1806

IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 4, No. 3, July 1989

TEMPERATURE RISE OF OPTICAL FIBER GROUND WIRES
SUBJECTED TO SHORT DURATION-HIGH CURRENT TRANSIENTS

W.Z. Black
Member IEEE
School of Mechanical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta. GA

ARSTRACT
A thermal model capable of predicting the local temperature history
in an Optical Fiber Ground Wire (OFGW) when subjected to a short
duration, high current transient is discussed. The model is used to predict
the temperature rise that can occur from typical lightning strikes and from
contact with an energized phase conductor. The model is capable of
predicting the temperature rise at all locations in a three layer composite
OFGW consisting of materials with vastly different thermal and electric
properties. The composite design results in alternating regions of high
and low heat generation. This uneven heating produces temperatures that
can significantly exceed the temperature predicted by the usually
conservative adiabatic thermal model. The temperatures predicted by the
thermal model are verified in a series of laboratory tests in which the
temperature rise of ground wires are measured with thermocouples.
A single thermal design parameter is introduced as a means of
evaluating those design factors which will influence the temperature rise of
an OFGW. The thermal model is used to show that small changes in the
design parameter can have a large influence on the temperature rise of a
ground wire when subjected to a short duration, high current overload.
INTRODUCTION
To protect overhead transmission networks from extreme current
surges, utilities use overhead ground wires to carry current spikes to
ground. Ground wires are designed sufficiently large to carry current
when shorted with a phase conductor, or when struck by lightning. These
ground wires have traditionally consisted of stranded aluminum or steel
conductors and occasionally copper or copperweld conductors. When
current passes through this design, the temperature of the ground wires
rises, but little damage is expected because the ground wire consists
entirely of a relatively low resistance metal with a high melting
temperature. Furthermore, the conductor is massive enough to provide a
large thermal inertia to absorb the heat generated by the fault current.
With the recent advances in telecommunication technology, OpticalFiber Ground Wire (OFGW) has become a popular replacement for
single material ground wires. This new composite design consists of a
metallic conductor plus optical fibers near the center of the ground wire.
Many utilities are interested in the OFGW since simultaneous power
transmission and communication of data are possible on existing
conductor spans. The advantage of this new composite design over the
old, all metallic conductor design lies with the ability to transmit
information and data while still protecting the system from lightning
strikes and short circuits. However, unlike the old, all metallic design, the
new design contains polymers that are more sensitive to damage from
temperature rises resulting from overcurrents.
The problem of determining the temperature distribution within the
OFGW has drawn little attention in the past. Under normal operating
conditions, the OFGW will carry little or no current and, consequently,
will operate near ambient temperature. Ground wires are placed such
that they will be struck by lightning rather than the transmission line phase
conductors that they protect. Thus they must be able to carry large
amplitude lightning currents without damage. Occasionally very large
amplitude lightning stroke currents intercepted by the ground wires may
result in a flashover between a phase conductor and the tower. In this

M. GleM Weus
Kimberly-Clark Corporation
Roswell, GA

case, the ground wire may carry a large 60 Hz fault current as well as the
lightning stroke current. In either case, radial temperature gradients will
exist within the conductor due to high induced currents that vary in
magnitude between the different layers of the OFGW.
The purpose of this paper is to formulate a thermal model that is
capable of calculating the transient temperature distribution in different
fiber-optic ground wire designs during high current surge conditions. The
thermal model will allow comparison of the temperature rise in different
OFGW designs and it can determine those material properties and design
parameters that have the strongest influence on the temperature rise of an
OFGW. Predicted temperatures will be compared with available
temperatures measured in short-circuit laboratory tests.
OFGW DESIGNS
The design of an OFGW consists of various layers with vastly
different physical, thermal and electrical properties. Three common
designs are shown in Fig. 1. The outermost layer typically consists of
aluminum or alumoweld strands. The middle layer consists of a
cylindrical shell of either optical fibers or an electrically conducting
member that is designed to protect the optical fibers that lie along the
central position of the OFGW. The innermost layer typically consists of
either glass fibers surrounded by a polymeric material or a central metallic
core designed to maintain spacing between the optical fibers that are
imbedded in its outer surface. Consequently, most of the reasonable
OFGW designs can be thermally modeled by considering only three layer
combinations consisting of concentric cylinders.
Depending upon the relative electric resistivity of each layer, the
layers may or may not carry current in the event the ground wire comes in
contact with a phase conductor or is struck by lightning. The thermal
model assumes that the total current resulting from the short-circuit event
distributes itself in each conducting layer such that the product of the
resistance of the layer and the current is a constant. This assumption
assures that the voltage drop in each layer of the OFGW is identical. The
uniform current density assumption naturally ignores the influence of the
skin effect. In the event of a high frequency short-circuit, the current
density will increase in the outer surfaces of a conducting layer, thereby
producing localized heating and elevated temperatures in that region.
While the influence of localized heating resulting from the skin effect may
be significant [l],the analysis presented here ignores this effect.
Assuming the dielectric materials have sufficiently high resistivity
such that these layers will not carry current in the event of a short-circuit,
the three designs shown in Fig. 1 will experience the following conditions
during a high current transient:
Design I

Design I1

Design I11

Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3

no current
conducts current
conducts current
conducts current
conducts current
conducts current
conducts current
no current
conducts current

THERMAL MODEL
8 9 WM 086-0 PWRD
A p a p e r recommended and a p p r o v e d
by t h e LEEE T r a n s m i s s i o n a n d D i s t r i b u t i o n Committee
of t h e I E E E Power E n g i n e e r i n g S o c i e t y f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n
a t t h e IEEE/PES 1989 W i n t e r N e e t i n g , Wew York, New
York, J a n u a r y 29 - S e b r u a r y 3, 1989. M a n u s c r i p t
s u b m i t t e d Augurt 2 6 , 1988; made a v a i l a b l e OK p r i n t i n g
Tamiary 1 6 , 1989.

