653-BT CIGRE Paper On AGS

653
Safe Design Tensions for Single

Conductors Fitted With Elastomer
Cushioned Suspension Units
Working Group
B2.49
April 2016
SAFE DESIGN TENSIONS FOR
SINGLE CONDUCTORS FITTED WITH
ELASTOMER CUSHIONED
SUSPENSION UNITS
WG B2.49
Members
D. Sunkle, Convenor (US), C. Pon, Secretary (CA), M. Landeira (ES), N. Sahlani (US), R. Dhakal
(NE), D. Havard (CA), P. Dulhunty (AU), T. Goodwin (US), B. Wareing (UK), C. Tamm (US), JP.
Paradis (CA), F. Delhumeau (FR), T. Furtado (BR), P. Van Dyke (CA)
Corresponding Members
C. Hardy (CA), A. Leblond (CA), C. Rawlins (US), Cécile Rozé (FR), K. Halsan (NO), A. Araujo (BR),
G. Chapman (AU).
Dedication
This paper is dedicated to the memory of Chuck Rawlins who reviewed and added insight
to the paper. Chuck was for many years a critical contributor to many CIGRE papers and
publications. His contributions will be sorely missed.
Copyright © 2016
“Ownership of a CIGRE publication, whether in paper form or on electronic support only infers right of use for personal
purposes. Are prohibited, except if explicitly agreed by CIGRE, total or partial reproduction of the publication for use other
than personal and transfer to a third party; hence circulation on any intranet or other company network is forbidden”.
Disclaimer notice
“CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it accept any responsibility, as to the
accuracy or exhaustiveness of the information. All implied warranties and conditions are excluded to the maximum extent
permitted by law”.
ISBN : 978-2-85873-356-9
ISBN: 978-2-85873-356-9
Safe Design Tensions for Single Conductors Fitted with Elastomer Cushioned Suspension Units
SAFE DESIGN TENSIONS FOR SINGLE

CONDUCTORS FITTED WITH ELASTOMER
CUSHIONED SUSPENSION UNITS
Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 4
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 5
2. HAES Influence on Fatigue Characteristics and Safe Design Tensions ............................................ 6
3. Undamped Single Conductors ........................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Laboratory Data ............................................................................................................................ 7
3.1.1 CEATI Test Program .............................................................................................................. 8
3.1.2 Fatigue Testing Undertaken at Laval University ..................................................................... 9
3.1.3 Additional Testing: Hydro-Quebec – Galloping test ........................................................... 14
3.2 Field Data .................................................................................................................................... 14
3.3 Theoretically Predicted Safe Design Tension ............................................................................... 18

4. Damped Single Conductors ............................................................................................................. 21
4.1 Field Data .................................................................................................................................... 22
5. Elastomer Suspension (ES) Clamps ................................................................................................. 22
5.1 Undamped Single Conductors – Lab Data ................................................................................... 23
5.1.1 Fatigue Testing Conducted at IREQ ..................................................................................... 23
5.1.2 Fatigue Testing Undertaken at PLP Laboratories ................................................................ 25

6. Bundle Conductors .......................................................................................................................... 26
7. Working Group Recommendations / Conclusions .......................................................................... 27
8. References ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Suspension clamps using elastomers have been used for over 50 years in vibration prone areas
to reduce damage to the conductor. It is widely accepted that units, such as the helically attached
elastomer suspension, improves the fatigue performance of the conductor. If this assumption is
correct, the conductor tension can then be increased. To date there has not been a quantitative
analysis done to determine if these suspension clamps with elastomer can withstand increased
conductor tensions. This overall work is an extension of the work done and reported in TB 273
“Overhead Conductor Safe design tension with Respect to Aeolian Vibration” which established
safe working tensions for metal suspension clamps. As with the previous work, the safe design
tension is defined with the parameter of H/w; the ratio of horizontal conductor tension “H” to
the conductor weight per unit length “w”.

Two different types of suspension clamps are evaluated; one which uses helical rods to attach
the elastomer to the conductor (HAES) and one which just uses elastomer inserts in the metal
suspension clamp (ES). The paper establishes an allowable increase of 10‐25% in H/w for the
HAES. The increase in H/w for HAES is established using both an analytical model and field data.

Although there appears to be an increase in the H/w for ES type suspension clamps, there was
not enough field data to quantify how much that increase would be.

Page 4
1. Introduction

CIGRÉ Working Group B2.49 has been assigned the task of developing recommendations for safe design
tensions with respect for Aeolian vibration for single conductors supported by suspension clamps with
elastomer liners. Suspension clamps with elastomer liners can be attached to the conductor using helical
rods or through a bolted clamp body. The most common design of suspension clamp with an elastomer
lining is the helically attached elastomer suspension (HAES) unit. A typical installation is shown
in Figure 1.
In recent years elastomer suspension (ES) clamps which do not utilize helical rods have been developed
and are becoming more popular; Figures 2 and 3 show sample designs available. The conductor is
cushioned by elastomer inserts on each half of the clamp to guard against wear, abrasion, and fatigue.
The center of these ES clamps embodies a metal‐to‐metal connection to the conductor.
Elastomer cushioned suspension units are designed to reduce the detrimental combination of contact

