Transmission Line Design Information In these notes, I would like to provide you with some background information on AC transmission

lines. 1. AC Transmission Line Impedance Parameters AC transmission is done through 3-phase systems. Initial planning studies typically only consider balanced, steadystate operation. This simplifies modeling efforts greatly in that only the positive sequence, per-phase transmission line representation is necessary. Essential Transmission line electrical data for balanced, steady-state operation includes: • Line reactance • Line resistance • Line charging susceptance • Current rating (ampacity) • Surge impedance loading Figure 1 below shows a distributed parameter model of a transmission line where z=r+jx is the series impedance per unit length (ohms/unit length), and y=jb is the shunt admittance per unit length (mhos/unit length).



I+dI ••• V+dV

I dI


••• V





••• dx l

••• x

Fig. 1 I have notes posted under lecture for 9/13, at, that derive the following model relating voltages and currents at either end of the line.
I ( l ) = I 1 = I 2 cosh γl + V2 sinh γl ZC
V ( l ) = V1 = V2 cosh γl + Z C I 2 sinh γl

(1a) (1b)

where • l is the line length, • γ is the propagation constant, in general a complex number, given by γ = zy with units of 1/(unit length), (1c) where z and y are the per-unit length impedance and admittance, respectively, as defined previously. • ZC is the characteristic impedance, otherwise known as the surge impedance, given by z Z = with units of ohms. (1d) y


It is then possible to show that equations (1a, 1b) may be represented using the following pi-equivalent line model
I1 IY1


I2 IY2



Fig. 2
sinh γl γl tanh(γl / 2) Y '= Y γl / 2 Z'= Z (2a )

( 2b)

and Z=zl, Y=yl.

Two comments are necessary here: 1. Equations (2a, 2b) show that the impedance and admittance of a transmission line are not just the impedance per unit length and admittance per unit length multiplied by the line length, Z=zl and Y=yl, respectively, but they are these values corrected by the factors
sinh γl γl

tanh(γl / 2) γl / 2


The “correction” enables the lumped parameter model to exhibit the same characteristics as the distributed parameter The next section will describe how to obtain them. We may obtain all of what we need if we have z and y. but longer lines are not and need to be multiplied by the “correction factors” listed above.htm I have derived expressions to compute per-unit length inductance and per-unit length capacitance of a transmission line given its geometry. This fact has an important implication in that short lines (less than ~100 miles) are usually well approximated by Z=zl and Y=yl. 2.0 (the first from above and the second from below) as γl becomes These expressions are: µ D Inductance (h/m): l = 2π ln R • Dm is the GMD between phase positions: a 0 m b 4 . 2.It is of interest to note that these two factors approach 1. Obtaining per-unit length parameters In the 9/6 and 9/8 notes at www.

= ( r ′d12 d13 d14 ) for 4 conductor bundle . r is the radius of a single conductor. for 6 conductor bundle = ( rd12 d13 d14 d15 d16 ) In the above.1 Inductive reactance − r 4 The per-phase inductive reactance in Ω/m of a nonµ D bundled transmission line is 2πfla.(1) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) Dm ≡ d ab d ab d ab ( ) 1/ 3 • Rb = ( r ′d12 ) Rb is the GMR of the bundle 1/ 2 .022 ×10 −3 f ln m Ω/mile Rb (4) Let’s expand the logarithm to get 5 . given by µ (3) r ′ = re 2. for 2 conductor bundle for 3 conductor bundle . and r’ is the Geometric Mean Radius (GMR) of an individual conductor. 1/ 6 = ( rd12 d13 d14 ) for 4 conductor bundle . R is Capacitive GMR for the bundle: • m c b c b c Rb = ( rd12 ) 1/ 2 for 6 conductor bundle 2πε . Therefore. 1/ 4 = ( rd12 d13 ) for 3 conductor bundle . a = ( r ′d12 d13 d14 d15 d16 ) Capacitance (f/m): c = ln( D / R ) • Dm is the same as above. we can express the reactance in Ω/mile as 0 m b a  µ0 Dm  1609 meters X L = 2πfla = 2πf   2π ln R   1 mile b   D = 2. where l = 2π ln R Ω/m. 1/ 3 for 2 conductor bundle . 1/ 4 1/ 4 1/ 3 = ( r ′d12 d13 ) .

