Tools for Conductor Evaluation: State of the Art

Review and Promising Technologies

1002002

Tools for Conductor Evaluation: State of the Art

Review and Promising Technologies
1002002
Technical Update, December 2003

EPRI Project Manager

J. Chan

EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
EPRIsolutions, Inc.

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

ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow
Way, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520. Toll-free number: 800.313.3774, press 2, or internally x5379;
voice: 925.609.9169; fax: 925.609.1310.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2003 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

CITATIONS
This document was prepared by
EPRIsolutions, Inc.
100 Research Drive
Haslet, Texas 76052
Principal Investigator
D. Cannon
This document describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
New Tools for Conductor Evaluation: State of the Art Review and Promising Technologies,
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2003. 1002002.

iii

iv

ABSTRACT
EPRI has investigated degradation modes and inspection and assessment methods for overhead
lines. This report provides an overview of the findings of this investigation. Primary
degradation modes that have been identified include broken strands due to vandalism or
conductor motion, corrosion of steel shield wires and the steel core and adjacent aluminum
strands on conductors, degradation of conductor joints from corrosion and high temperature
operation, and loss of strength in conductors due to high temperature operation. Inspection
methods that are most effective vary according to the type and location of the conductor
degradation. In particular, visual inspection techniques are effective only for degradation that is
readily visible from the ground or air during a routine inspection. Therefore, more sophisticated
non-destructive inspection technologies are needed to inspect for degradation that is inside the
conductor or attachments and therefore not readily visible. This report identifies several of the
non-destructive inspection technologies available and briefly discusses their application to
overhead line conductors.

vi

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1-1
2 CONDUCTOR CHARACTERISTICS .....................................................................................2-1
General..................................................................................................................................2-1
Materials................................................................................................................................2-1
Construction...........................................................................................................................2-2
AAC................................................................................................................................2-2
ACSR..............................................................................................................................2-2
AAAC .............................................................................................................................2-3
ACAR .............................................................................................................................2-3
ACSS ..............................................................................................................................2-3
Copper.............................................................................................................................2-3
Steel ................................................................................................................................2-3
Alumaweld....................................................................................................................2-4
Copperweld...................................................................................................................2-4
Special Conductors ...........................................................................................................2-4
3 DEGRADATION MODES.......................................................................................................3-1
General..................................................................................................................................3-1
Broken Strands.......................................................................................................................3-1
Corrosion...............................................................................................................................3-3
Bad Joints ..............................................................................................................................3-6
Strength Loss .........................................................................................................................3-7
4 INSPECTION & ASSESSMENT METHODS ..........................................................................4-1
Inspection Methods.................................................................................................................4-1
Inspection Methods for Broken Strands ....................................................................................4-1
Visual Inspection ..............................................................................................................4-1
Corona Inspection.............................................................................................................4-2
EMAT Inspection .............................................................................................................4-2
Thermal Imaging ..............................................................................................................4-2
Radiographic Inspection ....................................................................................................4-3
Inspection Methods for Corrosion ............................................................................................4-3
Visual Inspection ..............................................................................................................4-4
Corrosion Detector Inspection............................................................................................4-4
Rotesco Inspection............................................................................................................4-6
EMAT Inspection .............................................................................................................4-6
Inspection Methods for Bad Joints............................................................................................4-6
Visual Inspection ..............................................................................................................4-6
Thermal Imaging ..............................................................................................................4-7

vii

Resistance Measurements ..................................................................................................4-7

Inspection Methods for Strength Loss.......................................................................................4-8
Lab Testing ......................................................................................................................4-9
Methods of Condition Assessment .........................................................................................4-10
Making Repair and Replacement Decisions.......................................................................4-11
5 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................5-1

viii

1
INTRODUCTION
For the past few years EPRI has been investigating methods for inspection and condition
assessment of conductors on overhead transmission lines. The investigation has included two
types of bare overhead transmission conductors: (1) phase conductors and (2) overhead ground
or shield wires. The characteristics and behavior of phase conductors and overhead ground wires
are similar in many ways, which makes it appropriate to address them simultaneously.
Overhead transmission line conductors provide the conductive path to carry electric power from
the power generator to the end user. The primary function of these conductors is to carry electric
current without excessive electrical losses. To do this they must resist daily and extreme
electrical/mechanical loading events without failure and they must maintain sufficient clearances
to avoid phase-to-ground or phase-to-phase flashovers.
The primary function of overhead ground wires is to shield the phase conductors from lightning
strokes. They must also resist daily and extreme loading events without failure and must
maintain sufficient clearance from the phase conductors that they shield.
An effective inspection and assessment method must be able to detect degradation that might
lead to a failure of the conductor or shield wire well before such a failure occurs.
This report provides an update on the findings of this investigation to date.

1-1

2
CONDUCTOR CHARACTERISTICS
General
It is important to have a clear understanding of the characteristics of overhead line conductors in
order to better evaluate and select appropriate inspection and assessment methods. The
following sections provide a discussion of the materials commonly used in bare overhead
conductors and of the construction characteristics of the more commonly used conductors.

