity gain, an easy integra-
tion with ambient temperature prediction along the whole
overhead line can provide a reliable and cost effective so-
while it offers a decent ampacity limit increase in the or- lution. Future effort in this area will probably lead to the
der of tens of percent of nominal current. Also a natural development of probabilistic methods to deal with model
stability and predictability of ambient temperature give errors.
the operators a possibility to prepare a reliable plan of
operation for a particular line. But all of the mentioned Acknowledgment
benefits are knocked down by reduced ampacity gain and This research has been supported by the European
a likelihood that the dynamic ampacity could drop below Regional Development Fund and the Ministry of Edu-
the present value. cation, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic under
 Journal of ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 65, NO. 4, 2014 227

the Regional Innovation Centre for Electrical Engineer- Electrical Power Engineering, Technical University of Košice,
ing (RICE), project No. CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0094, and by 2013, pp. 152–154.
the student science project SGS-2012-047. Authors thank [17] GOGA, V.—PAULECH, J.—VÁRY, M. : Cooling of Electrical
Cu Conductor with PVC Insulation – Analytical, Numerical and
to ČEPS, a.s. and especially to Mr. Jiřı́ Velek for helpful
Fluid Flow Solution, J. Electrical Engineering 64 No. 2 (2013),
cooperation with ongoing research. 92–99.
[18] VÁRY, M.—GOGA, V.—PAULECH, J. : Experimental, An-
alytical and Computational Approaches to Bare Electric Wire
References Loading Characteristics, Electrotechnica, Electronica, Automat-
ica 60 No. 3 (2012), 14–21.
[1] CIGRE Joint Working Group B2.C1 : Increasing Capacity of [19] VDI : VDI Heat Atlas, Springer, 2010.
Overhead Transmission Lines: Needs and Solutions, CIGRE, [20] Nktcables : VALCAP Grid Monitoring and Rating for High
2010. Voltage Cables and Overhead Lines, www.nktcables.com.
[2] FERNANDEZ, E.—ALBIZU, I.—BEDIALAUNETA, M. T.— [21] RIBE : RITHERM — Temperature Monitoring and Load
MAZON, A. J.—LEITE, P. T. : Dynamic Line Rating Sys- Optimization on Overhead Transmission Lines, 2014.01.06,
tems for Wind Power Integration, Power Engineering Society www.ribe.de.
Conference and Exposition in Africa (PowerAfrica), IEEE, 2012, [22] CNI, : Overhead Electrical Lines Exceeding AC 45 kV, Part 3:
pp. 1–7. Set of National Normative Aspects, Section 19: National Norma-
[3] KLEIN, K. M.—SPRINGER, P. L.—BLACK, W. Z. : Real- tive Aspects for the Czech Republic, CSN EN 50341 3 19, Česky
Time Ampacity and Ground Clearance Software for Integration normalizačnı́ institut, 2003.11.25.
into Smart Grid Technology, Power and Energy Society General [23] MUSAVI, M.—CHAMBERLAIN, D.—LI, Q. : Overhead Con-
Meeting, IEEE, 2011, pp. 1–11. ductor Dynamic Thermal Rating Measurement and Prediction,
[4] SCHMALE, M.—PUFFER, R.—HEIDEMANN, M. : Dynamic Smart Measurements for Future Grids (SMFG), 2011 IEEE In-
Ampacity Rating of Conductor Bars in Highly Loaded Substa- ternational Conference on, 2011, pp. 135–138.
tions, CIRED 2013: 22nd International Conference and Exhibi- [24] KIM, S. D.—MORCOS, M. M. : An Application of Dynamic
tion on Electricity Distribution, 2013, pp. 1–4. Thermal Line Rating Control System to Up-Rate the Ampacity
[5] FU, J.—ABDELKADER, S.—MORROW, D. J.—FOX, B. : of Overhead Transmission Lines, Power Delivery, IEEE Trans-
Partial Least Squares Modelling for Dynamic Overhead Line actions on 28 No. 2 (2013), 1231–1232.