and X’d is the capacitive reactance spacing factor.779 ×106 ln  + ×1. 2. we will get mhos/mile. 6 . Note the units are ohms-mile. so that when we invert.022 ×10 −3 f ln + 2.mile f r f                 ′ X' Xa d X’a is the capacitive reactance at 1 foot spacing. But what is Xd? This is called the inductive reactance spacing factor. Note: to get Xa. The first term is called the inductive reactance at 1 foot spacing because of the “1” in the numerator of the logarithm when Rb is given in feet. instead of ohms/mile.022 ×10 −3 f ln Dm Ω/mile  Rb               X d Xa (5) where f=60 Hz. Note that it depends only on Dm. as desired. So you can get Xd by knowing only the distance between phases.1 X L = 2. i. which is the GMD between phase positions.e.779 ×10 6 ln ( Dm ) Ω. you need not know anything about the conductor or the bundling. But you do not need to know the geometry of the phase positions. you need only to know Rb.2 Capacitive reactance Similar thinking for capacitive reactance leads to XC = 1 1  1 ×1. which means you need only know the conductor used and the bundling.

with a 6 conductor bundle per phase. Noting the below table (obtained from [2] and placed on the website). and the phases are separated by 45’. The bundles have 2.3. single circuit. which I have copied out and placed on the website. Assume the line is lossless.5’ (30’’) diameter. 3. Example Let’s compute the XL and XC for a 765 kV AC line. 7 .5’ ●●● ● ● ● 45’ ●●● ● ● ● 45’ ●●● ● ● ● Fig. 3 We will use tables from [1]. as shown in Fig. this example focuses on line geometry AEP 3. using conductor type Tern (795 kcmil). ●●● ● ● ● 2.

we find 24’’ bundle: 0.The tables show data for 24’’ and 36’’ 6-conductor bundles. Get per-unit length inductive reactance: From Table 3. From Table 3.4619 And so XL=Xa+Xd=0.0105+0.0105. From Table 3.065 8 .4619=0. Now get per-unit length capacitive reactance.3.4724 ohms/mile. but not 30’’.2.011 30’’ bundle: interpolation results in Xa=0.031 36’’ bundle: -0.12. and so we must interpolate.3.3. we find 24’’ bundle: 0. we find 45’ phase spacing: Xd=0.1.

and this is for the 6 bdl.9686 × 10 −6 = −3. γ. So z=jXL=j0.292 × 10−6 = j 0.4724 × j 6. we find 45’ phase spacing: X’d=0. From Table 3.1435Mohms-mile.1128=0. γ = zy = j 0. 765 kV circuit. S =100 MVA b b 9 . Then l=100.1128 And so XC=X’a+X’d=0.13.18 mile Convert Z and Y to per-unit.24 ohms Y = j 6.0307+0. And y=1/-jXC=1/-j(0.0018 / mile Recalling (2a.36’’ bundle: -0. 2b) sinh γl γl tanh(γl / 2) Y '= Y γl / 2 Z'= Z (2a ) ( 2b) Let’s do two calculations: • The circuit is 100 miles in length.0006986 mhos γl = j 0. Note the units of XC are ohms-mile×106. V =765kV.0307.0035 30’’ bundle: interpolation results in X’a=0. and Z = j.0018 (100miles) = j 0.1435×106)=j6.4724 Ohms/mile.9686×10-6 Mhos/mile Now compute the propagation constant.4724ohms / mile *100miles = j 47.986 ×10 −6 mhos / mile *100miles = j 0.3.