Materials
Bare phase conductors and overhead ground wires used in overhead transmission lines are
generally constructed from three materials: copper, aluminum, and steel.
Many years ago copper was the primary choice for conductor wires due to superior conductivity
and strength. It is still common to find copper conductors in older lines. However, the use of
copper in newer lines is uncommon because it is heavier and generally more expensive than
aluminum conductor with similar electrical properties. In addition to its good conductivity
properties, copper also has good corrosion resistance properties.
Today, aluminum is the conducting material most prevalent in overhead line conductors because
of its favorable price and low weight relative to copper. Aluminum also has good conductivity
and while it is subject to corrosion, the resulting corrosion creates a protective layer that tends to
protect the conductor from further deterioration. However, the stiffness and strength of
aluminum is lower than copper. Therefore, for longer spans it becomes necessary to strengthen
the conductor either by using a stronger aluminum alloy or by adding material with a greater
strength and stiffness.
Traditionally, the material added to aluminum to achieve greater strength has been steel. Steel
has high strength and low conductivity. But by combining the aluminum with steel we are able
to draw on the relative strengths of each material to obtain a conductor that has both the
electrical conductivity and the mechanical strength necessary to perform effectively under the
array of conditions to which it is subjected. Steel is also highly susceptible to corrosion attack
and is therefore typically galvanized for protection.
An alternative to using zinc (galvanizing) as a protective layer for steel is to cover the steel with
a conductive layer that is more corrosion resistant than steel. Copperweld has a thick layer of
copper bonded to the steel and Alumoweld has a thick layer of Aluminum bonded to the steel.
The result is wires that have both increased corrosion resistance and increased conductivity
relative to galvanized steel. These wires are more commonly used for overhead ground wires,
although they may be used as components of phase conductors as well.

2-1

Construction
Overhead phase conductors and shield wires can be constructed of either single solid wires or of
a stranded group of smaller wires. At transmission voltages it is most common to see stranded
conductors on modern construction (Figure 1). These stranded conductors are classified as
concentric-lay-stranded conductor, meaning that they consist of a straight center core wire
surrounded by one or more layers of helically wound wires. While most stranded conductors
consist of a number of round strands, there are special conductors that include layers of
trapezoidal strands. The number and size of strands depends of the type and size of the
conductor. Following is a summary of more common conductor types.

Figure 1 - Cross-section of a Typical Stranded Aluminum Conductor, Steel Reinforced (ACSR)

AAC
All-aluminum conductor (AAC) is a low cost conductor that offers good conductivity and
corrosion resistance, but only moderate mechanical strength. Therefore it is most often used in
applications of short spans where maximum current transfer is required. The individual strands
of an AAC conductor are all the same diameter and layered to generate conductors having totals
of 1, 7, 19, 37, 91, or 128 strands (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 layers, respectively).
ACSR
Aluminum conductor, steel reinforced (ACSR) is probably the most common conductor found
on existing transmission lines. It consists of a steel core surrounded by one or more layers of
aluminum. The steel core may consist of 1, 7, or 19 galvanized steel strands. This steel core
may be surrounded by up to three layers of aluminum strands, which may be of the same or
different diameter from the steel strands in the core. The high tensile strength coupled with the
good conductivity of the ACSR conductor makes it the conductor of choice for many
applications.

2-2

AAAC
All-aluminum alloy conductor (AAAC) is similar in construction to the AAC except that the
aluminum strands are replaced with an aluminum alloy that yields greater mechanical strength
while maintaining excellent conductivity and corrosion resistance. These conductors are
typically used in corrosive environments when the required strength is greater than that provided
by an AAC conductor.
ACAR
Aluminum conductor, aluminum-alloy reinforced (ACAR) is similar in construction to the
ACSR except that the galvanized steel core is replaced with an aluminum alloy core that gives
the conductor higher mechanical strength that AAC conductor while maintaining corrosion
resistance properties in the core.
ACSS
Aluminum conductor, steel-supported (ACSS) is similar to the ACSR conductor except that the
aluminum strands are fully annealed. This causes the entire load to be carried by the steel core
under typical operating conditions. The major benefit of this conductor is that it can be operated
at temperatures above 200oC without loss of strength. While not common in older lines, this
conductor is often being considered and used in construction of new lines and upgrading of old
lines to increase the thermal limits.
Copper
While rarely used in new construction of overhead transmission lines, copper conductor is fairly
commonly encountered in very old transmission lines. Copper conductor is available in a variety
of sizes ranging from a single strand up to as many as 61 strands. Copper has excellent
conductivity and good corrosion resistance. However it is heavier and more expensive than
aluminum and is therefore used less frequently in modern overhead line construction.
Steel
High-strength and extra-high-strength steel conductor is commonly used for overhead ground
wires in transmission line construction. These conductors consist of 7-strands of steel and range
in size from 5/16-in. to 5/8-in. in diameter. The steel is very susceptible to corrosion and is
therefore coated with zinc (galvanized) to improve its corrosion resistance. However, in a
particularly corrosive environment the zinc tends to deteriorate over time and corrosion of the
steel eventually becomes an issue once again.

2-3

Alumaweld
Alumaweld consists of steel strands with a thick aluminum cladding in place of the typical
galvanizing. This both provides corrosion protection to the steel and improves the conductivity
of the wire, which improves its performance when subjected to lightning strokes. For these
reasons it may be used in place of galvanized steel for the overhead ground wire in transmission
lines. Alumaweld wires are available in several sizes consisting of 3, 7, 19, and 37 strands.
Alumaweld wires can also be used instead of the normal galvanized steel core in ACSR
conductors to create ACSR/AW conductors.
Copperweld
Copperweld consists of steel strands with a thick copper cladding in place of the typical
galvanizing. This both provides corrosion protection to the steel and improves the conductivity
of the wire, which improves its performance when subjected to lightning strokes. For these
reasons it may be used in place of galvanized steel for the overhead ground wire in transmission
lines. Copperweld wires are available in several sizes consisting of 1, 3, 7, and 19 strands.
Copperweld and copper strands can also be combined into a stranded Copperweld copper
conductor.
Special Conductors
Some of the more commonly used special conductors replace round wire strands of previously
discussed conductors with trapezoidal aluminum strands. This places a larger volume of
aluminum within the same cross-sectional diameter, increasing the power transfer capability
without increasing the projected wind area and resulting loads on the conductor and its support
structures. These trap wire designs are typically a variation on the AAC, ACSR, and ACSS
conductors discussed previously. They are designated by adding /TW to the conductor
designation (e.g. ACSR/TW).
Self-damping conductor (SDC) has a steel core surrounded by one or more aluminum layers
much like ACSR. However, with SDC conductor the first layer of aluminum, and sometimes the
outer layers as well, consists of trapezoidal strands of such a size that a gap exists between the
steel core and the first layer of aluminum. The structural characteristics of the steel and
aluminum layers give them different natural vibration frequencies, which lead to frequent
impacts between the layers. These impacts tend to damp any Aeolian vibration of the conductor.
GAP conductors are similar to the self-damping conductor in construction. The primary
difference is that the gap between the steel and aluminum is filled with special heat resistant
grease. This allows the aluminum to float on the outside of the steel and surrounding grease
and the conductor can be tensioned via the steel core without placing any tension on the
aluminum. The result is that the amount of sag in the conductor is much less at high temperature
than that for traditional ACSR conductors.
Several new conductor technologies are currently emerging that take advantage of composite
material technology. These new technologies include aluminum conductor carbon fiber
2-4

