See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337591132

Risk-Based Management of Transmission Lines Enhanced With the Dynamic

Thermal Rating System

Article  in  IEEE Access · November 2019

DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2921575

CITATIONS READS

22 104

2 authors:

Jiashen Teh Ching-Ming Lai

Universiti Sains Malaysia National Chung Hsing University
70 PUBLICATIONS   887 CITATIONS    127 PUBLICATIONS   1,442 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Reduce the reactive power consumed by LCC converters in the HVDC system. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jiashen Teh on 28 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received May 28, 2019, accepted June 4, 2019, date of publication June 7, 2019, date of current version June 26, 2019.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2921575

Risk-Based Management of Transmission Lines

Enhanced With the Dynamic Thermal
Rating System
JIASHEN TEH 1, (Member, IEEE), AND CHING-MING LAI 2, (Senior Member, IEEE)
1 Schoolof Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang 14300, Malaysia
2 Department of Electrical Engineering, National Chung Hsing University (NCHU), Taichung 402, Taiwan

Corresponding authors: Jiashen Teh (jiashenteh@usm.my) and Ching-Ming Lai (pecmlai@gmail.com)

This work was supported in part by the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) Research University Incentive (RUI) under
Grant 1001/PELECT/8014099, and in part by the UPE-USM under Grant 304/PELECT/6050385.

ABSTRACT This paper presents a risk-based management framework for transmission lines equipped with
a dynamic thermal rating system. In this framework, future wind speed values required for calculating
conductor temperature are forecasted using the auto-regressive moving-average model. The dynamic thermal
model used in this paper is based on the IEEE 738 standard. The forecasted conductor temperature is used
to determine the associated conductor loss of tensile strength, i.e., the annealing degree of the conductor,
on the basis of the Harvey model. A cost profile is also provided for tensile strength lost. Simultaneously,
temperature and conductor age are used to predict the failure probability of the conductor using the
Arrhenius–Weibull model. Finally, the product of the economics of conductor annealing and conductor
failure probability provides the risk value, which can be compared with the admissible risk. The results show
that risk can be mitigated by reducing either conductor temperature or the applied duration of the conductor.
Moreover, a desirable forecast of wind speed values also poses less risk and vice versa. The sensitivity
analyses show that the considerations taken during the formulation of the framework are reasonable and they
only affect the numerical results, thereby indicating that the proposed framework is robust against various
operating conditions of the parameters considered in the framework.

INDEX TERMS Dynamic thermal rating systems, transmission line, risk, probabilistic, conductor, ageing,
failure, forecasting.

I. INTRODUCTION of all communities by subscribing to sustainable methods of

Electrical power networks in the transmission and distri-
bution levels constantly face new demands to continuously
evolve to stay relevant, resilient and reliable [1]. Such evolu-
tion constitutes and falls under the popular paradigm of smart
grids, where existing power systems will be enhanced with
various innovative technologies that encompass all engineer-
ing disciplines. The aim of such development is to transform
existing power networks into intelligent systems that can
match various types of growing energy demands [2], such
as electric vehicles and renewable energy sources; ultimately,
the smart grid paradigm seeks to increase the social welfare
The associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript and
approving it for publication was Zhen Li.
energy production, delivery and consumption.
Considering the aforementioned reasons, the future invest-
ments and strategies of power systems will be primarily
driven by the changing scenarios of smart grids [3]; one of
the cost-effective and sustainable approaches to meet these
scenarios is to develop strategies that can maximize the
capacity usage of existing underutilized components. That is,
the thermal ratings of power assets should be dynamically
determined instead of being fixed at low conservative values
to unleash and reap their true potential and investment values.
Amongst power assets, transmission lines [4] have elicited
the interest of researchers and practitioners in applying the
dynamic thermal rating (DTR) due to their high replacement
costs and the uprating benefits offered by the DTR system,
such as higher power delivery [5], greater flexibility during