The calculation of the transient, local temperature within an OFGW

requires a solution of the heat conduction equation written in cylindrical
coordinates. This equation reduces to

0885-8977/89/0700-1806%01
.00@ 1989 IEEE

1807

Alumoweld S t r a

s ( l a y e r 3;

Aluminum Tube

ayer 2 )

Optical Fibers

layer i )

Design I
s o l i d Aluminum ( l a y e r 1)
Alumowela S t r a n d s ( l a y e r 3 )

T(r,O)

Optical Fibers &

Aluminum ( l a y e r 2 )
Design I 1
Alunioweld S t r a n d s ( l a y e r 3 )

Optical Fioer;
and
D i e 1 e c t r : c Ma;er:al

S o l i d Copper

( l a y e r 2:

(layer 1)

Fig. 1 Design of Three Typical OFGW

aT2

1 aT

ar2

1 aT

p , I2
- = _ _

--+---+

r ar

kAA,

(1)
a

at

if axial and azimuthial variations in temperature are assumed small. The

symbols used in Eq. 1are defined in the nomenclature section.
For temperature levels expected during normal operation of ground
wires, the electric resistivity of the conducting layers can be approximated
by a linear function of the conductor temperature or

P , ( T ) = PZO

1 + ae(T-20)

(2)

The boundary conditions which apply to Eq. 1 are continuity of

temperature and heat flux at all interfaces between solid layers of the
conductor as well as a finite temperature at the center of the ground wire.
At the outer surface which is in contact with atmospheric air, the heat
generated in the wire mass must be removed by combined convection and
radiation to the surroundings. This boundary condition may be expressed

where the coefficient heff accounts for both convective and radiative
effects or

heff

' brad

The implication of Eq. 3 is that both the radiative and convective

modes of heat transfer are linear functions of the temperature rise of the
wire above the ambient temperature. Approximation of the radiative term
by a linear term is necessary for a successful closed-form solution to the
problem. A linearization of the radiation boundary condition should be
sufficiently accurate for the purposes of this analysis, because the
conductor surface temperature will be relative low which minimizes the
effects of radiation. Furthermore, the duration of the energy generation
within the OFGW is so short that the amount of heat removed from the
surface via both radiation and convection will be somewhat minor making
the influence of surface boundary condition on the temperature of the
conductor rather unimportant.
A single initial condition must be specified before Eq. 1 can be
solved for the temperature history of the OFGW. The initial (t=O)
temperature distribution within the wire was assumed to be uniform at a
constant temperature of Tanlbor

(4)

The convective heat transfer coefficient, h,,,

can be related to the wind
velocity over the surface of the wire by using standard Nusselt-Reynolds
number correlations (see Ref. 2 for example, Chaps. 4 and 5). Also the
radiative heat transfer coefficient, h,,
can be expressed in terms of the
ambient temperature, the surface temperature of the wire and the surface
emissivity. Details of these two coefficients are given in Ref. 3.

0 5 r 5 R

(5)

Equation 1 subject to the interface boundary conditions, the surface

boundary conditions given by Eq. 3 and the initial condition Eq. 5 is a
linear, non-homogeneous, partial differential equation that can be solved
by standard Fourier series techniques. The solution is in the form of an
infinite series of Bessel functions and the details of the solution are given
in Ref. 3.
Before the temperatures of the conductor can be calculated, the
current waveform as well as the thermal and electrical properties of each
layer of the ground wire must be specified. Properties are itemized for the
three different OFGW designs in Table 1. Electric properties of
aluminum and alumoweld were selected from Ref. 4 and thermal
properties were taken from Ref. 2 Tables E-1 through E-3.
The thermal conductivity of a stranded layer cannot simply be
assigned the value for the solid conducting material because the value for
k must take into consideration that heat must be conducted through a
composite consisting of the high conductivity metal strands and low
conductivity encapsulated air. The appropriate thermal conductivity is
therefore an effective value that considers the percent of both materials.
The value for k for the stranded alumoweld material layers used in this
project was 1.5 W/mC which is the value recommended in Ref. 5.
The purpose of the study was the calculation of the temperature rise
of different telecommunication conductor designs by means of a closedform mathematical technique. An exact mathematical analysis requires
that the current waveform consist of a constant current over a short time
duration. This type of current waveform will assure that standard
mathematical techniques can provide a solution to the governing
differential equation. Also a constant current is a reasonable
approximation to the current surge experienced by a conductor during
both a short-circuit sequence and during a lightning strike. Most utilities
use a circuit breaker reclosure sequence to open and close the circuit
during a short-circuit event. Since the normal short-circuit sequence
generally consists of "ofr' times on the order of only one to five seconds, a
negligible amount of cooling will occur from the conductor during that
time. If the "ofr' times in the short circuit are simply ignored, then the
short circuit "on" times can be added forming a constant current that has a
duration equal to the sum of all of the "on" times of the short-circuit
sequence. This assumption leads to calculated temperatures that are
conservative, because the analysis ignores the slight amount of cooling that
will occur during the time that the circuit is open.
Lightning strokes can induce very complex current waveforms on an
overhead conductor. Rarely do lightning flashes induce currents greater
than 200 kA and 50 percent of all flashes result in currents less than 31kA
[6]. Further complicating the matter is the fact that many lightning strikes
produce more than one peak current wave. About 55 percent of all flashes
produce more than one stroke and only 10 percent of all flashes consist of
more than eight strokes [q.This waveform is difficult to model and it
prevents the solution of the temperature rise in terms of a closed-form
expression. However for purposes of this analysis the induced current is
assumed to be a constant value throughout the entire event. Since only
0.05 percent of all lightning strikes induce currents greater than 2OOkA and
since only 10 percent have more than eight strokes, a worst case current of
200kA with a duration of 200ps (12t = 8(kA)%ec) was selected as a
current waveform corresponding to an extremely severe lightning strike.
This waveform will be used as a conservative design model which will
produce an upper limit for the temperature rise in an OFGW experienced
for a most severe lightning waveform.