reinforced (ACFR), aluminum conductor composite reinforced (ACCR), aluminum conductor

composite core (ACCC), and composite reinforced aluminum conductor (CRAC). Each of these
conductors uses composite material technology to engineer conductors with improved thermal
performance.

2-5

3
DEGRADATION MODES
General
Having a clear understanding of the degradation modes that can lead to failure of the conductor
or shield wire can help us make better selections of appropriate inspection and assessment
methods. Degradation modes that can eventually lead to failure include broken strands,
corrosion, deterioration of joints, and loss of material strength.

Broken Strands
There are two primary sources of broken strands in conductors and shield wires, vandalism and
wear or fatigue.
In areas where hunting and shooting are common pastimes, one may find locations where the
conductor has been shot. This is the primary type of vandalism that can harm conductors and
contribute to their long-term degradation. Damage from gunshot could range from nicked
strands to a few broken strands to a bullet lodged into the conductor. Damage that is likely the
result of gunshot is shown in Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2 - Example of Gunshot Damage - Bulging Strands

3-1

Figure 3 - Example of Gunshot Damage - Broken Strands

Wear and fatigue of conductor strands due to wind induced conductor motion can also lead to
broken strands. Three types of wind-induced conductor motion can cause damage to conductors.
Aeolian vibration is high frequency, low amplitude vibration of the conductor due to low-speed
wind flow perpendicular to the conductor. Galloping is low frequency, high amplitude motion of
the conductor due to wind-on-ice loading of the conductor. Wake-induced oscillation is low
frequency motion of bundled conductor due to shielding effects of leeward conductors by
windward conductors.
Aeolian vibration results in fatigue of conductor strands in the area of attachments to the
conductor. Eventually this fatigue results in broken strands in the area of attachment as shown in
Figure 4. Attachments that could contribute to fatigue damage include tower suspension
attachments, spacer attachments, and compression splices and dead ends. Aeolian vibration is
caused by low speed smooth winds perpendicular to the conductor. Therefore, lines that are
perpendicular to prevailing wind and in areas where light laminar winds are common are most
susceptible Design steps are normally taken to minimize Aeolian vibration including limiting
conductor tension, use of armor rods at attachment points, and application of vibration dampers
on conductors.

3-2

Figure 4 - Example of Broken Strands Under Suspension Attachment Due to Fatigue from Aeolian
Vibration

Galloping results in very high dynamic loading of the conductor and can lead to conductor
damage and/or failure. Galloping is normally caused by steady moderately strong wind
perpendicular to an asymmetrically iced conductor. In a worst-case situation, the amplitude of
conductor galloping can meet or even exceed the sag of the conductor. A very short duration of
extreme galloping can cause major damage to not only the conductor, but also to many other line
components. Damage to conductors would typically occur in two areas. Broken conductor
strands may occur in conductor attachment areas. The surface of the conductor could be scared
with pitting and burn marks out in the span due to flashovers between adjacent phase conductors
during the galloping event.
Wake-induced oscillation may occur in bundled conductors under the influence of moderate to
high-speed steady wind. A variety of motion patterns can occur depending on bundle
arrangements. The magnitude of motion can be very small or can be large enough to cause
adjacent conductors in the bundle to clash together. Resulting damage can include accelerated
wearing of conductors and hardware at attachments and at points where adjacent conductors
clash together.

Corrosion
Corrosion is a primary means of deterioration for metals. Most metals corrode in the presence of
water, acids, bases, salts, oils and other solid and liquid chemicals. They also corrode when
exposed to various gases including acid vapors, ammonia, and sulfur containing gases. The rate
of corrosion is dependent of a variety of factors including the properties of the metal and the

3-3

presence of water, oxygen and various contaminates. Regardless of the corrosion rate, the
eventual result is loss of material and potentially reduced ability of the metal to perform its
intended function.
Corrosion is an electrochemical process that seeks to reduce the binding energy in metals. In the
presence of an electrolyte (e.g. water) a metal atom is oxidized, whereby it loses one or more
electrons and leaves the metal surface. The lost electrons are conducted through the metal to
another site where they are reduced. The site where metal atoms lose electrons is called the
anode, and the site where electrons are gained is called the cathode.
There are two primary types of corrosion that can attack overhead line conductors and shield
wires, atmospheric corrosion and galvanic corrosion.
Atmospheric corrosion is simply the gradual degradation of a metal by contact with substances
present in the atmosphere, such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and sulfur and chlorine
compounds. In the case of atmospheric corrosion, the anode and cathode would be on the same
base metal. Atmospheric corrosion is primarily a concern with galvanized steel overhead ground
wires and the galvanized steel core of ACSR or ACSS conductors. Figure 5 shows a sample of
corrosion on an overhead ground wire. The internal strand is exposed in the photograph to show
that the corrosion is primarily on the exterior surfaces of the wire. Figure 6 shows exposed steel
core strands from two identical conductor samples, one sample showing corrosion on the steel
core and the other showing a corrosion-free steel core. Note that the outer surface of the
aluminum strands looks about the same for both conductors, which is an indication of the
difficulty in identifying steel core corrosion by field observation.