2169-3536
2019 IEEE. Translations and content mining are permitted for academic research only.
76562 Personal use is also permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. VOLUME 7, 2019
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
J. Teh, C.-M. Lai: Risk-Based Management of Transmission Lines Enhanced With the Dynamic Thermal Rating System
load shedding [6] and overall enhanced reliability. Moreover,
the widespread application of the DTR system is also due to
the outdated line static thermal ratings (STRs), which are arti-
ficially suppressed and fixed on the basis of the conservative
assumptions of line operating environments.
By contrast, the DTR system makes none of the aforemen-
tioned assumptions, and relevant environmental conditions
are instead periodically obtained to calculate line ratings.
Given this feature, the DTR has been proven to be 10%
to 30% higher than the STR most of the time and can
be as high as 50% under desirable weather conditions [7].
Consequently, higher untapped power transfer capability of
many transmission lines can be unlocked, thereby potentially
saving millions of investment costs for new lines, delaying
the necessity to erect new transmission towers until a suitable
time and solving the problem of space limitations required
to undertake such constructions. Unsurprisingly, the concept
of the DTR system for transmission lines has been well
studied, established and standardized in IEEE 738 [8] given
the considerable evidence that highlights the inadequacy of
the STR [4], [9]. The continuous improvement of sensor
technology over the years, which has made the data gath-
ering process for DTR calculations extremely convenient,
has boosted the popularity of the DTR system even further,
such that it is currently recognized as one of the staple tech-
nologies for future transmission networks [10]. Nonetheless,
the implementation of the DTR system is exposed to intrinsic
randomness due to the uncertainty of physical line parame-
ters and collected environmental conditions [11]. Therefore,
a probabilistic framework, variable forecast uncertainty and
risk assessments must be considered in future DTR system
applications.
Considering these requirements, several studies on the
DTR system have focused on transmission lines and net-
works. The DTR systems used in the US and the UK were
compared and discussed in [12]. This study pointed out that
the US and UK systems differed in their wind and uncertainty
models; thus, they should be combined in a weather-based
DTR solution. The reliability impacts of the DTR system
on power systems were examined in [13], [14]. The two
studies investigated the effects of line rating forecast uncer-
tainty, weather correlation and various DTR system relia-
bilities on the integration of wind power and the expected
value of demand loss. The reliability modeling of the DTR
system was covered in [15], [16]. These studies presented
similar DTR system models based on the Markov model
and event tree analysis, respectively. However, [15] used
annual equivalent fuzzy DTR numbers to represent hourly
line rating variations, whereas [16] used a multilinear regres-
sion model to forecast line ratings by considering forecast-
ing errors. The identification of transmission line critical
spans and the subsequent optimal placements of DTR sen-
sors were addressed in [17], [18]. The algorithm in [18]
selected critical spans based on the correlation of actual
and estimated line ratings due to limited sensor deployments
based on cost constraint. This algorithm was extended in [17]
VOLUME 7, 2019
by incorporating conductor tensile strength and elongation
behavior as a result of uneven tensioning and various permit-
ted line sagging allowances. In a two-part paper, the faster
ageing implication of higher line ratings for transmission
network reliability due to the DTR system was initially stud-
ied in [19], followed by the fuzzification of the proposed
ageing model with an in-depth study on the fuzzy version
of the model [11]. Hybrids of the DTR system with other
smart grid technologies were also previously explored in
a number of studies. In [5], [20], optimization algorithms
were used to optimize wind power integration and power
network reliability by considering the DTR system and reac-
tive power support provided by flexible AC transmission
system devices. The relationship of the demand-side man-
agement [21], [22] and the DTR system was modeled and
their joint impact on power system reliability was quantified
in [6]. The wireless communication aspect of the DTR sys-
tem was considered in a study that modeled the cyber and
power network layers in a single reliability framework [23].
The effect of energy storage [24], [25] on the reliabil-
ity support provided by the DTR system was investigated,
and the two technologies were found to complement each
other [26].
Despite abundant studies on the DTR system, no study
has ever modeled the risk of using the system by consider-
ing probabilistic line failure due to elevated operating tem-
peratures and the economics of subsequent accelerated line
failures caused by higher ratings. The combination of the
two factors with a weather forecasting algorithm presents
an opportunity to develop a risk-based management frame-
work for DTR-enhanced lines, which is useful in aiding
utility operators in making well-informed planning decisions.
This opportunity is seized in the current study via a pro-
posed framework, followed by various results to highlight
its features. The procedure includes the probabilistic esti-
mation of line temperatures obtained from the line load-
ing and environmental conditions forecasted through the
auto-regressive moving-average (ARMA) model. The line
temperature and age information are translated into risk,
which is composed of the line failure probability derived from
the Arrhenius–Weibull model and the economic implications
of excessive elevated conductor temperature, known as line
annealing derived from the Harvey model. When the total risk
is higher than the admissible risk, the conductor temperature
or the applied duration of the temperature is limited, such
that an arbitrary risk level is maintained to favor either line
ageing rate or power delivery. The presented risk also has an
intuitive physical meaning, and therefore, can be used easily
by non-experts. Lastly, the major contributions of this study
are summarized as follows:
• The formulation of a risk-based line management frame-
work for the operation of transmission lines enhanced
with the DTR system;
• The proposal of a solution for the risk-based man-
agement framework using the probabilistic forecast of
weather conditions, line failure probability, conductor
76563
 J. Teh, C.-M. Lai: Risk-Based Management of Transmission Lines Enhanced With the Dynamic Thermal Rating System
FIGURE 1. Proposed risk-based management methodology for transmission lines.
tensile strength and the overhead line dynamic thermal
model;
• The demonstration of the proposed framework in man-
aging a real conductor using real-life practical data.
II. RISK-BASED MANGEMENT METHODOLOGY
The procedure of the proposed risk-based management
methodology for transmission lines is illustrated in Fig. 1.
The process starts by identifying the loading condition
of a transmission line. In practice, the required loading can
be determined by performing load-flow calculation on the
power network where the line is located using a load profile
forecasted with various techniques [27]. However, this step
is unnecessary in this study because only the loading value
of the line is required to execute the proposed methodology.
Then, conductor temperature is forecasted on the basis of
the dynamic thermal model of the line (see Section II.A).
Simultaneously, the weather parameters required as inputs
to the dynamic thermal model are forecasted based on the
ARMA model (see Section II.B).
76564
Consequently, the forecasted conductor temperature
is used to determine the percentage loss of tensile
strength (LoTS) of the conductor based on the Harvey model
(see Section II.C) depending on the applied duration of con-
ductor temperature and the limit imposed on the forecasted
conductor temperature. This forecasted loss can be subse-
quently used to determine the economic value of strength
loss. Simultaneously, the forecasted conductor temperature is
used to forecast line failure probability due to line operation
at excessive temperatures based on the Arrhenius–Weibull
model (see Section II.D). Notably, line loading duration and
conductor temperature limit are operating factors used by
transmission line owners to adjust the risk level that they
are exposed to. The risk effects of the combination of these
factors are explored in the result section.
At this point, the forecasted risk of the line operation, Rtotal ,
is calculated using the product of the line failure probability
and the economic value of strength loss. This calculation
is justified by the definition of risk coined in [28], which
states that an event risk is the product of the likelihood of
VOLUME 7, 2019
J. Teh, C.-M. Lai: Risk-Based Management of Transmission Lines Enhanced With the Dynamic Thermal Rating System
the event occurring and its impact. Then, Rtotal is compared
with the admissible risk R∗ . If Rtotal < R∗ , then the conductor
temperature and its applied durations are deemed safe and
can be maintained. Otherwise, the operating condition is
considered risky and either the conductor temperature or its
applied duration should be reduced until a safe condition is
achieved.
The aforementioned description identifies four major
sub-models incorporated into the proposed risk-based line
management methodology: the dynamic thermal model based
on IEEE 738, the ARMA weather forecasting model, the Har-
vey line annealing model and the Arrhenius–Weibull line
failure model. These models are described in detail in the
following subsections. They are illustrated as dotted boxes
in Fig. 1.
A. DYNAMIC THERMAL MODEL FOR
TRANSMISSION LINES
The dynamic thermal model for transmission lines used in
this study follows the description provided in IEEE 738 [8],
which has the following governing equation:
qc (θ, Ta , Vw , ϕ) + qr (θ, Ta ) = qs + I 2 R (θ)
where qc is the convection heat loss calculated as a function
of the conductor temperature θ (◦ ), ambient temperature Ta ,
wind speed vw and incident wind angle to the conductor ϕ; qr
is the radiated heat loss calculated as a function of θ and Ta ;
qs is the solar radiation heat gain and I 2 R(θ ) is the joule heat
gain resulting from line conductivity. In the joule heat gain
portion, I denotes the current loading of the line in ampere,
and R(θ ) is the conductor resistance as a function of θ .
In detail, convection heat loss is qc = max(q1c , q2c ) when
wind speed is not zero, such that
" 0.52 #
ν