1808

TABLE 1 Electrical and Thermal Properties of the Three OFGW Shown in Fig. 1

Design I
OD = 0.559in = 14.20 mm

'PD

1.16C/(kA)2sec

Design I1
OD = 0.54511 = 13.84"

9,

0.838C/(kA)2sec

Design I11
OD = 0.550in = 13.97 mm

9,

1.38OC/(kA)2sec

INNER LAYER
Material
OD (in)
P20 (0hm.m)

Optical Fibers and

Dielectric
0.1929
OD

(1/Oc)

Qe

k (W/mC)
a (m2/s)

0.035
3.5 10-7

Aluminum

0.090

2.817 x lo4
4.04 x 10-3

236
9.75 10-5

Copper
0.180

1.777 x 10-8
3.81 x 10-3
3?9
1.17 x l@

CENTERLAYER

Material
ID/OD(in)
No/dia fibers (in)
P20 (0hm.m)

0.1929/0.3189

k (W/mC)
(m2/s)

2.817 x 10-8
4.04 x 10-3
236
9.75 x 10-5

OUTERLAYER
Material
No/dia strands (in)

Alumoweld
11/0.120

a, (1/OC)

Aluminum Tube

(ohm)
(1/OC)
k (W/mC)

8.401 x lo4
3.60 x 10-3

(m2/s)

3.67 x lW7

P20

Qe

1.5

While the 12t value for a lightning strike rarely exceeds 8 (kA)2sec, a
short-circuit resulting from contact with a phase conductor can often
range as high as 100 (kA)2sec. Short-circuit currents are often in the
neighborhood of 10,ooO amps, and the sum of the "on" times can equal one
sec. Therefore, the heating which results from a short-circuit with an
energized phase conductor will frequently be much more severe than the
heating that results from a lightning strike.
PROGRAM VERIFICATION
To verify the temperature distribution calculated by the computer
program, the results were compared with two other independent programs
- one which accounts for radial temperature gradients, but assumes steady
state behavior and one which ignores radial temperature differences, but
calculates the variation in conductor temperature with time. The steady
state model [8] was developed to calculate radial temperature gradients in
ACSR and AAC conductors and it therefore considers only two layers of
different materials. The three layer model considered here was simplified
to two layers by assigning identical properties for two adjacent layers. The
right side of Eq. 1 was set to zero to simulate steady behavior and the
solution was compared to the results presented in Ref. 8. Temperature
rise values predicted by both models differed by no more than 0.5 percent.
The transient temperature predictions were compared with
DYNAMP, a real-time ampacity program developed for EPRI [9, 101.
The DYNAMP program neglects radial temperature differences, but it is
capable of calculating an average conductor temperature as a function of
time. The three layer model developed for the work described in this
paper was compared to the temperatures predicted by DYNAMP and the
three layer model consistently predicted temperatures with a few degree
Celsius of the average conductor temperature for both ACSR and AAC
conductors. Details of both comparison tests are given in Ref. 3.

Aluminum Tube and

Optical Fibers
0.090/0.325
2/0.117
2.817 x 10-8
4.04 10-3

Dielectric and
Optical Fibers
0.180/0.310
6/0.065

236
9.75 x 10-5

0.02
3.5 x 10-7

Alumoweld
12/0.110
8.401 x lo4
3.60 x 10-3
1.5
3.67 x 10-7

Alumoweld
11/0.120
8.401 x le
3.60 10-3
1.5
3.67 x lW7

RESULTS
The temperature curves in Figs. 2 and 3 show results that are typical
of those that can be achieved with the computer program which solves Eq.
1 subject to the boundary conditions given in Eq. 3 and the initial
condition given in Eq. 5. Figure 2 shows the temperature distribution in a
OFGW of Design I (see Table 1for specifications) when it experiences a
short circuit event with an 12t value of SO (kA)2sec. For a Design I ground
wire, the inner layer contains the optical fibers and does not carry current
while the two outer layers are current carrying members.
Extremely large temperature gradients occur between the
conducting and non-conducting layers of the ground wire causing large
heat transfer rates between the layers. As shown in Fig. 2, the center of
the fiber layer experiences no increase in temperature for 12t = 50
(kA)2sec while the temperature rise of the surface of the optical fiber that
is in thermal contact with the surrounding aluminum tube experiences a
temperature rise of nearly 25OOC. The maximum temperature in the
OFGW occurs in the center portion of the aluminum tube because it
presents the path of least resistance for the current and it therefore carries
the greatest current load. The outer alumoweld strands carry less current
and are therefore cooler than the aluminum tube which surrounds the
optical fibers.
Results shown in Fig. 3 are similar to those in Fig. 2 except they
apply to the OFGW of Design 11. For this design all layers can carry
current, but the outer layer of alumoweld strands carry less than the two
inner layers. Therefore the temperature rise of the outer strands are
significantly less than the central core for this design.
The temperature distribution curves shown in Figs. 2 and 3 illustrate
that the maximum temperature of the optical fibers is found at the point
where the fibers come into thermal contact with the adjacent conducting
layer. Designs similar to Design I have the advantage that the fibers are