Figure 5 - Corrosion of Overhead Ground Wire

3-4

Figure 6 - Corroded and Pristine Steel Core Examples

Galvanic corrosion occurs when two dissimilar metals are brought together in the presence of
moisture and electric potential. This causes one metal to become an anode and the other to
become a cathode. The result is that the corrosion of the anode will accelerate and the corrosion
of the cathode will decelerate or stop. The anode will be the metal that can most easily give up
an electron.
In the case of ACSR conductors, the zinc galvanizing would be the anode and the aluminum
would be the cathode as long as the galvanizing is intact. However, once the zinc coating has
been exhausted by the galvanic corrosion and the aluminum is now in contact with the steel, the
aluminum becomes the sacrificial anode and begins to corrode at a higher rate while the rate of
steel corrosion is reduced. Figure 7 shows an expanded conductor sample illustrating both steel
core corrosion and galvanic corrosion of the aluminum strands in contact with the steel core.
Note the dark discoloration of the outer aluminum strands at the top and bottom of the photo.
Also note that there is no galvanizing remaining on the steel core strands. The lighter colored
areas on the internal aluminum strands are locations where galvanic corrosion of the aluminum
has probably begun. The byproduct of galvanic corrosion of the aluminum is a white powdery
byproduct that might work its way out to the conductor surface and be visible in extreme cases of
galvanic corrosion.

3-5

Figure 7 - Expanded Conductor Showing Steel Core Corrosion and Initial Galvanic Corrosion of
Aluminum

Bad Joints
One of the primary issues for the integrity of a conductor is the degradation of the compression
joints used to splice two conductor segments together or connect the conductor to a dead-end
support.
The most common conductor joints are fittings made of aluminum and steel sleeves or cylinders
that are compressed on the conductor using a hydraulic press. This creates a friction connection
between the conductor strands and the associated compression sleeve. For all aluminum
conductors (AAC, AAAC, etc.) these joints consist of a single aluminum sleeve that is
compressed onto the outside of the conductor. For conductors that include a steel core the joints
normally consist of two sleeves, one smaller sleeve compressed on the steel core and a larger
aluminum sleeve over top of the steel sleeve and compressed on the aluminum strands.
Conductor joints are subjected to most of the same degradation modes as the full conductor
including corrosion, excessive current, mechanical overload, and conductor motion. For proper
performance of these joints it is important that correct construction methods be followed. When
they arent followed correctly the resulting construction defects tend to aggravate the effects of
the various degradation modes that have been discussed. The most common problems result in
high resistance in the joint, which in turn leads to elevated joint temperature during high current
operations and eventually to mechanical failure of the joint.
3-6

Strength Loss
Excessive current in the conductor leads to overheating, which in turn can lead to annealing and
resulting loss of strength in the aluminum portions of the conductor. This excessive current can
come from either emergency operations or from current surges due to lightning or faults.
o

Repeated operation of aluminum conductors at temperatures of 100 C or greater will result in

annealing of the aluminum strands and loss of conductor strength for most standard conductors
(AAC, ACSR, etc.). For this reason normal operating limits are usually set below that
temperature. However, for emergency operations utilities will allow thermal limits up to 125oC
or higher for short durations. The resulting loss of strength in the aluminum depends on the
o
cumulative duration at various temperatures above 100 C.
For example, 100-hrs of operation at 125oC would result in approximately 7% reduction in
strength for the aluminum strands of a normal conductor1. For an AAC conductor this equates to
a 7% loss of strength for the conductor. However, for a representative 795-kcmil ACSR
conductor (26/7 Drake) this may yield only a 3% loss of strength. For emergency operating
o
purposes, a utility might limit a conductor to 24-hrs at an emergency temperature of 150 C each
year. Over a 30-year conductor life, this would result in a 24% loss of strength for an AAC
conductor but only a 10% loss of strength for our representative Drake ACSR conductor. Longer
service life with more accumulated time above 100oC would lead to greater strength loss.
Fault currents and lightning also contribute to annealing of aluminum and loss of strength in the
conductor. Although the duration of loading is generally very short, the current is also very high.
Therefore, heating due to faults and lightning has a cumulative effect with emergency operations.
Because the duration and frequency of these fault currents is normally relatively small, this effect
is normally neglected in predictions of remaining strength of conductors. However, it could be a
significant conductor degradation factor if a line has been subjected to excessive fault events.
In addition to loss of conductor strength due to aluminum annealing, high temperature operation
of conductors also contributes to additional conductor creep and increased sag. This is a very
complex phenomenon and beyond the scope of this report. However, this effect can result in
significant changes in the conductor sag.
Pitting and melting of the conductor surface is a second form of degradation that occurs in the
case of faults or lightning strokes. Aluminum is more resistant to this effect than other metals
and may only show a loss of sheen, a slight roughening, and a change of color on the conductor
surface. However, the existence of these symptoms is indicative of a conductor that has
experienced current surges and may have experienced other damage as a result.