stresses and fretting in the tiny interfaces between wires in the vicinity and within the clamp caused by
the wind induced vibration. As a result the fatigue performance is improved.
The HAES units have been used for over 50 years with an excellent field history. The combination of the
elastomer and the helical rod design allows more vibration cycles to occur before the onset of fatigue.
The goal of this study is to give some quantification of this improvement. CIGRE TF B2.11.04 previously
developed guidelines for safe design tensions for conductors supported with unarmoured metal
suspension clamps. Their work was reported in CIGRE TB 273 [8]. The goal of Working Group B2.49 is to
build on that work and include a recommendation for safe design tensions for conductors fitted with
elastomer cushioned suspension units. As done by the previous task force, the safe design tensions will
be defined in terms of H/w, the ratio of horizontal conductor tension “H” to the conductor weight per unit
length “w”.
In this paper, the reference conductor types are round strand ACSR. This paper does not cover galvanized
or aluminized steel, earth or shield wires, OPGW, high temperature, shaped or non‐round‐stranded
conductors. Data available from laboratory and field tests are almost invariably for single, round strand,
ACSR conductors. While the advantages may be similar for bundle conductor applications, there are not
sufficient actual test and field data to confirm this and the recommendations in this report are for single
conductors only.
Also, this paper does not take into consideration the age of the fittings (including the Elastomer Liners).
The age of the elastomer liners depends on the chosen material that affects the longevity of the HAES
units. HAES units have been utilizing elastomer liners for over 50 years with excellent field performance.
Page 5
Figure 1 - HAES Type Suspension Units Figure 2 - ES Type Suspension Clamp

Figure 3 – Another ES Type Suspension Clamp
2. HAES Influence on Fatigue Characteristics and Safe Design Tensions
The HAES unit was introduced to the market in the 1950’s [12], and because of its stress reduction and
damping characteristics, has had a successful field history contributing to protect conductors against
fatigue failures. The HAES units are commonly regarded as the best suspension method from a fatigue‐
endurance point‐of‐view. They utilize helical armor rods securely attached to the conductor to reduce
radial compression (notching) of the conductor, along with an elastomeric cushion to reduce the
combination of dynamic contact stresses and fretting in the conductor. These stresses and the associated
fretting play a crucial role in the failure mechanism of the conductor.

Page 6
Previous work done to factor in the improved fatigue performance on the HAES units includes:
a) The Fatigue Life of Overhead Line Conductors by P. Dulhunty et al [1]. A nomogram is presented
to determine the conductor fatigue life. This paper indicates that the conductor tensions can be
up to 50% higher with HAES units while maintaining safe dynamic stress levels in the conductor.
This paper also indicates that the HAES static stress reduction factor is about 1.7 times higher than
the bolted suspension clamp. It cautions that at vibration levels where the HAES protects the
conductor, that other hardware, insulator strings and tower members may still be adversely
affected by the conductor vibration.
b) A Design Criterion for Conductor Fatigue Endurance on Overhead Transmission Lines by B. St. C.
Gibson [2]. Work done by Gibson in Australia in 1991 indicates that tensions can be 20% higher
with HAES than bolted suspension clamps.
c) Australian / New Zealand Standard AS/NZS7000 Overhead Line Design – This standard has a table
for the tension limit showing the benefit of using HAES type units. This table is based on anecdotal
service experience. For the HAES units, an allowable tension increase of 2.5% RTS is generally
permitted for transmission conductors [13]. This equates to a 14 to 20% increase in tension
(dependent on stranding) over undamped and unarmoured conductor tensions on post insulators
or short trunnion clamps in exposed terrain.
d) “Endurance Capability of Conductors”, CIGRE SC 22 WG04 Final Report, July 1988 by Convenor
Walter F. Bückner and Secretary Konstantin O. Papailiou [14]. In Section 5 of the report,
Estimation of Conductor Lifetime Based Upon Danger Factors, the authors indicated that the
estimated lifetime of the conductor is based on the product of multiple factors. Factor F5 is
associated with the type of suspension method used and is tabulated in Table 9 of that report.
Table 9 indicates, with all other things being equal, the safe tension with the HAES unit is between
29% and 40% higher than the normal standard clamp.
3. Undamped Single Conductors

The goal of this section is to recommend safe design tensions for single conductors without any other
damping system. The approach taken by the Working Group has been inspired by the previous work of TF
B2.11.04 published in CIGRE TB 273 [8].
3.1 Laboratory Data

Laboratory testing has also been undertaken to determine relative fatigue performance of HAES units.
It should be noted that indoor laboratory testing can compare fatigue performance of conductors with
different clamps under similar vibration amplitudes.

Page 7
Laboratory fatigue tests are usually carried out at a single frequency and amplitude that are chosen to
produce failures within a practical duration. In contrast, the vibration frequencies and amplitudes of field
tests are random and may take years before damage occurs.
3.1.1 CEATI Test Program
An Aeolian vibration test program was sponsored by CEATI, a consortium of international electrical
utilities, to determine the relative fatigue performance of conductor supported in a HAES unit compared
to a metal suspension clamp. Six tests were completed in a 27 m long indoor test span at Preformed
Line Products Laboratories [4]: three with the conductor supported in bolted suspension clamps without
armour rods, and three with the conductor supported in HAES units. Figure 4 shows the test setup and
Table 1 shows the test parameters. The test control was the same for all tests and set at fymax of 318
mm/s where “f” is frequency of vibration and “ymax“ is peak amplitude of vibration at the antinode. All
tests were completed at room temperature. It should be noted that the amplitudes used in these tests
are necessarily higher than those normally experienced in field spans during Aeolian vibration, to ensure
failures within a reasonable testing time. Table 2 shows the test results.