not surrounded by a current conducting layer but merely touch that layer
on its outer perimeter. In this design the central portion of the fibers
remain cool as long as the surrounding heat has not had sufficient time to
soak into the central layers. However this design is not immune to
damage from excessive temperature since the outer perimeter of the fibers
can reach temperatures in excess of 25OOC. Optical fiber performance can
be detrimentally affected at operating temperatures above 3OOOC. [Ill
Design I1 has the advantage of surrounding the fibers with the high
thermal inertia layer of aluminum which effectively dampens the large
temperature rise, keeping it at a level of about 145C. Design XI also has
an additional advantage over Design I because it contains a greater mass
of aluminum near the fibers, thereby reducing the current density and
localized heating near the fibers. However, in this design, the two bundles
of optical fibers are entirely surrounded by the aluminum conductor. The
fibers no longer have a cool region as they do for the same short-circuit
event experienced by an OFGW of Design 1.
Curves similar to those shown in Figs. 2 and 3 were used to
determine the maximum temperature rise experienced by the optical
fibers for each of the three OFGW designs specified in Table 1. The
curves in Fig. 4 show typical results for the three designs when subjected
to a constant short-circuit current of 200,ooO amps, an extremely severe
lightning strike. Even during the unlikely event of a strike resulting in a
current of 200,000 amps for a duration of greater than 200ps (12t = 8
(kA)2sec) the temperature rise of all three designs is less than 45T, a
level that will not damage the optical fiber.

-1 ;

M a x i m u m Fib;
Temperature

,;

1809

I
I

140-

I
120-

I
I

I
I

I-

(r/ROl

300

260

- Temperature
- -- -1
-

Fig. 3.

Radial Temperature Distribution in Design I1 for 12t = 50

(kA)2 sec.

20 d e g C

Haximum Fiber

*
E,
L

I-

Iit

Fig. 4.
Fig. 2

Radial Temperature Distribution in Design I for 12t = 50

(kA)2 sec.

Figure 5 shows the maximum temperature rise of fibers in each of the

three designs as a function of 12t. These curves show that damage can
occur to the polymeric compounds encapsulating the optical fibers at
values of 12t greater than 50 (kA)2sec. Also these curves can be used to
determine short-circuit currents or durations that will result in thermal
damage. For example assuming that damage will occur whenever fiber
temperatures exceed W C , Design I can be rated at 53 (kA)2sec; Design
and Design I11 at 63 (kA)2sec.
I1 at a 107

(kA)2sec

Maximum Fiber Temperature Rise in the Three OFGW

Designs for an Extreme Lightning Strike.

ADIABATIC MODEL
Power companies frequently use curves to determine the limiting time
that a conductor can carry a short-circuit current before exceeding a
maximum limiting temperature. Typical of these curves are ones which
appear in Refs. 12 and U. These curves are based upon the assumption
that the wire will lose a negligible amount of heat to the surroundings
during the period of the short-circuit. The heat generated by the current
must be stored within the wire resulting in a temperature rise in the metal.
By neglecting heat loss from the surface of the wire, the adiabatic model
predicts the maximum temperature rise experienced by the conductor.
This model is a valuable design tool, providing a conservative estimate of
the temperature rise in a conducting wire.

1810

=
-

70c

500

[iamb

Similar results are shown in Fig. 7 for a ground wire of Design 11.
The adiabatic model underestimates the maximum fiber temperature, but
to a smaller degree than for Design I, because Design I1 more evenly
distributes the current throughout the ground wire than does Design I. In
both examples, the adiabatic model overestimates the cooler surface
temperature and underestimates the hotter fiber temperature.

20 d e 3 5)

500-

7.

roo-

n
E

300r

233 -

!DO

21)

ao

5:

AO

is0

:20

I Z t (kkj2s?c

Fig. 5.

Maximum Fiber Temperature in the Three OFGW Designs as

a Function of 12t.

g
*

300

* 2co
The adiabatic model is based on an energy balance equation which
can be expressed as:

I p20

[l

-+

(mc,,). dT

ae(T-20)] -

i=l

Am

(6)

The model assumes that all locations within the ground wire have the
same temperature at any instant of time and that the current and
properties of the ground wire are constant. Integrating Eq. 6 with respect
to time and solving for the maximum average conductor temperature as a
function of current and conductor properties yields:

mc-

Fig. 6.

Fiber and Surface Temperature Rise Compared with Adiabatic

Model Average Temperature For Design I During a 25000 Amp
Short-circuit Sequence.

where B and C are constants given by

L

(9)
The value for the temperature T,,,, is the maximum average temperature
value within the conductor as a function of time. This value will be
referred to as the temperature predicted by the adiabatic model. It is
important to recognize that T,,,
is not necessarily the highest
temperature in the wire at any time, Localized heating that will result
when different layers carry different levels of current can produce large
radial temperature gradients like those shown in Figs. 1and 2. Therefore
the adiabatic model may not accurately predict the maximum local
temperature within a composite conductor (i.e. an OFGW) because it
does not consider any radial temperature gradients in the material. It is
limited in its capability to only predict the average ground wire
temperature, while possibly underestimating local temperatures by a
significant amount.
An example is shown in Fig. 6 where the surface temperature rise
and maximum fiber temperature rise are compared with the temperature
rise predicted by the adiabatic model (Eq. 7). These results were
produced for an OFGW of Design I subjected to a high current transient
with different 12t values. The results show that the adiabatic model can
underpredict the fiber temperature by several hundred degrees Celsius if
the current transient produces a high value of 1%.

20

40

6G

BO

100

IZt ( k A ) z s e c

Fig. 7.

Fiber and Surface Temperature Rise Compared with Adiabatic

Model Average Temperature For Design I1 During a 25000
Amp Short-circuit Sequence.