Aluminum Electrical Conductor Handbook, Third Edition, The Aluminum Association,

Washington, D.C. 20006, 1989.
3-7

4
INSPECTION & ASSESSMENT METHODS
Inspection Methods
The challenge is to identify critical degradation of conductors before the degradation leads to any
of the failure modes defined previously. Therefore, adequate inspection methods and
frequencies are important to maintain the integrity of the system. Unfortunately, there is no
single inspection method that is effective at detecting all of the degradation modes identified. As
a result, a combination of techniques is required to obtain a complete assessment of the condition
of overhead line conductors and ground wires.

Inspection Methods for Broken Strands

The ease with which broken strands can be detected is primarily determined by the location of
the broken strands within the conductor cross-section and within the length of the conductor
span.
Strands that are broken due to vandalism are generally visible on the surface of the conductor
between conductor attachments. The ease of their detection may depend upon whether broken
strands protrude from the conductor or remain in their normal lay position flush with the
conductor surface.
On the other hand, strands that are broken due to conductor motion are more likely to be on
internal conductor layers or within the confines of conductor attachments and therefore hidden
from view. These hidden broken strands are much more of a challenge to the inspector.
Visual Inspection
Visual inspection is the most commonly used form of inspection for all transmission line
problems. Normally, this visual inspection takes place from the ground or from a helicopter. In
the case of overhead conductors and ground wires, there is a limit to what problems can be
detected using visual inspection techniques. But the most commonly visible problem is broken
outer strands of the conductor, often with protruding strands making the damage more easily
detected.
Unfortunately, broken strands that occur internal to the conductor or within the confines of
attachments to the conductors cannot be easily detected during a routine visual inspection.
Broken strands inside the conductor and under attachment points can be detected visually by
physically exposing the damage, which requires contact and possibly de-energization of the
conductor. But this is an expensive inspection method that is generally undertaken only in cases
where a history of broken strands at conductor attachment points warrants the added expense.

4-1

Corona Inspection
Oftentimes, broken strands on the surface of the conductor will be protruded from the conductor.
This may make them easier to detect visually. Additionally, at higher voltages these protruding
strands are likely to generate corona that can be detected by various techniques. The DayCor
camera is coming into common use for corona inspection of overhead transmission lines. This
technology can detect small amounts of corona during daylight conditions, making it an ideal
choice for inspecting for broken conductor strands. In addition to protruding broken strands,
conductor problems that can be detected by the DayCor camera include bird-caging and severe
surface scaring.
Conditions that are detectable by DayCor are limited to those that cause corona. Therefore,
conductor corrosion and broken strands internal to the conductor and/or conductor attachments
are generally not detectable by this technology. EPRI has published an extensive guide for
corona detection using DayCor that includes examples of conductor problems that can be
detected2.
EMAT Inspection
The Electromagnetic Acoustical Transducer (EMAT) technology has recently been developed by
EPRI for stranded conductors and overhead ground wires. This technology was developed for
detection of broken strands internal to conductor and attachments and is currently undergoing
field trials for this application. As illustrated in Figure 14, this technology can be applied on an
energized line using bare-hand techniques. The technology is able to identify conditions in
which several broken conductor strand exist within the region of attachment to the support
structure. As with all non-destructive inspection technologies, it is critical that a valid calibration
of the EMAT be performed in order to assure reliable test results. Field trials are continuing to
generate additional calibration and usability data to be incorporated in final production versions
of the technology.
Thermal Imaging
Thermal imaging with an infrared camera is commonly used to detect conductor joints with high
resistance and resulting elevated temperature. In theory thermal imaging can be used to detect
any conductor degradation that yields an increase in conductor resistance. This would include
broken conductor strands as well as bad joints. However, while thermal imaging has been used
successfully to detect broken strands in the laboratory, it has generally been found that field
application of thermal imaging to detect broken conductor strands outside of joints is not
effective.

Guide to Corona and Arcing Inspection of Overhead Transmission Lines, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
2001. 1001910.

4-2

Figure 8 - EMAT Unit Being Placed on Conductor

Radiographic Inspection
Radiographic inspection can also be used to detect broken strands internal to the conductor
and/or the attachment point. This involves placing either X-rays or gamma rays near the
conductor region to be inspected. These rays pass through the inspection article and are captured
on film. When the film is processed the image is a series of grey shades between black and
white. If properly applied and tuned this image will show any broken conductor strands inside
the attachment point. This method is expensive and must be applied with care. Therefore it is
not used frequently in practice.

Inspection Methods for Corrosion

Corrosion is typically an issue for both aluminum conductors with galvanized steel core and
galvanized steel shield wires. The shield wire is subject to atmospheric corrosion, which begins
with the exposed zinc coating on the steel and progresses to corrosion of the steel once it is
exposed to the atmosphere. The galvanized steel core of the conductor is subject to both
atmospheric corrosion and galvanic corrosion under the proper conditions. Corrosion begins
with the zinc coating on the steel and progresses to the steel by atmospheric corrosion or the
aluminum by galvanic corrosion once the zinc coating has been pierced.