0006986/.3647ohms j6.45 It is of interest to calculate the surge impedance for this circuit.00017087=j4.0404 = j.18 / 2) j 0. V =765kV.986 ×10 −6 mhos / mile * 500miles = j 0.0885pu • The circuit is 500 miles in length.2 ohms Y = j 6.4831 Y ' =Y = j 20.0404pu.3ohms.0018 (500miles) = j 0.00017087=j20.0352 γl j.99 γl / 2 j. sinh γl sinh( j. (1d).0885 = j 4.90) j.4834 = j 20.4724ohms / mile * 500miles = j 236.18) j. Y =1/5852.3=j0.90 j.0081 = j 0.0404 = j.0081pu.6 Then the surge impedance loading is given by 10 .90 / 2) j 0.18 j.179 = j 0. we have ZC = z = y j.7833 = j. S =100 MVA Z =j236.90 / 2 j.4834pu Z '= Z b b pu pu sinh γl sinh( j.18 / 2 j.09 Z'= Z b b 3 2 6 pu pu Y =j0.Z =(765×10 ) /100×10 =5852.0035 mhos γl = j 0.00017087mhos Z =j47.18 tanh(γl / 2) tanh( j.0885 = j 4.4834 = j 21.24/5852. Then l=500.2/5852.3=j0. From eq.0035/.4724 = 260. Y =j0.00806 γl j. and • Z = j.0081 = j 0.3=0.9686 × 10 .90 mile Convert Z and Y to per-unit.0902 Y ' =Y = j 4.0976 γl / 2 j.90 tanh(γl / 2) tanh( j.

Fig. 4.3647 ( ) 2 The SIL for this circuit is 2247 MW.2477e + 009 ZC 260. 500 mile long line: Pmax=0. We can estimate line loadability from Fig.PSIL V2 765 ×103 = LL = = 2. 4 below as a function of line length. 4 100 mile long line: Pmax=2. Conductor ampacity 11 .75(2247)=1685 MW.1(2247)=4719 MW.

12 . This temperature varies widely according to engineering practice and judgment (temperatures of 50 °C to 180 °C are in use for ACSR) [Error: Reference source not found]. this same model is used to compute the conductor current necessary to cause a “maximum allowable conductor temperature” under “assumed conditions.A conductor expands when heated. with 100 °C being not uncommon. Conductor surface temperatures are a function of the following: a) Conductor material properties b) Conductor diameter c) Conductor surface conditions d) Ambient weather conditions e) Conductor electrical current IEEE Standard 738-2006 (IEEE Standard for Calculating Current–Temperature Relationship of Bare Overhead Conductors) [3] provides an analytic model for computing conductor temperature based on the above influences. and this expansion causes it to sag. In addition.” • Maximum allowable conductor temperature: This temperature is normally selected so as to limit either conductor loss of strength due to the annealing of aluminum or to maintain adequate ground clearance. as required by the National Electric Safety Code.

Limitations of SIL or lower will be more appropriate to use for these long lines. this allows for 6×860=5160 amperes. Short-line limitations are thermal-constrained. Given this information. you will not need to be too concerned about ampacity. Figure 4 indicates the short-line power handling capability of this circuit should be about 3(2247)=6741 MW. When considering relatively long lines. For example. At 6 conductors per phase.6 m/s to 1. 13 . which would correspond to a power transfer of √3 * 765000 * 5160=6837 MVA. the corresponding conductor current (I) that produced the maximum allowable conductor temperature under these weather conditions can be found from the steady-state heat balance equation [Error: Reference source not found]. 30 °C to 45 °C for summer conditions. the Tern conductor used in the 6 bundle 765kV line (see example above) is computed to have an ampacity of about 860 amperes at 75 °C conductor temperature.• Assumed conditions: It is good practice to select “conservative” weather conditions such as 0. and 2 ft/sec wind speed. Recalling the SIL for this line was 2247 MW.2 m/s wind speed (2ft/sec-4ft/sec). 25 °C ambient temperature.

This curve was developed based on the following circuit in Fig. You should have some understanding of how this curve was developed.5. • A long-line limitation corresponding to a limit of a 35 degree angular separation across the line.0 St. it is very useful. But as a planning guide. Clair Curves Figure 4 is a well-known curve that should be considered as a planning guide and not an exact relationship. Refer to [4]. 5. a predecessor paper [5]. This curve represents three different types of limits: • Short-line limitation at approximately 3 times SIL • Medium-line limitation corresponding to a limit of a 5% voltage drop across the line. 14 . and a summary in [6] for more details.

Fig. which is used to represent reactive resources associated with the receiving end of the transmission line. 6. These values can be obtained from the Thevenin impedance of the network as seen at the appropriate terminating bus. The reactances X1 and X2 represent the transmission system at the sending and receiving ends.Fig. 15 . Observe the presence of the voltage source E 2. without the transmission line under analysis. 5 This circuit was analyzed using the following algorithm. respectively.

6 16 .Fig.