Ratings, PowerTech, 2011 IEEE Trondheim, 2011, pp. 1–6. [25] ZHANG, J.—PU, J.—McCALLEY, J. D.—STERN, H.—GAL-
[6] FU, J.—MORROW, D. J.—ABDELKADER, S. M. : Modelling LUS, W. A., Jr. : A Bayesian Approach for Short-Term Trans-
and Prediction Techniques for Dynamic Overhead Line Rating, mission Line Thermal Overload Risk Assessment, Power Deliv-
Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2012 IEEE, 2012, ery, IEEE Transactions on 17 No. 3 (2002), 770–778.
pp. 1–7. [26] WANG, K.—SHENG, G.—JIANG, X. : Risk Assessment of
[7] ARNOLD, P.—KMENT, A.—PÍPA, M.—JANÍČEK, F. : On- Transmission Dynamic Line Rating based on Monte Carlo, IEEE
site Partial Discharges Measurement of XLPE Cables, Transac- Power Engineering and Automation Conference (PEAM), vol. 2,
tions On Electrical Engineering 123, (2012), 107. 2011, pp. 398–402.
[8] STEPHEN, R.—DOUGLAS, D.—MIROSEVIC, G.—ARGA- Received 8 January 2014
SINSKA, H.—BAKIC, K.—HOFFMAN, S.—IGLESIAS, J.—
JAKL, F.—KATOH, J.—KIKUTA, T. and others : Thermal
Behaviour of Overhead Conductors, Cigré, 2002. Jaroslav Šnajdr born in 1986, received the Engineer de-
[9] IEEE Standard for Calculating the Current-Temperature of gree (MSc) in Electrical Power Engineering from the Faculty
Bare Overhead Conductors, IEEE Std 738-2006 (Revision of of Electrical Engineering of the University of West Bohemia,
IEEE Std 738-1993), IEEE Power Engineering Society, 2007, Pilsen in 2011. He is currently continuing his studies at the
pp. c1–59. same department as a PhD student. His dissertation research
[10] TLUSTÝ, J. : Monitorovánı́, řı́zenı́ a chráněnı́ elektrizačnı́ch is focused on dynamic overhead line rating. Other activities
soustav, České vysoké učenı́ technické v Praze, 2011. include thermal management of switchgear, both outdoor and
[11] PYTLAK, P.—MUSILEK, P.—LOZOWSKI, E., : Precipita- gas insulated, and research of dynamic rating of power cables.
tion-Based Conductor Cooling Model for Dynamic Thermal Rat- He is a member of the Regional Innovation Centre of Electrical
ing Systems, Electrical Power Energy Conference (EPEC), 2009 Engineering.
IEEE, 2009, pp. 1–7. Jan Sedláček born in 1972, received MSc and PhD de-
[12] CIGRE Working Group B2.12 and International Council on grees at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering of the University
Large Electric Systems : Guide for Selection of Weather Pa- of West Bohemia. Since 2001 he works at the university in the
rameters for Bare Overhead Conductor Ratings, CIGRE, 2006. New Technologies - Research Centre and Faculty of Electri-
[13] LE, T. L.—NEGNEVITSKY, M.—PIEKUTOWSKI, M. : Ex- cal Engineering. He currently works in the field of electricity,
pert System Application for the Loading Capability Assessment numerical simulations, CFD and as a lecturer.
of Transmission Lines, Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on
Zdeněk Vostracký born in 1941, studied at the Insti-
10 No. 4 (1995), 1805–1812.
tute of Technology in Pilsen, defended Doctor of Science at
[14] ROGLER, R. D. : Infrarotdiagnose an Verbindungen der ener-
getischen Elektrotechnik, Fortschrittberichte VDI, ser. 21, VDI
the Technical University in Prague and received an honorary
Verlag, 1999. doctorate in London at Brunel University. He worked in the
[15] VOSTRACKY, Z.—HALLER, R. : Impact of Radiation on the company ŠKODA Plzeň in 1989-1992 as the Chairman of the
Thermal Behaviour of an Overhead Line Rope, 12th Interna- Board and in 1998-2004 as the Rector of the University of
tional Scientific Conference Electric Power Engineering, VSB – West Bohemia in Pilsen. He currently works in the field of
Technical University of Ostrava, 2011, pp. 615–618. electricity, electrical appliances and plasma physics and as a
[16] SNAJDR, J.—VOSTRACKY, Z.—SEDLACEK, J. : Evalua- lecturer at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering of the Uni-
tion of Theoretical Results of Overhead Line Ampacity Model, versity of West Bohemia in Pilsen. He is a member of the
Proceedings of the 7th International Scientific Symposium on Regional Innovation Centre of Electrical Engineering.