Thus far the predicted OFGW temperatures have been limited to

times short enough such that heat transfer between the various layers and
from the surface of the ground wire can be neglected. If the current is
permitted for longer periods of time, heat transfer between layers and
from the surface of the wire will begin to level the large temperature
variances between layers that can exist early in the short-circuit sequence.
As time passes, the temperature in the OFGW becomes more uniform.
Also the adiabatic model becomes more conservative as the amount of
heat transferred from the exterior surface of the wire begins to influence
the internal temperatures of the ground wire. This phenomena is shown
in Figs. 8 and 9. Figure 8 shows the maximum fiber temperature and
surface temperature and compares these two local temperatures with the
average temperature predicted by the adiabatic model. The results are

181 1

plotted for an OFGW of Design I1 subjected to a constant current of 500

amps for times up to about two minutes. This level of current is relatively
low compared to previous values because the duration of the time is now
much greater than expected for the case of a short-circuit sequence or a
lightning strike. With the extended time interval, cooling from the surface
now becomes significant, and the adiabatic model now underpredicts the
maximum fiber temperature only slightly and only during the first minutes
of the short-circuit.

A d i a b a t i c Model

240

I/'

110

120

90

A d i a b a t i c Model

ll

70-

W i n d S e e d = 1 mph

O.

/
Y
t
:
i
l
d
'
iF
J

80

",

P r e d i c t e d Maximum F i b e r T e m p e r a t u r ?

ZOO

ii0100

IF

280

600

2b

40

60

80

Time ( m i n )

Temperature Rise of the Fiber and Surface of Design I1

Comparison for a Long Time Short-circuit of 500 Amps.
Comparison with Adiabatic Model Results.

Fig. 9

A reasonable choice for the thermal design parameter results from

an analysis similar to that used in the adiabatic model. The energy
balance on the ground &re is

10

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Tine (sec1

Fig. 8.

Temperature Rise of the Fiber and Surface of Design I1 for a

Short Time Short-circuit of 500 Amps. Comparison with
Adiabatic Model Results.

The results in Fig. 9 show results similar to those in Fig. 8, but the
time scale has been expanded to show how surface cooling will affect the
local temperatures in the ground wire. The adiabatic model overpredicts
the maximum ground wire temperature as the surface cooling becomes
apparent after a few minutes. The maximum fiber temperature begins to
reach its equilibrium temperature after about one half hour while the
surface temperature continues to increase for another half-hour. Both
temperatures continue to approach each other until the average
equilibrium temperature of about 240C is reached.
The conclusions that can be drawn from the results in Figs. 6
through 9 can now be used to critique the accuracy of the adiabatic model
when used to calculate the maximum temperature rise of an optical fiber
ground wire. The adiabatic model can significantly underestimate the
temperatures that the optical fibers can experience when the OFGW is
subjected to a short-circuit with a duration of times up to about one
minute. The largest errors will be evident in the first few seconds of the
short-circuit when the temperature gradients within the ground wire are
the greatest. On the other hand, the adiabatic model can be confidently
used as an estimate of the maximum ground wire temperature for shortcircuits that have a duration of about one minute. At greater times the
adiabatic model will overpredict the maximum temperature within a
composite conductor dne to increased effects of surface cooling.
To this point temperatures have been calculated for ground wires in
terms of varying current levels and time durations while selecting
conductor properties for only three different OFGW designs. Since most
temperatures were obtained for a short time span where the influence of
surface cooling was negligible, the effect of different surface conditions,
such as wind velocity, are of little influence on the temperature rise of the
ground wire. On the other hand, slight changes in the conductor
properties and in the physical dimensions of the ground wire can greatly
affect the short-circuit performance of an OFGW. In light of this
observation, a single design parameter to be used as a simple measure of
the thermal behavior of the ground wire would be desirable. This
parameter could then be used as a design tool to compare the temperature
rise expected by different designs of ground wires when subjected to a
short duration, high current transients.

where R is the total resistance of the composite conductor, I is the total

current through the composite conductor and T is the average
temperature of the conductor. Separating variables and integrating yields
an expression for the temperature rise in terms of quantities which appear
in Eq. 10 and a design parameter B,.

AT

+D

.
l

ILt

*,

This equation shows that the temperature rise of a composite conductor is

is a
proportional to the value of 12t where the proportionality constant
thermal design parameter that can be used as a criteria to judge the
behavior of the conductor in the event of a short-circuit. Conductors with
large values of
will give rise to a large temperature increase when
subjected to a given current for, a specified time. Conductors with low
values of +D will result in lower temperature increases.
When the expressions for the electrical resistance and mass of the
layer OFGW are substituted into Eq. 10, the value for 0, may be written
in terms of fundamental electrical and thermal properties for each of the
three layers of conductor.

*,

*,

Values for
for each of the three OFGW designs shown in Fig. 1 are
included in Table 1.
To illustrate the value of the thermal design parameter, the
conditions given for Design I in Table 1 were modified slightly and the
temperature rise values were recalculated so that they could be compared
with values for the original design. The first modification consisted of
decreasing the inside diameter of the aluminum tube middle layer from
0.1929 inches (4.9mm) to 0.1500 inches (3.8mm) while all other
dimensions and properties remained unchanged. This single dimension
change modified
from from 1.16 to 0.986 OC/(kA2sec). This modified
design, referred to as Design IA, increased the cross-sectional area of the
aluminum tube, thereby reducing the electric resistance of that layer.
This modification also had the effect of increasing the thermal inertia of
the ground wire because it increased the total mass of the conductor. The
temperature rise of Design IA is compared with the original Design I in
Fig. 10.

',

1812

temperatures predicted by the thermal model. The results also show that
the maximum fiber temperature is much greater than the measured
surface temperature. A comparison of the data that appear in Figs. 11and
12 shows that lower local temperatures result for the ground wire with
Design I1 specifications.

ci

500-

-0

400-

300-

*Peasureti S u r f a c e T e s p e r a t u r e

P r e d i c t e d Maximum F i b e r T e m p e r a t u r e

20

40

EO

.
80

.
100

:20

/Predicred

Fig. 10.