θ1. B. θR Although the paper does not say much about how it makes this calculation. where we observe two curves corresponding to • Constant steady-state stability margin curve of 35% (angle is θ1. giving 4 equations to find 4 unknowns (note that the angle of E 2 is assumed to be the reference angle and thus is 0 degrees). which is from node E1 to node E2). |E2|. X. one can write two KCL equations at the two nodes corresponding to E S and ER. given by 17 . and then separate these into real and imaginary parts. 7. |ER|. The result of this analysis for a particular line design (bundle and phase geometry) is shown in Fig. This value is computed based on %StabilityMargin = Pmax − Prated × 100% Pmax • Constant line voltage drop curve of 5%. X1. this problem is posed as: Given: R. X2. |ER| Find: |E1|. |ES|. θs.The key calculation performed in the algorithm is represented by block having the statement CALCULATE |ER|=f(θ1) Referring to the circuit diagram.

7 In Fig.%VoltageDrop = E s − Er × 100% Es Fig. the dark solid curve is the composite of the two limitations associated with steady-state stability and 18 . 7.

also applies its approach to higher voltage transmission. 500 kV was not included).0 pu SIL value which limits the lower end of the curve is associated with the conductor’s thermal limit. The 3. 6. For these various transmission voltages. it presents a table of data that can be used in the circuit of Fig. This table is copied out below. Using this. nom ×50 E 3 Then the corresponding reactance may be computed by X pu = 2 V pu MVA pu 19 . we can get the fault duty in MVA according to MVA3φ = 3 ×VLL . assumed in both cases to be 50 kA. and 1500 kV (Unfortunately. The “system strength at each terminal” is quantified by the fault duty at that terminal. 765 kV. for some reason. The paper being discussed [Error: Reference source not found].voltage drop. 1100 kV. 5 and the algorithm of Fig. in addition to 345 kV.

base 2/Xbase and Spu=(Vpu)2/Xpu Xpu=Vpu2/Spu. but notice that 20 pu .base 2/Xbase][(Vpu)2/Xpu] And we see that S3φ. We will assume that Vpu=1.151%.baseSpu=[3VLN. which can be useful for rough calculations.625 E10 volt . Writing all S.251 MVA.This can be shown as follows: S3φ=3VLN2/X. the last equation results in X pu = 1 MVA3φ / 100 = 100 MVA3φ For example. then we obtain MVA3φ = 3 ×VLL . let’s consider the 765 kV circuit.000=0. V. and with a 100 MVA base.00151pu which is 0. nom ×50000 = 3 ×765000 ×50000 = 6.base)2/(XpuXbase) Rearranging. Observe the table above gives 66. S3φ. The table also provides line impedance and susceptance. we get S3φ.baseSpu=3[(VpuVLN. and X quantities as products of their pu values and their base quantities. X =100/66.amperes which is 66. Then.000 MVA.base=3VLN. as given in the table.

respectively. and 9940 MW for 345. 765. and 1500 kV.022 ×10 −3 f ln Dm Ω/mile  Rb              X d Xa 1 1  1 X C = ×1.779 ×10 6 ln ( Dm ) Ω. Recall what determines SIL: PSIL = 1 X L = 2.779 ×106 ln  + ×1. the table provides the surge impedance loading (SIL) of the transmission lines at the four different voltage levels. 2250.the values are given in % per mile.mile f r f                 ′ X' Xa d 2 VLL ZC ZC = z = y X L XC 21 . 5180. Finally. 1100. as 320. which are 100 times the values given in pu per mile.022 ×10 −3 f ln + 2.

r ′ = re R c b is Capacitive GMR for the bundle: c Rb = ( rd12 ) 1/ 2 .” (Although SIL is also influenced by voltage level. 1/ 4 = ( rd12 d13 ) for 3 conductor bundle . 1/ 3 for 2 conductor bundle . 1/ 4 = ( r ′d12 d13 ) for 3 conductor bundle . P rated SIL /P .Dm is the GMD between phase positions: (1) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) Dm ≡ d ab d ab d ab ( ) 1/ 3 Rb is the GMR of the bundle Rb = ( r ′d12 ) 1/ 2 . 1/ 6 = ( rd12 d13 d14 ) for 4 conductor bundle . for 4 conductor bundle for 6 conductor bundle = ( r ′d12 d13 d14 ) µ − r 4 1/ 4 = ( r ′d12 d13 d14 d15 d16 ) . is not. b c b b b c We refer to data which determines SIL as “line constants. for 6 conductor bundle = ( rd12 d13 d14 d15 d16 ) So in conclusion. 1/ 3 for 2 conductor bundle .) 22 . the normalized value of power flow. we observe that SIL is determined by • m Phase positions (which determines D ) • Choice of conductor (which determines r and r’ and influences R and R ) • Bundling (which influences R and R ).