4-3

Visual Inspection
Since this corrosion begins on the outside surface of the shield wire it can be detected visually.
However, visual inspection may not be adequate to quantify the severity of the corrosion on the
steel shield wire.
For the steel reinforced aluminum conductors the corrosion activity occurs on and adjacent to the
core of the conductor and is generally not readily detectible by visual techniques. Depending on
the severity of the corrosion and the configuration of the conductor, there can be some
exceptions. For example, for severe galvanic corrosion of the aluminum strands in the conductor
a white powdery corrosion by product may work its way to the surface of the conductor where it
can be detected visually. Likewise, severe atmospheric corrosion of the steel core could also
generate enough corrosion by product that it would become visible on the surface of the
conductor. However, in general there is very little visual indication of corrosion on conductors.
Although corrosion by products on the surface of conductors may be difficult to detect by the
human eye, they still may exist and provide an opportunity to develop a sensor that would detect
them reliably. EPRI is in the process of conducting a feasibility study for just such a sensor.
The details of this new technology cannot be released at this time due to possible patent
implications. However, if the feasibility study is successful it may be possible to identify the
existence of corrosion on conductors with a simple field test that could be done without
contacting the conductor.
Corrosion Detector Inspection
Since internal corrosion cannot be reliably detected or evaluated visually, several technologies
have been developed that can be used for assessment of corrosion on overhead line conductors.
The most well known is the Overhead Line Corrosion Detector (OHLCD) developed by the
Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) in the United Kingdom3 and shown in Figure 9.
This technology uses Eddy currents to assess the loss of zinc galvanizing on the steel core of
ACSR conductors. It is also able to assess the loss of aluminum once galvanic corrosion begins
attack the aluminum strands.
A second corrosion detector has been developed in the U.S. called the Cross-Checker (CC). This
device, shown in Figure 10, assesses the loss of cross-section in the steel core of ACSR
conductors. It does not assess the condition of the galvanizing directly, nor does it assess the
condition of the aluminum strands.
Each of these technologies uses a motorized trolley to carry the sensors over the length of a
conductor span. They are not currently able to traverse around any obstructions encountered,
such as tower attachments and spacers, and must be moved from span to span and wire to wire

Lewis, K.G. and Sutton, J., Detection of Corrosion in ACSR Overhead Line Conductors,
Distribution Developments, 1985.

4-4

Figure 9 - Overhead Line Corrosion Detector

Figure 10 - Research Version of Cross-Checker

manually using either a bucket truck or helicopter. They are designed for use on an energized
line if necessary.
The OHLCD and CC inspection technologies have been evaluated previously by EPRI4. They
were found to be reasonable predictors of conductor condition when adequately calibrated and
used in conjunction with laboratory testing of conductor samples removed from inspected
conductors. However, at this time it is neither practical, nor economical to inspect the full length
of all conductors on a transmission line using these technologies. Therefore the application of
the technologies becomes a matter of sampling a reasonable number of conductor spans on a line
to obtain a general picture of the corrosion condition of the line.

Application Guidelines for Existing Conductor Inspection Technologies, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA,
2002. 1002657
4-5

The quantity and location of spans to be sampled with corrosion detection technologies should be
established based on conductor age and environmental conditions. Areas of greater corrosivity
may warrant sampling of a larger number of spans. Particular attention should be given to
conductor spans in areas subjected to point sources of pollution such as power plants, chemical
plants, and other industrial facilities.
Rotesco Inspection
Since the EPRI evaluation of the OHLCD and Cross-Checker technologies were completed, a
third commercial device has been identified for inspection of steel shield wires and steel
reinforced aluminum conductors. Rotesco Inc. of Ontario has been manufacturing instruments
for over 30-years that non-destructively test steel wire ropes used in underground mining
operations. This technology is able to inspect wire ropes up to 2 inches in diameter and
measure changes of 0.1% in the metallic cross-sectional area of the rope. They can detect a
single broken wire in a 2-inch diameter rope that is made up of 162 wires. They have now
adapted and enhanced this technology to develop an instrument that can non-destructively test
the steel core of overhead line conductors. The instrument is remote controlled and will travel
along the conductor much like the OHLCD and Cross-Checker technologies.
EMAT Inspection
The previously mentioned EMAT technology also has promise for assessment of corrosion in
conductors and shield wires. Although the technology was developed and has been calibrated
for detection of broken strands, it also has been shown that corrosion generates a distinctive
signal on the device. Additional evaluation and calibration is necessary to validate the
application of EMAT for corrosion detection and assessment.

Inspection Methods for Bad Joints

Degradation of the compression joints used to splice two conductor segments together or connect
the conductor to a dead-end support is a relatively common problem in conductors. Joint
problems are often the result of construction flaws that allow degradation of the joint due to
corrosion, high temperature operation, or mechanical loading. The most common problems
result in high resistance in the joint, which in turn leads to elevated joint temperature during high
current operations and eventually to mechanical failure of the joint.
Visual Inspection
Visual inspection of conductor joints can give some indications that a problem might exist.
However, many joint problems can exist without providing visual clues. Some visual indicators
that joint problems might exist or develop include discoloration of the joint due to high
temperatures or excessive joint deformation.

4-6

Thermal Imaging
As mentioned previously thermal imaging with an infrared camera is commonly used to detect
conductor joints with high resistance and resulting elevated temperature. The principle is that
most joint problems lead to high electrical resistance in the joint, which in turn leads to high
operating temperatures in the joint when heavy electrical loading is applied. Therefore, an
infrared camera can be used to detect joints that are operating at high temperature due to joint
problems.
EPRI has conducted research on behavior of compression joints and the application of thermal
imaging for inspection of compression joints in conductors5,6. While thermal imaging can be an
effective method for detecting problem joints in conductors, it is very sensitive to a number of
parameters and can give misleading results if not applied carefully. Among the factors that are
important considerations in obtaining effective results are electrical loading, ambient
temperature, wind speed and direction, and emissivity of the joint.
It is critical that the conductor be heavily loaded electrically at the time the thermal images are
collected. If the conductor is not operating with a high current load, even a bad joint may not
generate enough heat to be detected by the infrared camera.
Ambient temperature and the wind speed and direction also have an important effect on the
actual temperature of the joint. If the temperature is very cool and the wind speed is very high
and perpendicular to the conductor, the cooling effects may dissipate the heat in the joint
sufficiently that the infrared camera will be unable to reliably detect a problem in a bad joint.
Finally, the actual emissivity of the joint is important to obtaining accurate results from the
infrared camera. The camera must be set for a specific emissivity. The emissivity of a new joint
is probably significantly different than that of an older joint. Therefore, to get accurate results
the camera must be adjusted properly for emissivity, focus and distance for each joint inspected,
and the emissivity selected on the camera must match the actual emissivity of the joint in order
to get the most accurate temperature measurements.
Resistance Measurements
An alternative to thermal imaging is to measure the resistance of the joint directly. Two devices
have been identified for making this measurement on an energized transmission line.
The OhmStik, pictured in Figure 11, is pressed against the joint and provides a direct
measurement of the line current and the resistance of the joint in micro-ohms. The resistance of
a new joint should be 30 to 70 percent of the resistance of the connected conductor. If the
expected or accepted resistance of the joint is not know, a resistance measurement of the adjacent
conductor can be collected and then the OhmStik can be programmed to indicate good or bad
5