Figure 4 – Bolted metal-to-metal clamp (left) and HAES unit (right) on PLP test bench

H/w fymax Frequency

Conductor Tension (N) Failure Definition
(m) (mm/s) (Hz)
3 conductor wires
26/7 ACSR 30826
1931 318 32.8 – 33.6 or
(Drake) (22% RTS)
3 helical rods
Table 1 – Test Parameters

Page 8
Suspension Clamp Number of Cycles to Failure
Test No. Failure Observed
Type (mc)
1 Metal‐to‐metal 2.1 7 conductor wires
2 HAES 5.9 3 rods
1 rod, 2 outer conductor
4 HAES 10.2
wires
6 HAES 10.0 2 rods, 3 conductor wires
Average tests
Metal‐to‐metal 2.1
1,3,5
Average tests
HAES 8.7
2,4,6
Table 2 - CEATI Test Results

These test results indicate that the HAES unit has a significantly higher fatigue endurance capability than
the standard bolted metal‐to‐metal suspension clamp.
Failures observed in Table 2 exceed the failure definition in Table 1 because it was difficult to observe
wire failures inside the suspension clamp. The Rawlins method for determining conductor wire failures
was employed [6]. This method implies that any change in torsional movement of the conductor
indicates that fatigue failure of an individual wire in the conductor has occurred. To monitor this
movement of the conductor, a Linear Variable Displacement Transducer (LVDT) was installed at the first
node adjacent to the suspension clamp to monitor rotation.
3.1.2 Fatigue Testing Undertaken at Laval University
GREMCA (Groupe de Recherche en Mécanique des Conducteurs Aériens) at Laval University carried out
several parallel fatigue tests on ACSR Crow (323‐A1/A2‐54/7) conductor specimens supported either in an
unarmoured metal‐to‐metal, "book‐type" clamp without elastomer cushioning or a HAES unit [5,7]. The
tests were carried out at near constant 32.7 kN (25% RTS) conductor tension on so‐called resonance test
benches which are described in detail in reference [5] together with the test methodology. The metal‐to‐
metal suspension clamp was rigidly fixed at one end of the test bench framework as shown in Fig. 5a so
that translation and rocking of the clamp was negligible. In the case of the HAES unit, the housing as well
as the conductor‐armor rods assembly just outside the bird‐cage on the dead‐end side of the clamp was
also rigidly fixed to the test bench framework as shown in Fig. 5b. Hence, a tiny movement of the
conductor inside the shell was possible in this case.
Page 9
Figure 5a – Metal-to-metal “book-type” Figure 5b – HAES unit on GREMCA test bench

The results are shown in Table 3 for the metal‐to‐metal suspension clamp and in Table 4 for the HAES unit.
This data is presented graphically in Figure 6 in terms of Megacycles (Mc) to first failure and bending
parameter fymax.. This is the best parameter for such tests because the other parameters, such as bending
amplitude Yb or the derived, idealized bending stress a [5, 6], are only valid when the last point of contact
can be clearly defined, and is also a more acceptable failure than a broken conductor strand.
The data points correspond to the first failure, i.e. to the first wire failure for the metallic clamp cases and
to both the first rod failure and the first wire failure for the HAES unit cases. These data points can be
related by distinct, best‐fit, straight line segments1 showing that at the same bending parameter fymax, the
HAES unit reveals a higher fatigue endurance capability than the metal‐to‐metal suspension clamp. At
fymax = 400 mm/s, the ratio of the number of cycles before failure comes to 1.5÷0.75 = 2.0. In the case of
HAES units, the first armor rod failure in most cases precedes the first wire strand failure. Therefore,
failure of an armour rod is a good visual indicator of severe vibration on the line.

Some tests were carried out at intermediate fymax values, in the vicinity of 300 mm/s, on the metal‐to‐
metal suspension clamp. It may be seen on Figure 6 that the data points 3 are now much more scattered
which is not unexpected at these lower amplitudes [7]. It may also be observed that the slope of the high‐
amplitude best‐fit straight line segment 2 and the general log‐mean S‐N curve 1 differ greatly, which
suggests that the principle governing fretting‐fatigue may differ at intermediate and low amplitudes.

1
It can be seen in Figure 8 that the generic log‐mean S‐N curve for ACSR in metal‐metal [7] clamps has a low curvature over two decades of
megacycles to failure. Therefore, using a straight line segment as the best fit line over one decade appears entirely appropriate.
Page 10
Besides, it may be seen that the intermediate‐amplitude data points 3 approaches the general log‐mean
S‐N 2 curve 1 which translates the fatigue performance of multi‐layer ACSR conductors supported in
various types of metallic clamps at amplitude fymax lower than about 300 mm/s [7]. As a matter of fact,
one would expect line segment 2 to bend gradually as amplitudes fymax get lower than 400 mm/s and then
to match S‐N curve 1.
Straight‐line segment 4 which corresponds to the armor rod failure in the HAES unit case would also be
expected to bend the same way and reach a specific, parallel SN curve standing on the right hand side of
S‐N curve 1. On account of the divergence of straight‐line segments 2 and 4 at high amplitudes, it is not
unreasonable to conclude that the endurance ratio between the HAES unit and the metal‐to‐metal
suspension clamp may reach a value up to about 3 at lower amplitudes.