Dρ f w
q1c = 1.01 + 0.037 kf K (θ − Ta )
µf

Dρf νw 0.6
 B. WEATHER FORECASTING MODEL
2
qc = 0.0119 kf K (θ − Ta ) (1a)
µf
where ρf , µf and kf are the density, dynamic viscosity and
thermal conductivity of air, respectively, and K = 1.194 −
cos (ϕ) + 0.194 cos (2ϕ) + 0.368sin (2ϕ).
However, if wind speed is zero, then qc is calculated as
qc = 0.0205ρf0.5 D0.75 (θ − Ta )1.25
The radiated heat loss qr is calculated as follows:
"  #
θ + 273 4
 
Ta + 273 4
qr = 0.0178Dε − (1c)
100 100
where D and ε are the conductor diameter and emissivity,
respectively.
The solar radiation heat gain qs is calculated as follows:
0
qs = λqse sin(ξ )A
VOLUME 7, 2019
such that
ξ = arcos [cos (Hc ) cos (Zc − Zl )] (1e)
where λ is the solar absorptivity; qse is the elevated total solar
and sky radiated heat flux rate; Hc , Zc and Zl are the solar
altitude, solar azimuth and line azimuth, respectively (their
0
derivations are given in IEEE 738), and A is the projected
conductor area per unit length.
In the joule heat gain portion of (1), R (θ ) is further
expanded as follows:
 
RMDT − Rmin
R (θ ) = (θ − Tmin ) + Rmin (1f)
TMDT − Tmin
where RMDT and Rmin are the conductor resistance at the
maximum designed temperature (MDT) TMDT and minimum
operational temperature Tmin , respectively.
On the basis of (1) and its expansion from (1a)–(1f),
back-calculating the conductor temperature θ by rearrang-
ing (1) such that the variable θ appears only on one side
of the equation is difficult due to the complex relationships
and nonlinearity characteristics amongst (1a) to (1e). Hence,
(1) instead of rearrangement, this study iteratively guesses the
value of θ until the error between both sides of (1) is less
than 1% by initializing the guessing process with θ = T min .
The justification is that if both sides of (1) are equal, then
the parameters have balanced out and the guessed value
of θ is therefore correct. This approach is built on a concept
similar to that of the Newton–Raphson and Gauss–Seidel
methods except for the requirement to differentiate the equa-
tion. At each iteration, the next value of θ is increased by
0.1 as long as the percentage error is still higher than 1%.
The described iteration process is shown in Fig. 2.
The required weather conditions for calculating conductor
temperature θ are forecasted on the basis of the weather
forecasting model described in the next section.
Given the typical long length of transmission lines that covers
multiple areas, the line investigated in this study spans across
multiple weather regions to reflect the aforementioned condi-
tion. The weather conditions within each weather region are
also considered reasonably stable and do not fluctuate.
In addition, the air temperature value is fairly constant
over vast geographical areas and is typically easily acces-
(1b) sible from the local meteorological centre. Solar radiation
exerts relatively slight impacts on line rating values, and thus,
the assumptions provided in IEEE 738 can be used [29].
Given these considerations, only wind speed and wind angle
should be forecasted to predict future conductor temper-
ature, and subsequently, line operation risk. In analyzing
wind behavior, only wind speed values display an observable
trend, whereas wind angle is generally random, and therefore,
is most suitable to be modeled by uniform distribution [16].
The forecasting of wind angle values is performed through
(1d) uniform random sampling between 0◦ and 90◦ .
76565
 J. Teh, C.-M. Lai: Risk-Based Management of Transmission Lines Enhanced With the Dynamic Thermal Rating System
FIGURE 2. Iterative process in guessing conductor temperature θ .
Wind speed values have been established to propagate
over time and are influenced by their past values. This
type of time-series data is best described using the ARMA
model [30]. The key feature of the ARMA model is the reten-
tion of the original data propagation pattern whilst allowing
a degree of randomness during forecasting. This process is
achieved by always including a certain number of significant
past forecasted values and random coefficients in the model.
This unique feature crucially mimics the actual behavior of
wind speed, such that its future values are unlikely to be the
same as its past values, although their propagation pattern
is cyclical, and therefore, is repeatable. The portion of the
ARMA model with the past forecasted values models the
pattern retention feature, whereas the random coefficients
account for randomness during forecasting. Mathematically,
the ARMA model in each weather region is described in (2)
and is obtained by following the process presented in [30].
yt = α1 yt−1 + α2 yt−2 + · · · + αn y + et
−β1 et−1 − β2 et−2 − · · · − βm et−m
where αi (i = 1, 2, · · · , n) and βj (j = 1, 2, . . . , m) are the
auto-regressive and moving average constants; and et is the
normal white noise coefficient, which is normally and inde-
pendently distributed, such that it has a zero mean and σ 2
variance. Equation (2) shows that the value yt in a future time
t from a sample that contains allyis dependent on its past
observed values yt−i (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) and past random coef-
ficient et−j (j = 1, 2, . . . , m). In our case, yt denotes wind
speed, and the random sampling of et values accounts for
randomness during wind speed forecast.
76566
The random white noise et is also sampled by consider-
ing the correlation of the historical wind speed amongst the
weather regions to ensure that the correlation effect is retained
in the forecasted wind speed values. To perform sampling,
the univariate normal distributions of et in all the weather
regions are combined to form the following multivariate nor-
mal distribution:
n o
exp − 12 (x − µ)T 6 −1 (x − µ)
f (x) = (3)
(2π )p/2 |6|1/2
where p is the number of ARMA models; µ is a zero vector
because it is the mean random value of the ARMA models
and all the models have zero mean; 6 is the covariance
matrix of all the ARMA models based on which all et values
are sampled concurrently. The outcome of (3) is a vector
of correlated et values for all the ARMA models, and by
simultaneously using (2) and (3), the forecasted wind speed
values retain the correlations of their sampled historical data.
The random sampling of white noise et causes the fore-
casted wind speed to vary each time and its forecast has a
direct implication for the final predicted operation risk of
the transmission line. To obtain the average forecast for a
particular hour in the future, wind speed values are forecasted
multiple times until their coefficient of variation converges to
a certain value, similar to the Monte Carlo process [31]. In this
study, convergence is accepted when the coefficient is less
than 3%. Lastly, the slowest forecasted wind speed amongst
all the weather regions is selected to be the applicable wind
speed for the entire transmission line.
C. CONDUCTOR LOTS MODEL
The basic components of transmission lines are conductors
and shield wires. Depending on the operating environment
of lines, these components are exposed to various external
loadings, such as high winds, large variations in temperature
(both the environment and the conductor) and heavy icing. All
these factors vary depending on the line route. In this regard,
the lack of coordination in managing conductor strength and
its loading may lead to excessive internal stress, thereby
damaging the conductor beyond its failure limit [32]. The
effects of this limit include permanent deformation, excessive
line sagging or creeping and birdcaging. Eliminating these
(2) unwanted damages is not only difficult, but also costly and
time-consuming. If left unchecked, the cascading of these
effects can lead to more severe consequences, such as tower
collapse and long-term power outages. This failure limit is
also known as the ultimate tensile strength of conductors.
Amongst various types of conductors, the aluminium
conductor–steel reinforced (ACSR) type is presently used
worldwide in high-voltage transmission lines due to technical
and economic reasons. Hence, the derivation of the conductor
loss of the tensile strength model in this study is based only
on ACSR. The typical physical and constructional properties
of several ACSR variants are provided in Table 1 [33].
VOLUME 7, 2019
J. Teh, C.-M. Lai: Risk-Based Management of Transmission Lines Enhanced With the Dynamic Thermal Rating System