Electrical, Mechanical, and Thermal Performance of Conductor Connections, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2001.
1001913.
6
Infrared Inspection Application Guide: Overhead Transmission and Substation Components, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
2002. 1001915.

4-7

Figure 11 - Ohmstik Joint Resistance Measurement Device

based on the ratio of the measured joint resistance to the measured conductor resistance. The
advantage of this device is that it gives a direct measurement of joint resistance, eliminating
concern about many of the external factors that impact thermal imaging measurements. The
disadvantage is that it requires someone to place the OhmStik in contact with the conductor
joint.
The second resistance measurement device, shown in Figure 12, is called ROBHOT. This is a

helicopter-borne robot unit developed by SwedPower. The ROBHOT is lowered from a

helicopter and placed directly on the energized transmission line. Measuring probes are folded
out and the resistance is measured in a few seconds. Like the OhmStik, the advantage is that
the unit measures resistance directly, avoiding the complications from the external factors that
affect the thermal imaging measurements. However, it must be applied from a helicopter, which
is an expensive platform to operate. However, SwedPower claims that they can measure
resistances for up to 40 splices per hour on an energized line.

Inspection Methods for Strength Loss

Loss of strength in a conductor comes from several factors including broken strands, corrosion
and resulting loss of cross-section, and annealing due to electrical overloading. Identification of
broken strands and corrosion will provide some indication of strength loss in a conductor.
However, it will not allow you to easily quantify the loss of strength. Other than having
excellent records of conductor electrical loading over its lifetime, which most utilities dont seem
to have, it is impossible to determine via a field inspection how much strength loss has occurred
due to annealing. Therefore, the only sure way to quantify the loss of strength in a conductor is
to remove samples from the field and conduct laboratory tests.

4-8

Figure 12 - ROBHOT Helicopter-Borne Robot Unit

Lab Testing
It is advisable to remove conductor samples from a few inspected spans and conduct laboratory
tests on them to validate inspection results and to quantify the actual condition of the conductor
at those locations. Sampling of the conductor or overhead ground wire for laboratory testing is
perhaps the most reliable technique available to determine the general condition of a conductor
and make decisions regarding replacement. Samples removed for testing should be at least 3-ft
long. Longer samples are preferred as they provide sufficient length to allow tests to be repeated
if necessary. If a tensile test of the full conductor is desired, an additional length of 20-ft or more
should be removed.
Samples should first be carefully inspected. A length of at least 18 inches should be
disassembled to document the condition of each layer of strands. In particular, evidence of
corrosion and/or broken strands should be noted and photographed.
Each strand from the dissected piece of conductor should be tensile tested according to ASTM
B498 for steel and B230 for aluminum. For each strand the strand diameter and the breaking
strength should be recorded. From these values the average tensile strength of the steel strands
and aluminum strands should be determined and compared with minimum ASTM requirements.
Once the tensile strength of each strand is known, the rated breaking strength of the conductor as
7
found should be calculated to determine the remaining strength of the conductor .

Overhead Conductor Manual, Southwire Company, Carrollton, GA, 1994.

4-9

If desired, a tensile test of the full conductor may also be conducted. However it is very difficult
to obtain reliable results from this test due to the stress concentration effects from the end
connections used to apply the tensile loads. Without special arrangements the failure will almost
always occur adjacent to the end connections and at loads well below the rated breaking strength
of the conductor. A method has been published that reportedly eliminates these end effects
resulting in an accurate measurement of the actual breaking strength of the full conductor8.
Additional testing should be conducted to evaluate the ductility of the as-found conductors. This
can be accomplished using either a torsional test of the strands (ASTM A938) or an alternate
bending test of the strands (ASTM A363). Ideally these tests will also be conducted for a new
conductor of the same type to establish a baseline. A severe reduction in the number of turns
to failure is an indication of loss of ductility due to corrosion.

Methods of Condition Assessment

Once the available technologies have been applied to determine the state of degradation of
conductors and overhead ground wires, the results must be reviewed and an assessment of the
condition of the conductor must be made to determine whether repair or replacement is required.
The degree of condition assessment that can be done depends on the type of inspection that was
completed and the quality of data collected.
In the case of a visual inspection from the ground or air, little more than a subjective assessment
of the conductor or overhead ground wire condition can be performed. Based on the external
appearance of the conductor and any visible evidence of broken strands, one might hypothesize
whether the conductor requires replacement or not.
In the case of a significant number of visible broken strands, the conductor strength may be
calculated based on the remaining intact strands observed at that location, providing a more
objective assessment of conductor condition. Likewise, if a visual inspection of conductor
strands within the tower attachment area can be accomplished, or a nondestructive technology
such as EMAT can be effectively applied to determine the existence and extent of broken strands
in conductor attachment points, a conductor strength calculation is theoretically possible. But in
the case where armor rods are included in the tower attachment connection, the armor rods may
be sufficient to reinforce the conductor and maintain its strength with several existing broken
conductor strands. Many utilities have their own guidelines regarding how many broken strands
are acceptable, with and without armor rods, before conductor replacement or repair is required.
However, the author is unaware of any specific industry standard that quantifies how many
broken strands are acceptable before repair or replacement should be made.