Suriace Temperature

Effect of Design Modification on Fiber Temperature Rise in

OFGW with Design I.

The second modification to Design I consisted of using the same

conditions as Design LA in addition to replacing the alumoweld strands
with lower resistivity aluminum strands. This change decreased #D
further to a value of 0.800 OC/(kA*sec). This design is called Design IB
and its maximum fiber temperature rise which results from a short-time
current transient is compared with Design I and Design IA in Fig. 10.
This figure shows that a sizeable reduction in the temperature rise of the
OFGW can result from changes in the design of the ground wire. These
results also show that even though the value for PD used in conjunction
with Eq. 11 may not give extremely accurate results for the temperature
rise in a ground wire, 0, can be used as a design tool to give a
comparative measure of the temperature rise of a particular ground wire
design. Once a particular design has been selected, a more sophisticated
thermal model such as described in this paper should be used to more
accurately predict the local temperature rise at all locations in the ground
wire.
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION
Since the use of optical fiber ground wires is a fairly new technology,
little experimental data exists for the temperature rise of these designs
when subjected to short duration-high current transients. To provide the
experimental data necessary to verify the temperatures predicted by the
thermal model, an experimental program was carried out at the Georgia
Power Research Center. A short segment of ground wire with properties
similar to those listed in Table 1 for Design I was instrumented with a
thermocouple attached to the outer surface of the ground wire and with
o n e wedged below the layer of the alumoweld strands. These
thermocouples were used to measure the surface temperature and their
measured values were compared with the predicted surface temperature.
Both thermocouples measured essentially the same value because the
temperature drop across a single strand of conductor is very small (see
Figs. 1,2).
The conductor, which was originally at the ambient temperature, was
energized at a high current for a short period of time and the
temperatures measured by the thermocouples were recorded. A
comparison of the measured temperatures, the predicted surface
temperatures and the predicted maximum fiber temperature for three
tests are shown in Fig. 11. The experimental surface temperatures
compare closely with the predicted surface temperatures and the predicted
fiber temperatures are significantlygreater than the surface temperatures.
For this particular design, the optical fibers are located along the center of
the ground wire surrounded by a protective aluminum tube. The
aluminum tube provides a low resistivity current path and it carries a large
portion of the short-circuit current which heats the adjacent fibers. For
this particular design, a measure of the outer surface temperature does
not give an accurate measure of the temperature rise experienced by the
fibers.
Temperatures were also measured on a cable sample with properties
specified by Design I1 in Table 1 and the results are shown in Fig. 12.
Once again the surface thermocouples verify the accuracy of the surface

20

50

40

:cs

30

:?t ::<A)Zsec

Fie. 11.

Comnarison of the Theoretical Temneratiire Rise and the

Experimental Results for OFGW Design I.

CONCLUSIONS
The thermal model described in the paper can be used to calculate
the temperature rise at all locations in an optical fiber ground wire. The
predicted accuracy of the model has been verified by comparing it with
two other independent computer programs. The results also compared
favorably with temperatures measured by thermocouples placed on short
spans of OFGW that have been energized with short duration-high current
transients.

800

700

23 d e g C
*Measured Surface Temperature

EO0

P r e d i c t e d Maximum F i b e r T e m p e r a t u r e

500

cn
m

400
E

c
+

300
Predicted Surface Temperature

200
io0

0
0

40

BO

120

160

200

24C

I 2 t (kA;*sec

Fig. 12.

Comparison of the Theoretical Temperature Rise and the

Experimental Results for OFGW Design 11.

1813
The predicted temperatures as a function of radius show very large
temperature gradients, particularly at the interface between conducting
and non-conducting layers in the ground wire. Current overloads caused
by even very severe lightning strikes do not appear to cause temperatures
that would damage a well designed OFGW. On the other hand, a shortcircuit with an energized phase conductor can conceivably cause damage
to the compounds which are used to encapsulate optical fibers.
An adiabatic thermal model that assumes a uniform ground wire
temperature at any instant in time and neglects heat loss from the surface
of the ground wire is used as means of predicting the maximum ground
wire temperature. For short circuits that last less than about one second,
the adiabatic model can underpredict the maximum ground wire
temperature by as much as 200OC. For high current transients that last for
times on the order of one minute or slightly greater, the adiabatic model
can be safely used as a prediction of the maximum temperature of the
ground wire.
A thermal design parameter defined in Eq. 12 can be used as a
design tool to estimate the temperature rise of an OFGW when it is forced
to carry a high current for a short period of time. Ground wires that have
a small value of $D will be able to sustain a short duration high current
overload without any thermal damage while those designs with larger
values of $D can suffer damage when subjected to a current overload.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of V.S. Harper
and W.E. King at the Research Center of Georgia Power Company and
Nick Ware Jr. of Reynolds Metals Company for providing experimental
data used to support the accuracy of the thermal model.
NOMENCLATURE
A
A,,,
B
C

3
h
I
k
m
r
R,
T
t

cross-sectional area including voids between strands

cross sectional area of solid conducting strands
constant defined in Eq. 8
constant defined in Eq. 9
specific heat at constant pressure
diameter
heat transfer coefficient
current
thermal conductivity
mass per unit length of conductor
radial coordinate
outer radius
temperature
time

Subscripts
amb value evaluated at ambient conditions
conv convection
eff effective value accounting for convective and radiative modes of heat
transfer
max maximum value
o
original value at t = 0
rad radiation
Greek Symbols
thermal diffusivity (a = k/pcp)
temperature coefficient of resistivity
thermal design parameter defined in Eq. 12
density
P
electric resistivity
p,
P20 electric resistivity at 2OoC

a
a,

REFERENCES
1.