TABLE 1. Physical and constructional properties of typical ACSR. TABLE 2. Breaking tensile stress and diameter tolerance of aluminum
wires.

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

B 354-98 standard [34] specifies that the tensile strength of an TABLE 3. Tensile requirement and diameter tolerance of zinc-coated,
ACSR should be defined as the maximum load per unit of the steel-core wires.

cross-sectional area that a tensioned conductor has received

when tested to rupture. From this specification, the LoTS of
an ACSR conductor, expressed in percentage and given by
the Harvey annealing model is as follows:

LoTS = 100% − RS (4)

such that
   
STRal STRst
RS = RS al + 109 (4a)
STRT STRT
(
β c:w (USD/kg), as follows:
αt if α < 100
RS al = β
(4b) USD
100t otherwise Cost LoTS = LoTS × (L × w:L × c:w ) [ ] (5)
π 100%
STRal = ηal S¯al dal kal (4c)
4 D. LINE FAILURE PROBABILITY MODEL
π
STRst = ηst Sst1% dst kst (4d) The probability of line failure is determined by considering
4
STRT = STRal + STRst (4e) conductor operating temperature θ and the age of the line,
which is the number of years that the line has been operating.
In (4a), RS is the remaining strength of the ACSR in per- Given that the operating temperature is also the conductor
centage; RS al is the remaining strength of the ACSR alu- thermal stress, the Arrhenius life stress model is particularly
minium strand and STRal , STRst and STRT are the rated well-suited to model the impacts of conductor temperature on
strength of the aluminium strand, steel strand and total con- the remaining life of the conductor [38]–[40]. The following
ductor, respectively. In (4b), α = (134 − 0.24θ ), β = is the mathematical expression of the Arrhenius model:
(0.241 − 0.00254θ )/dal and t is the number of hours that the  
B
conductor sustains at θ. In (4c) and (4d), ηal , ηst , dal and dst L (θ ) = A exp (6)
are the number and diameter of aluminium and steel strands θ + 273
per ACSR provided in Table 1; S¯al is the aluminium average where L (θ ) is the quantifiable average life measure, and A
breaking stress given in Table 2 [35], whereas Sst1% is the and B are empirical constants that are typically estimated
equivalent for steel but at 1% extension given in Table 3 [36] from the line historical loading and failure data. Although (6)
and kal and kst are the reduction factors equal to either 0.96, relates conductor operating temperature θ to the average life
0.93, 0.91 or 0.90 depending on 1, 2, 3 or 4 aluminium or steel of the conductor, using only this equation disregards the
layers, respectively [37]. effects of the age of the line, and as previously shown, the age
Notably, (4) determines the LoTS of the ACSR conductor of power system components exerts a significant effect on
by considering conductor operating temperature θ , which is the failure probability of a component [41]. Hence, an ageing
obtained from the dynamic thermal model described earlier in model should be combined with the stress model in (6) to
Section II.A. From the LoTS, the economics cost of conduc- form a complete line failure probability model that accounts
tor LoTS is determined by considering the length L (in m) of for thermal stress and line age.
the transmission line on which the conductor is used, the line In accordance with the ageing model presented in [42],
weight-to-length ratio w:L (kg/m) and cost-to-weight ratio given that a transmission line has survived up to time T ,

VOLUME 7, 2019 76567

 J. Teh, C.-M. Lai: Risk-Based Management of Transmission Lines Enhanced With the Dynamic Thermal Rating System

the unavailability U of the line in a future time t should be Furthermore, the integration in (7a) can be avoided by
determined by considering all the past events that the line had using the following polynomial approximation provided
experienced. The ageing failure probability between T and in [41]:
(T + t) is known as the ‘a posteriori’, which can be estimated   β    β 
using the discretization method provided in [41], by dividing − T +(j−1)1t
α − T +j1t
α
e −e
the period into k equal subintervals. Then, line unavailability Pj =  β (10)
T
U is calculated as follows: e
− α

k
where α = A exp B (θ + 273) . Notably, (10) requires
  
1X
U= Pj × UDj (7)
t knowing the values of A and B before it can be applied.
j=1
As mentioned earlier, these values are typically estimated
such that from line historical loading and failure record. However, this
R T +j1t R T +(j−1)1t information is generally unavailable in the literature, and
T f (t) dt − T f (t) dt therefore, is difficult to obtain. Hence, their values A = 32
Pj = R∞ (7a)
T f (t) dt and B = 158, which were estimated based on a series of
1t assumptions in [19], are used in this study. Although this
UDj = t − (2j − 1) (7b) condition is not ideal, it is necessary. The values will only
2
affect the numerical results of the risk assessment presented
where Pj is the ageing failure probability, UDj is the average in this study. If the necessary data are available in the future,
failure duration in each jth interval, 1t is the subinterval then the proposed risk management framework can work
length and f (t) is the choice of the probability distribution equally well with the new values of A and B. The numerical
function (PDF) used to characterize the distribution of ageing results will also change with the new values. Lastly, the shape
failure. parameter β = 3 is obtained by converting the transmission
Given that the Arrhenius model in (6) provides only one line average and standard deviation data [45], [46] using the
life measure output, the PDF choice for 7(a) should also have techniques presented in [47].
only one life parameter. Similar studies that attempted to
solve this dilemma in modeling the failures of a cable [43]
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
and a power transformer [44] chose the Weibull distribution.
This section presents the numerical results of the proposed
Apart from the aforementioned characteristic, the Weibull
methodology described in Section II by using a Drake con-
distribution is also suitable because of its ability to model the
ductor as an example. Apart from the properties of the
increasing failure rate of components as their stress and age
conductor provided in Tables 1, 2 and 3, we also con-
increase over time. In this regard, the Weibull distribution is
sider its use on a 75 km transmission line that has been
also selected as f (t) in this study and is described as follows:
operating for 50 years, with a weight-to-length ratio w:L
t β of 1.6266 kg/m [48] and a cost-to-weight ratio c:w of
"   #
f (t) = 1 − exp − (8) USD1.86/kg [49]. Given these values, the cost of an absolute
α
conductor annealing, i.e. the cost of 100% conductor anneal-
where α is the scale parameter, also known as the character- ing, is approximately USD227 K based on (5).
istic life, which is equivalent to the quantifiable average life The transmission line covers 25 weather regions, and the
measure L (θ ) in (6). β is the shape parameter for adjusting historical wind speed data of these regions are obtained from
the slope of the function, thereby affecting the magnitude of the British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC) [50] website
failure probability for a given line age. Notably, when β > 1, from 1991 to 2016. The entire historical wind speed data
the line is deemed to have entered the ageing period of the are used to forecast the wind speed values of the 1stand
bathtub curve and the failure rate of the line will increase 5th future hours in accordance with the weather forecasting
exponentially with the age of the line [42], and t = α signifies model described in Section II.B. The forecasted weather data
a 63.2% chance that the line will fail. are used to back-calculate the conductor temperature θ in
When (6) and (8) align in terms of life measure, such that accordance with the dynamic thermal model presented in
α = L(θ ), the following modified Weibull PDF is obtained: Section II.A. The maximum line loading is arbitrarily set at
3500 A. The conductor temperature θ is subsequently used
  β  to determine the conductor LoTS, its economic value and
t line failure probability, as given in Sections II.C and II.D,
f (t) = 1 − exp −  (9)
 
  
B respectively.
A exp θ +273

Equation (9) successfully captures conductor thermal stress A. FORECASTING TRANSMISSION LINE
due to its operating temperature θ and age profile. Then, (7), OPERATIONAL RISK
(7a) and (7b) can be calculated accordingly to obtain the line’s On the basis of the average wind speed values forecasted at
final unavailability by using f (t) in (9). the 1st and 5th future hours, the proposed risk management

76568 VOLUME 7, 2019

J. Teh, C.-M. Lai: Risk-Based Management of Transmission Lines Enhanced With the Dynamic Thermal Rating System
FIGURE 3. (a)–(c) show the variations of LoTS, economic cost of LoTS and operation risk value, respectively, of the Drake conductor for the wind speed
forecasted at the 1st future hour. (d)–(f) are similar to (a)–(c), respectively, but for the wind speed forecasted at the 5th future hour. In all the figures,
the duration of the conductor sustaining a temperature is varied from 1 h to 5 h.
framework was applied to a Drake conductor by limiting its
temperature to 100◦ C. This ceiling value is then incremen-
tally increased by 5◦ C until 200◦ C. In addition, the operation
duration of the conductor at a particular temperature is also
varied from 1 h to 5 h. Given these settings, the LoTS,
economic cost of LoTS and operational risk value of the
conductor obtained based on the wind speed forecasted at the
1st and 5th future hours are shown in Figs. 3(a)–3(f) and indi-
cated by solid lines. In all the figures, the dotted horizontal
lines represent the values without implementing our proposed
risk management framework. Moreover, the corresponding
line failure probabilities are shown in Table 4. Expectedly,
the line failure probabilities for both forecasts increase as
conductor temperature limit is raised from 100◦ C to 200◦ C.
Furthermore, the probabilities at the 1st hour forecast are
lower than those at the 5th hour forecast. This result indicates
that the conductor temperature forecasted at the earlier hour
is lower than that forecasted at the later hour. Interestingly,
Table 4 shows that the line failure probability at the 5th hour is
increasingly higher than the failure probability at the 1st hour
by approximately 3%, 7%, 11%, 16% and 20%, as conductor
temperature limit is increased. This result indicates that the
greater cooling effect provided by the higher forecasted wind
speed at the 1st hour has managed to suppress conductor
heating and lead to lower line failure probability.
In general, Figs. 3(a)–3(f) show that the LoTS, eco-
nomic costs and risk values experienced by the conductor
are considerably lower than those of the unmanaged case
when the proposed risk management method is implemented.
In Figs. 3(a) and 3(d), the Drake conductor only starts to expe-
rience annealing when conductor temperature limit is raised
by 45◦ C above 100◦ C given the 1 h duration of sustaining
VOLUME 7, 2019
TABLE 4. Failure probability of the transmission line aged 50 years.
conductor temperature. However, the percentage of LoTS
increases significantly and the conductor starts to experience
annealing at an operating temperature limit of 100 ◦ C when
the operating duration is increased to 2 h and beyond although
the operating temperature remains the same. This behavior
is also observed in economic costs and risk values in all
the remaining figures. The aforementioned observation indi-
cates that the performance of a conductor will generally be
negatively impacted when either its operating temperature,
duration or both are increased. Hence, this method also pro-
vides an opportunity for transmission line operators to control
their operation risk by manipulating the two factors. Notably,
the deterioration of performance in all the figures is most sig-
nificant when the operation duration increases from 1 h to 2 h.
However, this effect gradually subsides as operation duration
approaches 5 h. This result indicates that transmission lines
operating at long hours require a more drastic contingency
plan to reduce their operation risks, such as further reducing
conductor temperature or the applied duration of the temper-
ature.
The major difference between the two sets of figures,
Figs. 3(a)–3(c) compared with Figs. 3(d)–3(f), is that the
76569
 J. Teh, C.-M. Lai: Risk-Based Management of Transmission Lines Enhanced With the Dynamic Thermal Rating System
conductor performs considerably better in terms of lower
LoTS, economic costs and risk values using the wind speeds
forecasted at the 1st than the 5th future hours. For example,
the maximum risk value of Fig. 3(c) is only approximately
USD1, 600 compared with that of Fig. 3(f) of approximately
USD16, 000, which is 10 times higher. The reason for this
result is that the wind speeds forecasted at the 5th hour tend
to be lower than those forecasted at the 1st hour, thereby
resulting in less conductor cooling, higher conductor tem-
perature that leads to higher risk and eventually, overall
worse performance in the second set of figures. However,
Figs. 3(d)–3(f) can also possibly provide overall lower and
more desirable forecasted performance than Figs. 3(a)–3(c)
if other hours with higher forecasted wind speeds are used.
Therefore, this result shows that the worse performance is
due to the lower forecasted wind speed and not because of
the longer forecasting period. The same reason can also be
used to explain the lower forecasted probability values at the
1st hour than at the 5th hour in Table 4.
Notice that the proposed risk framework in this paper is
only concerned with the annealing experienced by the line,
subsequently providing cost values to the annealing sustained
by the line. The permissible line sagging is not considered as
this deals with the safety and security issue, which requires
an entirely different study that extends beyond the scope of
this paper. If appropriate line sagging models and information
on ground clearance of the line are available, they can be
used to further limit the maximum temperature of the con-
ductor so that the ground clearance limit is not infringed.
Choosing the final operating temperature of the line based
on the process in Fig. 3 should ensure that the chosen tem-
perature does infringe ground clearance, especially when the
annealing is as high as in Fig. 3(d). For example, if after line
sagging is calculated and it was determined the conductor can
only operate at 180◦ C safely, then the conductor temperature
beyond this value should never be considered. Nonetheless,
understanding the risk of operating beyond 180◦ C provides
additional options to system operator should the room for line
clearance is increased due to different operating environment
or changes in the existing environment.
B. EFFECTS OF CONDUCTOR TEMPERATURE
ON LINE AMPACITY
This section investigates the effects of the forecasted wind
speeds at the 1st and 5th hours on line ampacity based on
the same range of conductor temperature limit in Fig. 3. The
result is provided in Fig. 4.
The figure shows that the line ampacity at the 5th hour is
initially lower than that at the 1st hour until the conductor
temperature limit of 165◦ C is reached. This result is rea-
sonable because the average forecasted wind speed at the
1st hour is higher than that at the 5th hour, which results
in more cooling effect, which subsequently leads to higher
line ampacity. Although higher conductor temperature also
produces higher line ampacity, its value at the 5th hour is still
lower than the ampacity value at the 1st hour due to the greater
76570
FIGURE 4. Effects of conductor temperature limit on line ampacity.
cooling effects of the higher forecasted wind speed. However,
the situation is reversed when temperature limit is extended
beyond 165◦ C. Above this point, the allowable conductor
temperatures have unlocked sufficient line ampacity to finally
surpass the ampacity at the 1st hour despite its higher cooling
effect. Consequently, line ampacity beyond 165◦ C at the 5th
hour is higher than that at the 1st hour.
Hence, depending on the requirement of the line for trans-
porting load demand, the conductor temperature limit can be
raised momentarily to meet higher line ampacity although the
forecasted wind speed is not as desirable as exemplified by
the 5th hour condition. However, the operation risk of the
conductor must be assessed and checked firstly, such that the