No. of cycles No. of cycles No. of cycles
fymax fymax fymax
to 1st failure to 1st failure to 1st failure
(mm/s) (mm/s) (mm/s)
(Mc) (Mc) (Mc)
263 6.17 475 0.37 610 0.068
264 1.17 480 0.25 626 0.06
290 1.44 480 0.238 628 0.08
291 0.811 481 0.3 727 0.053
316 2.81 482 0.24 731 0.057
407 1.18 487 0.358 756 0.044
414 1.18 492 0.22 827 0.031
420 1.18 492 0.38 846 0.019
460 0.46 502 0.32 850 0.0195
467 0.368 502 0.344
469 0.42 509 0.183
473 0.177 512 0.258
Table 3 - Laval University Test Results : ACSR Crow in Metal-to-Metal Clamp

2
S‐N curve is a curve in a graphic format which relates to number “N” of vibration cycles at first failure to stress amplitudes “S”. In this case S
depends on fymax.
Page 11

fymax No. of cycles to 1st rod No. of cycles to 1st
mm/sec failure (Mc) wire failure (Mc)
440 0.49
561 0.17 1.11
650 0.165 0.478
605 0.193 0.92
656 0.12 0.46
467 0.72
562 0.4 0.98
465 0.67 1.9
466 0.98 2.03
557 0.155
Table 4 - Laval University Test Results: ACSR Crow in HAES unit

Page 12

Figure 6 - Fatigue Tests of the ACSR Crow Conductor Supported either in HAES or Metal-to-Metal
Clamps [5] and Log-Mean S-N Curve for Multi-Layer ACSR Conductors in Metal-to-Metal Clamps [7]

Based on the laboratory tests of sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, it can be concluded that at similar vibration test
levels, the HAES unit may have up to 3 times greater endurance capability than common metal‐to‐metal
clamps.
Page 13
3.1.3 Additional Testing: Hydro-Quebec – Galloping test
The tests simulating galloping on conductors were carried out at the Hydro‐Quebec outdoor test line in
Varennes [3]. Table 5 shows the test data and results.
Test Suspension Tension H/w Hours of Mode of

Conductor
Number Type (N) (m) galloping Failure
HAES 53340 None

3570 58 hours
Metal‐to‐Metal (41% RTS) None
Condor 54/7
1 HAES Same Sample None
(27.8 mm)
Increased to
69850 4680 5 additional hours
Metal‐to‐Metal First layer
(55% RTS)
HAES Condor 54/7 69850 None

2 4680 30 hours
Metal‐to‐Metal (27.8 mm) (55% RTS) Six broken wires
Table 5 - Galloping Test Results

Based on the observations at the conclusion of the tests, the conductor under the metal‐to‐metal
suspension clamp was found to be severely damaged under the galloping test while the HAES unit was
found to protect the conductor completely from fatigue damage. No rods of the HAES unit were damaged.
3.2 Field Data

The Working Group collected 21 different field vibration cases of transmission lines equipped with HAES
units, with conductor tensions that in other situations could result in fatigue failures. The primary data of
interest was conductor type, diameter, unit weight, tension, span length, terrain category, age and
whether any fatigue failures occurred. Table 6 shows the terrain classification criteria that were used; the
same as those defined in CIGRE TB 273 [8].
Page 14
Average
Terrain
Terrain characteristics intensity of
category
turbulence
Open, flat, no trees, no obstruction, with snow cover, or near/across large
1 8%
bodies of water, flat desert.
Open, flat, no obstruction, no snow, e.g. farmland without any obstruction,
2 15%
summer time.
Open, flat or undulating with very few obstacles, e.g. open grass or
3 22%
farmland with few trees, hedgerows and other barriers; prairie, tundra.
Built‐up with some trees and building, e.g. residential suburbs; small
4 30%
towns, woodlands and shrubs; small fields with bushes, trees and hedges.
Table 6 - Classification of terrains

The field data is shown in Table 7. Examination of that table discloses two cases that are particularly
helpful in defining safe tension limits with HAES units, namely Case No. 9 and Case No. 11, both involving
lines with Category 3 terrain. In the first case, no fatigue failure could be found where the tension
parameter H/w was 1578 m, thus indicating that the safe tension could be somewhat higher. In contrast,
fatigue failures were discovered in Case No. 11, where the tension parameter H/w was 1647 m, thus
indicating that safe tension should definitely be lower. It is therefore proposed to use, tentatively, the
average value of 1613 m, as the safe design tension parameter for terrain Category 3.
It is important to note that all safe lines with H/w  1578 m, namely cases nos. 1, 2, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16 and
18 have been in service for 38 years or more. Hence, it is implicitly postulated that fatigue failures due to
Aeolian vibrations on these lines would have revealed themselves if those tensions were unsafe.
As for the other terrain categories, it was demonstrated in CIGRE TB 273 [8] dealing with conductors
supported in metal‐to‐metal clamps, that safe design tensions vary linearly with intensity of wind
turbulence (i.e. with terrain category). Hence, it is proposed to use the same rule to transpose safe design
tension for terrain Category 3 to the other terrain categories. The results appear in Table 8, where it is
shown that the safe design tension parameter H/w for ACSR conductors supported in HAES units is in the
range 1275 m to 1800m in comparison to a range of 1000 m to 1425 m for the same conductors supported
in metal‐to‐metal clamps, a 27% increase.
It has been demonstrated in CIGRE TB 273 [8] that safe design tensions for conductors with added local
damping provided by such devices as Stockbridge dampers are a function of span length. Safe design
tensions were shown to increase as span length decreases. The span length parameter LD/m (where L is
span length, D is conductor diameter and m is conductor mass per unit length) was defined for this
purpose. In the case of HAES units, there is actually some additional local damping provided by the action
of the elastomer and the armor rods. As a result, for short spans the safe design tensions would be
expected to be higher than those derived above. However, there is not enough field data to verify this.
Page 15
Age of line Diameter Span length Tension H/w LD/m