Black, W. Z. and McWhorter, B., "Temperature Rise of ShortCircuited Electric Conductors", submitted for publication to Trans.
Nov. 1988.

m,
2.

Kreith, Frank and Black, William Z., Basic Heat Transfer, Harper
and Row, NY, 1980.

3.

Wells, M. Glenn, "Transient Temperature Distributions in Overhead

Fiber-optic Ground Wires", M.S. Thesis, George W. Woodruff
School of Mechanical Engineering, Atlanta, GA, January 1988.

4.

Walker, Mark, ed., Aluminum Electric Conductor Handbook,

Washington, D.C., The Aluminum Association, 1982.

5.

Douglas, DA., "Radial and Axial Temperature Gradients in Bare

Stranded Conductor", Trans. IEEE. Power Delivery, Vol. PWRD-1
No. 2, pp. 7-15, April 1986.

6.

Anderson, R.B. and Erickson, A.J., "A Summary of Lightning

Parameters of Engineering Applications", International Conference
o n Large High Voltage Electrical Systems, Aug-Sept, 1980.

7.

EPRI, Transmission Line Reference Book, 345KV and Above, 2nd

Ed., Chap. 12, by J.G. Anderson, 1982.

8.

Black, W.Z. and Collins Stuart J., "Theoretical Model for

Temperature Gradients within Bare Overhead Conductors", Trans.
IEEE. Power Delivery, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 707-715, April 1988.

9.

Black, W.Z. and Byrd, W. R., "Real-Time Ampacity Model for

Overhead Lines", Trans. IEEE. Power Amaratus and Svstems, Vol.
102, No. 7, pp. 2289-93, July 1983.

10.

Black, W.Z. and Bush, R.A., "Conductor Temperature Research,

EPRI Final Report, Project 2546-1, EL-5707, May 1988.

11.

K. Nakagaki, Y. Masuda, M. Ishi Kawa, Y. Kimuba, I. Matsubara, Y.

Kitayama, A. Ona; "Development of High-Performance Composite
Fiber-optic Overhead Ground Wire", International Wire and Cable
Symposium Proceedings, 1986.

12.

Overload and Fault Current Limitations of Bare Aluminum

Conductors, Alcoa Aluminum Overhead Conductor Engineering
Data Section 7, Pittsburgh, PA 1959.

13. ICEA Standard P32-382, Shortcircuit Characteristics of Insulated

Cable, Revised March 1969, Monclair, N.J.
BIOGRAPHY

W.Z. Black received his B.S. and M.S. in Mechanical Engineering

from the University of Illinois and his Ph.D. in M.E. from Purdue
University. H e is currently Professor of Mechanical Engineering at
Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. His research effort is
concentrated in the area of heat transfer from electrical and electronic
equipment. He has been Principal Investigator for several EPRI ampacity
projects and he is active in IEEE committee work relating to the thermal
ratings of overhead and underground conductors.
M, Glenn Wells attended the Georgia Institute of Technology where
he received a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering and a Master of
Science in Mechanical Engineering, with emphasis in thermal sciences.
During this time he was a Co-op student with the Georgia Power
Research Facility. Glenn is currently employed with Kimberly-Clark
Corporation in Roswell, Georgia.

1814

Discussion
R.C. MADGE, S. BARRETT and H. GRAD (Ontario Hydro,
Canada)
It is remarkable that the authors and discussers independently
presented models at the same conference that describe the local
heating effects in optical ground wires. The discussers' paper -(89
FVhl 046-4-PWRD Performance of Optical Ground Wires During
Fault Current Tests) was presented at the Fibre Optics
Communications Session.

We congratulate the authors on their model and agree with their

conclusion that the fibres may often reach temperatures much higher
than the average conductor temperature. Our own model appears to
be the same as the authors' except without the thermal conductivity
between layers and heat loss from the conductor surface. This
means that our model should give very similar results to the authors'
model immediately after a short-duration current pulse. Our model
treats the individual layers of the conductor adiabatically, which
produces a temperature profile immediately following a shortduration
pulse that is like the authors' Fig. 2 except that the comers of our
distribution are not rounded. We also include the volume heat
capacity of the optical components to better calculate the aluminum
tube temperatures.

performance of the cable and probably mean fewer fibres in the now
smaller core.
Since the thermal design parameter is related to the average
tcmperature rise of the conductor and not to the temperature rise of
the optical components or the material surrounding the optical
components, it is not a very useful concept. It also carries the
danger of misleading people into believing that the thermal dcsign is
good in cases where it is not good (ie when the average temperature
rise is low but the optical core temperature rise is high).
Finally, the authors have included figures showing maximum
fibre temperatures for current pulses lasting up to 2 minutes and up
to 80 minutes.
Comparisons of the authors' model with the
adiabatic model at these time scales is perhaps irrelevant as most
fault currents will clear in much less than 1 second.
It is
unfortunate that the authors were unable to verify their model with
more experimental results, particularily for maximum fibre
temperatures.
M a n u s c r i p t r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 0 , 1989.

W.Z. Black and M.Glenn Wells

One of the major objectives in writing the computer program

The authors represent the maximum fibre temperature as that part described in the paper was to design a thermal model that could closely
of the optical components immediately in contact with the approximate the temperature rise for a wide variety of optical fiber ground
surrounding metallic parts at the instant the current pulse ceases. wires when subjected to a broad range of high current transients events.
I-lowever, the fibres themselves will never actually be in contact with As a result, our model is more sophisticated than the one described in the
the surrounding metal as they are encased in buffer tubes, gels and Ontario Hydro paper. However the two models should provide similar
various other protective compounds. Further, the authors go on to results when short circuit durations are quite short (less than one second)
skte that the "center of the fiber layer experiences no increase in in which surface heat transfer and heat transfer between the various layers
iempcrature... while the surface of the optical fiber that is in thermal in the ground wire are negligible.
contact with the surrounding aluminum tube experiences a
Our model considers heat conduction both between the layers of the
temperature rise of nearly 250C." While this may or may not be OFGW and from the surface of the wire to the environment. It includes
true at the moment the current pulse ends (depending on the heat generated in each layer resulting from ohmic heating and it considers
duration of the pulse), our experiments showed a temperature rise in energy storage in each layer, including the layer containing the optical
the optical core of roughly 91% of the aluminum tube temperature fibers. The energy storage term is represented by the term on the right
rise at 0.15 scconds after the pulse.
side of Eq. 1. One cannot neglect the energy storage in any layer and if
this term is ignored, large temperature errors will result as pointed out in

The authors have included three "common" OPGW design types the discussion. The properties used for the storage term of each layer are
in their paper. The f i s t two are actual commercial designs while listed in Table 1where values for the thermal diffusivity (a = k/pcp) and
the third appears to have been invented for the purpose of testing thermal conductivity (k) are provided.
thcir model. The third design is extremely impractical. and may not
The major differences between the two thermal models center
be capable of sbucturally surviving a high current pulse. With the
diclcctric material between a layer of copper and a layer of around the heat transfer between the layers in the ground wire. Our
alumoweld strands, a high current pulse would cause significant model is not limited to short duration current pulses because it accounts
thermal expansion of the copper and less expansion of the strands. for the details of heat transfer between the various cable layers. This
capability is shown in the long term results of Figures 8 and 9.
The optical components would then be severely compressed.
Maximum fibre temperatures for the three designs are compared
for a number of conditions. However, the cables are dissimilar
enough that direct comparisons may not be valid. It seems likely
from Figure 1 that the fibre count for the three designs is
significantly different.
We would also expect the stress/strain
relationship for the optical fibres to be different as the Design I1
fibres are not located centrally within the cable. (As optical
degradation depends on the optical fibre and buffer tube temperature
and strain, this is an important point). The strength and resistance
of the cables are also not given.
It appears that the authors have not included the heat capacity of
the optical components in their model. Including it will lower the
aluminum tube temperatures. We ran our numerical model with and
without this heat capacity and came up with surprisingly large
differences in aluminum tube temperatures. The thinner we made
the aluminum tube (and the larger the optical core), the larger the
difference between the two cases.
For cables from two
manufacturers, our numerical model showed aluminum tube
temperatures between 26'C and 96C hotter when we did not
include the heat capacity of the optical components.
The authors discuss two modifications to Design I in order to
test their thermal design parameter. Design Ia involves increasing
the aluminum tube thickness. while Design Ib also changes the
alumoweld strands to aluminum. A note should also have been
included saying that these modifications change the mechanical

Furthermore, the Ontario Hydro model thermally combines the optical

core and the aluminum tube into one thermal mass. This assumption
results in the ability to calculate only a single, average temperature for
these two combined components. To predict the temperatures of the two
layers separately when only one temperature is calculated, a n
experimentally measured factor must be introduced. They have
introduced a single value for this factor that is presumably accurate for all
short circuit sequences and all cable designs. The experimental data for
the tests presented in their paper shows a spread of values from the
suggested factor of 0.91 between +13% and -27%. It is difficult to say
whether this factor can be satisfactorily used to predict the optical fiber
temperature considering the spread in experimental results and the few
tcsts that it is based upon. The model that we have proposed considers
each component in the ground wire to be a separate entity which transfers
heat to the neighboring material. As such, it is not necessary to resort to
an experimentally measured factor to calculate any component
temperature.
Concerning our selection of the three OFGW designs, the third
design was chosen as one that was vastly different from the other two and
it was used to illustrate the vcrsatility of the program. It was also used to
show that changes in the physical, electrical and thermal characteristics of
the three cable layers can have a significant affect on the temperature rise
of the cable. This design was not intended to represent a particular
manufacturer's design. It was simply proposed as one which could have a
reasonable thermal design. We did not consider any physical behavior of
the various designs, such as the ultimate strength or the effects of thermal
expansion. Our only focus was on the thermal behavior of the various
cable designs.

1815
The design parameter %D defined by Eq. 12 in our paper was
introduced as a single parameter that can be used to indidte the effect
that the electrical and thermal parameters will have on the average
temperature rise of a candidate OFGW design. Obviously, a single
parameter as simple as the one defined by ,%, cannot fully account for the
many factors which will ultimately influence the temperature rise of a
ground wire. However it does account for the heat generated due to the
electrical resistance in the cable layer and the,storage of energy in the
cable mass. Since these are the two most important factors for a short
circuit with a very short duration, the design parameter is a valuable one
which on one hand is simple, while on the other hand considers the most
important factors which influence the temperature rise. With a simple
calculation of *D the design engineer can quickly use this parameter as a
measure of the average performance of an OFGW. Once a first-cut
design has been predicted using Q, as a guideline, then we would
rccommend a closer examination of the expected temperature rise by

applying a more detailed thermal model such as the one described in our
paper. The design parameter only aids in predicting the thermal behavior
of the cable and does not reveal any evidence concerning the physical
behavior of the design.
We were very limited in the experimental data we were able to
collect to verify the accuracy of our model. We agree that an extensive
experimental verification program would be very desirable. However we
did not have access to thc extensive equipment and faclllties necessary to
carry out such experimental tests. We had to rely upon data provided by
Reynolds Metals Company from tests carried out at the Georgia Power
Research Center. We do feel, however, the limited data that we have
shown in Figures 11and 12 do lend credibility to our calculations and we
feel further data from other tests would also compare closely with our
computer predicted temperaturcs.
M a n u s c r i p t r e c e i v e d March 27, 1989.