of their corresponding voltage classes. UHV line data is still tentative because both the choice of voltage level and optimum line design are not finalized.or the receiving-end power -. 8 below. but rather is a function of the line length and its terminal voltages. such lines closely approximate a lossless line from the standpoint of loadability analysis. Therefore.expressed in per-unit of rated SIL – especially at UHV levels. The reason lies in the fact that for a lossless line. because Prated/PSIL is almost independent of line constants but rather just the line length and The paper justifies the “lossless line” requirement: The paper develops the St. the loadabilities in per-unit of SIL of these lines are practically independent of their respective line constants and.” 1100 and 1500 kV transmissio n has never been built and so we are really just guessing in But it does not matter. and a 1500 kV transmission line. This uncertainty about the line constants. a 23 .Reference [Error: Reference source not found] makes a startling claim (italics added): “Unlike the 345-kV or 765-kV line parameters. 1100 kV. is not very critical in determining the line loadability -. Observe that the three curves are almost identical. Obviously. The paper further states (italics added): “It is reassuring to know that one single curve can be applied to all voltage classes in the EHV/UHV range. This concept is discussed further in the Appendix. Clair curves for a 765 kV. it can be shown that the line loadability -.” “Since the resistance of the EHV/UHV lines is much smaller than their 60-Hz reactance. however. SR/SIL. as a result. is not dependent on the line terms of SIL of that line. and I have replicated it in Fig.

it can provide a reasonable basis for any preliminary estimates of the amount of power that can be transferred over a welldesigned transmission system. nonetheless.general transmission loading curve will not cover the complete range of possible applications.” 24 .

depending on their extent. the effect of some of the variations in these assumed parameters such as terminal system strength. are clearly enumerated on the EHV/UHV loadability chart shown in Figure 8 -.which. they should properly be accounted for in the line loadability estimates. shunt compensation. are investigated in the next section. for convenience.” Note from Fig.Fig. 8 A final statement made in the paper is worth pointing out (italics added): “Any departures from the assumed performance criteria and system parameters -. 8 the “assumed performance criteria”: • Line voltage drop = 5% • S-S stability margin = 30% and the “system parameters”: 25 . line-voltage-drop criterion and stability margin.must not be ignored and. To illustrate this.

To get P SIL rated constant” data. Finally. 8 also provides a table with • Nominal voltage • Number and size of conductors per bundle • Surge impedance loading • Line charging per 100 miles These are “line constant” data! Why do they give them to us? Although P rated /P SIL is independent of the “line is not. SIL 26 . we must know P . very much Clair curve. observe that Fig. and P depends on the “line constant” data. P rated from the St.• Terminal system S/C – 50 kA (at each end) • No series (cap) or shunt (ind) compensation The paper provides sensitivity studies on both the performance criteria and some system parameters.

The tables also to provide four four AC values. which causes a non-uniform current density to exist such that it is greater at the conductor’s surface than at the conductor’s interior. which is just ρl/A.0 Resistance I have posted on the website tables from reference [Error: Reference source not found] that provide resistance in ohms per mile for a number of common conductors. operating corresponding different temperatures (25. where ρ is the electrical resistivity in ohm-meters. This reduces the effective cross-sectional area of the 27 . 50. and 100 degrees C). 75. These values are all higher than the DC value because of the skin effect. l is the conductor length in meters. and A is the 2 conductor cross-sectional area in meters . A DC value is given.6.