Case # Terrain category Conductor Failure
[years] [mm] [m] [N] [m] [m3/kg]
954 Kcmil 45/7
1 ≥ 41 2 29.6 ‐ 21516 1373 No ‐
ACSR Rail
954 Kcmil 45/7
2 ≥ 40 2 29.6 233 17948 1145 No 4.2
ACSR Rail
266.8 Kcmil 26/7
3 48 2 16.3 220 12455 2326 Yes 6.6
ACSR Partridge
266.8 Kcmil 26/7
4 49 2 16.3 201 9608 1796 Yes* 6.0
ACSR Partridge
795 Kcmil 24/7
5 49 2 27.7 201 24643 1652 No 3.7
ACSR Cuckoo
795 Kcmil 26/7
6 ≥ 45 2 28.1 312 28023 1756 No** 5.4
ACSR Drake
1272 Kcmil 45/7
7 38 2 34.2 426 27134 1299 No 6.8
ACSR Bittern
795 Kcmil 26/7
8 ≥ 45 2 28.1 304 29838 1870 No 5.3
ACSR Drake
954 Kcmil 54/7
9 49 3 30.4 ‐ 28264 1578 No ‐
ACSR Cardinal
795 Kcmil 26/7
10 31 2 28.1 316 33793 2117 No 5.5
ACSR Drake
477 Kcmil 45/7
11 ≥ 28 3 21.5 228 14759 1647 Yes 5.4
ACSR Flicker
1272 Kcmil 45/7
12 48 3 33.6 204 32116 1537 No 3.2
ACSR Bittern
2160 Kcmil 84/19
13 43 2 44.8 334 56212 1531 No 4.0
ACSR Bluebird
336.4 Kcmil 26/7
14 34 1 18.3 131 12361 1831 No 3.5
ACSR Linnet
290 Kcmil 30/7
15 ≥ 22 2 17.5 323 15399 2316 No** 8.4
ACSR Grape
266.8 Kcmil 26/7
16 52 2 16.3 189 7005 1309 No 5.6
ACSR Partridge
1351.5 Kcmil 54/19
17 42 2 36.2 389 52.934 2092 No 5.4
ACSR Martin
1272 Kcmil 45/7
18 ≥ 40 2 33.6 279 15613 747 No 4.4
ACSR Bittern
795 Kcmil 26/7
19 n/a 1 28.1 335 20017 1475 No 6.9
ACSR Drake
336.4 Kcmil 26/7
20 n/a n/a 18.3 ‐ 11478 1698 Yes ‐
ACSR Linnet
Page 16
336.4 Kcmil 30/7
21 10 2 18.8 ‐ 1541 2006 Yes ‐
ACSR Oriole
* 1 broken suspension rod was found
** No failures found but expected at this recorded vibration level
Table 7 - Data from Field Vibration Studies on Conductors in HAES Units
Figure 7 - Summary of Field Vibration Studies for Undamped ACSR Conductors (Table 7)
HAES Units (m)
Terrain Metal‐to‐metal
category clamp [5] (m) From field data /
Rounded values
interpolation
1 1000 1265 1275
2 1125 1423 1425
3 1275 1613 1625
4 1425 1802 1800
Table 8 - Safe Design Tension (H/w) for ACSR Conductor in Metal-to-Metal

Clamps and HAES Units based on available field data
Page 17
3.3 Theoretically Predicted Safe Design Tension

Based on the laboratory test data presented in section 3.1, which suggests the fatigue endurance
capability of ACSR with HAES units maybe about 3 times higher than for the same conductors supported
in metal‐to‐metal clamps, one may ask what could be the influence on safe design tension. This influence
may be estimated by means of a theoretical model such as the one used by Leblond & Hardy [9] for CIGRE
TF B2.11.04 that assessed the safe design tension for unarmoured conductors supported in metal‐to‐
metal clamps.

This is a probabilistic model which was developed on the following grounds:
 Aeolian vibrations are assimilated to narrow‐band random vibrations thus translating their actual
beat‐like nature [10].
 Wind turbulence is assumed to vary randomly according to a normal distribution which reflects
actual observations [10].
 Conductor fatigue endurance is also assumed to be of a random nature but according to a log‐
normal distribution [7], again mimicking reality.
 Fatigue damage is assumed to accumulate linearly according to Miner's rule [11].
Now, as shown in Figure 8, it is to be noted that a threefold increase in the endurance capability of ACSR
in HAES clamps with respect to ACSR in metal‐to‐metal clamps results in a translation by a factor of 3 of
the corresponding S‐N curve. Besides, in order to proceed with this particular model, the scattering of
fatigue endurance data about the mean is required, i.e. scattering of fatigue endurance capability for any
value of the parameter fymax. As that is not known for conductors supported in HAES units, it is postulated
here that relative scattering is the same as that which applies to conductors supported in metal‐to‐metal
clamps. Figure 8 shows the resulting log‐mean S‐N curves together with the 95% confidence interval limits.
Page 18

Figure 8 – Theoretical Fatigue Characteristics of ACSR
Conductors in HAES Units and Metal-to-Metal Clamps
The CIGRE safe design tension for conductors supported in metal‐to‐metal clamps corresponds to an
expected fatigue life of 50 years with a 67% probability of survival. It is proposed that the same target be
adopted for HAES units.
The predicted safe design tensions (H/w) are shown in Table 9 for all four terrain categories together with
the corresponding values as determined from the field data and also the CIGRE values for conductors
supported in metal‐to‐metal clamps. Hence, for any terrain category, predictions based on a 300%
increase in conductor fatigue endurance capability over the metal‐to‐metal cases explains only 11% of the
27% increase indicated from field experience. This underestimation of the predicted safe design tension
may be attributed to several factors in relation to assumptions and input parameters in the model as well
as to field study data. But it is likely to depend largely on the fact that the additional damping provided by
the HAES units has been neglected in the calculations. It is recognized that application of armour rods at
suspension clamps imparts a small amount of damping to vibrating spans [6]. There is also the possible
additional damping due to the elastomer insert.
Page 19
Safe design tension parameter H/w for ACSR conductors in
Terrain HAES clamps (m)
category Metal‐to‐metal
Values Theoretical Theoretical Rounded
clamps [5] (m)
Values Values
(based on field data)
1 1000 1265 1097 1100
2 1125 1423 1256 1250
3 1275 1613 1419 1425
4 1425 1802 1591 1600
Table 9 – Theoretical Safe Design Tension for ACSR Conductors Supported in HAES