risk is within the admissible risk requirement.
C. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The results in Section III.A were determined on the basis of
A = 32, B = 158 and a 50-year-old Drake conductor. Only
these parameters vary depending on the conductor operation
statistics (A and B) and the degree of conductor ageing, all
of which were user’s input. Their effects on the risk value
are studied in this section. Only the sensitivity of the risk
values of the 1 h operation in Fig. 3(c) is explored because
a similar investigation can also be applied to the other risk
values in Figs. 3(c) and 3(f).
Firstly, the parameter values of A and B are increased and
decreased by 5% up to 10%. Then, the risk values are calcu-
lated, and the results are shown in Fig. 5. The results indicate
that changes in risk values are nearly directly proportional
to the changes in parameters. This finding indicates that the
trend at which the risk values change as conductor temper-
ature limit is increased is unaffected. The use of parameters
with either lower or higher values only affects the numerical
results but not the behavior of the risk value. Therefore,
the results validate the earlier discussion in Section II.D that
the assumptions used in this study to determine the values
of A and B do not affect the proposed risk management
methodology.
Subsequently, conductor age is also varied from its original
50 years by increasing and reducing its age by 10 years until
20 years. The results are presented in Fig 6. The figure shows
that as conductor age is increased from 50 years to 60 years,
VOLUME 7, 2019
J. Teh, C.-M. Lai: Risk-Based Management of Transmission Lines Enhanced With the Dynamic Thermal Rating System
FIGURE 5. Sensitivity of the 1 h risk values in Fig. 3(c) to various values of
the A and B parameters.
FIGURE 6. Sensitivity of the 1 h risk values in Fig. 3(c) to various values of
conductor age.
the risk value increases by approximately 36% and 74% when
age is increased further to 70 years. Conversely, when con-
ductor age is reduced to 40 years and 30 years, its risk value
is decreased by approximately 32% and 60%, respectively.
The risk value appears to increase more than the reduction
although the steps used to increase and reduce conductor
age are the same. This result also shows that the line fails
considerably more often as it ages, and further reducing the
risk of a fairly new conductor by replacing it with an even
newer one is difficult. The new line replacement option is not
only expensive, but reducing risk by operating the conductor
at a lower temperature is also easier. The results in Fig. 6 also
indicate that conductor age exerts a significant impact on
its operation risk and should be considered when assessing
its operation risk, as suggested in the line risk management
framework proposed in this study.
IV. CONCLUSION
This study presents a risk-based management framework for
overhead transmission lines equipped with the DTR system.
Given that the DTR system elevates the operating temperature
of the conductor, and subsequently, its ampacity, the proposed
framework provides a solution to effectively quantify the risk
associated with higher operating temperatures. The risk is
reported in monetary form, and therefore, has an intuitive
physical meaning for transmission line owners. Thus, the pro-
posed framework can be easily used to manoeuver around
VOLUME 7, 2019
budgetary constraint, i.e. the admissible risk, which can be
achieved by reducing either the operating temperature of the
conductor or the applied duration of the temperature. The risk
framework is also unique and holistic because it considers the
actual physical properties and ageing of the conductor in the
formulation of the line tensile strength and failure probability
models. The results show that the proposed framework is
effective in identifying the risks associated with conductor
operating temperature and a multitude of solutions that can
be used to mitigate the risk. Analyses of the sensitivity of the
framework to the variations of some of its parameters indicate
that the framework is robust, such that the variations only
affect its numerical results.
The calculation of risk in practical application is most
likely needed to be in real-time to be useful. However,
the booming of smart grid network, as well as its data commu-
nication infrastructure being confronted with the high amount
of data boosted by faster sensors is the performance bottle-
neck for real-time risk estimation. Hence, as a future work,
the proposed event-triggered methods based on the nonlinear
or particle filter, along with the consideration of uncertainty
factors, should be incorporated to efficiently relieve the com-
munication burden and achieve an appropriate estimation
accuracy [51]–[53].
REFERENCES
[1] H. Abunima, J. Teh, C.-M. Lai, and H. J. Jabir, ‘‘A systematic review
of reliability studies on composite power systems: A coherent taxonomy
motivations, open challenges, recommendations, and new research direc-
tions,’’ Energies, vol. 11, no. 9, p. 2417, 2018.
[2] J. Wang, H. Zhong, Z. Ma, Q. Xia, and C. Kang, ‘‘Review and prospect
of integrated demand response in the multi-energy system,’’ Appl. Energy,
vol. 202, pp. 772–782, Sep. 2017.
[3] S. W. Cunningham and W. A. H. Thissen, ‘‘Strategy as changing the rules
of the game for the emerging smart grid,’’ IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev., vol. 42,
no. 2, pp. 8–9, 2nd Quart., 2014.
[4] J. Teh, C.-M. Lai, N. A. Muhamad, C. A. Ooi, Y.-H. Cheng,
M. A. A. M. Zainuri, and M. K. Ishak, ‘‘Prospects of using the dynamic
thermal rating system for reliable electrical networks: A review,’’ IEEE
Access, vol. 6, pp. 26765–26778, 2018.
[5] J. Teh, C.-M. Lai, and Y.-H. Cheng, ‘‘Improving the penetration of wind
power with dynamic thermal rating system, static VAR compensator
and multi-objective genetic algorithm,’’ Energies, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 815,
2018.
[6] J. Teh, C. A. Ooi, Y.-H. Cheng, M. A. A. M. Zainuri, and C.-M. Lai,
‘‘Composite reliability evaluation of load demand side management and
dynamic thermal rating systems,’’ Energies, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 466, 2018.
[7] O. A. Ciniglio and A. K. Deb, ‘‘Optimizing transmission path utilization
in Idaho Power,’’ IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 830–834,
Apr. 2004.
[8] IEEE Standard for Calculating the Current-Temperature of Bare Over-
head Conductors, IEEE Standard 738-2006 (Revision of IEEE Standard
738-1993), 2007, pp. c1–c59.
[9] S. Karimi, P. Musilek, and A. M. Knight, ‘‘Dynamic thermal rating of
transmission lines: A review,’’ Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 91,
pp. 600–612, Aug. 2018.
[10] D. Douglass, W. Chisholm, G. Davidson, I. Grant, K. Lindsey,
M. Lancaster, D. Lawry, T. McCarthy, C. Nascimento, M. Pasha, J. Reding,
T. Seppa, J. Toth, and P. Waltz, ‘‘Real-time overhead transmission-line
monitoring for dynamic rating,’’ IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 31, no. 3,
pp. 921–927, Jun. 2016.
[11] J. Teh, ‘‘Uncertainty analysis of transmission line end-of-life failure model
for bulk electric system reliability studies,’’ IEEE Trans. Rel., vol. 67,
no. 3, pp. 1261–1268, Sep. 2018.
76571
 J. Teh, C.-M. Lai: Risk-Based Management of Transmission Lines Enhanced With the Dynamic Thermal Rating System
[12] D. M. Greenwood, J. P. Gentle, K. S. Myers, P. J. Davison, I. J. West,
J. W. Bush, G. L. Ingram, and M. C. M. Troffaes, ‘‘A comparison of real-
time thermal rating systems in the U.S. and the U.K.,’’ IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1849–1858, Aug. 2014.
[13] D. M. Greenwood and P. C. Taylor, ‘‘Investigating the impact of real-time
thermal ratings on power network reliability,’’ IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 2460–2468, Sep. 2014.
[14] J. Teh and I. Cotton, ‘‘Reliability impact of dynamic thermal rating system