Akhtar, A, "Localized Intrinsic Strengthening Approach (LISA): A Practical Method for

Determining the Tensile Strength of Multistrand Cables", ASTM Journal of Testing and
Evaluation (JTEVA), Vol. 16, No. 2, March 1988, pp. 124 133.

4-10

By adding inspection with one of the corrosion detection technologies we increase our
knowledge of the conductor condition. However, it is still somewhat subjective in terms of
remaining strength and remaining life. There isnt a lot of documented evidence indicating how
one should interpret results from corrosion detection technologies and convert them into
remaining strength or remaining usable conductor life. Nevertheless, this gives us the ability of
prioritizing line replacements based on an objective indication of the relative conductor corrosion
damage between different lines.
While perhaps not the most economical method, by far the most effective method for assessing
the condition of overhead line conductors and shield wires is removing conductor samples and
testing them in the laboratory. By collecting a sufficient number of samples to give a good
representation of a line, or the population of lines, and obtaining laboratory measurements of
strength we can have a very objective indication of the current condition and capability of the
conductor or shield wire.
Making Repair and Replacement Decisions
The most obvious measure that can be used for determining the need to replace a conductor or
shield wire is to compare the as-found conductor strength with the maximum design loads for the
line in question. The National Electric Safety Code (NESC) establishes a tension limit for
conductors at 60% of the rated breaking strength of the conductor under maximum ice & wind
loads. Using laboratory test results for the as-found conductor one can calculate the current rated
breaking strength of the conductor. Then if the maximum tension at final conditions for
maximum ice and wind loads exceeds 60% of this measured breaking strength something must
be done to bring the design back into compliance. Replacement of the conductor is the obvious
solution, but one could also theoretically reduce conductor tensions to meet requirements,
assuming this could be done without violating clearances.
A second consideration for replacement decisions is the loss of ductility in the conductor. For
conductors that are subject to heavy ice loading and/or galloping, this is a particularly important
consideration. In particularly cold weather and with dynamic loading from galloping, conductors
that have lost much of their ductility are at a greater risk for failure.

4-11

5
SUMMARY
EPRI has been investigating degradation modes and inspection and assessment methods for
overhead line conductors for a few years. This report provides an overview of the findings to
date and identifies newer inspection technologies that have not yet been thoroughly evaluated.
Primary modes of degradation that have been identified include broken strands due to vandalism
or conductor motion, corrosion of steel shield wires and of the steel core and adjacent aluminum
strands on conductors, degradation of conductor joints from corrosion and high temperature
operation, and loss of strength in the conductor material due to high temperature operation.
Inspection methods that are most effective vary according to the type and location of the
conductor degradation. In very few cases, visual inspection techniques may be used effectively.
More frequently, some type of non-destructive inspection device is needed to assess the
condition of the conductor.
In the case of broken strands, two non-destructive inspection technologies have been developed
that are effective. The first is the DayCor camera, which is an effective aid in locating broken
strands in cases where the strands protrude form the conductor sufficiently to create corona. The
second is a new EMAT (electromagnetic acoustical transducer) technology developed by EPRI
in a separately funded project. The EMAT device that has been developed is able to detect
broken strands internal to the conductor and internal to conductor attachment points. The unit is
simply placed on the energized conductor adjacent to the conductor section to be inspected. The
output of the device is a simple good or bad indication for the inspected conductor. Calibration
and field-testing of this technology is continuing with the expectation of a commercially viable
device within the next year.
In the case of conductor corrosion, several non-destructive inspection devices have been
identified and some have been evaluated in field trials. The Overhead Line Corrosion Detector
(OHLCD) determines how much galvanizing remains on the steel core of conductors and grades
the conductors accordingly. The OHLCD is also able to identify significant losses of aluminum
due to galvanic corrosion. The Cross-Checker device uses a magnetic field to quantify loss of
cross-section in the steel core of the conductor, but is unable to identify losses of cross-section in
the aluminum. These two technologies were evaluated in field trials, which have been
documented in a previous report. Recently, a third technology has been identified from Rotesco,
Inc., which uses a modified wire rope tester to identify loss of cross-section in the steel core of
conductors.
Degradation of conductor joints has been addressed only briefly in the current investigation,
since past EPRI projects have addressed this topic. Inspection methods identified are all based
on the increased resistance that occurs as a conductor joint deteriorates and approaches failure.
The most commonly used method is thermal imaging to identify joints that are operating at

excessive temperatures. This method is effective when properly applied. However, there are
numerous external factors that must be carefully considered to ensure good results. Two other
technologies, the Ohmstik and ROBHOT, were identified that make direct measurements of the
resistance in a joint to identify joints that are degraded.
Finally, a field method to quantify loss of strength in a conductor due to overheating or other
factors has not been identified. The most reliable method to determine remaining strength and
remaining life of a conductor continues to be removal of samples from the field and testing for
strength and ductility in the laboratory.

About EPRI
EPRI creates science and technology
solutions for the global energy and energy
services industry. U.S. electric utilities
established the Electric Power Research
Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research
consortium for the benefit of utility members,
their customers, and society. Now known
simply as EPRI, the company provides a wide
range of innovative products and services to
more than 1000 energy-related organizations
in 40 countries. EPRIs multidisciplinary team
of scientists and engineers draws on a
worldwide network of technical and business
expertise to help solve todays toughest
energy and environmental problems.
EPRI. Electrify the World

2003 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All

rights reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI
are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research
Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service
mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States
of America
1002002
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com