The maximum safe design tensions with respect to Aeolian vibrations for undamped ACSR conductors

fitted with helically‐attached, elastomer‐cushioned suspension (HAES) units, as determined by the
Working Group, are summarized in Table 10 as a function of terrain category. The table uses H/w, the
ratio of horizontal tension to conductor weight per unit length as the design parameter. It is important to
note that this tension refers to initial horizontal tension, before significant wind and ice loading and before
creep, at the average temperature of the coldest month for the site of the line. A newly constructed line
is most vulnerable to Aeolian vibration after sagging and prior to clipping‐in, especially in the colder
months because of the higher tensions and likelihood of low turbulent winds. After clipping‐in the HAES
units the early life of the line remains a vulnerable period. Although the tensions reported in the field
studies are final after creep values, the safe tensions derived from the field data are initial tensions for
conservativeness.

Two approaches were given; one based on the actual field data and one based on a theoretical model.
The Working Group recommends using the values derived from the field data. But it is up to the user to
decide whether to use the more conservative values derived from the theoretical approach.

Terrain characteristics Safe H/w [m]
Page 20
Terrain Theoretical
Field Data Approach
category Approach
Open, flat, no trees, no obstruction, with snow cover, or
1 1275 1100
near/across large bodies of water, flat desert.
Open, flat, no obstruction, no snow, e.g. farmland
2 1425 1250
without any obstruction, summer time.
Open, flat or undulating with very few obstacles, e.g.
3 open grass or farmland with few trees, hedgerows and 1625 1425
other barriers; prairie, tundra.
Built‐up with some trees and building, e.g. residential
4 suburbs; small towns, woodlands and shrubs; small fields 1800 1600
with bushes, trees and hedges.
Table 10 - Safe Design Tensions with Respect to Aeolian Vibrations for Undamped ACSR
Conductors Fitted with Helically-Attached Elastomer-Cushioned Suspension (HAES) Units

The safe design tension recommended herein should be suitable most of the time. However, special
situations require specific attention. Such is the case for extra‐long spans, spans exposed to prolonged
transverse low turbulence winds such as waterways or ravine crossings, or spans exposed to pollutants
that may decrease the fatigue endurance of the conductor, or spans often covered with ice, rime or
hoarfrost.
Generally speaking, vibration dampers are inexpensive and preferable to risking conductor fatigue breaks.
Moreover, use of dampers may allow higher tensions resulting in significant cost savings in line
construction.
4. Damped Single Conductors

This section aims at recommending safe design tensions for single conductors in HAES clamps that are
also protected with Stockbridge type vibration dampers. Field data for damped single conductors using
HAES units were not found in sufficient quantity to draw any useful conclusion. Only one case of conductor
or clamp failure was reported.
Page 21
4.1 Field Data

Table 11 – Field Data on Damped Conductors in HAES Units
Summary of Vibration Studies on Damped Conductor
Dia Damper Suspension LD/m

Terrain Conductor Tension (N) H / w (m) Failure
(mm) Type Type (m3/kg)
954 Kcmil 45/7 Stockbridge
1 29.59 HAES 24643 1572 No 4.3
ACSR (Rail) (1 per span)
3 28.14 HAES 33410 2097 No 5.4
ACSR (Drake) (1 per span)
2 28.14 HAES 33793 2121 No 5.5
ACSR (Drake) (1 per span)
266.8 Kcmil 26/7 Stockbridge
2 16.31 HAES 9608 1793 No 3.3
ACSR (Partridge) (1 per span)
4 24.82 HAES 14950 1249 No 6.4
ACSR (Rook) (1 per span)
477 Kcmil 26/7 SVD (2 per
2 21.79 HAES 20350 2122 No 4.9
ACSR (Hawk) span)
2 30.38 HAES 28913 1612 No 4.6
ACSR (Cardinal) (1 per span)
2 38.2 HAES 46933 1794 No 7.6
ACSR (Lapwing) (1 per span)
Yes after 3
311.1 Kcmil Stockbridge years
19/3.75 11220 (inadequate
2 16.3 (2 per span) HAES 2641 12.4
AAAC/1120 damper
(30% RTS)
(Krypton) 330m spans efficiency
at 70Hz)
5. Elastomer Suspension (ES) Clamps

The Elastomer Suspension (ES) clamp was introduced to the market in the 1990’s as an improved
alternative to the bolted metal‐to‐metal suspension clamp. In theory, the addition of the elastomer
reduces the bending stress at the mouth of the clamp compared to a metal‐to‐metal clamp without
armour rods. It utilizes a symmetrical clamp with elastomeric inserts for conductor protection against
dynamic and static stresses.
Page 22
5.1 Undamped Single Conductors – Lab Data

Laboratory testing has been undertaken to determine improved fatigue performance of new ES clamps.

5.1.1 Fatigue Testing Conducted at IREQ

In order to quantify the performance of this clamp in comparison with a standard metal‐to‐metal clamp,
fatigue tests were undertaken according to IEC 62568 “Method for fatigue testing of conductors for
overhead lines” [15]. The ES clamp tests were completed at IREQ (Hydro‐Québec’s Research Institute)
and compared with tests completed previously at GREMCA (Laval University) on the same conductor in a
saddle‐type metal‐to‐metal suspension clamp in use on Hydro‐Québec transmission lines. Six additional
tests using the same metal‐to‐metal clamp were also performed at IREQ to validate the reproducibility
of the test results between the two laboratories. The test parameters used at IREQ are provided in Table
12.
A comparison of the results (Figure 9) clearly shows the conductor fatigue life improvement in the ES
clamp. The endurance limit of the Crow conductor / clamp combination may be defined as the highest
amplitude without any wire failure at 500 Megacycles. Consequently, the endurance limit of the Crow
conductor in the ES clamp and metal‐to‐metal clamp are respectively fymax=220 mm/s (σ=38 MPa) and
fymax=140 mm/s (σ=24 MPa), which means that the performance improvement is reflected by an
endurance limit being 60% higher with the ES clamp, over a metal‐to‐metal clamp.
Conductor Tension Control Frequency Failure definition
ACSR 54/7 Crow 29 kN fymax 54‐55 Hz 1 conductor wire

Dia.: 26.3 mm 25% RTS
m: 1.369 kg/m H/w: 2160 m
RTS: 117.2 kN
Table 12 – Test parameters

Page 23
70 400
60 350
300
50
(fY ma x) (MPa)
250
fYma x (mm/s)
40
3 dots super imposed 200
30
150
20
ES clamp - 1st failure 100
ES clamp - no failure
10
Metal clamp - 1st failure
Metal clamp - 1st failure 50
Metal clamp - no failure
0 0
0,1 1 10 100 1000
Megacycles to failure

Figure 9 – Fatigue test of ACSR Crow
conductor in ES clamp and metal-to-metal clamp
(orange dots: GREMCA results, orange stars: IREQ results)
Page 24
5.1.2 Fatigue Testing Undertaken at PLP Laboratories

An Aeolian vibration test program (similar to the CEATI test program in section 3.1.1) was undertaken to
compare the fatigue performance of a conductor supported in an ES clamp to one supported in a HAES
unit and a metal‐to‐metal suspension clamp. The test was completed at the Laboratories of Preformed
Line Products with new (un‐aged) ES clamps. Table 13 shows the test parameters:
Conductor Tension (N) Control Frequency (Hz) Failure Definition
26/7 ACSR 30826
fymax (318 mm/s) 32.8 – 33.6 3 conductor wires
(Drake) (22% RTS)
Table 13 – Test Parameters

Table 14 shows the test results of the ES when compared to the CEATI test results.
Suspension Clamp Number of Cycles to
Test No. Failure Observed
Type Failure (millions)
2 HAES 5.9 3 rods
4 HAES 10.2 1 rod, 2 outer conductor wires
6 HAES 10 2 rods, 3 conductor wires
7 ES (without rods) 11.2 5 conductor wires
Table 14 - Test Results

Page 25
Based on this limited laboratory data, the ES clamp has improved performance over bolted metal‐to‐metal
suspension clamps and has similar fatigue endurance as the HAES units. It should be noted that these tests
were undertaken at the same vibration level whereas the HAES clamp would be expected to provide some
reduction in field vibration level compared to the ES clamp due to the presence of the helical rods.
In conclusion, the ES suspension clamp improves the endurance limit of the conductor compared with a
metal‐to‐metal clamp (at least for the type of clamp tested). However, field and laboratory data, in
particular with other types of metallic clamps, is very limited and no firm conclusions can be drawn at this
time regarding allowable H/w values with this clamp. Therefore, it is recommended that the ES suspension
clamp should be studied further in the future.
6. Bundle Conductors

Absence of laboratory tests and lack of data on field performance prevent any conclusion to be deduced
for the application of HAES units and ES clamps on bundle conductors.
Page 26
7. Working Group Recommendations / Conclusions

 Comparative laboratory tests indicate significantly improved fatigue performance of conductors
supported in HAES units compared to metal‐to‐metal clamps.
 Field data from conductors with up to 52 years in service provide the basis for increased levels
of safe tension for conductors supported in HAES units compared to metal‐to‐metal clamps
 Theoretical studies indicate higher safe tension levels for conductors supported in HAES units
compared to metal‐to‐metal clamps.
 Recommended safe tension levels for conductors supported in HAES units compared to metal‐
to‐metal clamps are provided for four levels of terrain and turbulence intensity.
 Two safe approaches can be chosen for applications using HAES units: the H/w values based on
the field data as recommended by the Working Group, or the more conservative predicted H/w
values based on the theoretical model.
 Results available from a limited laboratory test program indicate improved conductor fatigue
performance with ES clamps, but are insufficient to provide supportable guidelines.
 The above conclusions on conductor fatigue performance are for single conductor applications
only and equivalent results for bundle conductor applications cannot be quantified at this time.
 All data obtained were from round strand ACSR conductors under “normal conditions”. These
conclusions and recommendations cannot be applied to other conductor materials and
constructions at this time.
 Even though the aging of the elastomer was not considered in this paper, field data with over 30
years of history showed excellent performance of conductors fitted with the HAES units.

Page 27
8. References

[1] Dulhunty, P.W., Lamprecht, A. and Roughan, J., "The Fatigue Life of Overhead Line Conductors",
CIGRÉ SC22‐WG04 Task Force document, 1982.
[2] Gibson, B. St. C., “A Design Criterion for Conductor Fatigue Endurance on Overhead Transmission
Lines”, internal study, September 1991.
[3] Van Dyke, P., Laneville, A., “HAWS Clamp Performance on A High Voltage Overhead Test Lines”,
6th International Symposium on Cable Dynamics, South Carolina, 19‐22 September 2005.
[4] CEATI Report No. T093700‐3364, “Conductor Fatigue Work for Armor‐Grip Suspension Clamps”,
April 2011.
[5] Cloutier, L., Goudreau, S. & Cardou, A., Chapter on "Fatigue of Overhead Conductors" in EPRI
Transmission Line Reference Book: Wind‐Induced Conductor Motion: Second Edition, 2009.
[6] Rawlins, C.B., Chapter on "Fatigue of Overhead Conductors" in EPRI Transmission Line Reference
Book: Wind‐Induced Conductor Motion: First Edition, 1979.
[7] Hardy, C. & Leblond A., "Statistical Analysis of Stranded Conductor Fatigue Endurance Data",
Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Cable Dynamics, Montreal, pp. 195‐202,
May 2001.
[8] CIGRE TF B2.11.04, "Overhead Conductor Safe Design Tension with Respect to Aeolian Vibrations.
CIGRE Technical Brochure 273, June 2005.
[9] Leblond, A. & Hardy, C., “Assessment of Safe Design Tension with Regard to Aeolian Vibrations of
Single Overhead Conductors”, Proc. of the ESMO 2000 Conference, Montréal, pp. 202‐208, 8‐12
October 2000.
[10] Noiseux, D.U., Houle, S. & Beauchemin, R., "Transformation of Wind Tunnel Data on Aeolian
Vibrations for Application to Random Conductor Vibrations in a Turbulent Wind", IEEE Trans. on
Power Delivery, Vol. 3, No. 1, January 1988.
[11] CIGRE SC22 WG04, "Recommendations for the Evaluation of the Lifetime of Transmission Line

Conductors", Electra No. 63, pp. 103‐145, March 1979.
[12] Poffenberger, J.C., “Cushioned Suspension… its Relationship to Long‐term Safety and Reliability of
EHV Bundled Conductors”, Electrical World, pp. 76‐79, 21 September 1964.
[13] AS/NZ 7000:2010, Australian/New Zealand Standard, Overhead line design – Detailed procedures,
November 2010.
[14] Walter F. Bückner, and Konstantin O. Papailiou, “Endurance Capability of Conductors”, CIGRE SC22
WG04, Final Report, 1988.
[15] IEC 62568 “Overhead lines ‐ Method for fatigue testing of conductors”, Ed. 1.0 2015‐07.
Page 28
ISBN: 978-2-85873-356-9

653-BT CIGRE Paper On AGS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

653-BT CIGRE Paper On AGS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

653

Safe Design Tensions for Single

SAFE DESIGN TENSIONS FOR SINGLE

3.1 Laboratory Data ............................................................................................................................ 7

3.1.1 CEATI Test Program .............................................................................................................. 8

3.1.2 Fatigue Testing Undertaken at Laval University ..................................................................... 9

3.1.3 Additional Testing: Hydro-Quebec – Galloping test ........................................................... 14

3.2 Field Data .................................................................................................................................... 14

3.3 Theoretically Predicted Safe Design Tension ............................................................................... 18

5.1 Undamped Single Conductors – Lab Data ................................................................................... 23

5.1.1 Fatigue Testing Conducted at IREQ ..................................................................................... 23

5.1.2 Fatigue Testing Undertaken at PLP Laboratories ................................................................ 25

Elastomer cushioned suspension units are designed to reduce the detrimental combination of contact

Figure 1 - HAES Type Suspension Units Figure 2 - ES Type Suspension Clamp

Figure 3 – Another ES Type Suspension Clamp

2. HAES Influence on Fatigue Characteristics and Safe Design Tensions

3. Undamped Single Conductors

3.1 Laboratory Data

H/w fymax Frequency

Table 1 – Test Parameters

1 Metal‐to‐metal 2.1 7 conductor wires

2 HAES 5.9 3 rods

3 Metal‐to‐metal 1.6 7 conductor wires

5 Metal‐to‐metal 2.6 10 conductor wires

6 HAES 10.0 2 rods, 3 conductor wires

Table 2 - CEATI Test Results

Figure 5a – Metal-to-metal “book-type” Figure 5b – HAES unit on GREMCA test bench

263 6.17 475 0.37 610 0.068

264 1.17 480 0.25 626 0.06

290 1.44 480 0.238 628 0.08

291 0.811 481 0.3 727 0.053

316 2.81 482 0.24 731 0.057

407 1.18 487 0.358 756 0.044

414 1.18 492 0.22 827 0.031

420 1.18 492 0.38 846 0.019

460 0.46 502 0.32 850 0.0195

467 0.368 502 0.344

469 0.42 509 0.183

473 0.177 512 0.258

Table 3 - Laval University Test Results : ACSR Crow in Metal-to-Metal Clamp

561 0.17 1.11

650 0.165 0.478

605 0.193 0.92

656 0.12 0.46

562 0.4 0.98

465 0.67 1.9

466 0.98 2.03

Table 4 - Laval University Test Results: ACSR Crow in HAES unit

3.1.3 Additional Testing: Hydro-Quebec – Galloping test

Test Suspension Tension H/w Hours of Mode of

HAES 53340 None

HAES Condor 54/7 69850 None

Table 5 - Galloping Test Results

3.2 Field Data

Table 6 - Classification of terrains

Age of line Diameter Span length Tension H/w LD/m

Table 7 - Data from Field Vibration Studies on Conductors in HAES Units

1 1000 1265 1275

2 1125 1423 1425

3 1275 1613 1625

4 1425 1802 1800

Table 8 - Safe Design Tension (H/w) for ACSR Conductor in Metal-to-Metal

3.3 Theoretically Predicted Safe Design Tension