in wind power integrated network,’’ IEEE Trans. Rel., vol. 65, no. 2,
pp. 1081–1089, Jun. 2016.
[15] H. Shaker, H. Zareipour, and M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, ‘‘Reliability modeling
of dynamic thermal rating,’’ IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 28, no. 3,
pp. 1600–1609, Jul. 2013.
[16] J. Teh and I. Cotton, ‘‘Risk informed design modification of dynamic
thermal rating system,’’ IET Gener., Transmiss. Distrib., vol. 9, no. 16,
pp. 2697–2704, Dec. 2015.
[17] J. Teh and I. Cotton, ‘‘Critical span identification model for dynamic
thermal rating system placement,’’ IET Gener., Transmiss. Distrib., vol. 9,
no. 16, pp. 2644–2652, Dec. 2015.
[18] M. Matus, D. Saez, M. Favley, C. Suazo-Martinez, J. Moya,
G. Jimenez-Estevez, R. Palma-Behnke, G. Olguin, and P. Jorquera,
‘‘Identification of critical spans for monitoring systems in dynamic
thermal rating,’’ IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1002–1009,
Apr. 2012.
[19] J. Teh, C. M. Lai, and Y. H. Cheng, ‘‘Impact of the real-time thermal
loading on the bulk electric system reliability,’’ IEEE Trans. Rel., vol. 66,
no. 4, pp. 1110–1119, Dec. 2017.
[20] K. Kopsidas, A. Kapetanaki, and V. Levi, ‘‘Optimal demand response
scheduling with real-time thermal ratings of overhead lines for improved
network reliability,’’ IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 2813–2825,
Nov. 2017.
[21] H. J. Jabir, J. Teh, D. Ishak, and H. Abunima, ‘‘Impacts of demand-side
management on electrical power systems: A review,’’ Energies, vol. 11,
no. 5, p. 1050, 2018.
[22] H. Jabir, J. Teh, D. Ishak, and H. Abunima, ‘‘Impact of demand-side
management on the reliability of generation systems,’’ Energies, vol. 11,
no. 8, p. 2155, 2018.
[23] J. Teh and C.-M. Lai, ‘‘Reliability impacts of the dynamic thermal rat-
ing system on smart grids considering wireless communications,’’ IEEE
Access, vol. 7, pp. 41625–41635, 2019.
[24] F. Mohamad and J. Teh, ‘‘Impacts of energy storage system on power
system reliability: A systematic review,’’ Energies, vol. 11, no. 7, p. 1749,
2018.
[25] F. Mohamad, J. Teh, C.-M. Lai, and L.-R. Chen, ‘‘Development of energy
storage systems for power network reliability: A review,’’ Energies, vol. 11,
no. 9, p. 2278, 2018.
[26] J. Teh, ‘‘Adequacy assessment of wind integrated generating systems incor-
porating demand response and battery energy storage system,’’ Energies,
vol. 11, no. 10, p. 2649, 2018.
[27] H. S. Hippert, C. E. Pedreira, and R. C. Souza, ‘‘Neural networks for short-
term load forecasting: A review and evaluation,’’ IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 44–55, Feb. 2001.
[28] W. Li, Risk Assessment of Power Systems. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley,
2005.
[29] M. Šiler, J. Heckenbergerová, P. Musilek, and J. Redway, ‘‘Sensitivity
analysis of conductor current-temperature calculations,’’ in Proc. IEEE
26th Can. Conf. Elect. Comput. Eng. (CCECE), May 2013, pp. 1–4.
[30] R. Billinton, H. Chen, and R. Ghajar, ‘‘Time-series models for reliability
evaluation of power systems including wind energy,’’ Microelectron. Rel.,
vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 1253–1261, 1996.
[31] R. Billinton and W. Li, Reliability Assessment of Electric Power Systems
Using Monte Carlo Methods. New York, NY, USA: Plenum, 1994.
[32] Electronic Components: Reliability-Reference Conditions for Failure
Rates and Stress Models for Conversion, document IEC 61709, 2017,
p. 2010.
76572
View publication stats
[33] Southwire Company, LLC. Accessed: Jun. 16, 2019. [Online]. Available:
http://www.southwire.com/Ordering.htm
[34] Standard Terminology Relating to Uninsulated Metallic Electrical
Conductors, vol. 2.3, Standard ASTM B354-98, ASTM International
(Annual Book of ASTM Standards), West Conshohocken, PA, USA,
2004.
[35] Standard Specification for Aluminum 1350-H19 Wire for Electrical Pur-
poses, vol. 2.3, Standard ASTM B230/B230M-99, ASTM International
(Annual Book of ASTM Standards), West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2004.
[36] Standard Specification for Zinc-Coated (Galvanized) Steel Core Wire for
Aluminum Conductors, Steel Reinforced (ACSR), vol. 2.3, Standard ASTM
B498/B498M-98 (Reapproved 2002), ASTM International (Annual Book
of ASTM Standards), West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2004.
[37] Standard Specification for Concentric-Lay-Stranded Aluminum
Conductors, Coated-Steel Reinforced (ACSR) vol. 2.3, Standard
ASTM B232/B232M-01, ASTM International (Annual Book of ASTM
Standards), West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2004.
[38] H. Hirose and T. Sakumura, ‘‘Foundation of mathematical deterioration
models for the thermal stress,’’ IEEE Trans. Dielectrics Electr. Insul.,
vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 482–487, Feb. 2015.
[39] S. K. E. Awadallah, J. V. Milanović, and P. N. Jarman, ‘‘The influence
of modeling transformer age related failures on system reliability,’’ IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 970–979, Mar. 2014.
[40] G. Mazzanti, ‘‘The combination of electro-thermal stress, load cycling and
thermal transients and its effects on the life of high voltage ac cables,’’
IEEE Trans. Dielectrics Electr. Insul., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1168–1179,
Aug. 2009.
[41] W. Li, ‘‘Incorporating aging failures in power system reliability evalua-
tion,’’ IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 918–923, Aug. 2002.
[42] R. Billinton and R. N. Allan, Reliability Evaluation of Engineering Sys-
tems: Concepts and Techniques. Harlow, U.K.: Longman Scientific &
Technical, 1987.
[43] M. Buhari, V. Levi, and S. K. E. Awadallah, ‘‘Modelling of ageing distri-
bution cable for replacement planning,’’ IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 31,
no. 5, pp. 3996–4004, Sep. 2016.
[44] J. He, Y. Sun, P. Wang, and L. Cheng, ‘‘A hybrid conditions-dependent
outage model of a transformer in reliability evaluation,’’ IEEE Trans.
Power Del., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2025–2033, Oct. 2009.
[45] G. Brennan, ‘‘Refurbishment of existing overhead transmission lines,’’
CIGRE, Paris, France, Tech. Rep. CIGRE B2-203, 2004.
[46] S. Swingler, ‘‘Statistics: Overhead lines and underground cables,’’ CIGRE,
Paris, France, Tech. Rep. WG B1.07, 2000.
[47] W. Li, ‘‘Evaluating mean life of power system equipment with limited end-
of-life failure data,’’ IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 236–242,
Feb. 2004.
[48] Constellium. Accessed: Jun. 16, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.
constellium.com/news/2008/09/18/alcan-cable-part-alcan-engineered-
products-business-unit-rio-tinto-alcan-has-made
[49] Huatong Cable. Accessed: Jun. 16, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://huatongcable.en.made-in-china.com/product/gSQJveHGJtrd/
China-ACSR-Aluminium-Conductor-Steel-Reinforced.html
[50] British Atmospheric Data Center. Accessed: Jun. 16, 2019. [Online]. Avail-
able: http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/ukmo-midas/WPS.html
[51] S. Li, L. Li, Z. Li, X. Chen, T. Fernando, H. H.-C. Iu, G. He, Q. Wang,
and X. Liu, ‘‘Event-trigger heterogeneous nonlinear filter for wide-area
measurement systems in power grid,’’ IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 10,
no. 3, pp. 2752–2764, May 2019.
[52] X. Liu, L. Li, Z. Li, X. Chen, T. Fernando, H. H.-C. Iu, and G. He,
‘‘Event-trigger particle filter for smart grids with limited communica-
tion bandwidth infrastructure,’’ IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 6,
pp. 6918–6928, Nov. 2018.
[53] Y. Yu, Z. Li, X. Liu, K. Hirota, X. Chen, T. Fernando, and H. H.-C. Iu,
‘‘A nested tensor product model transformation,’’ IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.,
vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–15, Jan. 2019.
VOLUME 7, 2019