500. 115. HV AC is considered to include voltage levels 69. There also exists 765 kV in Russia. Brazil. as indicated by Fig.conductor. direction. and solar radiation) are assumed. 161. Loss studies may model AC resistance as a function of current. 7. owned by AEP. 28 . 9 [7]. There exists a great deal of 345 and 500 kV all over the country. Venezuela and South Korea. and 765 kV. and 230 kV. 138. The only 765 kV today in the US is in the Ohio and surrounding regions. South Africa. Transmission equipment designed to operate at 765 kV is sometimes referred to as an 800 kV voltage class.0 General comments on overhead transmission In the US. where ambient conditions (wind speed. EHV is considered to include 345.

Fig. 9 Figure 10 shows ABB’s deliveries of 800 kV voltage class autotransformers (AT) and generator step-up banks (GSUs) from 1965 to 2001 [8].Fig. 10 29 .

10 that was a distinct decline in 765 kV AC investment occurred beginning in the early 1980s and reaching bottom in 1989. with projects in China and India underway. 8. at 1200 kV [9].It is clear from Fig.0 General comments on underground transmission Underground transmission has traditionally not been considered a viable option for long-distance transmission because it is significantly more expensive than overhead due to two main issues: (a) It requires insulation with relatively high dielectric strength owing to the proximity of the phase conductors with the earth and with each other. However. There is no UHV transmission in the US. Therefore the operational benefit to long distance transmission of increased voltage levels. and projects in the US under consideration. The only UHV of which I am aware is in neighboring countries to Russia. This issue becomes more restrictive with higher voltage. UHV is considered to include 1000 kV and above. there has been renewed interest in 765 kV during the past few years. loss 30 .

offset by the significantly higher investment costs associated with the insulation. for underground transmission.reduction (due to lower current for a given power transfer capability). (b) The ability to cool underground conductors as they are more heavily loaded is much more limited than overhead. Table 1 31 . Table 1 [10] provides a cost comparison of overhead and underground transmission for three different voltage ranges. is. since the underground conductors are enclosed and the overhead conductors are exposed to the air and wind.

Because underground is not exposed like overhead. This smaller difference may be justifiable. it requires less right-of-way. Such has been the case in France now for several years. This fact. coupled with the fact that public resistance to overhead is much greater than underground. that this issue does not account for obtaining right-of-way. can bring overall installation costs of the two technologies closer together.Although Table 1 is a bit dated (1996). Note. it makes the point that the underground cabling is significantly more expensive than overhead conductors. particularly if it is simply not possible to build an overhead line due to public resistance. 32 . however.

2006. Lings. Weiners. 11-15 July 2005. Report 110. Canada. August 1985. “Transmission of Electric Power at Ultra-High Voltages: Current Status and Future Prospects. Dunlop. 4 [] R. June 1997. Durban. [] H. 6 [] Electric Power Research Institute." AIEE Transactions (Power Apparatus and Systems).com/library/Download. March/April 1979. Clair.. “Transmission Line Reference Book: 345 kV and Above. St.” Proceedings Of The IEEE. C.” IEEE PES 2005 Conference and Exposition in Africa. R.” available at http://search. Gutman. "Practical Concepts in Capability and Performance of Transmission Lines. Vol.01. a comparison between transmission lines for HVDC at voltages above 600 kV DC and 800 kV AC. Vol. publication EL-2500.aspx? DocumentID=04MP0274&LanguageCode=en&DocumentPartID=&Action=Launch &IncludeExternalPublicLimited=True. REPORT AND GUIDELINES. “ Russian EHV Transmission System. revised. 1987. “Overview of Transmission Lines Above 700 kV. Vassell. No. 8 [] L.” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems.” second edition. Marchenko. 2. Scherer and G. 1982. 5 [] H. 9 [] V. 73. South Africa. revised. 3 [] IEEE Standard 738-2006. 10 [] COMPARISON OF HIGH VOLTAGE OVERHEAD LINES AND UNDERGROUND CABLES. “Bulk power transmission at extra high voltages. December. Rashkes. and P. Vancouver.” IEEE.1 [] Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). September 1-4. Paper 53-338 presented at the AIEE Pacific General Meeting. 8. 1996. “Transmission Line Reference Book: 345 kV and Above. “IEEE Standard for Calculating the Current–Temperature Relationship of Bare Overhead Conductors. P. B. No.” second edition. 1953. “Analytical Development of Loadability Characteristics for EHV and UHV Transmission Lines.” IEEE Power Engineering Society Review. 7 . 2 [] R. CIGRE Joint Working Group 21/22.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful